![[Case Western Reserve University -- Toolbar]](/pix/lowpro.gif)
Self-Study, Volume II, Chapter II: Electronic Learning Environment
The charge to the Subcommittee on the Electronic Learning Environment was the assessment of the implementation of the university's stated commitment to 'the design and development of a learning environment that does away with the traditional separation between library and computing services, capitalizes on resources for creating and sharing information, embeds these new resources in the curriculum, and delivers them to students throughout the campus - even in their residence halls.' This charge from the Steering Committee included several questions to be addressed. The subcommittee was also asked by the Steering Committee to examine the problems with the University Library identified by the 1985 NCA report and assess what progress has been made to resolve them.
In its earliest meetings, the subcommittee decided that the first issue to be addressed was one of definition. What is an Electronic Learning Environment? How does it differ from the infrastructure itself? Does the problem of definition limit the impact of the ELE on education? A second issue was the actual extent and use of the CWRUnet infrastructure. Has the use of CWRUnet changed the academic environment of CWRU? How is the infrastructure used by students and faculty? A third group of questions concerns the future of CWRUnet and ELE use. How would students and faculty like to use the infrastructure? What needs to be done to implement their ideas? To explore these questions, the subcommittee decided to collect, study, and comment upon a number of reports on campus computing that had been done over the years. To understand the current status of the ELE, the subcommittee decided to (a) interview personally key figures in its conception, implementation, and use, and (b) survey the campus community about the use and perceptions of computing on campus. The subcommittee also requested that Information Services provide whatever usage statistics it had collected. Three members of the subcommittee agreed to study the concerns about the CWRU libraries identified in the last NCA Report.
It should be noted that neither the interviews nor the survey were scientifically conducted. The survey data, coded and analyzed by Professor Thompson and one of her graduate students, are included in an appendix to this report. However, very few non-users of computing responded, an exception being students who completed the survey in Dr. Thompson's Introduction to Psychology class.
The two reports which lay the foundation for the development of the Electronic Learning Environment provide a vision for computing on the CWRU campus - the possibilities, the problems, and the plan.
In 1985, an ad hoc committee chaired by Vincent E. McHale assessed the state of computing in Western Reserve College. That committee was 'struck by the relative backwardness of CWRU in the area of computing applications when compared to peer institutions' and attributed this to 'a lack of coordination in computer policies across the university, equipment incompatibilities, and more specifically, not enough encouragement for the WRC faculty to integrate computer usage into their curricula.' This committee recommended: 1) a university-wide policy-making body for computing and the hiring of a director of information technology; 2) that existing and future computer laboratories become multifunctional and shared; 3) a central office to oversee hardware purchases, reducing the diversity of non-compatible equipment; 4) complimentary accounts on a mainframe and incentives for faculty to gain knowledge about computing; 5) the creation of a software library; and 6) the maintenance of computing workstations for users in WRC buildings.
The 'Klopman Report' was prepared by the Advisory Group on Computer Policy for Academic Needs of the University, chaired by Gilles Klopman, for Provost Herman Stein in 1987. This committee, too, noted the lack of university-wide direction and standards with the result that 'the campus is now an unplanned checkerboard of hardware and software without technical and logistic support, and the academic computing needs are met marginally and unevenly across the campus.' Noting the trend toward campus local area networks, the committee urged action 'in the direction of providing an integrated, distributed information environment for scholars, researchers, and support staff.' This environment would include workstations available to every member of the university community, data communication links among all the workstations, and links to both campus and non-campus computing and information resources. This vision later emerged as the Electronic Learning Environment.
The committee also recommended 1) the establishment of a Micro Resource Center to provide assistance to university personnel in the purchasing and use of computer hardware and software; 2) the creation of a position of Vice President for Information Services with an organization to implement, maintain, and upgrade the environment; and 3) the creation of a 'mechanism' to maintain 'awareness of CWRU's changing computing needs and offering continuing guidance to faculty, students and staff in taking advantage of the available resources.' This report also establishes the link between computing, telecommunications, and the libraries. A structure is outlined in which both administration and faculty advise the Vice President for Information Services through committees. Other advisory committees would be formed for the various units reporting to this department: the University Libraries, the A.R. Jennings Computing Center, Educational Media, University Information Systems, and Telecommunications.
Conceptually, the Electronic Learning Environment represents a learning milieu in which full advantage is taken of advanced technology. Practically, the ELE consists of the hardware, software, and personnel needed to create this milieu for the CWRU community.
The physical and organizational infrastructure is detailed in 'Office of Information Services: Mission and Goals for 1993-94,' included as an appendix. CWRUnet is the communications network that covers the entire CWRU campus. Using fiber optic cable, it handles all services involving data, voice, video, telemetry, and control signaling and connects all of CWRU's information resources, linking them to services available throughout the world. The ELE includes all services provided through CWRUnet, e.g., servers that provide both general and course-specific software, CD-ROM libraries, e-mail and bulletin board services, cable television, and telephone use. Users have access to the ELE through microcomputers and in electronic classrooms. Two prototypes of the latter have been built and are in use; more are planned. These classrooms provide projection systems capable of handling all digital media as well as television, videotapes, videodiscs, slides, and film. Organizationally, the infrastructure consists of an Office for Information Services with nine units: Instruction and Research Information Services; Computer Support Information Services; Information Network Services; University Library; Library Information Technologies; Library Collections Services Project; University Archives; Administrative Information Services; and the Office of the Vice President for Information Services.
The wiring of the campus is almost complete; in fact, wiring of other University Circle institutions has begun. There are important exceptions, but universal access is assumed. There are currently 9,500 ports; 14,000 are planned. Through a series of President's grants, the provision of computers to newly hired faculty, and the Microcomputer Ownership Program, faculty and student ownership of computers has increased. In addition, Educational Support Services maintains a lab for commuter students, while other units have set up or refurbished computing laboratories.
A very visible component of the ELE is the Cleveland Free-Net, the world's largest free, open-access community computer system. An application that runs on the CWRUnet infrastructure, the Free-Net is menu-driven to enable users to move within it comfortably. For the CWRU community, the Free-Net provides an easy way to use mail and bulletin board services both on and off campus. In the past year, the Free-Net has been expanded to handle up to 338 simultaneous users, and the speed was increased. Average weekly usage has passed 75,000 user sessions.
The commitment to the Electronic Learning Environment has made an impact on the academic community. Computer use has significantly increased in the period for which figures are available. The number of active CWRUnet accounts has increased; the number of departments using file servers, networked printers, and scanned notes has increased as well. The average number of CWRU users of Free-Net has increased 257 percent since 1991, probably because Free-Net offers off-campus access to mail, newsgroups, and other resources. Three-quarters of the survey respondents use computing and CWRUnet, with e-mail, access to library catalogues, bulletin boards, and CD-ROMs the most popular activities.
External support has funded both the development of the infrastructure and the use of the ELE in education. Funds from the Cleveland Foundation, the Codrington Foundation, and the Consolidated Natural Gas Foundation have provided instructional technology specialists and other support for the integration of electronic resources with the academic program. This support has in turn been used by individual recipients of Lilly and Nord Endowment grants for specific curricular projects. A significant number of these projects involve the resources available in the ELE. All these efforts, and those of a new Cleveland Foundation grant for the social sciences, have created a group of faculty experienced with and enthusiastic about the educational possibilities of the Electronic Learning Environment. The Case School of Engineering's proposal for distance education through the ELE is also significant and is discussed in the report of the Continuing Education subcommittee.
It is expected that the ELE will have a significant impact upon research because sophisticated computer networking originated from the needs of the scientific disciplines. The precise impact on research at CWRU is currently being explored by the Faculty Senate Information Resources Committee. This study is not complete, but the committee has urged that the Faculty Senate Budget Committee and the CWRU administration work to institute a program for the periodic maintenance and replacement of faculty computers.
First of all, it must be noted that this report concerns only the University Library, not all the libraries at CWRU. The Law, Medicine, and MSASS libraries are and will remain independent in administration and funding. All schools participate in the funding of the University Library.
The NCA report criticized Case Western Reserve University's reliance on individual school's contributions to fund the library, and, in particular, the problems this funding strategy raises in supporting resources that span boundaries that cross disciplines. Given that there is no central income to the university, this strategy of contributory funding remains unchanged and is unlikely to change.
Since 1985, the organizational structure has changed so that the Director of the University Library reports to the Vice President for Information Services, and the latter has the greater power in funding decisions. Within this structure tension has emerged between funding the electronic infrastructure and the collections and operations of the library. The library has experienced a decrease in operating budget and personnel over the past several years and is currently operating with fifteen fewer positions than four years ago.
There is a clear recognition of the constraints on collections. Cross-institutional sharing is a major strategy adopted by the University Library to insure access to a broader collection through electronic catalogue links. The OhioLINK system provides full access for the CWRU community to the collections of other Ohio universities and to the catalogues of major universities around the world. The time involved in the delivery of material from other institutions remains a problem for some users; investigation of electronic document delivery is likely to be a priority in the next few years. Currently underway is a study of the basic collection in relation to the programs offered by the university. Past actions by specific users to build their own collections suggests that the basic collection has been inadequate, a conclusion that the librarians fear may be confirmed by this study. The University Library's administration is also conducting a catalogue study to compare the CWRU collection to that of the Association of Research Libraries.
The NCA report also mentioned five other areas of concern regarding the library: 1) the need to better support circulation through an on-line catalog; 2) access to photocopying services; 3) personnel policies and procedures; 4) monitoring mechanisms; and 5) the inadequacy of the physical facilities of the library.
The EuclidPlus system is an electronic catalogue of all holdings in all university libraries. The IRIS department maintains CD-ROM servers with over one hundred titles.
Libraries are well equipped with coin operated and credit-card copiers. The Xerox Document on Demand System has recently been installed to determine the utility of this system to support access to resources worldwide.
The ELE demands personnel with new skills: the abilities to electronically search, to deliver documents, to manage non-print media, and to develop strategies for making resources known and accessible. To initiate this reconfiguration, the University Library completed a personnel study in June, 1994.
The Faculty Senate Committee on the Libraries meets monthly during the academic year. The Vice President for Information Services and the directors of all university libraries serve ex officio.
The Kelvin Smith Library, the 'Library of the Future,' will form the physical anchor of the Electronic Learning Environment. It was designed to resolve space deficiencies in the current library system; there is a careful balance of collection storage and sentry/meeting space. One million volumes will be kept at Smith; remaining volumes will be stored off-site and available to library staff. This facility will have more seating and meeting space than Freiberger and Sears Libraries combined.
CWRU has made a commitment to the Electronic Learning Environment and has made impressive progress toward creating the infrastructure to support this commitment. However, the subcommittee's data collection and discussions identified a number of factors that have limited the impact of the ELE; without adequate attention to these concerns, the use of the ELE cannot reach its full potential at the university.
The first issue is one of terminology. Those involved with the conception and development of the Electronic Learning Environment clearly define the ELE as the use of technology to enhance learning, but many of the survey respondents, the teachers and learners, had no definition at all. One common opinion among responding faculty is that 'ELE' positions CWRU well for outside funding. It is also common to identify the ELE with the infrastructure: 27 percent of the survey respondents mentioned delivery systems (computers, CWRUnet, etc.) in their definition. On the other hand, the almost 29 percent who defined an ELE in terms of use in communication, information gathering, and learning do seem to be aware of and/or in agreement with the university's use of the term. Since the definition determines the priorities for implementation, the definitional gap between the planners and the users is a critical issue that must be resolved as quickly as possible. Discussions must take place at the university level. The planners must explain their definition(s) of the ELE, what the definition(s) mean(s) in an educational context, and how implementation decisions are made based upon the definition(s). The users must make a serious effort to understand the concept of the ELE and, if necessary, must redefine it in a way more consistent with their own definition of education. The definition of higher education is the real issue here; no discussion of the ELE can take place without a simultaneous discussion of what it means to learn and of how one becomes educated.
Subcommittee members were also concerned about the integration of the ELE with other 'learning environments' of the university - the classrooms, the labs, the clinics, the libraries, the residence halls, the student centers and lounges. How all these essential elements of a university fit together may become more apparent when one has a coherent vision of the purpose and process of education.
Part of the definitional gap is due to the lack of communication between the planners and the users of the ELE. One problem consistently identified by various task forces on computing has been the lack of user input in the planning and management of computing on campus, which extends to the ELE as well. The Faculty Senate Information Resources Committee is the only university-wide group that deals with these issues, but its work is not well known on campus. A Committee on Academic Computing and Information Resources was created by the University Undergraduate Faculty under its new bylaws. This committee has established a bulletin board system and an open forum in order to facilitate communication between the managers and users of campus computing. Individual units of CWRU have established committees and users' groups as well. Despite these efforts, communication is still a problem. It is difficult for those most involved in the use of the ELE to find out what is being planned and developed; it is virtually impossible for the interested but naive user to obtain this kind of information. Faculty input on developmental priorities seems non-existent and this leads to cynicism about and hostility towards the ELE concept. These attitudes continue to limit the use of the ELE in the curriculum.
An outstanding example of the problems of communication and user input is the concern expressed about the prioritizing of electronic resources above traditional (print) ones. Printed journals and books have been the standard way of transmitting knowledge and remain important, but CWRU has a stated commitment to electronic resources and the development of better ways to access remote information. All members of the university community need to recognize that we are currently in a transitional period in which traditional means of publishing information are still important and worthy of investment.
Better communication about the strategy and goals of the ELE and input from the users as implementation decisions are made may remedy one limiting factor noted by the subcommittee members: a lack of desire on the part of some faculty and students to participate in the use of CWRUnet. The subcommittee agreed that there will always be a small percentage of students and faculty unwilling to use technology, but this percentage will certainly be reduced as new faculty and students are recruited. The emphasis put on CWRUnet and teaching with technology will over time attract only those teachers and students comfortable with elements of the ELE.
Because of the university's ongoing investment in the development of the Electronic Learning Environment, a commitment of resources that could be placed elsewhere, its appropriateness to the mission of Case Western Reserve University must be communicated to all members of the university community. However the ELE is defined, it can be said that its conception and implementation are consistent with the priorities of the university. Electronic communication and information-gathering have become international priorities. Since students must become educated users of new technologies in order to become responsible professionals and citizens, the university has a duty to help them develop familiarity with and judgment about technological possibilities. In addition, the development of the infrastructure serves the research mission of the institution as it provides for the experimental testing of 'cutting edge' information delivery systems. The CWRU community is expected to serve society not only through education and research but also through public service. The university's role in the development of community computing, through the establishment and maintenance of the Cleveland Free-Net, has demonstrated its commitment to a public that extends far beyond the Greater Cleveland area.
Finally, the university must consider issues of assessment. While statistics on the number of logins to various CWRUnet services and the number of people using labs are useful, they are not enough to determine whether the ELE is meeting its goals. It is also not clear that the statistics influence the implementation of the ELE. For example, the use of the Electronic Learning Center located in Educational Support Services has doubled in two years, indicating a need for such facilities. Yet labs are not supported as an essential part of the ELE. Surveys similar to the one undertaken by this subcommittee should be regularly conducted in order to assess user behavior, perceptions, and needs. Systematic evaluation of courses in which the ELE plays a significant part needs to be done to determine its impact upon both student and faculty attitudes and student learning. Information at this level tends to be anecdotal, usually gleaned for publicity or shared in orientation sessions.
With a few important exceptions, the CWRU community on campus has access to the software and hardware needed to use CWRUnet and implement the possibilities of the ELE. Off-campus access is a problem, since many CWRUnet services are not available through Free-Net and SLIP has not been offered as an option to those living off campus. Survey respondents also have mixed feelings about the adequacy of financial support for the ELE, perhaps because provisions have not been made for the regular upgrading and replacement of software and hardware.
The most important limitations in the use of the technology, however, are not technological. Effective use of the ELE requires time and effort on the part of faculty and students. Not only must training be available to them, it must be seen as important to their own goals. Two kinds of support staff must be provided: technical staff to maintain and develop the infrastructure; educational support staff to help faculty study and implement the use of the ELE in their courses. The former are already on campus, but it is often difficult for those in need of technical help to find the right person. Better communication can resolve this issue. Some educational support personnel are on campus as well. However, they are often hired with grant funds for limited terms and must use their time to generate more projects that will obtain more funds. The university needs to make a commitment to the on-going employment of educational support staff. Their existence, capabilities, and responsibilities also need to be communicated to the faculty members they are intended to help. Various grants have been effective in providing time and support for the integration of computing into courses. Now that these examples are in place, CWRU can develop a plan for expanding these efforts in a systematic way. Funds for release time, equipment, and support should be budgeted, perhaps to be allocated on a competitive basis.
Only a few of the questions initially posed by the Steering Committee and the ELE Subcommittee members can be answered in 1994. Certainly an infrastructure has been created to support the Electronic Learning Environment. It is not complete, but the rapid evolution of the technology ensures that it will always be in development. Currently, members of the university community seem to be taking advantage of the infrastructure for communication with each other and with the outside world. Software distribution has also become an important aspect of CWRUnet. According to Vice President Neff, 30 percent of all courses offered use electronic resources, but it is not clear how they have been integrated into the curriculum. The academic environment has changed as members of the university community have begun to realize what electronic resources can do for them. An obvious indication of the impact of CWRUnet is the irritation many students and faculty express at the difficulty of off-campus access to all its services. We have all learned to view electronic resources and communication as an essential part of academic life.
It is not clear how students and faculty would like to use CWRUnet and the ELE. More work needs to be done to determine their needs and desires. This is especially important because resources are limited and must be used where they can have the most impact on academic goals. If the use of the Electronic Learning Environment is to reach its full potential, all members of the university community must come to a common understanding of its structure, goals, and potential applications. This will require a great deal of communication between those involved in the planning and implementation and the intended users. This understanding may create a series of expectations about the use of electronic resources in teaching, learning, and research. For example, should every student have the right to expect e-mail communication with professors and administrators, electronic access to syllabi and homework assignments, individualized and distance instruction?
On a more concrete level, the impact of the ELE is limited by problems of access. More needs to be done to meet the needs of those who live and work off-campus. The university also needs to examine its funding mechanism so that obsolescent equipment in offices and labs can be regularly upgraded or replaced. This is already done for software distributed by the library; it is necessary if faculty, staff, and students in labs are to be able to take advantage of the new resources provided by the ELE. Because network access means little if the users are frustrated by the time and effort it takes to learn by trial-and-error, the existence of technical support staff needs to be publicized. More instructional specialists are needed to work with regular faculty to integrate electronic resources into the curriculum, to develop materials for specific courses and disciplines, and to support student learning and faculty research through technology.
Finally, for the ELE to have an impact on education, more incentives and recognition must be given to those who use it. It is not necessary to understand the technology of the book, the overhead projector, or the VCR in order to use them effectively in teaching. Computing and electronic resources do require more understanding and effort. Moreover, effective use of the ELE increases the 'contact time' faculty members spend with students because they make individual and group communication easier.
Many of the problems identified by the institutional self-study of the University Library and by the report of the NCA have not been resolved. The funding strategy has not changed and, due to the integration of the library with the Office of Information Services - a necessary step in the creation of the Electronic Learning Environment - a tension exists between the acquisition of print and non-print resources. On the other hand, the preliminary steps toward the 'library of the future' - OhioLINK, networked CD-ROMs - have shown that the virtual library concept can clearly help the library meet the challenges of building its collections and serving individual users with highly specialized needs. The library has a clearly articulated vision of its future. If it is implemented well, it should both meet the needs of its users and serve as a model for other libraries.
The development of an electronic learning environment was one of the university-wide initiatives identified as a priority in the 1990-1995 plan for Case Western Reserve: 'The University is committed to the design and development of a learning environment that does away with the traditional separation between library and computing services, capitalizes on resources for creating and sharing information, embeds these new resources in the curriculum, and delivers them to students throughout the campus - even in their residence halls.' To this end, the university has made substantial investments in CWRUnet, computing, and library facilities and resources. The charge to the Subcommittee on the Electronic Learning Environment is to examine the extent to which the university's faculty and students have taken advantage of this infrastructure, and how the impact of CWRUnet and its related services might be increased. What factors - training, time, staff support, for example - limit full use of the capabilities of the Electronic Learning Environment? How can we optimize the investment in CWRUnet for education, particularly undergraduate education, and for research?
Read by the Entire Subcommittee
Also Used in the Preparation of the Report
The subcommittee appointed to study the impact of the Electronic Learning Environment at CWRU is interested in hearing from both users and non-users of computing and CWRUnet.
Please take a few minutes and answer the following questions. Return your responses to: Sharon Scinicariello, DMLL, Guilford House, 7118. If you are a computer user, e-mail responses are encouraged; the address is sgs3@po.cwru.edu. We would like as many responses as possible by May 1.
Thank you.
Faculty Staff Student Total*
1. Number of respondents 291 32 130 457
2. Percent of respondents who use:
computing 78% 81% 78% 78%
CWRUnet 68% 88% 92% 76%
electronic library catalogues 56% 72% 63% 60%
e-mail 68% 97% 91% 77%
software libraries 23% 34% 65% 36%
bulletin boards, newsgroups, newsreaders 40% 59% 74% 51%
gophers 23% 44% 52% 33%
World Wide Web, Mosaic 9% 31% 25% 15%
electronic classrooms 3% 3% 12% 6%
CD-ROMs 37% 53% 38% 39%
multimedia workstations 5% 13% 14% 8%
other 4% 6% 8% 5%
3. I don't use those resources I have not checked because:
I don't know how 54% 44% 42% 50%
I don't have a computer 5% 0% 11% 6%
My computer isn't powerful enough
to use them 10% 9% 8% 9%
I am not directly connected to
the network 27% 6% 11% 21%
I'm not interested 11% 19% 27% 16%
I have no need for them in my
academic life 19% 56% 48% 30%
4. How often do you use the resources you have checked?
Daily, weekly, monthly?
computing:
daily 62% 72% 64% 63%
weekly 9% 0% 11% 9%
monthly 1% 0% 2% 2%
CWRUnet:
daily 42% 69% 65% 50%
weekly 14% 6% 14% 13%
monthly 8% 9% 8% 8%
electronic library catalogues:
daily 7% 6% 10% 7%
weekly 29% 28% 18% 26%
monthly 17% 28% 34% 23%
e-mail:
daily 54% 75% 72% 60%
weekly 10% 13% 15% 11%
monthly 1% 6% 4% 3%
software libraries:
daily 4% 3% 15% 7%
weekly 11% 6% 29% 16%
monthly 7% 19% 18% 11%
bulletin boards, newsgroups, newsreaders:
daily 18% 38% 39% 25%
weekly 13% 3% 28% 17%
monthly 6% 13% 5% 6%
gophers:
daily 4% 16% 8% 6%
weekly 12% 13% 26% 16%
monthly 7% 13% 16% 10%
World Wide Web, Mosaic:
daily 1% 9% 6% 3%
weekly 5% 13% 9% 7%
monthly 3% 6% 8% 5%
electronic classrooms:
daily 0% 0% 5% 2%
weekly 2% 0% 5% 2%
monthly 1% 0% 2% 1%
CD-ROMs:
daily 5% 3% 5% 5%
weekly 18% 16% 12% 16%
monthly 10% 25% 19% 14%
multimedia workstations:
daily 1% 3% 7% 3%
weekly 1% 0% 4% 2%
monthly 1% 3% 3% 2%
5. In your opinion, is there adequate user support for computing at CWRU?
Please explain.
Yes 29% 41% 58% 38%
No 44% 44% 23% 38%
No response 27% 16% 19% 24%
Of the detailed responses to this question:
12 percent mentioned delivery (access to computers and CWRUnet, availability
of appropriate hardware); of these, 79 percent were negative;
5 percent mentioned resources (software, CD-ROMs, catalogs); 74 percent of
comments were negative;
33 percent mentioned use (teaching, learning, communication, classes), with
84 percent making negative comments.
6. In your opinion, is there adequate financial support for computing at CWRU?
Please explain.
Yes 24% 13% 30% 25%
No 28% 41% 32% 30%
No response 48% 47% 38% 45%
Of the detailed responses to this question:
22 percent mentioned delivery, with 86 percent of these making negative
comments;
4 percent mentioned resources; 89 percent of comments were negative;
7 percent mentioned use, with 94 percent making negative comments.
7. Are your electronic needs - whatever they may be - adequately met at CWRU?
Yes 34% 72% 81% 50%
No 41% 22% 11% 31%
No response 25% 7% 8% 19%
8. Are you familiar with CWRU's Computing Ethics Policy?
Yes 19% 38% 47% 28%
No 66% 59% 47% 60%
No response 15% 3% 6% 12%
(*) includes four surveys with no status indicated
The Office of Information Services (IS) consists of nine administrative units providing a variety of information resources and services to the 13,000 faculty, students, and staff of Case Western Reserve University. It also provides a restricted set of information services to the greater Cleveland community and beyond. The Office for Information Services was created in 1988 by President Pytte in response to a set of recommendations presented by a select faculty committee to Provost Stein.
Information Services consists of 220 staff with an annual budget for the academic year 1993-94 of $13.5 million. Taken together, Information Services supports the efforts of the University in teaching, research, and service, and in the general administration of the University's various departments and offices. The Office for Information Services is led by the Vice President for Information Services, who reports directly to the President of the University.
The units of Information Services are:
The mission of Information Network Services is
The mission of Instruction and Research Information Services is
The mission of Computer Support Information Services is
The mission of Administrative Information Services is
The mission of the University Library is
The mission of Library Information Technologies is
The mission of Library Collections Services is
The mission of the University Archives is
The mission of the Office of the Vice President for Information Services is
The following major goals for the Office of Information Services were approved for the academic year 1993-94.
Infrastructure for the Electronic Learning Environment
Instruction and Research Information Services
Information Network Services
Computer Support Information Services
The Libraries of Case Western Reserve University
Library Information Technologies
Library Collections Services
Administrative Information Services
Office of the Vice President for Information Services
The Office of Information Services was conceived to redress historical inadequacies in computing services at CWRU and to bring together computing and library organizations to create a new paradigm in the library of the future. CWRU is now widely recognized as having a significant and sophisticated computing environment featuring a state-of-the-art network and a workable conception for a new type of library which will offer more effective library services. The mission statements of the units of Information Services, the major goals currently being pursued, and a progress report for the present academic year give a fair picture of activities within the scope of the new Information Services organization at CWRU.
Raymond K. Neff
Next Chapter - Research
Previous Chapter - Undergraduate Education
Table of Contents
![[Toolbar]](/pix/ribbon.gif){kind=small}