1
November 20, 1998
In the following pages, the current members of CELI have outlined a plan for the continuation of a faculty
development program to encourage the use of technology in teaching. We have drawn on the experiences
we have had since the inception of CELI in 1996, to make these recommendations.
These recommendations are divided into four sections. Section 1 describes the most minimal program,
which we consider to be an essential level of faculty support in a university that values technology as much
as we do. At this level, CELI would provide resources for exploring pedagogical uses of technology
through the planning of workshops, interdisciplinary discussions, and information sharing. We believe this
program should be funded from within the University. Sections 2 and 3 describe two programs providing
incentive stipends to faculty who wish to develop digital applications for use in their classes. Both options
presuppose the existence of the program described in Section 1, and the addition of incentives would bring
with the need for either more release time for the director or administrative assistance. If both the course
release and the summer programs added, the workshops could overlap with some cost savings. Funding for
incentive programs would come from a combination of University and external sources.
Finally, we have outlined a plan for a Center for Computer-Enhanced Teaching. Centers of this sort are
becoming common at universities with a high commitment to technology. Such a center would centralize
many of the services currently available for computer-enhanced instruction, and its own programs would be
run by professional staff, including one or more specialists in Instructional Design. This would
undoubtedly be the most expensive program; we would recommend that such a center be developed only
with external funding.
This document should be considered a work in progress. We welcome your feedback.
Bernadine Barnes
CELI Director, Fall 1998
2
Introduction
The faculty at Wake Forest care about teaching and are curious about what technology may allow them to
do. But they are not able to invest enormous amounts of time and energy into technology until they know
how to use it effectively, and whether it makes a real difference in how their students learn. The
University has made an extraordinary commitment to the computer initiative. We have hardware, software,
networks, help desks, training programs, and countless technical support personnel. But, without a
structure like CELI we have no person or group who can be called upon to help us discover the pedagogical
value of any of it. We believe that the administration's support of a faculty development program for the
use of technology in the classroom is essential.
To date, twenty-six faculty members have benefited from CELI release time grants, which have provided
course reductions for one semester in order to develop digital components for their classes. Six more
faculty members will receive these grants in the Spring 1999 semester; another six applicants could not be
funded because of limited resources. We have also sponsored workshops, guest speakers, and benchmarking trips to observe ways in which other universities have encouraged their faculties to incorporate
technology into their teaching. Thirty-six members of the faculty, representing all departments and levels
of technical skill, attended our most recent workshop, co-sponsored with the Teaching and Learning
Center, "Working with the Web: Using Web-based Materials in the Classroom." This high level of interest
clearly indicates that faculty are more interested than ever in finding out what technology can do in their
classes.
Funding for CELI currently comes from an anonymous grant, and all funding will cease at the end of the
Fall, 1999 semester. The Dean of the College has made available approximately $5000 of faculty
development money, which will be used to award summer stipends to faculty developing digital course
materials. We are continuing to work with the Development Office to explore external funding sources.
Dr. Angela King has submitted a grant proposal to the Culpepper Foundation for funding of a fuller
summer workshop and stipend program. While the current members of CELI are willing to work on grantwriting, we believe that the continuation of the program should not depend on external funding. Rather it
should find a place within the administrative structure of the University, and a line-item of the budget
should be given to it to ensure essential services.
3
Essential Needs:
Program Director and Faculty Advisory committee: To provide the most basic faculty development
program, the current structure of CELI—that is, an advisory committee composed of members of the
faculty from the various divisions along with representatives of the administration and of the ACSs—
should continue. We feel strongly, however, that the director of the program should serve for at least a full
year, and preferably for two years. While we recognize the value of a rotating directorship (particularly the
diverse skills and points-of-view that are brought to the group in this way), we nevertheless feel that the
director needs time to get up to speed, to develop a knowledge base, and to develop sense of mission. The
director should receive a course reduction, so that he or she would teach two courses per year. Generally
speaking, it would be the responsibility of the Director to ensure that the following tasks were performed,
while the Committee would assist and provide input representing the divisions of the college.
Tasks for the Director and Committee:
 Maintain good relationships with members of the faculty, being especially aware of the varying needs
of faculty with different levels of technical expertise.
 Maintain communication between the administration and the groups on campus concerned with
technology (IS, CIT, ACS's, STARS, ICCEL, ATG, ITC)
 Direct faculty to appropriate group for assistance with technology
 Maintain a web-page and/or other means of communications, such as a listserv or a newsletter, that
would alert faculty to upcoming events, resources, and information about the use of technology in the
classroom.
 Provide forums for discussion of the pedagogical use of technology, such as workshops or brown-bag
discussions.
 Plan a large scale, interdisciplinary workshop every semester and summer
 Plan smaller seminars (discipline or technology specific)
 Keep up with literature on pedagogical uses of technology
Annual funding requirements:
3 course reduction for faculty director: $15,000
Program expenses:
5,000
4
Faculty Development Incentives—Release Time Grants with Workshops
An important role of CELI has been to administer the faculty release time grant program. The semesterlong course reduction grants serve the purpose of freeing faculty time, and those who have received these
grants feel that they have made a significant impact in their adoption of technology for teaching. The
luncheon meetings that are required of grant recipients which take place three or four times in the semester,
are good forums for exchanging ideas between disciplines and technology, while also helping to keep grant
recipients focused on their projects. The current committee feels that these grants would be even more
effective if faculty were required to attend at least one workshop as a prerequisite for receiving these
grants. These workshops would also serve the needs of a larger segment of the faculty, since they would be
open to all faculty, and could be tailored to varying levels of expertise. The workshops could be conducted
in the summer or during the academic year. We would like to be able to draw on the expertise of the
Advanced Technology Group, ACS's, and the ITC staff in conducting these workshops. (If ACS's took a
leading role in the workshop, these increased responsibilities might be associated with the promotion and
development plan they have recently proposed.) Alternately, ICCEL workshops on appropriate topics may
serve this purpose.
Managing the program at this level would require additional time of either the faculty director or a staff
position. Additional duties would include




Managing grant applications and the selection process
Project management and follow-through (include lunch meetings and Tech Fair)
Gathering assessment information
Grant writing
Annual funding requirements (in addition to costs outlined above):
Course reduction grants (12 @ $4500)
Additional program costs
(workshop materials and fees for leaders, lunches, etc.)
Staff
$64,000
4,000
$26,500
5
Faculty Development Incentives—Summer Stipends with Workshops
Although the release-time grants have been a success, the costs associated with them are high, and they
have an impact on a relatively small number of faculty members. A summer program of workshops and
summer stipends for specific course development projects may more effectively serve the needs of a larger
number of faculty. The Dean's Office has made an important first step in allowing some faculty
development funds to be earmarked for summer projects for course development using technology. We
believe that such stipends will have the most benefit if they are awarded in conjunction with workshop
participation—for training and information sharing—and with a more structured plan for project
management and assessment. This fuller program would require a director in the summer as well as
additional funds for workshops and materials. We envision funding 10 summer projects with a $1500
stipend each. Again, we would hope that the Advanced Technology Group, the ACS's, ITC, and ICCEL
will play important roles in leading the workshops. If both the Release Time Grants and the Summer
Stipends were funded, the same workshops could serve both programs.
Annual funding requirements:
Faculty stipends:
$ 15,000
Additional program costs:
3,000
Director's summer salary:
8,000
A more fully developed plan for summer stipends and workshops has been proposed by Dr.
Angela King for funding by the Culpepper Foundation. That proposal requests $219,000 in
foundation support, and $92,000 in university funding. Please see Appendix * for that
proposal.
6
A Center for Computer-Enhanced Teaching
In spite of the substantial investment in technology on this campus, the resources for developing
pedagogical materials are widely scattered, and departments largely rely on their own ACS's for advice.
Some interdisciplinary forums have been provided by CELI and by ATG, but more can be done. It has
also been the work of CELI to lead other members of the faculty in exploring the pedagogical merits of the
technology. While each of us have attempted to learn as much as possible in this area, it must be
recognized that most of us are not specialists in instructional design or assessment; our expertise comes
from our experience in the classroom, not from specific research in the field of higher education.
Several institutions have developed centers for computer-enhanced teaching, and the following description
draws upon these examples. (See Appendices C, D, and E for their publications.) We believe that the
faculty should continue to have the important role of advising the director of the center; they must clearly
convey to the director what their needs are (at all levels of expertise), what is working, and what is not.
One or more specialists in instructional design would serve as advisors and project managers for any
faculty projects involving technology; this would include managing any faculty incentive programs that
may be in place. They would also be expected to be aware of current research on the use of technology in
the classroom. The center would also provide settings for discussions and presentations that would bring
together faculty in many departments. They would also represent Wake Forest at conferences and
participate in associations like the Learning Technologies Consortium.
The center would have its own staff, who could be given the task of grant-writing, community outreach
(specifically sharing ideas with other colleges in the area), and identifying those tasks that would be best
done by professional software designers or other technicians. Such a center would employ student workers
for data entry, image scanning, and other routine tasks. Equipment such as digital cameras, specialized
printers, video cameras, etc. could be maintained at the center, and leant to departments as needed.
The current members of CELI have presented strong arguments in favor and opposed to such a center. On
the one hand, the presence of such a center makes a strong statement about the importance of technology at
the University, and it may both attract outside funding and be supported by the overhead of faculty grants
with a technological component. The centralization of resources would help faculty find what they need
faster.
Our reservations are centered on the cost of such a center, on the need for instructional design specialists in
our environment, and on how such a center would work with the ACS's, who currently provide faculty
course development support at the departmental level.
At present, we see the development of a center as most feasible with external funding. We might also
consider employing an instructional design specialist to work with CELI and the Teaching and Learning
Center, as a first step toward a fully developed center.
Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Culpepper Foundation Grant Proposal
Summary of interviews from past CELI participants
Virginia Tech Faculty Development Institute
Center for Instructional Development and Distance Education (University of Pittsburgh)
The Office of Instructional Support and Development (University of Georgia)
7
.