INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION FOR KSU Site Visit

The purpose of this report is to reflect on the value of the CE site visit for your own professional practice and project, and to share general insights gained with the larger PT3 community.

Expectations
Briefly describe the expectations you had for the CE site visit prior to attending.

I expected to learn more about KSU's effort to not only help their faculty learn and model effective technology integration, but also other university faculty members in Arts and Sciences as well as in K-12 districts. I expected to have many opportunities to visit with KSU staff about their instructional technology support strategies. I also expected to learn a lot about the efforts at KU like Trackstar which allow university students to be engaged in the development of online resources directly for K-12 educators that are available to anyone on the internet.

Impacts
Briefly describe the impact you anticipate the site visit having on your personal practice as well as on your own PT3 project. Also describe the impact of this visit on the development of a community of practice within your Exchange Team.

The clear message that came through from the KSU PT3 experience as well as those at KU and Texas Tech was that technology integration for educators is not a process that can be effectively supported with just "tech support" people. I loved one of the KSU staff's statement that his unofficial title is "technology fear therapist." I think institutions have underestimated or just not fully appreciated the crucial role which instructional technology facilitators must play in the development of technology skills for faculty and teachers.

My experiences during this PT3 site visit with influence not only my personal philosophy of working with faculty members and teachers using technology, and my recommendations to our administration about the support we provide to our personnel, but also will result in some upcoming purchasing recommendations. The demo of the Tegrity learning system was very impressive, and this will be an excellent fit for several of our faculty (as I wrote in the summary report). The use of the wireless labs by KSU is a great model that we need to follow, and the integration of their tech support and instructional technology support teams under one "roof" is also exemplary.

Lessons Learned
Briefly describe the general lessons learned that are important to share with the larger PT3 community. Please describe general issues or lessons rather than specific models or resources. Specific items are documented in the Summary Report.

Generally, these lessons came through during our meetings:

Just-in-time learning is the main viable model for technology instruction for faculty. The class model can be used, but must be focused on content of interest to the faculty member and accompanied by incentives (hardware, software, monetary) for faculty buy-in.
Relationships are critical in helping faculty more effectively integrate technology in their courses. Personal instructional tech facilitators (not technicans) are required.
Technology integration is a long process that requires sustained support, and strategic planning on the part of a college to encourage on a broad basis. Universities need to focus on many educational stakeholders and the development of their skills, not just the College of Education faculty. A cohort model that combines the enthusiasm and innovation of pre-service teachers / students, the experience and wisdom of university faculty, and the practical focus of classroom teachers is a strong one that should be replicated.