Book Review - Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. Author: A. W. (Tony) Bates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It's well written, cogent, and enjoyable.I saw a presentation by Bates last year and didn't like it.Either I was in a bad mood and didn't hear his message, or that message was different from the message of the book "Managing Technological Change."Likely, it was the former.This book is a must read for anyone in higher education who deals with technology, teaching, administration, or some combination of these elements.The book incorporates technology in that it lists web sites related to a number of topics covered in the various chapters.For example, in the chapter on leadership, visioning, and planning, there are a number of listed web sites that offer examples of strategic and technology plans.Not only is the book well written, but it is also comprehensive in nature.It covers topics of vital concern for all who are involved in technology-enhanced or technology-based learning.Some of the topics include: (a) the challenge of technology and rationales for using it; (b) technology forms, approaches and their impacts on teaching and learning; (c) leadership in technology use, organizational structures, visioning and strategic planning; (d) infrastructure and access issues including physical and human infrastructure, funding, infrastructure adequacy, the relationship of infrastructure to academic planning, and the issues associated with requiring students to purchase technology or to access it; (e) supporting faculty in terms of development of faculty skills and products, faculty fears, intellectual property, and copyright issues; (f) the costs of teaching with technology; (g) funding strategies, collaborations, and competition; (h) management of technologies; (i) research and evaluation; and (j) a perspective on the technology challenge that faces us all.The book hits a number of nails right on their heads.It holds true to its intended audiences: administrators, academic department heads, and faculty.The messages for each are important and timely.A few examples will demonstrate what I mean.University central administrators who read this book will learn about the singularly important job of providing a vision for technology within a university.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.031 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".