Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director Dr. Rob Bruce, Deputy Director Ms. Shan...

Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director

Dr. Rob Bruce, Deputy Director

Ms. Shan Evans, Associate Director

Mr. Michael Sweet, Graduate Research Assistant

OverviewOverview

University Environment Introduction to DIIA From Assessment to Assessment

- Administrative and Infrastructure Outcomes

- Learning Outcomes

- Classroom Management Outcomes Pilots and Recommendations Audience Participation Questions

University EnvironmentUniversity Environment

2000 Gilbert Report on Technology Enhanced Learning

Finally, as the use of technology in instruction becomes the norm, the missions of CTE and the CIT, as well as some of the functions of MEC, will increasingly converge. Already faculty find themselves in the position of needing to assess the degree to which they want to include technology in a course before making a decision to consult with CTE or the CIT. Faculty seeking advice on on-line evaluation and assessment must decide whether to contact MEC, CTE or the CIT. Clearly this is an inefficient and ineffective approach to providing faculty support. A more effective and efficient solution would be to strive for a one-stop service for faculty that provides them with a seamless portfolio of instructional support services.

Recommendation 7.0.2: The Provost should respond to the converging missions of CIT, CTE and MEC by functionally integrating all appropriate services, activities and expertise in order to provide faculty with efficient and effective instructional support services.

Final Report of 2000 TELC

University EnvironmentUniversity Environment

2004 Kappelman Report on Technology Enhanced Learning

The committee recommends that the provost continue to respond to the growing faculty and program demands for TEL support by increasing the capacity of DIIA in promoting teaching excellence, providing instructional assessment, conducting measurement and evaluation of teaching and learning, and facilitating the integration of instructional technology. In addition, the relationship among teaching, learning, and technology should be investigated in light of outcome-based learning in order to inform and assist the accreditation process and improve our record of successes.

Final Report of 2004 TELC

Current Environment Current Environment

SACS ACCREDITATION

Reporting Group Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment (DIIA)

Criterion Number

3.4.14

Short Description

Technology-Enhanced Learning

Full Version The institution's use of technology enhances student learning, is appropriate for meetings the objectives of its programs, and ensures that students have access to and training in the use of technology.

Current EnvironmentCurrent Environment

SACS Accreditation Summary

At the University of Texas at Austin, technology-enhanced learning represents one stage in the natural evolution of educational methods, integrating pedagogical advances with those of design, interaction, delivery, and assessment technologies. To ensure that its use of technology enhances student learning, is appropriate for meetings the objectives of its programs, and enables students to have access to and training in the use of technology, the university draws on several resources, including

− the work of specialized university committees,− a centralized division created to focus on technology-enhanced

learning, pedagogy, and assessment,− program support initiated by individual colleges and schools,

and− initiatives pursued by Information Technology Services (ITS) and

University Libraries.

Promoting effective and innovative instructional and evaluation practices

Striving to bring about positive change in the teaching and learning process

Making effective connections by sharing and building knowledge

Promoting effective and innovative instructional and evaluation practices

Striving to bring about positive change in the teaching and learning process

Making effective connections by sharing and building knowledge

www.utexas.edu/academic/diiawww.utexas.edu/academic/diia

Integrating pedagogy, instructional technology, and assessmentIntegrating pedagogy, instructional technology, and assessment

Introduction to DIIAIntroduction to DIIA

Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment

MissionDIIA integrates pedagogy, instructional technology, and assessment

promoting effective and innovative instructional and evaluation practices in support of the University's core purpose and values.

VisioniDIIA (idea) people providing instructional services that

improve teaching to transform learning.

Position within University

DIIA is a centralized division which reports to the Office of the Provost.

DIIA TeamsDIIA Teams Administration Instructional

Technology Integration

and Development

Teaching and Learning

Excellence

Instructional Assessment and

Evaluation

•Central Administration

•Finance

•Human Resources

•Institutional Compliance

•Policy

•Research

•Strategy

•Consulting

•IT Design & Development

•Gaming/Simulations

•IT Campus Liaison

•Networking

•Programming

•Project Management

•Research

•Scanning

•System Security

•Tools/System Support

•Consulting

•Faculty Development

•Faculty Incentive Programs

•Graduate Student Development

•Instructional Consulting

•Instructional Design

•New Media Lab

•Research

•Technology-Enhanced Learning

•Assessment

•Consulting

•Course Evaluation

•Credit-by-Exam

•Instructor Evaluation

•Policy

•Program Evaluation

•Research

•SACS Training

•Student Placement

•Surveys

•Technology Evaluation

•Testing

The DIIA ApproachThe DIIA Approach

• Assessment

• Collaboration

• Infrastructure and Administrative Outcomes

• Learning Outcomes

• Classroom Management Outcomes

• Pilot Phase

• Assessment

• Recommendation

• Assessment

The DIIA ApproachThe DIIA Approach

• Infrastructure and Administrative Outcomes

• Learning Outcomes

• Classroom Management Outcomes

Individual ParticipationIndividual Participation

Think of a technology implementation you have either completed, are undertaking now, or are considering for the near future. What are the major steps of this implementation?

What constituencies are involved?

Reflecting upon what you have heard so far: What additional steps might you include?

Who else might you involve, and when?

Partner ParticipationPartner Participation

• Briefly share your story and concerns with the person next to you.

• Using the materials in the booklet and your own experience, help each other generate a list of:

1.objectives most in need of clarification in your project.

2.constituencies that could/should be involved in helping you clarify those objectives.

3.assessment steps and roles that these constituencies (and others) can help you can build into the implementation process.

Group ParticipationGroup Participation

• Any concerns that reflecting upon objectives, constituencies, and assessment plans helped address?

• Any concerns still not addressed that the whole room can help brainstorm?

QuestionsQuestions

Contact InformationContact Information

Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director

jashcroft@austin.utexas.edu

Dr. Robert Bruce, Deputy Directorrgb@austin.utexas.edu

Ms. Shan Evans, Associate Directorshan.evans@austin.utexas.edu

Mr. Michael Sweet, Graduate Research Assistant

m.sweet@mail.utexas.edu