Category Archives: Pedagogy

Avatar photo

Viewing Faculty-Development Programs through the Lens of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Framework: Part II

In my last blog post, I promised to share more findings on viewing faculty-development programs through the lens of TPCK after trying to implement the TPCK framework into our faculty development program—DePaul Online Teaching Series, or DOTS. This program, offered in both a quarter-long and an intensive three-week format, is intended to prepare faculty to design online and hybrid courses. A total of twenty-one DePaul faculty members from psychology, public services, and education attended DOTS in spring and summer 2008.

My attempt to apply TPCK to DOTS yielded interesting results. While the overall high rating of the program showed how meaningful it is to blend technology (T), pedagogy (P), and content knowledge (CK) together through concrete examples, some feedback from faculty attested the old adage, “rules are made to be broken”—including the rules of TPCK. As I explained the rules of TPCK in my previous blog post, I ‘d like to share with you some lessons learned on how to strategically “break” the T, P, and CK bundle (as long as they can be molded back together at a certain point of the process).

Specially, here are three lessons learned from DOTS:

  • Clear the T (technology) barriers before plugging in T, P, and CK as a whole.
  • Maintain a good balance of Pedagogical preface and TPCK examples.
  • Breaking the discipline (CK) boundary with an elegant match of Technology and Pedagogy is possible.

Clear the T (technology) barriers before plugging in T, P, and CK as a whole.

If you have read Joann Golas’s post on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Faculty Support, you don’t need any more explanation about why we should clear the T barriers before doing anything else. As Joann cited in her post, Eric Larson illustrated in his presentation that faculty use of technology for teaching loosely follows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; that is, until the basic needs—Biological and Physical, Safety, and Belongingness and Love—are taken care of, faculty will not be able to reach any higher stage on the hierarchy, including Esteem, Cognitive, Aesthetic, Self-actualization, and Transcendence.

In arranging the summer DOTS program, we made plans to take care of those “lower needs” at the very beginning:

  • The first stage, the Biological and Physical need, was addressed by providing each participant with a pre-imaged and fully tested laptop.
  • The second stage, Safety, was addressed by using technology brush-up and intro sessions to erase the fear of using technology. Two intensive tech training days were scheduled to refresh faculty’s Blackboard skills and to introduce a number of basic technology tools that faculty need to be acquainted with to become online instructors.
  • The third need, Belongingness and Love, was met by surrounding faculty with technical supporters in the training room. During the training sessions, a 1:2 staff to faculty ratio ensured that no one was left alone to struggle by him- or herself. Also, sitting with their peers in a group gave faculty the opportunity to share the same fears and desires.

This arrangement also reflects Punya Mishra’s premise of creativity, which states that the path of technology usage goes from mechanical to meaningful to generative. The mechanical stage is necessary to bring faculty on board on any type of new technology.

Faculty responses also reinforced the effectiveness of addressing their needs in a hierarchical way: the tech sessions of DOTS received almost all full scores from the participants in regard to their appropriateness on the evaluation sheets.

Maintain a good balance of pedagogical talk and examples of TPCK.

The TPCK framework carries a strong message of delivering both pedagogical and technical training through showcases—that is, to plant the T and P into the disciplinary (or the CK) context. Showcases are, therefore, a key method used by DOTS, for which many of the teaching strategies and technologies are presented in a show-and-tell mode. One thing I found by observing showcase presenters is that they usually put the “tell” (explaining the contextual/theoretical background, design philosophy and rationale, and even some lecture review) before the “show” (going through the course site). In the evaluation, faculty strongly recommended that we cut down the “front end” as to allow more time to explore the course. It is interesting to find that although almost all of the front-end talks have focused on pedagogical aspects of the design, audience still treat them as teasers before the “real thing,” and they want a teaser to be no longer than a commercial.

Will it work better to reverse the sequence from a tell-and-show mode to literally, a show-and-tell? Or what about inserting the pedagogical explanation into the “course tour” so that the “tell” is part of the “show”? The answers will be found through future DOTS sessions.

Breaking the discipline (CK) boundary with an elegant match of Technology and Pedagogy is possible!

In selecting guest speakers for the DOTS program, I wanted faculty presenters from the same discipline as the participants. I thought the ideal presenter would be someone who not only has outstanding online-teaching experiences but also speaks the same disciplinary language as our faculty participants. I believed that the relevance of content knowledge (CK) would make pedagogy (P) and technology (T) more approachable to faculty.

Yet, despite my suggestion, my staff picked, from a number of potential speakers, a person who was not in the field of psychology, education, or public services. Michelle Pacansky-Brock, an art-history professor from Sierra College was chosen to showcase her online courses. As it turned out, her session was scored the highest of all four guest speakers for DOTS. Michelle, a 2007 Sloan-C winner of the Excellent Online Teaching Award, conducted a breathtaking presentation, “Extreme Makeover: Online Course Edition,” and captured our hearts with not only her use of technology but also her passionate and devoted style of teaching. I am so glad that I wasn’t listened to, because otherwise, I would have missed Michelle, who taught me a great lesson—an elegant match of technology and pedagogy is like music that can strike beyond the linguistic boundary of any discipline.

You may click here to read Michelle blog about her experience with DOTS.

Avatar photo

When Details Matter

As a graduate student from the writing program working at IDD, I often wonder how much time it makes sense to devote to copy editing the online-course syllabi and modules that come across my desk. I sometimes think I’m being too stringent in my attempts to apply the rules of the Chicago Manual of Style. I have a tendency to get lost for upwards of half an hour at a time trying to resolve ambiguities of correct hyphen and comma use. (I’m still not sure if I should use a comma before a coordinating conjunction connecting two imperative clauses.)

Generally, the amount of attention that gets paid to a certain text’s punctuation, grammar, and accuracy is proportional to the number of people we expect to read it. An article in a national news magazine is rigorously scrutinized while an e-mail to officemates may not be reread once. Given that logic, it doesn’t seem to make sense to go over every course module with a fine-toothed comb.

However, I think everyone involved in producing a class should have a healthy amount of fear of students misunderstanding the course content. I bring this up because I think there’s a sense that proper grammar and punctuation, while important in order to appear professional, are purely cosmetic—at best only necessary to make a text easier to read. But something as simple as a hyphen or a capital letter can make a sentence mean something entirely different than what is intended.

In neither speech nor writing is meaning in the words alone. For example, in speech, we can distinguish the White House, the building where the president lives, from a generic house that happens to be white, by using stressed and unstressed syllables. “The white house” is not the same “the white house.” Say it out loud; you’ll hear the difference.

While we use and interpret stressed syllables naturally in speech, in writing, we have to rely on visual elements to make sure our audience reads the sentence the way it is intended. When these are absent or inconsistent, the writer loses control of what the reader interprets.

If, for example, someone referred to the syllabus for an online course as “the online course syllabus,” there’s a very real chance that the reader could interpret it instead as a course syllabus that is online, possibly assuming we are talking about a face-to-face course in which the professor posted the syllabus on Blackboard.

To prevent this kind of miscommunication, the phrase must be hyphenated as “online-course syllabus” because the words “online course” function as a compound adjective to modify “syllabus.”

Perhaps I am trying too hard to justify my existence as a writing student working at IDD. But since instructors are often trying to differentiate subtle shades of meaning and convey complicated ideas, I think every effort should be made to eliminate the potential for this kind of misinterpretation. Remember that in asynchronous learning it’s harder for students to ask and get answers to questions when they’re confused.

Of course, much of the time, students will be able to tell what you mean by context, but not always. And I think we should be on the lookout for the situations where a comma, a hyphen, or a capital letter can keep students from misunderstanding the class concepts.

Online Tools to Aid Design of Your Course

Here are a few templates and tools that can be used by a faculty member who either does not have the resources of an instructional designer at hand or merely chooses not to work with an instructional designer. The core standard for a well-designed course is the alignment of the objectives with the course assessments, learning activities and learning materials.

The central pieces of course are the learning objectives. That is where course design begins and against which course outcomes are measured.

This location is interactive and can actually help you build measurable learning objectives for your course based on Bloom’s Taxonomy! www.radiojames.com/ObjectivesBuilder

Mager’s Tips on Learning Objectives. This site includes my favorite “cheat sheet” for writing objectives: the list of observable verbs! There are two lists: one for the cognitive domain and one for the affective domain:
www2.gsu.edu/~mstmbs/CrsTools/Magerobj.html

Once the Learning Objectives are clearly written and measurable, it is amazing how the remaining course design elements will fall into place. In our training sessions designed to prepare faculty members to teach online, we’ve used several templates as guides for faculty to aid in aligning assessments and activities with objectives. Our current version is available here. As a synthesis of many other templates from across the U.S., it may very well look familiar!

Service and Online Learning

When I attended the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative’s annual meeting in January of 2008, I was sitting in a general session, and I was thinking to myself about online education and what students ‘do’ in that environment. I then got to thinking about service-learning and how authentic, situational, and service-based assignments can be of great value to students.

All of that led to the thought that, for the most part, online learning and service-learning seem to be mutually exclusive. The question is, do they have to be?

To see what has been done in this arena, I did a search and found an article, a case study, from the EDMEDIA conference in 2002. Lesa Lorenzen Huber from Indiana University, in her paper titled “The Human Touch: Incorporating Service-Learning into an Online Course,” discusses an instance where she took on the challenge of incorporating service-learning into her online course. This was filled with a great number of challenges but also had a lot of rewards.

Service Learning Diagram

Let’s take a step back and establish the essence of service learning. According to Learn and Serve America’s National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, “service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.” In the case of Huber’s experience, the service-learning component was to have the students serve the community by working with new, elderly residents in the area and to welcome them to the community.

Huber also had four features she wanted to be sure were included in her course, as they are important elements of any service-learning course:

  1. Service is clearly connected to the academic component and treated as a text via readings, discussion, speakers, etc.
  2. A reciprocal relationship between the university and the community makes each a partner in the education of students.
  3. Service meets a genuine community need as defined by the community-based organization.
  4. 4. The philanthropic and civic content of the students’ service is discussed and examined. It is the practice of citizenship, broadly defined, that distinguishes service-learning from practica or internships, which focus more on professional preparation.

These elements can directly lead to a rewarding student experience. However, in an online course, it becomes difficult to incorporate the element of service. How are such service projects set up with so many different communities interfacing at once? How are the variables controlled in order for service to be a ‘learning text’ when students come from different areas? How do you build a reciprocal relationship between the university and many communities?

Despite these concerns, Huber proceeded with her course. It wasn’t easy. “At the beginning of the fall semester I had decided this type of model to increase student involvement in a human services online course was just too problematic.”[i] Through the term, though, she received such overwhelming positive feedback from the students that she reconsidered.

In online courses, students often report feeling isolated while taking the class. Service-learning is one way to fix that problem. While they may not physically see their classmates, they will get out in the community and put into practice skills they are learning in the course and can then come back to the online class and discuss their individual experiences. This leads to a rich community interaction as well as a rich online discussion and interactions between students.

Expectations of online courses also become a factor. By and large, most online courses require a student only to log in to the computer and participate online or read a textbook in addition to writing papers. Online learning does not have to equate to computer-only learning. Courses can require the students to go out and complete a project, interview people, or do other types of assignments involving time and work away from the computer. Service-learning takes this to the next level, as the work outside the class and away from the Internet is not only an assignment but also a form of the text and an integral part of the course.

Service-learning courses are not easy to construct; nor are effective online courses. To combine the two together makes the creation of such a course even more challenging; however, with the greater obstacles come greater rewards and, in the end, more comprehensive and significant student learning. It is because of this that faculty should consider incorporating service-learning into their online courses and that the two do not need to be mutually exclusive.


 

[i] Huber, L. (2002). The Human Touch: Incorporating Service-Learning into an Online Course. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 1164-1169). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Avatar photo

Viewing Faculty-Development Programs through the Lens of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Framework

The key word for technology integration in teaching and learning is “integration.” Integration means not to run the elements—technology, teaching strategies, and the subject matter—in isolation. The call for building an integrated model of three domains of knowledge has been made by both researchers and practitioners. In 2006, two scholars from Michigan State University, Punya Mishra and Matt Koehler, put all the pieces together and formulated a conceptual framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), also known as TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge). Their work was soon acknowledged by the Technology Committee of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), who decided to publish a monograph on TPCK and its application on various disciplines of teacher education.

As a member of the technology committee and one of the editors of the book, I consider my term with the AACTE tech committee the most productive period of my life: I not only mothered two children during this time, but also served as a nanny for the committee’s baby: the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators.

While nurturing this baby, I felt myself grow with it, just as one can learn a zillion things in a very short time from being a mother. Since mothers do not have time for theory, let me give you a quick bullet-point summary of TPCK:

tpckone.jpg

  1. TPCK(as shown in the graph above) is the intersection of three bodies of knowledge: technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge.
  2. It’s a level of competency at which a teacher will be able to teach the content knowledge (CK) using the right method (P) and with the right technology (T).
  3. There is interaction and interconnection between the three domains (changes in one section will affect the others).
  4. Teaching is a creative process of navigating through the TPCK landscape.
  5. TPCK calls for teacher education to be delivered through a combined model of T, P, and CK, instead of teaching each of them as single subject.

The power of a theory lies in the fact that it provides you with a lens through which you can have a dissected view of a phenomenon, seek reasons behind the facts, and search for better solutions. By plugging TPCK into my daily practice of faculty support and development, I was able to seek reasons behind a few phenomena, such as the following:
“We are overwhelmed!”
– Faculty dissatisfaction with the training program

A typical response we get in a faculty evaluation of a training program is that they are overwhelmed: too much technology, too much information—all to be absorbed in such a short time. (And honestly, they don’t have more time to give you!)

Using the TPCK model to view and analyze knowledge distribution within a faculty-development program, I see that each of the three domains is usually represented by three unique groups: faculty as content knowledge experts, instructional designers as pedagogical specialists, and technologists as the technology gurus.

tpcktwo.jpg

The difference between TPCK for preservice teachers and TPCK for college faculty is that, for faculty, the content knowledge has already been well established, presumably not through a TPCK approach. Therefore, they need to acquire pedagogical and technological knowledge through some make-up programs, such as faculty development in teaching with technology, teaching-excellence seminars, and technology/course-design boot camps.

The other two groups, instructional designers and instructional technologist, on the other hand, have in-depth knowledge in the pedagogy and technology domains.To them, each of the domains—pedagogy and technology—constitutes a discipline by itself (or in some cases, one joint discipline of instructional technology). As Mishra and Koehler pointed out, each discipline has special forms of knowledge that are comprised of knowledge, methods, purpose, and forms of presentations. Like any other discipline, instructional design/instructional technology has its own “rules and regulations” as well as its own disciplinary thinking, which Gardner describes as “mental furniture” or the mold in which people think.

With good will and a strong motivation to help, specialists from the T and P groups have a higher goal of using the development program as an educational process to make the faculty group adopt the disciplinary thinking of their own domain. (A measurement of success at this point would be, “Have you changed your teaching philosophy to become a student-centered instructor?”) To make this happen, one has to bring in the whole discipline, including the knowledge, the methods, the purpose, and the forms of presentations. Now we are talking about knowledge domains, taxonomies, genres of educational philosophies, cognitive process, inventories of teaching styles, inventories of learning styles, and various instructional design models including both the classical and the newly invented ones. Have I missed anything? I’d better not because every construct serves as a base for another, and together, they formed our discipline of instructional technology—or half of it, since the technology part has not been brought in yet. Now imagine squeezing all of these into a few weeks of training (in a condensed format of course—with a reading list for more in-depth exploring). Cognitive overload? It surely will be.

The TPCK framework raised the importance of context and discipline sensitivity as well as the argument of teaching different disciplines differently. Mishra and Koehler cited Donald’s critique of content-neutral, simplistic one-size-fits-all educational strategies. This means faculty-development-program designers have to be extremely sensitive to the faculty’s discipline and tailor their support in a specific and concrete manner. Building a learning community is a great idea. Using blogs and wikis is cool, and collaborative, problem-based learning is a popular concept, but what if a faculty member is just trying to figure out a way to convey some concepts to his first programming class?

Fifteen years ago, a professor in my COBOL class explained the difference between hardware and software as such that “hardware is the male portion of the population that does the work, but it has to be told by the software, the female portion of the population.” It was a bold (and perhaps gender-biased) explanation, but an understanding of the two technical terms of hardware and software was achieved instantaneously and remained in one student’s mind till today. I see this as a good example of TPCK where a faculty member who has in-depth disciplinary knowledge of computer science deployed an effective teaching strategy—a simile to connect a new concept with student’s prior/common knowledge. (I doubt he had ever had a workshop on Schema Theory of Learning.) The technology was a blackboard. And guest what? It worked.

Now I feel like I should stop writing this blog post and get our staff together to redesign our own faculty-development programs. I will share with you more of my findings from viewing things through the lens of TPCK in a few weeks. Here is a heads-up of what I will discuss in my next blog post:

  • Is the course good enough?
    –the different views between a faculty member and an instructional designer
  • What if pedagogical knowledge is my content knowledge?
    –missing a leg in the T-P-CK tripod
  • Paradise
    –the ideal curriculum of a faculty-development program

Checklists: Saving Lives, Transforming Education?

In the December 10th, 2007, issue of the New Yorker (it takes me a few months to catch up these days), Atul Gawande wrote an eye-opening piece, “The Checklist.” The article describes how the implementation of a simple medical checklist, developed by Dr. Peter Pronovost of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, slashed the rate of oftentimes-lethal intravenous catheter infections for patients in intensive care units in the state of Michigan. How? By including simple, no-brainer steps like “Step One: Doctors must wash their hands with soap” that doctors and hospital staff were skipping, thus causing easily preventable deaths and infections in their intensive care units.

It’s pretty mind boggling. If Dr. Pronovost could actually implement his checklist across the US (easier said than done), it would largely wipe out the multiplier effect of thousands of human error deaths from skipped steps across thousands of diagnostic and procedural combinations. The power of the Gawande article is that it underscores that some of the most basic tools are the most effective ones. The checklist is brilliant in its very simplicity, and I’m sure it can have dramatic applications across all sectors.

Though checklists of all kinds (revising, editing, homework, behavior) can be found in elementary and secondary educational settings, it is harder to find individualized, purposeful use of checklists at the higher ed level. I don’t think the need for them has necessarily diminished. Though students in the online classroom aren’t dying of infections in intensive care units, they are spending unnecessary time getting lost and confused about when and where to submit assignments and are having difficulty managing their time in the absence of face-to-face accountability in the online environment. I hear professors complain about late assignments, ignored e-mails, and work submitted that is hardly reflective of critical thinking.

I think that a greater use of individualized checklists would improve communications between instructor and student and allow students to spend more time on substantive, creative work. In the online classroom, students need specific instructions on how to submit their work and how to participate in online discussions. They need assistance and they need writing papers and guideposts for completing assignments. Instructors provide all of these instructions, but typically in an elaborate course syllabus supplemented with lengthy e-mails in addition to whatever is posted in the course itself. Too frequently, instructors’ e-mail communications to students are lengthy documents that students may barely read all the way through. Professors aren’t joking when they say: “My students don’t read the syllabus,” or, “My students don’t read my e-mail.” They probably don’t. Why not provide students a more direct, simple path to success?

Checklists are simple and direct. They filter out extraneous details and give students a priority list of items to read and do. Checklists could be provided for specific parts of the syllabus. A “Welcome Checklist” supplementing a very brief welcome note from the instructor could replace the traditional long welcome letter from the instructor that tends to contain entirely too much information. Checklists could ensure that students edit and check their papers, properly reflecting on each step. I suspect that instructors would receive an elevated quality of writing, in response to clearer and cleaner communication to students.

I think professors have been reluctant to use checklists because they involve this simplification of language, and so to some extent, instructors may feel checklists would enable students. Instructors expect students taking online courses to be able to read lengthy e-mails and take large tasks (reading and analyzing a case study; writing a paper) and automatically divide and sequence them out into a series of tasks independently.

But I think part of using checklists is adjusting to a need for an entirely simplified way of writing when communicating guidelines and expectations in an online course. We need to give over to this need for simplicity, standardization, and predictability that is not necessarily the standard way of communicating in academia. I think most instructors might be uncomfortable with embracing this format because it involves thinking and writing in a largely different way. Like most instructors, I’ve established a routine that was created before the age of e-mail and Facebook and text messaging. I grew up writing letters by hand, relishing the pure art of correspondence for its own sake. A checklist, in contrast, seems cold, and hardly feels like responsible and full communication. But I believe there is a way we can integrate checklists judiciously. You can still impart tone and personality in your email and your communications with your students, yet not lose them in a sea of verbiage.

I’ll spend the next few weeks integrating a few checklists into the design of the online class, to showcase the checklist as being an important, very low tech tool. I am purposefully keeping fancy checklist/tasklist applications out of it for the moment, though I sometimes feel I have tested out every checklist/tasklist application that exists. This is more about the mindset than the technology. It’s captivatingly simple.

Avatar photo

The Importance of Defining Computer Literacy

Compared to digital illiteracy, traditional illiteracy is relatively easy to spot. For the most part, people who can’t read and write don’t sneak into universities undetected and they don’t often hold down white-collar jobs. I know it’s tempting to argue with me here. This is the part where you want to derail my entire opening argument by telling me all about a student who graduated from University X and couldn’t even sign his own name. Or you might want to rain on my parade with the tale of the Fortune 500 CEO who had his son write all his memos. While I’m sure such things have happened on rare occasion, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s fairly easy to design an assessment that can determine if someone can read and write at a particular level of proficiency.

Unfortunately, it’s not nearly as easy to determine if someone is computer literate. The problem isn’t that we lack the means to test a person’s level of technology-savvy. The problem is that no one can agree on specific minimum, universal standards that define basic computer literacy. And even if we established such standards, no one seems eager to require faculty or students to take a computer literacy test before being approved to dive into the world on online learning. As a result, universities across the country encounter very similar problems as they try to develop online learning programs. Instructors are asked to develop online courses, but they don’t know how to create zipped files or edit a photo. Students are encouraged to take online courses, but they might not know where to find files on their hard drives that they’ve downloaded. Help desk staff wind up answering educational technology questions, but insufficient training and bureaucratic problem-logging systems prevent them from answering these questions quickly and effectively.

So, what is the instructional designer’s role in this whole debacle? Are they just co-dependant enablers who can’t say no? Are they guilty of encouraging computer-illiterate faculty to explore new, painful ways to torture computer-illiterate students without ever addressing the underlying literacy problem? Of course, many professors’ level of computer literacy improves as they work with instructional designers to develop online courses because an instructional designer’s job often includes technology training. Yet, this doesn’t resolve the concern I hear faculty express most often when I’m encouraging them to use a new tool in their courses:

“I don’t have time to learn how to use this new technology, let alone teach my students how to use it.”

Of course, all instructional designers have their own ways of mitigating this. They promise it won’t take long to learn how to use a new tool. They vow to be there for faculty throughout the quarter whenever questions arise. One of my old bosses had no authority to motivate faculty to complete their courses on time, so she spent a lot of time trying to catch flies with honey—and coffee and donuts paid for out of her own pocket. (I suspect this approach is quite common for instructional designers whose job security depends on producing a certain number of online courses a year.) Whatever technique is employed to get faculty on board, the instructor’s concern about time constraints and professional priorities remains valid.

I think most academic administrators would agree that it isn’t fair to expect teachers to be both experts in their fields of study and expert users of the latest educational technologies. However, they’d probably throw in a caveat that a certain level of basic computer literacy is essential in any job field today, including education. Yet, until everyone (at least at the institutional level) can agree on what that essential level of computer literacy is and what should be done to ensure it is met, it seems futile to try to define the role that students, faculty, technical support, and instructional designers must play in a successful online learning program. Before we introduce instructors to the wonders of podcasts or encourage them to set up instructional blogs or wikis or virtual classrooms, shouldn’t we make sure faculty and their students possess certain fundamental digital media knowledge? Shouldn’t we be sure they possess certain basic digital media skills, like how to perform a basic image edit in a tool like Photoshop and export the file in the ideal format for its intended use?

I think every institution could benefit from a required computer literacy course with a curriculum developed and approved by a well-rounded teams of experts. It’s tempting to believe that such a course isn’t necessary for most students today. 85% keyboard for coders were made to add ease to their work. So many students already know how to add photos to their Flickr accounts or embed a YouTube video in a MySpace page. However, as someone who has recently taught undergrads how to build basic webpages using HTML, I can tell you that learning to use a social networking tool does not a computer literate person make. These accomplishments belie a very superficial knowledge of how the Web—and digital media in general—truly works, and that lack of knowledge almost always shows up later when it’s too late to do anything about it.

I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that computer literacy training and/or standardized testing could ever be forced upon the faculty at most American colleges and universities. Addressing the student side of the problem is probably an easier place to begin, and its benefits would extend far beyond the development of online learning programs. If nothing else, we’d at least ensure that our students are truly prepared for that “digital, global, information-driven economy” I keep reading so much about. Plus, we’d avoid the embarrassment of graduating a generation of students who will one day shock their closest friends by revealing they never learned how to zip a file or edit a photo or compress an audio clip.

DePaul Teaching Commons—It’s a Launch!

IDD is pleased to announce the launch of the DePaul Teaching Commons, DePaul’s virtual teaching and learning center. Designed to address teaching issues at multiple levels, this website provides a single location for information about teaching at DePaul.

It is hoped this website will grow to become a collaborative space where DePaul faculty members can share their teaching practices and explore new tools and ideas. Do you notice anything missing? Do you want to contribute a sample syllabus or assignment? The site contains many links requesting faculty suggestions, resources, and comments, making it easy for instructors to contribute and fill in any gaps.

The DePaul Teaching Commons expresses the unique nature of DePaul. Collaboration among fourteen departments and committees contributed to the website’s extensive content. For examples of how similar sites have been developed at other institutions, view the sites listed below.

I think the DePaul Teaching Commons beats ‘em all, hands down!

Avatar photo

Denny’s Christmas Gift: What I Learned from My Best Student

It was Christmas time again. I knew a big box filled with gifts for everyone in my family would soon arrive at my door. Among them, a square-shaped object wrapped in colorful holiday paper would be a special one for me. It’s a Christmas gift from Denny Sapp, a close friend of mine who passed away seven years ago.

This year’s gift is no different. I unwrap it slowly, savoring the anticipation, and inside I find a custom photo wallet. It’s adorned with a picture of us from one of our many adventures together, a beautiful reminder of the bond we shared. As I hold the wallet in my hands, memories of Denny flood back, making me both laugh and tear up.

Also, this year as always, I put Denny’s gift—the latest version of Merriam Webster’s 365 New Words a Year calendar—next to my computer screen and once again, felt the urge to write down Denny’s story. His story touches on many aspects of teaching, learning and, most of all, living a life enriched by teaching and learning. He taught me many valuable lessons that I would like to share with you.

Denny was my student—the one who had achieved the most during his life. He had a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in architecture and a Ph.D. in structural engineering from the University of Illinois. By the age of 40, he had already achieved tenure and full-professor status and was chair of the civil-engineering department at Rose Hulman Institute of Technology, which was ranked the number one engineering school in the nation by U.S. News & World Report.

Photo of Sharon Guan and Friend DannyDenny was also the oldest student in my Chinese language and culture class. Seeing him, a seventy-some retired professor sitting in the first row of the class with a bunch of twenty-some youngsters, made my Chinese class very “American.” For someone of his age to tackle Chinese—which is often referred to as the most difficult language in the world for students of any age—was certainly a challenging task. But Denny was determined. He did everything possible to make himself a top student. He was always the first one to show up in class and the last to leave. He collected books, dictionaries, and tutorials beyond the required reading materials for the class. He carried his Chinese learning materials in a brief case—which he called his “Chinese brain”—everywhere he went. He even asked to meet with me after class for more instruction.

So, we started to meet for lunch every Saturday in a Chinese restaurant, where he would practice Chinese and I would bring him English-related questions that I encountered during the week. Thus, we became each other’s student and teacher. The meetings continued even after the Chinese class was over, and, as we meet more often, I realized that what I could learn from this man was beyond language. It was even more than knowledge. Many years after Denny died, I still remember vividly the life lessons I learned from him in dealing with the task of learning, in handling students and friends, and in reacting to fame and challenges. Here are just a few of my favorites:

“I think you should finish your dissertation.”

When my doctoral venture got into the ABD stage, Denny was the head of my “butt-kickers” committee. This committee was comprised of family members and friends, and it was their job to pressure me to get the dissertation done. Everyone who has been through the dreadful journey of a Ph.D. knows how easily this last swing could be dropped because of the freedom a doctor-to-be has in deciding whether or not to do it. At this point, there are no more deadlines given by anybody but yourself—unless you are as fortunate as I was to find someone who would police the process and kick butt to keep it going.

Denny was the one who did the kicking when my mind started to wander from writing my dissertation to dating and finding someone to settle down with. At the time I was well past the typical marriage age in my culture and the fear of missing the boat started to haunt me. I started to bring my concerns to our lunch table and asked Denny who I should date. He looked me in the eyes and said in a calm but firm tone, “I think you should finish your dissertation.” It was a short sentence but a big wake-up call to alert me to stay focused until the job is done. For married couples struggling with their married life, speaking to a divorce solicitors would help you make the right decision.

“Let’s learn some real English when you finish your dissertation.”

Denny was the editor-in-chief for my dissertation, the one who read the first draft of every single page of my writing. In fact, I even brought to him articles or documents I wrote for work and research. He would read them, make changes with a pencil, read them again, erase his changes, and then re-edit. When I saw him re-editing my work for the third time around, it taught me what makes a truly good writer.

One time he noticed a straightforward sentence that he had edited had been revised by my doctoral committee chair into the “dissertation-style.” He frowned and said to me, “Okay, Sharon, let’s learn some real English when you finish your dissertation.”

Real English, in Denny’s eyes, was the type of English that’s simple and direct. To help build my vocabulary, each Christmas Denny would give me a one-word-a-day Webster calendar. He also taught me that if an idea can be expressed in a simple word, I shouldn’t use complicated ones. “No gobbledeegook,” as he would say. To this day, I still have a problem writing or speaking the word “pedagogy” because Danny had once asked me, “Why don’t you just call it ‘teaching’?” And I know that he wouldn’t accept, “Because it is a popular ‘P’ word in higher education,” as an answer.

In today’s world where so many of us strive to fancy our writing with jargon and buzz words, Denny pointed out a simple fact: good writing should always be simple and direct!

“Take that doctor thing off your voice mail greeting.”

After all the pains and sufferings I had been through for my degree, I was finally crowned with the title. One thing I did to highlight the change was to revise my voice mail greeting. Like many of my professors, I put the “doctor” prefix in front of my name, upgrading what was once just “Sharon Guan’s office” to “Dr. Sharon Guan’s office.”

A couple of days later, I met Denny for lunch. He said to me in a father-to-daughter tone, “Take that off, Sharon. You don’t have to include that.” I could think of many excuses to defend myself. As an instructional designer, I thought I needed that title to gain the respect of faculty, and I wanted to point out that others had ‘Dr. so and so’ in their greetings. Yet I didn’t offer Danny any excuses. Instead, I went back to the office and re-recorded the greeting, dropping that doctor. I did this because Denny had just shown me that respect is to be earned through your actions, not your title.

“Flip nine fingers…to confuse him!”

As a licensed airplane pilot, Denny drove like a pilot. He wouldn’t speed but the starts and stops were quite sharp. It had been fun to ride in his red Miata to our lunch place until one day we bumped into a guy who was annoyed by Denny’s way of driving. This guy “saluted” us with his middle finger while driving by. I was aggravated (This was in Terre Haute, Indiana, not Chicago). I told Denny that we ought to drive up and flip a finger at him. Denny said, “Well, next time, let’s throw nine fingers…” “What’s that for?” I asked, thinking it was another American gesture that I hadn’t been acquainted with. “To confuse him!” He cheered like a little kid who had just pulled off the perfect prank. His joyful attitude toward this awful experience told me that revenge is not a solution for someone with a big heart and a great sense of humor.

“You can’t burn down that building…because my office is there!”

Denny once told me a story about a paranoid student of his who got so extremely angry with the institution that he decided he wanted to bomb one of the buildings. When he accidentally mentioned his plan to Denny, Professor Sappy gave him a simple reason to quit.

“You can’t burn down that building,” Denny said. “Why not? Because my office is there!” And then Denny started to meet the “bomber” the same way he met me, sharing books and ideas about life and discussing ways to deal with problems. The student became a lifelong friend of Denny’s and later graduated from Rose Hulman with honors. Denny shared this story with me mainly to amuse me with his funny answer, but I saw what a powerful influence a teacher can have on a student. I also realized that a teacher’s influence often goes beyond the classroom.

It had been several years since I started to meet regularly with Denny when I heard that Denny had multiple myeloma, a type of cancer somewhat like leukemia. I shook my head in disbelief. For all these years, there hadn’t been a single sign of illness in this happy and active person. But then, the signs started to show as it got into the fifth year of his battle with this fatal disease. Thankfully, he was able to get spasticity cannabis treatments to ease his pain a bit. Behind his gentle smiles, I saw tiredness and exhaustion. Yet he maintained his sense of humor, telling me proudly the best compliment he received from a Chinese friend. “When I told XiaoMao maybe I was born on the wrong planet, you know what he said to me? He said, ‘No, you were born on the wrong side of the planet!” I know that to Danny, the right side would be China, where his view of life would be highly valued by many. And that explained why so many Chinese showed up at Danny’s funeral. They were the reason for him to study Chinese at the age of seventy because he wanted to communicate with these friends in their language!

In the spring of 2001, Denny died at the Regional Hospital of Terre Haute. The last word he said was “Ni Hao ma?” or “How are you?” in Chinese. He left behind his wife Helen, elder sister Margaret, and many friends, both Chinese and American. He didn’t have children because, in his words, “There are too many people in the world already.” He hadn’t published any books because he claimed, “There are too many publications already.”

Four people were selected to speak at his memorial services. Among them, I was the only one standing at the podium without a script in hand. I started my speech with the following sentences:

“It was such a privilege to me to be among these respected university professors and administrators to deliver a speech at this very special event. Being a non-native speaker and being the most inexperienced person in the group, it must have been very brave of me to stand here without a script. Well, that is not true. I did go to my office last night trying to type something up. Yeah, Denny knows what a last-minute person I am. But last night, when I fired up my word processor, all of a sudden I realized this is going to be the first article that I wrote that wouldn’t be edited by Denny… The screen then got blurred… and I could not finish my homework any more…”

On the seventh day after Denny passed away, Panda Garden, the Chinese restaurant where Denny regularly visited was crowded with diners. People waiting at the door couldn’t figure out why there was a table in the corner set up with plates and chopsticks but not being used by anyone… This table at which Denny usually sat was reserved for him by Allen Yan, the owner of the restaurant. It was reserved for Denny because of an ancient belief among Chinese that on the seventh day, the spirit of those who died would come to visit their favorite places. And Allen knew that his friend Denny wouldn’t forget to stop by his restaurant…

It took a few hours to drive from Terre Haute, Indiana to the cemetery in Illinois where Denny was to be buried. The drive was extremely dreadful for Allen’s three-year-old son Jimmy who kept throwing up during the trip. I asked Allen why he insisted on bringing his son along knowing he would get car sick. Allen answered with his voice trembling with sadness and anger, “I want him to remember Grandpa Denny! I want him to remember who named him!” In Chinese culture, it is a privilege to name a newborn, and that privilege was given to Denny by Allen Yan’s family, new immigrants from Taiwan who survived in a small town in the Midwest because of the support of people like Denny. Denny named Allen’s son after his favorite president, Jimmy Carter.

With little Jimmy standing straight beside him, Allen took out a bag of dirt that he had brought from Taiwan and poured them onto Denny’s casket before the burying. The dirt was from the other side of the planet, and Allen said it would accompany Denny on his next journey.

When Christmas came in 2001, my family received a big box of gifts from Denny’s wife Helen and sister Margaret. Among them, I spotted a squared-shaped object wrapped in holiday paper. I knew what it was because I had been getting this gift for many years. Through glares of tears, I read the little note attached to it:

Sharon,

This is really a gift from Denny. Margaret and I had the pleasure of mailing it to you!

Love, Helen.

And the gift has continued to arrive every Christmas—so precious, like the memory of Denny.

Oh, the Places You’ll Go: The Evolving Role of Instructional Designers

Recently, I finished reading Top-Ten Teaching and Learning Issues, 2007 from the November 3rd, 2007 edition of Educause Quarterly. This article discusses the top-ten issues facing academic technologists/instructional designers and how “this is a particularly important time for the academic technology/instructional design profession, which is moving beyond the formative stages.”

For those of you who are now dying to know what the top-ten issues are, you can read them below:

  1. Establishing and supporting a culture of evidence
  2. Demonstrating improvement of learning
  3. Translating learning research into practice
  4. Selecting appropriate models and strategies for e-learning
  5. Providing tools to meet growing student expectations
  6. Providing professional development and support to new audiences
  7. Sharing content, applications and application development
  8. Protecting institutional data
  9. Addressing emerging ethical challenges
  10. Understanding the evolving role of academic technologists.

It is interesting to note that these top-ten issues group themselves into the following themes: assessment, best practices, expectations, collaboration and ethics/privacy. Personally, I believe that numbers 1 through 9 are all parts of number 10. Part of the role of academic technologists/instructional designers is to assist in the issues presented in 1-9. All of this is in addition to being the “expert resource on best practices in educational technology” and maintaining “knowledge of online methodologies, instructional design, Web and multimedia design, accessibility and adaptive learning technologies, and learning styles.”

The article goes on to emphasize that academic technologists/instructional designers need to be more integrated into the institutional culture and campus initiatives as a whole in order to effectively help set directives. In addition to this, I see that individuals in these roles also need to be actively involved with other organizations at the same institution. The pieces of design, technology, assessment and accessibility are often handled by various individuals in various departments across the institution. In order for technology to be effectively integrated into the curriculum with the ability to assess exactly how effective it is, many different units need to come together and work collaboratively to make it happen. It is difficult to design effective courses if parts of the technology are not dependable or don’t work in a manner that achieves pedagogical goals. It is nice to create a lot of interesting curricular pieces, but if there is no broad assessment of its effectiveness, is the development of the content worthwhile? Are proper accessibility guidelines being followed which match the efforts of the institution at large?

In a field which is still finding its firm footing in education, it is good to occasionally step back for a broader perspective. It’s important to not only observe how far we’ve come, but to also look at where we are currently and where we need to go in order to provide the best education for our students that we can.