The Fusion Model of Instruction Design: A Proposed Model for Faculty Development Programs in Technology Integration

1. The Fusion Model of Instruction Design:A Proposed Model for Faculty Development Programs in Technology Integration Lori Soule Nicholls State University

2. Yesteryear’s student Slide rule Typewriter Warning bell for right margin Manual movement of carriage Smell of ditto ink Classroom technology Movie projector Slide projector Overhead projector Today’s student Graphing calculator Computer literate Cellular phone Talking Messaging MP3 Player Classroom technology Internet Multimedia training E-mail Online classes Characteristics of Students

3. Potential Benefits of Technology • Classrooms can become more “learner centered” (Anson as cited by Hall & Elliott, 2003) • Technology can provide unique learning experiences (Driscoll, 2002) • Employers want graduates who are problem solvers (McGriff, 2001)

4. Problems facing Faculty • Push for faculty to integrate technology into their classrooms • Fear of failure, fear of change, fear of time involved, not knowing where to start (Truman-Davis & Hartman, 1998) • Role changing from instructor/lecturer to course developer/facilitator presents problems for promotion and tenure (Bennett, 2002) • Beyond normal job requirements and expectations (Davidson-Shivers, 2002)

5. Current Practice of Faculty Prof. Development • Focus on technology skills (Dusick & Yildrim, 2000) • Generic workshops targeted for entire university • Limited participation • FD Professionals suggest finding out what faculty wants to learn for successful programs (Quick & Davies, 1999)

6. Problem Statement • Lack of instructional design models specifically related to faculty development (Davidson-Shivers, Salazar, & Hamilton, 2005) • Additional success through the use of adult-learning theories and research (Davidson-Shivers, 2002) • Motivation strategies, such as Keller’s ARCS, can be effective for increasing faculty use of technology (Surry & Land, 2000)

7. Project Purpose • To develop a new instructional design model • Fusion Model of Instructional Design • Model will be used in the development and implementation of faculty development programs in technology integration • Model combines • Participatory design • Rapid prototyping • Keller’s ARCS model of motivation

8. Identification of problem/project Selection and sequence of problems/project to focus on Evaluation of problem/project solution Development of several samples of training model Brainstorming/ Discussion Training of mainstream faculty with involvement of early adopters Training of early adopters Selection and improvement of training model and design Participatory design Rapid prototyping Keller’s ARCS Fusion Model of Instructional Design

9. Participatory Design • Focuses on collaborating with intended users throughout the design and development process (Anderson, Ashraf, Douther, & Jack, 2001)

10. Rapid Prototyping • During utilization of the design, the designer observes and learners from the learners the strengths and weaknesses of the design (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990)

11. Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation (1999) • Attention • Relevance • Confidence • Satisfaction

12. Change Models • Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1993) • Innovators • Early adopters • Early majority • Late majority • Laggers • Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 1987) • Stages of Concern • Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management, Consequence, Collaboration, Refocusing • Change facilitator

13. Adult Learning Theory • Andragogy (Knowles, 1984) • Involved in planning and evaluation of instruction • Experience provides basis for learning activities • Topic of immediate value • Problem-centered learning

14. Benefits of Fusion Model • Incorporates the positive characteristics of the three mentioned models • Overcomes weaknesses of the three model due to the fusion of the models • Motivation of learners will be included during the implementation stages by using Keller’s ARCS

15. Benefits -- continued • Future learners/users will be encouraged to participate at all stages of the model • Formative evaluation is an important component in the model • Early adopters participate in the development of needed training programs

16. Research Questions • 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? • Does the model motivate and encourage faculty members to integrate technology into their classrooms? • How is this model an improvement over existing models?

17. Participants • Faculty members at small, southern university • Two of the most interested departments • Possible expansion to other departments at a later date

18. Research Design / Outcome Measures • Mixed Methods • Qualitative • 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

19. Research Design / Outcome Measures • Mixed Methods -- continued • Quantitative • Keller’s survey of motivational level – pre/post • Concerns Based Adoption Model – pre/post • Survey of technology implementation – pre/post

20. Procedures – Faculty • Initial survey via Blackboard to determine early adopters and training topics using six departments • Tally answers and rank department by interest level • Meeting with interested faculty to identify their current use and prioritize training topics • 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

21. Procedures – Faculty • 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

22. Results from Interview with University Technology Facilitator • Fifteen sessions were held during the 2007 spring semester • Various Blackboard features covered including: • Gradebook • Blackboard basics • Graphics and sound • Only six sessions were attended by faculty • Four times it was the same faculty member

23. Current Progress • Met with interested faculty members • Very interested in personalized training • Prioritized their preference of order of training • Design and implementation of training to occur in the fall semester

24. Significance of Project • 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

25. Contact Information lori.soule@nicholls.edu

26. 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.

27. 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.