Siva Kumari

University of Houston

 

Indisputably, educators agree that the World Wide Web (WWW) as an infrastructure promises tremendous potential to influence higher education, particularly in terms of changing the teaching and learning environment (Erazo & Derlin, 1995; Gates, 1997; Helms & Larsen, 1996; Kerka, 1996; Lightner, Bose & Salvendy, 1996; Locatis & Weisberg, 1997). The promise that information technologies present for new modes of instructional delivery has created a turbulent environment at institutions of post-secondary learning, perpetuating a climate for change in teaching and learning practices (Abelson, 1997; Davies, 1997; Denning, 1996). My purpose in this paper is to discuss the context for change in higher education, cultivated by the increasing popularity and availability of networked technologies, particularly the Web. I begin by discussing the inevitable changes that are necessary in order to adapt to new possibilities created by the changing technological climate and the resulting implications for the higher education environment. Following which, I discuss the potential that these technologies provide for creating re-envisioned and engaging learning milieus and re-engineered roles of the faculty member in such environments. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications for institutional support to sustain and facilitate the use of these environments for teaching and learning.

There are a range of contentions and prophecies regarding the quality and gradation of changes that are in store for institutions of higher education. Noam (1995) makes eloquent arguments about drastic changes that will occur in the role of the university, as we now know it. He cautioned those that tend to ignore the Internet revolution as just another hype, emphasizing that the direction of information flow has been reversed by information technologies. Until a few years ago, students had to physically attend a university for education. Now, the potential of technology to enable "anytime, anywhere" learning opportunities has created powerful market forces, as Noam argued, that have a profound impact on the diversity of learning opportunities that universities can create for their students.

Other opinions, about the nature and degree of impact that the Web will have on higher education, arose from a cross-section of stakeholders in the educational arena. They include those that represent educational technology (Green & Gilbert, 1995; Saltrick, 1996), business and technology administrators (Denning, 1996; Ganzert & Watkins, 1997; Martin & Taylor, 1997), faculty (Broderick & Caverly, 1996; Dringus, 1995a, 1995b; Owston, 1997), educational philosophers (Kawash, 1997; Luke, 1997); researchers (Lopata & McClure, 1996) and university presidents (Rudenstine, 1997). Additionally, these same authors advocate the Internet as a technology that holds the potential to invigorate teaching and learning.

Such arguments have serious implications for the role of a faculty member in higher education institutions that promote the creation of such environments. Additionally, enabling faculty to create such environments has implications for associated support structures, discussed in the latter part of this paper.

Ryder and Wilson (1996) suggest that the impetus for creating technology based learning environments seems to be largely driven from the bottom up, from the academic community and from individuals and small groups of grass root enthusiasts who have implemented this technology. Although this may be the case, widespread adoption and adaptation to new and re-envisioned learning environments requires administration to create learning opportunities for faculty to understand and experiment with these technologies so they can create personalized teaching environments. Faculty need the time to pave incremental pathways for change, reflect and re-evaluate. Idealistically, these learning opportunities for faculty should encompass technical, experiential and pedagogical arenas. Whether universities are able to provide such support for faculty, where faculty are equipped to learn these technologies for themselves to be able to use them independently as tools to re-envision their courses, remains to be seen. Other models of integration, with faculty serving as subject matter experts that work with institutional entities to create technology based learning environments, serve as an alternative approach.

Elaborating about changes that we may see in the roles of individual faculty, Young (1997) argues that we ought to take an "unbundled" look at the role of the professor. He discusses three core teaching functions that faculty perform - course designer, course deliverer and evaluator. He suggests that some portion of these functions could be supported or undertaken by other entities, leaving the teacher to concentrate on teaching and leading discussions in environments created by others. Young's arguments suggest radical re-conceptualization of faculty roles in a university. Similarly, others have suggested a re-conceptualization of the business structure of the university in light of the economic implications (Denning, 1996). Gooler and Stegman (1994) proposed re-envisioned forms of educational opportunities, in their formulation of a cybernetic city, one that capitalizes on the capabilities of information technologies. They propose viewing learning from a "Basic Learning unit" or BLU , one that every individual possesses for his or her lifetime. Learning is structured around highly personalized opportunities. They view inter-connected learning structures that are customized from an individual rather than an institutional standpoint. Chellappa, Barua and Whinston (1997) proposed an Electronic Education Environment or E3, a model to support virtual universities and report experiences with those structures that they have already implemented. These authors second notions of a "mass customization" environment supported electronically with re-defined and additional roles to include content providers, content reviewers/validators and instructors.

Whether the dramatic changes suggested above will gain large-scale acceptance and continue to be sustained among higher education administration and faculty and remains to be seen. Nonetheless, there is clear indication that the process of change has been set in motion. At the very core of all these arguments, however, is the notion that technologies can foster, enable and assist in the creation of learning environments that bring about individualized, energized and re-invigorated opportunities for teaching.

The traditional role of the teacher requires re-conceptualization in environments that capitalize on information technologies. These changes in turn present implications for the structure, design, and management of interactions in online course environments. Some authors have endorsed the view that virtual environments have the ability to transform the process of teaching and learning. Faculty need support in learning how to re-envision their courses in light of these technologies. They can create new and different kinds of learning environments (Butler, 1998; Dede, 1996; Musto, 1997; Owston, 1997; Van Dusen, 1997) that capitalize on the abundant information resources for use in education (Rogers, Geoghegan, Marcus & Johnson, 1996). This requires that faculty gather, evaluate and incorporate such resources into their teaching practices.

At a minimum, efficiency of information exchange can be greatly increased among students and instructors using the Web (Petrie & George, 1996). An initial mechanization of course communications, where faculty provide students with class-notes and disseminate routine information, is a relatively easy first step that requires little re-thinking or computer expertise on the part of the faculty. However, powerful learning environments where faculty create learning architectures that were not here-to-fore possible (Rowntree, 1995) built for and around virtualized interactions (Couples, 1996) are more exciting opportunities provided by Web technologies. Creating such environments requires a re-conceptualization of the course structure, the content, the learning and teaching activities in light of advanced technological tools. Such a transformation requires that faculty are knowledgeable about and facile with technologies that enable information presentation and exchange, as well as techniques to facilitate collaborative learning and that they acquire the experience to efficiently use them. For large scale adaptation, then, it is necessary for the administration to prepare support structures and mechanisms that enable faculty to gain, sustain and implement these newly acquired skills and knowledge.

Dede (1996) argues that faculty can create "knowledge Webs" that "enable distributed access to experts' archival resources, authentic environments and shared investigations" (p. 25). Rowntree (1995) contends that there are indications that the Web can promote "new kinds of learning" by enabling students and teachers to engage in many-to-many conversations, synchronously and asynchronously, about the subject under study. Jaffee (1998) suggests that the creation of Web-conferences, a way to extend classroom discussion beyond the physical confines of the classroom, is an "intermediate application" between traditional and virtual classrooms. These possibilities are very different from learning opportunities that can be provided in traditional face-to-face interactions.

Asynchronous or synchronous conferences can be employed to foster stimulated discussions that extend beyond the classroom walls and include participation from a majority of students. Courses that include such conferences allow students to "weigh evidence, judge the authenticity of data, compare different viewpoints on an issue, analyze and synthesize different sources of information, and construct their own understanding of the topic at hand" (Owston, 1997, p. 31). Conferencing technologies allow students to share this deliberation process contemporaneously with fellow students and the faculty member. Traditional face-to-face interactions, in most instances, only allow the faculty member and not fellow students, to see the product of such a knowledge-negotiation process. Couples (1996) termed this scenario, where information is presented and circulated among fellow students, as one, which promotes Socratic dia/poly/logues. Lippert (1997) discussed the possibility that the Internet holds as the agora. He, however, strongly emphasized the need for rooted and meaningful conversations. Brown and Duguid (1995) indicated that these conversational paradigms are representative of a complex process of communication that includes explicit and implicit exchanges involving central interlocutors and peripheral eavesdroppers. Stimulating and guiding discussions that sustain intellectual integrity and depth will require faculty to develop the art of providing appropriate stimuli to initiate discussions, dialogue and debate, set guidelines, monitor the flow and encourage students to contribute constructively and continuously to one another's ideas. Additionally, faculty will need to develop the ability to skillfully interject their thoughts into the threads of discussions where necessary and extricate themselves from being the central discussant, when the conversation is flowing smoothly.

It is also argued that information technologies can support deep and transformative changes in curriculum (Rogers, Geoghegan, Marcus & Johnson, 1996) by providing faculty with an opportunity to rethink the nature of teaching, learning and education (Oblinger, 1997; Owston, 1997). "Individualization of teaching, a much less publicized transformation, has already begun. The term simply recognizes a significant increase in the motivation and ability of faculty members to select and use unique combination of teaching materials" (Gilbert & Green, 1997, p. 51). Cotlar and Shimabukuro (1993) emphasized the need for reengineering. They indicated that "simply mechanizing traditional methods via automation is unlikely to yield as much benefit as a zero-based redesign of the process" (p. 3). Such restructuring of course or courses requires a heavy front-end investment of time, a much too often ignored variable. Once the faculty member gains some experience with technologies, which is again a time-consuming activity, they will require assistance in choosing and adapting technologies to integrate into current courses to produce "re-engineered learning environments." The Web presents a unique infrastructure to create rich learning environments (Dringus, 1995b) and settings within which "cognition, communication, and collaboration" enable teachers and learners to transform information into knowledge and insight (Oblinger, 1997). The issue is not whether we ought to use the Web for learning. Rather, it is the quest for researched and proven methodologies to effectively use this medium on a large scale at institutions of higher education.

However, the predominance of utopian and techno-centric viewpoints that subscribe to technological determinism has caused some authors to voice cautionary viewpoints (Bromley, 1998; Duston, 1997). Ashworth (1998) raises issues relating to "mass credentialing" in collaboration with and in response to the needs of the business community and the resulting harmful implications for universities. Dye (1997) expresses concerns relating to the lack of face-to-face interactions or the diminishing role of social interactions in learning. She is also concerned with the migration to highly individualized learning plans as opposed to education that benefits larger societal needs in general. Oblinger cautioned that students may choose learning institutions for the best multimedia experience that they can buy and discussed the resulting "edutainment." McClure (1997) noted that students, operating as consumers, might dictate and demand a change in current modes of delivery. Selingo (1998) reported that small private colleges are concerned about losing their continuing education programs to brand name online programs. Such viewpoints raise important issues regarding the integrity of and competition for learning environments that need to be taken into consideration both from an institutional and individual standpoint.

The Internet, as a technological medium, does not in and of itself, inherently guarantee learning. Like any other technology, it is simply a powerful architecture which provides the potential and new opportunities to think about teaching and learning. Faculty, however, can be educated to harness this infrastructure to create powerful learning milieus.  In a specific context involving learning activities, such as research, collaboration, self-expression, and reflection, the Internet offers multiple affordances, so numerous that it may be a mistake for us to treat it as a medium. It is really an infrastructure which brings together media, tools, people, places and information, expanding the range of human capabilities (Ryder &Wilson, 1996, p.6). The medium permits and facilitates processes, Clark (1994) argued, but it is the application of these capabilities, within a course, that is important. It is the skill of the faculty member, who can capitalize on the capabilities of the medium through iterative cycles of experimentation, deliberation, and evaluation that will contribute to evolved, productive and re-engineered learning milieus. As discussed below, researchers and practitioners provide us with evidence of some of the emerging proficiencies necessary in creating effective learning environments.

When functioning in online environments, the role of the faculty member needs to be modified in order to accomplish some of the activities traditionally performed in face-to-face classrooms and to initiate new activities made possible by the technologies. The essence of these functions may remain the same, depending on the faculty member's teaching style, but the context, manner and process of implementation requires new forms of operation.

The "social role" entails promoting human relationships to maintain the cohesiveness of a group as a learning community (Collins & Berge, 1996). Conducting this role in face-to-face interactions is a natural task if the instructor is so inclined. However, implementing such a role in online environments requires the faculty member to be intimately aware of the nuances of textual communications and the management of the same to create a sense of community. It also implies a change from faculty as the dominant source of communications in the learning environment to students as voluble (Ehrmann, 1995a; Gurak, 1995; Petrie & George, 1996) and equal participants (Picciano, 1998; Sykes & Uber, 1995). Faculty can increase active participation by students by encouraging and planning for collaborative activity. Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff (1995) synthesized research to provide the following criteria that faculty can use to accomplish this increased interaction in online environments.

1. Create a casual, warm, welcoming, and supportive atmosphere.
2. Make participant expectations clear.
3. Do not lecture.
4. Model responsiveness.
5. Encourage students to compliment or respond to each other.
6. Positively reinforce discussion contributions and negatively reinforce silence.
7. Close a discussion with a synthesis or weaving of the topic.

Rowntree (1995) also discussed "social tasks" in his reflections about teaching a three-month online course at the Open University's Institute of Educational Technology. He described the social role as taking responsibility for creating and maintaining a culture of even-handed discourse since such an environment is both social and educational. Hiltz indicates that "interaction" between students and between students and faculty, is the greatest determinant of satisfaction with online courses. According to Hiltz's analysis, the ability of the instructor to successfully create a collaborative environment, was one of the crucial determinant of success in a virtual classroom (Hiltz, 1995).

The pedagogical role is one in which the instructor contributes content knowledge and special expertise in directing attention to specific concepts, skills, and principles (Collins & Berge, 1996). In virtual environments, this role needs to be expanded to include the ability of the instructor to be able to incorporate resources that students might find relating to the content under study. The overwhelming amount of information available at the click of the button requires the instructor to be able to guide students to valid and reliable information. The role of the facilitator has also been discussed as one who guides students productively through thickets of information presented on the Web (EVAT, 1995).

The faculty member will need to serve as a mentor, guide, or facilitator (EVAT, 1995; Beaudoin, 1998; Chickering & Ehrmann, 1997; Helms & Larsen, 1996; Noam, 1995) in enabling students to convert data into knowledge in the context of the course. Rowntree (1995) describes the facilitation role as "engaging the learners in coming to terms with the concepts and taking ownership of them in their own ways" (p. 210). Similarly, Duchastel (1997) indicated that in information rich environments it is appropriate to guide students towards expected end-results and allow them the ability to control and organize their own learning. Noam (1995) indicated that "education is based on mentoring, internalization, identification, role-modeling, guidance, socialization, interaction and group-activity" (p. 9). It is ultimately the role of the mentor, facilitator and guide through the transformative process of learning that should give meaning to what teachers do (Beaudoin, 1998).

The "managerial role" is described as one that encompasses the organizational, procedural and administrative role in which the instructor needs to set the agenda and manages course communications (Collins & Berge ,1996). Rowntree (1995) terms this the "organisational role." Beyond the general management required in face-to-face courses, the online course requires that the instructor think, plan and prepare in advance for most or all of the course activities. Such advance planning is required because the faculty member needs to create or have created technical structures for planned events in virtual environments. In some cases, this planning may entail gaining sufficient expertise with particular software or ensuring that participants have the necessary technology to participate. Schrum (1995) reported the results of a formative study (n=95) and concluded that structuring of group intersactions is an important issue in producing these environments. Schrum describes her study as formative since she was conducting an in-depth case study of her own course. Data obtained from this study would serve to direct changes in future iterations of the course itself and point to emerging issues that need to be further researched. "Organizational activities" -- setting a rhythm that the students can expect and follow, Hiltz (1995) indicated, assists students in ordering their learning activities and maintaining the pace required for the class. Hiltz provides practical suggestions for faculty to use in organizing and managing activities. Planning and maintaining a schedule assists faculty in assigning and estimating their time, so that the communications or the interactions in the class do not overwhelm them or their students.

Nevin (1998) concluded, after teaching a pilot online course, that factors for success in an online course include assigning meaningful structured instructional activities on the Internet and providing timely and meaningful feedback. "Timely responsiveness", Hiltz indicated, is a crucial determinant of student satisfaction in virtual environments. Faculty, she reported, required between thirty to sixty minutes per day to respond to student inquiries (Hiltz, 1995).

To function effectively in these environments, the faculty member has to possess a certain degree of proficiency and expertise with the technology that includes assessing and solving student problems (Collins & Berge, 1996). Whether the faculty member has consistent technical support throughout the course or has to depend on his/her own expertise has a direct relation to the degree of proficiency that faculty will need to attain before attempting to teach in these environments. Maturity and practice with technology will enable faculty to create advanced iterations of learning environments. "Media richness," Hiltz (1995) suggests, is necessary to maintain student interest and compensate for the lack of traditional face-to-face interactions. The instructor needs to use modified activities that involve and engage students. For example, in a traditional course, an instructor could lecture for longer periods of time because his or her lecture is accompanied by facial expressions, body language and motion that keeps the student visually engaged. Duplicating the lecture in an online environment requires modifications. She suggests using smaller segments that include and require student to participation.

The seven principles of good learning submitted by Chickering and Ehrmann (1997), that are based on a distillation of research from decades of undergraduate research, indicated that student-teacher contact is one of the principles of good practice. They stated that communication technologies increase access to faculty members, help them share useful resources, and provide for joint problem solving and shared learning. The biggest success story in this realm, they contend, has been that of time-delayed communication.

Studies of student responses defined the attributes of increased communication between teacher and students in online settings. Student responses were more elaborate (Nevin, 1998) and intelligent (Gurak, 1995). Ehrmann (1995b) indicated that faculty can ask more probing questions to elicit deliberated answers from students, who can in turn respond without time and space constraints. There is a perceived increase in contact (Guernsey, 1998) with and access (Petrie & George, 1996) to the instructor and the frequency and usefulness (Ehrmann, 1995a) is assigned a positive value. Picciano (1998) reported that students in an online course requested no individual conferences and instead used e-mail extensively for one-on-one inquiries and discussions with the instructor.

Nevin (1998) analyzed the results from her course, which was offered online as a pilot to 10 students who were experienced teachers in special education. Her analysis was based on threaded discussions, frequency of participation and ratings on the Instructor Effectiveness Rating scale to reach the following conclusions. The responses of the online group were reportedly more elaborate, comprehensive and application oriented. The instructor reports 300 e-mail interactions with her participants. One of the pedagogical tools that Nevin employed was to ask students to read lecture notes for ten different topics and submit focus questions to the group. Guernsey (1998) reported results from student interviews indicating that they receive more attention from faculty in online courses and that they could spend more time thinking about and responding to questions their instructors pose. Rowntree (1995) indicates that this is true of faculty as well, indicating, "I was struck by how I'm still in touch with the conference even when away from my computer and busy with other activities" (p. 209).

Ehrmann (1995a) reported that, in his experience, faculty members at universities are excited that students are expressing themselves in greater quantity and quality when using e-mail. He reports about the results of a study conducted by the Annenberg/CPB evaluated seven-degree programs offered to off-campus students. Results indicated that students who were familiar with both traditional and electronic instruction rated e-mail equal to or better than classroom communication, in both its frequency and usefulness.

Electronic mail can extend and amplify traditional instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactions in significant ways (Rogers, Geoghegan, Marcus & Johnson, 1996). Gurak (1995) reported personal experiences as a faculty member teaching online. She reflects about the power of technology that allowed students and faculty from across the world to have intelligent conversations together, but noted that occasionally, however, these conversations lacked focus. Picciano (1998) reported that students posted an average of 1.81 postings per student per week in his online course. Collectively, students made an average of 30.66 postings per week compared to the 4.5 made by the instructor. Students were responding to instructor and peer responses. Picciano concluded that the student-instructor roles reversed in this course since the students had more of a voice in the discussions. Sykes and Uber (1995) conducted a qualitative study of graduate teaching assistants, who were teaching in networked classrooms in the English department at Purdue University. Interviews with the teaching assistants indicated that de-centering, or a shift in authority from the teacher to the students, occurred in these environments. Authority was defined as the ability to influence choices in a person or a technology.

Petrie and George (1996) discussed two courses taught via the Web and drew conclusions based on two sets of data: their own experiences and student surveys administered following the course. They indicated that students appeared to appreciate greater access to the instructor. They also reported that keeping up with the interactions was a fairly time consuming task and that the perceived need to be in constant communication throughout the day is an issue that needs to be addressed. Powers (1997) concluded in her reflection about an online course, based on responses from student interviews and journals, that the experience of students in the online class was on par with those of her students in face-to-face classes. She emphasized that these positive findings may be a result of her adoption of a traditional instructional model that included the following steps: needs analysis, goal analysis, assessment, instructional strategy, and evaluation. Duderstadt (1998) opined that the role of the university faculty in the 21^st century would be to become designers of learning experiences, processes, and environments. Clearly, a significant part of this process should involve the creation of course communication structures that result in increased communications between teachers and students.

Dringus (1995a) discussed interface design issues for collaborative learning that provide controls for parallel and serial group communication. The interface should also provide instructors and students with links to tools that allow them to communicate under the following interaction scenarios: student-to-teacher, teacher-to-student, and student-to-student. The interface should assist the instructor in promoting a balance between individual and group experiences. Such balance can be accomplished by providing online mechanisms to support individual needs (e.g., structured assignment activities) and group needs (e.g., parallel communication, generating ideas and sharing them, project management). Hutchinson (1995) outlined three particularly significant parameters, which he intends to further research, made possible by Web-based learning: Negotiated learning measured the degree to which the learner is able to personalize his/her learning. Participatory learning refers to the degree to which the learner is actively engaged in the learning process. Experiential learning refers to the degree to which learning is based on real-world experiences.

Institutions that desire large scale adoption of these learning environments by their faculty need to re-evaluate support systems to configure them to enable faculty to create, use, and sustain electronic learning environments. While emphasizing the need for increased technical support, however, Armstrong (1996) alludes to the personality characteristics of such staff. She proposes the need for non-intimidating or supportive staff. Boettcher and Cartwright (1997) suggest that faculty need to be supported by not only providing the necessary tools - equipment and access - but educated in the use of these tools as well. Faculty must be supported in the transition to a "Web-centric" teaching and learning environment. Learning "how to use the tools is a preliminary and necessary beginning, but the university needs to be able to assist faculty in the more complex issues of integration into teaching and learning. Addressing these issues requires specialized support personnel who are knowledgeable about pedagogy, integration of technology, and learning issues. Such skills are traditionally not the forte" of technical personnel. Additionally, certain subject areas need a specialized set of tools and technological solutions. Universities need to establish a core group of academic computing personnel that are able to consistently research and stay abreast of these issues while simultaneously assisting faculty. Such a combination will greatly facilitate the integration process. Providing such support systems, however, requires planning and additional funding, and unless the university, as a system, believes in the need to integrate the advance technologies into teaching and learning, there will only be small pockets of innovation.

Beyond technical support, Bates (1995) asked administrators to consider issues that are not as frequently discussed such as legal and ethical issues and the issue of control. Both of the latter he contends apply to online environments as much as they do to face-to-face interactions. He recommends that new policies need to be created and advertised to clarify these issues as they apply in electronic contexts. Students and faculty involved in this milieu need to understand and abide by these policies, set forth by the institution, just as they follow them in traditional instructional settings. Cultural change in the computer department relating to support of networked technologies and a much needed change to decentralization of control is an issue of significant importance. This change has implications for staffing and just as importantly for the decision-making processes regarding future technical configurations. Staffing to support decentralized decisions requires highly trained and flexible personnel who can address a variety of questions beyond the systems that they support. A shift in thinking about resource re-allocation from up-front costs (as in the case of print media) to recurring costs is also required. Although Bates's recommendations are geared toward traditional distance learning systems that encompass a wider variety of technologies including, but not exclusively, online technologies, the issues that he suggests apply to re-structuring support for online courses as well.

Ganzert and Watkins (1997) discuss details of reconfiguring staffing support systems in light of information technologies. They report their experiences at Wake Forest University which restructured the information services division to include new positions, with an added budget expense of $1, 450,000. The restructuring includes 17 Academic Computing Specialists, who are located in academic departments and report directly to the department head and not the information services department. Additionally, twenty students who as Resident Technology Advisors live in residence halls and support other students were added. Other new personnel included 18 new Information Specialists.

Green and Gilbert (1995) suggest a number of stages that the organization must cycle through for productive use of technology, based on technology and productivity literature. This evolution through the stages, they remind us, occurs over years, not a short-term cycle. They make critical suggestions for administrators to be cognizant of while planning for support and sustenance of online technologies.

From an administrative and fiscal point of view, most universities can be expected to undergo this cycle much like a business setting. When the market forces demand change, the university in turn will probably respond to this demand by revising operations. However, from an educational and curriculum development perspective, it is unlikely that this cycle will have the same life expectancy as in a business context. The university, as a teaching organization, traditionally has a different set of operational dynamics while confronting and implementing change in the curricular function of the university. Nevertheless, the administration needs to be prepared for the cycle, regardless of the expected rate of progression.

Green and Gilbert warn us against a scenario where user support will decline or remain non-existent, when the "critical mass" (of faculty) within a given institution gains interest in this technology. In other words, prepare for the joiners who will follow the initial set of leaders who are experimenting with these technologies. Faculty who are leaders or the initial set of experimenters, by virtue of their curiosity do not depend on the support of the institution for their experimentation. But, faculty members, who have the willingness to experiment but need the technology know-how, will need additional support both from their peers, technical staff and administration. Boettcher and Cartwright (1997) suggest that campuses, planning for future growth of student population, pay as much attention to "virtual electronic spaces" as to physical spaces. If universities are to move toward recruiting students online, creating and delivering online courses, it would be wise to create infrastructures to support increasing computing needs.

It is abundantly clear that the Web-based technologies provide an infrastructure in which to implement new models of teaching and learning environments. It is also evident from some of the preliminary reports provided by faculty members and institutions that have experimented with these technologies, that their use has made some of the moderate prophecies for revolutionary change come true. The Web as a technology provides the faculty member with a means by which to create student-centered learning environments while eliminating the need for time and space barriers. However, the faculty member needs to employ new and re-configured roles in order to plan for, stimulate, and sustain interactions in these environments. In turn, institutions need to consider re-negotiating their financial paradigms, roles, and support structures to enable faculty to experiment with and successfully integrate these technologies that have the potential of resulting in evolved and sophisticated learning environments for students.

Abelson, P. H. (1997, August). Evolution of higher education. Science, 277 (5327), 747-748.

Armstrong, L. (1996). Report on the teaching and learning on the Internet project - RMIT TAFE. Paper presented at the EdTech '96 Biennial Conference of the Australian Society for Educational technology, Melbourne , Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 396 720)

Ashworth, K. (1998). Virtual universities could only produce virtual learning. Global Anthological Journal of Action Learning (GAJAL), 1. Retrieved January 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.free-press.com/journals/gajal/articles/gajal-article-040.htm

Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Rutledge Press.

Beaudoin, M.F. (1998). A new professoriate for the new millennium. DEOSNEWS (Distance Education Online Symposium), 8(5). Retrieved May 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cde.psu.edu/ACSDE

Boettcher, J., & Cartwright, C. G. (1997, September). Designing and supporting courses on the Web. Change, 29 (5), 62-66.

Broderick, B. & Caverly, D. C. (1996). Techtalk: On-line developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 19 (3), 34-5.

Bromley, H. (1998). How to tell if you really need the latest technology?  Thought & Action: NEA Higher Education Journal, 14 (1), 21-28.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1995, August). Universities in the digital age. Change, 11-19.

Butler, J. (1998). Distance education and the Internet. Computers & Geosciences, 23(5). Retrieved August 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.elsevier.nl/homepage/sad/cageo/butler.htm

Chellappa, R., Barua, A., & Whinston, A. B. (1997). An electronic infrastructure for a virtual university. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 56-58.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1997). Implementing the seven principles of learning: Technology as a lever. Retrieved June 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aahe.org/technology

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21-29.

Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Paper presented at the FSU/AECT Distance Education Conference, Tallahassee, Florida, June 1996.

Cotlar, M., & Shimabukuro, J.N. (1993). Stimulating learning with electronic guest lecturing. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1(1). Retrieved March 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ipct-j/1993/n1/cotlar.txt

Couples, C. (1996). Academic Infotecture: Course design for cyberschool. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 403 854)

Davies, G. K. (1997, October). Higher education systems as cartels: The end in near. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (6): A68.

Dede, C. (1996, April). Distance learning à Distributed learning: Making the transformation. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25-30.

Denning, P. J. (1996, November/December). Business designs for the new university. Educom Review, 21-30.

Dringus, L. P. (1995a). An iterative usability evaluation procedure for interactive online courses. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 7(4), 10-14.

Dringus, L. P. (1995b). Interface issues associated with using the Internet as a link to online courses. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 8(2), 16-20.

Duchastel, P. (1997). A Web-based model for university instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(3), 221-228.

Duderstadt, J. J. (1998). The future of the university in an age of knowledge. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 78-88.

Duston, T. E. (1997). Technophobia: Counterpoint. In L. Enghagen (Ed.), Technology and higher education (pp. 185-197). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Dye, N. S. (October, 1997). Late night reflections of a college president. Vital speeches of the day, 63(24), 761-4.

EVAT - Education via advanced technologies. (1995). Final report, MIT committee on EVAT. Retrieved June 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www-evat.mit.edu/report/

Ehrmann, S. (1995a, July). Moving beyond campus-bound education. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.learner.org/edtech/distlearn/chronicle.html

Ehrmann, S. (1995b, September/October). New technology, old trap. Educom Review, 30 (5), 41-43.

Erazo, E., & Derlin, R. L. (1995). Distance learning and libraries in the cyberspace age. Proceedings of the 1995 Conference of the Council for Higher Education Computing Services, Roswell, New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 392 432)

Ganzert, R. R., & Watkins, D. A. (1997). Innovative staffing to meet technological changes: A case study at Wake Forest University. T.H.E. Journal, 25(4), 54-56.

Gates, B. (1997, December). The Web lifestyle. The world in 1998 [Special Edition]. The Economist, p. 104.

Gilbert, S. W., & Green, K. C. (1997). Moving information technology into the classroom. In L. Enghagen (Ed.), Technology and higher education (pp. 25-56). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Gooler, D., & Stegman, C. (1994). A scenario of education in cyber city. Paper presented at the Japan-United States Teacher Education Consortium, Hiroshima, Japan. Retrieved May 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/cyber/index.htm

Green, K. C., & Gilbert, S. W. (1995). Great expectations: Content, communications, productivity, and the role of information technology in higher education. Change, 27(2), 8-18.

Guernsey, L. (1998, March 27). Distance education for the not so distant. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(29), A29-30.

Gurak, L. J. (1995). Cybercasting about cyberspace. Computer Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(1), 4-8.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Helms, S., & Larson, G. (1996). The Internet as an instructional delivery vehicle for higher education: A framework for evaluation. Paper presented at the IACIS, 1996, Las Vegas.

Hiltz, S. R. (1995). Teaching in a virtual classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 185-198.

Hutchinson, C. (1995). The "ICP OnLine": Jeux sans frontieres on the CyberCampus. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Retrieved June 18, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/hutchinson/CHRISR.html

Jaffee, D. (1998). Insititutionalized resistance to asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 21-32.

Kawash, S. (1997). @ or being online. Theory and Event, 1(2). [On-line]. Retrieved March 23, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://calliope.jhu.edu/journals/theory_&_event/v001/1.2kawash.html

Kerka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395 214)

Lightner, N. J., Bose, I. & Salvendy, G. (1996). What is wrong with the World-Wide Web?: A diagnosis of some problems and prescriptions of some remedies. Ergonomics, 39(8), 995-1004.

Lippert, P. J. (1997). Internet: The new agora? Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 5(3-4), 48-51.

Locatis, C., & Weisberg, M. (1997). Distributed learning and the Internet. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 100-103.

Lopata, C. L., & McClure, C. R. (1996). Assessing the academic networked environment: Final report. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 876)

Luke, T. (1997). Digital Beings & Virtual Times: The Politics of Cybersubjectivity. Theory and Event. Retrieved June 18, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://jhupress.jhu.edu/journals/theory_&_event/v001/1.1r_luke.html

Martin, M., & Taylor, S. A. (1997, September/October). The virtual classroom: The next step. Educational Technology, 37(5), 51-55.

McClure, P. A. (1997, Fall). What will transformation mean to traditional universities? Virginia.Edu, 1(2). [On-line]. Retrieved March 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web:   http://www.itc.virginia.edu/virginia.edu/fall97/trans/all.html

Musto, J. N. (1997). Creating a future scenario for higher education In L. Enghagen (Ed.), Technology and higher education (pp. 117-123). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Nevin, A. (1998). Exploring the Internet as an instructional delivery model. Report to the Vice-Provost. Retrieved June 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://tikkun.ed.asu.edu/coe/home.html

Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the dim future of the university. Science, 270(13), 247-249.

Oblinger, D. (1997). High tech takes the high road: New players in higher education. Educational Record, 78(1), 30-37.

Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33.

Petrie, P., & George, R. V. (1996). Experiences with asynchronous learning in urban planning. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and the Association of European Schools of Planning, Toronto, Canada, July 1996. Retrieved May 25, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://w3.scale.uiuc.edu/scale/courses/results/urban_planning/acsp96b.html

Picciano, A. G. (1998). Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 1-14.

Powers, S. M. (1997). Designing an interactive course for the Internet. Contemporary Education, 68(3), 194-196.

Rogers, E. M., Geoghegan, W. H., Marcus, J., & Johnson, L. (1996). In response: Four viewpoints. Change, 28(2), 29-31.

Rowntree, D. (1995). Teaching and learning online: A correspondence education for the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 205-215.

Rudenstine, N. L. (1997, February 21). The Internet and education: A close fit. Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(24) , A48.

Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1996). Affordances and constraints of the Internet for learning and instruction. Presentation to the joint session of the Association for Educational Computing. Feb., 14-18, 1996. Retrieved June 18, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.htm

Saltrick, S. (1996). A campus of our own: Thoughts of a reluctant conservative. Change, 28(2), 58-62.

Schrum, L. (1995). Online courses: What have we learned? Paper presented at the World Conference of Computers in Education, England. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 245)

Selingo, J. (1998, May 1). Small, private colleges brace for competition from distance learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(34), A33-A35.

Sykes, L., & Uber, N. (1995). Reflections on teaching in a computerized classroom: Knowledge, power and technology. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, D. C. March 23-25, 1995. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 984).

Van Dusen, G. C. (1997). The virtual campus: Technology and Reform in higher education. ERIC Document. Retrieved June 18, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed41285.html

Young, J. R. (1997, October, 3). Rethinking the age of the professor in an age of high-tech tools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(6): A26-A28.

Copyright 1999 Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).

CIOS Support Staff

Return to CIOS home page