We have long been proponents of thoughtful dialog on campuses about key
trends in technology and learning. Especially when it comes to doing the
hard work of targeting programs, practices, and policies toward improving
and expanding learning, we argue that leaders are called not only to allow,
but also to engage these conversations.
When
these conversations are left to chance they are all too often dominated
by loud voices. One set of loud voices rings from the “caustic cynics.”
These fellow educators are almost always against change, no matter the
issue or the innovation—often to the point of irrationality. When
asked, most college employees can trip the names of the caustic cynics
off their tongues with little or no effort. Another set of equally loud
voices bursts from the “true believers.” In their zest to
support their cause they will scream from the rooftops to all who will
give them audience. Over time, most true believers over-promise and under-deliver,
cutting the credibility of change initiatives.
To
avoid this all-too-common dialectic dialog of dogmatic diatribes, leaders
should seize the initiative and create venues for the less angry or innovation-enamored
educators—practitioners who are, after all, just as concerned about
the health and welfare of the institution—to join meaningful conversations.
This strategy is essential to develop a thoughtful and nimble college
culture ready to take on critical challenges and new trends.
A
useful tool in these conversations is a framework for discussion. In our
work with colleges nationwide and in supporting one of the largest technology
conferences in higher education—the League for Innovation’s
Conference on Information Technology—we have worked over
the last year to create a framework based on major trends, choices, and
issues that interested and engaged educators can use to begin their dialogue.
Most of these issues fall into two categories: in your face or
on the horizon. Those that are in your face, you are likely already
dealing with in some way, wrestling with formalizing plans of action or
sharing lessons learned. Those on the horizon are also likely being dealt
with in some way, but as a field we are less clear about how we will handle
these issues. We have piloted this framework with several groups, and
most find it a very useful tool for exploring today’s issues, particularly
when combined with a deep commitment to make any solutions or decisions
work toward the primary end of enabling the college to improve and expand
learning.
In Your Face
• Return vs. Investment
Most of our technology advocacy discussions in the last few years have
centered on the investment in technology to improve learning and service
to students. “If you build it, they will come,” was often
the mantra used to support large-scale Internet learning efforts such
as Western Governors University and U.S. Open University. The conversations
are increasingly turning—particularly in a down economy—to
return on investment, with a major focus both on efficiency and effectiveness.
Boards, legislators, and the more humanistic faculty are asking whether
we are better served by budget allocations for high-profile technology
or high-touch faculty and counselors. Decision makers are now asking for
outcomes measures that document results from multimillion-dollar investments.
Of course, some benefits are not easily measured, and other investments
really are a modern cost of entry into education (can you imagine a college
without a website?). Still, more often than not, educational decision
makers will act less like venture capitalists.
•
Ubiquity vs. Specialization
For many years, technology advocates have argued the equivalent of a trickle-down-theory
version of technology adoption. Give the best, brightest, and most motivated
faculty and staff the technology tools and goodness will flow to the institution.
There is an increasing call, however, to change this philosophy, which
sadly can lead to exacerbating the true-believer control of budgets and
isolated, high-end technology efforts with little application to the college
as a whole. One college administrator asked the question this way, “Do
we want 80 percent of our instructional technology budget to support 10
percent of our students (pure-play online learners) who have a 200 percent
higher dropout rate?” The answer in this college’s case was
to pull the lessons learned from their online college into providing collegewide
Web support for all classes, stronger Web tools for all student services,
and increased phone support for the tutoring center. In short, they wanted
to sustain ubiquity over specialization. The college was still committed
to supporting pure asynchronous learning; however, they were no longer
going to have that be the dominant force in driving the instructional
technology budget.
•
Security vs. Open Systems
While our faculty and staff clearly want and need easy, on- and off-campus
access to technology tools, there are increasing calls for heightened
security in campus systems. The Health Insurance Portability Act, Children’s
Online Privacy Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act are all looming, each with implications for our networks
and services. Moreover, with the national call to fight cyberterrorism,
this issue is likely to surge even more to the forefront. In addition,
fair-use policy guidelines and intellectual privacy challenges add academic
freedom into the conversation. A college community needs to be aware of
these issues and not just assume the techies are handling them. How do
we open access to students, faculty, and staff while keeping data secure
and our values from being violated?
•
High-Tech vs. High-Touch
For too long the conversations on campuses sounded like this: Which
is better, online learning or in-class learning?. Of course, each
has its pros and cons. Of course, students access each type of learning
for very different reasons. Of course, the dominant model emerging is
actually more of a hybrid than one or the other. Of course, the conversation
in this area has now started to shift. The issue in our face now, thankfully,
is how best to thoughtfully blend these tools to best connect with students
and help them connect with learning. What is refreshing is the increasing
acceptance by the technology advocates of the necessity and value of human
interaction—and their work to facilitate it. Our favorite example
is the Beep a Tutor program at Rio Salado College (AZ). Online students
who get lost in learning can literally beep a tutor and usually get a
call back within the hour to shepherd them through the challenge. Talk
about just-in-time learning with a nice human touch!
•
Vendors vs. Colleagues
This is a tricky issue, but one that is beginning to shift. When constructing
buildings, we could call five colleagues who likely had built a similar
building and had solid specifications and suggestions. Not so in putting
together modern technology infrastructures. More often than not, college
administrators are sold on a “system in development” or what
will be coming in the next version of the software. The cynical term for
this is “buying vaporware.” Colleagues are little help, as
most have the same or less experience in developing these systems. Often,
we are at the mercy of slick marketing professionals who very well may
have our best interests at heart. Still, how do we know? Even more challenging
is the often undiscussed reality that many of our technology professionals
are biased toward certain platforms or tools because that’s what
they know or can keep up with. This isn’t always bad. If they want
to serve their institutions, they have to go with what they know. However,
how can we get the critical reflection on our technology endeavors that
colleagues with experience often give? Commitments to sharing, learning
together, and conducting the equivalent of technology audits are some
of the solutions suggested for handling this issue in our face.
On the Horizon
•
From Development to Adoption
A nascent issue, but one that seems to be rapidly taking shape: For the
last few years we have worked hard to train faculty and staff in the creation
of technology resources—particularly websites. As the Internet becomes
more mainstream, however, publishers are creating adoptable tools for
class resources. In addition, Learning Management Systems (LMS) are maturing
into simple tools to port in standard material that we can then modify
to suit our teaching or service style—much as we have always done
with our print materials. Is your institution committed to development
and/or ready for adoption?
•
From Experts to Expert Systems
Higher education is replete with experts in the classroom and in the service
offices. Indeed, senior registrars or financial aid officers have often
held the fate of students and staff in their hands because of their expert
knowledge. The same issue has plagued business for years and businesses
are now moving toward the creation of expert systems that can capture
and share more openly this vital information. “Knowledge Management”
is the most common term used to describe what may well be something your
college might want to consider. A large-scale pilot is now in progress
at Cuyahoga Community College (OH).
•
From Amtrak to Cluetrain
The traditional PR and marketing machines in our colleges are stuck in
the mass-media, one-to-many method. The authors of a challenging and humorous
book, The Cluetrain Manifesto, challenge us to realize that an
international conversation is going on behind the scenes. They are talking
about our colleges via e-mail, in chat rooms, on bulletin boards, and
on listservs. Online, student-driven teaching evaluations are already
happening on some campuses. We are moving from the linear “Amtrack”
information exchange to something quite different, less hierarchical,
and easily accessible. Have you got a Cluetrain?
•
From Internet to Evernet
The Evernet is an always-on Internet, accessible everywhere. From Web
cafes to Web phones to wireless airport connections, everyday citizens
are just beginning to see this reality in action. How are we going to
use wireless technology in our institutions? How do we leverage cellphones,
PDAs, e-books, and Web slates to improve learning and service? How do
we make sure our students have access to these tools, learn how to use
them, and still maintain secure networks?
•
From Digital Divide to Digital Democracy
The conversation about haves and have-nots, vis à vis technology,
is transforming into a forceful conversation about not just solving access
and instruction issues, but confronting what living well in a connected
world means. How do we make sure that our students are not at the mercy
of terrorists, scam artists, pornographers, unscrupulous corporations,
and hate groups that are actively using the Internet to touch the most
vulnerable in our society. The most vulnerable, by the way, are most often
touched in higher education by our institutions. To get an idea of how
one group is confronting this, visit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s
Tolerance site www.tolerance.org.
Conclusion: Doing the Dialogue
Of
course there are even more exciting issues over the horizon, such as voice
recognition, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, wearable technology,
and holographic technology (a particularly exciting possibility for education).
But we must remember the Elvis factor: In 1977, on the occasion of Elvis’
passing, there were 250 registered Elvis impersonators; today, there are
more than 25,000. At this rate of adoption, one out of four people in
this country will be an Elvis impersonator by 2050!
With the
Elvis factor in mind, we’ll hold off on major predictions about
where we will be in five years. What we can say is that we’ll be
much better off in our colleges if we take the time to engage a dialogue
about crucial issues in technology and learning. Moreover, we should work
to create a culture where these and other issues are regularly tackled
using catalyzing frameworks or other tools, to the end of improving and
expanding learning for our students. With these as regular components
of our academic communities, we turn our focus from the loud voices of
the caustic cynics and true believers to the needs of our students in
the 21st Century. A conversation worth engaging indeed!
Mark
David Milliron is President and CEO of the League for Innovation in the
Community College; Steven Lee Johnson is Provost and Chief Operating Officer
of Sinclair Community College (OH).