Promoting Pedagogical Agility in Learning Spaces: Toward a Comprehensive Framework of Faculty Support and Innovation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Postsecondary instructors routinely face novel and complex challenges in physical classrooms and informal learning spaces. Instructors often bring these challenges, along with creative and aspirational solutions, to the attention of centers for teaching and learning (CFTL). Issues span a wide range of topics including blogs, clickers, immersive experiences, active learning, learning analytics, and more. We embrace these challenges and seek to co-create solutions by providing a wide net of resources and support characterized by: (1) Instructional technologies (2) Instructional design, (3) Faculty development, and (4) Research. These elements emerge as a generalizable framework that represents a dynamic research-to-practice cycle. The cycle begins with a combination of problem definition and existing research. An approach is then planned and executed that includes instructional technologies, instructional design, faculty development, and original research. In accord with the cyclical nature of the framework, research findings inform development of future instructional design and faculty development opportunities. These, in turn, inform future practice, and the cycle continues. In our CFTL an educational research team collaborates with an instructional design and development team to support and facilitate this research-to-practice cycle. In this manuscript, we illustrate the practical implementation of this recursive and generalizable framework as we report on a case study of one technology-enhanced experimental classroom space. We conclude with a discussion of how the framework might inform larger efforts to integrate research with instructional technology implementation, instructional design, and faculty development.
Downloads
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.
References
Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Glesinger Hall, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/174879/
Beirne, E., & Romanoski, M. P. (2018, July). Instructional design in higher education: Defining an evolving field. In OLC outlook: An environmental scan of the digital learning landscape. Newburyport, MA: OLC Research Center for Digital Learning & Leadership. Retrieved from https://olcwordpress-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/Instructional-Design-in-HigherEducation-Defining-an-Evolving-Field.pdf
Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103, 220– 252.
Caffarella, R. S., & Zinn, L. F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 241–254.
Clunie, L., Morris, N. P., Joynes, V. C. T., & Pickering, J. D. (2018). How comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of technology-enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A systematic review. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11, 303–319.
Diaz, V., Garrett, E. K., Moore, J., & Schwartz, C. (2009, March 28). Faculty development for the 21st century [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2009/5/facultydevelopment-for-the-21st-century
Graetz, K. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces [EDUCAUSE E-book] (Chapter 6). Retrieved from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102f.pdf
Haras, C. (2018, January 17). Faculty development as an authentic professional practice [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/01/17/faculty-developmentauthentic-professional-practice/
Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, 1, 323–333.
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76, 79–91.
Intentional Futures. (2016, April). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers [Online report]. Retrieved from https://intentionalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Instructional-Design-inHigher-Education-Report.pdf
IU creates Mosaic initiative to support active learning environments: The Mosaic Active Learning Initiative enhances learning with portable whiteboards, movable furniture, and more (2015, October 13). Indiana University IT News and Events. Retrieved from https://itnews.iu.edu/articles/2015/iu-creates-mosaic-initiative-to-support-active-learningenvironments.php
Ramsay, Guo, X., & Pursel, B. K. (2017). Leveraging faculty reflective practice to understand active learning spaces: Flashbacks and re-captures. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6, 42–53. Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1526/1162
Robert, J.R, & Ozkan Bekiroglu, S. (2019). Using multimodal data to construct a narrative of student engagement in an “Active Learning Classroom. Manuscript in preparation.
Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. AACE Journal, 1, 19–33.
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1, 17–35.
Van Horne, S., Murniati, J., Gaffney, J. D. H., & Jesse, M. (2012). Promoting active learning in technology-infused TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). Retrieved from https://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/344
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs