I was at a party on Saturday night with a bunch of Dickinson College faculty. Dickinson is a really good school and has a lot more money than we do, and the library is supposed to be great from what my director says.
So one of the biology professors was talking about a program the library puts on there on helping faculty with Web 2.0 tools in their classes. It is a very intense program, with a lengthy application, intense courses, meetings throughout the fall semester, then they have to incorporate what they've learned into their spring course. In exchange for all of this effort and time, they get a $1,000 stipend.
I don't think we could come up with a lot of money for a stipend, but I'm intrigued with the success they seem to have on getting people interested. I wonder if we did a smaller-scale version of this without offering a stipend, if I would get any takers among our faculty.
I have contacted someone at Dickinson, though not the teacher (who I can't find on their staff list). I will post any details I find here in case anyone else is interested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I remember reading something about this in "College & Research Libraries," or "C&RL News," or something similar. I love the idea of getting faculty engaged with technology; the real problem I have is with offering them a stipend for doing so. Is an extrinsic motivator -- such as monetary reward -- really going to encourage faculty to become engaged with the technology, and use it in a way that is appropriate and meaningful? I love technology, and I'm all about integrating it into the classroom, but I think we have to be really careful about pushing "technology for technology's sake," and I wonder if bribing faculty members with money is the best way to avoid this pitfall. Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of the stipend? And maybe I'm just being a little naive and idealistic. :)
Post a Comment