July 20, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Fall 2002 Vol. 11 No. 3
Time to Move Beyond Infrastructure
By Daryl L.Nardick
The Context
In the summer of 1990, I had an epiphany. It happened on a torturously hot day on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus during a meeting of 130 English faculty. Nancy Kaplan,a professor of English at Cornell University, was the keynote presenter at a meeting on creative ways to use technology in the classroom.
Professor Kaplan had recently developed a software package, Prose, one of the first collaborative writing tools published by a major publishing house, in this case, McGraw-Hill and Company. During her keynote, she vividly described the steps she took from software creation to classroom integration and use. Embedded in this description was her excitement over the software’s impact on her students’ ability to learn ...differently and better. My epiphany came when she reflected upon her own involvement during this change process. For with all of the planning she had done,she had neglected to factor in her role — how she, as a professor, would interact,would teach, would engage with her students beyond this point. So she did something which at the time could only be described as an act of academic bravery: she simply stepped back, let go, and watched her students.
What took place in Professor Kaplan’s classroom was a transformation of immense proportions. And herein lies the root of my epiphany. It struck me at that moment, that Professor Kaplan had the courage to “let go ” of her traditional classroom role, and permit the uncertainty of the students’ use of the technology determine new classroom roles for all involved.
This transformation intrigued me. It made me wonder what it was about Professor Kaplan that enabled her to do what so many faculty struggle with over the years to accomplish:detach enough from one’s traditional identity as a faculty member to genuinely explore the possibilities of using technology to enhance classroom pedagogy. At the time, I wasn’t equipped to answer this question, but I suspected two factors came into play: Professor Kaplan’s confidence in her professional ability, and her university’s support for experimental uses of instructional technology. The first factor, more intriguing to me at the time, dealt with the personal realm; the second with the organizational.
Fast forward several years. While I remain intrigued with the personal transformation issues around the instructional use of technology, my interest gravitated more toward organizational transformation to the point where my question today is this: are higher education institutions changing as organizations and as cultures through their adoption of information technology? And if so, how?
Higher Education and Organizational Change
Some may tout any connection between organizational change and higher education as an oxymoron. The literature on this topic is clear: scholars persistently contend that institutions of higher education are resistant to change. Institutions’ existing organizational structures are seen as loosely coupled systems (Weick,1983)—exhibiting professional fragmentation and goal ambiguity (Baldridge,1983),and an aversion to change (Altbach &Gumport 1999)— which challenge their ability to facilitate and sustain campus-wide planning efforts. When technology is introduced into the transformational equation, one is faced with the additional consequences of uncertainty, which only tend to increase the resistance to change (Ellul,1990; Joy, 2000; Schon,1967). Even the recent projects on organizational change by the American Council on Education and the Kellogg Commission continue to uncover the difficulty institutions of higher education face in confronting, initi- ating, and institutionalizing change (Eckel, Green, Hill, &Mallon, 1999; Kellogg Commission, 2001).
But surely, the use of technology forces us to challenge long-held and more recent assumptions about higher education’s ability to change. At the very least, no other force since the advent of the printing press has had such a pervasive effect on the higher education establishment (Rudenstine, 1997).
Recognizing that change is taking place, and understanding the human consequences of these changes, are two different things. For what we know is taking place is that our infrastructures and how we use them are shifting like sands in the wind. These changes are tangible. We physically and visually experience them. Their costs are calculated — the money spent on upgrading, expanding, enhancing, keeping up with neighbor institutions. But what about the more subtle changes? The changes that affect people’s relationships with one another and toward themselves? The changes that impact how we interact with our colleagues, how we relate and communicate with our students, how we advocate our positions across and beyond the institution? Where is the concern for these changes?
The Research
In 2000, I conducted a study of 46 higher education institutions,representing all Carnegie Classification categories, that had made a conscious choice to move beyond the infrastructure and look at the impact of technology on each institution’s core mission. They did this by questioning how they could best use technology to improve teaching and learning. The processes these institutions adopted defied traditional information technology planning in a number of significant ways (see “The Four Factors,” below). The model they used to guide their individual processes was the Teaching, Learning, Technology and Roundtable Program, or TLTR (see sidebar, below).
My research yielded a vast amount of data in relation to: (1) the impact of the TLTR on campuses’ use of information technology for instructional purposes, and (2) the TLTR model’s ability to facilitate campus-wide organizational learning and change. For purposes of this article, I have chosen to focus upon the unexpected and potentially highly beneficial discovery: that the TLTR model may provide an avenue to learn how to overcome some of the structural issues cited above which challenge planning and decision making in higher education institutions, at least in respect to the use of instructional technology (IT).
The unexpected finding of the ability of the TLTR to improve IT planning emerged in analyzing the common characteristics among campuses that had indicated increased use of information technology for teaching and learning through the adoption of the model. Four key factors led to the development of an open, inclusive planning model — traditionally unconventional to the academic community. The first factor was anticipated, in that it is one of the central tenets of the TLTR model. The other three were neither central tenets nor were they anticipated.
The Four Factors
1. Broad-Based Campus Participation
Writing at the turn of the previous century, John Dewey put forth the notion of “responsible technology.” (Hickman,1990,p.202) For Dewey, “responsible technology ” meant that the choices humans make in determining the use of technology are guided by their values. Today, Dewey could be considered a social constructionist, a person who “views technology as a social phenomenon shaped by the society producing it.” (Dahlborn &Mathiassen,1996) In contrast are those persons adhering to a technological determinist perspective, people who contend that “social outcomes derive primarily from the material characteristics of a technology, regardless of the users’ (or designers’) intentions.” (Markus, 1996)
Higher education IT planning is biased toward technological determinists—persons with an expertise in the technology, early adopters, and/or heavy users. As such, IT planners have the potential to be limited in their ability to understand how people less technologically inclined or receptive than themselves actually use — and perceive — the technology. One of the central tenets of the TLTR model speaks directly to this limitation of IT planning by proposing a more open planning process. The model advocates including individuals throughout the university community who subscribe to a variety of IT perspectives: members of the faculty, staff, registrar’s office, students, researchers, upper-level management, and in some cases, members of the community. The model also recommends not limiting the group to only IT advocates but including members drawn from across the full spectrum, ranging from heavy users and advocates to non-users.
One of the specific benefits in convening an inclusive planning effort is its impact on identifying the unintended consequences of the use of IT. Frank Connolly’s work, “My Students Don ’t Even Know What They’re Missing,” details the less than positive unintended consequences that came about on his campus as a result of limited IT planning (2001). While serving as director of academic computing at American University, Connolly advocated full wiring of the campus with email to be made available to all students. The result, he bemuses many years later as a faculty member, is that his connection with his students and colleagues has taken on a different tenor — a much more disconnected, non-personal one. He questions whether this consequence could have been off- set by more inclusive participation during the original planning efforts.
In the world of IT planning, everyone on campus is important because everyone is affected. To ignore this by limiting the perspectives offered during the initial planning process often leads to unforeseen problems and ineffectively spent resources. Open,inclusive planning is one means to prevent this.
2. Safe Environment for Planning
How do people with such different views about the use and application of technology — early adopters, late adopters, technologically resistant users, etc.— communicate in a way that results in an effective planning process? The answer: by participating in a safe planning environment.
Marino’s (2001) recent work, Classrooms Without Fear: A Journey to Rediscover the Joy of Teaching, addresses the challenges in creating a safe classroom environment, which he defines as an environment where participants are allowed to have, and be respected for, their unique voices and perspectives. Such an environment facilitates open dialogue among people with differing viewpoints.
My research indicated that the effectiveness of the planning process was also largely reliant on the creation of this safe environment. The question is: What were the factors that contributed to this type of environment?
All of the universities participating had a common cause: they convened their TLTR exclusively for the purpose of improving teaching and learning with technology. While the means and motivations to accomplish this objective differed, the objective itself did not. Conflicting values, objectives, and agendas often held by the varying higher education subcultures — especially between faculty and administration — typically makes this type of planning unachievable. But because the very success of the TLTR largely relies upon the perspectives offered by these various subcultures, common barriers toward consensus building are overcome.
Part of the reason consensus building among the various academic subcultures is challenging is that each group wants a piece of the financial pie to further its own agenda. Whether intentional or not, most of the TLTRs appeared to overcome this problem in that they did not maintain their own program budgets. Instead, as a TLTR member, one’s responsibility was to make priority recommendations to the campus IT decision makers. The research indicated that because the TLTRs had no direct control over budget allocations, the groups achieved a sense of impartiality that allowed them to make decisions for the “greater good,” which in turn strengthened the existence of the safe environment.
|
Teaching, Learning, and Technology
The raison d’être of the TLTR is as interesting as the program itself. Gilbert’s intent in the early 1990s was to visit campuses to assess their use of technology for instructional purposes. Instead, what he found was that the use and administration of information technology had created an interdependence among campus constituents rarely experienced within the academy. This interdependence created a unique communication need within the institutions. The TLTR concept emerged from these visits. It was a response to campuses’ need for technology planning efforts to become more decentralized within the organization and to include all campus constituents responsible for and affected by the use of information technology to improve teaching and learning. The model provides tools and structure to individuals throughout the campus com- munity to convene and make planning recommendations to the decision makers about instructional uses of information technology. The TLTR has been in existence for eight years with more than 400 campuses adopting the program (2000 estimate), but my research was the first formal study of the earliest adopters. The study population included campuses that had adopted the model or one analogous to it by 1997 and had maintained it for at least three years.• —Daryl Nardick |
The
TLTR initiative was launched in 1994. It was largely a result of the
work and efforts of Steven Gilbert, who was then with the American Association
of Higher Education and who today is the president of the TLT Group,
A safe environment empowers individuals to be authentic — to voice their opinions and beliefs regardless of the consequences. Along with being heard and respected by their planning colleagues, individuals also have the need to be valued — to know they are contributing to the greater good and that their contribution will be recognized and will affect change.
3. Campus Influence—Upstream and Downstream
The majority of TLTRs in the study existed outside of the normal institutional hierarchy. That is, the groups chose not to be perceived as simply another IT committee. Many defined themselves as a somewhat rebellious lot, challenging the technological status quo while at the same time being receptive to campus input. Their belief was that they were on a mission to improve teaching and learning with technology, a mission that was often overlooked by the traditional IT planning process.
The irony of this positioning is that only those groups that were acknowledged and accepted as offering valuable advice to a decision maker had impact on campus. This accountability took the form of the TLTR being supported and overseen by someone in upper administration, the chief academic officer, the chancellor and/or president, department chairperson, or in fewer cases, the chief information officer.
The findings also demonstrated that at the same time the Roundtables had to be accountable to the greater campus community in order to affect change. This they did by disseminating and diffusing their ac- tivities and knowledge in three critical areas: (1) faculty use of technology, (2) IT planning and policy, and (3) institutional ability to support the use of IT for pedagogical objectives. Activities in these areas varied extensively,ranging from faculty development efforts to rethinking IT support services to IT policy development.
But TLTR influence goes beyond individuals. It permeates the cultural fabric of the campus. The TLTR had considerable influence on broad-scale campus IT change by its ability to “create a campus-wide vision to improve teaching and learning with IT.” This research finding indicates a profound and global sharing of goals and values. In short, it demonstrates the TLTR role in helping newly developed commitments and concepts become integral to the institution and its culture (i.e., the improvement of teaching and learning with technology).
This type of global change can only happen with both “upstream and downstream ” campus support, guidance, and input. One level of support without the other will not work. The TLTR,or any type of campus change agent, needs to be active on a number of campus fronts largely because it needs to establish credibility often ascribed only to those better established institutional entities.
4. Dynamic Change Process
“...[S]tudies indicate that change efforts, when treated as established programs and not unfolding processes, almost always fail.” (Rowden, 2001)
The TLTR is a dynamic group process; it is not static. In many cases, the initial impetus to convene a group was to deal with one specific task, such as establishing a new campus-wide software platform, addressing the IT support crises, or investigating an online learning initiative. Once that task was achieved and became an integral part of the campus infrastructure, often the TLTR would move onto the next task at hand or in some cases, disband for lack of direction and guidance. In the case of those that disbanded, preliminary research shows that the groups reconvened at a later time to address an entirely different set of campus priorities.
A few campuses took an entirely different path. After being in existence for some time, dealing with a multitude of instructional technology issues, these groups metamorphosed into an established department, in some cases assuming the form of a teaching and learning center. The thought behind this movement is again, what was once novel and somewhat revolutionary transformed itself into something critically integral to the campus structure.
One key factor that contributed to the dynamic quality of the TLTR was the groups’ reliance on new information that came from both within and outside of their institutions. The groups with the most significant impact on the instructional use of technology relied heavily on new information to guide their activities and commitments. This constant surveillance of the ever-changing academic IT landscape impacted the groups’ willingness and ability to transform themselves in response to their respective campus priorities.
Implications for Higher Education Planning
The power of the four factors cited here lies not in their singularity but rather in their synergy. It is likely that many higher education planning efforts rely upon at least one of these factors to guide group processes. But do they rely upon more than one? Is the creation of a safe environment a fundamental precept when forming a new planning group — of any kind? Are people who are often resistant to or not directly knowledgeable about the task at hand considered of value to the planning process? What committees perceive themselves as being actual campus change agents?
Organizational change is not a misnomer in the context of higher education. It can and does happen. But it does not happen without willful consideration of the barriers inherent in the traditional higher education culture. The TLTR is one planning approach that appears to overcome some of these barriers when implemented in the context of these four factors. It deserves the attention of higher education institutions interested in strengthening their organizational change and communication capabilities.
Geoghegan (1998) estimates that between 1983 and 1998, higher education’s actual IT expenditure for teaching and learning had likely exceeded $50 billion. The academy has built — and will continue to build — its infrastructure. It is now time to look beyond the infrastructure and to begin to ask some fundamental questions about how our institutions have changed as a result of using IT and how they will more effectively manage this continuous change process. This inquiry is critical if higher education is going to capitalize fully on its investment, in both its technology and its people.
|
Resources
|
|
|
Altbach, P.G., & P.A. Gumport, eds. American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press,1999. Baldridge, J.V. Organizational Characteristics of Colleges and Universities: The Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education, New York: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.1983. Connolly, F. “My Students Don’t Even Know What They ’re Missing,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21, 2001. Dahlborn, B., & Mathiassen, L. “Power in Systems Design” in R. Kling, ed., Computerization and Controversy, San Diego: Academic Press, 1996. Eckel, P., Green, M., Hill, B., & Mallon, W. On Change III/Tak-ing Charge of Change: A Primer for Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education, 1999. Ellul, D. P. The Technological Bluff, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. Geoghegan, W. H. “Instructional Technology and the Mainstream,” The Future Compatible Campus: Planning, Designing, and Implementing Information Technology in the Academy, Boston: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 1998. Hickman, L. A. John Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990. |
Joy, B. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired, April, 2000. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, Returning to Our Roots: Executive Summaries of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, January, 2001. Marino, T. A. Classrooms Without Fear: A Journey to Rediscover the Joy of Teaching, Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press, 2001. Markus, M. L. “Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work ” in R. Kling, ed., Computerization and Controversy, San Diego: Academic Press, 1996. Rowden, R. W. “The Learning Organization and Strategic Change,” Advanced Management Journal, (66) (3), Summer, 2001. Rudenstine, N. L. “The Internet and Education: A Close Fit,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 21, 1997. Schon, D. A. Technology and Change, New York: Delacorte Press, 1967. Weick, K. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems,” The Dynamics of Organizational Change In Education, Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1983. |
Daryl
L. Nardick is a partner in ConseQ Associates, LLP, a research and consulting
firm that helps organizations identify, understand, and manage the unintended
consequences of information technology change. Ms. Nardick has been an active
member of the education/information technology community since the mid-1980s,
when she was in charge of higher-education market development for Apple Computer,
Inc. She served on EDUCOM's executive committee on the educational uses of
technology and was a consultant to educational institutions, nonprofit organizations,
and corporations on the innovative uses of technology. She lives in Washington,
DC. Contact her at Daryl@ConseQAssociates.com.