"faculty who can teach courses online," and the students, who are transitioning fromstudents of educational technology to professionals who create technology-enabled learningenvironments. Are these accurate depictions of the identities they are transitioning fromand to? What characteristics (not simply titles) differentiate the people in the "transition-from" stage from the "transition-to" stage -- what do they do differently, how do they actdifferently?The
, as each person on the team ceases to simply followinstructions and instead takes on leadership roles in some way, climbing up the ladder of Bloom's taxonomy. When do more stepping-up actions take place? What affects the rate of stepping-up? What dynamics does stepping-up affect in turn?
Background on the problem
The problem tackled by this case study is straightforward: we need more faculty who canteach online courses. Reluctant faculty members perceive a "...separation betweenpedagogy and technology. Similary to Snow's idea of two cultures, teachers and techies livein different worlds, ignoring each other's existence as much as possible... Many faculty donot find value in learning the details of technology, believing that it only takes time (alimited resource) away from thinking about pedagogy and the other responsibilities they have, and that they may care more about."Other solutions have fallen short. Workshops and tutorials "treat technology as beingseparate from pedagogy and assume that once an instructor learns a particular piece of technology they will effortlessly figure out ways of using it in their teaching," and assume"...the content is irrelevant to the course design." A technical support group of experts"always available to assist faculty in times of need" allows people to work within their areasof expertise, but the separation of roles also leads to the technical support group producing"widgets" that the faculty are then constrained to using -- the technology and pedagogy arenot designed with each other in mind.
What would a successful solution look like?
It would give faculty a chance to "...gain a knowledge of what goes on inside thatblack box... how course content and pedagogical representations co-constraintechnology and vice versa."
It would allow faculty members to "bring their personality, their individuality to thecourse, its presentation, and its execution" instead of taking the "one-size-fits-allapproach towards course development."
Instead, it would recognize that "there is no single technological solution that appliesfor every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching."
This paper's view of design
The authors do explicity discuss their view of design, which informs the entire case study --from the assumptions about success it makes to the way the authors analyzed the data(course creation artifacts from teams through the semester, an end-of-term email survey,interviews with the participating faculty, etc)."...we offer design as being a process that is spontaneous, unpredictable, messy,