authors: alicia k. russell director, edtech center cathy mccarron curriculum developer deanna...
TRANSCRIPT
AUTHORS:
Alicia K. RussellDirector, EdTech Center
Cathy McCarronCurriculum Developer
Deanna Brown-AhoSr Web Designer
© Educational Technology Center, Northeastern University, 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.
presented by:
Alicia K. RussellDirector, EdTech Center
Cathy McCarronCurriculum Developer
Deanna Brown-AhoSr Web Designer
The Teaching with Technology Fund
provides support to faculty teams
developing effective strategies
for incorporating learning-related
technologies into curricula.
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Part 1: Institutional Change
Part 2: Case Study, Hybrid Writing Program
Conclusion:
Implementing Change at your University (Q&A)
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
“Change itself has changed. What used to be
seen as an incremental and methodical process
now often appears as a chaotic series of rapid
adjustments in an increasingly turbulent
environment. In this context, it is critical for
change agents to reexamine basic assumptions
as to how organizations function and to develop
the skills to deal with organizations, not as
rational, but as negotiated systems.”
Samuel B. Bacharach, McKelvey-Grant Professor of Labor Management RelationsDirector, Institute for Workplace Studies, Cornell University
PART 1: Institutional Change
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Making Change at Your Institution
• Assess academic and administrative leadership
• Understand how decisions are made
• Identify potential stakeholders
• Develop a plan that supports university goals
PART 1: Institutional Change
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Decision Makers
63% University Administrators
40% Faculty and Departments
36% Campus Technology Support Units
27% CIOs
20% Teaching and Learning Center Directors
PART 1: Institutional Change
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
From “Online Teaching in an Online World, Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., May 2001, www.courseshares.com/reports.php
PART 1: Institutional Change
A. Align IS Objectives & Faculty Incentives with University Mission
Key Equation:
University Mission = Information Services Objectives + Faculty Incentives
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
University Mission
• Enter the ranks of the top 100 research and teaching institutions
• Increase retention
• Attract top caliber students
• Increase outreach to nontraditional students
• Develop signature graduate programs
• Reduce dependence on tuition
PART 1: Institutional Change
A. Align IS Objectives & Faculty Incentives with University Mission
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Information Services Objectives
R.O.I. on Teaching with Technology infrastructure
• # of students using IT in courses
• # of faculty using IT in courses
• # of research projects related to IT use
PART 1: Institutional Change
A. Align IS Objectives & Faculty Incentives with University Mission
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Faculty Incentives
• Course Release Time 70%
• Instructional Development Grants & Stipends
68%
• Recognition68%
• Technical Support 68%
• Time to Learn About & Use the Web60%
• Instructional Development Support 58%
• Training in how to use the web in Teaching
45%
PART 1: Institutional Change
A. Align IS Objectives & Faculty Incentives with University Mission
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
From “Online Teaching in an Online World, Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., May 2001, www.courseshares.com/reports.php
Faculty Obstacles to Web-Based Teaching
• Preparation Time62%
• Support for Technical Support andCourse Development
40%
• Time to Learn to Use the Web37%
• Inability to Display the Web in the Classroom
29%
• Lack of Training in how to use Web24%
• Inadequate Hardware in One’s Office 18%
PART 1: Institutional Change
A. Align IS Objectives & Faculty Incentives with University Mission
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
From “Online Teaching in an Online World, Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., May 2001, www.courseshares.com/reports.php
B. Implement Plan
PART 1: Institutional Change
Phase 1: Launch TTF
Phase 2: Restructure TTF
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
B. Implement Plan
PART 1: Institutional Change
TTF Phase 1
• Stimulate use of learning
related
technology
• Fund 12 projects
at $25K each
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
B. Implement Plan
PART 1: Institutional Change
TTF Phase 2: Realign TTF criteria with president’s four goals for DL
• Enhance traditional courses withtechnology
• Use technology to improve co-opexperience
• Enroll increased numbers of non-traditional students
• Establish limited number of signatureDL grad programs
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 1: Institutional Change
C. Gain Momentum
• Formally Establish the Division of Distributed Learning
• Work with deans of each college to establish College Teaching with Technology Plans
• Identify scalable programs
• Seek external funding
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
C. Gain Momentum
PART 1: Institutional Change
Formally Establish the Division of Distributed Learning
• Centralize DL initiative
• Align units that support instructional technology
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
C. Gain Momentum
PART 1: Institutional Change
Work with deans of each college to establish College Teaching with Technology Plans
• Support university mission
• Support college mission
• Enhance existing programs
• Build distance learning programs
• Establish faculty incentives
• Develop programs that can be adapted for other colleges
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
C. Gain Momentum
PART 1: Institutional Change
Identify successful programs that can:
• Serve as a model
• Be expanded to include students and faculty from other colleges
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 1: Institutional Change
D. Institutionalize
• Incentives
• Policies
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
D. Institutionalize
PART 1: Institutional Change
Offer Faculty Incentives
Deans must determine incentives suggested in College Technology Plans:
• course release time
• stipends
• merit consideration
• tenure consideration
• other
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
D. Institutionalize
PART 1: Institutional Change
Set Policy
• Deans or Provost will decide if integrating technology will become
part of teaching load requirements
• Intellectual Property: TLTR will work with college deans and provost to determine policies
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Survey Results on Course Material Ownership
• Online Courses are the Property of
the Institution16%
• The Institution Does Not Have
Clear Ownership Policies63%• Unsure of Ownership Policies21%
PART 1: Institutional Change
D. Institutionalize
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
From “Online Teaching in an Online World, Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., May 2001, www.courseshares.com/reports.php
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
• Find a program that would kick off the TTF initiative
• Work with academic department to shape program
• Develop a pilot and plan for expansion
The Hybrid Writing Program© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
What is a hybrid course?
"Hybrid" is the name used to describe a course
that combines face-to-face classroom instruction
with computer-based learning. In a Hybrid course,
a significant part of the course learning is online
and as a result, the amount of classroom seat-
time is reduced. This allows the student much
more flexible scheduling, while maintaining the
face-to-face contact with the instructor that is
typical of traditional education.
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC/our-project.htmlHybrid Project at University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Universities with Hybrid Courses
• George Mason University
• Penn State University
• Princeton University
• Sonoma State University
• SUNY-Buffalo
• University of Central Florida
• U of Ill.-Urbana-Champaign
• U of New Mexico
• U of Wisconsin-Madison
• U of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Virginia Tech University
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
Hybrid Writing Program Goals
• Introduce technology into the Middler Year Writing Program.
• Determine the pedagogical effectiveness of the various
elements of hybrid courses.
• Expand the number of faculty integrating technology into their courses.
• Raise the Web skills of students and faculty.
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Hybrid Writing Program Goals (continued)
• Improve the outcomes of the writing curriculum.
• Design a course that will translate to the semester calendar.
• Develop a model that could be used in other writing courses, such as the Freshman English sequence, and courses in other disciplines.
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
Hybrid Writing Program Plan
• Train three writing instructors in the use of technology to be integrated
into the Middler Year Writing Requirement (MYWR) curriculum.
• Develop the MYWR hybrid curriculum.
• Develop a strategy for extending the curriculum from one quarter to
one semester.
• Design a pre- and post-course evaluation to determine
effectiveness of the hybrid pilot.
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
Hybrid Writing Program Plan (continued)
• Conduct three pilot Hybrid Writing Courses.
• Review evaluations & expand program.
• Redesign MYWR website and build CD for course instructors
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
Post-Course Student Evaluation Results
• 80% of students would enroll in another hybrid course.
• 85% of students would recommend taking a course in the hybrid format
to a friend.
• 90% of students indicated that access to the instructor was the same or easier than in a traditional course
environment.
• 95% of students indicated that access to other students was the same or
easier than in a traditional course environment.
• 85% of students believed there was a good balance between time spent in-
class and time spent online.
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
• 15 instructors were funded as Davis Teaching Fellows; the 3 pilot
instructors and another professor were named Davis Mentors.
• Instructors were trained at a 20-hour faculty workshop facilitated by the
Davis Mentors.
• Fellows received compensation for attending faculty institute,
developing syllabus, teaching the course, attending follow-up workshops.
Impact of Davis Educational Foundation Grant
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
• Today, 17 sections have been taught using the hybrid format, 8 new
sections will begin in the spring quarter.
• Davis will fund a two-college wide First-Year Experience program this year.
Impact of Davis Educational Foundation Grant (continued)
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
How the Hybrid Program Responded to Faculty Incentives
• Instructional development grants and stipends
• Recognition
• Technical support
• Instructional design support
• Training on how to use the Web in teaching
• Did not receive release time or extra time to learn about and use the
web© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
PART 2: Case Study: The Hybrid Writing Program
What We’ve Learned
• The hybrid model can be adapted to other disciplines.
• Course design is critical to expansion of program – if the course is not
“better” to teach with the online component, the faculty will revert to the traditional delivery mode.
• Compensation and recognition are key to participation.
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Additional Resources
• Bruce, Bertram C., Joy Kreeft Peyton & Trent Batson, Network-based
Classrooms, Promises and Realities. (1991) Cambridge University Press.
• Palloff, Rena M. & Keith Pratt. Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace. (1999) Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Links to examples of good hybrid courseshttp://www.uwm.edu/Dept/LTC/ examples.html
• University of Central Florida Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~rite/index.html
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002
Summary
• Develop a plan that supports the university’s goals
• Incorporate a plan for evaluating success
• Find a champion who will secure institutional funding
• Build a broad base of support
• Be flexible
© Educational Technology Center, NU, 2002