Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Educause 08 Part 1
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

Educause 08 Part 1

526

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
526
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
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
  • Transcript

    • 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. Welcome
      • Introductions
      • Materials
        • Binder
        • CD
        • Presentation materials available at http://elearning-design.pbwiki.com/
    • 3. Seminar Overview
      • Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
      • Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0
      • Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools
    • 4. Part I Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
    • 5. Web 2.0 (Twitter) and the World Simulation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgbfMY-6giY
    • 6. WEB 2.0
      • Model of Diffusion and Other Considerations
    • 7.  
    • 8.  
    • 9. Sources: http://www.jeffro2pt0.com/images/web1_0-vs-web2_0.png and ttp://jensthraenhart.com/cblog/uploads/web20.jpg
    • 10. Technology Adoption Lifecycle
      • http://techticker.net/2008/06/06/technology-adoption-lifecycle/
    • 11. Web 2.0 Tools and Distributed Learning Models
    • 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.
    • 13. 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
    • 14. 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
    • 15. 100% Online
      • All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system
      Example: Rio Salado College Online
    • 16. Models and Web 2.0
      • The containers
      • Redesign approach
      • Pedagogy
      • Discipline
    • 17. What models are you most active in?
      • Web enhanced (F2F)
      • Buffet
      • Blended/Hybrid
      • Online
    • 18. INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS AND SUPPORT
    • 19. Akker, 1998; Goodlad, 1994; Romiszowski,1981
    • 20. 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
    • 21. 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
    • 22. Delivery models, instructional development models, and support
    • 23. Diffusion of Innovation ?
    • 24. 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
    • 25. Support Models & Innovation
      • Relationship to development models
      • Relationship to innovation and diffusion
      • Centralized
      • Experimental/pilot
      • Decentralized
      • None
    • 26. WEB 2.0 AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES/CONSIDERATIONS
    • 27. Quality Assurance and Web 2.0
    • 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
    • 29. 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)
    • 30. 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
    • 31. 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
    • 32. Quality Matters & Alignment
    • 33. 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
    • 34. 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
    • 35. 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?
    • 36. Copyright
      • Connection to models
      • Open tools
        • YouTube
        • Wikis
      • Faculty perceptions of copyright and fair use
      • Liability issues
      • Student education
      • Best practices
    • 37. 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?

    ×