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

Where We Are

Did we do what we set out to do in 1986?

In 1986 the foundation for the integration of technology and instruction had already been established in three main respects: 75% of the residential faculty were computer literate, a major bond referendum was providing technology funding through 1993, and the colleges were rewired for voice-video-data transmission into each classroom and office.

The 1986 Master Plan for Instructional Computing estimated that the number of student computers would need to triple by 1991, reflecting a tripling in the number of faculty who would be expecting students to use technology in their classes.

In 1986 we intended that by 1991 students in every discipline would be using computer technology, in the form of tutorials, application tools, and simulations. And we expected that students would come to us from businesses and high schools already computer literate.

In 1986 we expected the future to include instructional applications that took advantage of the network. And we expected students to begin to use on-line, off-site information databases.

In 1986 we thought that the dominant increase in instructional applications would take place on microcomputers, not on the VAX.

In 1986 we thought that instructors would develop their own instructional software, using improved development tools that would involve less programming than earlier systems. And we thought that instructors would need better information for making technology purchasing decisions.

In 1986 we understood that faculty held the key to any successful integration of technology and instruction. Faculty would make the wise assessments of the values of technology for their instruction, would choose appropriate technologies, would judge the impact of those technologies on teaching and learning, and would take part in curriculum revision.

To help understand and quantify this focus on the instructor, four stages of technology (computer) infusion were identified:

• Stage 1: The instructor is computer literate
• Stage 2: The instructor uses the computer for office/professional uses
• Stage 3: The instructor integrates computer uses into the existing curriculum
• Stage 4: The instructor reassesses curriculum goals and priorities

The two graphs below indicate the computer infusion in MCCCD in 1986 as compared to a projected infusion in 1991.

URL: http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/river/river4.html