Educause 08 Part 1


Published on

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
  • Educause 08 Part 1

    1. 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. 2. Welcome <ul><li>Introductions </li></ul><ul><li>Materials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Binder </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentation materials available at </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Seminar Overview <ul><li>Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools </li></ul>
    4. 4. Part I Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support
    5. 5. Web 2.0 (Twitter) and the World Simulation
    6. 6. WEB 2.0 <ul><li>Model of Diffusion and Other Considerations </li></ul>
    7. 9. Sources: and ttp://
    8. 10. Technology Adoption Lifecycle <ul><li> </li></ul>
    9. 11. Web 2.0 Tools and Distributed Learning Models
    10. 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.
    11. 13. Buffet Model <ul><li>Allows the learner to complete instructional sequences at their own pace </li></ul><ul><li>Various learning environments </li></ul><ul><li>Various supports </li></ul><ul><li>On-campus and distributed environments </li></ul><ul><li>Allows students to progress through material in the way and speed that is most appropriate for them </li></ul>Example: Foothill College, Math My Way
    12. 14. Blended/Hybrid (Replacement) <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Classroom attendance (“seat time”) is reduced </li></ul>Example: Estrella Mountain Community College, Learning College
    13. 15. 100% Online <ul><li>All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system </li></ul>Example: Rio Salado College Online
    14. 16. Models and Web 2.0 <ul><li>The containers </li></ul><ul><li>Redesign approach </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Discipline </li></ul>
    15. 17. What models are you most active in? <ul><li>Web enhanced (F2F) </li></ul><ul><li>Buffet </li></ul><ul><li>Blended/Hybrid </li></ul><ul><li>Online </li></ul>
    17. 19. Akker, 1998; Goodlad, 1994; Romiszowski,1981
    18. 20. Program and Course Levels <ul><li>Inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional mission </li></ul><ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Constituents </li></ul><ul><li>Administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul>Program Level Course Level
    19. 21. Object (Module or Unit) and Individual Levels <ul><li>Inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Technology selection </li></ul><ul><li>Development team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Designers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Media specialists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technologists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Granular, at course level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Constituents </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul>Object Level Individual Level
    20. 22. Delivery models, instructional development models, and support
    21. 23. Diffusion of Innovation ?
    22. 24. Experimentational Transitions <ul><li>Stages </li></ul><ul><li>Experimentation </li></ul><ul><li>Extension and transition </li></ul><ul><li>Standardization of support </li></ul><ul><li>Integration into curriculum </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Data collection throughout </li></ul><ul><li>Communication with campus community </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative culture </li></ul><ul><li>Strong connection to curriculum and disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>Robust support for the faculty and students </li></ul>
    23. 25. Support Models & Innovation <ul><li>Relationship to development models </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship to innovation and diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Centralized </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental/pilot </li></ul><ul><li>Decentralized </li></ul><ul><li>None </li></ul>
    25. 27. Quality Assurance and Web 2.0
    26. 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
    27. 29. QM Certified Peer Reviewers <ul><li>Peer Reviewers receive full-day training to learn </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to interpret the standards (with examples and annotations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to evaluate a course (hands-on with sample course) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reviews are conducted by teams of three peer reviewers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Chair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer reviewer (external) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer reviewer (SME) </li></ul></ul>
    28. 30. More about Quality Matters <ul><li>Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online and hybrid courses and online components </li></ul><ul><li>A faculty-driven, collaborative peer review process </li></ul><ul><li>Committed to continuous quality improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Based in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles </li></ul><ul><li>Designed to promote student learning and success </li></ul>
    29. 31. The Rubric is the Core of Quality Matters <ul><li>40 specific elements across 8 broad areas (general standards) of course quality </li></ul><ul><li>Detailed annotations and examples of good practice for all 40 standards </li></ul>
    30. 32. Quality Matters & Alignment
    31. 33. Essential Standards that Relate to Alignment <ul><li>A statement introduces the student to the course and learning </li></ul><ul><li>Navigational instructions </li></ul><ul><li>Learning activities foster interaction: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instructor-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Content-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Student-student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Clear standards are set for instructor response and availability </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment strategies provide feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Grading policy is transparent and easy to understand </li></ul><ul><li>Implemented tools and media support learning objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>and integrate with texts and lesson assignments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>The course acknowledges the importance of ADA compliance </li></ul>
    32. 34. Other QM Uses <ul><li>College quality assurance review processes </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines for online/hybrid course development </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty development/training programs </li></ul><ul><li>Checklist for improvement of existing online courses </li></ul><ul><li>An element in regional and professional accreditation </li></ul>
    33. 35. Intellectual Property & Web 2.0 <ul><li>How broad or inclusive? What tools or learning environments should be addressed? </li></ul><ul><li>How is maintenance of instructional products and systems addressed? </li></ul><ul><li>Employees or units involved in the production process, work time/course of employment issues, resources expended, or units involved? </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation within or outside established, controlled university-owned systems? </li></ul>
    34. 36. Copyright <ul><li>Connection to models </li></ul><ul><li>Open tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>YouTube </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Faculty perceptions of copyright and fair use </li></ul><ul><li>Liability issues </li></ul><ul><li>Student education </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices </li></ul>
    35. 37. Three Questions <ul><li>Describe existing instructional delivery and development models for integrating technology into instruction. </li></ul><ul><li>What are your teaching and learning goals for Web 2.0 tools? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the support issues that will need to be addressed to achieve your Web 2.0 goals? </li></ul>