Download
faculty instructional support n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Faculty Instructional Support PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Faculty Instructional Support

Faculty Instructional Support

156 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Faculty Instructional Support

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Instructional Support Moving beyond putting courses online to curriculum redesign Leila Lyons, University of Delaware

  2. The numbers tell a story, but what story?

  3. College of Engineering 2000 (F) Fall 2001 (W) Winter 2001 (S) Spring 2001 (J) Summer Civil/ Environmental 2001 (F) Fall 2002 (W) Winter 2002 (S) Spring 2002 (J) Summer Materials Science 2002 (F) Fall Electrical /Computer Mechanical Chemical 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Courses Using WebCT

  4. College of Arts and Sciences: Arts and Humanities French 2000 (F) Fall 2001 (W) Winter Art 2001 (S) Spring 2001 (J) Summer Music 2001 (F) Fall 2002 (W) Winter Art History 2002 (S) Spring Arts/Science 2002 (J) Summer 2002 (F) Fall Italian Languages Philosophy English Spanish 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Number of Courses Using WebCT

  5. Arts & Science: Natural Sciences and Mathematics Linguistics 2000 (F) Fall Science/Culture 2001 (W) Winter 2001 (S) Spring Statistics 2001 (J) Summer Computer/Info. 2001 (F) Fall 2002 (W) Winter Science 2002 (S) Spring 2002 (J) Summer Chem/Biochem 2002 (F) Fall Psychology Geography Geology Mathematics Biology 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Courses Using WebCT

  6. Three scenarios where adoption has been high • Chemical Engineering • Department chair mandates adoption • Foreign Languages and Literature • Spanish requires WebCT for grading Spanish Intro. • FL&L has 2 IT professionals skilled in pedagogy • Biology • Several faculty interested in curricular change through problem based learning

  7. An observation on stimuli for course redesign • Lacking institution wide assessment, more course redesign appears to take place among faculty with • Sustained interest in PBL (ITUE members) • Willingness to invest significant time on course redesign • Example: Biology faculty involved in introductory courses (were PEW grant applicants)

  8. Consortium Study • Main goal: determine whether or not web use changes the way faculty member teaches in the classroom • 9 institutions of Learning Technology Consortium participated • 56 online responses • 38 in-depth interviews

  9. Research Goals • Purpose: To learn from faculty with experience using the Web for instruction: • How does its use change what happens in the classroom? • What is the impact of any changes? • What is the Web’s potential for enhancing instruction? • What support services are needed to facilitate reaching that potential?

  10. Faculty Participants Identified by LTC Representatives • “Experienced” Web Users: having taught a Web-enhanced course for no less than four (4) semesters • Using “rich” Web instruction: • content (text, graphics, audio or video) • interaction (activities, quizzes, etc.) and • communication (e-mail, discussion, and/or group work) • “Reflective”: able to articulate thoughtful, reflective insights into teaching and learning in their classrooms • Varietyin disciplines

  11. Study Summary • Faculty are reporting less change than we anticipated • Changes reported have potential for significant impact on student learning • Increased interaction among students and between students and instructors • Higher expectations and higher level instruction • Better organized courses • Better prepared faculty and students

  12. PI’s observation • Faculty who are not exposed to pedagogy use a CMS: • For "efficiencies" such as easy access to course materials online • Do not substantially change the way they teach • Faculty who understand pedagogy are more apt to • Use CMS to make better use of space and time • These faculty change their teaching style

  13. Elements of an environment that encourages both Pedagogy and Technology Adoption • Partnerships • Faculty Development/Encouragement • Institutional Support • Support Staff • Central • Departmental • Robust Technological Infrastructure

  14. Partnerships • Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education (ITUE) • General Education Initiative • Written and Oral Communications Task Force (WOC-TF)

  15. ITUE Fellow describes use ofWebCT Communication Tools Faculty member skilled in both PBL and WebCT Led class through a problem on justice for the terrorists Used online groups in class to address the problem

  16. Faculty Encouragement

  17. “Faculty friendly”

  18. Showcase Faculty Work

  19. Institutional Support Elements of grant proposal

  20. Course Redesign Projects • Biology • Education • Consumer Studies • Plant and Soil Science • Psychology • ITUE – small projects

  21. ITUE Small Projects • Small grants of staff and student time • Awarded to ITUE fellows • 2 examples: • Harry Shipman and E-labs for Physics • John Deiner and Online Newspaper for Political Science

  22. E-labs in Physics

  23. Online Newsletter for Politics of Developing Nations • Students learn by doing • Study contemporary economic, political and social issues in Third World • Take on collaborative roles and produce a newsletter • Research on the web and publish on the web

  24. Central Support • Half of IT support staff have masters degrees in education • Wide range of skills—programming, digital media specialist, graphics, Course Management Systems expertise. • Instructional designer • Form support teams for projects with Librarians and Center for Teaching Effectiveness staff

  25. Departmental Support • Chemical Engineering

  26. Lessons Learned • Numbers do not tell the whole story • To change the curriculum, need to change how faculty perceive teaching and learning • Infuse the campus culture with a variety of ways for faculty to learn about pedagogy and to reinforce that learning • Faculty readiness is one of the major factors to consider

  27. Let’s discuss …. • How much extra effort can faculty be expected to put out for emerging technologies such as course management systems? • Should the first line of CMS support be at the departmental level, like desktop computing support is in many places?