Finding the Good Fit: Faculty Members,

Instruction, Evidence, and Technology

Patricia A. McGee, PhD

Patricia.mcgee@utsa.edu

Associate Professor/2003 NLII Fellow

Instructional Technology

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Texas at San Antonio

Veronica M. Diaz, PhDdrvdiaz@gmail.com

Instructional Technology ManagerMaricopa Center for Learning and Instruction

Maricopa Community CollegesAdjunct Professor, Northern Arizona University

Welcome

• Introductions

• Materials – Binder– CD– Presentation materials

available at http://elearning-design.pbwiki.com/

Seminar Overview

• Web 2.0: Diffusion, Instructional Development and Support

• Understanding Faculty Members and Learners and Web 2.0

• Content, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Tools

Part IWeb 2.0: Diffusion,

Instructional Development and Support

Web 2.0 (Twitter) and the World Simulation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgbfMY-6giY

WEB 2.0Model of Diffusion and Other Considerations

Sources: http://www.jeffro2pt0.com/images/web1_0-vs-web2_0.png and ttp://jensthraenhart.com/cblog/uploads/web20.jpg

Technology Adoption Lifecycle

http://techticker.net/2008/06/06/technology-adoption-lifecycle/

Web 2.0 Tools andDistributed Learning

Models

Delivery ModelsProportion 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.

Sloan-C, 2007

The Models

Buffet Model

• Allows the learner to complete instructional sequences at their own pace

• Various learning environments

• Various supports

• On-campus and distributed environments

• Allows students to progress through material in the way and speed that is most appropriate for them Example: Foothill College,

Math My Way

Blended/Hybrid (Replacement)

• 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

• Classroom attendance (“seat time”) is reduced

Example: Estrella Mountain Community College, Learning College

100% Online

• All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system

Example: Rio Salado College Online

Models and Web 2.0

• The containers• Redesign approach• Pedagogy• Discipline

What models are you most active in?

1. Web enhanced (F2F)

2. Buffet

3. Blended/Hybrid

4. Online

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS AND SUPPORT

Akker, 1998; Goodlad, 1994; Romiszowski,1981

Program and Course Levels

InputsGoals

Objectives

Standards

Institutional mission

Goals

Objectives

Constituents Administrators

Faculty members

Staff

Students

Faculty members

Students

ProgramLevel

CourseLevel

Object (Module or Unit) and Individual Levels

Inputs Objectives

Technology selection

Development team Designers

Media specialists

Technologists

Granular, at course level

Constituents Faculty members

Students

Faculty members

Students

ObjectLevel

IndividualLevel

Delivery models, instructional development models, and

support

Diffusion of Innovation

?

Experimentational Transitions

Stages

1. Experimentation

2. Extension and transition

3. Standardization of support

4. Integration into curriculum

5. Diffusion

Characteristics

• Data collection throughout

• Communication with campus community

• Innovative culture • Strong connection to

curriculum and disciplines • Robust support for the

faculty and students

Support Models & Innovation

• Relationship to development models

• Relationship to innovation and diffusion

• Centralized

• Experimental/pilot

• Decentralized

• None

WEB 2.0 AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES/CONSIDERATIONS

Quality Assurance and Web 2.0

Peer Course Peer Course ReviewReview

FeedbackFeedback

CourseCourse

Course Meets Course Meets Quality ExpectationsQuality Expectations

Course Course RevisionRevision

Instructional Designers

InstitutionsFaculty Course Developers National Standards &

Research Literature

RubricFaculty Reviewers

Training

Quality Matters Quality Matters Course Peer Course Peer

Review ProcessReview Process

QM Certified Peer Reviewers

• Peer Reviewers receive full-day training to learn– How to interpret the

standards (with examples and annotations)

– How to evaluate a course (hands-on with sample course)

• Reviews are conducted by teams of three peer reviewers– Chair – Peer reviewer

(external)– Peer reviewer (SME)

More about Quality Matters• Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty-centered, peer

review process designed to certify the quality of online and hybrid courses and online components

• A faculty-driven, collaborative peer review process

• Committed to continuous quality improvement

• Based in national standards of best practice, the research literature and instructional design principles

• Designed to promote student learning and success

The Rubric is the Core of Quality Matters

• 40 specific elements across 8 broad areas (general standards) of course quality

• Detailed annotations and examples of good practice for all 40 standards

Quality Matters & Alignment

Essential Standards that Relate to Alignment

• A statement introduces the student to the course and learning

• Navigational instructions• Learning activities foster

interaction:• Instructor-student

• Content-student

• Student-student

• Clear standards are set for instructor response and availability

• Assessment strategies provide feedback

• Grading policy is transparent and easy to understand

• Implemented tools and media support learning objectives

• and integrate with texts and lesson assignments

• The course acknowledges the importance of ADA compliance

Other QM Uses• College quality assurance

review processes• Guidelines for online/hybrid

course development• Faculty development/training

programs• Checklist for improvement of

existing online courses• An element in regional and

professional accreditation

Intellectual Property & Web 2.0

• How broad or inclusive? What tools or learning environments should be addressed?

• How is maintenance of instructional products and systems addressed?

• Employees or units involved in the production process, work time/course of employment issues, resources expended, or units involved?

• Innovation within or outside established, controlled university-owned systems?

Copyright

• Connection to models• Open tools

– YouTube– Wikis

• Faculty perceptions of copyright and fair use

• Liability issues • Student education• Best practices

Three Questions

1. Describe existing instructional delivery and development models for integrating technology into instruction.

2. What are your teaching and learning goals for Web 2.0 tools?

3. What are the support issues that will need to be addressed to achieve your Web 2.0 goals?