Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | elisabeth-lee |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
Paul KimChief Technology Officer
Stanford University School of Education
Does Academic Does Academic Technology Competency Technology Competency Make CIO 2.0?Make CIO 2.0?
2
Discussion TopicsDiscussion Topics
* Transformation of CIO roles in the higher education space
* Parallelism paradox in academic technology R&D
* Creating new traditions
3
Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)
Connectivity Legacy systems E-mail service management File servers, computer labs, desktop
support
4
Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)Traditional Foci (CIO1.x)
ERP Designing (More of dreaming) Too busy putting out the fire Getting the best systems engineers
(Network/Server)
5
Evolved Traditions (CIO Evolved Traditions (CIO 2.x)2.x) Productivity Security & IP Protection A/VOD/ Wireless coverage/Web
portals
6
Evolved Traditions (CIO Evolved Traditions (CIO 2.x)2.x) ERP for E-Learning and U-Access
CMS, Classroom Technology, Mobile Learning
Too busy trying and learning new solutions
Get the best systems developers (Application development and integration)
7
Emerging Challenges Emerging Challenges (CIO 3.x)(CIO 3.x) Accountability
Intelligence-based tracking in all areas Resource Virtualization/Streaming
Apps/Fast backup & restore/Just-in-time stuff
Learning Outcomes as mROIE-portfolio system, Learning outcome
matrices
8
Emerging Challenges Emerging Challenges (CIO 3.x)(CIO 3.x) ERP to best accommodate teaching
and research while maximizing learning
Too busy convincing the Faculty Senate
Get the most experienced academic technology specialists
9
After all, it is an academic enterprise we are working for.
How is your IT relevant to what students demonstrate as competencies and what your faculty publish?
10
Parallelism Paradox Parallelism Paradox in Academic in Academic Technology R&DTechnology R&D
11
Research TrendsResearch Trends
High tech innovations Tend to work with schools that have
well developed infrastructure ICT research too often follows
technology innovations, not vice versa
12
Research Research OutcomesOutcomes
13
Positive Outcomes
InstructorsMore technology enthusiastsBetter adopters
Well controlled experiments Smaller sample populations Stakeholder support
14
Disappointing Disappointing Outcomes (One-size Outcomes (One-size fits none)fits none)
15
Replications Not FeasibleReplications Not Feasible
Large and real settings Multiple complex dimensions Highly heterogeneous learners Less technology enthusiasts Instructors with much administrative
tasks Not enough support
16
What might have made a difference…
Large and real settings Need more in-depth situation-specific needs analysisNeed more in-depth situation-specific needs analysis
Multiple complex dimensions Tackle one dimension at a timeTackle one dimension at a time
Highly heterogeneous classes Class management technology and Self-remedy solutionClass management technology and Self-remedy solution
Less technology enthusiasts Build a community of support firstBuild a community of support first
Instructors with much administrative tasks Unbundling rolesUnbundling roles
Not enough support No learning curve solutionNo learning curve solution
Overall, they were in need of simple, highly adaptive and flexible technology that is most relevant to the learning context
17
Creating New Creating New Traditions Traditions In Academic In Academic TechnologyTechnology
18
Early Interests (AT 1.x)Early Interests (AT 1.x)
Cognition Learn better
Metacognition Better manage learning
Retention Better remember what was learned
Transfer Better apply what was learned
Motivation Better chances to do all the above
19
Evolved interests (AT Evolved interests (AT 2.x)2.x) Situation Specificity Cultural Sensitivity Practical Usability Theoretical Applicability Economic Scalability Viable Sustainability
20
Emerging Interests (AT Emerging Interests (AT 3.x)3.x) Educational entrepreneurship
Tangible impact (Either for-profit or non-profit)
Bridging with social innovationsLocal, regional, and global community
needs
21
Why AT3.x?
Supports the ultimate role of higher education in multiple aspects
Much more visible outcomes In the future, there will be only two kinds of
leaders in the higher education space: Highly visible leading universities in at least one
academic specialty area or Highly accessible, efficient, and convenient education
providers
22
ConclusionConclusion
23
No update, no gainNo update, no gain
Technology gets old too fast Need to learn to learn better
24
No transformation, no No transformation, no chanceschances Make time to examine the changes
and patterns in the education space Become adaptable to the new
environments Respond to the new needs
25
Questions for you:
What are the new competencies for today’s CIOs?
What do researchers do and say about academic technology?
Should Academic Technology be lead by CIOs?
When people take 99.9% uptime for granted, what happens to the IT department?
What are you? Are you CIO X.X?