Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Into The Future Thompson
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Into The Future Thompson

425

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
425
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Stepping Into Your Future is grounded in research in the CAHSEE itself, test taking, the learning sciences, literacy and language arts, mathematics, and technology/online learning. Test Taking: Addressing ‘missing links’; explicitly providing students with metacognitive links between concepts and how they look and sound in a test context, metacognitive instruction in test taking, strength-based assessment approaches. (e.g., Rochex, J.Y., 2006). Learning Sciences : Building on what students know, providing explanations in the context of a conceptual framework (clustering concepts), using a ‘metacognitive’ approach to help students take control of their own learning. (e.g., How People Learn , National Research Council, 2000) Literacy : Using active reading, writing and thinking approaches (e.g., Stauffer, 1980), with additional research supporting use with second language learners (e.g., Nessel & Dixon, 1983; 2008). Mathematics : Interactive concept development using problem-solving and games (e.g., Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning , 2007). Technology and Online Learning : Hybrid delivery approach to build retention and sustainability, opportunities for social interaction, communication. (e.g., Brinkerhoff, J. & Koroghlanian, C., 2005; Bielman, V., Putney, L. & Strudler, N., 2003)
  • The project team spawned from the common need for a resource that ‘filled the gaps’ in existing programs that was also cost effective. Identified gaps: *Content provided in discrete strands: CAHSEE items require students to use multiple concepts to answer questions. *May not have conceptual ‘hooks’ to remember: students need ‘real world’ applications to build holistic conceptual understanding using multiple concepts. *May not facilitate students understanding of their strengths so that students can use strengths to support active learning and life skills (strength based approach. The team’s focus on the ability of the final product to meet the needs of the students provided a culture of cooperation.
  • Development began April 2007. Inter-segmental Math and English teams wrote the material and UCLA’s CDI programmed it as it was written. The first module was piloted September 2007 at Jefferson Adult School in So. San Francisco. Teachers and students continued to use the material as it was developed and new partnerships formed. User feedback guided revisions and refinements.
  • Custom coding provides a seamless entry for students to enroll, take the strength based entry survey and access the course material. Smart assessments guide students to the lessons they need to focus on and starts them at a median level of their current ability and builds from there (strength based model) Interactive lessons scaffold the learning process Video is used for situated concept explanation and a gaming format is used to allow students to apply the concepts in real world settings with career and workforce themes. A ‘Help’ button is available through out the course and links students to Video tutorials created with Camtasia. These videos provide voiced over, close captioned ‘mini lectures’, on ‘how to’ solve the problem. Elluminate is used for students across the state to meet in weekly synchronized sessions with a content specialist from Lake Tahoe CC. Students access a static ‘classroom’ by clicking on a link embedded in the course site. Program resources are embedded in Moodle, an open source learning management platform that uses the constructivist theory that we ‘learn best when we share what we’ve learned’ and providing Web 2.0 technologies such as forums for students to student and student to teacher communication; glossaries in wiki, and ‘become the test maker’ wikis that allow students to deconstruct test problems and construct their own.
  • The strength based approach provides early success and encouragement for students. Synchronized highlight feature helps ‘engage’ with the text promoting active learning and video using meta discourse features that demonstrate for students what it ‘looks and sounds like’ to employ the practices.
  • When the program was conceptualized, it was on the basis that we would partner with the educators out there who were already serving this student population. Partnering with local education entities to support their efforts by providing access to a quality research based program, designed to meet the needs of students that didn’t ‘get’ this material with traditional resources.
  • Teachers are supported with program orientation, enrollment training, professional development, materials for student outreach (posters, brochures, draft outreach letter), end user technical support and students can join the live synchronized learning sessions with the Community College content experts for Math and/or English. Math modules align with the strands tested on the CAHSEE The English modules, while they prepare students to pass the test, actually teach a set of strategies to improve their reading and writing skills using a directed reading and thinking approach and the standards are embedded throughout the course modules. We know the best way to make sure a good program fails is to leave it unsupported….along with the Math and ELA courses on the moodle site, is a ‘professional development for instructors’ course. Among the many resources are video tutorials that walk teachers through the on line resources, concepts and pedagogy, helping them create that common pedagogical voice for the students and helping to frame the lessons.
  • Out the gate, before teachers could get test results, they noticed dramatic increases in retention. These were students who had taken and failed this test up to 5 times and had histories of little to no participation in test prep prior to ‘trying again’. Retention improved in some cases by 400%! Students who could not be in school would actually log on from home for the synchronized sessions!! During the pilot with LATTC, researchers observed two groups of students, one group had access to the Steps program and one did not (all other resources were the same: instructor, text and other on line resources) Of the students using the Steps program, 36% more passed the English test and 45% more passed the Math test than students who did not have access to the Steps program. Test results from sites reporting to Stepping Project, through 12/31/09. From Center for Literacy and Inquiry in Networking Communities (LINC), UC Santa Barbara evaluation data, 3/5/09.) One draw back to the ‘partnership’ model….the lack of actual test score data. Student results go the High School district and the student. Many teachers in adult schools and community colleges simply do not have access to test results. Which makes it difficult to impossible to get large numbers of scores. BUT, Teachers enrolling successive classes and new teachers requesting accounts to enroll at a colleagues recommendation all demonstrate effectiveness. The materials are based on empirical research on literacy practices for diverse learners, not just on the test.  The test was a beginning.  This approach is used to teach advanced graduate students ‘how to examine texts critically’ and how to uncover arguments not visible when you just "read“. The research team at UCSB and the Literacy in Networking Communities Center (LINC Center) continue to document growth over time (student journals; essays; practice items) as well as collecting actual test data were its available.
  • The class of 2006 was the first to be held to the standardized exit exam requirement and approximately 53,000 failed to pass the test and receive high school diplomas This years HumRRO data shows a .2% increase for the class of 2008 for students passing prior to June 2009. Due to efforts like this one, we also see an increase in numbers of students returning to seek intervention and pass the test. We would like to lessen the potential this test has to create ‘disincentives’ for students from pursuing post secondary education
  • CAHSEE Steps was a grant funded project that now provides a safety net program for the state and has become a sustainable resource for the CCC system. The potential of the Stepping program to go beyond the CAHSEE is just beginning to be realized.  Colleges see its value as a developmental program.  One campus (Victor Valley CC) has established a non-credit format for a program which will allow them to have students enroll, into what they are calling the ‘Strength Center’, using the Steps program to bring together the CAHSEE work and Basic skills under one umbrella - work they see as essential to Victor Valley's students and to successful college pathways.  Another campus (Santa Barbara City College) is in the early stages of developing an on line ‘booster’ course using the Steps English curriculum for international students to take ‘before’ they arrive on campus. CVC hosts the moodle instance and provides real time technical support for end users via toll free number, website and email. The inter-segmental partnership that produced this educationally and technologically innovative resource is replicable and necessary to meet the complex needs faced across educational communities today.
  • Go to www.qualitymatters.org for more exciting details.
  • QM origins = collaboration by a community of practice in MD; developed with FIPSE funding; subscription based MOL not-for-profit, with 350+ subscribers. QM = Rubric and Process QM Circle Process : This visual highlights the QM review process. Note that the circle elements transition in automatically. Key points: QM is designed for continuous improvement; the goal is that ALL courses will eventually meet QM expectations. Method: “ it’s a circular process;” “it’s continuous:” Begins with the COURSE, then PEER COURSE REVIEW, FEEDBACK, COURSE REVISION and Course Meets Quality Expectations. Benefits A reviewed course WILL meet expectations (although maybe not on the initial review). The faculty member will receive substantial feedback support. QM was designed to be a peer-review, collegial process AND The accreditation team will find plenty of evidence that the institution is striving to achieve quality in its offerings and that its faculty are skilled and informed online professionals.
  • Map of subscribers as of October 2009. For current listing of subscribers, see http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/Subscriber%20List%20for%20Publication.pdf
  • The rubric consists of 40 Specific Review Standards which are distributed over 8 general categories. QM’s intention to be “holistic”. A QM review is intended to ensure that all parts of the course work together. The metaphor of a cake recipe might be helpful: Baking a cake is fairly simple if you follow the recipe and correctly measure and add the right ingredients (and the result is also fairly simple and straightforward: if you do it correctly, you end up with a cake). Reviewing an online course is much more complex: not only must you include all the “ingredients” but they must all work together to support the learning objectives. For example, you could have strong, measurable learning objectives but if they don’t align with the assessments, you still don’t have a quality online course. NOTE: Alignment = key concept in a QM review
  • For our short time together, let’s consider the technology cultures and divides of today. In the rush to “stay on top” of the digital work, it’s tempting to assume the latest technologies will magically improve learning. We could say we’ve done from the Lone Ranger cultures of the “early adopters” of technology in distance education (Bates (2002), Twigg (2001), Hagner (2000) to what we could call “the wild west” of using technology. Bates, A. W. (2002). Supporting faculty. In L. Foster, B. Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (Association for the Study of Higher Education Reader) (410-423). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. (Original work published 2000.) Hagner, P. R. (2000, September/October). Faculty engagement and support in the new learning environment. Educause Review [Online], 27-37. Available: http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm00/articles005/erm0052.pdf Twigg, C.A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. Available http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Innovations.html Surely, we’re aware of a digital divide – perhaps, no longer such a divide in access to technology, but a growing divide in digital natives and digital immigrants who we find in our courses. (See Prensky) http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/
  • For our short time together, let’s consider the technology cultures and divides of today. In the rush to “stay on top” of the digital work, it’s tempting to assume the latest technologies will magically improve learning. We could say we’ve done from the Lone Ranger cultures of the “early adopters” of technology in distance education (Bates (2002), Twigg (2001), Hagner (2000) to what we could call “the wild west” of using technology. Bates, A. W. (2002). Supporting faculty. In L. Foster, B. Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (Association for the Study of Higher Education Reader) (410-423). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. (Original work published 2000.) Hagner, P. R. (2000, September/October). Faculty engagement and support in the new learning environment. Educause Review [Online], 27-37. Available: http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm00/articles005/erm0052.pdf Twigg, C.A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. Available http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Innovations.html
  • For example, if a course is taught on an ‘island’ in Second Life with per-unit learning objectives no better than those found generally in courses offered through web 1.0 technology, we still have an inferior course (p. 182). Michael G. Moore (2007) reminded recently in his Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? editorial in The American Journal of Distance Education:
  • We need to consider or become familiar with what we’ve learned in the past about the impact of technology on learning. Future and the past . Old Kodak Brownie NO. 3-A Folding Autographic ( not sure what auto... stands for ) in the back Canon 5D with 70-200 F2.8 , all taken with Canon 5D Mk II and 50mm F1.4 and processed from 7 images to HDR with Photomatix. I'm looking for image to promote our Photo Club and upcoming Photo Expo 2009. Any critique will be very appreciated as always. Janusz Leszezynski Photography 2009 Uploaded on June 5, 2009 by janusz l to Creative Commons license http://search.creativecommons.org/#
  • Wisher & Curnow reviewed video-based instruction from motion pictures to the Internet. “It depends on the types of tasks being taught, the individual characteristics of the students, the role of the instructor, and the instructional alternatives available.” These are just a few results from previous research that we need to investigate and consider before we assume technology fixes learning. Wisher, R. A. & Curnow, C. K. (2003). Video=based instruction in distance learning: From motion pictures to the Internet. In M.G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 1315-330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Naidu, S. (2007). Instructional designs for optional learning. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education , 2 nd edition (pp. 247-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Despite the long history of distance education in the Western world, online formats that now dominate distance education are frequently criticized for not benefiting from awareness of that history, especially in regard to the importance the relationship between quality and course design
  • 6.3: Navigation throughout the online components of the course is logical, consistent & efficient. (3)
  • Garrison, Anderson, Archer’s community of inquiry model helps us understand the interaction of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Those need to be considered during the design of a course. If those are designed in, then the teaching (delivery) phase of the course will run more smoothly. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. http://communitiesofinquiry.com/model http://communitiesofinquiry.com/files/coi_model.pdf
  • 6.3: Navigation throughout the online components of the course is logical, consistent & efficient. (3)
  • A communication technology can be used for either or both functions Lessons from ADTED470. Penn State World Campus online course. Interactive technologies where community of inquiry gets played out.
  • There are the somewhat non-glamorous, but critical questions we need to ask for the technology components of our design.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Into The Future: Collaboration, Cultures and New Technologies If viewing from Slideshare: please view this presentation with notes pages visible.
    • 2. Stepping into Your Future <ul><li>Connecting students across California to a comprehensive, innovative, hybrid, anytime, any place, strength-based instructional program that teaches active reading, writing, Math and test taking practices in two courses. Helping students pass the CAHSEE, develop new literacy and Math understanding and supporting them on their future academic and career pathways. </li></ul>
    • 3. a Model Collaboration <ul><li>Stepping into Your Future: CAHSEE Preparation Program </li></ul><ul><li>Butte and Lake Tahoe Community Colleges </li></ul><ul><li>California Community Colleges Technology Center and </li></ul><ul><li>California Virtual Campus </li></ul><ul><li>UC, Santa Barbara </li></ul><ul><li>UC, Los Angeles, Center for Digital Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Los Angeles Trade and Technical College </li></ul><ul><li>San Diego County Office of Education </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty from CSU, Fullerton; Santa Barbara City College; Evergreen Valley College; LAUSD </li></ul>
    • 4. Responsive/Recursive Development Model <ul><li>5 month initial development timeline – April to Sept 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot phase using materials with students in adult schools and community colleges – Sept 2007 to June 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Using a parallel track of development & implementation </li></ul>
    • 5. The Technology <ul><li>Seamless entry for students with ‘Smart’ assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive lessons built with Flash integrated in a moodle open source LMS </li></ul><ul><li>Video for situated explanation of concepts, tutorials and demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Weekly live session in ‘Elluminate class room’ </li></ul>
    • 6. Engages Students <ul><li>Highlight synchronizes with instructor voice over </li></ul><ul><li>Video demonstrates ‘what it looks and sounds like’ </li></ul>
    • 7. A Statewide Presence <ul><li>Steps is offered in partnership with over 124 education entities; libraries and CBOs </li></ul><ul><li>Serving students and teachers in 39 of California’s 58 counties </li></ul>
    • 8. Hybrid Delivery Model <ul><li>Lake Tahoe Community College offers free, non credit, on line classes for Math and English </li></ul><ul><li>On site instructors enroll and support students locally </li></ul><ul><li>Co-teaching Model: using on line content specialist and on site instructor </li></ul>
    • 9. Demonstrating Effectiveness <ul><li>Increased student retention </li></ul><ul><li>Increased pass rates for the CAHSEE (38% more passed ELA; 45% more passed Math with 85% of students self reporting as ELL) </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing demand by teachers and increasing number of students enrolling – over a 200% increase in six months </li></ul>
    • 10. Meeting the Need Objective: Supply the College Pipeline <ul><li>Over 90% of students from the class of 2009 have met the CAHSEE requirement </li></ul><ul><li>STUDENTS PERSIST IN TAKING THE TEST </li></ul><ul><li>658 students from 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>1,113 students from 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>5,233 students from 2008 </li></ul>
    • 11. Value Added Investment <ul><li>‘ Test prep and beyond’ that supports basic skills instruction </li></ul><ul><li>On line format scales to statewide distribution without compromise </li></ul><ul><li>Cost efficient centralized services (CVC) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge that a multi institutional, inter-segmental team approach to development - works! </li></ul>
    • 12. Contacts and Websites <ul><li>Stepping into Your Future </li></ul><ul><li>Douglas Cremer [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Pam Thompson [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>LeBaron Woodyard [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>www.cahseesteps.net </li></ul>
    • 13. A continuous improvement model for assuring the quality of online and online components of blended courses through a faculty review process . WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck If viewing from Slideshare: please view this presentation with notes pages visible.
    • 14. Peer Course Review Feedback Course Instructional Designers Institutions Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Rubric Quality Matters: Peer Course Review Process TM Training Faculty Reviewers WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision
    • 15. WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 16. The QM Rubric TM <ul><li>Eight General Standards: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Overview and Introduction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Objectives (Competencies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment and Measurement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources and Materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner Engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner Support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility </li></ul></ul>Key components must align Alignment: Critical course elements work together to ensure that students achieve the desired learning outcomes. WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 17. Today’s technology cultures… and divides WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 18. From Lone Rangers to… <ul><li>The wild, wild West with… </li></ul><ul><li>Natives and immigrants! </li></ul>WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 19. <ul><li>The overall effect of the new technology will be negative and counterproductive, if interest in the technology draws attention further from need for reform in the way we design our courses… </li></ul><ul><li>Michael G. Moore, 2007, AJDE editorial on Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? </li></ul>WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 20. WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck See handout view for citation
    • 21. Impact of video on learning…Lessons from the past <ul><li>“ Irrelevant attention-gaining cues will probably have negative effect on learning…” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Repeated showing…will result in more learning, up to a point…then teacher-directed follow-up more important than viewing again.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Liking instructional television [video] is not always correlated with learning from it.” </li></ul><ul><li>Wisher & Curnow, 2003, pp. 326-327 </li></ul>WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 22. … online formats that now dominate distance education are frequently criticized for not benefiting from awareness of the existing long history, especially in regard to the importance the relationship between quality and course design (Naidu, 2007). WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 23. General Standard 6: Course Technology WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck Specific Review Standard What does this mean? 6.1: The tools & media support the learning objectives, & are appropriately chosen to deliver the content of the course. (3) 6.1: Do the tools & media support the learning objectives? Are they integrated with course material and activities? Are technologies used just for sake of using them?
    • 24. Garrison, Anderson, Archer model at http://communitiesofinquiry.com/model WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 25. General Standard 6: Course Technology WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck Specific Review Standard What does this mean? 6.2: The tools & media support student engagement and guide the student to become an active learner. (3) 6.2: Do the tools & media selected encourage the students to be actively engaged in the learning process?
    • 26. Functions of Communication Technologies <ul><li>Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide new information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured & delivered to whole classes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interactive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enables engagement (learner-learner; learner-instructor) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitated to allow for reflection </li></ul></ul>WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck
    • 27. General Standard 6: Course Technology WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck Specific Review Standard What does this mean? 6.4: Students have ready access to the technologies required in the course (2) Are required technologies easily downloadable; provided from institution or easy purchase? Are there clear instructions for installation? 6.5: The course components are compatible with current standards for delivery modes. (1) Do instructional materials, media, activities, and assessments make use of available technologies and meet current standards for widespread accessibility? 6.6: Instructions on how to access resources at a distance are sufficient and easy to understand. (1) Are instructional materials, resources, tools, and media easily accessible, obtainable, & useable by students? If a third party content is used, do students know how & when to access and to get help?
    • 28. <ul><li>More information: </li></ul><ul><li>www.QualityMatters.org </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>WCET 2009 conf: QM Collaboration, Culture of Technologies, & Std4 - Kay Shattuck

    ×