“Often faculty don’t need more training on the tool, they need more training on the affordance of the tool and how to use it to support learning.” Patricia McGee, associate professor from the University of Texas, made this statement while offering tips for training faculty on teaching with technology in the newsletter Higher Ed Impact: Weekly Analysis, published by Academic Impressions.

What she said about learning the tools versus learning the affordance of the tools reminded me of a lot of trainings and conference presentations I have attended, which are usually made up of a lengthy PowerPoint presentation followed by a little bit of product/project demo. The PowerPoint usually covers vendor introductions, the tool’s primary functions displayed as bullet points, a theoretical framework or the background of the product/project (sometimes), the implementation process, and eventually, student feedback. If I am lucky, I might be able to get a few screenshots of the site or a quick run-through of the final project, but often these come at the very end. While a big introduction does help build expectations, without any concrete examples, it is hard for me to understand what exactly this particular technology could bring to my own teaching practice.

Compared to academies, tool providers seem to do better at addressing the issue of affordances up front. If you’ve read Melissa Koenig’s blog entry Story-Telling Tools—Beyond PowerPoint, you might have noticed that almost all of the tool sites incorporate a good number of samples on their home pages (check out PhotoPeach, Gloster, and Toondoo). This shows that the tool producers have figured out the best way to capture the attention of today’s busy and impatient Web visitors—by showing (instead of “telling”) them what has been done by and with the tool. The only challenge here is that many of the examples are for a “general” audience instead of being targeted at educators. Examples of faculty and student use of technology for instructional purpose are usually not presented in one collection. However, that does not mean that they cannot be found (Isn’t it a general rule that you can find anything on the Internet?). It is up to the trainer to locate the appropriate examples that could get instructors thinking, “How should I use this in my class?”

Speaking of selecting appropriate examples for faculty, Patricia McGee provided another practical tip in the article—adopting a tailored approach. Offering generic examples of educational use of the technology is not good enough, since faculty in different disciplines will have different needs. One type of technology that works well for one content area may not work for another. Given the various needs of different disciplines, Patricia McGee pointed out that campus-wide training might not be the ideal option. This is exactly why we developed a tailored DePaul Online Teaching Series (DOTS) program with a well-matched combination of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) and implemented a liaison model to embed technology consultants in schools and colleges. Now it is time to bring the same tailored mode beyond the systematic program (such as DOTS) and implement it into all training events.

According to the  CDW 21st-Century Campus Report, faculty’s lack of technology knowledge remains the greatest campus technology challenge perceived by students, and training is the type of support most needed by faculty. Whether faculty training is useful has become a determining factor for how successful technology integration on campus is. The answer to this could be as simple as a tailored training curriculum structured in a meaningful sequence. The one I’d like to propose includes the following three easy steps:

• Step 1: Provide concrete and relevant examples (a demo of the affordance)
• Step 2: Pause to choose the best tool for meeting instructor needs
• Step 3: Train on the use of the chosen tool and the necessary technology