Summary from POD* 2000 Conference Participants

of Issues in the Case Study

on the Scholarly Use of Technology in Instruction

Following are comments resulting from discussion of the case among participants at my workshop, The Scholarly Use of Technology in Instruction, at the 25th conference of the Professional and Development Network in Higher Education, November 11, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia.

There was insufficient time to cover issues in depth but these comments provide a worthwhile starting point. If a participant wants to provide elaboration on any of these points, I will insert that elaboration. Just email me. Thank you.

Part I. Clear Goals and Adequate Preparation

What factors should Charlie consider in deciding on his goals for technology for instruction?

• Does the technology help the learning?
• What kinds of learning are appropriate for certain technology solutions?
• What kind of relationship does the teacher have with the students?
• Is the technology available to students?
• What is the nature of the course content?
• What are the characteristics of the curriculum that might impact the goal?
• What is the learning curve for the technology
• What is the teacher's style?
• What types of support are available (both instructional and technological)?
• Is there some part of the instructional task/course that technology may help? Is it E-learning or face-to-face?
• Will a technology instructional product be supported at other institutions, should the professor move?
• How does it fit into the reward system?
• How will the outcomes be measured?
• Is there the necessary infrastructure in place?
• Is it reliable/available/and likely to be continued technology?
• What times is the technology available?
• Will bigger classes result and is that acceptable to the teacher?
• Is the technology transparent?

From the university/college's point of view, what factors should be considered?

• Sufficient student numbers
• Marketing

What preparation does Charlie need?

• Preparation in the type of technology to be used.
• To the point that the teacher can explain it to students.
• To the point that the teacher can deconstruct and restructure the course with the technology.
• Having a backup plan.
• Familiarity with models of instruction and technology use.
• Capacity to work with a team for support.
• Able to answer, "How much technology?"
• Capacity to adapt to new and existing materials.
• Having an assessment plan.
• Knowledge of student technical skills.
• Knowledge of range of student preparation.

Part II. Appropriate Methods and Significant Results

Identify the issues surrounding appropriate and inappropriate uses of methods in the cases presented.

• Relation to goals
• Accessibility (both on-line and in the face-to-face classroom). Including
  • technological (e.g., access to a computer),
  • temporal (e.g., synchronicity demands),
  • disability accomodation (e.g., capacity to see, hear the course activities), and
  • skill (e.g., typing ability).
• Nature of assignments (e.g., discussion board)
• Truth in advertising (changing syllabus?)
• Legal issues (e.g., privacy vs emailing grades)

What evidence has been/can be presented that significant results in learning are present/absent?

• Assessment criteria (technology vs. content)
• Measurement tools
• Peer review
• Grade quality
• Student participation in course activities
• Compare two versions of the course or two partsof the course to determine if comparable activities are occurring.
• Level of interaction

Part III. Effective Presentation and Reflective Critique

How is presentation with technology different from/similar to more customary forms of presentation?

• On-line can be asynchronous
• No gestures, voice modulation on-line
• No retraction so comments can look ugly when they aren't intended to be
• Online is differently accessible (less accessible in some ways, more accessible in other ways)
• Less standardized [?] on-line
• On-line you have to deal with breakdowns
• Intellectual property is a major question-- who owns it?
• Less linear than face-to-face

How could the three use technology to enhance critical reflection?

Posting the grading criteria [This one is encouraging critical reflection by students, the remainder are critical reflection by the teacher about his/her work]

• Getting feedback from students
• Archiving the commentary
• Less "on the fly" response
• On-line discussion with colleagues
• Publication about teaching (e.g., on-line journals or print journals)
• Improvement based on feedback-- actually change something about the course.
• Formative/summative evaluation
• Conversations with peers about teaching
• Automatic data collection built into some software.
• Human subjects review?

Unfinished/Open-Ended Issues to Watch

• What is a course?
• What is technology? Suggested definition: anything not readily available in the world at the time you came of age.
• What is "technology" to us and not to our students?
• Students not used to using technology in critical ways and needing to be taught that.
• Whether technology should be transparent? Only when it is working the way I want?
• The effect of technology on communication and collegiality in the academy.
• When do you need human subjects review?

Ideads for Teachers Summary

• goals must be clear, carefully thought out
• preparation of
  • self
  • students
  • technological support
• methods-- appropriate not only to the technology but also to the goals
• respect students' privacy/individuality
• discuss and clarify expectations (e.g., changing syllabus) up front
• have explicit assessment criteria
• decide whether you want to grade the quality of participation/ decide what you want to grade
• distinguish between learning the technology and learning the content
• be careful what you put on-line
• don't take students accessibility (both technological and physical) for granted
• be aware of intellectual property issues
• seek feedback from students
• have conversations with peers
• consider ethical issues such as use of students' comments

Resources

Brinson, J. & Radcliffe, M. (1996). An Intellectual Property Law Primer for Multimedia and Web Developers. [On-line.] Available: http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook.

Eggleton, F. (2000). Brief Summary of FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. [On-line.] Available: http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Support/AcadAffairs/CTL/ferpa.htm.

*POD stands for Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education (http://www.podnetwork.org/).

Website created: June 1996. Page Created: November 13, 2000. Last Modified: November 13, 2000.