The message I sent to Peter already re the Ed Tech position

FYI, here's the message I sent to Peter prior to our conversation this week. . . .

The Ed Tech position should be part of CTLI. Couple reasons for this:

• it’s closer to the work that’s going on across campus. This includes course development (both f2f and DL), faculty development, Applied Research, AV, etc.

• We have existing relationships across campus. We know that most of the work we do depends on the relationships we have with people / programs / centres across campus. This position would benefit from these connections / relationships.

• Many opportunities for applied research in ed tech are integrated into the work we do – we just haven’t had time to do it.

• The position would be closer to AV and the work they do, including video conferences, learning spaces, classroom support . . .

• Accountability to a team vs. out there working solo

Forget the “manager” or “director” designation. Make this position at the same level as a chair or a curriculum consultant. This is closer to the instructors, and again it’s easier to develop working relationships – and easier to know what’s really going on in the classrooms. Accountability to colleagues comes to mind again here.

If I remember right, originally you were looking for a visionary type person/ an idea guy. This is good, but visionaries have to have resources to draw from to make things happen. Visionary + Resources (the right people on the bus in the right seats, in particular) = things happen :). CTLI / EET has these resources.

The position needs to be filled with someone who has proven teaching experience at the college level and who can communicate effectively with and be respectful of instructors with all levels of ed tech abilities.