Information
Infrastructure: the future for learning and teaching Information
Infrastructure: the future for learning and teaching (Paper delivered to Round Table No 5 "Information, Innovation and Scholarly Communication", Canberra, 21-22 October, 1996.)
The examples used in this paper are based on a study tour of 14 institutions in the United States completed during the period 7 - 18 October 1996. It is structured around four main areas:
Some representative examples of programs in particular institutions are provided as illustrations.
I believe that we are on the brink of a paradigm shift in learning and teaching towards much more flexible learning by our students. Also, I believe that the changes in information technology, universities and society will not slow down or go away. The changes to learning and teaching are likely to be irreversible.
The view of learning and teaching presented below is a modal view of the future, even if somewhat "ideal", as seen in the institutions visited in the US and in various institutions and parts of institutions in Australia. We are all aware that there is a continuum of activities in learning and teaching, ranging from those termed "old-fashioned" to those termed "futuristic". The characteristics of learning and teaching described here are already occurring in many classrooms, but in my view universities in Australia need to move so that a majority of their courses adopt this view of learning and teaching.
Some characteristics of this view of learning and teaching in the future are:
Two examples of institutions which are endeavouring to introduce flexible learning approaches across the institution at undergraduate level are Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Wake Forest University.
(i) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY)
This institution is changing its UG curriculum completely over two years to make it more interactive. In the first year they began with Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Engineering and Architecture. Their goal is "students to work hard while staff listen and interact".
Characteristics of their approach include:
(ii) Wake Forest University (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)
This institution is also changing its curriculum following its "Plan for the Class of 2000". Every freshman (a cohort of 950) is given an IBM Think Pad (365-XD) on admission. After two years it is replaced by newer technology and presented to them on their graduation (as a device for maintaining contact with alumni). Although they have fewer than 4000 UG students they spent $20M from capital reserves on IT infrastructure.
The stated goals of the new UG curriculum are:
The relationship between learning/teaching and research appears to me to be likely to be very close in the future, with the links becoming closer at the undergraduate levels than they may have been previously. It appears to vary across disciplines. Broadly the sciences appear to be making use of the "oomph" of hardware, software and networks, and social sciences and humanities are making use of the accessibility of information. By and large I believe that the needs of research across the disciplines will satisfy teaching needs, and vice-versa, in the future environment.
Two examples of this synergy between research tools and learning and teaching are as follows:
(i) Geology at Columbia University (Professor James Hays)
Instead of exposing students to texts reporting results from datasets they have designed technology to view and manipulate datasets with and by students. Courses in geology are provided on web pages; the "data viewer" was developed for research purposes but now used extensively for teaching, with the students using real geological data and exploring hypotheses suggested not only by text books and other researchers but also by the data itself.
(ii) "Digital Hitchcock" at UCLA (Dr Steven Mamber)
His research with archives on Hitchcock films, focussed on "the Birds" initially, has developed tools and approaches to information which now form the basis of part of his teaching in Theatre, Film and TV. What began as research and the development of research tools has now become a key aspect of his teaching.
My experience leads me to believe that there are at least five necessary conditions for future developments in flexible learning. Four of these relate to what could be termed "information infrastructure".
The last three of these are the key problem areas, in my opinion, if universities are to introduce more flexible learning approaches.
(i) Hardware and software
While present day hardware and software is very impressive and provides many fewer constraints on flexible learning approaches than previously, there are still some difficulties:
(ii) Information accessibility
"Libraries and computing centres - they have changed and they are-a-changing further". In a number of institutions they are closely related, either physically or structurally, and have the following characteristics.
(a) The electronic library needs to provide access to scholarly information in book, journal, video, film and other materials. In addition it needs to provide instructional and user support, and be a node or nodes in the access infrastructure.
(b) The questions are no longer (only) where to place the materials and how to organise their distribution - rather, the questions may be:
Should the material be in analogue or digital form? At IUPUI, where there has been a very impressive library development over the past 4 or 5 years, the development of their individual video control system has been analogue and relatively free of copyright difficulties. They are now developing a parallel digital system with attendant copyright difficulties. However, the digital system provides much greater flexibility for the students and staff in terms of access.
Copyright poses many problems and at the present time I believe it has the potential to constrain many information developments. This has certainly been the experience of Columbia University Library, Professor Stephen Murray (Professor of Art History & Archaeology at Columbia), Dr Steven Mamber (Professor, Theatre, Film and TV at UCLA), and CAUL in Australia.
How can adequate student and staff support be achieved?
"Bathing in a sea of information does not necessarily lead to learning or knowledge (for that matter)". The present situation in which there is an over-supply of often unrelated information is similar to "being in a library without a catalogue" or, "acquiring journal information by xerox rather than neurox". A key issue is how to provide support to allow learning to occur in the library of the future. For example, at IUPUI students have indicated that they found the library a little overwhelming and preferred the less modern City Library.
(iii) IT Infrastructure
The introduction of more flexible learning approaches which take advantage of the range of possibilities from print-based to high technology is very dependent upon the level of IT infrastructure. My experience indicates three major issues:
In my view we will need cooperation between universities for a distributed learning environment within Australia. In addition, we will need to choose wisely from the available infrastructure and spend the greater proportion of our funds on providing infrastructure for as large a group of students as possible.
(iv) Staff Awareness and Ability
It was notable that a number of institutions visited by the study group divide their academic staff into three or five groups. If there are three groups they might be called "techies". "possible interesteds" and "nevers". The "techies" are in the forefront of the changes to learning and teaching, while the "nevers" are unlikely to change their behaviours to any extent. The "possible interesteds" are the largest group and crucial to the introduction of more flexible learning on a wider scale. "Failures" are likely to reduce their interest in changing their teaching behaviour.
As a result of observations made by "change agents" in the universities I visited on the study tour, I would identify two key issues in this area of support.
* It is important for us to experiment now, even if there are imperfections, using our techies. At the same time we should be providing staff development for our next groups of "interesteds". (We should not concern ourselves with the "nevers").
* Change management in this area is difficult as we are changing individual staff behaviours. Time commitment of staff and the development cost of breakdowns are still very high, as are the possibilities of "improper" or "non-learning uses", such as transferring large slabs of text onto the computer.
5. Challenges facing Australian universities in moving to more flexible learning
There are eight major challenges which we must meet if we are to introduce more flexible learning:
October 1996