TechnoPlan Review- University of California, Berkeley

t e c h n o p l a n n i n g r e v i e w
[ prev ] [ top ] [ next ]

plan University of California, Berkeley

url http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~cccpb-it/

reviewer Mary K. Long, Ph.D., South Mountain Community College

date August 06, 1997 at 14:07

comments The University of California, Berkeley's instructional technology site contains three planning documents. The first is a report by a panel chartered by the Academic Planning Board, prepared April 27, 1994. The document contains a definition of instructional technology, a summary of major findings and major recommendations, the activiites of the panel, discussion of recommendations, and appendices on IT infrastructure, classroom costs, the activities of the panel, and selected responses to the open forum held by the panel.
The panel was charged with reviewing and assessing the interdepartmental process of providing the best and most effective tools and techniques to improve learning throught he use of IT. The following activities were completed to fulfill the charge:the panel met regularly during a semester; the panel sponsored an open forum attended by 75 faculty, staff and students; the panel corresponded through e-mail with attendees and others interested in their work; the Faculty Senate Committee on Computing and Communications discussed issues raised by the panel; panel members visited Stanford's new multimedia; instructional center (SMILE); IT campus organizations provided demonstrations of current projects and facilities. The committee as a whole developed the major findings and recommendations and assigned specific portions to panel members for more detailed treatment.
Panel findings are listed and recommendations include developing policies, creating a new organizational structure and intellectual focus for IT, improving classrooms, improving the information infrastructure, and funding IT.
As an example of an early planning document, the report identifies what most of us have come to see as essential elements and considerations in IT planning such as the need sufficient infrastructure -- not lack of interest and talent on the part of faculty, students and staff -- the need for a coordinated, institution-wide approach, concern of lack of rewards and recognition for faculty, lack of standardization of software and hardware, and the need for funding and the development of standards for classroom design, offices and instructional laboratories pertaining to IT.
The second document is a "Preliminary Report Submitted to the Office of the President: Steps Toward Becoming a Technologically Wise University; Strategic Planning for Technology's Use in Instruction at the University of California, Berkeley," draft of August 25, 1996.
This document begins to address or "frame" a long-term, coherent strategy toward developing IT in service of learning and instruction. The purpose is to develop an effective transformation of the university into a technologically wise university. It concludes that a "technologically wise univeristy prepares for and implements its own future carefully, by developing infrastructure and experimenting, and by reflecting on and sharing the results of such experiments with the whole university community."
The themes to direct this transformation are access, re-tooling through training and support for students, faculty, and staff, and achieving seamless technology. The document recommends targeting a small set of high priority aims for near-future accomplishments.
In framing the university's strategy for IT, the report provides a vision-driven approach recommending cycles of infrastructure, experimentation, reflection and sharing. The report is interesting reading because it approaches IT in terms of fostering a wise university where technology is used to enhance human values and learning. It has the kind of conceptual content essential in the planning process.
The third document, "Components of a New Initiative," is a companion to the second document described above. Section I of the report deals with twenty-three proposed future needs and priorities. The second section describes twenty-nine activities that are in operation on campus som! e of which are extended throu gh the recommendations in the first section. There are detailed discussions of each of the above activities which amount to current annual central investment (not including departmental instructional funds) of approximately $10,000,000.
The last two documents taken together are good examples of thoughtful approach to IT for learning. The general recommendation of facilitating cycles of development of (1) infrastructures, (2) climates of experimentation using the infrastructures, and (3) careful assessment and reflection on those experiments and sharing results and knowhow is the essential core of carrying out a strategic IT plan.
If you have been down the planning road, these reports are familiar but add additional insights. If you have not begun planning, their comments could be valuable. Detailed "sharing" of assessments and strategies remain to be put on the site.

plan	University of California, Berkeley
url	http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~cccpb-it/
reviewer	Mary K. Long, Ph.D., South Mountain Community College
date	August 06, 1997 at 14:07
comments	The University of California, Berkeley's instructional technology site contains three planning documents. The first is a report by a panel chartered by the Academic Planning Board, prepared April 27, 1994. The document contains a definition of instructional technology, a summary of major findings and major recommendations, the activiites of the panel, discussion of recommendations, and appendices on IT infrastructure, classroom costs, the activities of the panel, and selected responses to the open forum held by the panel. The panel was charged with reviewing and assessing the interdepartmental process of providing the best and most effective tools and techniques to improve learning throught he use of IT. The following activities were completed to fulfill the charge:the panel met regularly during a semester; the panel sponsored an open forum attended by 75 faculty, staff and students; the panel corresponded through e-mail with attendees and others interested in their work; the Faculty Senate Committee on Computing and Communications discussed issues raised by the panel; panel members visited Stanford's new multimedia; instructional center (SMILE); IT campus organizations provided demonstrations of current projects and facilities. The committee as a whole developed the major findings and recommendations and assigned specific portions to panel members for more detailed treatment. Panel findings are listed and recommendations include developing policies, creating a new organizational structure and intellectual focus for IT, improving classrooms, improving the information infrastructure, and funding IT. As an example of an early planning document, the report identifies what most of us have come to see as essential elements and considerations in IT planning such as the need sufficient infrastructure -- not lack of interest and talent on the part of faculty, students and staff -- the need for a coordinated, institution-wide approach, concern of lack of rewards and recognition for faculty, lack of standardization of software and hardware, and the need for funding and the development of standards for classroom design, offices and instructional laboratories pertaining to IT. The second document is a "Preliminary Report Submitted to the Office of the President: Steps Toward Becoming a Technologically Wise University; Strategic Planning for Technology's Use in Instruction at the University of California, Berkeley," draft of August 25, 1996. This document begins to address or "frame" a long-term, coherent strategy toward developing IT in service of learning and instruction. The purpose is to develop an effective transformation of the university into a technologically wise university. It concludes that a "technologically wise univeristy prepares for and implements its own future carefully, by developing infrastructure and experimenting, and by reflecting on and sharing the results of such experiments with the whole university community." The themes to direct this transformation are access, re-tooling through training and support for students, faculty, and staff, and achieving seamless technology. The document recommends targeting a small set of high priority aims for near-future accomplishments. In framing the university's strategy for IT, the report provides a vision-driven approach recommending cycles of infrastructure, experimentation, reflection and sharing. The report is interesting reading because it approaches IT in terms of fostering a wise university where technology is used to enhance human values and learning. It has the kind of conceptual content essential in the planning process. The third document, "Components of a New Initiative," is a companion to the second document described above. Section I of the report deals with twenty-three proposed future needs and priorities. The second section describes twenty-nine activities that are in operation on campus som! e of which are extended throu gh the recommendations in the first section. There are detailed discussions of each of the above activities which amount to current annual central investment (not including departmental instructional funds) of approximately $10,000,000. The last two documents taken together are good examples of thoughtful approach to IT for learning. The general recommendation of facilitating cycles of development of (1) infrastructures, (2) climates of experimentation using the infrastructures, and (3) careful assessment and reflection on those experiments and sharing results and knowhow is the essential core of carrying out a strategic IT plan. If you have been down the planning road, these reports are familiar but add additional insights. If you have not begun planning, their comments could be valuable. Detailed "sharing" of assessments and strategies remain to be put on the site.