Planning strategies: microcomputing in higher education

Planning Strategies: Microcomputing in Higher Education Higher education can passively or actively hinder the introduction of technology more easily than the corporate world. Unlike their corporate counterparts, academics are seldom between the devil and the deep blue sea: If they do not purchase any systems, money is saved and no one can charge them with having made imprudent purchases. Nevertheless, many administrators in higher education do face the complex and potentially resource-intensive issues of microcomputing objectives, policies and facilities. Typically, computing technology drops itself into academic offices as word processors replacing typewriters. The ripple spreads: A professor purchases a personal computer for word processing and statistics; students and faculty begin asking for system access. A few of the requests are accommodated by campus microcomputing lab facilities, but it is doubtful that this will satisfy demand for long. this scenario is now common. the assumption, then, is that investment in computing systems at some level is certain. A decision to act leads rapidly to user-related questions of objectives and priorities. What are the educational objectives? How will they be accommodated? What relationships hold between computing facilities and the integration of microcomputing into the curriculum? Should faculty or students have priority? Budgeting questions span such concerns as the type and extent of investment to be made in system accessories and supplies and in ongoing system service and support. Who will staff and administer the facilities? How much space will the systems need? Who will be granted access? What measures are needed for security? Inevitably, the decisions will reflect a set of computing-related attitudes, philosophies and preferences. The importance of enlightened leadership concerning computing resources is obvious. The leaders themselves need not be "power users." They should, however, understand computing objectives and be aware of alternate paths to their goals. Educational Objectives Little is known about the educational returns that an investment in computing resources gives. John Sculley, president of Apple Computer, Inc., once expressed the need for, and value of, computers in education in this way: "We used to talk of students 'taking a position with the firm.' Those are revealing words: Position and firm belong to a static model of rigid hierarchy. In the Information Age, a diverse educational experience will be the foundation for success. What tomorrow's students will need is not just mastery of subject matter, but mastery of learning." [1] Computers can free professors from routine activities and allow them to focus on teaching. According to Raymond Lewis et. al., writing in the Phi Kappa Phi Journal, [2] eductors do not want a computer "to do things that they can already do well by themselves or in conjunction with printed material." But they do want to use the technology available to help them with instructional objectives otherwise difficult to attain. The Needs of the Institution In their book, The Academic Dean--Dove, Dragon and Diplomat, Allan Tucker and Raymond A. Bryan describe timing as a crucial factor when deciding whether to invest in a program. They write: "The tide has to be coming in, not going out." [3] timing requires judgement of the juncture of circumstances and time. Is there a critical faculty vacancy in computing? Has a major budget recession struck? Timing for the application of funds also depends on the stage at which the development of computers in the institution stands. Priorities may dictate that available funds temporarily be channeled into even more basic areas. The computing scope within distinct colleges or disciplines may differ somewhat from that for the campus as a whole. In attempting to determine the appropriate levels of computing for different scholarly communities, four approaches to the administrative view of computing have been defined: 1. …