company or group who is doing online program evaluation?
this information is extracted from the Blend-Online discussion list
Do you know any company or group who is doing online program evaluation? Our school is seeking a consulting group to come to review our online programs and identify areas relate to online learning that we need to improve.
Carrie Halpin, Ph.D. Professor/Instructional Designer & Technologist eLearning & Instructional Technology (eLIT) Virginia Western Community College 3095 Colonial Ave. SW, Roanoke, VA 24015 Office: Brown Library 102 Phone: 540-857-6636 Fax: 540-857-6138 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
iDesign will do both of those things using a fee-for-service model versus a revenue-sharing model like Academic Partnerships or 2U. I have no personal experience with any OPM, but iDesign is the only one I know of that offers that ala carte type service.
Technology and human values: learning through and about technology
Crossing the digital divide: access to learning in, and about, the digital world
New tools for learning: online digitally mediated learning
Virtual worlds, virtual classrooms: interactive, self-paced and autonomous learning
Ubiquitous learning: using the affordances of the new mediaDistance learning: reducing the distance
Theme 9: Literacies Learning
Defining new literacies
Languages of power: literacy’s role in social access
Instructional responses to individual differences in literacy learning
The visual and the verbal: Multiliteracies and multimodal communications
Literacy in learning: language in learning across the subject areas
The changing role of libraries in literacies learning
Languages education and second language learning
Multilingual learning for a multicultural world
The arts and design in multimodal learning
The computer, internet, and digital media: educational challenges and responses
PROPOSAL: Paper presentation in a Themed Session
Virtual Reality and Gamification in the Educational Process: The Experience from an Academic Library
VR, AR and Mixed Reality, as well as gaming and gamification are proposed as sandbox opportunity to transition from a lecture-type instruction to constructivist-based methods.
The NMC New Horizon Report 2017 predicts a rapid application of Video360 in K12. Millennials are leaving college, Gen Z students are our next patrons. Higher Education needs to meet its new students on “their playground.” A collaboration by a librarian and VR specialist is testing the opportunities to apply 360 degree movies and VR in academic library orientation. The team seeks to bank on the inheriting interest of young patrons toward these technologies and their inextricable part of a rapidly becoming traditional gaming environment. A “low-end,” inexpensive and more mobile Google Cardboard solution was preferred to HTC Vive, Microsoft HoloLens or comparable hi-end VR, AR and mixed reality products.
The team relies on the constructivist theory of assisting students in building their knowledge in their own pace and on their own terms, rather than being lectured and/or being guided by a librarian during a traditional library orientation tour. Using inexpensive Google Cardboard goggles, students can explore a realistic set up of the actual library and familiarize themselves with its services. Students were polled on the effectiveness of such approach as well as on their inclination to entertain more comprehensive version of library orientation. Based on the lessons from this experiment, the team intends to pursue also a standardized approach to introducing VR to other campus services, thus bringing down further the cost of VR projects on campus. The project is considered a sandbox for academic instruction across campus. The same concept can be applied for [e.g., Chemistry, Physics, Biology) lab tours; for classes, which anticipate preliminary orientation process.
Following the VR orientation, the traditional students’ library instruction, usually conducted in a room, is replaced by a dynamic gamified library instruction. Students are split in groups of three and conduct a “scavenger hunt”; students use a jQuery-generated Web site on their mobile devices to advance through “hoops” of standard information literacy test. E.g., they need to walk to the Reference Desk, collect specific information and log their findings in the Web site. The idea follows the strong interest in the educational world toward gaming and gamification of the educational process. This library orientation approach applies the three principles for gamification: empowers learners; teaches problem solving and increases understanding.
Similarly to the experience with VR for library orientation, this library instruction process is used as a sandbox and has been successfully replicated by other instructors in their classes.
Is anyone out there using CrazyEgg, Hotjar, Mouseflow or the like as a source of analytic data?
If so, I’d love to hear about what you’re using, how you’re using it, what you’ve been able to get out of it. I’m convinced that it will be useful for informing content contributors about how their content is being (or more likely not being) consumed by users — but I’m particularly interested in other ways to utilize the tools and the data they provide.
Thanks so much! Amy
Web Services Librarian, Shared User Services
Rutgers University Libraries email@example.com
Here is the 2016 session and contact information to the three fellows, who did an excellent presentation not only how, but why exactly these tools: http://sched.co/69f2
Here is the link to the 2017 session, which seems closest to your question. http://sched.co/953o Again, the two presenters most probably will be able to help you with your questions, if they have not seen already your posting on the LITA listserv and responded.
How did your institution decide which courses should be converted or designed to be blended and or online? Did you have a particular process, form, or department who made those decisions?
Dana Gullo, M.S.I.T. Senior Instructional Designer York College of Pennsylvania 441 Country Club Road Office: PAC 181C York, PA 17403
Hi Dana: Here at Albright College we have 2 processes. For the traditional program, faculty must get the course approved by the dept chair before it can be offered online. I just need an email from the chair before I will sign a course development agreement with them. Payment is another story. Normally there is a development stipend but if the faculty member wants to keep sole ownership of the course, no stipend is paid. If the administration feels the course would not get good enrollment, they can also decide to not give a stipend. Courses in the traditional program can only be offered online during J term or summer, not fall or spring. For now.
For the non-traditional program, the Director of the program gives approval for courses to be offered online and they can only be gen eds which are offered online here. But if they are designed for the non-traditional, they will need permission to be offered online on the traditional side.
Sounds confusing but we are only in our 3rd year of online courses. There are many more processes and procedures we have developed. If you want to chat, email me off list.
Michele Mislevy Director of Digital Learning & Innovation Information Technology Services
Albright College 610-921-7542
At Binghamton University, academic departments decide if a course should be offered in a blended or online format. There is no process or form that I am aware of, unless individual departments have one. We do not have a separate online or distance learning office that oversees all online courses like some other universities. LMS support is provided by ITS; pedagogical support is provided by the Center for Learning and Teaching.
Most of our online courses are offered in the winter and summer terms. I believe there is only one certificate program in the social work department that is fully online, everything else is just individual courses. This is changing now, as our nursing school is deciding to create some online programs.
Andrea MacArgel Instructional Designer Center for Learning and Teaching Binghamton University LN 1324A (607) 777-5099
Apеster (https://app.apester.com/): can be played asynchronously (yet, restricted in time). Kahoot is a simultaneous game. EdPuzzle also lke Apester can be asynchronous, but like Kahoot requires an account, whereas Apester can be played by anyone.
The proliferation of mobile devices and the adoption of learning applications in higher education simplifies formative assessment. Professors can, for example, quickly create a multi-modal performance that requires students to write, draw, read, and watch video within the same assessment. Other tools allow for automatic grade responses, question-embedded documents, and video-based discussion.
Multi-Modal Assessments – create multiple-choice and open-ended items that are distributed digitally and assessed automatically. Student responses can be viewed instantaneously and downloaded to a spreadsheet for later use.
Formative (http://www.goformative.com) allows professors to upload charts or graphic organizers that students can draw on with a stylus. Formative also allows professors to upload document “worksheets” which can then be augmented with multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
Nearpod (http://www.nearpod.com) allows professors to upload their digital presentations and create digital quizzes to accompany them. Nearpod also allows professors to share three-dimensional field trips and models to help communicate ideas.
Video-Based Assessments – Question-embedded videos are an outstanding way to improve student engagement in blended or flipped instructional contexts. Using these tools allows professors to identify if the videos they use or create are being viewed by students.
Playposit (http://www.playposit.com) are two leaders in this application category. A second type of video-based assessment allows professors to sustain discussion-board like conversation with brief videos.
Flipgrid (http://www.flipgrid.com), for example, allows professors to posit a video question to which students may respond with their own video responses.
Quizzing Assessments – ools that utilize close-ended questions that provide a quick check of student understanding are also available.
Kahoot (http://www.kahoot.com) are relatively quick and convenient to use as a wrap up to instruction or a review of concepts taught.
Integration of technology is aligned to sound formative assessment design. Formative assessment is most valuable when it addresses student understanding, progress toward competencies or standards, and indicates concepts that need further attention for mastery. Additionally, formative assessment provides the instructor with valuable information on gaps in their students’ learning which can imply instructional changes or additional coverage of key concepts. The use of tech tools can make the creation, administration, and grading of formative assessment more efficient and can enhance reliability of assessments when used consistently in the classroom. Selecting one that effectively addresses your assessment needs and enhances your teaching style is critical.
he EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv
Quick poll – do you require your faculty to be trained how to teach online before they are allowed to teach an online course at your institution?
Kristen Brown, Assistant Director, UofL Online
YES. Our faculty are required to complete two classes. One on using the LMS and the other is a 5-week moderated course called Teaching Online. Both courses are offered online.
Linda C. Morosko, MA Director, eStarkState Division of Student Success
Chad Maxson, EdD │ Dean of Online Learning, Olivet Nazarene University │ Center for Teaching and Learning One University Avenue │ Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Gina Okun Assistant Dean, Online Berkeley College 64 East Midland Avenue, Suite 2 Paramus, NJ 07652
The online academic program director (i.e. MBA, M.Ed.) and I meet with each new instructor to go materials that cover providing instructor presence and best practices in general. I also ask that they sign something that lists 14 online teaching practices we expect as an institution. They also have to complete some LMS training so that they can post announcements, participate in discussions, and manage their gradebook.
We are currently designing a more formal 6 hour online training that is required.
Course design is separate and that’s a 16 week process with our designers.
Tex Brieger Director of Distance Education (814) 871-7134
Absolutely. Also, we give them a stipend to attend the training and develop and online course.
Linda S. Futch, Ed.D. Department Head, Course Design and Development Center for Distributed Learning University of Central Florida
I think the bigger need is for ongoing training for recertification to teach online as technology and online pedagogical models evolve over time.
Kelvin Kelvin Bentley <timelord33@GMAIL.COM>
At Suffolk yes, we do. Over time that went from essentially “how to make the LMS work” to a Faculty Academy where faculty spend an entire semester working as a cohort to examine online pedagogy and best practices. The latter works much better for sound course development.
Doug Kahn College Assistant Dean for IT Operations Suffolk County Community College 533 College Road Selden, NY 11784
I can’t speak of other accrediting bodies, but SACS-COC is fairly clear in its documentation that faculty should be adequately trained before teaching online. Prior to my arrival at U of R in 2015, I worked for 20 years at E. Carolina U. which has a large assortment of online programs and courses. I assisted in the process of designing several online training modules that were to serve as “basic training” (with assessments) for online instructors…directly due to needing to meet accreditation guidelines. As part of documentation for reaffirmation/reaccreditation, had to provide documentation showing that faculty had successfully completed the training. I believe it is required to complete every three years.
Michael Dixon, Assistant Director Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology University of Richmond
I wish we did, but we do not. We run up against contract issues with. Certainly, this could be changed with institutional will but would require a shift in how our agreements with the faculty union.
TRAVIS FREEMAN, MFA EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPER FACULTY AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (FCDC) Office Location: 113 McCaul St, Room 501 T 416 977 6000 x3358 Etfreeman@ocadu.ca
An introduction to digital badges and a brief history
Simply put, a digital badge is an indicator of accomplishment or skill that can be displayed, accessed, and verified online. These badges can be earned in a wide variety of environments, an increasing number of which are online.
The anatomy of digital badges
In addition to the image-based design we think of as a digital badge, badges have meta-data to communicate details of the badge to anyone wishing to verify it, or learn more about the context of the achievement it signifies.
The many functions of digital badges
Just like their real-world counterparts, digital badges serve a wide variety of purposes depending on the issuing body and the individual. For the most part, badges’ functions can be bucketed into one of five categories.
Badges are issued by individual organizations who set criteria for what constitutes earning a badge. They’re most often issued through an online credential or badging platform.
Criticism of digital badges
There are various arguments to be made against the implementation of digital badges, including the common issuance of seemingly “meaningless” badges.
The future of digital badges
With the rise of online education and the increasing availability of high quality massive open online courses, there will be an increasing need for verifiable digital badges and digital credentials.