Integrating Bb into experiential curriculum

Lim college

2year timeframe

Bb training and quality matters

MBA courses-students demanded flexibility

Lots of growth for a small school. Still, they had a lot of resources.

Using blackboard for entrance testing

LOTS of discussion for not mandating use. Some 30K posts and growing.

Students are required to take at least 3 internships.

Presnters reading their slides!

No actual descriptions of activities. Very disappointing.

Pearsoncourse connect

Slideshare Links from SOL Summit 2010

Student Retention in Online Programs

Phil Ice, American Public University System

Online Learning

  • 4 million students, 12.9% annual growth
  • outpacing FTF 6:1
  • US Dept Ed metastudy- DL is fine, even better sometimes
  • dropout rate much higher- up to 7x

COI diagram

APUS Study- see slideshare

If students perceive online communication positively, it takes out some 20% of drop.

Conclusions

  • student perceoption of online medium for social interaction is important
  • tech may be a prime determinant of student perception of adequacy
  • investmetn in social networking by institution in general may impact retention
  • ??

OLAT LMS- olat.org

Offline capability.

Online Student Success Initiative at Dutchess

Step 1- ONline course policy

  • Early End of Registration- Friday before official start
  • No add period
  • ensures students are at least enrolled before the start of course
  • faculty like, want to push back another week, registrar not so sure

All continuing student must have a cumulative 2.5 GPA.  All full time students must complete 12 credit hours before taking online.

Students identified by report in Banner, results checked, mailing is prepared to notify students of ineligibility, final report sent to Registrar for drop.

Objections- FA, overall enrollment, cancel classes, too strict

Results- no classes canceled (immediately refilled), 57/1100 students affected (47 for GPA; 13 had 1.0 or lower).  Only 1 FT student for credits.  Many students trying to take more than one course.
– response to results- not strict or far reaching enough!
– academic probation/dismissal

start to census persistence: 88% historical; now 94%

Pros/Cons

  • opens spots in quick filling classes for students who may be more successful
  • redirects student to on-campus classes where they may find more confidence and success
  • is “after the fact”- students allowed to register and then yanked
  • manual procedure
  • no way to block re-registration

Future plans

  • expand to PT students
  • automation
  • warning at time of registration
  • direction to advisor

STEP 2- letters (surprise! you’re taking an online course)

STEP 3- Online student orientation- MANDATORY (in pilot)
all course materials hidden until orientation is done
mostly technical stuff

Anecdotal results-

  • fewer tech questions and “Angel lost it”
  • students reported less anxiety over LMS use

Pro/Con

  • consistent and institution specific
  • embedded in course (done in LOR, though, which is cool)
  • reference materials within course
  • time intensive all orientation loading is manually done
  • course specific, Ss need to retake or enter code

The future

  • separate orientation from individual course- passed as an individual credential
  • all faculty to use quiz for a grade
  • expand ori to address multiple learning styles

Step 4- Outreach Student Helpdesk

Step 5- Quality Matters

Separating Content from Structure: the LMS Quandry

Stevie Rocc, Communications Support Coordinator, Penn State Online and Penn State World Campus (go lions!)

LMS convenient, local, often irritating

Full of pedagogy, though often theirs, not yours

vs. the Cloud- social, but always something new

PSU doesn’t put content in Angel.

Use Cloud for what it is good for, use LMS for what it is good for ((sounds like the old computer argument))

Cloud gets content, LMS gets grades (and FERPA protected info) and assessment

Angel is down 2 hours every day.  Keeping content outside keeps it available.

Content goes outside.  Links back into the course when needed.

Pulling in the LMS, not pulling things into the LMS- interesting concept.

Check Stevie’s blog space for IST250

art is using vimeo for video content ($40/year????)

Druple

Navigation issues between systems?

use shibboleth for sso

Angel link trick http://delicious.com/stevier/slnsolsummit2010

Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning

Bryan Alexander, Director of Research, National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education

How does Higher Ed apprehend emerging technologies?

  • panic/siege mode
  • vendors
  • futurism
  • networks, online and off
  • informal curricula

Five responses

  • take advantage of preexisting projects
  • DIY
  • Literacy: new media
  • Scan influence
  • Curriculum

How do you get someone to critically approach Twitter?

Technological determinism.

Technology is not just the leading/bleeding edge.  Each technology builds on the last.

  • Theatre –> film
  • Printed page –> Web

Seeing the future

  • extrapolations- take growth trends and project to future; doesn’t account for NEW things
  • Delphi- interrogate groups of experts, eg. Horizon Report;
  • scenarios-
  • futures market- people “buy” ideas on a market to see what “sells” – “Iowa Futures Market
  • scanning
  • Crowdsourcing

One revolution: Mobile computing

transformed life around the world, US couldn’t care less

device ecosystem- all the devices and all the connecting systems that support/connect them

fear of IT: giving faculty netbooks- looks like a punishment.

“phone” is now a function, not a device

pencasting

tablets

augmented reality

beyond the mouse- VR control

Social media

folksonomies

current forms, e.g. social bookmarking, deeping

PLE v. LMS- personal learning environment

google v. facebook v. twitter v. buzz

“One way to know the future is happening is when you don’t have a name for it.”

Using Community of Inquiry to Assess Online Courses

Specifically Instructional Design strategies and the impact of New Technologies

Phil Ice, Director of Course Design, Research & Development, American Public University

65K students, entirely online

COI- process model of learning- basically constructivist- assumes effective online learning requires development of a community and constant engagement

social, cognitive and teaching  presence, learning at the center (think Venn diagram of the 3)

New applications are good, but higher ed wants data before committing

Hype cycle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Sometimes, a little is enough- don’t always need the biggest, brightest (see blog on lectures)

Online collaborative writing- Word v. Buzzword (online, Acrobat based).  Exploration uses of non-text based resources same, but more in Integration and Resolution in  Buzzword.

Buzzword’s ease of use, easier to express complex ideas in multimedia

Break in age ~34 yo.  Under dumped stuff and sorted/built.  Over started with common document and built/added.

Lots of research.  Will post slides link later.

Herkimer HyFlex

Bill Pelz and Jane Verri
Keesha Lyon, Shana Mena and Jacob Witter (apparently students)

new instructional design based on hybrid course design and heutagogy (student driven/decided learning)

Neither is necessarily new, but when you put them together…

All or most course activities (content, engagement and assessment) offered both online and face to face (FTF).  Students decide which mode to attend for each.

Brian J Beatty (2006) did this at San Francisco State University- however, seems to be a lot for one instructor.

So they took a double enrollment class with 2 instructors.

Required classrooms: 1st class, 2 focus groups midway and end of course

Required online- written assignments (20), retrospective discussion forum (4), survey

Students decide

  • where to learn
  • what to learn
  • how to learn

>>Hmmm… all have the same assignments, even if flexible in completion.  How learner driven is this?

Students didn’t know coming in.  Though I don’t see how the online components are really more than what you could reasonably expect in an enhanced class, so those that want a FTF experience really aren’t impacted.  And 3 classroom meetings don’t really break those that want an online class.  And those that want/need something in between…

Thinking this could be a good setup for athletes and those with frequent off campus responsibilities.

Have to be very organized.  Especially grading- online discussion v. class participation???

Quality Matters

Rob Piorkowski

http://www.qualitymatters.org

Peer review of online courses.  Professional development and course accountability. Continuous quality improvement for courses.

3 phase

  • Setting the stage
  • Implementing Peer Reviews (here now)
  • Growing the Program

QM is for “mature” courses, but we should also be able to use it to guide new faculty training.  Checklist for operationalizing best practice.

Rob can train faculty in delivering QM Rubric.

Checklists for faculty and IDs integrated into new faculty training and pre-flight checklist preparation for course reviews.

Need to be an “affiliate” member of SLN.

Can use CPD training points for QM training.

-paper handouts-BOO!

What’s New in ANGEL 7.4

Probably not much on this, since I’m at a Bb school.

Rubric Creator- cool.  Jealous Angel implemented before Bb

Rich Text Editor- Google media integration- again, Angel scooping Bb.  But this is coming soon in Bb, I believe 9.1, which should be out within a week or two.  Of course, we’ll still need upgrade time.

Gradebook-

  • page layout minimized
  • page setup changes but follow same pattern (sounds like the Bb 9 change)
  • macros=grade lables
  • preferences more robust
  • submission manager allows for the assignment grading within the gradebook

Common Cartridge Export- to ANGEL, Bb, Open Source (D2L, Moodle?)

LORs

  • Submissions scored in LOR or “native” course
  • Improved searching
  • Centralized assessments- aggregate data; retain course specific scores

Enhanced Surveys

  • Likert scale questions
  • storage questions in LOR
  • centralized surveys
  • analysis- mean, SD, SE, confidence, and response distribution

Standards and Objectives- work and can be mapped inside course or from a LOR

???> Can you pull from multiple LORs?  Say objectives from a departmental LOR, survey from a campus DL LOR, and content from a course LOR?

Bill Pelz- project at Herkimer- loves ANGEL 7.4- wants SUNY to buy, keep and never go to Bb

  • Campus wide initiative to redo course objectives – like Jefferson’s departmental standards.
  • Faculty who have never used Angel are able to use- online handbook with step by step directions
  • multiple assessments for each objective are fine, multiple objectives for an assessment are not. >>How realistic is this???<< If a course activity measures for multiple objectives, you create “sub-assessments” to record each part.  Each instructor can measure objectives within their course with whatever their course calls for.
  • Run report (Early Warning system in Bb) to show which students (#) met or didn’t meet the objective.  I can see using this for our GenEd stuff at Jefferson.  Of course, that would mean mandated use of Bb for assessment…
  • Herkimer will be making their assessment policy public in the coming months- handbook.  Fostering a Culture of Assessment at HCCC
  • Closing the loop- instructors report back through web for into Access DB.  Similar to Jefferson’s Gen Ed reporting from what I can see.

Want faculty to think about what their students are learning and proving it and being held accountable.

Middlestates ties in.

Testing 7.4- SLN

  • Practice courses on Support74
  • SLN Evergreen
  • SLN201