The Role of the CIO in the Curriculum Change Process

|-------------------------------------|
|  Paper presented at CAUSE92         |
|  December 1-4, 1992, Dallas, Texas  |
|-------------------------------------|


THE ROLE OF THE CIO IN THE CURRICULUM CHANGE PROCESS


Panelists

  Alton Brantley - Chief Information Officer, Director of the
    Center for Information Technology, and Associate Professor of
    Medicine, Penn State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

  Lynn DeNoia - Executive Director of Information Technology,
    Bryant College

  Barbara Horgan - Assistant Vice President for Information
    Services, Seattle University

  Harry Reif - Assistant Vice President for Information Technology,
    James Madison University

Moderator

  John Swearingen - Assistant Professor, Computer Information
    Systems Department, Bryant College.


The traditional non-involvement of the college or university CIO in the 
planning and development of curriculum is no longer appropriate. 
Academicians, while often delightful people, typically fail to engage in 
extensive long range planning, fail to consider adequately the impact of 
information technology across the curriculum (both in terms of the 
teaching process and in terms course content), and fail to integrate 
concepts or applications across disciplines or departments. The nature 
of information and of information technology is such that these issues 
must be considered if IT is to make maximum contribution to 
institutional achievement of educational objectives. In many 
institutions, the CIO is the single individual able, and in the 
strongest position, to foster the dialog necessary to ensure 
consideration of these issues. On the other hand, the CIO has many 
responsibilities other than curriculum. Participation in the curriculum 
change process becomes for the CIO, another facet of his or her role - a 
facet with which both the CIO and other members of the institution may 
be uncomfortable. The questions to which this panel proposed to seek 
answers were: What is(are) the appropriate role(s) of the CIO in the 
curriculum change process? What professional and personal preparation 
will best enable the CIO to fulfill that(those) role(s)?

This panel session included a summary of the results of a recent survey 
of the members of the CIO-L list-server regarding their role in the 
curriculum change process, and the sharing by four CIO panelists of the 
answers to the above questions suggested by their experience.

Response to the Questionnaire[1]:

     _________________________
     [1]A copy of the questionnaire and tabulated responses is available 
     from John Swearingen at Bryant College, 
     (jswearin@researchl.bryant.edu)

Responses to the questionnaire suggest that the curriculum change 
process is a typically a formal, academic process to which only faculty 
and academic administrators have access. More than half of the thirty-
three institutions responding formally limit participation to faculty 
and academic administrators, while the remainder appear to seldom 
encourage input from additional constituencies. Only ten percent of the 
institutions responding have any formal requirement for participation by 
the CIO. Perhaps, as a consequence, direct participation in this process 
by the CIO is typically infrequent, and when it occurs, typically on an 
ad hoc basis more likely at the behest of an individual faculty member 
than as a partner in the overall process. Not only is actual 
participation in the curriculum change process infrequent, but seventy-
seven percent of those responding suggest that they are not linked 
closely enough to the process to obtain the information they need to do 
their job of providing and allocating resources or of promulgating a 
vision of IT across the entire institution. Acceptance of participation 
in the curriculum change process by the respondents can best be 
described as "mixed." Participation by some is sought; by others, 
tolerated. A number of comments make it clear that acceptance by 
"others" depends upon who the "others" are...perhaps more on a personal 
than a professional basis.

Most of the respondents (87+%) felt that they were perceived by their 
community as "resource" persons with respect to issues directly, and 
perhaps solely, related to IT such as choice, selection, and acquisition 
of technology; availability or capability of specific IT resources; and 
long range policies or problems directly related to IT...less often 
(71%) as resources with respect to applications in the classroom or 
learning process. While most respondents (90%) believed themselves to be 
seen as a driving force for IT innovation throuqhout the institution, 
their comments suggested they view themselves as more closely linked to 
administrative IT than to the application of IT in the academic setting.

Recipients of the questionnaire were asked to assess the degree to which 
they perceive their participation to be necessary, and to give reasons 
for their answer. Three general conclusions may be drawn from the 
comments they provided. First, CIOs participate in the curriculum change 
process to a lesser degree than they believe appropriate. They view 
their participation as needed both from the view of obtaining the 
information required to enable adequate and appropriate resources to be 
provided, and from the perspective that IT should be (or become) a more 
significant part of the curriculum content or of the overall learning 
process.

Second, CIO participation in the curriculum change process may be as 
much a matter of the personal characteristics of the CIO as of one 
fulfilling the professional responsibilities of his or her position. 
This appeared to be particularly true in smaller schools, and in those 
schools (90%) having no formal mandate for participation. This suggests 
that until the role of the CIO in the curriculum change process is 
formalized, this role will differ from one institution to another, and, 
will depend perhaps as much on the characteristics of the individual 
filling the position as upon the characteristics of the institution.

Finally, the traditionally academic process of curriculum change is not 
something upon which the typical CIO feels comfortable intruding. 
Whether this is a cause or a consequence of the obvious lack of 
participation in the process was not clear.

Framework for the Panel Discussion:

The panel addressed and extended issues raised by the questionnaire 
under the following framework:

     * present role
     * future role
     * personal skills required of the CIO
     * critical factors/problems/issues

The Present Role

The degree of involvement of the panel members in the curriculum 
development process at their home institutions runs the gamut of those 
responding to the survey...from ad hoc involvement with individual 
faculty members seeking advice (Lynn), through being a required 
signature on a resource impact statement (Barbara), to formal 
participation on the committee governing undergraduate education 
(Alton). Each serves primarily as an operational or technical as opposed 
to a policy making or strategic resource with regard to the 
curriculum...but the specifics of their role differ from one 
constituency to another. As one might anticipate, panel member's roles 
are primarily reactive and lean more toward providing specific 
information or services than enhancing the process or facilitating 
coordination. For those faculty competent with and comfortable in the 
use of information technology, the CIO and other IT staff appear to 
serve primarily as facilitators, easing the way for these faculty by 
providing hardware and software resources and the answers to specific 
technical questions. For those wishing to make use of IT as part

of the instructional or learning process in the classroom, the role 
might be characterized as that of a mechanic responsible for preparing 
or providing significant assistance in the preparation of the 
appropriate hardware, software, and process. For those faculty wishing 
to use IT resources in a laboratory mode, the CIO and his or her staff 
function primarily as service providers akin to a public utility. One 
might suggest that these characterizations depict a role which is 
passive, concerned with IT "content" as opposed to curriculum "process", 
and focused upon the technology.

The New Role

The desired role seems to differ significantly from the current role. 
All panelists seek a more active role. Each expressed the desire to 
participate more fully in the curriculum change process, and in fact 
suggest that their participation was becoming increasingly more crucial. 
They see the mode of participation, however, as changing from "IT 
content" to facilitation of a "process." The new role is seen, for 
example, as one which encourages, or even sponsors, discussion among 
faculty with regard to uses of IT in the instructional process; as well 
as one which may include espousing a particular institutional vision 
within the formal curriculum change or approval process. Discussion 
indicated that the current role of the CIO in the academic process is 
yet ill-defined; and that to a degree, the CIO and his or her staff may 
play similar, ad hoc roles, both within the curriculum process and 
within the larger institution. The appearance of the new role may come 
about simply as result of maturing process wherein the roles of the CIO 
and IT staff become separated, with the existing role inhering in the 
staff, and the CIO taking on an academic role similar to the strategic, 
visionary role they perceive themselves having in the administrative 
milieu.

Discussion also suggested that, especially with respect to the 
fulfillment of the new role, the position of the CIO within the 
hierarchical reporting structure is especially significant. Visions are 
implemented at the top! If, as CIO, one wishes to promulgate a vision of 
the role of IT within the organization, one is likely to be most 
effective when reporting near the top of the organizational hierarchy. 
In addition, since the future role of the CIO will be by nature that of 
an integrator or facilitator, it will often be useful to have the 
support, visibility, and institutional overview which reporting to 
someone at the top of the organization is able to provide.

One of the most difficult accomplishments of the CIO with respect to any 
academic process is that of gaining credibility with academicians, not 
for their technical prowess, but rather as a supporter of and advocate 
for the faculty. This suggests that the preferred structure might have 
the CIO reporting to the

President, Executive or Senior Vice President, or Provost. Such a 
reporting structure provides the support necessary within the academic 
constituency while providing the balance necessary to ensure similar 
support among administrators. Reporting to the Vice President for 
Academic Affairs or the Vice President of Administration may lead to the 
perception of "favoring" one constituency over another.

This new role may also foster greater use of committees ... committees 
not just as sources of information, advice or confirmation of decisions 
made by the CIO or other IT staff as setters of policy and makers of 
decisions.

Personal skills

The personal skills necessary to fulfill the new role will differ more 
in emphasis than identity from those presently expected. Certainly 
technical skills will still be required...panelists perceived 
credibility as a primary issue, and still consider credibility to stem 
from a perceived competence with technology. The success of a CIO in his 
or her new role, however, will be based more on the acquisition of 
appropriate personal and interpersonal skills than on an understanding 
of technological intricacies.

Creativity, flexibility, and the ability to conceive and articulate a 
vision will become of paramount importance. Until faculty at large 
become more aware of the larger role of IT both in the curriculum and in 
society, it may well be that the CIO may be called upon to provide the 
"vision of IT" around which the college or university operates both 
administratively and academically.

The CIO of the future will also need the ability to "think in the 
future", to accurately envision the role of information technology in 
our personal lives, in business and in the society of the future (while 
maintaining a pragmatic approach to ensure that change actually occurs). 
This envisioning of the future is actually a more difficult task than it 
may appear. Past forecasters of the "role of technology in the future" 
have often been quite successful at predicting the occurrence or state 
of development of the technology, but less successful at predicting the 
"role" of the technology. Those of us with a technological bent often 
over-estimate the rate at which the technology will be accepted by 
potential users and assimilated into the existing business or societal 
structures. We must remember that if a goal of the curriculum is to 
prepare students for life after graduation, the technology to which they 
are exposed during their education must be four to six years ahead of 
that which is currently the norm in the larger society. The CIO may, 
especially in the smaller institution, be the only person able to step 
back from a fascination with technology and

and raise the issues of such parameters as user acceptance and 
acceptability of application rather than simply abetting the popularity 
of a current fad.

Finally, given that the future role of the CIO is viewed as a 
facilitator, one who asks questions rather than one who provides 
answers...interpersonal skills will become increasingly more important.  
If the CIO is indeed to be a facilitator of the use of information 
technology in the teaching/learning process, especially among faculty of 
diverse disciplines, he or she must learn the language of instructional 
methodology, not the language of technology nor of a specific 
discipline. The CIO of the future may well be selected on the basis of 
his or her ability to communicate, especially the ability to listen, 
rather than on the depth of his or her technical knowledge.


Critical Factors/Problems/Issues

In terms of their role vis-a-vis the curriculum change process, 
panelists perceive three different kinds of critical issues or problems: 
organization-based, faculty-based, and curriculum-based.

--Organizational:

At the organizational level, one of the roles of the CIO is to ensure 
that the use of IT in the curriculum falls within the context of the 
overall organizational strategic plan. In many institutions, this may 
require that the CIO foster the development of such an organization-wide 
plan, and then develop, in conjunction with the faculty, a strategic 
plan for the use of IT in the curriculum.

It has been noted earlier in this discussion that changes in the role of 
the CIO in the curriculum change process may be dependent upon the 
institutionalization of his or her participation in the process. A 
problem facing many institutions is then the formalization of the role 
of the CIO in this academic process.

--Faculty-based:

At the faculty level, panelists highlighted two problems. First is the 
need to increase credibility among faculty, especially with respect to 
one's ability to facilitate process. Again, this underscores the 
importance of "people" versus "technical" skills.

A common, but not inclusive, characteristic of the panelists was that 
they felt a faculty appointment to be a useful albeit not essential 
adjunct to their CIO role. The perception seemed to be that this 
appointment enhanced their credibility with faculty and also allowed 
them to understand more clearly the issues raised. Similar notions have 
been voiced by other full-time academic

administrators (Deans, Academic Vice Presidents, Provosts, etc.) This 
position also enables them to serve on institutional committees that are 
faculty-based, and therefore allows participation with one of their 
constituencies during deliberations.

The second problem is caused by a dichotomy within the faculty ranks 
between those in positions of "leadership" in curriculum change 
(characterized by panelists as typically the younger, more mobile 
faculty members) and those in "control" of the curriculum change process 
(the older, tenured faculty). In many instances, the CIO may be the 
professional to form the bridge between these two groups.

--Curriculum based:

There are at least two curriculum-based problems. First, the role of IT 
in the existing curriculum is as yet ill-defined. For the most part, IT 
appears in present curriculum models to fill the role of Providinq 
information, but "what?", "when?", and "in what form?" has, in many 
cases, yet to be determined. Second, we may be at the beginning of a 
change in curriculum philosophy to that of problem-based learning. Alton 
noted the implementation of such a curriculum at the Hershey Medical 
Center, and the notion is becoming a more popular topic for discussion 
in other disciplines, particularly business and engineering, as well. 
The role of IT in a problem-based curriculum changes from the 
traditional providing information to Providinq access to information and 
providinq models with which to organize and analyze information. Such a 
change will likely require acquisition of new skills by both the CIO and 
the faculty members and is a process without which a visionary CIO is 
likely to be unsuccessful.


A Common Thread:

In viewing both the present and the future role of the CIO in the 
curriculum change process, there is a common thread. There is now, and 
likely will be in the future, no "universal role." The appropriate, and 
perhaps the "possible," role is dependent upon the institution, upon the 
specific constituency within the institution, and upon the technological 
knowledge and the personal characteristics of the individual holding the 
position. Given the increased emphasis on the need for "people" skills, 
the personal nature of success, especially in an ad hoc role will 
continue, and the existing diversity of roles will persist and, unless 
the role becomes formalized within the institution, increase in the 
future.