December 2001 Meeting Advanced and Specialized Educational Technology Project Development Needs of Faculty Presenters: Ruth NewberryStephen Hardesty Educational Computing Consultant Multimedia Developer Duquesne University Pittsburgh, PA.

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Copyright Ruth Newberry, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Where are we? n Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA n Private, Urban, Catholic Institution n 5500 Undergraduate & 4000 Graduate Students n 410 Full-time faculty n 475 Adjunct Faculty n 380 Graduate Teaching Assistants

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Who are we? n The Educational Technology Team –Ed Tech Team Leader (1) –Educational Computing Consultants (2) –Multimedia Designers (1) –Instructional Designers (1) n We are a part of a larger group of 17 n Our mission/ role –to service and support faculty in their use of technology in teaching –to assist faculty in developing educational technology materials

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Our early philosophy “Anything you bring us, we will try to help you do”

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What we did… n We taught faculty how to use low end multimedia and to develop skills n Effectively serviced faculty needs within our constrictions –projects not sophisticated--ppt, web pages, video –faculty could learn needed skills –projects were small, finite, and specific

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What has been happening... n Project is already under development by faculty member or others n Project is stalled.. n More faculty aware of educational technologies, but –applications more complex –less time for faculty to learn/commit to skills & applications –our resources are limited

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University An Example of what we face... n Medical Ethics –web browser version –new version

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What we face now... n High-end, database driven multimedia projects –specific, interactive, learning modules n Reworking or retro-fitting projects –Evolving, multi-layered, sophisticated projects n Difficult to fulfill mission and goals –limited resources, people, & time –faculty need support now more than before

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What can we do? n Change the process and modify the philosophy…. n “Anything you bring to us we will consider….” n Institute a Project Development and Management Model n Change culture and perception of Ed Tech Support at institution

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Testing our Plans n Summer Institute for Teaching with Technology (SITT) –in its 7th year; focus changes with needs –week long institute with stipend n CFP went out in March –narrowed to 3 faculty n Topic: Identify a teaching problem that technology could help you overcome/solve

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Primary Goals for the SITT n Develop & evaluate project development & management model for institution wide use n Promote innovative uses of technology within realistic expectations and institutional resources –Prevent retro fitting and wasted resources n Increase understanding of Ed Tech role in supporting educational technologies –collaboration

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University The Participants Lenore Resick Associate Professor, School of Nursing Director of Nurse- Managed Wellness Center Dr. Ken Saban Assistant Professor of Marketing School of Business Ingrid Provident Fieldwork Coordinator/ Instructor School of Health Sciences

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What did we do in the SITT? n SITT Day 1--Understanding Faculty Needs –To understand faculty situation, idea, goals, and needs w/o technology concerns –To have faculty understand the project’s relation to their course’s aims & objectives n SITT Day 2--Considering the Possibilities –What have others done? –Mapping the Course Flow

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University SITT--Days 1 & 2 n Concerned with their teaching needs and curriculum concerns n Focused on teaching problem and solution without issues of technology n Fostering understanding and collaboration n We needed to understand the “what” & the “why”...so we could suggest the “how”

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University SITT--Days 3 & 4: Reshaping n Team Consultations with individual faculty –Moving from the Big Idea to the Manageable –Determining technology package n Assessing the Project –student outcomes & project success n Aim: collaborate to create a manageable project to achieve student learning aims

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Issues for All--The Contract n Whoa…. Wow… Can it be done?! n Issues for All –Do-ability--realistic endeavor for all involved –Defining responsibilities and roles –Scalability –Maintenance

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University SITT--Day 5 Presenting the Project n Faculty perspective n Posterboard Showcase n Workshop Assessment

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What worked? n Depth of discussions between Ed Tech & Faculty –small group, informal atmosphere –Collaborative atmosphere w/o “techie” talk n Opening Ppt by Faculty n Active Learning scenario –activities promoted movement and dialogue that led to refinement and thinking of project

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University What could be changed? n More time for faculty to reflect on project needs, materials, and scope –Different models considered n More time for Ed Tech team to consult with each other before & after time w/faculty n Put Portfolio project activities, diary entries, and samples online n An audience for Day 5 presentation

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Did we achieve our goals? n Yes, we have 3 manageable projects and more realistic expectations by faculty, –but people & resources are limiting opportunities n Yes, the collaboration will produce excellent projects for use beyond the classroom, –but our project development model is not ready for institution adoption n Yes… if Ed Tech Team is part of selection committee process

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Project Development DU n New Philosophy: “Think Big with Realistic Progress” –Technology secondary to the idea –Technology and pedagogy must work together –Emphasis on student learning objectives –Collaboration of faculty and Ed Tech

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Where do we go from here? n Resolve outstanding issues at Duquesne so our model can be used institution wide –Intellectual Property Issues –Ownership of product »Collaborative model w/promotion & tenure »Royalties if product moves beyond classroom/institution

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Questions we need to consider n Scalability & Cost & Return to Institution –time & resources cost worth it? Maintenance? n Does this increase faculty productivity in the long run? n Will students be smarter because of these products? n Do we discourage products that are one time, class/instructor specific?

Copyright R. Newberry, 2001 December 2001CTS Duquesne University Project Updates n Ingrid’s Project n Ken’s Project n Leni’s Project –current status of project –why is this working?

December 2001 Thank You Questions?Comments… Ruth NewberryStephen Hardesty For more information on this presentation, go to