After following some links, I ended up at this post over at Connectivism. Various people are discussing the merits of the idea that, when discussing technology and teaching, we should always put pedagogy first. It is an interesting discussion, to be sure, but I want to raise a different question, a question that I think has to come BEFORE that question: who or what is the referent for that pronoun? (Ahh, now I have revealed myself for the English teacher that I am…)
Seriously, who are the people involved in these discussions? Obviously, some of the party must be teachers. But I know that most of us in this conversation spend part or all of our days supporting others who teach. We are faculty development specialists, instructional technologists, directors of centers for teaching excellence, etc. And, as one of that cohort, I find myself in this position: what is my role here? In what way should I bring up the “P” word at all, let alone decide what part it plays in the design of the class or the use of a tool?
Let me put it another way: am I a paraprofessional or a professional? Do I support faculty, or am I leading change? In my early years, I worked as a paralegal, so perhaps that colors my view of this, but if I am support staff, is it really my job to lead change? Paralegals aren’t out there teaching lawyers new things about the law. But they are professionals in their own right, with their own duties and responsibilities toward the clients. They bill their hours just as lawyers do, just at a lower rate. In a typical teaching center (if there is such a thing) we are not teaching the classes ourselves, we are only supporting people who do teach the classes. I suppose this analogy places students in the role of “clients” which may or may not be accurate, but go with me here. In this scenario, why are we supporting faculty? Ultimately to inprove the educational experiences of the students at our institutions.
I think that any time we end up in the position of “instructing faculty” we end up in trouble. Yes, I know that they didn’t learn about education theory in grad school and that what we know can help them. Yes, I know that technology opens amazing new doors of opportunity for classes and students, and that we know about technology tools that most faculty haven’t heard of. But I am not sure conversations in which we develop a “holier than thou” attitude will help us in any way with the folks who have to go in the classroom on Monday and work with the people who get to say anything they want on student evaluations that are read by department chairs and deans and ultimately play a part in raises and tenure.
Am I saying “we” shouldn’t exist. Not at all. I think the answer lies in doing development in a different way. I think we can help faculty to know what we know and get them to be our change agent partners only by entering into community with them. I think we create opportunities for faculty to find supportive, stimulating community that they may not be able to find anywhere else. These communities that function as safe places to ask hard questions can change a whole campus culture. No matter how small the project, some of the same hard questions come up. For example, in a group of faculty members all using podcasting in their classes for the first time, the question will inevitable come up: how do you grade these things? It is not too productive for me to hand them a rubric at that point. What IS productive is to get the faculty talking about what grades mean, what their students expect, what the goals of the project are, etc. Anything they come up with will work better than some generic rubric, and the added magic of sharing ideas about teaching and learning has happened. I think that magic is the really important part. And so I think that, instead of a “paraprofessional,” I am a community building expert.
To read more about community, technology and risk taking, read on over to Jeff’s post.
And, just for fun, to see a really interesting way of viewing grading and the way community can build a shared grading system, read Barbara’s post.
I think you’re right, that’s where things fall down over and over again.
In K12, things were driven by the principal. If they didn’t drive the change then things didn’t happen. In that situation the ITRT was more like an administrator but even then they didn’t have the power necessary to lead the change.
Too often the tech integrator position ends up with the idea that they are the teacher, change leader etc. – not a very successful idea to have with adults who “out rank” you and have no requirement to interact with you.
There’s also that big difference between being part of a community and sycophantic schmoozing.
Lots of ways to go wrong.
On a positive note, your feed is working fine in Google Reader.
Tom
Jeff’s post? (chk your link)
link fixed! thanks…