Copyright 1996 CAUSE. From CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 19, Number 4, Winter 1996, p. 2. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: [email protected]
This issue of CAUSE/EFFECT examines the impact of using technology in teaching and learning from two quite different perspectives – the challenge of supporting faculty in this endeavor, through the eyes of information resources professionals, and the benefits and limitations of using technology to teach, from a faculty viewpoint. The latter is a view rarely found in this journal, but one that we think important to present. Understanding the issues surrounding teaching, learning, and technology from an educator's perspective can only strengthen the information resources professional's ability to support faculty in this arena.
At Rice University, continuing reorganization in the past two years has resulted in a distributed support model involving the information technology division, the library, and departmental staff. The new model builds on the collaborative, matrixed-teams approach that Rice undertook several years ago in an earlier restructuring effort.1 The distributed model has brought about major changes in help-desk support and training areas and has required a different communications style. Some of the challenges faced include having fewer staff available in the central organization to deal with crises or new projects, supervising staff from a distance, and helping "backroom" staff develop interpersonal skills.
Both Virginia Commonwealth University and Randolph-Macon College have evolved plans and support models aimed at enabling the integration of digital technologies across the curriculum. Like Rice University, these institutions have found it necessary to change their academic technology support structures to meet increased faculty demand. At VCU, an Instructional Development Center was created, with staff reassigned from central computing, library, and media services. Randolph-Macon's World Wide Web site is creating an online support and learning environment for both faculty and students.
According to author Greg Bothun, the compelling challenge for colleges and universities and their faculties in using technology-based instruction is programming content into this new medium. Rather than simply advocating the use of instructional technology, Bothun critically evaluates the results to date of faculty experiences at the University of Oregon in creating and using interactive Java-based courseware that allows students to actually do experiments and analyze data online. His article's pervasive theme is that courseware expertise still resides within faculty on the campus, and that institutional investment in this expertise will make higher education institutions viable in the next millennium.
Successful reengineering in higher education, say authors Herbert Stahlke and James Nyce, must begin with teaching and learning, rather than administrative processes. Their article reviews selected literature in this area and presents a principled framework within which to think about reengineering teaching and learning, emphasizing the importance of achieving an appropriate match of tools and tasks in instructional design. They conclude that for reengineering to succeed in higher education, academic priorities must drive the process.
The subject of this issue's centerfold profile is a good example of a campus that is, indeed, making educational processes a key component of an institution-wide reengineering effort. Santa Barbara City College has undertaken a major redesign project to make fundamental changes in institutional core processes, especially to use information technology to enable those changes. SBCC's Project Redesign is addressing not just administrative processes, but also the processes that underlie the College's teaching and learning mission. The project is providing the blueprint for technology acquisition and implementation, ensuring the application of technology "in context" rather than for its own sake.
Key to the transformation of colleges and universities as discussed above is access to a reliable, high-speed global network. Two related articles in this issue are Michael Staman's analysis of the steady decline in Internet performance and Ardoth Hassler and Michael Neuman's discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing remote access to the Internet. While solutions to these aspects of our networking future are not clear-cut, these authors present thoughtful discussions that should help illuminate the issues.
Finally, Marjorie Hodges and Steve Worona's analysis of the legal issues associated with the networked information environment is an informative and quick summary that should help technology and other administrators involved in campus network policy initiatives.
Julia A. Rudy, Editor