It's a River, Not a Lake... | about | cover | contents | back | next |

Appendix I

Recommendations from 1986 and the Results

1. Establish an Instructional Computing Information Fund, $20,000 per year.

This would fund faculty and staff research and the development of presentations on current technologies. The goal was to use the entire pool of MCCCD talent to disseminate information and to provide training.
This was not funded, nor was it implemented in a comprehensive way. Interestingly, a variation of this recommendation reappears in It's a River, Not a Lake, with a greater emphasis on training.

2. Establish an Instructional Computing Development Fund.

Funded at $100,000 per year, this would fund the development of instructional software, courseware and templates.
This was funded continually since the 1987-88 year. Through this fund 35 projects have been funded in Psychology, Biology, Physics, Drafting, ESL, Math, Library, and English, as well as several interdisciplinary projects.

This fund has provided seed money for the development of tests, tutorials, curriculum rethinking, and the exploration of different technology tools for instruction.

The results of these projects have tended to remain local to the faculty member, department, or the college which received the funding.

2A (Alternative to 2) Award funds to Instructional Councils.

This would involve the discipline-based instructional councils directly in planning the integration of technology in their own disciplines.
Not funded, in favor of Recommendation 2.

3. Use the computer itself as the information exchange.

Use the VAX network as the basis for a BBS system for disseminating information, questions and answers, and access to public domain software.
Mixed results:

4. District should maintain lists of software prices and discount options.

No formal lists of prices are maintained. Computer coordinators often share information with each other and with the district purchasing office and provide, in turn, purchasing information on suggested vendors.

5. Form a public domain library of microcomputer software.

It still seems like a desirable goal, but the reality of a rapidly changing market makes it difficult to maintain lists of current best prices.

6. Develop and maintain a current directory of software in the district.

Now irrelevant. In 1986 it looked like public domain software might be a viable alternative for education. However, it turned out that only the commercial distribution of software provided the quality that we expected.

7. Continue print publications to disseminate information.

Some colleges use the library's on-line catalog to maintain an index of at least some software.

8 Host an annual MCCCD Computing Conference.

Most years an event has been held: the Ocotillo Expo or the Ocotillo Showcase. These events have consisted of faculty/staff demonstrations of projects utilizing technology with instruction, as well as vendor displays.

9. Bring C-IT to the colleges.

C-IT (now called MCLI) did prepare a road show, demonstrating technology to most of the colleges. This did not become an annual event. Since that time, several colleges have established their own demonstration centers for new technology.

10. Provide faculty with an array of development tools.

Promote and teach the following development tools to faculty:
Most colleges have provided training for faculty in courseware development on the most popular development systems: HyperCard, Toolbook, and others. Probably 20% of MCCCD faculty have developed computer-presented instruction at one time or another.

11. Establish a team of peer consultants at each college.

This model for support did not develop. Instead a staff model for training and support has become more typical.

12. Establish college instructional programming resource centers.

Three colleges (PC, GCC, and MCC) provide programming support on a regular basis. Other colleges have provided such support on an intermittent basis.

PC, GCC, and MCC have provided the most robust support for faculty courseware development.

13. College Computer Groups become catalysts for planning.

These advisory groups have been involved in planning, but the catalysts for that planning have been preparations for the Bond election and Ocotillo.

14. Formalize a royalty/copyright statement which serves to encourage faculty developed computing projects.

Such a statement has been included in the faculty RFP.

15. Bring to MCCCD speakers who challenge and enlarge our vision of instructional computing.

Many outside speakers have challenged and enlarged our vision of technology and learning, brought in through the Lodestar program, Ocotillo, the Honors Forum and others.

16. District should negotiate site licenses.

This seems to happen at the college and department level. It's probably unreasonable to expect it to happen at the district level. Not only do most vendors consider the 'college' to be the unit size, but it is also extraordinarily difficult for all the colleges to agree on a common software for any instructional purpose.

17. Spend more money for microcomputers, less for VAX.

That's what happened. As microcomputers, networks, and servers became mainstream, more money was spent on those technologies than on improving the VAX technology.

18. Formally establish The District Academic Computer Users Group (DACUG) as ITEC's advisory group.

DACUG withered and disappeared. In its place Ocotillo has become the inter-college, interdisciplinary instructional technology forum. ITEC continues to have one faculty representative.

It's a River, Not a Lake: Appendix I
© January 1994 Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction (MCLI)
Maricopa Community Colleges

The Internet Connection at MCLI is Alan Levine --}
Comments to