Case study shar e-fest


Published on

case study presentation about using peer review of e-learning courses as a way of facilitating professional development

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case study shar e-fest

  1. 1. Case StudyOnline Course Peer Review as a Professional Development Processsupported by the ASCILITE 2006 Research Grant<br />
  2. 2. Key questions….<br />Who was involved ?<br />Why the e-learning event was designed ?<br />What are the implications for future practice ? <br />
  3. 3.
  4. 4. Bethlehem Tertiary Institute<br />476 students<br />22 lecturers<br />
  5. 5. Research Outline<br />Small scale case study with six teaching staff who had a range of e-learning experience from beginner to advanced<br />Purpose: to develop a framework and process for collegial review of teacher presence in online courses <br />Framed in terms of professional development rather than quality assurance<br />
  6. 6. Why was the e-learning event designed ?<br />Very few ways that staff working online got feedback about their courses<br />Quality assurance ‘checklists’ often complex and daunting<br />Reframing the development of a process around a professional development focus would be less intimidating and encourage more ‘buy-in’ from staff <br />
  7. 7. Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000)<br />
  8. 8. Seven Principles for Good Practice Chickering & Gamson (1987)<br />Good practice in undergraduate education:<br />Encourages contact between students and faculty<br />Develops reciprocity and co-operation among students<br />Encourages active learning<br />Gives prompt feedback<br />Emphasizes time on task<br />Communicates high expectations<br />Respects diverse talents and ways of learning<br />
  9. 9. Rating process<br />Individual ideas – one of seven principles<br />Wiki refinement<br />Group brainstorm<br />
  10. 10. The review framework<br />Focuses on good practice in online courses in relation to teacher presence<br />30 primary indicators (‘must haves’)<br />41 secondary indicators (‘nice to haves’) <br />
  11. 11. 6. Communicates high expectations<br />Discuss with your neighbour what this might mean in an online course – how would an online teacher communicate high expectations ?<br />
  12. 12. Some examples from the case study -communicates high expectations<br />(a) can be communicated by positive lecturer comments<br />(b) explicit expectations for participation requirements including quality of participation<br />(c) expressing disappointment (privately to student after checking for other reasons e.g. illness) when students do not contribute <br />(d) provide model answers and exemplars for students which set a high standard including correct APA or designated referencing format<br />(e) generic comments and feedback given publicly to class about an assignment or task – strengths, gaps, items to improve <br />
  13. 13. Some other framework examples<br />Principle 2 – develops reciprocity and co-operation among students<br />Staff member provides good briefing and clear instruction on collaborative activity, manages group process effectively<br />
  14. 14. The Review Process<br />CAP = Collegial Appraisal Process using triads<br />Roles self-review (course lecturer) peer review (colleague) interviewer (colleague)<br />Review – course is reviewed for 30 primary indicators only<br />Interviewer guides the process using focus questions<br />Roles rotate for the next iteration<br />
  15. 15. ‘Do-it-yourself’ eMM<br />
  16. 16. Time spent (averages) …<br />Framework development per person 8.5 hours of FTF time – seven meetings 3.5 hours contributing to wiki 12 hours<br />Collegial Appraisal Process per person 2 hours self-appraisal course review 4.5 hours three review meetings<br />6.5 hours <br />
  17. 17. What are the implications for future practice ?<br />You can ‘do it yourself’ for ‘best practice’ frameworks and process in a reasonable timeframe <br />Good match with other benchmark models (e.g. eMM) <br />Staff who participate in this process feel empowered rather than evaluated<br />The framework and process is then available for institutional use<br />
  18. 18. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi<br />Engari he toa takitini<br />My strength is not that of the individual, but that of the group<br />