POD 2006 Conference Report 1 - Facilitating Consultation

Pre-conference Workshop - Facilitating Individual Consultations:
Intgrating Theoretical Research to Practice
There is no lack of consultation models, but what's the use of a model
of consultation? To prepare, I read Brinko's article, "The Interactions
of Teaching Improvement" in Practically Speaking by Brinko and Menges (a
book in the CELT Library). It explains the best-known models succinctly.
My old colleague Alan Kalish from OSU chided me, not for the first time,
for being a good student (nerd and show -off). I really can't help it.
Besides, I feel a bit in the dark about consultation since CELT has such
excellent consultants in its Teaching Fellows. On the other hand, I have
spend quite a bit of my life -doing- consulting and watching others do
it, so I am prone to wanting to analyze and dissect the activity, hence
my interest in models.

My question was: What are key variables in choosing a style or model of
consultation that will be effective in a given situation? Also, is it
really possible for a consultant to use more than one model effectively?
Here are some variables: Amount of teaching experience that the client
has; amount of consulting experience that the consultant has; how big is
the consultant's repertoire? how was the consultant trained? What kind
of academic culture and/or theoretical base does the consultant come
from? What is the consultant's level of awareness ofboth his/her actual
and espoused style? Do the consultant and client share a discipline? Is
the consultation voluntary or involuntary? How will the results be used?
What is the time frame that has been set (one-off, 3 meetings and you're
done, ongoing?) What degree of "pain" is being experienced by the
client? What is the status of the consultant--peer, professional
consultant, both? What point are you at in the relationship-beginning,
middle, end? What is the personal interaction style of the consultant?
the client? How much confidence does the client have in his/her
teaching?

Another of my questions: As an instructional designer who has studied
participatory design methods and who views design as research, I have
asked how might this construction of design process inform instructional
consultation? This is the idea of consultation as co-inquiry.

We were asked to characterize our consultation styles as a kitchen
appliance. This was a very interesting exercise bringing out qualities
such as "recursive", "gentle", "directive", "rythmic", "warm", "quiet",
"bringing out what is inside". We then thought about what makes a
consultation challenging and what makes it gratifying. Challenge results
from involuntary clients, and general negativity about teaching, seeing
a consultant, and so on. We love clients who come on their own, who give
us feedback on how its going (and actually use some of ideas we
discussed), cases where we can see the impact of our work, where we help
the client gather evidence about their teaching (co-researcher mode),
and when we can see both personal and professional development.

We analyzed the case of the reluctant international TA who was looking
forward to a research assistantship after "doing time" in the classroom.
Upshot: focus on one thing to do, get the TA to see relevance of
teaching to future research activities, like presenting at a
conference.

Models are useful as something to grab onto when you don't know what to
do, they give you a basis before you start. They help you explain
faculty development and give you credibility. They can affirm what you
have been doing all along. A model is a vehicle for reflection on
consultation.

Questions: What are the limits of the process-oriented, collaborative
model that PODders are so fond of? What if the client just wants an
answer? Client expectations will help determine what model will be
used.

The Teaching and Learning Center at OSU has written a philosophy of
consulting practice. The three core values are: Community, Service, and
Scholarship. Alan had everyone in the center write a philosophy and they
discussed their philosophies over time to evolve shared values.

I have a handout that states CELT Philosophy, Purpose, and Goals.
Perhaps we could revisit. Having staff, fellows, and advisory board
write a philosophy of consultation and evolve a shared view could be
very useful, and a team-building exercise.