A "Whoa" for Technology 
National Teaching and Learning Forum, December 1998, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 8-10 

For this issue of Techped, I conducted an e-mail interview with Ed Neal, Director of Faculty Development in the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.  In a controversial end piece in the Chronicle, ["Using Technology in Teaching: We Need to Exercise Healthy Skepticism" Chronicle of Higher Education, June 19, 1998, pp. B4-5] Ed shared some of his concerns about the pressure being put on faculty to adopt more and more technology in their teaching. 

TLC: Ed, what has been the response to your piece? 

I was surprised (and gratified) by the many supportive messages I received from faculty members.  In general, they appreciated the points I made in the article and agreed with the thesis that teachers themselves ought to decide when and how they would use the new technologies.  A few of them even thanked me for articulating feelings that they couldn't express on their own campuses without fear of retribution. 
I did receive a few messages that called my professional competence into question and expressed dismay that I might have given teachers hope that they can resist the "inevitable tide" of progress.  In every case, it was clear that the authors were people who have a vested interest in promoting technology; "technical consultants" or computer support staff, rather than faculty members.  I was surprised that an article that is not really "anti-technology" could stimulate such vitriolic attacks.  One of my colleagues suggested that it appeared that for some, technology had become a religion, and, as with all new religions, every hint of heresy and heterodoxy must be stamped out.  In a sense, I was questioning a tenet of faith--that technology is absolutely beneficial for one and all.  To suggest that faculty members should decide for themselves whether to use technology is the equivalent of allowing pagans to choose whether or not they should be converted to the true religion. 

TLC:  What do you see as the main sources of this pressure on faculty? 

Most of these pressures operate on the faculty only indirectly, working at the institutional level to influence educational policy or funding.  Perhaps the strongest and most obvious pressure comes from the high-tech industry itself.  They see higher education as an enormous untapped market for their products and services.  They seem unaware that there may be a difference between the training of technical skills and the education of college students.  These companies are accustomed to gaining market share by offering very attractive initial arrangements for their wares, which they have done in higher education as well.  But as one critic (David Schenck) has pointed out, what they sell is not information technology, but information anxiety: "If you don't buy our product, you'll be left behind and the other institutions will steal all your students."  [reference?]  The quote is mine, but Schenck's book is titled Data Smog (1997, Harper) 
The second source of pressure, at least in public institutions, is the state legislature.  Legislators are usually very concerned about the rising costs of higher education and seek ways to "hold the line" on costs.  So when the technology industry says that it can increase the "productivity" of higher education, it sounds like a fine argument to state legislators, who are drawn largely from the business world and have seen technology improve profits in their own businesses.  Another goal may be to insure that students in state institutions have the appropriate level of training in technology so they will be competitive in the job market.  As a result they may reallocate funds from various areas of the educational budget to pay for technology initiatives.   
College and university administrators are a third (and more immediate) source of pressure on faculty to use technology.  Administrators also are trying to hold the line on costs, making them susceptible to the promises (and the blandishments) of the technology industry.  They are aware that state legislators are using their budgetary powers to promote technology, and if there is money to be had, why shouldn't they take it?  They may even believe the rhetoric about "the disappearance of the university as we know it" and feel that they have no choice but to promote the use of technology for teaching--especially for distance education programs.   
The fourth source of pressure is internal to our institutions and is one that I came to appreciate from responses to my piece in the Chronicle.  The "technology fraternity," a coherent force on many campuses, promotes technology aggressively, sometimes in ways that approach intimidation.  Members of this fraternity may include some of the "early adopters" on the faculty, but is composed primarily of technology support personnel.  These are highly competent professionals who provide the technical know-how to keep the infrastructure running.  They are an indispensable part of the institution, but at the same time, if they are in a position to set policy and make decisions that affect teaching, they can contribute significantly to the pressure on faculty.  On many campuses, faculty members have been dismayed to find that their classrooms had been redesigned into "multimedia rooms" by the technologists, eliminating moveable desks and placing enormous control panels right in front of the chalk board.  The influence of this group is particularly troublesome, even though they are acting under the best of intentions, because most of them have never held teaching positions in higher education and don't understand what matters in student learning. 

TLC:  Given these pressures, which seem pretty powerful, how should faculty members respond? 

I think faculty members should resist having successful teaching approaches completely overturned by technology, but should also look for ways that technology can help them achieve their goals more efficiently and effectively.  The problem (which is also an opportunity) is that many teachers haven't really reflected on their teaching philosophies or examined the rationale behind their practices.  If the challenge of technology means that more faculty members will think more deeply about their teaching approaches, it will be a healthy outcome for higher education.   
TLC:  What are some of the technologies that you see as most promising for teaching and learning? 
The answer to that question depends on how the technologies are used and the kind of teaching we want to encourage.  I think we must start with the premise that it is the teaching method (not the delivery system) that facilitates learning.  The confusion over this point has yielded a lot of spurious "research results" regarding the supposed efficacy of technology.  Years ago, Richard Clark concluded that media technology doesn't influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries influences our nutrition.  PowerPoint (or any other "presentation software") can be used to deliver factual information in the same way that slides and overheads have been used as traditional "lecture aids."  What is important is how the teacher uses the methodology, whether high-tech or not.  Class discussions can be productive learning experiences if the teacher is a skilled facilitator, or they can be pointless exercises in which students voice uninformed opinions.  An electronic discussion board can serve as a lively forum for debate or it can simply be a bulletin board on which student post sequential position statements, with little regard for what others have written.  The result depends on the method, not the delivery system.   
If we want to teach critical thinking, we need to adopt active learning approaches such as cooperative learning, problem based learning, case studies, and innovative writing assignments.  We need to see if technology can help facilitate these approaches.  For example, if used effectively, electronic communication enables students to collaborate with each other, facilitate communication between students and the teacher, and allow students access to the resources available on the World Wide Web.   

TLC:  Ed, in your signature file in our most recent e-mail exchange, you included the following quote: "Officials at Western Governor's University are not releasing enrollment counts to the public, arguing that those numbers are a bad measure of success," referring to WCU's surprisingly low initial registration numbers.  I take it you do not think that "virtual universities" such as WGU will make into higher education in the next 20 years.  Is that true? 

I think there has always been a strong demand for adult and professional education, and these institutions will primarily fill the needs of that population.  On-line technical courses for practicing professionals fill a very specific need for training, for a very specific group, and will undoubtedly grow.  If you examine the curricula of most of the "virtual schools," you will find that they are heavily weighted to professional education (such as business education and nursing) or technical instruction.  Many also offer bachelor's degrees, but the vast majority of their students are mature adults.   
I don't believe that virtual universities will replace colleges and universities for the traditional undergraduate population or for most graduate programs, although professional schools may feel more of a bite.  First, the experience of "going away to college" is an important rite of passage for most undergraduates, and their college acquaintances often become life-long friends.  I don't think many students are going to be willing to give up that experience.   
Second, I think it is extremely unlikely that WGU, or any other virtual university, can replicate the kind of learning that goes on in a good undergraduate program because they cannot replicate many important learning outcomes. 
Third, I think that virtual universities are going to have a hard time overcoming the perception that their undergraduate degrees are "second rate."  Of course, this is not an important consideration for an employed adult who wants to finish their BA or BS or who needs to pick up some new technical skills for his/her job.  There already exists a value hierarchy for degrees from traditional institutions:  it's "better" to have a bachelor's degree from a more prestigious university than a less prestigious one.  Although one can get a good education (or a poor one) at any of these institutions, the perception of value largely drives the demand.   
Fourth, it's not clear whether traditional institutions will accept credit for courses offered by virtual universities, nor that accrediting agencies will approve the degree programs.  WGU has been granted "candidacy status" from the four regional accrediting agencies that cover the states in which WGU operates, and they have five years to prepare their case.  If they fail, it will be very hard for others to succeed.   
I think it is more likely that college students will supplement their programs with virtual courses, sampling topics that interest them or taking some virtual courses to finish their programs ahead of schedule.  They may also want to take these courses as remedial instruction, especially in math and science.  These are also good reasons for traditional institutions to develop virtual courses, a trend that is already well under way.  This trend might well undercut the private sector's offerings (like those of the University of Phoenix) because a student at UNC would probably choose to take a "brand name" virtual course from UNC (or Duke, or Harvard) than a "generic" course from University of Phoenix.  In other words, I suspect that higher education won't change nearly as much as the promoters of technology predict, especially at the undergraduate level.