The Challenge of Technology

December 10, 2012, 2:35 pm

By Rob Jenkins

Source: http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/the-challenge-of-technology/35373?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Millions of words have been written, on these pages and elsewhere, about the "technology revolution"—classroom computing, fully online courses, hybrid courses, e-books, MOOC's (massive open online courses). I've written a few thousand of those words myself.

In the end, though, all these technological breakthroughs represent nothing more than opportunities for us to reach more students in different and potentially better ways.

The challenge that accompanies this breathtaking opportunity is threefold.

First, some of us must work at being a bit more open-minded. And when I say "some of us," I'm referring to people like myself, mid- or late-career faculty members who did not grow up using computers and tablets and smartphones, who are not necessarily early adopters, who have never taught (much less taken) an online course, who might even regard such "innovations" with skepticism.

A certain amount of skepticism is a good thing. As history has shown, not every new "breakthrough" is actually an improvement, and it's always the skeptics who point this out.

On the other hand, skeptics also have a long history of being wrong. So while I'm picturing myself as Laocoon before the gates of Troy, others might just see me as Ebenezer Scrooge.

In the end, skeptics like me have to admit that many technological breakthroughs are actually improvements over the old ways of doing things. Even if we're not particularly savvy ourselves, we must acknowledge that some of our colleagues use technology with great success, and that their efforts do much to further our collective enterprise. We must educate ourselves about the advantages of various technologies and have the courage to adopt what seems beneficial. Who knows? We might even get ourselves a smartphone for Christmas.

The second challenge is for the mavens to take a deep breath and recognize that not every new technological development is going to "revolutionize" the academy. Some of those developments, as I noted above, turn out not to be that useful, or else they're quickly eclipsed by the next great thing, obsolete before more than a handful of people have had an opportunity even to consider adopting them.

In addition, some of us simply don't want to do the things you're doing, such as teach online or use an e-book. We might recognize that those are valid teaching strategies, in the right hands, but we also believe that there's still a place in the academy for the tried and true methods that have served us so well for years. So please stop badgering us to "innovate."

And finally, the challenge that we all confront, I believe, is to make sure that when we use technology, we're using it for the right reasons.

I took a lot of flak a couple of years ago for saying that, at many community colleges, online classes are viewed as "cash cows." But I believe that statement is not only true, it's self-evident. There's no question that online courses can be done well and that they greatly benefit many students. But all too often, that's not really why we're offering them. Instead, we're trying to lower costs, or increase enrollment, or some combination of the two.

Many years ago, at the onset of the "technology revolution," the rural community college where I was an administrator at the time was trying to figure out how to offer more courses to students on a remote satellite "campus." We didn't want the students to have to drive any farther than they had to, and it wasn't really cost-effective to send an instructor 50 miles to teach six students. Fortunately, we were able to acquire some grant funds to equip a room on that campus with closed-circuit TV so that those six students could take a course with a professor on our main campus. That, I believe, is a perfect example of how technology can benefit students.

The problem arose when enrollment on that satellite campus grew to the point where the number of students watching the professor on TV was nearly as large as the number of students physically present in his classroom. At that point, I began arguing that it was time for us to send an instructor to teach those students face to face.

Was taking the course via closed-circuit TV better for those students than not taking the course at all? Absolutely. Was it better than taking the course in person? No, I don't think so. Once we had reached the point where we had enough students to make it cost-effective for us to send an instructor, we were using the technology purely as a means of saving money, to the detriment of students.

I recognize that technology has advanced far beyond closed-circuit TV. (Then again, how different is a MOOC?) But I believe the same principle still applies: As we're deciding what technology we're going to use in our classrooms and on our campuses, the overriding question has to be, "What's best for students?" Not "What's best for the college?" or "What's best for the bottom line?" or even "What's the latest, coolest thing?"

If our primary mission is to teach (and at community colleges that's definitely the case), then everything we do, including using technology, must support that mission—not become the mission.

[Creative Commons-licensed photo by Flickr user quasireversible]

This entry was posted in Teaching, The Two-Year Track. Bookmark the permalink.

The future of university rankings

http://pearsonblueskies.com/2012/the-future-of-university-rankings-2/

By Phil Baty -

Let us be frank. University rankings are crude. They simply cannot capture—let alone accurately measure—many of the things that matter most in higher education: how a great lecturer can transform the lives of their students for example, or how much free enquiry enhances our society. They can never be objective, because their indicators and methodologies are based on the subjective judgment of the compilers. At their worst, university rankings can impose uniformity on a sector that thrives on diversity. They can pervert university missions and distract policymakers. When they are done badly, they can be manipulated for unfair gain. They can mislead the public.

I admit all of this even though I am myself a 'ranker'. Indeed, I am the Editor of the world's most widely-cited (and perhaps most controversial) global university ranking system—The Times Higher Education World University Rankings—and I am proud of what I do. Why? Because I believe that as long as rankers are responsible and transparent, university rankings can be a positive force in higher education.

Rankings can help us understand and find a way through the dramatic changes we are facing. Speaking at the World 100 Reputation Network conference at the University of Hong Kong last year, Peter Upton the Director of British Council, Hong Kong said:

'We are living through one of those tipping points where in five years, [commentators will say] that this was the period when the landscape changed for ever, when the speed of reputational growth and decline suddenly accelerated.
We all accept that higher education is borderless – ideas know no boundaries, do not accord any significance to geography and maps – and that is equally true of reputations and university rankings.'

The facts of rapid internationalisation are clear: 3.3 million students now study outside their home country; UK institutions have 162 satellite campuses on overseas soil; almost half of all UK research papers are now written with a co-author from overseas. We are in a world of global education hubs, of joint degrees, faculty and student mobility schemes, franchised programmes, global research networks and bi-national universities.

We are also entering a world of mass higher education, with new forms of delivery and new providers of higher education, changing the traditional world order. But there is an information gap, with a growing need for clear—and yes, easily accessible —comparative information for all stakeholders. National governments need information when they are investing billions into universities to drive the knowledge-based sectors of the economy. Industry needs help in looking where to invest R&D money and where to find the top talent. Higher education leaders need to understand the shifting global sands and to improve strategy and performance. Newly emerging institutions, often in developing countries, need help in clearly demonstrating their excellence to the world, against better known and more established brands. Faculty, seeking to foster new research partnerships and consider career options, need help in identifying new opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, in a global market, students and their parents looking to make the right choice of degree course, wherever in the world it might be delivered, need help. This is crucial as the world gets smaller, global demand for higher education gets bigger, and choices become more bewildering.

Here to stay

As long as those who compile them are responsible and transparent, rankings have a positive role to play. Make no mistake, rankings are here to stay. Ellen Hazelkorn of the Dublin Institute of Technology, has cataloged the extraordinary growth and influence of rankings in her new book Rankings and the Battle for World-Class Excellence: How Rankings are re-shaping higher education. She writes:

'There is a growing obsession with university rankings around the world. What started as an academic exercise in the early 20th Century in the US became a commercial 'information' service for students in the 1980s and the progenitor of a 'reputation race' with geo-political implications today… rankings are transforming and reshaping higher education.'

From influencing immigration policies to prompting multi-billion pound national policies, she has demonstrated clearly how much rankings are shaping behaviour.

So given their increasing importance, surely the best way forward is for rankers to work closely with the university community and engage openly with their critics, to ensure they offer tables that are meaningful, with all the necessary caveats and health warnings. Who better to do that than Times Higher Education (THE) magazine? THE has been serving the higher education world for forty years—it is our anniversary this year. Through our website, and a new digital edition available from the beginning of this year as an iPhone and iPad application, we are reaching an ever-growing global audience which now amounts to more than 100,000 readers a week. We live or die by our reputation among university staff and policymakers as a trusted source of news, analysis and data week in and week out. Our rankings are part of that. They need to stand up to the close scrutiny of our highly intelligent and demanding readers. That is why in late 2009 we brought in one of the world's most trusted and respected information specialists, Thomson Reuters, to work with us to develop an entirely new methodology, and to collect and supply all our world rankings data for the future. That is why we published our entirely new rankings system in September 2010 only after ten months of open consultation and frank self-criticism, and after detailed expert advice from more than 50 advisors across 15 countries.

The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings, used 13 indicators to cover the university's three core missions: research, knowledge transfer and teaching. With the proliferation of different ranking systems by different ranking agencies, all with different agendas, Times Higher Education's unique selling points are responsibility, transparency and, most importantly given our audience, academic rigour.

For the 2010–11 rankings, we made major improvements to our reputation survey by using the invited views of more than 13,000 targeted, identifiable and experienced academics, questioned on their narrow fields of expertise. We employed a bibliometric indicator that drew on more than 25 million citations from five million journal articles over five years. And we fully normalised the citations data to take account of major variations in citations behaviour between subjects. We made the first serious attempt to capture the teaching and learning environment through five separate indicators—an essential element of any university, but one missed by the other world-ranking systems. They are new rankings, more appropriate for a new era.

The future

One of the things I am most proud of is that we have handed much of the rankings data over to the user. We have created a rankings application for the iPhone and iPad, which I believe represents a major step forward in the field.

Of course, we choose our indicators and weightings very carefully and only after lengthy consultation. But with the app, the weightings can be changed by the user to suit their individual needs. If you don't agree with our weightings, you can set your own. Such transparency and interactivity with the user is more responsible and I personally believe it is the future of world rankings.

In an article in Times Higher Education last year, Ben Wildavsky, author of the Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World, said:

'We now have a global academic marketplace. It seems to me that education markets, like other kinds of market, need information to function effectively. We're also living in the age of accountability, so rankings aren't going away.'

I would go a step further. Rankings are certainly not going to go away, and as long as those who rank invest properly in serious research and sound data, as long as they are frank about the limitations of the proxies they employ, as long as they help to educate the users with clear health warnings and keep discussing improvements – rankings are going to become an essential and valued tool in helping to guide us through times of unprecedented change and uncertainty in global higher education.

Phil Baty is Editor of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and Deputy Editor of the Times Higher Education magazine. The latest world university rankings results can be found here: http://bit.ly/thewur.

Times Higher Education is the world's most authoritative source of information about higher education. Designed specifically for professional people working in higher education and research, Times Higher Education was founded in 1971 and has been online since 1995.

Sent from my iPad

A focus on sustainable building

Source: http://www.sustainableindustries.com/articles/2012/10/sustaining-focus-sustainable-building

• Paul Krumrich, Founder and President, SpyeGlass
• Published: Oct 30 2012 - 11:47am
• Tags: Green Building, green construction, green design, user space

In a still-recovering economy, here are several high-level best practices to guide green building projects.

• 
  

Today's smart architects and contractors know that whenever possible buildings should be designed and built green, but not everyone knows what determines a "green" space. How do you sustain a focus on sustainable building in a still-weakened economy? Here are the necessary steps and best practices for maintaining the momentum and keeping the sustainable building movement growing strong. 

Best Practices for Sustainable Building
 
 1. Think of the Whole Project. Sustainability is about end-use, how a building functions for occupants within the community. Experts need to be involved from day one to work with architects and builders to develop the project as a team. Business needs must be determined to ensure they are effectively and clearly communicated to the team. Determining these needs ahead of time ensures all team members are able to assess different sites, communities, lots, and existing buildings when looking for the best fit. 
 
 2. User-Based Planning. Construction utilities and internet connectivity must be added in the beginning to schematics, but technology and building needs should also be considered. Technology can shape the way a building is used and how people work and live in it. By focusing on the building's future use, the planners can help identify early cost-savings, better floor plans and tighter specifications.
 
 3. Environmental Specifications. It is important to look at the complete picture of a building or new site when determining where to spend money for environmental and energy efficiency investments. In many buildings, especially single story brick buildings, the largest source of energy loss is through the walls as this is the largest surface area exposed to the exterior.  Solar panels have a lot of sex appeal and show a commitment to "going green," but cost to benefit ratio is not as high as some of the less visible upgrades.  Spray foaming block walls to a depth of 2.5 inches can increase the R value (measurement of thermal resistance) by 500 percent, and this depth of foam also qualifies as a vapor barrier which prevents mold and condensation.

If the goal early on is to lower expenses associated with running the building, the architect and AV design partner (both should be involved early) can work together to design a space that utilizes and incorporates the natural resources of the site such as lots of sun, tree cover and orientation. For example, Spye Group's newly remodeled building has dropped the lighting bill more than 50 percent due to installing many large windows and a lighting system that combines natural light with artificial light to obtain an optimal level in each office. 

 4. Integrated Design. An emerging trend in sustainable building is integrating interior aesthetics, high performance technologies and environmentally-focused specifications to create a space built and tailored to exactly fit a user's needs. 

Sustainability can also be measured as the optimal benefit of a space, not just a reduction in expenses as compared to the same square footage of another building.  By incorporating technology and smart design into a building, a company may obtain more from employees, be more efficient, create more products and sell at a higher margin.

In addition, if a building is designed to grow with a company (designing it for the future) there will be unmeasureable savings when upgrading technology, operating the business there for many more years than someone who cut corners at the beginning and has to move or do a major remodel.

------------------------

Founder and President, Paul Krumrich developed and launched Spyeglass in 2002. Krumrich has established Spyeglass as the industry leader in rear projection displays and a forerunner in the digital signage industry. Krumrich has since acquired other exclusive partnerships for Spyeglass and is now concentrating on expanding Spyeglass into the software and content side of the digital signage industry. Prior to 2002, Krumrich enjoyed a successful tenure at MTS Systems as a Design Engineer, and at ILX Lightwave in Business Development. 

image: HansErmers via Flickr cc (some rights reserved)

How Smart Cities Save Money (and the Planet)

Source: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/10/tech-savvy_cities_are_saving_m.html

How Smart Cities Save Money (and the Planet)

by Michael J. Dixon  |   8:00 AM October 29, 2012

Cities around the world are getting bigger, fast. By 2015, there will be 22 metropolitan areas with populations of more than 10 million people. Around the world, some 180,000 people move into cities every day.

And while in the past growth was the main measure of economic success, today growing populations represent a huge challenge for governments and municipal planners. More people means increased consumption of valuable resources such as water and energy, and further burdening already aging and stressed infrastructure. They need more firefighters, police, medical care, and education — and they often need the services before they pay enough taxes to cover their cost.

On the flip side, growing cities also represent a huge opportunity. After all, the population is growing because people can expect to find better jobs and make more money than they could in rural areas and small towns. City dwellers' economic opportunity is magnified by the network effect of having millions of people around them, some of whom will find value in the skills and labor they provide. And cities themselves can benefit when they provide the infrastructure that enables those individuals to thrive economically.

But in the face of shrinking budgets and limited resources, we can't just continue to build new roads, buildings and infrastructure to support growth. Aside from space limitations on creating new roadways or power grids, cities can't afford to shut down existing facilities that people rely on in order to install new ones.

So, instead of striving for physical growth, today a city's success should be measured by how wisely it uses energy, water, and other resources, how well it maintains a high quality of life for its people, and how smart it is in building prosperity on a sustainable foundation. In short, cities have to become much smarter about how they use existing capacity and resources.

Fortunately, advancements in computer, sensor, and networking technology over the past few years are now providing a new lease on life for aging physical infrastructure. For the first time, city leaders can view ongoing events from central command posts rather than relying on confused and scattered reports from ground-based observers. Sensors in roadways can predict congestion, pinpoint issues like leaks in water pipes and help prepare for potential outages in power grids. These systems can be installed at prices far lower than the cost of a new highway or replacement of a water main, because they leverage existing infrastructure, rather than building new.

One way to increase public safety is to expand manpower, but that doesn't always make fiscal sense. Alternatively, cities can use technology as a force multiplier. For example, the Mesa Police Department in Arizona has been able to reduce crime by 25 percent, which can be attributed to their recent smarter policing approach. The department is now able to share information with neighboring cities like Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, and almost 50 other cities throughout the state of Arizona, essentially tearing down those invisible barriers. This has been invaluable in assisting the Mesa PD fill in the gaps that help its investigators.

Or take waste-water systems, which in some cities, like South Bend, Indiana, can become so overburdened that even occasional downpours will risk mixing public water with untreated sewage. Replacing these systems may be cost prohibitive, but simply making sure they are in full working order can minimize pollution. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is retrofitting much of its 1,000-mile waste-water system with sensors such as those long used in the oil-pipeline industry to spot and repair leaky pipes and overflowing storm drains. That means the system is in peak condition when the rain comes.

Additionally, combining advanced technology with economic incentives can give individuals the information they need to change consumption behavior. In dry Malta, where energy is expensive, planners are building a system of smart meters connected to both the energy and water supplies that can give people a much clearer idea of their usage and boost conservation.

Cities can manage traffic using variable toll pricing. To combat congestion and speed traffic flow, cities such as Stockholm and London have instituted congestion pricing for downtown areas at certain times of day. Want to drive into Stockholm at rush hour? Cameras take pictures of your license plate and automatically charge you for the toll. A 2006 pilot of the road charging system revealed that traffic was down by nearly 25% by the end of the trial, resulting in improved traffic flow across the city. Use of public transportation increased and pollution dropped 14%. The results from the trial period were so positive that the citizens passed a referendum to make the system permanent.

The systems become even more valuable when they are linked together. The City of Rio de Janeiro has integrated information from over 30 city departments into one Operations Center for real-time visualization, management and analysis of incidents across the city. The system started out by forecasting flash floods to help improve emergency response in the city's crowded and hilly residential areas, but it now helps the city manage traffic, public safety and other critical city systems as Rio prepares to play host to major events like the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics.

To make cities work well, they have to be made more intelligent. If they are, they can flourish with the economic development opportunities presented by growth. If not, they will be overshadowed and outpaced by cities that are laying the foundation to prepare for future urban growth.

More blog posts by Michael J. Dixon

More on: Sustainability, Technology

Michael J. Dixon

Michael J. Dixon, PhD, is the general manager for IBM's global smarter cities business. He leads IBM's vision, strategy, and operations for teams active in cities around the world which are focused on a core element of IBM's long term strategy. The integration of transport, health, public safety, energy, utilities, social services, education, and urban management are at the heart of numerous initiatives.