Creating a faculty support model to increase faculty adoption of technology
Drew DanielsEd Evans
Paul FisherRuth Maschino
Bo Zigner
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Team Blowfish
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Fugu University: Institutional Setting
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
•Small Private College in coastal New England with 5,000 students.
•Highly selective, largely residential, 90% of the students coming from out of state.
•Level 1 research institution •500 faculty (400 on tenure track) experienced, internationally known.
•Extensive IT Infrastructure, including network resources with room for growth
•Currently in the middle of a capital campaign
Instructional Support Center
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Largely reactive unit reporting to the President through the CIO
Director
Instruction Designer ProgrammerInstructionalTechnologist
Admin. Assistant
Current State
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Faculty/Adminstrative Committee administered Gap Analysis Assessment to campus community
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Students Desire Faculty Deliver
Multimedia
Blackboard
The Challenge
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
• Our ability to be successful in empowering faculty members is highly dependent upon:– the technology faculty are using– the desire of faculty to use technology– the desire of students– support from upper administration
Student Preferences
―Kvavik, 2004―Kvavik, 2004
0
20
40
10
30
Limited IT
Moderate IT
No IT
Extensive IT
Online
Per
cen
tag
e
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Diffusion of Innovation
E.M. Rogers (1995)
Innovators Risk-aversives
EA EM LM LI
Give a man a fish and you’ll feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish and you’ll feed him for a lifetime.
Support Models for Faculty
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
• Fish For Them: the instructional development unit does all the work in consultation with the faculty member.
• Teach Them to Fish: train the faculty, empower them to innovate on their own (continuously)
Pros• Faculty get 1-on-1 staff
support• Good option for complex
technology• Good option for faculty
new to technology• Quality control• Minimal faculty time
needed• Students get what they
want
Pros• Sustainable and
scalable solution for course development
• Good for faculty that are more self-reliant
• Faculty empowerment• Students get what they
want
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Cons• Not a scalable or
sustainable solution• Frustrates those
who want to fish for themselves
• Shallow use of technology
Cons• Requires standards
and choices• Requires
development of user documentation
• Investment of time• Meeting the variety
of faculty learning styles
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Professor Peter Puffer
• Tenured-full professor in the hard sciences
• Internally renowned, Level 1 researcher
• Currently has 10 million in grants
• TA’s do all the work• Secretary prints out email
each day for him to read• Has been Acting Dean,
Acting Provost but never got the job
Professor Gayle Sashimi
• New tenured track faculty in History
• Just developed online, interactive game on the Underground Railroad
• Has to work hard for funding but is a rising star in her field
• She completed all of her own work occasionally consulting with IT
• Is very much high touch with her students electronically and is well aware of the role of technology in the lives of today’s student
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Professor
Peter Puffer
Professor
Gayle Sashimi
Ble
nde
d S
upp
ort
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Cook it wrong and it’s poison
Cook it right and it’s a delicacy.
The 2 Year Plan
FY2006 Objectives:
Expand staff and resources Add 2 instructional designersAdd 1 graphic designer Add 1 videographer Add 1 trainerDevelop Student Program
Faculty Development Plan & Incentives Recruit Early AdoptersRelease time for development/consultationInternal Granting InitiativesWorkshops
Increase Services to FacultyCourse Shell development Blackboard training Multimedia development Multimedia training
Assessment (end of year)Services: Focus Groups w/students and facultyTechnology Use: Administer Survey Tool
FY2007 Objectives:
Analyze Assessment Results and Adjust Course
Recruit Faculty Peer Consultants
Continue Faculty Development Plan & Incentives(target different faculty)
Release timeStipendsWorkshopsBest Practices
Increase Depth of UseMore Interactive Learning Objects Case Based LearningOnline Course Development
AssessmentAdminister Survey to campus community
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Goal: Double faculty adoption of technology
Assessment Questions
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Have we doubled the adoption of desired technology?How many faculty are using Blackboard?How many faculty have incorporated multimedia? How effective are the uses of these technologies?Have we met student expectations?
Target audience: students, faculty and instructional support staffFocus groups to develop survey Administer survey 2nd half of winter semester Work to adjust services for fall term
Effectiveness of faculty development
Budget Requests
Requested Budget Increase: $648,200Personnel: $418,750 to $931,200
Operating: $81,250 to $217,000
Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005
Presidents may dream visions and vice presidents may design plans, and deans
and department heads may try to implement them, but without the support of
faculty members, nothing will change – Tony Bates, Director of Distance Education, University of British Columbia
We ask that you join our vision!