The Uses of Technology in Community Colleges

ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges
By Charles L. Outcalt
EDO-JC-03-09
October, 2003

Because of the recent virtual explosion in the use of computers and related technology in community college campuses, the educational literature is replete with examples of the benefits of technological advances. In recent years technology has affected almost every facet of the community college, but its impact is particularly evident in two areas: college administration and in support of instruction and learning. Milliron and Miles (1998), for example, found that technology “has infused the educational enterprise, offering community college faculty a dazzling array of instructional tools and techniques” (p. 5). Despite the benefits of technology, there remain many challenges in acquiring the hardware and using the software, and many cautionary voices about its use. This Digest will explore the uses of technology in support of student learning and college administration, and will also discuss several of the challenges technology presents for community colleges.

The Uses of Technology in Support of Learning

Technology has transformed learning in community colleges. From the use of email to instructional methods involving on-line collaboration and simulation to the immediate availability of information resources on the World Wide Web, technology has influenced nearly every aspect of learning. However, some researchers have cautioned that community colleges -- along with four-year institutions – must revise their internal structures and priorities to make the best possible use of instructional technologies.

This process of structural revision is already underway at many community colleges. For example, two-year colleges have long utilized technology in order to serve distance education students, students with disabilities, and students in developmental education. Morman (2000) describes the potential for online education to revolutionize the delivery of educational services at a distance. He makes special note of the role that online education could play to enhance workforce training, particularly within the scope of the Workforce Investment Act. For Morman, “The Web is fundamental to the success of this new WIA delivery system—and ultimately to public and private efforts to develop a more highly skilled workforce” (p. 34).

Farmer (2001) discusses the ways technology can increase access to instruction for students with a range of personal challenges. According to Farmer, technology in general, and online education in particular, can dramatically extend the reach of the community colleges. In discussing North Carolina’s Virtual Learning Community and its successful distance learning programs, he cited several students for whom technology has made a community college education possible, including those with temporary disabilities, students who seek to balance employment and enrollment, and individuals with extensive family commitments.

Some of the most promising applications of instructional technology are designed to assist students in need of developmental education. MacDonald and Caverly (1998) reviewed several programs that assist developmental writing students, including a software package that features a multimedia approach and coaches students through grammar and writing. MacDonald and Caverly also note that instructional technology offers enhanced opportunities for collaboration, which can greatly benefit students in need of remedial education. However, the use of computers in developmental education remains somewhat controversial, as some instructors doubt that developmental students are academically prepared to use technology.

The Uses of Technology in Support of College Administration

Just as technological innovation has created new opportunities for instruction and student learning, it has also allowed for new methods to support college administration. Milliron and Miles (1998) found that technology enhanced communication, both among and between students and teachers, and helped faculty with instructional administrative tasks such as course management. In the years since the Milliron and Miles report was published, numerous examples of such administrative applications of technology have been reported. In one example, Gilson (2000) describes the ways computers can be used beyond the classroom to transform non-instructional processes. In particular, he discusses the use of portals which, when used properly, can become the digital infrastructure for the entire campus community. Campus portals can also provide a unified means of obtaining access to campus services. Other administrative applications include the integration of human resources, student administration, and financial operations, as well as the ability to share information across departments and facilitate state and federal reporting requirements. Additionally, some community colleges now support student registration, scheduling, and tuition and financial aid processing through integrated systems, as well as track the use of student support services such as counseling and tutoring.

The Challenges of Acquiring, Integrating and Using Technology: Cautionary Voices

While much has been written about the usefulness of technology in supporting student learning and college administration, many practitioners and researchers have also issued cautionary statements about potential detrimental impacts of technological innovation on community college campuses. These statements have centered around three major themes; the cost of technology, the “digital divide,” or unequal access to technology, and policy issues related to technology use at community colleges.

The Cost of Technology

Elsner (2000) acknowledges that one of the most pressing issues facing community colleges is the cost of acquiring and implementing technology. He notes that community colleges, as heavy investors in technology, have sometimes been persuaded by hardware and software developers to pursue technological solutions that often are not cost-efficient or even functional. Petrides (2002) believes that in order to increase the cost-effectiveness of technological innovation on community college campuses, administrators must shift from focusing on specific technological solutions and instead initiate a broader conversation about knowledge management. Once community college campuses make this shift, Petrides believes, their investment in technology can begin repay itself through institutional transformation.

The Digital Divide

Other cautionary voices have emerged around the issue of access to technological innovation, and more than one researcher has noted that it would be a mistake to assume that all students and campuses have benefited equally from technology. Sink and Jackson (2000) highlight a little-discussed challenge facing community colleges: the “digital divide” between urban and rural colleges. With their proximity to population centers, urban community colleges tend to be better wired than their rural counterparts, which often cannot provide their students the same level of access to technological resources. Katsinas and Moeck (2002) considered the urban/rural digital divide in more general terms. They analyzed federal government reports on computer usage, finding that rural computer users, across almost all characteristics analyzed (age, race, ability, educational attainment and income,) reported less access to and usage of technology. The authors concluded that “rural areas of the country are being left behind” (p. 219), that the rural/urban gap is growing, and that this widening gap has important implications for rural community colleges, many of which lack adequate funding for technological infrastructure.

Policy Issues Related to Technology

Cautionary voices have also pointed out that there are significant policy issues related to technology use at community colleges. For example, the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (2000) produced a position paper that discussed, at considerable length, the administrative consequences of information technology on two-year campuses. The paper delved into complex issues such as the right to privacy in electronic communication, intellectual property questions (including ownership of electronically-delivered courses), and concerns over the impact of technology on faculty workload.

Additional policy issues arise when the cost of technology on two-year campuses is transferred to students. This issue has become heated in recent years, as many community colleges have raised student fees in order to pay for computer equipment, software, and Internet services. For example, in 2002, after a 40 percent cutback in state appropriations for technology spending, students attending community colleges in Virginia saw their technology fees double from $1.50 to $3 per credit hour (Carnevale, 2002). Some students, legislators, and community college scholars and practitioners have objected to the idea that students should be responsible for the cost of technology applications, especially ones that don’t directly benefit them.

Conclusion

This Digest has considered how technological innovation can support learning and instruction as well as administration at community colleges. At the same time, it has noted that technology acquisition and implementation brings challenges as well as benefits. Perhaps Transue (2001) summarized the potential rewards and hidden risks of technology in community colleges best when she commented, “although technological innovations are exciting, we must remember that technology is a tool—one that should help our lives, not rule them” (p. 6).

References

Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges. (2000). Technology in education: A summary of practical policy and workload language. Sacramento, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED445711).

Carnevale, D. (2002, April 26). Virginia’s community colleges mull higher technology fee. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A38.

Elsner, P. A. (2000, April). Rival views of technology: Leadership lessons for an uncertain future. In TEND 2000: Proceedings of the Technological Education and National Development Conference, Crossroads of the new millennium. Paper presented at the second annual Technological Education and National Development Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED446266).

Farmer, K. (2001). Doors to opportunity: A virtual learning success. Community College Journal, 72(2), 34-39.

Gilson, D. (2000). Portals: Foundation for an online campus. Community College Journal, 71(2), 24-28.

Katsinas, S. G., & Moeck, P. (2002). The digital divide and rural community colleges: Problems and prospects. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(3), 207-224.

MacDonald, L, & Caverly, D. C. (1998). Techtalk: Technology for developmental writing. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(1), 34-35.

Milliron, M. D., & Miles, C. L. (1998). Technology, learning, and community (TLC): Perspectives from teaching excellence award recipients. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED423933).

Morman, D. A. (2000). New Web tools click with community colleges. Community College Journal, 71(2), 34-37.

Petrides, L. A. (2002). Turning knowledge into action: What’s data got to do with it? League for Innovation in the Community College Leadership Abstracts, 15(8).

Sink, D. W., & Jackson, K L. (2000). Bridging the digital divide: A collaborative approach. Community College Journal, 71(2), 38-41.

Transue, P J. (2001). The big box: Looking back on technology. Community College Journal, 72(2), 6.

This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-99-CO-0010. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.

University of California, Los Angeles
3051 Moore Hall
P.O. Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Updated October 10, 2003