Presented ByBill Bailey

Sally Click

Pat Hanley

Nicole Radziwill

Kevin Van Dewark

QS 702 Summer 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.01.5

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Team Plan and ProcessesIntroduction and Problem Statement

Assessment

Literature Review

Project Analysis

Grand FACR

Chats

8D Problem Solving Form

FMEA

OPCP

SIPOC

1.0 Team Plan1.1 Team Process Flow

Back to Table of ContentsLink to Team Objectives

1.1.2 Team

identification and

selection

1.1.1Problem or

Project identification

1.1.3 Team Process

1.1.3.4Team

support mechanics

ms

1.1.3.3Team

Communication systems

1.1.3.7 Team

continuous improvement

1.1.3.5 Team

Budget

1.1.3.6Team

Evaluation

1.1.3.2 Team

Roles and functions

1.1.3.1 Team

IceBreaker

1.1.4Project

Management

1.1.5 Process checks

1.1.1 Problem or Project identification Before beginning to assemble a team, it is important to determine what its function, the scope of its responsibilities, and its primary objectives will be. This is generally done at a leadership level above the team. An exception may be in an extremely self managed environment, where a team may come together spontaneously in response to a problem or some other issue. In this case, the function, responsibilities and objectives may be negotiated with leadership.

1.1.2 Team identification and selection Team membership should be carefully considered based on ability to contribute and learn, and organizationally based on necessary support for the project. If a particular organizational function is affected by the project, and will need to support it, they should be represented on the team. For effective team dynamics, teams should generally be between 4 and 8 members. With fewer than four members, it is difficult to gain real synergy. More than eight members makes it difficult for everyone to contribute, and encourages "social loafing".

1.1.3 First Team MeetingWhile teams will be eager to get to work on the project, it is important to their eventual success that other issued be addressed first. These issues are primarily for the first meeting, but can be revisited as needed.

1.1.3.1 Team IcebreakerWhile this might seem to be frivolous, it is important for team members to get to know one another. This may include exchanging biographical information, or a group exercise. An activity like this will begin to build the trust, that is essential to team function, and to learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes a personality profile is used here. Again, this helps to understand teammates better. This step may be even more important in virtual teams where the members may not know each other, and may never meet face to face.

1.1.3.2 Team Roles and functionsThere are two parts to team roles and functions. One part is to make sure that everyone understands the scope, the limitations, and the objectives of the project as defined in 5.1.1. The other part is to identify roles within the group. Such roles are often defined as leader, process advocate, and scribe. A timekeeper may be desirable as well. Often, particularly in high functioning teams, these roles can rotate to different members.

1.1.3.3 Team Communication systemsThe team needs to determine and maintain standard modes of communication. Asynchronous communication may be through a bulletin board or email, but should be agreed upon and adhered to. With rare exceptions, communication should be to the entire group, and not select individuals. Synchronous communication may be through virtual chat, or live meetings. In either case, an agenda should be prepared by the leader and followed by the group. The agenda should include time and space for concerns or issues from the group. The results of the meeting, including assigned responsibilities should be summarized and agreed upon before the meeting ends. The scribe should document the results of the meeting and distribute this promptly to all team members.

1.1.3.4 Team support mechanismsTeam support mechanisms should be discussed prior to the budget. Issues might be a commitment from leaders to allow time for the project. Support from other areas might also be necessary. Physical space and resource needs, if any, should be established. Once communication methods are established, hardware and software needs can be analyzed here.

1.1.3.5 Team BudgetThe team should carefully assess potential budget needs. This could be physical resources, hardware, software, or space needs described above. It might also include money for travel or for outsourcing some support.

1.1.3.6 Team EvaluationThe team should decide how it will evaluate its progress, and how it will know when it is done. Project management tools may be useful here. It may be desirable to assign one team member to document and maintain the project plan.

1.1.3.7 Team Continuous ImprovementThe team will strive to improve all of the process described here within each weeks work.

1.1.4 Project ManagementThis is a continuation of the project management methods that were begun in 5.1.3f. The team should regularly monitor progress against the plan, adjust the plan, responsibilities and resources as needed.

1.1.5 Process Checks and AuditsPeriodic process checks will help to keep the team on track. If Project Management in 5.1.4 gets off track, it is probably useful to do a process check as well. A process check can be done by reviewing the activities in 5.1.3.a-g.

1.1.1 Problem or Project identification Before beginning to assemble a team, it is important to determine what its function, the scope of its responsibilities, and its primary objectives will be. This is generally done at a leadership level above the team. An exception may be in an extremely self managed environment, where a team may come together spontaneously in response to a problem or some other issue. In this case, the function, responsibilities and objectives may be negotiated with leadership.

1.1.2 Team identification and selection Team membership should be carefully considered based on ability to contribute and learn, and organizationally based on necessary support for the project. If a particular organizational function is affected by the project, and will need to support it, they should be represented on the team. For effective team dynamics, teams should generally be between 4 and 8 members. With fewer than four members, it is difficult to gain real synergy. More than eight members makes it difficult for everyone to contribute, and encourages "social loafing".

1.1.3 First Team MeetingWhile teams will be eager to get to work on the project, it is important to their eventual success that other issued be addressed first. These issues are primarily for the first meeting, but can be revisited as needed.

1.1.3.1 Team IcebreakerWhile this might seem to be frivolous, it is important for team members to get to know one another. This may include exchanging biographical information, or a group exercise. An activity like this will begin to build the trust, that is essential to team function, and to learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes a personality profile is used here. Again, this helps to understand teammates better. This step may be even more important in virtual teams where the members may not know each other, and may never meet face to face.

1.1.3.2 Team Roles and functionsThere are two parts to team roles and functions. One part is to make sure that everyone understands the scope, the limitations, and the objectives of the project as defined in 5.1.1. The other part is to identify roles within the group. Such roles are often defined as leader, process advocate, and scribe. A timekeeper may be desirable as well. Often, particularly in high functioning teams, these roles can rotate to different members.

1.1.3.3 Team Communication systemsThe team needs to determine and maintain standard modes of communication. Asynchronous communication may be through a bulletin board or email, but should be agreed upon and adhered to. With rare exceptions, communication should be to the entire group, and not select individuals. Synchronous communication may be through virtual chat, or live meetings. In either case, an agenda should be prepared by the leader and followed by the group. The agenda should include time and space for concerns or issues from the group. The results of the meeting, including assigned responsibilities should be summarized and agreed upon before the meeting ends. The scribe should document the results of the meeting and distribute this promptly to all team members.

1.1.3.4 Team support mechanismsTeam support mechanisms should be discussed prior to the budget. Issues might be a commitment from leaders to allow time for the project. Support from other areas might also be necessary. Physical space and resource needs, if any, should be established. Once communication methods are established, hardware and software needs can be analyzed here.

1.1.3.5 Team BudgetThe team should carefully assess potential budget needs. This could be physical resources, hardware, software, or space needs described above. It might also include money for travel or for outsourcing some support.

1.1.3.6 Team EvaluationThe team should decide how it will evaluate its progress, and how it will know when it is done. Project management tools may be useful here. It may be desirable to assign one team member to document and maintain the project plan.

1.1.3.7 Team Continuous ImprovementThe team will strive to improve all of the process described here within each weeks work.

1.1.4 Project ManagementThis is a continuation of the project management methods that were begun in 5.1.3f. The team should regularly monitor progress against the plan, adjust the plan, responsibilities and resources as needed.

1.1.5 Process Checks and AuditsPeriodic process checks will help to keep the team on track. If Project Management in 5.1.4 gets off track, it is probably useful to do a process check as well. A process check can be done by reviewing the activities in 5.1.3.a-g.

1.2.1 Team Assignment Process

1.2.2 Team Postings, Compilations for Tool 10

Each person on the team is assigned, by the team leader, for the tool or phase they are leading, to complete a specific part of the work as shown below: Team assignments: (done by team leader)Team assessments: (all do one of each other, one compiles, assigned here)Review of literature: (all do one, one compiles, assigned here)Analyses: (all can/should contribute, particularly in chat--one compiles, assigned here)Layout and flow: (all can/should contribute, particularly in chat--one compiles, assigned here)Project data: (all can/should contribute, particularly in chat--one compiles, assigned here)Chats and threads: (prepared, led and summarized by team leader)Content applications: (done by all, one compiles each application, assigned here)

All work is led by team leader for that specific tool, including advance preparation of threads for all postings, in the team work areas, early in posting cycle. Chats are led by team leader, assuring that the chat room is ready to go, archiving is running, etc. Note that several of the items above should be "standing" items on chat agendas, and that a chat should be done early in the posting cycle, and likely a second one will be needed for best practices, toward the end of the cycle.

1.2.2.1 Changes in compiling:• Remove all instructions except description• Put all responses for a sub item together• Dr. Sinn, in the tool 8 feedback suggested, showing who did what in intro and not having names in the actual text of work--particularly at phase review.

1.2.2.2 procedural steps to aid in portfolio refinement.We all need to use the new threads to try to further refine our topic.

1.2.2.3 Deadlines: 1. Tool 10 – All deadlines midnight.a. Individual contributions Sunday 7/9b. All sections compiled Monday 7/10c. Compiled Tuesday 7/11 for team review d. Final compilation due Friday 7/14.

1.2.2.4 Compiling responsibilities:2.0 Assessment Bill3.0 Literature review Nicole4.0 analysis Bill5.0 Layout, Flow Sally6.0 Project Data Pat 7.0 Chats and Threads Kevin 8-D BillPPAP KevinFinal Compile Kevin

1.2.2.5 Team MethodologyAll assignments are designated by the team leader (responsibility rotated weekly) and decisions are reached through consensus in the weekly chat.

1.1.1 Problem or Project identification Before beginning to assemble a team, it is important to determine what its function, the scope of its responsibilities, and its primary objectives will be. This is generally done at a leadership level above the team. An exception may be in an extremely self managed environment, where a team may come together spontaneously in response to a problem or some other issue. In this case, the function, responsibilities and objectives may be negotiated with leadership.

1.1.2 Team identification and selection Team membership should be carefully considered based on ability to contribute and learn, and organizationally based on necessary support for the project. If a particular organizational function is affected by the project, and will need to support it, they should be represented on the team. For effective team dynamics, teams should generally be between 4 and 8 members. With fewer than four members, it is difficult to gain real synergy. More than eight members makes it difficult for everyone to contribute, and encourages "social loafing".

1.1.3 First Team MeetingWhile teams will be eager to get to work on the project, it is important to their eventual success that other issued be addressed first. These issues are primarily for the first meeting, but can be revisited as needed.

1.1.3.1 Team IcebreakerWhile this might seem to be frivolous, it is important for team members to get to know one another. This may include exchanging biographical information, or a group exercise. An activity like this will begin to build the trust, that is essential to team function, and to learn each others strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes a personality profile is used here. Again, this helps to understand teammates better. This step may be even more important in virtual teams where the members may not know each other, and may never meet face to face.

1.1.3.2 Team Roles and functionsThere are two parts to team roles and functions. One part is to make sure that everyone understands the scope, the limitations, and the objectives of the project as defined in 5.1.1. The other part is to identify roles within the group. Such roles are often defined as leader, process advocate, and scribe. A timekeeper may be desirable as well. Often, particularly in high functioning teams, these roles can rotate to different members.

1.1.3.3 Team Communication systemsThe team needs to determine and maintain standard modes of communication. Asynchronous communication may be through a bulletin board or email, but should be agreed upon and adhered to. With rare exceptions, communication should be to the entire group, and not select individuals. Synchronous communication may be through virtual chat, or live meetings. In either case, an agenda should be prepared by the leader and followed by the group. The agenda should include time and space for concerns or issues from the group. The results of the meeting, including assigned responsibilities should be summarized and agreed upon before the meeting ends. The scribe should document the results of the meeting and distribute this promptly to all team members.

1.1.3.4 Team support mechanismsTeam support mechanisms should be discussed prior to the budget. Issues might be a commitment from leaders to allow time for the project. Support from other areas might also be necessary. Physical space and resource needs, if any, should be established. Once communication methods are established, hardware and software needs can be analyzed here.

1.1.3.5 Team BudgetThe team should carefully assess potential budget needs. This could be physical resources, hardware, software, or space needs described above. It might also include money for travel or for outsourcing some support.

1.1.3.6 Team EvaluationThe team should decide how it will evaluate its progress, and how it will know when it is done. Project management tools may be useful here. It may be desirable to assign one team member to document and maintain the project plan.

1.1.3.7 Team Continuous ImprovementThe team will strive to improve all of the process described here within each weeks work.

1.1.4 Project ManagementThis is a continuation of the project management methods that were begun in 5.1.3f. The team should regularly monitor progress against the plan, adjust the plan, responsibilities and resources as needed.

1.1.5 Process Checks and AuditsPeriodic process checks will help to keep the team on track. If Project Management in 5.1.4 gets off track, it is probably useful to do a process check as well. A process check can be done by reviewing the activities in 5.1.3.a-g.

1.2.3 Team Postings, Compilations for Tool 11

1.2.4 Team Postings, Compilations for Tool 12

1.2.2.1 Changes in compiling:• Remove all instructions except description• Put all responses for a sub item together• Dr. Sinn, in the tool 8 feedback suggested, showing who did what in intro and not having names in the actual text of work--particularly at phase review.

1.2.2.2 procedural steps to aid in portfolio refinement.We all need to use the new threads to try to further refine our topic.

1.2.2.3 Deadlines: 1. Tool 10 – All deadlines midnight.a. Individual contributions Sunday 7/9b. All sections compiled Monday 7/10c. Compiled Tuesday 7/11 for team review d. Final compilation due Friday 7/14.

1.2.2.4 Compiling responsibilities:2.0 Assessment Bill3.0 Literature review Nicole4.0 analysis Bill5.0 Layout, Flow Sally6.0 Project Data Pat 7.0 Chats and Threads Kevin 8-D BillPPAP KevinFinal Compile Kevin

1.2.2.5 Team MethodologyAll assignments are designated by the team leader (responsibility rotated weekly) and decisions are reached through consensus in the weekly chat.

1.2.3.1 Changes in compiling:• None

1.2.3.2 procedural steps to aid in portfolio refinement.• None

1.2.3.3 Deadlines: 1. Tool 11 – All deadlines midnight.a. Individual contributions Wednesday 7/19b. All sections compiled Thursday 7/20c. Compiled Friday 7/21 AM for team review d. Final compilation due Friday 7/21 noon ET.

1.2.3.4 Compiling responsibilities:2.0 Assessment Nicole3.0 Literature review Sally4.0 Analysis Pat5.0 Layout, Flow Sally6.0 Project Data Bill7.0 Chats and Threads Nicole8-D BillPPAP KevinFinal Compile Nicole

1.2.3.5 Team MethodologyAll assignments are designated by the team leader (responsibility rotated weekly) and decisions are reached through consensus in the weekly chat.

1.2.4.1 Changes in compiling:• None

1.2.4.2 procedural steps to aid in portfolio refinement.• None

1.2.4.3 Deadlines: 1. Tool 12 – All deadlines midnight except as noted.a. Individual contributions Sunday 7/23b. All sections compiled Monday 7/24c. Compiled 6:00 PM Tuesday 7/25 d. Final compilation due Wednesday, 7/26.

1.2.4.4 Compiling responsibilities:2.0 Assessment Sally3.0 Literature review Nicole4.0 Analysis Sally5.0 Layout, Flow Nicole6.0 Chats and Threads Patrick7.0 8-D Bill8.0 FMEA Kevin9.0 OPCP Patrick10.0 SIPOC KevinFinal Compile Bill

1.2.4.5 Team MethodologyAll assignments are designated by the team leader (responsibility rotated weekly) and decisions are reached through consensus in the weekly chat.

1.3 Team Total Systems Documentation, Application, Applied to Project

1.2.4.1 Changes in compiling:• None

1.2.4.2 procedural steps to aid in portfolio refinement.• None

1.2.4.3 Deadlines: 1. Tool 12 – All deadlines midnight except as noted.a. Individual contributions Sunday 7/23b. All sections compiled Monday 7/24c. Compiled 6:00 PM Tuesday 7/25 d. Final compilation due Wednesday, 7/26.

1.2.4.4 Compiling responsibilities:2.0 Assessment Sally3.0 Literature review Nicole4.0 Analysis Sally5.0 Layout, Flow Nicole6.0 Chats and Threads Patrick7.0 8-D Bill8.0 FMEA Kevin9.0 OPCP Patrick10.0 SIPOC KevinFinal Compile Bill

1.2.4.5 Team MethodologyAll assignments are designated by the team leader (responsibility rotated weekly) and decisions are reached through consensus in the weekly chat.

1.3.1 TTSD FINDINGS and ANALYSES:

The purpose of the TTSD application was for the team to begin the development of the documentation system that we will use to enhance our project portfolio. When this tool was originally completed, the main concern was discovery of a topic and objectives. As a team we decided on completing an analysis of some facet of culture change within higher education; specific to distance education. Since our original tool, we have further developed our system to follow ISO documentation guidelines. This format assists team members in organization of topics and material while providing the necessary documentation for learning and discovery. Phase I documentation follows the developed process to date.

1.3.2 TTSD CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS:

Team members did provide some guidelines for selection of a project based on the fact that there is limited time for completion. These guidelines are:

1) It must be doable - let's make sure the scope is not more than we can do in a semester.2) It should cross the interests of every team member.3) It should add something to the body of knowledge. This means that we need to be sure that we do not duplicate something that has been done, unless we improve on it. - this will help it to be publishable.4) We need to consider the larger context of our work, today and in the future.5) It needs to relate back to technology and / or quality.

These guidelines have assisted the team in project development, however, it has been a challenge for our group to narrow the scope of our project.

1.3.3 TTSD CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:

In the early stages of development, the team did not really have any specific suggestions for continuous improvement. Since then, the team has a better understanding of the importance of coming to consensus on our project objectives and problem statement, and the team has continuously improved in its consensus process, through phase II. While this may seem trivial, it is extremely difficult for new teams to develop their own culture while trying to learn and develop a project.

1.4 Leadership Systems Documentation, Application, Applied to Project

1.3.1 TTSD FINDINGS and ANALYSES:

The purpose of the TTSD application was for the team to begin the development of the documentation system that we will use to enhance our project portfolio. When this tool was originally completed, the main concern was discovery of a topic and objectives. As a team we decided on completing an analysis of some facet of culture change within higher education; specific to distance education. Since our original tool, we have further developed our system to follow ISO documentation guidelines. This format assists team members in organization of topics and material while providing the necessary documentation for learning and discovery. Phase I documentation follows the developed process to date.

1.3.2 TTSD CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS:

Team members did provide some guidelines for selection of a project based on the fact that there is limited time for completion. These guidelines are:

1) It must be doable - let's make sure the scope is not more than we can do in a semester.2) It should cross the interests of every team member.3) It should add something to the body of knowledge. This means that we need to be sure that we do not duplicate something that has been done, unless we improve on it. - this will help it to be publishable.4) We need to consider the larger context of our work, today and in the future.5) It needs to relate back to technology and / or quality.

These guidelines have assisted the team in project development, however, it has been a challenge for our group to narrow the scope of our project.

1.3.3 TTSD CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:

In the early stages of development, the team did not really have any specific suggestions for continuous improvement. Since then, the team has a better understanding of the importance of coming to consensus on our project objectives and problem statement, and the team has continuously improved in its consensus process, through phase II. While this may seem trivial, it is extremely difficult for new teams to develop their own culture while trying to learn and develop a project.

1.4.1 LSD FINDINGS and ANALYSES:

Part of the assignment for the LSD application was to answer the following eight questions. The team initially answered the questions individually. For phase I the summary includes a "best" answer chosen from the team member responses. These answers as a part of our portfolio instill knowledge and learning, and help our team processes; however, they do not add obvious direct value to our project development.

1.4.1.1 How to grow leaders within the context of change and improvement? Change and improvement offers more opportunities for the development of new leaders. Improvement efforts often emphasize teams and empowerment, which create situations for more individuals to take leadership roles even if only for a short time.

1.4.1.2 How to discern and develop the leader as a supervisor, manager and team facilitator?Leaders can be identified by their willingness to learn, their concern with the problems and issues of the role, and most importantly their initiative and ability to be a self-starter. A manager should be willing and able to delegate tasks, starting with simple ones and becoming increasingly more complex, and provide guidance and mentorship for those developing leadership capabilities.

1.4.1.3 How to grow leaders based on rewards, recognition, redirecting and other evaluative systems?Clearly, reinforcing desired behaviors by bringing attention to them through recognition. The mindset of catching people doing things right seems to be preferable to watching for mistakes. This leadership behavior doesn't cost anything but time and attention. It probably has the largest payoff in getting desired results and participation from team members. Recognizing and rewarding only the stars is de-motivating for the majority of the workforce. Recognition must be individualized as all people are motivated by different things. We also need to be careful not to over-reward and recognize as it can lose its significance.

1.4.1.4 Necessary communication and consensus systems to grow future leaders? Leaders will need to build competencies on how to handle communication and consensus building. Many times people think consensus is making everyone happy; however, it is really about coming to agreement. The main thing here is that future leaders need to be given the opportunity to develop these skills if they are in fact going to be effective at using them in the future.

1.4.1.5 Disciplined management of technology--how related infrastructurally to growing leaders? Leadership development, in technology management, requires that the leader be able to distance him or herself from the technical details in order to see and respond to the high-level problems and the environment within which those problems are encountered.

1.4.1.6 What barriers may impede leader growth, and how do we reduce these for improvement?Many of the barriers to the growth of leaders are tied to short term and reactive thinking. Organizational support, lack of knowledge, time crunch, commitment and attitude are barriers that are difficult to overcome if we have a workforce of contingency workers. Likewise reflection, assessment, attention to detail and a systematic approach fit with longer term thinking.

1.4.1.7 Discerning management vs. leading change and improvement, assuring same systemically?Management most often involves making the day to day operations function - today. Leadership for change and improvement require long term thinking, and a systems approach to the organization. Communicating the need for change, and the proposed strategy may be the most difficult part. It is necessary to identify and communicate threats to the organization to get the attention of employees, and remove complacency. But, this also creates stress, which can be counterproductive. This can be balance in some sense by communicating/convincing participants that they have some control over their destiny.

1.4.1.8 Integrating strategic planning with change in team infrastructure, environment as a leader?A leader of an organization does not receive that respect without modeling the proper behavior. These leaders have demonstrated strength of character, commitment, vision, trust, etc. It is natural that these people be a part of the strategic planning as they have demonstrated the necessary skills to drive the organization forward.

1.4.2 LSD CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS:

Upon completion of the LSD tool, everyone understood the importance of leadership to the success of our project. Each team member feels that we have strong leadership and that the group's success has grown. We have continuously evaluated our leadership; improving as we moved forward into the completion of Phase II work.

1.4.3 LSD CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:

As a team, we had to figure out how to more effectively integrate toolkit content into the development of our project. This has become more clear as we streamline our work processes, see examples, and continued pursuing the project direction using 8D, PPAP, and other methods.

1.5 Introduction and Problem Statement

1.4.1 LSD FINDINGS and ANALYSES:

Part of the assignment for the LSD application was to answer the following eight questions. The team initially answered the questions individually. For phase I the summary includes a "best" answer chosen from the team member responses. These answers as a part of our portfolio instill knowledge and learning, and help our team processes; however, they do not add obvious direct value to our project development.

1.4.1.1 How to grow leaders within the context of change and improvement? Change and improvement offers more opportunities for the development of new leaders. Improvement efforts often emphasize teams and empowerment, which create situations for more individuals to take leadership roles even if only for a short time.

1.4.1.2 How to discern and develop the leader as a supervisor, manager and team facilitator?Leaders can be identified by their willingness to learn, their concern with the problems and issues of the role, and most importantly their initiative and ability to be a self-starter. A manager should be willing and able to delegate tasks, starting with simple ones and becoming increasingly more complex, and provide guidance and mentorship for those developing leadership capabilities.

1.4.1.3 How to grow leaders based on rewards, recognition, redirecting and other evaluative systems?Clearly, reinforcing desired behaviors by bringing attention to them through recognition. The mindset of catching people doing things right seems to be preferable to watching for mistakes. This leadership behavior doesn't cost anything but time and attention. It probably has the largest payoff in getting desired results and participation from team members. Recognizing and rewarding only the stars is de-motivating for the majority of the workforce. Recognition must be individualized as all people are motivated by different things. We also need to be careful not to over-reward and recognize as it can lose its significance.

1.4.1.4 Necessary communication and consensus systems to grow future leaders? Leaders will need to build competencies on how to handle communication and consensus building. Many times people think consensus is making everyone happy; however, it is really about coming to agreement. The main thing here is that future leaders need to be given the opportunity to develop these skills if they are in fact going to be effective at using them in the future.

1.4.1.5 Disciplined management of technology--how related infrastructurally to growing leaders? Leadership development, in technology management, requires that the leader be able to distance him or herself from the technical details in order to see and respond to the high-level problems and the environment within which those problems are encountered.

1.4.1.6 What barriers may impede leader growth, and how do we reduce these for improvement?Many of the barriers to the growth of leaders are tied to short term and reactive thinking. Organizational support, lack of knowledge, time crunch, commitment and attitude are barriers that are difficult to overcome if we have a workforce of contingency workers. Likewise reflection, assessment, attention to detail and a systematic approach fit with longer term thinking.

1.4.1.7 Discerning management vs. leading change and improvement, assuring same systemically?Management most often involves making the day to day operations function - today. Leadership for change and improvement require long term thinking, and a systems approach to the organization. Communicating the need for change, and the proposed strategy may be the most difficult part. It is necessary to identify and communicate threats to the organization to get the attention of employees, and remove complacency. But, this also creates stress, which can be counterproductive. This can be balance in some sense by communicating/convincing participants that they have some control over their destiny.

1.4.1.8 Integrating strategic planning with change in team infrastructure, environment as a leader?A leader of an organization does not receive that respect without modeling the proper behavior. These leaders have demonstrated strength of character, commitment, vision, trust, etc. It is natural that these people be a part of the strategic planning as they have demonstrated the necessary skills to drive the organization forward.

1.4.2 LSD CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS:

Upon completion of the LSD tool, everyone understood the importance of leadership to the success of our project. Each team member feels that we have strong leadership and that the group's success has grown. We have continuously evaluated our leadership; improving as we moved forward into the completion of Phase II work.

1.4.3 LSD CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT:

As a team, we had to figure out how to more effectively integrate toolkit content into the development of our project. This has become more clear as we streamline our work processes, see examples, and continued pursuing the project direction using 8D, PPAP, and other methods.

1.5.1 IntroductionIt has long been known that a lecture-only instructional format does not fit with the manner in which most students effectively learn. Yet on any traditional university or college campus, this pedogogical strategy is the norm. It is often a more convenient delivery method for the instructor, someone who "teaches" only as part of his or her job. It is likely the same instructor is required to conduct research and publish findings in reputable scholarly journals. This same instructor is probably expected to serve the institution and the community by finding ways to employ the knowledge he or she creates. Increasingly, this teacher is also encouraged to attract grants and funding sources to the university as a way to replace eroding financial support. A lack of time, support and encouragement are just a few of the reasons why post-secondary institution faculty are slow to incorporate knowledge about effective learning strategies.

Business as usual may soon be unacceptable for institutions of higher education. Joint forces of technology and globalization are forcing rapid changes of previously staid institutions. Accountability has become a driving concern of those who fund higher education. The public, students, and families want to know that they are getting what they pay for. The immediate future promises greater competition for funds and students; possibly fewer institutions, some very specialized; more demanding students who want flexible teaching patterns to enhance their career prospects; more challenging learning and research programs; and closer integration at regional and local levels while networking internationally (Lueddeke, 1999). Internationally, more adult learners, many of them part-time, are seeking institutions of higher education (Tait & Mills, 1999). Institutions are feeling pressure on resources as they try to respond to these changes and to an increased emphasis on teaching and learning methods that demand less teacher contact and thus pave the way for more independent learning. (Tait & Mills, 1999).

There is now nearly global recognition of the need for change and innovation in education (Roth, 1992). One of the growing educational delivery systems utilizes available technology to deliver education via the Internet. Distance learning now is a large, highly diverse enterprise in the United States and involves hundreds of thousands of students (Roth, 1992). Changes in higher education have been primarily reactive; responding to changes in technology and competition. As a result the context in which this technology has been implemented, the culture of higher education institutions, has not been closely examined. Fullan (2001) asserts that an organization's culture is the single most important element that must be altered in order for change to occur. Continuous improvement in higher education needs to meld information about how adults learn with available online technologies that result in a high degree of student learning as measured by predetermined outcomes.

This project is an effort to examine this context, determine factors relevant to the assimilation of technology in education, and an approach to the evaluation of technology in this culture. It involves a gap analysis between the culture of higher education today and the desired culture, an outline of the characteristics of the desired culture, and a definition of the benefits that would be achieved in the era of the new culture.

1.5.2 Problem Statement

1.5.3 Objectives

1.5.1 IntroductionIt has long been known that a lecture-only instructional format does not fit with the manner in which most students effectively learn. Yet on any traditional university or college campus, this pedogogical strategy is the norm. It is often a more convenient delivery method for the instructor, someone who "teaches" only as part of his or her job. It is likely the same instructor is required to conduct research and publish findings in reputable scholarly journals. This same instructor is probably expected to serve the institution and the community by finding ways to employ the knowledge he or she creates. Increasingly, this teacher is also encouraged to attract grants and funding sources to the university as a way to replace eroding financial support. A lack of time, support and encouragement are just a few of the reasons why post-secondary institution faculty are slow to incorporate knowledge about effective learning strategies.

Business as usual may soon be unacceptable for institutions of higher education. Joint forces of technology and globalization are forcing rapid changes of previously staid institutions. Accountability has become a driving concern of those who fund higher education. The public, students, and families want to know that they are getting what they pay for. The immediate future promises greater competition for funds and students; possibly fewer institutions, some very specialized; more demanding students who want flexible teaching patterns to enhance their career prospects; more challenging learning and research programs; and closer integration at regional and local levels while networking internationally (Lueddeke, 1999). Internationally, more adult learners, many of them part-time, are seeking institutions of higher education (Tait & Mills, 1999). Institutions are feeling pressure on resources as they try to respond to these changes and to an increased emphasis on teaching and learning methods that demand less teacher contact and thus pave the way for more independent learning. (Tait & Mills, 1999).

There is now nearly global recognition of the need for change and innovation in education (Roth, 1992). One of the growing educational delivery systems utilizes available technology to deliver education via the Internet. Distance learning now is a large, highly diverse enterprise in the United States and involves hundreds of thousands of students (Roth, 1992). Changes in higher education have been primarily reactive; responding to changes in technology and competition. As a result the context in which this technology has been implemented, the culture of higher education institutions, has not been closely examined. Fullan (2001) asserts that an organization's culture is the single most important element that must be altered in order for change to occur. Continuous improvement in higher education needs to meld information about how adults learn with available online technologies that result in a high degree of student learning as measured by predetermined outcomes.

This project is an effort to examine this context, determine factors relevant to the assimilation of technology in education, and an approach to the evaluation of technology in this culture. It involves a gap analysis between the culture of higher education today and the desired culture, an outline of the characteristics of the desired culture, and a definition of the benefits that would be achieved in the era of the new culture.

Determine why culture change is necessary to encourage the adoption and integration of instructional technologies by faculty members, and what specific actions can be taken to create motion towards this culture change.

1.5.3.1 Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team. Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

1.5.3.2 Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

1.5.3.3 Review literature pertaining ti the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

1.5.3.4 Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

1.5.3.5 Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

1.5.4 Future Work

1.6 Team Summary

1.5.3.1 Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team. Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

1.5.3.2 Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

1.5.3.3 Review literature pertaining ti the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

1.5.3.4 Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

1.5.3.5 Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

Continued attention to issues of team dynamics, leadership and team processes has enabled the team to stay on track, and progress each week with our project. By carefully defining our team processes, reviewing leadership issues, and evaluating team participation, we have been able to continually improve our collaboration, without distracting from our project focus.

The results of this study will provide an empirically justifiable method for educational organizations to assess and promote the culture change required to achieve the benefits, and evaluate whether those benefits are realized.

Back to Table of Contents

2.0 Assessments

2.1 Assessment Process

2.2 Team Summary

Tool Rating# Avg.startuptool 7 7.3233tool 8 7.4633tool 9 7.6167tool 10 8.79tool 11 8.68

tool 12 8.9

Back to Table of Contents

2.2.1 Team Performance Chart

The average team ratings from startup through course completion at Phase II show steady, continuous improvement, particularly during the second half of course and project activities.

startup tool 7 tool 8 tool 9 tool 10 tool 11 tool 127

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

Team Performance According to Peer Assessments

Each week, the members of the team evaluated each other on perceived participation and performance of themselves individually, and others on the team. These evaluations were performed on 12 different characteristics ranging from general communications to leadership and professional demeanor.

As part of the continuous improvement process, the assessments were reviewed in the context of the instructor assessment and ideas for improving team participation and project progress were identified and incrementally added to the team process.

2.2.2 Targeted Identification of Areas of Improvement

One suggestion for the course that has arisen is simplifying the peer review so that there are only 5 categories:

1. Participation. 2. Attitude & Professionalism3. Magnitude of Submissions4. Quality of Submissions5. Timeliness

The chart that follows demonstrates the team's assessement along those parameters:

Participation = General Communications and Chat ParticipationAttitude & Professionalism = Did more-less than asked, Cooperation and Attitude, and Leadership and Prof DemeanorMagnitude of Submissions = Application CompletionQuality of Submissions = General Writing Quality, Analysis Reflective Writing, Format and Details, and Data Analysis AccTimeliness = General Timeliness and Delivery

It was suspected that using fewer categories might allow more effective analysis of the data. With twelve assessment items, it was difficult to look at anything more than overall averages, unless you use multiple charts. With five categories, we can see in one chart, that the amount and quality of submissions went up after the first tool, but professionalism and participation declined slightly.

Quality of submissions also continually increased throughout the end of the course, culminating in a successful project portfolio.

Participation Timeliness AverageTool 7 7.56 8.013 6.4 6.69 7.2 7.1726Tool 8 7.467 7.973 7.24 7.21 7.16 7.41Tool 9 7.36 7.8 7.52 7.12 7.32 7.424Tool 10 8.88 9.04 8.88 8.53 8.88 8.842Tool 11 8.88 9.04 8.88 8.65 8.88 8.866Tool 12 8.72 8.75 8.77 8.68 9.08 8.8

2.3 Results from Team Comments for Improvement

Attitude/ Professlsm

Quantity of Submissions

Quality of Submissions

2.3.1 Startup to Phase I

The graph above shows a moderate improvement in peer ratings for the team through the first three tools. At Phase I, the team identified the need to accelerate this improvement through the remainder of the process, after being hindered by inconsistent participation through the first half of the project. With the exception of two consistent performers, team members have either started slowly, or gone missing from chats and the discussion board. This caused frustration for all, but particularly for the two steady performers. The result of this inconsistency was difficulty in gaining focus and consensus. The team recognized this difficulty, and members pledged themselves to greater consistency and communication. Team leaders implemented agendas for chats at that time, and developed project plans for each tool with greater effectiveness.

The team appears to have made progress in implementing ISO style documentation, and our attention is increasingly on the project. The Phase I leader presented an approach was predicted to aid synthesis, and did indeed move the team toward greater focus.

2.3.2 Tool 10 through Phase II

The new approach for developing findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations posed at Phase I were applied for Phase II with great success and the team was able to generate a cohesive project outcome which they have decided to submit for publication with additional preparation. By the end of Phase II, consensus was achieved quickly and easily to support advancement of project objectives in the context of toolkit work.

2.2.2 Targeted Identification of Areas of Improvement

One suggestion for the course that has arisen is simplifying the peer review so that there are only 5 categories:

1. Participation. 2. Attitude & Professionalism3. Magnitude of Submissions4. Quality of Submissions5. Timeliness

The chart that follows demonstrates the team's assessement along those parameters:

Participation = General Communications and Chat ParticipationAttitude & Professionalism = Did more-less than asked, Cooperation and Attitude, and Leadership and Prof DemeanorMagnitude of Submissions = Application CompletionQuality of Submissions = General Writing Quality, Analysis Reflective Writing, Format and Details, and Data Analysis AccTimeliness = General Timeliness and Delivery

It was suspected that using fewer categories might allow more effective analysis of the data. With twelve assessment items, it was difficult to look at anything more than overall averages, unless you use multiple charts. With five categories, we can see in one chart, that the amount and quality of submissions went up after the first tool, but professionalism and participation declined slightly.

Quality of submissions also continually increased throughout the end of the course, culminating in a successful project portfolio.

Tool 7 Tool 8 Tool 9 Tool 10 Tool 11 Tool 126

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

Categorized Peer Ratings

ParticipationAttitude/ ProfesslsmQuantity of SubmissionsQuality of SubmissionsTimelinessAverage

2.4 Team Assessment Source Data

2.4.1 Team Assessments - Tool 7 through 9Available in Phase I Portfolio

2.4.2 Team Assessments - Tool 10

Internal Team Assessment

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low/bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contributionMEMBERBill B. 10 10 10 9 10 9 9 7 10 10 10 10 9.5Sally C. 10 10 10 9 10 8 9 6 10 9 10 10 9.25Pat H. 10 9 10 9 9 8 9 7 9 10 10 10 9.1667Nicole R. 10 9 10 10 10 9 9 8 10 9 10 10 9.5

Kevin V. 7 7 8 8 7 7 8 7 7 5 10 8 7.4167 TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.9667

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 7 8 9 9 9 8.4167Sally Click 9 8 9 9 9 8 8 7 9 9 9 9 8.5833Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 7 8 9 9 9 8.3333Nicole Radziwill 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 7 9 9 9 10 8.8333Kevin Van Dewark 8 7 7 8 9 8 8 7 8 7 9 8 7.8333

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.4

Bill Bailey 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

General Comm-

unic-ation

Thread Comm-unic-ation

Chat Partici-pation

Applic-ation

Comp-letion

General Writing Quality

Analy-sis Ref-

lective Writing

Format And

Details

Data Analysis Accura-

cy

Did More-Less Than Asked

General Timeli-ness,

Delivery

Cooper-ation And Attitude

Leader-ship, Prof.

Demean-or

Grand Total Per Individual

And team

2.3.1 Startup to Phase I

The graph above shows a moderate improvement in peer ratings for the team through the first three tools. At Phase I, the team identified the need to accelerate this improvement through the remainder of the process, after being hindered by inconsistent participation through the first half of the project. With the exception of two consistent performers, team members have either started slowly, or gone missing from chats and the discussion board. This caused frustration for all, but particularly for the two steady performers. The result of this inconsistency was difficulty in gaining focus and consensus. The team recognized this difficulty, and members pledged themselves to greater consistency and communication. Team leaders implemented agendas for chats at that time, and developed project plans for each tool with greater effectiveness.

The team appears to have made progress in implementing ISO style documentation, and our attention is increasingly on the project. The Phase I leader presented an approach was predicted to aid synthesis, and did indeed move the team toward greater focus.

2.3.2 Tool 10 through Phase II

The new approach for developing findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations posed at Phase I were applied for Phase II with great success and the team was able to generate a cohesive project outcome which they have decided to submit for publication with additional preparation. By the end of Phase II, consensus was achieved quickly and easily to support advancement of project objectives in the context of toolkit work.

Sally Click 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Patrick Hanley 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Nicole Radziwill 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Kevin Van Dewark 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 10

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667

Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 6 9 9 8 9 8.5Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 6 9 9 8 9 8.5

Kevin Van Dewark 7 7 6 8 9 8 8 6 8 7 8 8 7.5 TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.1667

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667Patrick Hanley 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8Nicole Radziwill 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8.0833

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.4167

2.4.3 Team Assessments - Tool 11

Internal Team Assessment

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low/bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contributionMEMBERBill Bailey 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 9.9167Sally Click 9 9 10 9 8 9 9 10 7 9 10 9 9Patrick Hanley 9 10 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 10 10 10 9.5833Nicole Radziwill 6 6 0 10 8 8 9 8 5 5 10 6 6.75Kevin Van Dewark 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 9.75

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 9

Bill Bailey 9 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 8.4167

Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667

Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.25 TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.4667

Bill Bailey 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Sally Click 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Patrick Hanley 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Nicole Radziwill 5 5 0 10 8 8 8 8 5 5 5 5 6Kevin Van Dewark 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 9.2

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 6 9 9 8 9 8.5

General Comm-

unic-ation

Thread Comm-unic-ation

Chat Partici-pation

Applic-ation

Comp-letion

General Writing Quality

Analy-sis Ref-

lective Writing

Format And

Details

Data Analysis Accura-

cy

Did More-Less Than Asked

General Timeli-ness,

Delivery

Cooper-ation And Attitude

Leader-ship, Prof.

Demean-or

Grand Total Per Individual

And team

Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 6 9 9 8 9 8.5Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 8 9 8 9 8.0833

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.2833

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667

Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.25

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.45

2.4.4 Team Assessments - Tool 12

Internal Team Assessment

WORK/RATING (1-10): 1 = low/bad; 10 = high/good; 0 = no contributionMEMBERBill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 6 9 9 8 9 8.5Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 6 8 9 8 9 8.1667Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 6 9 9 8 9 8.5Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 8 9 8 9 8.0833

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.2833

Bill Bailey 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 9.8333

Sally Click 9 9 10 8 10 9 10 8 9 9 10 9 9.1667Pat Hanle 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 10 10 10 9.75Nicole Radziwill 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 9.8333Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 10 9 9 9 10 8 8 8 10 9 8.8333

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 9.4833

Bill Bailey 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 9 8.4167Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 9 8 9 8.75Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 8.75Kevin Van Dewark 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 8.4167

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.5333

Bill Bailey 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Sally Click 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Patrick Hanley 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.9167

Nicole Radziwill 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Kevin Van Dewark 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.9167

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 9.9667

Bill Bailey 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 8.6667Sally Click 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667Patrick Hanley 8 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 8.3333

General Comm-

unic-ation

Thread Comm-unic-ation

Chat Partici-pation

Applic-ation

Comp-letion

General Writing Quality

Analy-sis Ref-

lective Writing

Format And

Details

Data Analysis Accura-

cy

Did More-Less Than Asked

General Timeli-ness,

Delivery

Cooper-ation And Attitude

Leader-ship, Prof.

Demean-or

Grand Total Per Individual

And team

Nicole Radziwill 9 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 8.6667Kevin Van Dewark 6 6 8 6 9 8 8 8 6 6 8 7 7.1667

TOTAL TEAM AVERAGE = 8.3

3.0 Literature Review

3.1. Bibliography

Back to Table of Contents

Adams, J. (2006). CHANGE. Supply House Times, 49(3), 36.

Anderson, S. (2005, November 16). America's future is stuck overseas. New York Times, A-23.

Arunajadai, S. J., Stone, R. B., & Turner, I. Y. (2006). Failure mode identification through cluster

analysis. Submitted, Quality and Reliability Engineering Journal. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from

http://web.umr.edu/~rstone/research/journals/FM-Clustering-QREIJ02.pdf.

Attaran, M., & VanLaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of technology: An eight step guide for

administrators. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 393-401.

Ayers, E. L., & Hurd, N. F. (2005, April 22). Flagship universities must pursue excellence and

access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i33/33b01201.htm

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2002). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Bolger, D. F.., & Sprow, R. L.. (2002). Teaching, technology and tenure: How are they valued?

Educause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Bovinet, J. C., Newberry, C. R., Smith, Jr., & Young, M. (2000). Bringing the laptop to the

classroom. In R. Green & R. Kesevan (Eds.), Marketing Management Association 2001

Proceedings, 187-193.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Burd, S., Field, K., & Selingo, J. (2005, February 18). The education secretary's knowledge

campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i24a02701.htm

Canesale, A. (2000, May 31). The challenges facing higher education. Paper presented at the The Milken Institute Forum, Santa Monica, CA.

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mind. Strategic

Finance, 87(12), 11.

Christ, C. T. (2004, September 3). How can colleges prove they are doing their jobs? Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b00601.htm

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), Technology

Management Handbook, 3(2-3), 11.

Conklin, K., & Reindl, T. (2004, February 13). To keep America competitive, states and colleges

must work together. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i2323b02001.htm

Cross, K. P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The Hesburgh Awards. Change 33(4), 31-37.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5.

Dahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom? Distance Education Report,

8(10), 3-6.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Dew, J. R., & Nearing, M. M. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in higher education.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dumestre, M. J. (1999). The impact of technology on U. S. higher education: A philosophical

approach. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 2(1), 63-72. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from

http://www.jiti.com/v1n2/dumestre.pdf.

Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(32), B20.

Fallows, J. (2005). College admissions: A substitute for quality? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 39-46). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Farrell, C. (2005). The global spread of higher ed. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/nf200511286955db013&printer=1;_ylt=AueDgJhQgBYE5e

Field, K. (2005, December 9). Federal panel on higher education appears likely to call for testing

of college students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120902n.htm

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Beyond markets and individuals: A focus on educational goals. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 97-112). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, K. N. (2002, October 20). Market insight: Turning a profit with higher education. New York

Times, Section 3,7.

Gladwell, M. (2004) Schools as connectors: Combating the social isolation of children.

Independent School 63(4), 12-16.

Goeghegan, W. H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Paper present at the

22nd annual conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.

Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 77-96). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An

action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.

Hall, M., & Elliot, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to

encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(6), 301.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. F. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harley, D. (2001, September 1). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain

future. Campus Technology. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from

http://www.campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=4769

Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher education, Education

and Training 46(6/7), 353-360.

Healy, P. D. (2005, March 24). In Pataki's time, SUNNY runs more like private universities.

New York Times, A-1.

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickok, E. W. (2006, March 10). Higher education needs reform, too. Chronicle of Higher

Education 52(27), B48-49.

Hossler, D. R. (2004, April 30). How enrollment management has transformed - or ruined - higher

education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i34/34b00301.htm

Hoyle, D. (1994). Design Control: ISO 9000 quality systems handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement

champions. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. JALN, 2(2).

Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://www.ain.org/ainweb/journal/vol2_issue2jaffee.htm.

Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003, September 19). Close the public-private quality gap.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i04/01b01001.htm

Kerr, S. T. (2005) Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology

and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change 37(6), 50-57.

Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knowles, M. S., Horton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (Sixth ed.).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Lessen, E., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments

of education. Change, 38(2), 44-49.

Lederman, D. (2005, December 09, 2005). Tough love for colleges. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved December 09, 2005 from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/commission

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics. G.W. Lewin

(Ed.). New York: Harper.

Levine, A. (2005). Worlds apart: Disconnects between students and their colleges. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 155-168).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online

courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.

Maeroff, G. I. (2005). The media: Degrees of coverage. In R. H. H. a. J. Merrow (Ed.), Declining

by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 11-22). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Malveaux, J. (2004). A higher education wake-up call. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(17),

31.

Marcy, M. B. (2003, July 25). Why foundations have cut back in higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i46/46b01601.htm

Adams, J. (2006). CHANGE. Supply House Times, 49(3), 36.

Anderson, S. (2005, November 16). America's future is stuck overseas. New York Times, A-23.

Arunajadai, S. J., Stone, R. B., & Turner, I. Y. (2006). Failure mode identification through cluster

analysis. Submitted, Quality and Reliability Engineering Journal. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from

http://web.umr.edu/~rstone/research/journals/FM-Clustering-QREIJ02.pdf.

Attaran, M., & VanLaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of technology: An eight step guide for

administrators. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 393-401.

Ayers, E. L., & Hurd, N. F. (2005, April 22). Flagship universities must pursue excellence and

access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i33/33b01201.htm

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2002). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Bolger, D. F.., & Sprow, R. L.. (2002). Teaching, technology and tenure: How are they valued?

Educause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Bovinet, J. C., Newberry, C. R., Smith, Jr., & Young, M. (2000). Bringing the laptop to the

classroom. In R. Green & R. Kesevan (Eds.), Marketing Management Association 2001

Proceedings, 187-193.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Burd, S., Field, K., & Selingo, J. (2005, February 18). The education secretary's knowledge

campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i24a02701.htm

Canesale, A. (2000, May 31). The challenges facing higher education. Paper presented at the The Milken Institute Forum, Santa Monica, CA.

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mind. Strategic

Finance, 87(12), 11.

Christ, C. T. (2004, September 3). How can colleges prove they are doing their jobs? Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b00601.htm

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), Technology

Management Handbook, 3(2-3), 11.

Conklin, K., & Reindl, T. (2004, February 13). To keep America competitive, states and colleges

must work together. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i2323b02001.htm

Cross, K. P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The Hesburgh Awards. Change 33(4), 31-37.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5.

Dahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom? Distance Education Report,

8(10), 3-6.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Dew, J. R., & Nearing, M. M. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in higher education.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dumestre, M. J. (1999). The impact of technology on U. S. higher education: A philosophical

approach. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 2(1), 63-72. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from

http://www.jiti.com/v1n2/dumestre.pdf.

Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(32), B20.

Fallows, J. (2005). College admissions: A substitute for quality? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 39-46). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Farrell, C. (2005). The global spread of higher ed. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/nf200511286955db013&printer=1;_ylt=AueDgJhQgBYE5e

Field, K. (2005, December 9). Federal panel on higher education appears likely to call for testing

of college students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120902n.htm

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Beyond markets and individuals: A focus on educational goals. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 97-112). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, K. N. (2002, October 20). Market insight: Turning a profit with higher education. New York

Times, Section 3,7.

Gladwell, M. (2004) Schools as connectors: Combating the social isolation of children.

Independent School 63(4), 12-16.

Goeghegan, W. H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Paper present at the

22nd annual conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.

Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 77-96). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An

action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.

Hall, M., & Elliot, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to

encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(6), 301.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. F. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harley, D. (2001, September 1). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain

future. Campus Technology. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from

http://www.campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=4769

Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher education, Education

and Training 46(6/7), 353-360.

Healy, P. D. (2005, March 24). In Pataki's time, SUNNY runs more like private universities.

New York Times, A-1.

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickok, E. W. (2006, March 10). Higher education needs reform, too. Chronicle of Higher

Education 52(27), B48-49.

Hossler, D. R. (2004, April 30). How enrollment management has transformed - or ruined - higher

education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i34/34b00301.htm

Hoyle, D. (1994). Design Control: ISO 9000 quality systems handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement

champions. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. JALN, 2(2).

Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://www.ain.org/ainweb/journal/vol2_issue2jaffee.htm.

Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003, September 19). Close the public-private quality gap.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i04/01b01001.htm

Kerr, S. T. (2005) Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology

and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change 37(6), 50-57.

Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knowles, M. S., Horton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (Sixth ed.).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Lessen, E., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments

of education. Change, 38(2), 44-49.

Lederman, D. (2005, December 09, 2005). Tough love for colleges. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved December 09, 2005 from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/commission

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics. G.W. Lewin

(Ed.). New York: Harper.

Levine, A. (2005). Worlds apart: Disconnects between students and their colleges. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 155-168).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online

courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.

Maeroff, G. I. (2005). The media: Degrees of coverage. In R. H. H. a. J. Merrow (Ed.), Declining

by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 11-22). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Malveaux, J. (2004). A higher education wake-up call. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(17),

31.

Marcy, M. B. (2003, July 25). Why foundations have cut back in higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i46/46b01601.htm

Adams, J. (2006). CHANGE. Supply House Times, 49(3), 36.

Anderson, S. (2005, November 16). America's future is stuck overseas. New York Times, A-23.

Arunajadai, S. J., Stone, R. B., & Turner, I. Y. (2006). Failure mode identification through cluster

analysis. Submitted, Quality and Reliability Engineering Journal. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from

http://web.umr.edu/~rstone/research/journals/FM-Clustering-QREIJ02.pdf.

Attaran, M., & VanLaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of technology: An eight step guide for

administrators. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 393-401.

Ayers, E. L., & Hurd, N. F. (2005, April 22). Flagship universities must pursue excellence and

access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i33/33b01201.htm

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2002). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Bolger, D. F.., & Sprow, R. L.. (2002). Teaching, technology and tenure: How are they valued?

Educause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Bovinet, J. C., Newberry, C. R., Smith, Jr., & Young, M. (2000). Bringing the laptop to the

classroom. In R. Green & R. Kesevan (Eds.), Marketing Management Association 2001

Proceedings, 187-193.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Burd, S., Field, K., & Selingo, J. (2005, February 18). The education secretary's knowledge

campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i24a02701.htm

Canesale, A. (2000, May 31). The challenges facing higher education. Paper presented at the The Milken Institute Forum, Santa Monica, CA.

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mind. Strategic

Finance, 87(12), 11.

Christ, C. T. (2004, September 3). How can colleges prove they are doing their jobs? Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b00601.htm

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), Technology

Management Handbook, 3(2-3), 11.

Conklin, K., & Reindl, T. (2004, February 13). To keep America competitive, states and colleges

must work together. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i2323b02001.htm

Cross, K. P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The Hesburgh Awards. Change 33(4), 31-37.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5.

Dahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom? Distance Education Report,

8(10), 3-6.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Dew, J. R., & Nearing, M. M. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in higher education.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dumestre, M. J. (1999). The impact of technology on U. S. higher education: A philosophical

approach. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 2(1), 63-72. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from

http://www.jiti.com/v1n2/dumestre.pdf.

Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(32), B20.

Fallows, J. (2005). College admissions: A substitute for quality? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 39-46). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Farrell, C. (2005). The global spread of higher ed. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/nf200511286955db013&printer=1;_ylt=AueDgJhQgBYE5e

Field, K. (2005, December 9). Federal panel on higher education appears likely to call for testing

of college students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120902n.htm

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Beyond markets and individuals: A focus on educational goals. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 97-112). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, K. N. (2002, October 20). Market insight: Turning a profit with higher education. New York

Times, Section 3,7.

Gladwell, M. (2004) Schools as connectors: Combating the social isolation of children.

Independent School 63(4), 12-16.

Goeghegan, W. H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Paper present at the

22nd annual conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.

Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 77-96). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An

action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.

Hall, M., & Elliot, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to

encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(6), 301.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. F. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harley, D. (2001, September 1). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain

future. Campus Technology. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from

http://www.campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=4769

Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher education, Education

and Training 46(6/7), 353-360.

Healy, P. D. (2005, March 24). In Pataki's time, SUNNY runs more like private universities.

New York Times, A-1.

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickok, E. W. (2006, March 10). Higher education needs reform, too. Chronicle of Higher

Education 52(27), B48-49.

Hossler, D. R. (2004, April 30). How enrollment management has transformed - or ruined - higher

education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i34/34b00301.htm

Hoyle, D. (1994). Design Control: ISO 9000 quality systems handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement

champions. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. JALN, 2(2).

Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://www.ain.org/ainweb/journal/vol2_issue2jaffee.htm.

Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003, September 19). Close the public-private quality gap.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i04/01b01001.htm

Kerr, S. T. (2005) Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology

and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change 37(6), 50-57.

Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knowles, M. S., Horton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (Sixth ed.).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Lessen, E., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments

of education. Change, 38(2), 44-49.

Lederman, D. (2005, December 09, 2005). Tough love for colleges. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved December 09, 2005 from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/commission

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics. G.W. Lewin

(Ed.). New York: Harper.

Levine, A. (2005). Worlds apart: Disconnects between students and their colleges. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 155-168).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online

courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.

Maeroff, G. I. (2005). The media: Degrees of coverage. In R. H. H. a. J. Merrow (Ed.), Declining

by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 11-22). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Malveaux, J. (2004). A higher education wake-up call. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(17),

31.

Marcy, M. B. (2003, July 25). Why foundations have cut back in higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i46/46b01601.htm

Adams, J. (2006). CHANGE. Supply House Times, 49(3), 36.

Anderson, S. (2005, November 16). America's future is stuck overseas. New York Times, A-23.

Arunajadai, S. J., Stone, R. B., & Turner, I. Y. (2006). Failure mode identification through cluster

analysis. Submitted, Quality and Reliability Engineering Journal. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from

http://web.umr.edu/~rstone/research/journals/FM-Clustering-QREIJ02.pdf.

Attaran, M., & VanLaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of technology: An eight step guide for

administrators. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 393-401.

Ayers, E. L., & Hurd, N. F. (2005, April 22). Flagship universities must pursue excellence and

access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i33/33b01201.htm

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2002). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Bolger, D. F.., & Sprow, R. L.. (2002). Teaching, technology and tenure: How are they valued?

Educause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Bovinet, J. C., Newberry, C. R., Smith, Jr., & Young, M. (2000). Bringing the laptop to the

classroom. In R. Green & R. Kesevan (Eds.), Marketing Management Association 2001

Proceedings, 187-193.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Burd, S., Field, K., & Selingo, J. (2005, February 18). The education secretary's knowledge

campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i24a02701.htm

Canesale, A. (2000, May 31). The challenges facing higher education. Paper presented at the The Milken Institute Forum, Santa Monica, CA.

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mind. Strategic

Finance, 87(12), 11.

Christ, C. T. (2004, September 3). How can colleges prove they are doing their jobs? Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b00601.htm

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), Technology

Management Handbook, 3(2-3), 11.

Conklin, K., & Reindl, T. (2004, February 13). To keep America competitive, states and colleges

must work together. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i2323b02001.htm

Cross, K. P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The Hesburgh Awards. Change 33(4), 31-37.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5.

Dahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom? Distance Education Report,

8(10), 3-6.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Dew, J. R., & Nearing, M. M. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in higher education.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dumestre, M. J. (1999). The impact of technology on U. S. higher education: A philosophical

approach. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 2(1), 63-72. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from

http://www.jiti.com/v1n2/dumestre.pdf.

Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(32), B20.

Fallows, J. (2005). College admissions: A substitute for quality? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 39-46). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Farrell, C. (2005). The global spread of higher ed. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/nf200511286955db013&printer=1;_ylt=AueDgJhQgBYE5e

Field, K. (2005, December 9). Federal panel on higher education appears likely to call for testing

of college students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120902n.htm

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Beyond markets and individuals: A focus on educational goals. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 97-112). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, K. N. (2002, October 20). Market insight: Turning a profit with higher education. New York

Times, Section 3,7.

Gladwell, M. (2004) Schools as connectors: Combating the social isolation of children.

Independent School 63(4), 12-16.

Goeghegan, W. H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Paper present at the

22nd annual conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.

Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 77-96). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An

action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.

Hall, M., & Elliot, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to

encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(6), 301.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. F. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harley, D. (2001, September 1). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain

future. Campus Technology. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from

http://www.campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=4769

Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher education, Education

and Training 46(6/7), 353-360.

Healy, P. D. (2005, March 24). In Pataki's time, SUNNY runs more like private universities.

New York Times, A-1.

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickok, E. W. (2006, March 10). Higher education needs reform, too. Chronicle of Higher

Education 52(27), B48-49.

Hossler, D. R. (2004, April 30). How enrollment management has transformed - or ruined - higher

education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i34/34b00301.htm

Hoyle, D. (1994). Design Control: ISO 9000 quality systems handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement

champions. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. JALN, 2(2).

Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://www.ain.org/ainweb/journal/vol2_issue2jaffee.htm.

Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003, September 19). Close the public-private quality gap.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i04/01b01001.htm

Kerr, S. T. (2005) Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology

and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change 37(6), 50-57.

Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knowles, M. S., Horton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (Sixth ed.).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Lessen, E., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments

of education. Change, 38(2), 44-49.

Lederman, D. (2005, December 09, 2005). Tough love for colleges. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved December 09, 2005 from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/commission

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics. G.W. Lewin

(Ed.). New York: Harper.

Levine, A. (2005). Worlds apart: Disconnects between students and their colleges. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 155-168).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online

courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.

Maeroff, G. I. (2005). The media: Degrees of coverage. In R. H. H. a. J. Merrow (Ed.), Declining

by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 11-22). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Malveaux, J. (2004). A higher education wake-up call. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(17),

31.

Marcy, M. B. (2003, July 25). Why foundations have cut back in higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i46/46b01601.htm

Adams, J. (2006). CHANGE. Supply House Times, 49(3), 36.

Anderson, S. (2005, November 16). America's future is stuck overseas. New York Times, A-23.

Arunajadai, S. J., Stone, R. B., & Turner, I. Y. (2006). Failure mode identification through cluster

analysis. Submitted, Quality and Reliability Engineering Journal. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from

http://web.umr.edu/~rstone/research/journals/FM-Clustering-QREIJ02.pdf.

Attaran, M., & VanLaar, I. (2001). Managing the use of technology: An eight step guide for

administrators. Journal of Management Development, 20(5), 393-401.

Ayers, E. L., & Hurd, N. F. (2005, April 22). Flagship universities must pursue excellence and

access. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i33/33b01201.htm

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2002). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Bolger, D. F.., & Sprow, R. L.. (2002). Teaching, technology and tenure: How are they valued?

Educause 2002 Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Bovinet, J. C., Newberry, C. R., Smith, Jr., & Young, M. (2000). Bringing the laptop to the

classroom. In R. Green & R. Kesevan (Eds.), Marketing Management Association 2001

Proceedings, 187-193.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Burd, S., Field, K., & Selingo, J. (2005, February 18). The education secretary's knowledge

campaign. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i24a02701.htm

Canesale, A. (2000, May 31). The challenges facing higher education. Paper presented at the The Milken Institute Forum, Santa Monica, CA.

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mind. Strategic

Finance, 87(12), 11.

Christ, C. T. (2004, September 3). How can colleges prove they are doing their jobs? Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b00601.htm

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), Technology

Management Handbook, 3(2-3), 11.

Conklin, K., & Reindl, T. (2004, February 13). To keep America competitive, states and colleges

must work together. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i2323b02001.htm

Cross, K. P. (2001). Teaching and learning: The Hesburgh Awards. Change 33(4), 31-37.

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From

monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5.

Dahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom? Distance Education Report,

8(10), 3-6.

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT.

Dew, J. R., & Nearing, M. M. (2004). Continuous quality improvement in higher education.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dumestre, M. J. (1999). The impact of technology on U. S. higher education: A philosophical

approach. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 2(1), 63-72. Retrieved July 16, 2006 from

http://www.jiti.com/v1n2/dumestre.pdf.

Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(32), B20.

Fallows, J. (2005). College admissions: A substitute for quality? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 39-46). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Farrell, C. (2005). The global spread of higher ed. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/nf200511286955db013&printer=1;_ylt=AueDgJhQgBYE5e

Field, K. (2005, December 9). Federal panel on higher education appears likely to call for testing

of college students. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/12/2005120902n.htm

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for

teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Beyond markets and individuals: A focus on educational goals. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 97-112). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilpin, K. N. (2002, October 20). Market insight: Turning a profit with higher education. New York

Times, Section 3,7.

Gladwell, M. (2004) Schools as connectors: Combating the social isolation of children.

Independent School 63(4), 12-16.

Goeghegan, W. H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Paper present at the

22nd annual conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association,

Baltimore, MD.

Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow

(Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 77-96). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An

action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57.

Hall, M., & Elliot, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to

encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for

Business, 78(6), 301.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. F. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harley, D. (2001, September 1). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain

future. Campus Technology. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from

http://www.campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=4769

Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher education, Education

and Training 46(6/7), 353-360.

Healy, P. D. (2005, March 24). In Pataki's time, SUNNY runs more like private universities.

New York Times, A-1.

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hickok, E. W. (2006, March 10). Higher education needs reform, too. Chronicle of Higher

Education 52(27), B48-49.

Hossler, D. R. (2004, April 30). How enrollment management has transformed - or ruined - higher

education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i34/34b00301.htm

Hoyle, D. (1994). Design Control: ISO 9000 quality systems handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook: A survival guide for quality improvement

champions. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. JALN, 2(2).

Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://www.ain.org/ainweb/journal/vol2_issue2jaffee.htm.

Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003, September 19). Close the public-private quality gap.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i04/01b01001.htm

Kerr, S. T. (2005) Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology

and educational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 1005-1016.

Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we. Change 37(6), 50-57.

Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Knowles, M. S., Horton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (Sixth ed.).

Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Lessen, E., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments

of education. Change, 38(2), 44-49.

Lederman, D. (2005, December 09, 2005). Tough love for colleges. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved December 09, 2005 from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/commission

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts, selected papers on group dynamics. G.W. Lewin

(Ed.). New York: Harper.

Levine, A. (2005). Worlds apart: Disconnects between students and their colleges. In R. H.

Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 155-168).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online

courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.

Maeroff, G. I. (2005). The media: Degrees of coverage. In R. H. H. a. J. Merrow (Ed.), Declining

by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 11-22). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.

Malveaux, J. (2004). A higher education wake-up call. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(17),

31.

Marcy, M. B. (2003, July 25). Why foundations have cut back in higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i46/46b01601.htm

Pentti, H., & Atte, H. (2002, August). ISO 14000: Failure mode and effects analysis of software-

based automation systems. VTT Industrial Systems STUK Report Series, No. STUK-YTO-

TR-190. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut/tr/stuk-yto-tr-190.pdf.

Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologies.

Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 7(1/2), 79.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusions of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rosenstone, S. J. (2004, December 3). Challenges facing higher education in America: Lessons

and opportunities. Paper presented at the University of Toronto conference on Taking Public Universities Seriously, Toronto.

Schneider, C. G. (2005). Liberal Education: Slip-sliding away? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 61-76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Selingo, J. (2004, May 7). U.S. public's confidence in colleges remains high. Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i35/35a00101.htm

Shapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion and tenure and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Change, 38(2), 38-43.

Sorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Quality and performance

excellence in higher education. Baldrige on campus. Boston, MA: Anker.

Trible, P. (2005, July 15, 2005). Colleges must get used to collaborating with congress.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i45/45b01601.htm

Voakes, P. S., Beam, R. A., & Ogan, C. (2003). The impact of technological change on

journalism education: A survey of faculty and administrators. Journalism & Mass

Communication Educator, 57(4), 318.

Wadsworth, D. (2005). Ready or not? Where the public stands on higher education reform. In R.

H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 23-38). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Washburn, J. (2005). Hired education. American Prospect, 16(2), 29.

Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit

operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195.

White, L. (2005, May 27, 2005). Which legal issues will keep colleges busy in the year 2012.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i38/38b00101.htm

Windham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner.

Educause, 40(5), 43-58.

Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2004 October 19-23). Ensuring quality in online education

instruction: What instructors should know. Paper presented at the Association of Educational

Communications and Technology Conference, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED484990).

Yankelovich, D. (2005, November 25, 2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i14/14b00601.htm

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (1995). Toward an understanding of our current predicaments.

Change, 27(5), 40-50.

Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of

e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207.

Zumeta, W. (2005). Higher education's fiscal fortunes: Some light in the tunnel at last. NEA

2005 Almanac of Higher Education. Washington DC: National Education Association.

Martin, M. V. (2005, February 25). A drift toward elitism by the people's universities. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i25/25b02602.htm

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism

and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 59-89). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Massy, W. F. (2003, June 20). Auditing higher education to improve quality. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i41/41b01604.htm

Mathews, J. (2005). Caveat lector: Unexamined assumptions about quality in higher education.

In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 47-

60). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). The future of economic challenges for the liberal

arts colleges. Daedalus, 128(1), 47-77.

Merrow, J. (2005, April 24). The undergraduate experience: Survival of the fittest. New York

Times,4A - 21.Meyer, K. A. (2003). The implications of brain research for distance education. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved on July 15, 2006 from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/meyer63.html.

Miller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the context. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Technology.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework

for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.

Pentti, H., & Atte, H. (2002, August). ISO 14000: Failure mode and effects analysis of software-

based automation systems. VTT Industrial Systems STUK Report Series, No. STUK-YTO-

TR-190. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut/tr/stuk-yto-tr-190.pdf.

Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologies.

Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 7(1/2), 79.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusions of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rosenstone, S. J. (2004, December 3). Challenges facing higher education in America: Lessons

and opportunities. Paper presented at the University of Toronto conference on Taking Public Universities Seriously, Toronto.

Schneider, C. G. (2005). Liberal Education: Slip-sliding away? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 61-76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Selingo, J. (2004, May 7). U.S. public's confidence in colleges remains high. Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i35/35a00101.htm

Shapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion and tenure and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Change, 38(2), 38-43.

Sorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Quality and performance

excellence in higher education. Baldrige on campus. Boston, MA: Anker.

Trible, P. (2005, July 15, 2005). Colleges must get used to collaborating with congress.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i45/45b01601.htm

Voakes, P. S., Beam, R. A., & Ogan, C. (2003). The impact of technological change on

journalism education: A survey of faculty and administrators. Journalism & Mass

Communication Educator, 57(4), 318.

Wadsworth, D. (2005). Ready or not? Where the public stands on higher education reform. In R.

H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 23-38). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Washburn, J. (2005). Hired education. American Prospect, 16(2), 29.

Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit

operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195.

White, L. (2005, May 27, 2005). Which legal issues will keep colleges busy in the year 2012.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i38/38b00101.htm

Windham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner.

Educause, 40(5), 43-58.

Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2004 October 19-23). Ensuring quality in online education

instruction: What instructors should know. Paper presented at the Association of Educational

Communications and Technology Conference, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED484990).

Yankelovich, D. (2005, November 25, 2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i14/14b00601.htm

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (1995). Toward an understanding of our current predicaments.

Change, 27(5), 40-50.

Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of

e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207.

Zumeta, W. (2005). Higher education's fiscal fortunes: Some light in the tunnel at last. NEA

2005 Almanac of Higher Education. Washington DC: National Education Association.

3.2 Article Summaries and Abstracts

Pentti, H., & Atte, H. (2002, August). ISO 14000: Failure mode and effects analysis of software-

based automation systems. VTT Industrial Systems STUK Report Series, No. STUK-YTO-

TR-190. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut/tr/stuk-yto-tr-190.pdf.

Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologies.

Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 7(1/2), 79.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusions of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rosenstone, S. J. (2004, December 3). Challenges facing higher education in America: Lessons

and opportunities. Paper presented at the University of Toronto conference on Taking Public Universities Seriously, Toronto.

Schneider, C. G. (2005). Liberal Education: Slip-sliding away? In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.),

Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 61-76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Selingo, J. (2004, May 7). U.S. public's confidence in colleges remains high. Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved September 18, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i35/35a00101.htm

Shapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion and tenure and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Change, 38(2), 38-43.

Sorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Quality and performance

excellence in higher education. Baldrige on campus. Boston, MA: Anker.

Trible, P. (2005, July 15, 2005). Colleges must get used to collaborating with congress.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i45/45b01601.htm

Voakes, P. S., Beam, R. A., & Ogan, C. (2003). The impact of technological change on

journalism education: A survey of faculty and administrators. Journalism & Mass

Communication Educator, 57(4), 318.

Wadsworth, D. (2005). Ready or not? Where the public stands on higher education reform. In R.

H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 23-38). New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Washburn, J. (2005). Hired education. American Prospect, 16(2), 29.

Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit

operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195.

White, L. (2005, May 27, 2005). Which legal issues will keep colleges busy in the year 2012.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i38/38b00101.htm

Windham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner.

Educause, 40(5), 43-58.

Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2004 October 19-23). Ensuring quality in online education

instruction: What instructors should know. Paper presented at the Association of Educational

Communications and Technology Conference, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED484990).

Yankelovich, D. (2005, November 25, 2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i14/14b00601.htm

Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (1995). Toward an understanding of our current predicaments.

Change, 27(5), 40-50.

Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of

e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207.

Zumeta, W. (2005). Higher education's fiscal fortunes: Some light in the tunnel at last. NEA

2005 Almanac of Higher Education. Washington DC: National Education Association.

Technology is evolving at a rapid rate and its applications continue to expand immensely. One arena where this is certainly evident is the area of distance education. Distance education, sometimes referred to as online learning, continues to grow as technological capabilities expand. Three fourths of today’s post secondary students are nontraditional in some way, meaning they do not necessarily attend college right out of high school, nor do they attend full-time or live on campus in a residence hall. Instead students tap into the opportunity to attend college part-time and increasingly they choose to take courses via the Internet. This introduction of new teaching methods and deliveries has implications for students, faculty, and institutions. As faculty members begin to incorporate new technologies and methods for implementing instructional strategies, it is evident that technological capability is not the only skill necessary to be successful in implementation of these new technologies. Technology changes people's jobs; consequently it has a profound impact on the people. It cannot be implemented without first thinking of the human consequences (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). A significant amount of change is caused in an organization with the incorporation of new technology into established practices and processes.

New technology is driving change in higher education. In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlined six challenges for U. S. universities one of which is the changes resulting from distance education. On the plus side, the teaching format promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable to students. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience of online learning. Younger students have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them.

Innovation and creativity are seen as essential to the growth of the U. S. economy. Ellis (2006) cited the national imperative for innovation as witnessed in the passage of the National Innovation Act of 2005 and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act which both recognize the roles government, industry and academe play in creating a climate of innovation. In higher education this is not meant to insist that all students become scientists or technologists but it is imperative they get exposed and practiced in intellectually stimulating research projects. Ellis suggested that well-designed research projects encourage risk-taking as they explore the unknown, regardless of discipline. Colleges have the opportunity to allow students to be active partners in the discovery and communication of new knowledge. The challenge is how to make this happen. Cyber-infrastructures make research more accessible. Equipment, resources, and data can be shared among institutions to lesson the financial investment needed. Current students are captured (and comfortable) with new technologies like IPods and cell phones. “New models of instruction can be developed that teach basic principles by embedding them in and reinforcing them through research activities, thereby fusing research and education” (B 20). Additionally, skilled researchers must be identified and encouraged to be mentors to undergraduates. This can be partly accomplished by tapping into existing human resources with graduate assistants and the like. Making research a more prominent part of the undergraduate experience is a long term project that will take a creative approach, an ongoing commitment, and resources. The National Science Foundation is providing incentives and support through the Undergraduate Research Collaboration. Institutions receiving grants (up to $3 million) can identify and employ research initiatives that are suitable to undergraduate settings. New inter-institutional partnerships are being forged, to include two-year colleges.

A fundamental shift in how the U. S. views and delivers post secondary education is most certainly on the horizon. Gregorian (2005) quoted Peter Drucker, considered by many as the founding father of the study of management, who predicted that the traditional university model has only about thirty years left before a new post secondary approach will prevail. Gregorian cited James Dunderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, who forecasted that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by American industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive, Dunderstadt argued that higher education is living in a pre-industrial age. Gregorian argues that American higher education exists in the digital age, but uses and industrial model and an agrarian calendar. Dunderstadt predicted that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commoditization of education is already occurring in some for profit distance education institutions. In these learning organizations, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a pre-designed course that cannot be varied by instructors. How significant this threat is to traditional institutions of higher learning and especially to the established traditions of academic freedom depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, it is predicted that superior quality and service will win out.

Dumestre (1999) traced the rationale of four policy implications evident in U.S. higher education and offered observations. First, because higher education is a social institution dedicated to introspection, it provides a unique basis for the exploration of the effects of technology on culture. Second, he asserts that the philosophies of institutions should be developed in light of technological advances or universities will risk becoming obsolete. Third, the difference between training and education is also becoming more blurred, with more individuals seeking training at educational institutions, which the author argues will push U.S. institutions toward providing more practical material. Finally, providing increased access to education will involve the need to bridge the "Digital Divide."

Higher education institutions are often accused of being slow to change. In addition to the incorporation of technology, other higher education reform initiatives have been received slowly. Shapiro (2006) claims that after two decades of reform attempts higher education institutions, especially research institutions, have not been able to transform from a culture of teaching to one of learning. Shapiro cited Tagg (2003), who blamed this inability on a structural problem requiring a fundamental shift in the faculty promotion and tenure criteria and processes. The desired culture would be that of scholarly teaching – activities focused on student learning that are well-grounded in the research on learning and appropriate resources in the particular field. The culture in research institutions clearly has valued research over teaching. When teaching if evaluated, the bar is set at “acceptable” and is not assessed in terms of student learning outcomes. At the same time, mediocre assessment of research performance is not acceptable. Words encouraging quality teaching are often not supported and reinforced. Until administrators recognize high quality scholarship on teaching and learning as opposed to disciplinary scholarship, the state of affairs will not change. This premise can be applied directly to the concepts of incorporating technology into post secondary education. Desired behaviors must be recognized and rewarded in the formal processes if change is to occur. Excellent teaching is the goal and consumers demand that we deliver a superior product in new ways. This requires articulated learning outcomes, effective teaching pedagogies and continuous assessment as core activities. Boyer’s (1997) domains of scholarship provide a good model for recognizing varied scholarship activities. Promotion and tenure processes need to acknowledge and reward all contributions including the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially as faculty seek to incorporate technology into their teaching.

Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. The authors later build upon Goeghegan’s work for their recommendations. Others (Jaffee, 1998, and Massy & Zemsky, 1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology-based teaching.

Dahl (2004) asserted that the growth of distance education has lent a new urgency to faculty concerns about academic freedom. These fears affect the receptivity of faculty for adopting technology. Because the introduction of technology into an organization causes a significant amount of change, it is important to involve all of the teachers in the implementation if possible. By making the teachers feel that they own their technology efforts can help improve the faculty morale (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). Many administrators turn away from supporting technology when they find out how it changes traditional school culture. A fundamental problem among administrators is making informed technology decisions.

Voakes (2003) identified several stressors for faculty related to technology, including time pressures, and difficulty in keeping up with changes in technology. Stress from technology was found to be more troublesome than stress from twelve other stressors, including research and publishing, teaching load, and review and promotion. Stress from technology was more pronounced among older faculty members, and has increased over time. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support.

Yang and Cornelious (2004) assert several factors deter faculty from online teaching. They include, among other things, the change in faculty role from lecturer to learning facilitator. This new role is student-centered and learning-centered, not faculty-centered. Another concern is the perceived need for faculty to provide ongoing technical support to students. Faculty need to know how to appropriately use technology; they get frustrated with computer reliability issues, the use of students’ multiple operating systems, and the absence of content development tools. Training is key. Not only must faculty know the technology side of this delivery method, they also need to consider how best to organize information and facilitate learning using these technologies. Training should be delivered online so instructors understand the dynamics of the tool and the process. In research focused on handheld technologies, Purcell (2005) noted that teachers are often worried about adopting technology and software that will soon become obsolete or not compatible with new versions when they come along. He argued that these are reasonable hesitations that can become deeply imbedded sources of resistance to technology. Additional sources of resistance that he cites are lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of sustained curriculum development support. Focusing on public middle and secondary markets, he notes that perceived obstacles to implementation identified by teachers differed from the actual obstacles they encountered. For example: Lack of space in the classroom curriculum was perceived to be the biggest problem before the project started, but did not turn out to be an obstacle. A significant actual obstacle was time, for both preparation and instruction, which was not perceived as a problem before the project began.

Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) pointed out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content.

Technology alone cannot promote education in a distance-based educational environment. Lock (2002) contended that development of an online community helps to facilitate learning in a distance-based environment. A community is viewed as a process and it is fluid by nature. It is important that technology integrate sound pedagogical and technological concerns through the design process. Guidelines for creating an online learning community include the need for an awareness of community and a sense of value in the community, and attending to design issues that support a community. Once established Lock suggested that to sustain an online community four guidelines must be used including the articulation and acceptance of a shared vision, goals, and aspirations of the community; an articulation and application of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes to facilitate the development of a sense of community; participants need to understand the personal investment and the fluid nature of the community, and; leaders must be developed to maintain the community is essential. Lessen and Sorensen (2006) identified four key ways of promoting the integration of technology into the classroom. The first is making the use of technology in the classroom a priority. The second is establishing a technological infrastructure. The third is focusing on development and finally the last is creating training opportunities and support for staff, faculty, and students.

Technology is evolving at a rapid rate and its applications continue to expand immensely. One arena where this is certainly evident is the area of distance education. Distance education, sometimes referred to as online learning, continues to grow as technological capabilities expand. Three fourths of today’s post secondary students are nontraditional in some way, meaning they do not necessarily attend college right out of high school, nor do they attend full-time or live on campus in a residence hall. Instead students tap into the opportunity to attend college part-time and increasingly they choose to take courses via the Internet. This introduction of new teaching methods and deliveries has implications for students, faculty, and institutions. As faculty members begin to incorporate new technologies and methods for implementing instructional strategies, it is evident that technological capability is not the only skill necessary to be successful in implementation of these new technologies. Technology changes people's jobs; consequently it has a profound impact on the people. It cannot be implemented without first thinking of the human consequences (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). A significant amount of change is caused in an organization with the incorporation of new technology into established practices and processes.

New technology is driving change in higher education. In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlined six challenges for U. S. universities one of which is the changes resulting from distance education. On the plus side, the teaching format promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable to students. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience of online learning. Younger students have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them.

Innovation and creativity are seen as essential to the growth of the U. S. economy. Ellis (2006) cited the national imperative for innovation as witnessed in the passage of the National Innovation Act of 2005 and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act which both recognize the roles government, industry and academe play in creating a climate of innovation. In higher education this is not meant to insist that all students become scientists or technologists but it is imperative they get exposed and practiced in intellectually stimulating research projects. Ellis suggested that well-designed research projects encourage risk-taking as they explore the unknown, regardless of discipline. Colleges have the opportunity to allow students to be active partners in the discovery and communication of new knowledge. The challenge is how to make this happen. Cyber-infrastructures make research more accessible. Equipment, resources, and data can be shared among institutions to lesson the financial investment needed. Current students are captured (and comfortable) with new technologies like IPods and cell phones. “New models of instruction can be developed that teach basic principles by embedding them in and reinforcing them through research activities, thereby fusing research and education” (B 20). Additionally, skilled researchers must be identified and encouraged to be mentors to undergraduates. This can be partly accomplished by tapping into existing human resources with graduate assistants and the like. Making research a more prominent part of the undergraduate experience is a long term project that will take a creative approach, an ongoing commitment, and resources. The National Science Foundation is providing incentives and support through the Undergraduate Research Collaboration. Institutions receiving grants (up to $3 million) can identify and employ research initiatives that are suitable to undergraduate settings. New inter-institutional partnerships are being forged, to include two-year colleges.

A fundamental shift in how the U. S. views and delivers post secondary education is most certainly on the horizon. Gregorian (2005) quoted Peter Drucker, considered by many as the founding father of the study of management, who predicted that the traditional university model has only about thirty years left before a new post secondary approach will prevail. Gregorian cited James Dunderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, who forecasted that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by American industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive, Dunderstadt argued that higher education is living in a pre-industrial age. Gregorian argues that American higher education exists in the digital age, but uses and industrial model and an agrarian calendar. Dunderstadt predicted that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commoditization of education is already occurring in some for profit distance education institutions. In these learning organizations, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a pre-designed course that cannot be varied by instructors. How significant this threat is to traditional institutions of higher learning and especially to the established traditions of academic freedom depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, it is predicted that superior quality and service will win out.

Dumestre (1999) traced the rationale of four policy implications evident in U.S. higher education and offered observations. First, because higher education is a social institution dedicated to introspection, it provides a unique basis for the exploration of the effects of technology on culture. Second, he asserts that the philosophies of institutions should be developed in light of technological advances or universities will risk becoming obsolete. Third, the difference between training and education is also becoming more blurred, with more individuals seeking training at educational institutions, which the author argues will push U.S. institutions toward providing more practical material. Finally, providing increased access to education will involve the need to bridge the "Digital Divide."

Higher education institutions are often accused of being slow to change. In addition to the incorporation of technology, other higher education reform initiatives have been received slowly. Shapiro (2006) claims that after two decades of reform attempts higher education institutions, especially research institutions, have not been able to transform from a culture of teaching to one of learning. Shapiro cited Tagg (2003), who blamed this inability on a structural problem requiring a fundamental shift in the faculty promotion and tenure criteria and processes. The desired culture would be that of scholarly teaching – activities focused on student learning that are well-grounded in the research on learning and appropriate resources in the particular field. The culture in research institutions clearly has valued research over teaching. When teaching if evaluated, the bar is set at “acceptable” and is not assessed in terms of student learning outcomes. At the same time, mediocre assessment of research performance is not acceptable. Words encouraging quality teaching are often not supported and reinforced. Until administrators recognize high quality scholarship on teaching and learning as opposed to disciplinary scholarship, the state of affairs will not change. This premise can be applied directly to the concepts of incorporating technology into post secondary education. Desired behaviors must be recognized and rewarded in the formal processes if change is to occur. Excellent teaching is the goal and consumers demand that we deliver a superior product in new ways. This requires articulated learning outcomes, effective teaching pedagogies and continuous assessment as core activities. Boyer’s (1997) domains of scholarship provide a good model for recognizing varied scholarship activities. Promotion and tenure processes need to acknowledge and reward all contributions including the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially as faculty seek to incorporate technology into their teaching.

Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. The authors later build upon Goeghegan’s work for their recommendations. Others (Jaffee, 1998, and Massy & Zemsky, 1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology-based teaching.

Dahl (2004) asserted that the growth of distance education has lent a new urgency to faculty concerns about academic freedom. These fears affect the receptivity of faculty for adopting technology. Because the introduction of technology into an organization causes a significant amount of change, it is important to involve all of the teachers in the implementation if possible. By making the teachers feel that they own their technology efforts can help improve the faculty morale (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). Many administrators turn away from supporting technology when they find out how it changes traditional school culture. A fundamental problem among administrators is making informed technology decisions.

Voakes (2003) identified several stressors for faculty related to technology, including time pressures, and difficulty in keeping up with changes in technology. Stress from technology was found to be more troublesome than stress from twelve other stressors, including research and publishing, teaching load, and review and promotion. Stress from technology was more pronounced among older faculty members, and has increased over time. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support.

Yang and Cornelious (2004) assert several factors deter faculty from online teaching. They include, among other things, the change in faculty role from lecturer to learning facilitator. This new role is student-centered and learning-centered, not faculty-centered. Another concern is the perceived need for faculty to provide ongoing technical support to students. Faculty need to know how to appropriately use technology; they get frustrated with computer reliability issues, the use of students’ multiple operating systems, and the absence of content development tools. Training is key. Not only must faculty know the technology side of this delivery method, they also need to consider how best to organize information and facilitate learning using these technologies. Training should be delivered online so instructors understand the dynamics of the tool and the process. In research focused on handheld technologies, Purcell (2005) noted that teachers are often worried about adopting technology and software that will soon become obsolete or not compatible with new versions when they come along. He argued that these are reasonable hesitations that can become deeply imbedded sources of resistance to technology. Additional sources of resistance that he cites are lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of sustained curriculum development support. Focusing on public middle and secondary markets, he notes that perceived obstacles to implementation identified by teachers differed from the actual obstacles they encountered. For example: Lack of space in the classroom curriculum was perceived to be the biggest problem before the project started, but did not turn out to be an obstacle. A significant actual obstacle was time, for both preparation and instruction, which was not perceived as a problem before the project began.

Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) pointed out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content.

Technology alone cannot promote education in a distance-based educational environment. Lock (2002) contended that development of an online community helps to facilitate learning in a distance-based environment. A community is viewed as a process and it is fluid by nature. It is important that technology integrate sound pedagogical and technological concerns through the design process. Guidelines for creating an online learning community include the need for an awareness of community and a sense of value in the community, and attending to design issues that support a community. Once established Lock suggested that to sustain an online community four guidelines must be used including the articulation and acceptance of a shared vision, goals, and aspirations of the community; an articulation and application of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes to facilitate the development of a sense of community; participants need to understand the personal investment and the fluid nature of the community, and; leaders must be developed to maintain the community is essential. Lessen and Sorensen (2006) identified four key ways of promoting the integration of technology into the classroom. The first is making the use of technology in the classroom a priority. The second is establishing a technological infrastructure. The third is focusing on development and finally the last is creating training opportunities and support for staff, faculty, and students.

Technology is evolving at a rapid rate and its applications continue to expand immensely. One arena where this is certainly evident is the area of distance education. Distance education, sometimes referred to as online learning, continues to grow as technological capabilities expand. Three fourths of today’s post secondary students are nontraditional in some way, meaning they do not necessarily attend college right out of high school, nor do they attend full-time or live on campus in a residence hall. Instead students tap into the opportunity to attend college part-time and increasingly they choose to take courses via the Internet. This introduction of new teaching methods and deliveries has implications for students, faculty, and institutions. As faculty members begin to incorporate new technologies and methods for implementing instructional strategies, it is evident that technological capability is not the only skill necessary to be successful in implementation of these new technologies. Technology changes people's jobs; consequently it has a profound impact on the people. It cannot be implemented without first thinking of the human consequences (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). A significant amount of change is caused in an organization with the incorporation of new technology into established practices and processes.

New technology is driving change in higher education. In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlined six challenges for U. S. universities one of which is the changes resulting from distance education. On the plus side, the teaching format promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable to students. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience of online learning. Younger students have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them.

Innovation and creativity are seen as essential to the growth of the U. S. economy. Ellis (2006) cited the national imperative for innovation as witnessed in the passage of the National Innovation Act of 2005 and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act which both recognize the roles government, industry and academe play in creating a climate of innovation. In higher education this is not meant to insist that all students become scientists or technologists but it is imperative they get exposed and practiced in intellectually stimulating research projects. Ellis suggested that well-designed research projects encourage risk-taking as they explore the unknown, regardless of discipline. Colleges have the opportunity to allow students to be active partners in the discovery and communication of new knowledge. The challenge is how to make this happen. Cyber-infrastructures make research more accessible. Equipment, resources, and data can be shared among institutions to lesson the financial investment needed. Current students are captured (and comfortable) with new technologies like IPods and cell phones. “New models of instruction can be developed that teach basic principles by embedding them in and reinforcing them through research activities, thereby fusing research and education” (B 20). Additionally, skilled researchers must be identified and encouraged to be mentors to undergraduates. This can be partly accomplished by tapping into existing human resources with graduate assistants and the like. Making research a more prominent part of the undergraduate experience is a long term project that will take a creative approach, an ongoing commitment, and resources. The National Science Foundation is providing incentives and support through the Undergraduate Research Collaboration. Institutions receiving grants (up to $3 million) can identify and employ research initiatives that are suitable to undergraduate settings. New inter-institutional partnerships are being forged, to include two-year colleges.

A fundamental shift in how the U. S. views and delivers post secondary education is most certainly on the horizon. Gregorian (2005) quoted Peter Drucker, considered by many as the founding father of the study of management, who predicted that the traditional university model has only about thirty years left before a new post secondary approach will prevail. Gregorian cited James Dunderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, who forecasted that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by American industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive, Dunderstadt argued that higher education is living in a pre-industrial age. Gregorian argues that American higher education exists in the digital age, but uses and industrial model and an agrarian calendar. Dunderstadt predicted that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commoditization of education is already occurring in some for profit distance education institutions. In these learning organizations, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a pre-designed course that cannot be varied by instructors. How significant this threat is to traditional institutions of higher learning and especially to the established traditions of academic freedom depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, it is predicted that superior quality and service will win out.

Dumestre (1999) traced the rationale of four policy implications evident in U.S. higher education and offered observations. First, because higher education is a social institution dedicated to introspection, it provides a unique basis for the exploration of the effects of technology on culture. Second, he asserts that the philosophies of institutions should be developed in light of technological advances or universities will risk becoming obsolete. Third, the difference between training and education is also becoming more blurred, with more individuals seeking training at educational institutions, which the author argues will push U.S. institutions toward providing more practical material. Finally, providing increased access to education will involve the need to bridge the "Digital Divide."

Higher education institutions are often accused of being slow to change. In addition to the incorporation of technology, other higher education reform initiatives have been received slowly. Shapiro (2006) claims that after two decades of reform attempts higher education institutions, especially research institutions, have not been able to transform from a culture of teaching to one of learning. Shapiro cited Tagg (2003), who blamed this inability on a structural problem requiring a fundamental shift in the faculty promotion and tenure criteria and processes. The desired culture would be that of scholarly teaching – activities focused on student learning that are well-grounded in the research on learning and appropriate resources in the particular field. The culture in research institutions clearly has valued research over teaching. When teaching if evaluated, the bar is set at “acceptable” and is not assessed in terms of student learning outcomes. At the same time, mediocre assessment of research performance is not acceptable. Words encouraging quality teaching are often not supported and reinforced. Until administrators recognize high quality scholarship on teaching and learning as opposed to disciplinary scholarship, the state of affairs will not change. This premise can be applied directly to the concepts of incorporating technology into post secondary education. Desired behaviors must be recognized and rewarded in the formal processes if change is to occur. Excellent teaching is the goal and consumers demand that we deliver a superior product in new ways. This requires articulated learning outcomes, effective teaching pedagogies and continuous assessment as core activities. Boyer’s (1997) domains of scholarship provide a good model for recognizing varied scholarship activities. Promotion and tenure processes need to acknowledge and reward all contributions including the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially as faculty seek to incorporate technology into their teaching.

Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. The authors later build upon Goeghegan’s work for their recommendations. Others (Jaffee, 1998, and Massy & Zemsky, 1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology-based teaching.

Dahl (2004) asserted that the growth of distance education has lent a new urgency to faculty concerns about academic freedom. These fears affect the receptivity of faculty for adopting technology. Because the introduction of technology into an organization causes a significant amount of change, it is important to involve all of the teachers in the implementation if possible. By making the teachers feel that they own their technology efforts can help improve the faculty morale (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). Many administrators turn away from supporting technology when they find out how it changes traditional school culture. A fundamental problem among administrators is making informed technology decisions.

Voakes (2003) identified several stressors for faculty related to technology, including time pressures, and difficulty in keeping up with changes in technology. Stress from technology was found to be more troublesome than stress from twelve other stressors, including research and publishing, teaching load, and review and promotion. Stress from technology was more pronounced among older faculty members, and has increased over time. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support.

Yang and Cornelious (2004) assert several factors deter faculty from online teaching. They include, among other things, the change in faculty role from lecturer to learning facilitator. This new role is student-centered and learning-centered, not faculty-centered. Another concern is the perceived need for faculty to provide ongoing technical support to students. Faculty need to know how to appropriately use technology; they get frustrated with computer reliability issues, the use of students’ multiple operating systems, and the absence of content development tools. Training is key. Not only must faculty know the technology side of this delivery method, they also need to consider how best to organize information and facilitate learning using these technologies. Training should be delivered online so instructors understand the dynamics of the tool and the process. In research focused on handheld technologies, Purcell (2005) noted that teachers are often worried about adopting technology and software that will soon become obsolete or not compatible with new versions when they come along. He argued that these are reasonable hesitations that can become deeply imbedded sources of resistance to technology. Additional sources of resistance that he cites are lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of sustained curriculum development support. Focusing on public middle and secondary markets, he notes that perceived obstacles to implementation identified by teachers differed from the actual obstacles they encountered. For example: Lack of space in the classroom curriculum was perceived to be the biggest problem before the project started, but did not turn out to be an obstacle. A significant actual obstacle was time, for both preparation and instruction, which was not perceived as a problem before the project began.

Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) pointed out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content.

Technology alone cannot promote education in a distance-based educational environment. Lock (2002) contended that development of an online community helps to facilitate learning in a distance-based environment. A community is viewed as a process and it is fluid by nature. It is important that technology integrate sound pedagogical and technological concerns through the design process. Guidelines for creating an online learning community include the need for an awareness of community and a sense of value in the community, and attending to design issues that support a community. Once established Lock suggested that to sustain an online community four guidelines must be used including the articulation and acceptance of a shared vision, goals, and aspirations of the community; an articulation and application of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes to facilitate the development of a sense of community; participants need to understand the personal investment and the fluid nature of the community, and; leaders must be developed to maintain the community is essential. Lessen and Sorensen (2006) identified four key ways of promoting the integration of technology into the classroom. The first is making the use of technology in the classroom a priority. The second is establishing a technological infrastructure. The third is focusing on development and finally the last is creating training opportunities and support for staff, faculty, and students.

Technology is evolving at a rapid rate and its applications continue to expand immensely. One arena where this is certainly evident is the area of distance education. Distance education, sometimes referred to as online learning, continues to grow as technological capabilities expand. Three fourths of today’s post secondary students are nontraditional in some way, meaning they do not necessarily attend college right out of high school, nor do they attend full-time or live on campus in a residence hall. Instead students tap into the opportunity to attend college part-time and increasingly they choose to take courses via the Internet. This introduction of new teaching methods and deliveries has implications for students, faculty, and institutions. As faculty members begin to incorporate new technologies and methods for implementing instructional strategies, it is evident that technological capability is not the only skill necessary to be successful in implementation of these new technologies. Technology changes people's jobs; consequently it has a profound impact on the people. It cannot be implemented without first thinking of the human consequences (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). A significant amount of change is caused in an organization with the incorporation of new technology into established practices and processes.

New technology is driving change in higher education. In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlined six challenges for U. S. universities one of which is the changes resulting from distance education. On the plus side, the teaching format promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable to students. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience of online learning. Younger students have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them.

Innovation and creativity are seen as essential to the growth of the U. S. economy. Ellis (2006) cited the national imperative for innovation as witnessed in the passage of the National Innovation Act of 2005 and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act which both recognize the roles government, industry and academe play in creating a climate of innovation. In higher education this is not meant to insist that all students become scientists or technologists but it is imperative they get exposed and practiced in intellectually stimulating research projects. Ellis suggested that well-designed research projects encourage risk-taking as they explore the unknown, regardless of discipline. Colleges have the opportunity to allow students to be active partners in the discovery and communication of new knowledge. The challenge is how to make this happen. Cyber-infrastructures make research more accessible. Equipment, resources, and data can be shared among institutions to lesson the financial investment needed. Current students are captured (and comfortable) with new technologies like IPods and cell phones. “New models of instruction can be developed that teach basic principles by embedding them in and reinforcing them through research activities, thereby fusing research and education” (B 20). Additionally, skilled researchers must be identified and encouraged to be mentors to undergraduates. This can be partly accomplished by tapping into existing human resources with graduate assistants and the like. Making research a more prominent part of the undergraduate experience is a long term project that will take a creative approach, an ongoing commitment, and resources. The National Science Foundation is providing incentives and support through the Undergraduate Research Collaboration. Institutions receiving grants (up to $3 million) can identify and employ research initiatives that are suitable to undergraduate settings. New inter-institutional partnerships are being forged, to include two-year colleges.

A fundamental shift in how the U. S. views and delivers post secondary education is most certainly on the horizon. Gregorian (2005) quoted Peter Drucker, considered by many as the founding father of the study of management, who predicted that the traditional university model has only about thirty years left before a new post secondary approach will prevail. Gregorian cited James Dunderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, who forecasted that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by American industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive, Dunderstadt argued that higher education is living in a pre-industrial age. Gregorian argues that American higher education exists in the digital age, but uses and industrial model and an agrarian calendar. Dunderstadt predicted that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commoditization of education is already occurring in some for profit distance education institutions. In these learning organizations, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a pre-designed course that cannot be varied by instructors. How significant this threat is to traditional institutions of higher learning and especially to the established traditions of academic freedom depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, it is predicted that superior quality and service will win out.

Dumestre (1999) traced the rationale of four policy implications evident in U.S. higher education and offered observations. First, because higher education is a social institution dedicated to introspection, it provides a unique basis for the exploration of the effects of technology on culture. Second, he asserts that the philosophies of institutions should be developed in light of technological advances or universities will risk becoming obsolete. Third, the difference between training and education is also becoming more blurred, with more individuals seeking training at educational institutions, which the author argues will push U.S. institutions toward providing more practical material. Finally, providing increased access to education will involve the need to bridge the "Digital Divide."

Higher education institutions are often accused of being slow to change. In addition to the incorporation of technology, other higher education reform initiatives have been received slowly. Shapiro (2006) claims that after two decades of reform attempts higher education institutions, especially research institutions, have not been able to transform from a culture of teaching to one of learning. Shapiro cited Tagg (2003), who blamed this inability on a structural problem requiring a fundamental shift in the faculty promotion and tenure criteria and processes. The desired culture would be that of scholarly teaching – activities focused on student learning that are well-grounded in the research on learning and appropriate resources in the particular field. The culture in research institutions clearly has valued research over teaching. When teaching if evaluated, the bar is set at “acceptable” and is not assessed in terms of student learning outcomes. At the same time, mediocre assessment of research performance is not acceptable. Words encouraging quality teaching are often not supported and reinforced. Until administrators recognize high quality scholarship on teaching and learning as opposed to disciplinary scholarship, the state of affairs will not change. This premise can be applied directly to the concepts of incorporating technology into post secondary education. Desired behaviors must be recognized and rewarded in the formal processes if change is to occur. Excellent teaching is the goal and consumers demand that we deliver a superior product in new ways. This requires articulated learning outcomes, effective teaching pedagogies and continuous assessment as core activities. Boyer’s (1997) domains of scholarship provide a good model for recognizing varied scholarship activities. Promotion and tenure processes need to acknowledge and reward all contributions including the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially as faculty seek to incorporate technology into their teaching.

Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. The authors later build upon Goeghegan’s work for their recommendations. Others (Jaffee, 1998, and Massy & Zemsky, 1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology-based teaching.

Dahl (2004) asserted that the growth of distance education has lent a new urgency to faculty concerns about academic freedom. These fears affect the receptivity of faculty for adopting technology. Because the introduction of technology into an organization causes a significant amount of change, it is important to involve all of the teachers in the implementation if possible. By making the teachers feel that they own their technology efforts can help improve the faculty morale (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). Many administrators turn away from supporting technology when they find out how it changes traditional school culture. A fundamental problem among administrators is making informed technology decisions.

Voakes (2003) identified several stressors for faculty related to technology, including time pressures, and difficulty in keeping up with changes in technology. Stress from technology was found to be more troublesome than stress from twelve other stressors, including research and publishing, teaching load, and review and promotion. Stress from technology was more pronounced among older faculty members, and has increased over time. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support.

Yang and Cornelious (2004) assert several factors deter faculty from online teaching. They include, among other things, the change in faculty role from lecturer to learning facilitator. This new role is student-centered and learning-centered, not faculty-centered. Another concern is the perceived need for faculty to provide ongoing technical support to students. Faculty need to know how to appropriately use technology; they get frustrated with computer reliability issues, the use of students’ multiple operating systems, and the absence of content development tools. Training is key. Not only must faculty know the technology side of this delivery method, they also need to consider how best to organize information and facilitate learning using these technologies. Training should be delivered online so instructors understand the dynamics of the tool and the process. In research focused on handheld technologies, Purcell (2005) noted that teachers are often worried about adopting technology and software that will soon become obsolete or not compatible with new versions when they come along. He argued that these are reasonable hesitations that can become deeply imbedded sources of resistance to technology. Additional sources of resistance that he cites are lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of sustained curriculum development support. Focusing on public middle and secondary markets, he notes that perceived obstacles to implementation identified by teachers differed from the actual obstacles they encountered. For example: Lack of space in the classroom curriculum was perceived to be the biggest problem before the project started, but did not turn out to be an obstacle. A significant actual obstacle was time, for both preparation and instruction, which was not perceived as a problem before the project began.

Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) pointed out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content.

Technology alone cannot promote education in a distance-based educational environment. Lock (2002) contended that development of an online community helps to facilitate learning in a distance-based environment. A community is viewed as a process and it is fluid by nature. It is important that technology integrate sound pedagogical and technological concerns through the design process. Guidelines for creating an online learning community include the need for an awareness of community and a sense of value in the community, and attending to design issues that support a community. Once established Lock suggested that to sustain an online community four guidelines must be used including the articulation and acceptance of a shared vision, goals, and aspirations of the community; an articulation and application of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes to facilitate the development of a sense of community; participants need to understand the personal investment and the fluid nature of the community, and; leaders must be developed to maintain the community is essential. Lessen and Sorensen (2006) identified four key ways of promoting the integration of technology into the classroom. The first is making the use of technology in the classroom a priority. The second is establishing a technological infrastructure. The third is focusing on development and finally the last is creating training opportunities and support for staff, faculty, and students.

Technology is evolving at a rapid rate and its applications continue to expand immensely. One arena where this is certainly evident is the area of distance education. Distance education, sometimes referred to as online learning, continues to grow as technological capabilities expand. Three fourths of today’s post secondary students are nontraditional in some way, meaning they do not necessarily attend college right out of high school, nor do they attend full-time or live on campus in a residence hall. Instead students tap into the opportunity to attend college part-time and increasingly they choose to take courses via the Internet. This introduction of new teaching methods and deliveries has implications for students, faculty, and institutions. As faculty members begin to incorporate new technologies and methods for implementing instructional strategies, it is evident that technological capability is not the only skill necessary to be successful in implementation of these new technologies. Technology changes people's jobs; consequently it has a profound impact on the people. It cannot be implemented without first thinking of the human consequences (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). A significant amount of change is caused in an organization with the incorporation of new technology into established practices and processes.

New technology is driving change in higher education. In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlined six challenges for U. S. universities one of which is the changes resulting from distance education. On the plus side, the teaching format promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable to students. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience of online learning. Younger students have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them.

Innovation and creativity are seen as essential to the growth of the U. S. economy. Ellis (2006) cited the national imperative for innovation as witnessed in the passage of the National Innovation Act of 2005 and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act which both recognize the roles government, industry and academe play in creating a climate of innovation. In higher education this is not meant to insist that all students become scientists or technologists but it is imperative they get exposed and practiced in intellectually stimulating research projects. Ellis suggested that well-designed research projects encourage risk-taking as they explore the unknown, regardless of discipline. Colleges have the opportunity to allow students to be active partners in the discovery and communication of new knowledge. The challenge is how to make this happen. Cyber-infrastructures make research more accessible. Equipment, resources, and data can be shared among institutions to lesson the financial investment needed. Current students are captured (and comfortable) with new technologies like IPods and cell phones. “New models of instruction can be developed that teach basic principles by embedding them in and reinforcing them through research activities, thereby fusing research and education” (B 20). Additionally, skilled researchers must be identified and encouraged to be mentors to undergraduates. This can be partly accomplished by tapping into existing human resources with graduate assistants and the like. Making research a more prominent part of the undergraduate experience is a long term project that will take a creative approach, an ongoing commitment, and resources. The National Science Foundation is providing incentives and support through the Undergraduate Research Collaboration. Institutions receiving grants (up to $3 million) can identify and employ research initiatives that are suitable to undergraduate settings. New inter-institutional partnerships are being forged, to include two-year colleges.

A fundamental shift in how the U. S. views and delivers post secondary education is most certainly on the horizon. Gregorian (2005) quoted Peter Drucker, considered by many as the founding father of the study of management, who predicted that the traditional university model has only about thirty years left before a new post secondary approach will prevail. Gregorian cited James Dunderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, who forecasted that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by American industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive, Dunderstadt argued that higher education is living in a pre-industrial age. Gregorian argues that American higher education exists in the digital age, but uses and industrial model and an agrarian calendar. Dunderstadt predicted that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commoditization of education is already occurring in some for profit distance education institutions. In these learning organizations, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a pre-designed course that cannot be varied by instructors. How significant this threat is to traditional institutions of higher learning and especially to the established traditions of academic freedom depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, it is predicted that superior quality and service will win out.

Dumestre (1999) traced the rationale of four policy implications evident in U.S. higher education and offered observations. First, because higher education is a social institution dedicated to introspection, it provides a unique basis for the exploration of the effects of technology on culture. Second, he asserts that the philosophies of institutions should be developed in light of technological advances or universities will risk becoming obsolete. Third, the difference between training and education is also becoming more blurred, with more individuals seeking training at educational institutions, which the author argues will push U.S. institutions toward providing more practical material. Finally, providing increased access to education will involve the need to bridge the "Digital Divide."

Higher education institutions are often accused of being slow to change. In addition to the incorporation of technology, other higher education reform initiatives have been received slowly. Shapiro (2006) claims that after two decades of reform attempts higher education institutions, especially research institutions, have not been able to transform from a culture of teaching to one of learning. Shapiro cited Tagg (2003), who blamed this inability on a structural problem requiring a fundamental shift in the faculty promotion and tenure criteria and processes. The desired culture would be that of scholarly teaching – activities focused on student learning that are well-grounded in the research on learning and appropriate resources in the particular field. The culture in research institutions clearly has valued research over teaching. When teaching if evaluated, the bar is set at “acceptable” and is not assessed in terms of student learning outcomes. At the same time, mediocre assessment of research performance is not acceptable. Words encouraging quality teaching are often not supported and reinforced. Until administrators recognize high quality scholarship on teaching and learning as opposed to disciplinary scholarship, the state of affairs will not change. This premise can be applied directly to the concepts of incorporating technology into post secondary education. Desired behaviors must be recognized and rewarded in the formal processes if change is to occur. Excellent teaching is the goal and consumers demand that we deliver a superior product in new ways. This requires articulated learning outcomes, effective teaching pedagogies and continuous assessment as core activities. Boyer’s (1997) domains of scholarship provide a good model for recognizing varied scholarship activities. Promotion and tenure processes need to acknowledge and reward all contributions including the scholarship of teaching and learning, especially as faculty seek to incorporate technology into their teaching.

Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. The authors later build upon Goeghegan’s work for their recommendations. Others (Jaffee, 1998, and Massy & Zemsky, 1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology-based teaching.

Dahl (2004) asserted that the growth of distance education has lent a new urgency to faculty concerns about academic freedom. These fears affect the receptivity of faculty for adopting technology. Because the introduction of technology into an organization causes a significant amount of change, it is important to involve all of the teachers in the implementation if possible. By making the teachers feel that they own their technology efforts can help improve the faculty morale (Attaran & VanLaar, 2001). Many administrators turn away from supporting technology when they find out how it changes traditional school culture. A fundamental problem among administrators is making informed technology decisions.

Voakes (2003) identified several stressors for faculty related to technology, including time pressures, and difficulty in keeping up with changes in technology. Stress from technology was found to be more troublesome than stress from twelve other stressors, including research and publishing, teaching load, and review and promotion. Stress from technology was more pronounced among older faculty members, and has increased over time. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support.

Yang and Cornelious (2004) assert several factors deter faculty from online teaching. They include, among other things, the change in faculty role from lecturer to learning facilitator. This new role is student-centered and learning-centered, not faculty-centered. Another concern is the perceived need for faculty to provide ongoing technical support to students. Faculty need to know how to appropriately use technology; they get frustrated with computer reliability issues, the use of students’ multiple operating systems, and the absence of content development tools. Training is key. Not only must faculty know the technology side of this delivery method, they also need to consider how best to organize information and facilitate learning using these technologies. Training should be delivered online so instructors understand the dynamics of the tool and the process. In research focused on handheld technologies, Purcell (2005) noted that teachers are often worried about adopting technology and software that will soon become obsolete or not compatible with new versions when they come along. He argued that these are reasonable hesitations that can become deeply imbedded sources of resistance to technology. Additional sources of resistance that he cites are lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of sustained curriculum development support. Focusing on public middle and secondary markets, he notes that perceived obstacles to implementation identified by teachers differed from the actual obstacles they encountered. For example: Lack of space in the classroom curriculum was perceived to be the biggest problem before the project started, but did not turn out to be an obstacle. A significant actual obstacle was time, for both preparation and instruction, which was not perceived as a problem before the project began.

Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) pointed out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content.

Technology alone cannot promote education in a distance-based educational environment. Lock (2002) contended that development of an online community helps to facilitate learning in a distance-based environment. A community is viewed as a process and it is fluid by nature. It is important that technology integrate sound pedagogical and technological concerns through the design process. Guidelines for creating an online learning community include the need for an awareness of community and a sense of value in the community, and attending to design issues that support a community. Once established Lock suggested that to sustain an online community four guidelines must be used including the articulation and acceptance of a shared vision, goals, and aspirations of the community; an articulation and application of the necessary knowledge, skills, and attributes to facilitate the development of a sense of community; participants need to understand the personal investment and the fluid nature of the community, and; leaders must be developed to maintain the community is essential. Lessen and Sorensen (2006) identified four key ways of promoting the integration of technology into the classroom. The first is making the use of technology in the classroom a priority. The second is establishing a technological infrastructure. The third is focusing on development and finally the last is creating training opportunities and support for staff, faculty, and students.

A technology adoption case study by Groves and Zemel (2000) cited many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption (Rogers, 1983), and student-centered learning (Knowles, Horton & Sorenson, 2005). The authors argued that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. When faculty and graduate teaching assistants were asked about their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, Internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The percentage that identified themselves as good to expert in distance learning was only 14%. Ninety-one percent said they never used distance learning. When asked what factors influenced their use of various technologies, they responded as indicated below:

Factor Percentage Equipment availability 97Improved student learning 97Increased student interest 96Advantage over traditional teaching methods 92Ease of use 91Time needed to learn 91Training available on how to use 87Compatibility with discipline 86Information or materials available on discipline 83Personal comfort with technology 80Administrative support 80Compatibility with existing materials 77Frequency of use by departmental colleagues 35

Nearly all of these factors are related to support for faculty members adopting new technology. A campus web-based support network was developed as a result of this study.

Several recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom from Bovinet, Newberry, Smith and Young (2000) included the need for instructors to become facilitators, advanced students should become technical advisors, the classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall& Elliot (2003) suggest a phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow in the adoption process from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Specific recommendations build on this idea: 1) Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college; 2) Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority; 3) The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced; 4) Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process; 5) Avoid making unrealistic claims; 6) Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles; 7) Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support; 8) Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment; and 9) Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

Harvey & Beard (2004) make the point that e-learning is about learning, not about technology. In efforts to integrate technology the key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness it must be geared to the needs of the learners.

A technology adoption case study by Groves and Zemel (2000) cited many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption (Rogers, 1983), and student-centered learning (Knowles, Horton & Sorenson, 2005). The authors argued that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. When faculty and graduate teaching assistants were asked about their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, Internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The percentage that identified themselves as good to expert in distance learning was only 14%. Ninety-one percent said they never used distance learning. When asked what factors influenced their use of various technologies, they responded as indicated below:

Factor Percentage Equipment availability 97Improved student learning 97Increased student interest 96Advantage over traditional teaching methods 92Ease of use 91Time needed to learn 91Training available on how to use 87Compatibility with discipline 86Information or materials available on discipline 83Personal comfort with technology 80Administrative support 80Compatibility with existing materials 77Frequency of use by departmental colleagues 35

Nearly all of these factors are related to support for faculty members adopting new technology. A campus web-based support network was developed as a result of this study.

Several recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom from Bovinet, Newberry, Smith and Young (2000) included the need for instructors to become facilitators, advanced students should become technical advisors, the classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall& Elliot (2003) suggest a phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow in the adoption process from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Specific recommendations build on this idea: 1) Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college; 2) Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority; 3) The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced; 4) Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process; 5) Avoid making unrealistic claims; 6) Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles; 7) Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support; 8) Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment; and 9) Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

Harvey & Beard (2004) make the point that e-learning is about learning, not about technology. In efforts to integrate technology the key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness it must be geared to the needs of the learners.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) built a framework for integrating technology in teaching. The model, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), was developed to “capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situate nature of this knowledge.” (p. 1) In developing this framework, the authors fully understand and explain the difficulty in developing theory for educational technology due to the complex relationships (including teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals) and integrate this knowledge into their study.The TPCK model consists of knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T).

Figure 1. The TPCK diagram

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three competencies The authors believe it is the combination of these forms of knowledge that lead educators to becoming proficient at using technology in the classroom. Effective educators have developed the skills necessary to be proficient in each of these categories.

Meyer (2003) argues that educational technology should be applied with full consideration of current research describing how the brain functions best, supporting the hypothesis of Reeves and Nass (1996) that people tend to anthropomorphize technology. Meyer claimed that "media will not markedly affect or change the personality or relationship of those who use it for educational purposes," meaning that the emotions expressed electronically will simulate those expressed face to face. However, this also suggests that media can not be falsely blamed if relationships to support education fail to form. It is critical that today's educators must understand that their own brains function differently than the "new brains" they are education, and so attention must be focused on providing a quality learning experience and not on the positive or negative effects of technology, which could compromise the learning experience itself.

Sorensen, Furst-Bowe, & Moen (2005) described six colleges and universities that have employed the Baldrige criteria for organizational change and improvement. They emphasized the importance of consistent leadership commitment from the highest level if organizational change is to be effective. While these organizations did not remove the organization structure of silos, staff found ways to work across them. Pressure on funding and calls for accountability magnified the importance of identifying stakeholders and articulating their needs. They note the importance of cycles of assessment and improvement to drive planning and the process of change. While all higher education institutions use data, these organizations used it for continuous improvement, and for benchmarking both against other educational institutions and outside higher education. Baldrige organizations found that a hesitance to apply strategies until improvements were made inhibited improvement. Assessment cycles accelerated improvement. The authors cite the flexibility of the Baldrige criteria and suggest an approach can be built around existing organizational strengths. Quality assessments were also a tool for organizational learning, allowing leaders to model desired behaviors and support the transfer of these behaviors to other areas.

Contrary to the way courses are currently developed, by a single faculty member, Yang and Cornelious (2004) suggested one tactic for online course development would be to make more than one person responsible for course development, delivery and assessment. The team approach has been suggested as a way to ensure quality. Joining a content expert, others on the team would include an instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, direct instructor, information resources personnel, mentors and assessment specialists. This idea challenges the idea that the content expert is the best person to complete all course duties including the delivery of information and the facilitation of learning.

Adams (2006) developed an eight step process for managing change. While this model was developed for the supply change industry, there is certainly applicability to academia. The steps are as follows:

1. Start now.2. Accept that you, your people and your company must change.3. Little changes are good.4. Listen to your employees throughout the process.5. Get an outsider to help in the process.6. Write down the goals and make them public.7. Mistakes will happen. Learn from them, but don’t stop the process.8. Reassess your business and goals regularly. Continuous change is the only way this works. (p.38)

Each of these steps requires leadership to manage implementation of any change. Adams also identified three types of ways employees will react to change; the leaders, the wait and see crowd, and the refusers. Leaders are the forward thinkers and will be the individuals that affect change. The wait and see crowd sit back and see what happens; if the change is good, they will join the process. Finally, the refusers will be individuals who absolutely will not change. In many cases the only way to move these individuals is to remove them.

Cullen, Hassall, and Broadbent (2003) discussed accountable management and issues relating to performance measurement in higher education. The authors argued that although private sector models of performance measurement stress key performance indicators, it is important that those indicators be grounded within the culture of a strategy focused organization. They proposed a balanced scorecard approach for managing rather than monitoring performance. As cultural factors are examined, the importance of integrating strategic planning into the culture should not be forgotten.

Kezar (2005) says higher education institutions at all levels are accused of being unable to collaborate in ways that will produce significant and meaningful changes (including the integration of technology). The author and others suggest it is impossible “to force collaborative innovations into a structure and culture that supports individual work” (p. 52). Departmental silos and bureaucratic, hierarchical administrative structures prohibit responsive, creative change. Reformers work on the edge of campus culture and won’t be effective until the organizational context is radically altered. This study asked how institutions can move beyond current structures to organizational contexts that support cross-divisional activities. Four typical non-elite institutions were studied, chosen because they have been successful in accomplishing significant innovative collaborations without extraordinary funding or resources to support this kind of cultural change.

Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three were paramount 1) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, 2) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, 3) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. Each of the four institutions in the study had incorporated a philosophy of collaboration into their mission statement. Coalitions of people known to be change agents provide the people power that enable change to occur. These groups perform various functions including getting an initial buy-in, developing ownership for programs, implementing projects and getting support for them. (The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers.) One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research.

Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student-centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Hutton (1994) indicated the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concluded that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Dahl (2004) said that administrators must change the way they deploy, inspire, and reward performance when it comes to implementing technology. It is important for academic leadership to set priorities and make technology in the classroom a part of the mission statement. Additionally, it is important for deans to lead by example, using technology in everyday use. The dean is also responsible for establishing a technological infrastructure which allows the faculty and staff to utilize the technology in the classroom. Development of the faculty and staff is also critical to implementing technology in the classroom. Seminars, partnerships, and skill development in all areas is essential to the success of technology implementation in a classroom environment. In this arena, deans must take an active leadership role to full development of all key stakeholders. The final step in implementing technology in the classroom is training and support for everyone involved in the process. This includes students, staff, and faculty. Support included all hardware and software resources utilized in the classroom (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).

Chehade et al (2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

External pressure is another motivator that may move higher education institutions toward change. Accreditation associations and other non-profits have moved to establish quality indicators. Various statements have been synthesized by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) into 24 benchmarks for measuring quality in Internet-based learning (Yang & Cornelious, 2004).

Mishra and Koehler (2006) built a framework for integrating technology in teaching. The model, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), was developed to “capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situate nature of this knowledge.” (p. 1) In developing this framework, the authors fully understand and explain the difficulty in developing theory for educational technology due to the complex relationships (including teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals) and integrate this knowledge into their study.The TPCK model consists of knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T).

Figure 1. The TPCK diagram

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three competencies The authors believe it is the combination of these forms of knowledge that lead educators to becoming proficient at using technology in the classroom. Effective educators have developed the skills necessary to be proficient in each of these categories.

Meyer (2003) argues that educational technology should be applied with full consideration of current research describing how the brain functions best, supporting the hypothesis of Reeves and Nass (1996) that people tend to anthropomorphize technology. Meyer claimed that "media will not markedly affect or change the personality or relationship of those who use it for educational purposes," meaning that the emotions expressed electronically will simulate those expressed face to face. However, this also suggests that media can not be falsely blamed if relationships to support education fail to form. It is critical that today's educators must understand that their own brains function differently than the "new brains" they are education, and so attention must be focused on providing a quality learning experience and not on the positive or negative effects of technology, which could compromise the learning experience itself.

Sorensen, Furst-Bowe, & Moen (2005) described six colleges and universities that have employed the Baldrige criteria for organizational change and improvement. They emphasized the importance of consistent leadership commitment from the highest level if organizational change is to be effective. While these organizations did not remove the organization structure of silos, staff found ways to work across them. Pressure on funding and calls for accountability magnified the importance of identifying stakeholders and articulating their needs. They note the importance of cycles of assessment and improvement to drive planning and the process of change. While all higher education institutions use data, these organizations used it for continuous improvement, and for benchmarking both against other educational institutions and outside higher education. Baldrige organizations found that a hesitance to apply strategies until improvements were made inhibited improvement. Assessment cycles accelerated improvement. The authors cite the flexibility of the Baldrige criteria and suggest an approach can be built around existing organizational strengths. Quality assessments were also a tool for organizational learning, allowing leaders to model desired behaviors and support the transfer of these behaviors to other areas.

Contrary to the way courses are currently developed, by a single faculty member, Yang and Cornelious (2004) suggested one tactic for online course development would be to make more than one person responsible for course development, delivery and assessment. The team approach has been suggested as a way to ensure quality. Joining a content expert, others on the team would include an instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, direct instructor, information resources personnel, mentors and assessment specialists. This idea challenges the idea that the content expert is the best person to complete all course duties including the delivery of information and the facilitation of learning.

Adams (2006) developed an eight step process for managing change. While this model was developed for the supply change industry, there is certainly applicability to academia. The steps are as follows:

1. Start now.2. Accept that you, your people and your company must change.3. Little changes are good.4. Listen to your employees throughout the process.5. Get an outsider to help in the process.6. Write down the goals and make them public.7. Mistakes will happen. Learn from them, but don’t stop the process.8. Reassess your business and goals regularly. Continuous change is the only way this works. (p.38)

Each of these steps requires leadership to manage implementation of any change. Adams also identified three types of ways employees will react to change; the leaders, the wait and see crowd, and the refusers. Leaders are the forward thinkers and will be the individuals that affect change. The wait and see crowd sit back and see what happens; if the change is good, they will join the process. Finally, the refusers will be individuals who absolutely will not change. In many cases the only way to move these individuals is to remove them.

Cullen, Hassall, and Broadbent (2003) discussed accountable management and issues relating to performance measurement in higher education. The authors argued that although private sector models of performance measurement stress key performance indicators, it is important that those indicators be grounded within the culture of a strategy focused organization. They proposed a balanced scorecard approach for managing rather than monitoring performance. As cultural factors are examined, the importance of integrating strategic planning into the culture should not be forgotten.

Kezar (2005) says higher education institutions at all levels are accused of being unable to collaborate in ways that will produce significant and meaningful changes (including the integration of technology). The author and others suggest it is impossible “to force collaborative innovations into a structure and culture that supports individual work” (p. 52). Departmental silos and bureaucratic, hierarchical administrative structures prohibit responsive, creative change. Reformers work on the edge of campus culture and won’t be effective until the organizational context is radically altered. This study asked how institutions can move beyond current structures to organizational contexts that support cross-divisional activities. Four typical non-elite institutions were studied, chosen because they have been successful in accomplishing significant innovative collaborations without extraordinary funding or resources to support this kind of cultural change.

Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three were paramount 1) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, 2) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, 3) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. Each of the four institutions in the study had incorporated a philosophy of collaboration into their mission statement. Coalitions of people known to be change agents provide the people power that enable change to occur. These groups perform various functions including getting an initial buy-in, developing ownership for programs, implementing projects and getting support for them. (The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers.) One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research.

Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student-centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Hutton (1994) indicated the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concluded that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Dahl (2004) said that administrators must change the way they deploy, inspire, and reward performance when it comes to implementing technology. It is important for academic leadership to set priorities and make technology in the classroom a part of the mission statement. Additionally, it is important for deans to lead by example, using technology in everyday use. The dean is also responsible for establishing a technological infrastructure which allows the faculty and staff to utilize the technology in the classroom. Development of the faculty and staff is also critical to implementing technology in the classroom. Seminars, partnerships, and skill development in all areas is essential to the success of technology implementation in a classroom environment. In this arena, deans must take an active leadership role to full development of all key stakeholders. The final step in implementing technology in the classroom is training and support for everyone involved in the process. This includes students, staff, and faculty. Support included all hardware and software resources utilized in the classroom (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).

Chehade et al (2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

External pressure is another motivator that may move higher education institutions toward change. Accreditation associations and other non-profits have moved to establish quality indicators. Various statements have been synthesized by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) into 24 benchmarks for measuring quality in Internet-based learning (Yang & Cornelious, 2004).

Mishra and Koehler (2006) built a framework for integrating technology in teaching. The model, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), was developed to “capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situate nature of this knowledge.” (p. 1) In developing this framework, the authors fully understand and explain the difficulty in developing theory for educational technology due to the complex relationships (including teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals) and integrate this knowledge into their study.The TPCK model consists of knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T).

Figure 1. The TPCK diagram

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three competencies The authors believe it is the combination of these forms of knowledge that lead educators to becoming proficient at using technology in the classroom. Effective educators have developed the skills necessary to be proficient in each of these categories.

Meyer (2003) argues that educational technology should be applied with full consideration of current research describing how the brain functions best, supporting the hypothesis of Reeves and Nass (1996) that people tend to anthropomorphize technology. Meyer claimed that "media will not markedly affect or change the personality or relationship of those who use it for educational purposes," meaning that the emotions expressed electronically will simulate those expressed face to face. However, this also suggests that media can not be falsely blamed if relationships to support education fail to form. It is critical that today's educators must understand that their own brains function differently than the "new brains" they are education, and so attention must be focused on providing a quality learning experience and not on the positive or negative effects of technology, which could compromise the learning experience itself.

Sorensen, Furst-Bowe, & Moen (2005) described six colleges and universities that have employed the Baldrige criteria for organizational change and improvement. They emphasized the importance of consistent leadership commitment from the highest level if organizational change is to be effective. While these organizations did not remove the organization structure of silos, staff found ways to work across them. Pressure on funding and calls for accountability magnified the importance of identifying stakeholders and articulating their needs. They note the importance of cycles of assessment and improvement to drive planning and the process of change. While all higher education institutions use data, these organizations used it for continuous improvement, and for benchmarking both against other educational institutions and outside higher education. Baldrige organizations found that a hesitance to apply strategies until improvements were made inhibited improvement. Assessment cycles accelerated improvement. The authors cite the flexibility of the Baldrige criteria and suggest an approach can be built around existing organizational strengths. Quality assessments were also a tool for organizational learning, allowing leaders to model desired behaviors and support the transfer of these behaviors to other areas.

Contrary to the way courses are currently developed, by a single faculty member, Yang and Cornelious (2004) suggested one tactic for online course development would be to make more than one person responsible for course development, delivery and assessment. The team approach has been suggested as a way to ensure quality. Joining a content expert, others on the team would include an instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, direct instructor, information resources personnel, mentors and assessment specialists. This idea challenges the idea that the content expert is the best person to complete all course duties including the delivery of information and the facilitation of learning.

Adams (2006) developed an eight step process for managing change. While this model was developed for the supply change industry, there is certainly applicability to academia. The steps are as follows:

1. Start now.2. Accept that you, your people and your company must change.3. Little changes are good.4. Listen to your employees throughout the process.5. Get an outsider to help in the process.6. Write down the goals and make them public.7. Mistakes will happen. Learn from them, but don’t stop the process.8. Reassess your business and goals regularly. Continuous change is the only way this works. (p.38)

Each of these steps requires leadership to manage implementation of any change. Adams also identified three types of ways employees will react to change; the leaders, the wait and see crowd, and the refusers. Leaders are the forward thinkers and will be the individuals that affect change. The wait and see crowd sit back and see what happens; if the change is good, they will join the process. Finally, the refusers will be individuals who absolutely will not change. In many cases the only way to move these individuals is to remove them.

Cullen, Hassall, and Broadbent (2003) discussed accountable management and issues relating to performance measurement in higher education. The authors argued that although private sector models of performance measurement stress key performance indicators, it is important that those indicators be grounded within the culture of a strategy focused organization. They proposed a balanced scorecard approach for managing rather than monitoring performance. As cultural factors are examined, the importance of integrating strategic planning into the culture should not be forgotten.

Kezar (2005) says higher education institutions at all levels are accused of being unable to collaborate in ways that will produce significant and meaningful changes (including the integration of technology). The author and others suggest it is impossible “to force collaborative innovations into a structure and culture that supports individual work” (p. 52). Departmental silos and bureaucratic, hierarchical administrative structures prohibit responsive, creative change. Reformers work on the edge of campus culture and won’t be effective until the organizational context is radically altered. This study asked how institutions can move beyond current structures to organizational contexts that support cross-divisional activities. Four typical non-elite institutions were studied, chosen because they have been successful in accomplishing significant innovative collaborations without extraordinary funding or resources to support this kind of cultural change.

Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three were paramount 1) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, 2) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, 3) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. Each of the four institutions in the study had incorporated a philosophy of collaboration into their mission statement. Coalitions of people known to be change agents provide the people power that enable change to occur. These groups perform various functions including getting an initial buy-in, developing ownership for programs, implementing projects and getting support for them. (The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers.) One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research.

Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student-centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Hutton (1994) indicated the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concluded that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Dahl (2004) said that administrators must change the way they deploy, inspire, and reward performance when it comes to implementing technology. It is important for academic leadership to set priorities and make technology in the classroom a part of the mission statement. Additionally, it is important for deans to lead by example, using technology in everyday use. The dean is also responsible for establishing a technological infrastructure which allows the faculty and staff to utilize the technology in the classroom. Development of the faculty and staff is also critical to implementing technology in the classroom. Seminars, partnerships, and skill development in all areas is essential to the success of technology implementation in a classroom environment. In this arena, deans must take an active leadership role to full development of all key stakeholders. The final step in implementing technology in the classroom is training and support for everyone involved in the process. This includes students, staff, and faculty. Support included all hardware and software resources utilized in the classroom (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).

Chehade et al (2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

External pressure is another motivator that may move higher education institutions toward change. Accreditation associations and other non-profits have moved to establish quality indicators. Various statements have been synthesized by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) into 24 benchmarks for measuring quality in Internet-based learning (Yang & Cornelious, 2004).

Mishra and Koehler (2006) built a framework for integrating technology in teaching. The model, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), was developed to “capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situate nature of this knowledge.” (p. 1) In developing this framework, the authors fully understand and explain the difficulty in developing theory for educational technology due to the complex relationships (including teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals) and integrate this knowledge into their study.The TPCK model consists of knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T).

Figure 1. The TPCK diagram

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three competencies The authors believe it is the combination of these forms of knowledge that lead educators to becoming proficient at using technology in the classroom. Effective educators have developed the skills necessary to be proficient in each of these categories.

Meyer (2003) argues that educational technology should be applied with full consideration of current research describing how the brain functions best, supporting the hypothesis of Reeves and Nass (1996) that people tend to anthropomorphize technology. Meyer claimed that "media will not markedly affect or change the personality or relationship of those who use it for educational purposes," meaning that the emotions expressed electronically will simulate those expressed face to face. However, this also suggests that media can not be falsely blamed if relationships to support education fail to form. It is critical that today's educators must understand that their own brains function differently than the "new brains" they are education, and so attention must be focused on providing a quality learning experience and not on the positive or negative effects of technology, which could compromise the learning experience itself.

Sorensen, Furst-Bowe, & Moen (2005) described six colleges and universities that have employed the Baldrige criteria for organizational change and improvement. They emphasized the importance of consistent leadership commitment from the highest level if organizational change is to be effective. While these organizations did not remove the organization structure of silos, staff found ways to work across them. Pressure on funding and calls for accountability magnified the importance of identifying stakeholders and articulating their needs. They note the importance of cycles of assessment and improvement to drive planning and the process of change. While all higher education institutions use data, these organizations used it for continuous improvement, and for benchmarking both against other educational institutions and outside higher education. Baldrige organizations found that a hesitance to apply strategies until improvements were made inhibited improvement. Assessment cycles accelerated improvement. The authors cite the flexibility of the Baldrige criteria and suggest an approach can be built around existing organizational strengths. Quality assessments were also a tool for organizational learning, allowing leaders to model desired behaviors and support the transfer of these behaviors to other areas.

Contrary to the way courses are currently developed, by a single faculty member, Yang and Cornelious (2004) suggested one tactic for online course development would be to make more than one person responsible for course development, delivery and assessment. The team approach has been suggested as a way to ensure quality. Joining a content expert, others on the team would include an instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, direct instructor, information resources personnel, mentors and assessment specialists. This idea challenges the idea that the content expert is the best person to complete all course duties including the delivery of information and the facilitation of learning.

Adams (2006) developed an eight step process for managing change. While this model was developed for the supply change industry, there is certainly applicability to academia. The steps are as follows:

1. Start now.2. Accept that you, your people and your company must change.3. Little changes are good.4. Listen to your employees throughout the process.5. Get an outsider to help in the process.6. Write down the goals and make them public.7. Mistakes will happen. Learn from them, but don’t stop the process.8. Reassess your business and goals regularly. Continuous change is the only way this works. (p.38)

Each of these steps requires leadership to manage implementation of any change. Adams also identified three types of ways employees will react to change; the leaders, the wait and see crowd, and the refusers. Leaders are the forward thinkers and will be the individuals that affect change. The wait and see crowd sit back and see what happens; if the change is good, they will join the process. Finally, the refusers will be individuals who absolutely will not change. In many cases the only way to move these individuals is to remove them.

Cullen, Hassall, and Broadbent (2003) discussed accountable management and issues relating to performance measurement in higher education. The authors argued that although private sector models of performance measurement stress key performance indicators, it is important that those indicators be grounded within the culture of a strategy focused organization. They proposed a balanced scorecard approach for managing rather than monitoring performance. As cultural factors are examined, the importance of integrating strategic planning into the culture should not be forgotten.

Kezar (2005) says higher education institutions at all levels are accused of being unable to collaborate in ways that will produce significant and meaningful changes (including the integration of technology). The author and others suggest it is impossible “to force collaborative innovations into a structure and culture that supports individual work” (p. 52). Departmental silos and bureaucratic, hierarchical administrative structures prohibit responsive, creative change. Reformers work on the edge of campus culture and won’t be effective until the organizational context is radically altered. This study asked how institutions can move beyond current structures to organizational contexts that support cross-divisional activities. Four typical non-elite institutions were studied, chosen because they have been successful in accomplishing significant innovative collaborations without extraordinary funding or resources to support this kind of cultural change.

Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three were paramount 1) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, 2) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, 3) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. Each of the four institutions in the study had incorporated a philosophy of collaboration into their mission statement. Coalitions of people known to be change agents provide the people power that enable change to occur. These groups perform various functions including getting an initial buy-in, developing ownership for programs, implementing projects and getting support for them. (The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers.) One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research.

Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student-centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Hutton (1994) indicated the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concluded that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Dahl (2004) said that administrators must change the way they deploy, inspire, and reward performance when it comes to implementing technology. It is important for academic leadership to set priorities and make technology in the classroom a part of the mission statement. Additionally, it is important for deans to lead by example, using technology in everyday use. The dean is also responsible for establishing a technological infrastructure which allows the faculty and staff to utilize the technology in the classroom. Development of the faculty and staff is also critical to implementing technology in the classroom. Seminars, partnerships, and skill development in all areas is essential to the success of technology implementation in a classroom environment. In this arena, deans must take an active leadership role to full development of all key stakeholders. The final step in implementing technology in the classroom is training and support for everyone involved in the process. This includes students, staff, and faculty. Support included all hardware and software resources utilized in the classroom (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).

Chehade et al (2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

External pressure is another motivator that may move higher education institutions toward change. Accreditation associations and other non-profits have moved to establish quality indicators. Various statements have been synthesized by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) into 24 benchmarks for measuring quality in Internet-based learning (Yang & Cornelious, 2004).

Information

Motivators

DecisionRights

Structure

THE ORGANIZATION

The underlyingmechanics of how

and by whomdecisions are trulymade, beyond thelines and boxes ofthe organization

chart

What objectives,incentives, and

career alternativesdo people have?How are people

influenced by thecompany's history?

What metrics areused to measure

performance? Howare activities

coordinated, and howis knowledgetransferred?

The overallorganization model,including the "linesand boxes" of the

organization

Mishra and Koehler (2006) built a framework for integrating technology in teaching. The model, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), was developed to “capture some of the essential qualities of teacher knowledge required for technology integration in teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted, and situate nature of this knowledge.” (p. 1) In developing this framework, the authors fully understand and explain the difficulty in developing theory for educational technology due to the complex relationships (including teachers, classrooms, politics, and curriculum goals) and integrate this knowledge into their study.The TPCK model consists of knowledge of content (C), pedagogy (P), and technology (T).

Figure 1. The TPCK diagram

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the three competencies The authors believe it is the combination of these forms of knowledge that lead educators to becoming proficient at using technology in the classroom. Effective educators have developed the skills necessary to be proficient in each of these categories.

Meyer (2003) argues that educational technology should be applied with full consideration of current research describing how the brain functions best, supporting the hypothesis of Reeves and Nass (1996) that people tend to anthropomorphize technology. Meyer claimed that "media will not markedly affect or change the personality or relationship of those who use it for educational purposes," meaning that the emotions expressed electronically will simulate those expressed face to face. However, this also suggests that media can not be falsely blamed if relationships to support education fail to form. It is critical that today's educators must understand that their own brains function differently than the "new brains" they are education, and so attention must be focused on providing a quality learning experience and not on the positive or negative effects of technology, which could compromise the learning experience itself.

Sorensen, Furst-Bowe, & Moen (2005) described six colleges and universities that have employed the Baldrige criteria for organizational change and improvement. They emphasized the importance of consistent leadership commitment from the highest level if organizational change is to be effective. While these organizations did not remove the organization structure of silos, staff found ways to work across them. Pressure on funding and calls for accountability magnified the importance of identifying stakeholders and articulating their needs. They note the importance of cycles of assessment and improvement to drive planning and the process of change. While all higher education institutions use data, these organizations used it for continuous improvement, and for benchmarking both against other educational institutions and outside higher education. Baldrige organizations found that a hesitance to apply strategies until improvements were made inhibited improvement. Assessment cycles accelerated improvement. The authors cite the flexibility of the Baldrige criteria and suggest an approach can be built around existing organizational strengths. Quality assessments were also a tool for organizational learning, allowing leaders to model desired behaviors and support the transfer of these behaviors to other areas.

Contrary to the way courses are currently developed, by a single faculty member, Yang and Cornelious (2004) suggested one tactic for online course development would be to make more than one person responsible for course development, delivery and assessment. The team approach has been suggested as a way to ensure quality. Joining a content expert, others on the team would include an instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, direct instructor, information resources personnel, mentors and assessment specialists. This idea challenges the idea that the content expert is the best person to complete all course duties including the delivery of information and the facilitation of learning.

Adams (2006) developed an eight step process for managing change. While this model was developed for the supply change industry, there is certainly applicability to academia. The steps are as follows:

1. Start now.2. Accept that you, your people and your company must change.3. Little changes are good.4. Listen to your employees throughout the process.5. Get an outsider to help in the process.6. Write down the goals and make them public.7. Mistakes will happen. Learn from them, but don’t stop the process.8. Reassess your business and goals regularly. Continuous change is the only way this works. (p.38)

Each of these steps requires leadership to manage implementation of any change. Adams also identified three types of ways employees will react to change; the leaders, the wait and see crowd, and the refusers. Leaders are the forward thinkers and will be the individuals that affect change. The wait and see crowd sit back and see what happens; if the change is good, they will join the process. Finally, the refusers will be individuals who absolutely will not change. In many cases the only way to move these individuals is to remove them.

Cullen, Hassall, and Broadbent (2003) discussed accountable management and issues relating to performance measurement in higher education. The authors argued that although private sector models of performance measurement stress key performance indicators, it is important that those indicators be grounded within the culture of a strategy focused organization. They proposed a balanced scorecard approach for managing rather than monitoring performance. As cultural factors are examined, the importance of integrating strategic planning into the culture should not be forgotten.

Kezar (2005) says higher education institutions at all levels are accused of being unable to collaborate in ways that will produce significant and meaningful changes (including the integration of technology). The author and others suggest it is impossible “to force collaborative innovations into a structure and culture that supports individual work” (p. 52). Departmental silos and bureaucratic, hierarchical administrative structures prohibit responsive, creative change. Reformers work on the edge of campus culture and won’t be effective until the organizational context is radically altered. This study asked how institutions can move beyond current structures to organizational contexts that support cross-divisional activities. Four typical non-elite institutions were studied, chosen because they have been successful in accomplishing significant innovative collaborations without extraordinary funding or resources to support this kind of cultural change.

Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three were paramount 1) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, 2) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, 3) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. Each of the four institutions in the study had incorporated a philosophy of collaboration into their mission statement. Coalitions of people known to be change agents provide the people power that enable change to occur. These groups perform various functions including getting an initial buy-in, developing ownership for programs, implementing projects and getting support for them. (The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers.) One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research.

Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student-centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Hutton (1994) indicated the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concluded that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Dahl (2004) said that administrators must change the way they deploy, inspire, and reward performance when it comes to implementing technology. It is important for academic leadership to set priorities and make technology in the classroom a part of the mission statement. Additionally, it is important for deans to lead by example, using technology in everyday use. The dean is also responsible for establishing a technological infrastructure which allows the faculty and staff to utilize the technology in the classroom. Development of the faculty and staff is also critical to implementing technology in the classroom. Seminars, partnerships, and skill development in all areas is essential to the success of technology implementation in a classroom environment. In this arena, deans must take an active leadership role to full development of all key stakeholders. The final step in implementing technology in the classroom is training and support for everyone involved in the process. This includes students, staff, and faculty. Support included all hardware and software resources utilized in the classroom (Lessen & Sorensen, 2006).

Chehade et al (2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

External pressure is another motivator that may move higher education institutions toward change. Accreditation associations and other non-profits have moved to establish quality indicators. Various statements have been synthesized by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) into 24 benchmarks for measuring quality in Internet-based learning (Yang & Cornelious, 2004).

Information

Motivators

DecisionRights

Structure

THE ORGANIZATION

The underlyingmechanics of how

and by whomdecisions are trulymade, beyond thelines and boxes ofthe organization

chart

What objectives,incentives, and

career alternativesdo people have?How are people

influenced by thecompany's history?

What metrics areused to measure

performance? Howare activities

coordinated, and howis knowledgetransferred?

The overallorganization model,including the "linesand boxes" of the

organization

4.0 Project Analysis

4.0.1 Process Flow

Back to Table of Contents

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

Challenges, forces, and drivers acting

upon higher education

Establish factors that necessitate

cultural change(WHY)

Model for the culture changes which will

leverage technology

Social context of technology and drivers for

change management related to new technology

adoption

Establish desired cultural

factors (WHAT)

Propose an approach to

cultural change(HOW)

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

4.1.1 Impacts of Technology

4.1.1.1 Technology integration has been beneficial to higher education in the past.

Cross (2001) suggests that positive changes in U.S. higher education can be readily observed in the analysis of the Hesburgh Award winners from 1991 to 2001. The shift from a paradigm of teaching to one of learning is clearly evident. Hesburgh Awards are sponsored by TIAA-CREF to "acknowledge and reward successful, innovative faculty development programs that enhance undergraduate teaching." An emphasis has recently been added to honor those programs that inspire similar initiatives nationwide.

Cross categorized the 210 award finalists into the following main categories:1. Improving teaching by applying knowledge about cognition and learning, targeting particular groups of students, targeting particular faculty, developing a personal vision of teaching.2. Redesigning courses to adapt to new technologies and implementing new curricula.3. Changing the learning environment of the institution by creating learning-centered colleges, developing a distinctive mission, focusing on student learning outcomes and instituting incentives and rewards for teaching.

Of particular relevance to our topic is the number of award applicants in 2000 and 2001 that were redesigning courses to employ technology such as interactive and Web-based technologies. In these programs all emphasized increasing the understanding of how these technologies improved pedagogy. Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) won the award in 1995 for the use of technology as a vehicle for improving student learning. Among the comprehensive aspects of the program, the main emphasis was to transform large lecture courses into "studio" formats where the instructor acted as mentor/guide/adviser in a more hands-on, collaborative learning environment.

Four different types of institutions were cited for significantly changing their institutional environments, they included Miami-Dade Community College, Alverno College, Syracuse University and Missouri Southern State College, proving that organizational change is possible in all types of institutional settings.

4.1.1.2 Integration of technology has not been shown to cause adverse impacts on the educational environment.

A review of the literature revealed few well-founded adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Those that were found, bear examination, and can probably be remedied through good policy and careful design. Voakes (2003) found that faculty reported increased stress from technology in great numbers. Time constraints caused by changes in technology and difficulty in keeping up with these changes were reported as stressors. A key factor in adaptation to new technology is the level and quality of support. Wiesner & Lan (2004) studied student outcomes and attitudes in simulated learning situations compared with traditional situations. They found mixed results, with simulation being equal in some cases, but not in others. They also reported lower confidence in students who learned through simulations. Zhang and Nunamaker (2003) point out some of the shortcomings that are common in distance learning today, and which impact effectiveness. These include, purely text-based materials, not enough content, less interaction and flexibility, and unstructured or isolated multimedia content. Clearly, carefully designed learning experiences validated with appropriate measurements are essential.

4.1.2 Technology adoption and integration solves several challenges facing higher education today.

In Declining by Degrees, Gregorian (2005) outlines six challenges to the American University. Those six challenges are information glut, curriculum crisis, commercialization of research, two-tier system of faculty, quality, and the changes that distance learning may bring. The final challenge, changes resulting from distance education is closest to our project. On the plus side, it promises to enrich teaching and make education more accessible and affordable. However, he cautions against throwing out proven practices, and that we need to carefully examine the role of faculty in this new world. The author quotes Peter Drucker as saying that the traditional university has only about thirty years left. The move toward distance learning is driven by specific events. Higher education is increasingly populated by older students who demand the convenience. Younger students now have grown up with computers, and electronic access is a given for them. He quotes James Dunderstadt of the University of Michigan who predicts that higher education is due for a fundamental restructuring similar to the one experienced by U.S. industry in the last three decades. If the process is at all similar, some institutions will not survive. Dunderstadt predicts that rather than customized courses like most universities offer, education will become a commodity, with the classroom experience available to anyone, anywhere, any place, at a price. This commodification of education is already happening in some for-profit distance education institutions. In these schools, courses are taught primarily by adjunct faculty using a predesigned course from which they are not allowed to deviate. How significant this threat is depends on how higher education reacts to it. In the end, superior quality and service will win out.

While Gregorian's description of challenges tends to be rather internally focused, the Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department of Education (Miller & Oldham, 2004), outlines challenges facing higher education which take a more external view. The authors assert that there are multiple external forces acting on U.S. higher education, today and in the future. They also argue that a comprehensive national strategy is needed to respond to these challenges. The forces that they cite are: increased demand, diminished capacity, economic and fiscal stress, calls for accountability, and international competition. These challenges are the context for any proposed changes or solutions for our team. Although these two sources adopt different viewpoints in describing the challenges ahead for higher education, there is a great deal of overlap in their descriptions. Reform requires strong leadership and fundamental change. Additionally, the report makes seen major recommendations:

1. Strengthen leadership2. Consider innovative budgeting3. Improve teacher training 4. Support e-learning and virtual schools5 .Encourage broadband access6. Move toward digital content7. Integrate data systems.

4.1.3 Funding, competition, accountability and access are the key challenges facing higher education today.

4.1.3.1 Funding

Probably the most pressing challenge for public colleges and universities is funding (Selingo, 2005). Most public colleges and universities have three major sources of funding: government support, fundraising, and tuition (White, 2005). The most direct government funding comes from state government. Support from state governments has been declining relative to need for at least 20 years and is unlikely to reverse (Canesale, 2000). Medicaid spending by the states has risen steadily, and will continue to rise and is crowding out funding for higher education (Kane & Orszag, 2003; Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Medicaid spending has displaced higher education as the second largest item on state budgets (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). Federal support for higher education comes in the form of student aid, but for the foreseeable future, congress is expected to hold the line or reduce funds for student aid (White, 2005).Fundraising is suffering as well. Just as fundraising is receiving much more attention from public universities (Selingo, 2005), gifts to higher education from foundations have decreased (White, 2005).

Reductions in both government funding and fundraising have caused public colleges and universities to increase tuition significantly (Levine, 2005). There is evidence that continuing the current rate of tuition increases will not be tolerated by state governments (White, 2005). Tuition increases have now created issues of equity and access to public colleges and universities (Levine, 2005).

Research funding is a challenge as well. Federal government support for research has dwindled as the cost of scientific research has increased dramatically (Rosenstone, 2004). Public colleges and universities have responded by seeking corporate funding for research (Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005). This shift has created concerns about the effect of the marketplace on research priorities, research objectivity, and funding for pure rather than applied research (Gregorian, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Washburn, 2005).

4.1.3.2 Competition

Competition for students in higher education comes both from universities abroad, and from private for-profit institutions. Competition from abroad is largely an effect of ongoing globalization. This competition threatens not only the dominance U.S. higher education, but the competitiveness of the U.S. economy (Rosenstone, 2004).

The U.S. is still the destination of choice for many foreign students. However, competition for these students comes from improving universities in developed nations, as well as universities in developing nations, in both cases following the U.S. university model. Universities in fourteen countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have higher college continuation rates than U.S. universities (Rosenstone, 2004). Enrollment at universities in developing nations is only about two decades behind (Farrell, 2005). The loss of foreign students is important in ways beyond the loss of tuition. Foreign students populate important science and technology curricula, and the work of foreign students contributes disproportionately to the U. S. economy (S. Anderson, 2005). Former foreign students also make up an important part of the faculty in science and engineering programs, as well as important startup companies.

The direct and indirect contributions of foreign students to the U.S. economy are critical (Anderson, 2005). But the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. has not returned to the levels seen before the 9/11 tragedy (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Other developed nations are investing heavily in their universities and are attracting these students (Anderson, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004). Foreign students aside, the health of colleges and universities in the U.S. has always been a key component of the nation’s competitive position (Burd, Field, & Selingo, 2005; Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Farrell, 2005; Trible, 2005).

Additional pressure has come from for-profit schools. Changes in technology that have enable distance learning over the Internet have opened new markets for these universities, and they have eagerly embraced this technology. There are now about two thousand career colleges (Schneider, 2005). The University of Phoenix alone has 150 campuses and more than 200,000 students (Levine, 2005), and their enrollment base is growing 70% per year (Gilpin, 2002). For-profit education saw its market share grow from less than one percent in 1997 to three percent in 2002 (Gilpin, 2002). These schools are forcing public colleges and universities to pay attention to market forces they have long ignored (Field, 2005a; Gardner, 2005; Kirp, 2005; Lederman, 2005). For-profit universities have been responsive to students by offering choice and convenience (Harley, 2001; Levine, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005). These schools also have certain advantages over public institutions. They have been structured to have low overhead, and compete in programs that have the largest demand (Schneider, 2005). But cost is not their only advantage; while public universities have resisted accountability measures, for-profit schools have pioneered assessment and accountability strategies (Schneider, 2005). For-profits may also get some help from the government. Legislation is being considered that would make it easier for for-profit institutions to participate in federal student aid programs (Field, 2005).

4.1.3.3. Accountability

The challenge of accountability begins with perceptions regarding public colleges and universities, and in this area there is relatively good news. Public opinion generally reflects a high degree of trust in public higher education (Selingo, 2004; Wadsworth, 2005). But, while measures of satisfaction with public colleges and universities are relatively high, they are declining regarding access and cost, and these may be galvanizing issues (Wadsworth, 2005). While perceptions are still positive, expectations are changing. Public higher education is seen increasingly as a private rather than a public good (Rosenstone, 2004). Colleges and universities are seen as a ticket to financial security and economic status rather than serving a larger public purpose (Fallows, 2005).

Public opinion may be lagging the reality in public higher education. There are many who are critical on issues of performance and results (Maeroff, 2005). Whether the performance of public colleges and universities is good or bad is hard to determine because they resist measurement (Mathews, 2005). Unlike public primary and secondary schools, they have been able to blame failures on the students (Wadsworth, 2005). Most defenses of public higher education rely on the same arguments; they have respected professors and brilliant students and do well in the rankings (Mathews, 2005). If, as appears to be the case, a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as the key to the middle class, then the public is likely to expect to subject higher education to the same scrutiny as K-12 education (Wadsworth, 2005). On measures that are available, such as expenditures per student, faculty salaries, teaching loads, and academic credentials for incoming students, the quality of public institutions has declined relative to private universities (Kane & Orszag, 2003). However, these indirect measures are far from ideal (Christ, 2004). Where public institutions do have information regarding performance, they generally do not make it available publicly (Mathews, 2005). Lack of measurable results is one reason cited for the decline in contributions from foundations (Marcy, 2003).

Pressure is mounting for public higher education to be more accountable, by defining their goals and measuring results (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). Even three fourths of public university presidents agree that colleges need to be more accountable for student’s educational outcomes (Selingo, 2005). Although student performance is extremely important, accountability goes beyond that. Given the importance of public higher education to our economy, there will also be demand for goals and measurements regarding the public agenda (Christ, 2004). State governments will want to know whether educational outcomes are adequate for civic and economic health (Christ, 2004). Increasingly, accountability will be for state, not institutional outcomes (Christ, 2004). Given the importance of society’s needs from higher education, in the long run, quality and performance challenges may be even more important than cost (Massy, 2003; Yankelovich, 2005). The federal government is likely to get involved as well. There was pressure for congress, when it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, to include language of assessment and accountability similar to the No Child Left Behind Act (White, 2005). Even though congress did not act, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education may propose standardized testing of college students (Field, 2005a; Lederman, 2005).

4.1.3.4. Access

Public universities, particularly land grant institutions, were intended to provide access to public education to all sectors of the population. Cost, recruitment strategies, financial aid, and changing demographic have combined to make public colleges and universities less accessible to many Americans. While many public universities are committed to being accessible, they are also driven by forces that cause them to become more selective (Martin, 2005). According to the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education, America is underperforming in higher education particularly in areas of participation and affordability (Malveaux, 2004). These changes have combined to deny access to at least 250,000 prospective students in 2003 – 2004 (Zumeta, 2005).

Increased tuition rates have harmed students and their families, especially those that are most vulnerable financially (Conklin & Reindl, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). The increase in the costs of college has been well documented. Tuition increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for twenty years (Canesale, 2000; Christ, 2004; Healy, 2005; Rosenstone, 2004; Selingo, 2004). As costs have increased, and government funds have decreased, colleges have used different strategies for recruitment and financial aid to help ease the financial strain. State governments have tried to simultaneously keep tuition low for state residents regardless of their ability to pay, maintain access for low-income students, and offer a high quality public education to all students. With state support dwindling, and enrollment rising, they are being forced to choose between these commitments (Kane & Orszag, 2003). Statistically, the best way to improve retention and graduation rates is to recruit White middle class and upper class students from suburban areas (Martin, 2005). Enrollment strategies such as these are often used to attract more affluent students (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004). Financial aid policies have further aggravated this inequity. Need-based financial aid is a key to providing access for students of modest means, but financial aid policies have shifted from need-based to merit-based, and the federal government has reduced grants in favor of loans and tax credits (Rosenstone, 2004; Zumeta, 2005). As a result, the amount of aid provided to students in the highest income quartile exceeds the average amount provided to students in the lowest income quartile (Hossler, 2004; Rosenstone, 2004).

These factors combine with changing demographics to deny access to those in lower socio-economic strata, and certain minorities. Just as these factors diminish access for certain groups, those groups are growing significantly as prospective students. In some areas, prospective students will be overwhelmingly Hispanic in coming years (Fallows, 2005). Gaps in college enrollment by race and income are widening (Kane & Orszag, 2003). There is significantly less access for Hispanics than for whites (Merrow, 2005), and graduation rates are lower among low-income and certain minorities (Christ, 2004). An additional demographic shift has occurred as well. The traditional student is now a minority (Yankelovich, 2005). Students tend to be older (Gregorian, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005), and are more likely to work while in school (Ayers & Hurd, 2005).

A majority of Americans are worried about access to public higher education (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). The public regards the opportunity to go to college as a virtual right (Wadsworth, 2005). Nearly half of Americans believe that it is harder to get into college today than ten years ago (Selingo, 2004).

4.1.4 What factors contribute to the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

A study by Kezar (2005) indicates that one of the important factors is a collaborative environment. Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three are paramount: (a) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, (b) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, (c) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers. One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research. Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Groves and Zemel (2005) cite many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption Rogers (1983) and student centered learning (Knowles, Horton, & Sorenson, 2005). Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers' work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. They argue that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. These authors surveyed faculty and graduate teaching assistants in one college at a university. When asked their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The discussion section of this article describes a web based support network that was developed as a result of this study. This may be a useful guide for our model.

Hall and Elliot (2003) cited a study by Bovinet, Newberry, Smith & Young (2000) that made recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom. The list of suggestions included: instructors need to become facilitators, advanced students should be technical advisors, classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall and Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go next. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Their specific recommendations build on this idea. 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.1.5 What factors inhibit the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

Purcell (2005) identified factors leading to resistance to technology as: Fear that the technology will become obsolete soon, or will not be compatible, lack of professional development opportunities, lack of sustained curriculum development support, and extra time needed for both preparation and instruction. Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. Others (Jaffee, 1998 and Massy and Zemsky (1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

4.1.6 What factors contribute to administration encouraging/requiring faculty to adopt instructional technology?

Harvey and Beards (2004) point out a set of strategies used by one group of higher education institutions to implement e-learning. Both investment and implementation strategies were addressed. Major areas of investment included:

1. Internet connectivity2. Exploitation of communication systems3. New approaches to learning and teaching4. Staff development5. Online content6. The information environment

The group's strategy was focused around five major areas: 1. Pedagogy2. Economics3. Markets4. Supply side issues5. Roles of different institutions and funding councils

The authors emphasized the importance of pedagogy - e-learning is about learning, not about technology. The key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness the approach must be geared to the needs of the learners. Perhaps the most challenging area for faculty and higher education administration alike is establishing a framework for strategic collaborations.

These factors combine with changing demographics to deny access to those in lower socio-economic strata, and certain minorities. Just as these factors diminish access for certain groups, those groups are growing significantly as prospective students. In some areas, prospective students will be overwhelmingly Hispanic in coming years (Fallows, 2005). Gaps in college enrollment by race and income are widening (Kane & Orszag, 2003). There is significantly less access for Hispanics than for whites (Merrow, 2005), and graduation rates are lower among low-income and certain minorities (Christ, 2004). An additional demographic shift has occurred as well. The traditional student is now a minority (Yankelovich, 2005). Students tend to be older (Gregorian, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005), and are more likely to work while in school (Ayers & Hurd, 2005).

A majority of Americans are worried about access to public higher education (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). The public regards the opportunity to go to college as a virtual right (Wadsworth, 2005). Nearly half of Americans believe that it is harder to get into college today than ten years ago (Selingo, 2004).

4.1.4 What factors contribute to the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

A study by Kezar (2005) indicates that one of the important factors is a collaborative environment. Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three are paramount: (a) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, (b) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, (c) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers. One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research. Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Groves and Zemel (2005) cite many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption Rogers (1983) and student centered learning (Knowles, Horton, & Sorenson, 2005). Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers' work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. They argue that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. These authors surveyed faculty and graduate teaching assistants in one college at a university. When asked their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The discussion section of this article describes a web based support network that was developed as a result of this study. This may be a useful guide for our model.

Hall and Elliot (2003) cited a study by Bovinet, Newberry, Smith & Young (2000) that made recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom. The list of suggestions included: instructors need to become facilitators, advanced students should be technical advisors, classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall and Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go next. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Their specific recommendations build on this idea. 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.1.5 What factors inhibit the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

Purcell (2005) identified factors leading to resistance to technology as: Fear that the technology will become obsolete soon, or will not be compatible, lack of professional development opportunities, lack of sustained curriculum development support, and extra time needed for both preparation and instruction. Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. Others (Jaffee, 1998 and Massy and Zemsky (1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

4.1.6 What factors contribute to administration encouraging/requiring faculty to adopt instructional technology?

Harvey and Beards (2004) point out a set of strategies used by one group of higher education institutions to implement e-learning. Both investment and implementation strategies were addressed. Major areas of investment included:

1. Internet connectivity2. Exploitation of communication systems3. New approaches to learning and teaching4. Staff development5. Online content6. The information environment

The group's strategy was focused around five major areas: 1. Pedagogy2. Economics3. Markets4. Supply side issues5. Roles of different institutions and funding councils

The authors emphasized the importance of pedagogy - e-learning is about learning, not about technology. The key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness the approach must be geared to the needs of the learners. Perhaps the most challenging area for faculty and higher education administration alike is establishing a framework for strategic collaborations.

These factors combine with changing demographics to deny access to those in lower socio-economic strata, and certain minorities. Just as these factors diminish access for certain groups, those groups are growing significantly as prospective students. In some areas, prospective students will be overwhelmingly Hispanic in coming years (Fallows, 2005). Gaps in college enrollment by race and income are widening (Kane & Orszag, 2003). There is significantly less access for Hispanics than for whites (Merrow, 2005), and graduation rates are lower among low-income and certain minorities (Christ, 2004). An additional demographic shift has occurred as well. The traditional student is now a minority (Yankelovich, 2005). Students tend to be older (Gregorian, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005), and are more likely to work while in school (Ayers & Hurd, 2005).

A majority of Americans are worried about access to public higher education (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). The public regards the opportunity to go to college as a virtual right (Wadsworth, 2005). Nearly half of Americans believe that it is harder to get into college today than ten years ago (Selingo, 2004).

4.1.4 What factors contribute to the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

A study by Kezar (2005) indicates that one of the important factors is a collaborative environment. Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three are paramount: (a) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, (b) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, (c) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers. One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research. Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Groves and Zemel (2005) cite many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption Rogers (1983) and student centered learning (Knowles, Horton, & Sorenson, 2005). Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers' work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. They argue that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. These authors surveyed faculty and graduate teaching assistants in one college at a university. When asked their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The discussion section of this article describes a web based support network that was developed as a result of this study. This may be a useful guide for our model.

Hall and Elliot (2003) cited a study by Bovinet, Newberry, Smith & Young (2000) that made recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom. The list of suggestions included: instructors need to become facilitators, advanced students should be technical advisors, classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall and Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go next. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Their specific recommendations build on this idea. 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.1.5 What factors inhibit the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

Purcell (2005) identified factors leading to resistance to technology as: Fear that the technology will become obsolete soon, or will not be compatible, lack of professional development opportunities, lack of sustained curriculum development support, and extra time needed for both preparation and instruction. Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. Others (Jaffee, 1998 and Massy and Zemsky (1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

4.1.6 What factors contribute to administration encouraging/requiring faculty to adopt instructional technology?

Harvey and Beards (2004) point out a set of strategies used by one group of higher education institutions to implement e-learning. Both investment and implementation strategies were addressed. Major areas of investment included:

1. Internet connectivity2. Exploitation of communication systems3. New approaches to learning and teaching4. Staff development5. Online content6. The information environment

The group's strategy was focused around five major areas: 1. Pedagogy2. Economics3. Markets4. Supply side issues5. Roles of different institutions and funding councils

The authors emphasized the importance of pedagogy - e-learning is about learning, not about technology. The key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness the approach must be geared to the needs of the learners. Perhaps the most challenging area for faculty and higher education administration alike is establishing a framework for strategic collaborations.

4.2.0 Conclusions

4.2.0 Conclusions

These factors combine with changing demographics to deny access to those in lower socio-economic strata, and certain minorities. Just as these factors diminish access for certain groups, those groups are growing significantly as prospective students. In some areas, prospective students will be overwhelmingly Hispanic in coming years (Fallows, 2005). Gaps in college enrollment by race and income are widening (Kane & Orszag, 2003). There is significantly less access for Hispanics than for whites (Merrow, 2005), and graduation rates are lower among low-income and certain minorities (Christ, 2004). An additional demographic shift has occurred as well. The traditional student is now a minority (Yankelovich, 2005). Students tend to be older (Gregorian, 2005; Yankelovich, 2005), and are more likely to work while in school (Ayers & Hurd, 2005).

A majority of Americans are worried about access to public higher education (Hersh & Merrow, 2005). The public regards the opportunity to go to college as a virtual right (Wadsworth, 2005). Nearly half of Americans believe that it is harder to get into college today than ten years ago (Selingo, 2004).

4.1.4 What factors contribute to the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

A study by Kezar (2005) indicates that one of the important factors is a collaborative environment. Of the eight key organizational features that characterize an collaborative institutional environment, the first three are paramount: (a) an institutional mission that stresses its importance, (b) networks of faculty and staff that provide social and intellectual resources and, (c) structures that sustain and link work that is typically done alone. The formation of networks is an important first step in this environment where individuals are greatly influenced by their peers. One common structural support was to have a centralized unit charged with fostering collaborative work such as assessment, technology, service or community-based learning, and interdisciplinary teaching and research. Other key features included reward and incentive structures that were in alignment with collaborative activities, a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external agencies and organizations (like disciplinary societies, foundations, accrediting bodies, etc.), values that were student centered, innovative and egalitarian, and a demonstrated commitment to learning about the value of collaboration. For campuses seeking to change culture, first steps are to establish a network, make a persuasive case for collaboration based on evidence, and then leaders must reinforce the priority and model it.

Groves and Zemel (2005) cite many of the same sources regarding the S curve of technology adoption Rogers (1983) and student centered learning (Knowles, Horton, & Sorenson, 2005). Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers' work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. They argue that technology adoption is primarily related to institutional support. These authors surveyed faculty and graduate teaching assistants in one college at a university. When asked their abilities on various computer technologies, only Word processing and email were identified by the majority as areas where they were good to expert. Smaller numbers identified themselves as good to expert with spreadsheets, internet, statistical computing, presentation software, multimedia, computer aided instruction, conferencing and bulleting boards, and distance learning in that order. The discussion section of this article describes a web based support network that was developed as a result of this study. This may be a useful guide for our model.

Hall and Elliot (2003) cited a study by Bovinet, Newberry, Smith & Young (2000) that made recommendations for adopting a laptop environment in the classroom. The list of suggestions included: instructors need to become facilitators, advanced students should be technical advisors, classroom configuration is important, textbooks are still important, laptops can enhance classroom communications, teamwork is more effective with laptops, and not every topic lends itself to laptop use. Hall and Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go next. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure. The few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate. Their specific recommendations build on this idea. 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.1.5 What factors inhibit the adoption of instructional technology by faculty?

Purcell (2005) identified factors leading to resistance to technology as: Fear that the technology will become obsolete soon, or will not be compatible, lack of professional development opportunities, lack of sustained curriculum development support, and extra time needed for both preparation and instruction. Hall and Elliot (2003) outline the efforts of a business school to convert to a “laptop environment” in the classroom. Technology adoption is discussed in the framework of Rogers (1983) work on technology which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty, and found the following percentages relative to these categories. 3%, 10%, 35%, 35%, and 17%. That 17% are laggards seems significant. However, the authors and Goeghegan argue that the most significant gap is between the early adopters and the early majority. Others (Jaffee, 1998 and Massy and Zemsky (1995) argue that there are more institutional barriers such as institutional norms, faulty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

4.1.6 What factors contribute to administration encouraging/requiring faculty to adopt instructional technology?

Harvey and Beards (2004) point out a set of strategies used by one group of higher education institutions to implement e-learning. Both investment and implementation strategies were addressed. Major areas of investment included:

1. Internet connectivity2. Exploitation of communication systems3. New approaches to learning and teaching4. Staff development5. Online content6. The information environment

The group's strategy was focused around five major areas: 1. Pedagogy2. Economics3. Markets4. Supply side issues5. Roles of different institutions and funding councils

The authors emphasized the importance of pedagogy - e-learning is about learning, not about technology. The key point is to consider the impact on learning, not on teaching. For effectiveness the approach must be geared to the needs of the learners. Perhaps the most challenging area for faculty and higher education administration alike is establishing a framework for strategic collaborations.

4.2.1 Because fear of change is a key characteristic of faculty in higher education, a Theory O approach to change management is appropriate for this environment.

Theory E and Theory O are two archetypes of organizational change management. Theory E changes are driven by the expectation of direct economic benefit, and are marked by restructuring, layoffs, divestiture of products, or the application of new (and sometimes rigorous) policies, procedures and systems. Leadership during Theory E organizational changes must be firm, definitive and decisive. Theory O changes are focused on the organization, preparing the individuals and resources, and positioning them properly to intercept emergent and future opportunities while embracing a high level of commitment. Although economic value is not the focus, it often arises indirectly as the human element is shaped and influenced to produce results in new ways. Theory E changes are typically prescribed, whereas Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. Little or no personal motivation is required to successfully implement Theory E changes, not considering financial or other incentives, but for Theory O changes it is essential.

Hamel and Prahalad (1994) present specific examples to clarify the concept that organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring Theory O over Theory E. They focus on creating shared, emergent corporate missions and visions, strategic plans that are well aligned with operational goals, cultivating core capabilities as a key competitive differentiator, and achieving share of influence rather than just straight market share (a concept more relevant to Theory E changes).

The initial chapter examines how organizations can reshape stale perspectives, in preparation for crafting and meeting the future, rather than continue to follow the path of least resistance and be steered by past views and behaviors. This is necessary to generate an accurate and timely self-assessment (a first step in determining where a company is headed). The authors then examine how the “genetic coding,” or managerial predispositions of a company, can positively or negatively impact its ability to quickly identify and respond to new opportunities. Then, the concept of relinquishing past attitudes that may be barriers to future success is addressed. Individuals must be able to overcome their highly personalized fears in order to do this, and psychology is a critical component of Theory O changes. Next, the authors discuss and provide insight about how a company can envision its future, then set challenging but reasonable expectations for the staff to meet in an effort to spur on motivation. The remainder of the text gives advice and examples about how a company and its people can think in creative, innovative ways that will help propel that organization forward rather than preserving the past which will limit the realization of opportunities in the future.

Each of these key points focuses on preparing and positioning the organization’s people so that they will be capable of internalizing and making progress towards corporate goals, rather than looking at ways to directly impart economic value as Theory E aims to do. Hamel and Prahalad do not take into account the value of Theory E to support Theory O changes.

4.2.2 Managing change should be a rational, orderly process.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. The ability of an individual or a group to successfully navigate through a changing situation or circumstances directly impacts their reputation, which is one factor that might contribute to the fear and resistance of change.

In the midst of change, people must have something solid to rely upon during the period of transition. Old cultural norms and values may no longer be appropriate, and buy-in at the individual level is critical if the change is to be instituted successfully. Success in a transition is dependent upon each person and each time being able to “find order in the chaos.” Once this is the case, management can apply a strategy to encourage motion towards the change, according to Beer and Nohria (2000):

1. Convince individuals that the change is in their own self interest, 2. Convince them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, 3. Require them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or 4. Instruct them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

Another reason to manage change in an orderly fashion is to prevent competitors from opportunism. In higher education, this means enticing disillusioned faculty to join new organizations, capturing students who may be reticent to purchase join the ranks of an educational institution without a clear futuristic vision, or just gleaning trade secrets by seducing employees with drinks or job interviews. There is always risk in the time of transition from old perspectives to new ones, and by managing change in a rational way, an education institution can be aware of these risks and work to overcome them before negative implications become evident.

4.2.2.1 Because of external forces, public higher education will be forced to adapt.

The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society. What approaches will be most successful remains to be seen, but it does seem to be clear that time is no longer on our side.

4.2.1 Because fear of change is a key characteristic of faculty in higher education, a Theory O approach to change management is appropriate for this environment.

Theory E and Theory O are two archetypes of organizational change management. Theory E changes are driven by the expectation of direct economic benefit, and are marked by restructuring, layoffs, divestiture of products, or the application of new (and sometimes rigorous) policies, procedures and systems. Leadership during Theory E organizational changes must be firm, definitive and decisive. Theory O changes are focused on the organization, preparing the individuals and resources, and positioning them properly to intercept emergent and future opportunities while embracing a high level of commitment. Although economic value is not the focus, it often arises indirectly as the human element is shaped and influenced to produce results in new ways. Theory E changes are typically prescribed, whereas Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. Little or no personal motivation is required to successfully implement Theory E changes, not considering financial or other incentives, but for Theory O changes it is essential.

Hamel and Prahalad (1994) present specific examples to clarify the concept that organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring Theory O over Theory E. They focus on creating shared, emergent corporate missions and visions, strategic plans that are well aligned with operational goals, cultivating core capabilities as a key competitive differentiator, and achieving share of influence rather than just straight market share (a concept more relevant to Theory E changes).

The initial chapter examines how organizations can reshape stale perspectives, in preparation for crafting and meeting the future, rather than continue to follow the path of least resistance and be steered by past views and behaviors. This is necessary to generate an accurate and timely self-assessment (a first step in determining where a company is headed). The authors then examine how the “genetic coding,” or managerial predispositions of a company, can positively or negatively impact its ability to quickly identify and respond to new opportunities. Then, the concept of relinquishing past attitudes that may be barriers to future success is addressed. Individuals must be able to overcome their highly personalized fears in order to do this, and psychology is a critical component of Theory O changes. Next, the authors discuss and provide insight about how a company can envision its future, then set challenging but reasonable expectations for the staff to meet in an effort to spur on motivation. The remainder of the text gives advice and examples about how a company and its people can think in creative, innovative ways that will help propel that organization forward rather than preserving the past which will limit the realization of opportunities in the future.

Each of these key points focuses on preparing and positioning the organization’s people so that they will be capable of internalizing and making progress towards corporate goals, rather than looking at ways to directly impart economic value as Theory E aims to do. Hamel and Prahalad do not take into account the value of Theory E to support Theory O changes.

4.2.2 Managing change should be a rational, orderly process.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. The ability of an individual or a group to successfully navigate through a changing situation or circumstances directly impacts their reputation, which is one factor that might contribute to the fear and resistance of change.

In the midst of change, people must have something solid to rely upon during the period of transition. Old cultural norms and values may no longer be appropriate, and buy-in at the individual level is critical if the change is to be instituted successfully. Success in a transition is dependent upon each person and each time being able to “find order in the chaos.” Once this is the case, management can apply a strategy to encourage motion towards the change, according to Beer and Nohria (2000):

1. Convince individuals that the change is in their own self interest, 2. Convince them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, 3. Require them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or 4. Instruct them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

Another reason to manage change in an orderly fashion is to prevent competitors from opportunism. In higher education, this means enticing disillusioned faculty to join new organizations, capturing students who may be reticent to purchase join the ranks of an educational institution without a clear futuristic vision, or just gleaning trade secrets by seducing employees with drinks or job interviews. There is always risk in the time of transition from old perspectives to new ones, and by managing change in a rational way, an education institution can be aware of these risks and work to overcome them before negative implications become evident.

4.2.2.1 Because of external forces, public higher education will be forced to adapt.

The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society. What approaches will be most successful remains to be seen, but it does seem to be clear that time is no longer on our side.

4.2.1 Because fear of change is a key characteristic of faculty in higher education, a Theory O approach to change management is appropriate for this environment.

Theory E and Theory O are two archetypes of organizational change management. Theory E changes are driven by the expectation of direct economic benefit, and are marked by restructuring, layoffs, divestiture of products, or the application of new (and sometimes rigorous) policies, procedures and systems. Leadership during Theory E organizational changes must be firm, definitive and decisive. Theory O changes are focused on the organization, preparing the individuals and resources, and positioning them properly to intercept emergent and future opportunities while embracing a high level of commitment. Although economic value is not the focus, it often arises indirectly as the human element is shaped and influenced to produce results in new ways. Theory E changes are typically prescribed, whereas Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. Little or no personal motivation is required to successfully implement Theory E changes, not considering financial or other incentives, but for Theory O changes it is essential.

Hamel and Prahalad (1994) present specific examples to clarify the concept that organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring Theory O over Theory E. They focus on creating shared, emergent corporate missions and visions, strategic plans that are well aligned with operational goals, cultivating core capabilities as a key competitive differentiator, and achieving share of influence rather than just straight market share (a concept more relevant to Theory E changes).

The initial chapter examines how organizations can reshape stale perspectives, in preparation for crafting and meeting the future, rather than continue to follow the path of least resistance and be steered by past views and behaviors. This is necessary to generate an accurate and timely self-assessment (a first step in determining where a company is headed). The authors then examine how the “genetic coding,” or managerial predispositions of a company, can positively or negatively impact its ability to quickly identify and respond to new opportunities. Then, the concept of relinquishing past attitudes that may be barriers to future success is addressed. Individuals must be able to overcome their highly personalized fears in order to do this, and psychology is a critical component of Theory O changes. Next, the authors discuss and provide insight about how a company can envision its future, then set challenging but reasonable expectations for the staff to meet in an effort to spur on motivation. The remainder of the text gives advice and examples about how a company and its people can think in creative, innovative ways that will help propel that organization forward rather than preserving the past which will limit the realization of opportunities in the future.

Each of these key points focuses on preparing and positioning the organization’s people so that they will be capable of internalizing and making progress towards corporate goals, rather than looking at ways to directly impart economic value as Theory E aims to do. Hamel and Prahalad do not take into account the value of Theory E to support Theory O changes.

4.2.2 Managing change should be a rational, orderly process.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. The ability of an individual or a group to successfully navigate through a changing situation or circumstances directly impacts their reputation, which is one factor that might contribute to the fear and resistance of change.

In the midst of change, people must have something solid to rely upon during the period of transition. Old cultural norms and values may no longer be appropriate, and buy-in at the individual level is critical if the change is to be instituted successfully. Success in a transition is dependent upon each person and each time being able to “find order in the chaos.” Once this is the case, management can apply a strategy to encourage motion towards the change, according to Beer and Nohria (2000):

1. Convince individuals that the change is in their own self interest, 2. Convince them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, 3. Require them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or 4. Instruct them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

Another reason to manage change in an orderly fashion is to prevent competitors from opportunism. In higher education, this means enticing disillusioned faculty to join new organizations, capturing students who may be reticent to purchase join the ranks of an educational institution without a clear futuristic vision, or just gleaning trade secrets by seducing employees with drinks or job interviews. There is always risk in the time of transition from old perspectives to new ones, and by managing change in a rational way, an education institution can be aware of these risks and work to overcome them before negative implications become evident.

4.2.2.1 Because of external forces, public higher education will be forced to adapt.

The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society. What approaches will be most successful remains to be seen, but it does seem to be clear that time is no longer on our side.

4.2.1 Because fear of change is a key characteristic of faculty in higher education, a Theory O approach to change management is appropriate for this environment.

Theory E and Theory O are two archetypes of organizational change management. Theory E changes are driven by the expectation of direct economic benefit, and are marked by restructuring, layoffs, divestiture of products, or the application of new (and sometimes rigorous) policies, procedures and systems. Leadership during Theory E organizational changes must be firm, definitive and decisive. Theory O changes are focused on the organization, preparing the individuals and resources, and positioning them properly to intercept emergent and future opportunities while embracing a high level of commitment. Although economic value is not the focus, it often arises indirectly as the human element is shaped and influenced to produce results in new ways. Theory E changes are typically prescribed, whereas Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. Little or no personal motivation is required to successfully implement Theory E changes, not considering financial or other incentives, but for Theory O changes it is essential.

Hamel and Prahalad (1994) present specific examples to clarify the concept that organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring Theory O over Theory E. They focus on creating shared, emergent corporate missions and visions, strategic plans that are well aligned with operational goals, cultivating core capabilities as a key competitive differentiator, and achieving share of influence rather than just straight market share (a concept more relevant to Theory E changes).

The initial chapter examines how organizations can reshape stale perspectives, in preparation for crafting and meeting the future, rather than continue to follow the path of least resistance and be steered by past views and behaviors. This is necessary to generate an accurate and timely self-assessment (a first step in determining where a company is headed). The authors then examine how the “genetic coding,” or managerial predispositions of a company, can positively or negatively impact its ability to quickly identify and respond to new opportunities. Then, the concept of relinquishing past attitudes that may be barriers to future success is addressed. Individuals must be able to overcome their highly personalized fears in order to do this, and psychology is a critical component of Theory O changes. Next, the authors discuss and provide insight about how a company can envision its future, then set challenging but reasonable expectations for the staff to meet in an effort to spur on motivation. The remainder of the text gives advice and examples about how a company and its people can think in creative, innovative ways that will help propel that organization forward rather than preserving the past which will limit the realization of opportunities in the future.

Each of these key points focuses on preparing and positioning the organization’s people so that they will be capable of internalizing and making progress towards corporate goals, rather than looking at ways to directly impart economic value as Theory E aims to do. Hamel and Prahalad do not take into account the value of Theory E to support Theory O changes.

4.2.2 Managing change should be a rational, orderly process.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. The ability of an individual or a group to successfully navigate through a changing situation or circumstances directly impacts their reputation, which is one factor that might contribute to the fear and resistance of change.

In the midst of change, people must have something solid to rely upon during the period of transition. Old cultural norms and values may no longer be appropriate, and buy-in at the individual level is critical if the change is to be instituted successfully. Success in a transition is dependent upon each person and each time being able to “find order in the chaos.” Once this is the case, management can apply a strategy to encourage motion towards the change, according to Beer and Nohria (2000):

1. Convince individuals that the change is in their own self interest, 2. Convince them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, 3. Require them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or 4. Instruct them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

Another reason to manage change in an orderly fashion is to prevent competitors from opportunism. In higher education, this means enticing disillusioned faculty to join new organizations, capturing students who may be reticent to purchase join the ranks of an educational institution without a clear futuristic vision, or just gleaning trade secrets by seducing employees with drinks or job interviews. There is always risk in the time of transition from old perspectives to new ones, and by managing change in a rational way, an education institution can be aware of these risks and work to overcome them before negative implications become evident.

4.2.2.1 Because of external forces, public higher education will be forced to adapt.

The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society. What approaches will be most successful remains to be seen, but it does seem to be clear that time is no longer on our side.

4.2.2.2 How does change happen?

Hutton (1994) indicates the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concludes that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Chehade et al ((2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 1. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

Information

Motivators

DecisionRights

Structure

THE ORGANIZATION

The underlyingmechanics of how

and by whomdecisions are trulymade, beyond thelines and boxes ofthe organization

chart

What objectives,incentives, and

career alternativesdo people have?How are people

influenced by thecompany's history?

What metrics areused to measure

performance? Howare activities

coordinated, and howis knowledgetransferred?

The overallorganization model,including the "linesand boxes" of the

organization

4.3.0 Recommendations

4.2.2.2 How does change happen?

Hutton (1994) indicates the most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top level leaders within the organization. In academia this means upper level leaders including the executive officers must be a driving factor in order to affect change. Another important factor in getting organizations to change is finding key individuals and/or groups that sponsor the ideas. These individuals may have the financial resources to implement ideas which include training, making time available for faculty to learn, and having the resources available to assist in the development of online courses. Hutton concludes that the change agent, or person responsible for creating the change, must have the support from both of these groups; executive leaders and sponsors.

Chehade et al ((2006) have developed a model of an organization’s DNA and conclude that while there is no one size fits all solution for successful cultural change, there is a need to address and align all of the levers of the organization.

Figure 1. The Four Building Blocks of Organizational DNA

Each of these levers represent both and opportunity and challenge for organizations as they face change. The model gives change agents the opportunity to better understand these challenges so that they can plan accordingly.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

Information

Motivators

DecisionRights

Structure

THE ORGANIZATION

The underlyingmechanics of how

and by whomdecisions are trulymade, beyond thelines and boxes ofthe organization

chart

What objectives,incentives, and

career alternativesdo people have?How are people

influenced by thecompany's history?

What metrics areused to measure

performance? Howare activities

coordinated, and howis knowledgetransferred?

The overallorganization model,including the "linesand boxes" of the

organization

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

4.3.1 Because a Theory O approach to change management is applicable to the environment of higher education, motion towards change can be encouraged by following the recommendations from Beer and Nohria (2000).

4.3.1.1 Convince faculty members that the changes are in their own self interest. How?

Groves & Zemel (2005), and Hall & Elliot (2003) use the structure of the S curve of technology adoption developed by Rogers (1983), which categorizes users as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Hall & Elliot (2003) also use the framework of Rogers (1983). Goeghegan (1994) applied this structure to faculty. Hall & Elliot suggest phased introduction, where the innovators and early adopters are encouraged to go first, and given necessary support. They then act as mentors and a resource for the early majority. Some laggards will follow from fear of falling behind and peer pressure.

4.3.1.2 Convince faculty that adopting the new high-technology realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm. How?

Hall and Elliot (2003) suggest the following 1. Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. 2. Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. 3. The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. 4. Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. 5. Avoid making unrealistic claims. 6. Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. 7. Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to provide training and peer support. 8. Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. 9. Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.

4.3.1.3 Instruct faculty to adopt the changes using managerial authority. How, particularly given a climate supporting academic freedom?

Central to the resolution of this question is the issue of tenure. Tenured faculty members are usually partners in the management and administration of a higher education institution. According to McPherson and Shapiro (1999), their primary role is to contribute their depth of expertise to questions involving planning over long temporal horizons, such as: who should be teaching, and who should be conducting research? What subjects should be offered? How should teaching and research be conducted, and what are the expectations on the teachers and the researchers?

The authority that is conveyed through this structure establishes that tenured faculty will have a strong influence over which technologically driven changes are made. It is less likely for a non-tenured faculty member to reject a policy decision made by the set of individuals who could be reviewing his or her own prospects for advancement in the future.

Bolger and Sprow (2002) surveyed 45 chief academic offers of the nation's top ranked small liberal arts colleges to determine whether an individual's pace of technology adoption was valued in the tenure decision. The authors concluded that though technology-based products are valued and do contribute to tenure decisions, this factor is ranked lower than producing print-based deliverables such as journal articles. The rationale for this, as evidenced by the survey, was that both faculty members and librarians perceived that technology deliverables were more effective for instructional purposes and less effective for advancing research. Teaching skill was not as great an indicator of tenure as research productivity, and librarians tended not to value technology deliverables in general.

An additional problem that was noted was that there tended to be no "definition, criteria and value statements" about a technology deliverable, which made it more difficult to determine how such advancements would be factored into a promotion decision. In the three recommendations made by the authors, incorporating such criteria into a department's process and value system ranked first. The second recommendation was that administrators should value (and encourage faculty to value) technology-based projects equally to print-based artifacts. Additionally, encouraging librarians to recognize these contributions as scholarship was noted to be a contributor to faculty acknowledging the scholarship of such work.

The perception of scholarship as it relates to technology-based projects was indicated as the key factor in encouraging faculty to adopt technological changes, despite the influence of academic freedom within the institution.

4.3.1.4 Require faculty to adapt to a new environment with new structures. How?

After most groups have accepted the changes, Hall & Elliot (2003) suggest that the few remaining faculty members who still resist will finally get a mandate from their administration. Not complying with a mandate would, of course, incur employment consequences were it not followed. The prospect of a continuing appointment being discontinued would, of course, be a strong motivator for adapting to required changes.

4.3.2 Because external forces acting upon higher education will require adaptation, administration officials must be convinced to set embrace broad changes in the culture and new approaches to the use of technology.

There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.

4.3.2.1 What elements are necessary to begin this change?

1. Consistent focused leadership2. Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)3. Regular cycles of assessment and improvement4. Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.5. Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.6. A collaborative environment (Kezar, 2005)

The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education (Sorensen et al, 2005) and in other types of organizations.

4.3.3 Use a PDCA Process to encourage change management.

Change management is a process for making sure that new values, norms or modes of operation are established without creating unnecessary fear, discord or extreme resistance. To do this, management must communicate a clear vision, protect jobs wherever possible, and facilitate ongoing, frequent and open communication. Planning thus requires that the full process of change management is understood. The effort can be carried out as a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. The following description focuses on how a change leader can prepare for each of the following phases.

4.3.3.1 PLAN

Strong Leadership. Deming (1982) defined a leader as someone capable of transforming an organization, which means effectively managing change. Leaders must not only be strong, but clear communicators as well, with a talent for making people feel stable and appreciated. Executive management must insure that individuals in key positions have these characteristics, or make adjustments in advance of the change initiative.

External Perspective. Deming also asserted that a system cannot fully understand itself, and an external view is critical in order to successfully plan a change initiative. While planning for change, a company should integrate consultants or collaborators that can help provide this valuable insight.

Self-assessment. The company must have a clear understanding of its current state, and the internal and external factors that impact the current state and how those factors are expected to change. Management must also establish a clear rationale for why the change is necessary and strategic. This will be critical knowledge as perspectives and ultimately behaviors are modified.

Vision. Individuals must be compelled into change, and a clear vision for why the change is necessary and beneficial is needed to generate support. A path towards achieving the vision must also be identified, because this will impact each individual’s level of comfort with the change. All people involved must be able to see clearly what their role is in the change, and how they will remain important or significant contributors during and after the transition period.

Identify Early Accomplishments. When an organization can see and feel the benefits of change, individuals will be more likely to transition from resistance into acceptance. Additionally, these early accomplishments help change management leaders to build equity in their plan – and raise the level of confidence the organization has in the plan, as well as its relevance and the organization’s ability to achieve the desired state.

Identify Obstacles. Understanding how to effectively counteract the forces of resistance is a key aspect of planning for change. There will probably be fears of job loss, which impacts the human need for security. Also, people may still be rewarded for following old practices and adhering to old value systems, both officially and psychologically, until the change takes hold. Change managers must acknowledge and prepare for how they will detect and dilute these obstacles.

4.3.3.2 DO

Demonstrate Public Commitment. Executive management and the senior managers that support them must be fully committed to the process of change. Furthermore, these leaders must exhibit the desired behaviors that will encourage change, and serve as models for conducting business activities. Otherwise, individuals may not be compelled to follow suit even if the rationale for change is strong and meritorious.

Strategically Place Change Agents. Individuals who are amenable to the change (“change agents”) should be peppered throughout the organization, in an attempt to “seed” opponents with new ideas and make them more open to new modes of thinking and operating. This informal influence can have great impacts, particularly if the change agents are well respected by their peers.

Execute and Advertise “Quick Wins”. A change management leadership team can use peer pressure advantageously. If an organization sees or feels that other people in the organization are open to, or appreciative of change, acceptance will flourish much more quickly. Change leaders must have a plan in place for communicating early success stories to build strong, shared confidence in the new approach.

4.3.3.3 CHECK

Track and Measure. No change management program is complete without being able to continually assess how values, norms, and operational practices are shifting in response to the initiative for change. During the planning phase, change leaders must identify what measures they wish to track, and set thresholds for when action will be necessary. These may be quantitative or qualitative measures, or more likely a combination of both.

4.3.3.4 ACT

Overcome Obstacles. The result of tracking and measuring is that barriers or obstacles to the process will be identified. Accordingly, approaches that are highly effective can also be detected by continuous assessment. Feedback into the plan and process are required to gain optimal value from the structured management of change.

Once an institution has planned for these factors, it must understand the process by which it will approach change. Kurt Lewin (1948), a leader in the study of social psychology in the Netherlands, recommends a three-stage process: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Unfreezing involves getting people interested in the prospect of change and participating in the effort itself. Moving includes trying out new perspectives or approaches, and is by its nature an iterative process. Once adjustment is taken place, Refreezing involves making the experimental approach the norm. Often this simply involves a public declaration or acknowledgement from management.

Ultimately, it is the human element that dictates how effective change will be in helping an organization maintain its competitiveness, or meet strategic goals. Change management leaders must understand and fully appreciate this aspect of organizational dynamics before a successful change initiative can be launched.

5.0 Grand FACR Systems, Continuous Applications (CA) Explanation

5.1 Executive Summary of Grand FACR in the Context of Course and Project

5.2 Main Project Findings, Analysis

Back to Table of Contents

Five cumulative course objectives have been pursued through the duration of this exercise, from May 2006 through August 2006. This presentation of overall FACR combines the results from weekly FACRs, tool content, and applications that have been grown and developed, in the context of meeting these six objectives, which are summarized as follows:

5.1.1. Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

5.1.2. Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

5.1.3. Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

5.1.4. Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

5.1.5. Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

5.2.1 Project objectives 1:Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

Based on tool 7 and 8 content applied to objectives 1 and 6, it was found that leadership processes must be clearly identified for a team to be able to function effectively. This means not only having a clear idea of the specific tasks that a team leader is supposed to manage, such as updating the team plan worksheets and understanding deadlines, but also the processes associated with changing leadership from on week to the next. A smooth process is critical to achieving seamless operations, and this is true of the industrial workplace as well, where changing leadership from shift to shift is often critical to maintain continuous operations.

Worksheets like 8-D and PPAP are intended to provide ways of structuring both routine and creative thought, and in the case of this project, they helped focus the problem solving effort in unique ways. The group applied several variations of the methods to the problem in question, and determined that 8D provided substantial insights and other methods provided insights that required far more interpretation and analysis.

The most useful literature in support of objectives 1 and 6 were the sources on structuring documents according to an ISO rubric.

Further analysis and participation in this project also indicated a need to address individual burnout. The volume of documentation work was large as compared to the volume of project work, and in fact, we found that there was more work associated with the process than the actual topic. A process should streamline the routine activities to enable individuals to focus on applying creative solutions to problems, and the Excel-based documentation and mechanical aspects of compiling work fell short in this area.

The initial tools should also include individual self-assessments, such as an MBTI personality indicator. If personal strengths and weaknesses can be identified in the beginning, and planned around, the team is likely to perform more strongly.

5.2.2 Project objective 2:Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

Based on Startup and Tool 7 content applied to Objective 2, the team found that a literature review could be targeted to various aspects of the problem statement each week, guided by the content of the toolkits. Some weeks, the content of the toolkit was more directly applicable to identifying valuable sources. Other weeks, the material was divergent and it became necessary to look for alternative connections between the ideological elements to broaden the analysis.

Each of the sources uncovered during the first four weeks of this course were useful in creating a story and direction for future literature reviews, in particular:

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. Technology management handbook, (Dorf, R.C., Ed.), (3:2-3:11). Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Eds), 59-89. Attaran, M. and VanLaar, I. (2001). Journal of Management DevelopmentCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationKerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology and educational changeKezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources suggest a number of things about the social context of the implementation of technology in a learning environment. There is currently a movement in higher education from a focus on teaching, to a focus on learning. This includes the application of knowledge about cognition and learning. It also includes the creation of learning communities, with a distinct mission. In the context of this paradigm shift, colleges are beginning to redesign courses to employ technology as a tool to increase student learning. A small number of colleges have made significant cultural changes.

The review of the literature also revealed some potential adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Potential impacts include increased stress for faculty, resulting from time constraints, and difficulty keeping up with changes in technology. Another potential adverse impact is the quality of learning that takes place. Comparisons of traditional and technology based courses have been mixed. There is some effort among accreditation associations and others to establish quality indicators. A team approach to course development may be one way to ensure quality.

The review identified numerous internal and external challenges facing higher education today. Traditionally, these institutions have felt insulated and have developed a tendency to focus on internal challenges while ignoring external ones.

5.2.3 Project objective 3:Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

As a result of the outcomes for Tools 8 and 9, and the Phase I process, the team was able to transition from a brainstorming approach to a routine, problem-solving approach as facilitated by the 8D and other tools in the second segment of this course.

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 3. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at riskHickok, E. W. (2006, March 10, 2006). Higher education needs reform, tooMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualityMiller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the contextU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectationsYankelovich, D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015

These sources reveal four major external challenges facing higher education today: funding, access (including changing student demographics), accountability, and competition. As these challenges grow, higher education faces the possibility of major upheaval if changes are not made proactively. The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society.

5.2.4 Project objective 4:Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

Tools 7 through 9 were helpful in support of achieving Objective 4

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 1. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mindCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook : a survival guide for quality improvement champions.Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.King, C., & Fricker, B. (2002). Multimodal Curriculum Delivery in Higher EducationLakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledgeMasterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledgePurcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyShapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learningWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources indicate a number of necessary cultural factors that play a critical role in assimilating new technology in higher education. A collaborative environment is essential. Key organizational features that characterize a collaborative environment include: a mission that stresses its importance, networks for social and intellectual resources, and specific structures for teamwork. Reward and incentive structures must be aligned with collaborative activities, there must be a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external organizations and student centered values. Leadership and networking are likely the first two steps in creating a collaborative environment.

The adoption of technology in higher education follows the S curve of technology (Rogers, 1983), as it does in society in general. There are innovators and early adopters who move to technology quite readily. Most of the population will follow, but there will be a few laggards who will continue to resist.

Sources of resistance include: fear that the technology will become obsolete, lack or professional development opportunities, lack of curriculum development support, and time demand. Institutional barriers include institutional norms, faculty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

5.2.5 Project objective 5:Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

The OPCP and the FMEA tools were used to address the need for culture change in education with regards to technology. The customers, or students, regard education as a service and if their needs are not met they will look elsewhere. The OPCP ensures that every step of online learning is adding value to the process as evidenced in the SIPOC. The 8D problem solving methodology as well as the PPAP were also utilized in supporting the need for culture change in an educational environment.

What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B.& Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationLessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of educationLock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online coursesMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualitySorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (2005). Lessons learned. In C. W. Sorensen, J. A. Furst-Bowe & D. M. Moen (Eds.), Quality and performance excellence in higher education; Baldrige on campusStaff, The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Higher education in the high-tech ageU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. Organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring a Theory O approach. Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. The following are potential strategies for gaining buy in from stakeholders.a) convincing individuals that the change is in their own self interest, b) convincing them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, c) requiring them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or d) instructing them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

5.2.1 Project objectives 1:Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

Based on tool 7 and 8 content applied to objectives 1 and 6, it was found that leadership processes must be clearly identified for a team to be able to function effectively. This means not only having a clear idea of the specific tasks that a team leader is supposed to manage, such as updating the team plan worksheets and understanding deadlines, but also the processes associated with changing leadership from on week to the next. A smooth process is critical to achieving seamless operations, and this is true of the industrial workplace as well, where changing leadership from shift to shift is often critical to maintain continuous operations.

Worksheets like 8-D and PPAP are intended to provide ways of structuring both routine and creative thought, and in the case of this project, they helped focus the problem solving effort in unique ways. The group applied several variations of the methods to the problem in question, and determined that 8D provided substantial insights and other methods provided insights that required far more interpretation and analysis.

The most useful literature in support of objectives 1 and 6 were the sources on structuring documents according to an ISO rubric.

Further analysis and participation in this project also indicated a need to address individual burnout. The volume of documentation work was large as compared to the volume of project work, and in fact, we found that there was more work associated with the process than the actual topic. A process should streamline the routine activities to enable individuals to focus on applying creative solutions to problems, and the Excel-based documentation and mechanical aspects of compiling work fell short in this area.

The initial tools should also include individual self-assessments, such as an MBTI personality indicator. If personal strengths and weaknesses can be identified in the beginning, and planned around, the team is likely to perform more strongly.

5.2.2 Project objective 2:Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

Based on Startup and Tool 7 content applied to Objective 2, the team found that a literature review could be targeted to various aspects of the problem statement each week, guided by the content of the toolkits. Some weeks, the content of the toolkit was more directly applicable to identifying valuable sources. Other weeks, the material was divergent and it became necessary to look for alternative connections between the ideological elements to broaden the analysis.

Each of the sources uncovered during the first four weeks of this course were useful in creating a story and direction for future literature reviews, in particular:

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. Technology management handbook, (Dorf, R.C., Ed.), (3:2-3:11). Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Eds), 59-89. Attaran, M. and VanLaar, I. (2001). Journal of Management DevelopmentCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationKerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology and educational changeKezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources suggest a number of things about the social context of the implementation of technology in a learning environment. There is currently a movement in higher education from a focus on teaching, to a focus on learning. This includes the application of knowledge about cognition and learning. It also includes the creation of learning communities, with a distinct mission. In the context of this paradigm shift, colleges are beginning to redesign courses to employ technology as a tool to increase student learning. A small number of colleges have made significant cultural changes.

The review of the literature also revealed some potential adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Potential impacts include increased stress for faculty, resulting from time constraints, and difficulty keeping up with changes in technology. Another potential adverse impact is the quality of learning that takes place. Comparisons of traditional and technology based courses have been mixed. There is some effort among accreditation associations and others to establish quality indicators. A team approach to course development may be one way to ensure quality.

The review identified numerous internal and external challenges facing higher education today. Traditionally, these institutions have felt insulated and have developed a tendency to focus on internal challenges while ignoring external ones.

5.2.3 Project objective 3:Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

As a result of the outcomes for Tools 8 and 9, and the Phase I process, the team was able to transition from a brainstorming approach to a routine, problem-solving approach as facilitated by the 8D and other tools in the second segment of this course.

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 3. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at riskHickok, E. W. (2006, March 10, 2006). Higher education needs reform, tooMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualityMiller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the contextU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectationsYankelovich, D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015

These sources reveal four major external challenges facing higher education today: funding, access (including changing student demographics), accountability, and competition. As these challenges grow, higher education faces the possibility of major upheaval if changes are not made proactively. The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society.

5.2.4 Project objective 4:Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

Tools 7 through 9 were helpful in support of achieving Objective 4

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 1. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mindCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook : a survival guide for quality improvement champions.Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.King, C., & Fricker, B. (2002). Multimodal Curriculum Delivery in Higher EducationLakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledgeMasterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledgePurcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyShapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learningWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources indicate a number of necessary cultural factors that play a critical role in assimilating new technology in higher education. A collaborative environment is essential. Key organizational features that characterize a collaborative environment include: a mission that stresses its importance, networks for social and intellectual resources, and specific structures for teamwork. Reward and incentive structures must be aligned with collaborative activities, there must be a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external organizations and student centered values. Leadership and networking are likely the first two steps in creating a collaborative environment.

The adoption of technology in higher education follows the S curve of technology (Rogers, 1983), as it does in society in general. There are innovators and early adopters who move to technology quite readily. Most of the population will follow, but there will be a few laggards who will continue to resist.

Sources of resistance include: fear that the technology will become obsolete, lack or professional development opportunities, lack of curriculum development support, and time demand. Institutional barriers include institutional norms, faculty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

5.2.5 Project objective 5:Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

The OPCP and the FMEA tools were used to address the need for culture change in education with regards to technology. The customers, or students, regard education as a service and if their needs are not met they will look elsewhere. The OPCP ensures that every step of online learning is adding value to the process as evidenced in the SIPOC. The 8D problem solving methodology as well as the PPAP were also utilized in supporting the need for culture change in an educational environment.

What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B.& Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationLessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of educationLock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online coursesMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualitySorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (2005). Lessons learned. In C. W. Sorensen, J. A. Furst-Bowe & D. M. Moen (Eds.), Quality and performance excellence in higher education; Baldrige on campusStaff, The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Higher education in the high-tech ageU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. Organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring a Theory O approach. Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. The following are potential strategies for gaining buy in from stakeholders.a) convincing individuals that the change is in their own self interest, b) convincing them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, c) requiring them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or d) instructing them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

5.2.1 Project objectives 1:Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

Based on tool 7 and 8 content applied to objectives 1 and 6, it was found that leadership processes must be clearly identified for a team to be able to function effectively. This means not only having a clear idea of the specific tasks that a team leader is supposed to manage, such as updating the team plan worksheets and understanding deadlines, but also the processes associated with changing leadership from on week to the next. A smooth process is critical to achieving seamless operations, and this is true of the industrial workplace as well, where changing leadership from shift to shift is often critical to maintain continuous operations.

Worksheets like 8-D and PPAP are intended to provide ways of structuring both routine and creative thought, and in the case of this project, they helped focus the problem solving effort in unique ways. The group applied several variations of the methods to the problem in question, and determined that 8D provided substantial insights and other methods provided insights that required far more interpretation and analysis.

The most useful literature in support of objectives 1 and 6 were the sources on structuring documents according to an ISO rubric.

Further analysis and participation in this project also indicated a need to address individual burnout. The volume of documentation work was large as compared to the volume of project work, and in fact, we found that there was more work associated with the process than the actual topic. A process should streamline the routine activities to enable individuals to focus on applying creative solutions to problems, and the Excel-based documentation and mechanical aspects of compiling work fell short in this area.

The initial tools should also include individual self-assessments, such as an MBTI personality indicator. If personal strengths and weaknesses can be identified in the beginning, and planned around, the team is likely to perform more strongly.

5.2.2 Project objective 2:Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

Based on Startup and Tool 7 content applied to Objective 2, the team found that a literature review could be targeted to various aspects of the problem statement each week, guided by the content of the toolkits. Some weeks, the content of the toolkit was more directly applicable to identifying valuable sources. Other weeks, the material was divergent and it became necessary to look for alternative connections between the ideological elements to broaden the analysis.

Each of the sources uncovered during the first four weeks of this course were useful in creating a story and direction for future literature reviews, in particular:

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. Technology management handbook, (Dorf, R.C., Ed.), (3:2-3:11). Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Eds), 59-89. Attaran, M. and VanLaar, I. (2001). Journal of Management DevelopmentCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationKerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology and educational changeKezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources suggest a number of things about the social context of the implementation of technology in a learning environment. There is currently a movement in higher education from a focus on teaching, to a focus on learning. This includes the application of knowledge about cognition and learning. It also includes the creation of learning communities, with a distinct mission. In the context of this paradigm shift, colleges are beginning to redesign courses to employ technology as a tool to increase student learning. A small number of colleges have made significant cultural changes.

The review of the literature also revealed some potential adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Potential impacts include increased stress for faculty, resulting from time constraints, and difficulty keeping up with changes in technology. Another potential adverse impact is the quality of learning that takes place. Comparisons of traditional and technology based courses have been mixed. There is some effort among accreditation associations and others to establish quality indicators. A team approach to course development may be one way to ensure quality.

The review identified numerous internal and external challenges facing higher education today. Traditionally, these institutions have felt insulated and have developed a tendency to focus on internal challenges while ignoring external ones.

5.2.3 Project objective 3:Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

As a result of the outcomes for Tools 8 and 9, and the Phase I process, the team was able to transition from a brainstorming approach to a routine, problem-solving approach as facilitated by the 8D and other tools in the second segment of this course.

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 3. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at riskHickok, E. W. (2006, March 10, 2006). Higher education needs reform, tooMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualityMiller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the contextU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectationsYankelovich, D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015

These sources reveal four major external challenges facing higher education today: funding, access (including changing student demographics), accountability, and competition. As these challenges grow, higher education faces the possibility of major upheaval if changes are not made proactively. The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society.

5.2.4 Project objective 4:Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

Tools 7 through 9 were helpful in support of achieving Objective 4

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 1. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mindCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook : a survival guide for quality improvement champions.Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.King, C., & Fricker, B. (2002). Multimodal Curriculum Delivery in Higher EducationLakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledgeMasterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledgePurcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyShapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learningWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources indicate a number of necessary cultural factors that play a critical role in assimilating new technology in higher education. A collaborative environment is essential. Key organizational features that characterize a collaborative environment include: a mission that stresses its importance, networks for social and intellectual resources, and specific structures for teamwork. Reward and incentive structures must be aligned with collaborative activities, there must be a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external organizations and student centered values. Leadership and networking are likely the first two steps in creating a collaborative environment.

The adoption of technology in higher education follows the S curve of technology (Rogers, 1983), as it does in society in general. There are innovators and early adopters who move to technology quite readily. Most of the population will follow, but there will be a few laggards who will continue to resist.

Sources of resistance include: fear that the technology will become obsolete, lack or professional development opportunities, lack of curriculum development support, and time demand. Institutional barriers include institutional norms, faculty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

5.2.5 Project objective 5:Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

The OPCP and the FMEA tools were used to address the need for culture change in education with regards to technology. The customers, or students, regard education as a service and if their needs are not met they will look elsewhere. The OPCP ensures that every step of online learning is adding value to the process as evidenced in the SIPOC. The 8D problem solving methodology as well as the PPAP were also utilized in supporting the need for culture change in an educational environment.

What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B.& Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationLessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of educationLock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online coursesMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualitySorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (2005). Lessons learned. In C. W. Sorensen, J. A. Furst-Bowe & D. M. Moen (Eds.), Quality and performance excellence in higher education; Baldrige on campusStaff, The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Higher education in the high-tech ageU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. Organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring a Theory O approach. Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. The following are potential strategies for gaining buy in from stakeholders.a) convincing individuals that the change is in their own self interest, b) convincing them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, c) requiring them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or d) instructing them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

5.2.1 Project objectives 1:Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

Based on tool 7 and 8 content applied to objectives 1 and 6, it was found that leadership processes must be clearly identified for a team to be able to function effectively. This means not only having a clear idea of the specific tasks that a team leader is supposed to manage, such as updating the team plan worksheets and understanding deadlines, but also the processes associated with changing leadership from on week to the next. A smooth process is critical to achieving seamless operations, and this is true of the industrial workplace as well, where changing leadership from shift to shift is often critical to maintain continuous operations.

Worksheets like 8-D and PPAP are intended to provide ways of structuring both routine and creative thought, and in the case of this project, they helped focus the problem solving effort in unique ways. The group applied several variations of the methods to the problem in question, and determined that 8D provided substantial insights and other methods provided insights that required far more interpretation and analysis.

The most useful literature in support of objectives 1 and 6 were the sources on structuring documents according to an ISO rubric.

Further analysis and participation in this project also indicated a need to address individual burnout. The volume of documentation work was large as compared to the volume of project work, and in fact, we found that there was more work associated with the process than the actual topic. A process should streamline the routine activities to enable individuals to focus on applying creative solutions to problems, and the Excel-based documentation and mechanical aspects of compiling work fell short in this area.

The initial tools should also include individual self-assessments, such as an MBTI personality indicator. If personal strengths and weaknesses can be identified in the beginning, and planned around, the team is likely to perform more strongly.

5.2.2 Project objective 2:Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

Based on Startup and Tool 7 content applied to Objective 2, the team found that a literature review could be targeted to various aspects of the problem statement each week, guided by the content of the toolkits. Some weeks, the content of the toolkit was more directly applicable to identifying valuable sources. Other weeks, the material was divergent and it became necessary to look for alternative connections between the ideological elements to broaden the analysis.

Each of the sources uncovered during the first four weeks of this course were useful in creating a story and direction for future literature reviews, in particular:

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. Technology management handbook, (Dorf, R.C., Ed.), (3:2-3:11). Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Eds), 59-89. Attaran, M. and VanLaar, I. (2001). Journal of Management DevelopmentCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationKerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology and educational changeKezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources suggest a number of things about the social context of the implementation of technology in a learning environment. There is currently a movement in higher education from a focus on teaching, to a focus on learning. This includes the application of knowledge about cognition and learning. It also includes the creation of learning communities, with a distinct mission. In the context of this paradigm shift, colleges are beginning to redesign courses to employ technology as a tool to increase student learning. A small number of colleges have made significant cultural changes.

The review of the literature also revealed some potential adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Potential impacts include increased stress for faculty, resulting from time constraints, and difficulty keeping up with changes in technology. Another potential adverse impact is the quality of learning that takes place. Comparisons of traditional and technology based courses have been mixed. There is some effort among accreditation associations and others to establish quality indicators. A team approach to course development may be one way to ensure quality.

The review identified numerous internal and external challenges facing higher education today. Traditionally, these institutions have felt insulated and have developed a tendency to focus on internal challenges while ignoring external ones.

5.2.3 Project objective 3:Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

As a result of the outcomes for Tools 8 and 9, and the Phase I process, the team was able to transition from a brainstorming approach to a routine, problem-solving approach as facilitated by the 8D and other tools in the second segment of this course.

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 3. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at riskHickok, E. W. (2006, March 10, 2006). Higher education needs reform, tooMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualityMiller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the contextU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectationsYankelovich, D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015

These sources reveal four major external challenges facing higher education today: funding, access (including changing student demographics), accountability, and competition. As these challenges grow, higher education faces the possibility of major upheaval if changes are not made proactively. The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society.

5.2.4 Project objective 4:Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

Tools 7 through 9 were helpful in support of achieving Objective 4

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 1. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mindCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook : a survival guide for quality improvement champions.Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.King, C., & Fricker, B. (2002). Multimodal Curriculum Delivery in Higher EducationLakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledgeMasterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledgePurcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyShapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learningWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources indicate a number of necessary cultural factors that play a critical role in assimilating new technology in higher education. A collaborative environment is essential. Key organizational features that characterize a collaborative environment include: a mission that stresses its importance, networks for social and intellectual resources, and specific structures for teamwork. Reward and incentive structures must be aligned with collaborative activities, there must be a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external organizations and student centered values. Leadership and networking are likely the first two steps in creating a collaborative environment.

The adoption of technology in higher education follows the S curve of technology (Rogers, 1983), as it does in society in general. There are innovators and early adopters who move to technology quite readily. Most of the population will follow, but there will be a few laggards who will continue to resist.

Sources of resistance include: fear that the technology will become obsolete, lack or professional development opportunities, lack of curriculum development support, and time demand. Institutional barriers include institutional norms, faculty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

5.2.5 Project objective 5:Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

The OPCP and the FMEA tools were used to address the need for culture change in education with regards to technology. The customers, or students, regard education as a service and if their needs are not met they will look elsewhere. The OPCP ensures that every step of online learning is adding value to the process as evidenced in the SIPOC. The 8D problem solving methodology as well as the PPAP were also utilized in supporting the need for culture change in an educational environment.

What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B.& Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationLessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of educationLock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online coursesMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualitySorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (2005). Lessons learned. In C. W. Sorensen, J. A. Furst-Bowe & D. M. Moen (Eds.), Quality and performance excellence in higher education; Baldrige on campusStaff, The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Higher education in the high-tech ageU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. Organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring a Theory O approach. Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. The following are potential strategies for gaining buy in from stakeholders.a) convincing individuals that the change is in their own self interest, b) convincing them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, c) requiring them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or d) instructing them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

5.2.1 Project objectives 1:Complete 6 toolkit assignments, presenting findings and recommendations as phase reports, satisfying the problem statement identified by the team; Develop a team portfolio addressing the main elements of the LSSQTT tools pertaining to quality culture as it relates to the problem, building on previous work by the team members wherever possible.

Based on tool 7 and 8 content applied to objectives 1 and 6, it was found that leadership processes must be clearly identified for a team to be able to function effectively. This means not only having a clear idea of the specific tasks that a team leader is supposed to manage, such as updating the team plan worksheets and understanding deadlines, but also the processes associated with changing leadership from on week to the next. A smooth process is critical to achieving seamless operations, and this is true of the industrial workplace as well, where changing leadership from shift to shift is often critical to maintain continuous operations.

Worksheets like 8-D and PPAP are intended to provide ways of structuring both routine and creative thought, and in the case of this project, they helped focus the problem solving effort in unique ways. The group applied several variations of the methods to the problem in question, and determined that 8D provided substantial insights and other methods provided insights that required far more interpretation and analysis.

The most useful literature in support of objectives 1 and 6 were the sources on structuring documents according to an ISO rubric.

Further analysis and participation in this project also indicated a need to address individual burnout. The volume of documentation work was large as compared to the volume of project work, and in fact, we found that there was more work associated with the process than the actual topic. A process should streamline the routine activities to enable individuals to focus on applying creative solutions to problems, and the Excel-based documentation and mechanical aspects of compiling work fell short in this area.

The initial tools should also include individual self-assessments, such as an MBTI personality indicator. If personal strengths and weaknesses can be identified in the beginning, and planned around, the team is likely to perform more strongly.

5.2.2 Project objective 2:Review literature on the social context of technology and historical drivers for new technology adoption.

Based on Startup and Tool 7 content applied to Objective 2, the team found that a literature review could be targeted to various aspects of the problem statement each week, guided by the content of the toolkits. Some weeks, the content of the toolkit was more directly applicable to identifying valuable sources. Other weeks, the material was divergent and it became necessary to look for alternative connections between the ideological elements to broaden the analysis.

Each of the sources uncovered during the first four weeks of this course were useful in creating a story and direction for future literature reviews, in particular:

Christensen, C. M. (1999). The evolution of innovation. Technology management handbook, (Dorf, R.C., Ed.), (3:2-3:11). Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Eds), 59-89. Attaran, M. and VanLaar, I. (2001). Journal of Management DevelopmentCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B., & Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationKerr, S. T. (2005). Why we all want it to work: Towards a culturally-based model for technology and educational changeKezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.Purcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources suggest a number of things about the social context of the implementation of technology in a learning environment. There is currently a movement in higher education from a focus on teaching, to a focus on learning. This includes the application of knowledge about cognition and learning. It also includes the creation of learning communities, with a distinct mission. In the context of this paradigm shift, colleges are beginning to redesign courses to employ technology as a tool to increase student learning. A small number of colleges have made significant cultural changes.

The review of the literature also revealed some potential adverse impacts from the integration of technology. Potential impacts include increased stress for faculty, resulting from time constraints, and difficulty keeping up with changes in technology. Another potential adverse impact is the quality of learning that takes place. Comparisons of traditional and technology based courses have been mixed. There is some effort among accreditation associations and others to establish quality indicators. A team approach to course development may be one way to ensure quality.

The review identified numerous internal and external challenges facing higher education today. Traditionally, these institutions have felt insulated and have developed a tendency to focus on internal challenges while ignoring external ones.

5.2.3 Project objective 3:Review literature pertaining to the forces, drivers and challenges which act on higher education, now and in the future, to understand why culture change is necessary and what benefits could arise from changes in the culture.

As a result of the outcomes for Tools 8 and 9, and the Phase I process, the team was able to transition from a brainstorming approach to a routine, problem-solving approach as facilitated by the 8D and other tools in the second segment of this course.

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 3. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:Gregorian, V. (2005). Six challenges to the American university. In R. H. Hersh & J. Merrow (Eds.), Declining by degrees: Higher education at riskHickok, E. W. (2006, March 10, 2006). Higher education needs reform, tooMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualityMiller, C., & Oldham, C. (2004). Setting the contextU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectationsYankelovich, D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015

These sources reveal four major external challenges facing higher education today: funding, access (including changing student demographics), accountability, and competition. As these challenges grow, higher education faces the possibility of major upheaval if changes are not made proactively. The challenges of funding, competition, accountability and access are interrelated and formidable. Efforts to address one of these challenges are likely to be at cross purposes with another. As these forces come to bear on public higher education, change seems inevitable. Changes in culture and a readiness to leverage the advantages of technology may be among the useful approaches. How public colleges and universities address these challenges and their degree of success will have tremendous ramifications, not only for these institutions, but for our society.

5.2.4 Project objective 4:Identify cultural factors that will play a critical role in assimilating new technological approaches in higher education. Understand what factors are required for an organization such as an institute of higher education to achieve those benefits through culture change.

Tools 7 through 9 were helpful in support of achieving Objective 4

Several sources were particularly useful for further understanding related to objective 1. These included the following articles, websites or other sources:

Chehade, G., Mendes, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Culture change for the analytical mindCross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve: Teaching and learning, the Hesburgh AwardsDahl, J. (2004). Distance ed - The enemy of academic freedom?Ellis, A. B. (2006). Creating a culture for innovationGroves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Hutton, D. (1994). The change agents' handbook : a survival guide for quality improvement champions.Kezar, A. (2005). Moving from I to we.King, C., & Fricker, B. (2002). Multimodal Curriculum Delivery in Higher EducationLakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledgeMasterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. Criticism and the growth of knowledgePurcell, S. L. (2005). Educators' acceptance of and resistance to handheld technologyShapiro, H. N. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learningWindham, C. (2005). FATHER GOOGLE & MOTHER IM: Confessions of a net gen learner

These sources indicate a number of necessary cultural factors that play a critical role in assimilating new technology in higher education. A collaborative environment is essential. Key organizational features that characterize a collaborative environment include: a mission that stresses its importance, networks for social and intellectual resources, and specific structures for teamwork. Reward and incentive structures must be aligned with collaborative activities, there must be a sense of priority from senior leaders, impetus from external organizations and student centered values. Leadership and networking are likely the first two steps in creating a collaborative environment.

The adoption of technology in higher education follows the S curve of technology (Rogers, 1983), as it does in society in general. There are innovators and early adopters who move to technology quite readily. Most of the population will follow, but there will be a few laggards who will continue to resist.

Sources of resistance include: fear that the technology will become obsolete, lack or professional development opportunities, lack of curriculum development support, and time demand. Institutional barriers include institutional norms, faculty autonomy, notions of productivity, preference for spending new money on new faculty instead of technology, few incentives for innovative teaching, significant incentives for research and the lack of specific outcome and performance measures for curriculum related to technology based teaching.

5.2.5 Project objective 5:Develop recommendations to effect the culture changes which will leverage technology to make higher education more effective.

The OPCP and the FMEA tools were used to address the need for culture change in education with regards to technology. The customers, or students, regard education as a service and if their needs are not met they will look elsewhere. The OPCP ensures that every step of online learning is adding value to the process as evidenced in the SIPOC. The 8D problem solving methodology as well as the PPAP were also utilized in supporting the need for culture change in an educational environment.

What main supportive literature was reviewed which illuminated the tools and applications as findings for this objective, and in what ways:

Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case studyHall, M., & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.Harvey, B.& Beards, D. (2004). E-learning in Scottish further and higher educationLessen, E. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Integrating technology in schools, colleges, and departments of educationLock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online coursesMassy, W. F. (2003, June 20, 2003). Auditing higher education to improve qualitySorensen, C. W., Furst-Bowe, J. A., & Moen, D. M. (2005). Lessons learned. In C. W. Sorensen, J. A. Furst-Bowe & D. M. Moen (Eds.), Quality and performance excellence in higher education; Baldrige on campusStaff, The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2005). Higher education in the high-tech ageU.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations.

Change management is the process of making changes in a planned and highly systematic way, in order to ensure minimal disruption to productivity or operations. People are highly resistant to change because it requires altering perspectives or behaviors that may have previously resulted in success, but may or will not continue to do so in the future. Organizational change is the cornerstone for achieving success within a dynamically evolving competitive landscape, clearly favoring a Theory O approach. Theory O changes are self-organizing and self-propagating. The following are potential strategies for gaining buy in from stakeholders.a) convincing individuals that the change is in their own self interest, b) convincing them that adopting the new realm is more desirable and represents a new and better cultural norm, c) requiring them to adapt to a new environment with new structures, or d) instructing them to adopt the changes using managerial authority.

5.3 Main Project Conclusions, Recommendations

5.3.1.1 Project objective 1 conclusions:

The team has completed and continues to deliver auditable packages describing project advancement work, according to the framework provided by the toolkit, throughout the course in support of this objective.

The team-based quality management system has been based on a co-leader model for further development of the project analysis each week, a storyboard identified at Phase I, and a rolling task list from week to week guided by a six-point strategy for course and project completion. This structure provided an effective balance between strategic objectives (completing the project) and tactical objectives (completing individual contributions and compiled drafts).

The team developed and delivered a complete project outcomes package in the form of Phase II deliverables at the end of the course in support of the final course objective.

5.3.1.2 Project objective 1 recommendations:

The supporting applications and documentation, including OPCP and SIPOC, were extremely useful to the project's research outcomes, although creative applications had to be sought and explored. ---------------------------------------------

5.3.2.1 Project objective 2 conclusions:Culture change in higher education is necessary to optimize the benefits of technology. This is a difficult task, but not without precedent. It will be necessary for courses using technology to be carefully designed and measured, and for culture changes to be thoughtful and deliberate. Attempts to simply transfer traditional teaching materials to an online environment have generally failed.

5.3.2.2 Project objective 2 recommendations:A number of recommendations arise from this objective, relative to both educational technology and culture change. In promoting cultural change, strong consistent leadership is essential, as is a network of support of faculty.

Specifically:1. Administrators should not force faculty to teach online.2. Training in WebCT or Blackboard should be made more user-friendly.3. Mentors located in each department should accessible.4. Online course enrollments should be limited to ensure timeliness of feedback.5. Teachers need to take courses to learn the technology, especially in relation to website development.6. Teachers must have support from other online teachers, administrators and from technical experts.7. Course development should be team based to ensure quality.8. Strengthen Leadership, Consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.3.1 Project objective 3 conclusions:There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning.

5.3.3.2 Project objective 3 recommendations:Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.4.1 Project objective 4 conclusions:The most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top leaders. Leadership must be strong and consistent. Another important factor is finding key individuals to sponsor and begin changes. The person who is executing these changes must have support from these two groups. There is no universal solution for cultural change, but it is necessary to address and align all parts of the organization.

5.3.4.2 Project objective 4 recommendations:A model for cultural change must include the following- Consistent focused leadership- Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)- Regular cycles of assessment and improvement- Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.- Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.- A collaborative environment The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education and in other types of organizations.

Specific to the implementation of technological change, we recommend the following:-A web based support network -Phased introduction, where the innovators lead and early adopters are encouraged to go next-Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. -Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. -The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. -Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. -Avoid making unrealistic claims. -Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. -Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to -provide training and peer support. -Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. -Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.----------------------------------------------

5.3.5.1 Project objective 5 conclusions:

1. Implement learning communities within structure of the online learning system. It is through these learning communities that culture change will take place within the student population.2. Ensure feedback through the community and students in order to enhance and add value to the process.3. It is important to not lose sight of the human aspect of technology implementation.4. Ensure proper support is in place to enhance the technology.5. Remember it is leadership that will drive the change management process.

5.3.5.2 Project objective 5 recommendations:

1. Communicate with faculty on why technology is being implemented and used, this will make acceptance easier on the faculty.2. Do not discount the human factor. Technology changes how people perform their jobs and it is important to realize that change needs to be managed.3. Use a gap analysis to ensure any deficits in skills can be addressed rapidly and efficiently.4. Ensure the proper support is in place to assist students, instructors and other key personnel.5. Use the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle to ensure that technology is continuing to be effective in education and adding value to the process.6. Realize that leadership will be the most important quality in leading change in an educational environment.

5.3.1.1 Project objective 1 conclusions:

The team has completed and continues to deliver auditable packages describing project advancement work, according to the framework provided by the toolkit, throughout the course in support of this objective.

The team-based quality management system has been based on a co-leader model for further development of the project analysis each week, a storyboard identified at Phase I, and a rolling task list from week to week guided by a six-point strategy for course and project completion. This structure provided an effective balance between strategic objectives (completing the project) and tactical objectives (completing individual contributions and compiled drafts).

The team developed and delivered a complete project outcomes package in the form of Phase II deliverables at the end of the course in support of the final course objective.

5.3.1.2 Project objective 1 recommendations:

The supporting applications and documentation, including OPCP and SIPOC, were extremely useful to the project's research outcomes, although creative applications had to be sought and explored. ---------------------------------------------

5.3.2.1 Project objective 2 conclusions:Culture change in higher education is necessary to optimize the benefits of technology. This is a difficult task, but not without precedent. It will be necessary for courses using technology to be carefully designed and measured, and for culture changes to be thoughtful and deliberate. Attempts to simply transfer traditional teaching materials to an online environment have generally failed.

5.3.2.2 Project objective 2 recommendations:A number of recommendations arise from this objective, relative to both educational technology and culture change. In promoting cultural change, strong consistent leadership is essential, as is a network of support of faculty.

Specifically:1. Administrators should not force faculty to teach online.2. Training in WebCT or Blackboard should be made more user-friendly.3. Mentors located in each department should accessible.4. Online course enrollments should be limited to ensure timeliness of feedback.5. Teachers need to take courses to learn the technology, especially in relation to website development.6. Teachers must have support from other online teachers, administrators and from technical experts.7. Course development should be team based to ensure quality.8. Strengthen Leadership, Consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.3.1 Project objective 3 conclusions:There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning.

5.3.3.2 Project objective 3 recommendations:Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.4.1 Project objective 4 conclusions:The most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top leaders. Leadership must be strong and consistent. Another important factor is finding key individuals to sponsor and begin changes. The person who is executing these changes must have support from these two groups. There is no universal solution for cultural change, but it is necessary to address and align all parts of the organization.

5.3.4.2 Project objective 4 recommendations:A model for cultural change must include the following- Consistent focused leadership- Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)- Regular cycles of assessment and improvement- Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.- Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.- A collaborative environment The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education and in other types of organizations.

Specific to the implementation of technological change, we recommend the following:-A web based support network -Phased introduction, where the innovators lead and early adopters are encouraged to go next-Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. -Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. -The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. -Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. -Avoid making unrealistic claims. -Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. -Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to -provide training and peer support. -Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. -Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.----------------------------------------------

5.3.5.1 Project objective 5 conclusions:

1. Implement learning communities within structure of the online learning system. It is through these learning communities that culture change will take place within the student population.2. Ensure feedback through the community and students in order to enhance and add value to the process.3. It is important to not lose sight of the human aspect of technology implementation.4. Ensure proper support is in place to enhance the technology.5. Remember it is leadership that will drive the change management process.

5.3.5.2 Project objective 5 recommendations:

1. Communicate with faculty on why technology is being implemented and used, this will make acceptance easier on the faculty.2. Do not discount the human factor. Technology changes how people perform their jobs and it is important to realize that change needs to be managed.3. Use a gap analysis to ensure any deficits in skills can be addressed rapidly and efficiently.4. Ensure the proper support is in place to assist students, instructors and other key personnel.5. Use the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle to ensure that technology is continuing to be effective in education and adding value to the process.6. Realize that leadership will be the most important quality in leading change in an educational environment.

5.3.1.1 Project objective 1 conclusions:

The team has completed and continues to deliver auditable packages describing project advancement work, according to the framework provided by the toolkit, throughout the course in support of this objective.

The team-based quality management system has been based on a co-leader model for further development of the project analysis each week, a storyboard identified at Phase I, and a rolling task list from week to week guided by a six-point strategy for course and project completion. This structure provided an effective balance between strategic objectives (completing the project) and tactical objectives (completing individual contributions and compiled drafts).

The team developed and delivered a complete project outcomes package in the form of Phase II deliverables at the end of the course in support of the final course objective.

5.3.1.2 Project objective 1 recommendations:

The supporting applications and documentation, including OPCP and SIPOC, were extremely useful to the project's research outcomes, although creative applications had to be sought and explored. ---------------------------------------------

5.3.2.1 Project objective 2 conclusions:Culture change in higher education is necessary to optimize the benefits of technology. This is a difficult task, but not without precedent. It will be necessary for courses using technology to be carefully designed and measured, and for culture changes to be thoughtful and deliberate. Attempts to simply transfer traditional teaching materials to an online environment have generally failed.

5.3.2.2 Project objective 2 recommendations:A number of recommendations arise from this objective, relative to both educational technology and culture change. In promoting cultural change, strong consistent leadership is essential, as is a network of support of faculty.

Specifically:1. Administrators should not force faculty to teach online.2. Training in WebCT or Blackboard should be made more user-friendly.3. Mentors located in each department should accessible.4. Online course enrollments should be limited to ensure timeliness of feedback.5. Teachers need to take courses to learn the technology, especially in relation to website development.6. Teachers must have support from other online teachers, administrators and from technical experts.7. Course development should be team based to ensure quality.8. Strengthen Leadership, Consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.3.1 Project objective 3 conclusions:There is strong evidence that significant change is coming for higher education. Institutions that proactively adapt will be in a better competitive position and more likely to survive. Adaptation will likely require a different culture, with a more prominent role for technology. Organizations that are comfortable with change, tolerate risk, and perhaps have less to lose are likely to be at the forefront. It is important to remember that technology alone is not the answer. It is necessary to use change the culture, and part of that change is determining how technology can enhance teaching and learning.

5.3.3.2 Project objective 3 recommendations:Miller & Oldham (2005) recommend seven elements for reform. The first two are leadership and fundamental change. These two are necessary predecessors to the others. With strong and consistent leadership and a drive for organizational change, it will be possible to consider innovative budgeting, Improve teacher training, support e-learning and virtual schools, encourage broadband access, move toward digital content, and integrate data systems.--------------------------------------------

5.3.4.1 Project objective 4 conclusions:The most important factor in changing an organization is buy-in from top leaders. Leadership must be strong and consistent. Another important factor is finding key individuals to sponsor and begin changes. The person who is executing these changes must have support from these two groups. There is no universal solution for cultural change, but it is necessary to address and align all parts of the organization.

5.3.4.2 Project objective 4 recommendations:A model for cultural change must include the following- Consistent focused leadership- Focus on identifying stakeholders and their needs (customer focus)- Regular cycles of assessment and improvement- Cross functional work - breaking down barriers within the organization.- Data based decision making - Using data for continuous improvement and benchmarking.- A collaborative environment The elements listed above are consistently cited by organizations that have successfully negotiated culture change both within education and in other types of organizations.

Specific to the implementation of technological change, we recommend the following:-A web based support network -Phased introduction, where the innovators lead and early adopters are encouraged to go next-Appeal to both the techies and opinion leaders of the department or college. -Facilitate the transition from the early adopters to the early majority. -The late majority and laggards must be convinced and some coerced. -Emphasize and document the benefits and advantages early in the process. -Avoid making unrealistic claims. -Emphasize compatibility with a variety of teaching styles. -Use computer services personnel and faculty members who are innovators and early adopters to -provide training and peer support. -Do not just throw instructors in to the new technology environment. -Make the technology initiative as visible and observable as possible.----------------------------------------------

5.3.5.1 Project objective 5 conclusions:

1. Implement learning communities within structure of the online learning system. It is through these learning communities that culture change will take place within the student population.2. Ensure feedback through the community and students in order to enhance and add value to the process.3. It is important to not lose sight of the human aspect of technology implementation.4. Ensure proper support is in place to enhance the technology.5. Remember it is leadership that will drive the change management process.

5.3.5.2 Project objective 5 recommendations:

1. Communicate with faculty on why technology is being implemented and used, this will make acceptance easier on the faculty.2. Do not discount the human factor. Technology changes how people perform their jobs and it is important to realize that change needs to be managed.3. Use a gap analysis to ensure any deficits in skills can be addressed rapidly and efficiently.4. Ensure the proper support is in place to assist students, instructors and other key personnel.5. Use the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle to ensure that technology is continuing to be effective in education and adding value to the process.6. Realize that leadership will be the most important quality in leading change in an educational environment.

Back to Table of Contents

6.0 Chats and Threads

6.1 Chat Findings, Analysis

6.2 Thread Findings, Analysis

Back to Table of Contents

FINDINGS and ANALYSES: What were the main issues noted in threads requiring improvements, and why? What should be done to improve threads and thread systems?

Thread posting has improved over the course of the project, however a significant amount of communication has taken place outside the threaded discussions. One aspect where the threads have added significant value is the splitting of the team into two sub-units to work on some of the more challenging tools. Threading has mainly been used to support chat communications, however the team has continuously improved in this area.

FINDINGS and ANALYSES: What were the main issues noted in chat requiring improvements, and why? What should be done to improve chat?

The team struggled with attendance with regards to the chats throughout the project, however in the second phase of the project more synergistic chats were realized. One of the challenges facing this class is the requirement for synchronous communication. This can be very difficult with different work schedules, time zones, outside commitments, etc., however the team made it possible to achieve their objectives in spite of these challenges. The group's facilitation skills have improved and chats are efficient and effective and minimizing the amount of time spent on each action item. Agenda's have improved since the beginning of the course and some dynamic solutions have been realized in these chats.

#REF! PROBLEM SOLVING WORKSHEET (D4)(Type in D2 here) (Type in D2 here)

IS IS NOT3. Deductions About Facts and Other Information 4. Possible Causes

3a. Differences 3b. Changes Date List Change-How Theories

flexible, adaptible

A Privatization

Defect B Globalization

C Lack of strong consistent leadership

D

E Changes to the student population

When else seen

continuous

F Growth of medicaid.

throughout

G Public demands for accountability

What is the trend?

Updated By: Update Date: Update #:8-D page 5 of 9 Rev. 5 18-Nov-05

1. Operational Definition What's wrong with what? Why?

2. Description of Problem

WHAT Object

entrenched, slow to change

This difference is common to other types of organizations as well.

The change occurred externaly. It could be seen as a change in customer requirements.

External factors are rapidly changing the environment in which

American higher education functions

This is defect is not strictly internal in origin,

but approaches that worked well in the past

are becoming less effective as the

environment changes.

Pressured caused by exteral pressures are likely to intensify.

WHERE Seen on object Most departments,

divisions, colleges are focused on internal

issues.

Organizational alignment, and cross

disciplinary improvement efforts

Most higher education institutions are organized in traditional silos and focus on

protecing turf.

Successful organizations in other sectors abandoned this type of organization in favor

of one that is more flexible and dynamic.

Seen geographically

Most of American public higher education

For profit and some foreign universities.

Many private colleges do not feel these

pressures as intensely, yet.

Both for profit and foreign universities are embracing change, and experimenting with

new models. And using technoloy for competitive advantage

For profit and some foreign universities are beginning to compete seriously, and their

aim is to challenge the supremecy of American public higher education

Lack of an integrated and leveraged approach to the use of technology in education.

WHEN First seen

The current culture dates at least to the

beginning of the 20th century. Some date it to

the middle ages.

Significant changes in academic culture are

rare and isolated.

Changing demographics create problems of access, as more colleges students may be inadequately prepared, and for many English is a second language. Adult or non

traditional students may now be in the majority, and increasingly expect value for their mone

The culture in question is not new, but the

changes in the external environment have made it an issue over the last

two decades.

Most public higher education institutions receive a significant portion of their funding from state government. Medicare spending at the state level has increased steadily and now

may take a higher portion of state funds than education.

When seen in process (life cycle) isolated to one part of

the lifecycle.

Adult, or non traditional student may now be in the majority, and increasingly demand value for their money. Public demands for accountability at the primary and secondary

levels are likely to expand to higher education as well.

HOW BIG How many objects have the defect? this affects all students,

applicants and graduates

limited to any one type of institution, although it appears more intractible

the larger and more prestigious the organization.

Smaller, less financially secure, and less prestigious institutions will feel the pressures

first.

As in any sector, those most vulnerable are least able to ignore a problem.

5. Test causes for probability (+, -, ?) Page 2 Does it explain Is/Is Not fact?

How many defects per object?

The four major challenges, access,

funding, accountability and competition may all effect all stakeholders

This is not an isolated or occasional problem

These pressures have been growing for probably two decades, and the growth is

accelerating, enabled by changes in technolgy.

The lack of response to these challenges indicates a systemic problem.

6. Steps to verify Root Cause? (make the problem come and go) Since this

cannot be done in an experiment, it is not possible to make the effect come and go.

However, it is possible to study organizations that have responded, to verify

small isolated efforts, no significant change

There is little real movement

Most significant efforts at improvement have been as small colleges, regional institutions

and community colleges. Even among these, the numbers are very small.

Most improvement efforts get bogged down in internal politics, lose momentum and

disappear.

8.0 Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA)Item: Online Course

Model Year: 2006

Core Team: QS 702 Team 1EFFECTS OF FAILURE

1 Learning objectives not met - students not learning - graduating students that are

the course outcomes missing capabilities 9

- technology bogging - students are frustrated by the 7the system (no value technology and are not learning added) the concepts of the course *

2 Student - students frustrated - potential absence 6Satisfaction with technology

- lack of support - transfers 7

3 Retention - students leave the - loss of student body 9 program4 Isolation of teens - lack of influence - potential loss of social power 8

in shaping youth giving youth little development5 Faculty stress - too much pressure - less productivity 6 to produce online

causing additional - frustration with technology 7stress

6 Course - course not robust - similar to current traditional course 4development 7 Skills are not - wrong skills taught - not prepared for workforce 7relevant

8 Learning Support is not there High Attrition rates 8

communities are not supported

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE

SEV

CLASS

Online Course Online Course Development

Process Responsibility:

Key Date:

- Too much focus on the technology 1 none none 8 72 Instructors misusing the 2 none none 8 112technology

- inappropriate use of tech 1 none none 9 54

- no training, awareness 1 none none 9 63

- poorly designed courses 1 none none 8 72and expectations - no mentoring of social 1 none none 8 64connection - time pressures 1 none none 9 54

- lack of training 1 none none 9 63 - lack of understanding on how 1 none none 9 36to develop courses

2 none none 10 140

3 none none 10 240

POTENTIAL CAUSES OF FAILURE

OCC

CURRENT CONTROLS Prevention

CURRENT CONTROLS Detection

DET

RPN

Lack of communication with community

Lack of communication with community

FMEA Number: 1 of 1

Prepared by: QS 702

7/9/2006 (Rev.) 01ACTION TAKEN

develop controls

develop controls

develop training

develop training

develop training

consider this whendeveloping coursesprovide access tosupportprovide access tosupportenforce curriculumdevelopment standards

Back to Table of Contents

FMEA Date (Orig): RECOMMENDED

ACTIONRESP. COMP. DATE

SEV

OCC

DET

RPN

Develop advisory committee

Design curriculum to support constructionist theory

ONGOING PROCESS CONTROL PLAN

9.0 Ongoing Process Control Plan

Step # Concept ResponsibilityMethods

Evaluation Measurement Sample Control Reaction PlanTechnique Size Frequency Method

1 Course Initiation Form n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 Department approval Department Chair Department Approval Form 30 1 Yes/No

3 Academic Council approval Academic Council Majority vote in council session Consensus 15 1 Yes/No

4 Catalog update Dean of Instruction Catalog and web updated n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

5

Department notification n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

6

Course shell created Instructor n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

7Online Committee Checklist 1 1 Complete/Incomplete

10Online Committee Checklist on new course audit Checklist 1 1 Complete/Incomplete

11

Post class analysis conducted Online Committee Surveys/Checklist Survey/Checklist 1 1 Complete/Incomplete

12Online Committee Evaluation of all relevant data 1 1 Yes/No

13

College Using constructivist methodology >30 1 Yes/No

9.1 Online Learning Process

Back to Table of Contents

Course initiationDecision to teach a course online

Dean of Instruction/Department

Chair/Instructor

Must have interest in the course/ pre-enrollment numbers

If pre-enrollment is not met, course is cancelled

If academic council votes no, back to step 1

Dean of Instruction/Department Chair

New course notification form via e-mail/memo

Course created in Module/Blackboard by instructor

Course Accepted by Online Committee

Unanimous approval by online committee

If not accepted go back to step #6

Course is audited during instruction

Determine what is missing with the instructor and start an action

plan

Determine what is missing with the instructor and start an action

plan

Final approval granted by Online committee

Unanimous approval by online committee

If not accepted go back to step #1

Develop and Sustain learning communities

Student Surveys, Grade report analysis

If not accepted go back to step academic council with action

plan

10.0 SIPOC

Back to Table of Contents