The dialogue between faculty and administration concerning the use of
information technology for teaching and research is not always civil. The
top-down folks (usually charged with administrative or institutional
duties) seem to want to spend all available funds on infrastructure,
sometimes neglecting to explain to the academic community just why the new
technology is needed. The bottom-up people (usually charged with
instructional or research duties) seem to pose endless demands for
resources and release time to get their projects underway, but never quite
out the door. They show little interest in working through all the detailed
planning for implementation within institutional budget guidelines.
In reality, these "adversaries" have a deep mutual dependency. The top-down
program advocate needs convincing exemplars to justify large investments in
technology at a moment when funds are scarce. The bottom-up project
advocate needs a well-conceived and reliable working environment for
successful implementation of innovative concepts. The following comments
represent a faculty perspective. The point of view is unabashedly
bottom-up, that is, reflecting a focus on scholarly problems that need
technological support for their solutions. It's not that faculty members
don't understand the need for infrastructure; it's just that technology per
se is not the point of the academic enterprise. It is impressive, for
example, that the Internet can put a world of information at one's
fingertips. But that resource alone does not deliver an education or create
new knowledge, any more so than does having a wonderful library on campus.
The books are there to support learning and research, the complex processes
at the heart of the business of education. Electronic information
technology is likewise a means for achieving an outcome, not an end in
itself.
The Case for Doing Nothing
Resistance to change, which may take various forms, is usually not as
perverse as it may appear to the bottom-up and top-down innovators.
Academics are trained to be critical (in the best sense of the word) and
may be expected to make demands for justification of resource allocation.
They are not well prepared for the debate, however, unless they have had an
opportunity to sort out for themselves what is simply "old wine in new
bottles" and what is "a difference that makes a difference." The
wait-and-see spectators should not be viewed as necessarily inimical to
change. They simply need convincing evidence of the value of innovation.
Satisfactory experiences with the following issues figure heavily in
gaining the support of opinion leaders in the ranks of the onlookers:
Examples to think with. Acceptance of new technology depends critically on
seeing an exemplar of new functionality for disciplinary interests, such as
multimedia coordinated with text for language learners, or interactive
simulations that improve visualization for scientific concepts.
Demonstrations of feasibility. It is essential to find ways to bring
together faculty, administrators and computer services personnel to discuss
problems in implementation. The idea is to ensure that educational
innovations are not divorced from strategic planning and technical support.
Defense of the value system. The incorporation of information technology
must not be seen as diverting resources from worthwhile educational
institutions (such as libraries), or displacing humanistic values (such as
critical thinking), or replacing mentoring faculty (with impersonal
information-dispensing machines).
Maintaining quality. Technology, by promoting an explosive growth of
connectivity among worldwide information sources of text, image and sound,
can introduce serious problems of quality control. The digital medium must
demonstrate its ability to support peer review, bibliographic accuracy, and
the instruments for editorial refinement that lead to scholarly
reliability.
The Case for Getting Involved
John Holt reported that a colleague once said to him that there were really
only two questions of importance for the educator: What are we trying to
do? Are we doing it? Similarly, two tough questions need to be asked
concerning the use of information technology for educational purposes:
Are there mission-critical problems that are intractable or poorly resolved
under current practices in our educational institutions?
Can modern information technology play a role in providing solutions to
these problems?
If one answers these questions in the negative - assuming the response is
well-informed - there is no reason to pursue technological solutions. An
affirmative answer, on the other hand, suggests that one cannot afford not
to be involved.
The reasoning is simple. If educators do not define the educational uses of
information technology, others will. For example, a few specialized
educational software publishers are engaged in producing courseware, but
the market is not particularly profitable. Textbook publishers attempting
to make a transition to interactive multimedia report that they are having
difficulty locating scholars qualified and willing to assist with the
requisite technical and subject matter expertise. Note that there are very
few research scholars engaged in creating textbooks or multimedia for
general education, primarily because the scholarly reward system has not
operated to promote this function. As a consequence, candidates for
interactive educational materials are often produced by those who have
devised a business case for their software, including the gaming and
entertainment industries. Surely the educational resources of the
not-for-profit sector, with vital input from philanthropic and governmental
agencies, can transcend the limitations of a strictly commercial approach
to the problem.
Getting Started
Bottom-up innovators are most successful when they start with a real
problem. That is, they do not simply transfer current curricular materials
to electronic form. Rather, they leave alone what is working well and
innovate where it will do the most good. To take an example in my area of
concern, foreign languages, we have a difficult time providing enough
meaningful practice in listening comprehension. Group classroom instruction
is not very sensitive to individual variation, and audio tapes don't
provide efficient random access, interactivity or access to visual cues.
(See Noblitt, 1995 for a fuller discussion of the electronic language
learning environment.) Interactive multimedia can do wonders for creating a
productive learning environment for this kind of learning. Of course, it is
up to the discipline specialist to identify the problem and work on the
design of effective and affordable technology-based remedies. Assuming that
a legitimate education problem has been identified, the following
procedural tests for innovation should apply:
Does the problem affect a broad population of students? If not, its
solution may not be worth the effort or be justified as a top priority for
innovation.
Does information technology provide real added value educationally? There
is no point in digitizing a novel for the computer when a printed version
is more portable, easier to read, and already available at a reasonable
price. If an indexed version is needed, with key word in context
information, that is a different matter.
Can the innovation be implemented within the support resources available?
There is no point in wasting effort on programs that will fail as soon as
the innovator's interest or energy flags.
It is possible to exert measurable impact, even with modest resources, if
one is careful to think in terms of optimizing, rather than maximizing, the
use of information technology for educational purposes. It is important,
whenever possible, to rely on already developed software resources. (I
encourage bottom-up educators to think of themselves as pioneers on the
trailing edge of technology.) It is a mistake to lead one's institution to
rely on technologies that are not broadly supported in the commercial
sector, simply because unsupported programs cannot be maintained. The
innovator will quickly be overwhelmed with work, particularly if
successful. This is why the top-down people are persistent in asking
whether a solution will scale before they lend support. The utilization of
information resources must be actively brought in line with the economic
realities facing the business of education. As Oberlin (1996) puts it:
"Part of the mythology dominating information technology management is that
it is all about technical issues. It can be argued instead that it's
actually all about managing change - technical, social, pedagogical,
political, and financial. I agree. Bottom-up people are fond of waving
their hands over difficulties in educational management. Focused on
problems of effective teaching and scholarship, they define success in
terms of how well they accomplish their educational mission or research
agenda. But, especially because the new information technology is making
such serious demands on our limited resources, we cannot afford to shun
responsibility for intelligent decision-making. We face, at the end of the
millennium, a number of critical strategic decisions about the business of
higher education. What appears to be a discussion about technology is, in
reality, a discussion about curriculum. Resource allocation will determine
what is done and what is not done for our students."
Defining Quality
The digital medium appears to create an appetite among learners for
exposure to the primary matter of the various scholarly disciplines. That
is, image and sound, in addition to text, have become a part of the
interactive educational environment. This comes as welcome news to scholars
in disciplines that require sound and image for the proper visualization of
the subject matter, such as language studies, art, music, biology and
astronomy. Virtually any subject matter is made more immediate by providing
access to authentic samples of the "real stuff" of knowledge. Timely access
to relevant information is not only engaging for the learner, it creates
possibilities for task-focused instruction, that is, instruction that is
motivated by the posing of significant problems for the learner.
At the same time, the use of highly complex authentic materials in the
learning environment presents new challenges for educational design.
Students will need new tools and new strategies for learning with
information technology. Scholars who participate in creating solutions for
interactive learning face a host of new problems:
What is the best way to represent the essence of my discipline in the new
media? An interface designed for meaningful access to raw data will be
essential.
How do I connect with models of instruction that are theory-driven? Many
disciplines do not incorporate training for their graduate students in the
developmental aspects of human learning.
How do I handle the cross-disciplinary aspects of the use of primary data?
Scholars are trained not to offer comment on areas outside of their
specialty.
Where do I turn for training and technological assistance? Scholars in some
disciplines are socialized to work independently and are not in the habit
of forming teams for materials development.
Information Technology and Authenticity
The quality features of the digital medium create a learning environment
where the student can interact with more authentic learning material.
Again, everyone is for authenticity, but the innovator must be prepared to
demonstrate how information technology assists in achieving it. The
following questions may be useful for the bottom-up innovator in attempting
to gain support for the use of technology to solve a particular educational
problem:
Does information technology help to put the students in touch with the
primary observed data of the discipline? Textbooks that offer primarily
decontextualized knowledge can be nicely complemented with interactive
multimedia that provide a sense of reality about the abstractions learnedin
class.
Does information technology help to relate a narrow specialty to the larger
concerns of society? It is possible to assemble reference materials, links
to Web sites, and foster threaded discussion groups for one's students
without having to water down the curriculum.
Does information technology help to place the instructor in a legitimate
position of expertise in relationship to students and subject matter?
Information technology provides excellent support for the facilitator who
assists students in dealing with primary data and the appropriate tools for
analysis. Experts who have lost sight of, or interest in, the developmental
problems of their students may use information technology for tutorial or
peer support purposes.
The challenge for top-down and bottom-up innovators is basically one of
design. Educators need to be a part of the process that creates technology
designed to provide both access to information and tools for creating
useful knowledge from it. The unprecedented amount of information now at
the disposal of the learner should place a high premium on those who can
synthesize complex material and communicate a coherent view of it. As long
as faculty perform this role in society, information technology will serve
them well.
The Bottom Line
The bottom-up and top-down folks need to talk with one another about which
model will serve the future needs of their educational institution.
Stratified discussions of faculty with other faculty and administration
only serve to harden rehearsed positions and create converts to the legions
of the chronically aggrieved.
Bottom-up people, in my experience, really enjoy talking with an
educational champion (i.e., someone with a vision and a budget) who is
willing to accept input on defining objectives and allocating resources.
For what it's worth, here is some advice for the top-down people who want
to open a dialogue leading to operational definitions for the use of
information technology in education:
Establish communication channels concerning the curricular implications of
information technology for your institution. Internal education is a
serious concern when the rate change accelerates, and the educational
community needs to focus on the best uses of faculty time and effort in the
emerging information environment. Don't let the system view of things
eclipse the user view in discussions between innovators, administrators and
onlookers.
Use open management approaches (to the extent financial disclosure is
reasonable and practical) when discussing resource allocation. Recognize
that educational technology consists of classrooms and books as well as
computers and networks, all of which serve to support research and
learning.
Manage expectations concerning the rate of change by establishing a
timetable with realizable milestones of achievement. Allow a decent amount
of time for receiving input, then adopt a plan that ensures that measurable
progress can be observed.
Make sure that faculty, administration and computer support have a shared
sense of reality about implementing the institutional strategic plan. A
discussion of the tradeoffs between centralized and distributed computing
services is usually not meaningful in the abstract.
In short, a context-sensitive implementation plan is needed, and this means
that top-down and bottom-up people must work together on setting
priorities. I was amused to hear to a colleague complain that modern
information technology - voice-mail, surface mail, fax messages, e-mail,
campus mail and the Internet didn't leave any time for communication with
his colleagues. I can sympathize with the complaint - the information age
has us awash with messages representing a multitude of points of view. On
the other hand, the educator's job is precisely to search for coherence
amidst multiple perspectives. The technology is what it is, nothing more or
less, and its significance lies in the use we make of it. And as for time,
we have all there is.
Editor's note: This is an abridged version of an article that will appear
in D. G.Oblinger & S. Rush (eds.), The Future Compatible Campus. Anker
Publishing Co., Bolton, MA., 1997.
References
Holt, J. C. How Children Fail. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.,
[1995], c1982.
Noblitt, J. S. 1995. "The Electronic Language Learning Environment," in C.
Kramsch (ed.) Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study. Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oberlin, J. 1996. "The Financial Mythology of Information Technology:
Developing a New Game Plan," CAUSE/EFFECT, 19, 2, pp. 10-17. 7
James S. Noblitt is research professor of Romance languages and academic
chair of the Institute for Academic Technology at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a 1996 Educom Medal winner.
jim.iat@mhs.unc.edu