Traditions to Transformations: The Forced Evolution of Higher Education

Considering the need for fiber optics, hardware, technicians, special staff development opportunities and ongoing maintenance, schools must invest far more in technology-enhanced courses than in “traditional” low-technology courses. Since learner achievement is not significantly different between hightech and low-tech courses, why would higher education institutions fight so hard to secure funding for instructional technology? The answer comes directly from those whose lives are most affected by education: the learners. Learners demand more than a glorified correspondence course or a televised lecture hall, each of which is relatively inexpensive and easy to develop and deploy through existing technologies. This article focuses on the advantages and the necessity of infusing instructional technologies in higher education. The article: (a) explores the assumptions about teaching and learning with technologies, (b) identifies changes and reforms in higher education, from tradition to transformation, and (c) summarizes necessary components for successful transformational higher education—transparent and seamless student services, convenience, individualized instruction, high quality/best-in-class delivery and interactivity. Traditions to Transformations 3 Although schools invest far more in the high-tech courses, the promise that newer technologies would deliver education efficiently and cheaply and save faculty time that could be devoted to individualized student contact has yet to be fulfilled. In reality, technology enhancements have more often been attached to existing traditionally delivered courses, thus adding to the cost of education (Gladieux & Swail, 1999 April). Is this investment justified through student achievement gains? Do students learn more in distance learning or technologyenhanced environments? Is computer-based instruction more effective than lecture-based instruction? These and countless similar questions are asked repeatedly of anyone involved in the field of instructional technology. If we answer honestly, we must say that there is no significant difference in academic achievement between traditional and technology-enhanced courses. However, we will argue vehemently and correctly that there are measurable and critical advantages to investing in technology for teaching and learning, and not necessarily in delivery. It must be clarified that we cannot describe real gains from instructional technology while being consistently asked the wrong questions (Ehrmann, 1997; 1999). Rather than compare live lectures to CD-ROMs, we should reframe our questions to address how technologies are used to enable, facilitate, and support the teaching and learning enterprise, both from the students’ perspective and from an investment perspective. This article focuses on the advantages and the necessity of infusing instructional technologies in higher education. The article: (a) explores the assumptions about teaching and learning with technologies, (b) identifies Traditions to Transformations 4 changes and reforms in higher education, from tradition to transformation, and (c) summarizes necessary components for successful transformational higher education. Teaching and Learning with Technologies Certainly, educators are concerned with the quality of the education in distance learning environments. Administrators are concerned with the additional cost of delivery and the possible net gain in reaching larger and more far flung audiences of learners. And the public is concerned with the belief that high technology is justified only if it ensures high achievement in learning. However, study after study on comparing traditional courses with computer-based or technology-enhanced courses yields no significant difference in academic achievement (Russell, 1997). In fact, such media comparison studies—studies designed to measure any academic gain due to the use of one instructional medium over another—will most likely produce no significant difference in achievement, given the flawed assumption that the medium alone influences learning (Clark, 1983; 1994a; 1994b; Kozma, 1991; 1994a; 1994b; Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994; Lockee, Burton, & Cross, 1999; Russell, 1997). The danger in reporting such results is that decision makers on campuses and in-state legislatures conclude that there is no need to continue funding technology-enhanced learning when traditional media (the teacher) and traditional settings (the classroom) result in the same amount of knowledge for the student. Even more dangerous are the studies and popular press articles that suggest technology is actually the source of social alienation (Gladieux & Swail, Traditions to Transformations 5 1999 April) and has set the stage for a new form of classism and racism known as the digital divide (Gladieux & Swail, 1999 April; Murphy, 1990; The Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology-1999, 1999; US Department of Education, 1999; US Department of Commerce, 1998). So why are schools, particularly those in higher education, fighting so hard to secure funding for technology? The answer comes directly from those whose lives are most affected by education: the learners. In today’s market-driven environment, higher education has had to respond on many fronts, including workforce training, just-in-time learning, shortages of teachers, geographically limited learners, significant changes in part-time and full-time learning and learners with special needs (Adelman, 1999; Dolence & Norris, 1995; Green, 1999; Schneider & Shoenberg, 1999). Special needs in this case might include the need for asynchronous learning, availability of flexible class time due to work and family obligations, electronic access to distant library resources, as well as the need for a special adaptive or assistive technology for a students with disabilities. As Turoff (2000) notes: “Consumerism will be an evolving force in the future of educational institutions. Without a geographical monopoly, institutions of higher education will be far more sensitive to consumer pressures than they have been in the past” (p. 4). Lest we think that the “consumers” in higher education have little influence in how higher education responds to its market, we must consider the trends in the growing post-secondary population (Recalibrating Enrollment Strategies, 2000, January). Higher education institutions have worked hard to encourage Traditions to Transformations 6 lifelong learning, support tax credits for education, provide non-credit courses for workers, deliver courses through a variety of distance media and provide flexible scheduling. These efforts appear to be paying off in rising enrollments in higher education (U.S. Department of Education, 1999) of immediate and delayed-start high school graduates, and continuing and older first-time post secondary students (part year and full year). Adelman (1999) describes three possible scenarios: “Each...begins at the same benchmark: in 1995-96, some 65 percent of 2.6 million high school graduates continued their education within one year of graduation (Digest of Education Statistics, 1997, Tab. 184 p. 195) [see Snyder, 1997]. The base of calculations, then, is 1.69 million first-time entering freshmen (p. 23). The first scenario conservatively assumes that there will be no increase in the combined totals of immediate and delayed-entry high school students. Based on estimates of high school graduation rates, we could see an increase of 23 percent over the current enrollments within the next 10 years. In this scenario, that translates into an increase of 450,000 students in this one area. Adelman’s second scenario assumes that higher education institutions have some moderate success with outreach programs and programs targeted for disadvantaged students. He suggests that this would “increase the direct-entry rate to 70 percent. Adding 10 percent for the delayed entry rate gives us 80 percent of the high school graduating classes” (p. 23) and increases first-time enrollments to 31 percent more than current rates (about 600,000 more students). Traditions to Transformations 7 The third scenario assumes that outreach efforts do not increase the “access rate” but improve retention and graduation rates. Based on National Education Statistics (NCES) 1989-1994 data, Adelman notes that a 10-point reduction in non-completion rates would translate into “240,000 more traditionalage students staying in the system after their first year than is currently the case” (p. 23). For all of these scenarios, Adelman suggests that the current configuration of higher education institutions may not be able to handle the increased attendance. The capacity of our schools—including the number of faculty, technical support staff, appropriate classrooms and access to courses—may be strained by our successful recruitment and retention activities and the current funding levels. The solution seems to be in shifting the learning to distance delivery. In fact, the promises made in the early 1980s that technology would enable faster, cheaper and convenient learning were and still are legitimate. However, it is a serious mistake to assume that a choice should be made between traditional, campus-based learning and distance learning environments (Adelman, 1999; Brown & Duguid, 1995; Dunn, 2000, March-April; Ehrmann, 1999; Fahy, 1998; Green, 1999; Turoff, 2000). What has changed since the 1980’s predictions of cheaper, one-to-many delivery methods is the education market itself. Learners demand more than a glorified correspondence course or a televised lecture hall, each of which is relatively inexpensive and easy to develop and deploy through existing technologies (Dolence & Norris, 1995; Gladieux & Swail, 1999). TechnologyTraditions to Transformations 8 enhanced lecturing is simply a delivery system solution rather than a true learning environment. As learners began to take advantage of technology