Technology & Learning
Community
From the Field
October 1997
Using Technology
to Build a Statewide
Learning Community
by Sunil Chand
"To us,
the phrase "learning community" is an appropriate label for 21st
Century schools, colleges, and universities because their success
will require them to adopt many of the characteristics we have always
associated with living and participating in communities -- relationships,
involvement, contribution, inclusiveness, variety, sharing resources,
and cooperation."
Technology in
the Learning Communities of Tomorrow:
Beginning the Transformation.
In July, 1996, the two educational leadership agencies responsible
for all levels of education in Ohio, the Ohio Board of Regents (OBOR)
and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), published the report
quoted above. This work was the result of a year of research, deliberation,
and analyses by the Ohio Technology in Education (TIE) Steering
Committee, a joint Committee of the OBOR and ODE established in
1995 and charged with "examining the complex question surrounding
the integration of technology in the educational process." Members
were drawn from the cross-section of Ohio's educational, business,
research, and governmental communities. Two Ohio League Colleges,
Sinclair Community College and Cuyahoga Community College, were
represented on the Committee by their League Representatives, Dr.
Sifferlin and Dr. Chand.
Developments within
Ohio and elsewhere provided a context for the Committee's work.
Within the State, the Governor and General Assembly had recently
launched the SchoolNet program, an ambitious program designed and
funded to wire each of the state's public school classrooms for
voice, video, and data, to provide computer technology for lower
income districts, and to offer professional development. Higher
education was not a part of SchoolNet, nor was there a plan to build
an infrastructure that would link all wired sites. Conspicuously
lacking was a state plan to guide the deployment and use of these
technologies. On the other hand, many on the Committee knew of and
had participated in the development of OhioLink, a state system
for electronically linking and equipping all of Ohio's college and
university libraries, facilitating borrowing across the state, coordinating
access to electronic data and research sites, and maintaining centralized
depositories of texts not in common circulation. This offered a
model for planning, funding, and execution. Elsewhere in the nation,
a few states had written technology plans, and some had developed
statewide networks in order to integrate and deliver education within
and across sectors. TIE sought and reviewed each of these plans
and as many reports of their progress as staff could assemble.
A vision of transforming
education fueled by technology Augmented by the insights of external
consultants, these activities led TIE to recognize that it needed
to be driven by a vision. Without that, members were dealing in
sub-committees with practical matters that seemed endless, such
as the need for definitions of high tech applications, for identifying
common protocols, for standardizing technical specifications, for
in-service training, for reward structures, for universal access,
and for articulated systems. Pulling back from these matters, the
Committee decided to ask what the effort was really all about. It
began then to appreciate two concepts: first, that the experience
of learning itself was being transformed, and second, that technology
was a primary tool in that transformation. The first realization
led TIE to embrace the notion of the learning community quoted above.
The second concept was that of technology as a tool, not an end
in itself nor a defining force. Hard- and software were not, therefore,
the essentials; their planned adoption, deployment, and application
to enhancing education were the issue.
Marrying the two
concepts, TIE saw technology could, and should, make new communities
possible, strong, and effective. That became the thrust of the report.
Describing images
of the new learning communities.
The TIE report then sketches how technology might link learners
across the boundaries of systems, time, place, status, and age.
It acknowledges the major objections and fears, particularly those
of faculty who will face significant alterations to traditional
roles. "The new model, in which learning is student- centered and
aided by technology, casts educators in a new role. Instead of providing
a great deal of a few things -- the facts of the curriculum -- educators
will be the providers of a vast line of diverse knowledge products
and services." (p.38). But it states equally that: these systems
will need continual adaptation; that access to active, individualized
and cooperative learning, problem solving and collaboration will
be necessary; that caring for students will be essential; and therefore,
that teachers and educators will be even more important. They will
certainly be challenged, but TIE asks "educators not only to accept
and adapt to change, but to become agents of change." (p. 47).
This vision is then
given form through specific recommendations TIE asks four initiatives
of the State of Ohio, each supported by strategies, action steps,
and funding suggestions: Ohio should develop a strong communication
system to create awareness and understanding of the concept of the
learning community and lifelong learning. The strength of Ohio's
pioneer communities lay in shared knowledge, resources, and energy
driven by a stake in the future; the strength of Ohio's future communities
will depend on a similar shared understanding of themselves as a
community of learners. Ohio's educators will need support
in order to develop "new technical knowledge and skills, invent
and discover innovative ways to enhance the learning process through
technology, and share
knowledge and experiences." (p. 61). Professional development, R&D,
cooperative efforts, model program development, and demonstration
sites should receive priority.
A "global" state-wide
collaborative should promote and coordinate such activities. The
State should also fund higher education to enable it to achieve
system-wide connectivity. Finally, a standing advisory committee
should be appointed to continue to advise on these issues and evaluate
progress.
Tying vision to allocations
When the TIE report was issued in July, 1996, state budget development
for the next biennium was beginning and the report had immediate
impact. Within six months of its issuance, a line item was included
in the state higher education budget in support of its recommendations
that ultimately allocated $10 million to be awarded to colleges
and universities in 1997 on the basis of competitive grants. The
RFP called for projects that developed equipment and network capacities,
either as seed activities or as enhancement; required a dollar-for-dollar
match with which it encouraged professional development; expected
demonstrated improvements to teaching and learning as the outcome;
and specified linkages to existing state-wide educational improvement
initiatives.
In June 1997, 22
projects were funded from a total of 43 proposals. Thirteen grants
went to community and technical colleges for a total of $5,117,494,
while seven universities received a sum total of $4,882,506. Projects
included: the development of smart classrooms; expansion of networks
to on- and off-campus sites; delivery of student e-mail and Internet
access; creation of multi-media resources and materials for faculty
and curriculum development; building of distance education and open
access infrastructures; and point-to-point linkages for program
delivery. Each project emphasizes: improved student access to high
technology; flexible, individualized and distance delivery of academic
programming; enhanced access to information sources for data, research
and study; support for faculty and curriculum development; innovations
to teaching and learning through new, networked facilities; and
movement from a teacher-centered system to one that is learner-centered.
Together, the 22 projects cover the entire state and promise upgrades
to Ohio's higher education electronic learning capacities that will
meet the community-building objectives of the TIE Report.
Projects are being implemented throughout 1997-1998, and initial
evaluative reports will be available in the summer of 1998. OBOR
expects to continue funding enhancements each biennium.
With this funding,
OBOR has taken a significant step into the future. It has recognized
that technology is expensive and that the state can best assist
with infrastructure. At the same time, by requiring adherence to
a state plan, OBOR has promoted congruence and synergy that will
result in large returns to its investment as Ohio's colleges link
themselves and their students for learning.
The report may be requested from the Ohio Board of Regents, 3600
State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43215, 614-466-6000, or from their home page, www.bor.ohio.gov/sample.html
Sunil Chand
Executive Vice President
Academic and Student Affairs
Cuyahoga Community College
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
email: Sunil.chand@tri-c.cc.oh.us
|
