FOR DECADES, faculty have been responsible for three traditional roles: teaching, research, and service. While the emphasis may vary, there is no doubt that faculty are passionate about their particular areas of expertise, such as, in my case, informatics. But while we come to come to academia to pursue scholarly endeavors and disseminate knowledge through teaching, conducting research, and writing, our stress is evident. In the back-to-school issue of the Educause Review, Hartman, Dziuban, and Brophy-Ellison summarise our dilemma: Most faculty members did not seek careers in the academy because of a strong love of technology or a propensity for adapting to rapid change; yet they now find themselves facing...the inexorable advance of technology into their personal and professional lives (p. 62). As these authors state, each of the traditional faculty roles is impacted by technology, and perhaps the role most significantly impacted is teaching. For years, the lecture method was considered the gold standard for teaching, but faculty are now faced with demands from administrators, colleagues, and students to use other, technology-driven teaching techniques. In this column, I offer a numbers of ways to begin to to the changing higher education landscape. While I do not have a magic pill, I can point to some faculty development opportunities that will help you on your journey from novice to expert in the use of technologies, including new faculty development initiatives funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). What Has Changed Hartman, Dziuban, and Brophy-Ellison point to a number of subtle - and not-so-subtle - changes to which faculty member must adapt (p. 64). Here is a sampling: * Novice-expert flip Faculty are considered experts in their respective fields but confronting new and unfamiliar technologies can quickly turn them into novices (p. 64). This is particularly true when your Net Generation students know more about the technology you are using than you do. * Shift in the teacher-student relationship Students no longer look to traditional sources of knowledge for their learning. Rather, they look to the Internet, usually Google or Wikipedia, and we faculty must remind them that libraries contain knowledge that may be valuable to their learning. The availability and diversity of online information, well opportunities for informal learning, have created an imbalance where opportunities outside the classroom may far exceed those (p. 66). * Faculty time There is a greater demand by students for faculty to be available above and beyond the traditional nine to five time frame. Students live in a 24 x 7 x 365 world and expect faculty to answer emails, course postings, and instant messaging within moments. * View of technology Faculty use technology a means of disseminating knowledge, such using PowerPoint or placing documents on a webpage for students to review. Students see technology as a tool for active learning instead of a tool to facilitate the instructor's presentation of information (p. 66). * Faculty's three Rs (reward, recognition, and risk) Because faculty may spend a lot of time applying technologies, they are at risk for not getting rewards or recognition. In some institutions, spending more time on improving teaching and less time on research and publications jeopardizes promotion and tenure. Perhaps the most profound challenge affecting faculty is how technology impacts the definition and measurement of teaching excellence. The move from a knowledge dissemination model to a more interactive teaching-learning environment makes the concept of teaching excellence more complex. Hartman, Dziuban, and Brophy-Ellison conducted two studies that highlight the changing definition. In the first study, they data-mined almost 700,000 end-of-semester course evaluations to discover what influenced students to rate a course or an instructor excellent. …
Read full abstract