Other then for those institutions which are just starting to get into using networking technology and have little more than a microcomputer lab which happens to contain a LAN, few institutions are implementing only a single type of networking technology. In the sections which follow, institutions are grouped according to the type of networking technology which is most prevalent on a campus-wide basis.
Many institutions are finding digital switches to be an effective and cost-effective alternative to high-speed backbone networks. Many institutions which are contemplating the installation of high-speed networks are finding that they are also in need of a more advanced phone system. As was the case at Lehigh University in the early 1980's, funding may be available for one of these projects, but not for both of them. A digital switch, which provides simultaneous voice and data transmissions from each line, often is perceived as the solution to this problem.
In describing the networking environment at Moravian College, Redlawsk (1987) noted that to most users of networking technology the underlying technical specifications are not important. All that is really important is to have access to the technology. At Moravian, a small liberal arts college, Redlawsk estimated that 90% of their users connectivity needs were satisfied by use of a digital switch. At Moravian, microcomputer labs were interconnected to both LAN's and to the digital switch. The LAN's provided access to printers and software while the digital switch allowed access to the rest of the college. Within Moravian's Computer Science department, a LAN was installed to connect not only faculty microcomputers but also to connect a number of workstations. Redlawsk stated that Moravian's connectivity policy was to "allow specialized function networks where necessary, but tie it all together using the data/voice PBX" (p.360).
At Drew University, every undergraduate student, graduate student, and faculty member had a personal computer system. As stated by Detweiler and Falduto (1992), "Drew's information technology initiatives were conceived within the context of the liberal arts, focusing on the potential of information technology to support or enhance the goals of liberal education" (p.44). The decision to utilize a digital switch at Drew was facilitated by its need to replace an old phone system and its desire "for a communications and information processing system centered around a library automation system" (p.44). Detweiler and Falduto stated that "information processing and exchange is the most fundamental activity of an educational institution" and that "one should be free to choose the information exchange method (voice or data, immediate or delayed) which best fits the communication need" (p.45). Drew's implementation of networking technology allowed for access to larger campus computers, access to their library automation system, access to electronic mail, access to computer applications running on a mainframe computer, external network connections, and access to voice services such as voice mail. A broadband network (i.e., cable television) provides video services to every student room and selected classrooms in every major campus building.
As networking technology continues to evolve, terms used to describe different aspects of the technology also evolve. While local area networks (LAN's) used to be typically confined to a single room or small group of rooms, LAN's have evolved to the point where on some smaller campuses they now may be campus-wide. Jones (1992) described the use of networking technology at Kent State University's Geauge Campus which involved the use of two such LAN's; one for academic use and one for administrative use. The academic LAN was used primarily to share printers and software applications.
Even though two institutions may be using the same basic networking technology, the manner through which the technology is implemented varies widely. For example, even though Wake Forest University and the University of the South both utilized a number of AppleTalk networks, Wake Forest University (Hunter, 1992) used phone lines just to interconnect their independent LAN's. The University of the South (Alvarez & Bordley, 1992) extended this concept to classrooms and individual dorm rooms.
Hunter (1992) described the use of networking technology at Wake Forest University as consisting primarily of a number of Macintosh labs wherein Appletalk was used to interconnect the computers to a file server and printers. In turn, each lab was connected to the Computer Center via phone lines and PhoneNet connectors. Within the Computing Center, a software router had been running on file servers to route network traffic between the labs. After additional buildings were connected to the Wake Forest system, the Computing Center end was replaced with an Ethernet network which allowed connections to a minicomputer where students could store their files. Hunter stated that this type of system is a logical solution for institutions wishing to provide basic network services to a large number of users at a reasonable cost.
Alvarez and Bordley (1992) described the University of the South as quite lacking in computing resources when it was decided that "enabling faculty to incorporate the use of microcomputers into the classroom was an important goal of the college" (p.149). A decision was made to encourage students, faculty members, and administration to purchase Macintosh computers. As small AppleTalk networks were being implemented around campus for printer and file sharing, a small Ethernet backbone network was installed to interconnect those networks. With the addition of a new phone system, which included connections to student rooms, students could obtain PhoneNet connectors to attach their own Macintosh computers to the remote file server as well as with the on-line catalog system within the library. An Internet connection was planned for the future.
Other campuses such as American University (Gleason & McGuire, 1992), Bloomsburg University (Abbott, Parrish, & Heffner, 1992), and Seton Hall (Enright & Burtnett, 1992) utilized LAN's in a more traditional manner but were in the process of installing backbone networks to interconnect the LAN's. For its future backbone network, American University plans included high-speed image and multimedia applications, voice, video broadcasting, and video conferencing. In planning for a "world and workplace transformed by technology" (p.10), Gleason and McGuire (1992) stated that a fully networked campus by the year 2000 is part of the vision of the university.
Abbott et al. (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at Bloomsburg University as an evolutionary process which was largely carried out in conjunction with upgrades to the Bloomsburg phone system. When the phone system was upgraded in the early 1980's, fiber-optic cable was run between major campus buildings. As both Ethernet and AppleTalk LAN's emerged on campus, some of these LAN's were interconnected by means of this fiber-optic cable. As part of Bloomsburg's planning strategy, it was decided that all faculty members who wanted one should be provided with an adequate workstation for their needs. It was also decided that all faculty workstations, host computers, LAN's, classrooms, labs, and student work areas should be connected. As another upgrade of their phone system was required in the early 1990's, additional cable was run throughout campus to facilitate the future connectivity of the entire campus. Bloomsburg, along with the other 13 Pennsylvania universities which make up the State System of Higher Education, are interconnected via a TCP/IP-based network referred to as SSHEnet. In turn, SSHEnet is connected to the rest of the Internet.
As described by Enright and Burtnett, the implementation of networking technology at Seton Hall University was carried out as a series of independent LAN's. The first LAN's on campus were within labs used for advertising and arts classes, and were followed by a lab for English classes and then one in the School of Business. A LAN within the School of Nursing and another within the Academic Computing area rounded out the LAN's at Seton Hall. All of the LAN's were maintained in a similar manner, with options available from a menu, so students could easily move between LAN's. It was anticipated that each of these LAN's, along with the libraries on-line catalog, would eventually be interconnected via a backbone network.
Campuses which already had small backbone networks in place to interconnect their LAN's included Lafayette College (Ciriello, 1992), New River Community College (Garret, Lewis, & Hemert, 1988), the University of the South (Alvarez & Bordley, 1992), and Sonoma State University (Resmer, 1992). Ciriello described networking at Lafayette College as a series of token-ring networks which were connected to remote file servers by means of routers and fiber-optic cable. The centrally located file servers, campus mainframes, and a campus Sun workstation lab, were all interconnected via a backbone network. This backbone was connected to the Internet through PREPnet. One of the mainframes connected to the backbone ran LINC (Lafayette's Integrated, Networked Campus) software which allowed everyone access to electronic mail and other information and communication services.
At New River Community College, campus-wide networking was a direct off-shoot of the installation of a new phone system. When a new building was constructed, instead of simply adding to the existing phone system a new system was installed along with additional wiring. As Garratt et al. described, the additional twisted pair wiring which was installed was utilized for a medium-speed (i.e., 1 megabit per second band width) network.
In a manner similar to that used at the University of the South, at Sonoma State University Resmer described the implementation of networking technology as relying heavily on cabling which was installed along with an upgrade to the phone system. PhoneNet connectors were initially used to interconnect primarily Macintosh computers in the belief that it was more important to connect everyone to the network than it was to provide the fastest possible transmission speeds. Segments of the network created through the use of PhoneNet were connected to a backbone network. Due to the limited capabilities of the PhoneNet connections, these connections were being replaced with Ethernet connections to the backbone network. The campus backbone network is connected to CSUnet (California State University Network) with the other 19 California State University campuses. CSUnet is connected to the Internet.
Beckman (1989) described networking at Brown as a backbone network which connects local area networks and provides connections to the outside world. Other examples of this type of networking strategy included Boise State University (Feldman, 1992), Denison University (Fleming, 1992), the University of Hartford (Kelley, 1992), Marist College (Sharma & Gerberich, 1992), the University of Miami (Lopez & Temares, 1988), the University of Scranton (DeSanto, 1992), Stevens Institute of Technology (Moeller, 1992), Trinity University (Blystone & Gindler, 1992), Wesleyan University (Bigelow, 1992), and Lehigh University.
Beckman described networking at Brown as being concentrated within departmental LAN's which were interconnected by the campus-wide backbone network. In turn, the backbone network was connected to external networks. The departmental LAN's allowed users to share software, data, and peripherals. Utilizing the backbone network, students, faculty, and staff could perform the same functions making it appear as though they were all on the same LAN. The backbone also allowed campus-wide utilization of electronic mail, a campus directory, and the on-line catalog of the library. In describing the early stages of deploying a "critical mass" of high-powered workstations that would "form the backbone of Brown's future campuswide network of shared, distributed computing resources" (p.188), Shields, Graves, and Nyce (1991) pointed out the importance of choosing an appropriate computing platform for such an implementation. Due to software limitations, the initial implementation of IBM RT's had been largely replaced with IBM PC's and Macintoshes.
Even though Boise State University had a campus-wide backbone network in place with connections to the Internet through Westnet, Feldman (1992) described the network as being vastly under utilized. The campus had microcomputer labs with ethernet LAN's, Macintosh labs with AppleTalk, a scattering of workstations, an on-line catalog system, and a mainframe computer connected to the backbone, but few departments on the campus showed any interest in being connected. Feldman attributed this lack of interest to the fact that there was little on-campus support for the installation of departmental LAN's and, other than for the library's system, there was little incentive for departments to want to invest the money necessary to connect. Feldman anticipated that this situation would eventually change as the value of networking technology became better known.
As a relatively small institution, Denison University's implementation of networking technology had been evolutionary due to funding constraints. As Fleming (1992) described it, while funding was allocated to provide a fiber-optic backbone network between campus buildings, before computing labs could be connected they had to be upgraded from terminals to LAN-connected microcomputers. Once the Denison library's on-line catalog system was connected to the backbone, connecting other sections of the campus to the backbone became a higher priority than plans to upgrade existing connections to megabit speeds. According to Fleming, low-speed connections to the backbone network through terminal servers were adequate for most users. The backbone network provided connections to other on-campus computing resources, the library's on-line catalog system, and the Internet (through OARnet - the Ohio Academic Resources Network). Due to funding constraints, a planned campus-wide information system had yet to be implemented.
Kelley (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at the University of Hartford as being rather typical to that at other institutions utilizing backbone networks. The possible exception was that while most institutions seem to be connecting primarily LAN's of microcomputers, at the University of Hartford there are more terminals connected to mainframes. The university utilizes terminal servers to facilitate these connections.
As is frequently the case, Sharma and Gerberich (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at Marist College in conjunction with the installation of a new phone system. In this manner, cabling can be installed for both systems at the same time. Also, the capabilities of the phone system can complement the capabilities of the network as in the case of voice mail and electronic mail. Even though the installation of the backbone network at Marist was basically complete, the rest of its networking plan had yet to take shape. While a few computer labs had LAN's installed in them, the majority of the campus was not yet at that stage of development.
Even though the implementation of campus-wide networking technology at the University of Miami was facilitated by the installation of a new phone system, the implementation was somewhat unique in that it involved three different campuses. As described by Lopez and Temares (1988), when a new phone system was installed on two of the three campuses, additional conduit was also installed which allowed the installation of campus-wide backbone networks. These networks were linked together, and then linked to the third campus, through the use of high-speed dedicated lines. A satellite link to NSFNET was provided from the third campus.
As described by DeSanto (1992), the implementation of networking technology at the University of Scranton was relatively straight forward with a campus-wide fiber optic-based backbone network connecting LAN's and classrooms. In addition to the data services provided through the network, the university greatly expanded its existing phone system and was in the process of connecting broadband cable to all classrooms and student dorm rooms for video transmission.
While the physical cabling of the campus was not all that different from other institutions, Moeller (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at Stevens Institute of Technology as being focused on curriculum development. At Stevens, a number of curricular objectives had been established and an information infrastructure was established to facilitate these objectives through a number of educational initiatives. This distributed information technology environment included "a cluster of computational servers, a series of file/database servers, a computer conferencing server, an information server, and a communications server" (p.176) all interconnected by a campus-wide Ethernet and fiber-optic network infrastructure. Approximately half of the faculty at Stevens were provided support (e.g., release time or programming assistants) to facilitate the integration of these information technologies into their courses.
Blystone and Gindler (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at Trinity University as a building process where first a number of campus departments implemented their own LAN's, and then there was a desire to interconnect those LAN's. The need for a campus-wide network became apparent once an on-line catalog system was added to the library and two computerized classrooms were added to the campus. There was an immediate need for accessibility to the catalog system, and since the two computerized classrooms became so popular there was little time to load software on the computers in the classroom so an alternative method was needed. Cabling for the campus-wide network became a reality in conjunction with the installation of a new phone system. Trinity University is connected to the Internet through the Texas Higher Education Regional Network.
Bigelow (1992) described the implementation of networking technology at Wesleyan University as an evolutionary process where network installations were often done in conjunction with other renovations. Through this evolution, networking technology at Wesleyan had grown to include a backbone network which connected LAN's and mainframe computers as well as terminal servers to connect to the catalog system. The catalog system was run in conjunction with two other local institutions and, since the computer on which it was running was not network-aware, terminal servers were utilized in reverse (of their normal manner) to allow connections through the backbone network. Wesleyan was connected to the Internet through the JvNCNet regional network.
Other large-scale projects which required not only campus-wide utilization of networking technology, but also the use of high-powered workstations were Project Athena (Schiller, 1988) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Andrew Project (Morris et al., 1986) at Carnegie Mellon University. Both of these projects involved the use of high-resolution graphical interfaces to provide networked services to the users of the systems.
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the implementation of networking technology was not unlike that at other institutions. A fiber-optic based backbone network was installed to connect remote LAN's. The backbone was connected to the Internet through JvNCNet. Installation of the backbone network was facilitated by the installation of a new campus phone system with additional cable for backbone use. The installation of the campus-wide network at MIT was separate from Project Athena, although it was installed partly for the needs of Project Athena. Project Athena required access to as much of the campus as possible in the shortest time possible in order to carry out its objective of determining whether distributing computing power "could be used to improve the educational experience in a fundamental way" (p.114). Schiller described an internal faculty grant program which was instituted along with Project Athena through which faculty could integrate the computing environment into the curriculum.
The Andrew Project at Carnegie-Mellon was similar in scope to that of Project Athena. Through the distribution of high-powered workstations throughout the campus, Morris et al. (1986) stated that it was envisioned that the Andrew Project would affect education in the areas of computer-aided instruction, the creation of new software tools for different fields of study, communication - both on and off campus, and information access. The implementation of networking technology at Carnegie-Mellon involved a backbone network with LAN's (of primarily workstations) attached to it. Access to the Internet is through PREPnet.
As is the case at many institutions, the implementation of networking technology at Lehigh University was carried out at many levels. In the middle 1980's, Lehigh installed a digital switch with connections to all classrooms, dorm rooms, and offices. To facilitate the use of the serial connections (and simulated Ethernet capabilities) of the switch, a mainframe computer was installed to provide communications services to users of the switch. This system acquired the nickname of the Network Server. At approximately that same time, through an agreement with a major microcomputer vendor, Lehigh distributed over 600 microcomputers throughout the campus with approximately 400 of these systems being provided to any faculty member who wanted one. All of these microcomputers, including those available for student use, were connected to the digital switch. All of the microcomputers in labs and classrooms were also connected to stand-alone Ethernet-based LAN's.
Since that time, the number of microcomputers in use on the campus has grown into the thousands and a fiber-optic based backbone network was installed between all of the major buildings on campus. In addition to workstations and mainframes, the backbone network also interconnects the microcomputer-based LAN's as well as LAN's in student residence halls. With recent advances in networking software, remote LAN's can now be maintained from a single location within the Computing Center. Lehigh has moved beyond a single mainframe for communication services to a distributed system of workstations. The largest of the systems which makes up this campus-wide information system is still referred to as the Network Server. Foley and Weiner (1992) described the major functions of the Network Server as including "electronic mail, document preparation, bulletin boards and conferencing, calendaring and scheduling, access to national networks, on-line software libraries, high quality printing, [and] on-line forms processing" (p.268). The backbone network is connected to the Internet through PREPnet.
Perhaps the one area within any university in which the impact of networking technology will be felt the most, is within the library. The field of library/information science is changing to the point where, according to Kountz (1992), "if a library means books, then being a librarian and operating any library other than a public library may be an endangered career" (p.39). Kountz stated that "by the turn of the century, paper will satisfy less than 5% of the total commerce in information" (p.39) as "paper is going to be replaced with electronic media" (p.39).
According to Penniman (1992), "the real key for creating the library of the future rests with redefining its mission. This mission must go beyond document access; it must place the library in the midst of significant social and educational change" (p24). In relating this directly to networking and information technologies, Penniman stated that "libraries can help us to communicate across time (their archival function) and distance (their lending and resource-sharing function), but they fail to fulfill their potential if they do not focus on the communication of information" (p.24). Finally, Penniman stated the need to create "a universal window to the vast array of information held by our libraries and that this window be offered to the widest possible audience" (p.24).
Just as networking technology is implemented at a number of different levels throughout colleges and universities, it is also implemented at a number of levels throughout the libraries at colleges and universities. While CD-ROM databases have been available for use for a number of years, it has only been within the last few years that the search software for these databases has been made compatible with the networking software for local area networks, and it is an even more recent occurrence that the CD-ROM software has been made compatible with the networking software prevalent for backbone networks. Therefore, many institutions still use stand-alone CD-ROM systems along with any access they may have to networked databases.
In an attempt to determine whether access to a CD-ROM based index would increase the use of interlibrary loans, Crawford (1992) described a study done at Moravian College. In this study, the number of interlibrary loan requests for articles from journals indexed in the CD-ROM version of the Psychological Abstracts database were compared for the semester immediately prior to the installation of the database with the corresponding semester the next year (allowing a full semester and the summer in which people could get used to the system). Contrary to what was expected, the number of requests for interlibrary loans went down after the installation of the database. This was attributed to stressing "the importance of educating users to seek articles that are owned by their library before using interlibrary loan services to acquire other articles" (p.370).
Faries (1992) described a survey which was conducted at Penn State to determine the reactions of users to CD-ROM systems. To determine which databases were the most popular, since these were stand-alone systems and the actual CD-ROM needed to be signed out to be used, the sign-out statistics were utilized. No surprises were found in that undergraduate students typically used the more general databases while graduate students typically used the more sophisticated research-oriented databases. Overall, 70% of CD-ROM users found the instructions on using the systems helpful, 86% of users found the systems easy to use and 97% said they would use the CD-ROM systems again. Librarians at Penn State felt that users' reactions to CD-ROM databases would be applicable to other electronic systems as these other systems became available to users over the Internet.
At Bucknell University, Van Fleet (1992) described the networking technology of the library as consisting of an on-line catalog, a CD-ROM LAN, and access to Internet databases. If needed materials were not in the library, "depending on cost effectiveness and anticipated delivery time, we elect to purchase the needed materials, print them from full-text databases, or borrow them from another library" (p.32). At Bucknell, it was determined that delivery costs for interlibrary loans were significant and that "purchasing information on-line or through vendors will be in some cases the fastest and cheapest way of meeting a library users needs" (p.32).
Cusworth (1991) described the effects of networking technology on the library services at Aston University. Through its campus-wide broadband network, limited access was available to its on-line catalog. In addition to the ability to look up references, users could reserve items through the campus network. It was anticipated that eventually most services which could be done from within the library would be accessible through the network. This included accessing lecturers' reading lists, displaying the reader's own library record, on-line renewal of books, and the ability to send all library notices directly to the reader's electronic mailbox. Through the JANET (Joint Academic Network) portion of the Internet, remote access to other on-line catalog systems was also possible.
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Anderson (1993) described the Distributed Library Initiative (DLI) as "a joint undertaking of the MIT Libraries and the MIT Information Systems to revolutionize electronic library services" (p.84) the purpose of which was "to enhance the quality of education and research through continuous improvement of information delivery" (p.93). "The Athena computing environment at MIT provides a broadly distributed, open infrastructure - a strong foundation upon which to layer electronic library services" (p.84). The primary goals of the DLI were to "deliver coherent, affordable electronic library services to patrons" (p.84) including access to MIT-owned materials, Internet-accessible materials, and remote interlibrary-accessible materials; to "improve automation of library operations" (p.84) which is a "recognition of the critical relationship between management of information and delivery of information" (p.84); and to "rationalize the operation and management of electronic library services" (p.84) by "distributing responsibilities appropriately across IS [Information Services] and the Libraries in order to capitalize on the skills, synergies, and scale in MIT's distributed environment" (p.84). MIT's Committee on Academic Computation for the 1990's and Beyond report entitled "Computing for Education at MIT" (1990) described the educational services emphasis of the DLI as including "on-line teaching assistants, consultants, and help; electronic mail, news, bulletin boards, and discussion facilities; file service and transfer; access to library and other databases; registration and similar services; graphics transfer; video processing; logins to computers at MIT and on national networks; and remote printing" (p.5).
At Lehigh University, Richards and Johnson (1990) described the campus-wide network as providing "access to library databases, including an on-line catalog (GEAC Integrated Library System), Current Contents, a current journals database, and a variety of full text, locally-produced reference databases" (p.5). All library services "from reference requests through photocopy requests, interlibrary loan, media, reserves, recalls, and recommendations for acquisitions" (p.5) are available through the network. Since that time, additional on-line services have been added including access to a number of locally-mounted databases such as ERIC and Compendex, as well as access to external services such as CARL/Uncover, Dow Jones News Retrieval, and FirstSearch which includes access to a number of on-line databases as well as access to WorldCat which is the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog of the holdings of over 10,000 libraries. In addition, most of the CD-ROM databases which had only been available on a LAN within one of the library buildings, through the campus backbone network are now available for use at LAN sites throughout the campus.
In an attempt to determine the early impact of a campus-wide information system on the libraries at Brown University, Moran, Surprenant, and Taylor (1987) described a case study which was performed on the campus. Unfortunately, even though funding was obtained for the study and most of the campus had been networked, at the time the study was to have been performed the campus-wide information system had yet to be made available for use. The one determination obtained from this study was that "all elements in a wired university are interconnected" (p.12) and that strong cooperation is required between library and computing center personnel.
Baldwin, Ostrye, and Shelton (1988) described the results of a survey conducted about the on-line catalog at the University of Wyoming. Most respondents searched the catalog utilizing either keywords or subject headings to find "books or journals on a topic or subject" (p.22). The vast majority of respondents (87%) found these searching methods to be either very satisfactory or somewhat satisfactory even though few of them understood that the subject words needed to be Library of Congress Subject Headings. Ninety-four percent of respondents had either very favorable or somewhat favorable attitudes toward the on-line catalog.
In order to "examine factors related to subject searching success in on-line catalogs" (p.64), Frost (1987) described a survey conducted at the University of Houston - University Park Library. In this study, 54% of respondents always or frequently utilized subject searching, while 59% always or frequently utilized title searches. "Graduate students were the least frequent users of the subject search" (p.61), which agreed with previous research on catalog usage which "suggested an inverse relationship between the level of subject-searching use and the level of academic education" (p.61). Only 40% of respondents realized that only the terms listed in the Library of Congress Subject Headings list could be used for subject searches.
Ferl and Millsap (1992) described an on-line survey of remote users of the MELVYL library system which is the University of California's on-line union catalog system. This system consisted of the combined catalogs of the libraries of all the campuses of the University of California as well as a number of on-line databases. During the period of the survey, a quarter of the system usage was from remote sites (i.e., sites other than from within a library) with about two thirds of the remote users being students, faculty, or staff of the University of California. Eighty-six percent of the remote users used the system from within the state of California while 2.3% of the remote users used the system from outside of the United States. Slightly over half (50.9%) of the remote users rarely or never used the system from within a University of California library, including about a third of the remote users who were University of California students, faculty, and staff.
The implementation of FirstSearch into the campus-wide information system (CWIS) at Ohio state University was described by Snure (1991). FirstSearch, from OCLC (the Online Computer Library Center), "provides low cost access and an easy-to-use interface to the OCLC Online Union Catalog [WorldCat], as well as a variety of reference databases" (p.25). When FirstSearch was placed onto the campus-wide information system, an on-line survey was also added. Prior to adding FirstSearch to the campus-wide information system, handwritten questionnaires "showed that over 48% of those users found out about the system [FirstSearch] from a librarian, while the CWIS responses showed that only 25% of the users found out about the system [FirstSearch] from a librarian" (p.31). On the campus-wide information system, 45% of users found out about FirstSearch directly from menu items on the information system which showed that the information system "accomplished the task of moving library tools into the campus' working environment" (p.31). Ninety-one percent of campus-wide information system respondents felt that FirstSearch was either easy to use or very easy to use, while 78% said that they had found the information for which they were searching through FirstSearch.
The object of an on-line electronic-mail study described by Horner and Thirlwall (1988) was to investigate the information retrieval behavior at the University of Manitoba of social science and humanities researchers compared to that of science and technology researchers. Only weak support was found for the hypothesis that social science and humanities researchers make less use of computer-readable databases than do researchers in science and technology. "An analysis of responses that counted access to types of databases more than once per year revealed little difference between the groups" (p.226). Significant differences were found with regard to the use of computer-readable databases across the departments within the social sciences and humanities with humanities researchers being significantly less active than all other departments. With regard to personally searching computer-readable databases, instead of depending on the mediation of a librarian, no differences were found between social science and humanities researchers and researchers in science and technology; about a third of each group conducted their own searches. With regard to attitude toward searching computer-readable databases, researchers in the humanities were the least enthusiastic about using these databases.
In an attempt to determine why some humanist scholars enthusiastically accept on-line systems while others do not, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania conducted interviews with these scholars pertaining to their personal use of the RLIN (Research Libraries Information Network) database. According to Lehmann and Renfro (1991), factors which consistently determined use included content, connectivity, user-friendliness, and cost. They stated that "the most fundamental distinction between researchers and librarians is perhaps the emphasis on content by the one [researchers] and on access by the other [librarians]" (p.410). If the content of the database is insufficient for the needs of the researcher, everything else about the database is irrelevant. Assuming that the content is sufficient, the next most important factor was found to be connectivity. For researchers who had connectivity from their homes or offices, without the need of a librarian to mediate the search, there was a change in the manner in which they searched. "The autonomous relationship between the searcher and the database encourages relaxed browsing" (p.411). As for user-friendliness, most scholars stated that while they were comfortable with the user interface many of their colleagues were not and would find it an impediment to using the system. As for cost, some users of the system felt that it was important enough to their work that they would pay a nominal fee to use it. However, without experience with the system, none of them thought they would have been inclined to pay to use it.
Clark and Silverman (1989) described a study in which questionnaires were sent to faculty members at Winthrop College and at the College of William and Mary in order to determine what faculty members were telling students about on-line searching. On a whole, "forty-three percent of the respondents had had computer searches done for them by reference librarians, and 14% searched as end users" (p.232). Education faculty made the greatest use of on-line searches (with 69% of respondents at Winthrop and 75% at William and Mary) followed by faculty in the sciences. Business faculty used on-line searches the least (with 32% of respondents at Winthrop and 61% at William and Mary). While 72% of respondents "did not instruct their students on on-line searching concepts" (p.232), "66% did recommend computer searching to their students" (p.233).
Bell and Halperin (1989) described the results of a survey mailed to graduates of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton school M.B.A. program which was designed to measure the postgraduate usage by these individuals of on-line database systems. While it was known that 75% of those surveyed had used on-line systems as graduate students, 80% of respondents said that they had used on-line systems as graduate students. Of the respondents, 66% "reported using commercial time-sharing after graduation" (p.41) with 16% doing "all of their on-line searching themselves" (p.41) and 45% having "all of their on-line searching done for them" (p.41). "There was a small positive correlation between searching both the DIALOG and Dow Jones News/Retrieval system in graduate school and searching the same system after graduation" (pp.41-42).
In a study conducted at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, cognitive abilities of librarians and students were compared using 84 librarians and 50 students which represented a cross section of the University. Allen and Allen (1993) described the study as testing on four cognitive abilities "which were chosen because they were shown to predict successful performance in information retrieval tasks" (p.68). These cognitive abilities were perceptual speed, which measures "speed in comparing figures or symbols, scanning to find figures or symbols, or carrying out other simple tasks involving visual perception" (p.68); logical reasoning, which measures "the ability to reason from premise to conclusion, or to evaluate the correctness of a conclusion" (p.68); spatial scanning, which measures "speed in visually exploring a wide or complicated spatial field" (p.68); and verbal comprehension, which measures "the ability to understand the English language" (p.69).
For perceptual speed, librarians were found to be slower than students even after differences for age (where age has been shown to slow down perceptual processes) and gender had been taken into consideration. For logical reasoning, even though "there was little difference in the raw scores achieved by the two groups of participants" (p.70), "when scores were adjusted for age differences, librarians outperformed students" (p.70). "No significant differences were found in the spatial scanning abilities of librarians and the students" (p.71). For verbal comprehension, the librarians scored higher than the students with no significance revealed regarding age or gender effects.
In conclusion, Allen and Allen stated that "logical reasoning and verbal comprehension are extremely important and extensively used cognitive skills in librarianship" (p.71) and that it is "understandable that individuals with these abilities would choose to be librarians" (p.71). They also stated that "students are likely to be better at tasks that involve scanning large amounts of material, while librarians may be better at tasks that require logical reasoning or good verbal skills" (p.72) which "may explain why students appear to do well with simple browse searching, and why librarians prefer more sophisticated search capabilities" (p.72).
Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives classifies learning objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive domain is classified into a hierarchy of intellectual skills ranging from knowledge at the lowest level to comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and finally evaluation at the highest level. Biehler (1971) described analysis as the "ability to distinguish and comprehend interrelationships, [and] make critical analyses" (p.216); synthesis as the "ability to rearrange component ideas into a new whole" (p.217); and, evaluation as the "ability to make judgments based on internal evidence or external criteria" (p.217). As Biehler pointed out, Bloom's cognitive domain covers the same types of learning as what Gagné (1965) described as verbal associations, concepts, principles, and problem solving. More recently, Gagné (1984) referred to these learning outcomes as intellectual skills, verbal information, and cognitive strategies. In general terms, Gagné (1985) described intellectual skills as "'knowing how,' or procedural knowledge" (p.48); verbal information as "'knowing that,' or declarative knowledge" (p.48); and, cognitive strategies as skills which "control the learner's own internal processes" (p.48).
Detweiler and Falduto (1992) described Drew University's focus on information technology in the context of supporting or enhancing the goals of liberal education. They stated "a liberally educated person systematically, logically, and creatively accesses available information, develops understanding and insights, and communicates this knowledge to others" (p.44) and that information technology is a tool to "substantially enhance this thinking process" (p.44). Detweiler and Falduto stated that "the goal was not to make liberal arts and theological students technologists, but rather, to make them capable, thinking people who can make use of technological tools in their everyday lives" (p.44).
Jones (1992) stated that the utilization of networking technology at Kent State University's Geauga Campus "will have an increasing impact on teaching and learning, as we prepare students in all disciplines to exist and prosper in a technological environment" (p.79). Also, "formalized life-long learning in technological areas is rapidly moving from an option for working people to a necessity" (p.79).
Through the use of Project Athena at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cohen (1986) stated that students reported significant changes in the manner in which they write. Utilizing the word processing capabilities of Project Athena, students were more likely to compose their writing directly into the computer without writing first drafts longhand. Thirty-eight percent of the students felt that the use of computers could improve the quality of their writing. Only 19% of the students felt that collaboration with others was made easier through the use of computers.
As stated by Shields, Graves, and Nyce (1991), "the evolution of departmental and interdepartmental networks is among the most important developments for social science research on academic computing" (p.201). In a study conducted at Brown University, they found that "the use of disciplinary categories for conceptualizing appropriate classes of computer end-users should be applied cautiously" (p.193) due to the ever increasing specialization within disciplines and as "new specialties are often the product of cross-disciplinary marriages" (p.193). They stated that the value of computing to any particular individual was dependent upon how close of a match could be found between the user's needs and the technology in use. While the use of computing technology is of growing importance to academic research, Shields et al. found that "there is little evidence to indicate that new computational capabilities alone are profoundly affecting the choice of research problems" (p.194). However, in some disciplines new technology has caused researchers to rethink the bounds of what is possible experimentally.
Shields et al. found that the full capabilities of computing technology were seldom utilized and that people primarily learned only what they needed to in order to do their work. They stated that the implementation of networking technology has the potential for "bringing about a better computing environment, and by implication, a better academic environment" (p.201). While networking technology provides the ability to connect otherwise incompatible systems and provides access to resources such as libraries, electronic mail, high-quality printing, and data bases, it also serves to improve "research productivity and efficiency by facilitating communications beyond the university - with colleagues, external databases, and supercomputers" (p.201). However, they found that the benefits of utilizing networking technology differed between departments and even between individuals within departments. Unfortunately, "there are virtually no empirical data to help us gauge what scholars' networking needs are in different disciplines - how they use networking services or for what ends" (p.201).
In their study, Shields et al. found the claim that networking technology will "significantly enhance collaborative research and scientific productivity" (p.201) has not been verified. While they could not say whether networking technology increased collaboration, they noted that research collaborations are seldom initiated via electronic means, but that the technology may facilitate the collaborative effort afterward.
Thrush and Hardisty (1989) stated that "one of the motivating factors behind the development of the widely accepted and practiced approach to composition instruction was the somewhat revolutionary idea that meaning was not simply created in the writer's mind, but resulted from the interaction of a writer with a specific audience" (p.1). In explaining how networking technology could be applied to demonstrating this point, Thrush and Hardisty described a joint project between the Political Science and English departments undertaken at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In this project, computer conferences were set up for each class along with one for the discussion of political science. The Freshman Composition class was required to use their conference as an electronic journal to which they posted their reactions to the texts they were to have read, as well as posting their reactions to that which others had posted. Thrush and Hardisty found that "the result is real communication about the literature that is often far more honest than anything the students are willing to say in the classroom" (p.13) They also found that it was impossible for anyone to dominate this type of discussion and that shy students were more comfortable in this type of interaction than they would be by participating in class.
These freshman were also sometimes required to read the and respond to messages on the political science conferences which were primarily used by upperclassmen. It was found that the upperclass students were often "more direct than a teacher would be in proclaiming that the meaning of a message is unclear, its arguments poorly formulated and supported, or its manner of expression pompous" (p.13). Since the identity of the person responding was usually not known, this criticism was usually accepted without much defensiveness and students often posted follow-up messages to further support or clarify their positions.
Waugh, Miyake, Levin, and Cohen (1988) stated that "electronic networking provides a medium which is qualitatively superior to the traditional classroom for conducting certain types of problem solving exercises" (p.2). They described a project in which networking technology was used for communications between students in four different countries. The students were given the problem of shortages of drinking water and required to research how drinking water was obtained in the areas in which they lived. Next, each of these descriptions was sent through the network to the other groups who were to analyze all of the techniques to determine whether any patterns could be found within the methods used for obtaining water. In the final phase, students were asked to obtain any additional information they might need and to judge the feasibility of utilizing any of the other techniques to help solve the water problems in their own locations. This method was utilized so the "emphasis is shifted from simple attempts to brainstorm possible new solutions for a local problem to comparing and analyzing solutions to similar problems in other locations, and attempting to adapt those solutions to fit the local situation" (p.3).
As in the Thrush and Hardisty study, Waugh et al. found that with utilizing the network for communications the interaction was not dominated by any single individual as a face-to-face conversation might be. They stated that "the key point is that this medium allowed for a free interchange of expression which is often not seen in the traditional classroom" (p.3). In conclusion, they stated that "the nature of students problem-solving efforts in this medium are different, largely because the medium provides unique opportunities for collaboration among diverse groups" (p.11) and that "the data provided by the network are rich, and the opportunities for meaningful communication among mutually interested groups is high" (p.11).
Daly, Weber, Vangelisti, Neel, and Maxwell (1987) described a study in which protocol analysis was used to determine what people were thinking as they conversed with others. Normally, protocol analysis "makes use of people's verbal reports about their cognitions as they engage in some task" (p.5). However, since the task which was to be performed involved communication with someone else, using verbal communication for both the task and the reports on cognition was not feasible. Instead, Daly et al. used a computer network where expert typists, who were strangers to each other, could communicate between themselves and at the same time verbally report their thoughts to the researchers.
Daly et al. found evidence for processes of inferencing, coping with violations of implicit communication rules, and planning in the manner in which people converse. They found that "drawing inferences about partners or about the likely response of partners seems a very common cognitive activity during collaborative tasks" (p.8). They found that most participants in their study actively planned their conversations as they were taking place. Finally, they found that when other participants provided answers which were either too long, too short, or too personal, even though the person receiving the response did not react to it in the conversation, they did react significantly to the researchers.
Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives breaks the affective domain of learning into the components of receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization of a value or value complex. As pointed out by Biehler (1971), Bloom's affective domain relates to the same type of learning as what Gagné referred to as attitude and values. Gagné (1985) described attitudes as the "mental states that influence the choices of personal actions" (p.48) and described three aspects of attitude as a cognitive aspect, an affective aspect, and a behavioral aspect. Gagné stated that "most theoretical accounts of the origins of the cognitive component of attitudes adopt the basic premise of the need for consistency" (p.222). Gagné stated that the affective aspect of attitude pertains to "liking and disliking" (p.223) while the behavioral aspect pertains to "the relation between the attitude and the actual behavior of the individual possessing the attitude" (p.223).
In describing a study done on an electronic conferencing system called the Beginning Teacher Computer Network (BTCN) which was set up to support first year teachers, Beals (1991) stated that "aspects of computer networking that impact the style of communication include temporal factors (asynchronous versus synchronous communication), spatial factors (geographical context and distance), and social factors (participants, their relationships and their purposes)" (p.74). Beals related temporal factors as the timing of conversations. While some networks allow multiple people to type responses to each other in real time (synchronous), others simply allow the posting of messages or electronic mail which will be available to others the next time they log in (asynchronous). The spatial factors which Beals related pertained to the lack of face-to-face contact such that non-verbal cues were not available. This could be remedied through the use of typing conventions such as using extra punctuation, upper case characters, and asterisks for emphasis. The social factors to which Beals referred pertained to the existence, or lack thereof, of prior relationships of people utilizing the network, as well as to how comfortable the users of the network would be.
Beals found that for temporal aspects, the asynchronous manner of BTCN was actually an advantage in that the need for an instant response was not present. People who were articulate and assertive in real life were not necessarily that way over the network. Some people expressed themselves better in writing than in face-to-face conversations and actually felt safer by doing so. Since there was no need for an instant response, people could form their responses into clearer messages. Unfortunately, this was also viewed as a problem in that the immediacy of the discussion was curtailed.
For spatial aspects of communication style, Beals found that people quickly adapted to the use of typing conventions to take the place of face-to-face conversations. These techniques would normally be inappropriate for more formal written conversation. Also, as Beals pointed out, "members did not have to show agreement or disagreement, and were free to quietly ignore other's opinions" (p.76).
Since all of the users of BTCN were graduates of a single school, it was basically assumed that each user personally knew approximately half of the other people utilizing the system. According to Beals, the general consensus was that users succeeded in expressing their own personalities through the network and that "members did not appear to lose sight of the fact that they were talking to other human beings" (p.77).
Beals conclusions were that the ways of communicating through the network were only limited by imagination and, "while some view network messages as a relatively cold, unemotional means of interacting, the experience of the BTCN shows otherwise" (p.77).
In a university-wide survey done at Brown University prior to the large-scale infusion of workstations onto the campus, Shields (1986) found that "among all students, men, graduate students, and those in the physical sciences were significantly more likely to express favorable views of computing than women, undergraduates, and students in disciplines other than the physical sciences" (p.57). However, "among active student computer users - those using computers at least two or more hours a week on average - these differences become small and insignificant" (p.57). Gender differences which were present with respect to degree of computing experience and favorable view of computing, also became insignificant when comparing strictly active computer users. According to Shields, "these results suggest that gender differences in computing experience and attitudes are far less pronounced than differences between active users and others" (p.59). About 30% of the students responding to Shields' survey felt that "computers contribute to the social isolation of students from one another" (p.60) and that "using computers in education often results in less personalized treatment of students" (p.60).
In a similar study (which evolved from the Brown University study) of the undergraduate student use of computing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one year after Project Athena was made available for student use, Cohen (1986) found somewhat similar results. While computing in general at M.I.T. was dominated by senior males, Athena itself was used equally by both males and females. Both males and females had overwhelmingly positive feelings about using computers in general and about Project Athena. Thirty-four percent of the students responding to the question felt that "computers contribute to the social isolation of students from one another" (p.33) and 21% felt that "using computers in education often results in less personalized treatment of students" (p.32).
With the 1986 installation of a digital switch to provide data communications capabilities to all classrooms, dormitory rooms, and offices, and with the simultaneous installation of a campus-wide information system to provide communication services to the campus community, Lehigh University has long been at the forefront in its utilization of networking technology. While the original digital switch is still in operation, the utilization of networking technology at Lehigh has moved well beyond that stage. Most microcomputer classrooms and clusters and most offices are now interconnected with local area networks; dormitory rooms will be totally networked via local area networks by the Summer of 1995. All of these LAN's, along with all major campus buildings, are interconnected via a campus-wide, high-speed (currently utilizing FDDI - Fiber Distributed Data Interface), fiber optic backbone network. Mainframe computers have been replaced with a distributed network of workstations which are also connected to the campus-wide network. The campus-wide information system went from a single computer to a distributed system (which is still referred to as the Network Server) which handled over 1.5 million logins in 1993.
The Lehigh University Libraries have also been at the forefront in the utilization of networking technology. From the beginning, the libraries have played an integral role in providing both on-campus and off-campus information resources to the campus through the campus-wide network.
The extent to which networking resources are utilized at Lehigh University becomes apparent by examining simple statistics from the campus-wide information system. While Lehigh is a relatively small university (with approximately 6,500 students and 1,500 faculty and staff), the vast majority of individuals on the campus utilize the Network Server system. With over 1.5 million logins in 1993, the Network Server systems were utilized for Usenet News access over 713,000 times; the telnet command was used to access other network computers over 119,000 times. Other external resources which were accessed from these systems included Gopher and Dow Jones News Retrieval, both of which were accessed over 39,000 times; Worldcat, which was accessed almost 12,000 times; and, CARL/Uncover, which was accessed over 6,000 times. Lehigh's own catalog system was accessed through the Network Server systems over 15,000 times.
With networking technology having a pervasive impact throughout the university, Lehigh University was an ideal location in which to conduct this study.