Faculty Learning Communities--Faculty development option

We are in the midst of organizational change where I work with the retirement of our President of thirteen years and the Interim Presidency of our Provost. Change for the sake of change is not good, but as a catalyst for improvement and development, it is powerful. As part of that change is a re-evaluation of how we, as a faculty, can work together to improve our teaching practices and thus improve the college. The Interim President is promoting a paradigm shift to a more student-centered learning environment, integrating technology as learning tools and resources. This change provides a wonderful backdrop for my KAM I (Social Change in Educational Technology in Higher Education) studies.

Rogers’ (1995) model for adoption and diffusion of innovation classifies adopters of innovations in five categories, they are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. In the early stages of faculty development at --- College, most faculty were innovators or early adopters with high intrinsic motivation, computer technical skills, and a desire to teach using technology. In light of this, the primary focus with faculty was to provide training on the course tools and suggested applications leading toward success. This typically occurred in a computer laboratory with a small group of interested faculty. A few individualized sessions were also provided for support and follow-through with the training provided in the group session at the request of individual faculty members. However, other than the initial introductory face-to-face workshops offered by the Blackboard Administrator three years ago, no ongoing faculty training program exists to prepare faculty to develop their technological skills, to convert their courses to online, to use Blackboard efficiently or to incorporate technology into their teaching practices.

A holistic approach to supporting users in each of these stages is essential. As the late majority faculty are being “pushed” to integrate technology, the need to provide training and support in addition to technical training has become apparent. While large group, workshop-based training was sufficient for early adopters as an introduction to developing online or web-enhanced courses, it does not provide the detailed assistance necessary for the late majority. A campus-wide approach would allow for dialogue among faculty across all disciplines about best practices in technology integration, whereas "just-in-time," personalized support at the department/division level would enable faculty to adopt technology more seamlessly. I have proposed the development of faculty learning communities as a faculty development option to provide training and support as faculty endeavor to transform their teaching practices. Specifically, I have initiated a technology FLC--and hope to encourage other faculty to develop additional FLCs to address other needs such as retention, meeting the needs of the NET Generation, creating multi-disciplinary courses, etc.

"A faculty learning community (FLC) is a group of trans-disciplinary faculty, graduate students and professional staff group of size 6-15 or more (8 to 12 is the recommended size) engaging in an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and activities that provide learning, development, transdisciplinarity, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and community building" (Cox, 2004).

We had our initial meeting today. As a result of our brainstorm and discussion, the following cognitive goals were suggested:
1) develop expertise in accessing and utilizing online resources and tutorials;
2) broaden application of a variety of teaching strategies in order to better address student retention and persistence--including different learning styles, generational learning differences, student motivation, lack of technology skills as well as supporting under-prepared, disabled, and returning adult learners;
3) increase instructional technology competencies in the use of media, software, hardware, and Web 2.0 tools to enhance learning;
4) increase use of technology to streamline course administration and management duties such as record-keeping, attendance, gradebooks, and resource management.

Attitudinal goals include:
1) develop a culture of excitement and enthusiasm among participants for ongoing learning and self-improvement;
2) foster a collegial atmosphere among faculty;
3) encourage and support a community of practice (learners) willing to share expertise and experience.

Since one of the goals is to encourage the use of technology to streamline course administration and management, participants agreed to work together in a hybrid model. This model would allow collaboration beyond our abilities to meet together face-to-face as well as a means to manage our resources. We all agreed that there are numerous ways to approach our learning endeavor this year. We are to rank the following topics prior to our next session and determine a specific project or course in which to apply what we learn.

Potential topics for discussion
Adult Learning Theory

• Andragogy
• Transformative Learning
• Social Learning
• Constructivism
• Brain-Based learning

Using Web 2.0 Tools

• Podcasting
• Wikis
• Blogs
• YouTube
• Bookmarking tools such as de.licio.us
• Slideshare
• Collaboration such as Facebook, Stikipad

Integrating technology activities into teaching practices—beyond PowerPoint

• Video/DVDs
• Virtual Fieldtrips
• Webpage evaluations
• WebQuests
• Scavenger hunts
• Research activities
• Reference documentation such as EasyBib
• Note-taking/Outlining
• Online Flashcards
• Mind mapping/Concept maps/flow charts (using Inspiration)

Designing online learning environments

• Web-enhanced/hybrid model
• Synchronous vs. Asynchronous communication
• Best practices for facilitating online discussions
• Content development for the web
• PDF Conversion of files
• Organizing course content
• Developing class units
• Blackboard Basics
• Advanced Blackboard
• Elluminate

Alternative and Authentic Assessments

• Online Assessments
• Project-Based learning
• Student Response Systems
• E-Portfolios
• Self-direction and Learning Contracts

Building Faculty Learning Communities (Vol 97)
Jossey-Bass series, New Directions for Teaching and Learning

Diffusion of Innovations

Educational institutions, not only at the primary and secondary levels but also in higher education, have invested significant amounts of time and money in educational technologies. Although the number of teachers adopting these technologies for use in their classrooms and in delivering courses/information online has been increasing, there still remains a large number who are reluctant to adopt them. Colleges and universities are inconsistent in their positions. Whereas many institutions are beginning to jump on the online learning bandwagon, many instructors still prefer face-to-face lecture mode in the classroom. Technology holds great potential for enhancing teaching; however, many administrators are left searching for effective ways to promote technology’s use to expand instructional methods. Instructors must be willing and able to use these tools.

In 1962, Everett M. Rogers summarized 405 research studies and published the book Diffusion of Innovations, formally defining diffusion of innovation theory. Diffusion is “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system" and innovation as "an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by individuals or their unit of adoption" (pp. 10-11). Rogers based his diffusion of innovations theory on recognized theories in sociology, psychology, and communications.

According to Rogers, individuals within an organization do not adopt an innovation at the same time. Instead, they adopt over a sequence of time; therefore, individuals can be classified into adopter categories on the basis on when they first begin using an idea. Rogers theorized that innovations would spread through society in an S curve, as the early adopters use an innovation first, followed by the majority, until a technology or innovation becomes commonly used and accepted. He indicated that adopters of any new innovation or idea could be categorized as innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%), based on a bell curve. Butler and Sellbom (2001) indicate that the rate of adoption follows a cumulative pattern, starting low and increasing until about half the population has adopted the innovation. Diffusion then decreases, eventually approaching zero, as nearly everyone has adopted the technology.

According to Rogers, adopters of all categories go through a five-stage process. First, the adopter is exposed to the innovation and gains knowledge and understanding. Then either individually or with the help of others, the adopter is persuaded to form a positive viewpoint about the innovation. Next, the adopter decides to try it out. If the innovation works, the adopter implements it, putting it to appropriate uses. Finally, the adopter’s experience confirms his/her decision and he/she continues to benefit from its use.

Where are you? Where am I? Well, it depends. Mostly, it depends on the group you're putting me in. In 1986, when I first started using a computer (an Apple IIgs) and then moved to a Mac, I was probably an innovator. I kept pushing to see how I could better use this new tool. In 1999, I earned my M.Ed. Through that program, I had been exposed to the Internet, to HyperCard, to Cable in the Classroom. The only Internet connection was in the College of Education’s main office (dial-up, of course). I was hooked.

I am constantly looking for ways to create a constructivist classroom—to help my students be critical thinkers. At South Aiken High School in 2000, there were only 15 computers located in the library available for teachers to bring their students in to use. I had at least 30 students in each class. Students worked in groups to complete WebQuests—a strategy I had found on one of my surfing adventures. Bernie Dodge had only coined that term in 1995. Because I am constantly surfing the web and open to new technological innovations, I am probably often an innovator (where I am) or an early adopter (in the population in general). My Director told me the other day that I was in the 21st century and many of the other teachers and staff where I work are still in the Stone Age. I see my job as bringing them at least into the 20^th century. There are so many possibilities!!!