Inspiring Innovation

Innovation is all around us at Waterloo. The Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience (WISIR) is poised to take a leadership role in generating new inter-disciplinary knowledge about social innovations and the social innovation process in Canada. The new Masters of Digital Experience Innovation (MDEI) will be offered this fall on our new Stratford Campus, and students who are part of VeloCity are living in an atmosphere that helps them develop their own innovative entrepreneurial projects and nurtures their creativity.  I was thinking about this recently after reading an article in my new favourite web publication by Fast Company, which focuses on innovation in technology, ethonomics (ethical economics), leadership and design.  The article “You Can’t Innovate If You Ignore Your Real Problems” , made me think about how to foster innovation in our own work at the CTE (not that we have problems!) and how we all need to examine our attitudes, culture and processes if we want to be truly innovative. These can be hard things to change in any organization large or small.

Tomes have been written on the theory of creating conditions that help foster innovation and creativity in different fields.  My own brother is an academic in the field of public science and technology policy at SFU and thinks deeply about how public sector policies can allow for innovation in various environments.  Innovation is a “large tent”, he says, and we all want to gather under it. How can we create the conditions that will allow us to be more innovative in our teaching and in our support of teaching? What can we learn from the public and private business sector about this? Here are a few ideas that are prevalent in design, science and technology industries which should be applicable to fostering innovation in teaching and learning.

All members of an organization or teaching team should be able to contribute their innovative ideas irrespective of their role, and should be encouraged to spend time thinking about how to be more innovative. We need to set aside “thinking time”, book it into our schedules and then plan to share our ideas.  How these ideas are shared can have an impact on what comes forward – using technology properly can enable everyone in an organization or team  to have their voice heard, or putting people in a room to just talk about new ideas and nothing else can energize a group.  Once the ideas are out there some should be implemented, even if they may not all be successful. Taking risks is a necessary part of trying something new, so we have to be open to failure and run with ideas and plans that may be less than perfect.  Not every new idea will be successful, (which makes me wonder about the balance of “excellence” and “innovation “and how we can maintain both comfortably).  Innovation doesn’t always pay off in the short term; for businesses making money can’t be the focus initially, although it may pay off eventually. For those in the teaching and learning fields something innovative may not be welcomed by our students initially but may be beneficial to their learning in the long run.

Also of importance, being innovative keeps us engaged and excited about our jobs – although with the fall term only a few weeks away, the anticipation and possibilities of a new academic year are in the air and it’s not hard to feel excited about that.

The following websites helped me bring these ideas together:

http://gigaom.com/2008/04/17/pixars-brad-bird-on-fostering-innovation/

http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/04/fostering-innovation-in-companies.html

http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/columns/practice/nurturing-innovation

_____________________________________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.

Publishing SoTL Work in Unusual Places – Jane Holbrook

Although it’s tempting to blog about the Royal Wedding this morning (yes, I did get up and rush down the street to watch the event with a group of “girls” , young and old), I’m instead going to carry out  some advice from the recent Opportunities and New Directions Conference, which was to share our research in unusual ways – this is pretty unusual for me  so here goes ….

I displayed my poster “What drives students’ preferences for face-to-face, online or blended courses?” at this event on Wednesday and had some good conversations with other participants. The poster describes some student feedback that was gathered through an end of term questionnaire that I was using to help instructors evaluate activities in five blended courses last fall. The students who responded to the questionnaire were all on campus, fulltime students in Soc 101, Earth 235, Psych 340, Cive 292 and Enve 292. The students were primarily Arts, Science and Engineering students in 1st, 2nd and  3rd year, aged 23 and under.  They were asked to choose which type of course they preferred: face-to-face courses with no online activities; fully online courses with no face-to-face activities; courses that have both online and face-to-face activities; or if their preference depends on the discipline of the course being taken; or on the level of the course being taken. They were asked to explain their choice.

The responses fell into three main categories with about 36% choosing courses that have both online and face-to-face activities, 32% choosing that their preference depends on the discipline of the course being taken and 26% choosing face-to-face courses with no online activities, (n=298). What were their reasons for these choices and what can we learn from their responses?

Those who chose courses with both online and face-to-face activities focussed on the usefulness of the online tools and the flexibility of time and pace of learning (including repeatability of online lectures) and how this has a positive impact on their learning. Half of them articulated how both environments contribute to their learning in some way, but the face-to-face environment was singled out as the preferred environment for asking questions because the answers are immediate.

Those whose preference was dependent on the discipline of the course being taken commented that they prefer face-to-face courses in their own discipline, but that online elements or online courses are useful in disciplines other than their own. Fifty percent commented that they prefer to learn mathematics in a face-to-face environment. A few respondents said that difficult concepts in their own field were better learned online through simulations.

The face-to-face course advocates communicated that, for them, the instructor’s presence in the classroom is important and they want to be in the classroom while the instructor presents concepts and solves problems, answers their questions, emphasises important concepts and communicates information about assessments. They believe that being with the instructor increases their understanding and retention of concepts. They also appreciate the ease of social interactions and communication with the instructor and peers in the classroom. Their comments clearly conveyed that asking questions and getting answers quickly is key for them. Another common theme was that these students perceive that the online environment has a negative impact on their motivation to learn and on their attention span.

This is by no means  a “rigorous” research project,  it’s more of a fishing expedition for next questions. This feedback could be the springboard for formulating interesting research questions. For instance, what is the optimal mix of face-to-face, blended and fully online courses in undergraduate programs? Which courses in a program might be most effectively developed as blended or fully online courses? How can we help students develop online learning skills;  skills they will surely need during co-op terms, in graduate school, or for life-long learning in their professional and private  lives?  What are the most effective ways to design online and blended courses that provide the modelling of conceptual thinking and problem solving for students who are at the “dualistic thinking” stage of development? How do synchronous question and answer opportunities, both in the face-to-face classroom and online, impact learning?  What are the perceived barriers to learning Math online;  do we need to design online math-based courses differently?

Some would argue that students don’t know “what’s good for them” or what’s best for their learning,  but I think that we do need to understand their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of different learning environments and to use this information to improve learning designs and help them become effective and engaged learners in a variety of learning environments.

_______________________________________________

The Centre for Teaching Excellence welcomes contributions to its blog. If you are a faculty member, staff member, or student at the University of Waterloo (or beyond!) and would like contribute a posting about some aspect of teaching or learning, please contact Mark Morton or Trevor Holmes.

How Learning Works — Jane Holbrook

Paul blogged on Tuesday about a recent visitor to our campus, John Mighton, and recommended his book, “The End of Ignorance”. I’m going to continue the trend this week by suggesting another book, one that I’m finding really helpful. I became aware of it through the POD listserv (Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education) and I received it recently as an interlibrary loan. We need a copy of this on our campus; I’m finding it to be an excellent resource. Continue reading How Learning Works — Jane Holbrook

Looking Forward to the OND – Jane Holbrook

I spent most of yesterday starting to get my presentation together for the upcoming Opportunities and New Directions conference that will be held here, on campus, on Thursday, April 28th in Hagey Hall. This is the second year that UW will be hosting this one-day conference of research on teaching and learning. Dr Nicola Simmons, our CTE Research and Evaluation Consultant, is aiming to make this an annual event. Continue reading Looking Forward to the OND – Jane Holbrook

Invest in People – Jane Holbrook

 

feet and grassI’ve just returned from a conference jointly sponsored by CSSHE (Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education), COHERE (Collaboration for Online Higher Education and Research) and CHERD (Centre for Higher Education Research and Development). Its title was “The Future of Online and Blended Learning: Strategy, Policy, and Practice”.  Along with Mary Power and Scott Anderson, I had the opportunity to learn about how blended and online learning are, or will be, supported and shaped by upper level policy decisions and through faculty development programs that are provided by teaching centres in universities and colleges across Canada.

I wanted to share my main take-away from the conference; invest in people.

Our grassroots approach to supporting blended learning at UW seems to be working as well, or better, than what is happening at other institutions. Rather than just applying large amounts of money to the development and ongoing support of a few “flagship” blended courses, or having pockets of course developers working in isolation in Schools or Faculties to develop programs of blended courses, UW provides support for the development of blended courses more broadly.  Through CTE and ITMS (Instructional Technologies and Multimedia Services) there is support to design courses that represent a range of “blendedness” and that align with the discipline and objectives of instructors who choose to use online components in their courses.  We do this through our CTE faculty liaisons and through my role as an instructional developer of blended learning, as well as through the technical support provided by the UW-ACE help  team. These people are knowledgeable about teaching and learning, bring a range of expertise to the job and adapt their practices in response to the needs of the students at UW.
 
Mary and Scott presented a session called “One Model for Success: Supporting Blended Learning through Faculty Liaisons” where they shared how liaisons promote technological and pedagogical best practices together as “one stop shopping” when they consult with instructors  and how the physical placement of the liaisons within the Faculties increases their visibility and accessibility and facilitates relationship building. They spoke about how they function as neutral and objective consultants within their Faculties and how, through their own networks, they can share what works well, and what doesn’t, in blended courses.  They talked about how they collaborate with the folks at ITMS, work on technology-related committees and how their input promotes better decisions around UW’s support of technology.

Reactions from the audience? Many commented on how lucky we are to have this model, that this seemed really different from the strategies used on their campuses and how this approach must have involved some risk and vision on the part of our upper administrators.

Of course there are challenges. As Mary and Scott pointed out to the crowd, there is just too much work now. The liaisons have become victims of their own success. We are all struggling to continue to support this model and its original intent because  as the number of blended courses grow and the number of faculty using UW-ACE increases we are strapped to provide the same levels of pedagogical consultation and support that we did when these (mostly part-time) roles were envisioned in 2001. My hope is that in this atmosphere of cut-backs and fiscal restraint that we can maintain this vision and even  increase our support at the grassroots level, in people.

More technology in teaching? – Jane Holbrook

keyboard1 I’m spending increasing amounts of time at my computer, and I’m not particularly happy about it. On the days when my hands seem to be permanently glued to my keyboard and my eyes and brain are dulled by the glare on my monitor, I wonder how I can ever recommend to instructors that they try something new that involves technology. I suspect that instructors are also evaluating how much time and effort they are willing to put into aspects of their teaching that require more time logged in front of the screen. Continue reading More technology in teaching? – Jane Holbrook