Educause 08 Part 1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Educause 08 Part 1






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Educause 08 Part 1 Educause 08 Part 1 Presentation Transcript

  • 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
  • Welcome
    • Introductions
    • Materials
      • Binder
      • CD
      • Presentation materials available at
  • Seminar Overview
    • Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
    • Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0
    • Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools
  • Part I Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
  • Web 2.0 (Twitter) and the World Simulation
  • WEB 2.0
    • Model of Diffusion and Other Considerations
  • Sources: and ttp://
  • Technology Adoption Lifecycle
  • Web 2.0 Tools and Distributed Learning Models
  • 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.
  • Buffet Model
    • Allows the learner to complete instructional sequences at their own pace
    • Various learning environments
    • Various supports
    • On-campus and distributed environments
    • Allows students to progress through material in the way and speed that is most appropriate for them
    Example: Foothill College, Math My Way
  • Blended/Hybrid (Replacement)
    • 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
    • Classroom attendance (“seat time”) is reduced
    Example: Estrella Mountain Community College, Learning College
  • 100% Online
    • All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system
    Example: Rio Salado College Online
  • Models and Web 2.0
    • The containers
    • Redesign approach
    • Pedagogy
    • Discipline
  • What models are you most active in?
    • Web enhanced (F2F)
    • Buffet
    • Blended/Hybrid
    • Online
  • Akker, 1998; Goodlad, 1994; Romiszowski,1981
  • Program and Course Levels
    • Inputs
    • Goals
    • Objectives
    • Standards
    • Institutional mission
    • Goals
    • Objectives
    • Constituents
    • Administrators
    • Faculty members
    • Staff
    • Students
    • Faculty members
    • Students
    Program Level Course Level
  • Object (Module or Unit) and Individual Levels
    • Inputs
    • Objectives
    • Technology selection
    • Development team
      • Designers
      • Media specialists
      • Technologists
      • Granular, at course level
    • Constituents
    • Faculty members
    • Students
    • Faculty members
    • Students
    Object Level Individual Level
  • Delivery models, instructional development models, and support
  • Diffusion of Innovation ?
  • Experimentational Transitions
    • Stages
    • Experimentation
    • Extension and transition
    • Standardization of support
    • Integration into curriculum
    • Diffusion
    • Characteristics
    • Data collection throughout
    • Communication with campus community
    • Innovative culture
    • Strong connection to curriculum and disciplines
    • Robust support for the faculty and students
  • Support Models & Innovation
    • Relationship to development models
    • Relationship to innovation and diffusion
    • Centralized
    • Experimental/pilot
    • Decentralized
    • None
  • Quality Assurance and Web 2.0
  • 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
  • QM Certified Peer Reviewers
    • Peer Reviewers receive full-day training to learn
      • How to interpret the standards (with examples and annotations)
      • How to evaluate a course (hands-on with sample course)
    • Reviews are conducted by teams of three peer reviewers
      • Chair
      • Peer reviewer (external)
      • Peer reviewer (SME)
  • More about Quality Matters
    • Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online and hybrid courses and online components
    • A faculty-driven, collaborative peer review process
    • Committed to continuous quality improvement
    • Based in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles
    • Designed to promote student learning and success
  • The Rubric is the Core of Quality Matters
    • 40 specific elements across 8 broad areas (general standards) of course quality
    • Detailed annotations and examples of good practice for all 40 standards
  • Quality Matters & Alignment
  • Essential Standards that Relate to Alignment
    • A statement introduces the student to the course and learning
    • Navigational instructions
    • Learning activities foster interaction:
        • Instructor-student
        • Content-student
        • Student-student
    • Clear standards are set for instructor response and availability
    • Assessment strategies provide feedback
    • Grading policy is transparent and easy to understand
    • Implemented tools and media support learning objectives
        • and integrate with texts and lesson assignments
    • The course acknowledges the importance of ADA compliance
  • Other QM Uses
    • College quality assurance review processes
    • Guidelines for online/hybrid course development
    • Faculty development/training programs
    • Checklist for improvement of existing online courses
    • An element in regional and professional accreditation
  • Intellectual Property & Web 2.0
    • How broad or inclusive? What tools or learning environments should be addressed?
    • How is maintenance of instructional products and systems addressed?
    • Employees or units involved in the production process, work time/course of employment issues, resources expended, or units involved?
    • Innovation within or outside established, controlled university-owned systems?
  • Copyright
    • Connection to models
    • Open tools
      • YouTube
      • Wikis
    • Faculty perceptions of copyright and fair use
    • Liability issues
    • Student education
    • Best practices
  • Three Questions
    • Describe existing instructional delivery and development models for integrating technology into instruction.
    • What are your teaching and learning goals for Web 2.0 tools?
    • What are the support issues that will need to be addressed to achieve your Web 2.0 goals?