In my teaching career I worked at two colleges in Wisconsin. One public and one private. Both have Learning outcomes for each course, program/major outcomes for each major, and Institutional outcomes for the college (aka Employable skills, Career essentials, or Abilities).
Recently a friend of mine started teaching an online class at the University in a different state, and she kept asking them to give her learning outcomes for the course. After some back and forth emails it turned out that this other state university doesn’t have them.
It blew my mind , how do they know what the scope and depth of teaching should be in that course? How do they get their accreditation?
I am curious to know if it is just in Wisconsin or selected states/countries that it is a common practice to have outcomes? Also how do you teach without them?
Usually the instructor is required to create the outcomes for the class, but they are usually based on meta-outcomes from the department. That’s how it has been at all institutions I have worked at. With that said, I have worked with colleagues, full professors with Ph.D.s that didn’t understand the principle of learning outcomes, and unless forced to put them in the syllabus, they either would not do it on their own or when having them, would not follow them. And forgot about triangulation of LO to activities and assessments.
++++++++++++
Accreditors look for program LOs but not at course level. (We learned this after a faculty member was fired for pushing back on LOs on the syllabus, and when the Uni said “SACS requirements”, SACS responded w/“um no, not really…”) Since then, we’ve collected data as part of our assessment plan & can say w/confidence that students don’t read them…
Chad, K., & Anderson, H. (2017). The new role of the library in teaching and learning outcomes (p. ). Higher Education Library Technology. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.14688.89606/1
p. 4 “Modern university libraries require remote access for large numbers of concurrent users, with fewer authentication steps and more flexible digital rights management (DRM) to satisfy student demand”. They found the most frequent problem was that core reading list titles were not available to libraries as e-books.
p. 5 Overcoming the “textbook taboo”
In the US, academic software firm bepress notes that, in response to increased student textbook costs: “Educators, institutions, and even state legislators are turning their attention toward Open Educational Resources (OER)” in order to save students money while increasing engagement and retention. As a result bepress has developed its infrastructure to host and share OER within and across institutions.21 The UMass Library Open Education Initiative estimates it has saved the institution over $1.3 million since its inception in 2011. 22 Other textbook initiatives include SUNY Open Textbooks, developed by the State University of New York Libraries, which has already published 18 textbooks, and OpenStax, developed by Rice University.
p.5. sceptics about OER rapid progress still see potential in working with publishers.
Knowledge Unlatched 23 is an example of this kind of collaboration: “We believe that by working together libraries and publishers can create a sustainable route to Open Access for scholarly books.” Groups of libraries contribute to fund publication though a crowdfunding platform. The consortium pays a fixed upfront fee for the publisher to publish the book online under a Creative Commons license.
p.6.Technology: from library systems to educational technology.The rise of the library centric reading list system
big increase in the number of universities in the UK, Australia and New Zealand deploying library reading lists solutions.The online reading list can be seen as a sort of course catalogue that gives the user a (sometimes week-by-week) course/module view on core resources and provides a link to print holdings information or the electronic full text. It differs significantly from the integrated library system (ILS) ‘course reserve’ module, notably by providing access to materials beyond the items in the library catalogue. Titles can be characterised, for example as ‘recommended’ or ‘essential’ reading and citations annotated.
Reading list software brings librarians and academics together into a system where they must cooperate to be effective. Indeed some librarians claim that the reading list system is a key library tool for transforming student learning.
Higher education institutions, particularly those in Australia, New Zealand and some other parts of Europe (including the UK) are more likely to operate a reading list model, supplying students with a (sometimes long) list of recommended titles.
p.8. E-book platforms (discusses only UK)
p.9. Data: library management information to learning analytics
p.10. Leadership “Strong digital leadership is a key feature of effective educational organisations and its absence can be a significant barrier to progress. The digital agenda is therefore a leadership issue”. 48 (Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education? Sarah Davies, Joel Mullan, Paul Feldman. Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) Report 93. February 2017. )
A merging of LibTech and EdTech
The LITA discussion is under RE: [lita-l] Anyone Running Multiple Discovery Layers?
Minecraft for Higher Ed? Try it. Pros, Cons, Recommendations?
Description: Why Minecraft, the online video game? How can Minecraft improve learning for higher education? We’ll begin with a live demo in which all can participate (see “Minecraft for Free”). We’ll review “Examples, Not Rumors” of successful adaptations and USES of Minecraft for teaching/learning in higher education. Especially those submitted in advance And we’ll try to extract from these activities a few recommendations/questions/requests re Minecraft in higher education.
Callaghan, N. (2016). Investigating the role of Minecraft in educational learning environments. Educational Media International, 53(4), 244-260. doi:10.1080/09523987.2016.1254877
Noelene Callaghan dissects the evolution in Australian education from a global perspective. She rightfully draws attention (p. 245) to inevitable changes in the educational world, which still remain ignored: e.g., the demise of “traditional” LMS (Educase is calling for their replacement with digital learning environments https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/07/06/next-gen-digital-learning-environment/ and so does the corporate world of learning: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/digital-learning/ ), the inevitability of BYOD (mainly by the “budget restrictions and sustainability challenges” (p. 245); by the assertion of cloud computing, and, last but not least, by the gamification of education.
p. 245 literature review. In my paper, I am offering more comprehensive literature review. While Callaghan focuses on the positive, my attempt is to list both pros and cons: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re
246 General use of massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs)
levels of interaction have grown dramatically and have led to the creation of general use of massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs)
247 In teaching and learning environments, affordances associated with edugames within a project-based learning (PBL) environment permit:
These affordances develop both social and cognitive abilities of students
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., Kolda, F., Mackiewicz, V., & Rey, G. (2017). You cannot do this alone! Increasing task interdependence in cooperative educational videogames to encourage collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(4), 993-1014. doi:10.1007/s11423-017-9511-8
Abrams, S. S., & Rowsell, J. (2017). Emotionally Crafted Experiences: Layering Literacies in Minecraft. Reading Teacher, 70(4), 501-506.
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Daniel Rey, G. (2016). Mining Learning and Crafting Scientific Experiments: A Literature Review on the Use of Minecraft in Education and Research. Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(192), 355–366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.355
Cipollone, M., Schifter, C. C., & Moffat, R. A. (2014). Minecraft as a Creative Tool: A Case Study. International Journal Of Game-Based Learning, 4(2), 1-14.
Niemeyer, D. J., & Gerber, H. R. (2015). Maker culture and Minecraft : implications for the future of learning. Educational Media International, 52(3), 216-226. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Daniel Rey, G. (2016). Mining Learning and Crafting Scientific Experiments: A Literature Review on the Use of Minecraft in Education and Research. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(192), 355–366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.355
Wilkinson, B., Williams, N., & Armstrong, P. (2013). Improving Student Understanding, Application and Synthesis of Computer Programming Concepts with Minecraft. In The European Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2013. Retrieved from http://iafor.info/archives/offprints/ectc2013-offprints/ECTC2013_0477.pdf
Uusi-Mäkelä, M., & Uusi-Mäkelä, M. (2014). Immersive Language Learning with Games: Finding Flow in MinecraftEdu. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2014). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/noaccess/148409/
Birt, J., & Hovorka, D. (2014). Effect of mixed media visualization on learner perceptions and outcomes. In 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/fsd_papers/74
Al Washmi, R., Bana, J., Knight, I., Benson, E., Afolabi, O., Kerr, A., Hopkins, G. (2014). Design of a Math Learning Game Using a Minecraft Mod. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4660.4809
a learning management system (LMS) is never the solution to every problem in education. Edtech is just one part of the whole learning ecosystem and student experience.
Therefore, the next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE), as envisioned by EDUCAUSE in 2015 … Looking at the NGDLE requirements from an LMS perspective, I view the NGDLE as being about five areas: interoperability; personalization; analytics, advising, and learning assessment; collaboration; accessibility and universal design.
Interoperability
Content can easily be exchanged between systems.
Users are able to leverage the tools they love, including discipline-specific apps.
Learning data is available to trusted systems and people who need it.
The learning environment is “future proof” so that it can adapt and extend as the ecosystem evolves.
Personalization
The learning environment reflects individual preferences.
Departments, divisions, and institutions can be autonomous.
Instructors teach the way they want and are not constrained by the software design.
There are clear, individual learning paths.
Students have choice in activity, expression, and engagement.
Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment
Learning analytics helps to identify at-risk students, course progress, and adaptive learning pathways.
The learning environment enables integrated planning and assessment of student performance.
More data is made available, with greater context around the data.
The learning environment supports platform and data standards.
Collaboration
Individual spaces persist after courses and after graduation.
Learners are encouraged as creators and consumers.
Courses include public and private spaces.
Accessibility and Universal Design
Accessibility is part of the design of the learning experience.
The learning environment enables adaptive learning and supports different types of materials.
Learning design includes measurement rubrics and quality control.
The core analogy used in the NGDLE paper is that each component of the learning environment is a Lego brick:
The days of the LMS as a “walled garden” app that does everything is over.
Today many kinds of amazing learning and collaboration tools (Lego bricks) should be accessible to educators.
We have standards that let these tools (including an LMS) talk to each other. That is, all bricks share some properties that let them fit together.
Students and teachers sign in once to this “ecosystem of bricks.”
The bricks share results and data.
These bricks fit together; they can be interchanged and swapped at will, with confidence that the learning experience will continue uninterrupted.
Any “next-gen” attempt to completely rework the pedagogical model and introduce a “mash-up of whatever” to fulfil this model would fall victim to the same criticisms levied at the LMS today: there is too little time and training to expect faculty to figure out the nuances of implementation on their own.
The Lego metaphor works only if we’re talking about “old school” Lego design — bricks of two, three, and four-post pieces that neatly fit together. Modern edtech is a lot more like the modern Lego. There are wheels and rocket launchers and belts and all kinds of amazing pieces that work well with each other, but only when they are configured properly. A user cannot simply stick together different pieces and assume they will work harmoniously in creating an environment through which each student can be successful.
As the NGDLE paper states: “Despite the high percentages of LMS adoption, relatively few instructors use its more advanced features — just 41% of faculty surveyed report using the LMS ‘to promote interaction outside the classroom.'”
But this is what the next generation LMS is good at: being a central nervous system — or learning hub — through which a variety of learning activities and tools are used. This is also where the LMS needs to go: bringing together and making sense of all the amazing innovations happening around it. This is much harder to do, perhaps even impossible, if all the pieces involved are just bricks without anything to orchestrate them or to weave them together into a meaningful, personal experience for achieving well-defined learning outcomes.
Making a commitment to build easy, flexible, and smart technology
Working with colleges and universities to remove barriers to adopting new tools in the ecosystem
Standardizing the vetting of accessibility compliance (the Strategic Nonvisual Access Partner Program from the National Federation of the Blind is a great start)
Advancing standards for data exchange while protecting individual privacy
Building integrated components that work with the institutions using them — learning quickly about what is and is not working well and applying those lessons to the next generation of interoperability standards
Letting people use the tools they love [SIC] and providing more ways for nontechnical individuals (including students) to easily integrate new features into learning activities
My note: something just refused to be accepted at SCSU
Technologists are often very focused on the technology, but the reality is that the more deeply and closely we understand the pedagogy and the people in the institutions — students, faculty, instructional support staff, administrators — the better suited we are to actually making the tech work for them.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Under the Hood of a Next Generation Digital Learning Environment in Progress
The challenge is that although 85 percent of faculty use a campus learning management system (LMS),1 a recent Blackboard report found that, out of 70,000 courses across 927 North American institutions, 53 percent of LMS usage was classified as supplemental(content-heavy, low interaction) and 24 percent as complementary (one-way communication via content/announcements/gradebook).2 Only 11 percent were characterized as social, 10 percent as evaluative (heavy use of assessment), and 2 percent as holistic (balanced use of all previous). Our FYE course required innovating beyond the supplemental course-level LMS to create a more holistic cohort-wide NGDLE in order to fully support the teaching, learning, and student success missions of the program.The key design goals for our NGDLE were to:
Create a common platform that could deliver a standard curriculum and achieve parity in all course sections using existing systems and tools and readily available content
Capture, store, and analyze any generated learner data to support learning assessment, continuous program improvement, and research
Develop reports and actionable analytics for administrators, advisors, instructors, and students
Last fall, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published its first-ever, and one of the largest-ever, international analyses of student access to computers and how that relates to student learning. (The OECD administers the PISA test, the world-famous international academic ranking.)
“Students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after controlling for social background and student demographics.”
In April, the research firm SRI published a report at the behest of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which is a supporter of NPR Ed). It looked at college courses that are using so-called “adaptive learning” software as an enhancement to blended courses.
Finally, a study published in July looked at high-achieving eighth-graders across North Carolina who had the opportunity to take Algebra I online. The study found that they did much worse than students who took the course face-to-face — about a third of a letter grade worse, in fact.
Implementation is really important, yet it’s often ignored.
Imperfect data and inadequate evaluation make it hard to understand or improve the use of ed-tech.
Computers are enhancing access. There’s less evidence that they’re enhancing learning.
++++++++++++++++++++++
more on the relationship between technology and learning in this IMS blog
, how do they know what the scope and depth of teaching should be in that course? How do they get their accreditation?