Institutions of higher education have been criticized for focusing on teaching and not on learning. This paper describes a comprehensive system to assure the linkage between the curriculum and technology. This is achieved by applying a continuous improvement process and assessment to the entire curriculum. Several of the key elements of the process include the following: Curriculum Writers, Content Area Faculty Advisors, Focus groups, external experts, Faculty, and Assessment.

This process links curriculum development and technological developments. It provides avenues for input from students, faculty, and corporate America for the college to be competitive while assuring "just in time" learning. One of the underlying components that serve as the uniting force is instructional design. The system itself is connected within this larger framework and will be described in detail.

Using technology in the classroom is one way to provide an active learning environment while helping students see the interrelationships rather than the linear cause-effect chain. This paper attempts to unite the practical application of technology as a tool for achieving course objectives by providing "just-in-time" learning and to have faculty serve as facilitators and not lecturers. Active use of the Internet helps move the classroom environment from memorization to analysis and provides network learning. Cardinal Stritch University uses computer-enhanced programs to emphasize the basic concepts of knowledge navigation, data mining, Knowledge Management Systems, perpetual learning, and a fusion of learning systems and work to prepare students for the 21^st Century.

Introduction

Colleges and universities, historically the bastions of advanced learning, are finding themselves under increasing pressure to change. In order for schools to compete they must revise academic programs with unprecedented frequency to match the developing expectations of society. Instructional design is a process that has proven to assist with the management of knowledge, technology, curriculum, and teaching techniques to prepare academic programs to tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

The idea that an organization whose very mission is learning could remain static appears ironic. Haven't universities provided many of the scientific advances within our society? Haven't colleges created the kind of educated work force needed by our technological age? Yes! Colleges and universities have proven themselves to be adept at changing the content of what they do. New majors and degrees appear daily. What has proven more difficult to change in higher education is the system through which learning occurs.

For example, the pedagogies of utilizing distance education, Web sites, advanced technology, the electronic generation, adjunct faculty with extensive contemporary practical experience, accelerated programs for working adults, and different avenues for delivering educational programs. The make-up of students is changing drastically, so it only makes sense to change the delivery systems to match the learning styles of students. However, it is not what technology we should use, but rather what are the stated outcomes for specific programs and how can technology be used to achieve these outcomes. The transformation of a print-based educational system to an electronic-based education will bring many changes to academe. Changes in the teaching and learning styles will be necessary in the future, therefore, instructional design will play an important part in the development of knowledge management systems (which is a broader definition than management information systems) in order to integrate technology with the fast paced environment (Reinhardt, 1995). The basic question is, do the current philosophical beliefs, methods, and values in education match the needs of society, the demands of the business community, and the expectations of students as we move forward into the 21st century?

It is at the more profound level of the process of learning that higher education is being pressured to change. In an essay titled "The New Society of Organizations," Peter Drucker describes the forces at work as follows:

It is a safe prediction that in the next fifty years, schools and universities will change more and more drastically than they have since they assumed their present form more than three hundred years ago, when they reorganized themselves around the printed book. What will force these changes is in part new technology, such as computers, videos, and telecasts via satellite; in part the demands of a knowledge-based society in which organized learning must become a lifelong process for knowledge workers; and in part new theory about how human beings learn (Drucker, 1996).

Although colleges and universities continue to struggle with the logistical and budgetary ramifications of bringing technology into learning environments, it is on the level of the learning itself that the most profound changes are occurring in higher education. Who students and faculty are, as well as what and how they teach, are all evolving as the book surrenders its pivotal role in the process of acquiring knowledge in favor of more varied and immediate forms of discovery that foster a system of continual learning.

Letting Go of the Book

Changes associated with technology are parallel to the Monks in the 16th century. Content, method, and values of society during the Middle Ages were changing. They moved from manuscripts to printed books. In the Middle Ages, Monks were the guardians of education, like teachers are guardians of education today. The teaching style of Monks did not survive. They wrote and lectured while students listened and memorized. Unfortunately, this is still how many institutions of higher education operate today. Knowledge delivery organized around the book began in the Middle Ages when Monks were the guardians of education. Monks copied texts and lectured in Latin while students memorized what they heard. As the keepers of knowledge to be doled out to the privileged few, the power relationship between the teacher and the learner was obvious.

Today, many educators also believe they should hold a privileged status as the guardian or keeper of knowledge. They are threatened, like the Monks, by others learning faster, better, in a different format than the classroom. However, if we do not change, we will end up like Monks, criticized and forgotten (Spender, 1994).

Contrary to many common-held beliefs, students do not want to be simply entertained in class; they want to learn in their own environment, not in the style of the teacher. Students of today and tomorrow are doers, not listeners. We can not expect the new generation of learners to adapt to our rules anymore than we should have adapted to the Monks. Education and life must take into account new and different learning styles, e.g. instructional design. The paradox is that we have two different generations in education today. We have the older generation who are the teachers and leaders, that are learning the new technology, and a younger or working generation that uses technology on a daily basis.

Learning in the monastic tradition was a very linear process. The outputs were very well defined: religious texts that were "approved" by the church. The inputs were also very well defined: ancient scrolls or aging books, in quills, perhaps gold leaf, and parchment. Learning occurred as the Monks copied the texts. Teaching occurred when Monks recited the copied texts.

With the Enlightenment came an opening to explore vast realms of knowledge that had heretofore remained obscure. Science began to provide alternative explanations to those provided by religion. The printing press ushered in the era of mass publication of books. New institutions of learning developed which taught different subject areas. It is easy to say that the Monks refused to change. However, it was a failure of an entire process of learning to evolve that left the Monks relegated to teaching only religion.

The new learning institutions did not entirely abandon the precepts upon which monastic learning was based. In fact, vestiges of monastic learning remain in higher education today. For example, to be deemed qualified to teach, faculty must spend many years learning the "literature" of their content area, both from current experts and from a history of previous work. Those who choose to pursue degrees full-time in an on-campus program are held in high esteem; those who pursue degrees while working in the real world are told their degrees are not as valued.

A predominantly linear process of learning is another vestige from monastic times. Doctorally qualified individuals, those who "know the literature", teach to those who do not. Though our inputs are much richer after three hundred years of relative freedom to discover knowledge, the outputs and methods of achieving them are still well defined: lectures, papers, and presentations. These inputs into the educational system are still accentuated by many of the regional accrediting agencies; however, this too is changing with the emphasis on outcomes assessment.

What happens to this paradigm when the three trends identified by individuals such as Drucker and others, converge on higher education, namely new technologies, lifelong learning, and differing learning styles? This is nothing short of a revolution. Technology brings alternative ways of organizing and conveying information. It challenges our definitions of knowledge, of who knows and who does not, of how knowledge can be credibly delivered. What responsibility do educators have to accommodate a learner who happens to process information visually rather than verbally? What happens when the book loses its pivotal role in learning? There must be a rethinking of the role of the professor in the age of high-tech tools.

Creating Learning Organizations in the Academy

Learning is becoming dynamic. Inputs take various forms, whether it is written information from books, articles, Web pages, images from videos, or dialogues with other students. Learning outputs are similarly diverse. Papers, presentations and tests still exist, but so do other outcomes like, "learning how to learn" journals, team projects, simulations and internships.

And who are these students? Increasingly, they are "older" or "working" adults. They are the new traditional students. Today the majority of college students attends school part-time or in the evening, are employed full-time or commute to campus. They are students who bring expertise of their own into the classroom. They want to react and to interact with teachers and peers. They understand that the business world will change; what they need to learn are fundamental principles and how to access information from any location, at any time (Handcock and Betts, 1994).

To accommodate this diversity and institutionalize a learning environment that can accommodate the many demands of its varying constituents, colleges and universities will have to "build the management of change into (their) very structure" (Drucker, 1996, p. 79). Peter Senge, in his book, The Fifth Discipline, describes systems thinking as a way to understand and ultimately enhance the dynamic nature of organizations. He writes, "The essence of the discipline of systems thinking lies in a shift of mind:

seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause-effect chains, and

seeing processes of change rather than snapshots" (Senge, 1994, p.73).

Systems thinking is by definition dynamic. Systems are circular, with positive and negative feedback loops. Using "systems thinking" to look at higher education has some interesting results. Systems problems in organizations require systemic solutions. Quick fixes rarely solve systemic problems. To get to the heart of the revolution in the academy, we have to get to the core element of learning; to the curriculum. We have to look at what it is comprised of, who receives it, and where and when it is delivered. We have to develop knowledge management processes that recognize that learning may not be a linear process but a circular one of constant questioning, assessment and redesign. Of course, the problem is that many professors' fear they will be left on the sidelines as larger universities market lectures on CD-ROMs or Web sites.

Technology Revolution: Industrial Age to Information Age

The integration of technology into academe and the work place has culminated in a technology revolution which is moving society from the industrial age to the information age. Listed below are some of the general trends in education that will take academe from a teaching to a learning environment through knowledge management processes.

1. "Stable" information medium of print is transformed to "moving" information medium. The former is focused on a linear order, with rules and a standard set of information which is changing to learning processes, not information. The education model today is based on an ordered hierarchy much like an assembly line. You are graded on what information you memorize; like teachers writing definitions on the board.

2. The older educational system was based on memorization of answers. Today students and learning should be based on knowledge and questions. We need to move from a teaching to a learning environment.

3. We are transforming from passive learning (storage and memorization) to active learning (processes and doers). If we can find information, why would we want to memorize it? Over the years memorization has become less and less important. In the future, projects, portfolios etc. will be more applicable, which is necessary because of the onslaught of so much material. Just-in-time learning is more than a concept, it is a necessity.

4. Learning on-line brings the archives of the world to everyone. Using the Internet can serve as a new learning style that utilizes the excitement of students. For example, courses are being designed in distant cities by top-scholars, lectures are being replaced by multimedia Web sites, and schools are forming partnerships (Western Governors Association or Educom) dedicated to more advanced technology to the classroom.

5. It used to be that the best and most reliable information was the oldest, e.g. the ancient Greeks and classics. Today the most reliable information is the newest, and it may be only two hours old. For example, we watched the war in Iraq on TV as it was unfolding. The classics are about things that are enduring truths while the newest information is about change and currency.

6. In the future, teachers will become on-line librarians, facilitators, and professional communicators (Barr and Tagg, 1995). Replacing human contact with a CD-ROM is not what technology is all about because the human contact is important. However, the "sage on the stage" needs to be replaced by the "guide on the side."

The change process must be accomplished through a transformation of academe. The change process may be similar to quality management processes where plan, do, check, act becomes redesign, redefine, re-engineer, and realign. Outlined below is a list from Michael Dolence and Donald Norris, Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, which depicts the major changes in the learning processes in the Information Age. This viewpoint is supported by numerous articles in Change, including "Teaching and learning in the computer age" by Batson and Bass (1996) and "The coming of ubiquity of information technology" by Green (1996).

Industrial Age Information Age

Classrooms, libraries, and laboratories Network

Teaching Learning

Seat time-based education Achievement-based learning

Classroom-centered instruction Network learning

Information acquisition Knowledge navigation

Distance education Distance-free learning

Continuing education Perpetual learning

Time out for learning Fusion of learning and work

Separation of learners and learning systems Fusion of learning systems

The majority of college professors have been educated and have worked in the print world. It takes a great deal of effort to change modes of information at this point. Many mourn the change of these skills. The print was one source of empowerment and democratization of education, just like technology is today. We are a generation in transition. Will we be part of the future or go the way of the Monks? For example, Dr. Chere Gibson from the University of Wisconsin at Madison notes that this change may be difficult but it will offer many advantages such as forming partnerships with technicians and other professors to prepare multimedia presentations. These partnerships may prove to be the spark that education needs (DeLaughry, 1995 and Peck and Dorrocott, 1994).

How to Control Change

One of the best ways to control change or have the future work for you, instead of it happening to you, is through instructional design. Society in the 1990s is not only fast-paced and shifting its orientation toward globalization, it is changing at a staggering rate. Higher education is one area that may be witnessing the most dramatic effects of technological, political, social, legislative, and economic transformation. College and universities are re-tooling, re-structuring and basically re-thinking their approaches to the marketing trends which in turn have forced education to change in order to survive. In fact, many academicians argue that education should be on the cutting edge and not cut by the edge. Therefore, it is critical to develop an educational system designed around continuous improvement.

Training future leaders means providing theoretical applications which are integrated with practical experiences. Advanced technologies, along with currency of degree, are vital components of curriculum development. For example, students need to learn how to evaluate and construct computer or video presentations because they will be asked to do the same in the workplace. However, it is more than simply providing modern curriculum and textbooks for graduates in the 21st century. A systems approach to improving student achievement through the design, development, and evaluation of instruction is critical. In a world that changes on a daily basis, especially in the area of technological advances, instructional design must be implemented by a system that is both practical and easily adaptable. The system must be driven by change and be developed to respond readily to revision. Schools should focus on the student, have well defined outcomes and then use technology only when it will enhance the learning environment to achieve the outcomes. Instructional design can prove to be a guiding force in this process.

Typically, this is in contradiction to many curriculum development processes in schools today. Even the terminology denotes an emphasis on a compartmental approach. It must be realized that the curriculum is merely one part of student achievement and the process of curriculum development is a subcomponent of the total system (instructional design).

The systems approach to instructional design links all of the various knowledge management processes, ensuring they are working in unison. This is true for courses in American Studies, as well as any other course. In addition, an evaluation process is interrelated to provide feedback for continuous improvement. The systems approach to instructional design starts at the end (outcomes) and works backward toward the classroom with the student remaining the main focus. In addition, the Mission and values of the school are the guiding principles to be observed throughout the development. The following elements need to be developed for every academic major: program goals, knowledge or what the student has to be able to do in order to learn to perform the program goals, course goals, course objectives and outcomes and specific assignments in the courses that relate to objectives. All of these elements must be interrelated in order to assist the student in realizing the connectedness of instruction. Instructional design should be working in unison with the hierarchy of learning. A strong knowledge base is developed through reading, facts, and data; however, built upon this foundation is instruction in comprehension, analysis, and synthesis.

Instructional Design

In an article titled, "Instructional Design and the Curriculum Development Process", W. Dick lists the following aspects that are common to all successful instructional design models:

… Needs Assessment: In this initial step of instructional design an analysis is conducted to identify the needs within society that an academic program can address.

… Instructional analysis: Identifies instructional goals, requisite skills that learners need to learn to achieve the goals, objectives, and specific academic standards. The latter is an important element for developing evaluation processes to help achieve the set goals and objectives.

… Learner analysis: Identifies learner instructional needs and characteristics. This is necessary to understand the background, expectations, personal and organizational traits of students in order to match teaching techniques in a comfortable learning environment.

… Instructional setting: Identify and develop instructional delivery systems. This is the time where the class room environment is developed. This can range from lecture format, directed studies, long-distance learning or group cohort learning.

… Instructional strategy: Develops strategies to a) assess learner entry skills b) develop and sustain learner motivation, c) inform learners of informational and behavioral requirements for each objective; provide practice and feedback activities, develop testing plan, pretest, post-test, attitude questionnaire, strategies for remediation and enrichment.

… Materials development; Draft and refine instructional materials. Formative evaluation and input from various groups of faculty, students, and administrators should aid this step.

… Formative evaluation: This is similar to "plan, do, check, act" of a Quality Management system (Deming, 1986). Formative evaluation is used to identify problems and improve instruction during class, instead of waiting until after the course is over.

… User training: Ensure the procedures for use of materials and training of instructors are reliable and valid (Dick, 1987). Unfortunately, integrating technology into the curriculum requires more advanced knowledge than most current professors have. (For more information on instructional design see Andrews and Goodson, 1980 and Smith and Ragan 1991.)

As with the Monks, it is important to realize that the failure of the Academy to change will only partly reside with faculty. Faculty work within a larger system. In an era where corporate dissatisfaction with the outcomes of traditional academic training have caused many private corporations to develop their own in-house "universities", the Academy can no longer afford to defend the status quo.

Technology, a societal need for life-long learning, and increasing recognition of diverse learning styles are forcing colleges and universities to re-examine their ways of teaching and creating learning environments. However, the focus must remain on the student and outcomes of the educational process. Technology is only a tool for achieving the outcomes, it is not an outcome in and of itself. Those institutions that manage to recognize change as an opportunity, that create flexible systems for delivering flexible learning will survive and even thrive.

Current Processes in the College of Business and Management

In order to coordinate the vertical and horizontal integration of the curriculum, the College of Business and Management at Cardinal Stritch University follow a systems approach to course design. Obviously, the outcomes for the program are developed first, followed by the outcomes for the separate courses. Assignments are matched to accomplish the weekly competencies and technology is considered one of the tools (just like textbooks) to achieve the outcomes. A wide net of communication and input are utilized to develop the outcomes/competencies and integrate technology into the curriculum. (An outline is listed below.) Students are not asked to integrate technology in the classroom, they are expected to do this. The University provides notebook computers to students in the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and MBA programs. Moreover, this is true for both the business courses, which may be a natural connection, and for the liberal arts courses, which typically proves to be more of a challenge.

Curriculum Writers author every course in the curriculum and receive input from numerous sources listed below. They are trained in curriculum development and instructional design.

CAFA - Content Area Faculty Advisors are faculty who review the curriculum on a regular basis. This process is unique because a small number of content specialists review specific courses for vertical and horizontal integration within the curriculum.

Focus groups provide a broad internal review of the various aspects of the different programs. The mission of the focus groups is to continually provide recommendations for improving the academic excellence of the programs to meet the needs of students. Membership is comprised of faculty, staff, students, and community members who meet on a regular basis in a structured environment.

Business Visiting Committee (BVC) - This committee provides formative evaluation by meeting three times per year to discuss the curriculum as it relates to the academic objectives, outcomes or competencies. Program objectives are analyzed in relation to the needs of the business community. The main focus of the BVC is to provide input on developing student outcomes, objectives, and competencies. The BVC is not unique to Business programs and can be replicated for any department on campus. Moreover, the members provide more than just input into business components, they typically site the necessary skills of reading, writing, logic, and group work (secured in most liberal arts courses) are essential outcomes in the curriculum.

Faculty are professional facilitators who integrate theory and practice in the classroom. They are the backbone of the andragogical model (versus the pedagogical model). They need to be able to take a more active part in the design process to promote ownership. In addition, students also accept a share of the academic responsibility through group cohort learning in an accelerated format.

Program Effectiveness, Strategic Assessment, and Instructional Design (PESAID) is a process of student academic evaluation in the College of Business and Management. There is pre- and post-testing utilized for cognitive, affective, and liberal arts components for all the various majors. Presently, the program is designed for summative evaluation with an eye toward the regional accrediting agencies. Formative and summative evaluations are the focus of this program to assist with the instructional design process. However, no matter how you design your assessment program, it must be fully integrated into the curriculum design and the results must be used to make improvements. With the advent of technology it makes it even more difficult to have a solid assessment program. (See Ewell and Lisensky, 1988, for more detailed information on institutional effectiveness.

Instructional Design Model and Practical Application

Theoretical underpinnings laid the foundation for a model of instructional design system for the College of Business and Management at Cardinal Stritch University. It was developed through the input of the administration, faculty, and business community by integrating the present CAFA, the assessment program, end-of-course survey process, and delivery system with the theoretical background of educational technology.

Faculty ownership and meaningful dialogue all along the process were building blocks within the development. For example, the basic concepts were visualized by the administration, but the faculty and the Business Visiting Committee were consulted at every step. Even though not all of the suggestions from faculty or the BVC were implemented, these individuals were afforded the opportunity for input. The second element of importance during development was to make the system efficient, complete, and without unnecessary steps. The latter is easier said than done, because inevitably individuals or departments require certain procedural restraints merely due to bureaucratic reasons as opposed to functionality. It is critical to provide the appropriate level of input in the system while adapting to the ever-changing environment.

In the diagram listed below, data, institutional research, and environmental scanning are utilized to analyze the internal and external environment of the College and business community. This includes a market analysis which starts the process with a needs analysis for programs, curriculum, technology, and general areas of academe that need to be addressed.

The Leadership Team, or administration, conducts instructional analyses, outlining the general goals (outcomes), skills (competencies), and standards for each of the particular majors on a continuous basis. They also regularly attend conferences and symposiums to ensure that they remain abreast of the latest technological advancements. The Business Visiting Committee, as described above, meet quarterly to provide practical and real-world advice in the development of the general outcomes (skills) required in the business community for each of the specific majors. This relationship is not only beneficial from an academic standpoint, but it builds bridges of trust and cooperation between the College and community business and organizational leaders. They increasingly demand that students be extremely technologically competent.

Prior to developing new programs, and as part of the continuous monitoring system of pre-existing programs, an analysis of the student's (learner) needs and characteristics is completed. An attempt is made to understand the services and environmental characteristics required by students. Some literature labeled this satisfying customer needs or customer service. Either way, this step addresses the learner analysis, which is supported by surveys and general feedback from conversations with students, meetings, faculty input, and a line of communication from students to the Student Services Office.

The instructional setting, or delivery system, is a vital part of instructional design, yet often overlooked by many institutions of higher education. Assistant Deans are responsible for the daily operations within each of the geographical regions within the College of Business and Management. They provide input on the appropriate instructional setting which includes everything from the classroom environment, type of furniture (tables versus desks), classroom technology, class schedules, location of classrooms, delivery of books and materials, etc. For example, the latter is a key service for the adult student returning to College. It helps to eliminate extraneous concerns while students concentrate on academic course work. Administrative surveys provide constant input from students regarding the level of performance for the delivery system, along with affording an opportunity for new suggestions or areas that additional research. Again, this is a necessary outlet for constant monitoring of the instructional setting for rapid changes. Another example involves the physical layout of the classroom in order to accommodate the ever-increasing technological "toys" required for teaching.

Instructional strategy refers to the development of teaching strategies necessary to accomplish course goals and objectives. After the various program and course goals have been identified, various instructional or teaching techniques, need to be elaborated for the instructors. Obviously, this is a difficult step, because academic freedom within the classroom must be respected, as well as the different styles and characteristics of faculty, especially adjunct (part-time) faculty. There is a fine line to follow by providing a significant amount of guidance for adjunct faculty without being didactic. It has been further complicated by the need to ensure that all faculty are trained and competent in using technology in the classroom. Input from content experts and focus groups of faculty is one way of ensuring that this balance is maintained and currency of the latest instruction is sustained.

Materials and curriculum development is an important step within instructional design, but it is only one piece within the total puzzle. However, too many institutions simply put a notebook computer in front of students and believe they have integrated technology into the classroom. Many institutions develop curriculum in isolation of the other design elements. This may lead to inconsistency. Vertical and horizontal integration within curriculum is best achieved by linking all of the steps together. This includes a direct link to faculty and the business community. Within this model, materials development encompasses curriculum development, as well as syllabi creation, textbook selection, and technological material. For each of the different courses, this could also include specific case studies, articles, additional reading material, and any other material as deemed appropriate by faculty. Content Area Faculty Advisors are comprised of both adjunct and full-time faculty who meet as a group to offer suggestions on both instructional strategy development, material selection, as well as the appropriate technological materials. (At many institutions, part-time faculty teach as much as 50% of the credits generated.) This input is channeled to the curriculum writers who are trained as the experts to synthesize this input and write the curriculum for each course. This provides the best of both worlds by opening lines of communication to the individuals who will be teaching the courses and yet relying on experts to follow the guidelines and theories of curriculum development to produce the final product.

Because curriculum development is such an important element where the student receives the benefit of reading, seeing, and doing a blend of theory and practice, there is an emphasis on quality checkpoints at this phase. In addition to end-of-course surveys, completed by both students and faculty, this model incorporates quality management theory of "plan, do, check, act" (Deming, 1986). A constant monitoring of the goal achievement is initiated. This includes student withdrawal surveys, alumni and employer surveys, as well as cognitive testing, pre-and post-assessment. The latter encompasses both criterion-referenced testing and norm-referenced testing. Of course, each of the assessment instruments is selected, or developed, for specific purposes and the data are gathered to be used for continuous improvement. Strategic assessment is not isolated, or refined for only specific phases within instructional design. It must be a comprehensive program, fully integrated and compatible. Multiple measures throughout the design model provide varying levels of evaluation focusing on specific areas, but when taken as a whole, provide a true picture of effectiveness. Of course, to be truly successful, assessment must not only be part of the model, it must provide avenues for change, especially in the fast-paced business environment. Assessment plays a significant role in this regard, but it also helps satisfy the requirements of both local and national accrediting agencies.

This model is not complete without communication and faculty development. The latter refers to training in all of the above stated areas, as well as training in instructional design. Faculty must not only know what to teach and how to teach the material, but they must also know why they are teaching it. If faculty do not understand the ramification of course goals, outcomes, or instructional strategies, they will probably not follow them and the system will break down. While students must be the focus of the entire model, it is the faculty that deliver it. By including faculty throughout the entire process, institutions take giant strides to securing ownership and thereby, greater chances for successful implementation.

Each of the steps within the model is important and none of them must be glanced over. To work in unison, every component must be inter-related and receive adequate support. The model must support the mission of the College, and must remain focused on the student.

This system should move beyond a process orientation to system development. This may be a shift of the traditional paradigm that institutions of higher education presently operate under. It links all of the processes within curriculum development and revision to the business community. It provides avenues for input from students, faculty, and even the external community to become more competitive while ensuring currency of academe. The idea is to take existing processes that presently operate independently, connect them directly to an Assessment Program, and develop an instructional design system. The system must provide meaningful participation by a multiplicity of individuals affected by the academic instruction. Moreover, one of the overriding goals is to provide both vertical and horizontal integration of pre-existing processes while designing academic structures. A simple model linking instructional design, technology, and the associated infrastructures should serve as a guide. The following diagram is a rendition of how these elements should work together in a cause/effect relationship.

For example, technology can not only help students achieve the outcomes in an American Studies course, but it can be used to more closely match the learning styles of students. There are many examples of using technology in the classroom, but the pictures shown above are a good start. These pictures were downloaded from the Internet and the site provides just-in-time learning by allowing students to view and read about this information. Using the Internet to view this information is better than simply using a PowerPoint presentation, because the former is an active learning environment vs. a more passive style. Another example of an active learning environment is interactive map.

HTTP://DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU/~ATLAS/AMERICA/INTERACTIVE/~.HTML" is just one example of a Web site providing potential for interesting learning. American studies documents, historical and cultural atlases, primary sources and even course outlines or syllabi are available throughout the Web, but the key is to have the faculty member use the information to facilitate learning. The same is true for videos, CD-ROMs, simulation software packages, and other computer programs (Brown and Benchmark CD-ROM, 1995; Grolier Interactive, 1997; and Thynx, 1996). Some of the more interesting CD-ROMs for history and/or American Studies courses include Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia (an oldie but goodie), thynx World History interactive library, and Brown & Benchmark publishers' American Government: the Political Game.

Moreover, more and more schools are turning to software programs like FirstClass, Learning Space, Lotus Notes or Web sties to provide distance (or distance-free) education. Some publishers have realized the importance of technology in the curriculum by providing schools the option of individualizing their own textbooks. Schools can pick and choose chapters, articles, etc. to literally build a textbook to suit their needs. Moreover, Irwin/McGraw Hill is even developing a Web site that provides textbooks, e-mail, tests, videos, articles, instructor manuals, PowerPoint presentations, notes, chatrooms, and connecting Internet sites for a very limited cost (Irwin/McGraw-Hill CD-ROM, 1997). There are entire academic programs such as MBAs on CD-ROMs providing interactive simulations, textbooks, supplemental material, videos, and even associated Internet connections. These forms of technology should not be viewed as toys, but rather as tools to achieve learning outcomes.

In the end, the system should take into consideration the instructor, students, instructional materials, and the learning environment. This is more than simply developing course objectives, it is a matter of using objectives in the instructional process and linking them to specific types of instructional strategies. Schools need to be light on their feet to build bridges of cooperation with the community. Technology does not have to be expensive, innovation may be more beneficial. College and information strategies must be aligned while focusing on the alignment shifts. Afterall, it took 20 years to get the overhead projector out of the bowling alley and into the classroom, we can not wait another two-decades to learn how to use technology, tools, and toys in teaching.

Bibliography

Andrews, D.H. & Goodson, L.A. (1980, April). "A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional Design". Journal of Instructional Development 3, pp. 2-16.

Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. (November/December, 1995). "From teaching to learning--A new paradigm for undergraduate education." Change. pp. 13-25.

Batson, T. & Bass, R. (1996, March/April). "Teaching and learning in the computer age." Change. American Association of Higher Education, pp. 42-47.

Brown & Benchmark CD-ROM. (1995). American Government: The Political Game. Times Mirror Co: Brown & Benchmark.

DeLughry, T. J. (November 24, 1995). "High-tech efficiency?" Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. A17-A19.

Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dick, W. (1986, Dec.). "Instructional Design and the Curriculum Development Process". Educational Leadership. pp. 54-56.

Dolence, M. G. & Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Drucker, P. F. (1996). Managing in a time of great change. New York: Truman Tally Books.

Ewell, P.T., & Lisensky, R.P. (1988). Assessing institutional effectiveness. Washington, DC: The Consortium for the Advancement of Private Higher Education.

Green, K. (1996, March/April). "The coming of ubiquity of information technology." Change. American Association of Higher Education, pp. 24-31.

Grolier Interactive Inc. CD-ROM. (1997). Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Danbury, CT: Grolier Interactive.

Handcock, V. & Betts, F. (1994, April). "From the Lagging to the Leading Edge". Educational Leadership, pp. 24-29.

Irwin/McGraw Hill CD-ROM. (1997). Multimedia Business Library. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Peck, K.L. & Dorricott, D. (1994, April). "Why Use Technology". Educational Leadership, pp. 11-14.

Reinhardt, A. (1995, March). "New Ways to Learn". Byte, pp. 50-71.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline. New York: Double Day.

Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. (1991). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Spender, G. (1994). "Impact of Computer on Learning". Speech at CAEL meeting in Washington D.C.

Thynx CD-ROM. (1996). World History: Interactive Library. Princeton: Thynx.