31 ĐỀ THI THỬ VÀO LỚP 10 - TIẾNG ANH - FORM MỚI 2025 - 40 CÂU HỎI - BÙI VĂN V...
Winning the LOTTO: The Ticket to Success in Supporting Online Course Development
1. The Ticket to Success in
Supporting Faculty Online
Course Development
Mariann Hawken § HBCU Leadership Summit
Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
October 29, 2014
2. Instructional
Technology
Specialist
July 7th - now
Instructional
Technologist
Sept ‘07 – July
’14
(1999 – 2014)
Presenter: Mariann Hawken
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Class of
2013
M.Ed., Instructional
Technology
Master of Distance
Education
3. Relevance to participants
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Lessons
learned can
be taken
back to your
institution
An instructional
designer working
with faculty new to
online course
development
A faculty member
interested in the
process and best
practices in online
course
development
A trainer
supporting faculty
at a university just
getting started in
online course
development
An administrator
interested in
starting an online
program
4. Institutional Background
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Bowie State University
Oldest HBC in Maryland
Centrally located between
DC, Baltimore, and Annapolis
Approximately 5600 students
and 200 FT faculty
25 undergraduate majors
19 master’s degree programs
2 doctoral programs
9 advanced certificate programs
5. Defining the Need - External
Online education is more likely to be considered
as necessary for survival by public institutions
& distance education enrollment is growing very
fast. (Sloan-C, 2010)
Distance education provides positive
alternatives to the rapidly growing population
of non-traditional students. (Folkers, 2005)
However, a “critical mass of adopters is needed
to convince the majority of [others] of the utility of
the technology.” (Baltaci-Goktalay & Ocak, 2006)
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
6. Defining the Need - Internal
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Loss of
enrollment
African-Americans
comprise 30% of
enrollment at
BSU’s sister
institution, UMUC
(primarily online)
Bowie’s 6-year
graduation rate is
about 35% (WaPo,
2014)
7. Defining the Need - Internal
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Lack of facilities
BSU residence halls can only
house 1400 students.
Classroom space cannot
accommodate more evening
programs.
Desperate need for new
humanities building to replace
aging MLK Communication Arts
Center
New science building scheduled
to break ground
8. Defining the Need - Internal
About 1200 sections offered per semester
90% of students want online access
74% of faculty want to teach online/hybrid
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
9. Further challenges…
Any instructor could offer an online or hybrid
course
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
However…
No department approval or awareness
No development required
No evaluation before/during/after
No training required
10. Fully developed
• Robust, full of content & assessments
Partially developed
• Pieces here and there
Absolute chaos
• All over the place, no organization,
rhyme or reason
Nothing at all
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
What we saw
over 10 years
in “online”
and “hybrid”
courses…
11. BSU’s approach
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Distance
Education
Policy
Quality
Course
Development
& Review
Faculty
Training
13. Course development &
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
review
Complete intent to teach
an online/hybrid course
Obtain training
* 12 workshops (or)
* Summer institute
Course development
• Allow one full semester
Course Review
• Revise course, if
recommended by peer review
process
•QM vs. ECP
Revise course
• Unanticipated technical errors
• Curricular/instructional needs
Deliver course
15. Trainers
Center for Excellence in Teaching &
Learning
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Consultants
Faculty
Information Technology
Consultants
Staff
Typically focused on
aspects of teaching
& learning, but not
necessarily involves
technology & TL
Previously focused
on wide-range of
functional topics,
later only LMS &
academic
technology tools
16. Summer Institute v1
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
2 weeks, delivered 2003
20 faculty participants
Social Work
Education Leadership
Teacher Education
Nursing
1 facilitator, 2 faculty trainers, 2 staff trainers
Sponsored by Center for Excellence in Teaching
& Learning with support from Office of
Information Technology
17. Impact of effort
Faculty paid $2,500 each (via grant)
However, none were required to provide a final
product.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Within 5 years:
Only 3 participant produced an online/hybrid course
2 participants resigned & 2 retired
The rest produced nothing
Limited knowledge of LMS / ed tech tools
No peer networking
18. Observations
Faculty development institute planned twice a year
Only 1.5 days each time
Limited schedule due to other required components
No centralized theme or direction
Lack of DE policy provided no structure for
requiring training for online course development
Subsequent training efforts had limited reach
Faculty demand fluctuated as much as their
attendance at weekly workshops
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
20. Survey of faculty needs
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
45% cited
need for
training
69% cited
lack of time
for course
developmen
t
70% wanted
a lab
experience
72% wanted
a week-long
institute
21. What the research said…
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Central place
to work
Central staff
support
Technical
resources
Peer
networking
limited/
unavailable
to
faculty
Pagliari, Batts & McFadden (2009)
Brown, Benson & Uhde (2004)
23. LOTTO Institute
Modeled after 2003 effort in concept
Time reduced to 1 week to accommodate faculty
schedules/vacations
Planned for 1st week in June
Lack of funding eliminated faculty stipends
However, we could provide meals
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
24. LOTTO Institute
Faculty identified and directly invited (year 1)
Years 2-5: open invitation to apply
75+ faculty and 3 librarians participated over 5 years
AVP for GenEd Assessment also attended
ENGL / COSC chairs also attended
Organized by theme/purpose per day
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
34. Day 1: Getting Started
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Focus:
Getting started
Readiness check
Bb profile & dashboard set-up
Evolution of course design/development
Understanding the context of teaching in the
online or hybrid environment
Understanding students
Planning the course organization
Conversation with Provost:
Gives faculty participants time to chat about
ideas, issues, concerns, etc. when teaching
w/technology
35. Day 2: Design & Content
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Focus:
Blackboard Content Creation & Management
Copyright & Fair Use
xpLor
Finding & Creating Learning Objects
Creating & Managing Multimedia
Hands-on Time:
Faculty practice with tools
Apply what they’ve learned
Ask follow-up questions
Allow for overflow
36. Day 3: Interaction &
Engagement
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Focus:
Blackboard communication tools
Discussion boards, announcements
Mail vs. course messages
Blogs, journals & wikis
Qwickly building block (goqwickly.com)
Retention & outreach tools
Starfish vs. Bb Retention Center
Bb Collaborate
Information Literacy workshop
Mobile learning & Web 2.0 tools
37. Day 4: Assessment
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Focus:
Blackboard assignments & assessments
University Testing Services / Respondus LDB
Best practices for building tests
Developing rubrics for authentic assessment
Grading & the grade center
Rubrics
Inline grading
Competency based learning
Achievements / badges
38. Day 5: Learner/Course Support
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Focus:
Course reports
Enterprise surveys
Plagiarism& academic honesty
SafeAssign vs. Turnitin
Exemplary Course Walk-Through
DE policy
Process to develop online/hybrid course
Course review process
QM vs. ECP
39. Impact of LOTTO
12 faculty trained in 2010
• 10 courses developed, designed or redesigned as online or hybrid
11 faculty trained in 2011
• 9 courses developed, designed or redesigned as online or hybrid
18 faculty trained in 2012
• 12 courses developed, designed or redesigned as online or
hybrid
22 faculty trained in 2013
• 16 courses developed, designed or redesigned as online or
hybrid
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
14 faculty trained in 2014
• TBD
40. Evaluating LOTTO
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Daily feedback requests
Survey Monkey
Anonymous
Linked in Blackboard
Emailed to faculty
End of program survey
44. Faculty Feedback
I enjoyed working with colleagues from
across the university. We formed a highly
effected learning community this week.
What I liked best were the presenters'
knowledge. They were not teaching from
a text nor had to go back and forth to refer
to any such object. I also liked the hands-on
aspects, although I believe there was
not enough of that during the sessions
themselves.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
45. Faculty Feedback
The training was great! It was nice to have
different guest speakers to provide more
variety. All of the presenters were very
knowledgeable and passionate about their
topics.
I enjoyed working with faculty and staff from
other departments and the collaborative
spirit of idea sharing that developed.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
46. Faculty Feedback
This was an excellent training. Not only can
you use this information for online
instruction, you can also use the materials
for face to face/hybrid instruction. I am
looking forward to going into all of my
courses and revamping them.
Great session. Should be mandatory for
all faculty. Assessment tools and
integration into Blackboard system are
critical to increase student outcomes.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
47. Faculty Feedback
The lab was practically standing room
only, but it worked!
I enjoyed most being exposed to so many
different ideas about how to teach class
differently.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
48. Faculty Feedback
Agenda is very professionally done. Links
to Blackboard menu items and making the
material available after the class is over
is such a great asset. The PM-5 /AM-15
type of tagging menu items was informative
way of organizing the presentations.
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
49. Faculty Feedback
I thoroughly enjoyed the LOTTO Institute. I
particularly benefited from the step by step
guidance for navigating Bb, practical tips
for preparing to teach online and the
awesome demonstrations of cool online
resources to enhance your courses. I also
appreciated the opportunity to interact
with other faculty across disciplines. Did
I mention the great and filling menu?
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
50. Post-LOTTO Support
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Weekly training schedule
Weekly walk-in clinics
Every Wednesday
afternoon
Open to all faculty
Any question
Office visits by appointment
Email and phone
51. Two sessions per year moving
forward
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Training
LOTTO
January & June
Develo
p
course
Support
Peer
Networ
k
53. • Design, development,
implementation and
evaluation of online courses
• What do faculty think they
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Lessons
Learned:
Assessing
Needs
know about building
online/hybrid courses?
• What do they really know?
• What should they know?
Determine the
knowledge gaps
that exist among
faculty.
54. • Technical – Basic,
Intermediate, Advanced
• What do they faculty think
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Lessons
Learned:
Assessing
Needs
they know?
• Anecdotal evidence: What
is my/your experience
working with them and
observing/helping them use
technology?
Determine the
knowledge gaps
that exist among
faculty.
55. • Pedagogy – Online/Digital
Context
• Have they ever taken an
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Lessons
Learned:
Assessing
Needs
online/hybrid course before
planning to teach?
• How do they currently use
technology for teaching?
Determine the
knowledge gaps
that exist among
faculty.
56. Lessons Learned: Program
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Design
Involve faculty with planning and delivering the institute.
Is there a faculty development unit?
A faculty advisory board/team for faculty development?
LOTTO
a team-training experience at BSU
Staff
Trainer:
Mariann
Hawken
Faculty
Trainer:
Dr. Katrina
Kardiasmeno
s
Consistent guest speakers:
Dr. Becky
Verzinski,
AVP for
GenEd
Assessment
Dr. Vicky
Mosley,
Coordinator
of Testing
Services
Monica
Luciano,
Staff
Librarian for
Acquisitions
SPONSORS:
OPAA CETL
57. Lessons Learned: Funding
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Weigh the pros/cons of funding
Who pays? Annual budget vs. find the funds?
Stable amount vs. flexible amount
How does the amount impact the budget?
Faculty stipends
Will there be requirements to receive payment?
Guest speakers
Meals
58. Lessons Learned:
Content/Schedule
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Allow time to plan the schedule
Avoid scheduling too much
Prep activities
Build in hands-on & flex time
Plan for contingencies
59. Lessons Learned: Program
Assessment
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Outcome Measures
How will you evaluate the effectiveness of the program?
Short-term vs. Long-term
Related:
QM / ECP (course design)
Student feedback on course
design & instructor
engagement
60. Questions?
#alnhbcu-hawken #hbcu2014 #aln14
Mariann Hawken
Instructional Technology Specialist
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Formerly of Bowie State University
mariannhawken@umbc.edu
@marihawk
Editor's Notes
Explain role at Bowie:
LMS admin – Blackboard, Turnitin, Smarthinking, Starfish
Support for faculty & students
Course redesign & online/hybrid course development
Faculty training
Instructional designers – layered faculty development & support approach
Faculty – not only best practices & process of developing an online course, but joining a community / network of other instructors in the same position
Trainers – getting started with putting together a comprehensive plan or restarting a program
Administrators – starting an online program or supporting an existing one
No online programs yet – moving toward online tracks (e.g., information assurance, nursing education)
Lots of competition from for profits with fully online programs, from University of Maryland University College (UMUC) with fully online programs
Many students work full-time, necessary evil – the 10 AM to 3 PM, M-W-F schedule is unrealistic for non-traditional students
Faculty need to know they’re not alone – they have someone to talk to about designing and developing a course, brainstorming teaching strategies
That someone can help them figure out the technology if they have more questions or need support
Graduation rate – 35% (6-year)
Graduation rate – 35% (6-year)
Sections are not all unique
Applied music may have 150 individual sections on their own!
Once we pull out the sections that don’t need course shells, we’re down to about 1000 or so courses
Most students were juniors and seniors who wanted gen-ed and required program courses to complete their programs for graduation deadlines
The University didn’t have any process to track online or hybrid courses – no consistent course codes for sections, no requirements for information in the course schedule.
If faculty had access to online software, they could offer a course at a distance – early courses at a distance were College of the Air through Maryland Public Television. Students watched 30 minute episodes, took quizzes or completed projects. Once COA was discontinued, these courses had to be converted to the online format.
Fully developed – comprehensive, well organized, assessments, discussions
Partially development – like the faculty started off with the best of intentions, but lost interest or got distracted or ran out of time
Absolute chaos – whatever, anything goes, some folders, some items, some courses looked the same in every single class, even if they were lower level or upper level right down to the assignment guidelines
Nothing at al – really nothing. Not even a syllabus
BSU recognized there was a problem – we wanted quality but needed to figure out how to get started. We could offer training, but that didn’t guarantee anything without a way to enforce it. We could have a policy, but if the policy didn’t include a process to review, there wasn’t much meaning. We could have a review, but if there wasn’t any training or support, it was a hollow gesture. The answer was a comprehensive, layered approach. All of these things meant quality if they worked together.
We started with the policy – it was born out of shared governance, starting in the IT committee and working its way through academic standards & policies, curriculum faculty senate, etc.
The policy had its foundation in Middle State, QM, AAUP, COMAR.
Took 3 years to get through FS with lots of negotiations over language, esp in context of faculty handbook. Areas of concern were copyright/IP and compensation.
Course development & Review – ideal scenario
Areas of challenge – lack of enforcement, primarily.
Then what defined a peer, whether the instructor could request alternative rubrics aligned to QM, whether an instructor could substitute training or demonstrate competency in lieu of training, what the alternatives would be in place for the provost if the instructors failed to follow the process in a timely manner
These are all issues facing Bowie today, but not what I’m going to talk about with LOTTO.
CETL – faculty development unit
Faculty PT director, FT admin support, no other staff
Limited budget, reduced over the years
DIT – Has been faculty friendly in the past, but not so of late
Staff were viewed as support, not as experts in subject matter or pedagogy (even if they had the education or experience)
Eventually the academic computing staff were transferred out of IT and moved under the provost’s office
Grant funded project
External trainer, former director of academic computing
Took place during former governor’s lay-off period, which meant one of the staff trainers abruptly left during the workshop
Faculty signed up through an application process, but there wasn’t really an approval process – everyone who wanted to participate was accepted
No requirements, no contract beyond attendance
Faculty institute covered a wide range of topics – required sessions, presentations, pedagogy. We were lucky to get a technology track, which we had to share with other technology topics, and time limitations (e.g., 90 minute sessions) limited what we could deliver. Instead of 6 sessions in a day, we could only offer 3.
Faculty said they wanted training, even gave specific topics, sometimes even signed up – but then failed to attend or attend regularly from week to week. We adjusted the schedule frequently to try and accommodate interest, offered online options and webinars. No luck.
We started surveying faculty needs.
My graduate capstone project on faculty development for online course development led me to develop 3-part strategy to provide support in 3 core components: Comprehensive training, consistent support, and strong resources. If all three were available, faculty would have a solid opportunity for success. Research suggested this would work very well.
My graduate capstone project on faculty development for online course development led me to develop 3-part strategy to provide support in 3 core components: Comprehensive training, consistent support, and strong resources. If all three were available, faculty would have a solid opportunity for success. Research suggested this would work very well.
CETL director had some funds, needed to spend them before the end of the year
Did not want to buy more technology
Wanted something that would benefit faculty in some way
Year 1 – we targeted faculty who already taught online
First year, we were also using a different LMS
Year 2, we switched LMS so the interest increased
Faculty came from a wide range of departments – humanities, STEM
Balance – technology vs. pedagogy
Faculty need to know how to use the tools and how to use the appropriately
Not the kitchen sink approach to using the tools, phasing things, trying things
Feed them – feed them well
Course shell available after training as reference
Guest speakers came from other University System of Maryland institutions
Coppin, Towson, UMUC
Bowie State library, gen-ed assessment, faculty who teach online
Course schedule is modeled off the Bb Exemplary Course Rubric, which we aligned to QM
We felt the ECP rubric’s organization lined up nicely to the 5-day format and helped chunk the training piece
Areas of weakness = not enough hands-on
Areas of weakness = not enough hands-on
Here is the course shell for LOTTO
Bb is hosted – using April 2014 release.
The nifty icons are made possible through Tweaks
Each day is organized with sub-folders for the themed activity and resources.
Evaluations were posted at the end of the day and emailed to faculty.
Day 1 also includes learning objectives, instructional module
Qwickly – batch post announcements, batch email
Using tech to improve your teaching
Course evaluations
Satisfaction surveys were posted at the end of the day and emailed to faculty.
Faculty were also given time at the beginning of the next day to fill out the survey.
THINK – subject matter experts
REALLY – just upload PPTs and handouts and build a test, and they’re done “set it and forget it”
SHOULD – learning outcomes, assessments, organization, engagement
THINK – varying degree of expertise
What I think is expert is actually intermediate
TAKEN – do they know what it’s like to take an online course?
USE – are they consistently using technology? Checking email?
Does the faculty development unit define the schedule and content?
Does the content stay the same from year to year?
Does faculty senate or shared governance play a part in approving the content?
Is there a certificate issued at the end? If so, what are the requirements?
Find the funds was our MO
Beg & borrow – CETL, OPAA, deans, provost, vendors
Flexible amount forced us to modify each year
Stipends = milestone requirements for course development
We started planning 4-6 months ahead for LOTTO
Meals take about 2-3 months to plan, depending on the budget – sometimes $$ must be encumbered ahead of schedule
Avoid the course and a half syndrome
Prep activities within the LMS – assignments, tests, drop boxes, presentations, etc. Faculty like to follow along.
Technology needs to work, but if it doesn’t, have alternative activities.
Evaluations – number of faculty participants, number of online courses, number of satisfied online students
Other - QM or ECP for the course, etc.
Also prepped a survey to evaluate the basic design of the course