Archive of ‘teaching’ category

Advancing Online Education in Minnesota State

Advancing Online Education in Minnesota State

Advancing Online Education – Full Report-1s94jfi

Defining Online Education
The term “online education” has been used as a blanket phrase for a number of fundamentally different  educational models. Phrases like distance education, e-Learning, massively open online courses (MOOCs),  hybrid/blended learning, immersive learning, personalized and/or adaptive learning, master courses,  computer based instruction/tutorials, digital literacy and even competency based learning have all colored the  definitions the public uses to define “online education.”

online education” as having the following characteristics:

  • Students who enroll in online courses or programs may reside near or far from the campus(es) providing the course(s) or program.
  • A student’s course load may include offering where attendance is required in person or where an instructor/students are not required to be in the same geographic location.
  • Students may enroll in one or more individual online course offerings provided by one or more institutions to that may or may not satisfy degree/program requirements.
  • Student may pursue a certificate, program, or degree where a substantial number of courses, perhaps all, are taken without being in the same geographic location as others.

Organizational Effectiveness Research Group (OERG),

As the workgroup considered strategies that could advance online education, they were asked to use the primary and secondary sources listed above to support the fifteen (15) strategies that were developed

define a goal as a broad aspirational outcome that we strive to attain. Four goal areas guide this document. These goal areas include access, quality, affordability and collaboration. Below is a description of each goal area and the assumptions made for Minnesota State.

  1. Access
    Over twenty percent of existing Minnesota State students enroll in online courses as a way to satisfy course requirements. For some students, online education is a convenient option; for others, online is the only option available
  2. Quality
    The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accreditation guidelines review the standards and processes institutions have in place to ensure quality in all of educational offerings, including online.
    There are a number of ways in which institutions have demonstrated quality in individual courses and programs including the evaluation of course design, evaluation of instruction and assessment of student
  3. Affordability
    a differential tuition rate to courses that are offered online. If we intend to have online education continue to be an affordable solution for students, Minnesota State and its institutions must be good stewards of these funds and ensure these funds support online education.
    Online education requires different or additional services that need to be funded
    transparency is important in tuition setting
  4. Collaboration
    Distance Minnesota is comprised of four institutions Alexandria Technical & Community College, Bemidji State University, Northland Community & Technical College, and Northwest Technical College) which collaborate to offer student support services, outreach, e-advising, faculty support, and administrative assistance for online education offerings.

 Strategies

strategies are defined as the overall plan used to identify how we can achieve each goal area.

Action Steps

Strategy 1: Ensure all student have online access to high quality support services

students enrolled in online education experiences should have access to “three areas of support including academic (such as tutoring, advising, and library); administrative (such as financial aid, and disability support); and technical (such as hardware reliability and uptime, and help desk).”
As a system, students have access to a handful of statewide services, include tutoring services through Smarthinking and test proctoring sites.

Strategy 2: Establish and maintain measures to assess and support student readiness for online education

A persistent issue for campuses has been to ensure that students who enroll in online course are aware of the expectations required to participate actively in an online course.

In addition to adhering to course expectations, students must have the technical competencies needed to perform the tasks required for online courses

Strategy 3: Ensure students have access to online and blended learning experiences in course and program offerings.

Strategy 4: These experiences should support and recognize diverse learning needs by applying a universal design for learning framework.

The OERG report included several references to efforts made by campuses related to the providing support and resources for universal design for learning, the workgroup did not offer any action steps.

Strategy 5: Expand access to professional development resources and services for faculty members

As online course are developed and while faculty members teach online courses, it is critical that faculty members have on-demand access to resources like technical support and course assistance.

5A. Statewide Faculty Support Services – Minnesota State provide its institutions and their faculty members with access to a centralized support center during extended hours with staff that can assist faculty members synchronously via phone, chat, text/SMS, or web conference

5C. Instructional Design and Technology Services – Establish a unit that will provide course design and instructional technology services to selected programs and courses from Minnesota State institutions.

Quality

Strategy 1: Establish and maintain a statewide approach for professional development for online education.

1B. Faculty Mentoring – Provide and sustain faculty mentoring programs that promote effective online pedagogy.

1C. Professional development for support staff – including instructional designers, D2L Brightspace site administrators and campus trainers, etc.)

+++++++++++
more on online education in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+education

Low Morale of Online Faculty

Here’s what some of the faculty who agreed to have their comments posted had to say about what lowers their morale:

  • Sean-David McGoran noted that students allowed to bully faculty, repetitious and unnecessary training and unreasonable deadlines at final and midterm examination time can be demoralizing.
  • Linda Chilson said that pay, curriculum that doesn’t make sense, student behavioral issues and school districts funding unnecessary training are issues, as well as lack of support for out of the box thinking.
  • Leah Murray noted that micromanaging every little detail is demoralizing – and understandably added, “why not teach the class yourself if you are going to pay that much attention“. She also noted that lack of positive reinforcement and others taking credit for work you did is troubling.
  • Mary Kay Westgate-Taylor cited poor new faculty orientation, unclear expectations, micromanagement and lack of support from administration regarding student issues as concerns.
  • Dr Steve Woodsmall noted open admissions – too many graduate students who aren’t able or willing to do graduate level work or have a sense of entitlement (paying tuition guaranteeing a degree) and complaining when they receive clearly deserved failing grades causes low morale.
  • Quiana Bradshaw noted that schools acting like adjuncts don’t matter causes low morale. Adjuncts often work hard with no promotional opportunities with no mentoring or encouragement, and only veteran individuals offered promotions. Not including adjuncts as part of the team or micromanaging adjuncts with reports and comments is concerning.
  • Jeanie Rogers-Street noted that education not being the driving force of education (instead, finances being the main focus) is a cause of low morale.
  • Christina Krepinevich Houston noted rude emails from supervisors as a cause of low morale.
  • Stacie Williams commented that supervisors or administrators with a lack of experience in curriculum design and hiring skills dismissing the experience and knowledge of instructors is demoralizing.
  • Traci Schneider Cull noted that not having support from online higher-ups or fixing issues in courses/not responding causes low morale.
  • Nicki Favero Puckett cited continuous increases in workload without additional compensation as a cause.
  • Terri Hennessy Craig stated that severely under, or unprepared, students and canceling classes (particularly without notice) is a cause of low morale.
  • Maria Toy noted micromanagement and an increased workload with no additional compensation as a low morale cause

++++++++++++++

this conversation continues in this LInkedIn discussion group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2774663/2774663-6341436320048648193

+++++++++++++++
more on online teaching in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+teaching

teacher entitlement

What about Teacher Entitlement?

By: 

https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/what-about-teacher-entitlement/

what does teacher entitlement look like? The extreme cases are easy to spot.

If we act in ways that aren’t entitled, ways that treat students with respect, that deliver the quality educational experiences they deserve, our leadership creates a different set of expectations. If we say we’ll have the test/paper/projects grades done by Friday, we meet that deadline.

The difference between student and teacher entitlement is that students have to ask for what they may not deserve. We don’t have to ask. We may apologize for not having the papers graded, but we don’t need to ask for an extension.

 

++++++++++++++
student entitlement conversation here
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/10/04/students-entitlement-adisruptiveness/

Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey

The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative has just launched its 2018 Key Issues in Teaching and Learning Survey, so vote today: http://www.tinyurl.com/ki2018.

Each year, the ELI surveys the teaching and learning community in order to discover the key issues and themes in teaching and learning. These top issues provide the thematic foundation or basis for all of our conversations, courses, and publications for the coming year. Longitudinally they also provide the way to track the evolving discourse in the teaching and learning space. More information about this annual survey can be found at https://www.educause.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning.

ACADEMIC TRANSFORMATION (Holistic models supporting student success, leadership competencies for academic transformation, partnerships and collaborations across campus, IT transformation, academic transformation that is broad, strategic, and institutional in scope)

ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (Supporting and educating the academic community in effective practice; intersections with instructional delivery modes; compliance issues)

ADAPTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING (Digital courseware; adaptive technology; implications for course design and the instructor’s role; adaptive approaches that are not technology-based; integration with LMS; use of data to improve learner outcomes)

COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION AND NEW METHODS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING (Developing collaborative cultures of assessment that bring together faculty, instructional designers, accreditation coordinators, and technical support personnel, real world experience credit)

DIGITAL AND INFORMATION LITERACIES (Student and faculty literacies; research skills; data discovery, management, and analysis skills; information visualization skills; partnerships for literacy programs; evaluation of student digital competencies; information evaluation)

EVALUATING TECHNOLOGY-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATIONS (Tools and methods to gather data; data analysis techniques; qualitative vs. quantitative data; evaluation project design; using findings to change curricular practice; scholarship of teaching and learning; articulating results to stakeholders; just-in-time evaluation of innovations). here is my bibliographical overview on Big Data (scroll down to “Research literature”http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/11/07/irdl-proposal/ )

EVOLUTION OF THE TEACHING AND LEARNING SUPPORT PROFESSION (Professional skills for T&L support; increasing emphasis on instructional design; delineating the skills, knowledge, business acumen, and political savvy for success; role of inter-institutional communities of practices and consortia; career-oriented professional development planning)

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT (Incentivizing faculty innovation; new roles for faculty and those who support them; evidence of impact on student learning/engagement of faculty development programs; faculty development intersections with learning analytics; engagement with student success)

GAMIFICATION OF LEARNING (Gamification designs for course activities; adaptive approaches to gamification; alternate reality games; simulations; technological implementation options for faculty)

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (Skills and competencies for designers; integration of technology into the profession; role of data in design; evolution of the design profession (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/10/04/instructional-design-3/); effective leadership and collaboration with faculty)

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND ADVISING FOR STUDENT SUCCESS (Change management and campus leadership; collaboration across units; integration of technology systems and data; dashboard design; data visualization (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=data+visualization); counseling and coaching advising transformation; student success analytics)

LEARNING ANALYTICS (Leveraging open data standards; privacy and ethics; both faculty and student facing reports; implementing; learning analytics to transform other services; course design implications)

LEARNING SPACE DESIGNS (Makerspaces; funding; faculty development; learning designs across disciplines; supporting integrated campus planning; ROI; accessibility/UDL; rating of classroom designs)

MICRO-CREDENTIALING AND DIGITAL BADGING (Design of badging hierarchies; stackable credentials; certificates; role of open standards; ways to publish digital badges; approaches to meta-data; implications for the transcript; Personalized learning transcripts and blockchain technology (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=blockchain

MOBILE LEARNING (Curricular use of mobile devices (here previous blog postings on this issue:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/09/25/mc218-remodel/; innovative curricular apps; approaches to use in the classroom; technology integration into learning spaces; BYOD issues and opportunities)

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (Virtual, augmented, mixed, and immersive reality; video walls; integration with learning spaces; scalability, affordability, and accessibility; use of mobile devices; multi-dimensional printing and artifact creation)

NEXT-GENERATION DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND LMS SERVICES (Open standards; learning environments architectures (here previous blog postings on this issue: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/digital-learning/; social learning environments; customization and personalization; OER integration; intersections with learning modalities such as adaptive, online, etc.; LMS evaluation, integration and support)

ONLINE AND BLENDED TEACHING AND LEARNING (Flipped course models; leveraging MOOCs in online learning; course development models; intersections with analytics; humanization of online courses; student engagement)

OPEN EDUCATION (Resources, textbooks, content; quality and editorial issues; faculty development; intersections with student success/access; analytics; licensing; affordability; business models; accessibility and sustainability)

PRIVACY AND SECURITY (Formulation of policies on privacy and data protection; increased sharing of data via open standards for internal and external purposes; increased use of cloud-based and third party options; education of faculty, students, and administrators)

WORKING WITH EMERGING LEARNING TECHNOLOGY (Scalability and diffusion; effective piloting practices; investments; faculty development; funding; evaluation methods and rubrics; interoperability; data-driven decision-making)

+++++++++++
learning and teaching in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=teaching+and+learning

faculty training for online teaching

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 E tfreeman@ocadu.ca

+++++++++++++++
more on online teaching in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+teaching

European Learning & Teaching Forum

European Learning & Teaching Forum

http://www.eua.be/activities-services/events/event/2017/09/28/default-calendar/european-learning-teaching-forum

Presentations

Parallel session 1: Rethinking the status of teaching and research – What does it mean to be a modern academic?

Parallel session 2: Embedding generic skills in the curriculum

Parallel session 4: European principles for the enhancement of learning and teaching – strengthening institutional approaches

Parallel session 5: Curricular and strategic perspectives on research-based learning

Parallel session 6: Enhancing access and transition: principles for good practice

Parallel session 7: Building an institutional teaching community

Parallel session 8: Recognising civic engagement and the development of transversal skills outside the formal curriculum

Parallel session 8: Recognising civic engagement and the development of transversal skills outside the formal curriculum

Parallel session 10: Supporting diversity in the classroom: staff development and student learning

Parallel session 11: Recognising, fostering and celebrating teaching enhancement

 

teaching and assessing soft skills

Teaching & Assessing Soft Skills

http://catlintucker.com/2017/09/teaching-assessing-soft-skills/

Communication in Person & Online (available in PDF format here: Communication in Person Online Rubric)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16JVAivizIysXdmUVXzC2BP2NiclbJ21N9cOZQ6NdqxU/edit

1 2 3 4
Limited, to no, participation in discussions.

 

Does not come to discussions prepared. As a result, fails to support statements with evidence from texts and other research.

 

Few attempts to ask questions or build on ideas shared.

 

Frequently violates the “dos and don’ts of online communication.”

Limited participation in discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with various partners.

 

Does not consistently come to discussions prepared. Limited preparation and inability to support statements with evidence from texts and other research reflects lack of preparation.

 

Limited attempts to ask questions, build on ideas shared, or invite quieter voices into the conversation.

 

Hesitant to respond to other perspectives and fails to summarize points or make connections.

 

Occasionally violates the “dos and don’ts of online communication.”

Participates in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners.

 

Comes to discussions prepared, having read and researched material. Draws on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic.

 

Attempts to drive conversations forward by asking questions, building on ideas shared, and inviting quieter voices into the conversation.

Responds to diverse perspectives, summarizes points, and makes connections.

 

Respects the “dos and don’ts for online communication.”

Initiates and participates effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners.

Comes to discussions prepared with a unique perspective, having read and researched material; explicitly draws on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic.

Propels conversations by posing and responding to questions that relate to the current discussion. (Adds depth by providing a new, unique perspective to the discussion.)

Responds thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, summarizes points of agreement and disagreement, and makes new connections. Leans in and actively listens.

Makes eye contact, speaks loud enough to be heard, and body language is strong.

Respects the “dos and don’ts for online communication.”

Critical Thinking & Problem Solving,  (available in PDF format here: Critical Thinking Problem Solving Rubric)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fjlODmLvrVZyrKnzz54LbVa7CqfbAJvLfb98805fjuY/edit

1 2 3 4
Reflects surface level understanding of information.

 

Unable or unwilling to evaluate quality of information or draw conclusions about information found.

Does not try to solve problems or help others solve problems. Lets others do the work.

 

Does not actively seek answers to questions or attempt to find information. Does not seek out peers or ask teacher for guidance or support.

Attempts to dive below the surface when analyzing information but work lacks depth.

Struggles to evaluate the quality of information and does not draw insightful conclusions about information found.

Does not suggest or refine solutions, but is willing to try out solutions suggested by others.

Asks teachers or other students for answers but does not use online tools, like Google and YouTube, to attempt to answer questions or find information.

Demonstrates a solid understanding of the information.

 

Evaluates the quality of information and makes inferences/draws conclusions.

 

Refines solutions suggested by others.

 

Attempts to use online tools, like Google and YouTube, to seek answers and find information.

Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the information.

 

Effectively evaluates the quality of information and makes inferences/draws conclusion that are insightful.

 

Actively looks for and suggests solutions to problems.

 

Uses online tools, like Google and YouTube, to proactively seek answers and find information.

 

 

Collaboration & Contributions in a Team Dynamic  (available in PDF format here: Collaboration Contributions in a Team Dynamic Rubric)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ucjgylXWz8nOM5Vq8FpTByur8smsbov3mR8pX-7n1SE/edit

1 2 3 4
Fails to listen to, share with, and support the efforts of team members making accomplishing a task more difficult for the team.

Frequently inattentive or distracting when team members talk. Requires frequent redirection by team members and/or teacher.

Body language does not reflect engagement in the process. Focus on leaning in, asking questions, actively listening (e.g. make eye contact).

Rarely offers feedback. Frequently becomes impatient, frustrated, and/or disrespectful.

 

Limited attempts to move between roles.

Does not use resources to support the team’s work.

Attempts to listen to, share with, and support the efforts of team members are limited or inconsistent.

Does not always listen when team members talk and requires redirection by team members and/or teacher.

Body language does not reflect engagement in the process. Focus on leaning in, asking questions, actively listening (e.g. make eye contact).

Occasionally offers feedback. At times, becomes impatient or frustrated with the process making teamwork more challenging.

Limited attempts to move between roles.

Does not consistently use resources to support the team’s work.

Listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of team members.

Listens when team members talk.

Attempts to engage in group tasks; however, body language does not consistently communicate interest or attention. Body language reflects engagement in the process, but there is room for improvement.

Offers feedback and treats team members with respect. At times, becomes impatient or frustrated with the process making teamwork more challenging.

Attempts to be flexible and move between roles; at times dominates a particular role. This is an area of potential growth.

Uses resources to support the team’s work.

Consistently listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of team members.

 

Leans in and actively listens when team members talk.

 

Body language communicates interest in team tasks and engagement in the process.

 

Offers constructive feedback, treats team members with respect, and is patient with the process.

 

Creates balance on the team moving between responsibilities without dominating any one role.

 

Uses resources effectively to support the team’s work.

\++++++++++++++++++++++
more on soft skills in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=soft+skills

measuring library outcomes and value

THE VALUE OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
A Comprehensive Research Review and Report. Megan Oakleaf

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

Librarians in universities, colleges, and community colleges can establish, assess, and link
academic library outcomes to institutional outcomes related to the following areas:
student enrollment, student retention and graduation rates, student success, student
achievement, student learning, student engagement, faculty research productivity,
faculty teaching, service, and overarching institutional quality.
Assessment management systems help higher education educators, including librarians, manage their outcomes, record and maintain data on each outcome, facilitate connections to
similar outcomes throughout an institution, and generate reports.
Assessment management systems are helpful for documenting progress toward
strategic/organizational goals, but their real strength lies in managing learning
outcomes assessments.
to determine the impact of library interactions on users, libraries can collect data on how individual users engage with library resources and services.
increase library impact on student enrollment.
p. 13-14improved student retention and graduation rates. High -impact practices include: first -year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing – intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, Value of Academic Libraries diversity/global learning, service learning/community -based learning, internships, capstone courses and projects

p. 14

Libraries support students’ ability to do well in internships, secure job placements, earn salaries, gain acceptance to graduate/professional schools, and obtain marketable skills.
librarians can investigate correlations between student library interactions and their GPA well as conduct test item audits of major professional/educational tests to determine correlations between library services or resources and specific test items.
p. 15 Review course content, readings, reserves, and assignments.
Track and increase library contributions to faculty research productivity.
Continue to investigate library impact on faculty grant proposals and funding, a means of generating institutional income. Librarians contribute to faculty grant proposals in a number of ways.
Demonstrate and improve library support of faculty teaching.
p. 20 Internal Focus: ROI – lib value = perceived benefits / perceived costs
production of a commodity – value=quantity of commodity produced × price per unit of commodity
p. 21 External focus
a fourth definition of value focuses on library impact on users. It asks, “What is the library trying to achieve? How can librarians tell if they have made a difference?” In universities, colleges, and community colleges, libraries impact learning, teaching, research, and service. A main method for measuring impact is to “observe what the [users] are actually doing and what they are producing as a result”
A fifth definition of value is based on user perceptions of the library in relation to competing alternatives. A related definition is “desired value” or “what a [user] wants to have happen when interacting with a [library] and/or using a [library’s] product or service” (Flint, Woodruff and Fisher Gardial 2002) . Both “impact” and “competing alternatives” approaches to value require libraries to gain new understanding of their users’ goals as well as the results of their interactions with academic libraries.
p. 23 Increasingly, academic library value is linked to service, rather than products. Because information products are generally produced outside of libraries, library value is increasingly invested in service aspects and librarian expertise.
service delivery supported by librarian expertise is an important library value.
p. 25 methodology based only on literature? weak!
p. 26 review and analysis of the literature: language and literature are old (e.g. educational administrators vs ed leaders).
G government often sees higher education as unresponsive to these economic demands. Other stakeholder groups —students, pa rents, communities, employers, and graduate/professional schools —expect higher education to make impacts in ways that are not primarily financial.

p. 29

Because institutional missions vary (Keeling, et al. 2008, 86; Fraser, McClure and
Leahy 2002, 512), the methods by which academic libraries contribute value vary as
well. Consequently, each academic library must determine the unique ways in which they contribute to the mission of their institution and use that information to guide planning and decision making (Hernon and Altman, Assessing Service Quality 1998, 31) . For example, the University of Minnesota Libraries has rewritten their mission and vision to increase alignment with their overarching institution’s goals and emphasis on strategic engagement (Lougee 2009, allow institutional missions to guide library assessment
Assessment vs. Research
In community colleges, colleges, and universities, assessment is about defining the
purpose of higher education and determining the nature of quality (Astin 1987)
.
Academic libraries serve a number of purposes, often to the point of being
overextended.
Assessment “strives to know…what is” and then uses that information to change the
status quo (Keeling, et al. 2008, 28); in contrast, research is designed to test
hypotheses. Assessment focuses on observations of change; research is concerned with the degree of correlation or causation among variables (Keeling, et al. 2008, 35) . Assessment “virtually always occurs in a political context ,” while research attempts to be apolitical” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) .
 p. 31 Assessment seeks to document observations, but research seeks to prove or disprove ideas. Assessors have to complete assessment projects, even when there are significant design flaws (e.g., resource limitations, time limitations, organizational contexts, design limitations, or political contexts); whereas researchers can start over (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 19) . Assessors cannot always attain “perfect” studies, but must make do with “good enough” (Upcraft and Schuh 2002, 18) . Of course, assessments should be well planned, be based on clear outcomes (Gorman 2009, 9- 10) , and use appropriate methods (Keeling, et al. 2008, 39) ; but they “must be comfortable with saying ‘after’ as well as ‘as a result of’…experiences” (Ke eling, et al. 2008, 35) .
Two multiple measure approaches are most significant for library assessment: 1) triangulation “where multiple methods are used to find areas of convergence of data from different methods with an aim of overcoming the biases or limitations of data gathered from any one particular method” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) and 2) complementary mixed methods , which “seek to use data from multiple methods to build upon each other by clarifying, enhancing, or illuminating findings between or among methods” (Keeling, et al. 2008, 53) .
p. 34 Academic libraries can help higher education institutions retain and graduate students, a keystone part of institutional missions (Mezick 2007, 561) , but the challenge lies in determining how libraries can contribute and then document their contribution
p. 35. Student Engagement:  In recent years, academic libraries have been transformed to provide “technology and content ubiquity” as well as individualized support
My Note: I read the “technology and content ubiquity” as digital literacy / metaliteracies, where basic technology instructional sessions (everything that IMS offers for years) is included, but this library still clenches to information literacy only.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) http://nsse.indiana.edu/
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2017_Institutional_Report/pdf/NSSE17%20Snapshot%20%28NSSEville%20State%29.pdf
p. 37 Student Learning
In the past, academic libraries functioned primarily as information repositories; now they are becoming learning enterprises (Bennett 2009, 194) . This shift requires academic librarians to embed library services and resources in the teaching and learning activities of their institutions (Lewis 2007) . In the new paradigm, librarians focus on information skills, not information access (Bundy 2004, 3); they think like educators, not service providers (Bennett 2009, 194) .
p. 38. For librarians, the main content area of student learning is information literacy; however, they are not alone in their interest in student inform ation literacy skills (Oakleaf, Are They Learning? 2011).
My note: Yep. it was. 20 years ago. Metaliteracies is now.
p. 41 surrogates for student learning in Table 3.
p. 42 strategic planning for learning:
According to Kantor, the university library “exists to benefit the students of the educational institution as individuals ” (Library as an Information Utility 1976 , 101) . In contrast, academic libraries tend to assess learning outcomes using groups of students
p. 45 Assessment Management Systems
Tk20
Each assessment management system has a slightly different set of capabilities. Some guide outcomes creation, some develop rubrics, some score student work, or support student portfolios. All manage, maintain, and report assessment data
p. 46 faculty teaching
However, as online collections grow and discovery tools evolve, that role has become less critical (Schonfeld and Housewright 2010; Housewright and Schonfeld, Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders 2008, 256) . Now, libraries serve as research consultants, project managers, technical support professionals, purchasers , and archivists (Housewright, Themes of Change 2009, 256; Case 2008) .
Librarians can count citations of faculty publications (Dominguez 2005)
.

+++++++++++++

Tenopir, C. (2012). Beyond usage: measuring library outcomes and value. Library Management33(1/2), 5-13.

http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d70921798%26site%3dehost-live%26scope%3dsite

methods that can be used to measure the value of library products and services. (Oakleaf, 2010; Tenopir and King, 2007): three main categories

  1. Implicit value. Measuring usage through downloads or usage logs provide an implicit measure of value. It is assumed that because libraries are used, they are of value to the users. Usage of e-resources is relatively easy to measure on an ongoing basis and is especially useful in collection development decisions and comparison of specific journal titles or use across subject disciplines.

do not show purpose, satisfaction, or outcomes of use (or whether what is downloaded is actually read).

  1. Explicit methods of measuring value include qualitative interview techniques that ask faculty members, students, or others specifically about the value or outcomes attributed to their use of the library collections or services and surveys or interviews that focus on a specific (critical) incident of use.
  2. Derived values, such as Return on Investment (ROI), use multiple types of data collected on both the returns (benefits) and the library and user costs (investment) to explain value in monetary terms.

++++++++++++++++++
more on ROI in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/11/02/roi-of-social-media/

cognitive load theory

Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand
AUGUST 2017 Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation
https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/cognitive_load_theory_report_AA1.pdf
Cognitive load theory is built upon two commonly accepted ideas. The first is that there is a limit to how much new information the human brain can process at one time. The second is that there are no known limits to how much stored information can be processed at one time. The aim of cognitive load research is therefore to develop instructional techniques and recommendations that fit within the characteristics of working memory, in order to maximise learning.
Explicit instruction involves teachers clearly showing students what to do and how to do it, rather than having students discover or construct information for themselves
how working memory and long-term memory process and store information
Working memory is the memory system where small amounts of information are stored for a very short duration (RAM). Long-term memory is the memory system where large amounts of information are stored semi-permanently (hard drive)
Cognitive load theory assumes that knowledge is stored in long- term memory in the form of ‘schemas’ 2 . A schema organises elements of information according to how they will be used. According to schema theory, skilled performance is developed through building ever greater numbers of increasingly complex schemas by combining elements of lower level schemas into higher level schemas. There is no limit to how complex schemas can become. An important process in schema construction is automation, whereby information can be processed automatically with minimal conscious effort. Automaticity occurs after extensive practice
Schemas provide a number of important functions that are relevant to learning. First, they provide a system for organising and storing knowledge. Second, and crucially for cognitive load theory, they reduce working memory load. This is because, although there are a limited number of elements that can be held in working memory at one time, a schema constitutes only a single element in working memory. In this way, a high level schema – with potentially infinite informational complexity – can effectively bypass the limits of working memory

Types of cognitive load

Cognitive load theory identifies three different types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous and germane load
Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the inherent difficulty of the subject matter being learnt.

subject matter that is difficult for a novice may be very easy for an expert.
Extraneous cognitive load relates to how the subject matter is taught.
extraneous load is the ‘bad’ type of cognitive load, because it does not directly contribute to learning. Cognitive load theorists consider that instructional design will be most effective when it minimises extraneous load in order to free up the capacity of working memory
Germane cognitive load refers to the load imposed on the working memory by the process of learning – that is, the process of transferring information into the long-term memory through schema construction
the approach of decreasing extraneous cognitive load while increasing germane cognitive load will only be effective if the total cognitive load remains within the limits of working memory
Explicit teaching

+++++++++++++
more on educational theories in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=educational+theories

university deans about future

College deans predict higher-ed is in for remarkable changes in 10 years

By Laura Ascione, Managing Editor, Content Services, @eSN_Laura
September 4th, 2017  New survey reveals more than two-thirds of college deans believe institutional change is on the horizon
The survey findings are from the responses of 109 deans of four-year colleges and universities in March and April 2017. Of the respondents, 61 percent were from public universities and 60 percent have been in their jobs at least five years.
Deans were divided on whether faculty members get enough support in teaching courses online–43 percent said faculty are getting shortchanged in how much help they get in rethinking their courses and teaching with technology, while 40 percent said they believe they are getting enough support and 14 percent are neutral.

One-third of deans agree online courses are comparable to face-to-face courses, and roughly the same proportion said they disagree.

Thirty-seven percent of college deans surveyed described the pace of change at their own institutions as “too slow.” Deans surveyed cite lack of money being the biggest hurdle to change, followed by resource constraints on faculty and staff and a resistance or aversion to change.

++++++++++++++++++++
university presidents about future in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=university+presidents

1 2 3 13