Friday, November 21, 2014

A WCET preso and info on our National Research Center for Distance Education and Technoogical Advancement (DETA)


Program excerpt 
Thanks to Russ Poulin, we were invited to present at the WCET annual meeting in Portland, Oregon today on our US Department of Education FIPSE grant to launch a National Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancement.  See our our entry in the WCET program at: http://tinyurl.com/n6exfxc.

I know many of you have been interested in knowing some more details of our grant proposal and our efforts over the next 3 years.

In this post, I am including our presentation (see below) here and a link to our handout. We have 7 goals and numerous activities that we will be conducting over the next few years to assist in accomplishing these goals.

The first year is really about building the foundation to conduct research on distance education.  As a field, we are quite fragmented in our theories and methods.  As @anya1anya was mentioning in the key note this morning, we have hard scientist and social scientists all studying learning.  The diversity in paradigmatic lenses leads to heterogeneity in our research goals, research questions, measure, instrumentation, statistical methods, qualitative methods, and more.  Therefore, we are looking to develop a research model in the first year to help us build coherency in the field and create a shared language for us to be able to talk to each other and to then collaborate on rigorous research.  Think of it as a how-to research DE.  Our outcomes of the first year will include what we are calling research tool kits that we will disseminate through our DETA community blog and through our partner ELI.  It is about giving instructors and institutions the tools to conduct research.

A vehicle to make this happen is going to be a DE research summit to be held at the ELI Annual Meeting in Anaheim.  We will be inviting up to 50 folks that have expertise in distance education, online learning, research, practice, administration, disability and accessibility, competency-based education and more to help us determine what are our desired DE outcomes and results, what is student success, and what are key research questions we should be asking.  Considering these research questions, we will be developing a framework of inquiry to guide areas of investigation and standard measures and instrumentation.

Although amazing ambitious, we are also looking to create a "cloud open data" system.  This means: 1.) it will be hosted somewhere by someone, maybe rackspace, 2.) we want it to be open for any institution or instructor to share their data or for any individual or institution to retrieve data to better understand a population of students, certain type of institution, an instructional or institutional interventions, and so on.  Not only will this data allow us to facilitate cross-institutional research for this grant.  It will allow us to build the infrastructure to propel DE research for years and years...and maybe years.  Now, there will be lots of implications to developing this, but oh so necessary based on current societal and educational research trends.

Now, I am not in this post going to get into the rest of the grant, but this is a good taste for now.  Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or to provide input.  Cheers, all!



Sunday, November 9, 2014

Nonverbal communication and classroom spaces, some references

I often refer to the research in nonverbal in the social sciences, specifically communication, as a reference for choices we make in our design of active learning spaces.  The areas of interest in nonverbal communication are usually referred to as environmentics (environment), objectics or artifacts.  Here are a few of those resources, but I must be honest, any undergraduate nonverbal communication text will have this information.  If we have additional resources, please post or send to me and I will add. Cheers!

Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010). Nonverbal communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    See Chapter 7.

"Messages are also communicated via the environment and the objects within that environment. On the nonverbal side, there are myriad environmental cues, such as building design, color, furniture arrangement, noise, temperature, and artifacts (e.g., paintings, flowers). These types of environmental cues often frame communication by encouraging or discouraging social interaction"

From: http://www.sagepub.com/edwards/study/materials/reference/77593_4.1ref.pdf 

Guerrero, L. K. , Hecht, M. L. , & DeVito, J. A. (2008). Perspectives on defining and understanding nonverbal communication. In L. K. Guerrero, ed. & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 3–20). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press

Guerrero, L. K., DeVito, J. A., & Hecht, M. L. (Eds.). (1999). The nonverbal communication reader. Lone Grove,, IL: Waveland Press.

     See Section E, http://senas.lnb.lt/stotisFiles/uploadedAttachments/16_The_nonverbal_communication%20reader201092723931.pdf

Burgoon, J. K., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Nonverbal signals. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 240-299.

     Burgoon talks about environment and artifacts (see p. 241).

Goodwin, C. (2003). The semiotic body in its environment. Discourses of the body, 19-42.

     Goodwin discusses the impact of environment on human behavior.

Knapp, M. L. (1980). Essentials of nonverbal communication (pp. 203-229). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Knapp, M., Hall, J., & Horgan, T. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Cengage Learning.

Knapp discusses the impact of the environment on human communication and specifically mentions active leaning spaces.

Smith, H. A. (1979). Nonverbal communication in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 631-672.

     Yeap, in 1979 they were talking about this stuff -- 35 years later and we are just getting it ;)

I must note that Guerrero and Floyd were faculty at Arizona State when I was completing my doctorate work.  Floyd was my Multivariate Analysis instructor.  Both of them focus in the interpersonal field where I focused more on organizational and communication technology.

Methodological resources

Here are a few of my favorite methodological "go-to" books or articles for quantitative and qualitative research.  Please share with me yours as well.  More or less, if you had a grad student you were mentoring, what are the "must reads"?

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis (Vol. 248). London: Heinemann.

Qualitative

General

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Link to Google Book: http://t.co/S6nYeQKxfL

Interviewing and focus groups

Kavle, S. (1996). Interviews. An Introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Link to Google Book: https://t.co/yDl4tzAl5N

     Kvale, Chapter 5 excerpt:
     https://t.co/2nwqkuGtJc

     Overview of Kvale, Interviewing
     http://tinyurl.com/74vb6at

     Kvale, Chapter 7 excerpt:
     https://t.co/mJshM84ElP

Discourse analysis

Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.

Link to Google Book: books.google.com/books?isbn=1317820584

Others:

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

Quantitative:

Allen, M. R., Titsworth, B. S., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). Quantitative research in communication. Sage Publications.

Link to Google Book: http://tinyurl.com/ksdo48p

Allen, M., Preiss, R. W., Gayle, B. M., & Burrell, N. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis. Routledge.

Link to Google Book: http://tinyurl.com/orpf4xr

Tracy, K., & Muñoz, K. (2011). Qualitative methods in interpersonal communication. The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication, 145-166.

     Nice overview of the differences between qualitative and quantitative methods and post-positivistic and interpretive paradigms.

Link to Google Book, see chapter 3: books.google.com/books?isbn=1412974747




Evaluating course design, instrumentation

My colleague @veletsianos was recently inquiring on instrumentation to evaluate self-paced online courses, which led to the post, in part.





UPace Logo
Although I do not have anything specific for self-paced online, we have experience at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with self-paced (upace.uwm.edu) and with competency-based (flex.wisconsin.edu).

Flex Logo
The UPace model at UWM is an alternative online self-paced course design for foundation, entry-level courses that traditionally have been large lecture.  The Flex model is the competency-based program in which UWM offers three degrees (Nursing, Medical Imaging, and Information Studies) and one certificate (Business Writing).



A couple resources in evaluating course design, instrumentation for rigorous research and for practical use in your own class...

First, a current survey is being administered to understand institutional, program, and instructor practices to ensure quality in blended and online courses, including faculty development practices around course design.  There is a section in this survey that focuses on identifying course design elements shared in faculty development and/or training for blended and online.  Once this survey is closed, I will develop a write-up on the measures and model being tested.

http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2014/10/ensuring-quality-survey-for-those-who.html


sample of survey items




I am conducting another study on students perceptions of course design across modes.  This is a sample of those survey items measuring the variable of course design.  The full survey will be launched within the week, and I will blog more details.

http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2014/10/student-perceptions-of-course-design.html

sample course design items



In 2010, my colleagues and I developed a Peer Eval Handbook, which can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/UWMEvalHandbook. A condensed version of the peer evaluation guide can be found at: http://uwmltc.org/?p=3813.  This was developed to provide programs with a tool to provide their instructors constructive feedback on improving their courses.  The guide was developed from UC Chico Rubric, Quality Matters Rubric, and our own experience teaching blended and online and supporting faculty for 10 years.

Through the years before the peer evaluation guide, I developed several checklists by reviewing what was already available (UC Chico, Quality Matters) and my own experience teaching blended and online and supporting faculty, again. Here those are:

Course evaluation checklist:
http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2010/05/course-evaluation-checklist.html

Syllabus checklist:
http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2010/05/syllabus-checklist.html

Learning module checklist:
http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2009/11/learning-module-checklist.html

Assessment plan checklist:
http://professorjoosten.blogspot.com/2011/08/assessment-plan-checklist.html

These checklists and the peer evaluation guide have informed my survey instrumentation developed in order to statistically measure course design along with work of @kthompso, University of Central Florida, @pennymoved, Penn State, and others (see ensuring quality post for more details).



If you have additional tools or instrumentation, please share below in a comment, tweet me @tjoosten, or send an email joostentanya[at]gmail.com.

Enjoy!  






Monday, October 27, 2014

Ensuring quality, a survey for those who teach blended and/or online

Good day, all!

Many of you followed a workshop or seminar that  we (myself and Dylan Barth, primarily) delivered in 2012-2013 that was focused on sharing what we were doing at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (UWM) and hearing what other campuses were doing across the country to ensure quality in blended and online courses (see slideshare.net/tjoosten).

Since we felt quality started at the beginning of the process and not just at the end, while being partial to the necessity of faculty development, we had three driving set of questions targeting why instructors chose to teach blended and/or online, what preparation was needed to effectively teach blended and/or online, and how we can determine if we have good blended and/or online courses being offered to students.

This workshop idea developed from experiences we were having traveling to different institutions to conduct faculty development programs for blended and online.  Each time we went to a campus, there were so many other questions regarding incentives for faculty, engaging faculty, showcases of effective practices, evaluating courses, and more.   Our expertise was in teaching and helping other instructors teach blended and online courses.  There was an obvious need for enhancing our understanding across institutions in these areas.

After talking with dozens, if not hundreds of folks from institutions across the country and the globe, we (myself and Nicole Weber) analyzed all of the notes from our seminars and workshops around our three main areas of ensuring quality and developed coded that data.  We then converted these codes into survey tiems resulting in the survey below.  We hope our mixed methods approach leads to a robust collection of data across institutions allowing us to have some data-driven directioning to understand practices for ensuring quality in blended and online from the start, effectively engaging faculty in the process.

As colleagues, I ask you to please complete the survey about teaching blended and online at your institution.  Also, please pass the survey onto other colleagues at your institution and to others  in your online learning network that  are instructors at other institutions.

We hope to share our findings in presentation and publication in late 2015.

Warmest regards,
Tanya

 ______________________________________________

Access survey here:

http://tinyurl.com/teachonl

Official correspondence:

I am Tanya Joosten at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). I am conducting a study on preparing and teaching blended and online courses.  I would appreciate your participation in this study, as it will assist us in making recommendations for institutions and programs to ensure quality in blended and online.

Some of you may have participated in a workshop UWM delivered over the past couple years where we discussed practices at your institutions and our own to ensure quality.  It was through these workshop experiences that we developed an instrument to better understand these practices across institutions.

If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to fill out an online survey about your experience with your experience preparing to teaching and teaching blended and/or online courses that will take 30 minutes to complete. There are no known risks associated with your being in the study. Possible benefits are that you will have a voice in helping shape institutional practices and the support faculty receive when preparing to teach courses.

The survey you fill out will be treated confidentially. Data from this study may be published in professional journals. Only grouped data will be presented or published. As an online participant in this research, there is always the risk of intrusion by outside agents, i.e., hacking, and therefore the possibility of being identified.

By completing the survey at the attached link, you are stating that you are at least of 18 years of age and understand that any information about you will be treated in a confidential manner and that the data collected and the results obtained will be used for research purposes only. Your personal information will never be used to report any results of the projects. You understand that the records and data files related to this research project will be maintained in the UWM Research Center for Distance Education and Technological Advancement for a period no longer than ten years and that only personnel directly associated with this project will have access to them.

You understand that you may refuse to participate in this study or withdraw at any time without penalty. You understand that you may be withdrawn from this study by the investigators if you do not meet the screening criteria. You understand that, should you withdraw or be withdrawn from the study, any information that you have provided will be destroyed.

Once the study is completed, we would be glad to give the results to you. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me:

Tanya Joosten
Academic Affairs
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
tjoosten@uwm.edu
414.229.2490

Friday, October 24, 2014

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has received a $1.48 million grant to establish a national Center for the Study of Distance Education and Technological Advancement

For a long time now, I have talked a lot (and then probably some more) about the need for more research on blended and online learning as well as on the diffusion of learning technologies.

As many of you remember in August, myself and my awesome research team of Ashley Billig, Rachel Cusatis, and Lindsey Harness were working day and night on a grant proposal only stopping for my 40th birthday celebration (see more on our process here).

Since only one university in the country was going to be chosen with less than a month to design a national center for research on distance education and put together a winning proposal, we knew our odds were not favorable. I believe we called it our "pie in the sky."  Yet, we worked day and night on the grant as if our lives depended on it and had a great time doing it.

So, when I woke up at EDUCAUSE Annual Conference on October 1st, the news definitely brought a tear to my eye.  And finally after a few weeks, we are told that we can share the news...even though the link is still missing ;)

[Update. here is the link: http://www5.uwm.edu/news/2014/10/24/deta-grant/]


UW-Milwaukee News
Milwaukee - The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has received a $1.48 million grant to establish a national Center for the Study of Distance Education and Technological Advancement (DETA). The center will work in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin System, UW-Extension, Milwaukee Area Technical College and EDUCAUSE.
Co-directors of the new center are Diane Reddy, professor of psychology and director of the University’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, and Tanya Joosten, director of eLearning Research and Development in Academic Affairs.
“This grant advances UWM’s already strong reputation in online education, and we are delighted to have the opportunity to further understanding of online pedagogies that lead to student success,” said Johannes Britz, provost and vice chancellor for Academic Affairs.
The three-year grant is through the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). The DETA Research Center will identify and evaluate effective course and institutional practices in online learning and competency-based education for all students, including those who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and adult learners. The center will develop and disseminate a national research model for online education.
Work on the DETA research model will begin in February 2015 at a national summit planned in conjunction with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Annual Meeting in Anaheim, Calif.. Grant funding will also support research through subgrant awards to be determined through a nationally competitive RFP process. The Center will work with MATC on the inclusion of two-year colleges in research activities, and UW-Extension, a leader in competency-based education (CBE), will coordinate a CBE research project for the Center.
“The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative along with the teaching and learning community will significantly benefit from a center dedicated to evidence-based online learning and technology research. We know there has been a steady accumulation of successful work and innovation in this area, and we look forward to partnering with and leveraging the practices and models that emerge,” said Julie Little, vice president, teaching, learning, and professional development, EDUCAUSE.
UWM has already won a number of national awards and recognitions for its learning initiatives. The university’s U-Pace instructional approach, a self-paced, mastery-based online learning method with proactive instructor assistance, was one of five recipients of the 2014 WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Awards. UWM’s Panther Academic Support Services, a leader in online tutoring, was recognized with the 2014 Frank L. Christ/National College Learning Association (NCLCA) Outstanding Learning Center award for four-year institutions.
CONTACTS: Diane Reddy, reddy@uwm.edu, 414-229-6432; Tanya Joosten, tjoosten@uwm.edu, 414-229-2490; Laura Pedrick, executive director of UWM Online,  lpedrick@uwm.edu, 414-229-3203.
###
EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit membership association created to support those who lead, manage, and use information technology to benefit higher education. A comprehensive range of resources and activities is available to all EDUCAUSE members. For more information about EDUCAUSE, including membership, please contact us at info@educause.edu or visit educause.edu.
.
Issued by: 

Kathy Quirk

414-229-3144

kquirk@uwm.edu
For more UWM News,
go to:


http://news.uwm.edu

About UWM
As Wisconsin's premier public urban institution, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee enjoys a growing national reputation for excellence in research, teaching and community engagement. On an operating budget of $680 million, it educates approximately 30,000 students and is an engine of innovation for Southeastern Wisconsin. The 104-acre main campus and satellite sites are located in the economic and cultural heart of the state. The university's recent expansion includes new academic and research facilities and the creation of the only School of Freshwater Sciences in the United States and the Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health.



Friends, I cannot tell you how good it feels.  I am sure many of you know ;) 

I am forever humbled and look forward to partnering with distance education leaders far and wide to produce some rigorous research to drive proven practices in online learning.

Cheers!
Tanya


Writing THE grant, a process

Costa Rican Vacation
While vacationing this summer in Costa Rica with the little one and taking some time to think about my new path in my career, I got a call from Laura Pedrick, Executive Director for UWM Online.  Yeap, I was getting calls in Costa Rica.  So, I emailed her (since I can never learn to leave work behind) and set up a Skype call where she told me about the new US Department of Education call for proposals to establish a national center for research on distance education.  The timing seemed unbelievable...no, like truly, I thought it was a joke.  How is it that two months after I am moved into this position to lead research on online learning while contemplating funding support that there is a national call for proposals?

First whiteboard
Upon returning to the states, we brought together several leaders, including key researchers, on campus to discuss the grant.  As most of you have heard me say, I don't think we can hypothesize new pedagogical models without evidence leading us to our developments nor can we eve recommend dissemination of pedagogical models without rigorous research to drive that dissemination. We immediately identified the importance of the interplay between research models and effective practices or pedagogical models.  It was great that the US Department of Education understood the importance of researching the key factors in online learning that lead to successful student outcomes.  Online then can we use these key factors in developing pedagogical models that work, and not just for the majority of students.  They spent special attention in their call making sure the models encompassed emerging models of distance education, such as competency-based education.  Furthermore, the models need to lead to success for all students, including underrepresented students (minority, socioeconomic challenged, first generation, disabled, adults, etc.). 
Master plan
After spending a significant amount of time reviewing the proposal, I worked for a ton of hours straight on the big picture ideas for the grant or what I like to call the Erik B and Rakim stage, "thinking of a master plan."  There were sheets of whiteboard paper strewed about my living room and dining room.  Majority of effort was merging different demands in the proposal requirements (which some time contradicted each other or didn't clearly align) along with my social scientific theoretical and methodological background.  However, the pieces were definitely coming together.

Next, I put together draft one of the project design, which included a lot of text and some really awful graphics/figures.  The first draft was about 15 pages, including a timeline of activities.  This read very much like a boring, jargon filled article, where I was showing off my disciplinary prowess.  However, it provided me with an opportunity to get my ideas out and in a semi-cohesive form in which to gather feedback form our partners.   Furthermore, the motivation to whip this out in a couple days was because of a celebration coming.

Evidence of social bonding
Little did I know when inviting friends around the country to come to my 40th birthday that I would be in the middle of this grant.  So, in the first week of August, we took a brief break to celebrate my 40th birthday.  Glad that some of the members of my research team could help celebrate - some serious social bonding took place.

Thanks to all my wonderful friends and their gifts (mainly bottles of red wine), we had plenty of gas to keep our engines going for the rest of August. ;) I don't think many of my friends have too much of an idea of what I actually do, but I am sure they will be happy to know they contributed as well.


Rethinking goals
We realized after the reviewing the first draft and receiving input from some of our research partners, we had a long way to go.  Although the ideas were awesome, we needed to really simplify them and put them in a consumable form for the reviewers.  Clarity was key!  At that point, they were big picture ideas, but we needed something more concrete.  Also, no one wants to read dozens of pages on what you are going to do.  They want to see what you are going to do, when, how, and who.

We focused on brainstorming what our goals were as a large group.  Then the research team and I worked on clarify those more in relation to activities while considering how we would evaluate each one.  This was key!  Although I tend to spend a lot of time on a meta level...next time I will start by outlining goals, criteria evaluating those goals, and activities that will lead to those goals.  Weird eh?  Almost sounds like backwards design ;)  Not to say the big picture planning that looked at the balance between technological infrastructure and practice (research and pedagogical) was not important, but probably less critical for this grant, yet more critical for the fostering of our future of research and teaching practice in distance education.  I think I was designing the field of distance education rather than just a grant proposal...haha!

Working table
When we started the second draft (well, final revisions) the week before submission, life gave me a hiccup as the UWM Children's Center was closed, so this meant, I needed to balance work-life more than ever.  I needed to be home with my little one (girl, 6) for the week.  Luckily, the research team was fine with working at my house as I did have a endless supply of jimmy johns, cheese, and wine.  We brought over some whiteboards and dry erase markers, reloaded the printer ink and paper supply, and converted the dining room table into "Thanksgiving" size.

Tasks
Kids contribute
We spent day in and day out completely redoing the project design and developing the evaluation section.  We found our ability (thanks to Ashley) to create some pretty rockin' charts, is a great way to convey a lot of information in a brief, consumable, and simple form.  Trying to condense such grandiose ideas in less than 35 pages is a bit of a challenge, but who doesn't love a challenge ;)  We went through task list, after task list, after task list, making sure we had a decent proposal.   Some days were over 20 hours long as it was a very short turn around time or the proposal.  The little one even started to get in on the action as well.  I guess there were only so many Barbie movies (yeap, Barbie movies were the bribe, including toys and other things).

By the end, I am not sure if we had much left to give.  However, we did it!  We got the grant!

And, although I couldn't announce it, I had a lot of "happy" posts.



I definitely couldn't get this song out of my head...



Would love to hear more about your grant writing experiences.  Show your work!

Cheers,



Thursday, October 16, 2014

Student perceptions of course design

This blog post is a summary of my efforts to develop a survey to be delivered to students to evaluate course design.  The instrument is developed, in part, from the UC Chico Rubric, Quality Matters, and our own rubrics and checklists used at UWM.  If you have an instrument to share or additions, please comment to this post.

I will continue to update as I refine the instrument and will report the stats on the instrument once I administer it this fall.  Although originally intended for online and maybe even blended courses, this will be delivered to f2f courses as well to compare course design across mediums.  I am also developing an instrument for instructors and staff as well.

If you are interested in delivery my instrument and collaborating on research, please let me know.  Would be great to get some cross-institutional data.  In this investigation, I am also examining interactivity (engagement, community, presence, etc.), learning, performance, and satisfaction.

COURSE DESIGN

Support
I had adequate support in completing my activities.
I received support materials prior to starting the class activities.
I had information for whom to contact if I needed support.
The syllabus was easily located and included course objectives and completion requirements.
Expectations of students’ participation were included in the syllabus or in D2L.
A clear timeline or schedule for face-to-face and online activities was shared.
I received information on the availability of and turnaround time for contact with instructor.
The introductory explanations on the class were clear.

Organization
The course was well-organized.
Course content is “chunked” for more manageable learning
Course content is organized in a logical format
Topics are clearly identified and subtopics are related to topics
I understood all components of the activities.
The instructions for the class were clear.
Course schedule is available in a printer-friendly format for student convenience
I understood the layout of course.
Language of written material is friendly and supportive.
The goals of the course were clearly defined.
The goals of the activities were clearly defined.
The method of grading my performance was clear.
I understood what was expected of me.
Sentences and paragraphs were brief and easy to understand.

Instructional design and delivery
I had the opportunity to introduce myself to others.
I completed an “Ice-breaker” activity or other orientation session to get acquainted
I was prompted by my instructor to expand on relevant points
Each reading assignment and each activity matches a learning objective
Activities have an assessment piece that links to a learning objective
Tasks and activities are designated as synchronous or asynchronous
Summary provided frequently, particularly at the end of topics, to reinforce learning expectations for that module

Assessment and Evaluation
The instructor shared the criteria used to assess participation discussions
I was not assessed solely on tests/quizzes
I was provided ample opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in different ways
I received rich and rapid feedback
I received frequent and substantial feedback from the instructor
The instructor provided samples of assignments illustrate instructor’s expectations
I received detailed instructions and tips for completing assignments
The instructor provided due dates for all assignments
Rubrics for all assignments identify assessment guidelines were provided
A grading scale was shared by the instructor
Peer review opportunities were available
I had an opportunity to apply rubric to my own work
My input on the class was sought by the instructor


I will look to integrate Kelvin's, Penny's, and Barry's work.

Other resources include:

UCF Pedagogical practice | https://topr.online.ucf.edu/index.php/Pedagogical_Practice | Contact @kthompso

My creations with my colleagues through the years...

UWM Preso, Ensuring Quality

UWM's Course Evaluation Checklist

UWM Instructor's Guide to Evaluation
http://tinyurl.com/UWMEvalHandbook. A condensed version of the peer evaluation guide can be found at:http://uwmltc.org/?p=3813.

UWM Syllabus checklist:

UWM Learning module checklist:

UWM Assessment plan checklist:




Sunday, September 28, 2014

Heading to the EDUCAUSE Annual Conference

Well, what will I be doing at EDUCAUSE...this is mainly the "public" places where you can find me.  Don't forget to follow me @tjoosten, twitter.com/tjoosten, or follow the educators social media hashtag on Twitter at #edusocmedia.

FIRST, hangout with Shannon Ritter, @micala, and I has we facilitate a FUNCONFERENCE 8am Monday morning.  Believe me, we are worth it, even at 8am!

Monday morning seminar (f2f): Social Media Constituent Group Unconference (separate registration is required)

DOMAIN: TEACHING AND LEARNING

SESSION TYPE: MORNING SEMINAR
The Social Media Constituent Group invites anyone interested in the use of social media in higher education to join the conversation and discussion during our seminar without any constructed agenda or specific outline. Come join our community of colleagues interested in best practices for the use of social media in higher education.

OUTCOMES: Develop connections with colleagues in this constituent group and become active community members * Gain experience and knowledge related to the use of social media in higher education * Build skills and connections to continue being active community members during and after the annual conference

Monday, September 29, 2014 8:00am-11:30am | Room Meeting Room W310A/B

Register at: http://www.educause.edu/annual-conference/registration or onsite in Orlando

SECOND, wether you are in Orlando or not, sign up to join Laura Pasquini, @laurapasqui, and I as we discuss guidelines, policies, and practices of social media in Adobe Connect.

Monday afternoon seminar (virtual): The State of Social Media Guidance: Implications of Guidelines, Policies, and Practice in Higher Education (separate registration required)

DOMAIN: TEACHING AND LEARNING
SESSION TYPE: PRECONFERENCE SEMINAR
Higher education institutions are using social media to communicate and engage their campus community; however, very few are examining the impact and implications of social media guidance. From research to practical applications, this seminar will detail the current state of social media guidance in postsecondary education and identify key elements of guiding principles that offer suggestions for student support, teaching, training and development, research, infrastructure, and more.

OUTCOMES
Participants will be able to: Articulate current higher education social media guidelines and policy document trends, categories, themes, and patterns emerging from research * Identify practical components for effective social media guidelines for campuses * Create meaningful guidelines and policies to positively impact teaching, learning, research, and development at your institution

Monday, Sep 29th, 2014, 12:30 PM - 4:00 PM Eastern Time

Register at: http://www.educause.edu/annual-conference/registration

Update--
Recording: http://educause.acms.com/p9ce4qx1u01/
Presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/LauraPasquini/edu14-sem2-a92914
Twitter hashtags: #edusocmedia and #edu14

THIRD, come chat about social media in higher ed at the smcg meeting.  Get all your questions answered or find out that lots of us have the same ones ;) 

Tuesday afternoon constiuent group meeting: Social Media Meetup!
Free - no additional registration needed

Social Media Constituent Group meeting.

SESSION TYPE: DISCUSSION SESSION
The Social Media Constituent Group invites anyone interested in the use of social media to be a part of our "unconference" session to discuss, brainstorm, collaborate, and learn about how your colleagues across higher education are using these tools and technologies. The agenda for the unconference will be created by participants at the start of the session and discussion will be facilitated by the co-leaders of the EDUCAUSE Social Media Constituent Group. Attendees will take responsibility for their own learning and guide the discussion around topics and areas of interest. We are an active, engaged group of higher education professionals and invite you to be a part of our unconference, join our group, and share your best practices.

Tuesday, Sep 30th, 2014, 3:40 PM - 4:30 PM, Meeting Room W308C/D

FOURTH, most importantly, join us for a social media #tweetup. It is a great way to meet colleagues who are interested in using social media or just to meet other folks in Higher Ed that use technology.  Devices and selfies are welcome, maybe even encourage.  Drinks are required ;)    
Tuesday social:

After the CG meeting = #edusocmedia Happy Hour Tweetup  – Tuesday (9/30) @ 5:30-6:30p David’s Club Bar & Grill @ Hilton (right next to conference center).

David's is a bar in the Hilton.  We just chose it since most of us are at the Hilton.  We will had there after dropping bags in our room after the CG meeting.  Once we leave here, we will head to a vendor party that is a nice time every year. 

FIFTH, Tuesday night vendor social event:

Tech smith party open to all - sign up with their eventbrite.  Who doesn't use snag it, jing, or camtasia, but we are always thanking to hang out with the great hosts of Tech Smith.  

FINALLY, Late night shenanigans, yet to be determined, but tends to having dancing involved and maybe that dancing is on a stage or in a street with Bumble Bee, the transformer, or Batman. Nope, I am not being sarcastic this time ;) 



See you there!


...Oh, and if you haven't read it -- read it!


Sunday, September 14, 2014

Top Online Library Resources

A resource for student research projects


CC gcoupe Flickr








Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com
Internet Public Library: http://www.ipl.org
LibWeb: http://sunsite.Berkeley.edu/libweb
Library Spot: http://www.libraryspot.com
Stanford: http://www-sul.stanford.edu
Univ. of CA: http://infolib.berkeley.edu
Harvard College Library: http://www.hcl.harvard.edu
Yale: http://www.library.yalee.edu
UCLA: http://www.library.ucla.edu
Carnegie Melon: http://www.library.cmu.edu
Penn State: http://www.libraries.psu.edu