I’m getting skeptical about workshops. Although people often ask for them, the attendance is rarely fantastic and unless you get very lucky, they are usually offered at the wrong time for 75% of your audience. In Jill Leafstedt’s Educause article “Personalized Faculty Development: Engaging Networks and Empowering Individuals” she points out and develops two themes she saw reflected in the faculty development and engagement track at ELI: the importance of networks for ongoing learning, and meeting faculty where they are. The article outlines the strengths of a consultancy (rather than workshop-based) approach when working with faculty that I have also found to be the key to assisting faculty in a transformative way.

My biggest takeaway from this article was this:

“The consultancy approach allows instructional designers to lead from a place of inquiry and empathy. Taking the time to understand the goals and fears of the faculty enables you to develop an approach that works with the individual faculty or faculty team. Although this method is not quick and can be messy, it is effective.”

Empathy by Sharon Sinclair on Flickr: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3685/19402974878_d81b33d9c0_k.jpg

Coupling inquiry and empathy allows an instructional designer the space to really listen and respond to a faculty member’s concerns and areas of greatest need. In my experience, this is where the best ideas and brainstorming develop. Being able to repeat back to a faculty member the problem that they described and a method or tool that might address that problem is where we have often developed the deepest understanding of the challenges being posed. This process makes it less possible for me to assume I know the best solution and that I fully understand the problem, and reinforces a collaborative problem solving relationship.

In the discussion of networks Leafstedt talks about the importance of choice for faculty in deciding how deeply they want to and can engage in a topic at any one time. She advocates for providing flexibility in not only depth of participation but also access points for the material. Again she emphasizes the theme of meeting faculty where they are and providing resources, support, and conversations to help develop from that place.

Leafstedt’s discussion of faculty development is refreshingly real-to-life. It is one of the first articles that I have read that does not shy away from the impact that limited time resources has on these interactions and inquiries. She addresses both the messiness and unbound possibilities of empathetic and curious collaborations between faculty and instructional designers.