In March 2008, I had the pleasure of attending The University of North Carolina Teaching and Learning with Technology Conference. Currently, I teach online courses in psychology and am always interested in learning of new ways to infuse technology in the learning process. Recently I have become interested in course redesign which is a method for modifying courses using technology to increase student success. Course redesign was developed by the National Center for Academic Transformation. At the UNC TLT conference, I was a panelist in a session for course redesign. I wanted to take the opportunity to learn about the latest in educational technology and to consider how I could incorporate it into a redesign proposal.
One session that I found particularly interesting was on engaging students with social software applications such as: blogs, wikis and podcasts. As I further attempt to further infuse technological tools in my online classes and the online component of my face-to-face courses, I was intrigued by the possibilities social applications can offer. For example, blogs would be an easy way to include journaling on a course related topic throughout a semester. Based on the subject matter I could allow other students read and comment on each others entries or only view and comment on a student's entry myself. I also think wikis would be an excellent tool for facilitating exam reviews. Students could be assigned to groups and determine how they would contribute information for the review. Finally for the visual learners, podcasting would be an excellent way for them to view demonstrations of concepts.
There was some discussion about how to infuse social networking sites such as: MySpace and Facebook in courses. I am a little wary of incorporating those tools yet. Inclusion of such sites would have to be considered on a course by course basis. After informally asking a few of my students whether they would want a professor to join Facebook and contact them about school, there was hesitation and responses of 'no'. There are some social environments, I think, where students would not prefer to be contacted by professors for pedagogical purposes.
Finally, I was very impressed with the notion of using virtual worlds for instruction. Based on the demonstration I could see many application centered disciplines, such as health care fields, benefiting from this technology. I also think it would be a useful tool to train counseling psychologists. Meeting different types of clients in a virtual world could teach them about how to handle clients with various psychological issues. I believe that there are many new and exciting ways to use new technological advances to enhance student learning. However, I think we should always proceed with caution in what types of tools we use for the learning environment.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Smarthinking
At the UNC Teaching and Learning with Technology 2008 Conference in Raleigh on March 12-14, 2008, Dr. Barry L.Berman presented research documenting the effectiveness of Smarthinking’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) online tutoring service used by students in over 1000 educational institutions.
Kapiolani and the Broward County Community College conducted a two-year study to document learning gains as a result of tutoring through Smarthinking’s OWL. Results published in the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College show student success rates in Developmental English class improved from 67% to 75%.
Additional data suggests that Smarthinking may have a positive influence on student retention. Sharon Bittner, Director, Tutoring Center at Des Moines Area Community College, Iowa, found that retention rates increase 10-12% for students who used Smarthinking.
Dr. Berman believes WSSU could achieve similar learning gains and retention improvement with Smarthinking. He notes that “It is more expensive to recruit a student than to retain one” and that increased retention rates at WSSU will generate more revenue for the university.
A new textbook, Evergreen: A Guide to Writing with Readings, 6th edition, by Susan Fawcett, was adopted this fall for the ENG 1300 Introduction to College Writing course. This book comes bundled with Smarthinking’s Online Writing Lab and allows students to submit papers for a professional tutor’s comments. Students may then revise the paper before submitting the final draft to the instructor. Overview comments are given in paragraph form and additional comments are embedded throughout the paper. A summary of revision steps is provided, along with additional resources in Smarthinking’s online library, including student handbooks with information about writing, grammar, and usage.
The Writing Center suggests that ENG 1300 faculty design their course syllabus with multiple due dates for drafts. This would allow enough time for students to submit an early draft to Smarthinking. Turnaround time may take upwards of 2 or 3 days. Students would then be encouraged to bring Smarthinking’s E-structor Response Form with embedded comments to the Writing Center at which point peer tutors in the Writing Center could provide additional explanations to help the student understand suggested revisions. Combining instructor guidance with both professional tutor and peer tutor input could provide significant critical thinking and composition support for our students.
Elizabeth S. Priest
Writing Center Director
Kapiolani and the Broward County Community College conducted a two-year study to document learning gains as a result of tutoring through Smarthinking’s OWL. Results published in the Journal of Applied Research in the Community College show student success rates in Developmental English class improved from 67% to 75%.
Additional data suggests that Smarthinking may have a positive influence on student retention. Sharon Bittner, Director, Tutoring Center at Des Moines Area Community College, Iowa, found that retention rates increase 10-12% for students who used Smarthinking.
Dr. Berman believes WSSU could achieve similar learning gains and retention improvement with Smarthinking. He notes that “It is more expensive to recruit a student than to retain one” and that increased retention rates at WSSU will generate more revenue for the university.
A new textbook, Evergreen: A Guide to Writing with Readings, 6th edition, by Susan Fawcett, was adopted this fall for the ENG 1300 Introduction to College Writing course. This book comes bundled with Smarthinking’s Online Writing Lab and allows students to submit papers for a professional tutor’s comments. Students may then revise the paper before submitting the final draft to the instructor. Overview comments are given in paragraph form and additional comments are embedded throughout the paper. A summary of revision steps is provided, along with additional resources in Smarthinking’s online library, including student handbooks with information about writing, grammar, and usage.
The Writing Center suggests that ENG 1300 faculty design their course syllabus with multiple due dates for drafts. This would allow enough time for students to submit an early draft to Smarthinking. Turnaround time may take upwards of 2 or 3 days. Students would then be encouraged to bring Smarthinking’s E-structor Response Form with embedded comments to the Writing Center at which point peer tutors in the Writing Center could provide additional explanations to help the student understand suggested revisions. Combining instructor guidance with both professional tutor and peer tutor input could provide significant critical thinking and composition support for our students.
Elizabeth S. Priest
Writing Center Director
3D virtual learning environments can make a difference in higher education
Many people talk about 3D virtual environments in higher education but very few have taken the time to explore and integrate them into their teaching. At the 2008 Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) Conference organized by UNC (Raleigh, NC, March 12-14, 2008) I had the opportunity to learn from pioneers in this field who shared their experiences and lessons learned. Let me comment on two of them.
Second Life has been a phenomenon in terms of engaging adults in “real life” experiences that occur in a 3D virtual environment in which users exist as an avatar and interact with other residents. In her presentation “3D Virtual World Learning Environments (i.e., Second Life) in blended and online education”, Victoria Lynn Walker shared her experience creating, implementing and learning from a pilot study in learning nonclinical counseling and group therapy skills. She states, “Virtual environments offer instructors the opportunity to make their classroom come alive. By using well-designed educational environments that match program and course needs, students can be inspired to explore learning and develop understanding of course content”. I was very pleased to realize there is a growing community of researchers who study the educational use of highly interactive technologies that students love using. I would be very interested giving support from WSSU-CETL to WSSU faculty members willing to participate in similar studies.
Google Earth has been also a great success, as long as it provides users with the possibility of easily and accurately exploring places on earth that are of their interest. It was announced that this tool “combines the power of Google Search with satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D buildings to put the world's geographic information at your fingertips”. I had the opportunity to participate in a demonstration by a group of foreign language professors from UNC Charlotte in which Rosalba Esparragoza Scott, a Spanish teacher, shared her experience using Google Earth-supported web quests as a means of learning foreign language, literature, and culture in an effective way. According to her, “Students can annotate maps on Google Earth with vocabulary terms, historical facts, literary information, or write sentences in the target language describing virtual visits to foreign cities”. Way to go!
I got a couple of coincident clear messages from the above two presentations:
Director CETL
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Second Life has been a phenomenon in terms of engaging adults in “real life” experiences that occur in a 3D virtual environment in which users exist as an avatar and interact with other residents. In her presentation “3D Virtual World Learning Environments (i.e., Second Life) in blended and online education”, Victoria Lynn Walker shared her experience creating, implementing and learning from a pilot study in learning nonclinical counseling and group therapy skills. She states, “Virtual environments offer instructors the opportunity to make their classroom come alive. By using well-designed educational environments that match program and course needs, students can be inspired to explore learning and develop understanding of course content”. I was very pleased to realize there is a growing community of researchers who study the educational use of highly interactive technologies that students love using. I would be very interested giving support from WSSU-CETL to WSSU faculty members willing to participate in similar studies.
Google Earth has been also a great success, as long as it provides users with the possibility of easily and accurately exploring places on earth that are of their interest. It was announced that this tool “combines the power of Google Search with satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D buildings to put the world's geographic information at your fingertips”. I had the opportunity to participate in a demonstration by a group of foreign language professors from UNC Charlotte in which Rosalba Esparragoza Scott, a Spanish teacher, shared her experience using Google Earth-supported web quests as a means of learning foreign language, literature, and culture in an effective way. According to her, “Students can annotate maps on Google Earth with vocabulary terms, historical facts, literary information, or write sentences in the target language describing virtual visits to foreign cities”. Way to go!
I got a couple of coincident clear messages from the above two presentations:
- Integrating technology into higher education courses requires effort from faculty, in the exploration of educational potential of digital tools as well as in reengineering their learning environments.
- Students love courses where faculty make sound educational use of digital technologies they use with other purposes; they become engaged and participate more effectively.
Director CETL
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Monday, March 24, 2008
UNC-TLT: Lessons Learned
I’m glad I had the opportunity to attend the 2008 UNC Teaching and Learning with Technology Conference in Raleigh. I attended several interesting sessions and picked up some innovative ideas. The conference provided a broad range of technological information for teachers in any discipline. Being in the comp/rhet field, I found “Taking Advantage of Technology in Structuring Online Rhetoric and Composition Courses,” most rewarding for designing a hybrid or 100% online course. In this session, the presenter demonstrated how teachers can move beyond the traditional course management system to design a course using http://sites.google.com/. The site allows a teacher to include icons strategically placed in a type of shadow box. These icons lead students to assignments, practice exercises, drop boxes, online class meetings, and tutorials. With the Google site tools anyone can easily and professionally design a virtual classroom. The nonlinear construction of the site creates a welcoming place where students can learn.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Helping faculty create their own online courses
I had the opportunity to participate in a Faculty Development in Blended and Online Learning Institute (Academic Impressions, Atlanta GA March 5-7, 2008) that allowed me reflection on key aspects of our own faculty professional development strategy, and getting in touch with many other faculty development leaders and online course developers.
In this posting I want to share ideas that emerged contrasting our faculty development and course creation strategy with the Jump Start strategy, from Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis—IUPUI. Anastasia S. Morrone, PhD, Associate Dean of Learning Technologies at IUPUI, shared this strategy. In both cases, the challenge is the same, to support faculty in the development of online and blended learning courses. Both cases demand a full immersion in the process, with consultation and production support.
The first great difference is who sponsors the effort: while at WSSU faculty development and course production is sponsored either by Distance Learning (for online courses) or by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning—CETL—(for blended courses), at IUPUI, Jump Start participation demands investment from both Learning Technologies and the faculty’s member department or school, they share stipends to be paid to faculty.
Our approach is to help our faculty members redesign their courses growing professionally both in active learning pedagogy and in the use of web 2.0 technologies through the GOAL—Getting Online Active Learning—netcourse. After that, WSSU support faculty in the course creation process, by coaching them both pedagogically (CETL) and technologically (ITG—Information Technologies group); there are benchmarks that help controlling the quality of the process. We have learned that it is not easy to move faculty from conventional to active learning pedagogy, while they appropriate Web 2.0 tools, but it is viable. Time management has become an issue with faculty members that do not have enough support from their academic unit or that have not organized their agenda for effective participation.
At UIPUI there is a team approach for the design and production of online and blended courses: for each course there is a team including an instructional design consultant, an instructional technology consultant, a subject specialist librarian, a media production staff, and a copyright management consultant, in addition to the course author. UIPUI experience is that there is great commitment from the part of academic units to support their faculty when they are co-paying for the process and assuming the production process as an integral part of the academic load of course authors. They have also learned that the team approach is not easy to implement but it is worth following; it demands a change in organizational culture. They have learned that faculty should participate under a voluntary base and with continued departmental support; that faculty selection becomes a critical process, since faculty should understand time commitment, should feel comfortable and open to working as part of a team, and must be committed to developing appropriate documentation for courses being developed.
Let’s reflect on these issues and find out what might work for our case.
Alvaro H Galvis
Director CETL
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
In this posting I want to share ideas that emerged contrasting our faculty development and course creation strategy with the Jump Start strategy, from Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis—IUPUI. Anastasia S. Morrone, PhD, Associate Dean of Learning Technologies at IUPUI, shared this strategy. In both cases, the challenge is the same, to support faculty in the development of online and blended learning courses. Both cases demand a full immersion in the process, with consultation and production support.
The first great difference is who sponsors the effort: while at WSSU faculty development and course production is sponsored either by Distance Learning (for online courses) or by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning—CETL—(for blended courses), at IUPUI, Jump Start participation demands investment from both Learning Technologies and the faculty’s member department or school, they share stipends to be paid to faculty.
Our approach is to help our faculty members redesign their courses growing professionally both in active learning pedagogy and in the use of web 2.0 technologies through the GOAL—Getting Online Active Learning—netcourse. After that, WSSU support faculty in the course creation process, by coaching them both pedagogically (CETL) and technologically (ITG—Information Technologies group); there are benchmarks that help controlling the quality of the process. We have learned that it is not easy to move faculty from conventional to active learning pedagogy, while they appropriate Web 2.0 tools, but it is viable. Time management has become an issue with faculty members that do not have enough support from their academic unit or that have not organized their agenda for effective participation.
At UIPUI there is a team approach for the design and production of online and blended courses: for each course there is a team including an instructional design consultant, an instructional technology consultant, a subject specialist librarian, a media production staff, and a copyright management consultant, in addition to the course author. UIPUI experience is that there is great commitment from the part of academic units to support their faculty when they are co-paying for the process and assuming the production process as an integral part of the academic load of course authors. They have also learned that the team approach is not easy to implement but it is worth following; it demands a change in organizational culture. They have learned that faculty should participate under a voluntary base and with continued departmental support; that faculty selection becomes a critical process, since faculty should understand time commitment, should feel comfortable and open to working as part of a team, and must be committed to developing appropriate documentation for courses being developed.
Let’s reflect on these issues and find out what might work for our case.
Alvaro H Galvis
Director CETL
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
