Using Technology to Improve Educational Access
As a land grant institution, the University of Minnesota is charged with the diffusion of knowledge to the citizens of Minnesota. At the next technology-enhanced learning (TEL) seminar, panelists will discuss how the use of educational technologies can address one aspect of diffusion, improving "access," whether such access constitutes dissemination of University research and services to professional communities and the general public or the involvement of communities outside the University in research and service work.
Seminar
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.
155 Peters Hall
St. Paul, Twin Cities campus
See a UMConnect Meeting recording of the seminar and get the PowerPoint presentation slides: e-Soils, e-Soils Quality Rubric, Improving Teaching and Learning of Sterile Product Preparation Skills Using Internet-based Technologies, and Developing a Framework For Distance Education.
Chris Scruton, a senior educational technology consultant at the DMC, will moderate a discussion among the following panelists:
- Melissa Avery, School of Nursing, Academic Health Center, Twin Cities campus;
- Michael C. Brown, Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, College of Pharmacy, Twin Cities campus;
- Helen Mongan-Rallis, Department of Education, College of Education and Human Service Professions, Duluth campus;
- Janet Shanedling, Office of Education, Academic Health Center, Twin Cities campus; and
- Jenni Swenson, Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Twin Cities campus.
The panelists currently are working on projects to improve educational access (see below) and will discuss topics such as the following:
- the technical, cultural, logistic, and pedagogical challenges involved in creating communities of practice online;
- roles and responsibilities (e.g., academic-professional synergies; faculty leadership and buy-in; training, technical, and development support at the departmental, collegiate, and central level; technological infrastructure);
- techniques for assessing whether resources meet users' needs and evaluating the quality of resources and experiences;
- intellectual property, promotion, tenure, accessibility, learning styles, and quality assurance issues, etc.; and
- target outcomes (e.g., improving and supporting professional practice; involving the community in research; designing for noncredit and distance audiences).
For information about the other fall seminars, see the fall 2005 schedule.
Campus Projects
The panelists are currently working on the related 2005 TEL Grant Program projects:
Avery, Melissa D., Janet Shanedling, Merrie Kaas, Kevin Smith, Kim Klose, Manda Lo, and Paul Ceelen. "Faculty-Friendly Tools to Develop Interactive Online Courses" 2005 Technology-Enhanced Learning Grant Program proposal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2005. http://dmc.umn.edu/grants/2005/avery.pdf.
Bloom, Paul, and Jenni Swenson. "Sharing the Framework: Providing Educational Communities the Means to Create Unique Archives to Effectively Address Learner Needs" 2005 Technology-Enhanced Learning Grant Program proposal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2005. http://dmc.umn.edu/grants/2005/bloom.pdf.
Brown, Michael C., Jeannine M. Conway, and Todd D. Sorensen. "Improving Teaching and Learning of Parenteral Product Preparation Skills Through the Development and Implementation of Online Instructor Training and Student Evaluation Systems" 2005 Technology-Enhanced Learning Grant Program proposal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2005. http://dmc.umn.edu/grants/2005/brown.pdf.
Mongan-Rallis, Helen. "Developing a Framework for Distance Education" 2005 Technology-Enhanced Learning Grant Program proposal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2005. http://dmc.umn.edu/grants/2005/mongan.pdf.
Bibliography
The following resources may help you prepare for the TEL seminar.
Faruque, Fazlay, Peggy O. Hewlett, Sharon Wyatt, Kaye Wilson, Susan Lofton, Dennis Frate, and Jennie Gunn. "Geospatial Information Technology: An Adjunct to Service-Based Outreach and Education." Journal of Nursing Education 43, no. 2 (February 2004): 88–91.
The authors describe how University of Mississippi School of Nursing faculty members, researchers, and students used geospatial information technology (GIT) applications to develop location-based demographic and health datasets in support of outreach efforts to local communities. The researchers also developed administrative structures that encouraged the formation of teams led by nurses or community healthcare workers who posed questions and collaborated with researchers to shape field or clinical studies. Combining technological with structural change benefited the community, practitioners, and the university: government and local aid organizations focused resources where they were most effective, students developed technology skills useful in the workplace, and the university furthered its research agenda and produced more marketable practitioners.
Oblinger, Diana. "Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the New Students." EDUCAUSE Review 38, no. 4 (July–August 2003): 37–47. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf.
Oblinger explores the ways in which generational differences in attitudes and experiences may affect student technology preferences. She refers to the ten attributes Jason Frand characterizes as the "information-age mindset" in a September–October 2000 article in the EDUCAUSE Review , including "multitasking" as a "way of life" and "staying connected" as "essential." Although her article serves as a good starting point for those who are considering how to improve students' educational experiences and as a useful complement to the learning styles/multiple intelligences literature, readers should not generalize too broadly about a perceived Millenial mindset. The article is best read in conjunction with detailed surveys of student attitudes, like those conducted at the University of Minnesota in 2001 and 2004.
Parker, L. Leann, David A. Greenbaum, and Karl S. Pister. "Rethinking the Land-Grant Research University for the Digital Age." Change January–February 2001: 12–17.
Parker, Greenbaum, and Pister consider how technology can be used to create a "land-grant research university of the future" and transform K–12 education in the same way that the Morrill Land-Grant Act transformed agriculture in the 19th and 20th centuries. They describe two factors crucial to the success of such a venture. First, they propose the creation of intermediary centers (analogous to the cooperative agricultural extension centers crucial to the success of the Morrill model) staffed by educators who can "broker" university research findings into materials and applications useful to practitioners and systematically gather information on practice and basic research in the field and pass it back to university investigators (p. 15). Second, they argue that such a restructuring would require changes in university and K–12 cultures and transform the roles and responsibilities of researchers and teachers. Researchers' service and outreach work would have to be recognized and K–12 students and teachers recruited to serve as collaborators and participants in the research work of the university (pp. 16–17). According to the authors, technology can be used to effect this massive re-vision of the land-grant mission. Educators can use new tools to catalogue, find, and deliver information; to promote collaboration among researchers, subjects, and intermediaries like extension educators, undergraduate mentors, and others; and to support the evaluation of information and compilation and analysis of research data.
Wilson, Valerie, Ursula Schlapp, and Julia Davidson. "Prescription for Learning? Meeting the Development Needs of the Pharmacy Profession." International Journal of Lifelong Education 22, no. 4 (July–August 2003): 380–395.
Wilson, Schlapp, and Davidson surveyed professional pharmacists to investigate some ways in which technology might be used to meet their continuing education needs. Although the authors found that most respondents had access to the technologies necessary to complete computer-based continuing professional education courses and high interest in such courses, only 15–31% had actually completed one. In contrast to Generation-X and Millennial learners, who reportedly actively seek out technology-enhanced learning opportunities (see the Oblinger article cited above), they found that pharmacists' participation in continuing education courses, both computerized and noncomputerized, is "triggered" most strongly by "serendipity" (i.e., the receipt of a course bulletin and the availability of sufficient time to complete the module). Although most of the rest of their findings do not relate directly to the use of instructional technology, the authors do provide further insights into professionals' continuing education needs; the importance of structural incentives to encourage participation in continuing professional education; and implementation and marketing strategies that can be used to improve participant buy-in.
