An Action Plan for Infusing Technology into the Teaching/Learning Process


Copyright 1990 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 13, Number 2, Summer 
1990. 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 dateappear, 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 CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, 
Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu


              AN ACTION PLAN FOR INFUSING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE
                          TEACHING/LEARNING PROCESS
                            by E. Michael Staman

************************************************************************

E. Michael Staman is Associate Vice President for Information Services
at West Chester University. He has over twenty years of experience in
the information technology industry, about one-third of which recently
included consulting, sales, and marketing responsibilities in the
private sector, with the remainder in various teaching, institutional
research, and computing positions in higher education. Dr. Staman has
been the editor of two issues of New Directions for Institutional
Research, has published in Research in Higher Education and
_CAUSE/EFFECT_, and has presented over fifty papers and served in many
others capacities in support of CAUSE, AIR, SAIR, and SCUP.

************************************************************************

ABSTRACT: This article addresses the concept of technology/pedagogy 
integration in higher education and proposes a model for a supported, 
managed effort designed to create an environment in which interested 
faculty can, if they choose, successfully integrate technology into the 
teaching process. The model is based on a set of fifteen needs 
identified by the information services organization at West Chester 
University as part of a plan to foster and support the use of technology 
in teaching and learning at WCU. A calendar and alternative financial 
models are offered.

"The average university in this country, in terms of its use of
information technology in teaching, is substantially behind the typical
elementary and secondary school."[1]

The problem of integrating technology into teaching and learning in
higher education is not easily solved. In almost every case,
successfully integrating technology into an existing course is hard
work, probably involving a multiple-year effort, hundreds of hours on
the part of an individual faculty member, and the coordination and
support of a number of different campus units. It is not, as someone
once suggested to me, simply a matter of "buying a package and placing
it on the network for students to use."

Indeed, the problem (regardless of the solution) is not even well
understood by many members of institutional faculties, staffs, or
administrations. Each has a different role in the process, and each set
of roles must be carried out if a college or university is to benefit
from the widespread integration (as opposed to today's relatively
isolated uses) proposed by proponents of the use of technology in the
teaching/learning process. One can begin to understand the difficulty of
the challenge by attempting to develop an environment which would truly
encourage such integration.

At West Chester University,[2] the problem was put clearly in
perspective by the University President when he asked why, after several
years of significant investments in technology, so little had changed in
the classroom. The model proposed in this article evolved as a result of
that question. University and private funding for an implementation of
the model is being developed for the 1990-91 academic year, and specific
case studies will be the subject of a future article.

The question we are addressing in this article is how information
technology professionals can best foster and support the use of
technologies in the teaching/learning process on campus. It is not our
intention to grapple with other important and related questions, such as
whether and when technology is an appropriate tool in the
teaching/learning process, how best to obtain an adequate return on
campus technology investments, or why, in many cases, professors simply
choose not to use computing or other forms of technology in the
classroom.[3] Our assumption is that, like WCU, many institutions have
already wrestled with the questions of "whether" and "why," and are now
trying to deal with "how."

Rise of Instructional Computing

Early instructional software (1950s and 1960s) ran on mainframe
computers and was programmed in languages like FORTRAN and BASIC. It
tended to be drill-and-practice material, providing elementary question-
and-answer sessions in a line-by-line mode (no CRT terminals) and was
commonly referred to as computer-assisted instruction (CAI). By the
1970s, much of the instructional software tended to be written in BASIC
for CRT terminals, but still had the drill-and-practice orientation of
earlier periods.

With the advent of the PC (late 1970s and early 1980s), teaching
software slowly began to evolve in sophistication. However, software
packages still tended to continue as CAI exercises, primarily because of
low memory and disk capacity. By the mid-1980s, the picture was
changing.

Since 1985, dramatic increases in memory, disk capacity, speed, and
experience have led to a truly new generation of instructional software.
Users do not have to work their way through mechanical obstacles, but
rather concentrate on the actual content of the instruction. That is,
machines have begun to conform to people, rather than the reverse, which
leads us to the present.

Recently there has been an increasing awareness on the part of both
faculty and administration of the availability and potential of
technological tools, and examples of their successful application to
teaching and learning. Examples of non-commercial sources for academic
software include CONDUIT, WISC-WARE, Kinko's, and the Clearinghouse for
Academic Software.[4] EDUCOM now holds an annual NCRIPTAL Awards 
ceremony at their national conference to recognize outstanding 
achievements in instructional software, and it is highly probable that 
most (if not all) individuals involved in teaching, research, and 
administration have received at least one of the many marketing 
publications distributed by vendors containing articles about successful 
applications of technology in teaching and research. Examples of 
journals and magazines that include articles about technology in the 
classroom and/or building the infrastructure to support academic 
computing include T.H.E. Journal, EDUCOM Review, Academic Computing, 
and, recently, _CAUSE/EFFECT_. Finally, EDUCOM'S new Educational Uses of 
Information Technology (EUIT) program (which arose out of the EDUCOM 
Software Initiative project) is a major focal point for promoting the 
use of information technology in teaching and learning in higher 
education[5]

With a growing consensus among higher education leaders that
technology has clear advantages in many pedagogical situations and that
much of the infrastructure is now in place to take advantage of these
potential benefits, it is difficult to ignore the need to find ways to
support faculty in the pedagogical application of technology on our
campuses.

Nature of the Challenge

It is important to note that most faculty are users, not
developers, of teaching/learning materials. They use resources such as
textbooks developed by their peers, audio/visual materials frequently
developed by vendors, and libraries and information technologies
developed and/or supported by their institutions. In the case of written
material, the use of resources prepared by others as tools for
instruction has been occurring since the beginning of time; in the case
of computing, since the middle of this century. The first professor to
use the first IBM 704 sometime in the early 1950s probably began
envisioning the instructional potential of the technology as soon as the
power of the resource was understood, and certainly there are many
examples of using computing in course work in the early 1960s.

Thus efforts to develop courseware are not new. What is new is that
the key barriers of excessive cost and an insufficient amount of
acceptable software are rapidly being overcome. Given the number of
successes reported in recent years it would seem that by now the use of
technology in teaching/learning environments would be as common as the
use of other resources available to faculty, or that we would at least
see momentum in that direction sufficient to convince us that the use of
such resources would become commonplace during the next few years. But
the use of technology in pedagogic environments is not commonplace, and
what momentum exists is developing at an excruciatingly slow rate.

Efforts to develop the momentum have focused on a series of
perceived, tangible obstacles. For example, the NCRIPTAL Awards evolved
because their developers correctly believed that major obstacles
included a lack of awareness both of the potential offered by technology
and of successful examples of the use of technology in disciplines of
all types.

More fundamental than these kinds of obstacles, however, is the
question of what truly happens when a member of the faculty walks in
front of a class and begins to teach. It (the act of teaching) is a very
special event, highly individualized, unique to a given professor in a
given environment, teaching a given lecture in a given course. The
issues are curriculum restructuring and courseware portability (in the
pedagogic, not the technical sense) because the way in which a
particular course is actually taught depends upon a specific professor
at a specific university and is typically a function of the specific
tools available. The problem is further exacerbated by more mundane
things such as a lack of detailed technological expertise on the part of
most faculty, insufficient staff support, lack of resources, minimal or
no administrative support or commitment, and a general lack of focus on
the problem. It is not surprising that the results have not been good.
Simple problems become incredibly complex: which software package to
choose for a given segment of a course, whether the package will run on
existing hardware, what the use of the package will do to the existing
continuity in the course, and even how to load memory, get started, and
recover from a myriad of potential technologybased failures.

A discussion on barriers would not be complete without recognizing
that the professoriat at most institutions have yet to accept the
development of high quality, successful academic software in the same
way as contributions to refereed scholarly journals. University
promotion and tenure policies are not the subject of this article.
However, it is certainly appropriate to observe that the intellectual
effort required to develop much of today's nationally recognized
academic software is at least equal to if not far greater than the
effort of publishing some of the articles that appear in academic
journals, and it is highly conceivable that such software may, in fact,
be of greater pedagogic value. Newman provides an excellent treatise in
this area.[6]

Finally, in some cases the problem may be made more complex if an
administration makes incorrect assumptions about whether and how a given
segment of the faculty will want to change, and then proceeds to install
resources which may not be appropriate to the teaching/learning
environment at the time. Integrating technology into the curriculum is
not an administrative process. It is a faculty process which requires a
great deal of administrative support, possibly in the form of faculty
reassigned time, and certainly in the forms of staff assistance and
financial support.

Structuring the Project

Successfully creating an environment in which interested faculty
can integrate technology into the curriculum is a relatively complex
problem. At WCU, we envision a three-year developmental project to
accomplish these goals, and have identified fifteen unique needs that
underlie the endeavor (see Exhibit 1).

[EXHIBITS NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION]

As illustrated by the list of needs, there are not just a few but
many challenges to be met. The successful incorporation of technology
into the curriculum includes faculty becoming engaged in self-directed
uses of technology, the creation of new approaches in curricular
presentation, and the development of specific expertise.

We have identified as the most important aspect of our project the
establishing of early successful experiences on campus so that other
faculty will follow by example. To have any impact, a "critical mass"
must be built -- one or two projects will not do. The key is to put
together "teams" of academicians to be supported by the University's
Academic Computing Services. This support, which is vital to the success
of the project, needs to include assistance in:

  *  the identification of appropriate software
  *  management
  *  documentation
  *  training
  *  evaluation
  *  dissemination of successes to other faculty.

Clear, focused management will be required. For the purposes of a
given effort, each "team," consisting of one faculty member and one
assistant, will need to be under the direct supervision of competent
management within the academic computing center. During the initial
stages of the project, each team will need to develop a plan, a
calendar, resource estimates, deadlines, and so forth -- in other words,
follow the principles of good project management.

A special, temporary "organizational unit" (perhaps a task force)
will need to be formed so that the focused nature of the effort can be
reinforced. Resources and project control will be granted to this "unit"
which, because of the University-wide nature of the project, is probably
best managed by the chief academic computing officer.

A Three-Year Model

Our model proposes that approximately ten faculty members be
identified, each to spend about 25 percent of their time for one year
developing material to be applied to a specific, targeted course during
the next year. The intent is to successfully integrate technology into a
total of ten courses. Each faculty participant will then present two
seminars to the University community during the third year for a total
twenty seminars (see Exhibit 2).

[EXHIBIT NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION]

Each individual who volunteers for the project will go through a
process of identifying software and/or technology which, because of the
documentation, review, and/or national recognition, appears to be an
excellent candidate for a particular course. The process of identifying
the technology, acquiring it, learning how to use both the software and
the hardware, and developing initial approaches to the targeted course
will be conducted during the initial year of the project.

The second year (first actual classroom implementation) is also
developmental in nature. Problems, knowledge of what works and what does
not work, and ideas about how to improve on the use of the tools
developed in the first year will become apparent only through classroom
pilot and evaluation efforts. Faculty will teach the course one
semester, make revisions in curriculum and technology use, and re-teach
the revised course to complete pilot work.

The final, very important component of the project is the
development of two seminars that faculty participants will conduct
during the third year. Each seminar need be only a few hours in
duration. The successful "experiences" of faculty can be discussed and
used as catalysts to encourage other members of the faculty to seek ways
to integrate technology into their courses. That is, proof by a known
colleague that the use of technology truly improves the teaching
process, or that students learn better (this means that they learn more
from a given course, gain different insights, retain the material for
longer periods of time, learn faster, and so forth), will generate more
interest on the part of the faculty than any number of papers, reviews,
or sales efforts by people external to the University. Third-year
seminars will be offered under the auspices of Academic Computing
Services, and faculty will lead seminars as part of their project
commitment without reassigned time.

Financial Models

The figures provided in Alternative #1 in Exhibit 3 reflect our
estimates for a budget to cover our three-year model. These figures
assume the project involves ten courses, ten faculty members reassigned
one-quarter time for one academic year to learn the technology and to
modify a course, ten students (one for each faculty member for a two-
year period), an average of $3,000 for software and equipment and $200
for miscellaneous expenses, per faculty member. In Year #1 the major
activities are acquisition, learning, and curriculum modification; in
Year #2 the activities are teaching and evaluation; and in Year #3 each
faculty member presents two seminars. Figures for the other alternatives
shown in the exhibit are adapted from this basic model.

[EXHIBITS NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCII TEXT VERSION]

It is important to note that the budget estimates are specific to
the WCU project, and that budgets could vary significantly, depending on
items such as local costs, equipment, and software. Software and
equipment, for example, could vary from zero to $10,000 (or more),
depending upon the needs of a particular course. The estimate of $3,000
is based on the costs that appear to be associated with entry-level
experimentation using a typical NCRIPTAL-recognized piece of software.

Preliminary Experiences

Currently, we have initiated several projects in preparation for
implementing the ten-course, three-year model. Actual implementation of
the full model requires funding, planned for the 1990-91 academic year.

The preliminary projects address the problem of upgrading course
syllabi to enhance basic writing, quantitative, and computer skills. In
the area of writing skills, sixteen faculty members from eleven
departments are participating in a joint project to use word processing
and grammar packages and electronic mail to upgrade their courses. With
respect to quantitative skills, the University has involved ten faculty
members from various departments to use such packages as MathCad,
MicroCalc, MiniTab, and Excel as well as electronic mail to upgrade
their courses. To improve computer skills, two faculty members are
conducting a pilot project in teaching the introductory computer course
for general education. In addition to accessing word processing,
spreadsheet, database, and programming software from the network, all
course communications (syllabi, assignments, homework, classroom
bulletin boards) are conducted using electronic mail.

To date, these projects have involved reassigned time for only a
small number of key participants, with perhaps too much reliance on
external funding. Our current budget planning is recognizing the reality
of the need to commit to the approach described in this article if we
are to achieve a critical mass in integrating technology into the
curriculum at WCU.

Summary

From the standpoint of university administration, the problem of
how best to integrate technology into the teaching/learning process must
ultimately evolve into the question of how best to create an environment
in which interested faculty can, if they choose to, create change in
individual courses, one course at a time. There are a number of
difficult and sometimes complex implementation issues, such as: where to
start the process and who leads the effort; who does what and how best
to provide support; what does it cost, who pays, and how to fund
initiatives; how to sustain the project; and how to disseminate the
results. Though we have resolved some of these issues, others can only
be resolved as we implement our plan and learn through experience.

There are examples where highly motivated and knowledgeable
individuals have developed courseware modules for some aspect of a
course. The more general case, however, and the conclusion suggested by
this article, is that the successful incorporation of technology into a
teaching and learning environment is a multiple-year process requiring a
great deal of hard work on the part of designated leadership and
significant support on the part of the institution.

If our institutions want to have an environment where the use of
technology in instruction is more the general than the special case, and
we are not willing to wait until the middle of the next decade for this
to occur, then we must find a way to build momentum on our campuses.
Fundamental to the model presented here is the initiation and support of
a sufficient number of projects to establish a critical mass so that the
successful experiences of a core group of individuals become the
foundation of a more widespread use of technologies in teaching and
learning environments.

************************************************************************

For further reading:

Academic Computing magazine, 200 West Virginia, McKinney, TX 75069-4425.

Anandam, Kamala, ed. Transforming Teaching with Technology: Perspectives
from Two-Year Colleges. EDUCOM Strategies Series on Information
Technology. McKinney, Texas: Academic Computing Publications, Inc.,
1989.

EDUCOM Review and EUIT Newsletter, EDUCOM, 777 Alexander Road,
Princeton, NJ 08540.

FIPSE Technology Study Group. Ivory Towers, Silicon Basements: Learner-
Centered Computing. EDUCOM/Academic Computing Software Initiative
Monograph Series. McKinney, Texas: EDUCOM/Academic Computing, 1988.

Graves, William H., ed. Computing Across the Curriculum: Academic
Perspectives. EDUCOM Strategies Series on Information Technology.
McKinney, Texas: Academic Computing Publications, Inc., 1989.

Smith, Shirley. Managing Academic Software. EDUCOM/Academic Computing
Software Initiative Monograph Series. McKinney, Texas: Academic
Computing Publications, Inc., 1988.

Sprecher, Jerry W., ed. Facilitating Academic Software Development.
EDUCOM/Academic Computing Software Initiative Monograph Series.
McKinney, Texas: Academic Computing Publications, Inc., 1988.

========================================================================

Footnotes

1  Frank Newman, "Technology on Campus: An Uneven Marriage,"
CAUSE/EFFECT, Spring 1990, p. 10.

2  WCU is a comprehensive university with an emphasis on teaching and
approximately 12,000 students, located in suburban Philadelphia.

3  See R. Kanigel, "Technology as a Liberal Art," Change, March/April
1986, pp. 20-27; R. Glover, "Realizing the Benefits of Information
Technology Investments on Campus," CAUSE/EFFECT, Winter 1988, pp. 17-25;
and D.E. Drew, "Why Don't All Professors Use Computers?," Academic
Computing, October 1989, pp. 12-14.

4  See also the Directory of Software Sources for Higher Education,
published by EDUCOM/Peterson's Guides, 166 Bunn Drive, Princeton, NJ
08540. CONDUIT is located at the University of Iowa, 301 OH, Iowa City,
IA 52242; WISC-WARE, University of Wisconsin, 1210 West Dayton Street,
Room 3110, Madison, WI 53706; Kinko's Service Corp., 255 West Stanley
Avenue, Ventura, CA 93001; Clearinghouse for Academic Software, Iowa
State University, 297 Durham Center, Ames, IA 50011.

5  For further information about ESI/EUIT initiatives, the Silicon
Basement Seminars, the NCRIPTAL Awards, and numerous publications
available on educational uses of information technology, write to
EDUCOM, 777 Alexander Road, Princeton, NJ 08540; or send electronic mail
to WALSH@BITNIC.BITNET.

========================================================================