close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

A Proposed Model for Faculty Development Programs in

код для вставкиСкачать
The Fusion Model of Instruction Design:
A Proposed Model for Faculty Development
Programs in Technology Integration
Lori Soule
Nicholls State University
Characteristics of Students
пЃ®
Yesteryear’s student
пЃ±
пЃ±
Slide rule
Typewriter
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ±
пЃ±
Warning bell for right margin
Manual movement of carriage
Smell of ditto ink
Classroom technology
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Movie projector
Slide projector
Overhead projector
пЃ®
Today’s student
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
Graphing calculator
Computer literate
Cellular phone
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ±
пЃ±
Talking
Messaging
MP3 Player
Classroom technology
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Internet
Multimedia training
E-mail
Online classes
Potential Benefits of Technology
пЃ®
Classrooms can become more “learner
centered” (Anson as cited by Hall & Elliott, 2003)
пЃ®
Technology can provide unique learning
experiences (Driscoll, 2002)
пЃ®
Employers want graduates who are problem
solvers (McGriff, 2001)
Problems facing Faculty
пЃ®
Push for faculty to integrate technology into their
classrooms
пЃ®
Fear of failure, fear of change, fear of time
involved, not knowing where to start (TrumanDavis & Hartman, 1998)
пЃ®
Role changing from instructor/lecturer to course
developer/facilitator presents problems for
promotion and tenure (Bennett, 2002)
пЃ®
Beyond normal job requirements and
expectations (Davidson-Shivers, 2002)
Current Practice of Faculty Prof. Development
пЃ®
Focus on technology skills (Dusick & Yildrim,
2000)
пЃ®
Generic workshops targeted for entire university
пЃ®
Limited participation
пЃ®
FD Professionals suggest finding out what
faculty wants to learn for successful programs
(Quick & Davies, 1999)
Problem Statement
пЃ®
Lack of instructional design models specifically
related to faculty development (DavidsonShivers, Salazar, & Hamilton, 2005)
пЃ®
Additional success through the use of adultlearning theories and research (DavidsonShivers, 2002)
пЃ®
Motivation strategies, such as Keller’s ARCS,
can be effective for increasing faculty use of
technology (Surry & Land, 2000)
Project Purpose
пЃ®
To develop a new instructional design model
пЃ±
Fusion Model of Instructional Design
пЃ®
Model will be used in the development and
implementation of faculty development programs
in technology integration
пЃ®
Model combines
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
Participatory design
Rapid prototyping
Keller’s ARCS model of motivation
Fusion Model of Instructional Design
Identification of
problem/project
Selection and sequence
of problems/project to
focus on
Evaluation of
problem/project solution
Brainstorming/
Discussion
Training of
mainstream
faculty with
involvement of
early adopters
Participatory design
Rapid prototyping
Keller’s ARCS
Training of
early
adopters
Development
of several
samples of
training model
Selection and improvement
of training model and
design
Participatory Design
пЃ®
Focuses on collaborating with intended users
throughout the design and development
process (Anderson, Ashraf, Douther, & Jack,
2001)
Rapid Prototyping
пЃ®
During utilization of the design, the designer
observes and learners from the learners the
strengths and weaknesses of the design
(Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990)
Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation (1999)
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Attention
Relevance
Confidence
Satisfaction
Change Models
пЃ®
Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1993)
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ®
Innovators
Early adopters
Early majority
Late majority
Laggers
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 1987)
пЃ±
Stages of Concern
пЃ®
пЃ±
Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management,
Consequence, Collaboration, Refocusing
Change facilitator
Adult Learning Theory
пЃ®
Andragogy (Knowles, 1984)
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
Involved in planning and evaluation of instruction
Experience provides basis for learning activities
Topic of immediate value
Problem-centered learning
Benefits of Fusion Model
пЃ®
Incorporates the positive characteristics of
the three mentioned models
пЃ®
Overcomes weaknesses of the three
model due to the fusion of the models
пЃ®
Motivation of learners will be included
during the implementation stages by using
Keller’s ARCS
Benefits -- continued
пЃ®
Future learners/users will be encouraged
to participate at all stages of the model
пЃ®
Formative evaluation is an important
component in the model
пЃ®
Early adopters participate in the
development of needed training programs
Research Questions
пЃ®
Is the Fusion Model of Instructional Design a
viable and workable model that can be
successfully applied to the development of
faculty development programs in technology
integration?
пЃ®
Does the model motivate and encourage
faculty members to integrate technology into
their classrooms?
пЃ®
How is this model an improvement over
existing models?
Participants
пЃ®
Faculty members at small, southern
university
пЃ®
Two of the most interested departments
пЃ®
Possible expansion to other departments
at a later date
Research Design / Outcome Measures
пЃ®
Mixed Methods
пЃ±
Qualitative
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Interviews of faculty participants on training
experiences
Interview of university technology facilitator on
training design and training implementation
experiences
Researcher’s journal
Observation of training sessions
End product sharing
Implementation sharing
Research Design / Outcome Measures
пЃ®
Mixed Methods -- continued
пЃ±
Quantitative
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Keller’s survey of motivational level – pre/post
Concerns Based Adoption Model – pre/post
Survey of technology implementation – pre/post
Procedures – Faculty
пЃ®
Initial survey via Blackboard to determine early
adopters and training topics using six departments
пЃ±
пЃ®
Meeting with interested faculty to identify their
current use and prioritize training topics
пЃ±
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Tally answers and rank department by interest level
Determine type, length, and frequency of training
Design training sessions on one or two specific
topics with the help of early adopters
Administer pre-surveys prior to the start of the
workshop
Observations will occur periodically as the workshop
progresses
Procedures – Faculty
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
Interview sample participants at the conclusion of
the workshop
Administer post-surveys at the conclusion of the
workshop
Formal interviews with university technology
facilitator before and after training session
Frequent informal interviews with university
technology facilitator
Interview of sample participants three months post
workshop
Researcher will keep a journal throughout the
project
Results from Interview with University
Technology Facilitator
пЃ®
Fifteen sessions were held during the 2007
spring semester
пЃ®
Various Blackboard features covered including:
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ±
Gradebook
Blackboard basics
Graphics and sound
пЃ®
Only six sessions were attended by faculty
пЃ®
Four times it was the same faculty member
Current Progress
пЃ®
Met with interested faculty members
пЃ±
пЃ±
пЃ®
Very interested in personalized training
Prioritized their preference of order of training
Design and implementation of training to
occur in the fall semester
Significance of Project
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
пЃ®
It is expected that faculty would prefer to attend
a training session developed using the Fusion
Model
It is expected that training sessions will have
higher levels of attendance and will be more
effective in faculty implementation of technology
Students will be more motivated and learn more
effectively through technology integrated
instruction
Implementation of model could be used beyond
the university setting
Contribution to the field of instructional design
Contact Information
lori.soule@nicholls.edu
References
Anderson, J., Ashraf, N., Douther, C. & Jack, M. A. (2001). Presence and usability in
shared space virtual conferencing: A participatory design study. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 4(2), 287-305.
Anson, C. M. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology.
College English, 61(3), 261-290.
Bennett, J. F. (2003). Integrating instructional technologies into the marketing curriculum.
Proceedings of the Marketing Management Association, 120-121.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2002). Instructional technology in higher education. In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Salazar, J., & Hamilton, K. M. (2005). Design of faculty
development workshops: Attempting to practice what we preach. College Student
Journal, 3(3), 528-539.
Driscoll, M. P. (2002). How people learn (and what technology might have to do with it).
Retrieved March 17, 2006 from ERIC.
Dusick, D. M. & Yildirim, S. (2000). Faculty computer use and training: Identifying distinct
needs for different populations. Community College Review, 27(4), 33-47.
Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Hall, M. & Elliott, K. M. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process:
Strategies to encourage faculty members to embrace the laptop environment.
Journal of Education for Business, 78(6), 301-307.
Keller, J. M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction
and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 39-47.
References -- continued
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.
McGriff, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education: Instructional designers in faculty
development programs. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from ERIC.
Quick, D. & Davies, T. G. (1999). Community college faculty development: Bringing
technology into instruction. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23(7),
641-653.
Rogers, E. M. (1993). Diffusion of innovations, (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Surry, D. W. & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use
technology. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(2), 145-153.
Tripp, S. & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design
strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44.
Truman-Davis, B. & Hartman, J. (1998). Online with the future: Web-based program
development at the University of Central Florida, designing a university for the 21st
century. In WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet
Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
4
Размер файла
226 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа