Technology Related Challenges for Collegiate Science Faculty: Are there Solutions?

Image Credit: N. Hughes

There is no doubt that technology has significantly improved our lives in many different ways. When I was young, I never dreamed of using a computer for anything but playing a floppy disk version of Oregon Trail during my free time in elementary school. Technology and the use of technology has changed significantly in a short period of time. Now, I am trying to find ways of incorporating technology into a variety of science courses that I now teach in a collegiate setting. People think that the sciences are a quick and easy area to incorporate technology because science is so "tech heavy" in and of itself. I have a hard time explaining to people that it is a lot harder than it looks. There are a lot of issues that create difficulty for incorporating technology or to change technology use for science faculty.

Technology Challenges for Science Faculty and Possible Solutions

Image Credit: Maine.gov

Science faculty tend to get approached to serve as leaders in technology change because it is so tech-heavy. Unfortunately, this is not completely accurate. It is true that science is technology rich, but it is only the technology that is specifically designed for the sciences that are easy to incorporate into the field. An example I give is that biologists rely on technology like the PCR (a piece of technology that helps me copy small bits of DNA into billions of copies... like a printer... only a little more complicated). Within my area, it is an essential piece of technology. So, yes, we are technology heavy, but what about everyday technology? 

There are a lot of barriers that the sciences face with regard to implementing technology in the classroom and in the online or hybrid setting. Science faculty face as many technology challenges, if not more than faculty from other disciplines. While there are a myriad of technology related challenges, I am going to present four challenges (grouped into 2 main headings) that I have encountered through my years as a science professor. These challenges are so intertwined, that I am grouping them to show how integrated these challenges are for faculty. 

Technology Issue 1 and 2: ADA/OCR Compliance and the Science Lab Experience

Image Credit: montgomerycountymd.gov

While everyone in academia faces challenges with technology and ensuring it is ADA and OCR compliant, science (and math) have an interesting aspect that many areas do not need to worry about... Labs. Science labs create an interesting challenge with regard to ADA and OCR compliance. While every academic discipline must ensure all content is captioned, accessible with a ADA/OCR approved readers, and so on, the sciences have the unique issue of labs. It gets even more complicated if the labs are in an online setting. According to Lee (2014), programs using web-based instruction need
to ensure that these technologies are accessible to all students, regardless of disability. Many schools have the technology to caption videos and make documents accessible, but very few have the capability to ensure digital labs or even face-to-face labs meet the full legal requirement of ADA. The OCR has stated that all academic experiences for students with disabilities must be exactly the same as those received by the rest of the student population. In many cases, it is impossible to ensure a student with disabilities gets the same exact experience in the lab. Think of a person who has no use of their hands. It becomes a challenge to ensure that the student has the same experience of mixing chemicals in a chemistry lab or dissecting a specimen in a biology lab. Some say the solution is a digital lab, but that too is a challenge. There is not a virtual lab program that exists that allows a student to complete a lab without use of a mouse or keyboard. In this case, we are left with the issue of creating an experience for a student, yet the technology does not exist to let that happen.

Its not just an ADA/OCR compliance issue. Technology for digital labs and lab experiences are weak for the collegiate level of instruction. While there are plenty of resources out there for primary and secondary instruction, the degree of complexity needed for digital labs in the collegiate sciences is in its infancy. This means that science faculty are, in general, reluctant to use outside technology for science purposes. It is a barrier that science faculty face that creates more barriers for students as well.

A Solution? 

Do I have a perfect solution for this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. If you know me, you know that this is a huge passion of mine as of late. I have put in a lot of research and personal time to find a solution that will benefit all of our students, regardless of disability. Unfortunately, for now, my solution is to work on it as a case-by-case basis. I work to create a solution for my students as they arise. This is not ideal, however. According to the OCR, the accommodation must be immediate and cause no delay in course work and course progression. But for now, it is the best that I can do, at least until the technology and companies who design the technology start taking this matter to their design teams and integrate the issue in their own design process.

Technology Issue 3 and 4: Time, Money, and Proficiency: Learning to Use the Technology is Different from Learning to Teach and Learn with the Technology

These technology related challenge is one in which of academia can relate. The idea that one must be competent with technology in order to use it is a struggle that many faculty face. Much of the faculty member's time is spent teaching and little time is left to become proficient with all the new technology that comes to the door. Science faculty are not immune to this. Not only do science faculty have to learn technology that is specific to science (such as the PCR example from before) there is all the technology that is not developed for the sciences that science faculty are encouraged to use and integrate into their courses. Can we say technology overload?!?!!? Not only is time and competence in the technology a worry, but another issue arises that is very rarely addressed: Learning how the technology works is very different than learning how to teach with the technology. Also, that statement is even further confounded by the fact that teaching with a technology a totally different beast than learning with that same technology. According to the Horizon Report for Higher Education (2015), teaching with technology is different than learning with technology. So, not only does the instructor need to know how to teach with the new technology, they must also know who to learn from it and hot to teach students to learn from it. This creates a technology related challenge that is difficult to solve. How do we get the technology and the training with technology? Well that requires money and time, which many colleges and universities have either very little of and/or they are very hesitant in using time and money for the ever changing world of tech. Herein lies the problem with these barriers to tech... time and money is needed for training... but there is little of each. This essentially creates a two or three barrier problem in one.

A Solution? 

While there is a solution to these technology related issues, my fear is colleges and universities will not like it. These solutions have a huge cost aspect. Not only will appropriate training take money, but the time (which costs money) will be an issue as well. Not only do faculty need to be trained on how to use the technology, they also need to be trained on how to teach with it. I feel that the latter of the two is often neglected. I see many colleges and universities spending time and money on training faculty how to use technology, but very few spend time and money on training faculty how to teach with it. I am sure there are many reasons for this outside of financial reasons, but I will not dive into that here. Also, colleges and universities need to spend the time and money on training students how to learn with the technology. Too often we spend time training our faculty and staff how to use technology and we miss one of the most important demographics... the students. We must start shifting our focus to helping the students not only learn the technology, but also how to learn with technology. Our students need technology support just as much as faculty and staff and I feel we miss the ball on this one. Unfortunately this is not a solution that individual faculty can solve... it is institutional. Faculty can, however, do what they have always done... and continue to support students to the best of their ability. 

Wrapping it Up

There are a myriad of technology related issues. While I have not addressed all of them, the four that plague me as an educator are developing labs, ensuring ADA/OCR compliance, time/money for technology, and competency and proficiency. Does this mean that technology is bad? No way!!! technology has given us so many advantages in the collegiate setting. Technology is an important tool. We must, however, create an environment where we think about all aspects of technology use and incorporate it into out planning. As instructors we must work to find individual solutions for our students to ensure success. We also must work with our colleges and universities to help find solutions to these technology related issues. We also must remember how all these barriers are interconnected. While time and money can solve many of these challenges, we still must keep our focus on our students and push to help them succeed in any way possible. When we solve one barrier, we open the door to the solution to another barrier. Keep the doors open and brainstorm for solutions. For one solution will lead to solution possibilities for all. 

Resources: 

Lee, B. A. (2014). Students with disabilities: Opportunities and challenges for colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(1), 40-45.


New Media Consortium, & EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

ADDIE and SAM: A Comparative Analysis

Credit: @effectivelearningininstructionaldesign.com

The instructional design process is a complex and ever changing approach to ensuring learner success. Instructional designers and educators have used many different models for developing content that the learner can best engage with and learn from. There are many competing models that have been used over the years to help learners best benefit from their learning experience. While there are many different models that are used by instructional designers, ADDIE and SAM seem to be at the front of discussion when deciding what model can be effective. This blog post will compare and contrast the two models in order to help instructors and designers see a better picture between the two competing models.

What are ADDIE and SAM? 

While this blog post is not meant to discuss what ADDIE and SAM are, a little background behind basics of each model is necessary to understand how they compare as instructional design processes. ADDIE and SAM are both interesting instructional design models.

ADDIE

Credit: @digitalchalk

ADDIE, according to Brown and Green (2015), is one of the most popular models because it takes into account the most basic aspects of instructional design: analyze, produce, and evaluate. ADDIE takes the basic steps of instructional design and divides them into five stages: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.

ADDIE was created as a design model allows instructors and designers to use background research and needs analysis data to create content for learners. ADDIE allows the designer/instructor to to evaluate the effectiveness of the content after it has been developed. Check out this short video on the basics of ADDIE and each of it's important steps.

SAM

Credit: Michael Allen

SAM (Successive Approximation Model) is another popular instructional design model where design is approached in a very cyclic process where analysis and design are intertwined through small steps. The content can be analyzed at different points in the design process for optimal an optimal learner experience. SAM allows the developer to have multiple check points throughout the design process to allow for an effective design. SAM contains the basic steps of instruction design but incorporates them in a cyclic process. SAM, according to Brown and Green (2015), was created to place more emphasis on each step of the process. Check out this video on SAM.

How do these models compare? 

Both ADDIE and SAM are useful and important models of instructional design. While both include the basic aspects of instructional design, they both have some key differences in their approach to the design of content. While there are many differences in these two models, this blog will focus on three key differences between the two models: Linear vs. Cyclic, Iterative vs. Non-iterative, and Whole Design vs. Prototypes.

The Design Process: Linear vs. Cyclic

One area where ADDIE and SAM differ is in the basics of the design process. ADDIE has been referred to as a "waterfall approach" where each step falls into the next step until it reaches the final product. SAM, however, is a very cyclic process where the designer cycles through the creative process. What does this mean for the two processes? For ADDIE, it means that the designer gets to a finished product to test after going though each of the stages. For SAM, it means that the designer cycles through the steps several times before getting to the product. Does this mean that one is better than another? I would think the answer is no. Each model is designed to fit the needs of a specific designer. If the designer needs a more linear approach with a product that needs less evaluation during its development, then ADDIE may be the way to go. If the designer needs to assure that the product is effective and tested before being used by a large learner population, then SAM may be the way to go.

The Development Process: Iterative vs. Non-Iterative

Another area where ADDIE and SAM differ is in their development process. SAM is often referred to as an iterative approach where each step is carefully reviewed and reworked in order to ensure a better end product (content). Each of the steps has a component where the content can be evaluated and reviewed (often by a group of people) to ensure quality and usefulness of the final product. This ensures the content being developed is what is needed and the developer is not waiting until the end to see the outcome. ADDIE is much less iterative, by design. ADDIE will help the developer churn out the content and the need for review or changes is often at the end of the process. ADDIE does not incorporate self or group checks throughout the process. For the ADDIE model, it occurs mostly at the end. Which is better? The answer is not so simple. It depends on the project. In some instances, the need for an iterative process is necessary and speed is not that important. This is the time where SAM may be the most effective for a designer. In other times, speed and repetitive checking is not as important. This would be a great instance for the developer to use the ADDIE model. While ADDIE is not a fast process in and of itself, it is generally faster than SAM as long as project goals are not changed throughout the process. Again, the need of the developer and the learners will determine which model is best suited for the project at hand.

Flexibility: Whole Design vs. Prototypes  

Another aspect where ADDIE and SAM differ is in their "roll out". What does that mean? Well, in essence, it means that each model deals with a product being produced in different ways. With ADDIE, a whole design in generated for use and then evaluated. The entire product is released for implementation and evaluated. With SAM, prototypes are developed along the way. These prototypes can be tested and reviewed before it is implemented. In essence, the developer can have test runs of the product, stakeholder input throughout the process, and more detailed feedback throughout the process. In this case, SAM has better quality control on the final product than does ADDIE. Another aspect is that although ADDIE creates a whole product in the end, which can be faster, but it can also backfire. If project goals change during the process, it could mean starting from scratch. SAM would allow for changes to be made in a more effective way than ADDIE. Again, does this mean that one is better than the other? Not necessarily. If time is of the essence and prototyping and multiple points of evaluation would hinder the process, then ADDIE could be a perfect tool in that situation. However, if quality control is essential and time is not as big of an issue, then SAM could be a good fit.

Conclusion

So, which model is better? I think it is important to remember that it is not pitting one instructional design model against another. Both models have strong foundations within the instructional design field and are important tools needed for different projects that will be undertaken. Just like the design of content is important, the choice of the tool for the design is also essential. The instructional designer must make sure to use a tool that best meets their needs at the time. While SAM was designed to be used in place of ADDIE with less rigid steps, I think there is good value in both models and their use is highly dependent on the situation at hand.

Are there other differences you have found between the models? Do you think both are valuable models? I wold love to hear what you think. :D



Resources:

Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2015). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Routledge.