A Virtual Center for Lifelong Learning

Transcription

Table of Contents
Executive Summary..........….......................................................
Introduction..............................................................................
Evaluation Methodology.........................................................…
Setting the Stage.................…....................................................
Grant-funded Activity.......…......................................................
SEPCHE Consortium………………………………………………….
Consortium-wide Workshops and Conferences
National Conference Attendance…………………………………….
Virtual Communities……………………………………………….
Culminating Conference……………………………………………
SEPCHE Institutions…………………………………………………..
Arcadia University..............................................................….
Incentives to Faculty............................................................
Mentors and Technical Assistance............................................
K-12 Technology Workshop..................................................
Cabrini College..................................................................…
Equipment Purchase............................................................
Pastry and Pedagogy............................................................
Mosaicos Curriculum Enhancement....................................……
Writing@Cabrini...............................................................
Palm PDA Project..........................................................….
Chestnut Hill College..............................................................
Equipment and Software Purchases..........................................
Faculty Training.................................................................
Gwynedd-Mercy College..........................................................
Instructional Technologist…..................................................
Holy Family University............................................................
Equipment Purchases and Upgrades.........................................
Course Management System..................................................
Immaculata University.............................................................
Faculty Training and Technical Support.................................…
Neumann College...................................................................
Faculty Resource Center.......................................................
Academic Resource and Career Center..................................…
Meagher Theater................................................................
Rosemont College………………………………………………….
1
5
7
10
15
15
15
18
20
22
24
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
33
33
34
35
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
40
41
41
42
42
43
i
Faculty Training.................................................................
Evaluation Findings .................................................…………….
1. The Congressional Grant proved pivotal in the technological
development of SEPCHE institutions......................................…...
2. Grant-funded activities produced an unprecedented collective
identity among faculty of the SEPCHE institutions......……………….
3. Grant-funded activities enabled SEPCHE to mobilize a critical
mass of faculty toward technology-enriched pedagogy………………..
4. Although faculty hesitate to say they are better teachers now,
they perceive that new technology has changed their
instructional practices for the better...........……………………… ..
5. How students experience college is changing as technology
changes the academic environment.........................................…..
6. Institutions have undergone permanent changes made possible by
the Congressional Grant. When it comes to technology, there is
“no turning back.”.................................…………………………
Summary and Conclusions.......................................................…
Appendices................................................................................
A - Congressional Grant Proposal Narrative.......................................
B - Administrators’ Interviewed for Congressional Grant I Evaluation.......
C - CAO Focus Group Interview Guide......................................…..
D - Faculty Focus Group Interview Guide.........................................
E - Document List.........................................……………………..
F - Leadership Development Program Agenda....................................
G - Kentucky Virtual University Program Agenda................................
H - Reboot, Refresh, Redirect Program Agenda.............................….
I - Winter 2003 Conference Program.........................................…..
J - Winter 2003 Learning Objectives.........................................……
43
44
44
46
46
47
48
50
52
54
56
58
59
75
76
78
80
88
89
90
92
99
ii
Tables
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Page
Summary of Documents Provided as Data for the Evaluation…… 9
Participation in Consortium-Level Activities………………….. 16
Summary of Evaluations of SEPCHE-Sponsored Faculty
Development Events………………………………………… 17
Numbers of Faculty Attending SEPCHE-Sponsored National
Conferences…………………………………………………. 19
SEPCHE Virtual Communities……………………………….. 21
Summary of Grant-Funded Activities by Institution……………. 24
Arcadia University Grant-Supported Course Development…….. 25
Cabrini College Grant-Supported Course Development……….. 29
Immaculata University Grant-Supported Course Development…. 38
Uses of Computer Technology in Neumann College Classrooms
as of Fall
42
2002………………………………………………….
Figures
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
Page
Change Model Per Grant Proposal
Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning……………………...
Revised Change Model Per Focus Group Discussions
Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning……………………...
PBS Teleconferences Aggregated Participant Evaluation Ratings...
Winter 2003 Conference Workshop Learning Objectives………
12
13
18
23
iii
Executive Summary
T H E S I N G L E M O S T I M P O R T A N T I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y challenge
confronting American colleges and universities early in the 21st century, according to a
19991 report from the Campus Computing Project was, "assisting faculty efforts to
integrate technology into instruction.” The Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for
Higher Education (SEPCHE) and its member institutions were provided with critical
resources to confront this challenge directly. In May 2000, a $925,000 Congressional
Grant was awarded SEPCHE through the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the
Improvement of Post-Secondary Education to support development of technologyenhanced instruction over the subsequent 29 months.
At the consortium level and across the eight member institutions, initiatives funded by
the grant officially titled Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning: A Virtual Center for
Lifelong Learning2, fell into two broad categories: 1) faculty learning through
collaboration; and 2) strengthening the technology infrastructure of institutions.
Grant-funded activities resulted in a number of key outcomes that, when considered in
their totality, led faculty and Chief Academic Officers (CAOs) to describe the period
of funding under the Congressional Grant as a time of revolution in teaching and
learning.
Faculty Learning Through Collaboration
Faculty development occurred at both the consortium- and institution-level. As a
consortium, SEPCHE institutions collaboratively offered nine (9) distinct faculty
development events during the grant period. These events included:
1
From the 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. “The Continuing
Challenge of Instructional Integration and User Support,” Campus Computing Project
www.campuscomputing.net
2
Throughout this report, the project evaluated is referred to as “the Congressional Grant.”
1
Fall 2000 Leadership Development Workshop
Kentucky Virtual University Workshop
May 2001 Faculty Development Workshops
PBS Teleconference Series
Support for Winter 2001-02 National Conference Attendance
Information Literacy Workshops
May 2002 Faculty Development Workshops
Support for Faculty Virtual Communities
Final Conference
At the institution-level, a variety of technology-related initiatives were undertaken.
Two colleges secured IT personnel and services with their portion of the
Congressional Grant. Gwynedd-Mercy College funded a staff position and hired on a
permanent IT person. The position includes some training responsibilities, and regular
small group or one-on-one workshops with faculty. Neumann College secured IT
services on contract from nearby Drexel University, which provided for some on-site
training. Neumann College further invested in training by upgrading their Faculty
Resource Center – an on-site faculty technology training site.
Arcadia University adopted a mentoring approach, soliciting from among its own
ranks willing faculty, who were knowledgeable in technology, to provide training and
support to other faculty members. For their time and the additional obligation, these
mentors were compensated with stipends funded by the grant.
Chestnut Hill College and Holy Family University invested in the Blackboard course
management system. Included in the cost of these acquisitions was on-site training
by company representatives. Faculty and staff were also afforded the opportunity
to participate in offerings from other post-secondary institutions. Two people
from Arcadia University, for example, took an online course offered by New York
University in web-based course development. In turn, these two people offered a
presentation on the topic to Arcadia faculty in January 2002. Five people from Holy
Family University completed Pennsylvania State's School of Information Science
training program in the use of the Angel Software package for course development.
The institutions wanted faculty to practice newly learned skills and to integrate
technology into their courses. Recognizing that it was unlikely to yield results if faculty
had to devote time in addition to their regular course load, several institutions used
grant monies as incentives to faculty for developing or enhancing their courses with
technology. Faculty were either compensated monetarily with stipends or given
course-release time. Arcadia University, Cabrini College, Immaculata University, and
2
Rosemont College all chose to support faculty in this endeavor by offering these
incentives.
Two of the SEPCHE institutions, Arcadia University and Chestnut Hill College,
sponsored K-12 outreach workshops for teachers in the surrounding Philadelphia
public school district. The former accomplished this through a face-to-face day-long
event, the latter through state-of-the-art video conferencing technology. Neumann
College sponsored programs for children in the school district utilizing its Meagher
Theatre, renovated with funding from the Congressional Grant.
The final faculty development conference, jointly sponsored by the eight
SEPCHE institutions, was held on January 8, 2003. The primary purpose of the event
was to showcase what faculty had learned over the life of the Congressional Grant
through workshops, poster sessions, and panel presentations. The event was
enthusiastically attended by 130 faculty and staff from all eight SEPCHE institutions.
Approximately 30 faculty served as presenters at the conference that was kicked off
with a key note address by Dr. Linda McMillin of Susquehanna University and Mr.
William Berberet of Associated New American Colleges.
Strengthening the Technology Infrastructure
To strengthen the technology infrastructure across all campuses, the grant funded
purchases of new equipment, upgrades on existing equipment, and at least
one building renovation. New equipment purchased went to individual faculty
members at Cabrini College, Holy Family University, and Rosemont College. Portions
of the grant invested in new equipment or equipment upgrades were to the benefit of
the whole institution (e.g., servers etc.) at Cabrini College, Chestnut Hill College,
Gwynedd-Mercy College, and Neumann College. Students were the beneficiaries of
new equipment in the Nursing Skills Lab at Holy Family University and the Learning
Assistance Center at Neumann College. Both Cabrini College and Gwynedd-Mercy
College opted to build state-of-the-art learning environments known as SMART
classrooms. The SMART acronym stands for “Shared Multimedia Access to Resources
for Teaching.”
Chestnut Hill College invested in a video conferencing system allowing it to be one of
the hosting institutions for the teleconference training events. Neumann College
utilized some grant money for renovation of the campus to support student youth
summer camps. This institution also renovated its Faculty Resource Center and their
Learning Assistance Center for students.
3
Outcomes
The totality of activities undertaken under the Congressional Grant produced
outcomes for students, faculty, institutions and the SEPCHE consortium as a whole.
We found through the evaluation activities that,
1. The Congressional Grant proved pivotal in the technological development
of SEPCHE institutions.
2. Grant-funded activities produced an unprecedented collective identity
among faculty of the SEPCHE institutions.
3. Grant-funded activities enabled SEPCHE to mobilize a ‘critical mass’ of
faculty toward technology-enriched pedagogy.
4. Although faculty hesitate to say they are better teachers now, they perceive
that new technology has changed their instructional practice for the better.
5. How students experience college changed during the life of the grant as
technology changed the academic environment.
6. Institutions have undergone permanent changes because of the grant. When
it comes to technology, there is “no turning back.”
The remainder of the report explores the grant funded activities and outcomes in
detail.
4
Introduction
T H E S O U T H E A S T E R N P E N N S Y L V A N I A C O N S O R T I U M for Higher Education
(SEPCHE) was established in 1993 as a consortium of eight independent higher
education institutions in the Greater Philadelphia region. Through formation of the
consortium, member institutions which would otherwise compete for students and
resources have chosen to address collaboratively the challenges of higher education and
work together to promote quality and efficiency of academic programming, student
access, faculty development, institutional operations and community outreach.3
SEPCHE is governed by the Presidents Council, which is comprised of the Presidents
of each of the eight member institutions and meets monthly. A full-time Executive
Director coordinates Consortium activities, and grant projects are steered by a
committee of the eight Chief Academic Officers of the institutions. Members of
SEPCHE are:
Arcadia University
Cabrini College
Chestnut Hill College
Gwynedd-Mercy College
Holy Family University
Immaculata University
Neumann College
Rosemount College
On May 1, 2000, SEPCHE was awarded $925,000 in the form of a Congressional
Grant through the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education. In September 2002, the original 29-month project known as
Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning: A Virtual Center for Lifelong Learning, received a
no-cost extension through December 31, 2003.
3
As described on the consortium’s website at http://www.sepche.org
5
The broad purpose of the grant project was to prepare faculty of the eight SEPCHE
institutions for a technology-based future. The consortium as a whole, and each
institution comprising it, pursued the grant’s purpose through a unique combination of
strategies that included equipment purchases and upgrades; conferences, seminars,
workshops, peer support, mentoring, stipends and release time for course
development, and K-12 outreach. The Chief Academic Officers chose to utilize
$190,000 of the grant award to fund a series of jointly sponsored faculty development
events. An additional $10,000 was allocated to the concluding conference. Another
$80,000 was set aside at the consortium level to cover costs associated with grants
management, fiscal management, and external evaluation across the eight institutions.
CAOs elected to divide the remaining funds equally among their institutions, thus
$80,625 was allocated to each to support its individualized technology plan for faculty
development.
Through its monthly meetings, the CAO committee supervised the planning,
implementation and evaluation of all aspects of the collaborative faculty development
activities carried out through the Congressional Grant. Sub-Committees of the CAO
Committee were appointed to develop plans for some of the activities, and they
reported progress to and received approval on all decisions from the CAO Committee.
The Executive Director of SEPCHE attended all CAO meetings, was involved at all
levels of project development and implementation, and provided staff support for the
projects. Combined, the array of initiatives funded by the Congressional Grant has
produced what Chief Academic Officers and faculty of the eight institutions
collectively describe as something of a revolution in teaching and learning.
This report results from an external retrospective evaluation of the project. After an
explanation of the evaluation methodology, we “set the stage” by taking a look at how
faculty and administrators viewed the status of technology at their institutions prior to
receipt of the Congressional Grant. Next, grant activities undertaken on the
consortium level and at each member institution are described in detail followed by a
discussion of what we find to be the difference these activities have made for faculty,
students, and institutions.
6
Evaluation Methodology
A N E X T E R N A L E V A L U A T I O N B Y E D U C A T I O N A L C O N S U L T A N T S Cassandra
Drennon & Associates, Inc. was launched on February 1st 2003. The purpose of this
summative evaluation was to:
assess the extent to which the goals and objectives for the project were
achieved
determine what difference grant-funded activities made and for whom
assess the overall strengths and weaknesses of the project design
identify unique implementation challenges encountered by both the
consortium and individual institutions
Key evaluation activities leading to the preparation of this report included:
examination of 950 pages of project documents submitted by the
consortium and eight (8) member institutions
an interview with the SEPCHE Executive Director
a focus group interview with nine (9) administrators: eight (8)
Chief Academic Officers representing the SEPCHE institutions,
and one (1) Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Faculty Development
from one of the institutions (At the request of CAOs, the SEPCHE
Executive Director was also present as an observer in both focus group
interviews.)
a focus group interview with eight (8) faculty members representing
seven (7) of the SEPCHE institutions
informal interviews with one (1) staff instructional technologist and two
(2) science faculty members
site visits to two (2) SMART classrooms and one (1) faculty technology
resource center
exchange of approximately 60 email messages with SEPCHE faculty,
CAOs, and staff
7
Project documents were a key data source. Documents in the following categories
were requested of the member institutions:
any products of the various technology initiatives
promotional flyers, program brochures, etc.
key correspondence, meeting agendas, meeting minutes
workshop and conference programs
workshop and conference evaluation data
Documents are crucial in a retrospective evaluation when key events can no longer be
observed. As data, documents are used in the same manner as interviews or
observations to offer an historical understanding, to identify outcomes, to track change
and development, and to determine the perspective on a topic brought by key
stakeholders. In most cases, documents represent “objective” sources of data because,
unlike interviews and observations, they are unobtrusive. The disadvantage is that
documents are not created for research purposes and so they may tell an incomplete
story. Documents do not necessarily provide a response to an evaluator's or a
researcher’s particular questions. Generally speaking, their authenticity is more
difficult to verify. All of this being said, documents enrich this evaluation greatly. As
explained by Merriam4 they are “products of the context in which they were produced
and therefore grounded in the real world” (p. 126). A complete list of documents
informing this evaluation is found in the Appendix. Table 1 displays the number of
individual documents provided by each institution, which correlates somewhat with
the insight into each institution’s activities that evaluators were able to achieve.
The focus group interview with faculty and the two focus group interviews with Chief
Academic Officers were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview
with the SEPCHE Executive Director was captured through typewritten notes.
Together, these four interviews resulted in 87 single-spaced pages of text. Interview
data were coded and sorted thematically using the Qualitative Data Analysis software
program Atlas.ti. All documents submitted by SEPCHE and its member institutions
were catalogued and then manually coded using the same thematic coding scheme
applied to the interview transcripts. Once all the qualitative data were coded and
sorted, a constant comparative analysis was conducted.
4
Merriam, Sharan B. (1998) Qualitative research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
8
Summary of Documents
Provided as Data for the Evaluation
Institution
SEPCHE Consortium
Arcadia University
Cabrini College
Neumann College
Rosemont College
TOTAL
No.
Documents
62
13
23
3
4
2
43
5
21
176
No.
Pages
357
94
114
30
5
26
267
24
33
950
Table 1.
9
Setting the Stage
An exploration of the institutions vis-à-vis technology, prior to SEPCHE’s receipt of
the Congressional Grant, enabled evaluators to more fully grasp the nature and
magnitude of changes it stimulated. A refinement of the “theory of change” suggested
through the original Congressional Grant proposal brought into greater focus what
Chief Academic Officers of the various SEPCHE institutions intend for their collective
future.
Prior to the Grant
Albeit some of the SEPCHE institutions had made substantial investments in their
technology infrastructure in years preceding the grant, not all had. When asked about
years leading up to the Congressional Grant award, a picture emerged during focus
group interviews of only a few select faculty and administrators at SEPCHE institutions
using technology in the late 1990’s. One Chief Academic Officer, for instance,
remembered that when he came aboard his institution in 1998, “Maybe ten offices had
email, and that was about it, and they were administration and key offices.” There
were technology pioneers among the faculty at that time who describe encountering
resistance within their institutions when they attempted to incorporate more
technology into their courses. On the other hand, administrators supportive of
technology recalled encountering some notable resistance among the faculties to
incorporating and using it. This situation may be reflective of other trends in higher
education at the time. According to the National Center for Education Statistics5, for
example, public institutions were more likely to offer distance education courses than
were private institutions. In 2000–2001,when the Congressional Grant was awarded
SEPCHE, “Ninety-percent of public 2-year and 89 percent of public 4-year institutions
offered distance education courses, compared with only 16 percent of private 2-year
and 40 percent of private 4-year institutions”(p. iii).
5
From the report titled, “Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001
(Published July 2003). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences NCES 2003-017
10
In years leading up to the recent Congressional Grant award, some faculty simply did
not view technology as a teaching and learning tool that could be integrated into their
courses. Rather some perceived it as a discrete “topic” that had to be taught in addition
to the course topic. A Chief Academic Officer explained, for example, “You might
hear an accounting teacher say, ‘You can’t expect me to use an Excel spreadsheet
because now I have to teach Excel and accounting.’” The administrator pointed out
that, “…[F]aculty were not yet at a place where they saw technology as integrated, but
as extra.” Another CAO recalled that some technology infrastructure was in place in
the late 1990’s. There had also been small efforts at faculty development, but the
faculty, by and large, had not demonstrated much leadership in the area of technology.
This situation was worrisome, given that this institution had just approved several
“technologically sophisticated undergraduate programs.” Basically these faculty, “had
put their syllabi on line but they weren’t doing anything more sophisticated than that at
the time,” said this administrator.
Those faculty who were fairly adept with technology remember encountering some
resistance when they tried to incorporate what little technology their campus
infrastructure could support into their courses. Recalled one instructor:
In 1996, I’m teaching a [communications arts] class and we had just gotten Web
access, and I learned basic HTML and said to the students, ‘We’re doing a basic web
page. You’ll do the basic design; I’ll do the links.’ …[W]e did it and presented it to the
administration and at that time the IT people were like, ‘You can’t do that. You just
cannot do that.’ Well, why not?
These leaders, who were already enthusiastic about instructional technology, forged
ahead using in their courses whatever options they had at their disposal, however
technologically unsophisticated. One recalled,
I could not figure out how I was going to organize my class without a web page, and I
always made my own web pages so I ended up finding one of those free web server things
that pops up a little ad…. [B]y the end of the first semester, they finally convinced
someone that … maybe they could grab a little server space for me because I was
actually doing something with it.
A description, provided by one faculty focus group member, illustrates just how
rudimentary the extant technology was at some of the institutions, and how some of
the seeds of change were first planted:
My first year … the technology was ‘the cart.’ [Y]ou would call and say, ‘I need the
cart,’ and the cart would sometimes show up and you have to plug it in and turn it on.
[T]he first year I actually had to share with a sister across the hall who halfway through
11
class would turn the cart off and bring it over … to me. …It was a laptop and a
projector. There was no internet connection or anything. [The administration] made the
mistake of sending us to a technology conference at the Montgomery Community College
which …is the 2nd most wired community college in the country. [T]hat started the
whining process where we began whining about how we need[ed] this in our classrooms.
Looking towards the future
At work beneath the surface of any program or project is a theory about how it will
achieve desired results in the future.6 Sometimes the theory is spelled out clearly in
grant proposals or other program materials, but it is more common for various
stakeholders to assume they agree on what a program or project is designed to achieve
ultimately and how it will do so. We chose to include in this evaluation process an
effort to make the underlying program theory explicit as a way of helping CAOs, other
stakeholders, and ourselves as external evaluators make appropriate claims about the
efficacy of grant-funded activities.
Change Model Per Grant Proposal
Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning
Figure 1.
6
Rossi, P., Freeman H., & Lipsey, W. (1999) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 6th Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
12
During the focus group interviews, Chief Academic Officers were asked to respond to
the program theory suggested in the Congressional Grant proposal originally submitted
to the U.S. Department of Education. The theory was depicted through a visual model
that connected program activities with short- and long-term outcomes.
The model first presented to CAOs is depicted in Figure 1. They were asked in the
focus group interviews to respond to the model by discussing the extent to which it
reflected their vision of the Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning initative funded
by the Congressional Grant including its ultimate aims. Figure 2 – a more complex
model – incorprates the shared perspectives that were offered by the CAOs.
Revised Change Model Per Focus Group Discussions
Faculty Enrichment For Lifelong Learning
Figure 2.
Notably, the CAOs were not in agreement that movement toward becoming a virtual
university was a primary goal of the current faculty development initiatives in
technology. In fact, there was no apparent consensus on what would constitute a
virtual university. One focus group member, when looking at the original change
model, was prompted to point out, “There’s really not so much a drive toward a
virtual university in the collective consciousness of SEPCHE, but there is certainly a
drive towards high quality teaching.” Another member of the group clarified, “It’s not
13
just the use of technology, it’s the use of technology to enhance learning.” A long term
goal that everyone could agree on was expressed by a CAO who described “a true
collaborational consortium” evidenced by co-offered activities that “basically merge the
institutions together.” A true collaboration – or a “seamless collaboration” as one put it
– meant to members of the group that they “eliminate as many barriers as [possible] to
further [their] joint interest in teaching and learning.” Said another, “It’s no longer
getting the money and running out and doing things. We work together.”
Faculty in both focus groups readily agreed that the way change is happening within
and across the SEPCHE institutions through faculty development initiatives is not as
linear as the original grant proposal might have suggested. A fuller depiction would
include a feedback loop illustrating that as faculty develop knowledge and skills related
to technology they also experience an attitude shift. They become more positive
toward technology and therefore more open to learning about it. This desire to learn
increases the demand for faculty development, and so on. A focus group member
described the feedback loop as “seeing, doing, and teaching.” Faculty see what is
possible with technology. They try it out, and then they teach others what they have
learned. A learning community is the result. One CAO used the term “multiplier
effect” to explain why increasing numbers of faculty were showing interest in
technology. As faculty members develop a positive attitude about technology, others
around them get excited about it. Students contribute to the multiplier effect, too, said
one CAO who noted that students drive other faculty to become adopters. “They see
[technology] in somebody’s classroom that they don’t see in your classroom and they
start asking ‘why?’ This builds the fire for you to go learn it and do it.”
14
Grant-Funded Activity
T H E SEPCHE C O N S O R T I U M A S A W H O L E A N D E A C H M E M B E R institution was
able, under the Congressional Grant, to craft an individualized plan for advancing the
technological capability of faculty. Together, the plans produced a wealth of
development opportunities. Narratives in this section focus on the original goals and
objectives as outlined in the Congressional Grant proposal, followed by a detailing of
grant-funded activities as they were actually carried out. The narrative profiles were
constructed from interviews with Chief Academic Officers and project documents in
addition to the grant proposal.
SEPCHE Consortium
With its portion of the Congressional Grant the consortium sought to support a
minimum of eight collaborative faculty development activities focusing on technology
issues and trends. Key strategies the consortium utilized to realize this goal were to:
offer consortium-wide workshops and conferences
sponsor faculty attendance at national conferences focused on educational
technology
support discipline-specific virtual communities
sponsor a culminating conference
The consortium actually funded nine (9) faculty development activities during the
grant performance period. Table 2 depicts participation in each of these activities.
Consortium-wide workshops and conferences
The instructional faculties were the primary audience for six (6) of the consortiumwide activities, but three (3) activities targeted broader audiences. First, there was the
Leadership Development workshop held at Immaculata University on November 1,
2000. This well-attended workshop was offered to SEPCHE Department Chairs,
Division Heads, and Deans of Schools. Neumann College was the site of a second
workshop held on May 2, 2001, which was offered to any of SEPCHE's Presidents,
Chief Academic Officers, Chief Financial Officers, and IT Committees. Dr. Mary Beth
15
Susman, Chief Executive Officer of Kentucky Virtual University, presented this
workshop titled, "Virtual Collaboration."
Participation in Consortium-Level Activities
Event
Date
Format
Fall 2000 Leadership
Development
November 2000
Workshops
Attendees
Reported
72
Kentucky Virtual
University
May 2001
Workshops
35
May 2001 Faculty
Development
May 2001
Workshops
121
PBS Series
(3 events)
Fall 2001
Winter 2002
Teleconference
52
National Conferences
(4 events)
Fall 2001
Winter 2002
National
Conference
Sponsorships
29
Information Literacy
Workshops
(3 events)
January 2002
Workshops
146
May 2002 Faculty
Development
May 2002
Workshops
130
Final Conference
January 2003
Workshops
130
Virtual Communities
ongoing
Electronic
N/A
Table 2.
The third workshop came as a special invitation from the SEPCHE Chief Academic
Officers and Library Directors to key faculty, librarians, and administrators. The
workshop was titled "Reboot Refresh Redirect Student Research: Information Literacy
Outcomes and Assessment." Three SEPCHE sites - Gwynedd-Mercy College,
16
Immaculata University, Chestnut Hill College - hosted the day-long workshop on
January 8, 10, 11, 2002 respectively.
"Using Digital Tools: Technology Enhanced Teaching and Learning" was the title of a
SEPCHE-sponsored series of workshops available to all the consortium's faculties. The
series was first offered May 14-16, 2001. Arcadia University, Cabrini College,
Chestnut Hill College, Neumann College, and Rosemont College were all sites that
hosted workshops for this faculty development event. The registration log indicates
faculty attended from all eight (8) institutions. A series of SEPCHE-sponsored
workshops with the same title was hosted one year later (May 20-23, 2002) at Arcadia
University, Cabrini College, Chestnut Hill College, Immaculata University, and
Neumann College. This second series was extended one day over the previous year and
offered different presentations. As with the 2001 series, faculty from all eight
institutions attended. Table 3 demonstrates that attendees in both years rated these
events highly.
Summary of Evaluations of SEPCHE-Sponsored
Faculty Development Events7 (n=345)
Evaluation Question
Helpful in demonstrating application of technology
to teaching
Relevant to my work
Facilitated the opportunity to interact with SEPCHE
colleagues
Met my expectations
Table 3.
May
2001
90%
May
2002
97%
89%
96%
95%
88%
88%
94%
SEPCHE sponsored three (3) PBS teleconference events (live via satellite) in the fall of
2001 and Winter of 2002. Faculty had the option of attending the sessions at Arcadia
University, Chestnut Hill College, Holy Family University, or Immaculata University.
The first of these, aimed at beginners, was held October 18, 2001 and aptly titled
"Surviving and Thriving in Your First Online Course." The second, titled "Using
Information Technology in a Traditional Classroom," was held November 29, 2001.
The final faculty development teleconference event was called "Improving Multimedia
and Online Courses with Instructional Design," and took place February 28, 2002.
Evaluation data were submitted by 34 of the 52 participants. Figure 3 illustrates that,
7
Figures refer to percentage of respondents who indicated they either "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" with
the statement.
17
the participants rated the series highly overall. They found the teleconference topics
extremely relevant and timely but they were relatively less pleased with the
teleconference format and accompanying materials.
PBS Teleconferences
Aggregated Participant Evaluation Ratings (n=34)
Handouts
3.99
Q&A
4.08
Format
4.15
Moderator
4.41
Panelists
4.53
Timeliness
4.64
Relevance
4.64
3.5
4
4.5
5
Figure 3.
National Conference Attendance
Faculty and staff of the SEPCHE institutions were afforded the opportunity to attend
national instructional technology conferences. Table 4 illustrates that twenty-nine (29)
faculty from seven (7) of SEPCHE’s member institutions attended at least one of four
(4) national conferences.
EDUCAUSE
EDUCAUSE 2001: An EDU Odyssey
EDUCAUSE is a non-profit organization whose membership is open to higher
education institutions and companies serving the higher education information
technology market. The organization’s annual conference is widely considered higher
education's premier information technology conference. Three (3) SEPCHE faculty
members attended this four-day event in Indianapolis, Indiana. On program
evaluations, faculty attendees reported that networking with professional colleagues
was the most interesting and useful aspect of the experience, as this gave them insight
into how other people were integrating technology.
18
Numbers of Faculty Attending
SEPCHE-Sponsored National Conferences
EDUCAUSE
Challenges at
the Crossroad
Stop Surfing,
Start Teaching
1
TechEd
Events
Cabrini
3
1
2
Chestnut
Hill
GwyneddMercy
Immaculata
2
1
Arcadia
2001
2
2
3
Neumann
Rosemont
TOTAL
1
3
2
12
2
1
3
2
8
1
6
Table 4.
Association of American Colleges & Universities
Technology, Learning, & Intellectual Development: Challenges at the Crossroads of
the Education Revolution
Twelve (12) faculty representing the SEPCHE institutions attended this interactive
conference held in Baltimore, Maryland for three days in November of 2001. The
conference presented workshops addressing the integration of technology and effective
teaching practices. Eight (8) of those who attended submitted conference evaluations;
all were extremely positive. Like attendees of the EDUCAUSE conference, several
reported that learning what other colleges and universities were doing with technology
was one of the conference's most useful and interesting aspects.
University of South Carolina
Stop Surfing-Start Teaching: Teaching and Learning Through the Internet
Eight (8) SEPCHE faculty members attended this four-day event on the expansion of
the internet instruction. Rather than focus on technical demonstrations, the event
concentrated on ideas and solutions. One of the attendees turned in a SEPCHE
conference evaluation form. He reported learning about the application of three
different technology tools, and passing on this information to other faculty in his
academic department. Another attendee submitted a memorandum reporting on his
conference experience. In it he said that he had attended eleven sessions and that all of
them had value.
19
The Community College Foundation
TechEd Events
According to its web site, the Community College Foundation's TechEd Events
program provides a forum where participants from higher education and industry can
"... learn from one another about innovative technology, teaching practices, and
emerging trends that are impacting and enhancing how students learn." This annual
event was attended by six (6) SEPCHE faculty members in February 2002. No
SEPCHE conference evaluations for this event were provided to evaluators.
Virtual Communities
All of the consortium-wide activities provided opportunities for members of the
SEPCHE faculties to get to know one another and share their experiences. The idea
behind the SEPCHE Professional Development Committee's "Virtual Communities"
initiative, however, was to foster and develop sustained collaboration among the
faculties of all the institutions within academic disciplines using technology. The
committee's ultimate wish was that through these communities the SEPCHE faculties
might begin to work more closely with one another in teaching as well as research
endeavors.
The project was first piloted with six (6) academic disciplines: Biology, Business,
English, History, Mathematics, and Writing. Responses to questionnaires circulated
beforehand served as the basis for ultimately selecting these particular disciplines to
launch the project. Each discipline had a coordinator. One of the six served as the
overseer of the overall project, and was paid a stipend for his efforts. He was also
responsible for reporting on its progress to the Chief Academic Officers at the end of
the fall semester 2002.
By January 2003, three of the coordinators had completed their tasks, another two had
not finished and required additional time to do so, and the sixth, English, had "...gone
through a transformation and ... suffered from an overlap with the Writing Project."8
The English coordinator decided, therefore, to set up a Communications virtual
community instead. In fact, the Chief Academic Officers granted the three (3)
unfinished projects an extension to March 15, 2003 to finish.
The pilot coordinators were encouraged to experiment with different methods for
implementation. All the methods would then be assessed in the end to determine
which method or combination of methods was the best for creating a virtual
8
SEPCHE Faculty Virtual Communities. End of Semester Report to Chief Academic Officers, January
9, 2003.
20
community. The project overseer's fall semester report indicates that there was
considerable variation in the formats that the coordinators used to establish them.
Some coordinators had created websites, others used listservs, and still others had used
WebCT or Blackboard as the platform for their communities. Table 5 depicts the
various formats and the coordinators' institutions as described on the SEPCHE web
site.
SEPCHE VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES
Discipline
Biology
Format
Hosting Institution
Immaculata
Business
WebCT Platform for presenting
information and discussion
Neumann
Communication
Web site and Listserv
History
Web site and email chain
Rosemont
Mathematics
Listserv9
Immaculata
Writing
Electronic Community of
Composition Studies and Writing
Program Professionals
Listserv
Cabrini
Arcadia
Table 5.
Two focus group participants were also virtual community coordinators. They appear
to have experienced different responses to invitations to join their particular
discipline's virtual community from the SEPCHE faculties. The history coordinator felt
that the start had been very promising.
Four years ago I couldn’t have told you who the historians were at Cabrini. Now
because of the SEPCHE professional development committee’s efforts I know most of
them. I’ve not met them all, but we’ve begun a series of regular meetings to bring
together all the history faculty in the SEPCHE schools and share information, and share
concerns, questions etc. ...I don’t want to sound like hyperbole, but it really has like
almost created a super community of historians or it’s at least started in that direction.
And I’m looking at two, three years down the road at this blossoming into much more
than it is right now. ...I think it could really create a SEPCHE institution.
9
On the SEPCHE web site, this listserv is actually called Mathematics/Computer Science/Information
Technology.
21
The coordinator of the communications virtual community, on the other hand,
reported that but for two instructors from one other SEPCHE institution, only
members of his own institution had joined.
Reports on two other virtual communities, biology and business, support both ends of
this reception spectrum. The business virtual community coordinator reported that the
reception had been encouraging whereas the biology coordinator reported little traffic
on that discipline's listserv as of the end of the fall semester 2002. Actually, the project
overseer states in his report that the business coordinator's attempt at establishing a
virtual community using WebCT as its platform might serve as a model for others
describing it as "far and away the most successful so far. "
The writing virtual community appears to have made even the creation of the
community a collaborative effort. This segment of the SEPCHE faculties had
established a group called the Electronic Community of Composition Studies and
Writing Program Professionals. In turn, the members, the overseer reports, "...are
deciding what tasks are to be accomplished and how the organization is to be run. The
group has chosen to create a Blackboard platform on which to build cooperative
projects."
By the end of the grant performance period, then, these virtual community building
efforts were already bearing some fruit. The full extent of the harvests remains to be
seen, however, as the efforts are still underway. The six coordinators had approached
the task using a variety of strategies with varying results giving everyone involved some
insight into what methods work better than others.
Culminating Conference
A final conference, jointly sponsored by the eight SEPCHE institutions was held on
January 8, 2003. The conference was called, "Learning, Technology and the Changing
Role of Faculty." Perhaps the crown jewel of the SEPCHE-sponsored activities, the
primary purpose of the event was to showcase what faculty had learned over the life of
the Congressional Grant through workshops, poster sessions, and panel presentations.
The event was enthusiastically attended by 130 faculty and staff from all eight SEPCHE
institutions. Approximately 30 faculty served as presenters at the conference that was
kicked off with a key note address by Dr. Linda McMillin of Susquehanna University
and Mr. William Berberet of Associated New American Colleges.
An analysis of the SEPCHE final conference presentation proposal forms yielded 68
learning objectives that were pursued by faculty during their presentations. Figure 4
illustrates that about one-third (31%) of the learning objectives were associated with
practical strategies for using technology in instruction. This reflects a trend that
22
seemed to continue from the May 2001 and May 2002 faculty development
conferences when the SEPCHE Executive Director observed that those sessions with
the most practical application were most popular.
Nearly one-fifth (18%) of the objectives addressed the technical how-to of technology
indicating that, at the time of the final conference, there was still substantial interest or
need to focus on the most fundamental skills. One quarter (25%) of the objectives,
however, focused on research and evaluation of technology in the classroom – notable
evidence of the desire among faculty to substantiate whether or not technology is
actually influencing the quality of student learning.
Winter 2003 Conference Workshop Learning Objectives
Technology's
collaborative
potential
9%
Social/Cultural
perspectives on
instruction
incorporating
technology
4%
Problems,
issues,
challenges posed
by technology
13%
Mechanics of
technologybased instruction
18%
Technologybased
instructional
strategies
31%
Research and
evaluation of
technology in the
classroom
25%
Figure 4.
Faculty from all eight institutions attended the conference. In the words of one Chief
Academic Officer,
We had a full house -- as many as we could handle. Folks said, among other good things
they said about the experience, ...that they learned from each other, they had the
opportunity to see all the folks that were doing things, they felt very encouraged that
there was a critical mass to do more of this, and that I thought was very valuable.
23
Attendees submitted more than 70 conference evaluations and these were
overwhelmingly positive. In fact, 92% of the respondents reported that the conference
met their expectations. One respondent noted that the conference was a "confirmation
of the grant's success." "Sparking motivation," was an aspect of the conference another
attendee identified as the most useful and/or interesting.
Faculty development sponsored on the Consortium-level was one prong of a twopronged approach that contributed to success in integrating technology. The
institutional complement to consortium-level faculty development is described next.
SEPCHE Institutions
Each of the eight SEPCHE institutions was able to allocate Congressional Grant funds
toward activities that would advance its strategic plan for technology use. Table 6
summarizes activities undertaken across the member institutions.
Summary of Grant-Funded Activities by Institution
Institution
Course
Release
Summer
Stipend
X
Equipment/
Upgrades
X
X
X
Chestnut Hill
X
X
Gwynedd-Mercy
X
X
Holy Family
X
X
Arcadia
Cabrini
Immaculata
X
X
X
Neumann
Rosemont
X
Faculty
Training
X
IT
Staff
Mentors
X
K-12
Outreach
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 6.
Arcadia University
Arcadia University sought greater use of technologically enhanced instruction in the
classroom by both its own faculty and K-12 teachers in the surrounding public school
system. Toward this end, the institution devoted its share of the Congressional Grant
to furthering development of web-assisted and web-based courses. While advancing
the skills of early technology adopters, Arcadia also made a concentrated effort to
24
direct professional development efforts toward those faculty members hesitant to
adopt technology. Key strategies employed to realize these goals were to:
offer course development incentives to faculty
provide mentors and technical assistance
sponsor a summer technology applications workshop for “novice” K-12
teachers
Incentives to Faculty
A specific objective was to increase the number of web-enhanced courses from nine to
18. This was to be accomplished by augmenting the skills of those faculty members
who had already begun to integrate the web into their courses, and by targeting the
faculty's technology neophytes with development opportunities.
The administration solicited ten (10) faculty to develop or modify courses that would
be presented in an on-line format. In exchange for their course development efforts,
they received stipends and technical support. The solicitation contained an obvious
effort to recruit beginners, "Indeed, we are very interested in 'novice' users to
participate in the project."10 Table 7 displays the results of the course development
efforts by faculty funded by the Congressional Grant as of Spring 2003. The Chief
Academic Officer reports that, in fact, most faculty at Arcadia University now have at
least something up on the web whether funded by the Congressional Grant or not.
This fact demonstrates the extent to which the culture of technology has taken hold at
this institution.
Faculty not only received support in the form of stipends and mentors. A faculty
member and a member of the school's IT department took a course in online course
development offered by New York University. In turn, these two people offered a
presentation on the topic to Arcadia University's faculty from January 2-4, 2002.
Arcadia University Grant-Supported Course Development
Department
Business, Health Adm.
& Economics
Course
BA380 – Principles of Finance
Semester
Fall 2002
Status
Mostly online
Business, Health Adm.
& Economics
BA340 – Principles of
Marketing
Spring 2003
Partially online
10
September 6, 2001 memorandum from Office of Academic Affairs to Arcadia University faculty.
25
Department
Course
BA380 – Principles of Finance
Semester
Status
Education
Overseas Partnerships
Spring 2003
Partially online
Education
ED480 – Introduction to
Developmental Disabilities
ED322 – Instructional Strategies
in Early Childhood Education
Fall 2002
Partially online
Fall 2002
Partially online
English, Theater &
Communications
EN215 – Writing for Careers
Fall 2002
Partially online
English, Theater &
Communications
Peer critique & class discussion
for creative writing courses
Fall 2002
Supplemental
Fine Arts
AH250 - History/Graphic
Design
Developmental Math Courses
Fall 2002
Online
Fall 2002
Supplemental
SP101 - Beginning Spanish
Spring 2003
Mostly online
Education
Math & Computer
Science
Modern Languages
Table 7.
Mentors and Technical Assistance
Among its faculty development strategies, Arcadia University adopted a mentoring
approach soliciting from among its own ranks willing faculty, already technology
knowledgeable, to provide training and support to other faculty members. These
mentors were compensated with stipends for their time and for taking on the
additional obligation. There were four (4) mentors ultimately although the
administration had originally called for six faculty members to serve as mentors. The
mentors were drawn from the following university academic departments: Sociology
and Anthropology, Education, Fine Arts, Business, Health Administration, and
Economics. Each was assigned responsibility for mentoring several departments, in
addition to his academic department.
Brief accounts from three of the four mentors revealed that the mentoring they
provided assumed a host of different forms. One mentor, in collaboration with one of
the University’s instructional technologists, developed “Best Practices” Guidelines for
the use of technology. Additionally, technology mentors:
made presentations on technology-based teaching practices
gave instruction on the use of specific software
26
helped faculty create websites
explained how to use the campus network
supplied technical support
provided technical maintenance
performed technical administration
had numerous conversations, both formal and informal, with their
colleagues regarding technology
K-12 Technology Workshop
Arcadia not only directed outreach toward its own faculty tentative about using
technology, but to area K-12 teachers as well. The university sponsored a workshop
for them titled “Using Technology Across the Curriculum.” The registration brochure
that was sent to area teachers attempted to entice beginners especially.
The administration asked for two (2) faculty members (from either the group of
mentors or those selected to develop courses) to work with K-12 teachers the
following summer. In the end, however, four (4) of these faculty members from three
(3) different disciplines (Education, Mathematics, and Fine Arts) contributed their
efforts to the summer workshop. These facilitators were, in turn, paid an additional
stipend for their outreach efforts.
"Using Technology Across the Curriculum," offered on June 27, 2002, featured a
morning session in assistive technology with two breakout sessions in the afternoon.
One breakout was devoted to ALEKS (Assessment and Learning in Knowledge
Spaces), a mathematics software. The second focused on web-based arts experiences.
Twenty-one (21) workshop evaluations were collected from participants. These
evaluations were overwhelmingly positive. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the evaluations
gave the highest rating possible in all of the seven categories assessed. Not one
participant gave less than the second highest possible ranking in any category.
Extremely high interest in the topic was evident among attendees as well as those who
could not attend. Two teachers, for instance, lamented in their additional comments
that they were unable to attend both breakout sessions. And the Chief Academic
Officer noted, "We had a waiting list [that was] unbelievably long for this."
Cabrini College
In general, Cabrini sought to support faculty in developing technology-integrated
courses. To facilitate ongoing technology training activities, the college originally
proposed the establishment of a Faculty Technology Resource Center (FTRC).
However, it subsequently outsourced instructional technology-related services
including related faculty development to Drexel University. Therefore, funds
27
earmarked for the FTRC equipment and personnel were used instead to help meet the
increased demand for classrooms that allow for technologically-enhanced instruction.
The college’s strategies supported by the Congressional Grant were to:
purchase equipment
Equipment Purchase
Cabrini College outfitted four (4) classrooms with tools for technology-integrated
instruction. These upgraded classrooms gave recently trained faculty more
opportunities to practice their new teaching skills and model the use of instructional
technology for their students. Three of the renovated classrooms have a seating
capacity of 20 and now include:
1 telephone connection on wall
network connections around the room
whiteboard in front of room
LCD projector
DVD/VCR combo
SMART Board
overhead projector
2’x4’ projection screen
podium with audio, video, Power, and LAN hook-ups for laptops
An additional classroom was outfitted with 23 individual Dell computers fully loaded
with Microsoft Office XP software suites and other standard software packages such as
Acrobat Reader and Windows Media Player. This room also includes:
1 telephone connection on wall
network connections around the room
whiteboard in front of room
LCD projector
SMART Board
5’x5’ projection screen
VCR
power amplifier
4 speakers in ceiling
instructor’s desk with PC hooked up to projector
second hook-up on floor for laptops with audio, video, power, and LAN
connections
28
Cabrini College offered faculty two incentive programs for course development: The
Summer Technology Grant Program and the Technology Release Program. Each
program was competitive and offered stipends or faculty replacement costs and the
purchase of some hardware and software for the recipient.
A lack of interest in the Technology Release Program, evidenced by the fact that only
one faculty member applied to participate in it, resulted in the administration's
decision to end this particular incentive program. The Summer Technology Grant
Program was funded for a second time in the summer of 2002 with the remaining
budget.
All interested instructors submitted applications for consideration in a competitive
selection process. The college awarded nine (9) faculty members stipends or release
time to integrate technology. Seven (7) faculty were provided laptop computers and
some peripherals to support their efforts. Table 8 presents courses enhanced with
technology at Cabrini College through support from the Congressional Grant.
Cabrini College Grant-Supported Course Development
Department
Spanish
Spanish
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Biology
Course
SPA 101/102
Beginning Spanish
SPA 201/202
Intermediate Spanish
SOC 220 Race,
Gender, Social Class
Sem 300 Wealth and
Poverty
SOC 311 Marriage and
Family
HO-SOC 300
Sociology of Happiness
SOC 305 Social
Psychology
SOC 401 Social
Theory
BIO 107 Health and
the Human Body
Semester
Spring 2001
Status
Web-enhanced
Spring 2002
Web-enhanced
Spring 2003
In development
Spring 2003
In development
Spring 2003
In development
Spring 2003
In development
Spring 2003
In development
Spring 2003
In development
Available Spring On-line
2002 but not
29
Department
Biology
English
English
Psychology
English and
Communications
English and
Communications
English and
Communications
Table 8.
Course
BIO 107L Health and
the Human Body Lab
ENG 100
ENG 101
PSY 101
COM 103 Career
Development Program
COL 101 College
Success Seminar
COM 101
Introduction to Mass
Communication
Semester
Status
offered due to
low enrollment.
Spring 2002
Web-enhanced
Spring 2002
Spring 2002
Fall 2001
Fall 2003
Fall 2003
Fall 2003
Web-enhanced
Web-enhanced
On-line
TechnologyEnhanced (PDA)
Technologyenhanced (PDA)
On-line and Webenhanced.
Four initiatives undertaken by faculty members at Cabrini College, and made possible
by the Congressional Grant, bear particular mention: Pastry and Pedagogy; Mosaicos
Curriculum Enhancement; Writing@Cabrini, and the Palm PDA project.
Pastry and Pedagogy
One Cabrini College faculty member was inspired by a session she attended at one of
the national conferences. (Attendance at national conferences was an activity
sponsored on the consortium-level). The session focused on providing faculty members
the opportunity to exchange ideas about technology in a non-threatening environment.
The ultimate goal of such exchange was to increase the effective use of technology on
campus. Back at her home institution, this faculty member recruited other Cabrini
faculty who were already integrating technology into their classes to share their
experiences with those less experienced at a series of informal breakfasts dubbed,
"Pastry and Pedagogy." The response to this opportunity was overwhelming. The first
event was attended by 25% of the college's faculty. The second more than doubled in
size. At the January 2003 final conference, the faculty member reported that these
sessions resulted in the sharing of many lessons learned and the establishment of
unofficial cross-departmental technology mentoring relationships. Further, she pointed
out, such events cost little, require little preparation, and have a big payback.
Mosaicos Curriculum Enhancement
Release time was granted to the chair of Cabrini College's Romance Languages and
Literatures Department for the fall semester 2000 to support the development of
activities related to the implementation of a new text, Mosaicos – Spanish as a world
30
Language. Mosaicos, used in introductory- and intermediate-level Spanish courses,
encourages students to go beyond the classroom through internet activities.
Additionally, the faculty member acquainted all department faculty with the new
language computer classroom on campus. Every introductory and intermediate
language class meets at least once a week in this facility.
The faculty member was able, because of the release time afforded her, to meet at least
once with each instructor. She focused on their individual needs with respect to
technology and strived to ensure their effective use of new state-of-the-art lab features
that included 24 student computer stations with microphones, a SMART podium with
computer, document camera, VCR, projector, lighting and SMART board controls.
She wrote and distributed for their reference instructions on the use of the technology
in the language computer classroom. She also held a workshop for all full- and parttime language faculty on the use of the classroom's technical tools.
For Spanish language instruction, more specifically, she incorporated CD-ROM
exercises into a common Spanish language syllabus. Six (6) Spanish language faculty
submitted very positive mid-spring semester 2001 evaluations. Overwhelmingly, they
reported that the students adapted very well to the technology and that they had
benefited from it. One instructor reported:
The students have adapted very well. The CD-ROM in particular has helped them learn
more difficult structures and [in] a shorter time period than my previous classes. They
are, moreover, more engaged in the classroom. ...When I see a poor grade on an exam, I
look to see if they did the lab and how well they did. There tends to be a definite
correlation.
Writing@Cabrini
Three (3) faculty members from the English and Communications Department formed
a work group to develop a model writing classroom that would serve students
preparing for language arts instruction on the K-12 level. A visit today to this website
(http://www.cabrini.edu/writing/) reveals an extensive and informative site
dedicated to writing for anyone who has access to the internet. The site has links for
writing students, as well as for writing instructors, to many different writing resources
(e.g., dictionaries, writing guides, professional organizations). Even the project's
development was used as a teaching and learning tool, and exposed students to
technology in language arts education. A click on the web site's Grammar link takes the
user to Cabrini students' efforts at improving their own repeatedly-made grammatical
errors by writing about the correct usage.
31
The three faculty members that developed the Writing@Cabrini website intended for
it to be widely implemented in the classrooms of both full and part-time writing
faculty. They also made a concerted effort to promote the use of the website materials
in other core and major courses throughout Cabrini College. They have anecdotal
evidence that the website is, in fact, being used as a reference tool for many classes
across majors. Additionally, the website now serves as the primary mode of orientation
for adjunct faculty teaching in the ENG 101 and SEM 100 courses. The faculty that
developed it have promoted use of the website to other SEPCHE institutions as well as
to other neighboring institutions through the Philadelphia-Area Writing Program
Administrators annual meeting.
Faculty who developed the website consider its most “pedagogically exciting
component” to be the student generated grammar guides that have been produced by
their most at-risk students. “Clearly,” they report, “an intense amount of learning goes
on when we ask our students to teach one another in this highly public forum.”
Palm PDA Project
The Palm PDA Project was a cross-departmental undertaking at Cabrini College. An
English and Communication instructor and a Graphic Design instructor submitted a
proposal outlining this trial project for which the college supplied the instructors with
Palm PDAs. The project was to be implemented in three phases: Instruction of
Faculty, Evaluation and Decision, and Planning for fall 2003. Once finished with the
first phase, the faculty was to decide in the second phase whether or not to require all
English and Communication freshman to use the PDAs in at least three (3) courses.
Upon completion of their training, the faculty decided that they would continue with
the project and so determined the steps in the process. As of February 2003, they had
selected the courses (all of which were to include a PDA training component), and
determined timelines for spring, summer, and fall semesters 2003. Key elements of
the project were laid out according to the following timeline:
Administration approves PDAs as a prerequisite for enrolling in selected
courses.
Faculty undergoes PDA training.
Faculty meets monthly to confer on PDA lesson plans.
Faculty looks into establishing an exchange with other faculty nationally
engaged in education using PDAs.
Faculty develops web sites so that students can access course materials
with PDAs.
Faculty maintains participation in information exchange with other faculty
nationally who are using PDAs.
32
First-year student orientation contains introduction to PDA training
sessions.
Training on effective PDA usage continues for faculty and students
throughout the fall semester.
Advantages and challenges of using PDAs is assessed by focus group in the
fall at mid- and end-of-term.
Chestnut Hill College devoted its portion of the Congressional Grant to improving and
expanding technical capabilities in order to increase its capacity to provide professional
development and K-12 outreach opportunities, and to support SEPCHE collaborative
activities. The key strategies employed were to:
purchase technology equipment and software
train faculty to use the new technology and software
Equipment and Software Purchases
The Congressional Grant afforded Chestnut Hill College the opportunity to increase its
technical capacity considerably. The Tandberg Video Conferencing System was
purchased and installed in a state-of-the-art 50-seat tiered classroom. The system,
outfitted with an integrated video distribution/satellite system, permits data input
from additional sources. The equipment also provides the option of processing video
conferencing programming by traditional lines or by web-streaming.
Another significant hardware acquisition was a more powerful server at the campus'
Logue Library which provides more timely and reliable service for all of its patrons
Those patrons include the students, faculty, and administrators of the other seven
SEPCHE institutions.
The college identified a need to become more fully inter-connected with the rest of the
SEPCHE institutions. Toward this end, it also allocated money to purchase additional
computers committed to web support. In fact, a visitor to the school’s website11 today
will find a “SEPCHE Libraries” link under “Area Libraries.” This page provides links
not only to all the other SEPCHE institutions’ libraries, but provides links to the other
institutions’ homepages as well.
11
http://www.chc.edu
33
Faculty Training
During 2002/03, Chestnut Hill College offered 25 training sessions for faculty on
teaching via video conferencing and on the use of Blackboard.com in conjunction with
video conferencing; 178 undergraduate and graduate courses were supported by
Blackboard.com.
The number of professional development and outreach events the school has hosted
since purchasing this equipment is considerable. From October 8, 2001 to June 2,
2003, the college hosted at least 115 events using the equipment. Audiences, in
addition to SEPCHE faculty included:
elementary school students
middle school students
high school students
post-secondary schools
K-12 educators
post-secondary educators
Russian educators
The Ukrainian Academy of Public Administrators
Chestnut Hill College set out to provide more K-12 outreach and professional
development opportunities, and to offer more of a contribution to SEPCHE’s
collaborative activities. The hardware the college opted to invest in through the
Congressional Grant permitted it to realize all these goals. Further, its investment in
the video conferencing system, has allowed it to continue its provision of professional
development opportunities and K-12 outreach, and to offer services in support of
SEPCHE’s collaborative activities beyond the grant performance period. For example,
Chestnut Hill College video conferencing plans for 2003-04 include the delivery of
teacher/administration graduate courses, international educational components
supporting a required Global Studies seminar for all undergraduate majors, and the
development of a partnership for with an Ukrainian Distance Education Center. The
purpose of this partnership is to promote the growth of democratic institutions and a
free market in the Ukraine and other areas of the former Soviet Union. Specifically,
Chestnut Hill College plans to develop a partnership with the International Center for
Education and Research (ICER) Distance Learning Center; (ICER DLC) is an officially
registered Non Governmental Organization (NGO). The ICER DLC is a
developmental offshoot of a joint venture of the World Bank and the government of
Canada to help move Ukraine and Eastern Europe into the western market economy of
the EU and the rest of the industrialized world. This cooperative project was a three-
34
year grant-funded program, which is in the end of its funding timeline. The current
goal of the project is to develop a market for the facility, which will lead to its financial
independence at the end of the grant period. As a result, the ICER DLC has agreed to
market its facility through the services of Chestnut Hill College (CHC) and its partner,
Sterling Educational Institutes (SEI), a non-profit organization with over twelve years
experience in Ukraine and Russia. CHC, SEI and its US partners are seeking a funding
base that will allow for the development, over a period of time, of an independent
market oriented customer service base sufficient to serve the interests of the parties
concerned.
Additionally, Chestnut Hill College as part of its international and multicultural
mission, views this project as an excellent opportunity to foster the development of its
International Business, Language, and Culture Program with a focus on hands-on realtime learning through the development of capitalist economic concepts in the former
Soviet Union. Through this international program, CHC sees the potential for fulfilling
its stated mission of having a direct impact on the education of students prepared to
support the development of market economic principles, democratic institutions and
decision making, and civil society organizations through the partnerships established
both here and in Ukraine. As well, American students and Ukrainian students will
learn first hand to appreciate the importance of integrating economic principles with
the critical language skills and cultural knowledge and understanding so essential for
success in the new global economy.
Prior to the Congressional Grant, Gywnedd-Mercy College had already enriched its
teaching and learning processes considerably through faculty development in
technology. Maintaining the progress made in this area became vital. A primary
objective of the College was to concentrate its portion of the grant on providing
additional training opportunities for its faculty. The college intended to hire an
instructional technologist, to institute the Faculty Summer Session in Technology, to
provide stipends for course development, and to obtain a satellite downlink.
Gwynedd-Mercy College made a change to its original grant proposal after the grant's
submission, however.
FIPSE approved the revision to the college's original proposal on January 9, 2000.
While the overall objective remained the same, this revision altered the strategies the
college used to achieve it. The college decided instead to:
retain an instructional technologist
purchase equipment
35
Instructional Technologist
The college hired a Director of Instructional Technology, using its congressional grant
monies, in December of 2001. This addition to the staff was intended to address an ongoing need: technical professional development in instructional technology.
From January of 2002 to January 2003, the instructional technologist provided
workshops that were attended by 31 faculty members. Another 46 faculty members
received one-on-one training. This training focused generally on computer skills and
computer applications.
Training was also offered in classroom application and content development. The
college implemented the Blackboard course management system in the fall of 2002.
Workshops in Blackboard were attended by 33 faculty members. In the fall of 2002,
the instructional technologist supported 37 faculty members in the development of 112
Blackboard courses.
The instructional technologist offered workshops in SMART board in the fall of 2002,
as well. Thirty-eight (38) faculty members availed themselves of this professional
development opportunity, and another 8 requested one-on-one training.
Equipment Purchase
A SMART classroom provided the college's recently trained faculty an appropriately
equipped venue to implement the new technology skills they learned. SMART
classrooms are specially equipped rooms that enable faculty to incorporate multimedia
and internet content into their lectures. These classrooms are equipped with
instructor’s smart podium
DVD-ROM
VHS player
ceiling mounted data projector
connectivity for laptop computers
The SMART classroom accommodates as many as 25 students.
Through its funding of an instructional technologist's position and the construction of a
SMART classroom, Gwynedd-Mercy College was able not only to provide its faculty
with professional development opportunities in using technology in teaching, but also
to provide them with a place to realize its practice. The Instructional Technologist
remains on staff at the college that now hosts 13 SMART classrooms.
36
Upon receipt of the Congressional Grant, faculty development had already been
identified as a primary goal of the five-year strategic plan in place at Holy Family
University. Specifically, the institution sought to prepare faculty to offer synchronous
and asynchronous instruction using distance learning and web-based technology. A
network was in place and progress had been made toward providing computer facilities
for faculty and students. To further the strategic plan, Holy Family chose to use their
portion of Congressional Grant funds to:
purchase and upgrade equipment
purchase a course management system
Equipment Purchases and Upgrades
The majority of Holy Family University's grant was allotted to the purchase of much
needed equipment. The institution purchased a total of 48 computers. This equipment
was purchased as a package that included monitors, software, as well as hardware and
software technical support. With this equipment, the school was able to upgrade 28
faculty workstations. Another 19 computers served to upgrade Holy Family
University's nursing skills laboratory. One (1) computer served to upgrade institution's
library and learning center's services. Ten (10) faculty in six (6) different disciplines
along with a staff person in the learning resource center were specifically identified in a
report provided to evaluators as beneficiaries of the improved technology.
Course Management System
During the grant performance period, the university acquired the Blackboard course
management system. Funds remaining after the purchase of the computer equipment
were applied toward the total cost of Blackboard. The course management package
included the annual software licenses, product support, a client relationship manager,
hardware, and three (3) days of on-site training.
Blackboard's trainer representatives conducted on-site training at the university
December 18-20, 2001. The number of faculty members who received this training
totaled 15, and represented nine (9) different academic disciplines.
A precursor to Holy Family University's ultimate goal of furthering faculty
development in the area of technology-enriched pedagogy was to upgrade the
institution's technical capacity, and to invest in and train faculty in a course
management system that integrates technology into the educational process. These
strategies coupled with efforts funded by other sources have had the effect of enriching
37
the institution's course offerings with technology. Sixty (60) courses had been
technologically enhanced by January of 2003.
Prior to this Congressional Grant, Immaculata University had utilized other grants as
well as institutional funds to support its faculty in integrating technology into the
curriculum. These initiatives were extensive and involved establishing the campus
network infrastructure; purchasing computers and providing office internet access for
each faculty member; establishing the Instructional Design Resource Center; and
outsourcing faculty training and technical support needs to Collegis and Eduprise.
Despite these prior efforts, however, it was clear to administrators that faculty needed
even more support for integrating technology including time to develop their courses
and training in how to do so. The institution's key strategies were to:
provide faculty training and technical support
With much of its infrastructure and equipment needs met through earlier initiatives,
Immaculata University allocated approximately two-thirds of its share of the
Congressional Grant to providing either replacement time or stipends for faculty who
wanted to integrate technology into their teaching. Twenty-eight (28) applications for
this support were approved resulting in an equal number of technology-enriched
courses across disciplines (Table 9).
Immaculata University Grant-Supported Course Development
Department
Course
Biology
Biology
BIO 112-Human Ecology
BIO 231-Biological
Diversity
BIO 310-Developmental
Biology
BUS 301-International
Business
Biology
Business/
Accounting/
Economics
Business/
Accounting/
Economics
Business/
Accounting/
Semester
First Taught
On-line
WebEnhanced
Fall 2002
x
Spring 2002
x
Fall 2002
x
BUS 301-International
Business
Fall 2002
x
BUS 324Entrepreneurship
Fall 2001
x
38
Department
Economics
Business/
Accounting/
Economics
Core
Core
Core
Education
Education
Education/
Fashion/
Foods and
Nutrition
English
English
Fashion/Foods
and Nutrition
Foreign Lang.
and Literatures
History/
Politics/
International
Studies
History/
Politics/
International
Studies
History/
Politics/
International
Studies
History/
Politics/
International
Studies
Course
Semester
First Taught
On-line
WebEnhanced
BUS 330-Business
Seminar
Spring 2001
GEN 502-Methods of
Research
GEN 504-Strategies in
Teaching and Learning
GEN 517-Statistical
Concepts for Applied
Research
EDL 624- Current Issues
EDL 720-Orientation to
Doctoral Research
FCS 324-Family and
Consumer Sciences
Education
Summer 2003
x
Fall 2001
x
ENG 106-Composition I
ENG 106-107Composition I, II
FNU 358-Foodservice
Management
SPA 323-Spanish for
Careers
HIS 115-The Origins and
Rise of World
Civilizations
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
x
x
Spring 2002
x
Fall 2001
x
Fall 2000
x
HIS 116-The Making of
World Civilization
Spring 2001
x
HIS 219-The First World
War
Summer 2002
x
HIS 228-The Second
World War
Summer 2001
x
x
Spring 2002
x
Spring 2001
Spring 2001
x
Summer 2001
x
x
39
Department
Course
Mathematics/
Computer
Science/Physics
Mathematics/
Computer
Science/Physics
Mathematics/
Computer
Science/Physics
Mathematics/
Computer
Science/Physics
Nursing
Nutrition
Education
Psychology
CIS 104-Principles of
Programming
Sociology
Semester
First Taught
Spring 2001
On-line
WebEnhanced
x
CIS 231-The Basics of
Networking
Spring 2002
x
CIS 335-Technology:
Issues, Ethics, and Law
Spring 2002
x
PHY 203-204-Physics
Fall 2001
x
NUR 305-Portfolio
NED 644-Nutrition in the
Life Cycle
Certification Program:
Existential-Humanistic
Psychotherapy
SOC 202-Principles of
Sociology
Fall 2001
Spring 2002
x
Fall 2001
x
Spring 2001
x
x
Table 9.
Evaluators were provided student evaluations from four (4) of the online courses: one
(1) biology, one (1) computer science, two (2) history. Students' comments from these
evaluations were quite positive. "Aside from the course, the online structure of it was
a great experience, too! I have to admit I was hesitant to take an online course, but it
truly is something I will do again!"12
Faculty Training and Technical Support
Despite early investments in infrastructure and equipment, Immaculata University
recognized that ongoing training and technical support were crucial. The institution,
therefore, provided WebCT training and technical support for 73 members of its
faculty during the grant performance period. These strategies appear to have been
successful at getting the faculty to develop courses integrating technology. As of March
19, 2003, the school reports 65 courses developed in WebCT.
12
Student's comment on evaluation of CIS 221: Concepts of Systems Thinking.
40
Neumann College
Neumann College identified three goals for their portion of Congressional Grant
monies. The first was to further its faculty's knowledge in integrating and using
technology in the curriculum. A second goal was to continue partnering with the
faculties and students of elementary and secondary schools in underserved, urban-like
areas. A third goal was to support team building, non-violence, and character
development in children through the performing arts and sports. The strategies the
institution used to realize these goals were to:
establish a Faculty Resource Center (FRC)
upgrade its Academic Resource and Career Center (ARCC)
renovate its Meagher Theater
Faculty Resource Center
Neumann College opted to address its faculty's need for professional development in
technology by investing in a Faculty Resource Center. The center is used for on-site
faculty training as well as support for faculty in developing technology-enriched
instructional materials and online coursework. The institution utilized Congressional
Grant funds to purchase equipment to outfit the FRC that included computers,
scanners, printers, and SMART classroom technology. An Instructional Technology
Specialist provides training opportunities for faculty on an ongoing basis. The
Congressional Grant funded a portion of the cost of the specialist who is a contract
employee from Drexel University who also manages Neumann College's academic and
administrative computing.
“Technology Thursday” was a series of seminars held at the FRC during the 2001/2002
academic year. On average, six (6) faculty or staff members attended each of these
training sessions on various software applications. In addition to these regular weekly
training sessions, the FRC hosted two (2) all-day retreats featuring WebCT. Twenty
(20) faculty members attended these retreats.
The college conducted a survey of its full-time faculty in the fall of 2002. In it, a
majority of the respondents (n=40) reported that they had, in fact, integrated
technology into their courses. Table 10 displays the specific ways that technology was
augmenting classroom instruction at the time. The survey also revealed a high level of
continued interest among faculty members in technology training.
41
Uses of Computer Technology in
Neumann College Classrooms as of Fall 2002
Computer Technology Use
Instructor Presentations
Student Presentations
Online Access to the Internet
Drill and Practice Activities
Tutorial Activities
Simulation Activities
Instructional Games
Multimedia Playback
Other
Table 10.
Faculty
25
23
21
6
8
6
1
13
9
Percentage of
Respondents 13
63%
58%
53%
15%
20%
15%
3%
33%
23%
Academic Resource and Career Center
The Academic Resource and Career Center on the Neumann College Campus is a site
where students have access to a variety of services:
tutoring (peer and professional)
study groups
study skills workshops
career planning and development
experiential learning (co-op, internships)
The college utilized some of its Congressional Grant funds to purchase additional
computer equipment thereby enhancing the center. Presently, students have five (5)
computers at their disposal in the center.
Meagher Theater
Grant monies allocated to the renovation of Meagher Theater allowed the institution to
realize its goals of partnering with area elementary and secondary schools in
underserved areas, and providing learning opportunities for inner-city youth through
sports and the performing arts. The theater was in need of improvements in order to
provide safe access for children.
13
40 of Neumann College 67 full-time faculty members completed the survey.
42
In the summer of 2002, Neumann College sponsored a ten-day summer youth
enrichment camp. This summer program featured academics and athletics and hosted
132 boys and girls from the Philadelphia and Chester urban areas.
That summer the college also hosted summer theater workshops for children K-12,
and put on four (4) productions through the Children's Participatory Theater. A total
of 113 children participated in the theater workshops.
Neumann College chose to invest in faculty development and building renovation with
its portion of the Congressional Grant funds. The decision to invest monies in a Faculty
Resource Center, an Instructional Technologist Specialist, and renovations to its
theater appears to have helped the institution to realize its aims. Results from the fulltime faculty survey substantiate the success that faculty had in integrating technology in
to their courses. Renovation of the campus theater resulted in a safe venue for hosting
youth enrichment programs. That a total of 247 area youth over one summer
participated in the enrichment program and the theater workshops, and that the
Children's Participatory Theater hosted four (4) theater productions speaks to the
importance of the theater renovations.
Rosemont College
Collaboration was a key concept in Rosemont’s proposal for use of Congressional
Grant funds. Faculty at Rosemont were to work with faculty from other SEPCHE
institutions to develop courses that could be delivered at more than one campus. Key
strategies the institution employed were to:
purchase equipment
provide faculty training
In an effort to encourage the integration of technology and curriculum, Rosemont
College earmarked stipends or release time for as many as 20 faculty to develop
courses. Records indicate that eight (8) faculty took advantage of the opportunity. Five
(5) professors applied for release time to develop courses in Studio Art, History, and
Philosophy. One additional (1) instructor received a stipend to develop a course in
Negotiation. An additional two (2) instructors developed courses in Economics,
Political Science, and Psychology.
Rosemont College's original intent, per the grant proposal, was for faculty to work "...
in tandem with a professor from another SEPCHE institution.” Records provided
43
indicate that least one of the stipend recipients developed such a course in
collaboration with an instructor from another SEPCHE institution. A Rosemont
College Psychology instructor teamed with a Gwynedd-Mercy College English
instructor to develop a seminar titled Reading/Writing the Romance Novel that was
offered at both institutions simultaneously in Spring 2002.
Equipment Purchase
Seven of the eight faculty members who worked on developing technology-integrated
courses received desktop computers and peripherals to assist them in their efforts. In
addition to the investment in equipment for individual faculty members, the college
purchased a scanning station to aid in the teaching of Art History courses. The scanning
station's equipment was comprised of a PC, a color printer, a scanner, an external
drive to store images, a CD writer, and software.
The grant also allowed Rosemont College to purchase the equipment necessary to
install a professional digital media studio. The studio serves the dual purpose of
training faculty and working with students to edit video. The equipment purchased
included:
eight (8) EMACs
one (1) IMAC
software
storage
media supplies
Faculty Training
A stipulation of the release time awarded to faculty as an incentive was that instructors
would spend two hours per week with Rosemont’s Instructional Technologist to
discuss and practice new instructional strategies incorporating technology. As many as
four (4) group meetings were also to be held in which faculty members receiving
funding under the Congressional Grant would share their learning with one another.
The instructional technologists'14 monthly status reports indicate that they trained
instructors who were "SEPCHE grant recipients" throughout the grant performance
period. Final reports submitted by grant recipients themselves indicate that they did
incorporate technology into courses as a result of the grant funding. The technology
they incorporated included:
14
Rosemont College has one instructional technologist, but there was a staffing change in the midst of
the grant performance period.
44
web pages for syllabi, problem sets, exams, assignments, reference
materials
forums for online discussion among students and for peer assessment and
evaluation
web site for English Department
web-based discussion among students
The instructional technologists' reports show that as many as 11 faculty members met
with them regularly to incorporate technology into their existing courses and to begin
putting courses online through the then free Blackboard site and through HTML-EZ at
the University of North Dakota. The instructional technologists offered training and
assistance in setting up websites and using PowerPoint as an instructional tool. Sixteen
(16) faculty members attended two PowerPoint training sessions and as many attended
a Microsoft Word training session. Training sessions were also offered on using the
digital media studio and the scanning station. Finally, the grant recipients held brown
bag lunch discussions for the other faculty members. These events provided a forum
where those working on the grant-related projects could share their projects with the
other faculty members.
45
Evaluation Findings
B Y A L L A C C O U N T S T H E C O N G R E S S I O N A L G R A N T and the initiatives funded
through it made a profound difference for faculty, students, individual institutions, and
for the SEPCHE consortium as a whole.
1. The Congressional Grant proved pivotal in the technological
development of SEPCHE institutions.
While technology had been integrated in varying degrees at all the institutions prior to
the Congressional Grant award, a certain critical mass was lacking and necessary to
propel each to another level of technological integration. "...For us the greatest benefit
in the Congressional Grant was to bring more faculty into the spirit of using technology
in their classrooms," summed an instructor in the faculty focus group. Financial
support provided through the grant was absolutely key. A CAO explained that since
they were “all small private institutions . . . the influx or the infusion of this money
made possible things that would not otherwise have been possible.”
The SEPCHE consortium was the cornerstone of the grant's success in the opinion of
Chief Academic Officers. Individually, the institutions simply could not offer the
faculty development opportunities that they could collectively. As a consortium, the
institutions were able to offer more training opportunities of a higher caliber than would
have been possible as eight distinct institutions. A CAO explained,
...We were able to accomplish at the consortium what we could never have accomplished
as individual institutions because we simply would not have individually had the
resources to mount the level and type of program that we could do as eight institutions.
We would never have been able to sponsor the CIC workshops two consecutive summers,
because none of us would have been able to afford that.
The consortium structure allowed each institution to obtain a higher return on its
faculty development investment. For example, it is quite expensive to send just one or
two faculty to a national conference, however, the consortium was able to offer
training of the quality one would encounter at a national conference right at home to
all of the faculties.
46
2. Grant-funded activities produced an unprecedented collective
identity among faculty of the SEPCHE institutions.
By all accounts the congressional grant, unlike other grants before it, brought faculty to
a point where they identified with being a member of SEPCHE . As explained by one
CAO, the congressional grant brought the eight different college faculties into the
SEPCHE faculty. “[M]ore so than any other grant we've had,” he said, “this is the one
that did it." A CAO observed that the institutions had developed the capacity to
support faculty collaborating by discipline, and other ways, across campuses. And a
faculty member confirmed this when he reported,
. . . I don't like to give in to hyperbole but I honestly think, coming from a two-person
department which I'm in, now I have instantly twelve more colleagues that I can converse
with so [the grant] has really opened doors.
One of the Chief Academic Officers in comparing her current institution to her
previous institution, which was not a member of a consortium, said,
Both institutions still have a long way to go in terms of faculty hooking up to and
getting really comfortable with the idea of technology throughout the curriculum. The
difference here is that we are a member of SEPCHE and there is a kind of almost
symbolic difference. SEPCHE stands for progressive ideas...so the fear of doing new
things, the idea of accommodating and...thinking in...different ways I think is aided by
this membership...not just [symbolically], but very pointed tangible pivotal events like
this particular SEPCHE grant so psychologically, emotionally, and morally it just makes
a big difference.
A picture emerges of a SEPCHE collective identity that has better definition among
faculty and administrators than it did previously. One Chief Academic Officer
described it as,
. . . a seamless collaboration among the eight institutions. When we first began, ...the
money came from the Feds and we sat around the pie and made sure each of the pieces
were evenly divided so everyone walked away with eight, actually nine. ...I see...that
we've become much of a single entity.
Faculty describe a shared commitment to replicate the funding structure that proved so
successful with this Congressional Grant. One CAO remarked, “. . . it’s kind of de
rigueur now that every grant we apply for has that common portion.”
The institutions, as described by CAO’s, have a potency as SEPCHE members that
they perhaps lack as small, private institutions.
47
...[I] think we have done a good job with dealing with what's 'mine' and 'yours' in
terms of our respective needs as individual campuses. What we have developed through
this grant is an enhanced sense of 'ours.' You know how to build things that we can do
together. ...We don't have to be the eight of us prisoned by the fact that we are small,
and church-related and with certain service areas or whatever, but that we together can
play in some serious leagues and perhaps create a different model. We compare ourselves
to other consortia and we feel that there are some things we do that are quite different
than they do in Amherst or Great Lakes or whatever. We think that, in and of itself, is
an important thing which all the grants have supported - this one notably.
Many of the activities undertaken through the Congressional Grant were SEPCHE
consortium offerings. Just as there has been a change in attitude toward technology, a
growing sense of a collective SEPCHE identity among the faculties seems to have
begun as well. "It's a SEPCHE thing, not throughout, not everybody, but there's some
kind of a climate change. There's a different attitude towards, 'We're not just...getting
some new toys. We've got some other people to work with.' Some interesting things
are coming out of this," commented one of the Chief Academic Officers. The
development of this new shared sense of identity was poignantly expressed by one
instructor to the institution's Chief Academic Officer, "He has said to me, 'Of course
I'm [a] loyal and humble and devoted servant of Rosemont, but I'm also a very happy
faculty member of SEPCHE University.'" The Chief Academic Officer went on to
explain the ramifications of such a shared identity, "So many of us have one person
departments. Through a virtual faculty project they're...connected. ...Connecting to
each other in the discipline is invaluable to people at small colleges like mine."
3. Grant-funded activities enabled SEPCHE to mobilize a critical
mass of faculty toward technology-enriched pedagogy.
Considerable portions of the grant, whether allocated to SEPCHE or the institutions
individually, were invested in the faculties. The faculties were beneficiaries in
numerous ways (e.g., new equipment, equipment upgrades, software, training,
stipends, release time). There is plenty of tangible evidence to support a change in
behavior this investment had on the faculties (e.g., increases in the use of email, course
management systems, and the internet in classes). By all accounts, there was an
attendant and significant change in the faculties' attitudes toward integrating
technology into the curriculum. One faculty focus group contributor, in describing
what the grant had changed, said, "I think it's a change in attitude more than anything
else, [and] people who resisted it in the beginning are starting to come along and use
it."
48
Precisely when this change in mind-set occurred would be difficult if not impossible to
pin down, but in the midst of the grant performance period it was apparent that the
change was happening. The words of the consortium's Executive Director bear
repeating here. "[By] May 2002,” she said, “faculty were beating the doors down to
attend the faculty development sessions. They were aware and ready to get involved."
The faculties' zeal does not seem to have tapered off subsequent to the grant. One
instructor said,
I was sort of blown out of the water recently. We had a meeting which actually dealt
with Blackboard...and there was something like 30 faculty members there out of a
faculty of 90 which is just an incredible turnout for basically a luncheon meeting about
the new wrinkles in Blackboard.
One of the Chief Academic Officers expressed that he thought there had even been a
shift in the mind-set among the technology stragglers,
If they have not changed they now know that they must. So I am now getting requests
[that] we need to continue with support for faculty to learn [and] to have technology
support. So the faculty who were the laggards in the change or renovation process are
now saying, 'I'm ready.' We're all working to give them that support.... Faculty have
been converted.
Certainly not all faculty members were able to experience this change, but the number
was sizeable enough to shift the standard. In the words of one instructor, "I think that
what has occurred for a very high percentage of the faculty - and [it] is a very old overused term - there's been a real paradigm shift in their mind." This idea was echoed by
one Chief Academic Officer:
I think all of my colleagues would say the same thing: it's created an anticipation,
an expectation, and a desire on the part of a critical mass for more of this...and more of
it for the right reason not because they want the most logical solution or the most
immediate solution but because they want to [build] the future, and I think that is
significant.
In acknowledging that a similar attitudinal change had occurred among the faculty
leadership on her campus, one of the Chief Academic Officers pointed out that,
...the department chairs look at curriculum differently than they used to. I think they
look to see the integration of technology. They now not only look to see that it's there,
[because of] this paradigm-shift that has occurred in their mind they now challenge to
have it as a part of the curriculum. So they have changed as curriculum
leaders...definitely.
49
This contagion, with regard to technology and the consortium, was readily apparent in
the SEPCHE-sponsored final conference that took place at the end of the grant's
performance period. As described by one of the Chief Academic Officers, "There was
a lot of excitement that day. There was a real buzz that day. Faculty liked sharing and
they like hearing from others. Faculty expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the
presentations. I didn't meet anyone who wasn't excited about what they were
presenting."
4. Although faculty hesitate to say they are better teachers now,
they perceive that new technology has changed their instructional
practices for the better.
Faculty focus group participants were asked explicitly whether technology made them
better teachers, and their responses indicated a universal hesitancy to make this claim.
One clarified, “If you’re a bad teacher, it’s not going to make you better and it may
even make you worse.” Another instructor, while reluctant to say he was a better
teacher, felt he was a ‘more effective’ teacher.
That the faculty approach teaching differently since the advent of the grant is quite
perceptible. As one CAO put it, "I would say most of the faculty have moved in the
last four years to having some sort of technology component, whatever it may be, in
their coursework, some more than others, of course. We're just now getting WebCT
so that transition is still happening, but it's happening surely." Another said, “We're
passed the early adopters, those three or four faculty who were doing it. Now it seems
the faculty in all of the disciplines are finding some way to incorporate technology into
what they do." The focus group discussions were rife with numerous examples of how
instructors across disciplines are changing their practice. The following exemplars
were culled from that dialogue, but by no means exhaust the disciplines in the
consortium that have integrated technology into course offerings.
Art:
"The art professor has said to me and has written
in her report, 'This changed my life.' We are
thinking differently. Graphic Design now has her
participation whereas before she said, 'I'm a painter. I don't
taint myself with artificial visual aids and so forth.'"
Biology:
"It's about bringing into the classroom what you
could not bring in the classroom before. There is animation in
biology that you just couldn't have before until you were able
to use the tools. ...I would be standing up in front of the
classroom doing a song and dance trying to get them to
understand concepts that clearly the animation just allow[s]
50
them to see it...and understand...better."
Education:
"[A] graduate faculty member in education was one of the
people that was in the transformation group. She took her
course and transformed it so she that she had a partner
institution in Australia that she taught back and forth via the
web. Her experience, being very positive I think, has
mushroomed which is why we're moving into this next way of
using technology to link us externally."
English:
"I presented on [using threaded discussion in WebCT] in
January. That dispelled some belief that my colleagues had
that students in developmental writing would not know how
to comment to one another in WebCT. I archived 500
comments, lengthy dialogue with one another.... More
faculty are trying that now this fall coming up. Faculty in
writing will be trying to use WebCT in threaded discussion to
get the students talking to one another about the ideas in their
writing."
History:
"I used to draw when I did Ancient Egypt. I'd draw pictures
of pyramids because I didn't have a slide handy or a picture of
it. Now I just put on their syllabus 'Go to this website
Pyramids of Giza and...explore the website,' and I don't have
to lecture about the [purpose] of the pyramid's...structure.
...Things that I would not have considered trying to do
verbally in the classroom I can assign to them and take them
to Munich through the web or Berlin."
Sociology:
"I think this may be much cooler. I call it the 'cool factor.'
You kind of stand, especially with a SMART board, and kind
of tap your way through things. Students - they listen. They
think it's pretty neat and that's part of it. You have to grab
their attention. The part I like to bring into the classroom: I
am a great picture stealer. I go all over the internet and with
the Teach Act you can steal the pictures. ...I'd say it sort of
freed me up. Instead of sticking to the notes...I can interact
not only with the students, but with the technology."
As one administrator pointed out these changed practices did not manifest themselves
exclusively in the classroom, however, "Even the faculty senate has adopted
technology as its means of communication with faculty so they are actually running a
WebCT faculty senate center for proposals and distribution of materials." He went on
to say,
51
I would have to say that this grant is successful if for no other reason than it has
promoted faculty to this point where they now are driving decisions about more
technology for instruction and for their own administrative use as well.
Nor does it appear that changes have ended along with the grant performance period.
One of the Chief Academic Officers relayed the following,
I just had a faculty member come back this morning from...the Chautauqua workshop.
He ran into my office. 'I'm on my way over to OTS. I've gotta get this thing in place. It
is so unbelievable it will change the way I teach.' He didn't go on this grant, but it's the
use of technology, and it's pivotal in changing the way faculty work.
The focus group discussion with the faculty elicited comments that indicate that use of
technology in instruction has become second nature for some.
We've gotten to the point now where, for the early adopters and their students, the
technology is transparent. It's just something that is ordinarily incorporated into what
we're doing, and the ones who resisted in the beginning are asking for training to start
bringing more technology into their classes. ...That represents a giant step forward for
us.
In fact, a veteran instructor of over 20 years of teaching, said, he could no longer walk
into the classroom without technology. “I don’t even know how I would function
without it. Echoing a similar sentiment another participant added,
I've kind of got my own classroom now with my own computers, my own projector, my
own SMART board so I've kind of kept on moving and designed my class room for
technology. So I couldn't function without it.
5. How students experience college is changing as technology
changes the academic environment.
Faculty perceive that students have developed a baseline level of comfort learning in
the online environment. Both instructors and Chief Academic Officers perceive that
students have come to learn differently in the online environment. As articulated by
one CAO:
They’re not just sitting there you know and going to be depositories of information and
we’re gonna pour it through in a funnel in their heads....Spatially they don’t have to be
present necessarily for everything, and temporally it can happen at any hour of the day
and that just...changes the nature. It forces them to change their perceptions of what
learning’s about.
52
He went to speculate, "...It’s a real boon for some students and a real set-back for
others who actually had mastered what it was that happened in high school and
suddenly find themselves challenged in ways that they hadn’t been challenged before."
Some instructors are using technology to bring more meaning and relevance to
students’ academic work. One instructor, for instance, publishes students' work
online, and students will sometimes get feedback on their work from someone who
read it on the internet:
What that does to the students is it takes their work and makes it fundamentally real. An
active, actual communication as opposed to the performance. That, to me, is what is
really critical about the internet. . . It also helps them conceptualize education as being
part of a larger community and that's what separates a high school from a university.
Both Chief Academic Officers and teachers in the focus groups discussed students’
behavior regarding technology in a variety of contexts. Several noted a marked increase
in students’ use of technology in making their own class presentations. A Chief
Academic Officer felt that the faculty served a modeling role for the students in this
regard. “…[T]hey wouldn’t be doing that if the faculty weren’t doing it, too.”
On the issue of how students are embracing technology in the classroom a teacher
commented that he had to, “…do a little bit of forcing … so they have to do
assignments in relation to their web assignments….” However, once involved, he
noted that students appear to be making a smooth transition to courses that integrate
more technology. He said that his,
…first worry about web assignments [was] that they would just see it as something else
to tackle. But the way they are so much into the computer for everything else they do in
life, this is a natural progression for them. And they just seem to make the jump right
from their email right over to the British Museum and Louvre or something and they
don’t think twice about it.
The integration of technology appears to have had an impact on students’
communication. One faculty member said, “…a lot of students who would not speak
out in the classroom are willing to speak online….” While another pointed out that,
this communication was not restricted to communication between the students and
teacher, “…[T]hey were communicating. They were coming back and forth and they
were talking to each other besides talking to me when we used the threaded discussion
building on each other’s ideas and suggesting places that people could look for things.”
One teacher’s experience with threaded discussions was that “…the students were
using WebCT as a community among the class to evaluate each other’s work and their
writing as well.” She was asked by another of the focus group participants, “Do you
53
find the quality of the students’ writing has improved since they have started
collaborating with one another?” and she responded, “Oh, yes.”
6. Institutions have undergone permanent changes made possible
by the Congressional Grant. When it comes to technology, there
is “no turning back.”
There is a perception shared among faculty and administrators alike that the SEPCHE
institutions have changed profoundly and permanently through initiatives funded by the
Congressional Grant. Typically, when we refer to the “sustainability” of an initiative
we are thinking in terms of its funding. However, sustainability can also refer more
broadly to the ideas and values associated with an initiative; the relationships that the
initiative stimulates, encourages, or supports; and the outcomes that the initiative
achieved. Evidence suggests that the values, relationships, and outcomes associated
with the Congressional Grant will be sustained over the long term.
As increasing numbers of faculty utilize the available hardware and software to
integrate technology into their courses, increasing numbers are also beginning to be
concerned with the quality of the resulting instruction. This trend was evidenced in the
workshop presentations made by SEPCHE faculty at the January 2003 conference and
discussed previously in this report. The change in mindset is also evidenced in the
language used by institutions. For instance, as one CAO pointed out, Directors of
Academic Computing are now referred to on most campuses as Instructional Design
Specialists. The change reflects a shift in emphasis from hardware and software to
teaching and learning. It was apparent to CAOs that while the years leading up to the
Congressional Grant were characterized by an effort to outfit institutions with the
hardware and software to get the campuses “wired,” the Congressional Grant enabled
fundamental changes to the curriculum. CAOs see their institutions effectively
reaching increasing numbers of people through distance learning and this, said one, has
“radically transformed our college.”
Changes occurring within the institutional environment, especially related to
electronic communication, reflect larger societal trends, noted several interviewees.
“We would not have been positioned to be a part of what is happening in society,”
reflected one CAO, “had we not had the previous grants for the infrastructure and the
training that was provided by this grant.“ The increased communication between
students and faculty enabled through technology is viewed by some administrators as
the most salient feature of the recent “cultural change” on campuses. Electronic
communication builds community, they say, and promotes access to the many
educational opportunities offered by the various institutions to individuals that might
otherwise be hampered by other responsibilities such as care-giving. “We obviate the
54
space and time issues to an extent,” explained one CAO. He said, for example, “I think
our students can send emails to faculty at 3am on their schedule which is high-noon as
far as they’re concerned.”
Although there was no clear agreement among CAOs that the SEPCHE institutions
were moving collectively toward becoming a virtual university, they agree that they
“basically have now put in place the infrastructure which essentially allows anyone on
any campus to take any course at any other campus.” This change and the others
discussed reflect the institutional-level transformation resulting from the totality of
Congressional Grant activities. One CAO remarked, “The future is more solid because
of this particular grant.” And according to another, “We cannot go backwards, and
that’s the important thing. We’ll go forward and we’ll go forward quicker as a result
of this grant and that is the good thing.”
55
Summary and Conclusions
O N A L L E I G H T SEPCHE C A M P U S E S faculty development opportunities,
technology infrastructure, and instructional technology support have all increased
significantly over the last several years. From the perspective of both administrators
and faculty, this is attributable to the Congressional Grant. Concurrently, a
revolutionary change in the mindset toward technology at all institutions has taken
place. These transformations have had a profound lasting impact on the faculties,
students, administrators, and the institutions overall.
The extent to which technology is available continues to vary across campuses, but all
eight were able to use some of the grant money to upgrade their existing technology.
These upgrades have occurred at both the campus and the classroom levels. Comments
made by the Chief Academic Officers illustrate this at the campus level: “We have full
internet access. We’re a fully wireless campus now;” and, at the classroom level: “You
can carry that laptop into the classroom, connect it to the data projector, and you have
full internet access as well as the computer in the room is wired so that it has internet
access.”
Both the Chief Academic Officers and the teaching faculty describe an evolutionary
change in how the faculties perceive technology from the resistance of the past toward
learning about it, using it, and integrating it into their courses. This change was not
lost on one faculty member who said, “I find that evolution to be fascinating. You
know in three years we’ve gone from, ‘Why would you want something like that?’ to
… a totally different approach.” Another faculty member said of her own perceptual
evolution, “ … Some days I’m like, ‘Well what would I ever do without this
computer?’ But five years ago I would have [said], ‘What would I do with the
computer?’ So it has changed drastically.”
Crediting technical support and faculty development options available, this same
faculty member said she was, “…amazed at just the opportunities for training and
technical support.” Another faculty member said, “…[N]ow with the WebCT [and]
with all the rest of it, it’s like using any other tool. It’s like using a textbook or
56
whatever I happen to be using. It’s an automatic part of preparing our classes.” One of
the Chief Academic Officers summed up the change when he said that he thought,
“…that now the vast majority of people are not only connected electronically, but
connected intellectually to the whole concept that education as it was done in 1960, 70
is in the past.”
By all accounts, SEPCHE and its member institutions achieved the goals set for the
Congressional Grant with results that seem to have exceeded the expectations of
administrators and faculty alike . The influx of state-of-the-art technology, high caliber
faculty development, and adequate support for implementation afforded by the grant
allowed for what was repeatedly described as a dramatic and permanent cultural shift
on all eight campuses. The funding arrangement characterizing this particular grant
proved to be a key strength. The fact that a large portion of the funding was allocated
to the consortium level to support collaborative faculty development afforded
SEPCHE the opportunity to provide learning opportunities of the highest quality to all
the faculties – opportunities that simply would not otherwise have been possible.
Likewise, the fact that each member institution shared an equal portion of the
remaining funds allowed customized technology initiatives to propel each institution to
a new level of competitiveness.
Clearly, implementing this grant did not prove problematic for SEPCHE or the
member institutions in the sense that there was a wealth of possibilities for putting the
funding to good use, and great enthusiasm on every level for doing so. Predictable new
challenges have arisen from the changes brought about through the influx of new
technology, however. These include the challenge to stay abreast of new technological
trends; the challenge to keep the technology up and running efficiently, and the
challenge for faculty to learn ways of teaching with technology that are all together
new to both them and their students. Technological strides made by the SEPCHE
institutions have positioned them to address larger challenges that post-secondary
institutions nationwide are addressing at the outset of the 21st Century: keeping
technology advances tied to the institution’s strategic goals; focusing on departments
and entire disciplines working together to improve teaching and learning through
technology; and focusing the attention of faculty on how technology can be used to
improve teaching and learning rather than on the technology itself.
57
Appendices
58
Appendix A
[CONGRESSIONAL GRANT PROPOSAL NARRATIVE]
I.
Project Concept
It is widely recognized that post-secondary graduates must be prepared to
integrate the use of technology into the world of work as well as into their personal
lives. It is underscored by Kenneth Green in The Campus Computing Project Report
that the need to help faculty is the single most important factor for improving campus
computing. This problem is not unique to the Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium
for Higher Education (SEPCHE) colleges; The Campus Computing Project Report
included information from 660 colleges.
SEPCHE is the beneficiary of a $925,000 Congressional Grant to develop
college and university faculty's ability to use technology to support new outreach and
training for its educational partners in the K-12 sector. The language of the bill reads
as follows:
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education, which is
composed of eight small colleges, is developing an Institute for Life Long Learning,
which is designed to prepare faculty and students for a technology based future. The
new institute will actively promote opportunities for faculty to modify their teaching
methods through the use of technology with the goal to provide outreach to and
training for K-12 teachers in the Greater Philadelphia area.
II.
Collaborative Philosophy
The SEPCHE colleges have, since the inception of the consortium, sought
ways to cooperate on matters involving strategic planning, resource allocation,
faculty development, and program development. Both the SEPCHE Presidents and
the Chief Academic Officers meet on a monthly basis to share ideas, develop plans,
and coordinate resources. Other SEPCHE administrators and faculty meet on a
regular basis to develop grant proposals, coordinate faculty development activities,
and plan the steps which are leading to a shared virtual library. In Fall, 1999, the
59
Appendix A
SEPCHE presidents and senior administrators from member colleges met for a
planning seminar designed to chart SEPCHE's course for the next five years. That
meeting reaffirmed the commitment of all members towards increasing and
extending the range and depth of collaborative activities. The proposals offered
under the terms of this Congressional Grant are focused on issues of faculty
development. The activities listed below are designed to increase the skills in course
and program development needed by our faculty, which in turn will further our
partnership's strategic goals for the next five years. We are, in other words, creating
a virtual Institute for Lifelong Learning - a Center for Teaching and Learning throughout our campuses.
III.
Project Activities
The Consortium proposes to respond to the opportunity provided by the
Congressional Grant in three ways:
1.
The SEPCHE Colleges will reserve $190,000 to support a
minimum of eight jointly sponsored workshops, seminars, and
conferences on topics dealing with teaching and management of
technology in a variety of instructional settings, information literacy,
and the like. Topics for these programs will be selected with the
assistance of the SEPCHE Faculty Development Committee. The
Consortium has experience in mounting both general conferences
and targeted workshops on topics of interest to its members and
partners. These programs will provide opportunities for faculty to
gather together to discuss topics and issues of mutual concern and
interest. Appropriate facilitators will help faculty identify activities
60
Appendix A
and projects for future collaboration. Topics for the conferences and
workshops may include, but are not limited to, development program
for department heads, assessment of teaching with technology,
mastering
distance
learning
technology,
building
learning
communities within and across campuses, and curriculum and/or
program design.
2. In light of the needs identified through item (1) above, each
SEPCHE institution will retain
$80,625 to support faculty activities designed to create an electronic
university.
However, since we also recognize that member
institutions are at different stages of faculty preparation, the
SEPCHE institutions will sponsor and support a variety of different
strategies, aimed at various levels of faculty preparation, in order to
achieve these commonly desired goals. Strategies may include, but
are not limited to:
a) Development of web-based and/or web-assisted courses to
supplement and enhance existing curricular offerings or
make them available to new markets,
b) Support for collaborative projects involving faculty from
both the Consortium and K-12 partner faculty, particularly in
the instruction of languages, sciences, and mathematics,
jointly mounted by collaboration among two or more
SEPCHE institutions,
61
Appendix A
c) Provision of replacement time to support course and
program development, explore new areas of knowledge for
program development, and purchase the necessary tools to
implement such projects, including computer hardware and
software.
3. SEPCHE will set aside $10,000 for a final consortium conference, in which
the individual colleges will share the results of their individual projects with each
other, and with interested parties from the K-12 sector and other colleges and
universities. The opportunity to share and experience the range of projects will
in turn stimulate the development of further strategies to enhance crossinstitutional collaboration and also consortium-wide interventions.
IV.
Project Management
To insure that the collaborative nature of the grant is achieved, the Chief
Academic Officers of SEPCHE will review all proposals from consortium
institutions. This will include all institutional or individual faculty requests. The
Chief Academic Officers will be charged with judging the proposals on their merits
in contributing to the collaborative nature of the project and on the ability of another
SEPCHE institution or other institutions to replicate the activity. They will consult
with the Faculty Development Committee on a regular basis to assist in the project.
Dr. David G. Rice, Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs of Holy Family
College, will serve as project manager and liaison with the Fund for Improvement of
Post Secondary Education. Neumann College will be responsible for fiscal matters
and managing grant disbursements. The contact person is Mr. Michael Noonan,
62
Appendix A
MBA, Comptroller.
V.
Project Evaluation
The following elements will comprise project evaluation for the
Congressional Grant:
a. Project evaluation of consortia-sponsored programs, such as workshops,
conferences and seminars, will include an evaluation instrument to
measure participant satisfaction.
b. Each project proposed by individual colleges will have a specific product
or outcome,
and will include appropriate measures to determine compliance with
goals and objectives outlined in the approved proposal.
c. Final evaluation of the entire grant and a final report will be prepared by
an external agency mutually agreeable to SEPCHE and to FIPSE. The
final report of the project will include a catalog of grant outcomes and
replicable results, which may be shared at large. This catalog will be
available electronically on the SEPCHE website.
VI.
Individual Member Plans
In addition to the consortium-wide conferences and seminars discussed
above in section III, 1, the individual SEPCHE colleges propose the following plans,
which reflect the specific needs of each institution.
A. Beaver College
With its share of the Congressional Grant, Beaver College proposes to undertake
two initiatives designed to assure greater use of technologically enhanced instruction
63
Appendix A
in the classroom by both its faculty and the K-12 teachers in the public schools of the
City of Philadelphia and Montgomery County.
Initiative #1 will involve the further development of web-assisted and web-based
courses, which are now being piloted on an experimental basis by selected faculty
using two commercially available software packages (Blackboard and eSocrates). A
series of workshops will be held to address the needs of two groups of faculty. On
one level, we will enhance the knowledge and skills of faculty members who have
begun to develop web-related courses. On another level, we will offer introductory
sessions to “web novices” to expand the number of faculty members using the web in
their courses from 9 to 18, the latter figure representing approximately one-quarter of
the full-time, tenure track faculty. The emphasis will be on developing web-based
courses and modules that can be used for Beaver College in-service outreach
activities aimed at K-12 classroom teachers.
Initiative #2 will focus on those faculty members who have been more reticent
than their colleagues to adopt computer-based technology for instructional purposes.
Unless these faculty members can be convinced of the benefits of such technology,
there is danger of developing a serious pedagogical divide between the
technologically “literate” and the technologically “illiterate.” To prevent such a
development, a faculty member will be given replacement time to function as a
facilitator of technological applications. He or she will be responsible for working
one-on-one with individual faculty members to incorporate electronic aspects into
existing courses and to explore new offerings and programs that make use of
computer-assisted instruction. Beaver College will then sponsor a technology
applications workshop for “novice” secondary school teachers during the summer,
64
Appendix A
under the direction of aforementioned facilitator and two or three College faculty
members.
B. Cabrini College
Cabrini College will use its share of the Congressional grant to SEPCHE to
build on the progress that earlier SEPCHE grants have enabled Cabrini to make in
supporting faculty development initiatives to enhance the teaching-learning process
through the use of information technologies and resources. The primary area in
which faculty members need training is curriculum development, but many also
would benefit from training in presentation software use, web page development,
library research, and desktop publishing. Cabrini College has a special need to
enhance the use of information technologies in its language programs and in its
mathematics and science curricula, especially those mathematics and science courses
that serve the Core Curriculum and that enroll significant numbers of future K-12
teachers. Cabrini College will also support faculty in the development of on-line
courses and curricula.
To facilitate ongoing opportunities for faculty training, Cabrini College will
establish a Faculty Technology Resource Center (FTRC). This center will be the site
of regular training programs for faculty in the use of technological tools and of
special workshops to demonstrate discipline-specific software and the development
of innovative instructional technology.
Because integrating technology into teaching and learning is a time-intensive
process, a key factor to the success of this initiative will be to provide faculty with
the time to investigate technological tools and to become comfortable with and
competent in their use. To this end, Cabrini College will create two programs to
65
Appendix A
facilitate faculty development. A Summer Technology Grant Program will enable
departments and/or individual faculty members to apply for grant monies to work on
technology projects that will result in concrete enhancements to their lives as teachers
and/or scholars. A Technology Replacement Program will provide faculty with an
opportunity to apply for a block of replacement time during the fall or spring of the
academic year to engage in development activities that will promote a more
technologically sophisticated curriculum. Both programs will be competitive and
will support the purchase of hardware and software as well as stipends or faculty
replacement costs.
C. Chestnut Hill College
Within the design and conceptual basis of the SEPCHE Center for Teaching
and Learning, Chestnut Hill College proposes to utilize grant funds to actively
engage in collaborative faculty development activities within the SEPCHE
consortium, among our existing K-12 partner school in the Delaware Valley, and at
Chestnut Hill College. The principal planned activities include:
1.
Technology to provide training for K-1 2 teachers
During the past three years Chestnut Hill College has developed a close
partnership among Philadelphia area public and parochial schools through providing
K-12 teachers with instruction on the application of technology in the curriculum. In
some instances, this instruction has been applicable to many disciplines/subject areas.
With other grant support Chestnut Hill College offered summer programs for science
teachers in 1998 and 1999 on integrating technology into their classes; this year a
similar program will be presented for math teachers. With the acquisition and
installation of the video conferencing equipment listed below, Chestnut Hill College
66
Appendix A
will have the means to sustain and extend our commitment to K-12 teachers, As a
component within this proposal, Chestnut Hill College will hold meetings with K-12
teachers to develop activities utilizing video conferencing technology. Further, K-12
teachers will be provided with instruction on the use of this equipment and its
pedagogic potential and capabilities.
2.
Acquisition and installation of technology to support collaboration among
SEPCHE institutions in instruction, faculty development, and outreach
activities
a.
Video Conferencing Equipment and Installation
With the acquisition and installation of video conferencing equipment in
Martino Hall, Chestnut Hill College will have the means to provide
collaborative instructional opportunities to all eight of the SEPCHE colleges.
Such collaboration will enhance course opportunities to students at all
participating colleges; it will also enhance K-12 partnerships through course
support and staff development. This equipment will also be used directly to
support courses in video production in Chestnut Hill College's Applied
Technology program. In addition to its instructional potential, this equipment
can support collaboration through shared faculty development, student life
efforts, and communications among SEPCHE administrators and faculty. The
grant will support training on the use and applications of video conferencing
technology; all SEPCHE colleges will be invited to participate in this training.
b.
Server for Library
The grant will support the acquisition of a new server in the Logue Library that
will enhance intra-SEPCHE library services for students and faculty, It will
67
Appendix A
also provide the capability for Chestnut Hill College to serve as an active
participant in the SEPCHE Virtual Library,
c.
Computers
The grant will provide computer equipment that will be dedicated to
supporting the Chestnut Hill College Web Page. It is anticipated that the CHC
Web Page will be more fully inter-connected to the web pages of other
SEPCHE colleges.
D. Gwynedd-Mercy College
Gwynedd-Mercy College will utilize this grant funding to continue its
progress in enhancing the teaching and learning process through faculty development
in technology. Previous grant funding made possible the establishment of a teachinglearning technology lab for faculty. It is now necessary to focus on training
opportunities for faculty in the use of technology to enrich the courses they teach, to
enhance student learning, and to facilitate assessment strategies.
The critical need at this time is the expertise of instructional technology
personnel who can provide workshops, and general support for faculty, as well as
discipline specific faculty development programs. Through a faculty survey, we have
identified the needs faculty have for technology training: Power Point; Excel; Access;
web page production; CD ROM production; digital video camera production; course
development and enrichment through use of the internet; and class listservs to
facilitate new approaches to teaching and learning. Funding will provide such
opportunities on an ongoing basis.
In addition to instructional technology workshops through each semester,
we will institute the Faculty Summer Session in Technology for full time faculty.
68
Appendix A
Summer Sessions will be designed based on faculty identified needs; stipends will be
available both to attend technology sessions and follow-up meetings, as well as to
enable faculty to serve as colleague mentors to other faculty.
A satellite downlink is proposed to provide additional faculty development
programming through technology. This capability will serve students as well as
faculty with new opportunities to participate in national discipline-related programs
without leaving campus, thus adding another dimension to the teaching and learning
dynamic.
Gwynedd-Mercy College identifies the following outcomes as a result of
this grant funding:
1. Enhanced faculty expertise to utilize technology to enrich teaching and
learning.
2. Increased availability of critically needed instructional technology startup and support personnel to establish the teaching-learning technology lab as a center
for faculty development in technology.
3. Increased opportunities for collaborative work among faculty for the
primary purpose of developing technology-based curricula.
4. The implementation of strategies to enrich the curriculum for GwyneddMercy College students (especially those in teacher preparation programs)
through the infusion of technology in the curriculum and through co-curricular
programs possible through a satellite downlink.
5. Increased opportunities for collaboration among faculty and
administrators of the SEPCHE colleges.
E. Holy Family College
Holy Family College has identified faculty development as a primary goal of
its strategic plan for the next five years. Key to that goal is enabling faculty to
offer synchronous and asynchronous instruction using distance learning and web
based technology. The College has already installed a network and made
significant progress in providing appropriate computer facilities for faculty and
students. We plan to use our portion of the grant to complete the following tasks:
69
Appendix A
1. Provide needed hardware and software to upgrade one computer
laboratory to support web-based instruction using Novell
networking;
2. Purchase a minimum of ten personal computers (workstations and/or
laptops) to enable faculty to utilize web technology for course
design;
3. Provide a series of consultancies to faculty wishing to
upgrade/develop skills in web-based courses and distance learning;
4. Provided needed technical support to install and maintain the
equipment.
Completion of these tasks will result in the following outcomes:
1. Enable 10 additional members of our instructional faculty to become
sophisticated in the use of educational technology;
2. Create a minimum of ten courses which, in whole or in part, are
delivered using network technology;
3. Familiarize our undergraduate and graduate students in education
with the possibilities offered by web-based technology;
4. Invite K-12 partners to utilize Holy Family College faculty and
computer resources to enrich their pedagogy.
The results of these activities (new courses, instructional materials, student projects)
will be shared at workshops sponsored by Holy Family College in conjunction with
other SEPCHE partners, and cataloged for use by interested parties outside the
consortium.
F. Immaculata College
Purpose: The primary purpose for the Immaculata component of the grant is
to close the gap between the college’s responsibility to prepare students in the use of
technology and the majority of college faculty who are under-prepared, lack the time
to learn, or are not adequately motivated to integrate technology into the curriculum.
In recent years significant steps were taken by the college to assist faculty in the
development of their professional skills. First, the college provided, through grants
and institutional funds, the campus network infrastructure; second, each faculty
member was provided with a Pentium computer, internet access in their office and e-
70
Appendix A
mail accounts; third, the college opened the Instructional Design Resource Center
exclusively for faculty use; and fourth, the college contracted with Collegis and
Eduprise to provide on campus training and support in the area of technology.
It is evident that faculty need more than the necessary hardware and
software. They also need the time required to learn how to appropriately use the
technology to enhance and deliver the curriculum. Therefore the major focus for the
use of the Congressional Grant funds will be to provide faculty replacement time to
develop the pedagogical and technological skills necessary to integrate technology
within the college curriculum.
Activities: This challenge will be met by two major initiatives:
1. provision of faculty workshops and/or conferences, through the SEPCHE
Consortium, to provide faculty the educational insights and instruction
essential for the integration of technology within the curriculum;
2. faculty replacement time required to learn and develop appropriate
integration of technology use within the curriculum.
The process for the implementation of the replacement time will be through a
competitive grant opportunity offered to the Immaculata faculty. In spring
2000, Immaculata faculty will be provided guidelines for submission of a
small grant to support either a summer stipend or replacement time during
the fall 2000. Grants will be reviewed internally as well as by the Chief
Academic Officers of SEPCHE. As part of the grant submission, recipients
will be required to:
1. state the objectives of technology integration within a specific course or
courses;
2. outline how they will collaborate with faculty on campus or with other
SEPCHE faculty in this process;
3. demonstrate how they will share/present the outcomes with other
SEPCHE faculty
71
Appendix A
G. Neumann College
Neumann College desires to enhance faculty and student learning by
engaging in collaborative projects with SEPCHE and through collaborative programs
with the community
PURPOSE; The purposes are threefold. (1) To develop college faculty's
ability to utilize and integrate technology across the college curriculum, and to assist
students to deepen their knowledge and skills in the areas of Writing, Mathematics,
and Computer Information Management; (2) To continue the partnership with the
faculty and students of elementary/secondary schools in underserved, urban-like
areas; (3) To support summer programming that provides learning and experiences
in team building, non-violence, and character development in children through the
performing arts and sports.
ACTIVITIES: The purposes will be achieved through four major
initiatives:
1.
Enhance the learning assistance center with technology (computers and
software) to assist student development in writing, mathematics, and
select software applications;
2.
Provide the faculty with on-site training support for developing
multimedia, instructional materials , and on-line course work through
internal, competitive grants;
3.
Implement a demonstration summer project that introduces and
enhances team building, non-violence, and character development
through the venues of the Arts and Sports;
72
Appendix A
4.
Collaborate in the provision of faculty workshops and/or conferences
through the SEPCHE Consortium for the faculty across the eight
SEPCHE schools to grow in their understanding of the transformation
of higher education, and to develop knowledge and skills for the
integration and utilization of multimedia/technology in the process of
teaching/learning.
H. Rosemont College
The faculty at Rosemont College have obtained a much improved access to
technology. However, faculty members now need to learn or improve their ability to
integrate technology in their courses and their teaching in general. We are proposing
to facilitate this development in a collaborative manner with other SEPCHE (and a
few non-SEPCHE) institutions so that courses in specific fields as well as
interdisciplinary courses might be delivered at more than one campus. Faculty
members will thus work together in teams to develop and upgrade skills in
technology assisted synchronous and asynchronous instruction using web page
technology and distance learning. They will serve as catalysts to encourage the
interest of other faculty as well as administrators and students in SEPCHE to utilize
computer assisted learning so that it becomes an integral part of learning at all of our
institutions and enhance cooperation. This grant will foster faculty development
through inter-institutional cooperation and the acquisition of new learning and
research techniques thereby benefiting students in all our institutions.
Over a period of four semesters twenty of Rosemont College’s faculty will
be provided a one-course replacement or a summer stipend in order to work in
tandem with a professor from another SEPCHE institution. They will be revising and
73
Appendix A
enriching their curricular offering (usually a specific course) which will then offer
new learning modes to students not just at a single institution. Some faculty in both
the undergraduate women’s division and the continuing education and accelerated
division will be preparing specific distance learning courses (e.g. Conflict and
Conflict Resolution in North Ireland). A small amount of money will be needed for
consultants in those cases where the faculty members are unable to resolve
challenges in their course planning and construction. Finally, laptop computers will
be needed that can be used in class as well as in classes, offices or at home.
74
Appendix B
Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education
Administrators Interviewed for Congressional Grant I Evaluation
Jonnie G. Guerra, Ph.D.
Chair, Chief Academic Officers
Committee
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Cabrini College
Norah Peters-Davis, Ph.D.
Dean of Undergraduate Studies
& Faculty Development
Arcadia University
Michael Berger, Ed.D.
& Provost
Arcadia University
William T. Walker, Ph.D.
& Dean of the Faculty
Denise Wilbur, Ed.D.
David Rice, Ph.D.
CGI Project Administrator
Provost
Holy Family College
Sr. Carroll Isselmann, IHM, Ed.D.
Stephen W. Thorpe, Ed.D.
Neumann College
Beate Schiwek, Ph.D.
Chief Academic Officer & Academic
Dean, Women’s College
Rosemont College
Brighid Blake, M.A.
Executive Director
Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium
For Higher Education
75
Appendix C
CAO FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE
•
My purpose for wanting to meet with you is to gain your various perspectives on the
Congressional Grant and the impact that it’s made on your institutions and the
SEPCHE consortium as a whole.
•
I deeply appreciate the materials that you have sent to me. Some of you sent so I
have tried to read everything that has been sent – a virtual mountain of material. I
may not have absorbed everything so please bear with me as I try to keep each of the
colleges and all the characters whose names I’m learning, and all the activities
undertaken in mind.
•
I’d like to start by focusing on your individual institutions and then move to the
consortium level.
CHECK EQUIPMENT
•
Unlike in the faculty focus groups where I will not be using names or identifying
people in any way, there is no way nor any purpose in keeping your identities
confidential. So I will likely use “quotable quotes” from the meeting in my report to
FIPSE describing your perspective on what has been accomplished.
•
I’d like to tape the meeting and will transcribe the tape when I return. I’ll also be
entering into qualitative software for thematic analysis. The procedure will be that I’ll
pose a question to the group and whoever is so moved to respond, that’s where we
will begin.
LET’S BEGIN
1) If you would, just summarize briefly the major grant-funded activities at your
institutions, and in your own words, the goal(s) being pursued through those activities. I
have read a goodly portion of the material that has been sent to me in Georgia. This
exercise is mostly so that I can connect you with what I’ve been reading.
2) I’d like for you to think back to the late 90’s – the period just prior to the CGI being
awarded. How would you characterize the state of technology at your institution then?
3) From your perspective, what has come out of the grant for your institution?
4) From your perspective, what difference have these outcomes you describe made for
faculty, students, and your institutions as a whole? What changes do you notice?
5) Has SEPCHE made a difference in the K-12 community? If so, in what way?
6) What was critical to achieving the successes you have identified?
76
Appendix C
7) Is there any way in which the grant was less of a success than you would have wanted?
What are some reasons for this?
8) Are you noticing any patterns among faculty over time related to technology use,
comfort, interest, etc.? If so, what are these patterns?
9) Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about the grant at your institution before we
move on?
Okay, now I’d like to shift your attention to the consortium-level.
10) Please take a look at the logic model. This is from the grant proposal. To what extent
does it reflect how the grant activities have actually played out? Consider how far your
eye can move across the model and before the links do not appear as strong.
11) Is there any way you would make this simple model of the congressional grant more
complex? What would we add to tell a fuller story?
Probe: Are there other short term, intermediate, or long term outcomes that are not
represented?
12) Where would SEPCHE be today without the CGI grant? Perhaps you might think
about what change model would have characterized things had there been no CGI grant?
What would have been going on with respect to technology?
13) What difference has it made for your colleges to address technology as a consortium?
14) Where is SEPCHE now with respect to the “virtual university?” Have you arrived at
this goal? How would you characterize the role the congressional grant played in getting
you as far as you are today with the virtual university?
15) How has knowledge and leadership been tapped from within the institutions? How
was it tapped from without? What difference has this made?
16) Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about the consortium and the
congressional grant that I haven’t asked you about?
RECAP for the group what seems to be the most significant outcomes of the
congressional grant. What are the most salient topics that emerged?
77
Appendix D
FACULTY FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE
•
My purpose for wanting to meet with you is to gain your various
perspectives on the Congressional Grant and the impact that it’s made on
your teaching. I’m an independent evaluation consultant. Quite a bit of
my work is with projects such as this funded by the U.S. Department of
Education. I’m here to learn from your experiences and ultimately tell the
story of the grant and how it has made a difference here.
•
I have been sent a lot of materials by the CAO’s of your respective
colleges. This is why I may surprise you with how much I know about
some of you. It’s all been very interesting and I’m looking forward to
getting to know you better.
•
I’d like to start by focusing on you, and then talking later about the impact
your learning and change may be having on your students.
CHECK EQUIPMENT
•
I will not be using your names in the report or identifying you in any
specific way unless you would like for me to. I am interested in your
perspective, and your experience with the understanding that if I asked
other faculty the same questions, they might very well answer differently.
•
I’d like to tape the meeting and will transcribe the tape when I return. I’ll
also be entering into qualitative software for thematic analysis.
•
The procedure will be that I’ll pose a question to the group and whoever is
so moved to respond, that’s where we will begin. You don’t have to
answer any of my questions.
LET’S BEGIN
1) Please introduce yourself to my tape recorder by telling me your name,
what you teach, and how long you have been a faculty member here.
2) Next, if you would, please just summarize briefly the major grant-funded
activities that you were involved in over the last few years. What have you
been learning and doing?
3) I’d like for you to think back to the late 90’s – the period just prior to the
CGI being awarded. How would you characterize yourself vis a vis
technology?
78
Appendix D
4) Given what you’ve been involved in with respect to technology, what are
the biggest changes you’ve experienced or simply noticed in yourself as a
teacher?
5) What difference have these changes made and for whom?
6) Have you been involved in outreach, particularly to the K-12 sector, and if
so please describe?
7) What was critical to achieving the positive changes you’ve been
describing?
8) Is there any way in which your efforts funded through the grant were less
of a success than you would have wanted? What are some reasons for this?
9) Do you see any patterns in your interest and/or use of technology over
time?
10) To what extent have your collegial relationships changed vis a vis
technology over he last 2-3 years? Do you identify with being a member of a
“virtual community” in your discipline?
11) What difference has this made?
12) Please take a look at the logic model. This is from the grant proposal.
What is your reaction? To what extent does it reflect how the grant activities
have actually played out? Consider how far your eye can move across the
model and before the links do not appear as strong.
13) Is there any way you would make this simple model of the congressional
grant more complex? What would we add to tell a fuller story?
Probe: Are there other short term, intermediate, or long term outcomes that
are not represented?
14) Where would you be today without the CGI grant?
15) Is there anything else you’d like to tell me about that I haven’t asked you
about?
RECAP for the group what seems to be the most significant outcomes of the
congressional grant. What are the most salient topics that emerged?
79
Congressional Grant I Evaluation
Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning
Documents List
I. SEPCHE DOCUMENTS
DATE
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
04.04.00
03.04.02
[Copy of Grant Application]
U.S. Department of Education Grant Award Notification
[Conference Announcement]
Stop Surfing Start Teaching
[Winter Conference Attendance]
Educause
AAC&U Conference, Baltimore
Tech Ed Events, Palm Beach
Stop Surfing-Stop Teaching, Myrtle Beach
[Roster of SEPCHE Faculty Attending Out of State Conferences]
[Conference Brochure – ]
Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education
[Information Literacy Program Proposal of the
SEPCHE Library Directors Committee]
[Workshop Invitation – ]
Reboot Refresh Redirect Student Research
[Gwynedd-Mercy College Workshop Agenda]
[Copy of Evaluation Form]
Workshop Evaluation Summary (Draft)
Workshop Evaluation Summary
[Email message from Kathleen Mulroy to SEPCHELIB] regarding
Information Literacy Workshop at Gwynedd-Mercy College
[Email message from Lori A. Schwabenbauer to SEPCHE listserv
regarding] SEPCHE Information Literacy Workshop Update
[Summary of Information Literacy Workshop Evaluations]
[Summary of Group Sessions at] Gwynedd-Mercy
College Information Literacy Workshop
Information Literacy Faculty Development Program Planning Update
[Brochure –] SEPCHE Faculty Development Workshops
Using Digital Tools: Technology Enhanced Technology and Learning
[Attendance Lists for 11.29.01 and 02.28.02 Satellite Broadcasts]
[Videoconference Evaluations]
4.27.03
01.08.02
1.02
1.02
1.9.01
12.21.01
10.21.01
02.28.02
NUMBER
OF
PAGES
19
2
5
1
1
16
2
2
1
2
3
4
1
1
4
6
3
18
1
12
11.29.01
10.18.01
10.18.01
10.18.01
05.02.01
11.00
05.02.01
11.1.00
1.31.02
05.02
05.02
05.02
05.02
05.02
01.08.03
01.08.03
01.08.03
05.01
05.01
05.01
Improving Multimedia and Online Courses with Instructional Design
Using Information Technology in a Traditional Classroom
[List of Attendees]
Instructional Technology Survival Skills
[Flyer –] Announcing Videoconference Topics and Dates
Site Coordinator Evaluation
Instructional Technology Survival Skills Videoconference
Instructional Technology Survival Skills
Kentucky Virtual University Workshop. The Home Institution Model.
Virtual Collaboration Workshop [Agenda]
[Presenter’s Bio
Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual University Workshop]
[University Business Article:] Kentucky’s Virtual Dynamo
Virtual Collaboration Program [Evaluation Results]
SEPCHE Leadership Development Conference [Agenda]
SEPCHE Leadership Development Conference
Program Evaluation Summary
Faculty Development Workshops 2001-02
Needs Assessment [Questionnaire]
Faculty Development Workshops 2001-02
Needs Assessment Summary
[Brighid Blake’s] Notes on discussion with Ed Barboni
[SEPCHE/CIC Workshops Outlines]
SEPCHE Faculty Development Workshops [Registration Tally]
SEPCHE Faculty Development Workshops
Program Evaluation Comments [Blank Form]
SEPCHE/CIC Workshops [Summary of 216 Evaluations]
SEPCHE/CIC Workshops Program Evaluation Results
SEPCHE Faculty Development 2001-02 Conference Evaluation
[Brochure – ]Winter Conference.
Learning, Technology, and the Changing Role of Faculty
[Brochure –] Winter Conference.
Learning, Technology, and the Changing Role of Faculty
[Flyer –] Winter Conference Call for Abstracts
Winter Conference Evaluation Form
Winter Conference Evaluation Results
Winter Conference Registration
Faculty Development Workshops May 2001 Registration
Faculty Development Workshops May 2001
Program Evaluation Results
[Brochure – ]
Using Digital Tools: Technology Enhanced Teaching and Learning
11
1
1
2
12
6
1
1
7
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
24
1
6
4
6
1
2
3
5
6
12
08.28.02 –
11.15.02
12.26.02
04.02.03
05.14.02
03.07.03
01.09.03
03.07.03
04.29.03 -04.30.03
[SEPCHE Potential Faculty Development
Workshop Topics Needs Assessment Results]
[24 Final Conference Presentation Proposals from SEPCHE faculty
members sent to David Rice]
Final Report on Completion of Writing Program Website Project.
To: Rich Leiby
From: Tom Hemmeter
[University of Texas TILT] Student Proficiencies
[Copies of Web pages] SILT – SEPCHE Information Literacy Tutorial
Summary of Congressional Grant I
Collaborative Faculty Development Programs
SEPCHE Faculty Virtual Communities Guidelines
[Memo from Faculty Development Committee to SEPCHE CAOs
regarding] funding and status of project
[Email from Brighid Blake to Cassandra Drennon
fowarding an email from Rich Leiby to History Faculty
regarding SEPCHE History site address]
SEPCHE Faculty Virtual Communities,
End of Semester Report to Chief Academic Officers
[Email from Brighid Blake to Cassandra Drennon
explaining Faculty Virtual Communities background,
what faculty and disciplines were involved]
[Series of Emails between Brighid Blake and Cassandra Drennon
regarding a myriad of SEPCHE questions Cassie had posed]
4
90
4
1
9
5
2
1
1
5
1
4
II. ARCADIA UNIVERSITY DOCUMENT LIST
DATE
Feb
2000
6 Sep
2001
DOCUMENT TITLE
Using Technology across the Curriculum
A Workshop for K – 12 Teachers
Course Evaluation Form
Using Technology across the Curriculum
A Workshop for K – 12 Teachers
[Total of 21 filled-out Evaluations submitted]
On-Line Course Development:
Participant Responsibilities & Suggested Timeline
[Notes for Congressional Grant 1 initial meetings]
Congressional Grant I Arcadia Faculty Participants
On-Line Course Development
[revised mentors hello letter]
[blank] On-Line Course Evaluation Student Evaluation
[blank] On-Line Course Evaluation Faculty Evaluation
[Memorandum from office of academic affairs calling for participants
for the FIPSE Grant]
NUMBER
OF PAGES
2
21
2
1
1
2
2
1
09.18.02
12.20.00
Online Learning at Arcadia University
[52 slide Power Point Presentation]
[Online Student Evaluations SPSS Data Editor]
[Copies of 2 Evaluations completed by faculty of their online courses]
[Memo and addendum from Norah Peters-Davis to Cassie Drennon]
This memo will serve as the narrative for Arcadia University’s activities
associated with the Faculty Enrichment for Lifelong Learning grant.
[Emails between David Rice and Sylvia Crowder
regarding no cost extension on the grant.]
[Letter from David Rice to John E. Donahue requesting, on behalf of
Gwynedd-Mercy College,] a change in the project
the College [wanted] to pursue with funds from the grant.
52
1
3
3
1
2
III. CABRINI COLLEGE DOCUMENT LIST
DATE
05.20.02 –
05.23.02
[Series of emails between David Rice and Dr. Sylvia Crowder
requesting approval for and receiving approval to
transfer $25,000.00 to the Equipment Budget Category]
[Series of Memos between Jonnie Guerra and Cynthia Halpern
regarding Halpern’s proposal and course release time for Fall 2000]
[Faculty Term Contract between Cabrini College and Olga Morales]
Congressional Award Grant I Report submitted by Cynthia Halpern
[Memo from Jonnie Guerra to Kathleen McKinley regarding approval
of her grant proposal and documents associated with the proposal]
[Memo from Jonnie Guerra to Kimberly Boyd regarding approval of her
grant proposal and documents associated with the proposal]
Development of BIO 107 and BIO 107 L Project Summary
to Jonnie Guerra from Kimberly Boyd
[Memo from Jonnie Guerra to Seth Frechie, Hal Halbert, and Charlie
McCormick regarding approval of their grant proposal
and documents associated with their proposal]
[Memo to Jonnie Guerra from Seth Frechie, Hal Halbert, and Charlie
McCormick regarding SEPCHE Technology Grant Final Report]
[Memo from Jonnie Guerra to Tony Tomasco regarding approval of his
grant proposal and documents associated with the proposal]
[Memo from Jonnie Guerra to Jerry Zurek and
Don Dempsey regarding approval of their grant proposal,
documents associated with their proposal]
[Final Report: Use of Palm Handheld Devices in Cabrini College
English, Communication, and Graphic Design Classrooms. Prepared by
Jerry Zurek, Don Dempsey, and Dawn Francis]
[Letter to Jonnie Guerra from Seth Frechie, Hal Halbert,
and Charlie McCormick with Phase II proposal]
[Letter to Jonnie Guerra from Seth Frechie, Hal Halbert,
06.28.00 08.23.00
Fall 00
Fall 00
03.08.01
03.08.01
03.09.01
06.20.02
03.30.01
06.04.01
02.25.03
07.03.02
02.25.03
NUMBER
OF PAGES
2
6
1
38
8
2
10
7
2
3
3
5
2
3
05.03.03
03.01.03
02.17.03
03.12.03
03.14.02
05.28.02
05.28.02
09.16.03
and Charlie McCormick with Phase II final report]
[Memo to Jonnie Guerra from J. Romano requesting a new computer]
[Letter from J. Romano to Jonnie Guerra reporting
on new computer’s contribution to two projects]
[Letter from Sharon Schwarze to Jonnie Guerra reporting
on progress made as a result of new computer received]
[Letter from John Schwoebel to Jonnie Guerra reporting
on progress made as a result of new computer received
and listing projects enhanced by its use]
[Memo to Jonnie Guerra from Michael Taylor with
Stop Surfing Start Teaching conference report]
[Printed web pages detailing equipment in and
capacity of technology-enhanced classrooms]
[Purchase Order # 33995 to purchase equipment
for the technology-enhanced classrooms]
[Fax from Ann to John McIntyre detailing task responsibilities and
equipment to be installed in classrooms]
[Email from Harold William Halbert to Cassie Drennon answering some
questions Cassie had about the Writing@Cabrini web site
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
9
2
IV. CHESTNUT HILL COLLEGE
DATE
06.09.03
Chestnut Hill College Report on Grant Activities Congressional Grant I
[Article – by Jessica Kahn] Chalk on the Blackboard:
Faculty Development in Electronic Course Management
Chestnut Hill College Report on Grant Activities Congressional Grant I
06.01.03
NUMBER
OF PAGES
7
21
2
V. GWYNEDD-MERCY COLLEGE DOCUMENT LIST
DATE
09.15.03
Blackboard Usage by School
Teaching/Learning Technology Lab [a listing of training sessions
available to all Gwynedd-Mercy Faculty]
[Flyer – announcing] The Power of Point [a 60 minute workshop]
Email from Michelle Simms to Cassandra Drennon regarding
Instructional Technology Statistics
NUMBER
OF PAGES
2
1
1
1
VI. HOLY FAMILY DOCUMENT LIST
DATE
[Miscellaneous Financial Documents
NUMBER
OF PAGES
24
(Invoices, Receipts, Check requests etc.)]
[Report on Holy Family’s grant activities] FIPSE Congressional Grant
2
VII. IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY DOCUMENTS
DATE
Spring 00Spring 03
Summer 00Fall 01
06.18.01
11.20.0012.19.02
06.18.01
01.28.01
06.18.01
01.11.01
01.15.03 –
05.05.03
02.28.01
Fall 01
Fall 01
Spring 02
11.00 –
01.01
Fall 02
09.04.02
Spring 99
Spring 99
Proposal Application
[29 Completed Proposal Applications]
NUMBER
OF PAGES
1
29
[6 Cover Letters Accompanying Completed Proposal Applications]
6
[Memo from Sister M. Carroll Isselmann to Dr. William Watson
regarding payment of stipend.]
[25 Approval of Proposal Letters from Sister M. Carroll Isselmann]
1
Faculty Development Stipend Request Form
[17 Completed Faculty Development Stipend Request Forms]
[Memo from Sister M. Carroll Isselmann to Mr. Joseph Pugh
regarding payment of stipend.]
[Memo from Sister M. Carroll Isselmann to 4 faculty members who
submitted more than one proposal advising them to submit only 1]
[Memos from Sister M. Carroll Isselmann to 11 faculty members
acknowledging payment of stipend]
[Memo from Charlotte Rappe Zales to Sister M. Carroll Isselmann
accompanying Sage Publications Order]
Family and Consumer Sciences 324 Course Syllabus
Developmental Biology BIO 310 Course Syllabus
[Screen Shots -] BIO112_21_22_SP03
Human Ecology WebCT Course
Business Seminar BUS330 Course Syllabus
[Proposal for Online Graduate Course]
[Proposal for Online History Course]
[Copy of Brochure on and Application for Online Graduate Level
Course on Existential-Humanistic Theories and Application]
Spanish for Careers SPA323 Course Syllabus
Rationale – The Social Construction of Inequality and Identity
[3 Hist 115 Course Evaluations]
[ 10 Hist 115 Course Evaluations]
[10 Emails from 10 Students to
Dr. Watson regarding online History Class]
Summary of BIO112-21 Online/Ecology Evaluations
Summary of CIS221: Concepts of Systems Thinking Evaluations
Summary of “Integrating Technology
into the Curriculum” Evaluations
Summary of “Integrating Standards, Curriculum,
25
1
17
1
1
11
3
13
1
2
1
1
4
4
8
1
8
27
10
5
3
1
1
03.19.03
03.19.03
12.07.00
03.19.03
03.17.03
and Technology to Increase Student Achievement” Evaluations
Summary of EDL733 Technology Evaluations
[List of Faculty trained to use WebCT]
[List of courses using Eduprise Tools Set and WebCT courses]
[Copy of] SEPCHE Concluding Workshop Proposed Schedule
[Copy of] SEPCHE Winter Conference Brochure
[Copy of] SEPCHE Call for Abstracts
[Summary of] SEPCHE Winter Conference Evaluations
[44 printed .jpg files taken at SEPCHE workshops]
[Summary of Congressional Grant Objectives and Activities]
[Instructions to Faculty on submitting proposals
under Congressional Grant I funding]
[Table indicating numbers of on-line and web-enhanced
courses from Spring 2000 through Spring 2003]
[Table showing] Courses Developed by Faculty
[listing faculty members and course names
from Fall 2000 through Spring 2003]
[Copy of completed] Proposal Application
Training Timeline [from 11.99 through Fall 01]
WebCT Enrollment and Usage [from Spring 02 through Spring 03]
[Presentation delivered at the Northeast Regional
WebCT Conference May 19-20, 2003,
by JoAnn Gonzalez-Major and Pat Mehok.]
A Reflective Journey: WebCT Integration at a
Private Liberal Arts University
1
3
2
1
5
6
2
44
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
6
VIII. NEUMANN COLLEGE DOCUMENT LIST
DATE
[Brochure –] Performing Arts Guild at Neumann College
Evaluation of Congressional Grant I
Neumann College
Photographs of Faculty Resource Center for Technology
Faculty Technology Survey and Report of Faculty Technology Survey
Results of Instructional Technology & Resources Survey
NUMBER
OF PAGES
1
3
3
6
11
IX. ROSEMONT COLLEGE
DATE
04.29.02
Memo from Eleanor Gubins to Erlis Wickersham
[attaching her] SEPCHE Grant Report
Jacqueline Murphy’s SEPCHE Grant Report
Report on Results of SEPCHE Grant in
04.19.02
05.29.02
NUMBER
OF PAGES
5
4
4
02.21.03
06.25.02
11.09.01
11.09.01
11.07.01
10.01.01
09.26.01
09.18.01
09.20.01
07.15.01
04.28.03
10.01.01
11.05.01
11.05.01
01.07.02
04.02.02
05.08.02
06.27.02
Learning Technology, Fall 2001, Robert Dobie
[Memo from Beate Schiwek to Erlis Wickersham
regarding] Evaluation of Congressional Grant I
[Memo from Beate Schiwek to Erlis Wickersham
regarding] SEPCHE grant for Faculty Development
[Memo from Judy Klein to Erlis Wickersham
regarding] SEPCHE Grant funds for Robert Mulvihill
[Memo from Bob Mulvihill to Erlis Wickersham
reporting on] SEPCHE Grant money
[Memo from Erlis Wickersham to Eleanor Gubins and Amy Orr
regarding] Released time to study
the use of instructional technology in Spring 2003
[Memo from Amy Orr to Erlis Wickersham
requesting] participation in the SEPCHE I grant program
[Copy of email from Catherine Fennell to Erlis Wickersham
regarding proposed uses of SEPCHE grant money]
[Copy of email from Erlis Wickersham to Bob Dobie,
Rich Leiby, and Pat Nugent clarifying the
terms of the released time they were awarded for Fall 2001]
[Copy of email from Alan Hecht to Erlis Wickersham
regarding] Rich Leiby & SEPCHE grant for Fall, 2001
[Letter from Rich Leiby to Dean P. Mojzes stating a preference to apply
for] a one course overtime for Fall semester 2001
[Copies of web pages from the SEPCHE History website]
Monthly Status Report (September) to Cathy Fennell from Alan Hecht
Monthly Status Report (October) to Cathy Fennell from Alan Hecht
Monthly Status Report (November) to Cathy Fennell from Alan Hecht
Monthly Status Report (December) To Cathy Fennell from Alan Hecht
Monthly Status Report (March) to Cathy Fennell from Nicole Curry
Monthly Status Report (April) to Cathy Fennell from Nicole Curry
Monthly Status Report (May and June)
to Cathy Fennell from Nicole Curry
Page Total for all 9 Document Lists
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
950
LEARNING OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED BY
FACULTY AT WINTER 2003 CONFERENCE
(N = 68)
I. Technology-based instructional strategies (n = 21)
Augment classroom discussion with a web-based discussion room. (2) 1
Identify some practices that may help to enrich their courses. (4)
Consider ways to broaden course offerings to include new programs within existing disciplines to meet the
needs of current students and professionals who want to gain expertise in a particular area of the discipline.
(5)
Consider ways to broaden course offerings to include new programs within existing disciplines to meet the
needs of current students and professionals who want to gain expertise in a particular area of the discipline.
(7)
To identify the potential of a course management system. (9)
Discuss the methodology of teaching history online. (13)
Identify and describe videoconference course potential. (14)
Provide feedback via Blackboard to students/groups as they prepare decisions for their
firms. (15)
Assess the involvement of students in the decision making process of their firms. (15)
Identify those aspects of WebCT that encourages discussion among students as well as to evaluate the
possibilities of developing further on-line discussion groups. (16)
To identify assignments for an online course. (17)
Attendees will be able to identify appropriate curriculum websites for their students to
access. (18)
This is a, “what I did” presentation not a “how to do it” presentation. As such there are not learner
objectives. (19)
Understand the importance of curriculum revision when developing technology-enhanced courses. (20)
A “what we did” presentation by two instructors (one from Rosemont, the other from Gwynedd-Mercy)
who developed and implemented: Reading/Writing the Romance Novel. (21)
Explain the constituent elements of the Writing@Cabrini website. (22)
Illustrate how the website can be used at attendees’ home institutions. (22)
Summarize how Internet resources can supplement textbook materials in a seminar to deliver a more
social-epistemic model of teaching, one of discovery for the learners. (23)
Identify the advantages of using a web-enhanced course to promote student-student and student-faculty
communication during portfolio development. (25)
1
Number in parenthesis is the ID Number of the workshop proposal form from which the
objective was derived.
I. Technology-based instructional strategies (Continued)
Discuss the use of web-enhanced portfolio course for the promotion of critical thinking. (25)
Discuss the role of online discussion in the development of portfolio development. (25)
II. Research and evaluation of technology in the classroom (n = 17)
Discuss the comparative advantages of totally on-line and hybrid courses for teaching and learning. (1)
Determine the more effective vehicle for a course as dictated by the aims of the course and the needs of the
students and instructor. (1)
Discuss the impact and implications of educational technology for future students. (6)
To describe the process of faculty development in the use of a course management system. (9)
Evaluate the effectiveness of using an online course to deliver current environmental issues and policy
information to students enrolled in a course. (11)
Discuss and evaluate the techniques of online course delivery for individual courses or as part of individual
courses. (11)
Evaluate the validity of total online teaching of history. (13)
Evaluate the effective and appropriate application of videoconference course presentation based
on consideration of a number of factors; including, but not limited to: purpose and goals of
course, method of instruction, teacher (presenter) style, audience for course (age, background,
number etc.) length of class session, means of student evaluation. (14)
Evaluate the level of analysis of students/teams as they prepare each set of decisions. (15)
To evaluate effectiveness of assignments as a substitute for in class lectures. (17)
To evaluate the success of a “mostly online” course. (17)
Attendees will be able to evaluate effective technological programs for their respective curriculum areas.
(18)
Determine the best e-learning environment to enhance different traditional teaching styles. (20)
Identify how “discussions” and “presentations” in a course shell can activate learning processes,
moving from a current-traditional transmission model for writing instruction to one of a socialepistemic model. (23)
Evaluate whether student learning improves using a course management system. (24)
Identify how teaching style affects faculty’s use of web-based technology. (24)
Identify how faculty’s perception of how students learn affects their use of web-based technology. (24)
III. Mechanics of technology-based instruction (n = 12)
Create and place graphically intense problems and up-to-date articles and data on web sites. (2)
Learn how course web pages can be created and enhance classroom instruction. (2)
Understand some of the technical issues involved in multimedia. (4)
Recognize that useful educational technology is available in large quantities for free. (7)
Recognize that obsolete and broken equipment can often easily be modified for effective use. (7)
Recognize that individuals with limited computer experience are able to incorporate technology in
teaching and learning when they receive appropriate training in technology and computer applications.
(10)
III. Mechanics of technology-based instruction (Continued)
Understand that instructors can incorporate technology in their classes by developing a few basic features,
and then expanding as the instructor becomes more proficient in the use of technology. (10)
Identify features of WebCT that are appropriate first steps in the development of a web-enhanced course.
(10)
Will be able to participate in activities and techniques on how to apply the technology into the curriculum.
(12)
Create ‘chat rooms’ in Blackboard for students working in groups on a simulation/project. (15)
Attendees will be able to identify various assistive technologies for diverse learners. (18)
Identify several software that integrate notetaking and research writing, and prewriting strategies for
organizing essays, software that emphasizes the social epistemic aspects of research writing that move
beyond the notecard and traditional outline strategy. (23)
IV. Problems, issues, challenges posed by technology (n = 9)
Take a realistic view of the challenges and promise of technology enabled and technology enhanced
teaching and learning. (1)
Discuss some of the challenges in developing courses for today’s student. (4)
Recognize the developmental process of program applications, which requires a long-term commitment to
is evolution and maturity. (5)
To discuss issues affecting the adoption of a course management system by faculty. (9)
Identify strengths and weaknesses of the WebCT course delivery system. (11)
Identify problems with teaching history online. (13)
Recognize and summarize the benefits and challenges of videoconference instruction, including evaluation
of the technology and personnel required for presentation of a course by videoconference. (14)
Understand the difference between anon-line and web-enhanced course including the advantages and
disadvantages of each. (20)
Lessons learned from the website’s development and from its use by faculty and students at Cabrini
College. (22)
V. Technology’s collaborative potential (n = 6)
Possibilities for collaboration with other faculty in their discipline. (3)
Use of technology to share resources across SEPCHE institutions. (3)
Evaluate further academic cooperation across the institutions. (3)
Consider ways to broaden the application of on-line courses to include a learning community of
faculty, students, and mentors throughout the world. (5)
Consider cross-discipline applications/programs to bring together learners who can enhance
scholarship through integration of other disciplines. (5)
Discuss the benefit of creating “a non-threatening venue at which faculty can share their
experiences and successful strategies” in order to overcome the difficulties associated with the
implementation of technology. (8)
VI.
Social/Cultural perspectives on instruction
incorporating technology (n = 3)
Explore multi-cultural assumptions. (6)
Explain the concept of the digital divide. (6)
Learn pedagogical theories dealing with the teaching of culture and language with technology
and the web. (12)

A Virtual Center for Lifelong Learning

Transcription

Similar documents

flyer - MyGrandmontRosedale.org

Untitled

Zanies $5.00 Coupon (Version 2)

POLCO ELGL Demo

Foxboro Chestnut Green Flyer

Campiano Ontaneta Spedale

Michael Pachelo

Math Tier 2

here - AdviserPlus

Vikatan 2x