Developing a Shared Vision for Academic Technology on Your Campus

  • 304 views
Uploaded on

A presentation given by Gail Matthews-DeNatale, Robert Kuhn, and Braddlee to the 2007 NERCOMP annual conference.

A presentation given by Gail Matthews-DeNatale, Robert Kuhn, and Braddlee to the 2007 NERCOMP annual conference.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
304
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Developing a Shared Visionfor Academic Technologyon Your CampusBraddlee, Ph.D.Director, Academic TechnologyRobert Kuhn, Ph.D.Executive Director, TechnologyGail Matthews-DeNatale, Ph.D.Associate Director, Academic TechnologySimmons College, Boston, February, 2007Additional PerspectivesLisa ChapnickSenior Vice PresidentAdministration & PlanningStefan KrugDeanSchool of Social WorkGary BaileyFacultySchool of Social Work 1
  • 2. Presentation Overview• Definition What do we mean by SATV?• Rationale Why strive for a shared vision?• Framework What are the essential elements?• Examples What does it look like in action?• Alternatives, Why not use other models? Pros & Cons What are the benefits and challenges of our model?• Lessons LearnedWhat is SATV?• Shared Academic Technology Vision • Campus-wide • Short timeline (fall semester, 2006)• Goals • shared language for discussing AT • informed decision-making • broad participation in setting priorities • broad investment in outcomes 2
  • 3. The SATV ContextTechnology Planning at Simmons2000 2003 2006 plan plan plan implement implement implementRationaleA Recurring Dilemma• Academics often do not fully understand the possibilities and implications of educational technology.• Technologists often do not fully understand the needs and occupational cultures of those whom they serve. 3
  • 4. RationaleAddressing the Gap• Effective strategic decision-making must be preceded by a thoughtful process of mutual education.RationaleYou Can’t Know What You Don’t Know 4
  • 5. Framework: ConceptualFramework: ConceptualGoals, Inclusion, and Resource Toolkit 5
  • 6. Framework: Conceptual• Focus: Framework of priorities, goals• Include: College-wide and school-based• Educate: Briefing documents, demonstrations, presentations• Iterate: Multiple strategies for input, report results• Open Up: Sharing financials, tradeoffsFramework: Temporal2006Jan - April May - Aug Sept - Dec- SATV Set - Planning - 1st College Meeting as Priority - Briefing - School Meetings Document - 2nd College Meeting Development - 3rd College Meeting 6
  • 7. Examples: FocusPre-identify Potential Priorities Discipline- specific technologies Innovation and Learning emerging technologies environments Learning Online learning management system and distance educationExamples: FocusCommit to Fundamental Components Student fluency Faculty Roles & fluency rewards 7
  • 8. Examples: Include• Planning Team• College-wide Working Group• School-based ProcessesExamples: Educate • SATV Briefing Document • Emerging Technologies Document 8
  • 9. Example: EducateBriefing Documents Can Be RevisitedExamples: EducateDemonstrationsDiscipline-Specific Technologies, Page 12 • Example: Modeling/ Visualization JMOL presents 3D Models used by Len Soltzberg in his Chemistry courses 9
  • 10. Examples: EducatePresentationsInnovation/Emerging Technologies, Page 13 • Example: ePortfolios SSW initiativeExamples: Educate Requires Faculty  Fluency Student  Fluency Roles  & Rewards Resources $$$ Timeframe 10
  • 11. Example: Educate Tether the Vision Process to RealityExamples: Iterate Results of Clicker Vote on Impact A Few Courses Multiple Departments 2-3 Schools Simmons-wide90.00%80.00%70.00%60.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00% 0.00% ) th v v ng is ia e t s g rid En or En ep in lio tin ik ed oi pp yb nl /w tfo D ng ng as ng lM O H Su n/ gs or ni O dc ni ita lly io lo ar eP ar n: S: Po at Fu (b ig Le Le tio LM tic D e va al is al ar rm ph rm no ftw fo So Fo In So In S al LM ci So 11
  • 12. Examples: IterateShare Results of Votes CAS SSW Discipline Specific SOM SOM LIS SSWpodcast eport ongoing ongoing Innovation SHS SHS CAS support depth depth LMS LIS SOM SSW hybrid hybrid hybrid Online Learning CAS formal Learning EnvironmentsExamples: Open UpCurrent Funding Allocations ~ $4.6 million ~ $2 millionImmoveable: Networks, Learning Environmentsservers, hardware, software, Learning Management Systemsecurity, staff, etc. Discipline Specific Technologies Innovation & ET Online Learning 12
  • 13. Examples: Open UpBe Honest, Give Data and AuthorityAlternatives, Pros & Cons• Considered Alternatives • Most models focus on grassroots community building, not on strategic decision-making. • Wanted a model that had elements of top-down AND bottom-up. • Wanted to seize a time-sensitive opportunity. 13
  • 14. Alternatives, Pros & Cons• Pros of our Model • Deans fully involved • Energy on campus was palpable • Dramatic increase in awareness, dialogue, visibility, and involvement• Cons of our Model • Labor intensive • Designed as it was implemented • Little time for reflectionAlternatives, Pros & ConsGetting to Learn from Others 14
  • 15. Lessons Learned• With this process of winnowing down, setup is critical• Select potential priorities with care • Ours had some confusing overlaps• Be consistent in referencing priorities (don’t change terms)• Be prepared to live with the results -- don’t ask if you aren’t sincere about following throughLessons Learned 15
  • 16. Discussion• Questions, comments? 16