UBC Faculty Research and Publications

A Handbook of Best Practices in the Integration of Learning Technologies into Higher Education. Illustrated.. Macfadyen, Leah P. 2004

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
LTBestPracticesHandbook.pdf [ 2.07MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0228556.json
JSON-LD: 1.0228556+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0228556.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0228556+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0228556+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0228556+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0228556 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0228556.txt
Citation
1.0228556.ris

Full Text

A Handbook of Best Practicesin the Integration of Learning Technologiesinto Higher EducationIllustrated with case studies from innovative institutions inCanada and around the worldLeah P. Macfadyen, PhDThe MAPLE CentreManaging and Planning Learning EnvironmentsDistance Education & TechnologyThe University of British Columbiahttp://www.maple.ubc.ca2  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCTable of ContentsIntroduction ...................................................................................................5The Problems of Piecemeal Development (Non)-Strategies..................8? lack of scalability.............................................................................8? lack of attention to quality and innovation in teaching withtechnology ......................................................................................9? poor response to the need for increased e-learning.........................9? unsustainable approaches to teaching with technology.................10? poor understanding of cost-effectiveness......................................10? lack of faculty and departmental 'buy-in'.......................................11? failure to consider the institutional culture......................................12? inattention to institutional capacity-building...................................13Searching for Best Practice Development Strategies..........................13What Do We Mean by ?Best Practices??..............................................14Methodology: Benchmarking for Best Practices in LearningTechnology Management............................................................15Resources on Benchmarking and Best Practices...............................16Work Cited ........................................................................................17Best Practices and Case Studies................................................................20Best Practice 1:  Creating a Vision for Teaching and Learning ...........20? Case Study: Visioning at The University of British Columbia..........20Resources on Institutional Visioning...................................................26Best Practice 2: Strategic Planning for Learning TechnologyIntegration....................................................................................27? Case Study: Institutionalizing a Culture of Planning at the Universityof Central Florida...........................................................................28? Case Study: Planning for a Culture of Customer Service at theUniversity of Phoenix.....................................................................31? Case Study: A Bottom-up Strategic Planning Approach at theUniversity of Waterloo, Canada .....................................................35Resources on Strategic Planning for Technology ...............................38BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            3? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest Practice 3:  Resource Reallocation for Sustainable Integration ofLearning Technologies................................................................40? Case Study: A Strategic Business Planning Approach to NewProgram Development at the University of Sydney........................40Resources on Resource Allocation for Learning Technology ..............44Resources on Costing e-Learning......................................................44Best Practice 4:  Development of Collaborations and Partnerships ...45? Case Study: Inter-institutional Partnering by the University ofWaterloo .......................................................................................45? Case Study: System-Wide Support for Integration of LearningTechnologies by the California Virtual Campus Initiative................46? Case Study: Public-Private Partnerships at the Open University ofCatalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain...............................................50Resources on Partnerships and Collaborations..................................52Best Practice 5:  Putting in Place the Physical and TechnologicalInfrastructure...............................................................................53? Case Study: Strategic Planning of Technology-Friendly LearningSpace at the University of Central Florida......................................54? Case Study: Strategic Infrastructure Choices PromotingPedagogical Transformation at the University of Queensland ........56Resources on Making Infrastructure and Technology Choices ...........60Best Practice 6:  Putting in Place Faculty Training and Support.........63? Case Study: Supporting Faculty in Teaching with Technology at theUniversit? de Montr?al ..................................................................63? Case Study: Comprehensive Faculty Training and ProfessionalDevelopment at the University of Phoenix .....................................68Resources on Supporting and Training Faculty..................................70Best Practice 7: Development of Human and OrganizationalInfrastructure...............................................................................72? Case Study: Transforming Institutional Support for Teaching at theUniversity of Ottawa......................................................................72Resources on Institutional Transformation & Change Management....784  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest Practice 8:  Ongoing Evaluation and Assessment .......................78? Case Study: Transformative Assessment at the University ofCentral Florida...............................................................................79Resources on Assessment and Evaluation Strategies ........................82Conclusions, and Best Practices Yet to Come ..........................................83Additional Collections of Best Practices.............................................84Resources on Additional Best Practices and Strategies .....................85About the Author ...................................................................................88About the MAPLE Centre ......................................................................88Acknowledgments.................................................................................89Appendix......................................................................................................90BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            5? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCIntroductionThe Need for Educational Technologies and Institutional ChangeThe need for institutions of higher education ? universities and colleges ?to change the way they teach, and to integrate technology into the teachingprocess, is now beyond question. While the development, maintenance anddissemination of knowledge has been the primary goal of higher educationinstitutions ? traditionally, the universities ? for centuries, numerous dramaticsocial and economic changes are now converging that must inevitably forcechanges in the way each of these goals is achieved.Volkwein (1999) quotes Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) who report that:?Parents  believe  and  research  suggests  that  the  most  effectiveeducational  experiences  are  usually  found  in  academically  orientedliving  and  learning  communities  in  which  full-time  students  receive  agood deal of faculty contact and many academic support services in theresidential setting?Unfortunately,  many  elements  in  this  magical  formula  are  now  underpressure.First  and  foremost  are  financial  considerations:  the  kind  of  idealizededucational experience described above is very expensive, but federal, stateand provincial government financial commitments have either failed to keeppace  with  increasing  enrollments,  or  have  even  been  reduced  (Rossner  &Stockley,  1997;  Bates,  2000).  Institutions  must  increasingly  compete  forgrants  and  capital  funds  that  often  carry  with  them  the  requirement  thattechnology be integrated into the teaching project.Simultaneously, economic and political shifts (including a philosophy ofpublic accountability and a climate that increasingly positions education as asocial and political right, rather than a privilege) in many parts of the world,coupled  with  an  increasingly  corporate  and  consumer-oriented  popularculture  have  focussed  public  attention  on  efficiency,  productivity,effectiveness and accountability (Volkwein, 1999). Concern about high costs6  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBChas  raised  concerns  about  ?productivity?:  something  that  is  notoriouslydifficult  to  measure  in  an  educational  context.  ?Customers?  (students  andparents)  are  increasingly  concerned  about  universities?  and  colleges?effectiveness, and are demanding evidence that higher tuition translates intohigher quality and better service; stakeholders are less and less convinced ofthe value of campus autonomy, and ? especially for public institutions ? aremore likely than ever to expect and demand evidence of good managementand return on investments in the educational sphere.Secondly, parents and young undergraduate students are no longer theonly stakeholders in the higher education market. Student demographics areradically shifting, especially in the industrialized world, as a result of the shiftfrom the industrial society towards a ?knowledge society?. Overall, studentnumbers are rising, and there is an increased emphasis on the value of highereducation for future career prospects. In addition, universities and collegesare being asked to meet new needs. The changing world of work means thatfewer and fewer people can count on a lifetime commitment to a single tradeor institution; a large proportion of new jobs require a higher skill level thanthose they are replacing. In a 1995 study, Dolence & Norris predicted thatworkers will need to upgrade skills every five to seven years. Education andtraining  of  a  working  adult  workforce  is  now  therefore  a  priority  forgovernments,  and  colleges  and  universities  are  now  facing  increaseddemand from people in the workforce who need to continue learning if theyare  to  stay  employed  and  if  their  employers  are  to  stay  economicallycompetitive. In addition, growing awareness of unequal access to educationfor historically marginalized communities ? for example, Canada?s aboriginalcommunities,  or  rural  communities  ?  has  focussed  public  attention  onquestions  of  access  to  quality  education.  Working  people  and  those  inremote areas often cannot afford to give up jobs or move house to becomefull-time  or  even  part-time  campus-based  students  again,  highlighting  thegap  between  the  way  educational  services  are  currently  offered  and  theneeds  of  the  new  learner  audience.  These  working,  adult  and  non-urbanpopulations are increasingly looking for more flexible and responsive forms ofeducation and training.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            7? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCFinally, Stockley (2002) suggests that as the knowledge society evolves, itis creating an audience of learners who are more discerning about how theylearn, what they learn and when they learn it; this audience may be less andless willing to accept the ?traditional lecture? model of higher education.In short, colleges and universities are facing myriad competitive pressures:they must compete for resources, students and faculty; they must increaseaccess to higher education for more and more varied students, but must alsobe able to demonstrate that in responding to these pressures they are notreducing the quality of education they offer.Internet and communication technologies such as the World Wide Weband multimedia, have the potential to widen access to new learners, increaseflexibility  for  traditional  students  and  improve  the  quality  of  teaching  byachieving  higher  levels  of  learning,  as  well  as  providing  students  with  theeveryday technology skills they will need in work and life.Knight (1997) has argued convincingly that none of these challenges canbe met by reactive and piecemeal institutional responses, and require no lessthan  a  re-inventing  and  re-engineering  of  higher  educational  institutions.Twigg  (1994)  similarly  argued  that  for  organizational  change  to  have  anyeffect,  it  must  occur  across  an  institution,  at  many  levels.  In  thiscompendium, we hope to continue the efforts of Bates (2000) and others whohave  convincingly  argued  the  need  for  institutional  strategic  planning  andadoption of best practices in learning technology management as institutionstransform  themselves  in  the  new  millennium.  We  offer  here  a  snapshot  ofcontemporary  best  practices  in  learning  technology  planning  andmanagement,  based  on  case  studies  from  leading  higher  educationalinstitutions in Canada, the United States, Australia and Spain. While we makeno  claim  to  completeness,  it  is  our  hope  that  this  collection  and  theassociated resources we note will be of interest to key decision makers in theacademic  communities  of  universities  and  colleges,  including  heads  ofdepartments,  deans,  vice  presidents,  and  presidents.  It  is  also  aimed  atfaculty  members  concerned  with  teaching  and  learning  policies  andpractices.8  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCThe Problems of Piecemeal Development (Non)-StrategiesAs  the  use  of  Internet  and  communication  technologies  in  highereducation  began  to  accelerate  in  the  early  1990s,  it  became  increasinglyclear that instructional staff and faculty members ? those actually teachingwith technology ? do not work in a vacuum, and that piecemeal developmentof  technology-mediated  courses  and  programs  by  scattered  early-adopterfaculty is not a sustainable, scalable or educationally effective approach toteaching and learning with technology.?  lack of scalabilityAs  more  and  more  mainstream  college  and  university  faculty  membershave followed their ?early adopter? colleagues into the world of teaching withtechnology, institutions are coming to realize that their early strategies (ornon-strategies)  for  encouraging  and  supporting  faculty  in  the  use  oftechnology are not scalable across the institution. Hartmann & Truman-Davis(2001) call this the ?tipping point?: the point at which technology adoptionbegins to grow exponentially, and the size of the population needing supportincreases  exponentially.  Supporting  faculty  in  teaching  with  technologybecomes  even  more  challenging  as  number  grow,  and  there  are  largepopulations at various stages of adoption, each with different needs.Commonly, early adopter faculty were or are ?lone rangers? (Bates, 2000)whose  enthusiasm  and  self-reliance  motivated  them  to  experiment  withinnovative technologies. While this allowed individuals to experiment with thepotential of technology-assisted learning, common problems include: pooruser  and  graphics  interface,  excessive  technical  time  demands,  failure  tocomplete  the  project,  and  lack  of  dissemination  of  results  or  expertise.  Inaddition, since lone ranger-driven initiatives are most often closely associatedwith  one  or  a  few  individuals,  they  are  not  scalable  (or  sustainable)  astechnology is integrated across the institution, and do not often contribute toinstitutional capacity buildingA  second  common  approach,  the  ?boutique  model?  involves  offeringindividual faculty members one-to-one support when they decide to take theBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            9? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCplunge into technology-mediated teaching. However, as numbers increase,the  support  structure  for  this  model  again  suffers  from  lack  of  scalability,leading to the ?support crisis? that McClure, Smith & Sitko describe (1997).One  challenge,  then,  is  that  of  achieving  scalability  while  maintainingquality of instruction.?  lack of attention to quality and innovation in teaching with technologyBates  (1997)  argues  that  in  order  to  justify  the  extra  cost  of  usingtechnology, it must be accompanied by the reorganization of the teachingprocess,  moving  away  from  fixed,  scheduled  group  instruction  to  moreflexible  and  individualized  modes  of  learning.  In  piecemeal  processes  ofadoption  of  educational  technology  adoption,  however,  mostly  driven  byenthusiastic  early  adopter  faculty,  quality  educational  design  features  areoften lacking from online courses. Inappropriate technology decisions may bemade  in  the  early  stages  of  development.  The  graphics  and  interface  areoften  poor,  compared  with  commercial  packages  with  which  students  arefamiliar,  and  the  potential  for  high  quality  learner  interaction  with  themultimedia materials is often lost. When finished, courses often have limitedapplicability because they are not of high enough standard, or capable ofhandling enough students, to be widely used.?  poor response to the need for increased e-learningAs discussed above, there are many and interrelated factors pressuringhigher education institutions to integrate technology into their teaching andlearning project in order to adapt to new social realities. Student numbers inpostsecondary  education  have  been  rising  since  the  1960s,  but  this  hasgenerally  not  been  met  by  a  pro-rated  increase  in  funding,  so  class  sizeshave  increased,  and  teacher-student  interaction  has  decreased.  There  isincreasing demand for professional development and retraining education byadults who are also working part-time and who may be remote from collegeor university campuses. The politicization of learning technologies means thatgrants and capital funding from governments are often now directly linked to10  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCtechnology  integration  (Lewis,  Smith  &  Massey,  1999).  Internet  andcommunication  technologies  and  increased  e-learning  allow  institutions  torespond to the pressures on both on-campus teaching and new off-campusstudent markets, as well as to access government funding. In an increasinglycompetitive educational market, universities and colleges ignore e-learning attheir peril.?  unsustainable approaches to teaching with technologyAs Bates (1997) notes, technology implementation ? with high fixed costsfor both infrastructure and maintenance ? is too often driven by external grantfunding  or  by  ?special?  funding  arrangements,  such  as  student  technologyfees. Dependence on external sources for funding comes with its own specialproblems  ?  not  least  that  funding  allocation  is  not  determined  by  theinstitution  based  on  its  own  strategic  plan  for  institutional  change,  but  bygovernment agencies far removed from the teaching and learning coal-face,whose decisions are usually driven by other agendas. Even more problematicis the reality that such funding is limited in duration. What happens when thefunds run out? Successful projects then become a real challenge, and theinstitution  must  grapple  with  how  to  continue  or  extend  the  project.  Inaddition, grant-funded contract staff tend to be employed on a temporarybasis, and will leave when funding ends, meaning that institutions also losetheir experience and wisdom. While special funding has proven successful instimulating innovation with educational technologies, it offers no long-termsustainability for technology planning.?  poor understanding of cost-effectivenessHypothetically,  the  integration  of  technology  into  higher  education  canincrease  cost-effectiveness:  by  freeing  faculty  and  instructors  from  labourthat can be better handled by technology and allowing them to make moreproductive use of their time; by improving the quality of learning, either byenabling new skills and learning outcomes to be achieved, or by enablingstudents  to  achieve  existing  learning  goals  more  easily;  and  by  enablinginstitutions  to  reach  more  and  different  students  (Bates,  2000).  Since  theBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            11? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCabsolute costs of technology tend to be high, however, simple acquisition oftechnological  infrastructure  and  equipment  will  not,  in  itself,  make  highereducation more cost-effective.?  lack of faculty and departmental 'buy-in'Even if senior management and scattered individuals recognize the needfor  institutional  change  in  order  to  integrate  technological  innovations  inteaching  and  learning,  no  vision  or  plan  will  work  without  the  support  offaculty, staff and students (Bates, 2000). Resistance to change is a reality socommon,  it  hardly  bears  elaboration  here.  Indeed,  numerous  writers  havenoted  that  a  firm  resistance  to  the  changes  that  may  be  created  byintegration  of  e-learning  must  be  expected  (Levy,  2003  and  referencestherein). Effective change management is an art form that can be employedthrough  a  range  of  strategies  to  catalyze,  encourage  and  motivateorganizational change. The introduction of technologies into teaching may beseen as a time-consuming imposition, as something that diverts faculty fromcurrent  research  and  teaching  activities,  or  as  antithetical  to  the  currentinstitutional  culture.  Faculty  and  staff  may  see  technology  as  bringing  anextra  (and  unpaid)  workload.  The  potential  for  learning  technologies  toenhance  teaching  and  learning  may  be  poorly  understood  by  faculty  andstudents. In particular, faculty may worry that spending time on technologywill actually hamper their career. Such concerns are not without foundation:academic  culture  still  rewards  faculty  for  verifiable  teaching  expertise,publication  output  as  a  measure  of  research  success,  and  independentachievement.  The  (often)  context-specific  nature  of  online  teaching,  thecurrent  lack  of  standardized  methods  of  assessment  of  online  teachingexpertise, the time-commitment needed for quality instructional design, andthe cooperative nature of effective team-based course development meanthat incentives are often very low for faculty to invest time in working withtechnology (Oslington, 2004).12  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  failure to consider the institutional cultureWhile  faculty  may  resist  technology  itself,  a  more  serious  form  of?institutional resistance? is found in the very culture of academic institutions ?no  less  than  a  cultural  clash.  Bates  (2000)  characterizes  the  dominantwestern university and college culture as ?agrarian?: in which learning is tightlyregulated  in  a  cohort/semester  system;  in  which  the  faculty  member  isresponsible for all aspects of teaching from selection of content to delivery tostudent  assessment;  and  in  which  the  accepted  route  for  handing  downknowledge is one of ?apprenticeship? via supervised graduate study within adiscipline.At the institutional level, this ?quality-and-effectiveness?-focussed cultureoffers a number of major obstacles to change: consensus governance (ratherthan industrial-style hierarchical management); faculty control over the majorgoal activities (teaching and research); an organizational culture that supportschange  by  adding  resources  rather  than  by  reallocating  resources,  and  acurriculum structure that makes false (though some would argue, necessary)assumptions  about  learner  homogeneity  (Volkwein,  1999).  UniversityPresidents are expected to be forceful leaders, but any interference in facultydemocracy is not welcome. Similarly, introduction of policy that is seen toimpinge  on  faculty  autonomy  in  teaching  is  usually  strenuously  resisted,especially  if  it  is  perceived  to  derive  from  the  ?cost-consciousness-and-efficiency?  culture  of  a  management  bureaucracy  or  industrial  model  foreducation.Bates  (2000)  argues  for  a  Post-Fordist  or  ?Post-industrial?  model  formanagement  of  university  and  college  teaching,  modelled  on  successfulpost-industrial  businesses  such  as  Apple,  Sony  and  Honda.  Thesecompanies make heavy use of technology, depend on collaborating teams ofdecentralized, creative workers, and have clear leadership, global operationsand  the  capacity  to  adapt  rapidly  to  changing  environments.  Innovativeeducational institutions such as the University of Phoenix (p. 31 and p.68) areemerging as educational analogues of these corporate successes.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            13? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCNevertheless, one size does not fit all. Colleges and universities must askthemselves ?What kind of institution are we, and what kind of institution dowe want to be??. There may be no correct answers. But without making anassessment  of  the  whys  and  hows  of  the  current  culture,  planners  areseriously challenged in developing a realistic plan, or for recruiting support forinstitutional change across their institution.?  inattention to institutional capacity-buildingAs  described  above,  when  educational  technologies  are  implementedwithout planning for faculty training and support, or resource allocation, skillsacquired,  experience  gained  and  lessons  learned  do  not  contribute  to  thegrowth  and  learning  ?  capacity-building  ?  of  the  wider  institution.  ?Loneranger?  projects  tend  to  be  available  to  and  used  by  the  lone  rangerhim/herself. Experienced staff hired on soft money development projects willleave, often taking their skills away from the institution entirely while tenuredresearch faculty are forced to devote valuable teaching and research time tolaborious  technical  and  graphical  work  (for  which  they  lack  the  training).Dissemination  of  expertise  tends  to  be  minimal,  as  independentdesigners/developers  re-invent  the  online  learning  wheel  across  theinstitution,  reducing  the  possibility  for  institutional  buy-in,  precluding  anycost-saving economies of scale and dooming the institution to an endlesscycle of inefficient, unsustainable and cost-ineffective course development.Searching for Best Practice Development StrategiesIn 1997, Bates initiated closer scrutiny of effective strategies for bringingabout  institutional  change  and  effective  integration  of  technology  into  thehigher education project. He asked: ?What do we have to do to re-organize, re-structure or re-engineer theuniversity  to  ensure  that  we  achieve  cost-effectiveness  from  theapplication of technologies to teaching??14  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCAt  the  time,  Bates  outlined  twelve  organizational  strategies  for  change,chronicled  from  his  experiences  at  the  University  of  British  Columbia,Canada.  Some  of  these  strategies,  he  explained,  had  been  developeddeliberately  and  thoughtfully  by  senior  management  at  UBC.  Others  weredeveloped from past experience, or emerged in response to challenges thatneeded to be addressed. Importantly, Bates noted that in 1997, it was stilltoo  early  to  tell  whether  these  strategies  were  in  fact  ?useful  or  validatedstrategies for change?.Seven  years  later,  we  hope  to  continue  the  undertaking  he  began,  byreporting on strategies that have been tried and tested in higher educationinstitutions:  ?best  practice?  strategies  that  contribute  to  successfulorganizational change in the management and integration of e-learning andlearning technologies.What Do We Mean by ?Best Practices??Bates  (1997)  initially  reported  educational  technology  management  andplanning strategies from his own experience, while Stockley (2002) identifiedfour critical areas of strategic planning based on ?practical and theoreticalreasoning?. Epper & Bates (2001) later explain that ?best practices? are not?thought experiments? or the result of networking, reading the literature, orconference  visits.  Rather,  they  are  practices  that  we  identify  through  theprocess of benchmarking,  and  are  practices  judged  to  be  ?exemplary?,?better?,  ?good?  or  ?successfully  demonstrated?  according  to  previouslydetermined criteria for what ?success? would look like. Benchmarking is not aquantitative analysis, but a process, one that organizations can use to ask?Where are we? Where do we want to go? And how do we get there?? in themidst of organizational change. Benchmarking is not a process of solicitingsolutions from experts, but one in which participants learn about successfulpractices in other organizations, and then draw on those cases to developsolutions that fit their own organizational culture. Importantly, benchmarkingnot  only  reveals  ?best  practices?  through  case  study  research,  it  helps  toBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            15? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCcreate  sharing  networks  for  future  benchmarking,  continuous  learning  andimprovement, and exchange of best practice ideas.Methodology:  Benchmarking  for  Best  Practices  in  LearningTechnology ManagementThe American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC) is an internationallyrecognized  nonprofit  source  for  performance  improvement  and  decisionssupport. Organizations of all sizes ? business, government, education andhealthcare  ?  partner  with  APQC  to  discover  global  best  practices  and  tofacilitate their development.The APQC has developed a systematic benchmarking methodology, onethat has been effectively employed in a number of consortium benchmarkingstudies  in  higher  education  (see  resources  and  references  below).  Wemodelled this small study on APQC methodology.In Phase One, the ?planning? stage, we:i.  determined  our  criteria  for  best  practices  in  management  oflearning technology (see above) with reference to the literature andthe experience of experts in the field including Dr. Tony Bates, andcolleagues  in  UBC  Distance  Education  &  Technology.  Thesecriteria are:?  scalability?  attention to quality and innovation in teaching withtechnology?  increased e-learning?  sustainability?  cost-effectiveness?  achievement of faculty and departmental ?buy-in??  consideration of the institution?s culture in planning?  attention to building institutional capacityii.  drafted  a  letter  of  invitation  to  participate  in  the  study,  anddirected it to national and international MAPLE Partner Institutions16  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCand  Associates  (seehttp://www.maple.ubc.ca/associates_partners/index.html), as wellas  to  experienced  faculty,  administrators  and  managers  oflearning  technology  in  institutions  across  North  America;  theseindividuals were invited to speak about specific best practices attheir home institution, to comment on our criteria for selection ofbest  practices,  and  to  offer  descriptions  of  other  practices  thatmight be considered ?exemplary?iii.  designed  an  interview  survey  tool  (see  Appendix)  to  directtelephone interviews with selected individualsIn  Phase  Two,  the  ?collecting?  stage,  we  undertook  institutional  casestudies and:iv.  carried  out  face-to-face  or  telephone  interviews  with  thirteenindividual  faculty  members  or  leaders  from  ten  institutions  inCanada, the United States, Australia and Spain.v.  examined  research  literature,  publications,  web  sites,  and  otherreports describing learning technology management strategies atthe selected institutionsHere, in Phase Three, we present our analysis: best practices identified inthe institutions under study, as determined by our best practices criteria. Weillustrate  these  practices  with  excerpts  from  case  study  interviews,  andsupplement each thematic area with suggestions for further resources andreading, and links to relevant institutional web sites.Resources on Benchmarking and Best Practices?  American Productivity & Quality Center: http://www.apqc.org?  APQC Benchmarking & Best Practices Resource Site:http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/generic?path=/site/benchmarking/overview.jhtmlIncludes  numerous  free  resources  on  benchmarking  approaches  andmethodologies, as well as reports for purchase.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            17? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  APQC. (1999). Today?s Teaching and Learning: Leveraging Technology:Best Practice Report. Available for purchase at:http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/store?paf_gear_id=1300011&pageselect=detail&docid=102611?  APQC. (2000). Technology-Mediated Learning: Enhancing theManagement Education Experience. A Consortium Learning Forum BestPractice Report. Available for purchase at:http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/store?paf_gear_id=1300011&pageselect=detail&docid=102620?  APQC. (2001). A New Approach to Assessing Benchmarking Progress?  APQC. (undated). What is benchmarking??  Brown, M. M. & Webb, R. (2001). ?Benchmarking Best Practices inFaculty Instructional Development?, in R. M. Epper & A. W. Bates,Teaching Faculty How to Use Technology. Westport, CT: AmericanCouncil on Education/Oryx Press, pp. 19-38.Work Cited?  Bates, A. W. (1997). Restructuring the University for TechnologicalChange. Conference Presentation Paper for the Carnegie Foundation forthe Advancement of Teaching Conference ?What Kind of University??,June 18-20, 1997, London, England.?  Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change. Strategies forCollege and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.?  Dolence, M. G. & Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming Higher Education: AVision for Learning in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Collegeand University Planning.?  Epper, R. M. & Bates, A. W. (2001). Teaching Faculty How to UseTechnology. Best Practices from Leading Institutions. Westport, CT: OryxPress.18  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Hartman, J. L. & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). The Holy Grail: DevelopingScalable and Sustainable Support Solutions, in C. A. Barone & P. R.Hagner (Eds.), Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading andSupporting the Transformation on Your Campus. Educause LeadershipStrategies No. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45-56.?  Knight, P. T. (1997). The half-life of knowledge reform of the educationsector for the global knowledge-based economy. Paper presented at theForum on Education in the Information Age, Cartagena, Colombia.?  Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider When Planning Online DistanceLearning Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of DistanceLearning Administration, 6(1).http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm?  Lewis, B., Smith, R. & Massey, C. (1999). Mirroring the networkedSociety: Government Policy, higher education and telelearning technologyin Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24, 319-336.?  McClure, P. A., Smith, J. W. & Sitko, T. D. (1997). The crisis in informationtechnology support: Has our current model reached its limit? CAUSEProfessional Paper No. 16. Boulder, CO: CAUSE.http://www.educause.ed/ir/library/pdf/pub3016.pdf?  Oslington, P. (2004). Incentives in Online Education. Unpublished work inprogress. See:http://sob1.sob.adfa.edu.au/staff_cv_pages/about_paul_o.html?  Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.?  Rossner, V. & Stockley, D. (1997). Institutional perspectives in organizingand delivering web-based instruction, in B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-BasedInstruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications,pp. 333-336.?  Stockley, B. D. (2002). Strategic Planning, Infrastructure and ProfessionalDevelopment for Technological Innovation in Canadian Post-secondaryBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            19? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCEducation. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, pp. 19-23. Availablefrom the National Library of Canada athttp://www.collectionscanada.ca/thesescanada/?  Twigg, C. A. (1994). Navigating the Transition. Educom Review, 29(6), 21-24.?  Volkwein, J. F. (1999). The Four Faces of Institutional Research. NewDirections for Institutional Research, 26(4), 9-20.20  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC Best Practices in Management and Integration ofLearning TechnologiesBest Practice 1:  Creating a Vision for Teaching and LearningBates (2000) argues that developing a vision for the use of technology inteaching and learning may be the most important strategic step in learningtechnology  integration,  noting  that  ?the  visioning  process  is  at  least  asimportant as the goal itself? (Fritz, 1989; Senge, 1990). In this context, ?vision?implies the creation of a concrete description of how teaching and learningshould take place in the future, taking into account the current institutionalgoals, and the potential for technologies to further these goals. It describeswhat  stakeholders  would  like  to  see  or  happen.  It  helps  members  of  theinstitutional community to identify and share certain goals. And, importantly,a  shared  vision  provides  a  benchmark  against  which  to  assess  futurestrategies and actions in the development of technology-based teaching.?  Case Study: Visioning at The University of British ColumbiaFor  UBC?s  Associate  Vice-President  Academic,  Dr.  Neil  Guppy,  thebest evidence that the university?s visioning process ? spear-headed bya cross-campus committee entitled the Academic Committee for theCreative Use of Learning Technologies (ACCULT) ? has had a lasting,systemic  effect  across  the  institution  is  that  the  process  itself  is  stillspoken of as if it were ?alive? and evolving. Many members of the UBCcommunity  may  never  have  read  the  final  report  of  the  ACCULTCommittee ? published and submitted to Senate in 2000 ? or the laterRecommendations  paper  (2002).  But  the  range  of  public  outreachactivities,  town  hall  forums  and  faculty-based  scenario-buildingactivities that this committee initiated raised awareness of the potentialuses of new learning technologies, prepared the ground for future usesof  learning  technology  at  UBC,  and  sparked  inter-faculty  sharing  ofideas, and even some friendly inter-faculty competition in technologicalinnovation. What was important, explains Guppy, is that the visioningBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            21? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCprocess was not intended to be a ?prescriptive? strategic plan. Instead,the  guiding  idea  was  always  the  exploration  of  creative  use  oftechnology, with the focus firmly on pedagogy and quality of learning.Established in 1915, UBC is the largest and oldest university in BritishColumbia, currently enrolling almost 40,000 students, as well as 40,000non-credit, certificate, and distance education learners. It is the secondlargest employer in the Province, and is routinely ranked as one of thetop  five  Canadian  universities  by  Maclean's  Magazine  ?  an  annualranking  that  measures  the  undergraduate  experience  at  Canadianuniversities, comparing post-secondary institutions in three groupings:medical/doctoral, comprehensive and primarily undergraduate.What prompted UBC to begin the visioning process? Guppy describesthe University of British Columbia as ?amazingly decentralized? ? theuniversity?s teaching and research activities, carried out by almost 2,000full-time faculty members, are concentrated in twelve inter-connectedbut  internally  autonomous  faculties.  A  great  strength  of  thisdecentralized institutional structural and cultural model is that it allowsindependent innovations to flourish, and by the late 1990s, the new AVPAcademic  realized  that  numerous  experiments  with  instructionaltechnologies  were  developing  in  different  in  corners  of  the  campus:WebCT  literally  ?grew  up?  at  UBC,  developed  in  1995  by  MurrayGoldberg  and  Sasan  Salari  in  the  Department  of  Computer  Science;also  in  1995,  UBC?s  Distance  Education  &  Technology  unit  hadacquired as its new Director Dr. Tony Bates, a world-renowned expertin distance education and learning technology management. Awarenessof  learning  technologies  was  increasing  across  the  university.  At  thesame  time,  IT  Services  at  UBC  had  begun  to  play  a  more  centralcoordinating  role  for  technology  on  the  campus;  a  previouslyestablished  Centre  for  Educational  Technology  had  folded  when  itsfunding  expired;  the  newly  established  Centre  for  Teaching  andAcademic  Growth  (TAG)  was  reporting  increased  demand  forprofessional development and support from faculty members in the areaof  learning  technology  and  instruction;  Distance  Education  &22  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCTechnology was rapidly increasing the number of new courses it offeredonline; the university was in the process of establishing Telestudios ? acentral  state-of-the-art  facility  focussed  on  digital  media  andcommunications  for  the  support  of  educational  projects;  the  UBCLibrary  was  beginning  to  make  journal  databases  and  other  learningresources available online; individual faculties were starting to establishtheir  own  learning  technology  units;  and  student  services  andenrollment were exploring options for introducing online registration andpayment options for students.For  Guppy,  and  other  senior  UBC  colleagues,  this  decentralizedflourishing  prompted  important  questions  for  which  they  had  noanswers: How should UBC be thinking about technology in the contextof  learning?  What  did  they  know  about  quality  of  learning  andpedagogical  challenges  in  the  realm  of  learning  technologies?  Whatwere the faculties doing? What would they like to be doing? What werethe  possibilities  for  learning  technologies?  Were  the  right  thingsdecentralized?  Hade  they  minimized  redundancies?  Were  learningtechnologies adding value for students?The ACCULT Committee was therefore established to investigate thecreative possibilities that technology offered teaching and learning atUBC.  Determined  to  make  this  Committee  representative  but?functional? (and recognizing that it could not represent all voices all thetime),  membership  was  kept  small,  but  activities  were  directedoutwards, into as much outreach as possible. The Committee itself wascomprised  of  representatives  of  important  UBC  stakeholder  groups:faculty  members,  who  are  at  the  teaching  front-lines;  undergraduateand  graduate  students  ?  the  lifeblood  of  the  university;  the  FacultyAssociation, who are responsible for negotiating faculty conditions ofwork and questions of intellectual property; the Centre for Teaching andAcademic  Growth,  whose  central  focus  is  on  pedagogy  andinstructional  support;  the  UBC  Library;  Distance  Education  &Technology; and members of UBC?s Senior Administration responsiblefor information technology, student services and academic programs.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            23? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCThe Committee was tasked with engaging students, staff and facultyacross  the  UBC  campus  in  a  visioning  process:  of  imagining  wherelearning technologies might take UBC in the next decade. Rather thancreating a dry report that would collect dust on someone?s shelf, theCommittee  constructed  this  process  as  a  participatory  project  thatwould stimulate debate and raise awareness.Over  a  two-year  period,  the  Committee  tried  to  involve  as  manymembers of the UBC community as possible. Several ?town hall? stylepublic  meetings  were  held  at  which  applications  of  learningtechnologies  were  presented,  and  input  was  sought  on  futuretechnology  use  from  the  wider  community.  Focus  groups  were  heldwith  students,  and  with  educational  technology  support  staff.Consultations  were  held  with  several  senior  members  of  the  UBCcommunity. Perhaps most importantly, day-long workshops were heldin each one of UBC?s 12 faculties, in which faculty members, staff andstudents  participated.  These  facilitated  workshops  began  with  adiscussion of general teaching and learning strategies within the faculty,and  included  demonstrations  of  possible  applications  of  learningtechnologies within that faculty. Later, in a scenario-building exercise,groups of participants were asked to develop a description of a day inthe life of a student and faculty member in five year?s time that wouldreflect  the  group?s  desired  approach  to  teaching  and  learning.Altogether, a total of 18 scenarios were developed; these were madeavailable in print and on the web ? some as short films ? to provokefurther  community  discussion.  Later,  the  Committee  analyzed  thecontent of these scenarios to identify common concerns and wishes.While Guppy acknowledges that the ACCULT Committee faced somegreat  challenges  ?  for  example,  determining  what  the  scope  of  theirefforts  should  be  ?  he  emphasizes  that  its  efforts  at  communityengagement had exactly the effect that they had wished for: catalysis ofdisagreement,  discussion  and  heated  debate  at  all  levels  of  theinstitution.  In  addition,  the  Committee  itself  in  effect  carried  out  aninformal benchmarking process, by consulting discussion papers, policy24  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCreports and other sources from peer institutions across North America.This diversity of opinion and approaches is, they hope, reflected in theCommittee?s final report: ?we reported everywhere we could think of?says Guppy.While  ACCULT  did  not  itself  produce  a  strategic  plan  for  learningtechnology use at UBC, Guppy feels that ? in addition to simply raisingawareness  ?  it  had  two  additional  major  effects  on  the  university?sstrategic  planning  processes,  as  administrators  continued  to  work  tomeet  the  learning  and  IT  challenges  posed  by  Trek  2000  and  UBC?sAcademic Plan. It renewed the university?s commitment to facilitatingdecentralized  and  faculty-based  use  of  learning  technologies,  and  itsowed the ground for the establishment of a number of new technologyuser  groups  across  the  campus.  At  the  same  time,  UBC  went  on  toestablished an Office of Learning Technology, ?created to serve as acentral facilitation and resource hub for faculty, professional staff andstudents that are using learning technology in support of pedagogicalgoals.?Finally, Guppy feels that the ACCULT process laid a critical foundationupon which the university?s eStrategy project now rests: this dynamicand evolving strategic plan funds and develops projects in the areas ofe-Learning,  e-Research  and  e-Community  which  use  technology  toenhance  UBC?s  core  activities  and  resources:  learning,  research,community and people; it also supports projects in e-Business that usetechnology  to  transform  administrative  processes  and  ensure  theysupport UBC's strategic goals. In addition, eStrategy coordinates thesharing  of  information  and  resources  across  the  campus,  promotescollaboration,  communicates  successes  and  innovations  across  theUBC community, and reports directly to the UBC Board of Governors toensure accountability, innovation and cost-effectiveness.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            25? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCUBC Web Sites?  The University of British Columbia: http://www.ubc.ca?  Trek 2000 ? UBC?s Strategic Vision:http://www.trek2000.ubc.ca/index.html?  UBC Distance Education & Technology: http://det.cstudies.ubc.ca?  Dr. Tony Bates Home Page: http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/bates.htm?  UBC IT Services: http://www.itservices.ubc.ca/?  UBC Centre for Teaching and Academic Growth: http://www.tag.ubc.ca/?  UBC Telestudios: http://www.telestudios.ubc.ca/?  UBC Library: http://www.library.ubc.ca?  UBC Office of Learning Technology: http://www.olt.ubc.ca/?  UBC eStrategy: http://www.estrategy.ubc.caUBC ACCULT Committee Publications?  Discussion Paper on the Creative Uses of Learning Technologies (2000):http://www.maple.ubc.ca/research/accult/index_accult.html?  Report: Advancing the Creative Use of Learning Technology (2002):http://www.maple.ubc.ca/research/accult/index_accult.html?  ACCULT Faculty Scenarios:http://www.maple.ubc.ca/research/accult/index_accult.htmlWhat can be learned from this case study? UBC?s visioning process inessence produced an ?environmental scan?, clarifying for administrators boththe diversity of current technology use in the institution, and the opinions andwishes of the UBC community. By benchmarking UBC?s efforts at learningtechnology integration against those of other institutions, the Committee andsenior  administration  gained  a  clearer  picture  of  their  own  university?ssuccesses  and  failures.  It  is  arguable  that  without  having  undertaken  this26  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCcampus-wide accounting process, no effective strategic planning would bepossible today.Resources on Institutional Visioning?  Bates,  A.  W.  (2000).  ?Visioning  and  Strategic  Planning?,  in  ManagingTechnological Change. Strategies for College and University Leaders. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp 44-55.?  Conway,  K.  (1998).  ?Designing  Classrooms  for  the  21st  Century?,  in  D.Oblinger and S. Rush (Eds.), The Future Compatible Classroom. Bolton,MA: Anker.?  Fritz, R. (1989). The Path of Least Resistance. New York: Columbine.?  Noblitt,  J.  (1998).  ?Making  Ends  Meet:  A  Faculty  Perspective  onComputing  and  Scholarship?,  in  D.  Oblinger  and  S.  Rush  (Eds.),  TheFuture Compatible Classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker.?  Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            27? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest  Practice  2:  Strategic  Planning  for  Learning  TechnologyIntegrationBates  (2000)  explains  that  strong  and  detailed  vision  statementscontribute  directly  to  effective  strategic  planning,  just  as  UBC?s  visioningprocess  directly  contributed  to  development  of  the  UBC  eStrategy.  Butdeveloping and implementing a strategic plan for educational technology canbe a complex process (Bruce, 1999; Dill, 1996; Ford, 1996). One size doesnot fit all, and all planning processes suffer from limitations. Even when plansare developed, they are sometimes poorly disseminated, arbitrarily changed,or simply ignored. Moreover, and as Bates (2000) argues, most successfulstrategies are not totally planned in advance, but rather, tend to emerge frompatterns of small, individual decisions that can emanate from anywhere in aninstitution.Some critics even argue that the world of technology moves too fast forlong-term strategizing; that planning of this kind is too rigid, or is unsuitablefor organizations such as universities and colleges where faculty autonomy isa  central  value;  or  that  planning  is  a  feature  of  industrial  organizations,unsuitable for the post-industrial knowledge-based organization.Nevertheless,  Bates  (2000)  argues  convincingly  that  some  degree  ofplanning  for  learning  technologies  is  critical  for  successful  learningtechnology integration into higher education, and we hope that this is alsoillustrated by case studies of successful learning technology integration inthis collection. What is important, argues Bates, is that planning strategiesmust be emergent, iterative (non-rigid) processes that makes use of what hasbeen  learned  from  patterns  of  individual  actions.  Key  features  of  a  modelstrategic plan for technology integration include: that it fits within the widerinstitutional plan for teaching and learning; that it is detailed and concrete,with identifiable goals for action over a three to five year period; that it clearlyidentifies the range and needs of the students it intends to serve; that it aimsto  exploit  the  institution?s  strengths  and  minimize  its  weaknesses;  that  itconsiders the institution?s competitive advantage(s) locally and globally; and28  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCthat  it  clearly  defines  the  desired  balance  between  face-to-face  andtechnology-based teaching.?  Case Study: Institutionalizing a Culture of Planning at the Universityof Central FloridaThe relatively young and rapidly growing University of Central Florida(UCF) was initially established as a technical university near Orlando,Florida  in  the  late  1960s,  with  the  goal  of  training  scientists  andengineers for the United States Space Industry, located nearby. As theinstitution fulfilled the demand for trained professionals in that field, itbegan to broaden its academic range beyond technical disciplines.UCF?s early and foundational sense of a clear identity and mission, andan  emphasis  on  the  use  of  technology  have  persisted  in  its  highlyplanning-oriented culture, explains Dr. Joel Hartman, Vice Provost forInformation  Technologies  and  Resources.  As  demand  for  highereducation boomed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, UCF initiated anactive strategic planning process that has allowed it to keep pace withstudent demand, to make higher education available to more studentsremote  from  physical  campuses,  to  integrate  and  leveragedevelopments  in  learning  technologies  and  to  manage  its  staggeringrate  of  growth  with  an  eye  always  on  learning  outcomes  andtransformative pedagogy.In 1995, UCF reorganized its information and technology units into thedivision of Information Technologies and Resources, and embarked ona series of major technology-enabled projects. In that same year, theuniversity completed a new strategic planning cycle, allowing for thefirst time a synthesis of campus and IT panning. The new institutionalplan, published in 1995, contained more than 60 explicit links betweeninstitutional goals and objectives and information technology. Indeed,plans  for  integrating  technology  into  teaching  and  learning  were  sotightly  woven  into  the  institutional  plan,  Hartman  explains,  that  aseparate technology plan was not needed. The new technology-basedBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            29? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCinitiatives  specified  by  the  plan  were  supported  by  an  institutionalassessment  strategy  designed  to  ?keep  close  to  the  users?  and  paycareful attention to the quantitative and qualitative impact of technologyon UCF life (see p. 80).UCF?s  initial  venture  into  e-learning  began  as  a  distance  learninginitiative ? with the objective of making credit-level education availableto  a  new  and  growing  demographic  of  students  who  did  not  haveconvenient  access  to  campus-based  education,  especially  workingadults.  New  offerings  of  fully  online  courses  (in  the  context  of  fullyonline  programs)  were  also  part  of  a  strategy  to  decelerate  physicalgrowth on the main UCF campus in Orlando, while still accommodatingstudents. In fall 2004, UCF expects to enroll more than 43,000 students,with projections for a student population approaching 58,000 studentsby  2010.  To  keep  up  with  this  rate  of  growth,  the  university  mustconstruct 8,000 square feet of new classroom space and hire more than100 new faculty each year. Establishment of 21 remote attendance sitesand  an  online  learning  initiative  that  enrolls  nearly  9,000  students  inonline degree programs have also helped UCF manage this rapid rate ofgrowth.In  parallel  with  early  ventures  into  online  learning  (and  the  requisitedevelopment of technology infrastructure and faculty development tosupport it), institutional assessment quickly showed administrators thatapproximately  75%  of  online  students  were  not  true  ?distance?students,  but  were  also  registered  in  on-campus  classes.  Thesestudents,  they  discovered,  were  electing  online  courses  primarily  fortheir  convenience  as  a  way  to  help  them  manage  work,  family  andscheduling demands.Institutional planners subsequently conceived of a new blended modelof  ?mixed-mode?  instruction  (courses  that  combine  both  online  andface-to-face  instruction)  that  would  continue  to  maximize  learningflexibility  for  students,  make  more  efficient  use  of  scarce  classroomspace,  and  also  improve  learning  outcomes,  especially  in  large30  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCenrollment  classes.  While  a  typical  traditional  lecture  course  mightinvolve  an  on-campus  class  meeting  three  times  per  week,  aprototypical  mixed-mode  class  meets  one  per  week,  with  remainingcollaborative  coursework  being  completed  online  in  a  WebCT-basedcourse environment. Hartman notes that this offers the physical campusa potential 66% ?scheduling advantage,? but he emphasizes that thedriving motivation in the development of mixed-mode instruction waspedagogical. By skillfully combining face-to-face and online instruction,this instructional model has become a force for the transformation ofteaching and learning at UCF, moving instruction away from a teacher-centred  content-delivery  model  toward  an  ?active  student?  learner-centric model.While  mixed-mode  courses  need  careful  design,  and  comprehensivefaculty support and professional development, Hartman says it is wellworth  the  investment.  Ongoing  institutional  research  at  UCF  (nowpublished  in  peer-reviewed  academic  journals)  has  shown  that  whilestudent withdrawal rates and satisfaction in online courses are similar toface-to-face courses, mixed mode instruction has consistently shownimproved learning outcomes. Evidence of transformation can be foundin the significant number of students and faculty engaging in some formof  online  learning,  and  the  transference  by  faculty  of  pedagogicalapproaches  learned  in  the  online  environment  to  their  face-to-facecourses.  (During  the  2003-2004  academic  year,  fully  60%  of  UCF?sstudents enrolled in one or more online course, and the annual growthrate of online course activity has been increasing at a compound rate of25% to 30% per year.)UCF courses now employ technology in at least three modes: as fullyonline courses (online degree and graduate certificate programs), in themixed-mode format, and through web-enhancement of predominantlyface-to-face  courses.  Online  learning  has  become  so  thoroughlyembedded  in  UCF?s  culture  of  teaching  and  learning,  says  Hartman,that  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  the  Research  Initiative  in  TeachingEffectiveness  (RITE)  group  to  undertake  direct  comparisons  ofBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            31? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCtechnology-based courses with purely ?face to face? courses becauseso few of these latter remain.With regard to ongoing strategic planning at UCF, Hartman points outthat planning at UCF is neither ?top-down? nor ?bottom-up?; rather, it isboth. His organization mediates a constant flow of information betweenthe  institutional  ?strata?,  through  briefings  of  senior  administration,consultations  with  Deans,  the  creation  of  faculty  development  andfeedback mechanisms, formal planning with Deans and other academicadministrators,  and  through  all-important  ongoing  assessment  ofstudent needs and learning outcomes. This is a planning strategy thatharnesses  the  executive  insight,  decision-making  experience  andstrategic  expertise  of  senior  management,  with  a  sensitivity  to  andawareness  of  student  and  faculty  wishes  and  needs.  Says  Hartman,?good  planning  must  be  ?of?  the  institution,  not  ?by?  it;compartmentalized planning processes are surely destined to fail.?University of Central Florida Web Sites?  The University of Central Florida: http://www.ucf.edu?  UCF?s Strategic Planning Web Site: http://www.spc.ucf.edu/?  UCF?s Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness:http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite/?  UCF?s Online Course Gallery:http://reach.ucf.edu/vaults/account_list.html?  Case  Study:  Planning  for  a  Culture  of  Customer  Service  at  theUniversity of PhoenixIt may come as a surprise to many people to learn that the University ofPhoenix (UoP) ? possibly the best known ?online university? in NorthAmerica, and the United States? largest private accredited university ?was originally established in 1976 as an ?on-ground? institution with no32  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCdistributed learning capacity at all. Nevertheless, even in its pre-Internetstage  as  a  non-traditional  degree  completion  institution  for  workingadults  and  mature  students,  UoP  came  close  to  being  what  Bates(2000) calls a ?post-Fordist? or post-industrial university (see description,p. 12). UoP?s experiments with online learning only began in 1989, whenthe  university?s  founder,  Dr.  John  Sperling  ?  a  Cambridge-educatedeconomist and professor-turned-entrepreneur ? wanted to be able toreach  students  who  were  remote  from  the  on-ground  campuses.  An?online campus? was established as ?just another UoP campus? offeringthe  same  courses  as  the  physical  campuses.  For  some  years  itremained a small-to-medium campus, and early online courses simplyused  bulletin  boards  to  allow  text-based  ?usenet?-style  discussions.Through  the  1990s,  however,  communications  and  learningtechnologies continued to evolve, offering new pedagogically effectiveand  cost-effective  possibilities  for  online  learning,  and  UoP  quicklydeveloped a business plan designed to grow the online campus. As of2004, and while the university now has physical campuses in 35-40 USstates,  the  online  campus  is  experiencing  dramatic  growth  inenrollments of 60-70% per year. Online students now represent almosthalf  of  the  university?s  total  student  body  of  200,000  students,  andonline associate faculty make up half of UoP?s 17,000 faculty members.Russ Paden, Vice President of Academic Services for the University ofPhoenix,  and  Chief  Academic  Officer  of  the  Online  Campus,  creditsthree major planning elements with UoP?s phenomenal growth in thelast decade: the conscious development of a new and non-traditionaluniversity culture, a focus on customer service, and a future-orientedstrategic business plan for managing growth.The  University  of  Phoenix  is,  first  and  foremost,  a  university,  Padenemphasizes?but,  as  a  subsidiary  of  the  Apollo  Group  Inc.,  it  is  auniversity  that  ?thinks  like  a  business?.  Moreover,  the  opportunity  todevelop a brand new and innovative multi-level institutional culture fromscratch, rather than having to negotiate and manage the cultural changeof a pre-existing traditional institution, offered UoP a great advantageBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            33? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCthat  most  older  institutions  do  not  have.  At  the  client  (learner)  level,Paden explains, UoP continues to evolve and grow by responding tothe  educational  needs  and  demands  of  the  ?new  demographic?  ofworking adult learners ? individuals who expect their interactions withtheir  university  to  be  ?as  smooth  and  service-oriented  as  theirinteractions with their bank?.UoP?s  large  pool  of  predominantly  part-time  ?practitioner?  facultyeffectively  function  as  a  bridge  with  the  professional  world  ofbusinesses and industries, allowing course and program curriculum tobe  created,  updated  or  removed  ?on  a  dime?  as  the  work  worldchanges.  Faculty  members  are  selected  both  for  their  teachingexpertise and for their professional backgrounds: as practitioners in theprofessional  areas  relevant  to  UoP?s  applied  programs  ?  business,management,  nursing,  teaching,  information  technology  and  relatedfields ? they bring an unprecedented level of hands-on know-how intoprofessional courses and programs.Tenure, on the other hand, is not part of the UoP culture ? a feature thathas obvious financial and organizational advantages for the university,but  which  also  offers  professional  advantages  to  faculty  membersthemselves.  This  institutional  culture  selects  and  attracts  a  newgeneration  of  instructors  ?  individuals  who  often  also  teach  at  otheronline or on-ground institutions, or who have the possibility of pursuinga non-academic career in parallel to their university teaching. With morethan a thousand accelerated online courses beginning every week, UoPteaching  loads  are  flexible  and  can  be  shaped  to  fit  variable  careerdemands. In addition, all faculty ? who must first successfully completea  comprehensive  training  and  mentorship  phase,  have  access  toongoing  professional  development  in  a  range  of  areas  relating  touniversity teaching (see p. 68). And while UoP does not consider itselfto  be  a  ?research  institution?  and  offers  no  research-based  graduatedegrees, a recent faculty survey found that many faculty members areinvolved  in  research,  either  in  their  professional  careers  or  in  otheruniversities to which they may be cross-appointed.34  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCRegarding  course  curriculum,  Russ  Paden  explains  that  UoP  is  abeliever  in,  and  advocate  of,  academic  freedom,  but  within  thatframework,  the  university  uses  a  system  of  centralized  curriculum  toensure  that  learning  outcomes  and  course  content  are  consistentacross the UoP system. Through what he describes as an ?unbundledfaculty model?, and in response to changing student demographics andprofessional standards, teams of faculty develop or revise courses andcurriculum in a cooperative and collaborative process.Finally, the non-traditional UoP also facilitates a careful strategic andbusiness  planning  approach  to  managing  UoP?s  current  explosivegrowth.  As  Paden  explains,  in  the  context  of  such  rapid  growth,  noresting on laurels is possible, and management must always be thinkingahead,  monitoring  new  developments  in  technology,  the  changingworkforce  conditions  and  emerging  student  needs.  Rather  thanpromoting senior academics into management positions, UoP has theluxury of recruiting and appointing senior administrators with experienceand  expertise  in  financial  planning  and  organizational  management(although  administrators  responsible  for  academic  issues,  such  asDeans  are  of  course  recruited  for  the  more  typical  academicbackground and expertise).Creation of a new business-style education culture has not happenedwithout  challenges  (Sperling,  2000)  ?  Paden  readily  admits  thatlanguage  describing  students  as  ?customers?  still  makes  sometraditional  academic  faculty  cringe;  the  US  higher  educationaccreditation system at one point balked at the idea of accrediting a for-profit  institution.  Indeed,  UoP  has  broken  new  ground  within  NorthAmerican  higher  education  that  other  institutions  are  now  benefitingfrom.  But  while  some  e-universities  have  not  lasted  long,  UoP?sconscious construction of a comprehensive new institutional culture ?one foot in the academic world, one foot in the corporate world ? andfocus on customer-oriented service is sustaining its continued growth.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            35? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCUniversity of Phoenix Web Sites?  The University of Phoenix: http://www.phoenix.edu?  The University of Phoenix Online: http://onl.uophx.edu/?  Apollo Group, Inc.: http://www.apollogrp.comUniversity of Phoenix Publications?  Sperling, J. (2000). Rebel With a Cause: The Entrepreneur Who Createdthe University of Phoenix and the For-Profit Revolution in HigherEducation. New York: Wiley.?  Case  Study:  A  Bottom-up  Strategic  Planning  Approach  at  theUniversity of Waterloo, CanadaFounded  in  1957,  and  long  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  innovativeuniversities  in  the  country,  the  University  of  Waterloo  is  a  midsizeCanadian university, with the largest cooperative education program inNorth America. At any given time, roughly 60% of Waterloo?s 18,000full-time students are on cooperative work placements.Waterloo?s  strategic  planning  approach  to  the  integration  of  learningtechnologies  has  sought  to  leverage  its  strengths  as  an  innovator  inlearning and a leader in the uses of technology, but at the same timetakes  into  account  the  reality  of  Waterloo?s  highly  decentralizedinstitutional  culture.  Centralized  initiatives  have  historically  not  beenstrong at Waterloo, explains Dr. Tom Carey, Associate Vice-Presidentfor  Learning  Resources  and  Innovation,  and  former  Director  of  theuniversity?s  strategic  innovation  unit,  the  Centre  for  Learning  andTeaching Through Technology, or LT3. Rather than attempting to deviseor  impose  a  top-down  system-wide  model  for  learning  technologyimplementation, LT3 was established in 1999 with a mandate to workwith,  encourage  and  support  innovative  faculty  scattered  across  the36  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCcampus, as they began to explore ways of using technology to supportlearning goals.One  unique  strategic  decision  made  by  LT3  was  to  ?skip?  adevelopmental stage that many institutions have passed through ? thestage at which the institution adopts a system-wide basic coursewaremanagement system that many faculty members may then use in simpleways to distribute course materials or manage course grades. Instead,Waterloo elected to license the source code of a lesser known openenterprise  courseware  management  system,  ANGEL,  brand  it,  anddevelop  on  top  of  it  an  innovative  system  that  provides  enhancedteaching  and  learning  support  and  allows  more  sophisticatedinstructional design possibilities. Carey notes that the additional toolsbuilt  by  the  innovation  team  have  allowed  innovator  faculty  to  getaround  the  design  limitations  imposed  by  some  better  knowncourseware systems and encourage a learning-centred focus for facultyactivity.Now into the next stage of learning technology integration, Carey doesacknowledge that a certain amount of ?backfilling? is now needed, inorder  to  disseminate  best  practices  across  the  campus,  beyond  theearly  adopter  faculty.  In  a  cross-campus  partnership  with  Waterloo?sChief  Information  Officer  and  Information  Systems  and  Technology,basic  courseware  management  systems  and  support  are  now  beingmade available to a broader faculty audience, with a team of staff fromthe  LT3  Centre  as  faculty  liaisons.  These  individuals  are  hired  incollaboration with individual faculties, and have a mandate to continueto  encourage  innovations  and  to  promote  sharing  of  knowledge  andbest practices throughout the campus. The ANGEL enterprise coursemanagement  system  extends  a  commercial  product  to  incorporatesome of the innovations pioneered in LT3; meanwhile, and in parallel,the  LT3  Centre  operates  an  "Exploration"  version  of  the  enterprisecourse  management  system,  to  prototype  a  next  generation  ofinstructional innovations.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            37? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCSignificantly,  Carey  highlights  the  vision  of  Waterloo?s  President  asbeing critical in facilitating learning technology innovation at Waterloo.In addition, he points out that campus-wide buy-in to the innovationstrategy has been assisted by the ways in which it has harnessed theinstitution's own culture of and reputation for innovation; by 2002, thecredibility  of  innovation  with  learning  technologies  was  firmlyestablished  and  woven  into  Waterloo?s  innovation  culture  with  thecreation of Carey?s AVP role in Learning Resources and Innovation.University of Waterloo Web Sites?  The University of Waterloo: http://www.uwaterloo.ca?  LT3: http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca?  Dr. Tom Carey?s home page: http://avp-lri.uwaterloo.ca?  ANGEL Open Enterprise Course Management System, fromCyberLearningLabs: http://cyberlearninglabs.com/What  can  be  learned  from  these  case  studies?  While  the  University  ofPhoenix  has  certain  luxuries  that  older  research  universities  do  not,  itsdemonstrable success (academically and financially) is arguably the result ofcareful strategic planning and underscores the ways that institutional culturecan  facilitate  or  limit  change.  UoP  clearly  identified  its  target  audience,developed  an  institutional  culture  that  allowed  market  responsiveness,minimized its financial burden through a strategic decision to hire part-timeassociate  faculty,  and  guaranteed  a  standardized,  accredited  learningexperience  to  its  client-students  through  centralized  curriculum.Comprehensive  support  and  training  of  faculty  (see  p.  68)  assists  withretention and continuity, and sound business planning and monitoring meansthat expansion relies on educated decision-making.In  a  very  different  context,  senior  administrators  at  the  University  ofWaterloo  instead  chose  to  strategically  support  early-adopter  facultymembers  in  technologically  sophisticated  ventures  into  teaching  with38  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCtechnology ? a strategy more consistent with a campus culture of innovation.This  case  study  also  highlights  the  critical  importance  of  institutionalleadership in aligning institutional strategies with community vision.Meanwhile, UCF?s strategic plan has allowed that institution to maintainand even improve student learning outcomes through careful integration oflearning technologies, at the same time maximizing efficiency of classroomspace use and allowing sustainable institutional growth.Although  each  of  these  three  institutions  has  adopted  learningtechnologies in different ways, and with somewhat different objectives, it isbeyond  question  that  none  would  have  achieved  their  current  level  ofsuccess through piecemeal technology adoption.Resources on Strategic Planning for Technology?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Limitations and Advantages of the StrategicPlanning Approach? & ?The Limitations of Planning?, in ManagingTechnological Change. Strategies for College and University Leaders. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 55-58; 210-212.?  Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.?  Bruce, R. (1999). Educational Technology Planning: A Framework. BritishColumbia: Kwantlen University College.?  Dill, D. D. (1996). Academic Planning and Organizational Design: Lessonsfrom Leading American Universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 50(1),35-53.?  Dolence, M. G. (2004). The Curriculum-Centred Strategic Planning Model.ECAR Research Bulletin, 10.http://www.educause.edu/asp/doclib/abstract.asp?ID=ERB0410?  Educause, National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. (2004). StrategicPlanning and Alignment for Institutional Transformation.http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/alignment.aspBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            39? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider When Planning Online DistanceLearning Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of DistanceLearning Administration, 6(1).http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm?  Moran, C. (1998). Strategic Information Technology Planning in HigherEducation, in D. Oblinger and S. Rush (Eds.), The Future CompatibleClassroom. Bolton, MA: Anker.?  Noblitt, J. S. (1997). Top-down Meets Bottom-up. Educom Review, 32 (3),38-43.?  Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D. & Dolence, M. G. (1998). Achieving StrategicTransformation, in Strategic Choices for the Academy. How LifelongLearning Will Re-Create Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,pp. 261-279.?  Stockley, B. D. (2002). Strategic Planning, Infrastructure and ProfessionalDevelopment for Technological Innovation in Canadian Post-secondaryEducation. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, pp. 19-23. Availablefrom the National Library of Canada athttp://www.collectionscanada.ca/thesescanada/?  TechnoPlanning: http://contract.kent.edu/change/articles/julaug96.htmlA searchable collection of 120 resources related to technology planning.40  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest  Practice  3:   Resource  Reallocation  for  SustainableIntegration of Learning TechnologiesFunding decisions are the most important strategy available for universityand college leaders who want to move their institution into technology-basedteaching  and  learning.  In  traditional  and  established  institutions,  fundingarrangements  are  often  based  on  historical  practices  that  may  no  longerreflect current ways of teaching and learning. As already noted, short-termand external funding options for funding learning technology initiatives havesignificant disadvantages and can be a real challenge to sustainability. Bates(2000) argues that university and college leaders must look very closely athow well current financial strategy and decision-making approaches matchthe  rapidly  changing  institutional  environment  and  teaching  and  learninggoals.?  Case  Study:  A  Strategic  Business  Planning  Approach  to  NewProgram Development at the University of SydneyThe University of Sydney is exploring an approach to ?Innovation andTechnology?  that  takes  into  account  the  culture  of  this  large  multi-campus  university,  the  realities  of  the  Australian  higher  educationfunding system, and the changing educational needs and demands ofemerging ?client groups?. International education is now Australia?s thirdlargest service export industry, with rapid growth in online delivery ?particularly at the postgraduate level and in professional developmentprograms.  Anne  Forster,  Director  of  the  university?s  ?Innovation  andTechnology in Education Ventures? unit, iTEV,   explains however, thatas  Australia?s  leading  research  university,  the  University  of  Sydney?sstrategy  aims  to  balance  international  and  commercial  growthopportunities to enhance its established academic and research culture.The University of Sydney ? like UBC, is a devolved, dispersed research-intensive university that that generates its revenue from a diversity ofsources  ?  and  faces  significant  challenges:  the  need  to  investBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            41? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCstrategically,  the  need  to  support  faculty  through  professionaldevelopment,  and  the  need  to  minimize  redundancy  in  program  andproject  development,  while  retaining  a  faculty-driven  quality-assuredmodel of program development that motivates departmental and facultybuy-in.At the same time, Forster explains that an increasing awareness acrossthe  University  of  Sydney?s  nineteen  faculties  of  new  educationaldemands  from  the  changing  community  of  learners  has  resulted  inrecognition of the need for more flexible and interdisciplinary  models ofeducation that go beyond the face-to-face classroom model. The iTEVproject was established within the Vice-Chancellor?s Special ProjectsUnit to demonstrate critical success factors in the commercialization offlexible  postgraduate  programs.  The  focus  on  innovation  is  toencourage creativity, not only in delivery to new markets, but also in thedesign  of  the  learning  environments  and  collaborations  acrossdisciplines.   Foundational to this change project is a carefully craftedbusiness  assessment  model  for  investment  in  development  of  newprograms that are multidisciplinary, innovative, relevant, and that havethe  potential  to  grow  and  to  meet  the  needs  of  emerging  studentmarkets.  Forster?s  job  is  to  work  with  Deans  to  identify  newopportunities,  and  to  put  in  place  support  systems  that  enable  abusiness  approach.  Initial  funding  for  venture  identification  andinvestment comes from a strategic development fund managed by theOffice  of  the  Vice-Chancellor.   Typically,  funding  is  managed  as  arepayable  loan  reported  against  a  business  case,  but  has  also  beenallocated for initial business scoping and market analysis.  Preparation isthorough, to determine whether a proposed program has the potentialto be self-sustaining in the future.Proposals  with  business  cases  that  indicate  student  demand  andpotential  for  future  sustainability  receive  matched  investments  fromFaculties and from iTEV, who can then continue assisting with businessplanning,  marketing,  communications  planning,  digital  rightsmanagement, project management and coordination with other support42  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCunits  that  are  part  of  the  existing  university  infrastructure.  Ultimately,once successfully launched, and programs have grown sufficiently tomeet  their  costs,  the  original  strategic  investments  will  be  ploughedback  into  the  Strategic  Development  Fund,  creating  a  sustainablefunding feedback loop.   Forster notes that iTEV has so far facilitatedfourteen business cases across the University of Sydney; these projectsare in various stages of development as of early 2004.  Forster?s  approach  is  akin  to  regarding  new  programs  as  smallbusinesses.  Her  team  includes  people  with  e-learning,  businessconsulting and commercial business planning experience, together withexternal  consultants  in  project  management  and  international  marketresearch.  They  assist  with  the  preparation  of  preliminary  and  finalbusiness plans in conjunction with the academic team, as well as withproject  review.  The  planning  and  review  documents  are  much  morecommercial in flavour than is usual within a university.Both the plans and the reviews are as quantitative as possible, requiringa  financial  reporting  system  that  is  largely   foreign  to  universityadministration at the course level. Ultimately, the ?business planning?approach will enable calculation of the return on investment from newprograms to each of the investors: the University, Faculty and School.This will facilitate comparison of ?returns? from different programs, andeven an interesting comparison with other commercial investments ofsimilar risk.The commercial focus of the iTEV project is easily interpreted as theUniversity ?Dancing with the devil? and gaining legitimacy is a constantchallenge. Lessons learned from the numerous ventures in developmentare now being analyzed to identify issues of common concern. Movingfrom an atomistic approach, where programs are developed in isolationand struggle to find sufficient resources for growth, iTEV has identifieda  shared  services  model  based  on  the  best  practices  of  matureprograms. It is clear that a project-based approach with expertise drawnfrom a mix of content, instructional design, education technology andBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            43? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCbusiness specialists, working closely and effectively together, will leadto well managed, high growth programs.University of Sydney Web Sites?  University of Sydney: http://www.usyd.edu.au?  Innovation & Technology in Education Ventures (iTEV):http://www.itev.usyd.edu.au/?  Program Initiatives Under Development at the University of Sydney:http://www.itev.usyd.edu.au/info/initiatives/University of Sydney Publications?  Forster, A. (2002). Discussion Paper: Online Teaching and Learning at theUniversity of Sydney. Synergy, 18.http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/ctl/Synergy/Synergy18/forster.htmWhat can be learned from this case study? Reallocation of central fundingis  a  critical  strategy  for  long-term  sustainability  of  technology-basedteaching.  This  reallocation  may  be  made  at  one  or  more  levels,  fromgovernmental to institutional to departmental, but must be undertaken withan  eye  to  cost  effectiveness,  economies  of  scale  and  sustainability.  TheUniversity  of  Sydney?s  strategy  is  an  example  of  effective  funding  re-allocation at the institutional level. It combines careful (almost conservative)business  planning  for  sustainability  with  educational  and  technologicalinnovation,  without  assailing  the  institution's  cultural  tenets  of  academicfreedom  and  scholarship.  Most  importantly,  the  university  has  set  asidecentral funding for technology initiatives in a fund which nevertheless is not atrisk of becoming a ?black hole? because grants are eventually repaid whenprojects  become  self-sustaining  ?  and  therefore  should  not  burden  thefinancial status of the university as a whole. (Bates (2000) offers examples offunding reallocation strategies at other levels).44  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCA  final  note:  a  continuing  challenge  to  strategic  planning  for  fundingtechnology-based teaching is the challenge of costing e-learning. Referencesbelow  offer  suggestions  for  developing  costing  models,  and  discuss  thechallenges of calculating true costs.Resources on Resource Allocation for Learning Technology?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Funding Strategies?, in Managing TechnologicalChange. Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 153-163.?  Educause. (2003). Funding Information Technology. Educause ExecutiveBriefing #2. Available at:http://www.educause.edu/asp/doclib/abstract.asp?ID=PUB4002Resources on Costing e-Learning?  Bartolic, S. & Bates A. W. (1999). Investing in online learning: Potentialbenefits and limitations. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24, 349-366.?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Calculating the Costs of Teaching with Technology?,in Managing Technological Change. Strategies for College and UniversityLeaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 122-152?  Middaugh, M. (1999). The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs andProductivity: A Consortial Approach to Assessing InstructionalExpenditures. http://www.udel.edu/IR/cost/consortial.html?  Qayyum, A. (2003). Comparing apples and apple? computers: Issues incosting e-learning and face-to-face teaching.http://www.maple.ubc.ca/publications/index.html?  WCET. (2004). Technology Costing Methodology Project. WesternCooperative for Educational Telecommunications, Boulder, Colorado.http://wcet.info/projects/tcm/BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            45? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Winston, G. (2000). A guide to measuring college costs. New Directionsfor Institutional Research, 106, 31-46.Best Practice 4:  Development of Collaborations and PartnershipsLearning technologies and online learning expand teaching and learninghorizons  for  institutions,  faculty  and  students;  but  development  andmaintenance  of  online  learning  projects  is  not  cheap.  In  addition,  onlinelearning is increasing the global competition for students and student dollars.Institutional competitors are no longer simply other colleges and universitiesin the region, but include institutions all over the world. Increasingly, collegesand  universities  are  adopting  collaborative  and  partnering  strategies  thatreduce  the  risk  of  investment  in  technology,  share  the  costs  of  newdevelopments, promote low-cost or free exchange materials and expertise,and/or reach wider student audiences while avoiding unnecessary course ofprogram  duplication  that  would  reduce  cost-effective  for  competinginstitutions.?  Case  Study:  Inter-institutional  Partnering  by  the  University  ofWaterlooAt the University of Waterloo, Dr. Tom Carey explains that in addition toleading LT3 ? Waterloo?s strategic innovation centre (see p. 35) ? hewas also given responsibility in the late 1990s for positioning Waterlooas a leader within various collaborative opportunities relating to learningtechnologies. The premise is simple, he clarifies: to achieve an effectivereturn on investment in high quality highly interactive instruction usinglearning  technologies,  it  is  critical  to  amortize  costs  over  as  large  anumber of users as possible. While larger institutions like the UK?s OpenUniversity, or the University of Phoenix can do this internally, smallerinstitutions need to share expenses with partner institutions.Waterloo?s partnerships are diverse in size and scope, and address arange  of  different  possibilities  for  inter-institutional  collaboration.  Anearly  affiliation  was  with  the  Canada-wide  TeleLearning  Network  of46  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCCentres  of  Excellence  (TL-NCE)  (1996-2002):  a  federally  fundedresearch  consortium  formed  to  advance  knowledge,  technology  andpractice in networked collaborative learning. More recently, as a partnerin COHERE ? Canada?s Collaboration for Online Higher Education andResearch  ?  Waterloo  is  participating  in  a  five-university  project  todevelop an online program in Canadian Studies. At a different level of?granularity?,  Waterloo  is  affiliated  with  MERLOT  ?  the  MultimediaEducational  resource  for  Learning  and  Online  Teaching  ?  in  thedevelopment  of  cross-institutional  learning  objects:  online  teachingmaterials that can be shared by faculty in participating universities andcolleges. Similarly, Waterloo was instrumental in initiating the Ontario-wide consortium CLOE ? Co-operative Learning Object Exchange ? toenable cross-institutional sharing of learning objects, teaching materials,animations  and  related  high  quality  multimedia  materials  betweenOntario-based institutions.Establishing new partnerships, and affiliating with existing consortia is asignificant element in Waterloo?s strategic plan for learning technologyintegration. University of Waterloo Web Sites?  The University of Waterloo: http://www.uwaterloo.ca?  LT3: http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca?  Dr. Tom Carey?s home page: http://avp-lri.uwaterloo.ca?  University of Waterloo Strategic Partnerships:http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca/Partnerships/?  Case  Study:  System-Wide  Support  for  Integration  of  LearningTechnologies by the California Virtual Campus InitiativeSince 1999, the California Virtual Campus (CVC) initiative has providedtechnical  support  on  web-based  distance  education  to  the  entireBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            47? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCCalifornia Community College System: a network that now includes 109autonomous  community  colleges  in  more  that  70  districts.  CVCcurrently operates as a group of four regional centres and a statewideProfessional  Development  Centre  that  provide  a  range  of  services  tothis rather decentralized network of colleges.Originally established as the ?California Virtual University program? bythe State Governor in 1998, the CVC currently has central State funding? in fact, CVC is a line item in the California State Budget. Consistentwith  Bates?  (2000)  caution  that  government  funding  for  technologyinitiatives  can  often  be  affected  by  changing  government  priorities,Director of the PDC, Joe Georges, and Training Director Judith Nortondescribe how CVC has had to evolve and adapt in the face of recentState Budget cuts. Nevertheless, through implementation of a series ofgrant-funded projects, this centralized group of service units continuesto address common needs relating to development and maintenance ofonline  learning  across  the  community  college  system,  offering  smallinstitutions  access  to  skills,  technology  and  services  that  wouldotherwise be out of reach. Interestingly, while CVC itself is feeling theimpact of budget cuts, Georges and Norton explain that CVC servicesare actually assisting in redistributing student demand for courses andoffering  services  that  help  colleges  themselves  weather  their  ownbudget cuts.By 2003, the PDC and regional centres had trained over 3,700 communitycollege faculty, staff and administrators through workshops on topics rangingfrom the basic use of online courseware applications, to broader issues suchas student services and support; ?train the trainer? workshops have assistedin disseminating skills and knowledge within individual colleges Latterly, thePDC  has  been  focussing  their  energies  on  developing  online  just-in-timetraining  "courselets"  for  faculty  and  staff  to  continue  professionaldevelopment, while other CVC regional centres have concentrated on face-to-face and online training opportunities.48  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCCVC  also  promotes  dissemination  of  best  practices  in  online  coursedesign  and  online  pedagogy.  The  program  has  hosted  annualinternational  conferences  on  issues  relating  to  learning  technologiesand online learning, and has also coordinated conferences on studentservices issues in distance learning. A recent and successful two-weekvirtual conference, for example, attracted more than 500 participants,who  interacted  via  the  Web  and  a  conference  call  system.  DifferentCVC regional centres host online resources and databases accessibleby staff and faculty system-wide, and offer small course developmentgrants  to  faculty  as  incentives  for  continued  innovation  andexperimentation  with  learning  technologies;  an  annual  ?best  onlineteaching website award? competition stimulates further efforts at coursedevelopment  and  offers  innovative  faculty  small  financial  awards  andmedia  visibility  for  their  work.  CVC  also  coordinates  the  CaliforniaCommunity  College  system?s  participation  in  the  MERLOT  project,networking college faculty and staff with international colleagues and aresource of internationally developed high quality learning objects.A major regional economy of scale is achieved through CVC?s hostingof online courses. While some colleges choose to host their own onlinecourses,  all  may  take  advantage  of  free  hosting  of  WebCT-  orBlackBoard-based courses, and free support for faculty using coursemanagement  software  through  the  hosting  program.  Rather  thanpurchasing  expensive  standard  licenses  for  course  managementsoftware,  colleges  may  purchase  licenses  at  discounted  rates  fromthrough  CVC  and  the  Foundation  for  California  Community  colleges.The 2002-2003 Legislative Progress Report notes that as of 2003, CVCwas hosting almost 4,000 online courses and more than 52,000 studentenrollments.One  of  CVC?s  most  significant  roles  ?  and  a  responsibility  that  itinherited  from  the  California  Virtual  University  project  ?  is  ongoingdevelopment and maintenance of an annual catalogue of distance andBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            49? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBConline  courses  offered  by  community  colleges  and  most  universitiesthroughout  the  State.  Now  available  online,  the  catalogue  offersinformation on more than 4,900 courses from accredited institutions,both  public  and  private,  in  the  State  of  California, and  is  currentlyreceiving  more  than  800  hits  a  day  from  students  seeking  onlinecourses  and/or  courses  not  available  through  their  home  institution.Norton points out that statewide budget cuts have also forced collegesto cut course offerings, even though demand is actually rising; whereasonce students showed more loyalty to their home institution, they arenow  ?shopping  around?  more,  in  search  of  preferred  courses  andtimetables. The catalogue has therefore become a critical tool to allowstudents  themselves  to  optimize  their  access  to  education  inchallenging financial times.California Virtual Campus Web Sites?  California Virtual Campus: http://www.cvc.edu/?  CVC Professional Development Centre: http://pdc.cvc.edu/common/?  CVC Legislative progress report 2002-2003:http://www.cccco.edu/divisions/esed/aa_ir/disted/attachments/2003_CVU_Legislative_Progress_Report.pdfCourse Management Systems Web Sites?  WebCT: http://www.webct.com/?  BlackBoard: http://www.blackboard.com/Consortium Web Site?  MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and OnlineTeaching: http://www.merlot.org/Home.po50  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Case Study: Public-Private Partnerships at the Open University ofCatalunya (UOC), Barcelona, SpainUntrammelled by an established institutional culture, the relatively newOpen University of Catalunya (UOC) has established itself via a uniquepublic-private  partnership  structure,  with  the  intention  of  harnessingmarket forces to support public and culturally-relevant higher education.UOC is a regional, Catalan university serving Catalan students in theCatalan language (and also in Spanish since 2000). It was created bythe Catalonian government to maintain and strengthen cultural identitywithin  an  increasingly  globalized  world.  At  the  same  time  as  servingregional needs, it also aims to exploit the potential of the Internet forglobal  reach  and  influence.  UOC  has  very  strong  support  from  allpolitical parties in the Catalonian Government (Generalitat). Founded in1995  UOC  now  boasts  33,000  students.  It  is  highly  innovative  in  itsbusiness  structure,  its  organization,  its  research  focus  on  theinformation  and  knowledge  society,  its  programming  (especially  itsdoctoral program), and its use of technology.UOC  is  another  good  example  of  a  post-Fordist  or  post-industrialorganization (see p. 12). As an institution, its culture reflects a collectionof  different  ideologies  and  value  systems  within  an  overall  unifiedstructure:  its  activities  are  influenced  by  academic  and  commercialvalues,  technology-driven  and  student  focussed  perspectives,globalization and regionalism. Tensions between values are mediated bystrong  leadership,  regional  pride,  and  a  focus  on  being  an  Internet-based organization.An  important  feature  of  UOC?s  organization  is  its  public/privatestructure,  and  disaggregation  into  ?companies?.  There  is  an  overall?holding? company, owned jointly by the Catalan Government and by aTrust of Members (including a regional Savings Bank, the Chamber ofCommerce, and several local foundations), called the Open UniversityFoundation (FUOC). The Open University of Catalonia is a wholly ownedcomponent  of  the  Foundation.  In  addition  the  Foundation  wholly  orBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            51? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCpartly owns a number of private companies, as follows (the % of FUOCownership is shown after the name of the company).? Ensenyament Obert (pre-university training for business): 50%? Ediuoc (Internet publishing/Web course production): 100%? Eurecamedia (digital/paper production company): 70%? Gestion del Concimiento (knowledge management): 66%?  Graduado  Multimedia  a  Distancia  (multimedia  degree):  50%  -  theother 50% is owned by Universitat Polit?cnica de Barcelona)? Planeta UOC (services to students outside Catalonia): 100%? Xarxa Virtual de Consum (online sales of materials): 2%Some  of  these  companies  sell  ?fixed  price?  services  to  OUC,  and  allhave  a  mandate  to  market  services  to  other  organizations  andindividuals.  These  companies  are  all  expected  to  contribute  to  theoverall revenues of the Foundation, through profits or profit sharing. Attime of writing, all of the companies are breaking even, financially, andare projected to generate sustaining revenue for UOC in the future.UOC Web Site?  Universidad Oberta de Catalunya (Open University of Catalunya):http://www.uoc.edu/What can be learned from these case studies? Each of the collaborativestrategies  described  has  allowed  the  institution  to  more  cost-effectivelyfinance  the  integration  of  online  or  technology-supported  teaching  andlearning, in the context of very different local and institutional cultures, andwith somewhat different goals. For the University of Waterloo, a significantgoal  in  participating  in  institutional  consortia  is  maximizing  technologicalinnovation within the framework of a research-based institution committed tofaculty  autonomy  and  academic  freedom.  The  California  Virtual  Campusinitiative has dramatically increased access to higher education for learners inthat State. In Catalunya, UOC?s novel public-private structure is harnessing52  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCthe power of a global market in the service of enriching and strengtheninglocal education and culture.Bates  (2000)  notes,  however,  that  partnerships  and  collaborations  alsocome  with  risks  and  challenges.  Katz  (2003)  offers  a  detailed  analysis  ofdifferent kinds of institutional collaborations and partnerships, and offers astep-by-step ?E-Learning Partnership Roadmap?.Resources on Partnerships and Collaborations?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Developing Partnerships or Consortia?, in ManagingTechnological Change. Strategies for College and University Leaders. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 163-180.?  Katz, R. N. (2003). Selecting Models and External Partners for E-LearningInitiatives. ECAR Research Bulletin, Vol. 2003, (3).http://www.educause.edu/ecar/research/research.asp?  WCET. (2003). Distance Learning Networks and Partnerships.http://www.wcet.info/resources/ElectronicResources/distancelearningnetworks.aspBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            53? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest Practice 5:  Putting in Place the Physical and TechnologicalInfrastructure?Infrastructure?  for  teaching  and  learning  with  technology  in  the  firstinstance includes desktop or laptop computers and mainframes or serversthat link them; it also includes the physical network (cables and wires, fiberand  Ethernet)  that  connect  them,  operating  systems  and  software,  coursemanagement systems, routers, telecommunications links, videoconferencingequipment and networks, and Internet access. Importantly, Bates (2000) alsotouches  on  a  second  critical  element  of  infrastructure:  the  physical  spaceitself, including teaching and recreational space, and other campus facilities.In addition to ?technology?, development of an effective campus infrastructuremust involving rethinking campus spaces, and especially teaching spaces,rather  than  attempting  to  shoehorn  new  learning  technologies  (and  theassociated  new  pedagogical  practices)  into  spaces  designed  to  supportmore traditional forms of teaching and learning.As might be expected, there are multiple challenges to transformation ofinfrastructure, not least the financial: in 2000, Bates estimated that it mightcost  $4-5  million  Canadian  annually  to  maintain  its  technologicalinfrastructure. While this reality makes the need for budgetary reallocation offunds (see p. 10) even more important, Noblitt (1997) has emphasized that inorder to reassure faculty and the campus community, it is important that thefunding  of  technology  and  infrastructure  development  not  be  seen  to  bediverting funds from traditional educational endeavours. A further challenge isoften that many faculty and staff lack computer skills, and instructional staffmay  have  no  experience  of  technology-mediated  teaching  and  learning,making  faculty  training  and  support  (p.  10,  p.  63)  and  development  of  aneffective ?human? support infrastructure (p. 10, p. 72) just as important as thedevelopment of technological infrastructure.A final challenge to infrastructure-building is the reality that college anduniversity leaders with little or no experience of learning technologies oftenfind themselves in the position of having to make choices about technology54  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCand course management platforms, and must also develop strategic plans fortechnology  infrastructure  that  will  keep  pace  with  the  rapid  pace  oftechnological change.While simple acquisition of technology has often been assumed to be anend in itself, then, Bates (1997) highlights the complex realities of selectingand maintaining technology and designing or redesigning physical spaces fornew  modes  of  teaching  and  learning.  Infrastructure,  he  argues,  it  shouldnever be allowed to lead the institution?s teaching vision and strategy, butshould, rather, be driven by it.?  Case  Study:  Strategic  Planning  of  Technology-Friendly  LearningSpace at the University of Central FloridaAs  a  relatively  new  university  and  a  rapidly  growing  institution,  theUniversity  of  Central  Florida  (UCF)  has  a  distinct  advantage  in  itsongoing strategic planning for technology and infrastructure to supporttechnology-based  teaching  and  learning.  Dr.  Joel  Hartman,  ViceProvost for Information Technologies and Resources explains that at thesame  time  that  his  institution  began  introducing  technology  intopedagogy in the mid-1990s, the institution undertook a major initiativeto  equip  all  university  classrooms  with  full  multimedia  presentationfacilities.By  now,  nearly  80%  of  teaching  spaces  have  a  standard  university-designed multimedia presentation package that includes a networkedcomputer,  high-speed  Internet  connection,  DVD  player  and  high-resolution  video  projection,  and  sound  system.  All  multimediaclassrooms have a similar design and layout, making it easy for facultyto move from classroom to classroom as needed. Without this paralleleffort  to  advance  and  upgrade  university  infrastructure,  explainsHartman, UCF?s extensive blended learning model (see p. 28) would nothave developed so rapidly or become nearly as widespread.While  one  strand  of  infrastructure  development  has  been  the?upgrading?  of  existing  classroom  facilities,  UCF?s  core  strategicBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            55? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCinfrastructure  plan  has  also  been  focussed  on  designing  theinfrastructure  of  new  learning  spaces  to  support  the  new  modes  oftechnology-enriched  instruction.  Since  the  mid-1990s,  UCF?sinformation technology facilities planning group has routinely consultedwith the university?s facilities planners on the design of new buildings,and in particular of teaching space. The design philosophy is intendedto  make  classrooms  ?transparent  to  information?  (as  opposed  to  the?closed  box?  classroom  model)  and  provide  a  window  from  eachclassroom  to  the  outside  world  through,  video,  audio,  and  datacommunications.  This  concept  extends  far  beyond  decisions  abouthardware  and  software,  and  also  includes  space  design,  layout  andlighting. Multimedia console designs have been refined over the yearsbased  on  faculty  input  to  maximize  ease  of  use.  Certain  classroomshave  been  designed  with  new  layouts  to  support  a  team-basedcollaborative learning model ? a design that has proved so popular thatdemand now outstrips supply. A central Instructional Resources unit,based in a new high-tech classroom building, provides university-widesupport for multimedia classrooms. Located in the same building is theFaculty Centre for Teaching and Learning, which works with faculty todevelop  new  instructional  methods  suited  to  the  collaborativeclassrooms.Hartman  notes  that  the  classroom  infrastructure  projects  haveeffectively ?broken? the old costing model for construction of teachingspaces,  and  agrees  that  funding  such  intensive  technologicaldevelopment is an ongoing challenge. But demand for and acceptanceof  technology  is  so  great,  he  explains,  that  building  by  building,departments and faculties are continuing to find the necessary dollars,through  a  mixture  of  central  construction  funding  and  specialfundraising.  The  ongoing  challenge  will  be  to  keep  pace  with  newdevelopments in multimedia and technology, while continuing to buildout the campus.56  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCUniversity of Central Florida Web Sites?  The University of Central Florida: http://www.ucf.edu?  UCF?s Strategic Planning Web Site: http://www.spc.ucf.edu/?  UCF?s Office of Instructional Resources (ITV):http://www.oir.ucf.edu/ITV.asp?  UCF?s Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning: http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/?  Case  Study:  Strategic  Infrastructure  Choices  PromotingPedagogical Transformation at the University of QueenslandAt  the  University  of  Queensland  (UQ)  in  Brisbane,  Australia,infrastructure development has been strategically used to kick-start newventures  in  teaching  and  learning  with  technology,  in  the  wake  of  adetailed  and  consultative  campus-wide  visioning  process.  TheUniversity  of  Queensland  is  one  of  Australia?s  older  universities,  aresearch-based institution that regularly ranks in the top three nationaluniversities for annual research funding. Denise Chalmers, Director ofUQ?s Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI) explainsthat  a  fortunate  synchronicity  has  allowed  new  infrastructuredevelopment to go hand in hand with strategic planning decisions. In1997,  the  university?s  Academic  Board  concluded  a  lengthy  anditerative consultation process with the campus community to develop anew vision for teaching and learning. UQ is a university that values itstraditions, she explains, and feedback from the university communityvery strongly highlighted that the university ?wanted to be primarily anon-campus  experience?,  that  would  nevertheless  offer  resource-richcourses  and  programs  that  would  take  advantage  of  learningtechnologies.  The  output  from  the  consultation  process  was  theuniversity?s first Flexible Learning Policy ? a document that identifiedkey  directions  and  funding  strategies  for  integrating  technology  intoteaching and learning, guided by the university community?s vision andstrategy for teaching.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            57? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCIn parallel, the university had already contributed funding and politicalsupport for the development of a new satellite UQ campus in the city ofIpswich, some 45km away from the main campus ? a decision that didnot initially attract much enthusiasm from faculty members at the maincampus.  The  timing  of  this  development,  however,  and  the  directinvolvement of TEDI?s Director in planning the design, management andprogram offerings of this campus turned the new Ipswich campus into acrucible for new, innovative and technology-rich program adventures inteaching and learning.With  a  centrally  managed  planning  structure,  the  Ipswich  Committeemade  key  strategic  decisions  designed  to  develop  this  campus  as  adynamic testing ground for new modes of teaching. It was decided thatthe  campus  would  not  compete  with  the  main  campus  by  offeringidentical programs, but would instead aim to be distinctly different: togrow innovative programs that would be high-tech and well-resourced,to attract a different student demographic. Deliberate decisions weremade  with  regard  to  design  of  teaching  and  learning  space,  so  thatalthough some faculty members would come from the main campus toteach, they would be ?coming to Ipswich to teach differently?. Teachingspace offers no traditional lecture theatres for example, and no video-conferencing  facilities,  nor  does  it  simply  feature  banks  of  computerlabs. Instead, Chalmers explains, the Ipswich Committee focussed ondevelopment of ?hybrid? teaching space ? multifunctional non-squarerooms  that  feature  movable  seminar  furniture,  with  networkedcomputers  at  the  perimeter  to  facilitate  interactive  student-centredcollaborative learning, as well as multimedia facilities to allow facultymembers to demonstrate ideas, make presentations or introduce classcontent. Some teaching space, in addition, has been custom-designedto  suit  new  programs:  a  new  interdisciplinary  ?InformationEnvironments?  program,  for  example,  takes  place  in  state-of-the-artstudio  space  that  facilitates  student  work  in  graphic  design,architectural  design  and  information  technology.  Importantly,  theIpswich Campus led the way for the university in adoption of a common58  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCcourse  management  system  ?  WebCT  ?  and  TEDI?s  graphic  andinterface designers have customized and augmented this platform sothat it connects seamlessly with program print materials. Now into itsfourth year, the Ipswich campus boasts 3,000 students and some 150academic staff, and many more lecturers come and go from the maincampus. It is self-sustaining, and has truly developed its ?own culture?says Chalmers. TEDI has consistently offered comprehensive assistanceand  project  management  for  faculty  in  developing  new  technology-supported  programming,  and  in  addition  undertook  an  extensiveevaluation process through the early years of Ipswich?s development toinvestigate  and  record  student  and  faculty  experiences  of  andsatisfaction with the learning spaces and integration of technology intotheir  learning.  Chalmers  explains  that  the  Ipswich  Committeedeliberately designed space and technology infrastructure in a way thatcould be changed, because they ?knew they wouldn?t get it right firsttime?.  Student  and  faculty  feedback  has  thus  continued  to  feed  intoplanning for faculty training and development, and into space designplans.Critically, and as they hoped, instructional technology developments atthe  Ipswich  Campus  have  now  begun  to  spill  over  and  influenceteaching and learning decisions and strategies and new teaching spacedesign at UQ?s main campus in Brisbane. Inspired by developments atIpswich, the WebCT course management platform was adopted on atrial basis by the main campus. More recently, UQ has undertaken auniversity-wide comprehensive review of course management systemsand  has  made  the  decision  to  adopt  the  BlackBoard  coursemanagement  system  in  2005. This  will  allow  an  integrated  whole-university  approach  to  the  development  of  course  materials  and  ?eventually ? a web presence for all courses. Some courses originallydeveloped in the Ipswich model have now been ?moved over? to themain  campus,  and  have  become  integrated  into  other  programs;instructors who teach on both campuses are porting teaching strategiesand  possibilities  with  them  back  into  their  ?traditional?  courses  andBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            59? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCprograms. Moreover, TEDI is now coordinating the planning process fora  new  centrally  controlled  teaching  buildings  on  the  main  campus,informed by lessons learned in Ipswich, and in consultation with faculty,students and other stakeholders. As on the Ipswich campus, innovativedesign of space and infrastructure is intended to move programs awayfrom  ?traditional  lectures  and  tutorials?  and  to  promote  studio-stylecollaborative learning, supported by technology resources. Non-squareclassroom space will include concave and convex pods of computers toallow  different  styles  of  group  work,  as  well  as  some  more  ?formal?teaching  space;  desk  space  will  be  maximized  by  investment  in  flatscreens  and  a  move  to  server  interfaces  (rather  than  individual  harddrives);  positioning  of  multimedia  resources  will  allow  instructors  towork  with  all  of  just  part  of  a  class;  and  the  facility  will  also  includemeeting space, casual study space, a 24-hour coffee shop and (secure)outdoor areas. On completion, faculty and staff will be invited to test outthis  new  teaching  space,  report  Chalmers  ?  a  6-month  period  for?playtime?  has  been  factored  into  the  development  timeline,  to  allowTEDI to showcase the facility and its possibilities to increasing numbersof faculty.While  the  Ipswich  campus  is  still  small,  and  technology-supportedteaching and learning is distributed unevenly across UQ?s main campus,the technology innovations sparked by the focussed development of theIpswich  campus  are  now  impacting  many  areas  of  UQ  life.  In  2002,UQ?s Academic Board completed its most recent round of consultationand strategic planning. In reports (available below) the Board focussedon  development  of  academic  guidelines  for  UQ?s  flexible  learningpolicy,  and  continued  to  define  and  refine  flexible  learning  withreference to UQ?s own traditions and academic culture.University of Queensland Web Sites?  The University of Queensland: http://www.uq.edu.au60  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  UQ Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI):http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/?  UQ?s Ipswich Campus: http://www.uq.edu.au/ipswich/?  UQ?s Academic Board: http://www.uq.edu.au/academic-board/?  UQ Academic Board Reports: http://www.uq.edu.au/academic-board/policy/papers_index.htmSee: Ipswich Review, Flexible DeliveryWhat  can  be  learned  from  these  case  studies?  At  both  institutions,decisions about technology and space design have been made in responseto  (and  not  in  advance  of)  strategic  plans  that  have  taken  into  accountinstitutional culture, student demographics and the pedagogical goals andvision of the university community. Interestingly, in both places, the strategicintroduction of new technologies and technology-enhanced teaching spaceshas in turn encouraged faculty members to experiment with new approachesto teaching, beginning what it is hoped will be an iterative cycle of innovationand feedback as use of learning technologies increases.Both institutions have also undertaken extensive processes of consultationto  make  decisions  about  technology  and  learning  platforms  ?  someresources to guide technology selection are offered below. Both are investingstrategically in technology and infrastructure with an eye to sustainability andto future technology developments.Most importantly, both institutions have ? in different ways ? introducednew  technologies  and  infrastructure  in  ways  that  respond  to  faculty  andstudent  feedback  and  wishes,  maximizing  buy-in  across  their  respectivecampuses.Resources on Making Infrastructure and Technology Choices?  Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). ?A Framework for Selecting and UsingTechnology?, in A. W. Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching withBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            61? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCTechnology in Higher Education. Foundations for Success. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 75-109.?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Technology Infrastructure and Student Access?, inManaging Technological Change. Strategies for College and UniversityLeaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 76-85.?  Bruce, R. (1999). Educational Technology Planning: A Framework. BritishColumbia: Kwantlen University College.?  Hawkins, B. L. (1999). Developing the Necessary Infrastructure. EducomReview, 34(3), 56.?  Hawkins, B. L. (1999a). Distributed Learning and InstitutionalRestructuring. Educom Review, 34(4), 13.?  Ingerman, B. L. (2001). ?Form Follows Function. Establishing theNecessary Infrastructure?, in C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner (Eds.).Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading and Supportingthe Transformation on Your Campus. Educause Leadership Strategies No.5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.?  National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII). (2003). Knowledge andLearning Management Systems.http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/transformative.asp?  Pantel, C. (1997). A Framework for Comparing Web-based LearningEnvironments. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Simon Fraser University,Burnaby, British Columbia. Available:http://fas.sfu.ca/pub/cs/theses/1997/ChristianPantelMSc.pdf?  Stockley, B. D. (2002). Strategic Planning, Infrastructure and ProfessionalDevelopment for Technological Innovation in Canadian Post-secondaryEducation. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, pp. 25-28. Availablefrom the National Library of Canada athttp://www.collectionscanada.ca/thesescanada/62  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET).(2003). EduTools: Course Management Systems.http://www.edutools.info/course/This site was built to assist higher education in using a more rational decisionmaking process to review the many options for a course management system.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            63? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest Practice 6:  Putting in Place Faculty Training and SupportIt  goes  without  saying  that  faculty  members  and  instructional  staff  arecentral to the work of universities and colleges, and that core institutionalactivities ? teaching and research ? are completely dependent on their skilland support. No matter how comprehensive a plan for integration of learningtechnologies  and  transformation  of  teaching  and  learning,  without  thesupport of faculty members, nothing will change. Indeed, in his 1998 surveyof  campus  IT  strategies,  Green  identified  ?assisting  faculty  to  integratetechnology  into  instruction?  as  the  single  most  important  informationtechnology issues that educational institutions were facing.The  following  year,  an  APQC  benchmarking  study  carried  out  inpartnership with the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association(1999)  identified  a  number  of  interesting,  important  and  even  surprisingfeatures of best practice in supporting faculty use of learning technologies atparticipating  institutions.  Faculty  development  works  best,  they  reported,when  use  of  technology  is  comprehensively  woven  into  the  institutionalculture,  and  is  supported  by  multiple  strategies.  Successful  facultydevelopment  focusses  first  on  teaching  and  learning,  rather  than  on  thetechnology itself (although faculty computer literacy must often be addressedfirst).  The  most  effective  faculty  development  strategies  usually  involvedcollaborations  between  a  number  of  institutional  units  offeringcomplementary training, rather than by a single centralized unit. Importantly,this study found that faculty members learn best from their peers, through?show and tell? demonstrations by faculty ?stars? who have developed goodmodels of technology-based teaching.?  Case Study: Supporting Faculty in Teaching with Technology at theUniversit? de Montr?alWith its two affiliated schools, ?cole Polytechnique and HEC Montr?al,the  Universit?  de  Montr?al  (UdeM)  is  Qu?bec?s  leader  in  highereducation  and  research,  with  an  enrolment  of  more  than  54,50064  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCstudents,  and  almost  5,000  professors  and  instructional  staff  in  alldisciplines. Within this successful research university, Professor RhodaWeiss-Lambrou,  Director  of  the  Centre  for  Faculty  Teaching  andLearning (Centre d??tudes et de formation en enseignement sup?rieur,CEFES) has played a key role in developing a strategic plan to sparkfaculty interest in teaching with technology.Like  the  University  of  Waterloo  (p.  35),  UdeM  has  made  a  strategicdecision  to  foster  a  ?bottom-up?  introduction  of  technology  intoteaching and learning by initially supporting innovative and early adopterfaculty across the campus. In January 2000, a small but distinct servicedivision was created (separate from CEFES) to provide faculty memberswith  the  specialized  training  and  instructional  support  needed  toembrace the potential of learning technologies: the Support in Using theInternet and Technology in Education (SUITE) program. The SUITE unitdeveloped  a  three-stage  model  of  supporting  faculty  through  thetransition  to  Web-enhanced  pedagogy,  with  three  central  goals:  topromote  greater  technology  awareness  and  interest;  to  constitute  a?Team SUITE? ? an interdisciplinary group of 20 faculty members whowere early adopters; and to create opportunities for grant funding ofspecial technology-based teaching projects.In  Stage  One  of  this  faculty  training  and  support  model,  the  SUITEprogram organized campus-wide symposia on the uses of technology inteaching and learning, and SUITE staff and early adopter faculty madepresentations to departments and faculties to showcase best practicesin online course design, and to arouse interest in learning technologiesacross  the  campus.  A  critical  and  central  component  of  Stage  One,moreover,  was  the  selection  and  training  of  annual  SUITE  Teams  ofabout  20  faculty  members,  who  were  collectively  offered  support  incourse  development  and  integration  of  teaching  materials  into  theWebCT  course  management  platform,  and  in  the  rethinking  ofpedagogy for teaching with technology. (As an aside, Weiss-Lambrouadds  that  the  University?s  early  and  informed  decision  to  adopt  onesingle course management platform ? WebCT ? was in itself a strategicBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            65? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCdecision  that  later  enabled  CEFES  to  tailor  and  focus  its  trainingprograms).  Participating  faculty  members  agreed  to  develop  at  leastone  WebCT-based  course  during  the  year,  to  participate  in  variousTeam SUITE meetings, seminars and activities, and to act as a ?facultymentor?  for  their  peers.  Uniquely,  the  Team  SUITE  process  was  a?technology-driven  cooperative?  that  paired  students  with  facultymembers in the development of Web-based courses (Weiss-Lambrou,2002);  groups  of  students  (mostly  graduate  students  with  computerskills) were offered WebCT and instructional design training in parallelwith the faculty team. Later, and in a model that leverages the reality ofgreater  student  technological  expertise  in  the  current  era,  facultymembers  of  the  SUITE  Team  were  given  about  50  hours  of  studentsupport time to assist with technical and organizational aspects of theirWebCT-based  course.  Weiss-Lambrou  points  out  that  within  thetraditional university culture of faculty autonomy, the interdisciplinary,collaborative process supported by Team SUITE offered participatingfaculty  members  extraordinary  opportunities  for  cross-disciplinaryexchange  of  ideas,  materials  and  experiences.  In  addition,  it  alsorequired  them  to  ?open  the  doors  to  criticism  and  feedback?  frompeers,  and  to  learn  to  rely  on  instructional  designers  and  studentassistants for support rather than ?doing it all? themselves. The TeamSUITE  process  significantly  contributed  to  a  shift  in  institutionalteaching culture, and catalyzed greater ongoing knowledge exchangeacross the institution.In  Stage  Two,  the  number  of  WebCT  courses  created  increaseddramatically over a three year period as a result of the support, trainingand activities provided to faculty by the Teaching Centre. To date, thereare more than 1,000 web-enhanced courses developed in the WebCTplatform course site, and more than 15,000 students have participatedin at least one WebCT course. Now, in Stage Three, Weiss-Lambroupoints out that because it is no longer necessary to separate technologyfrom  pedagogy,  the  SUITE  program  has  been  assimilated  into  andintegrated  with  CEFES;  the  two  units  merged  into  one  institutional66  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCservice  under  the  leadership  of  the  Vice-Rector  of  undergraduatestudies and continuing education. Today, the Centre has moved into anew  era  of  centralized  staff,  graduate  student  and  professionaldevelopment training and support across the campus. As evidence ofthis  development,  she  notes  that  increasingly,  it  is  not  individualprofessors who are approaching CEFES asking for support and training,but rather, departments and faculties. ?Different faculties have differenttechnology and teaching needs? she argues, so that standardized andcentralized  support  and  training  is  not  always  the  most  effectiveapproach. The Team SUITE cohort process ended in 2003, and in itsplace CEFES has created a Faculty Community of Practice (with morethan 150 faculty members) for whom the Centre organizes a monthlyseries  of  conference  sessions  ?  open  to  all  ?  that  include  guestspeakers, faculty presentations of their WebCT courses, discussions ontopics  relevant  to  technology-based  teaching  (Internet  plagiarism,academic  integrity  in  online  learning),  as  well  as  invited  members  ofsenior  management  to  talk  about  future  decision-making  issues  withregards to IT.  This  synopsis  of  the  various  strategies  used  by  the  Centre  tosuccessfully  support  faculty  in  teaching  with  technology  would  beincomplete  if  attention  would  not  be  drawn  to  two  other  kinds  ofinstitutional support that faculty require in the current context of a movetowards  a  more  learner-centered  teaching  environment.  Firstly,  thesupport role that non-instructional staff and teaching assistants can andshould provide to faculty is a critical issue that must be addressed andclearly  defined  by  senior  management  in  all  institutions  of  highereducation. For example, secretarial staff members need to acquire thebasic  computer  skills  that  will  enable  them  to  upload  a  professor?sPowerPoint presentation to an online course site, to convert a Word fileinto  an  HTML  document  and/or  to  create  online  surveys  or  testquestions.  Similarly,  teaching  assistants  (by  and  large  graduatestudents) must have the technological competencies needed to supportfaculty  in  their  online  course  design  and  teaching;  they  can  play  aBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            67? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCpivotal  role  by  moderating  online  discussions,  acting  as  tutors  incollaborative learning projects, searching digital information resourcesand evaluating student learning with the latest interactive technologytools. In today?s challenging environment of higher education, facultyshould  not  have  to  persuade  non-instructional  staff  to  learn  to  usetechnology nor to convince them of the value of e-learning but rather itis the role and responsibility of senior management, human resourcepersonnel and IT specialists to work more closely together with facultyso that the upgrading of technological competence is extended acrosscampus.Secondly,  to  meet  the  needs  of  faculty  development,  support  andtraining,  it  is  pivotal  that  professors  of  all  levels  be  encouraged  tointegrate  technology  in  their  teaching  practices  for  the  purpose  ofimproving and enriching student learning. Many faculty members will gothrough  the  experience  of  online  course  design  and  teaching  once,notes  Weiss-Lambrou,  but  why  would  they  continue  to  spendenormous  amounts  of  time  in  experimenting  with  new  teachingapproaches, given the reality that promotion and tenure continues to bedependent  more  often  than  not  on  research  performance  (i.e.  grantsand  publications)?  In  order  to  help  faculty  embrace  instructionaltechnology and to use it effectively, there must be a shift in the cultureof  the  academy,  so  that  innovative  quality  teaching  is  encouraged,valued,  supported  and  rewarded.  For  this  reason,  it  is  of  crucialimportance  that  senior  management  in  all  institutions  of  highereducation  now  focus  on  establishing  new  strategies,  incentives  andpolicies  for  making  technology  use  integral  to  faculty?s  teachingpractice.Universit? de Montr?al Web Sites?  Universit? de Montr?al: http://www.umontreal.ca68  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  The Centre for Faculty Teaching and Learning ? Le Centre d'?tudes et deformation en enseignement sup?rieur ? (CEFES), Universit? de Montr?al:http://www.cefes.umontreal.ca?  WebCT courses at the Universit? de Montr?al:http://www.coursenligne.umontreal.ca?  Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2002). Faculty Support for E-learning: Educating theEducator Model at the Universit? de Montr?al, in Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Information Communication Technologies inEducation, July 17-20, Samos, Greece, pp. 123-129. Available fromProfessor Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou: rhoda.weiss-lambrou@umontreal.ca?  Case  Study:  Comprehensive  Faculty  Training  and  ProfessionalDevelopment at the University of PhoenixRuss Paden, Vice President of Academic Services for the University ofPhoenix, and Chief Academic Officer of UoP?s Online Campus, explainsthat part of UoP?s commitment to an ethic of customer service includestreating faculty members like ?internal customers?. As a result, UoP hasevolved  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  and  successful  models  ofselecting, training and supporting online associate faculty currently inexistence.  In  the  recruitment  phase,  candidate  associate  facultymembers are interviewed by distance ? usually by phone ? and mustalso undertake some online proficiency testing to ensure that they havea  bare  minimum  of  Internet  skills  and  access  to  technology.  Havingpassed this hurdle, candidate faculty members must complete a four-week online course. In addition to covering basics of online instruction,course  administration  and  UoP  philosophy,  this  offers  potentialinstructors first-hand experience of learning and working in an onlineenvironment. Paden reports that some 75% of candidates successfullycomplete  this  phase  ?  while  25%  self-select  themselves  out  of  theprocess, after they have a better idea of the nature and demands ofonline instruction.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            69? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCSuccessful candidates are then paired with a mentor ? an experiencedsenior faculty member ? who will shadow them throughout the deliveryof their first scheduled course; the mentor will later provide feedback tothe instructor and to UoP?s Academic Officer. If the course has gonewell, the new faculty member will join UoP?s pool of online instructorswho  are  offered  courses  according  to  their  ?matching?  with  facultyprofiles  for  courses  in  each  area.  Subsequent  periodic  peer  reviewsallow  individuals  and  the  institution  to  track  their  progress,  and  thefaculty  member  also  has  access  to  monthly  online  professionaldevelopment  programming  in  more  sophisticated  elements  of  onlineteaching and learning: facilitating online discussions, effective ways tooffer  feedback  online,  ways  of  dealing  with  academic  misconduct,managing online conflict, and similar.Although  UoP  does  not  operate  a  tenure-track  faculty  system,  itexperiences less than 1% faculty attrition per year; clearly this institutionis attracting and retaining a floating pool of associate practitioner facultywho may not ?fit? the agrarian/apprenticeship culture (Bates, 2000) oftraditional  universities.  Paden  believes  that  UoP?s  model  of  facultytraining and support is a significant factor in nurturing faculty buy-in tothe institutional culture and instructional model.University of Phoenix Web Sites?  The University of Phoenix: http://www.phoenix.edu?  The University of Phoenix Online: http://onl.uophx.edu/What  can  be  learned  from  these  case  studies?  The  Universit?  deMontr?al?s successful three-stage and evolving faculty development strategycan  almost  be  regarded  as  a  ?textbook  case?  of  best  practices  in  facultytraining.  The  CEFES  initiative  now  coordinates  semi-decentralized  facultytraining and support across the institution, continues to make heavy use ofpeer-to-peer  knowledge  exchange,  and  is  increasingly  focussing  on70  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCpedagogy  (rather  than  technology)  as  faculty  computer  skills  develop.  Inaddition, Dr Weiss-Lambrou is now a member of the Advisory Board of a newpeer-reviewed bilingual journal, the International Journal of Technologies inHigher Education (IJTHE) established by Qu?bec universities as a forum tofacilitate  international  exchange  of  information  on  the  current  use  andapplications of learning technologies in higher education. As with UCF?s RITEinitiative (see p. 80), this publication initiative again offers faculty membersincentives of publications and academic credibility for their ventures in onlinepedagogy,  and  contributes  to  the  scholarship  (including  French-languagescholarship) of teaching with technology.The University of Phoenix, meanwhile, has strategically utilized what mightbe  considered  a  weakness  ?  the  remoteness  and  dispersal  of  associatefaculty  ?  and  turned  it  into  a  strength.  Online  faculty  training  and  supportthrough UoP immerses new and continuing faculty in the actual experience ofbeing an online learner, allowing them to experience student realities ?fromthe inside? while they acquire new skills.Resources on Supporting and Training Faculty?  APQC. (1999). Today?s Teaching and Learning: Leveraging Technology:Best Practice Report. Available for purchase at:http://www.apqc.org/portal/apqc/site/store?paf_gear_id=1300011&pageselect=detail&docid=102611?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Supporting Faculty?, in Managing TechnologicalChange. Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 95-121.?  Epper, R. M. & Bates, A. W. (2001). Teaching Faculty How to UseTechnology. Best Practices from Leading Institutions. Westport, CT: OryxPress.?  Green, F. (1998). Survey of Information Technology Planning. CampusComputing.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            71? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Hartman, J. L. & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). The Holy Grail: DevelopingScalable and Sustainable Support Solutions, in C. A. Barone & P. R.Hagner (Eds.). Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading andSupporting the Transformation on Your Campus. Educause LeadershipStrategies No. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45-56.?  Journal of Technologies in Higher Education (IJTHE):http://revue.profetic.org?  Stockley, B. D. (2002). Strategic Planning, Infrastructure and ProfessionalDevelopment for Technological Innovation in Canadian Post-secondaryEducation. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, pp. 19-23. Availablefrom the National Library of Canada athttp://www.collectionscanada.ca/thesescanada/?  Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2002). Faculty Support for E-learning: Educating theEducator Model at the Universit? de Montr?al, in Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Information Communication Technologies inEducation, July 17-20, Samos, Greece, pp. 123-129.72  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCBest  Practice  7:  Development  of  Human  and  OrganizationalInfrastructureBates (1997) has argued that ?people structure? is just as important astechnological and physical infrastructure in facilitating technology integrationinto  higher  education.  Three  critical  groups  of  people  are  needed:  thetechnical  support  specialists  (those  who  keep  networks,  computers  andtelecommunications operational); media services and production specialists(who  produce  educational  projects  and  supply  educational  technologyservices); and educational services specialists who supply services such asinstructional  design,  faculty  development,  project  management  andevaluation. The cost of human infrastructure is recurrent ? it has to be foundeach  year,  and  can  rarely  be  supported  from  special  funding.  Humaninfrastructure is therefore a sometimes ?invisible? but vital element that mustbe  comprehensively  outlined  and  budgeted  for  in  strategic  planning  fortechnology integration.?  Case Study: Transforming Institutional Support for Teaching at theUniversity of OttawaAs part of a major and long-term strategic planning process beginningin the late 1990s, the University of Ottawa built on directions elucidatedin an extensive community visioning process to make long-term plansfor the integration of technologies into teaching in learning. Not contentwith  a  focus  on  early  adopter  faculty,  this  150-year  old  bilingualuniversity  in  Canada?s  capital  made radical  changes in organizationalstructure and leadership by creating a new university-wide network ofservices  to  support  all  aspects  of  teaching,  including  teaching  withtechnology.Dr. Christian Blanchette, Director of the University of Ottawa?s recentlyestablished Teaching and Learning Support Service (TLSS) explains thatbefore 1999, various groups and units on the UO campus were offeringprofessional  development  and  training  to  faculty,  assisting  inBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            73? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCdevelopment of online courses, and assisting with other aspects of ITand technology use in the work of the university. Dispersed across theuniversity,  these  units  tended  to  work  in  isolation,  using  a  range  ofapproaches  and  philosophies,  resulting  in  a  predictable  amount  ofduplication and platform incompatibilities. The consultation process thatasked the UO community ?What kind of university are we? And how canwe  be  better??  brought  home  the  message  loud  and  clear  that  theuniversity needed to support teaching better ? in all its modes. To helpreach  this  goal,  the  university  recruited  Blanchette  ?  a  physicist  bytraining, who had amassed considerable experience in the managementand integration of learning technologies ? to rationalize and integrate allteaching support services across the university, and create the TLSS.Simply by deciding to recruit an external expert, UO leaders broke theold  organizational  mould,  explains  Blanchette,  since  like  many  olderuniversities, UO had a well-established cohort of senior academics whotraditionally held responsibility for academics and teaching. At the sametime,  he  feels  that  his  particular  credentials  assisted  in  the  changeprocess. ?Support of teaching is an academic endeavour? he argues,and should be led by academics. His own academic credentials andhistory of active research have, he feels, gained him acceptance in theuniversity?s academic community, and have allowed him to occupy auniquely political position for a director of learning support services: onethat requires him to bridge the academic and ?teaching support? worlds.In addition to creating and managing the multi-unit TLSS, Blanchettealso participates in all academic planning activities. He is a member ofthe Deans? Council, sits on the Executive of the University Senate, andparticipates  in  numerous  other  university-wide  committees  andinitiatives.  While  Deans  continue  to  be  responsible  for  intra-facultyprogram  management  and  for  enabling  change  within  their  ownfaculties,  Blanchette  has  responsibility  for  institution-wide  strategicplanning for teaching and learning support.Hired in 1999, Blanchette was given a mandate to develop a plan thatwould  ?create  conditions  for  excellence  in  teaching?  and  ?enable74  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCinnovation?,  with  a  special  focus  on  making  UO  an  effective  user  oflearning technologies. He developed seven different possible scenarios,he explains, ranging from ?TLSS as cheerleader? to ?radical institutionalmutation?,  and  presented  these  to  senior  academic  and  financeadministrators  ?  each  with  a  detailed  budget  attached.  To  his  greatpleasure, senior management elected a bold strategy that went furtherin  investment  than  could  have  traditionally  been  expected  ?  allowingBlanchette to rapidly begin recruiting key leaders for specialized TLSSunits and launch the transformation process.Existing  university  units  were  restructured,  and  some  changes  weremade to staffing and unit responsibilities, to create TLSS, which nowcomprises five sub-groups with distinct responsibilities. The Centre fore-Learning develops online course content and nurtures change in allareas of online learning; instructional designers in this Centre consultwith  faculty  on  course  design,  manage  course  and  programdevelopment  projects,  and  develop  new  online  teaching  tools.  TheCentre  for  Mediated  Teaching  and  Learning  oversees  all  aspects  ofdistributed learning, including audio- and video-conferencing, deliveryof  distance  programs  to  13  remote  sites  in  central  Canada,  andcoordination of a national francophone videoconferencing network. Thisunit also has responsibility for all e-learning infrastructure and support,including course management platforms and software. The MultimediaDistribution Service coordinates all ?AV? support of ?active teaching? onthe UO campus, as well as participating in planning activities relating toclassroom  design  and  integration  of  learning  technologies  intoclassrooms. The Reprography Service produces all paper-based coursepacks  and  supplementary  materials  for  technology-mediated  learningactivities, and is responsible for issues relating to intellectual propertyand copyright. And The Centre for University Teaching ?integrates all ofthe professional development for faculty members from pedagogy toeducational technology,? explains Blanchette, in particular by designingand implementing models of professional development that go beyondthe  simple  workshop.  For  the  design  and  delivery  of  training  andBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            75? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCprofessional  development  for  staff  and  faculty  in  the  use  of  learningtechnologies,  experts  from  other  TLSS  units  are  often  involved  indelivery of specialist training coordinated by CUT.Most  evident  in  Blanchette?s  detailed  description  of  the  process  ofbringing about organizational change and the creation of TLSS is thecentral importance of ?the human element? and of interpersonal skillsand  communication.  The  team  assembled  is  the  core  unit  of  action.Bringing  about  such  radical  change  was  not  without  challenges,  heclarifies, especially because of the degree of job uncertainty it broughtto existing teaching support staff across the institution.To  begin  the  process  of  unification  of  TLSS  ?  with  some  85  staff  ?Blanchette initiated the development of an internal TLSS strategic plan,within the framework of the wider community vision. Initially, TLSS staffand senior management were invited to attend and participate in weeklypresentations  on  a  diversity  of  issues  relating  to  transformation  ofteaching  at  UO:  the  changing  student  demographic,  institutionaldecisions  regarding  investment  in  technology,  the  transformativepotential of technology, online pedagogy, theories of ?the informationsociety?  and  technology  diffusion.  In  particular,  he  challenged  TLSSstaff to think ?big?, ?to imagine they were serving 1000 people instead of20?. Next, unit leaders participated in a 3-day planning retreat (with aneternal  facilitator)  that  has  now  become  an  annual  event:  a  time  fordeveloping  long-term  objectives,  building  TLSS  cohesion,  clarifyingvalues, roles and objectives and identifying key success factors. Thiswas a critical activity that allowed TLSS to ?gel?, he believes, setting theframework for future work, and allowing TLSS units to function semi-autonomously  within  the  bigger  structure.  Finally,  unit  managers  anddirectors  returned  to  their  teams  to  involve  all  levels  of  staff  in  thedevelopment  of  (now  annual)  detailed  project  plans.  This  level  ofconsultation  and  involvement  generated  great  excitement  throughoutTLSS, says Blanchette, and has been so successful that the service hasundertaken  this  activity  as  an  annual  cycle  that  allows  staff  andmanagement  to  see  projects  being  completed,  and  problems  being76  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCaddressed.  In  addition,  TLSS  routinely  liaises  with  other  internalpartners  ?  the  libraries,  computing  services,  the  ?Student  AcademicSuccess Service?, and the institutions buildings and facilities managers? to plan future strategies for support of teaching ventures.Four years later, Blanchette explains that the new culture and structureof TLSS is now well established and is continuing to nurture teachingand learning at UO. Over the past three years, faculty participation inTLSS?s  professional  development  activities  has  tripled,  and  absolutenumbers  of  participants  have  doubled.  Faculty  members  are  nowmoving  on  from  technology-driven  professional  development  toactivities that are driven primarily by pedagogy. Organizational  changeand  new  TLSS-coordinated  infrastructure  projects  mean  thattechnicians  are  now  able  to  troubleshoot  classroom  technologyproblems from their central control site, reducing the average time fortroubleshooting  from  25  minutes  (in  1999)  to  3  minutes.  50%  of  UOclassrooms now have integrated technology and multimedia. Their ownbenchmarking research and evaluation studies demonstrate significantproductivity gains, with one technician now able to support teaching in18 classrooms (while a typical ratio is 1 to 10). TLSS now works on theprinciple  that  the  quality  of  faculty  and  student  experiences  withtechnology-mediated teaching are linked, and tracks problems using acombination  of  ongoing  surveys,  interviews  and  a  novel  complaintsmechanism that identifies things that ?may not be going quite right?.Individuals  who  make  complaints  are  actively  consulted  on  plannedsolutions, making the ?negative voices? into active partners in this veryproactive  problem-solving  solution?although  TLSS  had  logged  nocomplaints in the spring semester 2004, at time of interview.Finally, proposals for new ?efficiency projects? ? projects that requireinitial investment but which will bring about savings in time or moneylater ? are an integral component of TLSS?s annual project planning.Future planned efficiency projects include, for example, the institution-wide implementation of a new customized virtual learning environment(rather  than  off-the-shelf  course  management  systems)  that  will  beBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            77? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?technodiverse?  and  support  integration  of  multiple  additionalapplications.Blanchette  feels  that  key  success  factors  have  been  the  focus  ondevelopment  of  effective  teams,  the  raising  of  team  awareness  ofcommunity  needs,  and  the  development  of  a  team  attitude  that?everything  is  possible??in  other  words,  he  says,  ?if  a  project  isdetermined  to  be  worthwhile  for  the  community,  a  ?no?  or  a  lack  ofshort term opportunities only means that a different timeline and moreimagination are required.?University of Ottawa Web Sites?  The University of Ottawa: http://www.uottawa.ca?  UO Teaching and Learning Support Service (TLSS):http://www.uottawa.ca/services/tlss/index.htmlWhat can be learned from this case study? The changes effected at theUniversity of Ottawa might as easily have been offered here as an illustrationof ?intra-institutional partnerships? (p. 45) or of strategic planning for learningtechnology integration (p. 27). Most significant in this example of effectivemanagement of organizational change are its focus on the human componentof  organizations,  and  on  the  question  of  scalability.  Blanchette  and  hiscolleagues have successfully brought about significant organizational changeby paying attention first and foremost to the human voices of the institution:to the community members who participated in constructing an institutionalvision, to the faculty and students who made complaints or offered feedbackabout support needs in teaching and learning, to the support service staffacross the institution whose jobs were restructured by incoming strangers,and to the university leaders whose traditional responsibility for teaching hasundergone  change.  Through  consultation,  active  listening  and  activeresponsiveness, the TLSS has attracted incredible buy in at all levels of theuniversity. Second, UO leaders and TLSS have kept their eyes on the issue of78  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCscalability, by building into their strategic plan the reality that as technologybecomes a ubiquitous tool for teaching, they must plan to support not justthe early adopters but thousands of instructors and professors campus-wide.Resources on Institutional Transformation and Change Management?  Barone, C. A. & Hagner, P. R. (2001). Assessing Conditions for CampusTransformation, in C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner (Eds.). Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading and Supporting theTransformation on Your Campus. Educause Leadership Strategies No. 5.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 93-106.?  Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). ?Supporting Technology-BasedLearning?, in A. Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology inHigher Education. Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,pp. 213 ? 252.?  Hartman, J. L. & Truman-Davis, B. (2001). The Holy Grail: DevelopingScalable and Sustainable Support Solutions, in C. A. Barone & P. R.Hagner (Eds.). Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading andSupporting the Transformation on Your Campus. Educause LeadershipStrategies No. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45-56.?  Noblitt, J. S. (1997). Top-down Meets Bottom-up. Educom Review, 32 (3):38 ? 43.?  Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D. & Dolence, M. G. (1998). Cultivating InternalReadiness for Change, in Strategic Choices for the Academy. HowLifelong Learning Will Re-Create Higher Education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 47-65.Best Practice 8:  Ongoing Evaluation and AssessmentWhat  good  is  a  strategic  plan  if  your  institution  is  unable  to  track  ordocument  any  of  the  quantitative  or  qualitative  changes  in  its  teaching,BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            79? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBClearning  and  research  activities  that  may  result  from  the  plan?s  strategicinitiatives?  Even  more  importantly,  in  the  development  of  an  effectiveevaluation and assessment program, careful consideration must be give towhat kind of information is needed, and what kind of data are sought. AsBates (2000) emphasizes, in establishing an evaluation process, it is vital to?ask the right questions?. Many investigators have already undertaken simplecomparisons of technology-enhanced teaching and learning with traditionalclassroom  teaching,  and  have  produced  a  large  body  of  literature  thatconcludes  that  there  is  ?no  significant  difference?  in  learning  outcomes(Russell, 1999). As long ago as 1974, Schramm pointed to the reality thattechnologies  can  allow  the  achievement  of  new or different  learningoutcomes to those achieved through classroom lectures.Of greater interest and importance, then, are evaluative studies designedto investigate questions relating to achievement of new learning outcomes,technology  selection,  instructional  design,  organizational  structure  andsupport, learner support, cost-effectiveness, accessibility, and related issuesthat will hopefully offer useful information to leaders and administrators forfuture rounds of decision-making. How accessible is a particular technologyfor the target learner group? How easy is the technology to use? How docosts differ, depending on technology choices? What kinds of teaching andlearning  are  needed?  Which  instructional  strategies  will  best  meet  theselearning needs? And which technologies best support these strategies? Whatorganizational changes are needed? How quickly can courses be mounted orrevised? Which course development strategies are most effective within agiven institutional culture? In other words, evaluation should not be restrictedto  examining  whether  learning  outcomes  achieved  through  classroomlectures can be replicated by technology-mediated instruction.?  Case Study: Transformative Assessment at the University of CentralFloridaLike many of the institutions illustrated mentioned in this Handbook, theUniversity of Central Florida recognized early the importance of initiatinga parallel program of evaluation and assessment, at the same time as it80  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCinitiated  programs  to  introduce  learning  technologies  into  teaching.UCF?s Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness (RITE) and Centerfor Distributed learning (CDL) gather and analyze both quantitative andqualitative data such as student numbers and demographics, studentand faculty satisfaction, student learning styles and learning outcomes,growth rates, and course offerings.Dr.  Joel  Hartman,  Vice  Provost  for  Information  Technologies  andResources, explains that data gathered through these research activitiesinform  institutional  strategies  and  policies  in  an  ongoing  process.Hartman  observes  that  the  use  of  assessment  data  has  tended  todevelop in stages of maturity: initially, data were needed to respond toquestions about ?whether online learning works.? Subsequently, dataare being used to inform a process of continual quality improvement. Bynow,  in  a  ?maturity  ?stage,  assessment  has  engaged  both  researcherand teaching faculty in a process to contribute to the scholarship ofteaching and learning.Interestingly, UCF?s ongoing efforts at transformative assessment (NLII,2004) have also played a key role in creating incentives for faculty tobecome involved with online learning. First-stage incentives include aone-course load reduction (or an equivalent stipend), a wireless laptop,and  ongoing  course  development  assistance  from  a  team  ofinstructional designers and online course production experts in CourseDevelopment & Web Services (CDWS).Meanwhile, the RITE team offers to work with faculty from across thecampus  to  undertake  research  projects  relating  to  their  use  oftechnology. If the faculty member identifies a research interest, RITE willassist in developing the research question, obtain or develop researchinstruments and protocols, collect and analyze the data, and offer theresults back to the faculty member in ?publication-ready format? as thefaculty member?s intellectual property. At any time, RITE is working withabout 40 faculty members across UCF, who are now contributing to anextensive body of high quality educational research literature ? buildingBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            81? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCtheir  professional  portfolios,  adding  to  their  publication  records,  andleveraging creative teaching to build toward ?recognition and reward.?University of Central Florida Web Sites?  The University of Central Florida: http://www.ucf.edu?  UCF?s Strategic Planning Web Site: http://www.spc.ucf.edu/?  UCF?s Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness:http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite/?  UCF?s Center for Distributed Learning: http://online.ucf.edu andhttp://distrib.ucf.edu?  UCF?s Course Development & Web Services: http://cdws.ucf.edu?  UCF?s Office of Instructional Resources (ITV):http://www.oir.ucf.edu/ITV.asp?  UCF?s Distributed Learning Faculty Development and Support ResourcesIDL6543 faculty development for teaching online: http://reach.ucf.edu/~idl6543ADL5000 faculty development: http://reach.ucf.edu/~adl5000/Essentials (for faculty teaching E courses): http://reach.ucf.edu/~essentials/UCF Teaching Online: http://teach.ucf.eduWebCT Zone: http://www.webctzone.org/Web Development Academy: http://reach.ucf.edu/~webdev/What  can  be  learned  from  this  case  study?  UCF?s  RITE  initiative  haseffectively harnessed the research expertise of key faculty members and theenthusiasm  of  early  (and  later)  adopter  faculty,  to  kickstart  a  program  ofongoing research and evaluation that offers academic credibility to innovativeventures with instructional technology, and incentives to faculty to undertakesuch ventures. RITE?s high quality research output has made UCF a leader inthe  field,  increasing  the  visibility  of  this  relatively  new  institution.  Findingshave reassured senior administrators and faculty members that technology-82  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCmediated  teaching  and  learning  strategies  are  not  only  ?as  good  as?traditional classroom teaching, but are actually increasing student success. Inaddition  to  building  scholarship  in  the  field  of  instructional  technologies,RITE?s activities make important contributions to UCF?s continued strategicplanning  by  complementing  other  areas  of  institutional  research  andfacilitating  ongoing  informed  decision-making  in  all  areas  of  institutionalplanning.Resources on Assessment and Evaluation Strategies?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Research and Evaluation?, in ManagingTechnological Change. Strategies for College and University Leaders. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 198-209.?  National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII). (2003). TransformativeAssessment Systems.http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/transformative.asp?  North Carolina State University. (2004). Internet Resources for HigherEducation Outcomes Assessment.http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/resource.htm?  Russell, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Raleigh,NC: North Carolina State University Office of InstructionalTelecommunications.?  Schramm, W. (1974). Big Media, Little Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.?  Volkwein, J. F. (1999). The Four Faces of Institutional Research. NewDirections for Institutional Research, 26(4), 9-20.BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            83? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCConclusions, and Best Practices Yet to ComeIn this handbook, we have offered fifteen ?insider view? case studies fromten very different higher education institutions in four countries and on threecontinents to illustrate at least eight best practice strategies in the integrationof  learning  technologies  into  teaching  and  learning.  Each  case  study  wasselected  because  it  exemplifies  good  practice  in  learning  technologymanagement  according  to  the  criteria  we  previously  developed  from  theliterature:  scalability  and  sustainability,  attention  to  quality  and  innovation,responsiveness to need/demand for increased e-learning, cost-effectiveness,institutional buy-in, attention to institutional capacity-building, and, critically,careful consideration of the particular and individual nature of an institution?sculture.  Many  of  the  cases  detailed  here  show  evidence  of  multiple  bestpractices  and  strategies  within  a  college  or  university:  indeed,  dissectingindividual best practices one from the other is ultimately an impossible task,when one considers that good strategic plans by definition employ bundlesof strategies that hang together and are mutually reinforcing.In  concluding,  several  important  points  must  be  made.  First,  thishandbook  should  not  be  read  as  a  ?roadmap?  for  college  and  universityleaders  to  simply  follow.  The  APQC  explicitly  envisions  the  benchmarkingprocess as a cycle, as the process by which organizations learn. Phase Fourin  this  cycle  is  the  ?adaptation?  stage,  in  which  participants  and  readersimplement  best  practices  by  selecting  and  adapting  those  that  are  mostsuitable for their own institution and institutional culture. We hope we haveemphasized  clearly  the  critical  importance  of  careful  assessment  of  eachinstitution?s  culture,  context,  community  wishes,  goals  and  challenges  indeveloping an effective strategic plan for integration of learning technologies.Second,  this  handbook  can  provide  no  more  than  a  snapshot  of  bestpractices in the current era: one in which most institutions are still in the firstdecade (at most) of innovation with learning technologies. Many institutionshave barely begun to explore the possibilities that learning technologies offertheir learners. Technology continues to involve and change at a rapid pace,84  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCand  future  evolution  of  technological  possibilities,  institutional  cultures,strategic  collaborations  and  learner  populations  will  continue  to  drive  theevolution of new strategies and practices to keep pace.Lastly, the scope of this study inevitably means that we cannot presenthere a comprehensive listing of all best practices in the management andintegration of learning technologies. It is our hope, however, that the range ofpractices  offered  in  this  handbook  will  contribute  to  the  growing  body  ofliterature  on  educational  technology  management,  and  offer  instructors,faculty,  department  heads,  deans  and  senior  administrators  in  highereducation new insights and strategies that they can adapt in the process ofmanaging successful institutional change.Additional Collections of Best Practice Descriptions and Case Studies?  Educause. (2004). Effective Practices and Solutions. Transformation ofEducation Through Information Technologies.http://www.educause.edu/ep/ep.asp?  Eduventures, Inc. (2001). Meeting the Mission: E-Learning ImplementationStories from Twelve Postsecondary Institutions. Available at:http://www.eduventures.com/research/industry_research_resources/mission.cfmBEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            85? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCResources on Additional Best Practices and Strategies?  Creation of Institution-wide Management and Leadership Structures?  Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D. & Dolence, M. G. (1998). Creating aFlexible Concept of Academic Organization, in Strategic Choicesfor the Academy. How Lifelong Learning Will Re-Create HigherEducation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 106-125.?  Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a Leadership Vision. Eleven StrategicChallenges for Higher Education. Educause Review, July/August,25-34.?  Engaging Middle-Management as Leaders in Institutional Transformation?  Lucas, A. F & Associates. (2000). Leading Academic Change.Essential Roles for Departmental Chairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.?  Link e-Learning and e-Administration Initiatives?  Eduventures, Inc. (2001). ?University of Wollongong? in Meetingthe Mission: E-Learning Implementation Stories from TwelvePostsecondary Institutions. Available fromhttp://www.eduventures.com/research/industry_research_resources/mission.cfm?  Choosing Course Development Models?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Planning and Managing Courses andPrograms? in Managing Technological Change. Strategies forCollege and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.59-75.?  Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). ?Course Design, Developmentand Delivery?, in A. Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching withTechnology in Higher Education. Foundations for Success. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 109-250.?  Hanley, G. L. (2001). ?Designing and Delivering InstructionalTechnology: A Team Approach?, in C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner(Eds.). Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading and86  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCSupporting the Transformation on Your Campus. EducauseLeadership Strategies No. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 57-64.?  Development of Policies on Intellectual Property and Copyright Issues?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Intellectual Property, Copyright, andRevenue Generation?, in Managing Technological Change.Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, pp. 107-121.?  Hilton, J. L. & Neal, J. G. Responding to Intellectual Property andLegal Issues, in C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner (Eds.). Technology-enhanced Teaching and Learning. Leading and Supporting theTransformation on Your Campus. Educause Leadership StrategiesNo. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 65-78.?  Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider When Planning OnlineDistance Learning Programs in Higher Education. Online Journalof Distance Learning Administration, 6(1).http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm?  Ensuring Student Computer Access?  Bates, A. W. (2000). ?Student Access to Technology? in ManagingTechnological Change. Strategies for College and UniversityLeaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 85-94.?  Resmer, M., Mingle, J. & Oblinger, D. (1995). Computers for AllStudents: A Strategy for Universal Access to InformationResources. Denver: State Higher Education Executive Officers.?  Streamlining Student Access Using Web Portals?  Katz, R. N. & Associates. (2002). Web Portals and HigherEducation. Technology to Make IT Personal. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.?  Putting in Place Student Services and Support for e-Learning?  Arabasz, P., Boggs, R. & Baker, M.-B. (2003). Highlights of E-Learning Support Practices. ECAR Research Bulletin, 9.http://www.educause.edu/asp/doclib/abstract.asp?ID=ERB0309BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            87? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBC?  Brindley, J. & Maxim, J.-L. (1990). Student Support Services. TheCase for a Proactive Approach. CADE: Journal of DistanceEducation, 5(1)  http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol5.1/13_dialogue-brindley.html?  Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider When Planning OnlineDistance Learning Programs in Higher Education. Online Journalof Distance Learning Administration, 6(1).http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm?  UCF Learning Online: http://learn.ucf.edu?  UCF?s eCommunity: http://ecommunity.ucf.edu/?  Rethinking Library Resources?  Creth, S. D. (1996). The Electronic Library. Slouching Toward theFuture or Creating a New Information Environment. Follett Lectureseries, Cavendish Conference Centre, London, UK, 30thSeptember 1996.http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/papers/follett/creth/paper.html?  Anticipating Future Demand?  Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millenials.Understanding the New Students. Educause Review, July/August,37-47.88  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCAbout the AuthorLeah P. Macfadyen is a Research Associate with the UBC MAPLE Centre(http://www.maple.ubc.ca)  and  the  UBC  Centre  for  InterculturalCommunication  (http://cic.cstudies.ubc.ca).  Her  research  interests  includethe  uses  of  the  Internet  and  communication  technologies  in  internationaleducation initiatives, the integration of new technologies into K-12 teachingand  learning,  cultural  challenges  to  online  teaching  and  learning,  and  ?theculture of the Internet?.As  an  educator  she  plans,  manages  and  co-instructs  a  range  ofclassroom-based and online international educational courses and programson intercultural studies, international development and global citizenship.About the MAPLE CentreThe Centre for Managing and Planning Learning Environments in HigherEducation  (MAPLE)  is  a  research  and  consultancy  centre  based  at  TheUniversity  of  British  Columbia  with  a  mandate  to  conduct  research,  runworkshops,  publish  and  disseminate  best  practice,  and  provideconsultancies.The activities of MAPLE assist educational institutions, and provincial andstate  governments  in  the  planning,  managing  and  evaluation  of  learningtechnologies.  Through  its  internal  and  external  research  projects,consultation services,  workshops  and  training,  MAPLE  provides  advice  toinstitutions of higher education undergoing rapid organizational change.MAPLE develops tools and resources for institutional analysis related tothe  impact  of  information  and  communication  technologies  on  universityteaching,  learning,  and  on  the  uses  of  campus  space  and  services.  Inaddition to its collaborative research with international partner institutions, thework of MAPLE contributes to the UBC's Trek 2000 goal of "fully integrat[ing]information technology with instruction in all areas".BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT            89? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCInternational  research  partnerships,  workshops,  publications,  andconsultation services all contribute to the building of a practical foundationfor the work of MAPLE.AcknowledgmentsProject funds from Canada's Office of Learning Technologies (OLT) to Dr.Tony  Bates  have  facilitated  the  development  of  MAPLE's  core  researchprogram  in  effective  planning  and  management  strategies  for  learningtechnologies, including the development of this Handbook of Best Practices.Dr.  Bates  has  also  provided  invaluable  leadership  and  guidance  in  thedevelopment of this project, together with colleagues at the MAPLE Centre:Adnan Qayyum, Josefina Rosado and Dr. Tatiana Bourlova.Most importantly, the author would like to extend grateful thanks to thefollowing  people  for  graciously  offering  their  time,  experience  and  insightthrough case study interviews, and for their care in reviewing and annotatingdraft case studies:Dr. Neil Guppy, The University of British Columbia, Canada.Dr. Joel Hartman, The University of Central Florida, USA.Russ Paden, The University of Phoenix, USA.Dr. Tom Carey, The University of Waterloo, Canada.Dr. Anne Forster, The University of Sydney, Australia.Judith Norton and Joseph Georges, California Virtual Campus, USA.Dr. Francisco Rubio Royo, Dr. Emma Kiselyova and Jos? Esquerr? Victori,Universidad Oberta de Catalunya, Spain.Dr. Denise Chalmers, The University of Queensland, Australia.Dr. Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou, L?Universit? de Montr?al, Canada.Dr. Christian Blanchette, The University of Ottawa, Canada.90  BEST PRACTICES IN LEARNING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT? 2004, The MAPLE Centre, UBCAppendixInterview Questions for ?Best Practices? Case Study Interviews*?  What do you feel were the objectives of this process? How/why was thedecision made to initiate it??  What do you believe were the criteria that influenced the establishmentand implementation of this process? What were the steps involved??  Who else was involved? How did you recruit participants? How were theychosen? By what criteria??  Can you describe how the process functioned? How long did it last??  What worked well about the process? What didn?t work so well? Whatwas difficult??  What would you say were the most significant learnings achieved by thisprocess??  What would you say were the significant outcomes of the process? Howhas this process influenced ongoing IT integration in your institution??  How were the outcomes disseminated? Who do you think it reached??  What recommendations would you make to another institution embarkingon this process??  Is there anyone else you think I should speak to for additional perspectiveon this process? Can you recommend any publications or websiteswhere I might find more information on this process??  Would you be willing to be named as a contact person for future readerswho may wish to hear more about your institution?s experience with thisprocess?* This  case  study  questionnaire  represents  a  ?template?  that  was  modified  foreach individual case study interview. ?The process? here represents whicheverspecific practice or strategy was under discussion with a particular interview (forexample ?faculty training? or ?infrastructure development?).

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 7 5
Germany 5 1
Netherlands 5 0
Brazil 4 0
United States 4 0
Canada 3 0
Japan 1 0
Zambia 1 0
New Zealand 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 1
Dronten 5 0
Shenzhen 5 5
Whitehorse 3 0
Guangzhou 2 0
Ashburn 2 0
Wilmington 1 0
Fayetteville 1 0
Auckland 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.1151.1-0228556/manifest

Comment

Related Items