Using Technology As A Tool For Effective Collaboration And

Resource Sharing Among Four Graduate Programs

Wiebke Kuhn, Ph.D.

Andrea Milam, M.S. Ed.

Copyright Wiebke Kuhn, Andrea Milam 2004. 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.

Overview

• Summary of the program

• Discussion of different points of view

• Using this project as a model

The Challenge

• Many smaller and/or specialized educational programs do not have the resources to provide the comprehensive program of professional education courses and experiences that are necessary to educate their students.

Benefits of Collaboration

• More diverse course offerings

• More professionally relevant courses for students

• More variety in teaching for individual faculty

Questions Raised

• Administrative Questions

• Curriculum

• Delivery Method

• Students

Example

• Archives Education– Department of Library Science– Department of History

The Response

• SAEC (Southeastern Archivists Education Collaborative)– Institutions

• Auburn• Louisiana State University• University of Kentucky• University of South Carolina

– Educational Programs• History• Library Science…

…Response

• Graduate program

• 2 courses/semester– Primarily video conferencing via Internet 2

• Web Office

– Secondarily Internet• Web CT and Blackboard CMS

Stakeholders

• Administrators• Students• Faculty• Instructional designers• IT staff• Accrediting bodies• Practitioners• Professional organizations

Issues for Administrators

• Need to be involved in the planning process at all participating institutions– Feasibility for IT support, for faculty time– Connection to existing distance education programs

and infrastructure

• Ensure adherence to institutional policies and fit into the institution– Grade recording– Instructor of record– Registration

Issues for Students

• Getting used to a new learning scenario– Less of a seminar (discussion between teacher and

student)– More of a student-centered discussion

• Getting used to the technology– Muting and unmuting of microphone– Using Web-based tools– Being on camera all the time (discussion model)

• Getting used to a different learning community

Issues for Faculty

• Teaching– Teaching with technology

• Be confident around the technology• Learn some basic skills• Teach your students how to be confident with technology

– Waiting for the technology• Late or lost connections• Audio/video delay• Not seeing all students all the time (presentation model) or

seeing them very small (discussion mode)

Issues for the Faculty

• Curriculum– Harmonizing the introductory course– Develoment of a curriculum that addresses

the needs of the students in the particular program (core)

– Addition of courses that will potentially attract students from other areas (electives)

Reciprocity

Issues for IT Support

• Establishing connections with IT Support from other institutions

• Troubleshooting

• Assessing how much support is needed on daily basis– Will student workers suffice?– How do we deal effectively with a major

crisis?Real versus Ideal

Issues for Instructional Designers

• Providing support for faculty AND for students

• Assessment (Issues of accountability)– Flashlight survey– Institutional survey– Informal/anecdotal assessment

Issues for External Stakeholders

• Legislators

• Practitioners

• Accrediting agencies

• Professional organizations

Outcomes

• Learning Outcomes

• Satisfaction– Institutions– Faculty– Students

• Cost Effectiveness

• Other

Using SAEC as a Model

• Target: small graduate programs that are struggling at more than one institution

• Buy-In: by individual faculty members, administration IT support

• Planning: takes time, needs face-to-face meetings to form a community of faculty, administrators, IT support, ID

• Character trait of everyone involved

Patience!!!!

Determinants of Success

• Truly a collaborative project– Academic + Professional education programs– Administrative structure incorporates

individuality of each institution rather than changing it

– Reciprocity– Longevity

Determinants of Success

• Consortial activities that leverage purchasing more successful than consortia that exchange assets

• Consortial activities that were initiated through external funding tend to disperse quickly at the end of the funding period, regardless of their success

• Consortia that come together as decision makers have more positive outcomes than those that come together as a team ( Pfeifle, 1979?)

Considerations

• The biggest challenge that newcomers to the consortium world must face is grasping the fact that standard setting is about giving away rights…in order to gain others. This means that those who would form a consortium must enter into a sort of "through the looking glass" world where intellectual property, content ownership and institutional boundaries are impediments rather than tools, competitors are as welcome as partners (http://www.consortiuminfo.org/forming/#structure).

Considerations

• Do I have a small program that could benefit from a consortium?

• Are there other small programs of the same kind at other universities or colleges?

• Do I have dedicated faculty who are interested in working with others?

• Do I have dedicated IT and design staff to help the faculty?

• Do I have the technology in place or what do I need to build, set up in order to make this work?

• Does everyone involved have enough patience?

Contact Information

• Wiebke Kuhn, Ph.D.– Auburn– kuhnwi1@auburn.edu

• Andrea Milam, M.S. Ed.– University of Kentucky– almila00@email.uky.edu

• Elizabeth Dow, Ph.D.– LSU– edow1@lsu.edu