ERIC ED359921: Reengineering Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Sheltered Groves, Camelot, Windmills, and Malls. Professional Paper Series, #10.

57 Pages·1993·1.5 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
IR 016 129
ED 359 921
Heterick, Robert C., Jr., Ed.
AUTHOR
Reengineering Teaching and Learning in Higher
TITLE
Education: Sheltered Groves, Camelot, Windmills, and
Malls. Professional Paper Series, #10.
INSTITUTION CAUSE, Boulder, Colo.
Digital Equipment Corp., Marlboro, MA.
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATE
93
NOTE
57p.
CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder,
AVAILABLE FROM
CO ($12 per copy for members; $24 for others,
prepaid).
Reports
General (020)
Collected Works
PUB TYPE
Evaluative /Feasibility (142)
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Academic Achievement; Community Colleges; Distance
DESCRIPTORS
Education; Educational Change; *Educational
Improvement; Educational Quality; *Educational
Technology; Higher Education; *Information
Technology; Learning; Research Universities; School
Restructuring; Teacher Education; *Teaching Methods;
*Technological Advancement; Theory Practice
Relationship
Digital Transmission Systems; *Reform Efforts
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
Changes in digital technology offer significant
opportunities to advance the quality of education for students and
faculty. Technology can serve as a vehicle to expand the educational
reach. Perspectives on changing higher education to fulfill the
promise of educational technology are offered in the following
(1) "Introduction: Reengineering Teaching and Learning"
papers:
(2) "Silicon in the Grove: Computing,
(Robert C. Heterick, Jr.);
Teaching, and Learning in the American Research University" (Richard
(3) "Reengineering of Student Learning? A Second Opinion
N. Katz);
(4) "Community Colleges: Using
from Camelot" (David L. Smallen);
Information Technologies To Harness Winds of Change" (Ronald Bleed);
(5) "Comprehensive Universities Refocusing for the Next Century"
(6) "Information
(Thomas W. West and Stephen L. Daigle);
(7) "A Third
Technology--Enabling Transformation" (Carol A. Twigg);
(8) "Growing Our Academic
Opinion from Camelot" (Thomas F. Moberg);
Productivity" (Polley Ann McClure); and (9) "Reengineering or Just
Tinkering?" (Don Doucette). A list of 17 resources for additional
information is included. (SLD)
***********************************************************************
*
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
U S. OEPAIAININT Of EDUCATION
Office of Educationai Rioseerch and improver/1.m
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERECI
Trn3 document has bein reproduced as
ece.ve0 trOrn the person Or OrpanitahOn
Onpmattng I
Mnor changes have been made to rnprove
reproduction ducity
Pomts of vie*
optntons stated tn thts potu-
mem do not necessanly represent offictat
OERI D03,10,1 or ClOhCy
the association for
managing and using
inforrnation technology
Reengineering Teaching and
in higher education
Learning in Higher Education:
Sheltered Groves, Camelot,
Windmills, and Malls
edited by Robert C. Heterick, Jr.
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
J. Ryland
RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCATIONAL
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Professional Paper Series, #10
2
SPONSORSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
of
CAUSE appreciates the generous support
Digital Equipment Corporation
professional paper (see pages 46-47).
who funded the publication of this
CAUSE is the association for
in higher education.
managing and using information technology
has been sent to every CAUSE member representative;
A complimentary copy of this paper
CAUSE member
additional copies are available to individuals at
others at $24 per copy.
institutions/organizations at $12 per copy, to
Send pre-paid orders to:
CAUSE
4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 0 1993 by CAUSE.
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may
written permission from CAUSE.
transmitted in any form or by any means without prior
Printed in the United States of America.
Vitt
Reengineering Teaching and Learning in Higher Education:
Sheltered Groves, Camelot, Windmills, and Malls
CAUSE Professional Paper Series #10
edited by Robert C. Heterick, Jr.
Table of Contents
iii
Foreword
iv
Preface
Introduction: Reengineering Teaching and Learning
1
1
Robert C. Heterick, Jr.
Silicon in the Glove: Computing, Teaching, and Learning in the
6
2
American Research University
Richard N. Katz
Reengineering of Student Learning? A Second Opinion from Camelot
15
3
David L. Smallen
4
Community Colleges: Using Information Technologies
21
to Harness the Winds of Change
Ronald Bleed
27
Comprehensive Unb, ersities Refocusing for the Next Century
5
Thomas W. West and Stephen L. Daigle
Commentaries
Information TechnologyEnabling Transformation
34
Carol A. Twigg
37
A Third Opinion from Camelot
Thomas F. Moberg
'Growing' Our Academic Productivity
41
Polley Ann McClure
43
Reengineering or Just Tinkering?
Don Doucette
46
Corporate Sponsor Profile
48
Resource List
4
About the Authors
Richard N. Katz i! Special Assistant to the
is President of
Robert C. Heterick, Jr.,
Associate Vice PresidentInformation Sys-
ED UCOM, a consortium of higher education
tems and Administrative Services of the Uni-
institutions dedicated to the improvement of
versity of California (UC), Office of the Presi-
higher education through effective and effi-
-17,
dent, responsible for Diann ing for administra-
7.
cient application of information technology.
1.
tive and academic computing. Currently Mr.
Previously he was Vice President of Informa-
Katz is actively involved in the strategic initia-
tion Systems at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
tives associated with UC's Presidential Tran-
and State University, where he is a professor
sition Team and Improved Management Ini-
emeritus of management science in the busi-
tiatives work groups. He is a frequent con-
ness college. A former chair of the CAUSE
tributor to professional and academic journals on man-
Board of Directors, Dr. Heterick is an award-winning
agement and information technology topics and co-
authorand ke.ynotespeakeron information technology
authored CAUSE Professional Paper #8.
in higher education.
David L. Smallen is Director of Information
Ronald Bleed is Vice Chancellor for Informa-
Technology Services and Institutional Re-
tion Technologies for the Maricopa Crrrnmu-
search at Hamilton College, responsible for
n ity Col lege District, responsible for athninis-
academic and administrative computing re-
trative and academic computing, applica-
sources, campus voice and data communica-
tions programming, and an integrated voice,
tions, and institutional research activities. He
video, and data communications network
holds a BS and MS from the SUNY Albany and
spanning ten colleges and two education
of
a Ph. D. in mathematics from the Un iversit y
centers. Mr. Bleed has written several major
Rochester. He has been a leader of national
articles and textbook chapters and is well
seminars dealing with strategic planning for
known for his public presentations on topics
computing and has served as a chair of the CAUSE
related to information technologies and their role in
Board of Directors aswell as a member of the ED UCOM
'7, especially the community college
higher educat,
Board of Trustees.
arena.
Thomas W. West is Assistant Vice ( 'hancel-
Stephen L. Daigle is Senior Research Associ-
lor, Information Resources and Technology,
ate in Information Resources and Technology
for the California State University system,
in the systemwide Office of the Chancellor of
responsible for the information resources
the California State University (CSU). His
management program for this 20-campus
current responsibilities revolve around strate-
educational system. Throughout his career in
gic planning and policy a na lys is, particularly
higher education administration, he has held
on issues linking information technology to
varied positions, including instructor of
long-term enrollment and academic plan-
mathematics, assistant development direc-
ning. Or. Daigle has presented numerous
tor, vice chancellor for administration, and
papers at professional conferences, and
college president. Or. West was the recipient of the
authored scores of research monographs and legislative
1990 CAUSE ELITE Award for Exemplary Leadership
reports on current issues confronting higher education
and Information Technology Excellence.
generally and the (SU system specifically.
FOREWORD
H igher education institutions
are on a collision course with their clients. The reality of the nation's
economic problems has washed over colleges and universities in a sobering wave of financial
cutbacks. While the worst seems to be behind us, our optimism must be tempered by an
extraordinary array of competing demandsfor public support. As much as politicians voice support
forthe value of education, other pressing issues like health care, infrastructure, and environmental
cleanup may capture what few new dollars are available.
Declining public support, however, has not meant declining demand. An ever-anxious middle
class continues to seek higher education as an antidote to falling wages in low-skill jobs.
Meanwhile, institutions struggle to meet their current commitments to "quality." Citing a long
tradition, a structure built around bricks and mortar and a labor-intensive production process,
institutions face what on the surface appears to be a difficult choice: Cut access or lower quality.
It is an artificial choice, however. "Doing less with less" is a prescription for irrelevance. If higher
education adoptsthis strategy, it will end the decade a smaller and less socially relevant institution.
Our clientswhether they be students or employers or taxpayerswill voice their anger in
destructive ways.
Like the corporate sector, our only responsible alternative is to "do more with less" by
restructuring our enterprise. This means rethinking our assumptions about delivery systems,
curriculum, organizational structures, and the mix of technology and personnel. It means virtual ly
turningthe enterprise on its head to find a better, cheaper, more effective way to deliver education,
service, and research products.
Technology continuesto hold the key to much of this transformation. We long for the equivalent
of the "automatic teller machine" in higher educationa cheaper, better, and more reliable
delivery system. We do not need learning technology to be as good as current classroom
instruction, but far better. However, we do not need technology which adds to our financial
dilemma. Unfortunately, much of what we have done to date has added to our problems
expanding our reach certainly, but increasing our costs. The productivity challenge of the next
decade and beyond will be to expand access while downsizing both the number of personnel and
the configuration of the physical plant.
The challenge will also be to make a direct impact on student learning. This meanstransforming
the role of faculty from "sage on the stage" to facilitator of a learner-centered, technology-based
educational process.
The ideal of "anytime, anyplace" education also suggests a dramatic new conception of the
college campus. If education can take place in the residence hall, the off-campus apartment, the
home, or the workplace, it requires significantly different kinds of capital investment. In the process
we will also, no doubt, transform our governance structures, our assessment tools, and our
relationships with clients.
Organizations like CAUSE, whose members are the experts in information and computing
technology, will find themselves thrust into the center of the higher education restructuring
movement. Those of us in the public policy arena who are searching for ways out of our dilemma
await your revolution.
lames R. Mingle
Executive Director
State Higher Education Executive Officers
PREFACE
The significant impact of state budget-cutting on compre-
Although change is inevitable, it is always accompanied by
hensive institutions has engendered something near crisis,
uncertainty. The advent of changes in digital technology
especially in statewide systems such as the California State
offers significant opportunities to advance the quality of the
University. Tom West and Steve Daigle draw on their expe-
educational experience for students and faculty. Technology
riences at CSU to suggest that survival of urban and suburban
will never replace those qualities of commitment, intelli-
"mall" institutions may depend, in large extent, on changing
gence, and integrity that are central to maintaining the
the teaching/learning paradigm, focusing on changing the
vitality of the university. However, it can serve as a vehicle
institution along the efficiency dimension.
to expand our reach)
As with any open discussion, there are more than a few
It isn't clear what Aristotle would have done to "reengineer"
views of the "appropriate" course of action. Having com-
his teaching process had he access to today's digital tech-
pleted the essays tft,r comprise the main body of this paper,
nologies, but it might welt have been something along the
have
we shared them with several other practitioners who
lines discussed by my colleagues in the essays that follow.
been active in the field and solicited their comments.
A voice from the sheltered groves of the research univer-
In her commentary, Carol Twiggtakes the authors to task
sity, Richard Katz tells us that the entrepreneurship charac-
for ignoring the fiscal realities of our current condition. She
teristic of sponsored research and the German research
points out the importance of making a clear case that the
university model makes bold institutional reengineering
benefits of technology will outweigh lie costs.
efforts difficult. He surmises ;hat while research universities'
Thomas Mobergoffers several examples of how informa-
investments in the information technology infrastructure will
tion technology is changing teaching and learning in the
create the context for reengineering teaching and learning,
liberal arts college, based on his experience as both a faculty
major progress will be paced by the faculty reward system
member and an administrator at liberal arts colleges. He
and by efforts to achieve a new equilibrium between re-
strikes an optimistic note regarding the opportunities for
search, instruction, and service.
improving the quality of the learning experience.
We have a view from a liberal arts institution that suggests
For her part, Polley McClure thi nks many of our efforts to
that their version of Camelot is one that should be tampered
"reengineer" teaching and learning will meet with limited
with only with great care and at significant risk. Drawing on
work of
success because instruction is the personal creative
his experiences at Hamilton College, David Smallen ob-
higher educa-
an individual teacher. In many ways, she says,
serves that liberal arts institutions have worked to maintain
tion already has achieved the status of an empowered
the residential nature of the student body and small class size
workforce in a "flat" organization.
that have been the hallmark of lecture and credit-for-con-
And, finally, Don Doucette makes the clear distinction
tactchange should he attempted on the effectiveness di-
between doing things differently and doing different things,
mension only.
arguing that just "tinkering" with the current paradigm is
A community college view expressed here is that the
insufficient for the task that lies ahead of us.
winds of change have already been harnessed by the wind-
Given the heterogeneity and diversity in our system of
mills of two-year schools. Many of the teaching/learning
higher education, we shouldn't he surprised that there are
issues that are new to other institutions have already been
he pursued. Given
many views of how reengineering should
addressed by many community colleges in their continuing
the highly differentiated mission statements of our various
effortsto efficiently cope with a heterogeneous, non-resident
institutional types, anything less would he a disservice to the
student body. Ronald Bleedarguesthat with what has always
society they serve.
been their primary, if not singular, focus on learning, many
of the lessons of reengineering le .reed by institutions such as
Robert C Heterick,
the Mari copa Comm inity Colleges are valuable for study by
February 199.3
other institutional tv2es.
'Report of the University Task Force on the Impart of Digital
lechoolopy in thc.. Classroom Environment (Blacksburg, Va.: Vir-
ginia Ted.. 1989;.
Introduction /1
1
Introduction:
Reengineering Teaching and Learning
by Robert C. tleterick, Jr.
at about 8 percent per year and the increase in faculty salaries
At least since Aristotle's peripatetic garden discourse with
has consistently outpaced the Consumer Price Index. The
his students, lecture has been the principal delivery mode for
consequence has been tuition increases that have about
instruction.
doubled the rise in the CPI. The current recession has further
The overwhelmingly dominant model of instruction
exacerbated this trend with double digit tuition increases
in American university education, especially at the
promising to double tuition costs between 1990 and 1997 at
is credit-for-contact. In this
undergraduate level,
many public institutions.
model, the student's progress and the faculty member's
Slowly and insidiously student-teacher ratios have been
instructional contribution are measured by hours of
creeping upward. Perhaps more disturbing, we have done
contact in lecture hall, seminar room, or laboratory.'
little to ensure that the instruction in larger sections has been
Perhaps for the first time since Aristotle, certainly for the first
appropriately supported with a classroom technological
time since Gutenberg's invention of movable type, we have
infrastructure. Faculty frequently lecture to classes of sixty or
the opportunity and the technology that will permit us to
more students without the aid of a microphone, much less
break with the credit-for-contact model and consider alter-
appropriate projected graphics and course materials de-
natives to lecture as a delivery mode. There are those who
signed for optimum impact in large lecture halls. As more
subscribe to the Mario Andretti school of change, "If every-
institutions chase the research university model we witness
thing is under control, you are goingtoo slow." For them, the
the average contact hours of
a slow, but steady, erosion
occasion of the emerging digital technology is reason enough
faculty. At the same time, the den-lographics of our students
to change. A more moderate course of action follows the first
have changed dramatically. Fewer than half the learners in
law of wing walking, "Never let go of what you have hold of,
higher education are the traditional 18-to-22-year-olds do-
until you have hold of something else." Such moderates will
miciled on or near a residential campus. Increasingly, our
ask for something more than anecdotal evidence that a
students will be unable to be either place bound or time
dramatic shift to digital technology will significantly improve
constrained as assumed in the credit-for-contact model.
either the efficiency or the effectiveness of teaching and
Under the lecture mode /credit for - contact model, to
learning. And finally, there are those who follow the first law
simultaneously contend with the expected infusiuo of new
of engineering, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For the educa-
students into our system of higher education and reduce
tional conservatives it will first he necessary to demonstrate
average class sizes would require a doubling oour faculties
that some, or all, of our current approach is, in fact, broken.
and an expenditure on facilities that is at least as large as our
current deferred maintenance deficiency. Simple solutions
Is it broken?
Institutions of higher education are extraordinarily labor
'Report of the University Task Force on the Impart of fEgital
intensive. For many of our institutions, 80 percent or more of
Technology in the Classroom Environment (Blacksburg, Va.: Vir-
ginia Tech, 1989), p. 4. This document is also available to CAUSE
the operations budget is allocated to personal services. For at
members through the CAUSE Exchange Library as CM-0679.
least a decade, the cost of personal services has been rising
S
REENGINEERING TEACHING AND LEARNING
terms of tuition) is about the same as the cost of a slide rule
such as these are not available without massive increases in
25 years ago. We thought little about the requirement of a
budgets. Nothing in our current economic situation suggests
slide rule then and we should think as little about the
that such massive increases in capital and operating budgets
requirement of a personal computer now. The operative
are possible. Given the changing student demographics,
question should be, "What are the likely capabilities of an
such approaches ignore the educational problems of the
entry level computer during the next five years and how can
majority of our students.
we utilize it to improve learning?"
We hear equally simple solutions proffered from the
Today's entry level machine (less than $1,000) is ca-
obverse side of the coin. Why not have faculty assume a
pable of displaying graphics, some jerky video or animation
larger teaching load? While this doesn't address the shortfall
sequences, and high quality sound, and can be connected to
in appropriate classroom space, would it at least deal with
a local area network and through that to the world Internet.
the shortfall of faculty? The difficulty comes, of course, in the
Sophisticated text processing, draw
linkage of lecture/credit-for-contact
and paint programs, mathematical
with perceptions of quality of teach-
routines, and a host of non-trivial
There is nothing in our technology
ing and learning, thereby creating an
applications are available at prices
explicit tradeoff between efficiency
forecasts that suggests that we are
comparable to text hooks. If the
and effectiveness. Particularly in the
technologically constrained from
five-year future is anything like the
sciences and professions, there is good
reaching the holy grail of
five-year past, then 1q97 entry level
reason to believe that the effective-
scholarshipanything, anytime,
machines will he portable RISC
ness of instruction could suffer no-
machines with all the characteris-
ticeably under .0-le current paradigm.
anywhere.
tics of today's Sun or NeXT work-
What we need to do is avoid
stationsperhaps more. Such ma-
defining the problem so narrowly as
chines will clearly he affordable and incredibly powerful.
"having smaller sections" or "increasing faculty contact
All that seems lacking is a rich and robust set of
hours," and deal with the real and historic problem
applications to complement curricular decisions. The time
improving both the efficiency and effectiveness of teaching
and effort required to build one of these applications for a
and learning. Our discourse must not presume the lecture
whole course is roughly equivalent to that of producing a
mode or the credit-for-contact model. We need also to
new text hook. The list of new text hooks coming to the
realize that there are trade-offs implicit in choosing effi-
marketplace each month is long and varied. The set of new
ciency and effectiveness in any learning model. Looked at
computer-based applications and alternative learning re-
another way, the problem might be stated as providing the
sources coming to the market could he equally long and
most effective learning, most efficiently delivered, consistent
variedif there existed a set of incentives commensurate
with the budgets we are likely to receive.
with those for producing text hooks.
In this broader context we open all sorts of avenues that
Accessto the campus network, to broadcast and switched
are not normally part of the discourse surrounding teaching
video, and to the Internet opens the door to a rich set of new
and learning. Large sections are not necessarily bad. Learn-
possibilities. It is easy to imagine contact between students
ing can take place without lecturein fact, without the direct
and faculty that is neither place nor time bound. In fact, it is
participation of facultyand learning (teaching for that
already happening. Contact between librariesnot just the
matter) need not be confined to a campus classroom but
campus libraryand students is similarly freed from time
could happen in a residence hall, in the office, at home, or
and place constraints. There is nothing in our technology
even in a high school classroom. We should be encouraged
forecasts that suggests that we are technologically con-
to design learning environments that are most effective for
strained from reaching the holy grail of scholarshipany-
the learner (not all learners necessarily respond best to a
thing, anytime, anywhere.
given delivery or reception mode), that provide sufficient
efficiencies to permit us to operate within our budget con-
straints.
Are we going too slow?
Is getting on the technology bandwagon like surfing? If we
Is there something else to grab hold of?
miss this wave will there he another one along in a few
minutes? For our research institutions, which are the seed
Programmed Instruction, Computer Aided Instruction, and
bed for most faculty in higher education, the question of
Computer Managed Instruction were all supposed to revolu-
timing is all important. Of all the types of institutions of higher
tionize teaching and learning in higher education. We have
education, research institutions would seem to he the best
had so many panaceas thrown at us over the last 20 years that
positioned in terms of technology infrastructure, budget
it seems only reasonable to ask, what's new? For one thing,
strength, and reward for innovation, to begin the experi-
the cost of digital technology at the chip level has been
ments necessary to define the shape of a reengineered
decreasing at better than 25 percent per year for the last
teaching and learning paradigm.
decade. The cost of an entry level personal computer (in
()
Introduction /3
Unfortunately, militating against aggressively experi-
The local telephone companies are aggressively pursu-
menting with teaching and learning is an incentive system
ing narrowband Integrated Digital Services Networks (ISDN)
developed with the research university model. Scholarly
in most major metropolitan areas. There is reason to he
production, the basis for tenure and promotion decisions,
concerned that this effort will become ubiquitous too late
with too little bandwidth. On the appli:ations side we are
has seldom been defined so as to ii,r-lude improvements to
the teaching and learning proces. At many research univer- seeing the development of "freenets" and a number of data
services, albeit at very low bandwidth, that offer some
sities, text books are looked upon as second-class scholarly
connectivity for electronic mail and bulletin boards. What is
output. A new-found interest in undergraduate education on
needed is more aggressive experimentation with higher
the part of many research university presidents offers some
hope that this situation may change. But, realistically, we
speed, more pervasive metropolitan networks like those
have to recognize that measures of scholarly production are
proposed by the Blacksburg Electronic Village experiment.'
not handed down from university administrations but rather
are promulgated through the community of scholars. Mea-
Learning is not a spectator sport
sures of scholarly production are not institutional standards
Information technology folk are at the center of the mael-
but are consensus questions across a profession.
strom of change and its accompanying dichotomies. We
An equal contributor to the inertia that dampens experi-
have, for years, been in the business of providing central
mentation is the lack of appropriate physical surroundings
services in a business increasingly dominated by niche
within which experiments may he conducted. Few cam-
puses have classrooms appropriately equipped for "high
markets. We have been the purveyors of a homogeneous
information service in a technology that is rapidly sh ifting to
tech" teaching. Nearly all campuses have concentrated their
customized products. We have been
energies and resources on creating
"open laboratories" of personal
driven by the search for an elusive
efficiency in a market that puts in-
computers and workstations, forc-
If the reengineering and total quality
ing students to he constrained by
creasing emphasis on flexibility. We
management movements are about
both place and time in their use of
have been organized to reap econo-
anything, they are about offering
that technology. Even our use of
mies of scale in a field where econo-
broadcast television in distance
differentiated services.
mies of scope are currently favored.
These dichotomies are a conse-
learning is similarly constrained. The
quence of trying to apply industrial
situation is roughly the same as the
age strategies in the information age. Nowhere are these
classrooms of the 1800s where the student had to go to, and
queue for, the copy boo!, owned by the school. We have
dichotomies more evident than in our approach to teaching
been so taken with the computer qua computerthat we have
and learning.
If the reengineering and total quality management move-
lost sight of its potential in creating or augmenting a learning
environment.
ments are about anything, they are about offering differenti-
ated services. If we place our focus on the learner we are
Learning in ways that do not depend upon delivery by
struck by a multiplicity of cognitive styles. Our digital
lecture, indlor are not restric led by credit-for-contact, will
technologies offer the opportunity to address each learner in
depend upon the existence of a communications infrastruc-
a style and at a location with which he or she is most
ture. That communications infrastructure must exist at three
comfortable. The hallmark of our hettertea: king institutions
levels. The campus itself must be wired with megabit deliv-
has been small class sizesa convenient, lecture-based
ery to the workspaces in classrooms, offices, and residence
strategy for offering something approaching an individually
halls. Sin( e at most i nstitutions the majority of students reside
differentiated learning environment. The optimum must be
in the Inc at community, not the residence halls, there needs
something like the learner and Aristotle on a park bench.
to he a metropolitan area network that extends the campus
However, budget constraints have been the proximate cause
infrastructure to students and faculty in the community. And
of a creeping inflation in class size. Unfortunately, lecture as
finally, there needs to be a national infrastructure that hinds
a delivery mode and credit-for-c mtact as a teaching model
local learners with distant learning resources.
do not scale well.
While there is still much to be done, we have nonethe-
The plethora of digital technologies offers the opportu-
less made significant progress in creating the national infra-
nity to break the industrial age model of teaching and
stru( Lure. NSF NET and the Internet are already delivering on
learning and offer a customized service directly to the
the promise of providing a technological plattorm for break-
ing the I ecturefrred it-for-contact mold. Many institutions,
but not nearly enough, have begun the task of megabit
Village is .1 «immunity-wide labo
The
kshurg E le( Ironic
delivery to campus workspaces. The capital costs of creating
the development of an elei In/nit communi( at ions nc
ratory it
the campus network still seem beyond the reach of too many
work that will allow businesses, town residents, students, and
is in the domain of the
of our institutions. Even so,
it
teachers to c ommunic ate through a high-bandwidth information
metropolitan networks that we are farthest behind.
network.
0
:7