YOU CAN PRINT THIS ISSUE BY CLICKING HERE OR RETURN TO THE ON LINE VERSION.
State of the Society
Report for FY 1997 - Janelle Walter, Chair, Board of Directors
Advanced Information Infrastructures: The
Human Interface
Virginia Moxley, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Human
Ecology, Kansas State University
The Internet as a Practical Problem:
Empowerment in the Electronic Global Village
Marsha L. Rehm, Associate Professor, College of Human Sciences, Florida
State University
Choreographing Teaching in the
21st Century
Elizabeth Larson, doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction, College of
Education, Kansas State University
Building a User Friendly Environment: The
Challenge of Technology in Higher Education
Virginia L. Clark, Dean and Professor, School of Education, College of Human
Development and Education, North Dakota State University. Gregory F. Sanders,
Associate Dean and Associate Professor, School of Education, College of Human
Development and Education, North Dakota State University. Ronald M. Stammen,
Associate Professor, School of Education, College of Human Development and
Education, North Dakota State University
Conducting Research on the Internet:
Potential, Concerns, and Reflections
Steven M. Harris, Assistant Professor, Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, Texas Tech University. Charette A. Dersch, doctoral student,
Marriage and Family Therapy, Department of Human Development and Family
Studies, Texas Tech University
Model for Distance Learning Using Advanced
Information Infrastructures
Joan Laughlin, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, College of Human
Resources and Family Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Computer Mediated Interaction in a Distance
Education Course
Carolyn S. Wilken, Director, Galichia Institue Institution for Gerontology and
Family Studies and Associate Professor, Family Studies and Human Services,
College of Human Ecology, Kansas State University
Editor’s Message
Dorothy I. Mitstifer, Executive Director, Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society, East
Lansing, Michigan
Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, Vol. 11, No. 1. Editor: Dorothy I. Mitstifer. Guest Editor: Virginia Moxley. Official publication of Kappa Omicron Nu National Honor Society. Member, Association of College Honor Societies. Copyright © 1999. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM is a refereed, semi-annual publication serving the profession of family and consumer sciences. The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the society. Further information: Kappa Omicron Nu, 4990 Northwind Drive, Suite 140, East Lansing, MI 48823-5031. Telephone: 517.351.8335 - Fax: 517.351.8336.
*This message was delivered to the Leadership Conclave, Dallas, Texas, August 9, 1997.
It is my pleasure to report on the state of Kappa Omicron Nu. This message will tell you why I am impressed with the dynamics and vibrancy of the Honor Society.
Our governance structure involves continuous strategic thinking and review of policies to assure that the programs and policies remain relevant and responsive to member input. The policy handbook describes the chair as presider of board meetings and Conclave, liaison to the Constitution Committee, ex-officio member of all committees except nominating, and leader of the organization on behalf of members. This means that in all things I represented you. In order to measure progress it is good to remind us all of the purpose of the Society. The mission of Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society is empowered leadersin family and consumer sciences. The ends that provide focus are planned to create empowered leaders. The language of these statements lies in the current governance approach the Board has adopted to govern this organization. Policy Governance® focuses the Board on the mission and policies that guide decision making for Kappa Omicron Nu. The Board, including the Executive Director, makes decisions on ends policies to achieve the mission:
Among the strategies to achieve these ends are the recognition and award programs. Awards totaled almost $55,000 in this fiscal year.
- Sylvia Asay - University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- Andrea Clark - University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Jessica Mills - University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Sharon Nickols-Richardson - University of Georgia
- Pauline Samuda - University of Maine
- Jonathan Sandberg - Kansas State University
Society publications included four Dialogues and two FORUMS. Future issues of FORUM will feature “Legacies for the Future,” “Making Community,” “Leadership: Up Close and Personal,” and “Advanced Information Infrastructures.” Calls for papers for two collections of essays have been distributed: “Reflective Leading in the Public Interest” and “Toward a Theory of Family Well-Being: #2.”
Kappa Omicron Nu joined the information age and the World Wide Web. In 1996 members could tap into KON’s Web site <http://www.kon.org> and e-mail the national office. Other enhancements are contemplated.
Membership continues to grow. In 1996-97, 2768 new members were initiated. Our membership acceptance rate of 57 percent compares favorably with other honor societies, but the Board is not satisfied with this statistic. Active life, alumni, and campus members in 1996-97 totaled 13,000+, including more than 4500 gift memberships to recent grads. Members over time total almost 113,000. Although renewal efforts are extensive, active membership retention is lower than desired.
A membership survey appeared in the February Dialogue. Results of the survey indicated that the number one benefit of membership was to broaden horizons. Next in value were “stay well informed about critical issues” tied with “renew my commitment to excellence.” The top resource was scholarships/fellowships/grants, followed by Dialogue and Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM.
Terms for national officers coincide with the calendar year, except Student Representatives who serve from one conclave to the next. Board members whose terms will expire in 1997 were Janelle Walter, Chair and Merry Jo Dallas, Vice Chair for Finance.
The Society was served by our standing committees. Sincere thanks to the following committee members whose elected terms expire at the end of 1997: Editorial, Gwendolyn Newkirk and Francine Hultgren; Nominating, Betty Church, Charlotte Edwards, and E. Katrina Rivers.
Committees provide a valuable governance function and assist the organization in achieving its mission. Committees for 1997 included the following members: Awards I, Barbara Amundsen, Geraldean Johnson, Lynette Olson, and Mary Rainey; Awards II, Gwendolyn Paschall, Deborah Fowler, Jane Reagor, and Marilyn Swierk; Awards III, Virginia Clark, Kathleen Bands, Beth Goudge, and Virginia Vincenti; Constitution and Bylaws, Kaye Boyer, Karla Hughes, Susan Poch, and Mary Pritchard.
Kappa Omicron Nu has continued to collaborate with Phi Upsilon Omicron in the Coordinating Council of Honor Societies (CCHS). In addition to sponsoring the undergraduate research paper competition, CCHS presented the Graduate Program Showcase at the AAFCS Annual Meeting.
As part of the Leadership Academy, Kappa Omicron Nu joined with the Coalition for Black Development in Home Economics, the Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences, and the Family and Consumer Sciences Administrative Leadership Council to sponsor a preconference workshop at the 1997 AAFCS Annual Meeting. The “Taking Charge of Change” workshop featured the Reflective Human Action leadership model. Fran Andrews and Dorothy Mitstifer conducted a workshop, “Making a Leadership Community,” at the international meeting of the Society for Nutrition Education in Toronto.
This Conclave, held August 7-10, 1997 at the DFW Hyatt Regency, Dallas, Texas, features “Leadership for the New Millennium” workshops in two tracks: students and professionals. Members who contributed to programming were Wilma Griffin, Frances E. Andrews, Virginia Clark, Mary E. Pritchard, and Gladys Gary Vaughn. Student Board Members Elizabeth DeMerchant and Scott Ketring complete their terms at this Conclave. The following Student Board Members will serve until the 1999 Conclave: Norene Cochran of East Tennessee State University, Carrie J. Fuller of Bradley University, and Kevin M. Taylor of University of Maryland-Eastern Shore.
Financially speaking, the fiscal year was changed to July 1 - June 30; therefore, in order to change from the previous September 30 closing date, the 1997 report represents a nine-month transition year. One of the Board’s main concerns is that membership benefits have been a priority to the detriment of creating a general fund reserve large enough to maintain current programs in harsh economic times. In other words, benefits have outranked cash reserves. The endowed funds and restricted funds are well protected with a balanced mix of equity and income investments.
9/30/96 |
6/30/97 |
| General Fund |
General Fund |
| $ 54,232 |
$ 56,323 |
| Restricted Funds |
Restricted Funds |
| $307,980 |
$336,927 |
You can be proud of the great care and vision that drive all those who serve Kappa Omicron Nu. And the Society is to be commended for its unselfishness and desire to contribute to the welfare of the profession. In summary, I am pleased to say that our vital signs are very good; our prognosis great.
Exponential growth in the capacity of informational infrastructures during the past decade has vastly increased the ability to distribute and access information. This paper explores how advances in information technologies have impacted the everyday experiences of the people who use them. Information technologies have rearranged time use, neutralized geography as an asset (or liability) for workers and learners, and ratcheted up expectations for instantly available customized information.
Much of human progress has come about because someone invented a better and more powerful tool… Informational tools are symbolic mediators that amplify the intellect rather than the muscle of their users. —Bill Gates, 1995.
Human beings have a need to communicate. Throughout history, human communities have developed languages that enabled community members to share information. When these languages came to exist in written form, asynchronous communication occurred, and human communities shared innovations and traditions across time and place. However, until the invention of the printing press in the mid 15th century, the process of sharing was difficult, expensive, and slow. The printing press transformed human communication because it could reproduce written information more easily, at less cost, and at greater speed than scribes could.
Human communities continue to search for ways to share information across time and place in ways that are easy, inexpensive, and instantaneous. Advances in information technologies in the latter half of the 20th century are vastly more significant in terms of information growth and transfer than the printing press was in the 15th century. When the printing press was invented, few people could read. When the networked microcomputer was introduced, the population of the world was mostly literate and poised to capitalize on information exchange.
The decade of the 1990s has been a transformational time for information growth and transfer. The growth in information and its accessibility has changed work, education, and family life. This growth has been fueled by advances in information infrastructures.
U.S. households have chosen the networked personal computer as the appliance of choice for the decade of the 1990s. The broad diffusion of personal computers assures consumer demand for products which drives the development of new and better hardware, software, networks, and technological services.
The memory and processing capacity of personal computers is growing exponentially. According to Bill Gates (1995), since the mid 1960s the capacity of computer chips has doubled every 18 months and this rate of growth will continue for another twenty years. The consequences of exponential growth are such that if Gates’ prediction holds true, twenty years from now computer transactions will be 10,000 times faster and what now takes a day will then take fewer than ten seconds.
The bandwidth connecting computers is expanding to allow for faster transmission of digital data. Transmission speed is not especially critical for transmitting print information to a few computers, however the transmission of images and video to vast numbers of information appliances will require broad band widths.
Software has been “dumbed down” at the user interface and “smartened up” in work capacity. Because new software is relatively easy for experienced computer users to learn, they tend to load lots of programs on their computers which drives the demand for computers with increased storage and operating capacity.
In historical context, I expect that the decade of the 1990s will come to be recognized as a time when asynchronous human communication shifted from paper to electronic media. It will also be known as a time
This paper will discuss changes in information infrastructures that have occurred during the last half of the 20th century. It will focus on the human interface—how people have experienced these changes—during the decade of the 1990s.
I am a rather typical professional user of electronic information infrastructures. As such, I have chosen to provide the following case history of my personal “coming on line.” In compiling this case history, I came to the following understandings.
Today, using the internet and a personal computer at home and work seems so natural that I cannot imagine life without my personal networked computers. Yet as the case history illustrates, most of my life was spent without a computer at my fingertips. This look back has enabled me to see that as soon as I upgraded a computer or a software program, I forgot about the limitations of the previous one and so I discounted the advances in capacity even while I was avidly using them. Because of this ability to discount advances, much of the change has been invisible to those of us experiencing it.
Throughout much of the 1990s I have felt as if I were not sufficiently competent to manage computer communication as well as I wanted. I would put off upgrades because I did not have time to learn to use the new and improved equipment and programs. I would attend training sessions and leave convinced that I was technologically inept. I watched my children develop computer skills by playing and realized that I reached adulthood in the only generation in human history to learn an entirely new and constantly changing communication medium in adulthood.
Just as quickly as communications technology advanced, expectations for it advanced. These expectations assumed that the human users of the equipment were as adaptable as the equipment itself. This has rarely proven to be the case. Having the human capacity to create an instant response to an inquiry is quite different from having the technological capacity to do so. The output from the human brain has not experienced the exponential growth that output from information technology has. For many practical uses, computing capacity has outpaced our ability to benefit from the speed. It has not however outpaced the growth of our impatience. We continue to redefine “instant.”
The following timeline is provided to illustrate the extent of change in information technologies that mid-career professionals have experienced in their work lives. I have inserted major milestones in computing technology as they happened. I note that the early milestones did not have the immediate consequences for my work that recent milestones have had.
1967 - Kansas State University had one main frame computer primarily used for data management. Data to be inputted were carried to the computer for entry by an operator. As an undergraduate student, I enrolled in a computer programming course. Keypunched assignments were given to an operator and were run sometime within the next 24 hours.
Early 1970s - E-mail was first used for academic information exchange (Harasin et al., 1996). This use appears to have been the exclusive domain of researchers in the natural sciences. The earliest adopters were defense contractors because the military developed the first network.
1972 - Intel released a microprocessor chip (Gates, 1995). Few people other than Bill Gates and Paul Allen noticed.
1975 - Bill Gates and Paul Allen formed Microsoft, the world’s first microcomputer software company (Gates, 1995).
1977 - I employed a typist who used an electric typewriter to type the final draft of my doctoral dissertation. Computers were still mostly mainframe management and analysis tools. They were not being used for word processing.
1982 - IBM Personal Computer is marketed with MS-DOS operating system (Gates, 1995).
Mid 1980s - Universities and businesses began to invest in personal computers for use in word processing and data management.
1984 - Apple Computer released the Macintosh, the first microcomputer with graphical interface (Gates, 1995).
1985 - I returned to KSU as Associate Dean of the College of Human Ecology. Some staff and even fewer faculty members had computers on their desks. For the next decade, the need to provide distributed computing to all faculty and staff drove financial decisions, and faculty and staff were alternately stressed either by lack of access to sufficient computing capacity or by lack of personal capacity to use what they had access to.
1989 - KSU began to provide electronic mail training for faculty. The course material had limited value for me—there were few other users to send mail to. I opened my electronic mailbox biweekly and rarely found a message.
1990 - I purchased my first home computer—a Macintosh LC with pull down bars and screen icons. The primary uses for the computer were word processing and children’s homework. Microsoft released Windows 3.0—the first graphical interface for DOS-based computers (Gates, 1995).
1993 - The University opened new networked public computing laboratories, one of which was located in the College. These laboratories were not (and still are not) staffed. For the first two years, faculty members officed near laboratories became de facto lab assistants as students sought technical assistance with the equipment. Within two years, however, students sought support from peer users of the laboratories, and this has proven to be a satisfactory solution.
1994 - Human Sciences administrators in the Great Plains area met to form a distance education alliance. In 1994, distance delivery modes used by participating universities were designed for in-state audiences. Initial inter-state offerings were by videotape and telephone conferencing. Although universities could deliver courses on the Internet, most potential students lacked the computer and network acess to receive them.
1995 - Bill Gates reported, “Now that computing is astoundingly inexpensive and computers inhabit every part of our lives, we stand at the brink of another revolution. This one will involve unprecedentedly inexpensive communication; all the computers will join together to communicate with us and for us. Interconnected globally, they will form a network, which is being called the information highway. A direct precursor is the present Internet” (Gates, 1995). The College created a Local Area Network for the building and hired a full time network supervisor. The supervisor has been upgrading computers and wiring and peripherals full time since then. All rooms in university residence halls were equipped with two Ethernet connections to link student computers to the university server.
1996 - I replaced computers at work and at home due to “social obsolescence” of previous computers. According to Tenner (1997), social obsolescence, the inability of a computer model to run new releases of important software efficiently, often occurs within a year of purchase. Local Internet access reached the rural telephone company that serves our household. We subscribed. The college offered its first courses delivered entirely via the Internet. For the first time, all entering KSU students were assigned an e-mail address at preenrollment. The university published its first campus directory of electronic mail addresses. Average daily electronic mail transmissions handled by the university server increased 400% from April 1995 to April 1996 (CITAC, 1998).
1997 - I began to teach in one of the university’s high technology classrooms. Palm top computers provide instant analysis of student responses. Networked classroom computer provides access to the Internet and is equipped with Power Point software. In-class activities are supplemented through a listserve.
1998 - Networked computers are the status quo for businesses and households in the United States. The Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance (IDEA) has become a virtual team that collaborates regularly on distance education and technology issues. Home pages accessed electronically are the information source of choice for prospective students and the public. Newsletters are being reformatted for electronic rather than paper delivery. Students at KSU are expected to be computer savvy when they arrive. KSU students in off-campus organized living groups that install T1 lines have direct access to the university server.
The advances during the past decade have had major impacts on our work and on our daily lives. For the most part, these impacts have been positive ones. Topping the list of positive impacts is the time and geographic freedom that new information technologies have provided. These advances in technology have also had unintended negative impacts which should be recognized and managed better.
Technology does not create time, it simply rearranges it’s use. In some ways, asynchronous communication is more demanding in terms of time management than synchronous communication. For instance, when a faculty member initiates a course for asynchronous delivery via the Internet, the faculty member’s planning and development time is “front loaded.” No longer does the faculty member experience the adrenaline high of last minute preparation for the day’s class. Instead, the faculty member must engage in a thorough planning process long before the first class is available to students. The sequence of development changes when the entire class, not just the class period, must be ready for launch at one time. If the course has previously been taught in the traditional classroom, the delivery format must be converted from a predominantly verbal format to a highly visual one. Because copyright laws are far more stringent for materials being electronically reproduced than for materials shown in a classroom, permission to use words and images must be secured from the creator of the materials and cataloged. In addition, electronic reproduction, just like paper reproduction, requires that all materials derived from other sources be cited. Again, arranging and cataloging these citations requires much more thorough documentation than faculty members are accustomed to using in preparing for classroom delivery. The time payoff for faculty members, if it exists, will only be realized during successive offerings of the course.
Students, too, have time challenges in the use of asynchronously delivered instruction. Students who enroll in distance education courses delivered via the Internet choose this delivery technique because it offers perceived freedom of time and place. However, students who most want this time freedom tend to be time constrained by ongoing roles and responsibilities. Distance education students are challenged to divert time from urgent daily activities related to work and household responsibilities to the less urgent, but important, need to learn course material. The human tendency to respond to urgent activities before less urgent but more important activities is well documented. Universities have found that the completion rate for students in distance education courses is low (Cornell, 1997). To motivate students to allocate sufficient time to the course, instructors must employ management techniques such as setting deadlines that increase the urgency of completing course work.
Good teachers engage both the intellect and the emotion of the learners. The Internet’s primary uses are for information (which feeds the intellect) and for relationships (which feed the emotion). Good pedagogical techniques will provide opportunities for developing student-teacher and student-student relationships as well as providing information that advances knowledge.
Advanced information technologies provide a geographically neutral location for the creation and distribution of knowledge (CITAC, 1998). The sense that geography is neutral in working relationships and information creation/transfer is new. In 1977, Tom Allen, MIT professor, reported that the “radius of collaborative colocation is small. People aren’t likely to collaborate often if they are more than fifty feet apart (Lipnack, 1997).” Twenty years later, Allen’s world is a distant memory because of the impact of information infrastructures that neutralize geography. Collaboration with colleagues in other locales via virtual teamwork is almost as easy as collaboration with a colleague next door.
Individuals are not bound by geography in the way they were. However, they continue to be bound to geography by things that matter to them—families and communities that provide stability and meaning to life. They expect that these entities that make life meaningful for them will be accommodated by technology that brings information and services to them where they are. It remains to be seen whether technology infrastructures will reduce or increase human migration patterns. Indeed, if people are not required to move to the job, but can bring the job to them, some will use new decision-making models based on personal quality of life measures to determine where to live.
A decade ago, as knowledge professionals began to realize the potential of networked information technologies, the prevailing assumption was that these technologies would somehow make our work easier. This has not happened. Although work has been profoundly changed by information technologies, it has not been simplified. Tenner (1997) reports that computerization has helped reduce rather than promote the amount of time that professionals spend performing their highest and best work. Professional time, according to Tenner, has been diverted into providing peer technical support, learning key boarding and editing skills formerly performed by support staff, and adapting (continuously) to technological advancements.
The transformations in information infrastructures have and will continue to create opportunities and challenges for workers and businesses and families and communities. Our experiences so far may lead to better adaptations and more reasonable responses as these transformations continue. The papers in this journal describe some lessons learned about information infrastructures that are reshaping our sense of community, the way we work, and how we access and provide information.
Should this publication be read a decade from now, readers are likely to be amused by our lack of technical sophistication and the limits of the information technology that supports our work. As information technology continues to advance, some challenges faced by current users of technology will fade and new ones will emerge. I expect that one ongoing challenge will be to meet the ever growing expectations of workers and learners for instant, easily accessed, easily shared, and easily understood customized information.
CITAC. (1998). Information technology progress and plans. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
Cornell, R., & Martin, B. (1977). The role of motivation. In B. H. Khan (Ed.). Web based instruction (pp. 93-100). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Gates, B. (1995). The Road Ahead. New York: Viking Penguin.
Harasin, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1996). Learning networks. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual Teams. Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Random House.
As a new information and communications system, the Internet poses a practical problem that demands reflective and critical thinking on the part of individuals and families. This article explores how the Internet can empower individuals and families by enhancing autonomy, offering opportunities to contribute value in an ever-changing world, and facilitating relationships among diverse individuals. The article then argues that not only must we critique information flowing through the Internet, but we also must reflect upon its power as a metaphor and structure that shapes the way we view knowledge and human beings. Finally, suggestions are made for family and consumer sciences professionals including: helping families gain access and skill with the Internet, facilitating dialogue about how the Internet shapes everyday life, critiquing human consequences, and conducting related research.
“Here we sit in the Information Age, besieged by more information than any mind can handle, trying to make sense of the complexity that continues to grow around us” (Wheatley, 1994, p. 145). The Internet is a revolutionary phenomenon that enables millions of individuals across the globe to access, exchange, analyze, and create vast amounts of information. As a major factor in the information highway, the Internet is a vast network system that processes data and information between innumerable sites in the virtual electronic world called cyberspace. Because the Internet “personality” has been characterized as everything from free and egalitarian to wild and anarchic, it is no wonder that it has generated tremendous excitement, promise, and fear in the popular imagination (Burstein & Kline, 1995).
Most thinkers who contemplate the sheer amount of information, escalating rates of knowledge production and change, and immediacy of world-wide communication made possible by technologies like the Internet agree that the quality of everyday human activity is impacted (Postman, 1992; Webster, 1995). As Seel (1997) points out, new information technologies provide tools and ways of thinking that shape every aspect of our lives:
Taken as tools, they assist one in specific tasks associated with study, communication, or leisure. But taken as a whole technology, a unified world of systematic processes, they come to dictate one’s perception of reality and to dominate every sphere of life. (p. 25)
The Internet is one of the major technological systems currently changing how we define knowledge, personal value, and social relationships (Postman, 1992; Webster, 1995).
As it becomes a more common aspect of everyday life, a practical question arises concerning what to do about the Internet in terms of “solving problems of the family” (Brown, 1980, p. 101). As Lewis and Gagel (1992) warn, “Technological literacy has economic, political, moral, ethical, ecological, and indeed even psychic or spiritual aspects” (p. 135). Technologies like the Internet can be used for enlightenment or manipulation, for social cohesion or social fragmentation (Brown & Baldwin, 1995; Postman, 1992; Webster, 1995). Thus, the Internet becomes a significant practical problem requiring reflective thought and emancipatory action. Critical questions must be addressed such as: How does the Internet shape the self and society? How can we shape the Internet with justifiable values and meanings?
The challenge for family and consumer sciences is to continue our long tradition of empowering individuals and families to create human significance (Baldwin, 1996; Brown, 1980; Brown & Paolucci, 1979; Vaines, 1993) within a complex and sophisticated information environment. The overall purpose of this article is to critically explore the Internet as a practical problem related to individual and family empowerment. After a brief definition of the Internet, the article first examines how it can positively shape individual and family life. Second, it critically examines problems both directly related to the Internet as a tool and the more subtle consequences that arise as the Internet becomes a new structure and metaphor guiding thought and action. The last section suggests ways that family and consumer sciences professionals can take leadership in helping families engage in technical, reflective, and emancipatory action regarding the Internet.
The Internet was launched in 1969 by the Department of Defense to ensure that information essential for national security could continue to be distributed if any part of the system failed. In the 1990s the Internet evolved into the largest public electronic “superhighway” connecting over 20 million computers all over the world (Wresch, 1997). Poole (1997) likens the power of the Internet to the quickness and complexity of a global sized brain:
Messages in the form of electromagnetic pulses flash simultaneously and ceaselessly in all directions. Axons and dendrites are equivalent to network systems—computers and transmissions media. The neurons are equivalent to people who are drawn closer and closer together into a global community where every individual depends more and more on everyone else. This is the stuff of science fiction, yet it is becoming a reality today. (p. 210)
This global super brain provides an estimated billion users with the information offered by 13 million “hosts” (including governments from the White House to local agencies, businesses of all sizes, universities and schools, and individuals). Because the Internet enables people to communicate with each other through a variety of electronic mail and discussion group options, it has also been likened to a global village or virtual community (Poole, 1997; Wresch, 1997).
The most popular “highway” on the Internet is the World Wide Web, which combines the interactivity of video games, the information of text, and the aesthetic appeal of graphics and video (Poole, 1997; Seel, 1997). Individuals and organizations can relatively easily and inexpensively create their own sites for the Web with one or more pages of visual and textual information—an appealing option that currently prompts an addition of 5,000 new Web pages each day (Wresch, 1997). All in all, the Internet is truly a remarkable world filled with information and open to imaginative possibilities for education, entertainment, and communication.
At the same time the Internet presents a new tool to improve lives, it clearly poses a practical problem about “what to do” with the informational possibilities offered and how to use it for personal and social empowerment. As Shor (1992) reminds us, “Problem-posing goes deeply into any issue or knowledge to indicate its social and personal dimensions” (p. 43). Although the Internet poses new and still-to-be judged influences, this section explores some of the emerging views on the likely positive and negative consequences on individual and family empowerment.
Empowerment can be broadly viewed as the full development of human potential (Baldwin, 1990). Empowered individuals take steps to understand, define, and act upon their personal and community needs (Baldwin, 1990; 1996). As noted by Baldwin (1996), technical action can be taken to improve some aspects of well-being, and, in that sense contribute to empowerment. Individuals have always used technologies to improve and make the most of their lives—making life more efficient, safer, and more interesting, or in other ways facilitating the achievement of goals. We use calculators to ensure accuracy and save time, the telephone to communicate, and television to gather news and to relax. In much the same way that we have benefited by learning to use other available tools, we can develop Internet competence and technical skill to find new information pertinent to our lives and communicate with others about common needs.
Yet, the Internet differs from other technologies in its “potential to transform our lives” (Poole, 1997, p. 211). Options such as the Internet give individuals unprecedented autonomy to meet unique wants and needs (Elkind, 1994). Never before has one single technology enabled us to shop, go to the movies, get up-to-the-minute news, make and enjoy friendships, engage in discussions about issues, conduct research in libraries, and gather a wide range of information on any interest or need—without leaving home. As Burstein and Kline (1995) point out, the personal choices are unprecedented for a technological phenomenon:
Perhaps the most important quality of the Internet is that it is the most dynamic and wide-ranging interactive mass medium in history. You decide what you want to do on it, when you want to do it, whether you want to do it alone or with others, and so forth. Interactivity, of course, is a basic premise of all Info Highway projects—you wouldn’t want a highway where you couldn’t choose your own route and destination, after all. (p. 105)
If empowerment is enhanced with more autonomy and self-direction (Brown, 1993; Baldwin, 1990), the Internet can provide a valuable tool for individuals, families, and communities.
One of the more obvious benefits is that individuals and families can find a panorama of informational choices that reflect particular needs, special interests, and unique hobbies. Information quickly accessible over the Internet can help us grow as individuals and families by building opportunities. “Combing through this constantly changing information, [we] can determine what choices are available and what resources to rally in response” (Wheatley, 1994, p. 91). Interactive information experiences can enhance understanding of personal needs and prepare families for upcoming challenges (Garmer & Firestone, 1996). When new information found via the Internet is imaginatively connected with ideals, goals, hopes, feelings, and values, individuals and families can change their lives for the better.
Empowerment is enhanced when families gain a more reflective and holistic understanding of their own lives rather than becoming overly dependent on experts (Brown, 1993). The Internet allows individuals to build their own expertise. Ordinary people can research libraries and informational sites and compare online advice given from a number of perspectives. Individuals and families can exchange practical ideas and join online discussions with “kindred spirits” who have similar situations or interests. The Internet enables information-gathering across the world without traditional barriers of distance, time, and sometimes cost.
Empowerment entails the development of creativity (Rehm, 1989; 1993), personal voice (Giroux, 1988), and other qualities related to the active construction of one’s own experience and social context. The Internet can provide ordinary families with new opportunities to become what Freire (1985) calls “subjects” of their own lives rather than “objects” used by others. As a tool for “creative play,” the Internet can become an important venue to resist entrenched and oppressive ways of thinking (Stivale, 1997). The Internet can potentially nourish imaginations and deepen emotional commitment to visionary ideas (Garmer & Firestone, 1996). Individuals and families can join discussion groups around social issues, publish their own work, or inform others about home-based businesses and grassroots action groups (Garmer & Firestone, 1996). “What we can imagine can thus guide …our technology to generate something that makes the world closer to our heart’s desire” (Egan, 1992, p. 166).
More specifically, the Internet disembodies the mind from gender, class, ethnicity, and other characteristics too often used to marginalize and discriminate against people (Morgaine, 1993; Shor, 1992). Most physical disabilities are rendered irrelevant (Kato & Hackman, 1997). Because individuals “represent” rather than “present” themselves on the computer, Wilbur (1997) suggests that we are “encouraged to consider the hardiness of our concepts” (p. 7) over any physical biases. The Internet increases the power of individuals to insert their voices and ideas into the public arena of cyberspace—and be judged according to the merit of their ideas.
At the same time that individuals and families can empower themselves by using the Internet, a democratic society grows as each individual begins “constructing one’s voice as part of a wider project of possibility and empowerment” (Giroux, 1988, p. 64). Dialogue within an engaged community has potential to deepen levels of mutual understanding about information, draw individuals into more active social roles, and generate creative possibilities for action (Baldwin, 1996; Helgesen, 1995; McLaren, 1991). Each person’s voice is valuable and essential for the “critical diversity” that is needed to raise important questions, notice oppressive power relations, critique social conditions, and reach new levels of consensus and understanding (McLaren, 1991; Vaines, 1993). Like waves spreading across a sea, information becomes richer and more empowering as people share diverse perspectives (Helgesen, 1995).
If “Profuse links are the defining characteristic of the Information Age” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1994, p. 157), then the Internet offers profuse opportunities to participate in a global dialogue. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the Internet is the opportunity to create widespread interchange of ideas and build far-reaching relationships among diverse people over the entire world. As Lipnack and Stamps (1994) imply, people can enter a global conversation that makes the world more of a community.
Something entirely new is wrapped around our planet—a way for one person to communicate with many at a very low cost, regardless of where they are in time or space. Spontaneously and with little planning, a global conversation and an information freeway have erupted in less than a decade, making next-door neighbors of people in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, Bangalore, India, and Johannesburg, South Africa. (p. 157).
As Baldwin (1996) notes, democracy requires responsible individuals who are prepared to subject their beliefs to public critique and participate in the collective control of social life. All people who can get online have, at their fingertips, the power to enter a new social arena for dialogue. “The ‘magic’ of the Internet is that it is a technology that puts cultural acts, symbolizations in all forms, in the hands of the participants” (Poster, 1997, p. 211). The Internet can bring together ordinary individuals to exchange ideas about political issues. Individuals can state opinions and request feedback to grow in social understanding. They can participate in moderated discussions in which everyone in the “audience” can “speak” and add to public meaning. Schools, business people, professionals, workers, or researchers can conduct projects with groups from across the world—sharing interests and problems and generating new ideas as a global team.
Importantly, “The technology network supports the people network” (Lipnack & Stamps, 1994, p. 158). As hooks (1994) claims, empowerment takes place as we step across traditional confines and boundaries to carve out new possibilities:
In that field of possibility we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. (p. 217).
With “near primitive conditions of a frontier” (Wilbur, 1997, p. 8), the Internet is just such a world without boundaries. Individuals can overcome physical limits, and online communities can evolve in grassroots fashion to address almost any human challenge.
Although we now have a new tool to greatly enhance our ability to meet personal, family, and social needs, the Internet demands a critical perspective. As Seel (1997) cautions, “We live in a world where technology is taken for granted. Nothing has greater power over our lives than when we are unaware, unquestioning, and uncritical” (p. 21). The Internet is gaining at least a degree of power over our lives, and this section critiques some related concerns. Some concerns relate to the more obvious need to question the quality of information flowing within the Internet and the need to ensure equitable access. Other concerns are more subtle in the way the Internet provides an entirely new metaphor and social structure that highlights speed, distance, and anonymity—exerting powerful consequences on the way individuals think and the way society structures interactions.
Empowerment includes freedom from biases, compulsions, hostility, self-doubt, lack of understanding, and unreflective acceptance of ideologies (Morgaine, 1993). However, because there are so few “real world” consequences to Internet behaviors, biases and habits can be sustained with the practice of seeking out only information which conforms to stereotyped or rigidly safeguarded preconceptions (Poole, 1997; Seel, 1997; Wresch, 1997). “The Internet and new technology are not the source of our nation’s problems—they merely add new and sometimes troubling dimensions to the problems we already face throughout society” (Burstein & Kline, 1995, p. 111).
For example, pedophiles and child pornographers lurk online in effort to entice children into dangerous conversation and action; militant groups publish materials promoting “cyberhate” or actual tools of violence; “cyberaffairs” blossom online; verbal harassment occurs; and misinformation abounds on every issue from dieting to child raising (Stivale, 1997; Foster, 1997). As a world that is totally free of censorship, “People can, within the confines of law, distribute whatever they want in the way of text, still images, and video” (Poole, 1997, p. 214). The Internet itself is so compelling to some people that they fall victim to a new dependency, cyberaddiction.
Whereas some individuals take questionable liberties with newfound freedom of the Internet, others do not have the opportunity to even try to benefit from Internet information and communication opportunities. Unfortunately, information systems are not equitably distributed in society, and many families are likely to suffer marginalization because they do not have access to the same information and computer opportunities that are available to others (Baldwin, 1996; Freire, 1985; McLaren, 1991). The Internet is already a “significant site of cultural transformation and production in its own rite” (Porter, 1997, p. xvii). People who do not have easy access to computers, knowledge of the Internet, and related technological competence miss out on these opportunities to actively participate in the transformation of culture.
A less obvious challenge to empowerment is the way a technological society redefines the very nature of knowledge about the person and social relations (Green, 1984). According to social critic Neil Postman (1992), we are becoming a “technopoly,” loosely defined as a society in which technologies monopolize and become the ultimate standard for our thought and action. The Internet as a metaphor for life highlights immediacy, intense variety and options, skill, entertainment, and anonymity. As Postman warns:
New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with. And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop. (p. 20)
Creative autonomy, intellectual depth, and dialogical development of meaning are fundamental to empowerment (Morgaine, 1993; Rehm, 1993; Vaines, 1993). However, the Internet can undermine the development of these reflective abilities. Technologies such as the Internet can “come to dictate one’s perception of reality and to dominate every sphere of life” (Seel, 1997, p. 25). Because information comes to us quickly “one screen” at a time, we come to view the “best” knowledge as that which is packaged into lively, entertaining and instantly gratifying forms. Individuals can become unthinking consumers of the electronically-produced meanings flowing over the Internet. They can become beguiled by sophisticated images, leaving little desire to creatively grapple with complex issues (Baldwin, 1996; McLaren, 1991; Webster, 1995).
Even before the Internet became available to the general public, Green (1984) warned that a technological mindset leads individuals to expect that we can find a tool to quickly solve every problem. We impatiently look for technological solutions rather than undertaking the time for pride in craft, reflective human interaction, and critical struggle. As Postman (1992) observes, successful use of the Internet and other technologies often depends more on skill than on ideas. Because the Internet environment is multilinear and encourages the continual shifting of attention, it changes our very view of personal success (Tabbi, 1997). We are even likely to equate efficiency and technical skill—the ability to “surf” from site to site, enter a newsgroup, or “log on” to a discussion to find immediate answers to narrowly-defined problems—with moral goodness (Green, 1984). Individuals in the future are likely to strive to attain the valued traits—aiming to be quick and efficient rather than reflective and painstaking.
Baldwin (1996) claims that empowerment depends on the development of mature identity associated with reflectiveness, self-understanding, and critical awareness of external reality and possibility. Indeed, whereas we used to assume that identity evolved and developed within real contexts, the constantly shifting world of the Internet challenges existing notions of both reality and identity. Virtual reality and information experience is much more ambiguous and open to fantasy than is physical, tangible experience. “Many computer users seem to experience the movement ‘into’ cyberspace as an unshackling from real life constraints—transcendence rather than prosthesis” (Wilbur, 1997, p. 11). An Internet-based identity thus is fluid, represented by words rather than actions or gestures, continually experimental, and potentially fragmented and confused (Foster, 1997). The individual on the Internet also works alone without tangible social context. This type of autonomy can disintegrate into self-absorption without fear of social critique and grounded consequences (Seel, 1997).
Particularly troublesome to the formation of identity is the way that young people are being shaped by the Internet. The entertainment and information options of technologies like the Internet “support, enhance, and increasingly define their identities” (Seel, 1997, p. 17). There is danger that young people can become so intent upon exciting and multiple information experiences that they fail to become involved in the situated, grounded experiences necessary to learn how to make reflective, creative, and wise choices (Baldwin, 1996; Brown & Paolucci, 1979; Brown & Baldwin, 1995; Rehm, 1993). Because the Internet makes it relatively easy for creators of information to mass-produce hidden agendas, distort ideas, and manipulate receivers (McLaren, 1991; Webster, 1995), impressionable youths are vulnerable to uncritical acceptance of oppressive ideologies.
Also troubling is the potential effect of the Internet on the relationship between individuals within a society. Social empowerment demands that we clarify information, contrast multiple perspectives, discover common ground, reflect on ideas, and define shared visions as we interact and form relationships with each other (Brown, 1993; Vaines, 1993). We build traditions and social strength by enacting ideas and assessing the consequences. Yet the Internet makes it especially easy for individuals to distance themselves from the contextualized dialogue that raises new ideas, challenges our biases, and eventually leads to synthesis of new ideas and social commitment. Elkind (1994) argues that new technologies create social fragmentation.
One of the many ironies of the postmodern world is that, with so many sources of information and avenues of communication available at our fingertips, we run the risk of a loss of community, of a shared view of the common good. (p. 25)
Such detachment from a community leads to a number of negative consequences: impoverished social imagination (McLaren, 1991), loss of socially shared and creative meaning (Polanyi & Prosch, 1975), diminished sharing in decision power (Baldwin, 1996), and forfeiture of the security that comes with membership (Green, 1984). Such detachment from the concerns of others can further support manipulation of thought and distortion of human relationships (Baldwin, 1996; McLaren, 1991).
Empowerment ultimately occurs when we set forth a project that captures the social imagination and act to transcend existing realities (Freire, 1985; hooks, 1994). Social imagination grows as dialogue reflects “how community life should be constructed around a project of possibility” (Giroux, 1988, p. 72). Although the Internet enables the growth of “virtual communities,” Poster (1997) maintains that public talk is “confused and complicated by the electronic form of exchange” (p. 209). The very features that redefine personal identity—experimentation, fluidity, fantasy, and anonymity—also redefine the nature of community and society.
If individuals can represent themselves in multiple and even conflicting ways over the Internet, the nature of public interests and ideas will also be viewed as multiple and conflicting. This flux leads Poster to argue that “consensus is denied in the arenas of electronic politics” (p. 209). Because the Internet public sphere is virtual, it offers multiple representations of a plurality of worlds; the Internet simply does not have the capacity to facilitate or even allow stable societal norms. Lockhard (1997) contends that the Internet addresses the “desire for community rather than the difficult-to-achieve reality of community” (p. 224) and enables more political voyeurism than activism.
The ambiguity of “real” personal characteristics and experience also can hide the very issues that call for collective action. The “featurelessness” of individuals on the Internet “denies the diversity of its users” (Lockhard, 1997, p. 227). It is more difficult to address common challenges related to gender, class, or ethnicity when such features are hidden behind the computer, and cyberspace can become “a substitute for the material reality of coexisting and cooperating” (Lockhard, 1997, p. 226). Rather than challenging inequities, the Internet may mirror existing social patterns.
“Thinking about our past potentially helps us have more understanding of why we are doing what we do in our everyday action” (Coomer, 1985, p. 59). Postman (1992) warns that technologies can render history irrelevant because their very attraction lies in their provision of immediate answers to immediate needs and wants. Ideas about what is right, true, just, and beautiful that have produced great cultures throughout history get lost when we live by a metaphor of quick images and short “pages” of the Internet. We come to find that longer narratives, theories, and discussions (about how present situations evolve to reflect relations of power) become unattractive and burdensome in comparison.
As valuable as the Internet can be in finding efficient solutions and enhancing communication, we must recognize its power as a metaphor and structure for living. As such it has power to undermine community dynamics, marginalize those who are unsophisticated in information technologies, and numb creative and moral sensitivity. Certainly, the Internet poses a significant practical problem for families and a need for reflective endeavor on the part of family and consumer sciences professionals.
The Internet is undeniably a part of family life in the world today, and family and consumer sciences professionals have an obligation to help people approach this new technology for empowerment rather than oppression and fragmentation. “Helping families embrace the future is a leadership imperative we can continue to fulfill if we persist in adopting new ways of seeing families in relation to the world and in changing the ways we serve families” (McGregor, 1997, p. 12). We must not only promote Internet skills and knowledge to help families keep up with new opportunities, but we also must facilitate the reflective meanings, dialogue, and critical action needed for empowerment.
“Recognizing the importance of the material elements of family life, we as a profession have focused to a considerable extent on human needs such as food, clothing, and shelter, and on techniques for meeting them” (Baldwin, 1996, p. 5). Family and consumer sciences professionals must continue to seek new technical information resources and use appropriate tools to thrive amidst challenges of the present and the 21st century (Goldsmith & Shelfer, 1996). Because a fluctuating environment demands “constant rebirth of expertise” (Leonard-Barton, 1995, p. xv), each professional first must learn to use the Internet to seek out the particular sources most useful to their own professional roles.
Goldsmith and Shelfer (1996) provide an excellent overview of a wide variety of electronic resources pertinent to family and consumer sciences—including online databases (topics ranging from social demographics to particular ethnic groups), online government documents and university library holdings (topics ranging from health to consumer issues), and electronic discussion groups. All family and consumer sciences professionals can draw on their knowledge of research and practice to develop their own lists of valuable online resources to share with those we serve.
Egan (1992) notes, “Imagination must dwell within rationality if rationality is to serve human life and enrich our experience” (p. 166). Once we identify Internet resources, we must imaginatively explore meanings and implications of information and weave new ideas into practical situations (Wheatley, 1994). For example, the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences at Illinois State University offers a career course on the World Wide Web. This type of course appears to increase communication between instructor and students, student excitement, and individualized learning (Hayden & Ley, 1997). Dietitians, family counselors, consumer advocates, child care workers, textile specialists, retailers, and other professionals and professional groups could offer Web pages and similar interactive educational services over the Internet.
With a core mission to promote family well-being (Baldwin, 1996), we can take reflective leadership (Andrews, Mitstifer, Rehm, & Vaughn, 1995) in initiating dialogues and action groups concerning access of individuals and families to the Internet. Many citizens, schools, and workers are marginalized because they lack technological resources (Elkind, 1994; McLaren, 1991; Green, 1985). As Wresch (1997) notes, states and localities have initiatives to make technological access more widely available. We can lobby to get the Internet available in every school and other public places where people congregate. We can propose “scholarship” or cooperative programs to help disadvantaged families and workers purchase computers, learn the Internet, and afford technical services.
Of course, “For home economists to provide only technical information or to formulate public policy themselves ignores family members’ self interpretations and their need for freedom from internal and external constraints” (Brown & Baldwin, 1995, p. 28). Family and consumer sciences professionals can play a major role in helping individuals and families problematize the Internet and its metaphorical influence on everyday life. If we help families reflect upon how it shapes their well-being, we also help them become architects of their own lives.
We must not allow the excitement of the Internet to overshadow its potential for misuse and even oppression. Brown and Baldwin (1995) warn that the profession historically has overused a technical approach when working with individuals and families, a warning that is especially important in a society where information technologies abound and diverse special interests can be promoted (McLaren, 1991). We must help individuals and families adopt a reflective and critical attitude toward the Internet (Brown and Paolucci; 1979; Baldwin, 1996). Information is never neutral; rather, we must help families become aware that information is “… for those purposes, for those sorts of groups, with those sorts of interests developing” (Webster, 1995, p. 220).
We must help those we serve reflect on the values promoted in Web sites as well as values promoted by the Internet as metaphor—posing questions about meaning and purpose, interpreting ideas, and critiquing consequences on individuals and families. We need to ask questions about how to maintain freedom, justice, responsibility, caring, and vision (Brown & Baldwin, 1995; Webster, 1995) in a world increasingly dominated by technological skills and ways of communication. Critical questions are especially important regarding the Internet: How does specific Internet information relate to examined values and beliefs? What are the consequences of virtual discussions about particular issues? How does the Internet shape our reality and experience? How do we define communities? How does the Internet shape thinking, consumer patterns, and identity?
Information generated from dialogue and reflection becomes dynamic and vital only as people draw it into their situated contexts and develop a sense of membership in a common cause (Green, 1984). As diverse people share multiple perspectives, understanding grows, consensus builds, and creative projects can be generated. “If in the name of diversity, the users of the Internet can justify their essayistic forum as one that serves the public interest in concrete and demonstrable ways, it would represent a step in the direction of an egalitarian public sphere” (Knapp, 1997, p. 194). Family and consumer sciences professionals can provide concrete examples of how the Internet enables individuals and families to address social concerns.
For example, many professionals and families are working together on The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) to facilitate ways for parents to control the kinds of material children can access on the Internet (Poole, 1997). Family and consumer sciences professionals could facilitate their own specialized critical and consensus-building groups to assess and act upon the full range of Internet related issues. Both electronic and local action groups could form to address concerns such as: ways families can prevent addiction and harassment on the Internet, special needs of women and minorities over the Internet, how the rapid explosion of information affects meaningful family life, and policies to facilitate Internet responsibility.
Chappell (1993) and Elkind (1994) emphasize that we need to pay special attention to the need for a sense of community in an information age that can so easily fragment and isolate us. Perhaps our profession’s greatest strength is our tradition of placing a concern for human significance at the forefront of any social problem. As Foster (199 7) argues, the basic qualities of caring are more essential than ever before.
This spirit of community is essential to the vitality of virtual communities. That which holds a virtual community intact is the subjective criterion of togetherness, a feeling of connectedness that confers a sense of belonging. Virtual communities require much more than the mere act of connection itself. (p. 29)
The spirit of community and belonging is essential to the individuals and families served by the profession. For example, consumers and retailers must work together for a safe, just, and equitable global economy; both youth and the elderly must play active roles to build communities rich in history and possibility. We should work with those we serve in raising questions related to meaning, identity, knowledge, reality, and other issues that keep the spirit of the common good alive in emerging virtual communities.
Chappell (1993) suggests that organizations place the language of relationship in their everyday vocabulary and practice—encouraging talk about family and sharing personal stories about issues of importance to the family. Family and consumer sciences professionals can take leadership in making sure that everyday life beyond the Internet is rich in human relationships and connections. Engaging conversations, spontaneous stories, planned stories, fun gatherings, and celebrations of community can counteract Postman’s (1992) fear that technology will soon provide all social answers. We can counteract the Internet standard of speed and fragmentation by highlighting an equally powerful metaphor that highlights quality, meaning, and relationships—the family.
The Internet offers new and valuable avenues for research. Empirical studies can provide observable evidence (Fanslow, 1989; Zimmerman, 1989) about questions such as: What is the relationship between one’s comfort and skill in using the Internet and one’s sense of autonomy, creativity, or social membership? How effective are particular Web sites in helping individuals and families solve particular problems? What is the relationship between Internet use and children’s cognitive, social, physical, and emotional development? How do families use the Internet, and what are the perceived benefits and problems? How does using the Internet compare with using “old fashioned” methods to solve particular problems?
Hermeneutic studies are needed for deeper understanding about motives, uses, biases, intentions, values, and feelings (Daines, 1989; Hultgren, 1989) related to information and the Internet: How do families come to create meanings for information gathered from the Internet? How do they describe the experience of online communication and information-gathering? How do families interpret the effects of the Internet upon their well-being, freedom, and sense of community? How do social meanings influence the use of the Internet? What is the nature of communication over the Internet? In what ways does the Internet influence the nature of imagination in family life? What are the feelings of families that do not have access to computers and the Internet?
Critical studies are needed to help us “facilitate a free society where people think and talk together about moral questions that affect society” (Coomer, 1989, p. 168). Critical studies could be undertaken to: challenge accepted meanings about information obtained over the Internet and about the Internet itself, reveal power relations and distortions of meaning with various types of information exchange, question the power of families in establishing standards for information, and bring to light ways that families create desired ends concerning the Internet. Critical studies can reveal insights into the ways that the Internet expands or diminishes personal and family empowerment and critical freedom in the social sphere (Strom & Plihal, 1989).
Because the Internet is becoming a valued tool in everyday information experiences, and because it is has the potential to become a potent metaphor and system to guide personal and social life, there is a pressing “need for on-going critical assessment of the role of technology in our lives” (Seel, 1997, p. 29). Insofar as the Internet helps empower individuals and families, we have an obligation to integrate it into our professional practices. But no technology can replace our personal connection with information and with each other.
“What is clear at this stage of the game is that an engagement with virtual community in any adequate, rigorous way will involve us in the painstaking negotiation of a complex field of meanings and associations” (Wilbur, 1997, p. 12). If we imaginatively participate with the Internet and critically reflect on our evolving and complex information environment, we can generate liberating possibilities.
Andrews, F. E., Mitstifer, D. I., Rehm, M., & Vaughn, G. G. (1995). Leadership: Reflective human action. East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.
Baldwin, E. E. (1990). Family empowerment as a focus for home economics education. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 8(1), 1-12.
Baldwin, E. E. (1995). Transformative professional practice: Overcoming ambivalence, building community. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM. 8(2), 21-37.
Baldwin, E. E. (1996). Family well-being: A conceptualization guide to professional practice. In D. Mitstifer (Ed.), Toward a theory of family well-being (pp. 311). East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu,
Brown, M. M. (1980). What is home economics education? Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Development Center for Vocational Education.
Brown, M. M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States. Basic ideas by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Human Ecology.
Brown, M. M., & Baldwin, E. E. (1995). The concept of theory in home economics. East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.
Brown, M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association.
Burstein, D., & Kline, D. (1995). Road-warriors: Dreams and nightmares along the information highway. New York: Dutton.
Chappell, T. (1993). The soul of a business. New York: Bantam Books.
Coomer, D. L. (1985). Critical science as a mode of inquiry: A critical study of educational evaluation theory and practice. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 3(1), 56-77.
Coomer, D. L. (1989). Introduction to critical inquiry. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 167- 184). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Daines, J. R. (1989). Verstehen: A more comprehensive conception of understanding through hermeneutics. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 69-79). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle school years. University of Chicago.
Elkind, D. (1994). Ties that stress: The new family imbalance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Fanslow, A. M. (1989). The nature of home economics research from the empirical perspective. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 9-23). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Foster, D. (1997). Community and identity in the electronic village. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 23-37). New York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Garmer, A. K., & Firestone, C. M. (1996). Creating a learning society: Initiatives for education and technology. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Literacy and the pedagogy of voice and political empowerment. Educational Theory, 38(1), 61-75.
Goldsmith, E. B., & Shelfer, K. M. (1996). Electronic resources for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 88(1), 10-14.
Green, T. F. (1984). The formation of conscience in an age of technology. American Journal of Education, 94(1), 1-32.
Hayden, M. A., & Ley, C. J. (1997). Collaborating with technology: Teaching a class on the world wide web. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 89(2), 25-27, 36.
Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: A new architecture for building great organizations. New York: Doubleday.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Hultgren, F. H. (1989). Introduction to interpretive inquiry. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 37-59). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Kato, S. L., & Hackman, E. (1997). “Surfing the net” to better learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 89(2), 6-10.
Knapp, J. A. (1997). Essayistic messages: Internet newsgroups as an electronic public sphere. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 181-197). New York: Routledge.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Lewis, T., & Gagel, C. (1992). Technological literacy: A critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117- 138.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1994). The age of the network: Organizing principles for the 21st century. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Lockhard, J. (1997). Progressive politics, electronic individualism and the myth of virtual community. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 219-231). New York: Roudedge.
Morgaine, C. A. (1993). A language of empowerment. Home Economics Forum, 6(1), 15-20.
McLaren, P. (1991). Critical pedagogy: Constructing an arch of social dreaming and a doorway to hope. Journal of Education, 173(1), 9-34.
Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. University of Chicago.
Poole, B. J. (1997). Education for an information age: Teaching in the computerized classroom. Boston, MA: WCB/McGraw-Hill.
Porter,, D. (1997). Introduction. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. xix-viii). New York: Routledge.
Poster, M. (1997). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 210-217). New York: Routledge.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
Rehm, M. (1989). Empowering the creative spirit: An inquiry into the role of home economics education. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 7(2), 1-12.
Rehm, M. (1993). An aesthetic approach to empowerment. Home Economics FORUM, 6(2), 26-39.
Seel, J. (1997). Plugged in, space out, and turned on: Electronic entertainment and moral mindfields. Journal of Education, 179(3), 17-32.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press.
Stivale, C. J. (1997). Spam: Heteroglossia and harassment in cyberspace. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 133-144). New York Routledge.
Strom, S. M., & Plihal, J. (1989). The critical approach to research. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 185-210). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Tabbi, J. (1997). Reading, writing, hypertext: Democratic politics in the virtual classroom. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 233-244). New York: Routledge.
Vaines, E. (1993). An empowerment orientation for home economics. Home Economics FORUM, 6(2), 21-25, 29.
Webster, F. (1995). Theories of the information society. New York: Routledge.
Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wilbur, S. P. (1997). An archaeology of cyberspaces: Virtuality, community, identity. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 5-22). New York: Routledge.
Wresch, W. (1997). A teacher’s guide to the information highway. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zimmerman, K. (1989). Introduction to empirical inquiry. In D. L. Coomer & F. H. Hultgren (Eds.), Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research. American Home Economics Association Teacher Education Yearbook 9 (pp. 3-8). Peoria, IL: Glencoe.
Emerging instructional technologies have raised student’s expectations for access to and quality of higher education programs. As faculty respond to the opportunities presented by increasing technological capacity and increasing student demands for its full implementation, they are confronted with the need to learn new skills, teach in new ways, and create a different cultural milieu. Choreographing these changes requires that teachers and administrators reconceptualize teaching and eliminate barriers to implementation of technology-based instruction while creating opportunities to use it effectively. Peer coaching enables faculty members to maximize the use of technology to add richness and depth to the quality of course delivery.
Choreograph: to arrange or direct the movements, progress, or details of
—(Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)
Emerging technology has the potential to be both a blessing and a curse for institutions of higher education. The present system of higher education is being challenged by increased pressures to not only utilize emerging technology but to change its intrinsic culture (Duguet, 1995) in order to respond to student demands for increased access. The pressure to adapt to new and emerging technologies in instruction will not abate; if anything, it will increase with dramatic speed (Cornell and Martin, 1997). Students like the tempo of the new technology and will learn the choreography as the music develops. They are well aware of advancing technologies and are becoming more insistent that they be allowed to benefit from the technology. For faculty, the tempo is unfamiliar and the steps are awkward. Although audiovisuals have come a long way from overheads and filmstrip projectors, teaching faculty are frustrated by the demands of using technology and underprepared to utilize it. The changes that will be required as teaching evolves from a relatively linear lecture format to a spider web process of leading learning may frustrate, alienate, and confuse faculty.
Choreographing teaching in the 21st century will be a complex task. Administrators would be wise to recognize the complexity of implementing technology into mainstream academic programs. Like a dance team, the steps must be learned and time must be given to practice and polish presentations. Anything less, as any performer could attest, results in a poor quality, amateurish production. Improvement of teaching and implementing emerging technology must be evaluated simultaneously to reconceptualize why we teach, how we teach, and what we teach.
Although students are quick to embrace new technologies and alternative delivery systems, institutions of higher education are much more reluctant to change. James & Beattie (1997) observed that universities are typically conservative organizations in which change can be a lengthy process and where academic staff carefully scrutinize new developments. Although faculty does not necessarily fear change, fear is a factor. Tried and true teaching methods, particularly the university lecture tradition, are much more comfortable. A fundamental tension identified by both Cornell & Martin (1997) and James & Beattie (1997) was that faculty were being pressured to provide flexible access for students, to maintain high quality academic standards, and to do both well. Striking equilibrium between these is at the heart of any decision to adopt a new delivery method (James & Beattie, 1997).
One of several challenges to higher education identified by Duguet (1995) is the need to provide good-quality instruction adapted to the 21st century. Quality issues dominate the literature, and it is evident that advantages in terms of access should not be won at the expense of poor quality instruction. James & Beattie (1997) assert that whether mainstream academics will be convinced that alternative delivery methods will be of comparable quality to face-to-face instruction is at the heart of the speed of adoption issue. Dede (1996), however, suggests that institutions cannot afford to wait to develop a plan for implementing emerging technology in a time when the technologies, economics, and public policies underlying all forms of schooling are rapidly shifting. Some standardized plan for innovation can be constructed, Dede (1997) insists, before the access versus quality debate is completed.
A hidden benefit, as technology is incorporated into courses, is the opportunity for faculty to reconceptualize teaching. “The true innovation in emerging technology,” offers Dede (1996), “is the opportunity to redefine how we communicate and educate by effectively using new types of messages and experiences, in addition to exploring technological innovations.” The literature emphasizes that educators have choices in both instructional strategy and techniques, and that technology is only one path to effective teaching. Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) reflect that technology is a major resource in higher education and should be used as a tool in effective teaching strategies. Sherry (1996) adds that “although technology is an integral part of distance education, any successful program must focus on the instructional needs of the students, rather than on the technology itself.” Chickering & Ehrmann (1996), Cornell & Martin (1997) and Sherry (1996) all stress the imperative that as academic faculty adopt technology in their courses, that course objectives, content, and activities be carefully analyzed. When a course is designed for distance delivery, it should be considered as an opportunity to rethink the entire course from beginning to end, addressing not only the methods to be employed but also the content (Cornell & Martin, 1997). Williams and Peters (1997) recognize that rethinking and redesigning instruction takes time and careful contemplation. Reconceptualizing teaching in this manner provides faculty an opportunity to use the technology as a valuable tool in promoting discovery learning and enhancing learning experiences for students.
The possibilities and constraints of teaching with advanced technology are quite different from those used in traditional classroom delivery (Cornell & Martin, 1997). In Closing the Loop: Distance Education and the College Professor, Toombs (1990) challenges the university lecture tradition, where professors are seen as the chief dispensers of knowledge and suggests that, in order to provide optimum learning experiences for students, the instructor role should be to facilitate rather than orchestrate what and how information is acquired. Willis and Dickinson (1997) go so far as to suggest that the more comfortable the instructor is in teaching in a traditional setting, the more difficult it is to face the reality that significant re-thinking and adaptation will be required for effective distant course delivery. Talab and Newhouse (1993) found that many teachers were slow to incorporate new technologies into their classrooms because they perceived their positions as instructional leaders to be threatened. Toombs (1990) states that the authority of the professor has not diminished, but the clarity of the role has become confused and blurred by the transition into information networks. No longer is the teacher “the sage on the stage;” the teacher must facilitate discovery learning for students. Dissatisfaction may arise because personal preferences or assumptions about the role of the teacher are thrown into question. Sherry (1996) adds that for technological innovations to be successfully implemented, the social and political climate of the school must be considered. The climate must reinforce the authority of the teacher rather than undermine it.
How can institutions of higher education ease the tension created by a push for a new educational paradigm which reconceptualizes teaching and incorporates technology? Even a well-practiced teacher, who is at ease with the equipment in the classroom, will require training in order to integrate new teaching strategies with the technology (Sherry, 1996). Administrators cannot expect teachers to feel comfortable with the technology, to use it effectively, and to maintain it as well, without providing them extra resources and time. Holloway & Ohler (1991 ) found that for technology to be widely accepted it must be of value to the user—the student first and the faculty second. There is an ongoing tension between the demands made on faculty by new delivery methods and the benefits that accrue to students. If technology and its related demands do not make the performance of a task rewarding, there is little motivation to accept the technology.
Additional factors influence faculty motivation to implement technology. Beyond change issues that reflect the sentiment, “this is the way it’s always been done, and it’s never been challenged before,” Cornell & Martin (1997) identified several reasons why instructors lack the motivation to implement technology in their classroom: administrative mandate, inadequate time, and lack of incentive. Faculty and administrators alike have identified a number of barriers or “disincentives” (Williams and Peters, 1997) that have these three common themes, which are likely to interfere with the successful implementation of technology.
With stringent guidelines for the university tenure process, many faculty found it increasingly difficult to control the proportion of their time devoted to teaching duties (James & Beattie, 1997). Williams & Peters (1997) suggest that the promotion and tenure process is a strong disincentive for instructional innovation. “If lecture and transparencies produce even moderate success in the classroom, they are the weapon of choice, since they leave more time for publishing and committee meetings” (Williams & Peters, 1997, p. 107). James & Beattie (1997) also found that faculty resented the “research and writing” time lost to them while designing and creating learning materials. Many of the initiatives to incorporate technology into the classroom studied by James & Beattie (1997) were sustained only by the substantial professional commitment of the faculty. When academic staff are well aware of the need to advance their careers on other fronts, such goodwill has limited duration. Although non-tenured faculty are enthusiastic about instructional innovation, full professors are likely to have the luxury of time to redesign courses as well as risk peer criticism (Williams & Peters (1997). Williams & Peters (1997) also found that preferred incentives such as travel funds, release time, development funds, and encouragement from senior faculty or department heads were rarely offered to untenured faculty.
The extensive time needed to produce high quality learning materials, whether printed, broadcast, taped, or computer based, is well known. Williams and Peters (1997) estimate that it is not uncommon for one hour of web instruction to have an investment of 200 hours of design and development.
Because distance education is still fairly experimental, a significant barrier is time to prepare thoroughly. Minimal preparation is a prescription for failure. The medium will fail because instructors and students have failed to do their jobs. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) challenge students to know the principles of effective teaching and learning and to use them to be more assertive with respect to their own learning. Schrum (cited in Hill, 1997) recommends at least one semester of reduced load to prepare to teach with technology, not only because it is a “prep” for a new course but to gain a comfort level with the equipment and how it works.
Faculty, who often work with limited instructional design and technical support, may not possess the skills necessary to produce high quality instructional materials. Marginal administrative commitment to training, which may include lack of release time or insufficient funds designated for training, sends a message to faculty that the institution does not place a priority on implementing technology with the goal of improving instruction. “Expecting faculty members and staff to be trained on their own time will mean that only those who are truly devoted and already have an interest will pursue training. This approach also fosters a certain resentment on the part of faculty members toward the administration” (Gray, 1997, p. 330).
Although institutions may adequately fund short-term inservice training and resident campus experts to assist, faculty continue to struggle with appropriately timed assistance as they navigate their way through the new technology. Although campus resources may exist at some level, they may not be available when faculty members need them, or faculty may become frustrated with the bureaucracy of a system that provides increased stress, rather than relief. Harisim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff (1996) recognize the lack of timely training and suggest that faculty use a mentor system in order to gain comfort with the technology.
“The most important factor for successful distance learning is a caring, concerned teacher who is confident, is experienced, is at ease with the equipment, uses the media creatively, and maintains a high level of interactivity with the students” (Sherry, 1996, p. 350). Apple Computer (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1992) found that it may take up to two years for instructors to change their focus from being anxious about themselves, their new physical environment, equipment malfunctions, and student misbehavior to anticipating problems and developing alternate strategies, exploring software more aggressively, sharing ideas more freely, increasing student motivation and interest, and using technology to their advantage. Sherry (1996) also found that the more familiar teachers are with the instructional design and delivery process, the more effective their presentations will be.
Another barrier to implementation is the heavy workloads which are less tolerable if faculty perceive that the intrinsic rewards of teaching are declining or no longer present. Teaching in new ways is generally less satisfying than the old, familiar way.
Faculty who have become skilled in using face-to-face interaction to guide their teaching may become frustrated by differences in student feedback and may even find that teaching performance is undermined (James & Beattie, 1997). Distance delivery deprives faculty of non-verbal cues that allow immediate intervention or expansion of course content. With the use of electronic mail, advocates of distance delivery suggest that the amount of student feedback may actually be greater. Cornell & Martin (1997) suggest that the time necessary for communicating with students will increase disproportionately as compared with time spent in the traditional classroom. And it may take some time to gain mastery in setting a positive tone in written communication without the benefit of non-verbal cues to assist interpretation.
With so many barriers to implementing technology in institutions of higher education, how, then, can the administration encourage its use? If faculty are expected to incorporate technology into their teaching, institutional policies must reward entrepreneurship and innovation. The challenge to teach in new ways, especially using new electronic technologies, brings added pressures (James & Beattie, 1997). Creating an institutional climate that is conducive to innovations in instruction is difficult, particularly in institutions that embrace long-held beliefs and quality assertions about how learning should be structured. Closer examination of the promotion and tenure policies alone may unveil inherent systematic problems that may do more to discourage than encourage innovative teaching, including incorporating technology into the classroom.
The Office of Technology Assessment has found many powerful examples of creative teachers using learning technologies to enhance and enrich their teaching; adoption of innovation depends on the following:
These components are reflected throughout the distance education literature (e.g., Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1992; Dede, 1996; Harasim, et al., 1996; Holloway & Ohler, 1991; Sherry, 1996). The question remains: What is the best way for institutions to facilitate change?
An overriding faculty concern is the lack of training to compensate for their perceived lack of skill and discomfort in utilizing the new technology, and current inservice training models do little to reinforce institutional commitment to technology. Administrators need to carefully evaluate the financial commitment that the institution has budgeted for incorporating technology into the classroom. If the desired outcome of staff development activities is simply increased awareness of a subject, funding might legitimately support the occasional two-hour speaker. However, if the expected outcome of a staff development project is fundamental change in instruction, funding will probably have to be increased to support the amount of training necessary to bring about and sustain the change (Showers & Joyce, 1996). Institutions of higher education will continue to wrestle with provision of timely, relevant inservices that fulfill documented needs of faculty. Perhaps it is time to consider a different method of training. In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge (1990) writes:
Generally, I would counsel against pushing. Usually it is more effective to look for the source of the resistance, either in perceived lack of relevance, fear of failure (remember, we were all schoolchildren once), or perceived threat to the status quo… Many of the best intentioned efforts to foster new learning disciplines founder because those leading the charge forget the first rule of learning: people learn what they need to learn, not what someone else thinks they need to learn. (p. 345)
Showers (1985) has done exhaustive research related to the improvement of pedagogical practice. Introduced as a teaching improvement tool in the K-12 system, peer coaching has been warmly received in the public schools. Peer coaching has a number of elements that make its application a possibility at the post-secondary level; however, its use may be discouraged by the institutional culture itself. Harasim, et al (1996) recommend “the buddy system” to support teachers new to technology in addition to using observation as a tool to supplement inservice training. Also in favor of collaboration, Cornell & Martin (1997) offer the recommendation to faculty to join with others as they learn techniques or to ask for colleague’s insights if they have prior teaching experience utilizing emerging technology.
The techniques employed in peer coaching are, in essence, the same as those recommended for the successful implementation of technology. The purposes of peer coaching (Showers, 1985) are to
Harisim, et al (1996) strongly support the philosophy of peer coaching. “The ability to form peer groups of teachers… who can exchange the lore and wisdom they have acquired from dealing with the subject holds tremendous opportunity for improvement of the educational process” (p. 242). Coaching appears to be most appropriate when teachers wish to master strategies that require new ways of thinking about learning objectives and the processes by which students achieve them. Showers & Joyce (1996) also found that members of peer-coaching groups exhibited greater long-term retention of new strategies and more appropriate use of new teaching models over time.
Peer coaching may have some merit in assisting university faculty in preparing for their changing roles in the information infrastructure. Results of Showers (1985) and Showers & Joyce (1996) studies reveal that K-12 teachers who had a coaching relationship—that is, shared aspects of teaching, planned together, and pooled their experiences—practiced new skills and strategies more frequently and applied them more appropriately than did their counterparts who worked alone to expand their repertoires. Although simple in theory, peer coaching is a complex innovation because it requires a radical change in relationships among teachers as well as between teachers and administrative personnel (Showers & Joyce, 1996). Because of the competitive, rather than collaborative, nature of most post-secondary institutions, a fundamental shift toward the use of peer coaching for faculty development is radical.
In most settings coaching teams are organized during training programs designed to enhance the understanding and use of a teaching innovation. The teams study the rationale of new skills, see them demonstrated, practice them, and learn to provide feedback to one another as they experiment with the skills. Coaching is a cyclical process designed to reinforce and extend training. The first steps are structured to increase skills with a new teaching strategy through observation and feedback. As comfort level and skill develop, coaching moves into a more complex stage: mutual examination of appropriate use of a new teaching strategy (Showers & Joyce, 1996).
Transferring new behaviors into effective classroom practice is more difficult than the teaching process itself. Although all teachers can develop skill in performing a new teaching strategy fairly readily, more complex tasks are mastered only as the skill is applied in the classroom. Learning new teaching and technology techniques is a complex matter that should be provided as faculty need it, and peer coaching has the capacity to be more timely than formal staff development projects.
The greatest hurdle in utilizing peer coaching at the university level may well be overcoming the “prima donna” complex.
One solution would be for faculty members with similar subject course responsibilities to collaborate and pool their expertise and resources. Unfortunately, many faculty members are uncomfortable working with colleagues and are more accustomed to working alone. The current atmosphere in major research universities is still competitive, not collaborative, because promotion and tenure reviews still looks at individual productivity. (Williams and Peters, 1997)
Hill (1997) stresses the importance of planning and preparation, but insists that without continued technological and human-based support throughout the course, it is difficult to maintain momentum and achieve success. Many teachers have difficulty selecting concepts to teach, reorganizing materials, teaching their students to respond to the new strategies, and creating lessons in areas that they have not seen demonstrated directly. It should be clarified that coaching relationships do not involve making judgments about the adequacy of a colleague. Coaching implies assistance and reinforcement in a learning process and is used for the improvement of teaching and mastery of new concepts. In the case of incorporating emerging technology, it is an opportunity for faculty to try out new teaching strategies with the added benefit of having another colleague as both a sounding board and a source for different strategies.
Peer coaching has the potential to add not only just-in-time training for technology, but the capacity to add richness and depth to the quality of course delivery, regardless of delivery method. New technology can be choreographed into familiar teaching strategies. The old familiar dance steps of the university lecture tradition need not be discarded, but paced and organized somewhat differently to reflect the different tempos of emerging technology. Excellent teaching is at the core of effective distance education, just as it is in a traditional classroom. The time has come for higher education faculty to take a dance partner, as well as for administrators to recognize the beauty of form that comes from collaborative efforts to improve teaching. At the heart of the matter is the necessity to re-think promotion and tenure policies that encourage solo achievements and undermine an institution’s ability to implement technology.
This paper was developed as part of a study of instructional applications of computer technology conducted under the supervision of Dr. Virginia Moxley.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer, Inc. (1992, May). Classroom management: Teaching in high-tech environments (Classroom Management Research Summary #10). Cupertino, CA: J. H. Sandholz, C. Ringstaff, & D. C. Dwyer.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles, technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin.
Cornell, R., & Martin, B. L. (1997). The role of motivation in web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 93-100). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
Duguet, P. (1995, June-July). Education: face-to-face or distance? OECD Observer, 194, 17-21.
Gray, S. (1997). Training teachers, faculty members, and staff. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 329-332). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1996). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hill, J. (1997). Distance learning environments via the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 75-80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Holloway, R. E., & Ohler, J. (1991). Distance education in the next decade. In G. J. Anglin, (Ed.), Instructional technology. Past, present, and future (pp. 259-66). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
James, R., & Beattie, K. (1997). Postgraduate coursework beyond the classroom: Issues in implementing flexible delivery. Distance Education, 17(2).
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Distance Education, 1(4), 337-365.
Showers, B. (1985, April). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 43-48.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996, March). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 12-16.
Talab, R. S., & Newhouse, B. (1993, January). Self-efficacy, performance variables and distance learning facilitator technology adoption: Support for the teacher needs hierarchy. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the convention of the AECT, Research and Theory Division, New Orleans.
Toombs, W. (1990). Closing the Loop: Distance Education and the College Professor. In M. Moore (Ed.) Contemporary issues in American distance education. New York: Pergamon Press.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning. OTA-SET-379. 79. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Williams, V., & Peters, K. (1997). Faculty incentives for the preparation of Web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 107-110). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Willis, B., & Dickinson, J. (1997). Distance education and the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 81-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
The incorporation of technology into teaching and research is one of the most important challenges for higher education today. The College of Human Development and Education at North Dakota State University has made a special effort to build the capacity for using technology. Case examples of faculty experience with both the internet and interactive video are presented and suggest that there are both frustrations and rewards in using these technologies. As one instructor noted, however, students receiving courses from a distance are grateful enough for the access to be forgiving of the problems with the technology.
In the near future, higher education faculty will not be replaced by technology. However, faculty who cannot use the technology will be replaced. — Anon
Today, university faculty who consider change a challenge would say that we are living in the best of times. Adjectives they might use to describe their work, and the challenges they face each day, might include energizing, fun, and demanding. A large part of the change that all faculty face deals with the use of technology, both for their scholarly work and in their teaching. Classes are delivered with the use of interactive video; syllabi and notes are placed on the web; and professors make themselves available on e-mail for questions around the clock.
On the other hand, many faculty members would consider the climate on campuses today the worst of times! The use of computer technology, video and audio equipment, and even overhead projectors seems to demand that new skills be learned every semester if not more often. Take these changes and add them to the new developments in disciplines, the reduction in number of faculty (leaving everyone with more work to do), the lack of time for learning to use new equipment and incorporate new techniques into classes, and the expectations for production of scholarly work and service in order to earn promotion and tenure. The result is often frustration and confusion.
The assumption is often that all faculty know how to use a microcomputer, especially for simple day-to-day tasks like e-mail and word processing. However, the reality is that many faculty have not had the time and training to develop those basic skills—providing them with the right equipment is a beginning, but providing them with the opportunity to develop the skills to use the technology is critical.
In addition to providing opportunities and resources for learning to use technology, the environment for this learning must be a non-threatening one. Nothing will make an extremely educated and competent person feel more stupid and incompetent than a machine! The following example highlights one faculty member’s recollection of technology training:
I can remember the first computer workshop I attended. I had the luxury of having a computer to become familiar with prior to the first workshop session. However, there were several people there who had never used a computer, and just the task of turning it on was a challenge! One person (who was known as one of the best teachers on campus) had never used a computer and could not keep up with our instructor. Finally she quit asking for help, and she did not return to the second lesson. I have often wondered if that was the end of using the computer for that particular faculty member.
Regarding the need for utilizing technology in education, Weinbach, Gandy and Tartaglia (1984) indicated over ten years ago that in their state, “…because of various constraints involving time, finances and distance, many prospective students are unable to avail themselves of main campus or regional campus offerings. In addition, there are not enough students located in any one outlying area to justify sending faculty to the area for on-site education using the off-campus education model employed elsewhere” (p. 12). Visser (1995) indicated that in order to meet this demand successfully, several ingredients were needed: “Students who are curious and want to learn; teachers who are open to various media to transfer knowledge and skills to students; management [personnel] who are willing to support all this with sufficient money and infrastructure; support and assistance of skilled personnel; good learning software…” (p. 108).
Higher education today is challenged by heavy demands and limited resources. In discussing the need for universities to move beyond “allocating shortages” Twigg (1995) states, “It is time to move beyond the walls of our individual colleges and universities to join forces with other institutions, with corporations, and with public policy makers to revitalize American higher education. Together we can create wealth.” Perhaps most critical, such capacity building will greatly contribute to meeting students’ needs for learning anytime and anywhere.
The challenge for higher education, and specifically for administrators in higher education, is to create a user-friendly environment that provides the tools, training, and support for faculty to use technology and to make wise decisions regarding the use of technology. This manuscript seeks to describe the plan that we have created in the North Dakota State University College of Human Development and Education to make our environment user friendly.
According to Kenneth C. Green, “Technology resources are becoming an increasingly important component of the instructional experience, across all fields and all types of institutions” (1997). Key findings in the 1998 Campus Computing Survey of 571 higher education institutions indicated: