1. 1 Paul Kim Chief Technology Officer Stanford University School of Education Does Academic Technology Competency Make CIO 2.0?

2. 2 Discussion Topics * Transformation of CIO roles in the higher education space * Parallelism paradox in academic technology R&D * Creating new traditions

3. 3 Traditional Foci (CIO1.x) Connectivity Legacy systems E-mail service management File servers, computer labs, desktop support

4. 4 Traditional Foci (CIO1.x) ERP Designing (More of dreaming) Too busy putting out the fire Getting the best systems engineers (Network/Server)

5. 5 Evolved Traditions (CIO 2.x) Productivity Security & IP Protection A/VOD/ Wireless coverage/Web portals

6. 6 Evolved Traditions (CIO 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. 7 Emerging Challenges (CIO 3.x) Accountability  Intelligence-based tracking in all areas Resource Virtualization/Streaming Apps/Fast backup & restore/Just-in-time stuff Learning Outcomes as mROI  E-portfolio system, Learning outcome matrices

8. 8 Emerging Challenges (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. 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. 10 Parallelism Paradox in Academic Technology R&D

11. 11 Research 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. 12 Research Outcomes

13. 13 Positive Outcomes Instructors  More technology enthusiasts  Better adopters Well controlled experiments Smaller sample populations Stakeholder support

14. 14 Disappointing Outcomes (One-size fits none)

15. 15 Replications Not Feasible Large and real settings Multiple complex dimensions Highly heterogeneous learners Less technology enthusiasts Instructors with much administrative tasks Not enough support

16. 16 What might have made a difference… Large and real settings  Need more in-depth situation-specific needs analysis Multiple complex dimensions  Tackle one dimension at a time Highly heterogeneous classes  Class management technology and Self-remedy solution Less technology enthusiasts  Build a community of support first Instructors with much administrative tasks  Unbundling roles Not enough support  No learning curve solution Overall, they were in need of simple, highly adaptive and flexible technology that is most relevant to the learning context

17. 17 Creating New Traditions In Academic Technology

18. 18 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. 19 Evolved interests (AT 2.x) Situation Specificity Cultural Sensitivity Practical Usability Theoretical Applicability Economic Scalability Viable Sustainability

20. 20 Emerging Interests (AT 3.x) Educational entrepreneurship  Tangible impact (Either for-profit or non-profit) Bridging with social innovations  Local, regional, and global community needs

21. 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. 22 Conclusion

23. 23 No update, no gain Technology gets old too fast Need to learn to learn better

24. 24 No transformation, no chances Make time to examine the changes and patterns in the education space Become adaptable to the new environments Respond to the new needs

25. 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?