A New Vision Worth Working Toward
--
Connected Education and Collaborative Change
Steven W. Gilbert
February 14, 2000
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THREE UNWORTHY VISIONS
OBSERVATIONS
TWENTY PREDICTIONS
CONNECTED EDUCATION AND COLLABORATIVE CHANGE
·
Connected
Education
·
Collaborative
Change
·
Constituencies
for Change
·
TLTR,
(V)TLTC, and TLTC
·
(V)TLTC
·
TLT
Directory
·
TLTC
·
Compassionate
Pioneers
CONCLUSION [To be written.]
A New Vision Worth Working Toward
--
Connected Education and Collaborative Change
Steven W. Gilbert
February 14, 2000
In
higher education, we do not need a vision of the perfect curriculum, the
perfect textbook, the perfect Website, the perfect classroom, the perfect
campus, the perfect home study, the perfect carrel, the perfect combination of
media. We need a vision of improvement
and change – how to keep moving forward, how to know when we’re making
mistakes, and how to correct them.
Teaching
and learning are not problems that have solutions. They are processes; they
are fundamental modes of human behavior and endeavor. People have been teaching and learning longer than we can
remember, and they will continue long after we are gone. Teaching and learning can be improved and we
can and should continue to do whatever we can to improve them – wherever,
whenever, and however we can.
The
exciting discontinuity, the exciting opportunity and threat, the exciting
confusion now thrust upon us is an explosion of new ways of organizing,
communicating, delivering, finding, modifying, and creating information. We have barely begun to see how to use these
new ways for teaching and learning. It
will take many decades to invent and wring out the very best uses of these new
tools – even as newer tools continue to arrive, divert our attention, and offer
ever greater possibilities.
We
need a new kind of Vision Worth Working Toward -- a vision that embraces
change, sets a direction for the integration of new applications of technology,
makes the most of the resources we’ve already got, and recognizes how important
it is to choose a future based on realistic analysis of where we are, where
we’ve been, and where we want to go.
This
“paper” concludes with the description of one such vision, built on
observations about the current roles of teaching, learning, and technology in
higher education, and on predictions that extend and look beyond those
observations. That vision of Connected
Education and Collaborative Change is itself only a foundation upon which more
specific educational goals can be shaped and achieved for an individual college
or university. [Note: This vision also has significant
inter-institutional implications, but they are beyond the scope of this
paper. See also the Glossary and
Curriculum for Change files at WWW.TLTGROUP.ORG.]
But
first we must set aside some distracting visions: desperate visions from those pressed too hard by changing
economics, mercantilistic visions from those who do not recognize the depth and
complexity of human nature, and implausible visions from futurists who cannot
see the present.
Their
hope: “Save money – reduce rising
costs. Invest in ‘pure’ distance
education and other educational uses of information technology to expand the
school’s (college’s, university’s) market for courses while lowering
cost-per-student. Use technology to
increase the student-faculty ratio while maintaining educational quality.”
These
futurists are responding to the greatly increasing financial and competitive
pressures on many educational institutions by grasping at an unrealistic hope
of cutting overall costs with technology.
However, uses of technology are increasing profitability (or decreasing
losses) significantly only in a few educational niches – those that have at
least one of the following characteristics:
1. New applications of technology and new media
can be used to offer instruction very efficiently; usually, for “instrumental education” – focused on very specific,
easy to describe, knowledge and skills. (E.g., training for information
technology maintenance.)
2. The learners are highly motivated and
self-disciplined -- usually older students whose job progress depends directly
and soon on their learning. (E.g.,
company-required and subsidized training.)
3. The skills and certification are so valuable
in the current and foreseeable job market that tuition and fees can be raised
much higher than for other kinds of learning.
(E.g., executive MBA programs.)
Of
course, there is always hope that new applications of technology or new ways of
integrating it into educational practice may bring cost savings or additional
revenue opportunities. Such results are
well worth pursuing, but they do not often arrive easily, predictably, or
without competition. Most technology-based
financial gains for traditional educational institutions are more incremental
and usually the result of persistent efforts and the accumulation of small
changes, or the result of bold operational transformations that usually require
several years to plan and fully implement (e.g., new integrated student and
business information systems).
Their
advice: “They aren’t students, they’re
customers. All they want is to master
the minimum necessary to get the certificate.
Don’t teach them anything you can’t explicitly describe in advance and for
which you can’t confidently measure their mastery. The best instruction is finely tuned, professionally shaped, and
independent of the personal quirks of any teacher. Don’t waste the time of the learners and teachers with
unnecessary communication.”
These
cynics ignore the vast majority of human behavior – in schools, colleges, and
“real life.” Watch how most people
learn. Watch what most people seek in
order to learn something really new to them that requires more than the mastery
of a few closely related skills or facts.
Notice how much most people need an external schedule and human guidance
to maintain a regimen of learning activities.
Why
do we expect teachers to get angry at students who do not do the “assignments”
or who do not ask for help or clarification when they don’t think they can do
an “assignment”? In what kinds of
businesses is it considered desirable for employees to get visibly angry at
customers? Why do we think the student
is obligated to do work “assigned” by a teacher? If the learner were only a customer or client, it would simply be
the learner’s choice.
Except
when doing truly independent learning (self-help books, using other materials
designed for independent mastery of specific skills, etc.) most learners seek a
RELATIONSHIP in which someone else who knows how to help learners will provide
a structure, schedule, and access to materials – preferably in an environment
where fellow-learners can encourage each other’s efforts, help each other cope
with the challenges, and commiserate about the shortcomings of the
situation. Most learners WANT the
teacher to feel personally committed to the success of the students. Many learners want (or, at least need) the
pressure of concerned teachers and fellow learners to keep them going.
Education
is not an industry. But there is an
industry supporting education. Most
schools, colleges, and universities must operate in a business-like manner for
some purposes; but not for all.
Their
hype: “Get rid of your campuses,
distance education is the answer.
Everyone is getting wired. All
we need is one superb teacher for each major course for the entire state
(Country? World?) Get with it NOW or perish.”
These
futurists are “myopic,” because they fail to see the growth in demand for
traditional forms of leader-directed, group participation, classroom- and
campus-based education. [Note that
“leader directed” is not synonymous with “teacher-centered”.] These futurists also ignore the slow pace
with which most new technologies can be used to change the core functions of an
enterprise – in industry, government, or education. These tend to be the same simplistic thinkers who ignore what
happened with “educational television” from the 1950s and 1960s.
The
expectations and fears back then were just as bizarre and inaccurate as some of
the zealots’ claims today, and based on the same kind of reductionist
analysis. Because new technology (TV)
could provide a pretty good reproduction of the visual image and sound of a
human being delivering a lecture, they believed the televised availability of
the one best lecturer would eliminate the need for all other teachers of the
same subject and for all “live” meetings.
What really happened? Televised
instruction didn’t replace the vast majority of education. New forms of usage of that media SLOWLY
emerged (and some are still emerging) for enhancing many kinds of education,
replacing some, and offering some that weren’t even conceived before.
Of
course, new applications of technology in new media are making dramatic
improvements in the quality of education available when teachers and learners
are not together in the same place at the same time. Good quality distance education is rapidly becoming a more viable
option for certain kinds of learning needs and learners (and for certain kinds
of teachers). But the “distance” in
“distance education” is not the goal.
Connection is the goal – connection of learners with ideas, information,
teachers, and with each other.
Now,
set aside the distractions of these unworthy visions. The following observations suggest some characteristics important
for a new kind of Vision Worth Working Toward -- a way to improve teaching and
learning with technology in higher education, where “connection,” not
“distance” is the goal. This new kind
of Vision provides a foundation – a structure that embraces change, encourages
thoughtful dialogue and choice of new goals, and supports their achievement.
·
Accelerating
Change, Demand, Access, and Challenge
The demand for higher
education is increasing – for more of it, and for more kinds of it. More colleges and universities are breaking
ground for new buildings than are closing.
New technology applications, that appear to have great educational
potential, arrive from industry at an accelerating pace. While distance education isn’t catching on
nearly as fast, widely, or cost-effectively as the zealots claimed and the
technophobes feared, the majority of faculty, students, and administrators are
rapidly embracing fundamental technology tools for communication and
information management. An
unprecedented foundation for educational change is being laid, but with no
clear picture of the edifice that will arise from it.
Meanwhile, the “digital
divide” is widening. Children of the
poor have dramatically less access to computers and new information resources
in their schools or colleges than the wealthy – just when more careers require
information technology skills. Dozens
of colleges are now requiring or providing computers for all students, faculty,
and staff; and these institutions are
exploring the educational potential of “ubiquitous computing.” However, on many other college and
university campuses, the information technology resources available to faculty
and students vary markedly between departments or divisions (with schools of
education often among those with the smallest budgets per student for these
tools). Many undergraduates who cannot
afford their own computers have family and job obligations that make it
inconvenient to use publicly available labs.
Even with borrowing computers from friends and getting permission to use
computers in the workplace for educational purposes, students who may need it
most have less frequent, less comfortable access.
The economics of higher
education are shifting in unpredictable ways.
The clear old line between students’ paying tuition for courses and
paying fees for course-related learning materials (books, etc.) is rapidly blurring. More faculty members are assigning
instructional materials that students can find on the Web, more students resist
buying required textbooks, and more students are comfortable going to the Web
instead of to the library for reserved readings. Consequently, new financial relationships are developing among
students, faculty, publishers, bookstores, libraries, and colleges. The publishers and bookstore managers are
especially eager to understand or create viable new business models. Some of these might give a more significant
role to faculty members who develop course-related “online” materials and find
new ways of collecting fees from students or their colleges/universities.
The demand is increasing
for college-level degrees and education aimed at other forms of
certification. So is the demand for
college-level education where no certification is provided (additional courses
taken by people who already have college degrees and are NOT seeking another). People have greater need to learn in
preparation to change jobs or apply new skills within a changing
profession. As people live longer, many
find that learning is a satisfying retirement activity. The demand for and acceptance of “anywhere,
anytime, anyone” instruction is increasing – note especially books “for
dummies,” spiritual/psychological self-help books and audiotapes,
do-it-yourself videocassettes, etc..
“Anywhere, anytime,
anyone” isn’t a new goal or capability.
Having SOME valuable sources of information and learning available
anywhere, anytime is a description of the way books have been used for
centuries. One of the best examples is
the familiar desire to have an encyclopedia and other useful reference books
readily available at home – or at a nearby public library. The new power of the Web and related media
makes it desirable and possible to have access to far more information and some
forms of instruction at home, or anywhere else, convenient. That is NOT the same as access to education
– especially the kind of education that takes greatest advantage of the unique
qualities of face-to-face and distant but “synchronous” human communications.
Top-ranking academic
administrators and governing boards no longer ask “Should we invest in academic
uses of information technology?” Most
of them believe that competition for students, faculty, and grants is now based
in part on their institution’s apparent ability to use technology in support of
teaching, learning, and research; and
that they cannot afford to lose in this competition. They also hear the increasing demands from students and industry
for better preparation in the use of technology – for defining and helping
learners’ achieve “information literacy.”
Unfortunately, most academic leaders are not deeply confident of the
results of major technology investments.
These leaders cannot find
compelling data, rely on experience from their own careers, or depend on
trusted professionals to remove all doubts about the educational benefits of
technology investments. The growing mountain
of disorganized anecdotal evidence and collective judgment of individual
faculty members committed to their own new instructional uses of technology
isn’t quite enough. No one can be
certain about how new technology applications will fit best with traditional
educational practices, nor even how some educational goals might need to
change. Board chairs, presidents, chief
academic officers and others are often quite uncomfortable making major
resource allocation decisions in support of educational uses of information
technology.
Well-structured studies
of the educational impacts associated with technology investments can reassure
everyone that the intended educational results are being achieved – or
not. Continuing evaluation and
assessment programs can, at least, provide feedback to enable mid-course
corrections.
·
Patience and
Gratitude for Progress, But No “Moore’s Law for Learning
We must be patient. Human creativity and the achievement of
excellence in the use of new media for communications, education, and the arts
cannot be accelerated or guaranteed.
After almost a century of movie-making, only a few new films each year
offer genuinely new approaches to using that medium. And only a few are truly satisfying for those who made them and
those who view them. We must be
grateful to those who keep trying and for their occasional success. [Also, look at the low success rate for new
books, TV series, …]
There is no “Moore’s Law”
for learning. The speed of human
learning does not double every 18 months, or 18 years. The pace and efficiency of human learning
offered by educational institutions can be improved, but not at the speed or
magnitude of change associated with organizations whose core business depends
on the behavior of computer chips more than people.
After decades of
mathematics education reform efforts in elementary and secondary schools, many
students now begin studying algebra in eighth grade instead of ninth – one
year’s “acceleration.” Only a handful
of accelerated college degree programs are available in which students can earn
bachelor’s degrees before they are 22 or earn medical degrees before they are
25. [Are you sure you want a surgeon
operating on you who mastered his/her profession in half the usual time?]
However, a few people can
and do learn some things much faster and better than others when given
favorable opportunities. And most
people can learn some things better and faster with some kinds of help (e.g.,
“ear training” in music education with computer-based practice; piloting with flight simulators; arithmetic skills with computer-guided
individualized drill-and-practice; basic English composition and writing with
network-based collaborative writing practice;
any subject when the learner is more highly motivated by an inspiring
lecture, a good book, an intriguing Web site, competition with peers, or the
prospect of a job-related promotion).
The dramatic revolution
in education, claimed or hoped for by many, never arrives. But a less visible transformation is well
underway.
·
Unrecognized
Revolution
The unrecognized
revolution in higher education is the growing use of word-processing,
presentation graphics (PowerPoint), electronic mail, and the World Wide Web IN
CONJUNCTION WITH TRADITIONALLY SCHEDULED AND STRUCTURED COURSES. [See Kenneth C. Green’s data about growth in
course-related use of email and the Web in higher education in the last 5
years.] Many of the faculty themselves
and the reporters who observe them have not noticed the significance of these
changes. An observer looking in the
windows of most classrooms at most colleges and universities doesn’t see
anything very different from a few decades ago. The communication between faculty and students via Email outside
of class doesn’t show. The increasingly
common practice of putting some course-related information on the Web for
student access doesn’t show. The
frequent student use of the Web to reach that information or to do assigned
research doesn’t show.
Something like half of
all courses in colleges and universities in the United States already involve
some Email communication among students and faculty. Many faculty members report two major changes: First, the volume of correspondence in the
form of Email they exchange with colleagues and students has dramatically
increased – and so has their workload.
Second, they are also receiving course-related communications from
students AFTER a course has ended.
[Note: Less data is available
about the widespread but un-publicized adoption of technology applications in
academic departments where those applications have become essential for doing
the work of the discipline; e.g.,
accounting, architecture, music, geography, health sciences.]
Many faculty members,
beginning to use Email and the Web in these ways, would answer “No” if asked if
they use information technology in their teaching. They don’t initially perceive these changes as significant. But they are.
·
Irreversible
Pedagogical Consciousness-Raising & Patience with New Media
Most people professionally
committed to education (K-12 teachers, college/university faculty, academic
support professionals, librarians, administrators,…) have had very little
training, incentive, or opportunity to THINK about making choices among
different combinations of technology, pedagogy, content, and educational
purpose. However, many faculty members
are compelled to think about such choices after they have begun to use
commonly available new technology applications in conjunction with courses they
continue to teach.
Many of these faculty
members had no intention of changing the way they taught and the way their
students learned. They were only using
new tools that had become a comfortable part of their professional environment
(e.g., electronic mail, word-processing, the Web). What they discovered was that the quality and quantity of their
communications with students changed, and so did the ways in which they
directed students to information resources.
As they became aware of these changes, they became aware of pedagogical
options.
This
technology-stimulated “pedagogical consciousness-raising” may be irreversible
and lead to further changes in the thinking and behavior of the faculty; and, consequently, to improvements in
teaching and learning. At the same time,
the development of the “scholarship of teaching” (encouraged by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) is providing a conceptual
framework, institutional incentives, and the credibility of traditional
scholarship to support faculty members’ efforts to improve their own teaching.
The current heated
competition among companies supplying tools for Web-based online “course
management” makes it ever easier, more popular, and more expected for faculty
members to place some course-related materials
on the Web for students. Most of
these practices have so far been simple duplications or slight extensions of
what was already being done in traditional classrooms. But that is always the way new technologies
and media are first used. More widespread
creative and distinctive uses can only emerge after more experience and after
more opportunity to experiment.
·
Combining New and
Old Media -- Bring Back Audio!
Meanwhile, most
educational uses of the Web consist overwhelmingly of digitized text created by
reproducing text from a faculty member’s computer, print on paper, or notes for
a classroom speech. The next most
common step is adding pictures, diagrams, and perhaps some animation or video
clips. This trend may reflect the
belief that many of the younger (age 18 to 25) students are more visually
oriented and comfortable with TV-like screens than with conventional print
materials.
Many faculty members are
concerned with the apparent growing reluctance of many students to read and
learn from books. Many find that their
students do NOT purchase assigned textbooks (new or used). It is well-known in the textbook industry
that in the past 5 years the percentage of students who do NOT purchase
textbooks has grown from less than 10% to more than 30%. Perhaps related, many reference librarians
report that students doing research are too strongly attracted by the Web and
don’t understand the comparative advantages of different research media. Too often students spend hours online
finding information that is available from a book in a few minutes – and, more
rarely, vice versa. Thus, “information
literacy” is being redefined.
However, even though
traditional-age students seem receptive to sound (at least to recorded music),
the educational and communicative power of human speech is hardly being used in
Web-based instructional materials.
Centuries of practice in spoken communication are not yet being
transferred to the Web, but the potential is great. “Early adopter” faculty are beginning to explore adding their own
voices to the text they provide for their students in Web-based course
materials.
·
Overloaded,
Overconnected, and Disconnected
Information overload is
dramatically increasing. So is work
overload. Having almost constant access
to new varieties of communication tools means being almost constantly
accessible to a growing flood of messages and information – personal,
impersonal, and semi-personal. Many
people are finding they can’t get their work done in the office. (“I’ve got to go home; I really need to get some work done.”) The overload has many people both
“overconnected and disconnected”. They
are recipients of more information than ever before. They don’t know how to manage and digest it. They don’t have much time or energy left for
meaningful personal relations. [See the
“human moment” in Connect by Edward Hallowell.]
Most faculty seem to have
adjusted to the acceleration in knowledge growth in their fields, and so have
most of the related support professionals.
However, neither the faculty nor those who are responsible for
supporting their teaching can keep up with the new acceleration in growth of
instructional options. Many feel
increasingly obliged to identify and understand their pedagogical and
technological options and to make thoughtful choices among them. Many work harder and fall farther
behind. Expectations outstrip
resources. The signs of stress are
abundant.
·
Compassionate
Pioneers
Many self-motivated
faculty members who first explore educational uses of information technology –
even beyond the use of generic “office suite” tools – are developing
applications with great educational potential.
Some of these often-under-supported experiments are likely to lead,
eventually, to major new educational uses of technology. Their work is sometimes linked with the
research and development efforts of their own educational institutions and/or
companies in related industries.
On each campus, a few of
these leaders are “Compassionate Pioneers” who feel a commitment to help their
colleagues learn to use new technology/pedagogy combinations. Compassionate Pioneers can be among the most
valuable resources for change at a college or university. Academic support services often benefit from
the informal efforts of these unsung heroes.
Unfortunately, at many educational institutions, some of them are
getting tired and have begun closing their doors to colleagues. Academic support services should be
re-organized to embrace and assist Compassionate Pioneers – and to take advantage
of their energy and credibility with their colleagues. [At some institutions, Compassionate
Pioneers are granted release time, appointed as “faculty fellows,” or given
other incentives.] .
The collaborative
inclinations and skills of the Compassionate Pioneers can also contribute
beyond the walls of any one campus.
Thousands of faculty members are beginning to build their own modest
course-related collections of materials, activities, references, and links on
the Web. Some of the Compassionate Pioneers
could be instrumental in aggregating and focusing those efforts, to help avoid
some of the wasteful duplication. That
is, if the culture of colleges, universities, and academic disciplines will
support the development and use of shared instructional resources. For some faculty members, it may be easier
to collaborate for such purposes within their disciplines than within their
institutions; however, collaboration
within institutions must become more acceptable, rewarded, and supported.
·
Collaboration vs.
Support Service Crisis
At most colleges and
universities the supply of resources available to help faculty improve teaching
and learning with technology is simply inadequate to meet rising
expectations. In addition, these
resources are usually not well-coordinated – wasteful duplication is too
common. The usual lack of coordination
and collaboration among different parts of most educational institutions
compounds the impact of the shortage of support service professionals and
undermines the college’s or university’s capacity to adopt and adapt valuable
new combinations of technology, pedagogy, and educational purpose. These combinations can only be developed and
used effectively if the essential expertise and resources controlled by the
“Constituencies for Change” [see below] can be focused TOGETHER on improving
teaching and learning.
Attractive new technology
applications keep arriving faster than colleges and universities can integrate
them. As Mark Milliron suggested in a
presentation in October, 1999 at the League for Innovation in the Community
College annual technology conference:
every six months, with the arrival of the next exciting application or
the next significant update to the standard suite of office tools, everyone is
a novice once again. Most novices ask
lots of predictable questions which can be easily and quickly answered.
As faculty become more
experienced users of technology, many of them need less help with new
“introductory” questions. However,
these veterans are likely to see how they might use it to achieve more
sophisticated, educationally attractive goals.
Their questions and support needs become more complex and require more
expert, possibly lengthy assistance.
The variety of technology
tools and applications used at most colleges and universities also exacerbates
technical support problems. In many
other industries, institutional standardization on certain hardware, software,
and related tools can reduce support costs by restricting the variety of
technical support services provided.
Unfortunately, this kind of standardization may reduce instructional
options and, thereby, conflict with some interpretations of academic freedom.
The availability of
appropriately skilled professionals may be diminishing just when the demands
for technical support on most campuses are increasing. Because the technology “support service
crisis” isn’t limited to education, many of these same professionals are
discovering they can get similar jobs in industry with much higher salaries and
less stress. Fortunately, some still
prefer the flexibility and variety in their work on campus; and they value opportunities to work with
students, teachers, and researchers available only in academia.
One of education’s unique
resources, the students, provide the most promising response to the shortage of
campus technical professionals. Several
colleges and universities are developing or expanding programs to train and
engage students as assistants with technology and related support services. But so far, these programs have only slowed
the rate of widening in the gap between resources and expectations; they haven’t reduced the need for
professional staff – nor are they likely too.
The “Support Service
Crisis” is most visible with respect to technology support personnel. Closely related causes have the same effects
for librarians, faculty development professionals, instructional design and
media specialists, etc. As more faculty
and students use the Web, librarians’ advice and assistance are more frequently
needed to help navigate this new information resource and evaluate the
credibility of the sources. As faculty
members shift from personal productivity uses of technology to instructional
applications, they more often need the help of those with related professional
expertise (instructional design, faculty development, pedagogy). As faculty members become more comfortable
with the Web and more conscious of students’ different learning styles (visual,
audio, …) many of them begin to explore the educational potential of new media
and need the help of experts in their use.
Finally, fragmentation
and the unintended overlapping of academic support services is getting more
common in response to the new pressures just described:
- Librarians find they
are providing technical support (“How do I print?” instead of “Where can I find
information about X?”).
- Technology, media, and
instructional design professionals find they are providing pedagogical support
(“How do I use this tool to teach topic Y in my course?”).
- Pedagogy experts and
faculty development professionals find they are providing technical training
(“How do I convert my outline to PowerPoint slides?” “How can I use a Web-based discussion to support collaborative
learning?”).
The gap is widening
between the level of support services available and the expectations of faculty
members, administrators, and students.
Consequently, more coordination and collaboration among these service
units may reduce, but not eliminate, the need for more academic support
professionals. The Support Service
Crisis is getting worse.
The use of information
technology is clearly not an educational panacea – a cure for all
problems. Information technology can be
the excuse and the means to move closer to educational goals that we have been
unable to achieve for decades – and to some new ones. With enough commitment of resources, thoughtful effort, patience,
and luck technology will help more than it hurts.
TWENTY PREDICTIONS
What
follows are twenty predictions about teaching, learning, and technology --
based on the implications of the preceding observations. Most of these predictions are about how
things will continue to change. Of
course, major new discoveries or social upheavals are impossible to predict,
and even the consequences of currently significant new technologies may bring
surprises in the next few years. Who
knows what shape the Internet will have in 2005? Who knows what the next “big thing” after the Web might be?
·
The Safest Prediction
In
the next decade at least one major new trend in the educational use of
information technology will NOT have been predicted by anyone highly respected
in fields closely related to education or technology. Technology can change quickly and unpredictably, even if human
nature cannot.
·
Accelerating Accumulation of Knowledge; Wisdom, Selectivity, and Guidance
The
accumulation of information and knowledge will continue to accelerate. Respect and reward for conveyed wisdom,
knowledgeable selectivity, and thoughtful guidance will grow. People will pay a premium for services that
pre-sift information; i.e., for the
privilege of NOT receiving so much information or communication. Learners with good information tools at home
or in school will become less dependent on teachers for access to
information; but more dependent on them
for perspective, interpretation, analysis, motivation, and direction.
·
No “Moore’s Law” for Learning
No
“Moore’s Law” for learning will emerge.
No new application of technology, no new educational approach will
double the speed of human learning.
More combinations of technology and pedagogy will be developed and both
the speed and effectiveness of education in many fields will increase
significantly, but not dramatically.
·
Variety of Educational Needs, Abilities, Goals, Programs, and
Institutions
Teachers,
learners, and other human beings will continue to have a remarkable range of
educational needs, abilities, and goals.
The variety of educational programs and institutions in the United
States will increase, even as consolidation continues in closely related
industries (e.g., publishing, communications media).
·
New Technology Applications Enhance Traditional Courses
New
applications of technology, that appear to offer the potential for improving
teaching and learning, will continue to arrive at an accelerating pace; but the dominant model for using technology
in higher education will continue to be the enhancement of traditional classroom-based
courses. More new buildings will be
opened on higher education campuses than will be closed.
·
“Distance Education” Becomes More Creditable
Fully
asynchronous “distance education” courses, especially those that require no
special meeting space, will become more credible and attractive -- and will be
used for many kinds of instruction.
Many people will welcome supplementary educational ATMs [Automatic
Teaching Machines?] into their homes and offices. Unlike the role of ATMs in banking, these educational ATMs will
not be viewed as the preferred alternatives for most kinds of traditional
education.
·
Distance Education and Online Education Mix with Face-to-Face
Mixtures
of online and face-to-face education will become more common than programs that
offer either one alone. The most widely
used patterns will be:
·
No Proof, But Widespread Adoption of Email, Web, and
Instructional Combinations
No
conclusive proof of the general educational superiority of any technology
application will emerge. Evaluation and
assessment activities will be used more frequently to improve the results of
continuing investments of time, money, and other resources in educational uses
of technology. However, some
combinations of technology application, teaching/learning approach, and subject
matter content will be widely adopted because they are so easily implemented,
reasonably priced, and OBVIOUSLY effective in achieving important educational
goals. Debate about these combinations,
if it arises at all, will be brief and inconsequential. For example, the vast majority of faculty
members will decide to use electronic mail and the World Wide Web in their
scholarly work – including teaching – without the benefit of convincing
evaluative studies.
·
Increase Technology Investments; Forums for Exploration, Planning, Advice
Presidents,
boards, and other academic leaders will continue to increase institutional
resource allocations for academic uses of information technology – and to be
uncomfortable about doing so.
Consequently, more colleges and universities will form internal groups
representing diverse constituencies (faculty, academic support professionals,
administrators, students, …) and provide them with a forum to:
[These groups are like TLTRs -- Teaching,
Learning, and Technology Roundtables.]
·
Institutionalize Change, Accept Risk, Make Space/Time Flexible
More
colleges and universities will recognize the need to plan for and
institutionalize a process for change, and to accept the increased risk of
failure along with the exciting prospects of new success. This attitude may be instigated by, but not
limited to, the increasing importance and more widespread use of information
technology in teaching, learning, and research. To institutionalize change, colleges and universities will:
·
Widening Expectation-Resource Gap
At
most educational institutions, the gap between expectations and resources will
continue to widen (with respect to the improvement of teaching and learning
with technology). The need for academic
support services will continue to grow faster than the supply. The competition from industry to hire
technical support professionals will become more intense. Both learners and teachers will need the
services of librarians more frequently and extensively so long as sources of
information continue to proliferate.
Demand will continue to increase for the services of faculty development
professionals, instructional design specialists, and other pedagogical experts
(as a consequence of the increasing number of faculty members who want to use
new applications of technology in their teaching).
·
New Faculty Responsibilities, Increasing Workload for All
More
faculty members will decide that their professional responsibilities include
keeping current with the knowledge accumulating in their fields, pedagogical
options, and supportive technology applications. The workload for faculty, academic support professionals, and
academic administrators will continue to increase.
·
Extend, Coordinate, and/or Outsource Academic Support Services
More
colleges and universities will form local centers and/or related institutional
Web-based directories, forums, and services to coordinate the work of existing
academic support services, encourage the development of new combinations of
those services, and make it easier for faculty and students to find and use
those services. More institutions will
also “outsource” some technology and other academic support services and/or
develop inter-institutional collaborations for more cost-effective delivery of
those services. Other new commercial
services may provide “academic” support services directly to faculty members or
students – with or without the involvement of the colleges or universities in
which those learners and teachers do their work. This may be a new role for textbook publishers and other
companies in education-related industries.
·
Student Technology Assistants
To
meet the growing need for academic support services, more colleges and
universities will take advantage of one of their unique resources – the
students. They will move beyond current
programs of using students for clerical help in the library and as room
monitors in computer labs. They will
provide more training for these student assistants, give them opportunities for
more technologically and consultatively challenging work, and promote some to
positions of responsibility for supervising and training their peers. Many students, especially those who are not
pursuing technology-focused careers, will find the training and experience of
these roles a major asset in preparing for most jobs or further study as the
value of technology skills continues to
increase in most fields.
·
More Speech on the Web
Human
speech on the Web – recorded or delivered live -- will take a central role in
many kinds of education. It will become
easy for faculty members and students to add recordings of their own speech to
text and other information media. Voice
recognition software may dramatically alter human-computer interaction and all
related communications/education activities;
probably NOT by eliminating keyboards, but by adding another attractive
mode for controlling technology and entering and editing text.
·
Better Understanding of Face-to-Face Communication and Other
Teaching/Learning Options
Educators,
corporate leaders, and many others (religious leaders? entertainers?) will
learn to take greater advantage of the unique possibilities of face-to-face
communications. They will do so in
conjunction with the invention of new ways of combining applications of
technology, pedagogical options, content, and purposes. They will discover the new power of matching
all of these with the different capabilities and styles of individual learners,
individual teachers, and groups of both.
The “human moment” [see Connect by Edward Hallowell] in which two human
beings talk AND LISTEN to each other in the same place at the same time will be
more highly valued and sought more intentionally and frequently.
·
Academic Freedom Redefined
As
faculty and student roles shift and new educational resources are integrated,
academic freedom and faculty leadership will remain highly valued; but they may be redefined. Many faculty members will embrace greater
responsibility for identifying, selecting, and implementing pedagogical options
– and supportive applications of technology.
·
Adjuncts Become More Important
Adjunct
faculty members, especially retirees from first careers, will continue to
become a growing part of the teaching faculty at most colleges – both in
classrooms and online. Support services
for adjuncts will become more common and necessary. Part-time teaching may prove among the most attractive and
self-respect-enhancing new retirement options.
·
Access, Disabilities, and Information Literacy
Access
to computers, related information resources, and “information literacy” will
become higher societal priorities. More
educational institutions will recognize and respond to the need to provide such
equitable access for all --- regardless of wealth or disabilities. Many colleges and universities will develop
programs for defining and regularly revising access and information literacy
goals; and for helping students,
faculty, administration, and staff to achieve them. Eventually, colleges and universities may only need to offer
guidelines about the expected information literacy competencies of entering
students, and to provide some modest remedial services for the few who require
them.
·
Educational Rights and Educational Costs
Debate
will continue on how much education, of what kind, for whom. As with health care, the notions of a
citizen’s educational rights and the locus of decision making about them will
be difficult to resolve. Human society
will recognize that the costs of the most effective kinds of education (like
the costs of much of the most effective kinds of health care) will continue to
rise faster than the costs of food, clothing, and housing. Quality of life for will depend on access to
better quality education and health care for all. [Will enough world resources be generated and allocated to
provide everyone with adequate food, health care, shelter, clothing, and
education? How will “adequate” be
defined?]
Finally,
the concluding section of this paper will describe a new kind of Vision – a
vision that seems both feasible and worth the effort to achieve it. Yet, it is not a vision of an end, but
rather of the means for steering in the right direction, confirming progress,
and making mid-course corrections.
CONNECTED EDUCATION
AND COLLABORATIVE CHANGE
The following description focuses on a vision of Connected Education and Collaborative Change WITHIN a college or university. The ideas can easily be extended inter-institutionally, but that is beyond the scope of this “paper.”
Connected Education
In this vision of
education, individual learners, teachers, and related support professionals
connect better to information, ideas and each other via effective combinations
of pedagogy and technology – both old and new, on-campus and online. Within the context of the institution’s
educational mission, all have more opportunities to connect with each other’s
efforts to identify, understand, develop, and improve effective combinations
of:
All these connections can
make teaching and learning more visible, and susceptible to the influence of a
much wider range of participants and contributors. While the benefits of this richer mix can be great, academic
freedom may need to be protected and, perhaps, redefined for this changing
environment.
“Connected education” is
an educational vision deeper and broader than “distance education,”
“asynchronous education,” or “online education.” The latter three describe conditions or media associated with
certain kinds of teaching and learning.
Distance, asynchronicity, and being online are NOT educational goals in
themselves. Fortunately, new
applications of information technology make it possible to teach and learn more
effectively than ever before at a distance, asynchronously, or online -- and
doing so can help achieve “connected education.”
Connected Education will
always be a work in progress. Perhaps
the biggest obstacles to achieving it soon are that most people in higher
education have NOT been prepared to:
(1) think about how best
to combine the elements listed above;
(2) cope with the
accelerating rate of growth of new knowledge in academic disciplines and new
instructional options; and
(3) work collaboratively
to improve teaching and learning.
To overcome these
obstacles requires a new kind of collaboration – “Collaborative Change.”
Collaborative Change
Collaborative Change
enables an institution’s diverse constituencies to define and achieve a new
harmony of curriculum, pedagogy and technology. This process also helps a college or university respond to the
accelerating pace -- and shape the results -- of change in support of the
educational mission. Finally, new
applications of information technology are used in this process to support both
online and face-to-face collaboration among a wide range of participants.
At the heart of
Collaborative Change is a group spanning most of the institution’s key
constituencies (e.g., a Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable –
TLTR). This group usually includes
several faculty members, academic administrators, academic support
professionals, students, and other leaders and representatives. To engage the best thinking and achieve the
greatest commitment of all those involved, this diverse group operates
consensually, with strong support from the top of the institutional
hierarchy. This group can:
One important function of
the group is to lead or contribute to the process of determining which goals
and values from the institution’s past are most important to preserve and which
should be transformed – and to suggest when to repeat this process in response
to major new opportunities to change teaching and learning with
technology.
The foundation and
building blocks for Collaborative Change are the Constituencies for Change,
TLTR, (V)TLTC, TLTC (see below), and related strategies, programs, services,
and resources (e.g., see “Curriculum for Change” at WWW.TLTGROUP.ORG).
In Collaborative Change,
academic and administrative support units collaborate to provide faculty and
students with more cost-effective access to existing resources,
expertise, and support services – while new ones are being developed. New technology applications and
institutional structures are used to support new levels of communication and
cooperation among academic support professionals (library, information technology,
faculty development, and others).
With Collaborative
Change, academic service departments and related professionals working together
can apply the most relevant expertise where it can be most effectively
used. In some cases, synergistic new combinations
of services can be developed and used to help faculty make previously
inconceivable – or, at least, unachievable -- educational improvements. Collaborative Change can also reduce “turf”
battles and wasteful duplication of effort, especially among support
services.
Constituencies for
Change
Constituencies for Change
are those who must be involved in a coherent, continuing cost-effective
effort to improve teaching and learning with technology; those essential to achieve Connected
Education through Collaborative Change.
Each educational institution may have a unique combination of key
constituencies, but the following list is a good starting place: students;
faculty (leaders, “Compassionate Pioneers,” mainstream); academic support professionals (library,
pedagogy, technology/media, space/time [physical plant, registrar], information
system [administrative, student, …integrated]); administration (president, chief academic officer, other
administrative leaders); institutional
governing body (e.g., board).
In higher education,
collaboration is almost always difficult to achieve, support, and sustain. The Teaching, Learning, and Technology
Roundtable (TLTR) approach is an organizational device to foster such collaboration
among representatives of many of the
important Constituencies for Change.
Virtual and real Teaching, Learning, and Technology Centers – (V)TLTCs
and TLTCs -- can complement, extend, and implement some of the deliberations of
TLTRs.
A Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtable
(TLTR) is a group of 15-35 (or more!) people representing diverse parts of the
college or university (see “Constituencies for Change” above), focusing regular
discussion on how to improve teaching and learning with technology. The TLTR,
usually advisory, provides recommendations to the Chief Academic Officer
and/or other academic leaders about programs, policies, and resource
allocations. For example, TLTRs often
plan and recommend related programs to help:
Many local Roundtables
have already begun to extend their roles and increase available resources by
working with similar groups from other colleges or universities or by engaging
representatives from nearby industry.
Sooner or later, most
TLTRs focus directly on ways of supporting faculty efforts to improve teaching
and learning with technology. First,
members of a TLTR need to learn about and appreciate the relevant faculty
support resources already available and the ease or difficulty of using
them. In most colleges and
universities, current resources are far short of the levels needed to meet
rapidly growing expectations for what should be accomplished with educational
uses of information technology. The
availability of even those limited resources is usually fragmented and their
use confusing to faculty members – compounding the frustrating effects of too
scarce support services.
Consequently, Roundtables
often conclude that it would be valuable to increase support budgets, extend
current uses of student technology assistants, and foster better collaboration
among academic support services. The
latter two can increase the efficiency of using available funding, but can
never fully replace the need to budget for adequate support services, provide
appropriate faculty incentives, etc..
So, while striving toward -- or waiting for -- increased budgets,
Roundtables may focus on ways of enabling academic support professionals to
work together more cost-effectively and synergistically.
A TLTR may establish a
sub-group or “action team” for this purpose, but eventually the Roundtable is
likely to recognize that something more than a TLTR is required. Five options are available to enable
academic support professionals to work TOGETHER to help faculty members improve
teaching and learning with technology:
1. Support service professionals collaborate
informally;
2. Separate academic service units jointly offer
programs or ongoing services;
3. Most support services (technology, pedagogy,
library, information systems, etc.) report to the same person -- who encourages
them to collaborate with each other to help the faculty [Note: the size and complexity of the institution
should suggest whether each service must have its own director, or whether several
services can report to the same director];
4. Online systems foster inter-office communication
and cooperation, and provide information and services to faculty -- e.g.,
(V)TLTC, see below; and
5. Representatives of most support services work
together regularly in a shared space -- e.g., TLTC, see below.
A college or university
should proceed with any or all of these approaches based on a pragmatic
assessment of local resources, culture, and politics.
Virtual Teaching,
Learning, and Technology Centers or actual Teaching, Learning and Technology
Centers [(V)TLTCs or TLTCs] can be useful complements and extensions for local
TLTRs. TLTRs are diverse, broadly
representative, advisory, and open to a wide range of topics. In contrast, (V)TLTCs and TLTCs offer space
(virtual and/or real) in which academic support service professionals can
exchange information, develop new services together, and work with faculty to
improve teaching and learning with technology.
Through this collaboration, new kinds of knowledge about improving
teaching, learning and how to help faculty do so may be created, faculty can be
helped to understand new teaching options and assemble new combinations of
instructional materials and approaches, and activities and research related to
the “scholarship of teaching” may be supported.
The combination of BOTH
online and onsite access is likely to be the most widely effective and powerful
for most of the following functions, services, and resources. However, any (V)TLTC or TLTC can usefully
provide at least some of the following:
The purposes and
procedures of a TLTR, (V)TLTC, and TLTC can and must be shaped to reflect the
mission and nature of the institution which they serve. These programs and services must
demonstrably help all participants to
advance Collaborative Change, understand the value of Connected Education, and
bring their own related Visions Worth Working Toward within closer reach.
(V)TLTC
A Virtual Teaching,
Learning, and Technology Center is an online service and resource extending the
accessibility and coordination of faculty and student support services and
related programs and resources for improving teaching and learning with
technology. A (V)TLTC can begin quite
modestly, perhaps as a portion of the college or university Web site listing
the hours and rules governing the availability of some of the institution’s
current resources for faculty members.
However, it can grow into a powerful and valued source of assistance for
faculty members and those who support their work by including some or all of
the elements listed for each of the following:
·
Information
Case studies, success and failure stories, sample plans, syllabi, reviews of
technology/pedagogy products and services, etc. Reports and requests from the TLTR or TLTC.
This Virtual Center can
foster further development and delivery of services from several of the key
academic support services, and lead to more active and effective coordination
of their work. [The “key academic
support services” may include but not necessarily be limited to the academic
support professionals listed in the “Constituencies for Change” above.]
But, ultimately, the
collaboration of the key academic support services may be best achieved,
continued, and made visible to those who need them by establishing a physical
space (TLTC) where some of the representatives from those services can meet
together and offer some of their combined services. A (V)TLTC can also enable the full community to participate more
directly in the efforts of a local TLTR or TLTC. Finally, a TLTR may be ideally constituted to serve as the
advisory or governing board for the (V)TLTC.
Use of the (V)TLTC can be made more responsive to the goals and interests of each faculty member or other users. Individualized access to the (V)TLTC may be enabled by new Web “portal” technology services and tools; i.e., each faculty member might be able to specify or develop a view of the (V)TLTC that reflects his/her most important current needs and interests. That “view” will be presented whenever that individual subsequently uses the (V)TLTC.
Additionally, another
kind of (V)TLTC may provide online and other forms of support for a group of
local TLTCs and TLTRs from different colleges or universities. (V)TLTCs may be formed for groups of
institutions based on region, peer status, shared focus on a particular program
or strategy, or common need for consulting or exchange of mentoring services.
Within the (V)TLTC, the
TLT Directory plays a special role.
TLT Directory
A TLT Directory is a (usually online) collection
of information about local (within the institution) services, materials,
events, facilities, other resources, and good practices related to the use of
information technology to improve teaching and learning. Such a directory can easily become the first
step toward establishing a (V)TLTC, or can become a central part of a
(V)TLTC. The directory should include
details about the availability of current resources from a TLTC if there is one
and from most relevant service, administrative, and academic units (e.g., the
library, central technology support, de-centralized technology labs, new media center,
instructional design, pedagogical expertise, etc. – also see “Constituencies
for Change” above.) This directory
should also include the names and contact information for faculty members who
are already using new applications of information technology in their own
teaching and who are willing to demonstrate their accomplishments and, perhaps,
help their colleagues. (Also, see
“Compassionate Pioneer” below.)
Finally, portions of the directory can be designed
to encourage and permit users to add information directly themselves. For example, faculty members could be
invited to add descriptions of their own projects or links to exemplary work of
colleagues in their own disciplines at other institutions. Of course, this option requires providing
clear guidelines and a disclaimer of institutional responsibility and control,
and some follow-up review process to ensure that it does not result in the
distribution and tacit endorsement of frivolous or misleading information. An attractive – but more time-consuming –
option is to have the submitted information go directly to a review panel which
can quickly confirm the clarity and authenticity of the offering and place it
in the appropriate location within the (V)TLTC. The review panel might include a librarian, a technology/pedagogy
expert, and a “Compassionate Pioneer” (see below).
TLTC
A local Teaching,
Learning, and Technology Center is a physical space in which -- and from which
– faculty members are helped by some of the shared resources of the library,
pedagogy experts (e.g., faculty development, instructional design), and
technology professionals -- and, perhaps, others. Another benefit of such a shared space is the cross-training
opportunities for the academic support professionals themselves. For example, librarians and technology
specialists can learn from pedagogy experts how new information resources and
technology applications can be used more effectively with some approaches to
teaching and learning than with others.
Technology and pedagogy experts can learn from librarians how to help
faculty members find information on the Web more efficiently and evaluate its
authenticity before recommending it to students. Librarians and pedagogy experts can learn from technologists how
to help faculty members use and manage new machines, tools, and network
resources. A TLTC may also benefit from
the use of Student Technology Assistants (STAs) in a variety of roles; and the STAs may benefit from having the
TLTC as the locus of their supervision, training, and guidance.
Many colleges and
universities already have at least one “center” that offers SOME of the
resources and services suggested for a TLTC.
Many institutions have multiple centers. Most often, one is designated for “faculty development” and
offers workshops about pedagogical options and responds to requests from
individual faculty members for help with their teaching. Another center might provide technical
assistance to those developing multi-media instructional materials. Bringing together all the relevant resources
– or at least representatives from them -- in one TLT Center can foster new
levels of awareness of the available services, efficiency in their delivery,
and synergy for developing new services to meet changing faculty needs.
On the other hand,
creating this new union or collaboration can be expensive, politically
challenging, and even appear to threaten some careers. In fact, for some institutions, especially
larger and more complex universities, linking the activities of several related
centers may be more plausible and effective than creating a single new
one. Consequently, unification of all
into one Center must be explored and managed carefully. It will probably require high-level
administrative endorsement; imaginative
new resource allocations or fundraising;
and a timetable that reflects the realities of local politics, culture,
and budget.
Finding, retrofitting,
equipping or building the FLEXIBLE space necessary to support the integration
of some of the kinds of resources and services suggested above for
TLTC/(V)TLTCs (“Reference Desk,” “Base Camp,” etc.) requires planning,
coordination, funding, and finding appropriate architectural services. Few architects have any experience designing
or modifying such spaces, but some have done closely related work that takes
into account new information technology, organizational structures that shift
quickly, and the need to devise spaces conducive to collaboration. The library, with its tradition of service
and practice of making resources available for use by faculty is one obvious
place in which (or near which) to house such a center.
In any institution,
reorganization is difficult. Fostering
collaboration among units as diverse in culture, function, and history as the
library, faculty development, and technology support groups is no
exception. The pace with which these
groups can achieve real collaboration toward the common goal of helping faculty
and students with teaching, learning, and research can vary greatly. It can begin as easily as someone from one
group meeting with someone from another and agreeing to exchange ideas. Another step might be the joint development
and offering of a single workshop by two offices (e. g., faculty development
and technology support). Eventually,
however, to ensure the continuation of such collaborative efforts independent
of the personalities and good nature of a few individuals, the process must be
institutionalized. It may be necessary
to have the units all report to the same individual – probably someone with a
solid understanding of the academic programs of the institution, deep
commitment to the educational mission, and someone who is respected by most of
the faculty.
Staffing a TLTC offers
two additional challenges. (1) The person selected to direct this center
must be credible with and able to lead professionals from a variety of support
services – without appearing to favor or rely on any one unduly. (2)
Inviting a support professional to leave his/her current position and
relocate to the new Center may be perceived as a threat. The individual may worry that such a move
will end one career path without much certainty of where the new one might
lead. This second problem can be
dramatically reduced by launching the TLTC only after a strongly supported 3-
to 5-year plan and associated budgetary commitment have been developed and
widely publicized and endorsed. Another
option is to begin by inviting many of the relevant support services to provide
staff on a frequently rotating schedule.
The latter idea encourages each service to have as many of its
professionals as possible spend SOME of their time in the Center. While they are there, they will be getting
to know and learning to work with representative from other services. Over time, with the Center atmosphere and
resources conducive to collaborative thinking and project development, this
more varied interaction can be the basis for more widespread collaboration
among the services. Even when the
participants are back at “home” in their regular offices, they will know better
whom they may call for help with certain problems; and they will feel more confident in the abilities of their
colleagues in other services.
Finally, a TLTC can
benefit from linkage with a (V)TLTC, TLTR, and “Compassionate Pioneers.” A (V)TLTC can provide more convenient and
effective access for some members of the community to some of the TLTC’s
activities that do not depend on face-to-face communication. A TLTR may be ideally constituted to serve
as the advisory or governing board for a TLTC – especially if the TLTR includes
a representative of the faculty governance organization and representatives of
all academic support services. TLTCs
often provide strong support for the efforts of “Compassionate Pioneers” and
depend on their energy, expertise, and good nature.
Compassionate Pioneers
“Compassionate Pioneers” are among the
first individuals to attempt to use and
embrace new applications of information technology to improve teaching and
learning; but these pioneers also feel
a commitment to helping their peers.
Compassionate pioneers recognize that many of their colleagues may not
have as much technological dexterity, comfort with experimentation, tolerance
for ambiguity and uncertainty, or discretionary time as they do.
At any college or university,
Compassionate Pioneers are both a valuable and scarce resource. As others discover the skills, expertise,
and availability of these special people, requests for their help can multiply
rapidly. Compassionate Pioneers need to
be honored, protected, and supported before they simply wear out and begin to
avoid the questions and resent the solicitations of their colleagues. At some institutions, release time or small
grants of equipment, software, or staff support may be provided for some of
these individuals. They may also be
recognized more formally and designated as “faculty fellows” (or similar title
of respect) and assigned to work with the TLTC, the (V)TLTC, or the TLTR.
Compassionate Pioneers can also
benefit from finding, communicating, and working with their peers at other
institutions. In doing so, they can
become effective links for inter- as well as intra-institutional efforts to improve
teaching and learning with technology.
Connected Education is more of a
vision to work toward than an end to reach.
Collaborative Change is an ongoing process. While many hundreds of TLTRs already exist, the ideas offered
above about TLTCs, (V)TLTCs, and Compassionate Pioneers are still new and
emerging -- rapidly. How soon will
these new programs need to be re-defined or re-directed? What are the most foreseeable risks or
disappointments? What are the most
important successes they are likely to achieve?
How can these ideas be extended beyond
separate institutions – to consortia, state systems, or groups of colleges or
universities? Also, to groups of
individuals from different institutions?