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 .