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”: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=blockchain)
MOBILE LEARNING (Curricular use of mobile devices (here previous blog postings on this issue:
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: https://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)
“overcome achievement gaps, drive engagement and personalize learning”
The funding, which goes the school, not the individual recipient, is expected to be used for technology, professional development, curriculum and related resources.
When we first started in 1999, we included ~10 questions in addition to our standard questions that were different for online courses. This information was particularly useful as we grew our online offerings (i.e. Would you take another online course. 93-5% answered yes consistently. How would you rate the level of interactivity between you and the instructor? Between you and the other students?) These were administered via SurveyMonkey because there were no online evaluation services back then.
Now we have a single evaluation that is administered to all students regardless of the delivery format (online, hybrid, blended, F2F or intensive) The questions were designed to be relevant regardless of the delivery format. All of these evaluations are administered online…which has its downsides (e.g. response rate is less especially compared to what was captured in F2F classes in the past.) We continue to explore ways to increase the response rate.
Reta Chaffee Director of Educational Technology-Academic Affairs Granite State College 25 Hall Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 513-1350
+++++++++++++++++++++
On Behalf Of Krajewski, Scott Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 1:00 PM To:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Course Evaluations
Hi Hala, We have a standard online evaluation form for all courses. We do add 3 questions to the sports courses but otherwise we’re 100% standardized. We have a ton of info at
Patrick Patrick R. Lowenthal | Associate Professor Educational Technology, Boise State University http://www.patricklowenthal.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++
On Behalf Of Rob Gibson Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:39 AM To:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Course Evaluations
We use the IDEA evaluation framework combined with CampusLabs as the delivery engine.
IDEA is a well-established evaluation process dating back to the 1970s.
The CampusLabs delivery process (new as of about 2 years ago) provides students with a single URL to complete their evaluations – on-campus or on-line. Mobile friendly.
It uses the same base evaluation criteria across the university. (That’s how IDEA is able to substantiate reliability and validity.) IDEA is matched against a national database using a CIP code. Hence, faculty can gather comparative data of their course against other similar courses in the university, or at the national level.
While each department uses the same basic framework, there are modification that can be made. For example, custom questions can be added to the eval (these fall outside the scope of the comparative data) and the learning objectives can be modified by course, department, school, college. We have one School that has custom learning objectives for each course in their program. Objectives are set using a 3 point Likert scale.
Join the Blended Librarians Online Learning Community for the second webcast in a series of conversations with Blended Librarians. This session explores the role of Blended Librarians by discussing with our panel how they developed their skills, how they obtained their positions, what their work is like, what their challenges are and what they enjoy about being a Blended Librarian. This panel conversation takes place on Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 3 p.m. EST with our guests J. Lindsay O’Neill, Francesca Marineo, Kristin (Miller) Woodward, Julie Hartwell, and Amanda Clossen.
Panelists
Lindsay O’Neill is the Instructional Design Librarian at California State University, Fullerton’s Pollak Library, where she designs and develops tutorials related to information literacy and library research using Articulate Storyline, Adobe Captivate, and Camtasia. She is also a faculty member in CSUF’s Master of Science in Instructional Design and Technology program. Lindsay regularly consults on effective pedagogy, instructional design, educational technology, open licensing, and accessibility. Lindsay holds a Master in Education, specializing in Educational Technology/Instructional Design, as well as a Master of Library and Information Science.
Francesca Marineo is an instructional design librarian at Nevada State College. She received her MLIS from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she discovered her profound passion for information literacy instruction. Currently pursuing a Master in Educational Psychology, she focuses on improving teaching and learning in higher education through innovative pedagogy and data-driven design.
Kristin Woodward is Online Programs and Instructional Design Coordinator at UWM Libraries. In this role Kristin consults with faculty and teaching staff to build information competencies and library resources into the framework of online, hybrid and competency based courses. Kristin also serves as the campus lead for the student-funded Open Textbook and OER Project as well as the library team lead for Scholarly Communication.
Julie Hartwell is an Instructional Design Librarian at the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Miller Nichols Library. She serves as liaison to the Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Instructional Design departments. She contributes to the creation of library learning objects and instruction for the library’s Research Essentials program. She is a content creator and instructional designer for the New Literacies Alliance, an inter-institutional information literacy consortium. Julie is a Quality Matters Peer Reviewer. She received her masters of library and information science from the University of Iowa.
Amanda Clossen has been working as the Learning Design Librarian at Penn State University Libraries for the past five years. In this position, she has worked on projects spanning the micro to macro aspects of learning design. She has created award-winning videos, overseen Penn State’s transition from an in-house guide product to LibGuides, and was deeply involved in integrating the Libraries in the new LMS, Canvas. Her research interests include accessibility, video usability, and concept based teaching.
According to the report, one of the main reasons for the growth in generic e-learning content and courses is the adoption of teaching and learning methods such as the flipped classroom, blended learning and virtual classrooms
The report identifies the proliferation of mobile devices on campus as the third factor helping to drive adoption of these courses. “The availability of gadgets such as e-book readers, tablets, and laptops, coupled with better and uninterrupted Internet connectivity, has led to a greater penetration of digital classrooms and e-learning products,”
“Hybrid learning gives us the advantage of having technology available to learn in the way that we’ve grown used to,” says Ms. Pillwein, who is also a Brock University graduate. “In the abnormal psychology course, the online component is mainly tests and quizzes that you can do in your own time. I’ve found that suits my learning style more, as opposed to doing a test in class where you’d have to memorize a lot of terms and concepts.”
Ms. Pillwein also likes that the professor uploads all of her PowerPoint presentations for students to access and review. She feels that helps get the material embedded in her brain more than writing things down word for word during the lecture.
Ms. Hotham finds that the combination of two hours of classroom lecture and then one hour of online activity for the week is an effective way of teaching the material, particularly because it gives students time to take away what has been said and digest it.
After two years of teaching the course with the online component and one year before that of teaching without it, she says the student grades are higher than when she taught only in the classroom.
Ms. Hotham also finds students are more engaged in the discussion the week after doing the online activities because they have more to talk about. Sometimes she posts a video, which then becomes an online discussion.
Patrick Lyons, director of teaching and learning services at Carleton University in Ottawa, visualizes online learning taking many different forms, presenting all kinds of opportunities that could not be delivered any other way. Carleton has a long history offering distance learning, first broadcasting courses on a local cable TV channel in 1978 and then offering the world’s first video podcast of a university credit course in 2006.
Flipped/Blended/… Teaching/Learning: FridayLive! Collaborative Development Series
Presenters: Steve Gilbert, TLT Group Beth Dailey, TLT Group Dale Parker, Senior Faculty, Cambridge College Penny Kuckkahn, Nicolet College, Instructional Designer Robert Voelker-Morris, Faculty Technology Consultant, University of Oregon Winona Hatcher, Instructional Designer, Augusta University
Date: 11/11/201616
Time: 1:30 PM ET pre session. 2:00 -3:00 PM ET Main event. 3:00 – 3:30 PM ET After thoughts
Description
This is the third in our Flipped/Blended… Teaching/Learning Collaborative Development Series. Faculty considering the next steps toward flipping/blended..teaching/learning and instructional designers and design consultants will all find something of benefit from this series.
In the spring we explored what it means to flip a classroom and added to the flipped classroom toolkit. Over the summer a team of instructional designers assisted a faculty member in designing a flipped lesson. This collaborative development process is the basis of the series.
Book Announcement: Implementing Mobile Language Learning Technologies in Japan
New book: Implementing Mobile Language Learning Technologies in Japan
by Steve McCarty, Hiroyuki Obari, and Takeshi Sato
Publisher: Springer Singapore / SpringerBriefs in Education (107 pages)
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction: Contextualizing Mobile Language Learning in Japan
Chapter 2 Mobile Language Learning Pedagogy: A Sociocultural Perspective
Chapter 3 Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology Case Study:
Smartphone App LINE for EFL Peer Learning
Chapter 4 Osaka Jogakuin University Case Study:
Mobilizing the EFL Curriculum and Campus Infrastructure with iPods and iPads
Chapter 5 Aoyama Gakuin University Case Study:
Blended Learning and Flipped Classrooms utilizing Mobile Devices
Chapter 6 Conclusion: Implementing Language Learning in a Mobile-Oriented Society
Abstract
This book explores theoretical and practical aspects of implementing mobile language learning in university classrooms for English as a Foreign Language in Japan. The technologies utilized, such as smartphones, iPads, and wi-fi, integrate students’ hand-held devices into the campus network infrastructure. The pedagogical aims of ubiquitous mobile learning further incorporate social media, blended learning, and flipped classroom approaches into the curriculum. Chapter 1 defines mobile language learning within dimensions of e-learning and technology-assisted language learning, prior to tracing the development of mobile learning in Japan. Chapter 2 documents the sociocultural theory underpinning the authors’ humanistic approach to implementation of mobile technologies. The sociocultural pedagogy represents a global consensus of leading educators that also recognizes the agency of Asian learners and brings out their capability for autonomous learning. Case studies of universities, large and small, public and private, are organized similarly in Chapters 3 to 5. Institutional/pedagogical and technological context sections are followed by detailed content on the implementation of initiatives, assessment of effectiveness, and recommendations for other institutions. Distinct from a collection of papers, this monograph tells a story in brief book length about theorizing and realizing mobile language learning, describing pioneering and original initiatives of importance to practitioners in other educational contexts.
Authors
Steve McCarty lectures for Kansai University, Osaka Jogakuin University, KIC Graduate School of IT, and the government agency JICA.
Hiroyuki Obari, PhD in Computer Science, is a Professor at the Aoyama Gakuin University College of Economics in Tokyo.
Takeshi Sato is an Associate Professor at the Division of Language and Culture Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology.
