text:
We're a more than a quarter of the way through the college basketball season and I've been remiss in not sharing my thoughts about this year's edition of the University of Kansas Jayhawks. I guess I've been too scared to share my feelings about this team. As much as I resist the comparisons, this as close as having a complete unit as what Bill Self served up in the championship run of 2008.
One thing separates this team from the national championship Jayhawks is interior toughness. Sasha Kahn with a side of Darrel Arthur and some beastly end of the year freshman heroics from Cole Aldrich made the team's interior defense intimidating. Percy Ellis, Landon Lucas, Jamari Traylor, Hunter Mickelson, Carlton Bragg and Cheick Diallo don't even compare. Yet the faint glimmer is the unfathomable depth in the Jayhawks frontcourt. They have a ton of fouls to give and the athleticism of Bragg and Diallo are undeniable. Ellis can score like Arthur and bring a 3 point shot than even Darrel dare not hoist.
Where this team measures up with 2008 is the front court. Where Russell Robinson, Sherron Colllins, Mario Chalmers and Brandon Rush were tough as nails, Robinson lacked any offensive punch and the three point shooting while good, pales in comparison to the 2015-16 squad. Every backcourt contributor on this year's team can shoot the 3. It's almost to the detriment to Self's bread and butter scheme of working the high/low post.
Yet I think Bill Self has seen that he's got to live and die by the 3 ball. Wayne Seldon has shown he's worked on his long range shot. He sparkled at the World University Games. Frank Mason III has shown every bit of toughness as Robinson and Collins and Devonte Graham will be a better all round player if he stays another year than Mario Chalmers. Then comes the bombs away overload provided by Brennan Greene and Svi Mykhailuk. The scariest part is out of this wealth of backcourt talent, the short man on the end of the minutes, Mykhailuk, has the most upside potential in professional basketball.
These guys play just enough defense to get by. They are the best all round shooting team in Kansas history. That's even with the spotty interior scoring. Yes, Perry Ellis is hell on wheels, but he struggles against bigger, physical postmen. Kansas has guards and guards by and large win national championships. I'm not saying K.U. will win it all this year but this very talented team will have underachieved if they don't make it to the Final 4.
Oh, and if by some miracle Bragg, Diallo, Mykhailuk, Graham and Mason all come back for another season, next year's team will be even better.


text:
Svet Tzokov has been a volunteer for almost a year and has helped out at many events (the Science of Wellness, Fun Palaces, Science of Multilingualism, Illuminate the Gardens, Cinescience and our volunteering fairs). His other work includes working on the BSA Sheffield social media team and he is currently involved in the upcoming Sheffield Food Festival 2018 and he is working with others on a Physiology Society grant application. He studied biochemistry and structural biology, and currently runs electron microscopy facility in the University of Sheffield.
"I initially joined the BSA through friends, but quickly realised what an incubator of brilliant ideas BSA Sheffield was. The philosophy of the BSA is very close to my own belief that modern society can only benefit if more people take a scientific view when resolving their problems. I work in science, and I can see that we could do more to convince the rest of the society about the value of the scientific approach. And science is fun!
I like discovering things, and science is built on discoveries. It's about that feeling that the experiment you are doing this minute makes you the first person to conduct it, or the unique feeling that you are the first person to observe such an important result. I must have been in primary school when I was observing the movement of ants and trying to predict where they will build their next nest.
Volunteering for BSA Sheffield has given me more confidence in working with people (both at work and outside of work) and I really like the satisfaction in doing something for the wider society."
You can find more about Svet and his work at:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Country Diary of an Edwardian Lady - May
Posted by Cathy at 8:09 PM
26 comments:
Links to this post
Monday, May 18, 2015
Beyond the Garden Gates - 2015
It's that time of year again....The Frederick Garden Tour. . . .
|To enlarge photos, click on them
Posted by Cathy at 6:17 PM
16 comments:
Links to this post
Labels: Frederick Garden Tour, Frederick MD, Gardens
Thursday, May 14, 2015
View Outside My Window - May
This is my morning-sun-lit view outside my livingroom window. This room and the garage below was added to the house in the early 1970's by the second owners. . . .
Posted by Cathy at 4:32 PM
26 comments:
Links to this post
Labels: Conversation, Give-away, Houses, View Outside My Window
Monday, May 11, 2015
Third Anniversary
This Thursday it will be three years since I did my first Morning Musing post. It was about my garden and my children. . . .
Posted by Cathy at 7:16 AM
34 comments:
Links to this post
Labels: Blog Anniversary, Blogging, Creativity, Give-away, Susan Branch
Thursday, May 7, 2015
MD Chapter TTMS May Gathering
Posted by Cathy at 9:32 PM
24 comments:
Links to this post
Labels: Crafts, Creativity, Recipe, Tasha Tudor Museum Society
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Bandits, also known as Bandit Huggables, are a type of Huggable that appear in Battle Bears Overclock.
The Bandit, is a huge blue Huggable that digs from underground, and will roam around the map. The Bandits will either walk or run, depending if players shoots them or not. They will stand still if not disturbed, but will walk from time to time. If the player does shoot a Bandit, the Bandit will run from then on until killed, even if players have stopped shooting at the Bandit.
What makes these Bandits very different from regular Huggables, is that they will not harm the player. They will not attack the player in any way.
What makes these Huggables Bandits, is that they wield a pick axe, a miner hat, and a sackbag that contains Kill Tokens. If the player does shoot a Bandit, a Kill Token will drop. If the player keeps shooting the Bandit, the Bandit will eventually dig back into the ground, and drop 3 more Kill Tokens.
- Although harmless, people have sometime died from a Bandit.
- Players can actually kill the Bandit as soon as it digs upward, making it drop all the Kill Tokens that would normally drop from hitting it.
- If Bandits walk over a Kill Token, they will grab it, and a player will have to shoot it to drop it again.
- The Bandit may walk or run if they see a Kill Token they can reach. (Please confirm)
- If a player is above the Bandit when it digs up to the surface, the player will be launched up into the air, fairly higher than a normal jump (please confirm)


text:
"Is God the biggest person in the world?", my son asked. "Yes. I would say so.", I replied. "So, he is small enough to live in our hearts and big enough to hold the whole world?", he replied.
"This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, Isaiah 44:24
I could not have said it better. Oh, how children can make the most difficult seem simple. Yes, our God is enough. He is full of enough love, forgiveness and grace to fill our hearts and our lives so that it will flow over into those around us. The one who created the heavens, the earth and has placed the stars in the sky and knows them by name (Genesis 1:16) loves you and me enough to dwell in us and to hold our sometimes cold, weary, misguided world in His hands. How I pray He never lets us go.
Don't be fooled by idols of power, money, healing, or pleasure. They are powerless (Isaiah 36:2), worthless (Psalm 31:6) and fragile (Isaiah 57:13) and will only bring shallow and temporary joy.
For the moth will eat them up like a garment; the worm will devour them like wool.
But my righteousness will last forever, my salvation through all generations." Isaiah 51:8
Focus instead on the one and only God, our Father in Heaven who sent His son through a virgin to live and die for us. He paid the ultimate sacrifice for you and for me. There should be no one above Him. Give Him all praise. You should glorify His name and give thanks for His abundant and undeserved grace.
"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27


text:
You are here
Digital game changer for maritime industry
- KD Adamson, Futurist & Chief Executive Officer, Futurenautics Group, UK
- Mohit Batra, Regional Director - Commercial Shipping, Eniram Singapore
- Morten Lind-Olsen, Chief Executive Officer, Dualog, Norway
- Kenneth Lim, Chief Technology Officer, Maritime Port Authority, Singapore
- Michael Montoya, Chief Cybersecurity Officer, Enterprise Cybersecurity Group, Singapore, Microsoft
Moderator: Francis Kan, The Business Times
The Business Times: What are the key technologies impacting the maritime industry today?
KD Adamson: Technologies made up of social, mobile, analytics and cloud together with the Internet of Things (IoT) are supporting something called the Intelligent Digital Mesh (IDM).
This is an exponentially growing collection of endpoints which could be devices, people or assets to which you have a real-time digital connection and which can therefore transmit and receive data. Access to the IDM is of course dependent upon enterprise-grade connectivity which has traditionally been expensive ship-to-shore, but those costs are now falling. As a result, shipping is in a position to begin leveraging the IDM. In terms of emerging technologies, the impact of the blockchain - a digital distributed ledger - could be substantial across trade and logistics, as will advances in artificial intelligence.
Mohit Batra: The shipping industry has not been an early adopter of modern technology, but we are now witnessing fast-paced adoption. Fuel saving and costs are the key areas of focus when owners invest in new technologies. Remote access, performance monitoring, data analytics, forecasting and condition-based maintenance are significantly improving operations and ship management. A strong engagement and interest from top management to move ahead with the selected technology and an appropriate timeline to implement the solution will also be key to success in this digital era.
Morten Lind-Olsen: Due to bandwidth limitations in satellite technology, there has traditionally not been too much communication and electronic interactions between sailing ships and the terrestrial world. This is now changing rapidly as new technologies allow more bandwidth at sea over satellites. We see a trend where machine data and Internet of Things technologies are being used to integrate ships into shore networks.
Kenneth Lim: The technologies impacting the maritime sector are no different from what we see impacting all other sectors in the economy. These include greater use of automation, IoT, robotics, drones and of course, intelligent systems and digitalisation. Ports from Shanghai, Rotterdam, Hamburg to Singapore are in various stages of automation and digitalisation. Vessels too are now outfitted with more intelligent systems that monitor various operating parameters and can remotely communicate with shore-based vessel monitoring centres.
Michael Montoya: As the digital footprint expands, we will see the threat landscape become more complex with the maritime industry taking more attention from threat actors. All threat actors will see this as an opportunity as maritime has critical infrastructure dependencies, making it attractive for cyberterrorists and nation-states.
BT: How should industry players deal with the disruption brought about by these technologies?
KD Adamson: The trick is to be part of the disruption, and in order to do that, it's key to recognise that this isn't a technology wave but a business transformation wave. Each company needs to have a digital vision built around the value they'll bring in the new digital economy. For many, that digital vision will be very different from the status quo, which is what makes digital transformation so hard. Leaders have to continue meeting their quarterly targets while also preparing the organisation for a future which is going to be almost unrecognisable.
Mohit Batra: Governments and companies are encouraging constructive collaboration among the industry players and are already taking steps to develop capabilities to succeed in digitalisation - for example, MPA's enhanced Maritime Cluster Fund which provides co-funding for companies that want to utilise technology to optimise their business processes.
Technology should not be used as an excuse to reduce manpower but to complement and improve efficiency.
Morten Lind-Olsen: Technological developments are rapidly opening up new opportunities for the industry. Dualog's business purpose is to bring ship and shore closer, and we experience that new technologies are introduced because of more available bandwidth, and this enables the shipping companies to integrate their ships to the shore environment at a much larger extent.
BT: How can the companies use new digital tools to help them improve their performance?
KD Adamson: The scope for improved efficiencies and productivity in shipping and maritime is enormous. Starting with the biggest physical assets, having vessels connected in real-time enables monitoring, analysis and communication of information which help safety and reliability. There are already many on the maritime supply side creating platforms to enable ship operators to gain unprecedented visibility into their operations and to turn that insight into actionable intelligence. But the opportunity is far wider than that. Data and information can help to improve human-machine interfaces, build and motivate teams, and offer more flexible and more interesting roles that will attract the brightest and best into the industry.
Mohit Batra: With the availability of high-quality data and analysis in almost real-time, the industry is moving in a degree of intelligence from information to insight to be able to adopt a more predictive approach. Advanced software and simulation capabilities are resulting in more complex systems being controlled by software. Eniram has launched the next version of its digital solution Skylight, where apps designed for smart phones, tablets and watches are included for automatic notification for any variances to speed or ETA (estimated time of arrival).
Morten Lind-Olsen: As bandwidth increases, there has been an increasing focus on utilising onboard data for better performance. This raises a couple of challenges. One is the actual collection of data. So far, there are no clear established standards for collection of data from equipment and software onboard or bringing it ashore in a standardised format. The next big challenge for the industry is to make it easier to collect data onboard and to create vendor independent standards in order to stimulate a sharing community on the shore side. The industry value of the data increases enormously if they are shared and used for big data analysis and benchmarking across companies and authorities. Another challenge in the short-term is the mental leap from protecting your data to sharing widely in the digital society.
Kenneth Lim: Last year, Singapore was among the first Flag Administrations in Asia to issue E-certificates directly to Singapore-registered ships. The use of E-certs will reduce the need for hard copies as well as save time and costs. This allows for the instantaneous and simultaneous transmissions of documents as well as reduces the risk of fraud.
We also concluded last year the MPA-IBM pilot trial of three modules under the (SAFER) Sense-making and Analytics For Maritime Event Response project. The project leverages analytics-based technologies to improve maritime port operations such as the automatic detection of vessel movements, infringements and pilot boarding time.
BT: What more can be done to encourage adoption of new technology by industry players?
Kenneth Lim: Earlier this year, MPA launched the Industry Transformation Map for Sea Transport. One key focus area is to catalyse productivity and innovation in the Singapore maritime sector. The MPA Living Lab, together with PSA and Jurong Port (JP) Living Labs, will offer technology developers and industry partners a rich maritime data platform and a real operating environment at the port to co-develop and pilot innovative solutions. Under the PSA Living Lab, PSA is currently working with partners to test-bed automated operations using Automated Guided Vehicles while JP is test-bedding the use of side loaders to enhance productivity at the JP Living Lab.
MPA will also be working with stakeholders to promote greater sharing of data and information within the industry. MPA will partner the Singapore Maritime Institute to set up three maritime research Centres of Excellence within local Institutes of Higher Learning to deepen Singapore's maritime R&D capabilities.
KD Adamson: I think it starts earlier than technology adoption. It starts with a mindset change that will allow companies to begin exploring the capabilities of those technologies in the context of their particular industry. In a market with very tight margins, that's often an expensive exercise so collaboration with other companies inside the sector and - crucially - outside the sector can really accelerate change. The reality is that digital products and services are different. Customers expect seamless interoperability and support which means companies have to work together and collaborate, creating platforms and ecosystems around them.
Mohit Batra: Technology has to be adopted with a clear vision of the end objective and it fails when there is a lack of belief from the top management. Issues such as cybersecurity and data leaks also need to be considered and addressed before the implementation project commences.
Digitalisation leads to commoditisation and to disruption. The retailers of the world are now starting to disrupt the shipping space as they strive to take greater control over logistics. Amazon and Walmart are looking to control their own shipping and more recently, we have seen Alibaba sign up with Maersk, CMA CGM and Zim Lines. The discussions about unmanned ships, smart operations and improved efficiency are really only code for the end of the current maritime model. The changing model of shipping cargo and logistics will alter the shipowning and operating model to create smart maritime practices that need scale in order to be more efficient.
Morten Lind-Olsen: It is already a big transformation ongoing. At the end of the day, the maritime industry is facing the same challenges as other industries. I guess we need to encourage leaders and owners to realise that and spend time implementing the right solutions in the right order. My personal view is that the process of adapting digitisation will be the number one contributor to a successful future of shipping. Dualog has developed a digital platform at sea. By sharing our platform with all the players in the industry, we intend to lead the way towards higher adoption of new technologies.
Michael Montoya: More examples of industry and government partnerships will have a big impact. Singapore has always been a leader in these partnerships and now their investments in the maritime industry will serve as an example that I hope others will follow. Also, industry players should partner more closely with existing technology leaders and explore innovative joint solutions.


text:
The Carolina Hurricanes are wasting no time finding a replacement for Ron Francis as the team's general manager, as the club reportedly interviewed Buffalo Sabres assistant GM Steve Greeley for the position, according to TSN's Bob McKenzie.
This comes less than a week after the Los Angeles Kings granted the Hurricanes permission to speak to their assistant GM, Mike Futa.
Francis was relieved of his GM duties last week, accepting a reassignment to become the team's president of hockey operations - ironically, a role in which he won't be making hockey-related decisions.
Greeley is in his first season in the Sabres' front office. He previously served as the New York Rangers' director of player personnel, the assistant coach at Boston University, and a scout for the Kings.
The Hurricanes' new GM will report directly to new owner Tom Dundon.


text:
The IP address the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has registered http://10.0.0.138 (IANA), the prime authority for assigning protocol addresses, as a part of a private network. The 10.0.0 .0/24. IP addresses, which are in the private space, are not assigned to any specific organization. Instead, anybody can use these IP addresses without the need for consent from a regional Internet registry, unlike any public IP addresses, which require prior permission and access to do so.
Routers made by Telstra industries mostly use this IP address 10.0.0.138. The Telstra Corporation Limited (known as Telstra) is the largest telecommunications company of Australia, which designs, builds and operates the country's telecommunications networks and markets the services of voice, mobile, internet access, pay television and other products and services to its consumers.
Telstra Router
How to Set Up Telstra Router?
1. Firstly connect the Telstra Cable Adaptor. Unplug any existing modems, telephones and other devices that use the telephone line from wall sockets.
2. Power-up the Telstra Cable Adaptor. …
3. Connect the modem to the 10.0.0.138 network …
4. Turn on the modem. …
5. Connect your desired device via Wi-Fi. …or
6. Connect your device via a cable.
7. The device will boot-up and get connected to the network.
How to Login into 10.0.0.138 IP Address?
Logging into this IP address to perform the required tasks is very much straightforward.
By logging into this IP address, a person can change all the router configuration and initiate the desired network changes. This can be used to make the router settings as and when necessary.
Also See:
After the setup and configuration of your 10.0.0.138 router or modem of any brand, you must keep in mind to reboot it after making the settings of it, as failing to do so will lead to un-effective changes. You can use the IP address whenever there is a need to do some configurations with the Telstra routers and its uses.
The process of logging into the IP address is as follows:
- 1) Open the web browser and type in the 10.0.0.138 address into the address bar.
- After doing so, press the enter key from your keyboard.
- A new mini window will pop up from the top which will require you to the login ID, aka, the username and password.
- Type in the default username and password of the desired router or device and hit the 'login' or 'ok' button
- . If the credentials have changed before due to any reasons, then you are required to enter the updated login credentials and proceed as above.
- Once the login process is over, a new tab will open up giving you administrative access to your router's interface and the settings available.
Here changes can be performed to the default settings such as the network and any other security configurations. If there is a need to change the 10.0.0.138 router password, you will be needed to use the updated credentials when logging in to the administrative panel in the future.
What is the need to access the Router Admin Panel?
To view and the supplied 10.0.0.138 modem settings, such as Wi-Fi Network Name, Password, and DNS Settings, you need to know your modem's default IP address – or home page. This is useful in cases, where there may be a need to rename the existing network, or in changing passwords or improve security.
How to Find Your Telstra Router's IP Address?
Most routers will have the IP address, and the login address mentioned in it's manual or in the packaging box. If not available, the model can get a search in the web, and the address can be found out accordingly.
Finding the router IP on Windows:
- Press Win+r together and you will see that a new black tab should open up immediately.
- Type cmd into the exploration area and tap on enter. The command prompt will open up.
- Type in the commands to view the network state and the IP and then click enter.
- Your Default gateway for the router and its 10.0.0.138 IP address will be displayed.
To view and edit your Telstra -supplied modem settings, such as Wi-Fi Network Name, Password, and DNS Settings, there is a need to know the modem's default address – or home page address.
First, enter the correct URL for your modem, (i.e., the IP address):
For nbn™/ADSL/Velocity/Cable type modems – enter the IP address of http://10.0.0.138 or http://telstra.gateway/
Default Router User & Password List
How To Troubleshoot Router Issues?
There may be few cases where you will face issues, where you will not be able to log into the setup page of your Telstra router via the IP address entered. This will arise if you incorrectly entered the IP address.
If you have many Telstra devices on the same 10.0.0.138 network, then you will face issues in logging in, as the various devices may try logging in at the same time, being in the same network and crash altogether.
Usually, the modem provides a particular address to the client; but this address will never be in use except to access the configuration interface of the modem.
Related Articles:
By default if you type the IP address of the modem you may have an error message that displays the following: "Impossible to contact the server" error.
If you wish to replace the 10.0.0.2 with an IP in the same range as the modem, then follow the desired steps:
If your modem's IP address is 10.0.0.1, then you should use 10.0.0.2. In case your modem has IP as 192.168.0.1, then use 192.168.0.2.
Follow these steps to configure accordingly:
- Go to Administration -> Commands
- Enter the following Command: ifconfig `nvram get wan_ifname`:0 10.0.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
- Click on Save Startup.
- Enter : iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o `nvram get wan_ifname` -j MASQUERADE ( to allow security access)
- Click on Save Firewall.
After these steps, you shall be capable of configuring the IP accordingly.
The Telstra modems from Australia, thus have their own IP address of 10.0.0.138, which gives people who use it the capability to configure their devices. For more information on the routers, you can directly visit the device website.
- 1 Telstra Router
- 2 How to Login into 10.0.0.138 IP Address?
- 3 Access Your Router Admin Panel
- 4 What is the need to access the Router Admin Panel?
- 5 How To Troubleshoot Router Issues?
- 6 Conclusion


text:
It has been a busy summer for me. I joined a 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons homebrew campaign and have had a few sessions playing as Akil Muzara, a former Runeguard fighter for the Cynherian Empire. It has been a blast so far and sessions should be continuing by the time this posts. I have … Continue reading August 2018 Content Update
Tag: WrittenForClass
Written For Class – Human Trafficking Research Paper (Problem) #HTRP
Human trafficking is a problem that ails our world in the 21st century. Potentially millions of women and children have been sold or forced into sex and labor trafficking worldwide with just over 40,000 cases collected by the United States' National Human Trafficking Hotline in 2017 alone (Polaris Project 1). Statistics show that men, women, and … Continue reading Written For Class – Human Trafficking Research Paper (Problem) #HTRP
Written For Class – Guan Yu Poem
This poem was written in Spring 2017 for a Creative Writing course. Almost forgot it existed.
Written For Class – U.S. Immigration Reform Essay
Last semester I wrote an essay about Immigration Reform for a U.S. Government class. It was written before the public learned that the Trump Administration was separating families at the Mexican border. The prompt was as follows: Though many Democrats and Republicans agree that the United States' immigration system is broken, they hold sharply different … Continue reading Written For Class – U.S. Immigration Reform Essay
Written for Class – "The Storm" Literary Analysis
Kate Chopin's "The Storm" is a complex piece of fiction. Examining the elements of Chopin's classic short story will enlighten the reader of the author' intended meaning. This story has a conventional plot that allows the conflict to unfold organically. The story starts with an unstable situation. The characters in the story notice that a … Continue reading Written for Class – "The Storm" Literary Analysis
Written For Class – Smoke Signals Film Discussion
Smoke Signals is a movie that follows two young men, Victor and Thomas, as they travel to recover the ashes of the man who shaped their lives. This movie takes the viewer on a road full of doubt, trauma, revelation and growth. Smoke Signals is not told from a common point of view. The main cast of the … Continue reading Written For Class – Smoke Signals Film Discussion


text:
Mini Blueberry Donuts
Mini donuts hold a great appeal to me and to my children. They are cute. They are easy to make. And they're mini - which is perfect for the after school snack. After trying several recipes and their variations, this is the one I started going back to time after time.
Baked Mini Blueberry Donuts Recipe with Lemon & Lavender Glaze
225g/ 8 oz plain flour
1 tsp vanilla extract or vanilla powder
175g/ 6oz sugar
1 tbsp melter butter (optional - I made without and tasted just as good)
2 tsp baking powder
175 ml/ 6fl oz milk
2 large eggs, beaten
1/2 tsp salt
3/4 cup frozen blueberries
Combine all ingredients and mix well. Condition the mini donut pan (I use Judge) with a bit of oil. Pour mixture into the wells, about 3/4 full. Place several blueberries on top of mixture in each well. Bake in the center of a pre-heated oven at 160C or 325F. Bake for 15 minutes. Allow to cool. Coat with lemon glaze and sprinkle with dried or fresh lavender flowers.


text:
The PetSafe Solvit PupZIP Vehicle Zip Line gives your pet the freedom to roam your vehicle while keeping them confined to one area. The PupZIP can be used in bench seat areas, cargo areas or pickup bed areas and installs in a matter of seconds. Allow your dog to look out the window without having to worry about it getting into something he's not supposed to. Great for cars, trucks and SUVs and helps reduce driver distraction.
PupZIP Vehicle Zipline
Price: Check Price Amazon.com Price (as of April 1, 2020 11:42 pm - Details)
- VERSATILE DESIGN: Fits cars, trucks and SUVs in bench seat areas, cargo areas or pickup bed areas
- IMPROVED SAFETY: Confines your pet to one area and helps remove driver distraction
- EASY-TO-INSTALL: Simply attach the two hooks to vehicle attachment points, adjust the strap to the correct length, attach the leash to your pet and it's ready to go
- SUPPORT FOR YOU: Call, chat or email with our expert U.S.-based customer care specialists six days a week at 1-800-845-3274; they are waiting to assist you and your pet with your product needs
- EXPERIENCE: PetSafe brand has been an industry leading U.S. manufacturer of pet behavior, containment and lifestyle products since 1991, helping millions of people and pets each year


text:
13120 140th Ave, Dayton MN 55327
From $427,900 Why 'From' pricing?
New homes can be personalized to your needs and taste.
Builders pricing can vary greatly. Builders display base pricing because you have not selected your options and upgrades yet and some homes may indicate that the land cost is not included.
Riley - Villa 1/31Previous Next
Step into the Riley where main level living awaits you! Featuring up to three bedrooms and two bathrooms all on one level, this beautiful home is spaciously savvy without compromising design. Step into the kitchen where plenty of space awaits you alongside a great view out back. Welcome home!
The Robinson - 2-3 Bedrooms, 2-3 Bathrooms
Builder Community Sales Office
13120 140th Ave, Dayton, MN 55327
Sales Agent Austin Lyon
Hours By Appointment Only
Please be aware that current conditions may impact hours of operation.
Valued Partners
Pineview Meadows
Creative Homes is excited to announce our newest community in Dayton, Minnesota - Pineview Meadows. Pineview Meadows is nestled into an excellent location that infuses country living with the amenities of the city merely moments away. Within minutes, you can be enjoying the dining and entertainment to be found at the Shoppes at Arbor Lakes, strolling along the bluffs of the Mississippi River, or catching an event at the Xcel Energy Center, US Bank Stadium, or Target Field. Take advantage of the numerous amenities within the neighborhood such as the clubhouse, pool, secluded trails, and private park. Children within the community will attend the Anoka-Hennepin School District. Featuring award-winning, spacious, single-family homes with incredible features, Pineview Meadows will be an incredible neighborhood to come home to. Register now and rest assured, you will be the first to know more about everything coming soon to Pineview Meadows.Visit the website Free brochure
Actual schools may vary. Contact the builder for more information.


text:
Magento Development
Magento is a powerful e-commerce platform providing room for your e-commerce business to scale. But with the ability to scale comes complexity that is often difficult to manage. Fruition's experienced Magento team includes dedicated project managers, analysts and engineers that focus exclusively on Magento development. We understand the ins and outs of Magento and the pitfalls that projects can fall into.
Whether you need to build a Magento website, migrate a site to or from Magento, or you just need someone to host or manage your Magento site, our Magento experts are ready to assess your needs. Connect with us about your web project, and we'll give you a full overview of how we can help.
Migrating from Magento 1.9.x to 2.x is not an easy task, but we understand where you can speed up the process and where you need to slow down to ensure a smooth migration to 2.0. Sometimes Magento isn't the right platform for your business. When that is the case, Fruition manages Magento to WooCommerce migrations. Getting your data out of your existing systems and into Magento while ensuring data integrity isn't easy. Fruition also manages complex migration projects to ensure your data retains logical integrity with as little interruption in your search rankings as possible.
Fruition offers hybrid cloud hosting to provide high scalability while maintaining a cost-effective infrastructure. Hosting behind dedicated hardware firewalls is also available when required. If you need small and ongoing tasks completed for your Magento project, Fruition's Service Desk offers ongoing professional Magento support based in Denver. This gives you access to our Magento team at a low upfront rate. It's also a great way to get familiar with your Magento site before we dive into a bigger project.
If you have a specific Magento extension or module integration that you need, we're here to help. This could include custom shipping requirements, product option requirements or integrations with third party services and legacy ERP systems, to ensuring email deliverability, order notifications and confirmations get through. We provide the technical know-how to assess and solve your specific requirements.
An outdated e-commerce site can be a target for online hackers. To ensure your site stays secure and safe for your customers, Fruition patches Magento sites and manages custom Web Application Firewalls. Our goal is to block as much malicious traffic to your Magento site as possible with the latest patches.
If you need a team to help on your Magento project, we would love to help you out!
President & Founder, Tru Family Dental
Director of Development & Community Relations, Advocates for Children CASA
Communications Manager, Skillful
Director of Development, Denver CASA
President & Founder, Family Travel Association
Plug In Pest Free


text:
- © 2004 American Dental Education Association
Electronic curriculum, or E-curriculum, refers to computer-based learning including educational materials available on CD or DVD, online courses, electronic mechanisms to search the literature, email, and various applications of instructional technology including providing laptops to students, multimedia projection systems, and Internet-compatible classrooms. In spite of enthusiasm about the potential for E-curriculum to enhance dental education, there is minimal guidance in the literature to assist schools with implementation. The study objectives were: 1) identify U.S. and Canadian dental schools that have initiated mandatory laptop programs and assess cost, faculty development issues, extent of curricular use, problems, and qualitative perceptions; 2) determine the extent to which twenty-two other E-curriculum resources were available and used at North American dental schools; and 3) identify factors that influenced E-curriculum implementation. A twenty-six item questionnaire, known as the Electronic Curriculum Implementation Survey (ECIS), was mailed to all sixty-six North American dental schools (ten Canadian and fifty-six U.S. schools) during 2002–03 with a response rate of 100 percent. Twenty-five of the twenty-six ECIS questions employed a menu-driven, forced choice format, but respondents could provide amplifying comments. Fifty-three questionnaires were completed by associate deans for academic affairs, three by deans, and ten by instructional technology (IT) managers, IT committee chairs, or directors of dental informatics departments. The survey found that E-curriculum implementation among North American dental schools is following the classic innovation pattern in which a few early adopting institutions proceed rapidly while the majority of potential adopters make modifications slowly. Fourteen U.S. dental schools have established mandatory laptop programs for students. Ten of these laptop programs were created in the past two years; respondents reported numerous growing pains but were generally pleased with their progress. Other E-curriculum capabilities were incorporated into courses more frequently at laptop schools than the fifty-two non-laptop schools including websites, online course evaluations, and instructor use of email to communicate with students. Few dental schools use online courses, and at most schools, few faculty have received training in online instructional techniques. Virtually all North American dental schools have provided substantial instructional technology resources to their faculty, but use of twenty-two components and capabilities of E-curriculum was limited, especially at schools without laptop programs. Various faculty-related issues were reported as implementation barriers including lack of time, skill, and incentive to develop educational software. We conclude that many North American dental schools, especially those with laptop programs, are functioning at the "learn by doing" phase of initial implementation in a four-stage innovation adoption model. E-curriculum planners should pay close attention to implementation problems that occur at this stage where many innovation efforts break down.
Mr. Hendricson is Director, Division of Educational Research and Development, Department of Academic Informatics Services, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; Dr. Panagakos is Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; Dr. Eisenberg is Director, Dental Informatics, New York University College of Dentistry; Dr. McDonald is Associate Dean, Curriculum, Indiana University School of Dentistry; Dr. Guest is Director, Predoctoral Clinics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School of Dentistry; Dr. Jones is Assistant Dean for Administration, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine; Dr. Johnson is Director of Dental Informatics and Information Technology, University of Michigan School of Dentistry; and Ms. Cintron is Research Associate, Division of Educational Research and Development, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Direct correspondence to Mr. William Hendricson, Director, Division of Educational Research and Development, Department of Academic Informatics Services, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900; 210-567-2813 phone; 210-567-2813 fax; hendricson{at}uthscsa.edu. Reprints will not be available.
Electronic curriculum, or E-curriculum, refers to computer-based learning, including educational materials available to students by CD or DVD; online courses and web mechanisms used to search the literature; electronic systems used to enhance academic programs such as email; online testing and course evaluations; and various applications of instructional technology including providing laptops to students, multimedia projection systems, and Internet-compatible, wireless classrooms. A recent study of dental school curriculum innovation by Kassebaum et al. demonstrated there is a high level of interest among dental educators in E-curriculum.1 In the Kassebaum et al. study, 86 percent of North American dental schools reported that they had expanded use of instructional technology during the past three years for implementation of core curriculum, and 82 percent of schools desired to increase use of computer-based technology even further during the next three years.
A 2002 literature review performed by the lead author (WH) identified 558 English-language articles published from 1996 to 2002 that addressed some aspect of computer-assisted instruction in the health professions. A second search identified 317 English-language articles published from 1996 to 2002 that more specifically addressed online (web-based) learning in health professions education or educational materials made available by CD or DVD. The following sources were reviewed to identify this body of literature: MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Excerpta Medica, ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health), and LISA (Library and Information Science Abstracts). From both searches (which encompassed the terms "computer-based instruction," "multimedia instruction," and "Internet-based learning"), twenty-nine articles specifically reported some form of computer, multimedia, or web-based instruction in dental education. Among these, only two were literature reviews.2,3 The only previous literature review published before 1996 on E-curriculum in dental education that we could identify was by Cohen in 1992.4
The majority of the dental education E-curriculum articles fall into four categories: single course project descriptions without outcomes data, surveys of student computer literacy, surveys of student and faculty readiness for computer instruction, and surveys designed to elicit student or faculty attitudes about computer learning. None of the dental education E-curriculum articles provided anything more than anecdotal commentary about implementation issues. Thus, in spite of the enthusiasm among dental educators to integrate E-curriculum into their schools' curricula, there is minimal guidance in the literature to assist in their efforts to configure the infrastructure and resources of the institution to implement E-curriculum.
Goal and Rationale: IREC Project
The IREC Project (Institutional Readiness for Electronic Curriculum) is being implemented by the authors, who comprise the project steering committee, to help answer some of the questions facing dental schools desiring to expand use of E-curriculum. The IREC Project is funded by the American Dental Education Association's Council of Sections Project Pool. The steering committee consists of seven dental school faculty who have leadership roles in E-curriculum implementation at their schools. Four of the steering committee members have been actively involved in implementation of laptop and software programs associated with Vital Source Technologies, and two others have been involved in implementation of their schools' own laptop initiatives using locally produced curriculum support software.
The long-term goals of the IREC Project are to study E-curriculum infrastructure and implementation issues at North American dental schools, determine the degree to which various E-curriculum resources have been made available to faculty and students, and determine the level of utilization of these resources. The project is being implemented in three phases described in the methods section. Data derived will be used to create an inventory of implementation best practices, which includes an institutional readiness self-assessment instrument that can assist dental schools and other health professions education programs during the potentially rocky startup phase of E-curriculum. The purpose of the inventory is to allow schools to benefit from lessons learned at other institutions and avoid predictable pitfalls when attempting to introduce E-curriculum into the lives of students, teachers, support staff, and administrators.
Actually implementing a new innovation is the exciting part of the change process: it's personally rewarding and intellectually stimulating for the proponents of the change and often emotionally charged for other individuals who are assigned to implement the "new way of doing things." However, in spite of the excitement of the initial rollout of an innovation, the nature and level of preparation during the three to five preceding years are often more important in determining success or failure than the unique qualities of the innovation itself.5 The review of curriculum modification strategies, successes, and failures in health professions education by Bland et al. identified the institutional performance dip (i.e., drop in productivity) that typically accompanies efforts to introduce new educational methods and new organizational relationships in academic institutions.6 Research on organizational change and adoption of innovations indicates that reform or modernization efforts often fall apart during the temporary (usually two to three years') performance downswing that occurs while the reform is being incorporated into routine institutional operations and while employees (in this case, faculty) are learning the skills needed to meaningfully utilize new strategies or technologies.7–,10
Institutions that perform readiness preparation tasks are more likely to be successful than institutions that fail to proactively prepare for implementation.11–,14 Preparing to implement a change often involves these tasks: 1) conducting an assessment of institutional readiness for the change that will identify the infrastructure modifications needed to support the innovation during the ramp-up period (short-term) and integration phase (long-term); 2) making necessary infrastructure changes or enhancements; 3) redirecting revenue streams to provide adequate and sustainable budgetary support (including anticipating real costs and developing financial sources that will sustain the innovation); 4) providing professional development for faculty and support staff (i.e., training and retooling); 5) providing emotional and social support for staff threatened by change by building grassroots support that includes opportunities for employees (faculty) to participate in planning; 6) creating a realistic plan for phasing in the implementation; and 7) establishing a triage system to promptly cope with predictable implementation problems.9,13,14 Many reforms in higher education have been sidetracked or abandoned because of the frustration that builds up among faculty, students, and administrators during bungled attempts to introduce a curricular or infrastructure modification without pre-intervention planning.15–,18
Research on incorporation of new functions and methods into an established organization indicates that institutional assessment and organizational "tickler" systems (such as best practices reminders) are effective strategies for modifying environment and structure in ways that will support the innovation.19–,20 The IREC Inventory is designed to serve as an infrastructure tickler system for dental school E-curriculum planners. The path to the IREC Inventory involves three phases as described below.
The study protocol was approved as exempted research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) on September 12, 2001 (UTHSCSA IRB Protocol # E-012-017).
Three Phases of the Study
The IREC study consisted of three phases. Phase one was the previously described literature review on implementation of electronic curriculum in health professions education. This review was conducted from January through March 2002 to guide study design and identify areas of emphasis for phases two and three.
During phase two, which was conducted during the 2002–03 academic year, the Electronic Curriculum Implementation Survey (ECIS) was developed and administered to all North American dental schools to accomplish three objectives: 1) identify the U.S. and Canadian dental schools that have initiated mandatory laptop programs and assess implementation in terms of cost, faculty development issues, extent of curricular use, problems, and qualitative perceptions; 2) determine the extent to which twenty-two other E-curriculum resources were available at U.S. and Canadian dental schools in 2002-03 and determine the degree to which these resources were used to implement curricula; and 3) identify factors that influenced E-curriculum implementation.
A school was designated as having a laptop program if they had one of the following policies: 1) required students to enroll with their own laptop that met hardware and software specifications dictated by the school, 2) required students to purchase or lease a laptop from the school at the time of matriculation, or 3) provided a laptop to students without charge. In addition, a laptop program may or may not involve students' mandatory purchase of curriculum support software (for example, the Vital Books DVD created by Vital Source Technologies [VST], which was the principle vendor-produced dental school curriculum resource available at the time of this study). The data derived from the ECIS are presented in the results section of this article.
Based on the ECIS responses provided by each school, sixteen dental schools that have made a major commitment to E-curriculum were identified for in-depth investigation in phase 3, which was conducted during January-May 2004. The four selection criteria used to identify the major commitment schools were: 1) students are required to purchase/lease a laptop (with or without associated educational software) and/or 2) more than 33 percent of courses are web-based and use online course evaluations, 3) at least 33 percent of faculty have received training in how to develop online courses with a course management system such as BlackBoard or WebCT, and 4) school has access to an instructional technology unit on campus.
Fourteen of the sixteen schools selected for the phase 3 study operated laptop programs in 2002–03, and the two other schools did not have a laptop program but reported extensive use of online instruction, high levels of faculty training, and access to an instructional technology support unit. For the recently completed phase 3, approximately 1,000 students, 300 course directors, and fifty E-curriculum managers (IT policy makers) at these major commitment schools submitted detailed questionnaires. The student questionnaire consisted of sixty-seven items; the course director questionnaire consisted of seventy-five items; and the E-curriculum manager questionnaire contained twenty-five items. Results of the IREC phase 3 study of the sixteen dental schools with a major commitment to E-curriculum will be reported in a subsequent article.
ECIS (Electronic Curriculum Implementation Survey)
The ECIS was a twenty-six item questionnaire designed to assess the level of electronic curriculum resources and use at U.S. and Canadian dental schools during the 2002–03 academic year. The IREC Project Steering Committee developed the ECIS in April-August 2002, based on results of the literature review and recommendations of the committee members, each of whom had substantial experience and leadership responsibilities for instructional technology in their schools.
Twenty-five of the twenty-six ECIS questions employed a menu-driven, forced-choice format, but respondents were requested to provide amplifying or clarifying comments for most of the questions. The ECIS was originally distributed in a paper-pencil format. Preliminary versions of the ECIS were critiqued by two Ph.D.-level evaluation specialists with expertise in survey development and were completed by ten dental school faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio to identify unclear directions, questions, or response options. After revisions based on feedback from the survey specialists and faculty, the ECIS was completed by four associate deans and five instructional technology coordinators at medical schools, allied health schools, and nursing schools. These individuals provided additional feedback and recommendations for questionnaire design and wording of questions. Steering committee members also reviewed the ECIS during its development and provided suggestions for improvement.
The final version of the ECIS included questions in two areas:
Laptop Programs.
Questions 1–22 focused on the implementation details of mandatory laptop programs, including questions on purchase, lease, or rent arrangements; cost to students; training activities; types, sources, and costs of educational software provided with the laptops; why the school created a laptop program; degree to which the laptop and associated software are integrated into the curriculum; identification of implementation barriers; and qualitative perceptions of value. Schools that did not report existence of a laptop program were asked if they planned to implement such a program in the future.
Other Electronic Curriculum Support.
Questions 23 and 24 asked respondents to indicate the level of use of twenty-two capacities and features of E-curriculum that are commonly recommended in the literature for enhancing educational quality or enhancing a school's instructional technology infrastructure. In question 23, respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of courses at their schools that used ten commonly recommended instructional enhancement capabilities such as "course has a website with schedule, lecture outlines, evaluation information"; "course has web-based learning activities such as case simulations, mock exams, or self-assessment activities"; or "uses web-based (online) course evaluations." Question 24 asked respondents to indicate if twelve E-curriculum infrastructure support mechanisms existed at their school such as "online course registration and grade assignment"; "students have email accounts paid by the school"; or "students have Internet access in the classroom by accessible jacks or a wireless system." Question 25 asked respondents to indicate the percentage of faculty who had received training in how to use online course management systems such as BlackBoard and WebCT, and question 26 requested recommendations related to implementation of E-curriculum in dental schools.
Using a mailing list obtained from the American Dental Education Association, a package containing the ECIS, a cover letter explaining the project objectives, and an IREC information sheet approved by the UTHSCSA Institutional Review Board was mailed in October 2002 to the associate dean for academic affairs (ADAA) at each U.S. and Canadian dental school. The cover memo requested that the ADAA complete the questionnaire jointly with the school's instructional technology manager, if such an individual existed, or requested that the IT manager complete the survey if the ADAA was not comfortable doing so. Two rounds of follow-up mail-outs ultimately produced a 100 percent response by March 2003 from the sixty-six North American dental schools, including the newest schools at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health.
Fifty-three questionnaires were completed by ADAAs, three by the schools' dean, and ten by individuals in the following roles: IT manager, faculty who served as chairs of IT committees, and chairs of dental informatics departments. A summary of the results of the ECIS was mailed to all sixty-six North American dental schools in July 2003. The data reported in the following section are purely descriptive given the exploratory nature of the study objectives.
Responses to the ECIS are described by reporting either raw numbers and/or percentages. The question is presented, followed by a summary of the responses to that item. In some cases, results for interrelated questions are presented together. The number of responses to ECIS items varied based on whether or not the school had a laptop program. Twelve to fourteen schools responded to questions 1–19; fifty-one schools responded to questions 21 and 22; and there were sixty-four to sixty-six responses to items 23–25. Many questions asked respondents to consider a list of options in order to answer. In some instances, a truncated version of the original ECIS question is used in the text below for brevity purposes. Results for question 13 (what is the annual cost of laptop and associated software?) are not presented because the responses to question 14 provide essentially the same information. Tables 6⇓ and 8⇓ compare responses from the fourteen laptop schools and the fifty-two schools without a laptop program.
Questions 1 and 2: Are your students required to matriculate in school with their own laptop that meets configuration specifications dictated by the school? - OR - Does your dental school have a program in which students are required to obtain a laptop after they enroll?
Fourteen of the sixty-six dental schools (21 percent) reported that, during the 2002–03 academic year, incoming freshman students were either required to enroll with a laptop that met school-dictated specifications (thirteen schools) or were expected to obtain a laptop after matriculation (one school). Seven of these fourteen laptop schools had contractual agreements with VST to provide curriculum support software.
Questions 3 and 4: Which of the options below best describes how students obtain a laptop? and, If your students lease the laptop, which one of the following options best describes the terms of the lease arrangement?
For questions 3 and 4, respondents were requested to identify how their students acquired laptops from a list of options. ECIS respondents reported a variety of arrangements by which their students obtained laptops. Eight of the fourteen schools with a laptop program reported that their students were required to purchase a laptop from the university at the time of enrollment. At three schools, students could enroll with a laptop they acquired themselves that met school specifications. Two respondents indicated that incoming students leased the laptop from their schools with an option to purchase the laptop with a final payment (i.e., lease with an option to buy). One school reported that they provided laptops to freshmen without charge (i.e., at school expense).
Question 5: If the laptop is leased or purchased, is participation in this laptop program required of all students or is participation optional?
Fourteen schools reported that they operated a required laptop program when responding to question 1, but two respondents indicated that participation was optional when answering question 5. The other twelve schools reported that student participation in the laptop program was mandatory throughout the curriculum.
Question 6: How many years has your school had a laptop program in which students are required to lease or purchase a laptop or to provide their own laptop that complies with certain specifications?
Most of the schools reported limited experience with their laptop program. Ten schools reported one to two years of experience with their laptop program, and four schools had three to five years of experience.
Questions 7 and 8: Does the laptop, whether provided, leased, or purchased, include educational materials (software) to assist the students' learning? And, If educational software is available for students to use with their laptops, how were these materials acquired?
Twelve of the schools provided curriculum software (educational materials) to their students in conjunction with the laptops. Two schools reported that their students received the laptop without any accompanying educational software. Eight of the twelve schools that provided curriculum software reported that their materials consisted of both faculty-produced items and materials purchased from commercial vendors. Three schools provided materials primarily produced by commercial vendors, and one school provided software primarily produced by their faculty.
Question 9: Which of the following statements best describes the process for development of educational software for laptops within your school by your faculty?
At six schools with laptop programs, individual faculty developed educational software for students at their own initiative. Respondents from six other schools indicated that faculty created materials at their own initiative, but they also had a "coordinated program to develop materials in certain key areas of the curriculum." Write-in responses indicated that three of the schools with a coordinated development program relied heavily on the Vital Books software provided by VST.
Question 10: From the list of options below, select the two most typical methods for paying for educational software development within your school.
Respondents could select more than one method for funding software development when answering this question. The top three mechanisms for financing educational software development at the laptop schools were: funds provided by the dean's office, departments absorbed the costs of development, and faculty use their own time and resources to create software for their courses. Other funding mechanisms reported by some respondents included small grants from the parent university, budget support provided by the campus instructional technology unit, and grants obtained from external sources by faculty.
Questions 11 and 12: Do your students pay for the educational software produced locally by your faculty that is provided with their laptops? And, Do your students pay for educational software acquired from commercial vendors that is provided with their laptops?
Although two schools reported in question 7 that they did not provide curriculum software to their students, thirteen respondents answered questions 11 and 12. Eight schools did not require students to pay for software locally produced by the faculty, while five schools indicated that students paid a fee to obtain some or all of the locally produced educational software. For software acquired from commercial vendors, ten of the laptop schools required students to pay some type of fee, which varied considerably among schools based on write-in descriptions of these fees. Three schools charged no student fees for commercially produced educational materials.
Question 14: Which of the following best approximates the total cost (across all four years) for students for your laptop program including the laptop cost (leased or purchased) and software used with the laptop?
As indicated in Table 1⇓, response options for question 14 ranged from "no cost to student" to "more than $9,000." Total student costs varied widely from school to school. The most frequently reported four-year costs were $2,100 to $4,000 (five schools) and $6,100 to $9,000 (four schools). One respondent reported that the school picked up the expenses of their laptop program and associated software completely and no costs were passed on to students. Five of the six schools that reported total costs in excess of $6,100 had contracts with VST during the 2002–03 academic year to supply the Vital Books software.
Question 15: Which of the following reasons best describe "why" your school decided to implement a laptop program for your students?
For this question, respondents were asked to identify all items that applied from among fifteen reasons for creating a laptop program. Reasons selected by ten or more of the fourteen laptop schools were: enrich the curriculum (all fourteen schools), enhance student learning (thirteen schools), make learning more efficient (eleven), provide opportunities for faculty innovation (eleven), increase students' information technology skills (eleven), improve student-faculty communication (ten), respond to student expectations for information technology (ten), and provide a more stimulating learning environment (ten).
Question 16: Which of these statements best describe the extent to which faculty have changed their approach to teaching as a result of the laptop program and associated educational software?
For this question, respondents were asked to answer in terms of the "core" teaching faculty who deliver the bulk of the curriculum (i.e., course directors and faculty with heavy teaching loads). The most frequently selected response was "a few of our core teaching faculty have significantly changed their methods" (nine schools). Four respondents selected "most of our core faculty have made tweaks in their methods," and one respondent selected "most of our core teaching faculty have significantly changed their methods." Write-in comments from several respondents indicated that they had not made a systematic effort to assess the impact of the laptop program on teaching or learning methods, and thus their estimation of change was based on personal impressions.
Question 17: To what extent is the laptop program and associated educational software integrated into the core curriculum at your dental school?
To answer this question, respondents were provided four options: "not much at all," "in a few courses," "in some courses," and "extensively throughout the curriculum." Thirteen of the fourteen respondents selected either "in some courses" (seven) or "extensively throughout the curriculum" (six). One school reported "in a few courses," and no respondent selected "not much at all."
Question 18: From your perspective, what have been the most significant implementation problems for the laptop program at your dental school?
For question 18, respondents were asked to identify all problems encountered at their school from among seventeen potential implementation barriers. As indicated in Table 2⇓, three items were identified by at least half of the laptop schools: "faculty lack time to develop educational software" (eleven schools), "faculty lack skills to develop educational software" (eight schools), and "faculty have not modified their courses, teaching, or assessment methods to take advantage of the capabilities of the laptops and software" (seven schools).
Question 19: Up to this point, how would you rate your experience with the laptop program at your dental school?
Five response options were available for this question: "poor," "in general, not positive," "ok, but it needs work," "generally positive," and "excellent." As shown in Table 3⇓, assessment of the laptop experience was skewed toward the positive end of the scale. Ten respondents selected "excellent" or "generally positive," while the other four responses were "it's okay, but needs work." As demonstrated in Table 4⇓, ratings of the laptop program were not associated with student costs. For example, the eight schools that rated their experience as "generally positive" reported student costs ranging from $2,100 to more than $9,000.
Question 20: If you could make one "lessons learned" recommendation to other dental schools concerning laptop programs, what would it be?
Eleven respondents provided "lessons learned" recommendations related to implementation of a laptop program. Eight of these recommendations emphasized the importance of training the faculty in advance of the laptop program rollout about how to incorporate the communication capacities of the laptop and the educational software into their day-to-day teaching. Several respondents observed that far more attention was devoted to preparing students for the laptop at their schools than was devoted to the faculty. The other three recommendations discussed the need for a reliable support system (such as providing prompt hardware repair and fixing software glitches).
Questions 21–22: We do not currently have a laptop program, but plan to implement such a program in the next two academic years. And, We do not currently have a laptop program, but are evaluating whether we want to implement such a program. Respondents answered items 21 and 22 with either "yes" or "no."
Fifty-one of the fifty-two schools that did not have a laptop program in 2002–03 answered questions 21 and 22 about their future plans. Four schools reported that they planned to implement a laptop program in the next two academic years, and thirty-two schools reported that they were evaluating the possibility of implementing a laptop program.
Question 23: Please indicate your best estimate of the percentage of courses in your dental school that currently have the following E-curriculum components.
In question 23, respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of courses at their schools that used ten instructional enhancement capabilities that involve E-curriculum such as websites, online coursework, or electronic course evaluations. These ten E-curriculum components and attributes were included in the survey because they have been frequently advocated in the instructional technology literature as being potentially advantageous to the teaching/learning process.21 The response options were: 10 percent or less, 11 percent to 33 percent, 34 percent to 66 percent, and 67 percent to 100 percent. Table 5⇓ presents the responses to this question.
The three E-curriculum components most frequently reported to exist in at least one-third of courses were: "instructor uses email to communicate with students" (existed in at least one-third of courses at 36/66 schools), "web-based course evaluation" (23/66 schools), and "course has website with schedule, lecture outlines, and course information" (23/66 schools). Overall, respondents reported that many of the ten E-curriculum components were not used frequently in the majority of courses at their schools. For example, the following E-curriculum components were reported to exist in less than 10 percent of courses: online courses (fifty-seven schools), online case simulations, mock exams or self-assessment tests (thirty-eight schools), online course manuals (fifty-six schools), Internet chatrooms (fifty-six schools), and electronic testing at websites or computer stations (fifty-three schools). Table 6⇓ compares the use of these ten E-curriculum components between the fourteen laptop schools and the fifty-two schools without laptop programs. E-curriculum components more likely to be used at laptop schools than at non-laptop schools included course websites, optional resource materials available on the web, online course evaluations, instructors' use of email to communicate with students, and CD/DVD resource materials placed in a library or media center.
Question 24: Which of the following schoolwide electronic curriculum support mechanisms currently exist at your dental school?
Question 24 asked respondents to assess implementation of twelve E-curriculum infrastructure support mechanisms, which essentially involve installation of computers, multimedia projection systems, and schoolwide electronic communication systems. Examples of these infrastructure support mechanisms include "online course registration and grade assignment," "students have email accounts paid by the school," and "students have Internet access in the classroom by accessible jacks or a wireless system." The response options were: "yes, we have this"; "it's currently in development"; and "no, don't have this." As demonstrated in Table 7⇓, the respondents reported that their schools had provided a wide array of electronic infrastructure for students and faculty. Only two of the infrastructure items were available at less than half of schools: electronic course registration and grade assignment (thirty-two schools had this in 2002–03, and ten were developing this function), and students have convenient Internet access in classrooms (thirty-one schools had this capacity but sixteen reported it as under development at the time of the survey). At least forty schools reported they already had the other ten infrastructure items.
Table 8⇓ compares the use of these twelve E-curriculum infrastructure support mechanisms between the fourteen laptop schools and the fifty-two schools without laptop programs. The laptop schools were more likely than the non-laptop schools to have the following electronic curriculum infrastructure: electronic course registration and grade assignment (laptop = 78 percent; non-laptop = 60 percent); Internet access for students in classrooms (laptop = 93 percent; non-laptop = 65 percent); Internet access in clinic for students and faculty (laptop = 100 percent; non-laptop = 75 percent); dedicated server for online courses (laptop = 78 percent; non-laptop = 60 percent); and staff or faculty who function as a web course manager (laptop = 86 percent; non-laptop = 69 percent).
Question 25: What percentage of your faculty have received training in Blackboard or WebCT?
The response options and respondent answers for this question were: less than 10 percent (twenty-seven schools), 11 percent to 33 percent (nineteen schools), 34 percent to 66 percent (eleven schools), and 67 percent to 100 percent (nine schools). Eight of the nine respondents that selected 67 to 100 percent represented schools with a laptop program. Conversely, only one of the laptop schools was among the twenty-seven schools that reported that 10 percent or less of faculty had received training in online teaching methods.
Question 26: Please provide recommendations related to implementation of E-curriculum in dental schools.
Twenty-four of the survey respondents (36 percent) provided a total of thirty-one write-in recommendations in response to question 26. Seven recommendations stressed the need to establish infrastructure that provides prompt and reliable equipment maintenance and software troubleshooting. Six recommendations emphasized the importance of providing faculty development including strategies to minimize teacher "phobia" about instructional technology. Six respondents recommended creation of a reward system for faculty who desire to create educational software. Five write-in responses discussed the importance of developing an overall E-curriculum vision for the school that was broader than just focusing on laptops, which one respondent described as "just being a piece of hardware" and another described as "only a delivery medium." Four other responses addressed teachers' lack of time to create software, but provided no recommendations. Three comments identified faculty resistance as a problem, but also provided no recommendations.
A 100 percent response was obtained from the sixty-six North American dental schools, but the data most often represent the perceptions of one individual at each institution—typically, the associate dean for academic affairs. Through comments written on the surveys when they were returned and follow-up communication to clarify information provided, we determined that a number of the respondents did indeed collaborate with other faculty, often the schools' IT manager, when completing the survey. However, in many cases, the responses reflected the viewpoint of a single person within the school, albeit an individual who had responsibility for overall curriculum coordination and thus was in a "position to know" in regard to E-curriculum implementation. Of course, the sole source dilemma is often the situation with survey-based research, but readers are encouraged to consider the data in light of this limitation and also to remember that the data reflect the instructional technology environment at dental schools in the 2002–03 academic year. E-curriculum strategies have evolved rapidly in health professions education and will continue to do so; thus the lay of the land at a particular school may be different now than it was just twelve to eighteen months ago. We compared the responses from the ten Canadian schools and the fifty-six U.S. schools and identified few differences worth reporting with one exception: as noted previously, none of the Canadian schools reported a laptop program.
Objectives of the Survey
The objectives of the Electronic Curriculum Implementation Survey (ECIS) were to: 1) identify how many U.S. and Canadian dental schools have initiated mandatory laptop programs and assess implementation in terms of cost, faculty development issues, extent of curricular use, problems, and qualitative perceptions; 2) determine the extent to which various other E-curriculum resources were available and used at dental schools in 2002–03; and 3) identify factors that influenced E-curriculum implementation. The discussion is organized around these three objectives followed by a review of an innovation adoption model to help provide a context for interpreting the ECIS data.
Objective 1: Identify how many U.S. and Canadian dental schools have initiated mandatory laptop programs, and assess implementation in terms of cost, faculty development issues, extent of curricular use, problems, and qualitative perceptions.
Fourteen U.S. schools self-identified that they had a required laptop program during 2002–03. Thirteen schools reported that their students were required to enroll in school with their own laptop that met configuration specifications, and one school reported that their students could purchase or lease a laptop after they enrolled. The cost to students varied widely among the schools. Among the six schools that reported the highest student expense, five were associated with Vital Source Technology at the time of the survey. There did not appear to be a relationship between student cost (which might be considered as an indicator of the sophistication of the hardware and software) and the respondents' satisfaction with the program. Several respondents at laptop schools indicated that the program was already substantially integrated into the curriculum even though ten of the schools had only one or two years' experience with this effort. Respondents from ten laptop schools also said that some of their core faculty (e.g., course directors) had already made major changes in teaching methods. These generally positive "curriculum integration" responses from the laptop schools were not consistent with responses to other questions on the ECIS designed to assess use of other E-curriculum resources.
Many of the implementation barriers identified for laptop programs started with the word "faculty." Not surprisingly, lack of faculty time and skill to develop educational software were the primary barriers, along with reluctance to modify courses to take advantage of E-curriculum capabilities. These responses are similar to the results of many other studies that have identified barriers to electronic curriculum implementation.22 The majority of the lessons learned recommendations from respondents at the laptop schools emphasized the need for more effective faculty preparation, with emphasis on raising awareness of how to incorporate various E-curriculum capacities into day-to-day teaching. In spite of the numerous implementation barriers that were identified, respondents from the fourteen schools with laptop programs expressed basically positive quality ratings of their experience so far. Only two schools rated the experience as "excellent," but no schools rated the experience as "poor."
In summary, the responses to the ECIS questions that addressed laptop programs suggest that most of the fourteen schools that have embarked on this endeavor are relatively pleased with their progress. Four other schools reported that they were planning to introduce a mandatory laptop program, but we are not aware that any of these schools have actually done so in the time period since the ECIS data was collected.
Objective 2: Determine the extent to which various other electronic curriculum resources were available at U.S. and Canadian dental schools in 2002–03 and determine the degree to which these resources were used to implement the curriculum.
The majority of dental schools have provided their faculty and students with access to numerous instructional technology infrastructure support mechanisms such as those listed in Table 7⇑. For example, all sixty-six schools reported that their classrooms are equipped to handle contemporary information technology such as data projectors and laptops at classroom podiums. All sixty-six schools reported that they have a computer/multimedia laboratory at their campus. All but one school reported that students have email accounts paid for by the school, and all sixty-six schools reported that their faculty have email accounts paid for by the school. Fifty-two dental schools have a school intranet for internal communication and curriculum support, and six others are developing this capacity. All but eight schools have Internet and school intranet access at classroom podiums.
For ten E-curriculum components that have been frequently advocated as potential instructional enhancements, such as websites, online coursework, electronic course evaluations, and other items listed in Table 5⇑, the overall level of use was low. For example, fifty-seven of the sixty-six schools reported that 10 percent or less of courses are web-based, which was one of the more surprising findings in this study. Only three of these components—online course evaluations, teacher-student email communication, and course websites—were used with any degree of frequency. However, even these were used in a small percentage of courses at most schools. For example, forty-two schools reported that less than one-third of their courses had websites, and forty-one schools reported that less than one-third of courses used online course evaluations. In contrast, an online survey administered in 2002 by Andrews and Demps found that 31 percent of approximately 400 faculty from an unknown number of dental schools reported that they used web-based learning in their courses.23 However, the Andrews and Demps study used different terminology and defined web-based learning more broadly than in this study which may, in part, account for some of the difference in findings. For example, Andrews and Demps included such items as "communication by email," "web resources," and "communication by bulletin board" as components of web-based learning, but these were listed as distinct E-curriculum components in the ECIS.
Not surprisingly, the laptop schools reported generally higher levels of instructional technology infrastructure and more frequent use of certain instructional enhancements provided by E-curriculum than the non-laptop schools. Taken as a whole, the data suggest that the overall impact of these E-curriculum resources, in terms of changing teaching and assessment methods, has been limited to this point, especially for the fifty-two non-laptop schools. On the other hand, six of the fourteen laptop schools reported that their laptop initiative and associated educational software had been extensively integrated throughout the curriculum. Thus, E-curriculum implementation among North American dental schools appears to be following the classic organizational change pattern in which a few early adopting institutions proceed rapidly with implementation while the majority of potential adopters make modifications slowly.24
Objective 3: Identify factors that influenced E-curriculum implementation.
One ECIS question addressed this question in relation to laptop programs, and one addressed implementation factors in relation to the overall use of E-curriculum. Responses from the fourteen laptop schools indicated that the primary implementation factor could be stated in one word: "faculty," in terms of lack of time and skill and apparent reticence to change teaching habits. The lessons learned recommendations stressed the need to enhance training for faculty, and several respondents noted that far more attention had been paid to student training than teacher training. Factors identified by respondents related to E-curriculum in a broad sense were consistent with numerous previous assessments of implementation issues in secondary and university education.25 These factors include providing reliable technical support, creating mechanisms to help faculty create software, providing faculty training, and establishing meaningful rewards for course retooling efforts.
Transfer of New Ideas and Operating Routines Within Complex Organizations
As most dental educators realize, one of the more perilous adventures in academia is the process of introducing a "new way of doing things" into complex organizations, such as dental schools, that have multiple and competing missions and many perspectives among the faculty about the relative importance of these missions and how best to accomplish them. Szulanski described four distinct stages in the transfer of both knowledge and operational strategies (methods or routines) within complex organizations.26 Figure 1⇓ is a model based on these transfer concepts and provides a framework for assessing "where we're at" in the process of incorporating E-curriculum into dental education.
Transfer is the process by which an organization recreates and then strives to maintain a new set of functional routines to accomplish one of its missions. For example, a new functional routine related to the educational mission of a dental school could be providing instruction via online courses rather than classroom lectures. The four stages of the transfer process (which is often referred to as organizational learning27) are initiation, initial implementation efforts (often called "first day of use"), ramp-up to satisfactory performance, and integration with other already established routines, in other words, institutionalization.
The initiation stage of the transfer process is usually triggered by one or more of the following: a catalytic event that typically reflects poorly on the institution,28 the arrival of a persuasive new leader skilled in orchestrating change,29 and/or the availability of new technologies that competitors are adopting or at least perceived to be adopting.30 During the initiation phase, the organization, by various means, makes a decision to move ahead with implementing "a new way of doing things" and commences preliminary planning.
The initial implementation of a new routine first involves "learning before doing" that consists of frequent planning meetings among a small group of advocates (often called the inner circle) and conducting experiments with small numbers of subjects in artificial conditions.31 These planning sessions and experiments are conducted to try to anticipate what might happen when the new procedure is implemented throughout the organization. Learning before doing is followed by "learning by doing" when the new routine is unveiled for actual use by many other individuals in the organization; this is the proverbial first day of use. Much of the learning by doing stage is consumed with recognition and resolution of unexpected problems that arise during early efforts to implement by individuals who were not centrally involved in planning. The larger group of individuals in an organization who were outside the loop during planning (often called the outer circle) may not share the assumptions, motivation, and skills of the advocacy group, and thus may encounter difficulties in using the new routine and, in an academic environment, may have the option to simply ignore it. Generally, innovation efforts sink or swim during the often-protracted learning by doing phase of initial implementation.26
Transfer efforts that survive initial implementation evolve into the ramp-up phase, which can span several years as the organization attempts to gradually improve implementation by successive approximation and to produce success stories that justify the effort and motivate individuals on the sidelines (late adopters) to join the effort. The ramp-up phase hopefully will blend seamlessly into the integration phase, when the new routine is no longer perceived as new but is now absorbed into the organizational culture and the psyche of employees as the standard and accepted operational procedure. Depending on the complexity and corresponding threat levels of the innovation, it may take an organization many years to fully complete this four-stage transfer process.
According to Szulanski, the concept of "stickiness," which represents the difficulties that can be experienced during the four phases of re-creating operational routines, is critical to prospectively anticipating pitfalls and retrospectively identifying why an innovation effort failed (i.e., why the effort became stuck).32 The three primary sources of stickiness at the initiation stage are related to lack of attentiveness to the operational environment of the organization, known as "slack searching": failure to recognize the need to improve routines and performance, failure to recognize opportunities to make improvements, and failure to identify superior techniques that could be adopted. The four sources of stickiness during initial implementation are: 1) ineffective communication between the inner circle advocates and the other members of the organization who comprise the outer circle; 2) lack of motivation among the outer circle who are expected to "carry the ball" during adoption of the new routine; 3) failure to prepare the outer circle for new tasks and roles, which in the academic environment is essentially a faculty development issue; and 4) failure to provide encouragement, tangible rewards, and emotional support for the outer circle, especially as they struggle with the predictable "first day" implementation pitfalls. There are two sources of stickiness during the phase of ramping-up toward satisfactory performance.33 The first sticking point is failure to respond quickly to emerging problems before they get out of hand and thus become too complex to resolve easily. The second area of stickiness during ramp-up, often intertwined with the first sticking point, is institutionalization of faulty practice. If ineffective strategies for using new routines are allowed to linger too long they become increasingly difficult to correct. Stickiness during the final integration stage occurs when the inner circle planning team does not remain diligent in recognizing and then addressing the obstacles and challenges that will inevitably emerge even after several years of implementation.34
Reflection on the ECIS data reported in this article suggests that the fourteen dental schools that have created laptop programs are functioning in the "learning by doing" component of initial implementation. The priority in this stage is to detect and promptly resolve unanticipated bumps in the road that arise during the first use efforts. In the academic setting, a schoolwide rollout of an innovation such as a laptop program requires cooperation and skilled performance by many outer circle faculty who were not centrally involved in planning. However, these individuals may or may not be well trained, may or may not perceive the advantages of the laptop in the same way as the inner circle advocates, and may or may not have the same motivation and enthusiasm to "make it work" as the core planning group. The four areas of stickiness associated with learning by doing in initial implementation were all mentioned by ECIS respondents in their lessons learned recommendations. The fifty-two schools that do not have a mandatory laptop program have also provided impressive instructional technology for their faculty, but the instruction-enhancing capacities of these technologies are not widely used, suggesting that the sources of stickiness that arise during initial implementation particularly need to be addressed in these schools.
So what does all this mean? Dental schools planning future roll-outs of E-curriculum should review Figure 1⇑ and make plans to address the areas of stickiness likely to occur throughout the implementation process with a particular focus on providing outer circle faculty with training, rewards, and emotional support during the learning by doing phase.
The fourteen North American dental schools that have established mandatory laptop programs are functioning as early adopters of E-curriculum. In addition to the laptops and associated software, other E-curriculum capabilities are more likely to be incorporated into courses at the laptop schools than at the non-laptop schools including websites, online course evaluations, and instructors' use of email to communicate course information to students. Many of the laptop programs were in their infancy at the time of the study (less than two years of experience) and respondents reported predictable growing pains, but overall the laptop schools appear to be relatively pleased with their progress. Few dental schools are making extensive use of online courses, and at most schools, few faculty have received training in online instructional techniques.
It is apparent that virtually all North American dental schools have made substantial efforts to provide instructional technology resources to their faculty in the past several years, but overall use of more than twenty components and capabilities of E-curriculum by faculty is low. These results suggest that many dental schools, especially those with laptop programs, are functioning at the learning by doing phase of initial implementation in the innovation adoption model. E-curriculum planners should play close attention to the sources of stickiness (problems) at this stage because research on innovation adoption suggests that efforts to introduce a new way of doing things often collapse at this point in the process.
The study reported in this paper was supported by the American Dental Education Association's Council of Sections Project Pool.
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.


text:
ELMHURST, Ill. – South Dakota junior guard Allison Arens was named Summit League Women's Basketball Player of the Week for her performances, Nov. 13-19.
Allison Arens, South Dakota
Jr. // G // Crofton, Neb.
- Earned her third career Player of the Week award and first this season
- Opened the week with 19 points on 4-of-9 shooting with six rebounds and two steals in a win over Big East foe Creighton
- 15 of her 19 points against the Bluejays came in crunch time during the fourth quarter
- Added 13 points with nine rebounds and a pair of steals in the road victory at Wichita State
- For the week, averaged 16 points, 7.5 rebounds, 2.0 steals and 1.0 assist per game, while shooting 90.5 percent (19-of-21) from the free throw line
Also nominated: Jaelencia Williams, Fort Wayne; Sarah Jacobson, North Dakota State; Amber Vidal, Omaha; Macy Miller, South Dakota State; Emily Clemens, Western Illinois
Previous honorees: Nov. 13 – Macy Miller, South Dakota State
Through 35 years of Division I athletics, The Summit League features men's basketball teams from eight member institutions: Denver, Fort Wayne, North Dakota State, Omaha, Oral Roberts, South Dakota, South Dakota State and Western Illinois with North Dakota becoming an official member for the 2018-19 season. In 2016-17, The Summit League raised its RPI for the third consecutive year, finishing with an all-time best No. 11 ranking. The Summit League has sent at least three teams to the postseason nine straight years with three postseason tournament semifinal appearances the last four years, while recording the nation's best Division I winning percentage improvement since 2009-10. Called "March's Best-Kept Secret" by USA Today, The Summit League Basketball Championships annually ranks as one of the most attended Division I conference tournaments. This season's event returns to the Denny Sanford PREMIER Center in Sioux Falls, S.D., March 3-6, 2018. For more information about the league, "See The Summit" by visiting www.thesummitleague.org and following Summit League Basketball on Twitter @summithoops.