This collection of blogs are aggregated from the ones created by participant teams of the July 2005 EDUCAUSE Instructional Technology Leadership Program 2005.
Executive Summary
Developing Successful Advocates to Promote Technology in Teaching and Learning
Leadership development is an organizational asset. Institutes of higher education need instructional technology leaders who can garner and sustain support across campus and effect change. Many leaders come to these positions without the requisite training or experience in developing relationships essential to accomplish change. As part of the institution’s Leadership Academy, we propose to develop and implement an Advocacy Development Program to educate IT leaders to improve their advocacy skills and relationships.
Overview
This project will develop, implement, and assess an Advocacy Development Program that can be integrated into local leadership programs, professional leadership institutes, and university course offerings by making the advocacy component generic and applicable to other areas of the university. The initial pilot will be developed in conjunction with relevant university stakeholders.
Phases
Phase I: Research – Identify and assess key relationships with stakeholders
Phase II: Assessment Development – Develop assessment tool in consultation with representative stakeholders
Phase III: Program Creation – Develop and deliver a program to develop advocacy skills, which uses the previously developed advocacy inventory
Phase IV: Program Evaluation – Create short-term and longitudinal evaluations to assess program outcomes
Objectives – Year 1
• Identify and prioritize potential advocacy relationships at the institutional level
• Assess technology needs and values of stakeholder groups
• Triangulate among stakeholder groups to identify commonalities and areas of focus
• Develop consistent messaging strategy customized to stakeholder group
• Develop and implement action plans to cultivate three strategic advocacy relationships
Impact and Risks
Helping new leaders understand how relationships affect advocacy increases the speed leaders can successfully transition into their new roles and effect change. The cost of not implementing this type of orientation means that leader may take years to identify and develop stakeholder relationships.
Outcome
An effective leader is a reflective leader…especially one with a sense of direction.
Executive Summary for Making the Case
Aligning the Edges: Maximizing the Academy’s Resources
Submitted by The EdgeWalkers (L. Bringelson, B. Knox, B. Reeves, G. Roberts, M. Weaver)
Currently, our institution is investing resources to support learning and teaching through technology across multiple academic and academic support units. In order to reduce faculty access and confusion issues (with respect to finding appropriate instructional support) and to optimize e-learning content production, it is critical to rethink the use of these resources. This will also allow our institution to proactively address future enhancements and developments for the educational experience.
As of Summer 2005, institutional budget was allocated to provide instructional design and technology services and support in at least eight distinct areas: Schools of Engineering, Arts and Sciences, Departments of Continuing Education, Information Systems, Psychology, and the Teaching and
Proposed Process
Using the following process, it is recommended that a Task Force of representative stakeholders be convened, and report back by May 2006, with the following mandate: maximize the effectiveness of instructional resources for teaching and learning through technology.
· Develop the detailed project plan, including interim milestones and assessment plan;
upportLists]-->· Collect information on the current situation on campus including culture and services, benchmark data from peer institutions, needs analysis and best practices from the literature;
!supportLists]-->· Identify possible solutions, which may include significant organization changes, or systems developing inter-departmental synergies;
!supportLists]-->· Evaluate the possible solutions against the current and desired states;
!supportLists]-->· Recommend appropriate changes to achieve the mandate of the Task Force.
tyle="font-family: "Times New Roman";">
Next Steps to Desired State
As suggested by McNaught, Phillips, Rossiter and Winn (2000), there are three factors critical to change in teaching and learning practice: policy (from the top-down), culture (from the bottom-up) and support (infrastructure). This proposal suggests that by appointing a Task Force with appropriate campus stakeholders, the University administration can make an informed decision on cultural and infrastructure changes to increase the effectiveness of resources for teaching and learning through technology. This will facilitate alignment of institutional resources with the University mission:
“To provide an environment where all learners acquire the knowledge and skills to be productive citizens in a diverse, technologically changing global society and life-long learners.�
A. Multitasking
B. Team orientation
C. Informal
D. Communication centric
E. Engagement with multimedia and pop culture
F. Tech savvy
G. Information/content naiveté
H. Visual
A. Physical Spaces—flexible walls, furniture; wired/wireless; gigabit, storage…(All)
i. Classrooms/lecture hallsPhase I: Target Areas
ii. Seminar rooms
iii. Dorm rooms
iv. lounges
v. Group study
vi. Production labs
vii. Individual
viii. Group
ix. Carrels
x. Rehearsal / performance spaces
xi. Coffee shops, book stores
xii. Museums, exhibit spaces
A. Large Lecture Hall Reconfiguration (virtual labs, gps annotation of environmental spaces)--addresses communication, groups, activeNote: Institute laptop policy and reduce cluster machines in favor of collaboration areas where they can bring in their laptops
B. Rooftop Instruction Garden--open spaces rather than dark halls, blended use of tech and in-person, group work
C. Virtual Plaza for Language Sharing (streaming, databases of video, podcasting for languages)--addresses exciting use of language, portability of pedagogy, connection to community via hispanic/chicano heritage, Cantonese
D. Coffeeshop Kiosks for collaborative projects -- tied to media literacy requirement associated with the writing req and library
E. Drive-In screen/Presentation space in open air/high lumen projector on a crane--Planetarium/Performance space -- enhancement of the arts
B. Virtual Spaces –synchronous and asynchronous, collaborative (Lynnne)
i. Chat a/v
ii. News/blogs
iii. Synchronous
iv. Asynchronous
v. Online project spaces
vi. Collaboration stations (real and virtual combo)
vii. Content management / annotation environments
C. Infrastructure—high speed servers
A. Supporting ProgramsFocus on their needs and where they live in the training:
B. Grants/Pilot--Carrot is using the new space, release time
C. Research Component--Contribute to knowledge of what works
A. Timeline
B. Project Plan—phased implementation
A. Phase 1 Startup Sal
B. Phase 1 Startup Non-Sal
i. Facilities
ii.Furniture
iii. Hardware
iv. Training/Prof Dev
v. Services
C. Phase 2 Ongoing Sal
D. Phase 2 Ongoing and Expansion Non-Sal
i. Facilities
ii.Furniture
iii. Hardware
iv. Training/Prof Dev
v. Services
Virtual Spaces
Peer-to-peer
Instructor to student
Student to content
Chat
Bulletin Boards
CMS groups
E-mail
BLOGS
Wikis
Web sites
3-D environments
Cyber Café
MUDs and MOOs
Shared Workspaces
E-portfolios
Our Campus needs to provide our current and future students with learning experiences and learning environments that accommodate the different learning needs of the current Net-Generation. In order to achieve this we propose that faculty, with the assistance of instructional support units, redesign courses to create more engaging learning environments for students. This effort will be guided by research-based instuctional design principles.
Benefits for Our Campus:
Today's students come to our campus with different expectations and a need for more engaging and interactive learning environments. Because these expectations and needs are not being addressed at Our Campus student satisfaction levels and retention rates are declining. Today’s students are interested in social and collaborative learning and see technology as an essential component of learning and working. Therefore, in order to stay competitive as a Higher-Education institution, Our Campus needs to provide its students with ways to learn that take into account current technology trends. As technology continues to change rapidly, faculty who develop courses do not have the time to stay current with such developments and innovations. Instructional support units are better able to keep current. However, instructional support staff do not have the time and mandate to keep up with research and to distribute and apply this research.
The initial cost will be a slight decrease in faculty support during the time the ID/IT staff and faculty volunteers develop the first projects that are research-based. After this initial phase that we assume will take around 6 months, the new-gained knowledge will help streamline support, will help faculty to make better informed decisions on how to revise their teaching, and thus will improve student learning.
- e-portfolios
- integrated course management system
Some of the important aspects of “stretching� ourselves beyond our comfort zone as instructional designers seem to be the need to get beyond thinking about what is realistic and pretty easy to wrap our heads around and to start thinking about what is strategic – no matter how fuzzy or potentially daunting. Several members of our group, myself included, are used to clear-cut, black and white initiatives or projects. We need to begin thinking beyond what is clearly “doable� and begin thinking of what is messy, politically complex and not easily understood.
Some of the things I find myself needing to improve towards developing myself as a leader include 1. learning the language of leadership, 2. learning how to frame ideas ways that resonate with leaders, and 3. acquire a mentor to help me in this journey. When our group came up with the name “Instructional Alchemists,� I was think we were changing instruction to gold, but now I realize I need to change myself.
Hey, Team -- Here's the latest Exec. Sum. draft. Let me know what y'all think. I worked from the collective draft we created this afternoon, and think I got most of the concepts to fit in here. It's close to the page limit and incorporates the MTC parameters as far as I can tell (though my judgment is rather fuzzy at 1 a.m. . . ). In my late night delirium, I've had a few epiphanies about the visual stuff we need to develop. Somebody ask me about those epiphanies later this morning. . . . Cool. thx. -- Shelli
The Institute for Innovation in Research and Teaching at AU
Executive Summary, submitted by D. Baird, S. Fowler, B. Kuerten, M. Linos, and K. Robertson
Need: Allbright U is already a highly regarded land-grant, research I institution in our region. AU has an exceptional faculty, a strong technology infrastructure, and a nationally recognized academic computing division. We have the talents and resources necessary to be a premiere University for the 21st century, but we have not yet met the challenge of maximizing our capabilities, and effectively connecting and integrating these sectors to produce learning opportunities that will engage 21st-century learners on a university-wide basis. Until we do so, we will not succeed in reaching the current goals outlined in our new strategic plan.
Pilot projects: 1) IIRT Research project: partner with existing AU ADVANCE faculty (focus on addressing recruitment and retention of women and students of color in engineering via inclusive mentoring and undergraduate research practices). 2) IIRT CORE Curriculum project: partner with current consortium of faculty already at work on restructuring the CORE/Gen. Ed. Curriculum.
Funding: The pilot projects seek stakeholder contributions in terms of GA Institute fellowships, and/or Undergraduate Emerging Leader Internships, and/or R&T Faculty course release or equipment purchase as appropriate, and/or IT/ID Prof. Faculty stipends. All stakeholder contributions would be matched with funding from the Provost’s Office. (Initial queries indicate that minor reallocations within current
Assessment & Sustainability: The AU Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis will be consulted in developing comprehensive, longitudinal quantitative and qualitative evaluations of all IIRT initiatives. The pilot IIRT partnership with the CORE Curriculum restructuring project will seek input on assessment strategies intended to measure the integration of teaching, learning, and technology across departments. For example, with the campus-wide ePortfolio project set to rollout in AY 2006, the IIRT will seek input on the construction of metrics for measuring student learning outcomes across all the CORE curricular areas.
Questions in leaders’ minds:
yo, folks -- i am futzing here with the collective drafting we've done this evening (go, team!!); what i've done here is suggest a new format for the exec. sum. as previously agreed, dave (aka geology dude who communed with nature while his team buds were working their hineys off on the project draft; feeling guilty, dave? nah, didn't think so, and we're just kidding with ya, bud!) has generously agreed to lead the charge in the visuals dept. we're thinkin', dave, that one snazzy visual image (which bruce says you've already been working on), and a clean, simple-and-to-the-point Ppt. slide or two/three that pulls out some central points will do it. we want the power of the idea to do the sell, and not rely on razzle/dazzle . . . .
i will continue to work on a revision of this draft tonight and will post again later. please post suggestions; all are welcome. oh yeah, btw, the CORE team rocks!!!!! yes, dave, pun intended. :)
Proposal for the Institute for Innovation in Research and Teaching
Executive Summary, submitted by Dave Baird, Shelli Fowler, Bruce Kuerten, Megan Linos, and Kathy Robertson
Need:
Albright U is already a highly regarded land-grant, research I institution in our region. We have the talents and resources necessary to be a premiere University for the 21st century. But we are not yet such an institution. AU has a nationally ranked faculty and a strong technology infrastructure / human infrastructure, but we have yet to effectively connect these sectors in ways that produce the kind of outcomes that engage 21st-century learners.
Rationale:
We are proposing an Institute that will …..
Funding:
Fund the center. Produce two pilots
We’re looking for dollars that will match an existing and successful project. Fund two projects: (1) those engineering faculty supporting undergraduate research initiatives. Dean will buy in and match (2) and we’ll tap into AU’s Advance Project funded by NSF via the faculty participants. Though the institute they will have accesses to our technology wizzes so that they can meet their project goals of the project by better integrating technology which increases participation of women and minorities by 30 per cent (from Oblinger)
The second pilot program engages the goal of integrating teaching and learning technologies by –once again-- building on an initiative already in progress. For the last xx months, the Provost’s office has funded an initiative to re-examine and restructure the University’s Core Curriculum – Gen Ed. This initiative has already brought together faculty from every college, and with support from the Institute we’re gonna integrate ID and IT. Teambuilding. To get Faculty to engage –as equals-- with ID and ID professionals. A curriculum (climate change) within the Institute will facilitate an integration of the parts. We’re gonna give the faculty an attitude adjustment. But we’re gonna give the faculty a financial inducement (fellowships, release time, summer stipends) for the additional work we will expect from them. And we want from the Provost/President some policy change on T and P. On the IT/ID side we’re gonna offer bonuses. This curriculum, this comprehensive treatment is something that no other University has done. It is a 21st solution to 21st century issues.
In this peer to peer climate adjustment workshop. The GTA is preparing the future professoriate. It’s funded by Grad school and IT. The last constituency are the undergraduates – an emerging leadership workshop… that curriculum is in development, funded by residential life and Instructional Technology. It will create a population of critically engaged life long learners who are better prepared for the workforce. By so doing the University demonstrates its responsiveness to the business environment around it. In bringing in the last two constituencies we are, at matriculation, we are beginning to create leaders of the 21st century who will emerge as the future alumni funders of the University.
In my opinion, an effective assessment plan will make this proposal completed. How to determine whether this is a successful program after implementation is something wothwile to think about. Here I would like to contribute some ideas to assess this program, please feel free to add or modified –
1. Curriculum Effectiveness
Qualitative Approach
· Feedback on the workshop/curriculum
· Feedback on the support staff
· How does the curriculum demonstrate its influence in better teaching and learning environment?
Quantitative Approach
· How many training workshops have been offered?
· How many participants have joined the workshops?
· How many one-on-one support consultation cases have engaged?
2. Teamwork Experience
Qualitative Approach
· Satisfaction on teamwork experience
· Work allocation
· Role
· Compensation system
Quantitative Approach
· How many faculty are participate in this program?
· How many GE courses are being built with the program support?
3. Student’s Feedback
Qualitative Approach
· Student Satisfaction
· Course Evaluation
Quantitative Approach
· Class participation
· Class Attendance
· Student’s Performance (Student Outcome)
4. Technology and Infrastructure
Qualitative Approach
· Network
· Server
· Course Management System
· Technology Enhanced Classroom
· Stability of the infrastructure/technology
· Security Issues
· What is missing and that has stop progressing?
· Is the technology used efficiently and effectively?
Quantitative Approach
· How often does what technology is being utilized in the classroom? (Matrix)
5. Faculty Growth
Qualitative Approach
· Faculty’s feedback
· The difference between now and then
· The difference in teaching style and utilized educational technology
Quantitative Approach
· How often does faculty utilize the support and services?
· How many faculty have participated?
6. Effective Teaching and Learning
Qualitative Approach (Some of these are repeated)
· Student's Performance
· Class Participation
· Class Attendance rate
· Student Engagement
· Faculty's Viewpoint in Change
· Learner center approach (Being implemented effectively?)
· Prepare learner to be the future professional in the work place?
Quantitative Approach
FACULTY BUCKET
· level of technology skills, comfort level
· promotion and tenure pressures
· competing priorities, time to devote to learning and using IT
· lack of incentives for learning and using IT
· full-time or adjunct
· their training/education in teaching and learning (level of awareness, knowledge and skills in this area)
· willingness to try something new, take a risk
· rewards for good or improving teaching
ET
·
· accessibility to technology
· level of technology skills, comfort level
· desire or interest in IT use
· need for social interaction
· desire to learn
desire to get good grades
I would like to take a new twist on our “Making the Case�. If we are presenting to a panel of “provost� then I would like to propose we be specific about one or two “implementation plans� to solve a “PROBLEM� that would allow for campus-wide buy-in for engagement and adoption of instructional technology in teaching and learning.
How can instructional technology help with this “mystery� provost problem? I will list what our campus issues are or “mystery� provost problem. However, I am a bit weak in this area and could use your input and discussion.
What problem would the provost be attuned to that instructional technology could help solve that would allow for campus-wide buy-in of an appropriate use of instructional technology?
Major problems
-Increased enrollment not enough faculty and space for teaching.
-Large course enrollment (Chem 101 ), not enough space
Other minor problems? (don't think these are worth addressing at this time)
-Expense of hard copies of course material. (place material online-push the cost to students)
-Today’s student’s learning styles and emotional intelligence becoming more important in the workplace vs GPA.
-All faculty should use a CMS or have a web presence for every course. WHY??
________________________________________________________________________________
Here is some research I had done previously on implementing CHANGE in this area.
Higher education involves many complex facets of culture even among the same institutions and across institutions. The culture of the university (research focused/rewarded versus instructional focused/rewarded) and it’s methods of faculty engagement can be dependent upon resources, trust and types of innovations used in teaching.[1]
One model “organizational development� suggests that there must be strong support from top management and trained consultant on site. In contrast, the “linkage model� depends upon the facilitator’s knowledge of the new product and their ability to persuade and help others with the new resources. A key feature of the “linkage model�, found in studies by Louis and Rosenblum (1981) ,that successful “linkers� are characterized by their initiative, the amount of time they spend on-site, the amount of training they provide and the variety of training tools they use.[2] And in yet another model it suggests that in order for change to occur (or adoption) the idea needs “to be relevant to what the particular group of instructors perceives as the problems� and the solutions should be designed and delivered with differences in mind.[3] For example, once innovators users are confident and competent in their use of the new practice, they can afford to be more concerned about how their work is influencing students.
As for the leadership role in the process of facilitating change, Hall & Hord, (1984) stressed that there appears to be no particular “leadership traits� that better facilitates change, with the exception that in the educational setting successful leaders fluctuate their leadership style with the situation at hand.
What has developed for facilitating change in technology and teaching in the 21st Century? Hagner suggests a combination of support (resources, incentives and benefits) and knowing the type of University “culture� one has will help reach the Early and Late Majority which he refers to as the “second wave� of faculty.[4] Have we not bridged the gap to this “second wave� of faculty because of the “one size fits all� model? Are the innovators and early adopters’ needs different than the “second wave� faculty needs? What do the “second wave� faculty need to adopt instructional technology? Is there a compelling reason to adopt?
[1] Hagner, P.R. (January 25th, 2001) Interesting Practices and Best Systems in Faculty Engagement and Support, NLII White paper
[2] Louis, K. S., and Rosenblum, S. (1981, July). Designing and managing interorganizational networks. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education.
[3] Hall, Gene E. and Hord, Shirley, M. (1984) Change in Schools, Facilitating the Process, State University of New York Press
[4] Hagner, P.R. (January 25th, 2001) Interesting Practices and Best Systems in Faculty Engagement and Support, NLII White paper.
Making the Case project clarifications
We are keeping things on the loose side, means that there will be more negotiation amongst the team members.
Have to keep this in perspective. This is not the entire institute. This can’t consume us for the next two-three days.
I will summarize all this as the pieces come together, so if others have theirs done, the earlier the better—I can try to then do the synthesis before
q Identify potential advocacy relationships at the institutional level
q Prioritize three key areas for advocacy exploration
q Assess IT needs of and values of key stakeholder groups
q Triangulate among stakeholder groups to identify commonalities and areas of focus
q Develop consistent messaging strategy customized to stakeholder group
q Develop action plans to cultivate three strategic advocacy relationships
Board of Regents
o What are their key values as related to technology?
o What outreach efforts do we provide for this stakeholder group?
o May be carefully “guarded�; institutional competition for their time and attention
q Potential Strategies
o Sharing student success stories
o Celebrating faculty success stories
o Involvement in technology plan
o Leadership traits
o Dominant values, especially as related to technology
o Administrative focus – money follows priorities
o Understanding of budget process
§ Cycle
§ Fixed and variable components
o Perceived role of teaching vs. research
o Dominant disciplines
o Assess institutional personality in terms of Native American Wheel
§ Positive times
§ Stressful times
o How are conflicting priorities handled?
o Perceived “black hole� of IT funding
§ Key university initiatives
q Potential Strategies
o Have we articulated alignment to mission and vision of the institution?
o Involvement in committees
§ Teaching and learning
§ Space/facilities planning
§ Instructional resources
o Aligning with key initiatives
o Current state
o Desired state
q Pathway to success
"Producing campus-wide* buy-in for engagement in and adoption of instructional technology in teaching and learning."
*faculty, deans, and students
Can we define the type of Institutional Settings where our plan will be implemented (Not sure if this is correct). To start, maybe small universities that value teaching.?
These are some “determinants of context� from the presentation on Monday morning:
Can we identify the current and desired states of our three target groups? The path between the two?
eight: bold;">Current: Most are resistant to technology or may only use it to deliver information (post notes, syllabus). They rarely attend training seminars to learn more about technology. See technology as a threat to their job security or a means by which their work will be judged by others (too many people looking at their stuff).
Desired: Actively integrating technology for pedagogical purposes. Open to emerging technologies, eager to learn, and good relationships with IT and ID Staff.
Path between current and desired states (based on Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Model)
Decision
Implementation
Confirmation
Issues that ARE addressed in the above plan:
/>
Insert Project Plan based on above Assessment
Second Phase of Assessment:
Possible Conclusion: Is there a "gap" between the faculty who are reluctant and the new faculty so that present day we MUST support both of these models? Teaching the faculty who want to be taught and fishing for those faculty who don't. Will the 2nd scenario diminish overtime? As the Net Generation becomes mature and begins to replace those reluctant faculty.
Overarching Question
Associated Questions
Stakeholders
When
Who
Methods
What if we just made up a new topic... Here is something I will throw out there to perrhaps start a conversation...
"Create a program that fosters communication, conversation, and collaboration between faculty members and technologists both within and outside of an institution."
This could be done by providing showcases, workshops, and other opportunities for conversation between these groups. We could also examine some models that are currently out there.
I just added my card (which I captured with my handy dany Olympus C765) I have no time at work to learn the tools I buy for faculty... including this frustrating tablet PC which keeps jumping the text.
Theresa
