CLAS Home > Reports >

January 1999

Report of the Dean’s Task Force on Faculty Use of Learning Technologies¹

The College of Liberal Arts has the primary responsibility for undergraduate education at the University of Iowa. In addition to teaching the 16,000 students in the College, we also provide general education instruction for undergraduates in the other Colleges. As a result, the College plays a key role in fulfilling the University’s obligation to provide students and faculty with access to and instruction in emerging technologies. With this responsibility comes an opportunity for the College to develop a model approach to ensuring the availability of the resources needed to achieve this end. The Task Force on Faculty Use of Learning Technologies was assembled in order to determine² exactly what those resources comprise at present and what they are likely to be in the future. More specifically, we took our charge to be to

• examine how learning technologies are currently being used
• identify the support needs of faculty, staff, and students in this area
• formulate goals for promoting the effective use of new technologies

These are difficult tasks, not only because technologies are fast-moving and notoriously difficult to predict but also because the organizational structure of the parts of the University concerned with these issues is currently in more than its usual state of flux. In particular, as Information Technology Services (ITS) continues to reorganize and to look for ways to improve its delivery of services, the College must be prepared to take an active role in defining how resources and responsibilities are to be shared with respect to instructional technologies.

In addressing these issues, our report focuses on five topics. First, we discuss differences among faculty in their attitudes toward the new technologies. Then, we consider four kinds of critical resources: support for innovation and flexibility; support for initiation and training; support for development; and support for deployment. In each section, we describe specific actions and policies that we recommend to the College (these recommendations are also listed in Appendix II).

_____________________________________________________________________________

¹The Task Force included Professors Diane Davis, (Rhetoric), Gregg Oden (Computer Science and Psychology). Phillip Round (English), Walter Seaman (Mathematics), and Lisa Troyer (Sociology). JoAnn Castagna of the College provided critical staff support as well as valuable contributions to discussions. Frederick Antczak, Associate Dean for Academic Programs, and Steve Troester and Barbara Yerkes in the Dean’s Office also helped support the group’s work.

²The activities of the Task Force and the sources of information consulted are summarized in Appendix I.

Attitudes Toward the New Learning Technologies

The College is large and diverse. Indeed, diversity of talents, interests, and attitudes is a defining characteristic and major strength of the liberal arts and sciences. Any strategy for the effective development of learning technologies must be founded on an understanding of the types of people who will be using the technologies.

The current situation

Among both students and faculty there are different levels of ability and interest in new learning technologies. One way to characterize the current attitudes and abilities of our students and faculty is to use a metaphor of exploration and nation building.

Scouts are early adopters of technology. There are a number of faculty members in the College who for many years have been using learning technologies as soon as they’ve become available, often with little direct support from their departments, the College, or the University. Similarly, in every discipline there are some students who arrive at the University already adept in the skills needed to thrive in classes that incorporate the new technologies. Individuals in these groups tend to be constantly pushing the envelope of the technologies, innovating and inventing months and years ahead of their colleagues and fellow students. They are largely self-motivated and not insistent on immediate returns on their investment.

Pioneers are the faculty and students who have sought to acquire skills in the use of the new technologies and are eager to take advantage of the experiences of the scouts. They are consistent users of the technologies and are interested in learning more. Consequently, they often find themselves, in turn, called upon to help others in their units and become known as mentors and problem solvers. The success of this group in both learning and teaching is of great importance in determining whether or not a new technology is widely accepted and effectively employed.

Settlers are those who use learning technologies when they are widely and easily available, but are not likely to seek out these opportunities. The interest of this group is fragile in that it is less likely to survive the inevitable early frustrations or any significant delays in advertised payoffs.

There is yet another group, who might be said to correspond to those people who do not leave the familiar confines of home. Faculty members may have compelling reasons for not participating in the use of new technologies. Some, for example, have developed pedagogical methods and styles that aren’t readily adapted to the currently available technologies. Others may have philosophic or ethical principles opposed to the use of the new technologies based on, for example, the costs associated with the adoption of these technologies or concern over the social class differences in access to the technologies.

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that there be no mandates, either explicit or implied, on the use of the new technologies. Nor should we encourage a wholesale rush to adopt any particular versions of new technologies. It is important that thoughtful decisions about technology adoption and use are made so that we don’t squander our resources by investing them without understanding and careful attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the various options.

Rather, the College and the University should continue to create opportunities for all to become involved at the level and to the degree appropriate to their comfort, abilities, and need. It is important that support in the use of new technologies be available for faculty and students at all of the levels described above so that scouts can continue to push the limits, pioneers can rapidly make use of what the scouts have learned, and settlers can take advantage of the effective practices the pioneers have established.

Support for Innovation and Flexibility

Fundamental to the use of the new technologies is support for those who wish to experiment with new teaching and learning methods. An integral component of this support is expertise in the many different varieties of technologies available. This kind of support particularly requires on-going consultation with users.

The current situation

The Task Force finds that pedagogical issues are not well enough investigated and addressed when infrastructure decisions are being made on campus. We are concerned, for instance, that much of the classroom renovation being done now seems to be based only on a presentational model, without sufficient discussion and incorporation of other teaching models (we need to remember, for example, that students can be producing users of educational technology, not just passive consumers). We need flexibility in classroom design to accommodate diverse teaching technologies; there will always be a variety of pedagogues from which instructors will choose and our classrooms should accommodate all of them.

Indeed, an instructor may wish to incorporate a number of different strategies and technologies in a single course: Some days a chalkboard may be the technology of choice; for another session multiple network connections may be needed.

We also find that there is widespread distrust and dissatisfaction with ITS. Over time, faculty and students have become frustrated with the University’s progress in incorporating new technologies, and have directed this frustration toward ITS. Changing this perception will be a primary challenge for the new ITS group on Academic Technologies.

We are especially concerned that decision-making in the area of technology adoption and technology use has been both too concentrated and ‘top-level’ on the one hand, and too unfocussed on the other. Faculty and students are stymied by the unclear chains of decision making, and the apparent lack of provision for input from users. For instance, we are concerned that vehicles for decision making, such as the Student Computing Fees Advisory Committee, do not receive adequate input and information on the instructional needs confronting the diverse Liberal Arts teaching community.

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that the College establish a standing committee on learning technologies to oversee collegiate policy in this area. This committee should include faculty from a number of disciplines, representing users of different kinds of technology and at different levels in their careers and technological sophistication and should have representation from students across the college. The committee would meet regularly and have access to the Dean, the Associate Deans, and College staff responsible for planning and support of technology and would also serve as a liaison to other campus technology groups, for instance the

Information Technology Advisory Council, and the Academic Technology Advising Council.

We recommend that the College work toward the development of better central planning for technology development and use. This may include changes in the University’s technology committees. Such committees should have discussions and decisions that are open, well-publicized, and inclusive of the diverse points of view on campus. Whenever possible, decision making and resource allocation should be made at the administrative level closest to where the resources are to be deployed: Flexibility and response to the different needs of different users will be more easily accommodated by diffusion of decision making.

We recommend that the College vigorously pursue partnerships with ITS and with other groups on campus not only to achieve efficiencies but also to ensure that we have an appropriate share in the making of critical decisions. We need immediate change in the ways in which decisions pertaining to the ITC’s, for instance, are made. Both faculty and students should be more directly involved in decisions about the software and hardware available for student use.

We recommend that the College assume a strong, proactive role in encouraging the revision of procedures for the allocation of student computing fees. Among the revisions the Task Force recommends considering would be the encouragement of block grants (that the College and other groups would then be responsible for allocating to units under their charge), the construction of a feedback mechanism (to provide those receiving allocations and those not receiving them with information detailing the rationale behind the decision), and revisiting of the schedule under which decisions are currently made (decisions are often made slowly, causing instructional decisions that depend on the funding outcome to be difficult to make).

We recommend that flexible wiring schemes be developed for classrooms (including possible adoption of wireless communication network technology) to free students and faculty from fixed pedagogical models and to provide maximum flexibility.

We recommend that support be provided for a wide variety of platforms and software, and for the whole range of technologies. Decisions about the purchase of hardware and software should be made with consideration of both the instructional bases and the limitations and benefits of the various alternatives. We recognize that the College must be concerned with efficiencies and economies of scale, and that it needs to ensure adequate access to University-wide platform-specific resources. However, the variety of pedagogical needs and the constraints of our buildings require that there be support for a number of different technological solutions to the same problems and situations. Furthermore, it would not be in keeping with our culture of intellectual experimentation and diversity to inhibit the marketplace of ideas and options. Instead, the College should develop channels through which faculty and staff can be advised of the limitations and benefits of software and hardware alternatives so that informed decisions can be made.

Support for Initiation and Training

Successfully deploying technology requires flexible models of training that include how and why as well as what.

The current situation

Many faculty members have participated in or are eager to participate in the nTITLE program and similar training opportunities. We have heard from many that this program and the Library’s TWIST program have been extremely helpful. At the same time, faculties are concerned about the lack of follow-up programs for nTITLE participants and the uncertainties of continued support for programs like TWIST. As noted below, there is an urgent need for considerably more staff support for deploying learning technologies, and so there is a corresponding need for increased staff training as well.

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that the College investigate a variety of models for the training of faculty and staff. The University and College standing committees should collaborate with the Center for Teaching, the

Libraries, ITS, and other relevant groups to ensure that there are programs to provide a range of learning opportunities. The College should work closely with these units to identify overlap and gaps, and encourage these units to work together and with the College to provide adequate training and support.

When other units are unable to do so, the College needs to identify sufficient resources to support mainstream faculty adoption of new learning technologies (e.g., peer mentoring or faculty "technology teams" within individual departments or across disciplines; a conference and follow-up workshops).

Support for Development

The development of course materials has always been a major undertaking. As always, new technologies make some aspects of this easier and other aspects more demanding. In particular, the technologies enable us to do things we could not have conceived of doing before, but that means that those new technologically-based instructional materials must now be developed.

The current situation

The Task Force finds that the current infrastructure of the College and the University often fails to support the effective use of new learning technologies adequately. Successfully developing technology not only requires time but also material support and network access, both of which are in short supply across the College. Students and faculty frequently report dissatisfaction and discouragement due to the inadequacy of the resources available to them and the difficulty in obtaining access to the technologies they need. For instance, instructors and students have noted that there is currently no University-supported mechanism for the straightforward construction and delivery of student-created Web pages. In addition, while it used to be the case that secretarial staff contributed significantly to the development of instructional materials when syllabi, exams, and handouts were typed and mimeographed, there are currently very few staff who are responsible for helping to develop instructional materials using the new technologies.

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that the College continue to increase its efforts to ensure that faculty have up-to-date computers and software and adequate network access to enable them to develop instructional materials in an effective and efficient manner.

We recommend that rather than relying entirely on student computing fees to provide sufficient up-to-date equipment and software for student use, the College and the University explore other methods of support for the acquisition of technology. For example, we might investigate ways to establish partnerships with one or more computer manufacturers to provide lap-top rentals or purchase plans for students.

We recommend that resources be identified for new staff support of learning technologies. We should explore the possibility of upskilling staff with respect to these technologies, but we cannot expect the wide scale adoption of the new technologies to be accomplished without the addition of new staff support.

Support for Deployment

Support for innovation, training and development are of little value without support for widespread use of the new technologies.

The current situation

Successfully deploying technology requires human support. There must be adequate human support not only for the ongoing training of faculty in new teaching methods (e.g., interactive vs. lecture teaching methods) but also for assistance with the ongoing construction and modification of teaching materials (e.g., uploading daily lecture notes to the Web) and for the delivery of new technologies in the classroom (e.g., rapid repair of malfunctioning equipment). At present, these resources are either nonexistent or woefully inadequate: Students and faculty feel that infrastructure is being updated too slowly and incompletely. A particularly glaring example has been the lack of good student access to easy and inexpensive Internet connections in the residence halls.

We also find that insufficient resources are devoted to repair and upkeep of the physical and software environment, which can produce intolerably slow response to problems. Even a day or two without a key component is unacceptable when a course has been carefully designed in a way that critically depends on it. Technical support must be available quickly and consistently. In addition, faculty are rightfully concerned about what the expectations are for their use of instructional technologies and how their time should best be divided between such tasks as the development of pedagogy, curriculum design, and the integration and deployment of new technology into instruction. New technologies can consume considerable time and, thus, there is definitely the threat of inappropriate deflection of effort from other teaching responsibilities, as well as from research and service.

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends that the College and its departments develop policies that respect and acknowledge the time faculty members must devote to acquiring and exercising skill in the use of the new technologies. (With regard to this, the committee looks forward to the report from the Dean's Task Force on Professional Implications of Learning Technologies.) The College and departments should also try to make a clear distinction between those tasks that are appropriate aspects of faculty instructional design and delivery and those tasks that should be performed by technical and other staff support.

As noted above, we recommend the identification of resources for new staff support. Among other things, staff who currently support units in other ways could be trained in basic Web design and updating, which might distribute some of the burden that would otherwise be assumed by faculty.

We recommend that additional resources be found to ensure that repair and upkeep of the infrastructure and of individual machines can be done in a timely way and that there be more control and oversight of these resources at the College and departmental level. We believe that that would increase the likelihood of keeping critical equipment available to and usable by students and faculty. We have learned about Associate Provost Folkins’ new classroom committee and its efforts to find ways to ensure maintenance of all classrooms and also of his idea for a rapid response hot line (cell phone) for trouble shooting in real time. We applaud these efforts, and hope that they will be quickly and widely implemented.

Some Concluding Thoughts

New technologies are really not all that new; they are already changing the lives of our faculty and students. There is no question that the College of Liberal Arts must foster computing and learning at the edge of current technology and practice, in keeping with the College’s missions in the creation and diffusion of new knowledge.

Identifying sufficient resources for the integration of these technologies into our teaching and learning activities has been and will continue to be a fundamental challenge for the College and for the University. Issues such as training, technology acquisition, and human support all begin with the acquisition or reallocation of resources. In many ways our report must be considered a first installment of a work in progress concerned with identifying what resources currently exist, how existing resources can be more effectively allocated, and the means by which additional resources may be acquired. Thus, our most important recommendation is that the College establish a standing committee on learning technologies to carry on the task that was begun here.

Diane Davis, Rhetoric
Phillip Round, English
Walter Seaman, Mathematics
Lisa Troyer, Sociology
Gregg Oden, Computer Science and Psychology (Chair)

Appendix I: Resources

The Task Force met nearly weekly throughout the fall semester of 1998. The Task Force read the North

Central Association reaccredidation self-study, A University on the Rise , prepared by the University (which included a special emphasis on the application of information and communication technologies to learning and teaching) and the report of the Learning Technology Services Review Committee commissioned by Associate Vice President Bill Decker. We surveyed faculty members through formal and informal discussions and in the Faculty Assembly. We met with many individuals, including Associate

Provost John Folkins, who was especially helpful in identifying University initiatives already underway;

Professor James Pusack, the chair of the University’s Information Technology Advisory Committee; and David Dobbins, Molly Langstaff and Pete Trotter from ITS. We visited the College of Business Administration’s Stead Center for New Media, for an illuminating discussion with Joan Huntley, Maggie Jesse, Scott Fuller, Associate Deans Lola Lopes and Robert Forsythe, and other faculty and staff in the College of Business Administration. And we had a far-ranging discussion with Tom Rocklin, Director of the Center for Teaching.

Appendix II: Summary of recommendations

• That there be no mandates, either explicit or implied, on the use of the new technologies.
• That the College establishes a standing committee on learning technologies to oversee collegiate policy in this area.
• That the College work toward the development of better central planning for technology development and use.
• That the College vigorously pursue partnerships with ITS and with other groups on campus not only to achieve efficiencies but also to ensure that we have an appropriate share in the making of critical decisions.
• That the College assumes a strong, proactive role in encouraging the revision of procedures for the allocation of student computing fees.
• That flexible wiring schemes be developed for classrooms to free students and faculty from fixed pedagogical models and to provide maximum flexibility.
• That support be provided for a wide variety of platforms and software, and for the whole range of technologies.
• That the College investigates a variety of models for the training of faculty and staff.
• That the College continue to increase its efforts to ensure that faculty have up-to-date computers and software and adequate network access to enable them to develop instructional materials in an effective and efficient manner.
• That rather than relying entirely on student computer fees to provide sufficient up-to-date equipment and software for student use, the College and the University explore other methods of support for the acquisition of technology.
• That resources be identified for new staff support of learning technologies.
• That the College and its departments develop policies that respect and acknowledge the time faculty members must devote to acquiring and exercising skill in the use of the new technologies.
• That additional resources be found to ensure that repair and upkeep of the infrastructure and of individual machines can be done in a timely way and that there be more control and oversight of these resources at the College and departmental level