Change Dynamics and Leadership in Technology Implementation

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The pressures for incorporating technology in higher education are both internal and external, and the consequences substantial. Students need to be empowered to succeed as lifelong learners in an information-rich environment (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Chapman, 1996; Holmes, 1999). Using technology to engage students in the integration and synthesis of information changes the fundamental teaching paradigm from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction (Van Dusen, 1997). Younger students arrive at campuses with the expectation that technology will play a major role in their education, and as consumers they demand the same service quality that they demand elsewhere: lower costs, better service, higher quality, and a mix of products that satisfies their definition of a good education (Mooney & Bergheim, 2002; Zemsky, Massey, & Odel, 1998). Technology expands opportunities to market educational programs for older or working adults, and also opens the higher education market to new providers: corporate universities, for-profit institutions, and technology-based distance providers. Employers seek graduates who demonstrate both mastery of the current knowledge base and mastery of the technology that will enable them to stay current (Duderstadt, 1999/2000; Klor De Alva, 1999/2000; Zuboff, 1988). External financial pressures on colleges and universities send a mixed message. On the one hand, the growing public dismay about escalating educational costs results in efforts to control expenditures and budgets (Burd, 1998; O'Banion, 1997). On the other hand, despite shrinking financial resources at the state level, the federal government offers grant opportunities to institutions for technology initiatives (Carnevale, 2000; Ohio Board of Regents, 1992). Institutions have recognized that incremental responses--such as adding a few courses here and there or enriching existing course offerings (Demb, 2002; Von Hipple, 1988)--are insufficient to fully exploit the opportunities or manage the challenges represented by technology. Those institutions are thus adjusting to a new reality whose response requires transformational (Backoff & Nutt, 1997b; Connor, 1998; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Young, 1997; Wheatley, 1992). Some institutions respond more quickly than others. With missions closely tied to the needs of workforce development and businesses, community colleges have already exhibited an innovative level of responsiveness and leadership with technology-based programming (Baker, 1998; Ehrmann, 1998; Oblinger, 1996). Other types of institutions are also responding to these pressures. Market forces are pushing private liberal arts institutions to incorporate technology to keep and attract students. Bentley College, Wake Forest, Seton Hall, Franklin University, and others are reconstructing their educational offerings. Eventually every institution will be transformed to some degree because information technology fundamentally affects not only how the colleges function and who is served, but the very core of teaching and learning pedagogy (Van Dusen, 1997). The special challenge faced by these institutions is to preserve vital core values as they stretch toward frame-breaking new realities (Backoff & Nutt, 1997a; Carter & Alfred, 1997; Collins & Porras, 1997). Community Colleges, Change, and Leadership Successful community colleges respond to the educational needs of their communities by broadening their portfolios to include a major focus on perpetual learning for adults, workplace learning, and occupational preparation (Holmes, 1999). Enrolling an estimated 5.5 million students by 2000 and capturing 40% of the higher education market, community colleges are expected to be major players in employing new technologies to harness the winds of change (Bleed 1993; Chronicle, 2002). In recent years, almost all community colleges have implemented programs to improve service and quality. …