Institutional Transition to the Learning Paradigm : Coupling Transformation and Scalability Through Instructional Tech

1. University of North Carolina System - TLT Symposium Institutional Transition to the Learning Paradigm:Coupling Transformation and Scalability Through Instructional Technology --------------------------<<>>------------------------- Donald P. Buckley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Director of Instructional Technology, School of Health Sciences Quinnipiac University; Hamden, CT 06518 Apple Distinguished Educator Computerworld Smithsonian Laureate don.buckley@quinnipiac.edu http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/health/biology/buckley/welcome.html --------------------------<<>>-------------------------

3. U N I V E R S I T Y O F H A R T F O R D AEC Advanced Educational Computing A Tool To Foster Student-Centered Learning Culpeper FIPSE NSF

4. 1. The Decade of the Brain: • New insights about the cognitive development of learning 2. Soul-searching about alarming levels of literacy: • Emergence of the Learning Paradigm 3. Information technology: • Data collection/analysis & authoring • Simulation • Communication • Formative Assessment A Revolution in Education?Only once in our species history …NOW

5. Knowing The meaning of “knowing” has shifted from being able to repeat and remember information to being able to find and use it Herbert Simon Nobel Laureate

6. The core goal is:Learning with Understanding

7. Faculty Preparation for Learning-Centered Instruction ContentKnowledge PedagogicalKnowledge PedagogicalContentKnowledge Learning-Centered Instruction

8. Institutional Transitionto the Learning Paradigm • Learning-centered faculty development is crucial • Faculty need transformational experiences • Transformation conflicts with scalability • Non-scalable processes may remain insular and transient …institutional change processes needed • Faculty populations have structure, which influences the scalability challenge

10. Hagner, NLII 2001 White Paper

11. Hagner, NLII 2001 White Paper

12. Institutional Transition Process Harding, NLII 2001 Local R&D 1-on-1 Authoring Boutique Phase Transformation Scalability Early Adopters Systemic Phase Transformation Scalability Later Adopters Lone Rangers Innovators

13. Four Foci • How do people learn? • What is the role of technology in learning? • Institutional Change: Boutique Phase • Institutional Change: Systemic Phase

14. Four Foci • How do people learn? • What is the role of technology in learning? • Institutional Change: Boutique Phase • Institutional Change: Systemic Phase

17. Why? • The part of the brain that we use for critical inquiry seems to have evolved from part of the brain that we use for : Perception • Which draws lots of assumptions and makes lots of snap decisions in order for us to navigate though our daily existence

18. Learning with Understanding Sudying Facts Is Necessary, But Memorization Is Inadequate Learn for Understanding Application to Solve New Problems Students Need to Build Their Own Meaning Transfer

19. Where Are We Going? Instructional Paradigm Learning Paradigm

20. Principles to Drive This Transition Learning should be inquiry-oriented Students need to learn with understanding Student experiences should be learning-centered Learning should be socially situated Pedagogical Innovation must be coupled to institutional change processes Faculty development should be transformational

21. How?

22. One Approach...

23. Technology can be an Enabler COMMUNICATING SIMULATING VISUALIZING COMMUNITY OF LEARNERS DATA COLLECTION ANALYZING MODELING BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium

24. Technology Is Often Heralded as a Solution Faculty Practices Pedagogical Potential of the Technology Learning Paradigm Instructional Paradigm Faculty still operating within the Instructional Paradigm will not recognize the value of advanced instructional technology, which is best suited to supporting learning centered pedagogies.

25. Four Foci • How do people learn? • What is the role of technology in learning? • Institutional Change: Boutique Phase • Institutional Change: Systemic Phase

26. Pedagogical Feature Set of Instructional Technology Interactivity: fosters active-learning experiences Multimedia: engages cognitive processes Communication: promotes social construction of knowledge Computing components: • professional tools • simulations to develop critical inquiry skills • integrate powerful assessment tools •authoring tools for report writing

27. Goals of Assessment • Mindful engagement ...”chunking” • Provide feedback • Build incentive systems • Collect diagnostic clues about individual needs

28. Learn Facts Learn Concepts Learn Inquiry main learning goal foundational information Assessment Tools in Education Technology Open-ended assessment styles Structured assessment styles Utility of Competing Assessment Styles

29. Open-ended AssessmentA Contradiction of Terms? • Perhaps some structured assessment • Portfolio model …report authoring • Need epistemological scaffolding …e.g., 3P's • Iterative, analogous scenarios to build meaning • Path analysis …monitor decision making Formative

30. Examples

31. Four Foci • How do people learn? • What is the role of technology in learning? • Institutional Change: Boutique Phase • Institutional Change: Systemic Phase

32. U N I V E R S I T Y O F H A R T F O R D AEC Advanced Educational Computing A Tool To Foster Student-Centered Learning Culpeper FIPSE NSF

33. U N I V E R S I T Y O F H A R T F O R D AEC Using Advanced Educational Technology to Foster Institutional Transition to the Learning Paradigm Culpeper FIPSE NSF

34. Traditional Technology Training Limited potential (e.g., slide show authoring) • Because “don’t have the time to commit to deeper efforts” Problem: making a better lecture is not transformational • It doesn’t foster transition to learning-centered pedagogies • Faculty wonder “why spend all that effort for limited gains?” Result: limited faculty willingness to participate in more training

35. Solution: Up the Ante Capture the pedagogical high ground …focus on learning & inquiry. Focus on genuinely transformational faculty development to change faculty attitudes and behaviors Authoring experiences can be transformational

36. Deep Authoring Is Transformational Experience It was enormously stimulating for most participants to create learning environments that would enable them to teach things that they could not teach well before.

37. Full-fledged Interactive Multimedia Authoring Was Chosen for Training Programming Was Required To Meet Faculty Functionality Goals • To customize interfaces that allow students to explore the content areas in intuitive ways • To build simulations that emulate the real world • To build formative assessment tools

38. Summary of Core Training Concepts Use Technology that Provides Transformational Pedagogical Experiences But Keep the Technology Transparent Focus on Pedagogical Innovation Build Collaborations Seek the Eager-Beavers

39. Major Features of Faculty Development Program 1. Full-fledged Interactive Multimedia Authoring …Transformational 2. But our goal was NOT to create multimedia authors 3. Emphasize pedagogy …this is not about “learning technology.’’ 4. Keep the technology transparent ! Technology is the mentor’s job. 5. Heavy reliance on Faculty Mentoring Faculty and other collaboration. 6. High quality support necessary to minimize risk and maximize success. 7. Promote a culture of teaching reform and pedagogical scholarship. 8. Create a versatile faculty reward structure that values innovation.

40. Major Features of Faculty Experience Focus on Pedagogical Innovation & Student Learning Train clusters of 3-4 faculty from a discipline (interdisciplinary next time) First, 30 hours of group introduction (1:1 trainee:trainer ratio) Then, committed and prolonged individual mentoring Let each faculty member build a tool to solve a problem in their content area Author small projects to ensure success and formative development Don’t let faculty fail Build a faculty reward structure …development, class, grants, presentations

41. Scale of Faculty Participation in AEC Program Number of faculty trained: 74 out of a population of 320 Art 5 Art History 4 Biology 2 Business 4 Chemistry 4 Communication 7 Computer Science 4 Education 5 Engineering/Technology 6 English/Humanities 6 Foreign Languages 2 Health Professions 5 Hillyer College/Humanities 3 Judaic Studies 1 Music 3 Physics 1 Political Science 3 Psychology 5 Sociology 4 74 Two Year Total (1 June 1996)

42. Faculty Self-Description of Developmental StageNo significant differences were observed between AEC-trained faculty and other faculty. This suggests that AEC outcomes are not based on preferential recruitment of evangelists into the program.

43. Faculty Attitudes About Student MotivationAEC Faculty tend to be more optimistic that educational technology can improve student motivation to learn.

44. Faculty Attitudes About Student AbilityAEC Faculty tend to be more optimistic that educational technology can improve student ability to learn.

45. Faculty Multimedia UseAEC Faculty were trained in interactive multimedia authoring.These data indicate that AEC-trained faculty exhibit much greater tendency to use multimedia.

46. Overall Information Technology Use

47. Project Outcomes: Institutional Change in Faculty Attitudes and Technology Use in Teaching Edward Klonoski ◊ UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD ◊ Donald Buckley AEC Culpeper FIPSE NSF

48. Four Foci • How do people learn? • What is the role of technology in learning? • Institutional Change: Boutique Phase • Institutional Change: Systemic Phase

49. Problem with IMM Training: Scalability • Authoring IMM LearningWare is a deep experience • Faculty do become sophisticated consumers of LearningWare and explore learning principles • Problem …very effort intensive • Need another kind of authoring experience to provide transformational faculty & curriculum development • Course Management Systems: Transformation & Scalability?

50. Institutional Transition Process Harding, NLII 2001 Local R&D 1-on-1 Authoring Boutique Phase Transformation Scalability Early Adopters Systemic Phase Transformation Scalability Later Adopters Lone Rangers Innovators