The Technology Aside: Building a Strategic Plan to Strengthen Academic Programs Copyright 1994 CAUSE. From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 1994. 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: jrudy@CAUSE.colorado.edu THE TECHNOLOGY ASIDE: BUILDING A STRATEGIC PLAN TO STRENGTHEN ACADEMIC PROGRAMS by Ellen D. Wagner ABSTRACT: This article offers a conceptual framework for strategic planning for information technology that focuses on the outcomes of technology utilization--especially for improving individual and organizational performance--rather than the technologies themselves. The scope of technology-related activi-ties in today's schools, colleges, and universities is enormous. Most individuals involved in technology integration efforts see only a part of the overall technology picture within their total organization. In order for information technologies to be used effectively in cost-beneficial ways, it is critical for technology users and managers to develop perspectives that encompass the issues and concerns of the total organization. Faculty need to have a clearer understanding of the environment in which their activities are taking place, in order to better understand the processes and constraints of technology planning and resource management. Technical personnel need to have a better picture of how the information technologies they manage and maintain are used by the academic staff in their teaching and research applications; they need to understand the ways in which administrative staff use information for report preparation and long-range planning. The purpose of this article is, therefore: * To provide a framework for strategic planning for technology that emphasizes prioritizing academic technology utilization. The tangible nature of network facilities and desktop equipment make it somewhat easier to measure institutional penetration than to assess utilization efficacy--that is, it is easier to talk about computer-to- student ratios or number of Internet log-ins than it is to measure the degree to which academic experiences have been improved through reconfiguring courses to use multimedia in direct instruction. Academic priorities should address the collective concerns of the institution, while allowing for the autonomy needed by each academic unit to undertake technology utilization planning that addresses their unique needs. * To describe the current technology landscape on university and college campuses, using the domains of infrastructure, information, and instruction/research to frame strategic planning activities. * To provide preliminary strategies and tactics that make more efficient use of technology resources. This approach toward strategic planning is a conceptual framework that emphasizes technology utilization for improving individual and organizational performance. This approach considers the outcomes of technology utilization more than it looks at the technologies themselves. It is intended to encourage ongoing discussions within institutions, colleges, and departments of how best to establish collective technology utilization priorities that emphasize instruction and research perspectives. In these days of limited funding for higher education, it is imperative that academic units develop priorities for guiding and shaping infrastructure development, and the services provided thereby, to meet instructional priorities. Distance education has been selected as an introductory exemplar to illustrate the discussion that follows. It provides a context within which technologies are being used for direct instructional purposes. It also provides an opportunity to see the value of breaking away from technology-oriented planning schemas toward one that is oriented toward improving personal and organizational productivity through effective technology use. Distance education During the past decade, interactive electronic distance education and training has become an increasingly viable means of distributing courses and programs to geographically dispersed audiences. In spite of the relatively rapid proliferation of distance education programs and methods, many learning organizations continue to struggle to integrate distance education within their central mission and daily operations. One of the reasons this struggle seems to occur is that distance education is rarely seen primarily as an instructional strategy. Instead, it is seen as a technology application, and tends to be categorized--even stereotyped-- accordingly. Until fairly recently, distance education programs have been categorized within institutions by their most visible attribute, which has led to a wide array of administrative schemas. In some cases this has meant featuring the technologies being used for program distribution. For example, by virtue of their dependence upon interactive audio and video technologies for signal distribution, some distance education programs are administered by a campus's educational media services or educational television unit. As computer network capacity and applications have proliferated, a strong case has been made by other institutions for running distance education programs under the auspices of campus computing. In other cases, distance education programs have been administratively organized by virtue of the primary audience for whom the programs are intended. For example, since the technologies are frequently used to deliver courses and degree programs to off-campus students, distance education programs are sometimes administered by continuing education divisions. Other institutions, recognizing the need to centrally position distance education in particular, and technology utilization in general, within the academic mission of colleges and universities, have moved toward consolidating teaching and learning initiatives using technology under the direction of the office of academic affairs. Figure 1: Technology Contexts [FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCCII TEXT VERSION] From distance education to technology-based teaching Distance education is a subset of the broader field of educational telecommunications, which represents a wide variety of technology applications. Data services, telephone services, academic research and administrative computing, television, and radio are examples of educational telecommunications formats which may or may not involve the delivery of interactive instructional programming[1] The current challenge is to harness the potential held by all of these resources and tools by creating a context within which they can be used to improve teaching practice and learning outcomes. Whether one is engaged in "distance education," "telecommunications-based teaching," "computer- based education," "interactive video," or "instructional television," technology has had and will continue to have dramatic impact upon teaching practice. Technology may ultimately serve as a critical catalyst for enabling profound educational restructuring and reform.[2] For this to occur, however, institutions must begin the process of strategically planning for improving technology utilization. They must break away from models that feature the technologies themselves, and instead must focus upon the results they hope to achieve through effective technology use. Domains of technology Technology emphases on university and college campuses generally focus upon three distinct domains. For the sake of subsequent discussion, they can be summarized in the following ways: Infrastructure domain This consists of the management and coordination of physical materials needed for technological connectivity. It includes but is not limited to physical plant facilities such as twisted copper wire, fiber optics, coaxial cable; switching and multiplexing equipment; central processing equipment, such as mainframe and desktop computers; end equipment such as telephones, monitors, cameras, fax machines, printers; and systems management and systems applications software. It includes activities of system planning, system construction, programming, consultation, and training to make use of existing and anticipated infrastructure resources. It may also involve maintaining buildings, and scheduling activities associated with those buildings. Information domain The information domain emphasizes records access. Records include internal sources such as institutional records, personnel records, student records, financial records, curriculum records, articulation agreements, contracts, grants, descriptive data, reports, histories, and the like. It also includes internal and external information sources that are available through online library catalogs, electronic bulletin boards, and resources available over the Internet. Internal campus records can be found across the institution's administrative units, student support units, and academic units, while other internal and external information resources tend to be managed and coordinated through an institution's libraries. Online resource access may also be coordinated through a central computing organization or through departmental units, depending upon an institution's organizational structure. Internal records tend to serve an archival function. They need to be organized in such a way that they are readily available. This implies that those needing such information should provide the internal providers or the managers of external resources with a general idea of the applications they may have. This user input is necessary to facilitate information system planning, system construction, programming, consultation, and training to make use of existing and anticipated information resources. Instruction and research domain The instruction and research domain consists primarily of technology applications to achieve specific instructional, professional development, or scholarly outcomes. These applications are highly dependent upon the infrastructure domain for providing the physical resources needed to accomplish instruction and research ends (along with the skills needed for using those resources), and upon records management and access capabilities for the information resources need (along with the skills required for using those resources). What makes this domain unique is its ability to direct, guide, and support the utilization of technology for the improvement of learning and teaching. This is the domain that is known by the public at large, since its operations are those directly involved with teaching and learning. It involves but is not limited to: use of technology in direct instruction; support of technology utilization for learning activities outside the traditional classroom; encouragement of and support for faculty, staff, and student technology proficiency for productivity enhancement; and the provision of services to support the integration of technology in instruction and research settings. Figure 2: Technology domains [FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE IN ASCCII TEXT VERSION] Each of these domains represents significant, unique features of an institution's overall technology landscape. Each domain depends upon the other two domains to provide the "goods and services" needed to function effectively and efficiently. If the relationship among the three domains becomes skewed (say, where an infrastructure unit dominates or controls the technology landscape of an institution at the expense of the information and instruction/research concerns), the more process-oriented applications units involved in teaching and learning facilitation will find that their utilization plans will be driven by non- instructional variables. If infrastructure dominates an institution's technology perspectives, instruction and research applications can quite possibly be directed by physical plant configurations rather than having those configurations modified by the types of things that need to be done with technology. Similarly, having access to an array of information resources can be of clear benefit to those working in instruction and research contexts. Even so, subject matter experts involved in instruction and research endeavors-- faculty, administrators, staff, and students alike--need to develop new strategies for using these information resources in direct instruction. For example, it will be important to reconfigure their traditional views of the teaching/learning process in order to integrate subject-specific information resources into the instructional picture in meaningful ways. The power of the technologies will not be realized when used as expensive substitutes for traditional instructional practice. Individuals working in each of the three technology domains must have a clearly recognized arena of preeminence, so that the expectation of service provision within each domain is clear, these activities can be budgeted for in non-redundant ways, and there is some level of accountability. Each domain must also actively collaborate with the other two so that the strengths of each can complement the activities of each. To these ends, each domain must have a clearly articulated set of priorities, as well as statements of capacity, so that the arenas of preeminence are clear and the condition of collaboration can be easily discerned. Phases of technology integration As one considers these three domains within which technology emphases occur in universities and colleges, one must also consider various phases of development which are likely to be encountered when undertaking technology integration projects. A recent Annenberg/CPB Project evaluation of higher educational technology integration projects conducted by the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications[3] noted that projects where technology has been successfully infused into higher education instructional applications across the institution appear to go through three evolutionary phases of development: Technological reliability--This implies that the necessary infrastructure is in place to achieve the anticipated instructional ends, that necessary hardware and software are available and accessible, and that those intending to use these resources have the skills to plan for their use. In an obvious example, it implies that a telecommunications system being used for the delivery of courses is fully operational and operating with 100 percent reliability whenever it is needed. In a less obvious example, it may mean that computer software needed to develop course materials is provided to faculty with the same ease as is any other "office supply." User support--This involves service provision for reconfiguring courses for technological delivery. It means that student services for those students affected by technological reconfigurations are readily available, regardless of a student's physical location; it may also mean that faculty and staff expected to employ such systems are provided with consultation services, production services, scheduling services, and instructional facilitation services. Organizational adaptation--In order for technology to be fully integrated across an institution for instruction and research purposes, it is becoming apparent that institutional and departmental leadership must establish technology utilization as an institutional priority. The processes of adaptation and diffusion cannot be viewed as being punitive in any way. Some of the areas that may need to be accommodated in this phase include: * reallocation of existing dollars to support technology integration activities; * making technology utilization an integral part of the institutions' academic mission, regardless of students' physical location or academic program; * providing academic program and services coordination across administrative units that may not have been anticipated or required in "pre-technology" days; * recognition of innovation; * proactive grants and contractprograms to provide discipline-specific contexts and resources to support the creative utilization of technology in instruction and research. Within the instruction and research domain, examples of technology reliability may be less concerned with whether or not the printers connected to a LAN work as configured (although this infrastructure-related concern can have direct impact on how well academic users can get their work done), and more concerned with having consistent access to technological tools--for example, having reliable, consistent access to software. Examples of user support in the instruction and research domain can include such activities as consistent availability of instructional design, course reconfiguration advising, materials production, and availability of faculty development experiences, either as workshops, stand-alone print/video/disc resources, or online help systems. Organizational adaptation may involve reallocating financial resources, revising course format guidelines to accommodate technology use in direct instruction, or adapting existing policies related to "open access laboratories" to better accommodate the instructional needs of specific programs and/or colleges. Maximizing strategic planning effectiveness There may be a variety of policy decisions to be made and curricular conditions to be met for the academic priority activities proposed herein to proceed. Several examples of such decisions may include but are not limited to such actions as shifting away from current on-campus/off-campus distinctions in technology utilization; using technology as a creativity tool; adapting courses, teaching practices, and curriculum guidelines to maximize technology's potentials; and developing better strategies for intra-institutional collaboration. Shifting away from current on-campus/off-campus distinctions in technology utilization Over the next several years we will see that a student or teacher's location will simply function as one of an array of instructional variables to be accommodated when designing learning experiences, rather than serve as the factor that either promotes or demands technology's utilization. Instead, technology will serve as one of an array of tools for facilitating students' academic achievement by virtue of the skill with which an instructor has created a meaningful, relevant learning experience. Using technology as a creativity tool Technology is too expensive to function as a substitute for the things that are already accomplished through traditional, time-honored means. We need to think about using technology to do things in instruction and research that we would not be able to do in any other way. This means thinking about the varieties of ways we can achieve our instructional outcomes, and ways in which the attainment of those outcomes can be empirically demonstrated. Adapting courses, teaching practices, and curriculum guidelines to maximize technology's potentials In the days before technology made it possible to readily access information, instruction used to feature teachers sharing their knowledge with their students. Teachers still share their knowledge with students, but now factual information can be accessed in multiple ways, facts can be illustrated, applications can be demonstrated--in short, there are more ways to do more things with what is being learned. Consequently, it will be important to align previous notions of "content mastery" with what is now possible. We need to think about using "face-to face" classroom contact for the activities that demand direct personal interaction, while employing specific instructional activities, including technology-mediated learning experiences, to broaden learning beyond the current pedagogic model. It may also be important to consider new models for curriculum review processes, course approval standards, and assessing productivity in the "technological era." For example, given current requirements for maintaining a set number of faculty/student contact hours, it may be difficult to encourage the use of technology in direct instruction. It may still be easier for a faculty member to lecture about the Internet for four hours than it would be to give students four Internet assignments that they would complete on their own, and then bring the results of those assignments to class for group review and discussions for two hours. Baumol has noted that "... it is difficult or impossible to adopt instructional innovations or to substitute instructional technologies to raise productivity" when the very measures of your productivity are what is being reduced through the use of those innovations or technologies[4] Developing better strategies for intra-institutional collaboration Public concerns with faculty productivity, student achievement, and the like provide evidence that the general public is looking for colleges and universities to be more responsive to their needs and expectations. Given that technology will provide consumers with an array of alternatives to traditional higher educational programs, and given that technologies will continue to impact the ways we do the "business of our business" (that is, how we hire faculty, how we purchase library materials, how we build our buildings, how we configure our classrooms, how we budget for telecommunications services), it might be worthwhile to listen to what our constituencies want. To do this, learning organization personnel need to support one another by making our internal service expectations clear to one another. More often than not, technical units working on campuses spend a good deal of their planning time trying to anticipate the needs of the academic user, rather than listening to the things they say they want. Sometimes academic units don't understand that what they are asking for in terms of service and support is simply not feasible given institutional circumstances. It is important for cross-campus groups to communicate with one another--really listening to what is being said. It will be important to work toward compromise, and to negotiate solutions that focus upon getting things done for the institution rather than protecting turf. To that end, it is important to minimize the duplication of technology services across administrative lines. In times of scarce resources, no one can afford to "double up" on some services when others are not being addressed. We need to make technology support services readily available; this means proactively developing mechanisms to make it easy for technology users to accomplish their goals. We need to make certain that the technology systems we employ are transparent to the user; if a particular technology system is so cumbersome that it requires massive time and effort to figure out how to use it, you can be assured that people will not be lining up for access codes. Technical personnel should keep in mind that college faculty are subject-matter experts--and that more often than not, their interest in using technology is going to be directly related to how it will make them better in their chosen discipline. Using technology because "it is available in the lecture halls," or because "it is a good idea," or because "everybody else is doing it," or because "the students expect it," are not in and of themselves sufficient reasons for taking the time to learn a whole new skill set. If we don't make it easy for people to have access to technology resources, and if we don't make it easy for people to use them once they do have them, we can be sure that these information resources will not be enthusiastically embraced. Summary While technology planning efforts must place significant emphasis upon defining the needs of the physical systems needed to establish, maintain, and eventually increase technological capacity, it is equally as important that individuals working in information and instruction and research domains clearly establish and articulate their technology utilization priorities. Clear articulation is needed of what the academic and information units require from technological systems to meet their goals and objectives, so that the campus technology infrastructure domain enables the varieties of applications essential for those in the information and instruction and research domains. It will be increasingly important to actively engage administrative, support services, and academic units in collaborative strategic and tactical technology planning and utilization efforts to ensure that the resources and services required to achieve institutional goals are readily available, and that expectations of those working in each of the campus technology domains can be met. ======================================================================== Footnotes: 1 Ellen D. Wagner, "The Telecommunications Regulatory Environment and Its Impact on Distance Education," in B. A. Willis, Distance Education: Strategies And Tools (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology, 1994). 2 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Higher Education and the Economy of the West (Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1992). 3 S. M. Johnstone and R. Markwood, eds., Seven Stories of How Technology Can Balance Access and Equity in Higher Education (Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1994); and S. M. Johnstone and R. Markwood, eds., The New Pathways to a Degree Project Evaluation: First Year Report to the Annenberg/CPB Project (Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1992). 4 Cited in H. Levin, "Raising Productivity in Higher Education," Higher Education Extension Service Review 4(3), 1993, pp. 1-11. ======================================================================== Ellen D. Wagner is Coordinator of Instructional and Research Technologies for the University of Northern Colorado. She is also Associate Professor of Educational Technology with UNC's Division of Research, Evaluation, and Development. Ellen serves as a Project Consultant for organizations which include the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, the Education Commission of the States, and the Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory on issues dealing with technology integration, technology-based teaching and learning, and systems evaluation. ************************************************************************ 03/30/94 (meh)