You are on page 1of 8

Faculty 2.

By Joel L. Hartman, Charles Dziuban, and James Brophy-Ellison

uch has been written recently about the Net Gen-
eration—the generation (roughly twelve to twenty-
five years old) that makes up the majority of stu-
dents attending U.S. colleges and universities—but
relatively little attention has been given to the col-
lege and university faculty who teach them. Faculty
roles and the processes of teaching and learning
are undergoing rapid change. Most faculty mem-
bers did not seek careers in the academy because of a strong love of
technology or a propensity for adapting to rapid change; yet they now
find themselves facing not only the inexorable advance of technology
into their personal and professional lives but also the presence in
their classrooms of technology-savvy Net Generation students, lead-
ing them to feel a bit like the character Valentine Michael Smith in
Robert Heinlein’s 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land.
Joel L. Hartman is Vice Provost for Information Technologies and Resources, University of Central
Florida. Charles Dziuban is Director of the Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness, University
of Central Florida. James Brophy-Ellison is Senior Faculty Fellow at the Research Initiative for Teach-
ing Effectiveness, University of Central Florida.

62 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007 © 2007 Joel L. Hartman, Charles Dziuban, and James Brophy-Ellison Illustration by Jeffrey Smith, © 2007 September/October 2007 E d u c a u s e r e v i e w 63
The three traditional roles of col- TABLE 1. Differences between Teaching-Centered
lege and university faculty are teaching, and Learning-Centered Approaches
research, and service, with the relative Teaching-Centered Learning-Centered
emphasis on each varying by institutional
Deliver instruction Produce learning
type and mission. Each of these roles is un-
dergoing substantial change, but teaching Transfer of knowledge from teacher to Discovery and construction of knowledge
and research are being most significantly
altered by technology. The growing im- Active faculty Active students
pact of technology on research has been One teaching style Multiple learning styles
well documented in recent publications: Curriculum development Learning technologies development
the National Research Council’s Prepar- Quantity and quality of resources Quantity and quality of outcomes
ing for the Revolution: Information Technology
Quality of faculty Quality of students
and the Future of the Research University; the
National Science Foundation’s Cyberin- Time held constant; learning varies Learning held constant; time varies
frastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery; Learning is linear and cumulative Learning is a nesting and interacting of
and reports from the EDUCAUSE Center frameworks
for Applied Research (ECAR), including Promote recall Promote understanding
What Do Researchers Need? Higher Education Faculty are lecturers Faculty are designers of learning
IT from the Researcher’s Perspective and IT environments
and the Changing Face of Research in Higher Learning is competitive and individualistic Learning is cooperative and collaborative
Education. These publications, and many
others, chronicle the transformation that Source: Robert B. Barr and John Tagg, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate
is under way in research tools and meth- Education,” Change, vol. 27, no. 6 (November/December 1995): 12–25.
ods, in the composition of research teams,
and even in the structure of academic dis-
ciplines. Nearly every discipline has been lecturing has been equated with teaching: responses noted general growth in the
redefined to some extent by technology, approximately 80 percent of instruction availability and use of various instruc-
and entirely new branches of traditional has been delivered in this mode. Yet even tional technologies on U.S. campuses.
disciplines are emerging. A recent though lecture-based classroom teaching However, in 1995, Green reported that
Google search for the word computational has long been held as the “gold standard” the survey data indicated that “the use of
conjoined with the names of traditional against which newer, ­ technology- information technology in instruction”
fields of study revealed more than thirty enhanced­ methods are often compared, was “finally moving past the early adopt-
newly defined fields, ranging from com- A. H. Johnstone and W. Y. Su have noted ers and breaking into the ranks of main-
putational astrophysics to computational how inefficient lecturing can be as a stream faculty” at all types of institutions.4
zoology. As the title of a New York Times means of conveying information. The Instructional integration of IT remained
column by George Johnson suggests, “All typical lecture contains approximately the number-one issue as reported by
Science Is Computer Science.”1 5,000 words, of which a student may cap- the Campus Computing Survey through
Although research and publication ture about 500—a mere 10 percent.2 2003, after which network and data
are undeniably important components Over the past two decades, broad and security bumped it to the number-two
of the professional lives of many faculty rapid advancements in new theories of position.
members—for some, they form the most learning, new student-centered pedago- The diffusion of technology into the
important component—we are focusing gies, and new online- and classroom- teaching and learning space is producing
here on the less-visible changes brought based interactive technologies have a number of subtle—and not-so-subtle—
about by technology in the teaching begun to enable the pedagogical changes changes to which faculty members must
and learning space and on how these called for by Oblinger and Maruyama. adapt:
changes are fundamentally reshaping the Donald P. Buckley referred to this shift as
processes and tools associated with the a transformation from a teaching-centered to n Most faculty members are experts in
institutional structures, extending to the a learning-centered paradigm,3 as elaborated their respective disciplines, and as
roles and responsibilities of campus IT by Robert B. Barr and John Tagg (see teachers, they expect to be regarded as
leaders and organizations. For the first Table 1). such. Confronting new and un­familiar
time in their careers, faculty members In 1995 the Campus Computing Sur- technologies can quickly turn them
are expected to teach in ways that differ vey, an annual study of IT activities and into novices, and with technically-
from how they were taught when they priorities in higher education conducted savvy Net Generation students in
were students. Diana G. Oblinger and by Kenneth C. Green, documented a their classes, they may find that their
Mark K. Maruyama have observed that major shift in the use of technology to students know much more about
historically, at a majority of institutions, support instruction. Before 1995, survey specific technologies than they do,

64 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
Students assume that everything is online and that everything online is free.
Many faculty members, however, consider their course materials and notes to
be their intellectual property.
creating a balance-of-power shift in in class, and to modify the ways they when they find that an enterprising
the faculty-student relationship. When assess student learning. In regard to as- student has posted lecture notes to a
Francis Bacon stated that “knowledge sessment, the Net Generation’s ability social networking site or, worse, to a
is power,” he could not have imagined to create information products affords Web site that is selling lecture notes
the role that technology would one day new, more authentic and contextual and exam questions contributed by
play in the dissemination and acquisi- means of assessing student learning. students.
tion of knowledge. Today, students n The increasingly vast array of online n Faculty members think of technol-
are increasingly prepared to abandon information, social networking Web ogy as technology. Students think of
libraries and class attendance in favor sites, digital media, and other online technology as environment. Faculty
of the Internet as the most expedient resources has greatly increased oppor- use technology as tools for presenting
path to knowledge. tunities for informal learning, leading content. Students use technology as
n Net Generation students use a range of to an environment in which learning tools for exploring, communicating,
technologies and information sources opportunities outside the classroom and socializing. When asked about
that are often unfamiliar to their teach- may far exceed those within. their preferences for the use of tech-
ers, who may be from older Gen-X, n Net Generation students grew up nology in their classes, students con-
Boomer, or Mature generations. When exposed to television and interactive sistently report that they desire “mod-
faculty communicate through tech- media and are consequently more erate” incorporation into the learning
nology, they are likely to use e-mail. visually literate than previous genera- environment.6 This is not because
By contrast, their Net Generation tions. At the same time, these students they dislike technology but, rather,
students communicate with peers are reading less than did previous because they see it as a tool for active
through instant messages (IMs), using generations. This shift from textual learning instead of as a tool to facilitate
e-mail for communicating with “old to visual literacy is leading some the instructor’s presentation of infor-
people” or institutions.5 students to avoid reading, including mation. Marc Prensky refers to today’s
n Although the quality of students’ writ- assignments and lengthy questions on students as “digital natives” in recogni-
ing has long been a concern, faculty exams. Some faculty members are ad- tion of the fact that they have never
are recently reporting a sharp decline, justing to the shift in students’ literacy known a world in which computers,
which some attribute to the increasing by using more visual and interactive the Internet, the Web, and digital
popularity of IM and also cell phone media in their classes. media did not exist. Older generations,
text-messaging. n The way that faculty members use including most faculty and adminis-
n Faculty members see their students their time is also shifting. Traditionally, trators, are “digital immigrants” who
as individual learners and regard faculty members would be in class, in have come to use technology later in
students who complete assignments their offices, in their labs or elsewhere their lives and whose “digital accents”
with others as cheaters. However, Net doing research, or off campus and in- are discernible to their students.
Generation students exhibit strong so- accessible. Students now expect their n A plethora of social networking and
cial behavior patterns and value social instructors to be accessible via e-mail resource-sharing sites has appeared
networking, working in groups, and at nearly any hour and to respond to over the past few years, including
experiential learning. Net Generation e-mails within minutes. Many faculty Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, YouTube,
students’ social groups extend beyond members report that they are devot- LiveJournal, Twitter, and Second Life.
people they know directly and include ing more time to their work and that Students have increasingly turned to
others whom they encounter on social their work time is spread over a larger these sites as the nexus of their social
networking sites as friend-of-a-friend portion of the day because they can and even academic universe. Faculty
contacts. Students prefer and expect communicate with students via e-mail members are beginning to follow,
to work in groups. or through a course management using these sites as a means of getting
n Course management systems, cell ­system. to know their students, as a rapid and
phones, iPods, and other popular n Students assume that everything is reliable way to reach students, and as a
technologies have been used by stu- online and that everything online is method for sharing faculty-produced
dents to commit acts of intellectual free. Many faculty members, however, and student-produced content.
dishonesty, requiring faculty members consider their course materials and n Although faculty members are associ-
to be vigilant, to establish rules for notes to be their intellectual property. ated with departments, disciplines,
when and how technology can be used Instructors are appalled, therefore, and various campus organizations, in

66 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
their roles as teachers they generally .com demonstrates that students’ assess- elements—such as good organization,
act as individuals. The need to under- ment of instruction is moving from the clear expectations, effective use of time,
stand and apply technology brings historically staid rating system, in which authentic assessment techniques, and a
about a greater dependency on a wide respondents rarely experience any re- demonstrated interest in students’ learn-
range of others, including help-desk sults from their responses on the teaching ing—have some influence, but facilitation
staff, trainers, faculty developers, in- and learning process, to a social network- and communication become the domi-
structional designers, and even their ing phenomenon, in which evaluation nant influences on students’ ratings.
students. happens within a worldwide community. The Net Generation values recogni-
n Technology has the potential to affect Given the current interest in how Net tion, respect, responsiveness, and reward
the three “Rs”: reward, recognition, Generation learning styles differ from from their instructors, whether they are
and risk. Faculty who devote large those of earlier generations, we might ask: in an online or face-to-face course. When
amounts of time to learning about and What components underpin students’ students experience those elements,
applying technology in their courses perception of excellent teaching by they see excellence. A content review of
may not be rewarded or recognized for faculty in this emerging environment of the narratives in
that work and, worse, may find that the enhanced instructional technology? reveals a consistently large number of
additional time spent with technology At the University of Central Florida comments that reflect those dimensions
takes time away from their research (UCF), an unanticipated side effect of and instructors’ ability to engage their
and publication activities, which teaching in a technology-enhanced students. In that respect, the Net Genera-
might place them at risk regarding environment arose from faculty mem- tion is no different from Baby Boomers or
tenure or promotion. bers’ concerns that their evaluations by Generation X. What is unique is the high

Emerging technologies are modifying the relationships between instructors and
students, making the determination of quality teaching in higher education more
complex and difficult.
Teaching Excellence students­ would suffer simply because the level of expectations that Net Generation
Emerging technologies are modifying assessment-of-instruction instrument, students hold for professors to establish
the relationships between instructors which was originally developed to assess interactive learning environments and
and students, making the determination face-to-face classroom instruction, was to have a working familiarity with the
of quality teaching in higher educa- inconsistent with various technology- growing number of Web-based instruc-
tion more complex and difficult. Henry mediated class-delivery modalities now in tional resources. Teaching excellence is
Jenkins calls this process convergence, in common use. To address these concerns, becoming what Susan L. Star has termed
which faculty deal with course content UCF undertook a series of data-mining a boundary object—a concept that is shared
across multiple media platforms, pro- studies encompassing more than 700,000 by many and used to bring multiple
ducing compound learning environ- end-of-term instruction ratings by stu- constituencies together but that is under-
ments—some of which are created and dents, leading to the discovery of a set of stood differently by each constituency.10
mediated by students.7 In a sense, the decision rules for the conditions under Consider, for example, how CIOs, other
professoriate is becoming unbundled which students assign an overall rating of campus administrators, tenure-track
just as music selection has become an à “excellent” to a course and its instructor.9 faculty, instructors, students, and parents
la carte activity rather than a centralized These studies produced a primary deci- of students might describe the prototype
service; no longer are instructors the sole sion rule that leads to a high probability “excellent” instructor. There would be
source of information. More than ever, that an instructor will receive an overall commonality, but there would be great
students are consumers as they learn rating of “excellent”: if students rate an divergence as well.
collaterally across dispersed content instructor as “superior” on the two (out of Jenkins claims that new media will
emanating from games and media that sixteen) items that assess his or her ability not replace old media; instead, old and
force complex ­ decision-making and to facilitate learning and to communicate new media will interact and converge.11 A
with technologies that permit them to ideas and information, then the chances good example of that phenomenon may
rewind and replay. 8 This environment are very good (.92) that he or she will be be seen in the increasing attention being
moves higher education away from a given an overall “excellent” rating. This given to blended learning, in which the
­transmission-of-information­ model and rule holds true for face-to-face, blended, prior modality (face-to-face) is converg-
toward a culture in which teaching excel- fully online, or any other course-delivery ing with the new modality (online). Jen-
lence becomes a multifaceted construct. modality and is not affected by college kins argues that entrenched institutions
The popularity of RateMyProfessors affiliation or course level. Other course will develop new models for teaching

68 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
from grassroots communities, thereby figure 1.  “ Diffusion of Innovations” Model
reinventing themselves from media
­convergence and collective intelligence.
As a caveat, we add that determining
teaching excellence involves far more
than students’ ratings of instructors and
that there are many who question the
validity of that process. However, it seems
clear that student communities play an
important role in framing instructional

Faculty Development
The above changes do not affect all
faculty members equally. First, not all Source: Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (New York: Free Press, 1995), p. 262.
faculty members are equally engaged in
teaching; second, those who are deeply
engaged may differ in their willingness If we apply Rogers’s model to faculty ing initiatives often do not scale because
to explore or adopt technology in their members’ adoption of technology in they are heavily dependent on one or
teaching. Everett M. Rogers studied the teaching, several points become appar- only a few individuals. Bates cautions that
diffusion of innovation throughout ent. First, the motivations, incentives, and faculty enthusiasm and self-reliance may
organizations. Rogers’s “diffusion of in- support required for each population not be sufficient to ensure the diffusion
novations” model, depicted in Figure 1, of adopters are different. At each stage, of these efforts institution-wide. Bates’s
suggests that members of an organization the adopters become more pragmatic, second faculty-development model is
(e.g., college or university faculty) are not less likely to adopt an innovation for the “boutique approach.” Boutique solu-
homogeneous but rather can be classified its own sake, and more entrenched in tions provide one-on-one support to
as sub-populations based on the order in traditional beliefs and practices. It will faculty members as they come forward
which they are likely to become engaged therefore take higher levels of energy and and request assistance. This model is
with an innovation. Rogers labels these resources to support an innovation such satisfying to both faculty and profes-
sub-populations as innovators (I), early as ­ technology-facilitated teaching and sional staff—until the number of faculty
adopters (EA), early majority (EM), late learning as it moves through an institu- members requiring support begins to
majority (LM), and laggards (L). Innova- tion. Second, after an innovation passes increase. Although boutique projects
tors are the few pioneers who are first to from the early adopters to the early and may themselves be scalable, the sup-
experiment with a new concept and put late majorities, the size of the population port structure is not, eventually leading

The later stages of diffusion will involve large populations at various levels of
adoption, bringing the new challenge of supporting multiple populations with
differing needs and attitudes.
it to use. Often having advanced technical that must be supported increases dramat- to the “support crisis” present on many
skills, innovators bring attention to the in- ically. Third, the later stages of diffusion campuses. In Bates’s third model—the
novation within the organization, where will involve large populations at various systemic approach—campus support
it is subsequently observed and then levels of adoption, bringing the new chal- resources, including instructional de-
attempted by the early adopters. Early lenge of supporting multiple populations signers, programmers, and digital media
adopters are the first to begin moving the with differing needs and attitudes. specialists, are brought together under a
innovation into the mainstream, and the Tony Bates explains how to apply common strategy, scaffolded by scalable
greater the visibility and credibility of this Rogers’s model to the design of effec- systems and by processes for dealing with
group, the more likely the innovation is to tive faculty-development programs.12 rapidly increasing support needs. Return
be adopted by the early and late majori- He cautions that although providing on investment is improved by designing
ties. The final category, laggards, is named direct support to individual early adopt- systems that scale for enterprise-wide
in recognition of its members’ relative ers—what Bates calls the “Lone Ranger” delivery as opposed to developing what
unwillingness to give up their traditional faculty-development model—may seem Chris Dede calls “islands of innovation.”13
beliefs and practices. attractive to IT organizations, the result- Because teaching with technology

70 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
is in a constant state of beta or, as Janos zontal structure than ever before. Just presentation by Chuck Dziuban: “As you
Setenyi says, a state of “uncertain media- as academic libraries are moving away said, someone of the mature generation
tion,”14 faculty development needs to be from being the atomistic centers of their might sit down and read the manual for a
organic and continuous. Resources that colleges or universities, faculty members new cell phone. My generation will learn
have potential for improving teaching need to become the critical component in by interaction with the phone itself or
appear on a daily basis, but integrating a broader network of peer-to-peer profes- through a social network, not by passively
those teaching assets into an instructional sional development. This represents a isolating oneself and following the nar-
plan and then implementing them is fundamental cultural shift. rative of the manual. My main question,
an arduous task. Real-time professional Steve Ehrmann, in the blog TLT-SWG, then, is this: is the current way of measur-
development puts increasing pressure on suggests another model for faculty devel- ing critical thinking outdated?”17
faculty-development centers to be much opment: “Academic programs could do
less place-centric. The centers may evolve much better (in all senses of ‘better’) if they A Moving Target
into clearinghouses where faculty mem- helped their faculty become the best at a) Everything has changed, is changing, and
bers can share with each other on a peer- finding and adapting best practices from will continue to change: students, faculty,
to-peer basis, possibly involving students peers [at other institutions] who teach research, the processes of teaching and
in the development process. The obvious similar courses, and b) sharing their own learning, and of course, technologies. The
enabling constructs for such an arrange- best practices with the world.”16 If this were implications of research 2.0, teaching and
ment will be information technology and to come to pass, the implications for IT learning 2.0, and faculty 2.0 for campus IT
instructional technology: the “two ITs.” If units of colleges and universities would leaders and organizations are both broad
Thomas L. Friedman is correct in ascer- be profound, as they would be also for and deep. Only within the past few years
taining that the world economy is gravi- academic reward structures for teaching has central support for research, instruc-
tating from countries and multinational excellence and faculty development. tional technology, faculty development,
corporations to individuals in the world In addition, students have a perspec- and instructional infrastructure begun
marketplace,15 then the same must be true tive that influences faculty development. to appear as an element of the CIO’s
for higher education. Certainly knowl- Brenna Veale, a student from the Uni- port­folio. The 2007 EDUCAUSE Current
edge disperses itself in a much more hori- versity of South Carolina, responded to a Issues Survey gives a sense of how this

72 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
IT organizations must assess what role they will play in shaping,
implementing, and supporting the assimilation of IT into the teaching
and learning process.

change is occurring across the spectrum e-learning—has become an area where broader network for supporting teaching
of institutional types and sizes.18 In terms institutions of all types and sizes are and learning.
of how IT leaders are spending their spending significant human and finan- As faculty members confront the
time, CIOs at large or doctoral-research cial resources. ­expanding impact that technology is
institutions report that research sup- The above changes will challenge IT having on their scholarship, research,
port is among their top-ten IT-related leaders in many ways. They must become teaching, and students—what Peter Vaill
issues, whereas CIOs at small-to-medium familiar with new technologies (those that calls “Permanent White Water”—IT or-
institutions and those at master’s, bac- are supported by the institution as well ganizations must assess what role they
calaureate, and associate’s institutions do as many that are not), understand and will play in shaping, implementing, and
not. Conversely, CIOs at master’s, bacca- serve new populations of faculty at vary- supporting the assimilation of IT into the
laureate, and associate’s institutions and ing levels of sophistication, find the fiscal teaching and learning process. Should
those at small-to-medium institutions are and human resources to support and the goal be to persuade and assist faculty
more likely to report that faculty develop- sustain these new initiatives, and adapt members to adopt technology, or should
ment and support, course management their organizations to serve new missions. it be to enable systemic transformation?
systems, and electronic classrooms are This will require modifying existing When technology is “bolted on” to an
among their top-ten IT-related issues. organizational structures (e.g., adding existing process, the usual result is a
The survey clearly shows, however, that instructional designers and digital media modest improvement in the process and
the infrastructure to support technology- producers) or forming new campus part- also higher costs.19 To obtain both greater
enhanced instruction—course manage- nerships with instructional technology improvement and reduced costs, higher
ment systems, electronic classrooms, and organizations in order to create a much education institutions must redesign the

74 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007
process so as to take maximum advantage Gasser, eds., Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Menlo
of the enabling capabilities of technolo- Park, Calif.: Kaufmann, 1989), 2:37–54.
gies. Such initiatives, as Bates suggests, 11. Jenkins, Convergence Culture.
12. Tony Bates, Managing Technological Change: Strate-
will ultimately produce the greatest gies for College and University Leaders (San Francisco,
benefit for the largest number of faculty Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 2000).
in a manner that aligns with institutional 13. Christopher Dede, “Distance Learning–­Distributed
Learning: Making the Transformation,” Learning
goals, is sustainable, and will lead to and Leading with Technology, vol. 23, no. 7 (April
transformation at course, program, and 1996): 25–30.
institutional levels. e 14. Janos Setenyi, “Teaching Democracy in an Un-
popular Democracy,” paper presented at “What to
Teens and Technology (Washington, D.C.: Pew Inter- Teach about Hungarian Democracy” conference,
net & American Life Project, 2005). May 12, 1995, Kossuth Klub, Hungary.
Notes   6. Gail Salaway, Richard N. Katz, Judith B. Caruso, et 15. Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief His-
  1. George Johnson, “The World: In Silica Fertiliza- al., “The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students tory of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Farrar,
tion; All Science Is Computer Science,” New York and Information Technology,” EDUCAUSE Center Straus and Giroux, 2006).
Times, March 25, 2001, <http://query.nytimes for Applied Research (ECAR) Research Study, vol. 7 16. Steve Ehrmann, “Rewards (?) for Faculty, Depart-
.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9E0 (2006), < ments That Improve,” TLT-SWG, May 24, 2007,
2E6DD123CF936A15750C0A9679C8B63>. abstract/TheECARStudyofUnderg/41172>. <
  2. Diana G. Oblinger and Mark K . Maruyama,   7. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and .html>.
Distributed Learning, CAUSE Professional Paper New Media Collide (New York: New York University 17. Brenna Veale, personal communication with
Series, #14 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1996); A. H. Press, 2006). Chuck Dziuban, November 17, 2006.
Johnstone and W. Y. Su, “Lectures: A Learning   8. See Steven Johnson, Everything Bad Is Good for You: 18. John S. Camp, Peter B. DeBlois, and the EDU-
Experience?” Education in Chemistry, vol. 31, no. 3 How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us CAUSE Current Issues Committee, “Current
(1994): 75–79. Smarter, 1st paperback ed. (New York: Riverhead Issues Survey Report, 2007,” EQ: EDUCAUSE
  3. Donald P. Buckley, “In Pursuit of the Learning Books, 2006). Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2 (2007): 12–31, <http://www
Paradigm,” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 37, no. 1 (Janu-   9. Charles D. Dziuban, Morgan C. Wang, and Ida J.>.
ary/February 2002): 28–38. Cook, “Dr. Fox Rocks: Student Perceptions of Ex- 19. Carol A. Twigg, Improving Learning and Reducing
  4 Kenneth C. Green, The Campus Computing Project: cellent and Poor College Teaching” (unpublished Costs: Redesigning Large-Enrollment Courses, Pew
The 1995 National Survey of Information Technology in manuscript, University of Central Florida, 2004). Learning and Technology Program (Troy, N.Y.:
Higher Education (Encino, Calif.: Campus Comput- 10. Susan L. Star, “The Structure of Ill-Structured Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer
ing Project, 1996). Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Polytechnic Institute, 1999), <
  5. Amanda Lenhart, Mary Madden, and Paul Hitlin, Distributed Problem Solving,” in M. Huhns and L.>.

76 Educause r e v i e w  September/October 2007