Engaging Faculty in the Theory and Practice of Instructional Technology Getting the Egg into the Bottle: Mike Giordano and Laurie Trufant Instructional Development Center University of New Hampshire  Copyright Michael Giordano and Laurel Warren Trufant, 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.

To explore how to engage faculty in the theory and practice of instructional design, motivating them to: think creatively proceed proactively assume risks The classic “bottleneck” in this process occurs when aspirations exceed available time. Why are we here? We will explore strategies to move faculty through that bottleneck – without breaking the egg.

Remember when? Cook and peel the egg Place matches in the bottle Light the matches Place the egg on top of the bottle The air is heated and escapes Air-pressure differential results The egg drops into the bottle

Cast of characters… Firestarter: Mike Our faculty constituents Instructional Development Center (IDC) Instructional Technology theory and practices

How can I, as a new manager in a new position, bring disparate resources together to support the enhancement of teaching and learning through the appropriate integration of technology? What is the challenge?

Staffing Various skill sets Existing multimedia services Limited budget Impact of Blackboard Need to expand client base What are the issues?

without toppling any eggs, without breaking any eggs, while motivating them to think creatively and proactively, thus drawing them into the IDC bottle. What are the tasks? Getting faculty into the bottle…

Ad hoc consulting 1:1 support Project-driven development model Problem-driven support model Books ‘n Bytes Committee The way we were…. Spring Semester 1999

$ for license and renovation Space from Library $ from AT for hardware Expertise from across CIS and Library Breakthrough…. Academic Technology & Library Collaboration

What we did…. Some early adopters; some late bloomers Risk-taking for all involved High anxiety levels all around Strong administrative support from Academic Technology director Limited Pilot for 15 Eggs

Summer 1999 – Training Model 2 consecutive days 4 training modules; 3 hours each Total of 12 hours of intensive training Total faculty trained = 15 Fall 1999 – Results 16 courses; 740 enrollments Everyone lived Nothing blew up Success a direct correlate of survival rate

Fall 1999 – Training Model Scheduled on a consensus basis Set up in sequential tracks 9 hours required training Total faculty trained = 42 Spring 2000 – Results 52 courses; 1,800 students Everyone lived Nothing blew up Applied more quantitative measures

Spring 2000 – Training Model Maintained 9-hour training model Augmented by workshops, forums Total faculty trained = 45 Summer 2000 – Training Model Returned to intensive training model 3 sequenced tracks; 2 days each Total 8 hours of training Total faculty trained = 30

Fall 2000 – Results 144 courses; 3,500 enrollments Everyone lived Nothing blew up New concerns Scalability – victims of our own success Upgrade/Hardware Increasing demand; level staffing Faculty time constraints

Fall 2000 – Training Plan On-line registration; requirements dropped 1 hour required (Policies and Procedures) 8 hours optional ( ) Total faculty trained = 74 Spring Results 175 courses; 8,000 enrollments Everyone lived; nothing blew up Increasing demand; level staffing We are now mission critical

Spring 2001 – Training Model Maintained 9-hour model (1 req.; 8 opt.) Maintained on-line registration Shift in enrollment toward basics Total faculty trained = 44 We needed a new plan!

Summer 2001 – QuickStart! Maintained on-line registration 5 hours  3 (Policies + Basics) Offered on request to departmental groups Total faculty trained = 94 in 6 weeks! Fall Results 308 courses; 18,000 students Everyone lived Nothing blew up

12 Hours of Training , Students Enrolled Faculty Trained Courses Taught

Where we are…. Intensive 3-hour QuickStart; 1/week Policies as Web-based tutorial 90-min. intermediate and advanced workshops; 4 topics each month Departmental training on request The Sushi Model: menu of discrete modules for custom training sessions

What we learned…. Faculty are risk-takers Exhaustive training can be inhibiting Training can be perceived as an obstacle Simplicity can be inhibiting Support, not skills or risk, is the key factor Primary inhibitor is…… TIME

Encourage faculty to explore broad possibilities of instructional technology Promote an awareness and appreciation of instructional design theory Allow faculty to concentrate on pedagogical issues and content Provide project-based design and development support Reduce the need for large investments of faculty time What we want to do -

How we’d like to do it - By creating Project-driven instructional design teams Clearly articulated “best practices” Summer Instructional Technology Institute Academic Technology Liaison Program Student Mentoring Program for faculty

How we’d like to do it - By promoting Channels for contact with department Chairs Ongoing evaluation strategies Partnerships with other campus services Partnership with Teaching Excellence Partnership with Faculty Development Grants

Ideally, we seek just the right combination of these programs and services – one that will encourage, but not coerce engage, but not intimidate support, but not direct. Our goal is to generate just enough heat through our programs and services to draw faculty into the instructional technology vision we have for the campus.

For more information: Mike Giordano, Manager Instructional Development Center University of New Hampshire Laurel Warren Trufant, Ph.D. Instructional Development Center University of New Hampshire Presentation available on the IDC Web site. Point your browser to: