Technology Advisory Group

Jeremy and I met with CGCE Dean Jeff Welsh yesterday to talk over some ideas for encouraging exploration of transformative pedagogy on campus, inspired by the Deans’ Group Technology Plan discussion last month.

On Thursday, Jeff is proposing to Provost and Deans the creation of an “affinity group” of faculty who engage in transformative pedagogy using learning technologies.  While he’s getting feedback from the rest of the administration, we’d like to get feedback from the faculty on whether something like this would 1) be of interest to you and 2) be an effective way to encourage faculty to explore new pedagogical techniques.  Here are the basics of Jeff’s proposal so far (as I interpret them):

—-

Goal: Create an affinity group of faculty who engage in and facilitate transformative learning using learning technologies.  [Note: What exactly “transformative learning” means is up for discussion – Jeremy suggested thinking of it as “meeting students where they are and working with them to develop pathways to excellence.” “Learning technology” could be interpreted fairly broadly, encompassing information and instructional technology, or any tools that support learning.]

Proposal: Provide support and incentives for faculty to explore the use of learning technologies to resolve teaching/learning problems.

Faculty Tasks:

1. Identify a teaching/learning problem (e.g., each semester my students really struggle to understand x concept)
2. Engage in a pedagogical literature review
3. Design a transformative solution using learning technology
4. Implement the solution in a class
5. Assess the results
6. Disseminate results to the rest of the Scranton faculty (via a presentation, and/or maybe posts to the TAG site)
7. Disseminate results more broadly, ideally by presenting at a national conference and/or publishing in a scholarly journal

Support/Incentives: In support of this faculty work, incentives could include course release time as well as funding for things like 1) the cost of an adjunct faculty member or overload to cover the course release, 2) cost of support resources (from the CTLE, IR, Library…), 3) equipment or software needed, and 4) conference travel.

Process: Faculty members would submit first a brief feasibility proposal outlining their ideas.  This proposal would be evaluated by a committee, and the authors of the strongest proposals would be encouraged to then submit a longer, full proposal detailing the faculty member’s plans and funding needs.  These final proposals could be shared with the University community for commenting and review, with the evaluation committee making the final decision on whether or not funding would be awarded.  Around four proposals would be awarded funding.

Jeff’s thought is that the first “class” of faculty who received funding would then essentially act as the seed of a growing affinity group.  That first class could help evaluate proposals for the next year.

——–

What do you think? Here’s what TAG would like to know:

• Would this type of faculty support be effective? Would it help the University effectively explore new pedagogical techniques?
• Would any of you be interested in applying for something like this?
• If so, what additional support or incentives do you think you would need?
• How do we define what pedagogy is “transformative”?
• What else should the Deans be thinking about?

Post in the comments or to the TAG-Discussion list to let us know what you think. And please forward this information to any faculty members who you think might be interested in discussing it. Thanks!