From asuter@cis.ctc.edu Mon Apr 5 20:26:49 1999 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id UAA14966 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:26:48 -0700 Received: from sonics.ctc.edu (sonics.ctc.edu [134.39.4.35]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP id UAA15948 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:26:48 -0700 Received: from cis.ctc.edu (cis145.ctc.edu [134.39.4.145]) by sonics.ctc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id GM45H9ZZ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:26:48 -0700 Message-ID: <37097ED9.6B964EEE@cis.ctc.edu> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 20:26:18 -0700 From: Ann Suter Reply-To: asuter@cis.ctc.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Information Technology Commisssion , Deans of Instruction , Subject: 1998 Faculty Papers - Enhancements: How Using Technology Chnages What Faculty Do. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------38FCC18304C17F90822E2803" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------38FCC18304C17F90822E2803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A lot of material which may be useful for campus roundtables and discussions. ANN http://www.ihets.org/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/index.html -- Ann Suter, Center for Information Services (CIS) 3101 Northup Way; Bellevue, WA 98004-1449 425 803-9756 phone; 425 803-9652 fax http://web.ctc.edu/CTC_cust_svcs/et&t/as-res.html --------------38FCC18304C17F90822E2803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="index.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="index.html" Content-Base: "http://www.ihets.org/distance_ed/fdpap ers/1998/index.html" 1998 Faculty Papers - Enhancements: How Using Technology Ch= nages What Faculty Do.
 
Enhancements:
How Using Technology Changes What Faculty Do

A Collection of Articles by Indian= a Higher Education Faculty

=
(Contents by Technology)     = (Contents by Institution & Author) &nbs= p;   (Committee Members)

Printed copies available.

=
=

The 24 articles published here represent responses = to a call issued in late 1997 by the Faculty Development Committee of the= Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education. Collectively, they constitu= te an answer to the question posed in that call: "Using Technology to Enh= ance Learning: How Does It Change What Faculty Do?" Those who responded a= re incorporating a variety of technologies into their work as instructors= , motivated in some caess by their own pedagogical concerns and in others= by new directions their departments or institutions are taking. No longe= r are "delivery methods" other than face-to-face contact the province onl= y of departments of continuing education. Increasingly, the boundaries be= tween distance education and on-campus education are blurring as the use = of mediating technologies gains acceptance in on-campus classes. With the= new cachet of "distributed education," increasing numbers of faculty are= being called on to explore new ways of working with learners, perhaps ev= en to rethink their understanding of teaching and learning. =

Those who submitted the papers published here are w= orking with a wide range of technologies, from development of computer ap= plications to participation in interactive video courses. Their expectati= ons regarding hands-on technical effort vary widely. Purdue University No= rth Central's Aaron Montgomery and the University of Southern Indiana's B= etty Hart write from the assumption that other faculty who develop Web co= urse sites will themselves design the layout and create the electronic ma= terial, while IUPUI faculty member Pam Jeffries' co-authors are the media= specialist and computer program designer who worked with her on a CD ROM= project, Rhett McDaniel and Michael Vaughn. Some faculty describe an inv= olvement with a particular technology that extends over time, like David = Prentice of Indiana State University, whose work with Web courses has bee= n evolving since 1994, and Indiana University's Gabriel Frommer, whose We= b-based textbook represents the expansion of computerized quizzes he bega= n using in 1992. Others present their experience with a particular utiliz= ation of technology during a defined time period: Indiana University's H= elen Sword, for instance, discusses a fall 1997 course offering that expl= ored the ways in which "changing publication technologies affect how we r= ead, write, and produce textual meaning," with the Web as one of the chan= ging technologies concerned.

Whatever the technology, the motive for using it sp= rings in many cases from faculty concern for the quality of student learn= ing. Indiana University's Jeanne Sept's motive in developing a CD ROM of = real archaeological data was "to help students with a wide range of backg= rounds and levels of education learn about the authentic excitement of ar= chaeological research." Immersed in her own first experience of creating = a course Web page, Ball State's Mary Rizza surveyed her students to deter= mine what features they wanted to see as part of that resource and then w= orked with university technologists to bring them into being. George Weim= er of the University of Indianapolis invested his sabbatical in the creat= ion of an application that would render selections of serious music "inte= lligible, even enjoyable" to his music appreciation students.

The writers make it clear that technology in and of= itself will not produce the improvements in learning they hope for. Many= of them discuss the new dimensions of communication required if technolo= gy is to be used successfully in instruction. As Patricia McNames of Indi= ana University Southeast observes, "One of the most difficult challenges = that an instructor faces is creating a sense of community among students = =85. Developing a virtual learning community begins and ends by focusing = on people." Indiana University's Jack Cummings gets that kind of focus wi= th the electronic introductions he facilitates among the members of his p= sychology class using the Web conferencing application Allaire Forums. Br= yan McCormick and David Austin, also of Indiana University, write of the = specific strategies they employ to enable informal communication with the= students who take their courses via video. Indiana University's Bill Bre= scia, Heike Schaumburg, and Thomas Duffy report on their work with severa= l online conferencing tools and the differing qualities of the electronic= conversations that resulted. And Susan Powers of Indiana State Universit= y describes the techniques she developed to make it possible for a learni= ng-disabled student to succeed in an online course. =

It's clear, also, that these writers recognize that= their efforts alone will not necessarily ensure success in integrating t= echnology. Many of the articles point out ways in which cooperation from = other areas of the university may be crucial to that success. Judy Ann Se= rwatka of Purdue University Calumet discusses the importance of appropria= te advising, not only in the department offering the course but in any de= partment whose students may enroll, before students sign up for an on-lin= e class. Bonnie Bolinger of Ivy Tech State College explains that when her= Terre Haute campus began an initiative to move not only courses but enti= re programs to the Internet, it was critical to make online admissions an= d registration available for students. Judith Halstead and Nadine Coudret= of the University of Southern Indiana describe another ambitious underta= king, the migration of all fouth-year nursing courses at their institutio= n to the Internet, and point out the importance in this process of having= support personnel to work with faculty and of providing faculty with app= ropriate training -- and, just as important, with time to share progress = and questions with colleagues in their department who were also engaged i= n the project.

The writers reveal in a number of ways the effects = which the incorporation of technology had on their own thinking about the= ir roles in the classroom. Ronald Roat of the University of Southern Ind= iana, recognized around town by strangers after his course appeared on th= e local cable channel, discusses the ways in which teaching in a public f= orum shapes public perceptions of the kind of instruction that goes on in= our institutions of higher education. Ball State's Paul Ranieri includes= several examples of the ways in which preparing materials to help his di= stance education students understand the subject matter visually gave him= new insights into effective techniques of making abstract information co= mprehensible and meaningful. Elaine Kleiner of Indiana State University c= omments on the way in which the use of online interaction tools "[changes= ] the instructor-student relationship, putting it on a more personable an= d equal footing."

While virtually every article in this collection in= cludes caveats about particular or general problems that the use of techn= ology poses, most of the writers come down strongly on the side of the si= gnificant benefits that can result. Joan Esterline Lafuze and Randall Osb= orne of Indiana University East and Anna McDaniel of IUPUI describe the i= nclusion of guest lecturers in their three-site interactive video course = and report their students' sense of "feeling privileged to have such gues= ts enter the classroom." They note that "one of the primary strengths of = the use of technology =85.[is that it] truly opens up the world of opport= unity to students." Students in Mark Mabrito's online technical writing c= lass from Purdue University Calumet did more writing than they would have= done in a face-to-face class because all communication in the class was = itself done in writing, rather than spoken interchange. As a result, he = reports, "they [gained] additional experiences in formulating text so tha= t the entire classroom experience became a type of 'prewriting' exercise.= " CHIP, the computerized physics homework application that Virendra Saxen= a and his colleagues developed at Purdue University, ensures that student= s take homework seriously and also makes it possible for teaching assista= nts to spend more of their time providing substantive help. Among several= innovative World Wide Web projects which Indiana University Southeast's = Kyle Forinash, William Rumsey, and Raymond Wisman describe are a computer= simulator and a collaborative online biography of women in philosophy, b= oth of which employ the new medium to do virtual work which could not be = duplicated in the "real" classroom.

The State of Indiana is fortunate to have on the jo= b in its institutions of higher education the dedicated and creative facu= lty and staff who did this work and wrote these papers. They are ensuring= that the electronic wizardry of our era is not being embraced blindly or= adopted without due consideration of its appropriateness and value, and = they are incorporating their energy and ideas right along with the techno= logy. Sharing in their experiences of doing so, and in their conclusions = on the basis of those experiences, the readers of these papers stand to g= ain a new perspective on how technology affects the learning process as a= whole as well as on how it changes what faculty do.

- Nancy Millichap

(Contents by Technology) = (Contents by Institution & Author) = (Committee Members)
--------------38FCC18304C17F90822E2803-- .