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® YesteryearвЂ™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® TodayвЂ™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 вЂњlearner centeredвЂќ (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 KellerвЂ™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 KellerвЂ™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 KellerвЂ™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) KellerвЂ™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 KellerвЂ™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 ResearcherвЂ™s journal Observation of training sessions End product sharing Implementation sharing Research Design / Outcome Measures пЃ® Mixed Methods -- continued пЃ± Quantitative пЃ® пЃ® пЃ® KellerвЂ™s survey of motivational level вЂ“ pre/post Concerns Based Adoption Model вЂ“ pre/post Survey of technology implementation вЂ“ pre/post Procedures вЂ“ 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 вЂ“ 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 email@example.com 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.