Creating a faculty support model to increase faculty adoption of technology Drew Daniels Ed Evans Paul Fisher Ruth Maschino Bo Zigner Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005

Team Blowfish Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005

Fugu University: Institutional Setting Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Small Private College in coastal New England with 5,000 students. Highly selective, largely residential, 90% of the students coming from out of state. Level 1 research institution 500 faculty (400 on tenure track) experienced, internationally known. Extensive IT Infrastructure, including network resources with room for growth Currently in the middle of a capital campaign

Instructional Support Center Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Largely reactive unit reporting to the President through the CIO Director Instruction Designer Programmer Instructional Technologist Admin. Assistant

Current State Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Faculty/Adminstrative Committee administered Gap Analysis Assessment to campus community

The Challenge Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Our ability to be successful in empowering faculty members is highly dependent upon: –the technology faculty are using –the desire of faculty to use technology –the desire of students –support from upper administration

Student Preferences ―Kvavik, Limited ITModerate ITNo ITExtensive ITOnline Percentage

Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Diffusion of Innovation E.M. Rogers (1995) InnovatorsRisk-aversives EAEMLMLI

Give a man a fish and you’ll feed him for a day Teach a man to fish and you’ll feed him for a lifetime.

Support Models for Faculty Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Fish For Them: the instructional development unit does all the work in consultation with the faculty member. Teach Them to Fish: train the faculty, empower them to innovate on their own (continuously)

Pros Faculty get 1-on-1 staff support Good option for complex technology Good option for faculty new to technology Quality control Minimal faculty time needed Students get what they want Pros Sustainable and scalable solution for course development Good for faculty that are more self-reliant Faculty empowerment Students get what they want Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005

Cons Not a scalable or sustainable solution Frustrates those who want to fish for themselves Shallow use of technology Cons Requires standards and choices Requires development of user documentation Investment of time Meeting the variety of faculty learning styles Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005

Professor Peter Puffer Tenured-full professor in the hard sciences Internally renowned, Level 1 researcher Currently has 10 million in grants TA’s do all the work Secretary prints out each day for him to read Has been Acting Dean, Acting Provost but never got the job Professor Gayle Sashimi New tenured track faculty in History Just developed online, interactive game on the Underground Railroad Has to work hard for funding but is a rising star in her field She completed all of her own work occasionally consulting with IT Is very much high touch with her students electronically and is well aware of the role of technology in the lives of today’s student

Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Professor Peter Puffer Professor Gayle Sashimi Blended Support

Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Cook it wrong and it’s poison Cook it right and it’s a delicacy.

The 2 Year Plan FY2006 Objectives: Expand staff and resources Add 2 instructional designers Add 1 graphic designer Add 1 videographer Add 1 trainer Develop Student Program Faculty Development Plan & Incentives Recruit Early Adopters Release time for development/consultation Internal Granting Initiatives Workshops Increase Services to Faculty Course Shell development Blackboard training Multimedia development Multimedia training Assessment (end of year) Services: Focus Groups w/students and faculty Technology Use: Administer Survey Tool FY2007 Objectives: Analyze Assessment Results and Adjust Course Recruit Faculty Peer Consultants Continue Faculty Development Plan & Incentives (target different faculty) Release time Stipends Workshops Best Practices Increase Depth of Use More Interactive Learning Objects Case Based Learning Online Course Development Assessment Administer Survey to campus community Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Goal: Double faculty adoption of technology

Assessment Questions Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005 Have we doubled the adoption of desired technology? How many faculty are using Blackboard? How many faculty have incorporated multimedia? How effective are the uses of these technologies? Have we met student expectations? Target audience: students, faculty and instructional support staff Focus groups to develop survey Administer survey 2nd half of winter semester Work to adjust services for fall term Effectiveness of faculty development

Budget Requests Requested Budget Increase: $648,200 Personnel: $418,750 to $931,200 Operating: $81,250 to $217,000 Instructional Technology Leadership Institute 2005

Presidents may dream visions and vice presidents may design plans, and deans and department heads may try to implement them, but without the support of faculty members, nothing will change – Tony Bates, Director of Distance Education, University of British Columbia

We ask that you join our vision!