Update – 3 December: In the wake of this post I’ve received some immensely valuable feedback from academics I respect and trust implicitly, some of whom have taken offense to what I’ve included here – particularly my suggestion that some teaching practice has a shallow pedagogical basis.
I meant no offense by this post and apologise to anyone who I may have insulted or offended. I see my purpose in education as helping contribute to learning and teaching by empowering staff and students alike to seize hold of their ideas and see them through to fruition – not to tear them down with arrogant or condescending remarks.
This particular post captured one small thought in a far greater train of thought, which has evolved and changed tremendously since I posted this. I very nearly deleted this, however in light of the tremendously valuable feedback and input I’ve received since then, I thought it might be worth leaving in.
So once again, my sincerest apologies for any offense taken – I’m quite interested in hearing the perspectives of academics in this discussion, so please leave a comment if you have thoughts or criticisms. The more I’m able to understand the perspectives of academics, the more equipped I’ll be to offer assistance and support.
_________________
Original Post: 2 December
If my discussions with a few people yesterday are anything to go by, the nature of the challenges I’ll be facing in my new role are even more fundamental than I’d initially realised. I’m still absolutely up to the job and relish the opportunity to work closely with academics – but the nature of my approach is going to have to change.
Whereas I’d intended to gradually establish relationships and identify needs by examining existing practice – in particular, finding out what their aims and objectives were or what attributes they are trying to nurture in students, what activities they have in place to help students pursue the aims or develop the attributes, and then how the assessments are structures to align with these elements – it would appear that some academics don’t actually do this in practice. One of the important questions to resolve here, is how widespread this tendency is.
So how do you put pedagogy first when it’s either under-developed or ad hoc? I can’t help but remember an Economics professor I had during university who would start each session by saying “What do I want to talk about today?”
The wake of these coversations is making me look at existing usage habits of the LMS in particular, and educational technology more generally, in a very new light.
In particular, perhaps educational technology is not necessarily seen as an add-on. Perhaps instead, the superficial usage is indicative or symbolic of much broader issues with course design, where teaching is being equated to delivery of facts and information and learning is the ability to memorise the data and parrot it back again. Memorisation has its place to an extent, but not as the exclusive basis for a curriculum.
So any plan to enhance the online learning activities of the faculty will HAVE to address the deficiencies in pedagogy first.
This is no small task, I think; nor is it not without its potential controversies or political sensitivities. The last thing I want to see happen is academics start feeling threatened or criticised, or sense that I’m starting to question their credibility as instructors. Certainly I see areas that need improvement, but the best or most effective ways to affect that change in a manner that is taken on willingly by the community is not clear to me at the moment. So I’ve got lots to think about.
Anyone with experiences in this area or suggests, please speak up in the comments area or leave a trackback.
Grumble. Half my post was gobbled in transmission. I’ll fix this shortly.
Hi Mike,
It seems we’re all in the same boat sometimes, and I totally agree with your conclusion of the challenges ahead.
I’m a firm believer in finding one, or two academics who are enthusiastic and open to at least discussing the potential for enhancing their courses through the use of new tools. If changes are implemented, these can be used not just as shining examples as to what’s possible, but also as a bit of peer pressure on other academics not so willing to change. This is no easy task by any means, but I do find it helps.
Unfortunately our institutions plans for this are not up to the challenge on a system wide level. We need more time, resources, and man power to work directly with Faculties, schools, admins, and academics in small manageable groups in order to identify courses and pedagogical practices which can be revamped and enhanced using all the tools available to us.
Sadly it seems too much of our efforts are being wasted on making a poor LMS product work, and then training people on how they can get it to do what they want it to do. Instead of having a product that just works and then focusing our training efforts on the use of it features, we’re spending more time on fixing a broken product, or finding work arounds. Then we’re spending time on writing up these work arounds and training others on how to implement these.
Sorry I went off course there for a bit, but I just feel there’s been a major leadership failure here and this is a main cause of the problems we find ourselves dealing with these days and will most likely continue for at least 1 or 2 more years.
Hi Mike–
I think your evaluation is pretty accurate (at least from my perspective as a faculty member). Most faculty members receive all (or nearly all) of their training in the subject matter of the discipline. Rarely do grad students spend much time learning about learning, so whatever teaching style we develop tends to be modeled on the examples (positive and negative) set by our faculty role models.
Additionally, it’s just plain easier to lecture than to use other teaching methods. It’s what we know and what we (at least at some point in our lives) love, so it’s easy to stand up and talk. Simulations, role playing, games, group activities, and other non-traditional activities take more time to prepare for and to assess. When all else fails, I can crank out an outline and talk for an hour and fifteen minutes. I’ve got a colleague who’s near retirement who says, after 30 years of teaching this class, I’m pretty much on autopilot.
I’m making an effort to get away from that, but it’s a long and time consuming process.
Additionally, there’s an element of student expectation. Not that we should give students what they expect when it conflicts with what they need, but there’s a comfort element. They’ve done 12 years of elementary and high school, and they know what’s expected: pay attention, take notes, and regurgitate. Often the students who do well in high school are most invested in the system because they’re good at it.
As a result, part of what I strive to do is create just a little bit of discomfort–I talk to them about what they want out of the class at the beginning, I ask for their goals, and then I follow up at the end. I also aim for a reflective final assignment to encourage students to think about what we’ve learned rather than cram for an exam.
Finally, consider sharing this pedagogical question: “What’s fun for me?” If I’m not having fun, the students aren’t having fun, and the class isn’t working. Most of the time, standing up and lecturing isn’t that much fun, so I look for other activities that are. It helps.
@JP: Hear, hear on all counts my friend. The “Change Agent” model of locating and empowering key individuals in each school has been the consensus so far with everyone I’ve spoken with about this sort of thing. So that’s the approach I’m going to take as well.
I’m certainly not leaving the rest of the faculty neglected in the dust of course, but it makes sense that the people who have innovative ideas about learning and teaching, and are devoting energy to fully exploring the implications for learning and for learners, should get as much support as we can muster.
@Ted Major: I really appreciate you sharing your experiences here Ted, and as I said initially I hope this post hasn’t come across as too critical or condescending.
Ed Webb actually commented on the (truncated) Posterous version of this post and pointed out there is also the matter of research being more highly valued than teaching in the sense of career progression.
It seems the more we tease this conversation out, the more complicated it becomes, and the root cause of all this is indeed systemic – funding & resourcing, institutional priorities, student expectations, and time constraints, as well as pedagogical philosophies and preferences too I suppose.
Hmmm, you’ve given me more food for thought. Thank you very much for that.
@Mike Bogle: I didn’t take it as condescending–then again I wish I had the kind of support at work that it sounds like you’re offering. (I’m a little biased–my wife is a professor in a Higher Education doctoral program and specializes in teaching & learning, so I’ve picked up a bit by osmosis.)
@Ted Major: Glad to hear that. I personally look at learning and teaching very much as an “Us and We” activity, rather than the constant delineation between IT and Academics which is a bit too prevalent in my view and can be counter productive. Then again I guess that’s why I’m an EDUCATIONAL Technologist