Teaching, Learning, and Technology: An Emerging and Contextual Faculty Support Model

Teaching, Learning, and Technology: An Emerging and Contextual Faculty Support Model

Tiffany Anderson

Teaching, Learning, and Technology: An Emerging and Contextual Faculty Support Model

In this session, A. Kashif Asdi, Daniel F. Detzner, Linda A. Jorn, John L. Sonnack, and J.D. Walker shared information about their collaborative efforts at the University of Minnesota ­ Twin Cities to provide instructional technology support for faculty. The panelists specifically addressed a relationship between the College of Human Ecology (CHE), the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and the Digital Media Center (DMC). The goal of this relationship is to offer faculty-centered technology support through the use of individual consultations, training, and resources. The panel constantly stressed the importance of collaboration.

The panel addressed the key role that continuous evaluation plays in making the most of this relationship. They stressed that it was critical that they persistently ask faculty what they need and what barriers they are facing. Then, most importantly, they change the services based on these results.

Several key developments arose from this relationship ­ a Technology Learning Center (TLC) was established, Web camps were initiated, and ongoing faculty/staff training was developed and delivered. The TLC offers consultations and classes, specialized software, equipment that can be checked out, and a help desk. It is considered to be both a learning center, where training and resources are available, and a project development laboratory, where faculty can work with an expert on producing technology-enhanced learning materials.

The summer Web camps were developed to instruct faculty on creating simple Web-based materials. Previously, the demand for course Web sites was much greater than the staff could provide, as they were taking a much larger role in actually maintaining all the files. With the Web camps, they were able to train faculty to use Web authoring software, present stipends and software to the faculty participants, and provide training for the participants' computer support staff.

During the Web camps, participants were involved in two different types of sessions. First, there were seminars that addressed issues such as design and usability, copyright issues, and university Web policies. Second, they took part in hands-on classes which helped them learn to use such tools as digital cameras, scanners, FrontPage, and audio/video editing equipment.

The rest of the session focused on evaluating these new implementations, both from the faculty and student perspectives. The panelists stressed the need to evaluate technology-enhanced learning, including assessment of training programs, facilities and infrastructure, and technical support. They emphasized that evaluation is necessary both to improve services and to show the results of university spending. To evaluate this process, they utilized faculty and student surveys, as well as focus groups.

Some of the important findings of the evaluation process include areas for further development. For instance, they discovered that most of the faculty Web sites are strictly taking advantage of the Web for information delivery, and utilizing almost none of the Web's interactive capabilities. Additionally, faculty expressed a clear preference for formal training through classes and consultations. This caused the group to rethink plans for extensive online documentation.

They discovered that the main faculty concerns focused around having enough time to learn new skills, having access to in-class technology support, reliability of equipment, and expense. Students were concerned with more demands on their time from faculty, lack of formal instruction, and ease of working collaboratively with their peers. Furthermore, they found some demographic differences in comfort level and ease of use; both men and students under the age of 30 were consistently more accepting of the technology than women and older students.

Finally, they concluded with a list of key factors in successful partnerships between central technology support units and individual colleges:

1. 1.

   Focus on faculty-centered support.

2. 2.

   Understand Dean's commitment to vision and funding.

3. 3.

   Emphasize project management ­ goals, roles, evaluation.

4. 4.

   Access to robust/reliable technology infrastructure.

5. 5.

   Plan/budget for local and central support infrastructure.

6. 6.

   Work on long-term relationships.

7. 7.

   Promote scholarship of teaching.

8. 8.

   Challenge and retain instructional technology professionals.

While the panelists accurately described the successes and shortcomings of their program, problems in the presentation prevented it from being as useful as it could have been. The first problem was with the sound equipment; the microphones were not working well, and it was difficult to hear the speakers over the static. The microphones were passed back and forth frequently, amplifying the problem. The presentation would have benefited by less frequent change of speakers, and by cutting down on the amount of material that was covered. In a 45-minute presentation, 49 slides were used, and the speakers often raced to keep up with them. Focusing on either the new implementations or the evaluation of the process would have been more fruitful. There was no time left at the end for questions, although the speakers did make both themselves and their slides available after the session. Additionally, they provided all attendees with handouts summarizing their project and describing the Technology Learning Center. For those wanting to find out more about this successful project, information is available on their Web site at http://tlc.che.umn.edu.

The Creation, Care, and Feeding of a Knowledge Base: Practical Advice

"Technology and people should be used for what each performs best. Technology is good for answering repetitive questions. People are good for problems that require human logic to solve." Sue B. Workman made this statement at the beginning of a group presentation regarding lessons learned when working with the Indiana University Knowledge Base (http://kb.indiana.edu). Other presenters were Jonathan Bolte and Beth Norzinskay, also of Indiana University (IU).

The IU Knowledge Base was created in 1988 as an internal tool to help computer support staff share information with each other. By 1995, the files were available to the public, accessible through the World Wide Web. Last year, the Knowledge Base had over 4.5 million hits and contained more than 6,500 entries. While the presentation described refers to a specific knowledge base of computer support information, most of the lessons learned may be applied to any type of online repository of information.

First, the presenters discussed the value of a knowledge base. They found that at IU, support requirements were increasing exponentially, while the budget remained steady. A knowledge base can provide answers for frequently asked questions, while freeing up the experts for answers to more specific and rare questions. Finally, a knowledge base can serve as a repository for the expertise of your current and past employees. As Jonathan Bolte stated, "To waste your information, to let your expertise walk out the door with that individual, is a shame".

A knowledge base has three primary components:

1. 1.

   code;

2. 2.

   content; and

3. 3.

   process.

The panelists recommended that most organizations currently considering starting a knowledge base should purchase the code from any one of a number of companies that sell these programs. While IU created its own, they claimed that it took years to have in place, and it would be impractical to suggest that someone starting now would want to take that long. The content and process involved in their creation of the IU Knowledge Base is also important, and can be broken down into four major tasks, as described below.

1. 1.

   Identification of content. Regarding material to be included, the most important factor the IU staff stressed was that the users should generate the content. They indicated that the information incorporated into the articles should be as place-specific as possible, and should be based on questions asked by the users. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of chunking information into small articles (their articles average two screens each), and the use of scaffolding. As Jonathan Bolte stated, "More is not necessarily better. What is not of use is noise". For the administrators of the Knowledge Base, it is important to remember that anything included must be maintained.

2. 2.

   Collection of information. The presenters had a number of considerations for those collecting content for a knowledge base. First, they stressed the importance of collecting from those who will benefit from the knowledge base. Those people whose workload will be decreased with a successful knowledge base have a big stake in providing accurate information. It is also a huge time-saver if tools and processes are established to integrate the data collection into the normal work pattern. Use information gathered by support staff and help desk workers. Some needs can be anticipated ahead of time, thanks to staff members who circulate on campus and listen to concerns of users. Another method of collecting content is to do a thorough analysis of searches on the knowledge base ­ what information were users unable to find before?

3. 3.

   Distribution. Interface issues come into play when trying to distribute content to users. The IU Knowledge Base has tried to achieve usability with a number of tools. The user can use a basic or advanced search screen, or work through a series of specialty menus. Links to a glossary are available from within the articles, as are links to other articles that might be of interest. The IU Knowledge Base provides links to other knowledge bases, such as those supported by Microsoft, Novell, and Apple. Additionally, when a user performs a search, the results are returned in rank order. In writing the articles, the IU Knowledge Base takes full advantage of trained editors. Originally the technical staff did all the writing, but, according to Sue Workman, they "finally came to the conclusion that you can't take technology people and make them write".

4. 4.

   Maintenance. The IU Knowledge Base has over 6,500 entries, so maintenance can be overwhelming. The presenters provided some insight into how they approach maintaining so many articles. Whenever a support desk person leads a user to an article, he or she reviews the article for its continued accuracy. An archive of all past entries is kept, even for the articles that are for software/hardware no longer supported at IU. A program called Kbverify checks that all links are accurate every week. They also use boilerplates ­ text that can be inserted into a number of appropriate documents, saving the editors from rethinking procedures common to many tasks.

The session ended without any time for questions, though all the speakers made themselves available afterwards, and many attendees took advantage of this time to speak with them. Overall, this was an enlightening discussion on a procedure that not many organizations have yet tackled. More information about the IU Knowledge Base is available at http://kb.indiana.edu/info/infopage.html.

Tiffany Anderson, Instructional Technology Librarian ­ Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3702, Durham, NC 27710, Telephone: (919) 660-1123; Fax: (919) 681-7599; e-mail: tiffany.anderson@duke.edu