Anne Scrivener Agee, Susan Shaver
Kehoe, Cynthia M. Lont, Ann M. Palkovich
(George Mason University)
© Copyright 1998-99 by Anne Agee (aagee@gmu.edu), Susan Kehoe (skeho1@gmu.edu), Cindy Lont (clont@gmu.edu) and Ann Palkovich (apalkovi@gmu.edu). The right to make additional exact copies, including this notice, for personal and classroom use, is hereby granted. All other forms of distribution and copying require permission of the author. inventio is a publication of the Department of Instructional Improvement and Instructional Technologies (DoIIIT) at George Mason University, Fairfax VA.
It takes a whole University to educate a student.
Anne: In Engaging the Future, George Mason University's first commitment is to be a learning-centered community. While this commitment has many implications, one of the most interesting is that it makes learning, and teaching, into public, social activities, rather than just private individual ones. Teaching and learning have traditionally been conceived as having their focus in individual minds. To make an analogy to my own academic area of rhetoric, this conception is similar to that of writing as a private act of an individual writer where ideas are created in the mind of that individual and then expressed to the rest of the world. The reader then takes in the ideas and interprets them in his or her own mind. This model places a heavy emphasis on the knowledge, attitudes, thought patterns, and preferences of a single person. However, if the paradigm shifts to that of a learning community, then the emphasis shifts also to the continuing interaction of minds with other minds and with the whole social fabric of teaching and learning. To continue the analogy with rhetoric, a collaborative model of writing presents the writer in a social context and emphasizes the collective knowledge, attitudes, thought patterns and preferences that help create discourse. This model does not deny individual creativity, but it does acknowledge the role of the whole community in producing ideas.
Cindy: This is in opposition to a Kuhnian model, where one paradigm (one mode of thought) is designated by the community as THE answer at the time. In a learning community, there is no ONE approach, but multiple approaches to the same end. This non-hierarchical, non-linear approach to learning opens up dialogues instead of shutting them down by pre-determining what is appropriate material to be discussed and what is not.
Anne: So, in a learning community, teaching and learning become a joint discovery process. Being a learning community means that we are all engaged in an ongoing conversation about the nature of learning, that we share our learning inside and outside the traditional classroom, that we create new opportunities to learn in ways that extend beyond a traditional imparting of knowledge from the more learned to the less learned. Creating a learning community involves the whole environment of the University. In this environment, a scholarship of teaching is also a scholarship of learning and investigates the whole learning process and all of its participants: students, faculty, administration and professional staff.
Ann: In "Making a Place for the New American Scholar," Eugene Rice makes a similar point. In the new interactive approaches to learning, he says, "the intellectual content of the field and the process have become inextricably intertwined (25)." As a result, he continues, the role of faculty changes. "It is a role that is public and shared with librarians, technicians, practitioners, graduate assistants, and peer mentors who are no longer supplemental and supportive, but colleagues in a new sense (26)."
Susan: So, in this article we would like to explore some of the ways that our unit--The Department of Instructional Improvement and Instructional Technologies (DoIIIT)--participates in and facilitates the scholarship of teaching in a learning community. As directors of various units within DoIIIT and with a variety of experiences as teachers, we think that we can offer a perspective that represents that kind of new public role of support professionals in the scholarship of teaching. We've deliberately chosen to set up our article as a dialogue to model the collaborative approach that we think is characteristic of our work in DoIIIT and of a learning community in general.
Ann: Part of the reason that we can even discuss these issues about the community aspects of the scholarship of teaching is because of the kind of environment that this University provides. George Mason University has an established history of innovation. It is a place that is open to the possibilities of change and new ways of looking at learning. As a young institution, founded in the late 50's surge to improve higher education, Mason has created an open, almost restless attitude among its faculty to rethink education and learning. This openness has led to a variety of curricular experiments (PAGE, BA/SIC, Core, New Century College) as well as new programs which dovetailed with a rather traditional College. Along with these curricular innovations, a variety of centers and offices were founded which focused on aspects of teaching, reflecting the then-contemporary trends toward use of new technologies. Among these centers were the Student Video Center (founded in the 1980s by the Department of Communication to support the use of video by students in telecommunication classes), the Instructional Development office (founded in the early 1990s to support the development of high-end, technology-based instruction by faculty), and the Media Authoring Center (founded in 1995 to support the development of multimedia projects by students). During this same period, there was a shift in the use of technology throughout the University and an increasing emphasis on the use of technology in specially designed media-intensive classrooms as well as traditional classrooms. The problem was, given the varying origins and reporting lines and purposes of these support organizations, they were as likely to compete for resources as cooperate.
Susan: GMU-TV was in a similar situation. It never really seemed to fit within the University setting. Professors would occasionally wander down to the basement of King Hall to tape a lecture, or University Relations would host the occasional current affairs show. Otherwise, the small staff earned their keep creating promotional videotapes for different units within George Mason. We were definitely not realizing our potential for creating dynamic distance learning. Collaborative efforts often evolved into turf wars.
Cindy: Although there had been attempts to bring some of these components together, at least the video components and GMU-TV, it was, as some say, like trying to corral a bunch of cats.
Ann: However, a new president in 1996, a new vice-president for information technology in 1997, and a mandate for change and cost-effectiveness lead to the creation of the Department of Instructional Improvement and Instructional Technologies (DoIIIT). DoIIIT's position as a co-equal unit with University Computing and University Libraries placed instruction front and center within the University's technology mission. It took us a year of discussion and consultation to determine the appropriate direction and mission for DoIIIT and its component units. We actively considered the diverse ways in which students, faculty, and staff were served by and contributed to learning and instruction. With a great deal of cooperation and planning, those instructional support offices which had been disbursed through several different academic and administrative areas were brought under the umbrella of DoIIIT.
Anne: In effect, the creation of a unit like DoIIIT is in itself an acknowledgment of the shared responsibility for learning within the University. DoIIIT's five units--Administrative Support, Classroom Technologies, GMU-TV, the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) and the Student Technology Assistance and Resource Center (STAR)--together constitute a whole spectrum of learning activities that interact with the larger Mason learning community in a number of ways. As a participant in George Mason's community of learners, DoIIIT helps to provide a context in which this kind of paradigm shift can take place, an environment for change. DoIIIT works with students and with faculty to help both in their roles as learners. DoIIIT provides support for each of the aspects of a learning community: ongoing conversations about learning, shared learning, and new opportunities for learning.
Cindy: I think DoIIIT's role in the ongoing conversation about learning really began with the work of creating DoIIIT in the first place, as Ann mentioned earlier. It sounds so straightforward when we talk about it now, but the focus and design of DoIIIT really resulted from Joy Hughes' leadership and the collaborative work of many people from many parts of the University who eventually reached a consensus about how learning needed to be supported at George Mason. Both STAR and the IRC had advisory boards of students, faculty, and support staff to help create (or recreate) their structure and purpose.
Susan: And we have continued that kind of discussion by naming an Advisory Board for DoIIIT with representation from all the academic areas of the University and University Computing and University Libraries. STAR also has its own advisory board. GMU-TV is taking that idea even further by naming an advisory board that includes representatives from business and government to help us get a clearer understanding of how our instructional programming impacts the Northern Virginia community. The advisory boards are an important way that we get to test our mission against the needs of our community and open up more dialogue about what people need to help them learn.
Ann: Another important piece of an ongoing conversation about learning is our collaborative relationship with the other information technology units, University Computing and University Libraries. Many of the ways that we support learning here crossover these units, so we meet regularly to work out issues such as software support and staff development. I've been working this year with an information technology training council that includes computing staff, librarians, and DoIIIT staff so that we can help make it easier for people to get access to training, develop new programs, and avoid duplication of services. The BYTE week program we did in January was one result of the training council's efforts. The model worked so well that we are now working with University Life to expand it during student and faculty orientation periods.
Cindy: Some of the issues are not easy to figure out. We wrestled for a long time, for example, with issues about supporting statistical software, trying to balance learning needs in this area against other demands on staff time and computing resources. The solution that we eventually developed involved contributions from DoIIIT, University Computing, and University Libraries to respond to faculty and student requests for support. The point here is that we're working to establish an environment in which all the members of the university community can work as partners to address learning issues.
Anne: Our programming also reflects an intentional effort to foster discussion about teaching and learning. The DoIIIT Dialogs provide opportunities for faculty and staff to meet with the administrators and directors of programs that support instruction. The Teaching/Learning Conversations programs feature demonstrations of faculty work and a chance for faculty and staff to focus on the learning strategies involved in various kinds of instructional methods. People seem to enjoy the chance to see the work of others outside their own departments. The discussion groups we sponsored on "Making a Place for the New American Scholar" drew quite an eclectic group of participants and an interesting mix of ideas. And, of course, inventio itself is really just an extended conversation about teaching and learning issues.
Ann: This ongoing conversation about learning leads to shared learning experiences where all the participants can gain new insights. Here again, we see this aspect of the scholarship of teaching as an important part of our role in the University.
Susan: If being a learning community involves shared learning, then GMU-TV is definitely leading the way. Shared learning is a cornerstone of our mission. When we broadcast instructional material for Mason's faculty, it reaches half a million homes. People are watching, and not just the folks who have to watch as a course assignment. We're finding that students are sharing their learning experience with others in their homes. Families are gathering around their television sets to see what Ken Kovatch, Jane Flinn, and Richard Rubenstein have to say about management, psychology, and conflict resolution. Organizations throughout Northern Virginia encourage their employees to watch GMU-TV to earn continuing education credit. High school students catch a glimpse into the nature of college courses. If we want to be successful--and we think we are successful--we have to pay a lot of attention to how people learn and how to use the visual media for effective learning. Our work opens up the learning community well beyond the number of students that might be part of it in a traditional classroom.
In fact, ask any of the folks at GMU-TV about psychology, labor-management relations, or communications research, and you might be surprised by the depth of their knowledge. Osmosis is a wonderful thing! We like to think of ourselves as "poster children" for lifelong learning. In the video business, as in the teaching business, a successful producer/director never reaches the pinnacle. Each new production builds off the creative successes of the last.
Anne: So the learning community is really much bigger than just the students. There has to be shared learning involved in creating and developing these instructional modules. When I watch something like Star Muir's new series on communications research, I'm impressed by the collaborative efforts involved. It's clear that the production team is part of the learning community along with the faculty and the students.
Susan: Actually, GMU-TV's incorporation into DoIIIT allowed us to think about creating a new form of telecourse, which Star Muir's course in Communication Research illustrates. Because we could work collaboratively with the IRC and STAR, we had access to more staff and additional equipment so that we can incorporate a variety of technologies into a telecourse. Working with Star Muir, we created a learning community whose goal was to investigate, design, and complete a new approach to teaching research skills to upper-level undergraduates. It took us almost a year to work out the details of the course. All of the key work is done before a single frame of video is shot, before a single graphic is created, and before one word of narration is recorded. Fortunately for us, Star's a great performer. He's not above donning costumes and acting like a genie if it will help to clarify a point for his students. But kudos also have to go to Sandy Taylor, Rich Eggleton, and Richard Wood who put in literally hundreds of hours on the production, even making cameo appearances in some modules.
Cindy: That was certainly the case in my experience also. When the final outcome works (like the video modules), the staff has to become part of the learning community. If it is just the professor out there trying to make it happen, it won't. And if the professor believes that s/he knows all there is to know about putting together something like a video module, it will ultimately fail in the same way as if the production team does not listen to the professor. When one uses something like a video format, it is no longer the lone teacher in the classroom with the students, but an entire team working together. Some faculty can handle that situation and some can't. It's important for all concerned to realize the collaborative nature of the process.
Anne: Well, I haven't had this experience with television, but I have had this kind of shared learning recently in another instructional arena.
Through my work with the University Web Team, I became aware of a need in the University for help in creating Web pages for various campus offices. I thought this would be a good way to help students develop technology skills, teamwork skills, and communication skills and provide a much-needed service. DoIIIT would help provide the expertise to mentor the students and the participating faculty members would build this project into their courses. This spring, we were able to pilot this concept with Mary Lou Crouch's Cyberculture course in New Century College. Mary Lou provided her basic syllabus and then sat with an instructional designer from DoIIIT, an electronic publications specialist, Cara Determan, and a Web design expert, Allyn Summa, to figure out how we could help students learn about Web pages and provide tools to help them work on the planning, design, and implementation of their projects. Each of us had expertise to contribute and it was a wonderful shared experience. The two professional staff members taught sessions with the students, and all of us helped review and critique the students' proposals. The planning of this course seems to me to model exactly what we're talking about here.
Cindy: The student mentors at web.STAR also work collaboratively with fellow students to help them with the design and creation of Web sites. The mentors help students not only in what and how to use certain kinds of Web programs, but also with how to design effectively.
Ann: We see the same kind of thing in the Instructional Resource Center as we work with faculty who want to create course Web sites using Web CT. It's very much a collaborative enterprise as we bring not only technical support for the software and instructional design expertise but also experience from the library in using electronic reserves as part of the course and help in exploring policy questions about copyright and posting of grades. We've also found that instructors' use of email and online discussions creates another whole dimension of shared learning as students and professors participate in a different way through these visible dialogues.
Susan: These shared learning experiences seem to lead quite naturally to the creation of a whole new kind of learning experiences, and we see this quite often in our work at DoIIIT. I've already suggested that we saw this happen in our thinking about how we wanted to do instructional video. We've changed our approach to enable us to focus on making the most effective instructional use of the medium. (See our new procedures at http://www.gmutv.gmu.edu/policy.htm ).
Anne: Another way that we're creating new opportunities for learning is through our focus on students' learning experiences. Our spring project, Innovations 99: Creative Learning at George Mason, brings together not only the whole University community, but also our larger community and our business partners. We're consciously trying to make the community aware of the different ways that students learn. We want to expand everyone's thinking about the nature of learning by celebrating a wide variety of learning experiences. By including art, technology, science, writing, video, and many other forms of learning, we'll give people an opportunity to see models of learning that they might not consider otherwise. We hope that that exposure, in turn, will encourage people to expand the types of learning they offer students in their courses.
Cindy: We're also trying to bring students more into the process of teaching. Working in STAR has given me a new way to look at teaching. At STAR we hire undergraduates with skills in multimedia, desktop publishing, Web design and creation, presentation tools and video. While many of them are very knowledgeable about the software and equipment, they are not as knowledgeable about how to teach. To help them learn more about teaching, STAR hired Dr. Sheryl Friedley, who has consulted with corporations such as AT&T and Boeing and is also a professor in the Communication Department. Her corporate workshop on "Training the Trainers" was modified somewhat for our undergrad mentors to teach them how to work more effectively with other students in large workshops and face-to-face. Our first workshop in January 1999 was a huge success and we planned another in March so we could bring in more of our student mentors. It was a new opportunity for our students to learn how to present information and feel comfortable in that role.
Ann: I tend to characterize DoIIIT as offering "cradle to grave" support of learning. From the inception of an idea brought to us by a instructor through the final papers or projects completed by a student in that course, DoIIIT provides support for all phases of instructional development. The unanticipated benefit from this approach is that it tends to cast the instructor in a slightly new and broader role. In my initial discussions with a faculty member about a new course or a new course format, I often ask what expectations that instructor has both for his/her course and for the students enrolled in that course. These conversations necessarily include Cindy and her work in STAR since how effectively we are able to support students in a class depends on how closely we are able to coordinate this support with the course needs of the instructor.
So far, our experience has been to take very broad ranging interests of an instructor and define those ideas as smaller tasks to be accomplished. Perhaps first posting a course on-line with basic course information, and then later building an on-line discussion into the course. This allows the instructor to then begin to take on the role of learner as he/she begins to use, explore, and master the kinds of instructional technology that are appropriate to the goals of a particular course. Having had the time to work through both the course and its related technology provides the faculty member with a firmer grounding in both the pedagogical issues and the technology. It also gives DoIIIT the opportunity to address issues of support as they arise in the development phase. We find we end up building close working relationships with the faculty, are able to keep them appraised of the changing strengths/weaknesses of instructional technology at George Mason, provide timely information to faculty, and provide the best possible support to the largest number of students throughout the University.
Anne: Our experience in supporting the Technology Across the Curriculum program has also led us to explore assessment strategies and get a better understanding of how we can measure student learning. And this has the potential to help us create some new learning experiences. In fact, we're already developing one kind of new learning in a collaborative project with the Library's instructional team and the Center for the New Engineer. Craig Gibson is working with DoIIIT and the English Department to develop online learning modules to help students improve their ability to work with information. Danny Menasce and the Center for the New Engineer are providing the assessment pieces of those units using their Hyperlearning Meter software. We plan to pilot these modules with English classes this spring, and we think they have potential use for students in many disciplines.
We also like to encourage the development of more classroom-based research that will help us understand even more about how students learn.
Another area of DoIIIT's involvement in creating new learning experiences is in our work with the Electronic Campus of Virginia. This is a collaborative program with colleges and universities all over the state to help develop and improve distance learning opportunities for Virginia students. We can learn a great deal from the experience of other institutions and perhaps even develop more shared programs that will give our students more chances to take advantage of learning opportunities at other institutions and other students more chances to take advantage of our areas of special expertise.
Anne: Writing this article turned out to be an unexpected learning opportunity for us, different and somewhat more difficult than we had anticipated. They difficulty was not just in struggling with the intellectual concepts related to the scholarship of teaching and how that might work in a learning community. It was just as much the difficulty in creating a form that would mirror the collaborative process we were trying to describe. At first, we were each writing miniature academic essays. We worked from our separate perspectives, reached conclusions, wrote them down, explained our reasoning. Then we decided on a more dialogic style that would provide more insight into the discovery process. So we began to work by email, sharing ideas and responding. Then we met face to face to see how our responses could form a whole. Then we created a web page and started putting pieces together. It was a process of constantly breaking down our ideas and allowing room for the thinking of others in the group so that we could collectively make a point about the nature of scholarship in a learning community. I think we achieved what we wanted: a small learning community in action.
Cindy: We wanted to reflect what an electronic journal could be. . . more than the traditional pages laid out on a Web site, a way of thinking and writing that would make better use of the medium. Of course, as with any new idea, it meant more work (like talking to others so we could include their perspectives in links) and thinking of different ways to develop our ideas in order to provide richer descriptions and, we hoped, a better opportunity for others to contribute.
Ann: In a way, inventio has offered us not just a forum for discussing teaching and learning issues, but also an opportunity to explore new formats for discussion. As we talked and discussed and debated and haggled, we found ourselves exploring new ways in which ideas could be presented that went beyond the limitations of linear presentation in traditional print media. The conversation format, the use of links leading to supplementary materials seemed to enrich our thinking, our collaboration, and our writing.
Anne: And also led to a rich tangle of ideas which forced us to develop a new language for ourselves to help make the ideas coherent.
Ann: An online journal such as inventio offers some intriguing opportunities to explore not just the writing process, but the ways in which we are conceptualizing these issues. Our ability to link directly to the materials to which we refer provides the reader with immediate access to ideas that jogged our own thinking. And the readers' ability to respond online to this essay makes it possible to create an ongoing conversation. Beyond that, it is possible to document for the first time the changing dynamics which are part of this interplay. For many years, conversations about pedagogy and learning have taken place on this campus, and on many campuses nationwide. Yet there are few records of these conversations, the ideas they generated, the issues they raised, and the responses to challenges we all face as teachers and learners. One of our hopes is that this dynamic format helps us create a more effective means of tracking these conversations, sharing ideas, and reflecting on the ways in which learning is intimately a part of all aspects of the academy.
Anne: In a learning-centered community, we have suggested above, the scholarship of teaching encompasses three aspects: an ongoing conversation about learning, shared learning experiences, and the creation of new opportunities for learning.
Cindy: Further, we have tried to show that the scholarship of teaching involves not just faculty but students, administration, and professional staff.
Susan: And beyond that, we have presented our department, DoIIIT, as a model for the collaborative processes involved in supporting a scholarship of teaching.
Anne: In the classroom or not, inquiry about learning and the facilitation of learning is part of our professional lives every day. We make decisions about staffing, budgeting, and programming guided by a concern for what will most enhance the learning community at George Mason. We want our decisions to be informed by a lot of experience as participants in that community.
Ann: So, in coming to the end of our dialogue, we actually arrive at a new beginning. If inventio is a new opportunity for learning, then it should contribute to the ongoing conversation of the learning community. We'd like to invite our readers to become part of the ongoing conversation we have initiated in this article and would like to continue facilitating in the George Mason community.
In what ways have you contributed to the learning community on this campus or beyond it? How can these conversations facilitate our ability to enhance learning and learning opportunities? How can we better integrate the kinds of support DoIIIT provides into the teaching mission of the various academic units?
We have established a TownHall meeting on this topic and invite you to share your observations and ideas in that forum. To access TownHall, go to the TownHall Web site at http://townhall.gmu.edu and then login or register as a new user. Choose Course Forums and then inventio. This TownHall exchange will become part of the permanent published record of this inventio article. We invite you to propose further topics for dialog within the inventio format, and to explore with us other avenues that enrich the scholarship of teaching.
George Mason University. Engaging the Future: the university at the turn of the millenium. 1998. http://www.gmu.edu/pubs/futures/
Rice, R. Eugene. "Making a Place for the New American Scholar." American Association for Higher Education: 1996.
ANNE SCRIVENER AGEE (aagee@gmu.edu) is the Executive Director of the Department of Instructional Improvement and Instructional Technologies at George Mason University. She was previously the Head of Client Services at St. Mary's College of Maryland and the Coordinator of Instructional Technology at Anne Arundel Community College. She has taught composition and literature courses as well as graduate courses in Composition Instruction and Educational Research. She holds a doctorate in rhetoric from the Catholic University of America and has published and presented extensively on instructional technology issues.
SUSAN SHAVER KEHOE (skeho1@gmu.edu) is Director of George Mason University Television. She received her B.A. from Illinois College, an M.S. in Journalism from Northwestern University, and is currently working toward a D.A. in Community College Education at George Mason University. Recently Kehoe was named one of the Top 100 video producers in the nation for her distance education work.
CYNTHIA M. LONT (clont@gmu.edu) is an Associate Professor in the Communication Department at George Mason University where she teaches courses in visual theory and production, women and media, and advertising. Her doctorate is from the University of Iowa in Communication Studies. She is the author of numerous books and articles on everything from gender and the media to women's music and has won many awards for educational videos. Lont is Director of the MA and the newly created undergraduate minor in Telecommunications. Presently, she is the Director of STAR (Student Technology Assistance and Resources).
ANN M. PALKOVICH (apalkovi@gmu.edu) is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at George Mason University where she teaches courses in hominid evolution, bioanthropology and archaeology. She receives her A.B. from the University of Chicago and her MA and Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Palkovich's current research focuses on the relationship of complexity and emergence theory to origins questions in human evolution. Presently, she is the Director of the Instructional Resource Center and the Deputy Director of DoIIIT.