engaging faculty in the theory and practice of instructional technology getting the egg into the...
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging Faculty
in the Theory and Practice of Instructional Technology
Getting the Egg into the Bottle:
Mike Giordano and Laurie Trufant
Instructional Development CenterUniversity of New Hampshire
Copyright Michael Giordano and Laurel Warren Trufant, 2002. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To
disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
To explore how to engage faculty in the theory and practice of instructional design, motivating them to:
• think creatively• proceed proactively• assume risks
The classic “bottleneck” in this process occurs when aspirations exceed available time.
Why are we here?
We will explore strategies to move faculty through that bottleneck –
without breaking the egg.
Remember when?
• Cook and peel the egg• Place matches in the bottle• Light the matches• Place the egg on top of the bottle• The air is heated and escapes• Air-pressure differential results• The egg drops into the bottle
Cast of characters…
Firestarter: Mike
Our faculty constituents
Instructional Development Center (IDC)
Instructional Technology theory and practices
How can I, as a new manager in a new position, bring disparate resources together to support the enhancement of teaching and learning through the appropriate integration of technology?
What is the challenge?
• Staffing
• Various skill sets
• Existing multimedia services
• Limited budget
• Impact of Blackboard
• Need to expand client base
What are the issues?
• without toppling any eggs,• without breaking any eggs,• while motivating them to think creatively and proactively,• thus drawing them into the IDC bottle.
What are the tasks?
Getting faculty into the bottle…
• Ad hoc consulting• 1:1 support• Project-driven development model• Problem-driven support model• Books ‘n Bytes Committee
The way we were….
Spring Semester1999
• $ for license and renovation• Space from Library• $ from AT for hardware• Expertise from across CIS and Library
Breakthrough….
Academic Technology & Library Collaboration
What we did….
• Some early adopters; some late bloomers
• Risk-taking for all involved
• High anxiety levels all around
• Strong administrative support fromAcademic Technology director
Limited Pilot for 15 Eggs
Summer 1999 – Training Model
• 2 consecutive days• 4 training modules; 3 hours each• Total of 12 hours of intensive training• Total faculty trained = 15
Fall 1999 – Results
• 16 courses; 740 enrollments• Everyone lived• Nothing blew up• Success a direct correlate of survival rate
Fall 1999 – Training Model
• Scheduled on a consensus basis• Set up in sequential tracks• 9 hours required training• Total faculty trained = 42
Spring 2000 – Results
• 52 courses; 1,800 students• Everyone lived• Nothing blew up• Applied more quantitative measures
Spring 2000 – Training Model• Maintained 9-hour training model• Augmented by workshops, forums• Total faculty trained = 45
Summer 2000 – Training Model
• Returned to intensive training model• 3 sequenced tracks; 2 days each• Total 8 hours of training• Total faculty trained = 30
Fall 2000 – Results
• 144 courses; 3,500 enrollments• Everyone lived• Nothing blew up
New concerns
• Scalability – victims of our own success• Upgrade/Hardware• Increasing demand; level staffing• Faculty time constraints
Fall 2000 – Training Plan
• On-line registration; requirements dropped• 1 hour required (Policies and Procedures)• 8 hours optional (2+2+2+2)• Total faculty trained = 74
Spring 2001 - Results
• 175 courses; 8,000 enrollments• Everyone lived; nothing blew up• Increasing demand; level staffing• We are now mission critical
Spring 2001 – Training Model
• Maintained 9-hour model (1 req.; 8 opt.)• Maintained on-line registration• Shift in enrollment toward basics• Total faculty trained = 44
We needed a new plan!
Summer 2001 – QuickStart!
• Maintained on-line registration• 5 hours 3 (Policies + Basics)• Offered on request to departmental groups• Total faculty trained = 94 in 6 weeks!
Fall 2001 - Results
• 308 courses; 18,000 students• Everyone lived• Nothing blew up
12Hours of Training
1999 2000 2001
10
8
6
4
2
01999
500
0
1000
1500
2000
18,0000
2000 2001
Students Enrolled
Faculty Trained
Courses Taught
Where we are….
• Intensive 3-hour QuickStart; 1/week
• Policies as Web-based tutorial
• 90-min. intermediate and advanced
workshops; 4 topics each month
• Departmental training on request
• The Sushi Model: menu of discrete
modules for custom training sessions
What we learned….• Faculty are risk-takers
• Exhaustive training can be inhibiting
• Training can be perceived as an obstacle
• Simplicity can be inhibiting
• Support, not skills or risk, is the key factor
• Primary inhibitor is……TIME
• Encourage faculty to explore broad possibilities of instructional technology
• Promote an awareness and appreciation of instructional design theory
• Allow faculty to concentrate on pedagogical issues and content
• Provide project-based design and development support
• Reduce the need for large investments of faculty time
What we want to do -
How we’d like to do it -
By creating
• Project-driven instructional design teams• Clearly articulated “best practices”• Summer Instructional Technology Institute• Academic Technology Liaison Program• Student Mentoring Program for faculty
How we’d like to do it -
By promoting
• Channels for contact with department Chairs• Ongoing evaluation strategies• Partnerships with other campus services• Partnership with Teaching Excellence• Partnership with Faculty Development Grants
Ideally,
we seek just the right combination of these programs and services – one that will
encourage, but not coerceengage, but not intimidatesupport, but not direct.
Our goal is to generate just enough heat through our programs and services to draw faculty into the instructional technology vision we have for the campus.
For more information:
Mike Giordano, ManagerInstructional Development CenterUniversity of New [email protected]
Laurel Warren Trufant, Ph.D.Instructional Development CenterUniversity of New [email protected]
Presentation available on the IDC Web site. Point your browser to:
http://at.unh.edu/idc