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.