1 / 50

Faculty Support

Faculty Support. Effectively Integrating Educational Technology Mary McCollam & Andy Leger Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Overview. The Learning Technology Faculty Associates (LTFA) model Three surveys on faculty’s use of and attitudes towards educational technology at Queen’s

martha-fleming
Download Presentation

Faculty Support

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Support Effectively Integrating Educational Technology Mary McCollam & Andy Leger Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario

  2. Overview • The Learning Technology Faculty Associates (LTFA) model • Three surveys on faculty’s use of and attitudes towards educational technology at Queen’s • Faculty support: ideas & examples

  3. The Learning Technology Faculty Associates Getting faculty involved in faculty support Fostering the effective use of technology in teaching and learning

  4. Requirements for Success • Ongoing Guidance and Vision • Team includes a director or manager from each of IDC, LTU, and QUL • Sufficient Funding • Low Funding Limits Pool of Potential Faculty (no LTFAs from Medicine or School of Business) • Recognition for Faculty who Participate

  5. Activities of the LTFAs • Organizing Events • Workshops, Presentations, Coffee Hours, Teaching Forums • Overseeing Learning Technology Teams • Fostering Inter-University Connections and Collaboration • Gaining Top-Down Support from Administration • Assessing Faculty’s Needs and attitudes with regard to Educational Technology

  6. Faculty Surveys Purpose: To assess Faculty’s • Use of, • Attitudes towards, and • Barriers to the use of educational technology

  7. Three Surveys • 1998 – 37 interviews with a select group of faculty who had an interest and knowledge of educational technology • 2000 – A questionnaire to all faculty regarding their use and attitudes • 2002 – An on-line questionnaire to all faculty regarding their use and attitudes

  8. 2000 Type: paper (on-line option) Questions: 43 (likert scale) Plus 2 open ended Timing: Aug. – Sept. Respondents:245 2002 on-line same Plus 3 open ended Nov. – Feb. 170 A Comparison of Two Surveys

  9. 2000 Survey • Most agree technology: • Could be useful in their own course • Offers efficiencies in course delivery and administration • Has the potential to improve student learning • May radically change the way we teach and learn • Provides more opportunities for student interaction • Makes teaching more interesting • Takes too much time to learn

  10. 2000 Survey • Most disagree technology: • Is not worth using until it gets easier and takes less time • Isolates students and decreases communication

  11. 2000 Survey • Most are divided or uncertain whether: • Students prefer more traditional methods • Technology is only useful in some courses • Value of technology has yet to be proven • Students prefer to learn with technology

  12. Attitudes About Value The value of educational technology has yet to be proven

  13. Attitudes About Value Educational technology may radically change the way we teach and learn

  14. Attitudes About Value Educational technology is not worth using until it becomes easier and takes less time

  15. Attitudes About Learning There is not enough known about which educational technology improves student learning

  16. Attitudes About Students Students prefer to learn by traditional teaching methods

  17. Barriers to Use Educational technology takes too much time to set up before class

  18. Barriers to Use I do not have access to classrooms with educational technology

  19. Open-Ended Questions If you use educational technology, why do you use it? If you do not use educational technology why don’t you use it? What is needed at Queen’s to help support faculty use of educational technology? (2002 only)

  20. Why Technology is Used • Disseminating course-related information • Preparing and presenting lectures • Reach more students in more ways • Saving time • Outside pressures

  21. Why Technology is Not Used • Not enough time • Not enough support • Doesn’t improve teaching and learning • Not recognized or required

  22. What Faculty Need • Time • Role models • Recognition • Wired classrooms • Support • Technical • Pedagogical

  23. Survey Results • Faculty appear to have a greater understanding of the role and value of educational technology in their courses • There are less concerns regarding access to and time to set-up equipment

  24. Survey Results However, the greatest deterrents to the use of educational technology remain: • the lack of time to learn and use educational technology. • the lack of recognition. • the lack of knowledge of how best to use the available technology to promote learning.

  25. Using the Survey Results • Ideas for Faculty Workshops and Events • Ideas for Supporting Faculty in the Development of Specific Projects

  26. Using the Survey Results • Primary barrier cited in all three surveys: Lack of Time • What faculty would like in workshops (2002 survey): • How to use educational technology effectively • Good ideas for use that are practical • Case studies and examples of how educational technology is being used effectively • Results of studies on what’s effective

  27. Design of Workshops & Events Take known teaching goals and discuss and present good, practical ideas, case studies and examples of how to use educational technology effectively to achieve those goals.

  28. Design of Workshops & Events Goal: Increase student engagement and interaction. Example Solution:Jeopardy (and other games)

  29. Cross-Faculty Teaching Forum

  30. Design of Workshops & Events Goal:Get students thinking critically about their own learning. Example Solution:Have students develop the questions for a Jeopardy game. Further, tell them that if their questions are good, 20-30% of the midterm will be these same questions.

  31. Design of Workshops & Events Goal: Get feedback from students in a large class. Example Solution: Use FAST (Free Assessment Summary Tool)

  32. FAST (Free Assessment Summary Tool)http://www.getfast.ca/

  33. Workshop Design Ideas • Focus events around a theme for the year • 2002-2003 theme: “Building Learning Communities in Large Classes” • Design workshop and advertising around key goals and concerns

  34. Life-Savers for Large Classes: Jeopardy, Jigsaws, and Jpegs Morning: Bridging the Communication Gap Practical Tips for: ·    Connecting with Your Students·    Connecting Your Students with Each Other·    Using TAs Effectively·    Giving and Getting Feedback·    Communicating with Students without Being Deluged·    Building a Sense of Community·    Deciding Which Practical Tips are Right for You Afternoon: Guiding Student Collaboration New Ways to:·    Engage Students·    Manage Workload·    Actively Involve Students in Learning·    Enhance Critical Thinking Skills·    Teach Students to Teach Each Other·    Get Students to Take Responsibility for Their Own Learning

  35. Workshop Design Ideas • Ensure that faculty experience what is being shown • Provide practical, useful handouts, including ones showing the results of studies on the effectiveness of educational technology • Make things interesting, useful, and fun! • Educational Technology Bazaar

  36. Educational Technology Bazaar • Using a SmartBoard for Problem-Based Learning • Creative Uses of PowerPoint Beyond Lectures • Creating a Word Table of Student Photos to Post on a Web Page • Library and Web Resources: Photo Archives, Virtual Field Trips, Learning Objects, Videos

  37. Less Than Successful Efforts • Coffee Hour Discussions • Intent: Informal discussions on teaching with educational technology • Three- and Four-Day Sessions • Intent: Build an actual learning community of the participants and give a holistic view showing the interlinking of ideas

  38. Future Plans • A series of half-day workshops with lunch • Award an “Educational Technology Certificate” for completing the series • A Faculty “Show and Tell” day in December with other universities

  39. LTFA Web Page http://www.its.queensu.ca/ltfa/ Publications and Reports, including surveys, Jeopardy template, FAST info Resources: Teaching More Students with Fewer Resources: Can Technology Help? Video we made: Educational Technology at Queen’s Notices of activities and events

  40. Thank you

  41. Advantages for the University • Four Faculty for the Price of One • Course buyout or stipend for each term • Work equivalent to one course • Faculty From Diverse Disciplines • Natural Turnover in Group • Influx of new ideas and energy • Ideas and knowledge going back to departments

  42. Advantages for the LTFAs • Interesting work • Sharing ideas with faculty in other disciplines • Learning more about educational technologies • Course buyout or stipend • Time or money (what everyone needs!) • Addition to CV

  43. FAST (Free Assessment Summary Tool)http://www.getfast.ca/

  44. FAST (Free Assessment Summary Tool)http://www.getfast.ca/

  45. Attitudes About Value Educational technology makes teaching more interesting

  46. Attitudes About Learning Educational technology has the potential to improve student learning

  47. Attitudes About Students Educational technology has the potential to improve student interaction

  48. Barriers to Use Educational technology takes too much time to learn

  49. Survey Results • Paper survey received a better response • Timing of the first survey was better • The number and type of questions appeared to be adequate to determine how faculty feel about educational technology

  50. Queen’s University • Medium-sized Medical-Doctoral University with a broad range of PhD programs and research as well as a medical school • Full-time enrollment: 15,409 • Faculty: 994

More Related