A Collaborative Faculty Technology Development Initiative
John Tashner, Nancy Mamlin, Sara Zimmerman, Pat McCarthy, John Spagnolo, Richard Riedl, Connie Ulmer, Gary Moorman, Appalachian State University, United States ; Bill Barber, Appalachian State UniversityAppalachian State University, United States ; Cheryl Knight, Linda Pacifici, Appalachian State University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-44-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Statement of Purpose Recent national reports and research (CEO Forum Report, 2000; Uttendorfer, 2001; Carbonaro, Snart &Goodale, 2001) note that while computer technology is in place in higher education settings, the integration of technology into teaching lags behind. In K-12 teacher training programs, state boards of education have adopted technology standards for their teachers. North Carolina's State Board of Education (http://www.ncpublicschools.org/tap/techcomp.htm) mandated a set of basic and advanced technology competencies for pre-service and experienced teachers. As a result, faculties of education need to develop and strengthen their technology skills in order to model and facilitate these skills for pre-service teachers. Much research is presented on the use of technologies in post-secondary learning environments in an effort to bridge the gap between available technologies and the integration of those strategies (Bohannon, 2001; Edwards & Crawford, 2001; Glennan & Melmed, 2000). Yet, little research exists on formative ways of training faculty to use this technology appropriately (Dutt-Doner, Larson, & Broyles, 2001). The focus of this paper is to present the work and lessons learned from a college of education Faculty Technology Development initiative. Background/Goals This group began with six faculty from across departments within the college of education in the fall of 2000, selected by the College's Technology Advisory Council and the Faculty Professional Development committee. The group, called Faculty Technology Development (FTD), had the following goals: (a) to have ongoing, sustained conversations on identified instructional technology issues within the college; (b) to create, promote and share a faculty vision on the role of technology in teaching and learning; (c) to collaboratively inquire into continuous improvement and sharing of what faculty were doing with instructional technology; and (d) to promote and share models of effective technology enhanced teaching and research. Method/Design The faculty team initially used attendance at a professional conference as a catalyst for meeting the FTD goals. The team met to select a conference to attend as a group, and to assess the current state of affairs within the college on instructional technology issues. Points, concerns and issues raised during these initial meetings became woven through out the pre, during, and post-conference meetings. Pre-conference meetings included identifying key questions to be researched during the selected conference, establishing team and individual roles and goals, setting an overall team agenda for the conference, establishing travel arrangements, setting meeting times during the conference, and brainstorming post-conference dissemination activities to be implemented within the college. The team met during the conferences to share, review, and raise new questions. Participant meetings during the conference were designed to connect the conference experiences to the college's instructional technology issues. During post-conference sessions, the participating faculty discussed lessons learned, determined and planned additional dissemination activities, and planned for the next team. Findings The FTD returned from the first conference experience and invited new members to participate in team activities. Thus, the faculty team currently consists of new as well as previous faculty members. Principles Guiding the Implementation of Instructional Technology written by the team participants has become an initial working document for the group as well as a statement for the college. In addition, a second document, Actions needed to Sustain the Growth of the Effective Use of Technology has been used to assist the planning process for creating new forms of learning environments. The FTD has planned a number of activities to enhance the process of technology integration in the college: colloquia to showcase instruction technology efforts across the college, field trips to learn from K-12 schools across the state, faculty mentoring faculty groups, and instructional graduate students mentoring faculty. The FTD will be expanded further this year with additional participants who will attend other professional technology/education conferences this spring to continue the foundational work previously started. The Presentation The presentation of this paper will include a discussion of the processes used by the Faculty Technology Development group to promote and support educating college of education faculty in appropriate technology integration into curriculum. Additionally, paper presenters will share lessons learned as well as the products produced to date.
Tashner, J., Mamlin, N., Zimmerman, S., McCarthy, P., Spagnolo, J., Riedl, R., Ulmer, C., Moorman, G., Barber, B., Knight, C. & Pacifici, L. (2002). A Collaborative Faculty Technology Development Initiative. In D. Willis, J. Price & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2002--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 696-700). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
ReferencesView References & Citations Map
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.Suggest Corrections to References
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
Susan Gibson & Kim Peacock, University of Alberta, Canada
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (2005) pp. 1798–1804
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.