The first row of the table below derive
from "The Balancing Act," while two remaining rows (dealing
with technology and with assessment) are my own predictions
of how these two groups of faculty will be found to act
today.
Testing these conjectures will probably
require validation of the SKK categories using a
contemporary and more varied sample and development of a
measure or measures for sorting faculty into these two
categories. (SKK did not assert or imply that all faculty
would fit into these two categories, nor do I. I'd predict
that a large number of faculty at most institutions (half?
more?) would fit in the 'normal' category, that perhaps 20%
would fit in the 'excellent' category, and the rest would be
somewhere between.) Another corollary of my model is
that, even without an independent measure of faculty
approach to teaching, one should find a relationship between
technology use (what technologies they choose, how they use
them) and assessment use.
| |
"Excellent" faculty
(i.e., faculty widely
regarded by peers, administrators and students as
exemplary) |
"Normal" faculty
(i.e., faculty
rarely regarded by peers, administrators, or
students as excellent)
|
Belief about students (and the
faculty role)
|
Students are different from
each other but all of my students have the potential
to become engaged in my course and learn. It's up to
me to discover how those differences affect how they
each can learn. I'll keep trying things until
all
my students are engaged (or until I run out of
time.)
|
My students are different from each other. That's
why some will excel while others will muddle through
or fail. It's my job to teach all of them; it's
their job to study and learn. At the end of the
term, I expect a few to excel and some to fail. Many
will muddle through. |
| Likely
uses for IT |
Prefer IT that
students can use to choose topics of interest to
them and to learn in ways that build on their
individual strengths. These faculty use IT as a tool
to reveal to each student, to the instructor, and
sometimes to other students what that student can do
(and can't do) and what that student thinks.
Even when 'excellent' faculty use the same
technology as 'normal faculty', they'll use it
differently. For example, when 'excellent' faculty
use student response systems (e.g. clickers) they
will use them to reveal to students how they each
think and in a way that challenges students to test
their beliefs. |
Prefer IT as a tool for broadcasting presentations
(lectures, 'textbook'); IT for
assessment/accountability. These faculty are
more likely to use technologies that empower them to
get out their message (e.g., recorded lectures,
computer-aided tutorials; online testing; detecting
plagiarism).
When they use the same technology as the 'excellent'
faculty, they'll likely use it in different ways.
For example, when 'normal' faculty use student
response systems (e.g., clickers) they will use them
for quizzes, for taking attendance, and to motivate
students to all pay attention to the lectures and
readings. They may also use clickers to decide
whether to adjust a lecture when too many students
have clearly misunderstood a key point. |
| Likely
approach to assessment |
This group of
faculty is like to use assessment to reveal student
differences so that each student can be taught
differently. They will use assessment to reveal to
students and faculty how well the latest
teaching/learning activity is doing, so that it can
be modified if need be. When they hear their
institution or accreditor is urging assessment, they
are more likely to assume that movement will empower
them as faculty and as members of a department by
giving them more information to make improvements
(just as their own use of assessment is intended in
part to empower their students.) |
Assessment for separating the wheat from the chaff,
assessment for motivating and punishing. Grading 'on
the curve.' Members of this group of faculty
are more likely to be suspicious of the term
"assessment," assuming it represents an effort by
administration or accreditors to separate wheat from
chaff (faculty personnel decisions, budget
decisions) and to exert control over faculty. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
