Frankly, I'm getting tired of every non-educational (read business, political) organization telling us how to use technology and citing technology as the savior of education. Yes, technology is a valuable tool, but it must be used appropriately, coupled with other needed tools of education, and provided by a trained, supported, empowered faculty. Here are some of the myths others are propagating and how we should respond.

Access

Myth #1: Expansion of technology and distance education will allow us to meet the needs of Tidal Wave II students.
The fact is that not everyone benefits from distance education. Those who succeed in learning via distance have a typical profile: "over 26 years of age, highly motivated, goal oriented, and unable to attend the traditional classroom setting" (Locke, 1993). Furthermore, consideration of the total cost will limit the applicability of technology. Those who promote technology as a cost-saving device usually do not include the full costs such as "realistically amortized capital investments and development expenses, plus reasonable estimates for faculty and support staff time" (Green and Gilbert, 1998). To assure access while advancing technology mediated instruction, faculty must work to 1) reduce cost of access to equipment, 2) expand access to geographically isolated populations, 3) expand access to socioeconomically isolated populations, and 4) assure that equivalent courses are available in classroom mode.

Cost

Myth #2 Technology will reduce costs of education compared to classroom-based instruction.
Myth #3 Expansion of distance education will be offset by reduction in need for new facilities.
Actually, even the most aggressive forecasts project at most 20% of enrollment via distance education. Latest data show 13% of the national higher education student population have taken a distance education course. About 8% of total enrollments are estimated to be in distance education courses (Greene, 1997). Even if we do expand technology, facility needs are so great that the impact will hardly be felt. The backlog of facility projects to meet current need in California community colleges is $5 billion, with the most optimistic predictions of capital bond support being $250 million per year. Current cost projections do not fully account for curriculum development, training, support, maintenance, and replacement costs. The role of faculty who are assisting in the development of state and local budget priorities for technology must be to 1) keep student fees low to promote access, 2) seek full funding for technology projects: support, maintenance, replacement and especially training and development, and 3) promote a balance of spending on technology and facilities.

Development of Technology Applications

Myth #4: Buying technology and installing infrastructure equals providing technology for education.
Myth #5: New applications of technology in the curriculum will continue to be developed by zealous and committed faculty.
In fact, faculty development funds for technology have been conspicuously absent until this year (in the form of a $4 million fund in the Telecommunications and Technology Infrastructure Project, TTIP). For technology to be integrated into the institution, all faculty must have access to that technology, be fairly compensated for their developmental work, and have rights to their products protected. Faculty must continue to advocate to: 1) assure that the $4 million TTIP money is used to meet faculty-identified needs, 2) take the lead in creating training and development mechanisms, 3) collectively bargain policies for compensation for developing technology applications, compensation for teaching distance education courses, intellectual property rights, electronic copyright, and technology use agreements.

Focus on Learning

Myth #6: Computers will revolutionize instruction.
|Myth #7: Productivity gains are greater in technology mediated instruction compared to traditional classroom-based instruction.
Real gains will not be made unless faculty fit the technology to the method of teaching and learning. Instructor-student contact must be effective and appropriate (Matthews, 1997). Pedagogical use of technology should reflect its strengths such as reinforcement of objective tasks (Kulik, 1991), facilitation of multiple draft revisions (Ehrmann, 1998), and active engagement in real world exercises which connect to the student and build mastery, process, and understanding (Kozma, 1994). We must resist false comparisons of technology-based to traditional instruction. As Ehrmann says, "Postsecondary learning is not usually so well structured, uniform, or stable that one can compare an innovation against 'traditional' processes without specifying in explicit detail just what those processes are. And specifying in detail what 'traditional' means (what materials, what methods, what motives) limits a study to a very small and temporary universe."

What can we do? 1) Recognize the pedagogically different uses of technology that are appropriate to different types of technology mediated instruction (telecourses, video-conferencing, Internet, hybrid, and others). 2) When using non-interactive methods, select courses that are primarily based on objective tasks that benefit from incremental revisions. 3) When integrating technology into classroom-based courses, evaluate the best ways in which teaching and learning can be transformed. 4) In all cases, maintain effective instructor-student contact and assure quality and effectiveness of instruction.

References

Ehrmann, Stephen C. "Asking the Right Question: What Does Research Tell Us About Technology and Higher Learning?" Change Magazine. (March-April, 1998).

Green, Kenneth C., and Gilbert, Steven W. "Content Communications, Productivity, and the Role of Information Technology in Higher Education" Change Magazine (March-April, 1998).

Greene, Bernie, Project Officer. "Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions." National Center for Educational Statistics (1997).

Kozma, Robert. Educational Technology Research and Development (Volume 42, Numbers 2 and 3). Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1994)

Kulik, Chen-Lin C. and Kulik, James A. "Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instruction: An Updated Analysis." Computers in Human Behavior (Volume 7, Numbers 1 and 2). (1991).

Locke, Jim. "Distance Education: An Academic Senate Review of the Social, Fiscal, and Educational Issues." Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (1993).

Matthews, Ric. "Guidelines for Good Practice: Technology Mediated Instruction." Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (1997).