1. MEASURING FACULTYBUY-IN TO UnintendedINSTRUCTIONALConsequencesTECHNOLOGYKenneth RonkowitzPassaic County Community College

2. What pointed us in the right direction andWhat stopped us along the way 3. INTENDED CONSEQUENCESBuild CollegeLevel Writing CenterIntroduce Increase TechnologyWriting into Students & 25 Gen-Ed Faculty Classes WritingInitiativeImproveImprove CriticalInformation Thinking inLiteracy Writing 4. HOW DO YOU GET BUY-IN? Faculty Buy-in -- to What? By Trent Batson The phrases faculty resistance, or the lack of faculty buy-in to adopting information technology for the core teaching/learning paradigm, have become by-words in academia. Yet both phrases are empty and lead nowhere; they are phatic, having a social purpose (bonding among technology advocates) but they contain no useful information. Technology advocates urge faculty members to go away from what theyve been doing but dont explain what they should go toward. It is not enough to go toward a set of new teaching and learning practices The goal cannot and should not be just to use technology.campustechnology.com/articles/2011/04/06/faculty-buy-in-to-what.aspx 5. TRAINING CYCLECOMMON ADVICEStart with championsDont require thetechnologyMake the tech the rewardMulti-faceted training 6. Get the ball rollingWHEN IS YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITHFACULTY?BEFORE, WITH, OR AFTER THE LAUNCH? 7. PRE-LAUNCHBuy-in starts by having facultyinvolved with the initiative in theplanning stages. 8. OUR TIMELINE - 21 MONTHS TO LAUNCH PlanningCourse (writing Redesignthe grant, , F07 CWC,Summer January 08)2007) FundingLaunch(F07)(Fall 08, five Planning Phase 2 courses) 9. WHAT WERE FACULTY THINKING WOULD HAPPEN? 10. In our first Faculty Institute,we piloted our portfolioproduct. It was a disaster We changed products prior to launch. 11. After the first pilot semesterwe focused on fewer techtools.We needed to better defineterms (What is formal writingand a significant part of thegrade?)& improve facultyexpectations 12. Our efforts have been recognizedwith the 2012 Diana HackerAward for Two-Year Colleges infostering student success inwriting. 13. So Whatworked? 14. ASSESSMENT LEVELSand MethodsClass (student portfolios)Program (student & facultysurveys, focusgroups)Grant (Institutional Research) 15. A Few Big Ideas 16. 1There is noField of Dreams.Just because you build it,doesnt meanthey will come and play 17. 2 WhenDont Work, 18. Faculty will useTechnology (and pedagogy)3 they see how it helps themNOT just because it helps 19. PRACTICE4 Course Redesign not just decoration or Tech for the sake of techDont offer (tech) solutions toproblems that are not seen as problems 20. Cultivate5 21. Whether or not you are on a grant6 $$For life after 22. Sustainability andInstitutionalization is more thanfunding Staffing Training Assessment Supervision Leadership 23. The Dept. of Education asks us: What were any unintended[tech] consequences (positive & negative) of the program?+ Wide acceptance of LibGuides beyond our intendeduse- Resistance overall to technology by faculty- Perception of what is technology (by students ANDfaculty)- Some faculty saw the tech as getting in the way ofthe writing (which they saw at the real point of theInitiative)+ Writing Intensive elements being used in non-WIcourse sections+ Student acceptance of WI courses (and success inthem) 24. About the Initiative http://www.pccc.edu/home/initiativeKen Ronkowitz kronkowitz@pccc.edu EdTech Blog Serendipity35.netDesign template: duarte.com