Published on

Published in: Education, Technology


  1. 1. Finding the Good Fit: Faculty Members, Instruction, Evidence, and Technology Patricia A. McGee, PhD [email_address] Associate Professor/2003 NLII Fellow Instructional Technology Department of Educational Psychology University of Texas at San Antonio Veronica M. Diaz, PhD [email_address] Instructional Technology Manager Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction Maricopa Community Colleges Adjunct Professor, Northern Arizona University
  2. 2. Welcome <ul><li>Introductions </li></ul><ul><li>Materials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Binder </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentation materials available at </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Seminar Overview <ul><li>Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools </li></ul>
  4. 4. Part I Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
  5. 5. Web 2.0 (Twitter) and the World Simulation
  6. 6. WEB 2.0 <ul><li>Model of Diffusion and Other Considerations </li></ul>
  7. 9. Sources: and ttp://
  8. 10. Technology Adoption Lifecycle <ul><li> </li></ul>
  9. 11. Web 2.0 Tools and Distributed Learning Models
  10. 12. Delivery Models Sloan-C, 2007 The Models Proportion of Content Delivered Online Type of Course Typical Description 0% Traditional Course with no online technology used — content is delivered in writing or orally. 1 to 29% Web Enhanced Course which uses web-based technology to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face course. Uses a course management system (CMS) or web pages to post the syllabus and assignments, for example. 30 to 79% Blended/Hybrid Distributed Engagement Course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online discussions, and typically has some face-to-face meetings. 80% + Online A course where most or all of the content is delivered online. Typically have no face-to-face meetings.
  11. 13. Buffet Model <ul><li>Allows the learner to complete instructional sequences at their own pace </li></ul><ul><li>Various learning environments </li></ul><ul><li>Various supports </li></ul><ul><li>On-campus and distributed environments </li></ul><ul><li>Allows students to progress through material in the way and speed that is most appropriate for them </li></ul>Example: Foothill College, Math My Way
  12. 14. Blended/Hybrid (Replacement) <ul><li>Blended learning courses combine online and classroom learning activities and resources in an optimal way to improve student learning outcomes and to address important institutional issues </li></ul><ul><li>Classroom attendance (“seat time”) is reduced </li></ul>Example: Estrella Mountain Community College, Learning College
  13. 15. 100% Online <ul><li>All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system </li></ul>Example: Rio Salado College Online
  14. 16. Models and Web 2.0 <ul><li>The containers </li></ul><ul><li>Redesign approach </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Discipline </li></ul>
  15. 17. What models are you most active in? <ul><li>Web enhanced (F2F) </li></ul><ul><li>Buffet </li></ul><ul><li>Blended/Hybrid </li></ul><ul><li>Online </li></ul>
  17. 19. Akker, 1998; Goodlad, 1994; Romiszowski,1981
  18. 20. Program and Course Levels <ul><li>Inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional mission </li></ul><ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Constituents </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul>Program Level Course Level
  19. 21. Object (Module or Unit) and Individual Levels <ul><li>Inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Technology selection </li></ul><ul><li>Development team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Designers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Media specialists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technologists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Granular, at course level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Constituents </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul>Object Level Individual Level
  20. 22. Delivery models, instructional development models, and support
  21. 23. Diffusion of Innovation ?
  22. 24. Experimentational Transitions <ul><li>Stages </li></ul><ul><li>Experimentation </li></ul><ul><li>Extension and transition </li></ul><ul><li>Standardization of support </li></ul><ul><li>Integration into curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Data collection throughout </li></ul><ul><li>Communication with campus community </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative culture </li></ul><ul><li>Strong connection to curriculum and disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>Robust support for the faculty and students </li></ul>
  23. 25. Support Models & Innovation <ul><li>Relationship to development models </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship to innovation and diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Centralized </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental/pilot </li></ul><ul><li>Decentralized </li></ul><ul><li>None </li></ul>
  25. 27. Quality Assurance and Web 2.0
  26. 28. Peer Course Review Feedback Course Instructional Designers Institutions Faculty Course Developers National Standards & Research Literature Rubric Faculty Reviewers Training Quality Matters Course Peer Review Process Course Meets Quality Expectations Course Revision
  27. 29. QM Certified Peer Reviewers <ul><li>Peer Reviewers receive full-day training to learn </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to interpret the standards (with examples and annotations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to evaluate a course (hands-on with sample course) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reviews are conducted by teams of three peer reviewers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer reviewer (external) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer reviewer (SME) </li></ul></ul>
  28. 30. More about Quality Matters <ul><li>Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online and hybrid courses and online components </li></ul><ul><li>A faculty-driven, collaborative peer review process </li></ul><ul><li>Committed to continuous quality improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Based in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles </li></ul><ul><li>Designed to promote student learning and success </li></ul>
  29. 31. The Rubric is the Core of Quality Matters <ul><li>40 specific elements across 8 broad areas (general standards) of course quality </li></ul><ul><li>Detailed annotations and examples of good practice for all 40 standards </li></ul>
  30. 32. Quality Matters & Alignment
  31. 33. Essential Standards that Relate to Alignment <ul><li>A statement introduces the student to the course and learning </li></ul><ul><li>Navigational instructions </li></ul><ul><li>Learning activities foster interaction: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instructor-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Student-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Clear standards are set for instructor response and availability </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment strategies provide feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Grading policy is transparent and easy to understand </li></ul><ul><li>Implemented tools and media support learning objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>and integrate with texts and lesson assignments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>The course acknowledges the importance of ADA compliance </li></ul>
  32. 34. Other QM Uses <ul><li>College quality assurance review processes </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines for online/hybrid course development </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty development/training programs </li></ul><ul><li>Checklist for improvement of existing online courses </li></ul><ul><li>An element in regional and professional accreditation </li></ul>
  33. 35. Intellectual Property & Web 2.0 <ul><li>How broad or inclusive? What tools or learning environments should be addressed? </li></ul><ul><li>How is maintenance of instructional products and systems addressed? </li></ul><ul><li>Employees or units involved in the production process, work time/course of employment issues, resources expended, or units involved? </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation within or outside established, controlled university-owned systems? </li></ul>
  34. 36. Copyright <ul><li>Connection to models </li></ul><ul><li>Open tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YouTube </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Faculty perceptions of copyright and fair use </li></ul><ul><li>Liability issues </li></ul><ul><li>Student education </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices </li></ul>
  35. 37. Three Questions <ul><li>Describe existing instructional delivery and development models for integrating technology into instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>What are your teaching and learning goals for Web 2.0 tools? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the support issues that will need to be addressed to achieve your Web 2.0 goals? </li></ul>
  36. 38. Part 2:Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0 Drs. Patricia McGee & Veronica Diaz
  37. 39. Asking the right question
  38. 40. Mapping the Learner Experience SEMESTER BREAK
  39. 41. Mapping the Instructor Experience SEMESTER BREAK
  40. 42. People - Data - Things (P-D-T) <ul><li>Over the past 10 years, teachers and students have increasingly relied on technology to communicate. At the same time there is a perception that teacher’s time on campus has declined. There is an administrative concern that student needs outside of class are not being met, and that lack of campus presence is an indication of teacher apathy. </li></ul><ul><li>What people should be included? </li></ul><ul><li>What data should be analyzed? </li></ul><ul><li>What things are involved? </li></ul>
  41. 43. Learners… <ul><li>Are intergenerational. </li></ul><ul><li>May have expectations from prior experience, personal style/needs, disciplinary perspective. </li></ul><ul><li>Have a range of technical abilities. </li></ul><ul><li>Require just-in-need supports. </li></ul>
  42. 44. Informal and “non-traditional” A part of ubiquitous networks Not so enamored of technology but believe tech skills may be an advantage (younger over older) learners are also …
  43. 45. Poll <ul><li>We regularly survey students about technology use: </li></ul><ul><li>Yes </li></ul><ul><li>No </li></ul>
  44. 46. 70% never used a PDA APX 50% never edited video or webpage using WYSWYG APX 50% never sent a picture via phone 75% never email via phone 68% never use phone internet Most do not blog, wiki, have a web site, etc. Digital experts?
  45. 47. Alt hough 66.1% have Internet phone most do not use (<18%; <1/4 use PDA) 69% < 20 hrs per week online 85.2% use social networks 1/3 create audio/video & games (mostly males) 8.8% use virtual worlds 1/3 use blogs, video/image sharing sites, etc. Digital experts?
  46. 48. Information Literacy? <ul><li>Determine the extent of information needed </li></ul><ul><li>Access the needed information effectively and efficiently </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate information and its sources critically </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate selected information into one’s knowledge base </li></ul><ul><li>Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally </li></ul>
  47. 49. 21 st century literacy?
  48. 50. Poll <ul><li>My institution has literacy standards that all students must attain: </li></ul><ul><li>Yes </li></ul><ul><li>No </li></ul><ul><li>Only some departments </li></ul>
  49. 51. Learners as novice <ul><li>Focus on discrete details </li></ul><ul><li>Capture empirical information </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on the use of formulas and previously learned strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Operate at lower levels of thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Caveat: Learners are not novices at everything </li></ul>
  50. 52. Novice-expert continuum Routine Expertise Adaptive Expertise Tests, papers, experiments, projects, internships, fellowships, mentoring
  51. 53. Mental Function and Skill Level: Five Stage Model (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980, p. 15) Novice Competent Proficient Expert Master Recollection Non-situational Situational Situational Situational Situational Recognition Decomposed Decomposed Holistic Holistic Holistic Decision Analytical Analytical Analytical Intuitive Intuitive Awareness Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Absorbed
  52. 54. Two Dimensions of Transfer and Learning Routine Expert Adaptive Expert Novice Efficiency Frustrated Novice (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000)
  53. 55. Supporting developing expertise <ul><li>Move from concrete/discrete to generalized patterns </li></ul><ul><li>Assess degree of expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Provide opportunities for learners to aggregate achievements, collect evidence, apply course learning outside of class </li></ul>
  54. 56. Disciplinary Foci Hard Natural Sciences Hard Applied Sciences <ul><li>Natural: </li></ul><ul><li>Logical reasoning. </li></ul><ul><li>Testing of ideas in linear form of argumentation. </li></ul><ul><li>Reliance on facts, principles, and concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>Applied: </li></ul><ul><li>Problem-solving and practical skills </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on integration and application of existing knowledge </li></ul>(White & Liccardi, 2006)
  55. 57. Learner Preference Hard Natural Sciences Hard Applied Sciences <ul><li>Online tutorials </li></ul><ul><li>Reference materials </li></ul><ul><li>Objective tests (also VLEs) </li></ul><ul><li>Support the mastery of facts, principles and concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative, closed assessments </li></ul>(White & Liccardi, 2006)
  57. 59. Learners: Disciplinary Foci Soft Pure Soft Applied <ul><li>Pure </li></ul><ul><li>Broad command of intellectual ideas. </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on creativity in thinking and fluency of expression. </li></ul><ul><li>Applied: </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on personal growth and intellectual breadth. </li></ul><ul><li>Development of reflective practice and lifelong learning. </li></ul>(White & Liccardi, 2006)
  58. 60. Learner Preference Soft Pure Soft Applied <ul><li>Synchronous discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Role play and games </li></ul><ul><li>Access to open web </li></ul><ul><li>Access to online journals </li></ul><ul><li>Support the development of argumentation skills and critical thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative, Open </li></ul>(White & Liccardi, 2006)
  59. 61. What best supports novices?
  60. 62. Learning Readiness <ul><li>Are learners ready for: </li></ul><ul><li>Online learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Technology mediated interaction? </li></ul><ul><li>Self-regulation? </li></ul><ul><li>New course designs? </li></ul><ul><li>Independent learning? </li></ul><ul><li>Self-assessment </li></ul>
  61. 63. Learner Supports & Assessment <ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><li>Access to online ICT services (Internet, email, server, CMS, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Production (assignments, presentations, projects, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Access to online academic resources (library, helpdesk, identifications) </li></ul><ul><li>Learning technologies (study skills, time management, etc.) </li></ul>
  62. 64. Styles & Support Tech Implication Possible Support Independent Portal, web site, portfolio, blog, L/CMS FAQ, walk-in help, email, video tutorial Dependent L/CMS, IM, email FAQs, help forum, phone help, walk-in help Competitive Portfolio, blog, presentation tools Mentor others, contribute to FAQ Collaborative Discussions, chat, wiki, L/CMS, VOIP FAQs, email, phone help, walk-in help Avoidant Portfolio, VOIP FAQ, walk-in help, email, video tutorial Participant Open forums, IM, VOIP, wiki Walk-in help, email, phone help
  63. 65. BREAK
  65. 67. No Yes
  66. 68. Emerging Technology Use <ul><li>Student and faculty surveys </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teaching approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Demographic information (age, gender, years of study/employment, and program of study) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Student and faculty focus groups or observation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classroom use of technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of course management systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preferences, limitations, and needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Document analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lesson plans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PowerPoint presentations or course handouts can indicate areas of technology use and can reveal instructional styles </li></ul></ul>
  67. 69. Web 2.0 and Affordances with Students <ul><li>Students are more comfortable with and have a tolerance for “figuring” out the technology </li></ul><ul><li>Students can deal with trial and error approach to use and change in general </li></ul><ul><li>Students have a broad exposure to a variety of different tools </li></ul>
  69. 71. No Yes
  70. 72. Characteristics Type Focus Expert Functions as knowledge expert and transmits information to learner who becomes more competent under the instructor’s tutelage. Formal Authority Focuses on correct and appropriate procedures , serves as knowledge expert who is determined to provide necessary feedback to learner within a structured and standardized environment. Personal Model Focus is providing personal examples and modeling appropriate and correct behavior . Facilitator Teacher-learner interaction takes place in a probing and interactive learning environment . Supports learner’s decision within a consultant role. Delegator Desire for learner to act autonomously with as little input as necessary.
  71. 73. Support Teaching Style Preferred Approach Implied Support Expert/Formal Authority (38%) Dependent, Participant, Competitive One-on-one, hands-on, reward/acknowledgement Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority (22%) Participant, Dependent, Competitive Hands-on, one-on-one, reward/acknowledgement Facilitator/Personal Model/Expert (17%) Collaborative, Participative, Independent Small group or peer/mentor, hands-on, tutorial/reference materials Delegator/Facilitator/Expert (15%) Independent, Collaborative/Participant Tutorial/reference materials, small group or peer/mentor, hands-on
  72. 74. Integrated Technology Adoption and Diffusion Model (Sherry, Billig, & Giiibson, 2000)
  73. 75. Web 2.0 and the Novice Faculty Member <ul><li>“ Context-free features” </li></ul><ul><li>Rules </li></ul><ul><li>Self-monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback and scaffolding </li></ul><ul><li>Discrete and non-ambiguous examples </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing opportunities for practice </li></ul>
  74. 77. WEB 2.0 CLASSIFICATIONS Communicative To share ideas, information, and creations • Blogs • Audioblogs • Videoblogs • IM-type tools • Podcasts • Webcams Collaborative To work with others for a specific purpose in a shared work area • Editing/writing tools • Virtual communities of practice • Wikis Documentative To collect and/or present evidence of experiences, thinking over time, productions, etc. • Blogs • Videoblogs • E-portfolios Generative To create something new that can be seen and/or used by others • Mashups • VCOPs • Virtual Learning Worlds Interactive To exchange information, ideas, resources, materials • Learning objectives • Social bookmarking • Virtual communities of practice • Virtual Learning Worlds
  75. 78. <ul><li>Source: </li></ul>
  76. 79. A Network of Support
  77. 82. <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tools not necessarily developed for an educational audience </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No obligation to users </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ever-changing </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Require separate logins/accounts/fragmentation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No centralized institutional support (usually) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reliance on internet connection (high speed) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of security </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning curve </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Variety of use and selection of tools could overwhelm students; lack of a common experience across courses </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intellectual property/copyright issues </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  78. 83. Instructional Technology Challenges <ul><li>The technology-adoption cycle </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of integrated technology tools </li></ul><ul><li>Learners’ changing expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional changes to technology commitments </li></ul>
  79. 84. Activity: Data, Data, Data <ul><li>Part I </li></ul><ul><li>Given examples of students and faculty members, how can you best support their utilization and integration of Web 2.0 technologies? </li></ul><ul><li>Part II </li></ul><ul><li>Given your responses, what kinds of services are needed </li></ul><ul><li>At institutional level? </li></ul><ul><li>At departmental level? </li></ul>
  80. 85. Part 3: Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools Drs. Patricia McGee & Veronica Diaz
  81. 86. Individuals + BIG Picture
  82. 88. Interdependence
  83. 89. Backwards Design
  84. 90. Backwards Design Applied
  86. 92. <ul><li>Encourage not only content achievement but assessment of perceived progress and attitude </li></ul>
  87. 94. <ul><li>Track factors that may impede achievement </li></ul>
  88. 95. Biggest challenge? Biggest advantage/success? Liked the most? Liked the least?
  89. 96. <ul><li>√ Incorporate </li></ul><ul><li>meta-cognitive assessments </li></ul><ul><li>√ Provide a strategy for self-assessment and progress </li></ul>
  90. 98. <ul><li>Package objectives with assignments, activities, and products </li></ul>
  91. 99. <ul><li>When appropriate, use rubrics for consistent and aggregated indicators over time </li></ul>
  92. 100. <ul><li>Include learners in performance/ assessment measures </li></ul>
  93. 101. R M R L I P I X E A R N
  94. 102. Pedagogical Frameworks
  95. 103. Instructional Foci
  96. 104. Bloom’s & Web 2.0 Processes Tools Attributes Remember Recognizing, recalling Visual/Text/Audio stimuli, selecting, feedback Understand Interpreting, classifying, comparing, summarizing, explaining Sorting, tagging, labeling, entering, selecting Apply Executing, implementing Manipulating, entering, feedback Analyze Differentiating, organizing, attributing Selecting, grouping, altering, tagging, labeling Evaluate Checking, critiquing Commenting, entering, responding Create Generating, planning, producing Adding, generating, combining, publishing
  97. 105. Tool Characteristics
  98. 106. Tool Characteristics
  99. 107. ACTIVITY <ul><li>Visit </li></ul><ul><li>Become familiar with the site and prepare to complete an activity. </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 Tools Affordances </li></ul>
  100. 108. Source:
  101. 109. Strategies for Online Assessment <ul><li>Group projects </li></ul><ul><li>Students as audience and peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><li>Rubrics </li></ul><ul><li>Pre- and/or post testing </li></ul><ul><li>Objective assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Subjective assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Self-assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive assessments </li></ul>
  102. 110. ACTIVITY <ul><li>Using a syllabus, consider which tool or tools can be used to meet instructional needs </li></ul><ul><li>Design an instructional experience with an assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Post to </li></ul><ul><li>Instruction + Assessment </li></ul>
  103. 111. Wrapping up & thank you! <ul><li>Patricia A. McGee, PhD </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Associate Professor/2003 NLII Fellow </li></ul><ul><li>Instructional Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Department of Educational Psychology </li></ul><ul><li>University of Texas at San Antonio </li></ul>Veronica M. Diaz, PhD [email_address] Instructional Technology Manager Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction Maricopa Community Colleges Adjunct Professor, Northern Arizona University