Faculty Technology Development at PSU

Faculty Development for Teaching and Learning with Technology: New Directions for PSU

Introduction

Portland State has increased the use of technology by faculty and students. We have progressed through two different stages in this process and are about to enter the third phase. This should be done thoughtfully with an eye toward the future and a careful consideration of how we will use this opportunity to increase both faculty success and the quality of our institution.

This short document is meant to lay the groundwork for a discussion at our Teaching and Learning with Technology Roundtable on Friday, February 14 at 2:00 in Neuberger Hall room 446.

This document has 4 pages:

  • Page 1: The phases of faculty development
  • Page 2: A short description of models that we might use to look at our efforts and returns
  • Page 3: Several key questions that PSU must face
  • Page 4:Comments and recommendations from the TLTR

    1. The "recruiting" phase. , This phase lasted from 1994 through1995 and was characterized by recruiting individual faculty and, independently working to provide technology to the faculty. Technology Plan:Phase I was implemented independently from faculty development efforts. During this phase the key for faculty development was to recruit individuals who would like to include technology into their undergraduate courses. Faculty development efforts used the workshop format and included one funded by OSSHE and several funded by OAA through CAE.

    2. The "service" phase. Our current phase, for the time period 1996 to 1997, is characterized by service. We currently have broad opportunities for faculty development, offering many strategies to meet the needs of many faculty. We are looking for evidence that the use of technology in individual courses has been effective. We are also requiring student use of technology.

    3. The "evidence" or "student learning outcome" phase We are currently facing the transistion into phase 3 which will be characterized by finding evidence on the quality of education for our students and link that back to decisions for development and support. During this phase we will not be able to simply compare courses taught with and without technology because one of the major effects of technology might be to transform the style, format and content of a particular course. We will have to examine program goals rather than just goals for individual courses.

    Some comments on these phases:

  • Rewards and recognition for faculty teaching with technology is an artifact of phase 1. We recruited faculty into the battle and now we feel that we should reward those who stayed with it. At PSU, we linked some of these rewards to student learning outcomes in an individual course thus serving phase 2 purposes with this holdover.
  • Much of the gains attained early in phase 1 were probably due to faculty overload which is not sustainable.
  • Phase 2 is a difficult time. Someone has to make it clear both what the faculty responsibilities are and how much support they can expect.
  • The results from moving into phase 3 will probably require some serious decisions. The most efficient way to increase student learning will be to focus the use of technology in just a few areas. Such a decision would limit general faculty access to both development money and technology support.

    Next page - discussion of several models for faculty development

    John Rueter 2/9/97