A report on a 5-year initiative at Passaic County Community College to use technology to improve writing instruction.

1. MEASURING FACULTY
BUY-IN TO
Unintended INSTRUCTIONAL
Consequences TECHNOLOGY
Kenneth Ronkowitz
Passaic County Community College

2. What pointed us in the right
direction
and
What stopped us along the way

4. INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Build
College
Level
Writing
Center
Introduce
Increase
Technology Writing in
to Students & 25 Gen-Ed
Faculty Classes
Writing
Initiative
Improve
Improve
Critical
Information
Thinking in
Literacy
Writing

5. HOW DO YOU GET BUY-IN?
Faculty 'Buy-in„ -- to What?
By Trent Batson
The phrases “faculty resistance,” or the “lack of
faculty buy-in” to adopting information technology
for the core teaching/learning paradigm, have
become by-words in academia.
Yet both phrases are empty and lead nowhere;
they are phatic, having a social purpose (bonding
among technology advocates) but they contain no
useful information.
Technology advocates urge faculty members to go
away from what they’ve been doing but don’t
explain what they should go toward.
It is not enough to go toward a set of new teaching
and learning practices… The goal cannot and
should not be just to use technology.
campustechnology.com/articles/2011/04/06/faculty-buy-in-to-what.aspx

6. TRAINING CYCLE
COMMON ADVICE
Start with champions
Don‟t “require” the
technology
Make the tech the reward
Multi-faceted training

7. Get the ball rolling…
WHEN IS YOUR FIRST CONTACT WITH
FACULTY?
BEFORE, WITH, OR AFTER THE LAUNCH?

8. PRE-LAUNCH
Buy-in starts by having faculty
involved with the initiative in the
planning stages.

9. OUR TIMELINE - 21 MONTHS TO LAUNCH
Planning Course
(writing Redesign
the grant, , F07 –
CWC, Summer
January 08)
2007)
Funding Launch
(F07) (Fall 08, five
Planning
Phase 2 courses)

10. WHAT WERE FACULTY THINKING WOULD HAPPEN?

11. • In our first Faculty Institute,
we piloted our portfolio
product.
• It was a disaster
• We changed products
prior to launch.

12. After the first pilot semester
we focused on fewer tech
tools.
We needed to better define
terms (What is “formal writing”
and a “significant” part of the
grade?)
& improve faculty
expectations

13. Our efforts have been recognized
with the 2012 Diana Hacker
Award for Two-Year Colleges in
fostering student success in
writing.

14. So…
What
worked?

17. ASSESSMENT LEVELS
and Methods
•Class (student portfolios)
•Program (student &
facultysurveys, focus
groups)
•Grant (Institutional Research)

18. A Few Big Ideas

19. 1 There is no
Field of Dreams.
Just because you build it,
doesn‟t mean
they will come and play

20. 2 When
Don‟t Work,

21. Faculty will use
Technology (and pedagogy)
3
they see how it helps them
NOT just because it helps

22. PRACTICE
4 Course Redesign
not just decoration or
“Tech for the sake of tech”
Don’t offer (tech) solutions to
problems that are not seen as problems

23. Cultivate
5

24. Whether or not you
are on a grant
6 $$
For life after

25. Sustainability and
Institutionalization is more than
funding
Staffing
Training
Assessment
Supervision
Leadership

27. The Dept. of Education asks us: “What were any unintended
[tech] consequences (positive & negative) of the program?”
+ Wide acceptance of LibGuides beyond our intended
use
- Resistance overall to technology by faculty
- Perception of what is “technology” (by students AND
faculty)
- Some faculty saw the tech as getting in the way of
the writing (which they saw at the real point of the
Initiative)
+ Writing Intensive elements being used in non-WI
course sections
+ Student acceptance of WI courses (and success in
them)

28. About the Initiative http://www.pccc.edu/home/initiative
Ken Ronkowitz kronkowitz@pccc.edu
EdTech Blog Serendipity35.net
Design template: duarte.com