|
|
|
ACSP
Technology Committee Report
Spring
2001
The
Potential Impacts of Technology
Enhanced Learning and Distance Learning on
Academic Planning Programs Table
of Contents i.
Introduction – G. William Page, Technology Committee Chair, University
at Buffalo, The State University of New York 1.
Web based courses - Bill Drummond, Georgia Tech 2.
Interactive video based courses -
Ernie Sternberg, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York 3.
Programmed learning courses -
Varrki George, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4. Distance education courses taught by two or more planning programs – David Godschalk, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Joochul Kim, Arizona State University 5. The potential of an ACSP developed “Introduction to Planning” distance education course for freshman or H.S. level students - David Godschalk, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nancy Frank, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 6. How Internet II, which merges video with the web, may influence distance education -
Nancy Frank, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 8. Corporate Universities - Joochul Kim, Arizona State University Introduction
to The
Potential Impacts of Technology
Enhanced Learning and Distance Learning on
Academic Planning Programs by G. William Page, Chair, ACSP Technology Committee Purpose of this Report
Starting in the fall of 1999, the ACSP Technology Committee undertook the
task of preparing a report on the potential impacts of Technology Enhanced and
Distance Learning on academic planning programs. This is a large and complex
topic that encompasses a wide range of pedagogical techniques. At the most
familiar, technology enhanced learning can be accomplished by bringing a slide
projector or PowerPoint presentation into the classroom. At the other end of the
spectrum, a course may be taught using the World Wide Web that has no
face-to-face contact between the student and the instructor and no established
time for class interaction. Such a
course is called an Asynchronous Distance Learning course, meaning that students
can complete the course on their own schedule within a semester and in any
location. While Distance Learning
has the greatest potential to impact planning programs, this report attempts to
provide advice to planning programs on this wide range of topics. In 1999, the incoming ACSP President, Bruce Stiftel,
suggested that many planning programs had little knowledge of potential impacts
of Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning and that such a report would be
helpful. Our committee decided on a two-year project.
Year one of the project included identifying a list of important
Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning topics, requesting input from planning
faculty on these topics, preparing short reports on each topic, and
disseminating a draft report in the May/June issue of ACSP Update. We presented
our report at a panel on Distance Education at the 2000 ACSP Conference in
Atlanta. In response to feedback we have revised and expanded our work into this
final report. While our field has actual experience with only a few of the most innovative technology-enhanced learning and distance learning courses, there has been considerable discussion of their significant potential to have revolutionary impacts on higher education. Computer technologies are changing the way students learn, just as they are dramatically changing societies. This report is the intended modest first step by ACSP to start a dialog on this important topic. Confronted with a rapidly changing higher education environment and diverse new competitors, planning programs need information, analysis, and judgement to make good decisions about if, when, and how they should get involved in technology enhanced and distance learning. Why this is an Important Topic
Much of the discussion about Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning
has focused on academic programs defensively adopting these modes of
instruction. This defensive posture of planning programs may result from
perceived or real pressure from Deans or Provosts.
Pressure may be to achieve higher productivity through Technology
Enhanced and Distance Learning, or pressure to maintain student enrollment in
the face of new competition from existing or new planning programs starting to
offer planning degrees partly or completely by Distance Learning (see Chapter 8,
“Corporate Universities”). “Not only do the new forms of
distance education portend a change for student populations, but also they will
force faculty to develop new modalities of teaching and administrators to
provide a new infrastructure for support. As a result, the advent of distance
education is forcing many institutions to review and amend many of their
existing policies and procedures” (American Council on Education, “One corporate entrepreneur recently told me: ‘You know, you’re in an
industry which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and you have a
reputation for low productivity, high cost, bad management and no use of
technology. You’re going to be the next health care: a poorly managed
nonprofit industry which was overtaken by the profit-making sector” (A.
Levine, The Soul of A New University, The New York Times March 13, 2000, P.
A25). Our committee believes these concerns may become significant for some planning programs; however, we believe that the preeminent raison planning programs should consider adopting Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning is to improve the quality of their programs. Technology Enhanced Learning Technology Enhanced Learning has the most immediate potential to improve our pedagogy. There is clear evidence that our present students are increasingly attracted to computer-based activities. For better or worse, the World Wide Web has become the first choice of many students for finding information. For students who have grown up playing computer games, the vivid graphics and high levels of interaction with the computer that Technology Enhanced Learning provides are attractive and effective teaching tools. Distance Learning
There are claims that Distance Learning techniques can improve the
quality of our programs; however, their potential to dramatically expand student
enrollments is likely to be the primary motivation for planning programs to
develop Distance Learning courses. The opportunity to choose the time they will
study has the potential to dramatically expand our student population to adult
learners and to students in other regions or countries by reducing the
impediments of workday time restrictions and time-zone differences. Distance Learning courses have the potential to improve planning programs. Many students are attracted to the promise of asynchronous learning that holds the potential for them to learn at their own pace and at times they are most interested in learning. This has the potential to be a better experience than attempting to teach part-time students who occasionally have a hard time staying awake in an evening class after a full work-day. There are likely to be courses that are especially conducive to Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning. Because of the considerable effort and cost of developing a high-quality Technology Enhanced or Distance Learning course, there may be great advantages to have ACSP create a course that different planning programs can use as an “Introduction to Planning” for high school students or freshman (see Chapter 5, “The potential of an ACSP developed “Introduction to Planning” distance education course for freshman or H.S. level students”). There are likely to be situations in which cooperation between planning programs may improve the quality of planning programs by using Distance Learning. There may be regions in which cooperation between planning programs at different universities on developing Distance Learning courses can allow high-quality planning courses on specialized topics that some of the participating planning programs may be too small to provide by themselves (see Chapter 4, “Distance education courses taught by two or more planning programs”). Universities in different countries that establish cooperative arrangements also may use Distance Learning courses to provide content that would otherwise not be available. Technology
Enhanced and Distance Learning Courses
We will need to develop criteria to measure the success of Technology
Enhanced and Distance Learning courses in planning programs. Clearly, merely
adding visual material or computer interactive components to a course will not
guarantee a better course, or make a boring class interesting.
Additional graphic components at the expense of content or that do not
relate effectively to the content can make a course worse. As more Technology
Enhanced Learning planning courses are taught, faculty can share their
observations on the techniques that are most effective. Existing student course
evaluation methods will provide some feedback on those aspects of Technology
Enhanced and Distance Learning courses that students think are most effective.
We should strive to develop accreditation criteria and benchmarks for the role
of Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning courses in Planning programs. The most likely courses in which Technology Enhanced
Learning can improve our teaching may be large lecture courses.
Seminar, workshop, and studio courses that demand a high level of
interaction between the instructor, the student, and the student’s
work-in-progress are possible by Technology Enhanced Learning (see Godschalk and
Lacey, Learning at a Distance: Technology Impacts on Planning Education, Journal
of Planning Education and Research 20:4, June 2001), but these courses
present additional difficulties and lack some of the clear benefits that
Technology Enhanced Learning offers large-lecture format courses. Experience
using Technology Enhanced Learning in a graduate planning theory seminar
concluded that the technology improved the course in significant ways, although
in-class discussions were rated by students as more valuable than the internet
threaded discussions (see Willson, Comparing In-Class and Computer-Mediated
Discussion Using a Communicative Action Framework, Journal
of Planning Education and Research 19:
409-418, 2000). Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning allow us to improve our use of visual aids and supplementary materials to our lectures and they present new opportunities that may not be available in a classroom setting. We can transfer the lecture content and any visual content of our existing large lecture courses to computers with relatively little modification. Technology Enhanced Learning then offers the opportunity to significantly improve the delivery of these courses by enriching these courses with computer-enhanced capabilities and in an on-line format that especially appeals to our current student population. Animation, video, photographs, graphics are all available to clarify and emphasize the content being presented (see Chapters 1, “Web based courses” and Chapter 2, “Interactive video based courses”, and Chapter 6, “How Internet II, which merges video with the web, may influence distance education”). Programmed learning techniques that employ on-line testing with immediate feedback on performance can be used to enable students and the instructor to monitor how well each student is learning the course material on each assignment (see Chapter 3, “Programmed learning courses”). Accreditation and the Future How Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning
affects accreditation is one of the most important issues facing ACSP and
planning programs. This issue is
important because of the potentially great affect on existing accredited
planning programs when a planning program based entirely on Distance Learning
techniques becomes accredited. This already is happening in programs offering
the Master of Business Administration. It is likely to happen in the not distant
future in our discipline. The Planning Accreditation Board has acted prudently
concerning Distance Learning (see Chapter 1, “Web based courses”). The Board
set requirements that allow the possibility of an accredited planning program
that is delivered using Distance Learning techniques, but insured that on a
case-by-case basis the burden of proof is with the program to convince the Board
that the quality goals of the accreditation standards are met. The purpose of this report is to offer advice to planning programs, and I want to add some of my personal advice. I strongly advise every planning program to gain experience with Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning courses as soon as possible. When important decisions will be needed in the foreseeable future, experience with such courses will be invaluable. Without critical deadlines, we have the luxury of incrementally developing Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning courses. Many planning faculty already use some Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning techniques. My advice is for planning program administrators to provide incentives to add additional Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning techniques to selected courses. There are several course management software packages available to assist faculty. Examples of such software include TopClass, WebCT, FirstClass, Lotus LearningSpace, Web Course-in-a-Box, Asymetrix, Blackboard CourseInfo, and others. Most universities have a unit on campus that provides such software, training on its use, and assistance in developing Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning courses. Developing high quality Technology Enhanced and Distance Learning courses demands considerable time, effort, and skills that most faculty have not developed. To improve the quality of our programs, we will need to develop these skills. It will be better to start sooner rather than latter.
Topic
1. Web-Based
Courses for Planning
By Bill Drummond A.
Introduction of the topic
B.
Potential benefits C.
Potential cost D.
Target audience E.
Pedagogical model F.
Identification of existing models 1. Gilbert A. Stelter of the University of Guelph, has developed an
undergraduate course named “Reading the Community: Doing Urban History at the
Local Level” http://www.uoguelph.ca/history/urban/menu.html.
Although it is not, strictly speaking, a Web-based course, it provides
one of the fullest available examples of an entire body of planning-related
course content published on the Web. 2. The geography department of the University of Southern California
offers a three-course graduate certificate in geographic information systems,
delivered through Web-based courses http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/learngis.
The certificate can be integrated in U.S.C.’s 28-unit Master of
Planning and Development Studies (MPDS) degree. 3. Rice University offers a Web-based course, “Statistical Methods in Psychology” using the David Lane’s Hyperstat Online Web site http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/. William Troachim’s Research Methods Knowledge Base http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm performs a similar function for social science research methods. 4.
Penn State's Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
currently offers, though distance learning, a graduate certificate in Community
and Economic Development. A
Master's degree program in Community and Economic Development is planned to
begin in August 2001. Additional
details are available at http://www.aers.psu.edu/cedev/index.htm. G.
Potential impact on planning education Topic
2. Interactive
Video Courses
By Ernie Sternberg A.
Introduction of the topic I'm
teaching a course using interactive video to bring remotely sited B.
Potential benefits, C.
Potential cost, D.
The target audience, or impacted individuals and groups, E.
Pedagogical model, F.
Identification of any existing models or applications, G.
The potential impact on planning education. In
the long run, could be used to share expertise among multiple Topic
3. Programmed
learning courses By R.
Varkki George The
World Wide Web evolved from serving formatted documents to hosting increasingly
sophisticated client-server applications. This evolution has had significant
implications for using the Web as a technology for enhancing learning. This
technology has been applied primarily in the form of programmed learning; in
particular, in the form of automated quizzing applications. Quizzing
applications present students with a series of questions regarding the subject
matter covered in a course. A quiz question elicits one among a number of
different types of responses: true/false, multiple choice, and
fill-in-the-blanks. A quiz can be set up so that it can be taken multiple times
(or not), and each time a different set of questions are presented, or the same
questions are presented in a different sequence. When the same questions are
presented repeatedly, different versions of each question can be presented each
time. The system can keep track of detailed information about each session for
each student (time taken to complete the quiz, number of correct responses) as
well as the number of attempts made. Using these automated quizzing
applications, students get immediate feedback on their performance rather than
having to wait for extended periods while quizzes are checked manually. Given
the extent to which these applications make it easy to administer quizzes to
large numbers of students, it is not surprising that quizzing applications are
mostly used in large-enrollment courses in which objective knowledge can be
assessed (engineering, physics, chemistry). It is also not surprising that
teachers of such courses were the ones to first develop these applications.
While some claims have been made about improvements of the students’ learning
experience (which is often hard to quantify), the more popular claim has been
that these technologies bring efficiency to teaching such large courses. The
benefits of quizzing applications have gone beyond courses in the hard sciences.
At the University of Illinois, a quizzing application has been used to improve
the delivery of Spanish language courses. In light of high enrollments and
limited instructors, the quizzing application proved to be both efficient and
effective in helping students acquire language skills. This experience suggests
that quizzing applications are not just useful tools for assessing knowledge
acquisition. These applications can also be a platform for guiding students
through systematic reviews of subject material. Especially if they can take
quizzes a number of times, and when they get immediate feedback on their
performance, students can develop a good sense of how well they know the
material covered in the quizzes. On
the face of it, quizzing applications may appear to have limited applications in
planning education. Many topics covered in planning curricula tend not to be of
the type in which objective knowledge is assessed. However, because quizzing
applications can foster systematic and thorough review, they have a potential
role in self-paced courses. For instance, they could be very useful in
continuing education. One such course, a review of current planning topics, is
being developed at the University of Illinois. Topic
4.
Distance education courses taught
by two or more planning Programs by
David R. Godschalk. Introduction Are
there economies of scale to be gained from sharing distance education courses
among two or more planning programs? Under what circumstances would it be
feasible and desirable to co-teach distance education courses? As
a general case, there appear to be substantial economies of scale from sharing
distance education courses among planning programs. This would seem to be most
feasible and desirable when there is an interest in distance education among
smaller or more specialized programs, coupled with a lack of resources at any
one program to develop and teach the desired slate of courses. It could also be
desirable when two programs that are widely separated in space want to
collaborate (e.g., a U.S. and a developing country program). A.
Potential benefits Some
benefits to be gained from sharing distance education courses are: ·
Allowing
smaller or more specialized programs to offer a broader selection of courses
(for example, two or more programs collaborate on course design and teaching
with one specializing in economic development and one in physical development;
or both programs sharing the same course in planning law); ·
Bolstering
the technical and technological capabilities of each collaborating program (an
issue when the necessary technical and course design support may be thinly
spread); ·
Development
of inter-university faculty and student relationships (bringing together faculty
and students across institutional or even national boundaries). B.
Potential cost Most
of the costs of sharing distance education courses would be related to the time
and energy necessary to initiate and get approval for the collaborative
arrangements. There would also be hurdles of cross-institutional registration,
technology, cost-sharing, and program accreditation to be negotiated.
This would be simpler if each course was designed and taught by one
institution, with students simply registering there. It would be more
complicated, but presumably still feasible, if there were to be joint teaching. C.
Pedagogical model The
pedagogical model would be the standard distance education model, which lends
itself well to any time, any place learning. The model would need to be adapted
for inter-university teaching requirements, and for joint teaching, if that were
to be done. Use of the model also might entail negotiation of course materials
ownership issues and of assignment of teaching credits among faculty. E.
Identification of existing models We
have not identified any operating models of distance education courses taught by
two or more planning programs, though there may be some in other disciplines. However,
five North Carolina schools (Appalachian State University, East Carolina
University, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, the F.
Potential impact on planning education Planning
education could benefit from the broadening of the many smaller and more
specialized programs. Networking resources through shared distance education
courses could even ensure the survival of some troubled programs, while adding
richness to other presently stable programs. Adding inter-institutional
attention to course design and teaching quality could benefit planning education
as a whole, assuming that red tape and bureaucracy were kept under control.
Topic
4.
Distance education courses taught by
two or more planning Programs,
as a supplement to David Godschalk’s report on this topic By
Joochul Kim 1.
Introduction. If
planning programs at remote locations experience an increase in demand for some
courses and lack faculty resources, this offering could work.
Also, beginning next academic year, some university courses in Korea will
be lectured in English, thus providing us with opportunities to develop courses
together. B.
Potential benefits. Community-based
learning courses could be a nice one here, since students can learn first hand
some critical regional differences. D.
The target audience, or impacted individuals and groups. Perhaps
all students, but more than likely it will be work adults who take some planning
courses. E.
Pedagogical model. F.
Identification of any existing models or applications. G.
Potential impact on planning education. Internationally,
both planning faculty and students could benefit. Topic
5.
The potential of an ACSP developed
"Introduction to Planning" distance
education course for freshman or H.S. level students by
David R. Godschalk Introduction Is
there a market for a standard, distance learning, introductory course in city
and regional planning at the college freshman or high school senior level? If
so, then should ACSP consider developing and distributing such a course? A
strong argument can be made for affirmative answers to both questions. This
paper outlines the benefits and costs, discusses the target audience and
pedagogical model issues, identifies an existing model, and speculates about the
potential impact on planning education. It draws upon a survey and case study of
distance education in planning conducted at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill (see Godschalk and Lacey, Learning at a Distance: Technology Impacts
on Planning Education, Journal of Planning
Education and Research 20:4, June
2001). Potential
benefits A
standard distance learning course that introduced city and regional planning to
college freshman and/or high school seniors could have a number of benefits,
including: ·
An
increase in public understanding of the role of planning in achieving public
interest goals (increasing the number of informed consumers of planning); ·
An
increase in the numbers of applicants to planning degree programs at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels (increasing the amount of interest in becoming
a planner); ·
An
increase in the overall national quality of introductory coursework, due to the
application of more resources in developing and updating the standard course
(focusing effort on one high quality product); ·
A
reduction in the need to develop and teach individual introductory courses in
existing planning programs, freeing up faculty resources for more advanced
teaching (reducing the need to reinvent the wheel); Potential
cost Creating
a standard distance learning introductory course would require dedication of
time and resources by the course designers, as well as a systematic review
process to ensure that the product met national standards. There could also be
some costs for materials, such as software licenses. To avoid conflicts, it
would be wise to specify licensing of course materials by ACSP or APA. Target
audience Two
target audiences exist--high school seniors and college freshmen. While it might
be possible to design a single course that would serve both groups, it might be
necessary to create two versions of the course in order to account for
differences in curricula, available faculty, etc. Starting with college freshmen
might be the most feasible approach. Pedagogical
model
The basic model involves use of technology to post assignments and
lecture materials, chat rooms for student-to-student and student-to-faculty
discussions, and interactive simulations, such as SimCity, to involve students
in problem solving exercises. The result is any time, any place learning. Identification
of existing models Professor
Linda Lacey has designed and taught a successful introductory planning course
using distance learning at the University of North Carolina. Her course design
and teaching experience are described in Godschalk and Lacey (2001). Other
models could be explored within the burgeoning field of distance learning
offerings by other disciplines. Potential
impact on planning education The
potential impact is substantial, particularly relative to the costs of
developing the course. This venture
could be an effective way to introduce distance learning to planning educators,
many of whom have not yet attempted to use it. It could demonstrate the
usefulness of this innovative learning technology and speed up its adoption,
both in the U.S. and abroad. It could also serve to develop more student
awareness and interest in planning careers. Topic
5.
The Potential for an ACSP developed “Introduction to Planning”
distance education course for college freshman or H.S. level students
By Nancy Frank “Introduction
to Planning” at the high school or early college level serves multiple goals,
but the most important is probably student recruitment.
By introducing students—often for the first time—to the planning
profession, planning degree programs seek to attract bright, motivated students
to the field of planning, and to their own programs.
Another important goal is preparing young adults for the responsibilities
of citizenship by informing students about the issues and values that underlie
seemingly mundane (and boring) planning decisions in their communities. The
benefits of expanding the number of students who have an opportunity to be
introduced to the topics covered in an “Introduction to Planning” are
well-identified by David Godschalk. Godschalk
identifies only one cost, however—time and resources.
I want to explore whether other costs may also be worthy of further
discussion. Potential
Costs A
substantial range of opinion exists among academic planners about what ought to
be covered in an introductory course. Some
faculty members understand such a course as primarily an introduction to what
planners do and why they do it, without too much emphasis on how planners plan.
Others understand an introduction to planning course to be about
surveying the history of planning. Within
this group, some will want to emphasize the social planning elements within our
professional history, while others will be particularly concerned to present the
grand plans of the past. Just
reaching agreement about the appropriate content of the course will be a major
hurdle. If the course that is
developed is attractive to only a minority of schools, the considerable
investment of ACSP and the course designers will not reap the hoped for
benefits. While
the purpose of an introductory planning course is to inform and inspire young
people to become engaged in planning—whether by pursuing a planning career or
merely by paying more attention to planning in their communities, a distance
education course may show planning in its worst light.
The experiences that seem to ignite students’ interest in planning are
listening to the experiences of practicing planners, making field visits to
neighborhoods or sites that demonstrate planning successes, and other activities
that actively engage students in the process.
The use of SimCity as a learning tool helps to achieve this
objective—both in conventional courses and in distance education courses.
A substantial risk exists, however, that a distance education course at
the undergraduate or high school level will be astoundingly dull. Careful
consideration of pedagogy, reading assignments, and writing assignments will
mitigate this risk. At this early
stage in the development of distance education, perhaps experimentation across a
large number of programs represents a better approach, rather than putting all
of our effort and resources into a “national course” before the academy has
fully tested the opportunities and limits of internet education. Godschalk
suggests that a standard course would eliminate the need for a conventional
classroom course at each planning program.
This benefit is probably overstated.
Distance education is likely to appeal to students with a particular
learning style and to students who are bound by time or distance and need to
take some (or all) course work at a distance. According to the a guide to
distance education published by the University of Idaho (http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/distglan.html
), “Students must be highly motivated and proficient in computer operation
before they can successfully function in a computer-based distance learning
environment.” Offering
only a distance education course at the intro level may reduce the number of students interested in taking the course,
rather than increasing it. A
student who has a choice and needs to take a general education course in
“people and society” may choose classroom-based courses in ethnic studies,
urban affairs, sociology, or anthropology simply because it is a face-to-face
learning experience rather than requiring the added effort of a distance
education course. Addressing the
needs of students with few educational options is an important goal.
Consequently, the distance education offering needs to be understood as
something programs add on to what they are already doing in order to expand
their reach, rather than substituting the distance intro course for their
existing on-campus course. Potential
Impact on Planning Education It
may yet be too early to predict the impacts on planning education.
If students flock to distance education as a learning method, the impact
could be large. If, however,
students continue to prefer classroom-based experiences, a substantial
investment in a distance education course could require an overall increase in
resources devoted to a freshmen level course, in order to provide both
alternatives, or the number of students being exposed to planning education
could decline if program offer only the distance education course and that
learning method proves unpopular for traditional, campus-based students. The
benefits of attracting non-traditional students through a distance education
course—which might include not only prospective planning students, but also
adult learners interested in expanding their horizons—may make this investment
worthwhile nonetheless. Topic 6.
Internet 2
By Nancy Frank Over
eighty percent of PAB accredited planning programs are at universities that are
members of Internet 2. An
additional 14 non-accredited ACSP member schools are also members of Internet 2.
What is Internet 2 and how can planning programs at member schools
potentially benefit from this technology? To
learn whether your university is a member of Internet 2, visit the Internet 2
website at http://www.internet2.edu. What
is Internet 2? Internet
2 (I2) is a consortium of over 170 universities whose purpose is to develop the
internet applications of tomorrow. The
goals of I2 are to provide a high speed network to avoid “traffic jams” on
the broader internet, to foster innovation in internet applications, and to
quickly move those applications to the broader “global commodity” internet.
In techno-lingo, I2 provides a “bigger pipe,” but it also provides a
laboratory for testing advanced networking techniques that should improve
traffic flow on the regular internet once the techniques are fully developed.
How
fast is I2? A T1 internet
connection runs at 1.5 Mbps, but I2 runs at much higher speeds—90 Mbps, 622
Mbps, and 2.4 gigabits per second are some of the numbers cited. A recent Internet 2 “land speed record” was set when 8.4
gigabytes of data were transferred from Redmond, Washington to Arlington,
Virginia in less than 82 second, for a speed of
900 Mbps. To put this in
perspective, “At speeds of 622 megabits per second, 322 copies of a 300-page
book can be sent every seven seconds” (http://www.vbns.net/press/press_faqs.html#WHAT). Interactive
video applications are likely to dominate the development of I2, at least in the
social sciences. The Internet2
Digital Video project, for example, offers digital video conferencing and live
video transmission across the internet. Benefits Internet
2 video could allow faculty at I2 member institutions to do live guest
lectures—or even team teach courses—without requiring satellite.
A simple digital video camera connected to an appropriately equipped
computer and software is all one needs. The
possibilities for collaborative teaching are endless.
Picture inviting a panel composed on Judith Innes, John Forester, and
Seymour Mandelbaum to answer students’ questions about planning theory—live
via the internet. I2
also paves the way for fully interactive, low-cost distance education.
With current technology and the existing I2 network, potential planning
students in North Dakota, for example, could use video conferencing facilities
at the University of North Dakota to obtain a planning degree at any of the
planning programs at I2 member institutions, if a distance education degree
program was available. This
technological possibility must overcome several institutional and pedagogical
challenges, but the basic technology is available. In the future, if the networking improvements arising from I2
result in dramatic improvements in speeds on the regular internet, the potential
impact for distance education would be even greater, allowing students to take
fully interactive courses from their homes or offices. Research
benefits are also apparent. Large
data files, such as those used in GIS and other visualization applications, can
be transferred very quickly over I2. Costs Costs
fall into three categories: monetary costs, coordination costs, and pedagogical
costs. Member
schools are already connected to I2. In
fact, all internet traffic between member schools is already traveling via I2
rather than the regular internet. So,
in a sense, we are all using I2 already. Programs
do not need to “rent” bandwidth to use I2. The
more serious direct cost involves coordinating to use I2 to its full potential.
Since I2 applications are largely experimental, faculty have needed to
collaborate with computer science faculty in order to use I2.
This situation appears to be changing, however. At the University of
Wisconsin—Milwaukee, for example, a workshop was held recently to inform
faculty about how they can use I2 for one-on-one interaction video phone calls,
meetings between groups of individuals at multiple locations, and distance
education. Campus support for using
I2 is also beginning to evolve. At
UWM, for example, the campus provides an equipped room to departments for $40
per hour, which can be reduced to $10 per hour with matching funds allocated
each fiscal year. This fee covers
the cost of the equipment, software, and a technician to provide all necessary
technical support. For a typical
three-credit course, assuming similar costs and setup at each of two
participating universities, the total semester cost would range between
$900-3600. Other campuses may have
fee structures that increase or decrease these costs. At
UWM, experience in video instruction over I2 is extremely limited.
A faculty member pursuing this teaching approach could anticipate
unpredictable difficulties. As UWM’s Information and Media Technologies staff put it,
“You would definitely be a guinea pig.” As
noted above, institutional and pedagogical hurdles remain before I2 will be used
to its fullest potential for distance education. Institutional investments and partnerships need to be formed
before students will be able to access graduate programs in planning from
universities (and in regions) that lack planning degree programs.
Few universities are likely to make their networking infrastructure
available to individual students seeking a degree program that is not offered at
the host institution. Regional partnerships between institutions with complementary
program arrays may evolve, but this will likely be a slow process.
Opportunities within states may evolve more quickly, especially among
public university systems seeking to increase student access while reducing
institutional overlap. The
transfer of pedagogy to distance education is discussed elsewhere in this
newsletter. While fully interactive
video with high quality production values reduces the necessity for development
of new pedagogies, some problems remain. If
a course is taught as both an on-site course and a distance education course,
routine classroom activities—such as breaking up into smaller discussion
groups and work groups—will create awkward inequalities among students in
relation to how they access the group. The impacts on student learning of attending a class remotely
are not well understood. Potential
Impact on Planning Education In
summary, the potential impacts on planning education are dramatic, but
uncertain. The interactive video
potential of I2 could increase the expertise available in all planning programs.
Distance education through the use of interactive video could also
increase diversity by, for example, bringing urban students together with
students from more rural settings or older students together with traditional
college-age students. Substantial
progress needs to be made, however, before interactive video distance education
can replace more traditional pedagogy in planning. Information is not yet available to gauge whether students
attending a class through interactive video are able to participate fully and
effectively in classes. Topic
7. Issues
of ownership of Web-based content By R. Varkki George The
World Wide Web was initially a way of seamlessly and freely sharing information.
Over the years, however, the focus has increasingly shifted to the commercial
potential of the Web. At the same time, there has been an upsurge of interest in
protecting intellectual property rights, and more importantly, in capturing the
commercial value of such rights.
These two trends have profound implications for using the Web in
technology-enhanced learning, as pedagogical values clash with commercial
values. Of
course, capturing the commercial value of information and knowledge is not a new
idea; this is the engine that has driven the publishing industry since its
inception. Today's e-commerce technologies allow content to be placed in
password-protected locations only accessible by students who have paid tuition,
or by others on a pay-per-view basis. Alternatively,
revenue might be generated by including advertising with the display of content;
this is a very traditional way of raising revenue while disseminating
information, though perhaps not in an academic context. These
new technologies have three characteristics that are unprecedented: easy
delivery of content to an extremely wide audience; easy replication and
modification of this content by others; tight control of access to this content.
The first has very positive implications for pedagogy: the ability to reach a
wide audience especially non-traditional learners; the ability to have content
tested and critiqued by a wider set of individuals than traditionally possible.
The second two characteristics could act together to negate any advantage from
the first: concerns that others will replicate content, and perhaps capture
commercial value, lead to tight control and thus limits on access to the
content. Some in the software development community have adopted methods that
might indicate a partial way out of this quandary. Open source software exposes
its inner workings (the source code) to the public as a way of promoting better
quality through wider scrutiny, and faster development through widespread
participation. This software is distributed under a license that allows others
to alter the code and capture commercial value but requires them to keep the
source code public. Those who are interested in widespread access to and
development of their Web-based content, could distribute this content under a
similar license. It
is not just a question of whether or how much instructors who author Web-based
content should profit from such authorship. The potential for realizing
commercial value is now pitting Universities against the faculty they employ.
The distinction used to be fairly clear: faculty have the rights to royalty from
books and text books they publish; royalties from patents on ideas developed
using University resources are usually shared between the individual and the
University. In the new world, knowledge and the vehicle used to transmit the
knowledge (which sometimes are ideas that can be patented) are tightly coupled,
and it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the two. As a result,
ownership of such developments is becoming increasingly contentious. How can
commercial value be used to motivate individual innovation while protecting the
institution's ability to capture some of this value? How are we to share revenue
from content developed by an individual and delivered via equipment and
infrastructure owned by the institution? Various institutions are continuing to
wrestle with these kinds of questions. Topic
8.
Corporate Universities
By Joochul Kim 1.
Introduction. Basically,
there are two types of Corporate Universities: 1) universities or learning
centers run by corporations (Motorola University, Intel and others)
2) for-profit universities like the University of Phoenix. I.
Corporate University a)
Definition: The Corporate
University is an educational organization, which is established and run by a
corporation. It functions as the
strategic umbrella for a company's total education requirements for all
employees and the entire value chain, including customers and suppliers (from
Corporate University Exchange Newsletter).
Some claim that there are now more than 1,800 corporate universities
nationwide. b)
Main reasons for creating corporate universities:
+To systematize the training function.
+To maximize the investment in education.
+To drive changes in the organization.
+To spread common cultures and values in the organization
+To develop the employability of the workforce.
+To remain competitive in the marketplace. c)
Core-curriculum (competency levels):
*Learning skills (information process, self-development).
*Basic skills (reading, writing and math). *Interpersonal
skills (listening, conflict resolution and negotiation skills).
*Creative thinking and problem solving.
*Leadership and visioning.
*Self-development/management. II.
For-profit University a)
They are not mom and pop trade schools, but are the accredited,
degree-granting, for-profit institutions such as the University of Phoenix,
Sylvan Learning System, the British Open University, DeVry, Inc. and others. b)
They have received lots of attention these days because most traditional
universities are perceived to be inflexible and inconvenient to many working
adults. For-profit universities
sell convenience (including shorter lengths of completion time), efficiency of
market place and accountability in educational quality.
Most of these organizations claim that assessment is what they do best. c)
Mode of educational delivery is still based on classroom setting.
Distance learning for the University of Phoenix, is only about 10% of the
delivery system at present time. Their
main target student population is working adults (24 years of age and up). d)
Academic operation is based on part-time teachers, group-presentation and
learning assessments. Emphasis is
on practical knowledge over theoretical knowledge and very flexible curriculum
(can be changed instantly by the Provost, if the market place demands it). B.
Potential benefits. For
some areas, a linkage with major corporations to target their educational needs
will be a major contribution that planning schools could make.
For example, limited degree programs for adult learners, certificate
programs for strategic planning methods and some practical courses for employees
can be provided. Without
sacrificing academic missions of each institution, market segmentation study can
be carried out to meet challenges from for-profit universities (i.e., some
public administration programs in the country have been negatively affected by
degree programs from the University of Phoenix.). C.
Potential costs. Depending
upon the size of schools, faculty resources can be a problem when partnering
with corporations. I wonder how
fast one can create a faculty line upon recognizing specific areas to compete
with for-profit universities. D.
The target audience, or impacted individuals and groups. Clearly
adult learners. Based on my survey
of corporations, most adult learners are interested in receiving college degrees
(both undergraduate and graduate degrees).
Most companies provide tuition reimbursement programs so that cost is not
in important issue any more. Flexible
schedule, convenience and job-related studies are important factors. E.
Pedagogical model. A
combination of traditional classroom learning (corporation on-site, if needed),
distance learning and internet learning may be an ideal model. F.
Identification of any existing models or applications. This
phenomenon is so new that all of us will have to adapt to change and create our
own. G.
Potential impact on planning education. Partnership
with corporations is a good thing. Since
planning education emphasizes the community-based learning, faculty members who
value practice or a linkage between theory and practice could participate in
this newly emerging venture. If
for profit-universities decide to venture into planning degree programs,
potential impacts on planning programs could be unevenly affected based on
location, size of programs, cost-ratio and market demand. |
