Published on

Instructional Technology Council Webinar, "Avoiding Shovelware: Innovative Strategies toward Improving Online Course Quality." Presented by Greg Kaminski, Susan Clark, and Beth Hale.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • 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
  • How do you recognize it when you see it? Brainstorm quality construction in home-building and liken to online course-building. Does it look appealing? Is it sound, safe, with a usable layout? (Is it instructionally sound , intuitive, organized, accessible, etc.) Important to be on the same page! My definition of quality in an online course is: The degree of alignment , engagemen t, and accessibility it possesses. What do most page-turners lack? ENGAGEMENT!!!
  • This is NOT our idea of Learner Engagement! Designing for engagement is something I always recommend.
  • Often faculty-developers are limited to 30 hours of curriculum development or released time for a 3-credit course. It’s simply not enough time for quality! So we end up with page-turners that are lacking in student-content interaction and engagement.
  • (Clip is the “Building planes in the sky” commercial). Developing eLearning while delivering eLearning really isn’t a feasible approach, but it’s what usually happens, at least first in higher education because development time is so short. (video clip at )
  • Time! Given the predominant model of faculty-development on online courses, how can we give faculty the time they need to include engaging activities in their online courses? Or is there a way to help them make better use of the time they already spend? Do we need more time or a better tool so we don’t waste time?
  • Need for reusable interactive learning objects that can be accessed and stored readily. These must be easily and quickly produced. Physics Instructor, learning to use BlackBoard put it this way, “What I really wish was that there was some easy way to capture what I say, write, and draw and present it to the students online. Not everyone has a smart board.” –David Reil, Physical Science Instructor.
  • The Smartpen happens to be 2009’s Most Innovative Education Product. First marketed as notetaking tool, but has many other applications including as an assistive technology for those with processing disabilities and even audio-tactile graphics for blind students.
  • I asked him to draw and write on the dot paper just as if he were using the whiteboard and teaching his students face-to face a 5-minute concept. Another example
  • Livescribe in K-12 Education: A Review of Scientific Evidence Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Smartpen Technologies for Improving Teaching and Learning – published by Andrew Van Schaack, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Download Research Support PDF a/pdf/education/Livescribe_K-12_Research_Support.pdf
  • Livescribe in K-12 Education: A Review of Scientific Evidence Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Smartpen Technologies for Improving Teaching and Learning – published by Andrew Van Schaack, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Download Research Support PDF a/pdf/education/Livescribe_K-12_Research_Support.pdf
  • Livescribe in K-12 Education: A Review of Scientific Evidence Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Smartpen Technologies for Improving Teaching and Learning – published by Andrew Van Schaack, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Download Research Support PDF a/pdf/education/Livescribe_K-12_Research_Support.pdf
  • Take questions then have them look at pretest and see if their answers would be different after the workshop.
  • Please complete the feedback survey in your email. Thank you!
  • Strategies4quality

    1. 1. Avoiding Shovelware 1 Innovative Strategies toward Improving Online Course Quality
    2. 2. Avoiding Shovelware 2 Susan J. Clark, PhD Instructional Designer Beth Hale, Chemeketa CC Learning Technologies Facilitator Greg Kaminski, Portland CC Instructional Computing Facilitator
    3. 3. What is Quality? 3 Degree of alignment, engagement , and accessibility.
    4. 4. Designing for Engagement Designing for Engagement Instructional Designer, Susan J. Clark, PhD Creating the 5-Minute Learning Object 4
    5. 5. Design for Learner Engagement 5 “ Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -Benjamin Franklin
    6. 6. Typical Time Allotment 6 Activity Time Meet with the Instructional Designer to plan the design of the course or project and to discuss training needs. 2 hrs Develop course objectives, syllabus, and introduction 5 hrs Locate and obtain permission to use resources 5 hrs Plan media production 1 hr Develop content 8 hrs Create Course Shell 1 hr Assemble and organize content into CMS 4 hrs Test course 2 hrs Revise as needed. 2 hrs Additional Activities 0 Total 30 hrs
    7. 7. “ Flying by the seat of our pants...” <ul><li>How is developing eLearning while delivering eLearning like the video clip ? </li></ul>9 7
    8. 8. Is more time the answer? 8
    9. 9. How can we provide high quality, engaging activities with so little time? <ul><li>Tool Criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>simple to use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>familiar </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>quick </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>inexpensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>portable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>compatible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>able to capture face-to-face instruction (audio, animated diagrams, etc.) and make it instantly accessible online </li></ul></ul>9
    10. 10. SmartPen™ Example 10
    11. 11. A Pencast <ul><li>example of John Sweet’s 5-Minute Learning Object) </li></ul>11
    12. 12. What’s Next? <ul><ul><li>Faculty developed LORs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More personalized instruction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consulting (Have Smartpen, will travel) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul></ul>12
    13. 13. Innovative Strategies toward Improving Online Course Quality Learning Technologies Facilitator Beth Hale Chemeketa’s New Course Development Process
    14. 14. Chemeketa Online <ul><ul><li>24,000 online students annually (unduplicated headcount) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15 % of college enrollment is online </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10-15 new online courses per term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tech Hub support: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 FT instructional designers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 PT faculty support </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Media production specialist </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. The Intake process Intake process
    16. 16. The Course Develop – ment process
    17. 17. <ul><li>Step 1: Initial Consultation Meeting </li></ul><ul><li>Meeting with faculty Tech Hub contact to discuss: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the course development timeline, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quality Matters rubric, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>an overview of the eLearn [CE8] system, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>course design and online teaching methods, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tech Hub training and support options, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>schedule final review date </li></ul></ul></ul>New Course Development Process
    18. 18. <ul><li>Step 2: Media Consultation Meeting </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation with the media specialist as needed for multimedia projects such as video, audio, Adobe Presenter and Connect, Web 2.0 tools, and other media use in online courses. </li></ul>New Course Development Process
    19. 19. <ul><li>Step 3: New Online Instructor Training </li></ul><ul><li>Recommended for all new online instructors, and required for faculty receiving curriculum development funding. </li></ul><ul><li>The eLearn Institute is our comprehensive new instructor training course, and is offered every term. </li></ul>New Course Development Process
    20. 20. New Course Development Process <ul><li>Step 4: Final Course Readiness Review </li></ul><ul><li>The course is reviewed before the term begins with the Course Readiness Review checklist. </li></ul><ul><li>A final consultation meeting for faculty and their tech hub contact to discuss the final review and other start-of-term information. </li></ul>
    21. 21. Course Readiness Checklist
    22. 22. Course Readiness Checklist
    23. 23. Course Readiness Checklist
    24. 24. Course Readiness Checklist
    25. 25. Innovative Strategies toward Improving Online Course Quality Instructional Computing Facilitator Greg Kaminski The Use of Online Faculty Mentors
    26. 26. Portland Community College <ul><li>90,000 students </li></ul><ul><li>Roughly 22,000 FTE </li></ul><ul><li>4 main campuses </li></ul><ul><li>18 - 22% of college enrollment online </li></ul><ul><li>400 - 450 course sections / term </li></ul><ul><li>25 - 30 new or revised courses / term </li></ul><ul><li>2 designers – initial process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 Instructional Technology Specialists to assist </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Addressing Course Quality Issues <ul><li>New instructor training (online + f2f) </li></ul><ul><li>More interactive technology to address different learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Best Practices sharing sessions </li></ul><ul><li>“Online Faculty Mentor” program </li></ul>
    28. 28. Avoiding shovelware <ul><li>Direct use of PowerPoint designed for classroom lectures (ineffective online) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Add voice through Camtasia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trained by Instructional Support Specialists </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time consuming process, but worthwhile for subject that doesn’t change often, e.g. Art History </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Elluminate for synchronous interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Wimba Voice Tools for voice introductions, explanations, discussions </li></ul>
    29. 29. Best Practices Sharing Sessions <ul><li>Virtual sessions for instructors to share </li></ul><ul><li>Elluminate (recorded) </li></ul><ul><li>Themes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promoting interaction & community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment methods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publisher resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Graphics & multimedia use </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Course Quality Assessment <ul><li>Prior to 2005: course design checklist </li></ul><ul><li>Sp 2005: Simplified version of Quality Matters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Designer recommends / Dean approves </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Winter 2007: Quality Matters at “70% level” </li></ul>
    31. 31. Results of Review Process <ul><li>Improved course quality, with issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Huge time commitment for 2 people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult to hire more designers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large number of old courses never reviewed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited SME scope </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Online Faculty Mentor <ul><li>Inspired by “Online Faculty Lead” approach at Front Range Community College, CO </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14 online lead faculty cover the disciplines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assist with getting faculty trained, course assignments, course reviews, student advising, development of standards </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. PCC Online Faculty Mentor (Pilot) Program <ul><li>“ Online mentor” vs. “Online lead” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FT / PT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implied power </li></ul></ul><ul><li>8 mentors: cover many disciplines (not all) </li></ul><ul><li>Responsibilities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mentor new faculty in related disciplines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course shell selection (takeover course) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Input on training process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assist with development of standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Compensation: Hourly project rate </li></ul>
    34. 34. Results – Promising so far… <ul><li>Saving time </li></ul><ul><li>SME appeal </li></ul><ul><li>Better connection with the SAC </li></ul>
    35. 35. Issues <ul><li>Mentor time constraints </li></ul><ul><li>Follow-up mentoring – 1 st term </li></ul><ul><li>Takeover course selection issues / sharing intellectual property </li></ul><ul><li>Promoting college wide SAC collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Quick access to shells & all course reviews </li></ul><ul><li>FT / PT </li></ul><ul><li>District wide travel </li></ul>
    36. 36. On the Horizon <ul><li>More in-depth mentoring 1 st term </li></ul><ul><li>Ways to insure quality of “old” courses </li></ul><ul><li>Movement toward “core course shells” created by unified team of instructors (with input of the mentor) </li></ul><ul><li>Process for looking at “delivery” of course in addition to design ( Observation tool ) likely dept. chair instead of mentor </li></ul>
    37. 37. Questions
    38. 38. Have Fun!
    39. 39. Slideshow URL