Lead-in Presentation (PowerPoint)
Background and Theme of Conference
Student panelists
Conference Proceedings

1. Students’ voices in technology planning at HBCUs
2. Students’ use and non-use of on-campus technology
3. Students’ ownership of computers
4. Students’ engagement in technology in the classroom
5. Institutional attitudes toward technology
6. Technology support services (and salaries)
7. Need for training throughout the institution
8. Industry assistance in technology at HBCUs
9. The digital divide at HBCUs and "money"
10. General comments and feedback

Other key program contributors and participants
TSU-AOL-Time Warner Project Staff

Based on the foregoing issues and settings, the objective of this conference was to engage HBCU students in answers to technology-related questions, and for them to give their experiences on their campuses. The desired outcome of this event was to supply the framework for solutions for HBCU management that might better define students’ technology needs in regard to enhanced learning potential. The student panelists, in order of seating in the photo below, were:

Mr. Stanley Moore, Junior, Computer Science, Howard University
Ms. Keri Day, Junior, Political Science, Tennessee State University
Ms. Mia Evans, Junior, Communications, Tennessee State University
Mr. Joel Bryant, Junior, Computer Science, Howard University

1. Students’ voices in technology planning at HBCUs: Exactly what are students’ roles, and are they effective, in shaping technology on HBCU campuses?

o One panelist remarked  that HBCU students need to become more effective by being more vocal to the administration when it comes to securing and maintaining equipment and for technology infusion in general.

o Another panelist stated that there are few instances where HBCU students’ inputs are solicited in regard to technology planning, determining what is needed or not needed in terms of technology access and use. Some technology may be good, whereas other may not be relevant at all to students needs, yet no one seems to ask students about such issues

o Students, themselves, are  "to blame" for the absence of a voice in technology planning, especially when fees are expressly allocated for technology enhancement, commented another panelist. "Take the case of no computers in a "wired" dormitory, for example; whose fault is that?"

o Suggestions for HBCU Management: HBCU management should routinely include students on technology planning and action committees; this is one way they will learn to manage. HBCU management should actively solicit inputs from students as to what is working or what is not in regard to technology on a campus; this can be done formally or informally. Getting student-users’ opinions before the fact may help to place technology options in functional perspectives, and can be valuable "data" for changes in trends that are institution-specific.

o By consensus, all of the student panelists indicated that Email accounts through school systems are cumbersome. The biggest problem is that they are not easily accessible off-campus, on weekends, holidays, and during summer periods, and there is no "instant mail". For these reasons, the panelist agreed, most HBCU students have free dial-up Yahoo or Hotmail accounts from their dorms, residences or home and don't feel the need to change to, or even interact with, the schools' systems. 

o It was noted by one attendee that such student choices for Email complicate and even prevent routine student-to-faculty Email exchanges. For example, some free Email services do not permit file attachments and old messages can be retained only for short periods.

o Paying technology fees, but not using certain services such as Email and others surfaced as an apparent conflict for students. The student panelists explained that such fees are often listed on billings along with others, but are not subject to unique scrutiny. One panelist indicated that this charge probably goes unnoticed by many students because it is often subsumed within student aid, scholarship funding, etc. (A parallel situation is that most air travelers pay little attention to airport use fees included in airfares!)

o Suggestions for HBCU Management: Statistics now show nearly 95% of all college students use Email for faculty interactions. Several suggestions were made to help improve the utility of such services, such as: (1) providing a student-specific server that would be available to students the year-around for Email access; (2) a look-up list of multiple Emails for students and faculty; (3) an equivalent to  "call-forwarding" for Email which would be useful for students during the summer or on co-ops. In fact, with the resources, capable students could execute some of these suggestions, thereby providing them with real world experiences of the inner workings of an institution.

o At Howard University, students are given wireless cards free of charge for students who have compatible laptops. Accessibility to the wireless network is deemed to be good throughout Howard’s campus

o A laptop was used and preferred for note taking in class by one panelist; other panelists indicated the use of laptops, but not directly in class. One faculty member indicated that laptop note taking was noisy and often downright distracting.

o The portability feature of laptops by students was brought up. All panelists indicated that carrying a laptop around all day on-campus is not a desirable chore; another indicated the extra care needed for security. The indicated tradeoff preferences of a laptop or fixed computer unit were about even among the panelists.

o In terms of ownership and usage by students for coursework, one key metric may be the actual infusion of technology in classrooms that in fact "demand" technology usage; which comes first?. What mandates follow for faculty to infuse technology in academic curricula?

o Student-owned laptops were described as "cute" but expensive alternatives to technology access on a campus (a laptop costs about twice the amount of an equivalent desktop unit).  Wireless solutions are even "cuter, but how useful and cost-efficient are they in relation to other alternatives when less than 2% of all students have laptops? HBCUs must think of economics of technology ... as cited elegantly by one attendee. [Note: Two revealing articles on the cost effectiveness of campus-wide laptop programs  appear in the April 16, 2001 and May 9, 2001 editions of the Chronicle of Higher Education.]

o Suggestion for HBCU Management: The two dominant assumptions driving the trend toward  students’ ownership of personal computers are (1) less expense for the institution and (2) ownership equates to usage by students. On both assumptions, "the jury is still out", but according to Market Data Retrieval, the number of schools requiring laptops has leveled, and is expected to decrease, since the cost subsidies by the affected schools including maintenance have been much higher than anticipated. 

o More specifically, an attendee asked, did political science students actually use technology to keep abreast of the events of the political scene in Florida in November (the short answer was "no").  Such functionality in the classroom could lead to new ways to incorporate technology to prevent the alleged consequences of the voting as evidenced in minority districts.

o A more general issue emerged as to how could technology be applied among multidisciplinary areas such as political science, computer science, engineering and business to yield a new and better way of voting ... a national benefit?

o Suggestion for HBCU Management: Very likely, the most significant benefits of technology on HBCU campuses will be derived through functional infusion in all academic work for students, especially for those that arrived among the technology-underserved. This benefit is linked inextricably to faculty proficiency with technology infusion the classroom, and the latter is linked directly to institutional management in the form of visions and goals for student-graduates.

5. Institutional Attitudes Toward Technology: One persistent problem for HBCUs, one attendee noted, was trying to bring about an "institutional attitude change" with regard to new technology among management, faculty and students.  The following comments emerged on this issue

o The phrase "teaching an old dog new tricks" came up numerous times in regard to adjusting older management faculty to new technology, and the resistance thereto. The operative question was: How does an institution affect an attitude change among its management and faculty, and who is responsible for such?

o One HBCU administrator in the audience responded that there is an urgent need for HBCU administrators to first" learn the system" and establish the visions to integrate technology with the subject matter being taught. To do this, he stated, training for faculty must be mandated. But if this is done, he continued, technology training must be implemented throughout the institution, from the president or chancellor on down. "The lack of  training is crippling many of our institutions…in technology pursuits"

o A follow-on comment was made that colleges that have not first established a strong base for technology in their administrative and operational functions are unlikely to be effective in technology infusion in the classroom. (A request was made for information on any institution where this premise did not hold.)

o Suggestion for HBCU Management: As of 2001, there are hundreds of lessons-learned as to how colleges and universities have bridged the gap between the old and the new in regard to technology infusion on campuses throughout this country. At present, there is no question as to "who" is at the center of responsibility for such transitions at HBCUs (i.e., management), so the operative question is "when if not now?." All elements of the "institution's digital DNA" must be operative for this transition to be made. 

6. Institutional support services for technology on HBCU campuses: Here are some comments about this issue:

o Technology support personnel are a critical problem at HBCUs (as in most academia), but lower salaries exacerbate this issue.

o For equipment support and repair, one attendee stated, schools should look to some of the advanced computer science and engineering students not only for assisting with repairs but be prepared to hire them.  (Note: Several programs exist for students to gain certifications in equipment repair, but these are typically at community and junior colleges and vocational schools.)

o At Tennessee State University, one panelist noted, this a strong focus on hardware rather than (functional) software needed students and faculty. "They need to be trained on tools they can use, such as Excel, Word, etc, ... that is my suggestion."

o References were made to other support personnel, such as secretaries, as vacancies go unfilled and the persons hired are often without technology skills, an all-to-frequent situation that can undermine the productivity of an entire department or school in short order. "Doesn't management know this?"

o The comments on lower pay shifted to faculty members in general since, on the average, faculty salaries at HBCUs are about $8000 below other HEIs. 

Note: This fact on salary comparison had to be placed in a proper focus by the moderator because the intermediate issue pertains to the distribution of academic rank. Specifically, over 55% of all HBCU faculties are at  the rank of assistant professor or below -- see graph below, and this distribution determines the lower average salary. On a rank-by-rank basis for baccalaureate institutions in AAUP, there is not much of a differential in salaries at HBCUs except at the full-professor level. This issue arose prominently in the First TSU-AOL Time Warner Conference and is discussed in more detail in those proceedings.

o Suggestion for HBCU Management: A balanced infrastructure of people and technology must be maintained within any institution, and salaries and costs appear as the primary drivers. As in any business, it is highly unlikely that a stable, productive, workforce can be maintained with big differentials in salaries as in the technical support areas. This holds true between institutions as well as within an institution for support and faculty personnel. For example, faculty in education fields of the same rank often earn $5000 less than faculty in science and engineering at the same institution.

o One attendee cited the "systemic unfamiliarity" of many faculty with technology as a puzzling issue. It was noted that the same comments arose in the first TSU-AOL-Time Warner conference in Atlanta.

o One panelist noted that TSU has a computer science literacy requirement for all freshmen students, but it needs to be revised to focus on functional use of applications.  A faculty member actively involved in this course concurred in this suggestion. 

Note: Two recent studies by NAFEO (DoC NTIA) and  the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund (TMSF) reveal that HBCUs are more than twice as likely to have a "computer literacy" course requirement for incoming freshmen students than other academic institutions. This requirement could reflect the reality or the perception that most incoming HBCU students are in the  "technology-underserved" category. Or, as reflected in the comments above, it could also reflect a tradition that needs to change rather than cogent curricula need. 

o "Training tools are abundantly available but often go unused for a variety of reasons," according to one attendee. For example, the self-paced Microsoft tutoring program called MS Interactive Step-by-Step 2000 could  help in functional training at any level for faculty, management and students. This tool is inexpensive and is very likely covered at no additional cost in Microsoft’s campus licensing agreements.

o Suggestions for HBCU Management: The ultimate utility of technology on a campus will be established by those trained to use it. Conversely, investments in both equipment and software can be wasted on the untrained.

8. Industry Assistance in Technology Enhancement at HBCUs: An attendee from industry wanted to know what businesses could do to help close the digital divide at HBCUs. This statement elicited the following responses:

o Clearly industry can assist in technology infrastructure building and many institutions have formed support partnerships. The main issue raised concerned donations of equipment, and the tradeoffs relevant to an HBCU. An example was given of a gift of machines that primarily linked a user to the Internet. Was the utility assessed before the fact? Does this gift solve a specific problem of institutional need, or does it create one, or both? Most importantly, does it fit into an established technology plan? It was further noted that neither students nor faculty had inputs on the usefulness of these donated resources before the fact.

o By a consensus among the audience, donations of equipment and software can be beneficial, but schools need to be very careful about accepting outdated and often unusable equipment.  Quite often, the costs of requisite maintenance of donated equipment (often with lesser capabilities) will equal or exceed the life-cycle cost-offsets of new equipment warranties.

Suggestions for HBCU Management:  Arguably, it is often difficult to turn down donated equipment even when the anticipated utility is peripheral or marginal especially from a major benefactor. But it is equally difficult to "fit" donated equipment into an existing technology plan or conversely, to execute a technology plan based on donations.  Inputs from the anticipated users -- students, staff, and faculty  on the usefulness of donated equipment is deemed mandatory. Very likely, the optimal strategy is a case-by-case assessment of the life-cycle costs of the anticipated donation over one or two years, which can be done quite easily before-the-fact.

o "The problem of the digital divide at HBCUs is more or less "money ... what else could it be"?.. asked one attendee. Management priorities and planning of resources were cited as one direct response to the latter question.

o These comments elicited numerous anecdotal instances of resource management.  One event was a well-equipped, but sparsely used computer laboratory because students were expected to be self-proficient when in fact many freshmen arrived on campus never having accessed the Internet.  Another event cited a dormitory completely wired for the Internet in expectation that students would bring their own computers when in fact fewer than 20% did so. In other words, well-known student demographics were not being properly considered by management in terms of  visions, plans, and cost-effective implementation of technology.

o Since money (funding) has arisen so frequently in HBCU technology discussions,  it was pointed out by the conference moderator that HBCUs, on the average, tend to expend more per enrollee than other institutions of similar size. "Can you speculate on the cause of this expenditure differential at HBCUs?" asked one attendee.

o  In response, expenditure data for HBCUs for 1995 and 1996 were shown with the original intent only to delve into Pell-related differences between HBCUs and other HEIs.  These  unofficial calculations use total enrollment rather than full time equivalents (FTEs),  illustrate the potential  magnitude of expenditure differentials at HBCUs and other HEIs, but do not explain the reasons for these differences.  

o One significant factor is that during the 1990s, aggregate HBCU expenditures increased by about $220M per year but total enrollment stabilized and began to decline slightly in the latter part of the 1990s. Mathematically at least, this could indicate that the differential gap actually increased during the latter part of the 1990s as the difference between 1995 and 1996 shows in the above table. For sure, more detailed analysis are needed to provide an answer to the specific question, which still could be limited due to the long lags in official data (about four years).

o The topic of the overall level of expenditures for  technology at HBCUs in general was raised (this is a repeat issue from the first TSU-AOL Time Warner conference).  As a general rule, investments ranging from 2% to 5.0% of total current fund expenditures are estimated  for technology costs  in academia in general as of the year 2000.  

Data on expenditure by institution are available through 1995 through the NSF WebCaspar as illustrated in the first graph below.  From these data, gross estimates as well as a time trend for technology expenditures can be calculated for both public and private HBCUs based on past data as shown in the second graph below.  

Dr. Eugene E. Jones, Consultant and Co-Manager, COE- TSU-ISEM
Dr. Michael Busby, Co-Manager, COE-TSU-ISEM
Ms. Goli Sotoohi, Technology Manager, COE-TSU-ISEM
Ms. Annie Slaughter, Student Coordinator (Senior), COE-TSU-ISEM

The Project  Staff offers its sincerest thanks to Dr. Beverly Howard for assisting in the logistics and coordination of this event and for supplying the pictures of the session.