Going Blended: Training, Development, Assessment


Published on

Sloan Consortium International Conference on Online Learning, November 2011, Orlando, FL

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
  • jen
  • jen
  • Tracey and Damonslides 5-28
  • Jen
  • Jen
  • Should we ditch this???
  • First bullett:Even better if this can be done with a "control" face-to-face class.Use a rubric for discussion boards all semester (tied to a SLO) aimed at identifying growth.
  • Here are some key points to consider when you put together your course that are taken from the Quality Matters ™ Rubric: Do the types of assessment you chose measure your SLOs?Are the types of assessment (for example, a written essay) you chose consistent with course activities and resources?Do your course materials contribute to your SLOs at both the course and module level?Do your learning activities (for example, class debate) promote student achievement of yo
  • The central question is did the blend positively or negatively or not at all affect student learning?
  • Going Blended: Training, Development, Assessment

    1. 1. Going Blended:Training • Development • Assessment Sloan-C International Conference for Online Learning November 10, 2011
    2. 2. PresentersJeannette E. Riley Professor, English & Womens Studies Academic Director of Online EducationTracey Russo Instructional Technology Manager CITS – Instructional DevelopmentDamon N. Gatenby Instructional Technologist CITS – Instructional Development
    3. 3. OverviewBased on a grant funded project, this session discussesthe methodology for faculty blended learning trainingand course (re)design and showcases representativecourses.Presenters share assessment program and peer mentorprogram designed to engage faculty in developingeffective blended learning experiences.
    4. 4. Implementation of Blended Learning for the Improvement of Student Learning (IBIS)• 3-year project began in Summer 2010• Davis Educational Foundation Grant• Goals: – engage faculty in the development of effective blended courses – assist faculty in developing effective tools and methods to incorporate a culture of assessment and scholarly teaching into their practices
    5. 5. Project Plan• Faculty training program• Faculty program to develop faculty understanding of best practices in assessment• Faculty peer mentorship program to facilitate culture of collaboration and reflection• Dissemination of faculty experiences (“Blended Learning Impacting Student Learning;” Friday, Nov. 11th, 2:25pm; Asia 5)
    6. 6. Engaging the Faculty in Blended Course Design
    7. 7. How the Training Works• Kick off meeting-f2f• Online training- 2 weeks• Required consultation w/ ID team• Optional f2f sessions• Develop draft• Course plan presentations-f2f• Refine plan• Final plan
    8. 8. Blended Training• Review -- Online Teaching and Learning Strategies• Blended Learning Module• Assessment Module• Developing Your Course Plan
    9. 9. Blended Learning Module• Defining blended learning• Strategies for finding the mix• Challenges of blended learning
    10. 10. Assessing Blend learning• Mentors intro• How do we measuring student learning• Backward design• SLO• Alignment
    11. 11. Developing Course Plan• Mini-assessment plan for presentation – Select a central learning objective – Develop assignment(s) – Draft out assessment plan• Final course design and assessment plan• Blended learning rubric
    12. 12. Blended Learning Rubric
    13. 13. How are faculty blending?• Discussion forums based on readings and short online activities were incorporated into the blended course and were designed to replace some f2f class discussions.• Online Essay Peer feedbacks within group discussion board.
    14. 14. How are faculty blending?• Before-class online quizzes were completed after viewing the posted PowerPoint slides and textbook readings in preparation for f2f class.• A course research project was facilitated via an online module with steps to follow throughout several weeks of the semester.
    15. 15. How are faculty blending?• Students utilized a wiki used to post concepts and terminology from class.• Students created individual wiki pages to create their semester project (writings, embedded images, and reflections) and allowed students to review and comment on each other’s work.
    16. 16. Training Best Practices• Model blended learning• Pedagogy first• Faculty/mentor participation key!• Incentives motivate• Utilize tools via LMS• Familiarity with instructional tools
    17. 17. Keys to Faculty Success• Start small and keeping it simple• Review of the training• Rethinking teaching strategies• Discussion/encouragement of colleagues• Better understanding of technologies• Having an experienced mentor
    18. 18. Lessons Learned• Limiting to one SLO• 1-2 technologies• Required meeting with instructional staff• Better understanding of blended learning for student• Start early• Instructional support staff... be nosey!• Student support/training
    19. 19. Questions?
    20. 20. Technology used in the Blend
    21. 21. Instructional Technology Employed• LMS (Blackboard Vista) – Quizzing – Discussion boards• Wikis (Wikispaces)• Blogs (Wordpress)• Wimba Classroom• Wimba Voice Tools• Personal Response Systems (iClicker)• Streaming Audio & Video• Learning Objects• Lecture Capture (Currently piloting)
    22. 22. Choosing the Right Tools• Faculty has objective to be facilitated through technology.• Instructional Development recommends a technology solution – Low barrier for student use. – Leverage existing, industry standard and best-in- class tools. – Provide support for faculty and students.
    23. 23. Using Synchronous Tools in a Blended FormatBenefits Pitfalls• Recreate classroom • Expecting students to discussion experience. attend live sessions at same time as the f2f class.• Collaboratively work on graphs, documents and • Does not replace well structured asynchronous presentations. assignments. • Requires somewhat tech- savvy students or a robust support system. • Using the tool for lecture capture only.
    24. 24. Using Asynchronous Tools in a Blended FormatBenefits Pitfalls• Enables flexible group • Using asynchronous tools to communication. facilitate synchronous – Textual or audio interaction.• Allows learner to participate – Use the right tool on their own time. • Not providing enough guidance for students to work independently.
    25. 25. Faculty Support• Workshops – Webinars• 1 on 1 sessions – Drop-ins• Technology Demos – Live – Video Tutorial• Teaching and Technology Conference
    26. 26. Questions?
    27. 27. Does it Work: Implementing Assessment Practices
    28. 28. Close Up: The Assessment Module
    29. 29. Assessment• Module designed to engage faculty in assessment practices – Discussion based – Collaborative exercises
    30. 30. Assessment• Broad definition of “learning” – Evidence of student improvement in understanding content – Evidence of student improvement in applying content knowledge and skills – Evidence of changes in student behavior (e.g. improved writing processes; more time spent on readings; increased class participation)
    31. 31. Updating Bloom’s Taxonomy Create Generate, Plan, Synthesize, Produce the new Evaluate Critique or judge based on explicit standards/criteria Analyze Break down, Relate parts and whole, Organize Apply Follow procedures to solve problems or carry out tasks Understand Connect new learning to prior knowledge by interpreting, classifying, comparing, summarizing, etc. Remember Elaborate, Encode, and Retrieve information form long-term memory(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
    32. 32. Developing Assessment Skills• Focused on student learning objectives – Discussions to evaluate sample SLO – Presentation of targeted SLO• Backward Design
    33. 33. Defining Terms• Assessment = for example, a quiz or a composition that measures student accomplishment of one or more of your SLOs.• Learning activity = an activity that facilitates student achievement of one or more of your SLOs by actively engaging the students with course content.
    34. 34. Suggested Strategies• Compare test results of a face-to-face class with a blended class of the same course• Compare writing results - using the same rubric of a face-to-face class with a blended class of the same course
    35. 35. More Suggested Strategies• Pre/post testing of knowledge. Have students respond to a test of knowledge at the beginning of the semester and then have them answer same test at the end.• Do a pre/post survey of student behavior patterns (e.g. ask students to self-assess their writing strategies and then re-assess at the end of the course)
    36. 36. Develop a Plan• Development of Assessment Plan – Review and feedback from cohort and external reviewers – Mentor reviews course site and course plan using campus developed Blended Learning Quality Rubric• Plans revised and resubmitted – Plans used for IRB approval
    37. 37. Post-Course• Final project report from individual faculty – Provides overview of course and what you redesigned for the IBIS project – Explains data collected – Provides data analysis and conclusions about the course experience – Provides section outlining peer mentor experience
    38. 38. Peer Mentor Program• Mentoring Goal: to develop a culture of collaborative exchange and open discussion about teaching practices• There are four guiding points: – PEER mentoring. Mentor will not necessarily have more knowledge or experience than the mentee. – Focus is on student learning not instructor evaluation. – It is the responsibility of both parties to start and maintain the interaction. – Both the mentor and mentee will do a final report.
    39. 39. Mentoring ProcessMentor Mentee• Determine whether the • ID primary learning online tool being employed objective enhanced through meets stated objective. online process.• Determine if the specific • Explain how online tool will online tool(s) being meet learning objective employed are the primary (and enhance objective) means of achieving the – Why online at all? intended goal. – Why specific online ‘tool’ – Alternatives offered chosen?
    40. 40. Implementation• Mentee determines learning module to apply online tools – Includes both live (f2f) and online sessions• Mentor appears at both live and online sessions• Mentor assess interactions (experience) – ‘Should work’• Mentor measures personal assessment with student interviews – Self-assessment of learning experience with use of online tool. • ‘Perception it worked’
    41. 41. Peer Mentor Program• Faculty mentors: – Commit to two f2f class observations and two observations of course site/online sessions – Serve as sounding board for faculty engaged in blended course implementation• Faculty mentees: – Write final report on course experience including comments on mentor-mentee experience
    42. 42. Mentor Final Report• Provides an overview of the mentoring process you enacted with your mentee.• Includes course observation notes (face to face and online)• Analyzes the mentor-mentee experience. What worked well? What didnt work well?
    43. 43. ResourcesUMassD Blended Learning Initiative http://www.umassd.edu/ofd/blendedlearninginitiative/Blended Learning Resources http://instructionaldev.umassd.wikispaces.net/Blended+LearningCITS/Instructional Development Team idteam@umassd.eduOffice of Faculty Development http://www.umassd.edu/ofd/
    44. 44. Questions?