I suppose it is only fair to flag that the institute was not entirely about what I thought it was going to be about before going any further (insert appropriate "divided by a common language" reference here). I thought it was going to be a professional development institute for faculty about, and to develop their own, information literacy skills. In fact it was about a professional development institute for faculty focused on curriculum design, specifically about assessment/project design, facilitated by educational developers, learning technologists and librarians that encourages use of authentic learning opportunities and builds undergraduate student research skills. So not what I expected but then not a bad thing either.
The things I really liked about their model:
- collaborative curriculum design with a broad range of support available to participants (rather than silos of learning design, technology and information resources support)
- time and space to discuss concepts and concerns not straight in with instrucutions
- mixture of presentations, workshop activities and mini-showcases
- how they extended the community beyond the face to face sessions
- their use of video and campus journalism to capture and promote the institute
- the openness of all involved to not stick to rigid definitions and remits
- assignment of specific library/ed dev/learn tech staff to individual faculty members "their own design team"
- ongoing help after institute to turn plans into reality
- focus on improving students' learning experience, their engagement in learning and their research skills
- use of rubrics to evaluate the institute and the projects within the institute
The things that I don't think travel (ie don't easily fit into our context) but are worth mentioning anyway in case you disagree:
- application process focuses on attracting "star faculty" so my usual concerns about usual suspects and interested people doing interesting things
- the summer institute is a full week (good for engagement but seems to limit who might be able to get involved)
- incentive - each participant got a stipend ($1500 first year, $1000 second year)
- focus for the full week was on designing a single assignment for a single module (so to me seems very resource heavy for size of output and also quite "safe" not really challenging how they might redesign other aspects of the course or extra-curricular opportunities
We also had some really good discussions in the session about the issues of terminology - is it competency, literacy or fluency? is it information, digital, academic, research, learning? how the words can be really important but that also people can get too hung up on the words and allow that to stifle action. There was also a good discussion about undergraduate student research projects and the trends towards undergrad research journals and student conferences that might sound good in principle but reinforce the "your research isn't real research like mine" perspective and, as described by one of the participants, are like "sitting at the kiddie table at thanksgiving".
I've got a pack of further information if anyone is interested
No comments:
Post a Comment