Introduction

This work is designed to describe Curriculum Transformation as a path toward integration of advanced technologies. It is not a paper as much as it is a set of resources and references. In visiting and talking with the community in the Fall of 1996, I have on rare occasion, heard talk of "converting" courses "to the web." This is a disconcerting view of what might best improve learning. As time progresses this will seem like a trivial concern as faculty, staff and students develop more and more sophisticated uses of technology in the service of learning. In the mean time, this work should outline some literature -based ideas about integration of technology into teaching and learning.

Phillip Jackson in 1968, studied an educational setting and discovered two types of learning taking place.

• Transactional learning, is a situation where one bargains with learners to learn, where compromises are compromises about how much and what type of learning occurs.
• Transformational learning is a situation that brings about a deep transformation in learners where they become active participants in learning and where learners take responsibility for the types and depths of the knowledge acquired.

Virtual Washington State University (VWSU) recommends that faculty, staff and students wishing to integrate technologies into their teaching view the examination and modification of their courses as a transformational process; a process of growth and discovery rather than a transaction where compromises between demands of time and efficiency are weighed against learners needs.

Here is another view of the same two types of interaction, this example is from leadership but it is not or should not be unlike the relationship between instructors and students.

Political scientist James MacGregor Burns uses a similar formulation in his 1978 work on leadership.

• Transactional leadership is a limited compromise based on the mutual agreements of leader and follower; if you will perform Q for me I will award you Z.
• Transforming leadership is an expansive agreement between leader and follower based on mutual benefit. A leader finds goals within the follower and helps the follower achieve these goals with in a larger context of an organization. Leader: I help you achieve your goals in the context of our mutual organizational effort.

VWSU assumes that faculty and instructional staff are engaged in fostering transformational learning environments rather than transactional roles. The same assumption exists between the University, VWSU and faculty. VWSU is a transformational opportunity for faculty to improve their teaching, not a transactional relationship.

VWSU is an initiative designed to foster a shift to Learner Centered Asynchronous Instructional strategies which tend to:

• focus on learner outcomes rather than course tasks,
• create and use collaborative learning strategies,
• use authentic formative and summative assessment,
• require student activity that is generative,
• foster peer review, feedback and revision,
• acknowledge diverse student purposes for learning and
• diverse settings, eschewing the expectation of colocality.

For more on the relationship of learner-centered instruction please review the VWSU orientation document describing the Goals of VWSU.

To see a very short description of the asynchronous techniques common to courses in higher education please see this very short White Paper.

Internet References for Learner Centered Educational Principles

Learner Centered Psychological Principles

Learning Environments
Case Studies of Learner Centered Design

 

Washington State University and VWSU are not the only institutions exploring these issues. These sites are high quality discussions of the issues and options open to faculty exploring learner centered design and technology.

---

As a way of think about what types of learning are taking place in our classrooms and beyond, here is a taxonomy of thinking proposed to describe the escalating levels of learning. There is also an assumed escalation in value and difficulty.

In 1956 Ben Bloom described an escalating taxonomy of learning.

• Knowledge
• Comprehension
• Application
• Analysis
• Synthesis and
• Evaluation.

A presumption of this taxonomy is that more advanced levels include several of the previous levels of learning. Also that the more advanced levels are more inclusive, lasting and perhaps valuable has been suggested. The complex set of skills associated with Evaluation is believed to encompass many of the lower levels of learning as well as many different types of specific knowledge in order to perform the higher level functions.

Knowledge Generation:

Research by the Center for Teaching and Learning (Brown, 1996) highlights a spectrum of technology uses ranging from Presentational to Generative, with increasing benefits through increasing degrees of Generativity. Imagine a spectrum of instructional strategies:

Presentation	Interaction	Generation
Synchronous: Class Lecture	Synchronous: Group Work, Recitation	Synchronous: Knowledge generation
Asynchronous: Internet Streaming, Video Cassette . . .	Asynchronous: Email, threaded discussions . . .	Asynchronous: Technology enhanced, Student research, problem solving, writing

For more about this and the increase in quality of learning environments supplemented with technology please read an important article by CTL fellow G. Brown.

This commitment (2.) to quality education combined with the specific technological demands of the future (1.) combined with the Boeing Gift suggests a Request for Proposals targeted at facilitating not just course renewal but programmatic reengineering.

Reengineering: The fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of processes to bring about dramatic improvements in performance. From: The Reengineering Revolution, by Michael Hammer and Steven Stanton, 1995, Harper Books, p 3.

In many ways this designation of Reengineering is a valuable conceptual tool for understanding the impact of technology on learning and the reasons for using it. However, it is a connotation laden term and I have that it misleads and distracts many members of this community from the ideas that the term tries to convey. I avoid talking about reengineering courses.

In thinking about your students learning, these questions that should help you think about curriculum transformation. They are not rhetorical.

What is your assessment plan? How will you know if your integration of technology into your teaching will have helped students learn better?

What "transportable models" (methods that can be ported cross platform, cross course, cross college, or cross university) of content conversion, assessment, program creation/reengineering will be created? Or used?

In three sentences, why are you attempting to use technology in your teaching?

In two sentences, what do you think will happen to student learning?

In one sentence, what do you want the students to learn that they wouldn't learn any other way?

How do you expect (plan) to shift student learning within the following hierarchy?

Indicate your current estimated foci, and then project your future foci in percentages.

Knowledge,

Comprehension,

Application,

Analysis,

Synthesis,

Evaluation.

What learning texts do you recommend to us, or each other, at VWSU?

If your were able to project a positive student's comment about your new courses or programs, what would it be? (Write an example of an anecdotal you would like to hear.)

What would be a disappointing anecdote you would like not to hear? How will you avoid hearing that from students?

Do you plan to decrease your students' use of text books?

You are proposing to shift from a Instructional paradigm to a Learning Paradigm, this implies a shift in values. What you test your students on is a good indicator of what you value. What will you test students on that you have never tested them on before?

---

This set of observations, questions, resources and thoughts was originally compiled as an aid to Boeing RFP 96-3-1 Applicants. The principles are sound for individuals not seeking funding, but interested in integrating technology into their teaching. It is not intended to answer all questions about technology, but it its reproduced here merely as a supplement to the position papers of VWSU.

Brown, G. (1996). Digesting the PIG, Curriculum in Context, Fall 1996, P XX.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Row.

Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Joint hearing on Educational Technology in the 21st Century. 10p.

Drucker, P. (1994, November). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 53-80.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Geber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32 (4), 36-40.

Hammer, M & Stanton, S. (1995). The Reengineering Revolution, New York: Harper Books, p 3.

NCET. (1996). http://ncet.csv.warwick.ac.uk/WWW/temps/ish.html

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

http://www.wsu.edu/vwsu/direction/DirectPapers/CurTran.html

7/3/97