Using Sakai to meet accreditation standards

792 views

Published on

Roger Williams University shares how they are using the portfolio tools within the Sakai CLE to create a virtual accreditation platform and meet accreditation standards.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
792
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Using Sakai to meet accreditation standards

  1. 1. Roger  Williams  University:    Using  Sakai  to  meet  accredita7on  standards   A  Collabora)on  between  the     School  of  Architecture,  Art  and  Historic  Preserva)on     and  Department  of  Instruc)onal  Design     Dean  Stephen  White,  Greg  Laramie,  Linda  Beith,  Russell  Beauchemin
  2. 2. About  RWU  SAAHP  •  1999-­‐  programs  in  Architecture,  Art,  and   Historic  Preserva)on  were  brought  together    •  Core  Values:     –  learning  in  context;  seeking  balance  •  500  students  •  27  FT  faculty  and  30  PT  •  Programs  abroad:  Florence,  Prague,  Vienna,   Brazil,  Argen)na,  Egypt,  Amsterdam,  Turkey   and  growing!  
  3. 3. Ini)al  Goal  2011-­‐2012  Virtual  Accredita)on  Visit  from  the  Na)onal  Architectural  Accredi)ng  Board  (NAAB)   Virtual  Accredita)on   Sample  Accredita)on  Evidence  Room  
  4. 4. Challenge  •  Crea7ng  a  Program  Curriculum  Map  -­‐   Iden)fying  which  courses,  and  which   assignments  within  courses  would   address:   – 32  NAAB  standards   – 2  levels  of  achievement:     • Ability   • Understanding  
  5. 5. Solu)on:  SAAHP  Program  Map  
  6. 6. Challenge  •  Collec7ng  student  work  in  electronic  form  for   a  wide  range  of  courses  as  a  manageable   process  for  both  students  and  faculty  
  7. 7. Solu)on:  •  Implement  BRIDGES/SAKAI     Collabora)ve  Learning  Environment  (CLE)  •  Add  electronic  assignments  to  each   Architecture  course   DIGITAL  VIDEO   SAKAI  ASSIGNMENTS   DIGITAL  PHOTOS   SCANS   PDF    DOCUMENTS  
  8. 8. Bridges  CLE  allows  for  electronic  submission  of  assignments  
  9. 9. Bridges  assignment  submissions  are  aggregated  in  the  course,  graded  and  linked  to  course  matrix  in  this  space  
  10. 10. Challenge  •  Tagging  student  assignment   submissions  as  sa)sfying  specific   criteria  at  either  of  two  levels  of   achievement  
  11. 11. Solu)on:  •  Develop  Course  Matrices  for  each   Architecture  course  on  Bridges  •  Link  assignments  to  Matrix  Cell   by  standard  and  level  of   achievement  
  12. 12. Students  upload  assignments  that  automa7cally  link  to  the  appropriate  standard  set  up  by  instructors  
  13. 13. Note  that  with  a  simple  click  a  faculty  member  can  link  an  assignment  in  Sakai  to  a  specific  cell  in  a  matrix.  This  linking  a`aches  tags  to  the  data  that  iden)fy  it  by  standard  and  level  of    achievement  without  any  addi)onal  work.  
  14. 14. Cycles  -­‐  First  Steps  1.  PLANES  –  SAAHP  Annual  Planning  and  Assessment   Framework  tracks  structure,  processes  and  outcomes  of   SAAHP  Program  2.  Faculty  map  courses/assignments  to  NAAB  standards  3.  Spring  2010  pilot  conducted   –  14  Architecture  courses  built  in  Bridges   –  200  students   –  12  faculty   –  U)lize  electronic  assignments  embedded  in  course   matrices  to  start  collec)ng  student  work  
  15. 15. This  Curriculum  Assessment  and  Review  System  (CARS)  is  a  web-­‐based  interface  that  aggregates  all  the  electronic    data  needed  for  the  accredita)on  team  in  one  convenient  loca)on.  
  16. 16. Note  that  our  SAAHP  is  )ed  to  four  sets  of  accredita)ons.  This  system  can  be  customized  to  fit  each  one.  
  17. 17. The  SAAHP  Dean  and  faculty  have  developed  curriculum  maps  for  each  program  that  iden)fy  which  courses,  and  assignments  within  those  courses,  supports  student  progress  towards  each  standard  and  level  of  achievement.    
  18. 18. Evidence  by  Course  Course  Folders  Aggregate  Student  Work   Faculty  select  samples  of  exemplary   student  work  and  some  low  level   pieces  of  student  work  and  move   them  into  the  appropriate  course   folders  along  with  a  syllabus  and   framing  assignments  for  team  review    
  19. 19. PORTS:  Evidence  by  Student  E-­‐Pordolios  Showcase  Exemplary  Work   Student  e-­‐pordolios  can  be  listed   for  team  review.  These  e-­‐pordolios   can  include  select  pieces  of   student  work  that  showcase   mastery  of  standards,  feature   student  reflec)ons  on  their  own   learning  and  development,  as  well   as  comments  from  instructors,   peer  reviewers  and  even   internship/co-­‐op  employers.   These  e-­‐pordolios  can  also  be   featured  on  the  SAAHP  website  in   a  revolving  gallery  to  illustrate  the   quality  of  work  done  by  our   students  to  prospec)ve  students,   parents  and  possible  employers.  
  20. 20. NAAB  accredita)on  requires    samples  of    high  level  pieces  of  student  work  (A)  and  some    low  level  pieces  of  student  work  (C,  D  or  F)  from  each  of  two  courses  that  demonstrates  student  mastery  of  that  achievement  at  2  levels-­‐  Ability  &  Understanding   Note  that  each   piece  of  student   work  chosen  by   faculty  is   accompanied  by   the  framing   assignment  
  21. 21. Individual  Student  E-­‐Pordolios  A  showcase  of  student  learning  
  22. 22. Impact/Results  •  Increased  student  performance  based  on:   –  Student  awareness  of  learning  outcomes/professional   expecta)ons     –  Observa)on  of  work-­‐in-­‐progress   –  Ability  to  reflect  on  goals  and  achievements  •  Increased  instructor  performance  based  on:   –  Observa)on  of  student  learning  across  sec)ons   –  Focuses  a`en)on  on  course  development   –  Fosters  collabora)ve  course  development  among  faculty   –  Collabora)ve  grading  of    team-­‐taught  courses  decreases   grading  ques)ons  and  increases  student  understanding   and  sa)sfac)on  with  grades  
  23. 23. Impact/Results  •  Increased  program  performance  based  on:   –  Heightened  awareness  of  program  objec)ves   –  Faculty  ability  to  see  whether  learning  outcomes  are   being  achieved  •  Building  a  sense  of  academic  community   –  Within  the  University,  student  and  faculty  mentoring   between  levels   –  Na)onally,  working  with  a  network  of  ins)tu)ons   engaged  in  similar  prac)ces  •  Increased  external  presence  through  publica)on   of  student  outcomes  and  showcasing  of  student   work  
  24. 24. Lessons  Learned  •  Start  early  •  Think  outside  immediate  soiware  constraints  •  Involve  faculty  from  beginning  •  Establish  file  standards  early  (naming,  resolu)on,   format,  etc.)  •  Iden)fy  faculty  mentors  •  Develop  student  mentors  to  encourage  par)cipa)on  •  Provide  training    and  technical  support  to  both   students  and  faculty  •  Plan  beyond  accredita)on  to  con)nuous   improvement  
  25. 25. Ques)ons??  Stephen  White  –  swhite@rwu.edu   Linda  Beith  –  lbeith@rwu.edu  Greg  Laramie  –  glaramie@rwu.edu   Russell  Beauchemin  –  rbeauchemin@rwu.edu  Photo  by  Davide    Res)vo.  Accessed  from  Flickr  at:    www.flickr.com/photos/somemixedstuff/2403249501/  

×