Academic Support: What Have We Learned? Eric M. Larson GusDay 2006 University of St. Thomas

Who is this guy? Eric M. Larson, University of St. Thomas –Instructional Process Analyst, 2005-today –Academic Technology Support Manager ( ) –Lead Desktop/LAN Specialist ( ) –Desktop/LAN Specialist ( ) Presentation at:

Outline History & Documentation Issues A New Framework –A series of needs Applying the Framework Next Steps Q & A

History Pre-2003: Technology Meetings –Focus: Lease-related technology view 2003: Academic Department Meetings –Sponsored by the VP of IRT 2004: Informal review 2005: Academic Department Meetings –Conducted by Academic Technology Mgr.

Documentation IRT Issue Logs –2003 meetings –2005 meetings These Issue Logs serve as two “snapshots” of the “technology zeitgeist” Qualitative, to complement existing soft quantitative data provided by systems Not longitudinal data, but provides some hints of trends

Pile and Pore “If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” ~Chesterton Our analysis method was to pile up the data and pore over it, looking for trends Not perfect, but better than the opposite extreme of “analysis paralysis”

What were some issues? 2003: –“5MB Blackboard Quota too small” –“Allow work-study students to electronically submit their hours” –“Need to monitor or be alerted of viruses that are appearing in the labs” –“Aging classroom projectors” –“Remote diagnosis or correction of machine or system problems” –“Need off-campus access to U: and W: drives”

What are some issues? 2005: –“IRT has a missed opportunity to communicate available software and match that with academic needs.” –“Images inserted on a Mac must first be saved to local disk, then inserted, if they are to be usable on Windows. On a Mac, you only need to copy and paste.” –“Need more flexibility in where purchasing funds go. The department laptop, for instance, could be upgraded less often and those funds could be put toward more frequent lab upgrades.”

What does this show? No matter what we do, faculty will still complain and that means we’re failures. The nature of technology concerns has changed over the years. These interviews show a progression, and a fundamental shift in the kinds of concerns that are raised.

Biological and Physical A new framework Abraham Maslow developed a famous “Hierarchy of Needs”. Discredited by many as failing to be the ultimate explanation of human psychology, Maslow lends insight into our efforts to support technology. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical An old “hierarchy” This framework is, indeed, a hierarchy. In Maslow’s view, individuals must achieve foundational elements before they can progress to higher ones… So, how might this apply to our work? Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Physical Needs Faculty need to have “the basics”. –Do I have a functional computer? –Can I get booked into an appropriate classroom? Without this, technology adoption will stop. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Safety Needs Faculty need to know that their technologies will work for them. If they don’t feel confident in their ability to get help in an emergency, they’re incapable of playing “what-if” in their heads. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Belongingness Needs Faculty need to know that they have someone to work with and/or relate to. “Bonding” or “imprinting” happens at this level. Tensions with “administration” appear here. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Esteem Needs Faculty need to feel respected in their work needs. “Nobody cares about my _____” (software, OS, preferred client) “I don’t want to wait on hold and talk to a student” might be here, or below. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Check-in These are deficiency motivators, and they build on each-other. Others added the next two needs in the 1970s. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Cognitive Needs Faculty need to understand how things work. “I know you fixed it, but why did it crash?” “Show us how to troubleshoot it.” Concerns here mean few concerns below! Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Aesthetic Needs Faculty need to work with something well- designed. –“It would make more sense if it _______” –Why didn’t someone _______ instead?” Comments here mean that the lower needs are being satisfied. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Self-actualization Self-actualized faculty are happy! All their needs have been fully satisfied (Yes, it’s really hard to get to this level! Remember, this framework is just a metaphor.) Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Check-in The additional aesthetic and cognitive needs are still needs, but they’re more “introspective” or “philosophical”. Others added a new “peak level” of transcendence in the 1990s. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Transcendence Transcendent faculty are sharing and spreading their happiness! Ideally, we want faculty here, encouraging their colleagues in the use of technologies. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Transcendence, cont. Faculty, by definition, are transcendent in their fields: Self- actualized experts sharing knowledge through teaching. But… our dream is “technologically transcendent faculty”. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Applying the Framework We need to ensure that all levels of need are being addressed before faculty can go out and “share the love”. We must not lose sight of the “lower” needs as we work on the “higher” ones. Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

Biological and Physical Applying the Framework These needs manifest themselves outside of technology itself –Why are faculty so concerned about a technology failure in front of their class? –Why are they so concerned about the execution of their seminars/events? Safety Belongingness and Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence

What were our “next steps”? Work to address specific issues discussed in department meetings Continue classroom improvements – a key stress-point for faculty. Use the Academic Technology Consultants to “maintain the foundation” while “encouraging construction” on it. Most-valued actions: document and discuss!

Belongingness and Love Most valued actions: document and discuss! –Document our rationale and processes –Talk to faculty Write up discussions Listen and “bond” Be responsive to specific needs whenever possible Biological and Physical Safety Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence What were our “next steps”?

Belongingness and Love And if you have the chance… It never hurts to bring food. Biological and Physical Safety Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-actualization Transcendence What were our “next steps”?