tech no faculty

I just read two more articles bemoaning the challenges of getting faculty to use instructional technology in ways that benefit students. Both articles offer the same staid suggestions for technology adoption, as well as the standard 5-step approach for implementing technology -- any technology -- to address a specific problem.

These regurgitated suggestions always fail to recognize the audience -- the faculty we are asking to rethink and retool. Beyond the anecdotal generational differences among faculty, there are a few other "conditions" that cause faculty to not fully accept our best efforts and good intentions in regard to instructional technology. For starters, faculty will not read anything that is not specific to their discipline, area or research, or something they've written themselves. Countless hours have we scribed workbooks, templates, tools, and guides to assist faculty in preparing to use instructional technology, only to find the wealth of knowledge therein committed only to the ether. Instead, faculty prefer to learn about instructional technologies by simply calling the help desk and asking, "How do I use [mention technology here] for my class that starts tomorrow?
 
To compensate for the lack of engagement with our written materials, we've fallen back on face-to-face training sessions scheduled around proven and well-designed project plans. Yet when provided a chance to sit and work hands-on with a new technology, faculty disregard the schedules, project plans, and other activities associated with having a course structured and complete prior to the start of the semester. They prefer, instead, to not interact with others -- particularly when with their peers -- nor to engage with support staff when in group training settings. Maybe it's an ego thing. Most likely, it's an ego thing.
 
So what are we left with? Beyond the old 5-step solutions, here's what seems to be working in places that have the balls to do it: First, link faculty training directly to an incentive -- pay them or reward them in some other way to learn and adopt instructional technologies for their courses. As with any effort involving faculty, get to know the culture in which you're working. Find out what motivates faculty and leverage those motivations in the cultural contexts of your school, college or university. Money and release time seem to be the most popular motivators. Second, teach faculty as they go -- don't jam them up with the traditional show-and-tell type training. Let them move through the technology in ways that scaffolds their use and competency -- make the technology seamless to their instructional objectives. This is the ego rub -- it's where you can make them think it's their idea. It works really well when done tactfully.

Two things to consider. Lots of issues associated with both. Of course, nothing is as easy it should be. All we can do is to keep chopping. Chop, chop, chop.

governance and chaos

It doesn't look like it should work, but it does...

I left the Sloan-C conference last week with a renewed vigor, ready to embrace the chaotic cultural context in which undergraduate online teaching and learning occurs at Syracuse University. The chaos is a byproduct or the operational and academic autonomy that each of our schools and colleges maintain. In regard to governance of online initiatives, this autonomy necessitates a multi-level structure. Faculty and Deans provide governance at the local level. The Provost's office provides oversight and considers initiatives against the University's broader goals. In regard to support and implementation, the Provost, CIO, and Dean of University College work collaboratively (at least in spirit) with Deans and faculty to determine courses of action. In regard to quality, the faculty ultimately certify that their courses satisfy the instructional requirements for the course. As a University, we've not yet decided how to address faculty preparation and design/development support (centralized or de-centralized, in-source or out-source, etc.), but it is coming. Policies relating to online teaching and learning are made at the local level, with only scant consideration toward executive level oversight/approval. Again, the autonomy of the schools and colleges means resolution of policy issues is a local process which involves central University administration only when necessary.

So here's what I got out of my work with Sloan-C this year: I went into the IELOL program thinking the differences in organizational cultures across the schools and colleges complicate efforts to standardize support and governance for online initiatives. What I've discovered is that the differences don't necessarily complicate the efforts if we approach governance and support as a shared effort. It's in that space of sharing that I see University College working well. Our entire mission is about sharing and brokering -- about working collaboratively across the campus.  That's the organized chaos in which we operate.

... and we never get bored.

pew and the new online learner

The keynote at this year's Sloan-C was delivered by a really smart guy from the Pew Foundation. They've completed yet another great research project that would imply we have to think about online teaching and learning in different ways -- or do we.

Pew claims we're in the midst of a digital revolution with three components: 1) broadband access, 2) social networking, and 3) mobile computing. The mobile aspect of the digital revolution is really interesting in only one regard: There are now 328 million wireless lines in the US. The total population of the country is 315.5 million. Do the math. Broadband is simple -- the number of homes, schools, and public places that have broadband has doubled in five years and continues to increase. With broadband comes better access, better access means engagement in things like... social networking.

I've never been a fan of generational labels, simply because I'm at the extreme top end of the GenX club (35-46). I've often thought I have more in common with the Baby Boomer generation than GenX, but Pew doesn't think so. In regard to the social networking component of the digital revolution, my generation has, on average, 196.7 Facebook friends. I don't think this statistic means anything by itself, but it is part of the overall claim that our friends, followers, likers, etc. in social media spaces facilitate peer-to-peer learning by doing. This learning by doing aspect of online social spaces is changing the role of social networks. In one interesting way, our social networks are now serving as early warning systems; we use them to gauge what's going on and to evaluate information -- to connect with (perceived) smarter people and determine what is true and what we should care about. Most interesting about these changing social spaces is the way in which we are using them to cobble together learning experiences -- DIY learning. People don't need credentials to teach us and we don't have to be accepted into a closed or elite community to learn.

So what does all this say about online learning? I still don't believe digital literacy is necessarily a prerequisite for being a successful online learner. What it does say is that as attention zones change, we may find that more of our students (traditional age through adult learners) will begin to demand more learning opportunities beyond the physical and virtual classroom structures we use today.

A final point from the keynote. The Pew guy asked, "Has the digital revolution -- technology -- made us stupider?" We all laughed and he answered: "We're not any stupider now than we were 20 years ago. The difference is that today we can find the answers to questions and problems instantly using smartphones and connected devices."

sloan-c and the state of online learning at su

First session of the Sloan-C conference starts shortly. I'm going to make a concerted effort to post thoughts, comments and concerns. Before I get too far along, I'm going to set up the framework or online teaching and learning at Syracuse University for my proposal to my IELOL colleagues, which I'll present tomorrow.

When I first met with a senior University official to discuss aspects of online teaching and learning, my initial feeling was that we (the University) were being naive and little short-sighted in regard to online initiatives. Having now (nearly) completing the Sloan-C IELOL program, I have an entirely new perspective on the University's position.

At the graduate level, Syracuse University has a highly interdisciplinary set of programs with clear differentiation points. It's clear that the University will be more aggressive in pushing these opportunities, but we will not accommodate a free-for all among the schools and colleges. The University Provost has indicated he will be strategic and deliberate in assisting the schools and colleges with vetting and planning their graduate programs (and this is a space in which I believe University College can provide considerable support and assistance). Yet SU remain's committed to our graduate residency requirement because we place a high value on our campus experience and access to faculty, staff, and facilities -- this is one critical point of differentiation -- it creates a connection to the University. At the undergraduate level, the University administration continues to support the schools and colleges as they develop online course offerings that provide increased flexibility for our students -- students who are increasingly asked to engage in scholarship beyond the classroom. These visions align with our overall vision and mission in that they support the principles of Scholarship in Action.

More to follow in what I hope to be a useful and productive couple of days.

happy halloween

We are, for the most part, a PC house here at UC. We have three Mac users in the entire college -- two of them in our marketing group of course.

Because my small IT team is creative, moderately techno-geeky, and fun, they suggested our submission (see accompanying photo) to the the college's annual pumpkin carving contest needed to reflect our collective eccentricity.

We didn't win the contest, but we certainly continue to impress. It's one of the reasons that makes coming here everyday easy. And in case you're wondering, yes those are Macintosh apples.

oh loathsome blogger - revisited

It’s a discipline. I keep telling myself that. The chaotic pace of things this time of year only goes so far to excuse drop-off-the-earth absences. What bothers me the most is that I haven’t taken the time to use this space to sort out my thinking, which is really the most practical thing this space is good for. Well that and navel gazing.

And sorting out my thinking I shall be doing over the coming weeks and months. Lots of really exciting (cool?) efforts underway that I’m going to need to vet and mull. Vet and mull? Hmmmm. There’s a lot of cheese layered on that pomposity, eh?

operational to strategic: ielol primer

Looking at my daily activities over the past few days, I’m definitely doing a lot of zooming. Part of that is due to the fact that we’re slightly understaffed. Another part of my zooming has to do with where my roles are located within my organization. All efforts relating to online teaching and learning (as well as instructional design, course building, etc.) were historically located within the college’s IT department. Today, that location means that in addition to “provide[ing] campus-wide leadership in support of Syracuse University online teaching and learning initiatives,” I’m also charged with “providing leadership in selecting and exploiting business, instructional, and information technologies throughout University College's operations, faculty/student support, information management practices, and communication efforts.” That’s a lot of blah, blah, blah, but it’s the catalyst for my daily zooming.

When I look at my goals for the year, I feel like I’m working toward them. It’s the time commitment that’s already a little frustrating. For example, one of my goals to accomplish before next June is to “standardize the University College Online Course Quality Model for adoption by the University for undergraduate online courses.” This is a goal that requires a lot of face-to-face brokering with various stakeholders among the schools, colleges, and administration. Without dedicating a set amount of time each week to this specific goal, I’m now wondering how realistic it is.

vision for online at su

In 2004, our current Chancellor articulated a vision for the University (Scholarship in Action) based on three areas of focus: 1) faculty excellence and scholarly distinction, 2) access for enterprising students, and 3) engagement with the world.

Imagining the University 10 years from now (within a context of online learning teaching and learning), I would hope to see a more accommodating environment for "non-resident" experiences across the three areas of focus. Faculty excellence and scholarly distinction would require interfacing across academic/thematic clusters in technology-enhanced ways that expand the intellectual richness and potential for future impact -- expanding access to faculty and doctoral/profession students.

Access and support for enterprising students; today we are seeing the early benefits of online undergraduate course offerings that attract excellent students with bold and diverse interests. Ten years from now, formalized and high quality online undergraduate courses will provide the best of these students more options to seize and build upon SU's interdisciplinary and engagement opportunities. Online undergraduate courses also provide greater access for students from all socio-economic and cultural spheres to "come to Syracuse" and experience the creative campus in ways not tied to a physical presence.

Engagement with the world 10 years from now will be, by default, technology-enhanced engagement. Students, faculty and staff will expect immediate engagement with the world and the pressing concerns of the day. In a context of online teaching and learning, even the resident classroom will include different voices and practitioners in fields and industries.

online learning and leadership

I started the Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL) program last week. It's a blended-learning leadership development program sponsored by Penn State and the Sloan Consortium. Very promising from a strategic perspective.

One assignment during the first week I found interesting had to do with our view of the essential elements of leadership. I found myself falling back on comfortable territory, but I don't think I was too far afield. Here are my thoughts:

I believe the most essential element of effective leadership is open and honest communication. Regardless of the leadership development model (I’m certain we’ve all seen many), communication is either a hub competency or critical component of other leadership competencies (navigator, facilitator, strategist, etc.). In some ways it seems rather obvious; how can I be an effective leader if I cannot communicate organizational and operational concepts (the good, bad and neutral) in such a way that they are understood to be truthful and in the best interest of the institution and the populations we serve?

Listening is also an essential element of effective leadership. Good communicators listen. Listening is a great way to learn – to actually hear the concerns, perspectives, expectations and needs of the people we work with and for. We demonstrate a commitment to the group and the institution by showing a real interest in our colleagues’ voices, skills, and talents, and using what we learn from them to help shape the direction and future of the institution.

That's nothing revolutionary, but I'm pretty well committed an emphasis on open and honest communication in all aspects of life. Seems pretty tough to get by without it.

communicating engineers

Last weekend was the L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science open house. My WRT 407 students presented and demonstrated their year-long projects to visitors, guests, and an IEEE review team. Once again I came away from the event amazed by the creativity, talent, and genius of these pre-professional engineers. It is both a humbling and energizing event.

I spend much of the afternoon reviewing the project teams' documentation suites. While the format is not required, they typically take the shape of tabbed three-ringed binders. The suite consists of the following documents, which the teams have developed and revised over the course of the two semesters:

• Formal Project Proposal
• Individual Technical Descriptions
• Technical or Demo Presentation
• System Requirement Specification
• Test Plan/Test Scripts
• User or Implementation Guide
• Status Report
• Draft Research Paper/Article 

When I look at the range and quality (yes, quality) of the documents, I inevitably wind up questioning the outcomes of the course. I focus my instruction on genre and the communicative and rhetorical requirements of different types of documents in different contexts. Filtered down, that really mean that I'm teaching production. I don't really see that as a bad thing, but I do wonder how the production of technical engineering texts s in alignment with the course outcomes.

I have some improvements to make, particularly in regard to managing 40+ students in a class that meeting only once per week. Aligning activities and products to goals and outcomes will drive those improvements.

physical design

continuing with my previous post...

A number of years ago, Saul Carliner developed a three-part design model for technical communication that identifies physical, cognitive, affective activities performed while creating an information product. I've found the model useful when working with pre-professional engineers because it allows us (in the context of the technical writing class) to locate engineering design and development activities within a range of practices and activities defined as technical communication or information design. Most useful in these efforts is exposing the students to the physical design activities of the model.

Physical design occurs in the space between design and development; the preparation and creation of physical elements of an information product. In the context of an engineering project, physical design includes the core writing and editing activities performed by the engineer. The information that shapes physical design activities derives from the design documents created as a result of cognitive design activities. This type of product development (development based on pre-defined design criteria) allows the engineer to develop a product that meets specific needs and purposes.

The value of this model is that it allows the engineers to locate "meaning" within the design documents they create. To interpret the meaning between and among the structures of these documents, the engineers must understand these relationships in such a way as to present them for specific purposes (for example, the technical requirements of a product). In this regard, the engineers perform physical design activities to create the external forms through which users of their documents extract and construct meaning.

deconstructing ia

continuing with my earlier post...

Similar to Information Architecture (IA), Information Design (ID) carries multiple definitions and applications. In web contexts, ID ranges from developing maps and signage to simple web pages. As a practice, ID has been described as an interdisciplinary approach that combines skills in graphic design, writing and editing, illustration, and human factors. On a more ephemeral level, ID has been described as a position or stance one takes. Beth Mazur has likened this stance to a political or moral stance that we take the design or an information product to improve the quality of the communication. More specific to what I want pre-professional engineers to understand about IA; ID has been described as the act of designing and deploying content in such as a way to achieve the performance objectives for specific end users – objectives captured during IA analysis.

For the purpose of instruction in WRT 407, it has been useful to define ID as one aspect of design that occurs within the performance of IA analysis. Design activities performed within analysis are the point at which the engineer can focus on the context and purpose of the information products they are created during their engineering activities. If the product of IA is the blueprint or specification that guides development and deployment, ID is the act of shaping the specification. ID uses the results of IA analysis to inform the engineer's overall product design.

Within this framework of analysis and design activities, IA can be seen as any number of processes the engineer follows to understand available forms and structures; to design the physical aspects of the information product, and to develop the product to meet end-user requirements. The forms and structures available to the engineer are shaped and served by any number and type of discourses, styles, genres, and dialects. These are the standard designs – the genres and conventions that engineers are aware of and work with. Designing the physical aspects of the information product occurs when the engineer transforms one (or more) of the available standard designs into a new product that meets specific pre-defined requirements.

defining ia --- again

continuing with my previous post...

When I use the term information architecture  with writing students, it sounds impressive and maybe a little overwhelming. But then I get to the place where I have to define IA. That's when things get problematic.

I'm finding it best to situate IA as a verb. I ask the engineers to think about IA as the act they would perform to express the explicit details and concepts of the systems they are designing. One important aspect of that performance is creating an organization and structure for the information relating to and used by their system -- in particular, it is the act of architecting relationships among system components and elements.

After we have the activity of IA on the table, I move to the product of IA -- to the outcome of the performance. When defined as a noun, IA is the blueprint that contains the description of how information is organized and structured within the system. That blueprint is the  physical specification (technical and functional) that identifies a set of possible structures, patterns, and techniques to make information easier to access, understand, and used within the system.

Defining IA as both activity and product allows me to do two things in regard to situating IA within TC practices. First, the definition allows the engineers to see themselves as information architects who perform the activities required to create products that meet the needs of specific users. Second, the definition situates aspects of IA as a series of sub-activities performed at iterative points in and around the analysis and development phases of the engineers' design methodologies. Situating IA this way allows me expose for the engineers the relationship between analysis and design. The product of the design illustrates the engineer's ability to effectively address requirements identified during analysis.

How's that for a closed loop?

ia is about structure

continuing with my previous post...

We've come to understand Information Architecture (IA) as the practice of structuring information (often according to context) for a particular purpose. Tom Johnson and Donna Marsh circled around this definition last week. From their discussion, it seems that defining IA is problematic because it is most commonly applied to web development. However, from Donna and Tom's experiences (and those of others) it's quite obvious that IA also applies to disciplines such as TC, software programming, and user experience design (Peter Morville has said as much about a decade ago).

To complicate things a bit more, an alternate popular definition of IA exists within the field of information system design, where IA refers to the analysis and design of blocks or chunks of information (and their inter-dependencies) within a system. Beth Mazur has used this definition in her efforts to draw distinctions between IA and information design.

The practitioner perspectives that Tom and Donna provide and the academic definitions that Morrville and Mazur provide are built on features of information interaction, content analysis, classification, information hierarchies, information navigation, and information structuring for particular purposes. It seems to me that if I can invoke TC practices that include these features, I can illustrate to my students a range of practices that will help them understand the complexity of their design activities. For this purpose, I need to begin by locating design activities, as an aspect of IA, within TC practices and embedded engineering writing instruction.

tech comm, design, and information architecture

In the next series of posts, I want to try to revisit the relationship of design to technical communication practices. I explored the topic in a graduate seminar last year, but I'm bumping up against it again as WRT 407 comes to a close and the engineers begin to see the product of their design, development, and writing activities.

I want to begin with the question that I was asked during that seminar: "Why is it important for technical communicators (or anyone performing the role of technical commicator, such as an engineer) to understand that they are doing design?” The question is an important one because it demands that we reconsider traditional treatments of the disciplines and fields that serve (and are served by) Technical Communication (TC).

For a long time, I have viewed TC as a co-opted discipline; taking pieces and parts from any number of closely and remotely related fields, practices, and disciplines. My perspective placed TC in the middle of the design/development universe. Yet when asked to qualify the importance of viewing the technical communicator’s activity as something other than “technical communication,” my heliocentric perspective broke down.

Such a break down is possible because all perspectives of TC across the scholarship and literature are based on uneasy and inconsistent definitions of the discipline and the practice. These definitions always include (arguably, must include) descriptions of design, development, and production activities that are performed by technical communicators. This move to include any and all activities associated with creating an information product is what complicates an answer to a simple question about disciplinary perspective. Blame it on the reflexive nature of Composition as the mother discipline. Blame it on technology-mediated practices. Whatever the cause, technical communicators are unable to foreground their discipline within a clearly demarcated practice of design/development activities. TC is not at the center of the design/development universe; it has gradually become the generic glue that connects hundreds of fields, practices, and disciplines.

This is the position from which I will further consider the relationship of Information Architecture to TC over the next few posts.

questions of quality

We're currently working with one of the colleges to navigate a proposal they received from an online course/program vendor. These hack shops are popping up like mushrooms and making a lot of noise about tremendous enrollment targets and extraordinary returns (read: tuition revenues).

There are a lot of problems with these organizations and the promises they serve up. I may, in fact, spend some time dissecting the issues in terms of problem resolution. What's bothering me right now, however, is the lack of coherent dialog on campus around the issues of online education.

I spent some time today with the principals who will ultimately make the decision to outsourcing their graduate programs to a third-party vendor. I tried to explain the roll that quality plays at all levels of an online program. I don't think they heard it. Like a typical buyer, they're more concerned with costs and returns -- and enamored by the idea that they could pull out of their agreement two-years in if things aren't working out (read: they're not enrolling huge numbers and making millions of dollars). I wanted them to understand how even that act -- of bailing on a program that has already graduated and currently supports students -- could compromise quality.

Again, I don't think they heard it.

It's an ongoing dialog, and I should be happy that the conversation is even happening. I just worry about the outcomes should our message and services get blurred by unrealistic revenue targets.

the uneasy art of persuasion

We spent some today in 407 talking about the role of the "the proposal" in engineering environments. I always try to impress on students the importance of thinking about project proposals as persuasive documents -- documents that must move a reader to a particular action, position, or opinion.

That's what we do in the classroom.

In practice, I know with a high degree of certainty that many of theses engineers will never write a single  proposal. At best, they may serve as a subject-matter-expert or contributor. Yes, I know it's invaluable for them to understand the genre, the contexts, and how it all works together. But I still struggle with their time -- wanting to exploit the limited time we have them here.

The proposals they work on in 407 are specific to their Senior Design projects. That means they have some skin in the game, which is useful. Overall, it's a good exercise in that it helps them refine their thinking about the complexities and possibilities of their projects. In that regard, I should appreciate the activity. I just need to find some way to extend it -- to make it more meaningful beyond performance of an academic activity that they will likely never repeat.

tech makes us dumb

The other day my mother-in-law was talking about how kids are smarter today -- that they seem so plugged in and aware. I commented that I don't think kids are necessarily smarter than earlier generations, but I do think they are clearly more comfortable with communication, instructional, and entertainment technologies.

A couple of days later I read a short article on the definition of modern literacy by Susan Metros. She claims that the skills necessary to successfully using technology (analyzing, visualizing, communicating, and innovating) will require everyone to be technologically literate (on a continuum that moves from stimulated to novice, novice to literate, and literate to fluent). This does not, however, equate to literate in the traditional sense. As Metros notes, "They know how to upload a movie to YouTube...they know how to text, and they are constantly connected to something digital. But my argument is they are not literate; they are just basically stimulated."

I find in these distinctions of literacy the same tension that exists in the technical writing classroom. How technically literate does a technical writer have to be? It's really more than the decades old debate about do we teach tools or do we teach writing. It has more to do with the technical writer's ability to comprehend complex topics and concepts, and to produce usable and original information products with an array of tools, technologies, and skills. In co-opting Metros' argument, the modern technical writer's "literacy" must be less about the tools and technologies and more about "ways of thinking and seeing, and of crafting narrative."