MESSAGES 21-30

Message #21 Tomorrow's-Professor - Teaching Large Classes: Strategies for Improving Student Learning

Message #22 Tomorrow's-Professor: Interesting Uses of Interactive Questionnaires

Messasge #23 Tomorrow’s-Professor Graduate Teaching Courses in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Message #24 Tomorrow’s-Professor Educational Methods in Engineering

Msg. #25 Tomorrow's-Professor: Elements Found in Most Successful Proposals

Msg. #26 Tomorrow’s Professor: Redefining Scholarly Work - An Example from Civil Engineering

Msg. #27 Tomorrow’s-Professor: Teaching Engineering - Another Course Example

Msg. #28 Tomorrow’s-Professor: New Faculty Reward Structures

Msg. #29 Textbooks -Retreat, Renaissance, or Revolution?

Msg. #30 Information Technology In The United States - Relevance to Higher Education

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #21 Tomorrow's-Professor - Teaching Large Classes: Strategies for Improving Student Learning

(4/30/98)

Folks:

Here are the highlights of a talk on teaching large classes given on April 24, 1998 at Stanford University. The speaker was Dr. Graham Gibbs of the Centre for Higher Education Practice at the Open University, a 200,000 student institution in the Unite d Kingdom.

Gibbs reviews research in the UK and in the US on the impact of large lecture classes on faculty and student behavior and on student learning. He then describes a number of little, or zero-cost methods, for improving stude nt learning in such classes.

NOTE: If you would like a hardcopy of the more detailed overheads of the talk (thumbnail, six to a page) just send me an e-mail with your address.

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@cdr.stanford.edu

Teaching Large Classes: Strategies for Improving Student Learning

Dr. Graham Gibbs

Centre for Higher Education Practice

Open University, UK

g.p.gibbs@oper.ac.uk

4/24/98

Stanford University

(notes by R. Reis)

What research has found?

introductory courses) EXCEPT

* where subsequent course had higher level goals

students who participate in a class of 8, still participate

- % of teacher talking increases as size grows

- Students questions & answers get shorter

- Cognitive level of Q & A drops -- start to just

ask/deliver facts not ideas

(Note on methods: external examiners review exams and set standards, a system not easily available in the U.S.)

humanities, then technical/engineering

* Lots of studies across different institutions, given same

* Long-term outcome research shows a dependence on

Problem classes 12 hrs

4 hrs lectures (teaching)

56 hrs fieldwork (learning)

21 hrs preparing reports (learning)

key indicator of learning!

(Students' assessment was more personal & direct, but

* Lectures, problem sets, classes, exams unchanged

Note: More examples given in the overheads.

* Peer group is more influential

* Experience with correcting problems gave them an

* More time spent on task (your peers will see it)

* SUMMARY

* Focus on learning activity, not teaching

* Get students to do for themselves and for each other what

* See your course as an integrated whole

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22 Tomorrow's-Professor: Interesting Uses of Interactive Questionnaires

(5/4/98)

Folks:

Here is an interesting response from Michael Fried, at UC Irvine

regarding Message #21 on Teaching Large Classes: Strategies for

Improving Student Learning.

He referres to the use of Interactive Questionnaires (IQ's) which he

described in a previous message (#17 Improving Student Learning While Saving Faculty Time), more information about which can be accessed through:

http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/franklin/doc/mfried/vision.html

http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/franklin/doc/mfried/portfol.html

His comments about the impact of such questionnaires on student

learning is impressive, his comments on their effects on student

evaluations of his course (down considerably) is troubling.

Rick Reis

reis@cdr.stanford.edu

---------------- 765 words ---------------

Uses of Interactive Questionnaires

I didn't have formal research that supported the statements

by Rick's message last week on the research of Graham Gibbs,

Centre for Higher Education Practice, Open University, UK.

Still, it agrees with the most interesting discoveries (negative

and positive) that came from the technology I developed under

a Sloan foundation grant called IQs (Interactive Questionnaires).

There is a comment at the end of this message

explaining IQs. Here are two examples of the discoveries.

1. BRINGING PEER EVALUATION INTO PROBLEM SOLVING:

IQs allow effortless display of the level of approach of all

students to the problems students investigate for a grade.

Thus, students get peer pressure to respond to the work of other

students knowledgeably. Also, at first they get to see that some students are able to follow precisely while the majority are faking it.

EFFECT: Many stop faking their answers, because they will no

longer be able to hide behind ineffective or hidden evaluation.

2. BREAKING PROBLEM DIFFICULTIES INTO SMALL PIECES:

Since IQs are dramatically written in a modular form, helping

students to parse the pieces of the problem puzzle, student

difficulties are much clearer. Further, instead of looking like they

are impossible to solve ---because there is no exact

problem in the book like one put forth on an IQ---the cognitive

problem becomes clear, which is that students have no coherent

strategy for many step thinking. Further, they have not

practiced many step thinking, so they don't know the "expert's"

secret for relaxing at each stage by thinking of just ONE STEP

AT A TIME. That is, students give themselves a cognitive

overload by holding dear to the memory of all steps of the

problem as they attempt the next step. The load gets heavier and

heavier.

RESULT 1. MORE ADVANCED PROBLEM SOLVING; LESS CHEATING:

IQs allow for dramatically more advanced problem testing,

and there is a dramatic drop in various types of (purposeful

and subconscious) cheating. The drop is voluntary---they feel

they can't just copy someone else's material. Even if they do copy

it, they feel they must still be able to explain it. By the way,

this has exactly the effect predicted by Rick's message on the

research of Graham Gibbs.

EFFECT 2. POORER TEACHER EVALUATIONS:

Though students demonstrably improve under this procedure--it's

not even close--THE EFFECT ON TEACHER EVALUATION GOES THE OTHER WAY.

The most dramatic documented example is from the start of my using serious technology, about eight years ago. I had the HIGHEST RATED course in the physical sciences at UCI before the IQ and Sloan technology. My picture wa s in the local newspapers, and the UCI campus catalog had a one page spread on me. Within a year, the same course was one of the LOWEST RATED after I adopted the e-mail technology. This effect is so dramatic, it rivals the increase in student performance . Eventually, I found ways to mitigate it though my ratings have never climbed back to where they were. Surprisingly, many students like the technology, some calling it "cool" because of how it allows them to type in their answers with everything else au tomatic about logistics for getting their work in.

A LITTLE MORE ABOUT IQs:

An IQ is an evaluation program (test, quiz, attitude) disguised

as an e-mail message. Briefly: It is an enhanced interactive exam,

offering various aids and guidance to a student who needs it.

(See http://www.math.uci.edu/~mfried/ or URLs above for example Iqs and student interactions with them.)

I send IQs to get interaction with the class about where they are on the material without going into MIDTERM mode. Teaching the modularity of mathematics (or any many-step thinking) is exceptionally hard, so, it is especially fitting that IQs are highl y modular. Thus, they help students focus on analyzing one step at a time. A student takes an IQ at a computer terminal---any terminal with access to their mail account. When he or she finishes, the IQ automatically returns to me by mail for (automatic ) placement in the student's portfolio.

Data from an IQ is in pieces. You can view these with a program, and

extract a student (or many students') response(s) to any IQ piece. Therefore, IQs help an instructor focus on small conceptual elements

that go wrong in a class. These reports, sent around to students, are especially handy for getting peer responses to student work. I usually make it part of the grading to get each student to evaluate pieces of the work of other students.

This simplifies grading, and raises student standards in agreement with the effect I reported above.

Michale Fried, 30 April, 1998 (mfried@math.uci.edu)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's-Professor - Msg. #23 Graduate Teaching Courses in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

(5/7/98)

Folks:

The brief message below describes an interesting new course under development for those students interested in designing and teaching courses in science, engineering, and related fields. It is also a call for sharing of &q uot;intellectual capital" for mutual benefit. Are there other faculty producing similar courses? If so, it would be great to hear from you.

Regards,

Rick Reis

----------------------215 words---------------------

Dear Colleagues:

As part of my sabbatical here at Michigan State University, I'm working with a Graduate Research Assistant, Olga Kritskaya, to develop a graduate course for students interested in designing and teaching courses in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) disciplines. We're collecting syllabi and tips from folks who teach similar courses, as well as from folks who are doing similar things for beginning faculty.

We would appreciate receiving a copy of your syllabus as well as your advice on content, format, exercises, etc. that you have found helpful. Specifically, we'd like to hear about your recommendations for topics and format for a graduate teaching course in SMET disciplines, about problems you've encountered in the course you teach and your recommendations for avoiding them, and anything else you think would be helpful to us in designing this course.

We would also appreciate if you could kindly refer us to other folks who are teaching such a course, if you know anyone.

We will, in turn, provide a copy of the syllabus, notes, and supplemental materials that we develop; and a listing of folks who are teaching similar courses.

Please send your materials to:

Olga Kritskaya

Graduate Assistant, Educational Administration

4th Floor Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

E. Lansing, MI 48824-1934

Sincerely,

Karl Smith

Civil Engineering

University of Minnesota

500 Pillsburry Drive SE

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ksmith@tc.umn.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's-Professor - Msg. #24 Educational Methods in Engineering

(5/9/98)

Folks: Here, in response to Message #23 on graduate teaching courses in science and engineering, is a copy of the syllabus and schedule for a course taught at Purdue by Philip Wankat and Frank Oreovicz, authors of the high ly acclaimed book, Teaching Engineering, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1993.

Regards,

Rick Reis

NOTE; FOR THOSE OF YOU FOR WHOM THIS E-MAIL FORMATTING MAY BE A PROBLEM, I AM ALSO ENCLOSING THE INFORMATION AS AN ATTACHEMENT.

---------------965 WORDS----------------

SYLLABUS

CHE 685

EDUCATIONAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

SPRING 1998

Drs. Phillip Wankat (CHME 3, Phone 40814), e-mail [wankat@ecn.purdue.edu]

Frank S. Oreovicz (CHME 102, Phone 44056), e-mail [oreovicz@ecn.purdue.edu]

CLASS HOURS: MWF 3:30, CHME 2

Prerequisites: Have been admitted into a Ph.D. program in Engineering or other technical discipline (Finished with MS or MS-bypass).

Office Hours: By appointment (PCW) or drop-in [FSO]

Goals: The broad goals of ChE 697W are:

1. Help prepare you for becoming a professor.

2. Help prepare you for college teaching.

3. Expand your horizons about teaching.

4. Make you think about teaching.

5. Provide a small amount of practice.

Textbook: P.C. Wankat and F.S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993.

Content Structure: The course is organized into three parts.

Grading: Must take course for grade (Pass-Not Pass will not be allowed). Postdocs and professors are encouraged to audit the course.

Presentations: Mini-lectures, February 23 and 25. Will be videotaped. You will be asked to turn in your lecture notes.

Participation: In class and in groups.

Computer: You need access to the Internet and World Wide Web. If unavailable, see Professor Wankat to obtain an account

Homework & 1. Course log - Out-of-class Notes

Assignments: • Readings

• Thoughts

2. Report on Interview-obtaining an Academic Position. Due February 4. Double-spaced, 10 point Times Roman.

3. PSI Quiz - First try February 18.

4. Critique of classroom visits. Two-page, double-spaced, due February 16.

5. Write test for Part I. Due - March 20.

6. Theory Paper - The implications and use of in engineering education.

Topic: Myers-Briggs or

5-6 pages, double-spaced, typed - Due April 17.

7. Short group project on redesign undergraduate education. Oral and written (1 page plus Appendices). Due April 24.

Exam: March 23.

Group Project: Design Engineering Education Web Page.

Web Page finished by April 29.

Grading Scheme: Examination 25

Participation 10

Course Log 5

Theory Paper 5

Test Writing 5

ChE 685, Spring 1998

Tentative Outline

MWF 3:30, CHME 2

Class Date Topic Chapter

3 16 F Efficiency & Effectiveness for Professors 2

4 21 W Taxonomy & Objectives 4

10 4 W Student Reports on Interviews -

11 6 F Lecture I 6

12 9 M Lecture II 6

13 11 W TV and Video - Tour Studios in Potter 268 8

14 13 F Questions and Discussion 7

15 16 M Advising Graduate Students [Turn in Critique of Class Visit] 10.1, 10.4

16 18 W Mastery and PSI-Quiz

17 20 F Communication Skills I

18 23 M Student Mini-Lectures Gp A. Also Evening

19 25 W Student Mini-Lectures Gp B. Also Evening

20 27 F Informal Oral Reports on Web Project

21 Mar. 2 M Testing 11

22 4 W Testing & Grading 11

23 6 F Disruption and Cheating 12

Class Date Topic Chapter

24 16 M Intermediate Project Reports/Writing Exam

25 18 W Computer Simulations 8 + Handouts

27 23 M Exam

28 25 W Go over test

Guided Design and Case Studies Sect. 9.1.4 and 9.15

29 27 F Case Study: Ideal Graduate Program (Part III-Redesign)

30 30 M Myers-Briggs 13

31 Apr. 1 W Myers-Briggs 13

32 3 F Piaget 14

33 6 M Perry 14

34 8 W Perry 14

35 10 F Near Ideal Undergraduate Program-Start Project [Part III]

36 13 M Communication Skills II 15

37 15 W Learning Theories I 15

38 17 F Learning Theories II [Theory Paper Due]

39 20 M Evaluation of Teaching 16

40 22 W Evaluation of Teaching - Design Cafeterial form 16

41 24 F Group Presentations-Ideal U.G. Program [Part III] Written Report Due

42 27 M Motivation and Efficiency for Students 2/15

43 29 W Computer Communications 8

44 May 1 F Course Evaluation/Administering Course Projects

Written report due at orals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Msg. #25 Tomorrow's-Professor: Elements Found in Most Successful Proposals

(/18/98)

Folks:

The following list (collected from various sources and provided by

Rebecca Claycamp, assistant chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Pittsburgh), may help principal investigators anticipate areas where their proposals could be strengthened.

-----------------------534 words---------------------

Elements Found in Most Successful Proposals

General Considerations

1. Relates to the purposes and goals of the applicant agency.

2. Strictly adheres to the content and format guidelines of the

3. Is directed toward the appropriate audience--i.e., those who

4. Obviously addresses the review criteria of the funding source.

5. Is interesting to read.

6. Uses a clear, concise, coherent writing style, free of jargon,

7. Is organized in a logical manner that is easy to follow.

8. Calls attention to the most significant points in the proposal

9. Is paginated from beginning to end, including appendix when

10. Makes appropriate use of figures, graphs, charts, and other

11. Is meticulously proofread so that it has few (if any)

The Proposal

12. Has title that is appropriate, descriptive, and (perhaps)

13. Unless it is brief, has a table of contents that is straight-

14. Has a clear, concise, informative abstract that can stand alone.

15. Has clearly stated goals and objectives that are not buried in a

morass of narrative.

16. Follows naturally from previous/current programs or research.

17. Documents the need to be met or problems to be solved by the

18. Indicates that the project's hypotheses rest on sufficient

19. Clearly describes who will do the work (who), the methods that

20. Justifies the significance and/or contribution of the project on

current scientific knowledge or a given population of people or

21. Includes appropriate and sufficient citations to prior work,

22. Establishes the competence and scholarship of the individual(s)

23. Does not assume that reviewers "know what you mean."

24. Makes no unsupported assumptions.

25. Discusses potential pitfalls and alternative approaches.

26. Presents a plan for evaluating data or the success of project.

27. Is of reasonable dimensions <:en_dash> not trying to answer all

the questions at once.

28. Proposes work which can be accomplished in the time allotted.

29. Demonstrates that the individual(s) and the organization are

30 Includes vitae which demonstrate the credentials required

31. Documents facilities necessary for the success of the project.

32. Includes necessary letters of support and other supporting

33. Includes a bibliography of cited references.

The Budget

34. Has a budget which corresponds to the narrative: all major

35. Has a budget sufficient to perform the tasks described in the

36. Has a budget which corresponds to the applicant agency's

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to Tomorrows-Professor Listserver by sending the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

-------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow’s-Professor Msg. #26 Redefining Scholarly Work - An Example from Civil Engineering

(5/21/98)

Folks:

The reformulation of the concept of faculty scholarship first proposed by the late Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, is gaining ground at a number of institutions. Below is an abstrac t of a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers Task Force on Redefining Scholary Work. My thanks to Professor James T.P. Yao, of Texas A&M University, and a member of the task force, for this information, which clearly has applications to o ther science and engineering disciplines. A copy of the complete report can be found at:

------------------------------------------------------

http://ce.ecn.purdue.edu/~drnevich/FacWork.html

------------------------------------------------------

------------------ 431 words -----------------

The Second Draft Report

THE SCHOLARSHIP LANDSCAPE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING: A BRIDGE BETWEEN RHETORIC AND REALITY

Report of the American Society of Civil Engineers Task Force on Redefining Scholarly Work

ABSTRACT

The well known Carnegie Foundation book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate by Ernest Boyer published in 1990 began the call for a redefinition of scholarship throughout the academic world. Boyer propo sed a new paradigm of scholarship with multiple interlocking elements [discovery research, research integration, research application, and the scholarship of teaching]. Numerous scholarly associations took the next step in the form of a major publication by the American Association of Higher Education in 1995. The ASCE Task Force report is in response to the Syracuse University initiatives led by its Center for Instructional Development. The Syracuse University initiatives launched a sweeping examination of the faculty rewards system as it related to institutional mission. This report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of the ASCE task force to redefine scholarly work for Civil Engineering faculty.

Based on surveys performed by the task force, it became clear that a narrow definition of scholarship in Civil Engineering is impractical to achieve because of varied institutional missions. The Task Force proposed a "WHEEL " model which provides complete flexibility through interfaces that allow for scholarly work to be integrated into research, teaching, and service and professional development activities. Models are needed to link the triumvirate of scholarship, teaching, service and professional development with the equally important values of Excellence, Integrity, Leadership and Ethics. Scholarship, for example, is not enough; it is the pursuit of Excellence that drives institutions and faculty alike. One fundamental c urrent objective is to foster the creation of an environment in which faculty are encouraged to produce their very best. It is the responsibility of leading Civil Engineering educators to provide a useful contemporary guide for faculty reward and recognit ion. In turn, institutions need to place less emphasis upon sterile definitions and more upon the creation of a means of rewarding substantive faculty achievements.

The major issues raised today in evaluating faculty scholarly contributions includes the need to have a clear awareness of the following:

* institutional mission,

* departmental mission and resources;

* size of the institution;

* accreditation criteria,

* professional organizations,

* collective bargaining,

* classification of the institution,

* disciplinary objectives,

* new technologies, and

* research.

The main objective of the present ASCE Task Force, which commenced its work in May, 1997, was to raise fundamental issues for Civil Engineering educators by offering a broader definition and understanding of the professiona l work of the Civil Engineering faculty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to Tomorrows-Professor Listserver by sending the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

Tomorrow's-Professor Msg. #27 Teaching Engineering - Another

Course Example

(5/26/98)

Folks:

In Msg. #24 I posted the syllabus for, Educational Methods in Engineering, taught by Professors Phillip Wankat and Frank Oreovicz of Purdue University.

Susan Montgomery, assistant professor of chemical engineering at the University of Michigan has developed a similar course based in part on the work of Wankat and Oreovicz. Below is a portion of the syllabus as provided by Professor Montgomery. Further information can be found at the Web site listed below. Please let me know if you are aware of any other such courses.

Regards,

Rick Reis

(reis@cdr.stanford.edu)

---------------------550 words ------------------

Instructor: Susan Montgomery, Assistant Professor, Chemical Engineering

3330 G.G. Brown, 936-1890, smontgom@engin.umich.edu

Class Hours: T Th 9:10-10:30 3150 Dow Building

Textbook: REQ: Wankat, Phillip C. and Frank S. Oreovicz, "Teaching Engineering,"

Web page: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~smontgom/che580.html

Goals: The goals of the course are to:

Acquaint you with learning theories

Objectives:By the end of this course you should be able to, among others:

Describe Myers-Briggs Type Indicators and Soloman's Learning Styles

Classify course activities using Bloom's Taxonomy

Prepare a plan for personal development as a faculty member and a professional

Prepare a syllabus

Prepare and present a five minute lecture

Grading: Grade will be based on material to be prepared for a course you plan to teach, and personal journals. In addition to the major assignments, homework problems from the end of the chapter will be assigned for each class session. These will n ot be handed in, but are meant to stimulate discussion.

Activities:The majority of the class meetings will consist of discussion or other activities based on the reading material assigned, as well as on the following assignments:

the homework as part of your journal entries.

Grading: The grading scheme is as follows:

Journals (3 pts each) 15 %

Syllabus (w/ objectives) 20 %

Mini-lecture 15 %

Open Ended Project 15 %

Web Page 15 %

Hourly Exam (w/ solutions) 20 %

______

Total 100 %

Honor Code Statement:

It is expected that all material you prepare for this course will be original. While it is expected that you will consult references in preparing the material for the class you may one day teach, you may not turn in material prepared by someone else ( e.g. old exams from when you took the class as an undergraduate, web page content from others' courses) as original material in fulfillment of the assignments for ChE 580. Any evidence of this will be considered a possible Honor Code violation and be rep orted as such to the Honor Council.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow's-Professor Msg. #28 New Faculty Reward Structures

(5/28/98)

Folks:

One of the major challenges currently facing colleges and universities is how to create appropriate faculty reward structures that encourage greater teaching innovation. Here is a highly edited version of a report prepared by for the Sloan Foundation by Dr. Andy DiPaolo, (na.adp@forsythe.stanford.edu), associate dean, Stanford University, and based on the work of a committee he chaired consisting of faculty and senior university administrators from Michigan, Rennsselaer, Cornell, Colorado, Purdue, NYU, Maryland, Penn State, Columbia and Stanford. The report focuses on faculty incentives and rewards with respect to distributed learning innovation, however, it is clearly relevant to many other areas of faculty profess ional development.

NOTE: At your request I will be happy to send you, via e-mail attachment, a copy of the full report.

Rick Reis

(reis@cdr.stanford.edu)

Incentives for faculty to accept and participate in distance learning activities

* *Drect Incentives

* *Institutional Support and Encouragement

* *Status and Recognition

* * Personal Satisfaction

* * Direct Incentives

1. Provide payment to the faculty member, department and institution based on the number of distant students, revenue generated, teaching load or innovative use of a delivery technology.

2. Offer grants and staff support to develop distance classes or instructional modules to be imbedded in a course to be used on campus and at a distance.

3. Provide release time and professional leaves for course/curriculum redesign.

4. Use revenue earned to support faculty research, the hiring of additional faculty support staff and the dispensation of special perquisites that reflect the value and importance of working with distance learners.

5. Equate products developed for teaching a course to publications for purposes o tenure, promotion and salary considerations e.g., multimedia, CD-ROMs, electronic textbooks etc.

6. Reduce annual teaching load or provide extra credit for faculty offering distance education courses, especially in those classes generating enrollments well in excess of a normal teaching load for a particular class.

7. Increase the number of teaching assistants and graders to support increased class loads and the extra effort in dealing with students participating at a distance.

8. Provide additional credit towards tenure, promotion and merit raises insuring innovative teaching activities advance a professional career.

9. Provide examples of how additional visibility in the business and industry community through distance learning may result in increased consultative and research-related relationships.

10. Provide a mechanism to generate additional revenue from the marketing of instructional products created as a result of teaching distant learners e.g., create relationships with campus marketing or licensing group and commercial publishers or software/video distributors.

11. Offer examples of how an expanded student base may help increase the sales of texts, software packages and multimedia products authored by faculty.

12. Pay travel expenses to share innovative teaching experiences at workshops and conferences.

13. Provide additional financial opportunities for faculty participating in distance teaching activities e.g., summer employment.

14. Provide examples of how quality distance education offerings can attract top industry students who may advance to PhD status.

* * Institutional Support and Encouragement

1. Insure faculty have real control over teaching/learning and evaluation processes by minimizing institutional impediments to teaching distance learners.

2. Provide enhanced support services to support faculty participation e.g., electronic/distribution of class notes, offering special library accounts, providing easy access to computer data bases, creating an effective mech anism to order textbooks, offering extra student advising and consultative support etc.

3. Provide faculty with equipment (both in the office and at home) to support off-campus students e.g., fax machine, voice mail, computers etc.

4. Provide skilled staff to assist faculty in designing the course, preparing class materials, distributing the course, supporting teaching needs and creating assessment tools. e.g., instructional design, graphics prepara tion, tracking assignments, gaining rights to copyrighted materials etc.

5. Provide smooth handling of distribution matters related to the transmission and paperwork flow when working with distance learners

6. Insure quality metrics remain high by supporting a strong evaluation component and guaranteeing exam integrity.

7. Offer flexible scheduling options for both faculty and students allowing for asynchronous or off-cycle classes e.g., condensed or elongated term, use of technology to take the course whenever and wherever needed etc.

8. Offer faculty information as to what industry is requesting in curriculum and courses by summarizing information collected from formal needs assessments, meetings with corporate executives, sessions with engineering managers and prospective studen ts etc.

9. Exhibit strong leadership from senior university officers, deans and department heads regarding the value of a distance learning

rogram to the institution.

10. Include distance learning in the mission, goals and policies of the institution, school and academic department and publicize this fact throughout the institution.

11. Create an institutional environment promoting and rewarding teaching experimentation.

12. Reduce bureaucratic obstacles and maximize revenue to the departments and faculty offering distance learning activities.

13. Initiate time saving measures and offer resources to speed the development of a new course for distance learners e.g., accessing courses and materials developed elsewhere, reducing teaching load, increasing staff suppor t in instructional design etc.

14. Provide faculty engaged in distance education programs with high quality teaching spaces, reliable delivery mechanisms and a range of instructional presentation tools.

15. Offer delivery technologies allowing for significant interaction between the student and instructor/teaching assistant as well as student-to-student e.g., computer conferencing, news groups etc.

16. Offer training programs and written materials using examples of how to best teach distance learners e.g., provide faculty testimonials and hard evidence of what works and what does not.

17.Provide assistance to faculty in obtaining grant and contract money for developing innovative distance learning programs.

18. Provide marketing and production expertise in order to make innovative instructional products developed for distance learning available to other institutions.

19. Clarify and offer fair institutional copyright and royalty policies so that faculty can benefit from the extra time and effort in developing instructional materials and products.

20. Provide faculty an opportunity to influence program policy and administration.

* * Status and Recognition

1. Insure the institution acknowledges distance learning activities carry prestige and value. Participation must be a professional asset, not a liability.

2. Faculty teaching ratings from distant students are used in salary, promotion and tenure decisions.

3. Special titles or designations are created within the institution for faculty participating in distance learning activities.

4. A special category of teaching awards are created for faculty who excel in distance learning activities.

5. Success stories are disseminated through professional journals, university and industry publications and conference presentations.

6. Faculty are offered recognition receptions.

* * Personal Satisfaction

1. Striving for teaching excellence and professional growth e.g., positive student evaluations.

2. Recognition that the distance learning effort assists in the economic success of a region, state and the nation.

3. Awareness that efforts of this type help improve the profession by creating innovative teaching and learning approaches which may be adopted by faculty at other institutions.

4. Personal pride that the additional effort in offering courses to distance learners will likely result in a better organized and more effective course for both campus and off-campus students.

5. Awareness that activities of this type help develop an educational environment conducive to continual improvement.

End

---------------------------------------

Tomorrow's-Professor Msg. #29 Textbooks -Retreat, Renaissance, or Revolution?

(6/1/98)

Folks:

The posting below provides some interesting facts while also raising some important issues regarding student and faculty use of textbooks. It is written by Steven W. Gilbert, president The TLT Group a Non-Profit Organization The Teaching, Learning, an d Technology Affiliate of AAHE. It is from his excellent Listserve, more information about which appears at the end of his message.

Regards,

Rick Reis

Reis@cdr.stanford.edu

------------------------ 996 words ------------------------

Textbooks -Retreat, Renaissance, or Revolution?

By Steven Gilbert

An article in yesterday's (May 26, 1998) NY Times provoked the questions and comments below. I'd like your help in understanding emerging trends in textbook and college publishing, the future of the textbook, and the implications for educational uses of information technology.) - Steve Gilbert

----------------

Is there really a revolution in the educational uses of information technology? Does the growing use of technology replace, supplement, or increase the use of textbooks and other print media? How can the textbook and college publishing industry be fl ourishing when so many more students are refusing to buy or keep books? Is the future for textbooks published in English rosiest on other continents?

Do the traditional publishers know where they are going? Does anyone?

Yesterday's New York Times ran a front-page article by Doreen Carvajal, "Sales of Textbooks Continuing to Defy Gloomy Predictions" triggered by the announcement that "Last weekend the British media conglomerate Pearson P.L. C. agreed to buy Simon & Schuster's education division of publishing imprints, boasting about the future of textbooks and education as the 'great growth industry of our time' and instantly becoming the industry behemoth." Later in the article, Patric k J. Quinn, managing editor of the education group for Simba Information Inc., a market research firm, is quoted: "In the late 1980's and early 1990's much of the talk about education centered on the emerging technologies -- that the book was dead and tr aditional publishing was out. ...And now, through all the hype and hoopla about it, textbooks have actually started to sell at a brisker pace."

Explaining consolidation in the textbook publishing industry during the early 1990s, Carvajal reports: "...major publishers started to merge to compete. College publishers sought to increase their share of the market by d eveloping an expensive array of free perks packaged with textbooks that included graphics, computer disks, transparencies, videos and even jokes for the first day of class. In some cases, the textbook packages included up to 100 different elements, drivi ng up the price of psychology or science books to as much as $100. Textbooks also became weightier with the addition of graphics that expanded the number of pages in a biology book from 400 several decades ago to more than 1,000 today."

This article doesn't mention two important trends and makes me wonder if I've been misinterpreting or misrepresenting them.

First, I've been told by faculty members and publishers that the increases in textbook size and price result in part from increases in knowledge and improvements in pedagogical design. The range of information considered important to be included in a certain level of biology course has grown significantly. The likelihood of a vast majority of faculty members within a discipline agreeing on a single small set of topics for a widely taught course has decreased. In order to satisfy most faculty, the te xtbook must include a wider range of topics. In addition, during recent decades publishers have learned how to integrate graphic design and other instructional devices more effectively into books; but more pages and printing expense are required to do s o.

More intriguing, I continue to hear from bookstore managers and publishers about the dramatic rise in the percent of students who do not purchase textbooks (new or used) in courses where they are required. I've heard that this percent went from less than 5 to more than 30 during the past five years. When I mention this to faculty members, I am often greeted with exclamations of relief. Many faculty members have assumed that this trend was a local problem reflecting some shortcoming in their own teaching or a change in the composition of their own student body. There are many important exceptions to this trend: upper class departmental majors buy books; textbooks that are also recognized as key reference works in their fields are purchased; wealthier students buy more books; etc.. However, I rarely hear faculty claim that the pattern doesn't exist.

Some faculty explain the pattern as a result of students' growing aversion to reading. Some students explain the pattern as a result of tests and exams that focus primarily on material covered in class.

Many colleagues of my vintage (age 40 and above) still own most of their college books -- textbooks and others. We keep many of those books carefully packed in cardboard cartons and move them from house to house without ever opening the cartons. We a lso display in our homes and offices shelves full of books from our undergraduate and graduate days -- books that we haven't touched in decades. We unquestioningly purchased every one of those books that any professor ever required, and now we passionate ly resist any suggestion that we abandon them.

By contrast, if current students do buy textbooks, it is often with the understanding that they will be sold back to the bookstore within a few days or weeks of the end of the course -- possibly before the end of the course . Many of our children find ways of sharing or altogether avoiding the books "required" for their courses. Many modern students have no idea of assembling a personal library.

Do the patterns described above apply much differently in other countries? Is the international regard for U. S. higher education the basis for a growing market for even the more traditional textbooks and college reading m aterials published in English?

What do you think about the recent consolidation and optimism of textbook publishers? What might the emerging role of technology really be? What are publishers doing with and on the Web? How can accounting and financial budgeting practices of publishers permit them to take seriously the technology components "included" in textbook packages?

What is the future of the textbook? (More varied options available to more varied teachers and learners? Different versions for "distant" students vs. classroom students? How will new knowledge of various learning abiliti es and styles influence textbook design and options? Various teaching abilities and styles? "Globalization" of higher education?)

___________________________________________________________

Information below last updated: 2/8/98

Steven W. Gilbert, President

THE TLT GROUP -- a Non-Profit Organization

The Teaching, Learning, and Technology Affiliate of AAHE

202/293-6440 X 5, FAX: 202/467-6593

GILBERT@TLTGROUP.ORG, http://www.tltgroup.org

One Dupont Circle, Suite 360, Washington, DC 20036 USA SCHEDULE FOR TLTR WORKSHOPS AVAILABLE FROM AMANDA ANTICO 202 293 6440 EXT 38 ANTICO@TLTGROUP.ORG Order TLTR Workbook at Special AAHESGIT Reader Rate: Call 202/293-6440 x 11 and give code "SGIT 5/98 "

NOTE: Anyone can subscribe to the AAHESGIT Listserver by sending the EMail message (with subject line left blank): SUBSCRIBE AAHESGIT yourfirstname yourlastname to LISTPROC@LIST.CREN.NET If you would like to post a messag e to the AAHESGIT Listserv, send it to AAHESGIT@LIST.CREN.NET With over 7,000 subscribers, not all messages sent to AAHESGIT can be posted. Those that are selected for posting are reviewed and may be edited for clarity. Authors are often asked to expan d or clarify their messages before distribution to the List. Facts, including URLs, are not checked or confirmed by me. Opinions expressed in AAHESGIT's postings do not necessarily reflect those of a postings do not necessarily reflect those of anyone o fficially affiliated with the TLT Group or AAHE.

I intend that each posting be protected by copyright as a compilation. As the copyright holder for the posting, I can and do give permission ONLY for duplication and transmission of each compilation complete and intact inc luding this paragraph. IN OTHER WORDS, PLEASE FORWARD THIS POSTING AS OFTEN AS YOU LIKE -- AS LONG AS YOU FORWARD THE _ENTIRE_ MESSAGE INCLUDING THIS SECTION. Otherwise, duplication and/or transmission of any portion should be guided by "fair use" princi ples, and explicit permission should be obtained when needed. Except when permitted by "fair use," permission to duplicate or transmit any portion written by a contributor must be obtained from that person.

- Copyright 1998 Steven W. Gilbert

__________________________________________________________

Tomorrow's-Professor Msg. #30 Information Technology In The

United States - Relevance to Higher Education

(6/4/98)

Folks:

The Information Technology World Congress (http://www.worldcongress1998.org/) just released a summary of the status of information technology(IT) in the United States. The highlights of the summary, presented below, should be of interest to everyone i n academia. IT is having an increasing impact on how we teach and our students learn, both inside and outside the classroom.

Looking forward to receiving your comments, ideas, and contributions.

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@cdr.stanford.edu

* The United States is the global leader in the information technology revolution. Information technology is America's number one export. (Information Technology Association of America, 1996)

* Every hour, 209 U.S. information technology jobs are created, totaling 5,022 jobs each day. Since 1991, 11 million new information technology jobs have been created. (Fortune)

* Total employment in the IT industry is 2.5 million and is expected to grow to five million over the next five years. (Information (Information Technology Association of America)

* In 1998, the global IT industry is predicted to reach $500 billion, compared to the 1994 figure of $300 billion. (Information Technology Association of America)

* America Online has more United States subscribers -9 million- than the entire population of the world's 15th largest city, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (The Washington Post)

* More than 300 United States semiconductor plants produced $160 billion worth of semiconductor chips sold worldwide last year. Future memory chips will be able to store 64 million bits of information, the equivalent of 4,000 pages of typewritten text. (Semiconductor Industry Association)

* The United States high-tech payroll reached $203.3 billion during the first quarter of 1997, compared to $189 billion in 1995. (American Electronics Association)

* Of 264.6 million people in the United States, one in four persons age 16 and older now use the Internet. Nearly three million children in the United States are plugged into cyberspace from home, and the number is projected to grow fourfold by 2002. ( The Washington Post)

* Sixty-five percent of the nation's schools have access to the Internet, and 14 percent of the classrooms are linked to it. (Consumer Reports)

* Network Solutions, the company that registers Internet domains worldwide, passed their one million domain mark in March 1997. Nearly 3,000 domain names are registered each day. Eighteen months ago there were only 306,000 domain names registered. Wit hout registering any other new sites, the company could generate $31.5 million a year in revenue just from renewals. (The Washington Post)

FIRST NOTE: According to Korean American Science and Technology News (KASTN), Issue 98-22, No. 155, June 10, 1998, Network Solutions has now passed the 2-millionth domain name registration.

SECOND NOTE: According to the May 30, 1998 San Jose Mercury News, by the end of 1998 anyone on earth will be able to use a small pocket telephone to call anyone, anywhere, anytime, for less than $3.00 per minute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to Tomorrows-Professor Listserver by sending the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

To UNSUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor send the following e-mail message to: <Majordomo@lists.stanford.edu>

------------------------------------------------------------------------