"Bring Your Own (BYO)" Webinar

The Impact on Pedagogy and Professional Development

December 8, 2011

1:00 EST

Sponsored by: ClassLink

 Bring Your Own technology initiatives are top of mind with school administrators everywhere this year. Whether big or small, schools across the nation want to leverage the benefits of student and teacher owned technology devices in the classroom. Specifically, schools expect BYO to improve learning and better prepare 21st century citizens. When surveyed, schools that had successfully implemented BYO programs universally agree that improvement to classroom instruction (pedagogy) is an "essential element" for success.

Learn from the panelists on how the BYO movement is transforming classroom instruction and professional development.

Elliot Soloway, University of Michigan

Cathleen Norris, University of North Texas

Cary Harrod,  Forest Hills Local Schools

Berj Akian, CEO, ClassLink

To learn more and/or to register for this free webinar, click this link:  http://www.classlink.com/eml/final/leadership/leadership28.html

Teachers Using Twitter for Professional Development

Teachers are increasingly using Twitter for professional development and collaboration, according to the New York Times blog post by Kathleen Schulten. Each week, thousands of teachers participate in scheduled Twitter “chats” around a particular subject area or type of student. Math teachers meet on Mondays, for instance, while science discussions happen on Tuesdays, new teachers gather on Wednesdays and teachers working with sixth graders meet Thursdays. (Jerry Blumengarten, Twitter’s @cybraryman1, posts this helpful list of educational chats.)

By using hashtags — that is, words or phrases preceded by the # symbol, like “#Scichat” for science educators — users can organize, search and find messages on a particular topic all in one place.

Anyone can participate, and joining is easy: just go to Twitter, search for the hashtag of the chat that appeals to you, and start to read the stream of messages. When you’re ready to add your own thoughts or share resources, just append that same hashtag to your Twitter message. (For more tips, visit The Times' “Nuts and Bolts” and “Resources” lists.)

The blog post also features an interview with the founders of the Edchat, SSchat and Engchat Twitter streams, who talk about the power of the medium.

Interactive lecture: How to Engage Students and Deepen Comprehension

Harvey F. Silver and Matthew J. Perini, joint authors of best-selling books on education, have recently developed a new Strategic Teacher PLC Guide focused on the Interactive Lecture. Their latest professional-development tool teaches educators how to improve their students' abilities to think actively about the content of a lecture and lock the critical information in their memories. It explores how teachers can plan and evaluate lessons, as well as review and utilize the student work that results.

• Read sample chapters.
• Learn about the authors.

Faculty Adoption of Course Management Systems

I am been working on motivations and barriers to higher education faculty adoption of online teaching--and found several gaps in the literature. However, I've decided to narrow my focus a little more to faculty adoption of course management systems. Below is my "working" rationale for the study.

Rationale for Study

Previous literature regarding faculty perceptions (i.e. motivations and barriers) to teaching online, have conceived of online teaching as a single innovation. However, as Hall and Hord note, some innovations, such as online teaching, are actually a bundle of innovations. Course Management Systems (CMS) provide an integrated approach to developing courses and teaching using web-based technologies. Furthermore, the integration of CMS in higher education has become an important issue recently (Eighth Annual EDUCAUSE Current Issues Survey, 2007); therefore it is essential to study faculty perceptions because faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology influence its successful adoption and implementation. Due to scarcity of university resources, efforts should be made to focus resources on those elements that deliver the greatest return on investment (ROI) of instructor time and effort. The findings from this study can assist administrators in determining educational costs and value in terms of the effectiveness of the CMS in teaching and learning. In addition, the data can provide information on how institutions can reduce, minimize, or overcome perceived barriers to online teaching. Hoskins and van Hooff (2005) noted that as web-based approaches in education increase, systematic evaluation of course management software becomes essential. Even in cases where institutional support is high, two separate studies, conducted by Hutchins (2001) and Johnson and Howell (2005) found that faculty attitudes may be hard to change to meet the demands of the new dynamic, which indicated that a study of faculty attitudes should be a component of any research on the effectiveness of course management systems.

This study helps fill a gap in the Educational Technology literature concerning faculty attitudes and perceptions regarding CMS in higher education. In addition, the findings can assist faculty development personnel in developing appropriate training programs. Faculty training has been found to be an essential factor in the successful implementation of new technology in higher education (Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Bates, 2000).

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change: strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Butler, D.L. & Sellbom, M. (2002) Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved May 13, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0223.pdf

Hoskins, S. L. & Van Hooff, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use online learning and what influences does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 177-192.

Hutchins, H. M. (2001). Enhancing the business communication course through WebCT. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, p. 87.

Johnson, G. M. & Howell, A. J. (2005). Attitude toward instructional technology following required versus optional WebCT usage. Journal of technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), p. 643-654.

Hearding Cats

I found this ad on YouTube. Sometimes working with people to to get them to accept a new idea is like herding cats.

Faculty Development and Technology Integration--research proposal

I am currently taking my final course for my Ph.D.--before I begin working on my dissertation (that is if I finish my two independent study modules--which I plan to do by May). I put off taking Quantitative Research because I am not really a math oriented person and I knew it would be a killer class. Well, I was right. At first I had a little problem with the course project since we can't propose a descriptive research project--it has to be experimental or correlational. Everything I want to research seems geared toward descriptive research. So, I had to modify my idea for an experimental design.

Purpose of Study: To determine whether participation in an 8-week faculty development course will influence instructors’ attitude toward and integration of technology in their teaching practices.

The following research questions will be used to guide this study:
1. What relationship exists between instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online) and their integration of technology in teaching?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their integration of technology in teaching.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their integration of technology in teaching.

2. Does instructors' use of technology in their teaching change as a result of their participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online)?
Ha: There is a statistically significant increase in instructors’ integration of technology in their teaching following participation in the faculty development course.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in instructors’ integration of technology in their teaching following participation in the faculty development course.

3. What relationship exists between participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online) and their teaching perspectives?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their teaching perspectives.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their teaching perspectives

4. Do instructors’ teaching perspectives change as a result of their participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online)?
Ha: There is a significant change in teaching perspectives as a result of instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online).
Ho: There is no significant change in teaching perspectives as a result of instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online).

5. What relationship exists between instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online) and their attitudes toward technology use in teaching?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their attitudes toward technology use in teaching.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their attitudes toward technology use in teaching.

Learning Organizations, Faculty Development, Technology

This quarter, I am taking my last research course for my Ph.D. I also decided to take a course on Writing a Literature Review. For my quantitative research course, I am developing a course project--essentially a mini research proposal. I was hoping that the articles for my KAMs would help me decide on my dissertation topic/question--and that I could begin to develop my proposal as my course project. Unfortunately, I find that all my research questions seem to lend themselves to descriptive studies or qualitative research. Therefore, my project proposal is not really a project that I can implement at this point in my career. Oh, well.

I am finding that the Lit Review course is helping me focus my research more, however. The matrix is especially helpful as I create my annotated bibliographies based on the new KAM guidelines.

One thing I've found is that the plethora of terms used to describe "online learning" and "faculty development" make it difficult to make sure that I've covered all the bases. In addition, I have been focusing on faculty development and higher education. However, I'm not finding information on the relationship between faculty development initiatives and knowledge management or organizational change. I'm not sure if there has not been any discussion or if I'm not asking the right questions/putting in the right keywords. Peter Senge's book Schools That Learn is primarily directed at lower education (elementary-secondary). I can't believe that no one in higher ed has read his books. Kezar (2005) maintains that although "the learning organization has been one of the most written about topics in organizational studies. higher education institutions have been less likely to apply these concepts to their organizational functioning" (p. 1).

Higher education (especially 4-year research institutions) is such a bastion of tradition! The whole concept of being a good instructor is a relatively new idea. All too often faculty see faculty development initiatives as intrusive and meddling. They pride themselves on what they know. And they find it hard to give up "power." Admitting that they don't know something (such as how to use technology in their teaching practices) is difficult. So not only is technology integration a new innovation, but faculty development to improve teaching and learning is a new innovation. All too often technology initiatives are introduced without getting all stakeholder buy-in and without adequately establishing policies and procedures--one of which is to provide ongoing support of faculty to learn how to use the technology AND how to integrate the technology in their teaching practices (they are not the same thing.)