Beyond Training

A week ago I was in Toronto at the HASTAC conference. It was an amazing conference.

For me, the best part was attending with three faculty members. We were able, together, to see/hear many examples of technology being woven into the humanities. We had concrete ideas to bring back to campus. We were in constant dialogue. We enjoyed each other’s company and made many new friends.

But that’s only half of the story. We also presented together. The “faculty” talked about how particular faculty development efforts on campus (CETI sponsored programs such as Bootcamp and Tech Fellows) led them down a path of reflection and innovation in their teaching. They are fearless in trying out new ways of engaging students; they are open about their failures; above all, they are cognizant of all the possibilities taking place in higher ed. At the presentation, they were open and ready to talk about their personal evolution.

Truly, “beyond training.”

For us, what are the next steps? We are ready to plan and take action. We want to seriously think about our ideas, outline action steps, and put ideas into motion.

We are also committed to working with others. We will take the initiative to reach out and create partnerships with interested colleagues. Not only on our campus but across campuses.

Truly, “beyond training.”

I am not knocking training programs or workshops; far from it. I lead many every year. To quote a part of my presentation:

Like many of our students, faculty learn in a variety of ways. And while workshops and training sessions have their place – and we need them – we have to find ways to build relationships, foster collaboration among faculty, and support innovative ideas as they are developed.

For me, this trip completed the proverbial circle. I don’t know that I can put into words what I have witnessed. We unlearned, we learned, we shared. Of course, we will continuing building. We will continue being innovative. We will fail and we will have successes. We will continue sharing.

Truly, “beyond training.”

Breath Deeply, Reflect, Assess?

It’s starting to feel like the end of the semester. Rushed. Cranky. At times, frustrating.

This is when we need to take a deep breath. I’m mainly talking to myself here but feel free to breath along.

We completed a 6-month pilot called BootcampMobile. Ten faculty were given iPads. Their objectives were to learn how to effectively use an iPad and assess in what ways they were useful in a teaching and learning environment…or not. The pilot itself went well. Most walked away having a greater appreciation of what iOS and mobile environments bring to education. They could talk a new language based on experience.

Like many of our students, getting these fine faculty to “report out” on what they learned – a written report, a presentation – was like herding cats. They resisted. Not blatantly; they knew it was part of the deal. I wanted them, as their teacher and as their guide, to critically think about what they had learned over the 6 month period. I wanted them to truly reflect on their own intellectual growth and think about future implications.

What is it that makes this part so darn difficult for us, all of us, as learners?

I guess if I had that answer, I wouldn’t be writing about it in this post.

Yet, as I think about how I could do things differently, it strikes me that this has always been our challenge as teachers. We can’t get frustrated. We hope that some part of their learning comes back later in some way. Of course, that future “aha” moment might not get captured and we might feel we have lost that assessment opportunity.

I don’t see it that way. I never did, whether teaching 100 students or a group of 10 faculty. Yes, I can’t fully assess the learning in some reflection report or presentation. But I know they learned. I know by their informal remarks. I heard what these Bootcamp participants said in each our monthly meetings. I watched their growth and development. Perhaps the real assessment needs to come from me, not them.

It is that idea – assessment coming from me – that I want to take away from this pilot. It shouldn’t be only students that assess. It should also be teachers. And teachers shouldn’t only assess what they could do differently, or what was right or wrong about a lesson or training approach, but a thoughtful, careful reflection of what the learners produced, communicated, shared, and felt throughout the process.

Documenting their growth in our words might seem like the recipe for a one-sided, biased, case study or participant observation. Yet, seems to me if we modeled this kind of assessment as a research project, and compared results among our peers, we might find some interesting results.

What have you done to assess faculty learning?

Give Them Voice

Any successful campus is more than inspiring leadership. It is more than a healthy endowment. It also lies in a productive and trusting faculty governance system.

Yet, in order for faculty governance to be successful (like all group work!) it requires information. Good information. In some scenarios, faculty are more informed. For example, for committees on curriculum or tenure and promotion, faculty understand these concepts because of their direct knowledge and experience in academia. But what about the technology committee? Is it grounded in the same level of information?

I would hazard a guess that many campuses might see the technology committee being, perhaps, less successful. This has nothing to do with energy, desire, or lack of leadership. But it does have to do with the level of expertise to make informed recommendations or decisions on behalf of the campus. Our faculty are already experts in their fields of interest. Why do we insist they be experts in all things technology? Sure, some faculty members are interested in learning the latest techno doodad. Some will make the time investment to try out a technology that enhances pedagogy. But many are not.

We have a small group of faculty, one from each department, called Tech Fellows. We meet every other week for one hour to share information about what’s happening in their home departments and in their respective colleges. I share announcements about updates or changes regarding campus technology. Or to get feedback about ideas that I have noodling around in my head. This discussion has been an excellent way to stop misinformation from spreading, have multiple people hear the same question and get ONE answer, demonstrate a “how-to,” and generally give me a better idea of the kinds issues, concerns, and problems faculty are facing when adopting/adapting technology in their teaching.

An added benefit to this group is that two members sit on the technology governing committee. One of the things we have done with the Tech Fellows is to arm them with information. While many of our meetings are a sharing of information across departments, I also make it a point to provide demonstrations and discussions about technology that is driving discussions not only on campus but across higher ed. For example, this semester we are reviewing learning management systems (LMS). Not because we are looking to change our LMS; we have no charge to do so. Rather, faculty need the information about LMS to coherently analyze, discuss and debate needs and features of a LMS. It is not enough to say “this LMS is garbage;” faculty need to better articulate their demands. They must understand why there are variations in products to make informed and rational decisions.

An informed faculty is “voice.” Good information and hands-on experience together can give a technology committee confidence and an ability to critically analyze various demands as well as various products. “Voice” can be a strong and influencing presence on any campus. When it comes to effective teaching, we want to support and encourage efforts to be bold and forward-thinking. This does not mean we can live without the “expert” advice from our IT professionals. But working with IT departments means faculty technology committees must understand their own demands!

[In case you missed the corollary, this is how we might approach teaching our students: arm them with information, use hands-on experiences, encourage critical thinking, collaborate with others to solve problems...]

I want faculty governance to work because I believe it can make a campus great. But I also want decisions about campus technology to be guided by good information.

What ways do you help faculty make good decisions related to campus technology?

Bell Curve

I reflect a lot. I like to think about what is happening from a sky-level view. Recent reflection has brought about this observation: faculty learning takes the shape of the ever-valuable bell curve. This observation is, I am sure, not new. Nor do I offer any data or empirical analysis. Just a simple observation that helps explain a phenomenon I am witnessing on our campus.

Over the past several years we have seen a small number of faculty engage in technology. They have been our early adopters; ready to try new technology, ready to fail at technology, eager to connect to students in innovative and inspiring ways. They need little technological support in their efforts as they are relatively fearless in testing these new waters. They need encouragement and affirmation, which is what I try to offer.

This is one end of the bell curve – small in number and narrow in scope.

Now move into the large swelling of the curve: These faculty members have seen and heard how technology can aid pedagogy. They want to try wikis, blogs, and make good use of the course management system. The largest difference I see in these faculty is that they are not fearless, they lack confidence, and their technological skills are not as robust as the early-adopters.

This bell curve bulge is a place where faculty development efforts are strained. Increased demand for technological support leads to a rethinking of training options. In some ways, it feels like a step backwards. More introductory level training sessions. Remediation classes, if you will. Yet, in other ways, if we look closely, it also suggests a campus stands ready for institutional change. The masses can spark change that those few early adopters – those pioneers – could never do on their own.

The other end of the bell curve? Well, call them what you will – laggards, stalwarts, lazy, unbelievers, non-adopters – but we need them to keep us honest. As teachers of the 21st century it is apparent that our challenge is to model life-long learning for our students. Like it or not, that requires integrating the internet and computing in ways unknown before. That is no easy task, especially when we leave our graduate schools thinking we know all we need to know. Alas, our expertise is not enough. Early-adopters in educational technology are always testing new ground. But the skepticism, disbelief, and sometimes downright obstruction by the non-adopters is good for us. We need that challenge to make sure we are doing right by our students.

This is the other end of the bell curve – small in number, narrow in scope.

Our campus has been feeling the swell of the bell curve. For those campuses finding themselves in a similar situation, I sympathize with your increased responsibility and your feelings of being overwhelmed. Yet, it is also a time for tiny celebration. Our faculty are moving into the 21st century. Not just a few, but the masses.

Have others observed this phenomenon on their campus?

Breeding Collaboration

I like the idea of working with others. In fact, I prefer it to working alone in most situations. When you work with others, so many good ideas are generated and each person brings their own experiences and expertise to the table. I also like to joke around and laugh. That’s hard to do alone.

There is no doubt in my mind that our students need to learn how to collaborate. They need to partner with others to solve problems. They do not have all the answers themselves. As great as Google and Wikipedia might be, neither can innovate or problem-solve like a group of people.

One way to demonstrate the value of collaboration to our students is to engage in it ourselves. After all, we shouldn’t be telling our students “do as I say, not as I do.” They don’t buy it, nor do they respect it.

How can we collaborate? I have been fortunate to find willing faculty to work outside of their discipline to write articles, go after grants, and establish new events, such as THATCamp. We have presented our Bootcamp workshop at conferences, sharing perspectives from both faculty learners and administrative teachers, and have had an article published. What is amazing is that most of us hadn’t previously worked together. It really is exciting and motivating to work together – to collaborate – on projects and ideas that are not part of our day-to-day work. Granted, this is more “work.” There are all kinds of hurdles from tenure & promotion concerns to the learning curve of trying something new. But it can be a fulfilling endeavor. I love that someone else is a great writer and can eloquently put our ideas in a conference proposal format; or that one of our team members has a relationship with an outside organization that gives our group the needed knowledge for a particular grant effort. The excitement generated by collaborating on a successful project is contagious. And that is the example we want to give our students. It is what I want our faculty to experience, too.

I realize not every project or effort requires a partner. Or that we are necessarily successful! But what are some examples of collaborative efforts you have witnessed or experienced?