There are lots of instructional design models that are employed by various instructional designer, instructional technologist, and instructors. It is a pretty universal thing to teach in graduate school. But has anyone put together a model , or at least best practices for consulting with faculty by instructional support professionals? (I will need to do a little research. Perhaps PODNetwork is a good starting point.) If there is such a model I wonder how closely what I do fits with the model.
My work with faculty requires two things trust and expertise.
Trust is first as teaching is a very personal endeavor.
Expertise is second because trust will be broken quite quickly if:
- I prove to be less than competent in my knowledge of instruction(al technology).
- I don’t demonstrate an appreciation of the faculty member’s expertise especially as without the expertise in the discipline what content is there to be learned?
So that is my philosophy but what are the steps of a consultation?
Pre-consultation
- Be available – being physically available to faculty is the first step. If the faculty member does not see the instructional technologist, (s)he is not likely to ask for assistance.
- Take a personal interest in faculty subject and teaching – it is an instructional technologist’s job to help faculty accomplish their course goals. To be successful it is imperative to understand where opportunities for assisting lie.
- Develop skills and understanding of emerging technology – staying current with instructional technology expands expertise which can easily translate in to more opportunities to assist faculty.
Consultation
- Personalize – We are talking about education so there is no cook book to follow. It is important to know that each problem is unique and efforts should be take to avoid fitting a round peg in a square hole.
- Share possibilities - Both parties need to share. The faculty must share such things as teaching, problem, goals, and style. The instructional technologist must share his understanding of the faculty’s situation, possible solutions, and commitment required.
- Action plan – Identify concrete steps of innovation – Important to note that while the project might not be considered cutting edge or noteworthy by others, it is a change and new practice for the faculty member. The project should be treated with the appropriate amount of care and encouragement. – and responsible party. It is important to divide the work evenly based on expertise.
Implementation
- Develop options – This phase is where the faculty make/revise instruction to include the technology and where the instructional technologist develops the tools and processes for use.
- Incorporation – The faculty uses the technology for teaching. Questions, troubles, and new insights flow from the first uses.
- Develop Confidence and Support faculty – This step is key to continued use. The tasks of this phase vary depending on what the faculty member finds during initial uses. How well problems are addressed and solved and the rate at which the faculty member feels ‘I can do this’ will be key in determining whether or not the innovation will be incorporated into subsequent courses. (Of course there is the caveat that the innovation has to further teaching and learning of the content).
- Evaluate – It is important not to close the books on a project without at the very least a quick check-in with the faculty. It is obviously preferable to have a focused conversation with faculty about the project and the parts that needs improvement.
Now this is not science but these steps have produced many interesting projects.
I would be interested to read about how those of you reading this approach your consultations. I am going to tag this and future posts about faculty consultation models fcmodels and invite you to do the same so that we can tie our posts on this topic together.
