Professional Development 24/7: Restructuring How We Deliver Training

Session at POD – Friday, October 28

Professional Development 24/7: Restructuring How We Deliver Training

Innovative Educators – Valerie Kisiel and Kristen Seldon

Intros – kinds of professional development offered – modality

Goals:

1. Think outside of the box.
2. Do more with less.
3. Restructure the way we serve faculty staff

Online enrollment up 832% from 2001-2009

In 2005, 48% of faculty were part-time.

In 2011, CA cutting higher ed budgets by $ 1.4 billion.

Changes in higher ed: many students want OL, increase in PT faculty, doing more with less.

For implementation, ask:

• Is this the best delivery method for the content?
• Who should we include in the discussion?
• Cost?
• Software needs?
• Marketing?

Possible solutions:

Podcasting – itunes  U site for faculty development – usually under 10 minutes – free!

Uses: online learning, technology, on-campus resources, curriculum and teaching techniques, classroom management, personal and professional growth

*See links from handout!

Apple has podcast to train faculty to produce podcasts

Web conferencing

Benefits: cost-effective, easy, interactive

Uses: ORI, brown bag, adjunct training, learning communities, discussions

See example of WebEx – can share websites or desktop

On-demand Training

See outsourced links – innovative educators – example – flash-based

Similar benefits to webex – archive – JIT, certificates, tracking, LMS integration

See open educational resources – free!

Takeaways:

Find out:

• How are we currently storing and sharing podcasts developed by faculty?
• Which platform(s) do we use for web conferencing?

Try out and share some of free sites, get feedback from faculty – how might we incorporate these within GRCC-specific courses and sites?

Linking Milennial Behaviors and High Impact Courses Effectively

Session at POD, Friday, October 28, 2011

Linking Milennial Behaviors and High Impact Courses Effectively

Barbara Hornum

See book – Generation Me –Jean Twenge  – see relationship between self-esteem and narcissism

Milennial Expectations

1. High performance expectations

Positive

• Are motivated to do well
• Take direction to help them achieve

Negative

• Believe they can multitask
• Are not accustomed to criticism
• Assume capable of handling any assignment
• Have experienced grade inflation
• May be narcissistic?

Responses

• Students and faculty have different perceptions of acceptable grades
• Students may blame faculty for not getting As, complain, evaluate poorly
• Faculty may be penalized for poor evals

Effects on High-Impact Courses

• Frank corrective feedback could be threatening to students
• Need balance between frank feedback and motivation
• Multitasking can cause errors and lack of focus
• Must plan at program, not just course, level

2. Desire for structural clarity

Positive

• Respond to clear guidelines
• See cause and effect

Negative

• Are uncomfortable with open-ended assignments
• Expect attention on demand
• Desire step-by-step guidance

Responses

• Need explicit syllabi
• Explain all assignments with grading criteria
• Establish clear communication processes, rules, expectations

Effects on High-Impact Courses

• Capstone courses require self-direction – “wean” students from dependence before senior year
• Students may need guidelines and frequent feedback for each stage of a project
• Involve students as part of planning teams for clarity

3. Instant communication via technology

Positive

• Are reachable by e-mail blasts
• Individual students use e-mail
• Are comfortable with computers and Internet

Negative

• Use texting vs. e-mail
• May assume instructor is online as much as they are
• Use technology during class
• Assume data on web are valid

Responses

• Discuss social media
• Use official college e-mail to communicate
• Be clear which technologies you will use
• Decide how you will allow and use technology in the classroom

Effects on High-Impact Courses

• Comfort with new technologies may help with collaborative tasks
• Include effective time-management practices
• Package HIPs so they are developmental and linked

4. Strong peer group orientation

Positive

• Like to interact frequently and in a variety of modes
• Willingly participate in team projects

Negative

• ”Talking” online during class may disrupt  focus
• May be reluctant to disagree in groups
• May be prone to groupthink.

Responses

• Build in peer interactions and study groups
• Present disruptive communication behavior as problem for class to solve
• Do not criticize students publicly
• Reinforce taking public positions on issues

Effects on High-Impact Courses

• Strong peer orientation and comfort with technologies may benefit courses
• Use chats or discussion boards for collaboration
• Give practice in providing accurate but courteous feedback

High Impact courses are those using practices identified by George Kuh in AACU publication.

Questions discussed in groups:

1. Should HIPs be stand-alones?
2. What are benefits of beginning HIPs in 1^st year and continuing through college career?
3. What kinds of HIP guidance work for today’s student cohort?
4. How can we develop a well-articulated feedback loop for faculty and students?
5. How can we achieve clarity of expectations and goals across the college?
6. What mechanisms can we use to bring faculty together to discuss and implement HIPs?
7. What other college personnel should be involved in the discussions?
8. What conversations should faculty and students be having about HIPs?

Note: questions did not really relate to material presented in first part of workshop, and were more focused on HIPs rather than millennial students. Most groups discussed issues related to millennial students. Several participants expressed concerns about stereotyping and negative attitudes expressed about milennials. Note also that community colleges see a more age-diverse population rather than a “cohort of freshmen” – how can we understand and benefit from the diversity of ages in our classrooms?

Takeaways:

• Compare this information with our AFLD  session  on generational differences.
• Learn more about HIPs – concepts seems like good teaching practice with addition of service learning. Do we have any HIPs at GRCC?
• Share reference and resource lists on website (could library help with links?)

 

Plagiarism as Educational Opportunity

Session at POD on October 29, 2011

Plagiarism as Educational Opportunity

Gerry Nelms – The Ohio State University

Plagiarism: epidemic or paranoia? Consider Internet effects: more available text, more awareness of plagiarism, unclear notions of individual authorship. Reported prevalence of student plagiarism ranges from 3-98% (Whitley). Most research now finds approximately 50%, based on student self-reports.

Faculty developer/instructional consultant’s role with respect to plagiarism:

• Address cases
• Advise faculty
• Assist in development of policies
• Adjudicate cases
• Advocate for culture of academic integrity (McCabe, 2005)

Nelms shared his Revised Plagiarism Knowledge survey (PKS), adapted from Miguel Roig’s work. Session participants could not come to consensus on six potential cases of plagiarism. Nelms suggested that we consider the difference between adopting (taking mindlessly) or adapting (attempting to make it your own).

Definitions of plagiarism:

• WPA (Writing Program Administration): “ deliberately using someone else’s language, ideas,  or other original material w/o acknowledging source.”  Common  knowledge ispresumed to be ubiquitous among members of the specific community being addressed. – e.g. Freud’s concept of the id in psychology.
• Nelms:  Different behaviors (some intentional, some not), resulting in similarities between texts, where author of more recent appears to be taking undue credit.

Forms of plagiarism

• Word-for-word
• Paraphrasing plagiarism
• Plagiarism of secondary sources – repeat  quotes without checking original source
• Plagiarism of the form of a source (APA style?)
• Plagiarism of ideas – even if adequately paraphrased
• Authorship – copying full text w/o acknowledgment

Kinds of plagiarism

• Unintentional plagiarism
  • Carelessness, mistakes
  • Cryptomnesia – unconscious plagiarism – internalizes  and forgets ideas did not originate with him/her
  • Inadequate knowledge (cultural differences, inadequate past instruction, not having learned how)
  • Asian differences in education (more imitation, not integrating idea;  patchwriting -honoring source by not citing; close imitation as learning technique)
  • Developmental
    • Learning to write involves stages: non-academic prose, generalized academic writing,  novice approximations of disciplinary discourse, expert insider writing. Many do not reach final stage until PhD.
    • Adequate paraphrasing limits shared wording to isolated vocabulary, uses different sentence structures from original.
    • Patchwriting is an effort/strategy  by an outsider to imitate language and ideas of insider  (academic) community. It includes more than a few words copied, similar sentence structures.
    • Intentional

Potential reasons for intentional plagiarism

• Pressure to succeed (self, parents, financial aid)
• Time management
• Workload
• Cognitive overload
• Lack of motivation
• Low self-efficacy
• Failure to value need for citation
• Emphasis on efficiency
• Temptation

Low self-efficacy behaviors

• Doubt capabilities
• Dwell on personal deficiencies
• Not as much time on task
• Give up in face of difficulties
• Slow to recover from setbacks
• Could turn to plagiarism

Other concerns

• Differences in writing style by discipline. Psychology relies more heavily on paraphrasing, rather than direct quotations – this is typical of social and other sciences. English and history use more direct quotations. These rules may not be communicated to students.
• Ethnography of student culture – “remix culture.”  Young students have never known a world without Internet; their  view of authorship may be  vastly different from that of Boomer instructors.
• Students may see class or degree as instrumental vs. an opportunity to learn – where is the culture of learning? Assignments perceived as busywork may be more likely to be plagiarized.
• Do our policies take these into account?  Even if we deal with an issue at the instructor level, we should still report; informal agreements without documentation may not address the larger problem.

Takeaways:

• See  Wikipodia overview from Nelms
• Share information with Sara Dorer and Nan Schichtel – possible joint workshops?
• Learn more re: writing styles of different disciplines

Creating Support for the Whole Faculty Member

Session at POD – Friday, October 28, 2011

Creating Support for the Whole Faculty Member

Catherine Ross – Wake Forest

Reference: Sentipensante  by Rendon – western society privileges intellect over emotion and body, competition over collaboration. How does this affect us as faculty members and faculty developers?

While our colleges usually promote “the whole student” (spirituality, engaged citizenship, affective/cognitive development, cultural competence, student-athletes), we may only identify faculty as “teacher-scholars” – honoring only the cognitive realm.

Faculty conversations are often “competitive feats of one-upping” – how many e-mails, how late worked, how many papers to grade. Machismo in higher ed? This can be toxic!

We need to make space for faculty reflection. Catherine described and  two programs from Wake Forest:

1. Pedometers and Pedagogy

This is a regularly scheduled 40-minute walk around campus to talk about teaching. No registration – participants just show up when they can. Advantages include meeting others cross-discipline, taking time to think, getting exercise. (See handout re: creativity and exercise.)

2. “I don’t have time to attend this workshop!”

This 60-minute (suggest 90-minute) workshop was offered to both faculty and staff – included reflection on average work day, ideal work day, gap analysis, SWOT analysis, discussion with a partner, and commitment to both short-and long-term changes. (See worksheet.)

Reflections:

• These ideas seem especially timely for GRCC as we navigate a stressful time in our institution’s life.
• Can we structure learning activities around ILOs for faculty? This certainly supports personal skills.
• We could use this for faculty (have presenter’s permission) – what about students? Part of CLS 100, or even just open walks – department-specific?

Examining the Quality of Students’ Education from an Organizational Perspective

Plenary Session at POD – Friday, October 28

Examining the Quality of Students’ Education from an Organizational Perspective

Dr. James Anderson, Chancellor, Fayetteville State University

Assumption: “Those people upstairs“  (college leadership) don’t understand what we (faculty developers) do, how hard we work, and how important it is…

Academic leaders need an evidence-based model, not an activity-based model – we as faculty developers  must define a model of practice and show evidence of adoption of best practice.

Educational design should show alignment among all of:

1. Institutional goals
2. Division and department goals
3. General education goals
4. Course goals
5. Co-curricular goals (also alliances with external entities)

How does faculty development in 2, 3, and 4 support 1 and 5? We must be able to describe how our faculty development efforts will enhance campus-wide initiatives. University priorities guide direction and resource support for faculty professional development.

If we want students to think critically (for example, within a philosophy major), then we must give practice in making and articulating arguments. We also must incorporate writing and speaking outcomes with critical thinking – how else can you know if students are thinking more critically? At the department level , we may make this change without additional resources.

Bigger issues involve more resources, larger concept maps, “panoramic view.”

• FSU developed sustainability program with city, utility company, chamber, and Ft. Bragg.
• NC State developed Inquiry-Guided Learning; three cognitive outcomes included critical thinking, active learning, and student responsibility for learning.

Discussing diversity (or any other topic!) as a scholarly activity requires that we:

1. Provide an Intellectually compelling and conceptually sound model
2. Incorporate research as a frame of reference
3. Develop an assessment plan
4. Generate a culture of evidence
5. Present results for public scrutiny
6. Promote organizational change and innovation.

Potential faculty development projects:

• Teaching for Retention and Diversity – see both student outcomes and support services. Poor grades in gateway courses has a relationship with diversity – check the demographics of students with poor grades.
• Technology transfer and diversity (including gender differences)

From the leader’s viewpoint, creating faculty stars (by providing resources to develop evidence-based models) has a multiplier effect for the institution.

Anderson sees entrepreneurship as a GLO/ILO – demonstrates by en entrepreneurial response to the rising cost of technology-enhanced learning, especially through Blackboard.  FSU is also providing an entrepreneurship degree that is self-funded through a ventures competition, leadership institute, business incubator, veterans’ business center, and SBTDC.

Question: Does your college really provide a student-centered learning environment (as demonstrated by clear outcomes, front loaded engaging activities, ongoing assessment, well-trained faculty and staff)? Are less effective teachers paid the same as more effective teachers? If yes, what is the incentive for excellence? Anderson believes in “purposely creating inequities” and rewarding results with money and release time.

Another question: Is there differential performance among diverse students in foundation courses? If so, consider research on minority retention (Sedlacek) and assess not only academic, but also other outcomes.

Academic outcomes might include overall grades, course type grades, retention, grad rates, time to degree, changes in academic interest, and/or transfers to 4-year institutions.  However, these account for only 30% of variance among students.  Other  outcomes account for 70% of variance:  academic and social adjustments, attitudes toward learning, expectation for success, academic self esteem, utilization of supports, and other non-cognitive factors.

Takeaways: Anderson makes a strong case for an “evidence-based”  culture – including funding (and pay?) based on evidence.  CTE needs to assess and report change as a result of learning activities, not just the activities themselves.

To find/read:  Learning  Environment Preferences Survey (Perry scheme), CLA (College Learning Assessment), and Sedlacek research on minority retention.