Multicampus Planning for the Enhancement of Teaching with Technology: The University of Massachusetts Initiative

Educause 2006

David Gray, CIO & Vice President of Information Services; CEO, UMassOnline

Robert Green, Vice Chancellor for Library Services, Information Resources, and Technology, UMass Dartmouth

Mark Schlesinger, Associate Vice President for Academic Technology

Overview

• An Imperative for Action• The UMass Context• Run-up to the Initiative, through 2004-2005• The First Year (2005-2006)• The Current Snapshot

– Recommendations– Process Issues

• What We’ve Learned and Next Steps

Statement of the Problem

• The Information Revolution– Technology itself– The Knowledge Economy; Demands on the

Educated Graduate

• Evolution in Thinking about Learning and Appropriate Teaching

• Need to Manage Complexity across Campuses; Share Knowledge and Expertise

An Imperative for Action Though technology may have formerly been regarded as a tool of

efficiency or as a medium for alternatives to traditional practices. . . academic technology provides opportunities for us to teach and learn better, and the institutions that seize those opportunities will be institutions that achieve distinction.

For the University of Massachusetts to fulfill its mission to the Commonwealth and to offer access to excellence in teaching and learning, it must adopt a proactive approach to academic technology, one based on a clear, widely accepted vision and a realistic plan. That acceptance should proceed not from edict but by the collaborative efforts of faculty and staff across the campus as they capitalize on the power of digital technology.

“Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan. Excellence and Innovation at UMass.”

The Planning Context

Planning and Visioning Touch Points

• Collaborative History• Information Technology Council Charter• ITC Subcommittee on Academic Technology Charter• Campus Strategic Plans• Board of Trustees “Strategic Priorities”

The Information Technology Council To achieve distinction, the University of Massachusetts must provide an advanced

technological infrastructure that will attract and support students, faculty, and researchers.

• Charge:– Develop and foster the vision and provide the leadership necessary to sustain and

advance the use of technology to support activity at every level within the University. The ITC will champion the value of technology to the larger enterprise. The ITC will identify priorities within information technology and will provide high level leadership to drive through change within the University. The ITC will foster coherence wherever possible working within the University framework of “intelligent autonomy.”

• Objective:– Assure that faculty, staff, students, and all other clients of the University have the

highest quality access to information. High quality access encompasses ease of use, timeliness, capacity, and security. To enable these features, the ITC will promote an information technology environment that is technically advanced, seamless, and nimble. Particular emphasis will be placed on campus-wide and trans-campus mechanisms and architectures that enable the easy flow of information across functional areas, such as between research and education, or between students and administrators.

From the ITC Mission and Charter

The Subcommittee on Academic Technology

The Information Technology Council Subcommittee on Academic Technology (SAT) is charged with facilitating the development and implementation of a vision for effective utilization of technology in teaching, learning and scholarship at the University of Massachusetts. In support of the implementation of the vision, the goals are to:

– Identify and facilitate the resolution of system-wide academic information technology issues and policies;

– Encourage the sharing of information and expertise among campuses and promote faculty development activities;

– Facilitate pilot projects and demonstrations to illustrate new uses of academic information technology

– Monitor system and campus progress towards effective academic uses of technology;

– Support new constituencies for technology-based delivery of academic programs; – Identify external funding opportunities for multi-campus academic information

technology projects.

Trustee Strategic Priorities• 1. -- Improve the student learning experience at The University of Massachusetts

– Provide high quality university education through new modes of teaching and learning that effectively engage students

– Make more effective use of technology in the classroom and in the delivery of student services– Expand research opportunities for undergraduate students– Increase opportunities for international study experiences

• 8. – Develop first-rate University infrastructure– Implement a $1.7 B capital program over the next five years– Meet deferred maintenance/compliance/repair needs– Enhance The University’s IT infrastructure– Construct leading-edge academic and research facilities– Build new dorms and campus centers

• 9. – Improve the Delivery of Administrative and IT Services– Explore opportunities to shift from current service models to more collaborative models where

appropriate to generate efficiencies and cost savings.– Continue to utilize advanced technology to improve university services wherever possible– Make The University’s IT infrastructure available to state and community colleges, state

agencies and others where it is mutually beneficial

Beginning of the Vision/Plan Initiative• SAT’s expanded mission and higher-level focus• New President with deep experience and interest in

technology’s contributions to the academic enterprise• 2004-2005

– Drafting and approval internal to SAT– Sharing with ITC and Provosts– Campus Visits– Revisions– Endorsements:

• Provosts• Chancellors• President

“Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan”

• Vision for the Year 2015– The University of Massachusetts is recognized as a leading university

in using academic technology to improve teaching, learning, and scholarly interchange, and in evolving its role as a university in an information age society.”

• “Specific Vision Outcomes” for Faculty, Students, Staff, Alumni (Sample)– There is a general sense among faculty, staff and students that

UMass campuses value teaching and learning and invest well in it, and that UMass provides a nationally recognized, innovative, and excellent educational opportunity to its students

– UMass effectively supports student acquisition and use of computing/communication divides that take advantage of the most forward-looking environments.

“Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan”

Plan Guiding Principles• Teaching and learning with technology are about faculty,

not technology• Good practice is built on inquiry and reflection• Evolving academic technology creates new opportunities to

build effective learning environments• Infrastructure and support for effective learning

environments must consistently be strong• Initial implementation of technologies is only the beginning• Institutional structure must establish paths of least

resistance

The Seven Principles for Good Practice

Effective undergraduate teaching. . .

• Encourages contacts between students and faculty• Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students• Uses active learning techniques• Gives prompt feedback• Emphasizes time on task• Communicates high expectations• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Chickering, 1987; Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996

“Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan”

“Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan”

Plan Goals Over Time

• Year 1– Achieve buy-in– Hire Associate VP for Academic Technology– Establish Work Groups in 5 areas

• Assessment• Course and Curriculum redesign• Faculty Engagement and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning• Physical and Virtual Learning Environments• Support Services

• Year 2– Establish end-of-year-5 goals– Establish meaningful metrics– Augment program reviews with technology, teaching and learning objectives– Establish a strategy for sharing innovative applications of academic technology

Working Groups• Membership: Faculty and staff from each campus and the

President’s Office• Charged to review state of art, identify campus highlights,

point to good practice, recommend next steps• Recommendations delivered at a “Working Group Summit”

on September 22, 2006• Themes

– Integration of Learning and Teaching (LT)– Faculty Engagement– Assessment and Planning– Infrastructure– Collaborative Processes

Sampling: Working Group Recommendations

• Integration of LT– Long Term

• Tie LT issues to strategic planning adjustments

• Continuous review of LT structures and processes

– Shorter Term• Review structural placement of instructional development and IT support. . .

• Bring faculty and staff together to develop LT strategy

• Establish provost office role for LT/instructional development

• Faculty Engagement– Long Term

• Promote a culture that values and respects the University’s core teaching mission.– Measures of and rewards for excellence in teaching, and in teaching with technology

– Integration of teaching and LT into promotion and tenure process

– Shorter Term• Professional development opportunities and incentives for deliverables for peer review and

dissemination

• Create UMass-wide venue for SoTL, sharing of best practices, collaboration, and peer review

Parallel Activities in Year 1• System-Wide Symposia

– Teaching and Learning with Tablet PCs– Teaching and Learning Using Electronic Portfolios– How Do We Know Our Students Are Learning

• Expansion of Academic Technology Grants– Professional Development Grants– Strategic Initiative Grants

• Nurturing of Special Interest Groups– Medical Education– Arts– ePortfolios

• Participation in Related Ventures– Continuing Education Council (UMassOnline)– ITC– Campus Endeavors

Snapshot, October 12, 2006

• Recommendations being written up for approval of SAT and ITC

• Provost endorsement of and participation in campus visits• Finalization of Year 2 recommendations, with roles and

tasks defined – by December 2006?

Next Steps• Continuation of Plan-Related Activities

– Expansion of AT Grants (including SoTL)– Working Groups: The Sequel– Special Interest Groups– March Conference: “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:

Technology and Reflective Practice”

• Establish end-of-year-5 goals• Establish meaningful metrics• Assessment (Augment program reviews with technology,

teaching and learning objectives)• Expand Virtual Place for Sharing and Collaboration

The Working Group Planning Process

• Strengths– Membership– Flexibility within charge

• Difficulties– Workload of key members – volume and locale– Complexity and size of the task

Lessons Learned• Incentives and rewards (or disincentives and punishments) – A Dominant

Theme in the. . .– Commitment of faculty to engagement in teaching, learning, and technology– Ability of talented committee members to devote time and energy to major projects

that are add-ons– Priority of campus obligations– Priority on research, and concurrent isolation of teaching

• A small group of dedicated faculty and staff can have a large impact, especially when technology can vividly be shown to address felt needs in teaching

• Project groups must have realistic goals, tasks, resources, and timetables (Yourdon, Death March)

• Others– Importance of campus organization, structure, processes– Balance short, medium, and long term

References

• Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as a Lever. AAHE Bulletin (49,2), 1996.

• Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.” AAHE Bulletin (39,7), 1987.

• Duberstadt, J; Wulf, W.; Zemsky, Robert. “Envisioning a transformed university. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2005. http://www.issues.org/22.1/duderstadt.html

• Mott, J.D., & Granata, G. “Beyond ROI.” Educause Quarterly (29,2), 2006.• University of Massachusetts, Information Technology Council. “ITC Mission and Charter.”

Revised 2006. http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/mission.html• University of Massachusetts, Information Technology Council Subcommittee on

Academic Technology.– “Academic Technology for Teaching and Learning[:] Vision and Plan,” 2005.

http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/itc/Vision_planJanuary2005-Version8.1.pdf– Academic Technology Grants, 2006. http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/itc/cfp06.pdf– Charter, 2004. http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/charter.html

• Yourdon, E. Death March, Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, 2003.– Interviewed: CAI: An IT Metrics and Productivity Journal Special Edition, 2006.

http://www.compaid.com/caiinternet/ezine/edyourdoninterview.pdf

Thank YouThank YouDavid Gray dgray@umassonline.netDavid Gray dgray@umassonline.net

Bob Green rgreen@umassd.eduBob Green rgreen@umassd.eduMark Schlesinger mschlesinger@umassp.eduMark Schlesinger mschlesinger@umassp.edu

ITC ITC http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/SATSAT http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/subcommittees.html http://www.massachusetts.edu/itc/subcommittees.html