Difference Between Search & Browse Methods in Odoo 17
Â
Quality Online Learning & Teaching
1. Informational Webinar:
Quality Online Learning and Teaching
(QOLT)
Brett Christie, Ph.D., CSU Academic Technology Services
Li Wang, Ph.D., CSU Northridge
Dora Preminger, Ph.D., CSU Northridge
2. BEST USE OF THE WEBINAR
â˘âŻ If you havenât done so already, enter your
name, campus, and role in the chat box.
â˘âŻ QOLT will be described in as much detail with as much clarity
as possible. Visuals are included and all information is available
at the QOLT site.
â˘âŻ Feel free to enter comments/questions into the chat box. We
will screen those and address all possible.
â˘âŻ Should questions arise after the session, contact Brett Christie
(qolt@cdl.edu).
â˘âŻ Session is being recorded for review or referral at QOLT site.
3.
4. AGENDA
â˘âŻ Introductions & Acknowledgments (5 minutes)
â˘âŻ Brett Christie, CSU Faculty Development Liaison, QOLT Program Director
â˘âŻ Li Wang, CSUN Instructional Designer, Quality Matters, Research Colleague, QOLT Associate
â˘âŻ Kathy Fernandes & John Whitmer, CSU LMSS leadership
â˘âŻ Overview of QOLT (10 minutes)
â˘âŻ How we got here
â˘âŻ Purpose; Brief review of 2011-2012 pilot
â˘âŻ 2012-2013 Project timeline
â˘âŻ A closer look at the QOLT instrument and process (20 minutes)
â˘âŻ Instructor Self-review
â˘âŻ Student Report
â˘âŻ Campus Coordinator review/verification role
â˘âŻ Discussion (20 minutes)
â˘âŻ Closure and feedback (5 minutes)
5. QOLT PURPOSE
â˘âŻ Create a useful evaluation tool that can help faculty
(re)develop quality hybrid/online courses.
â˘âŻ Identify exemplary practices for teaching and learning
through hybrid/online courses.
â˘âŻ Inform faculty development activities and programs
related to hybrid/online teaching.
â˘âŻ Recognize faculty, programs, and campuses that are
creating quality online courses. And, share!
6. MODELS EXAMINED
â˘âŻ Rubric for Online Instruction: Designed to assist development and
evaluation of online courses while promoting dialog about the nature of
student learning.
â˘âŻ Quality Matters: Faculty-centered, peer-review process designed to certify
quality of hybrid/online courses.
â˘âŻ Quality Online Course Initiative: Course rubric and evaluation system
developed in Illinois to improve online accountability.
â˘âŻ Course Review Toolkit:An instrument and a system, developed at CSU
Northridge, for informing and assessing Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Online,
teaching and learning.
â˘âŻ Online Course Evaluation Program: Developed by the Monterey Institute for
Technology and Education, OCEP is a criteria-based evaluation tool to
assess and compare the quality of online courses.
â˘âŻ eLearning Best Practices Rubric @ Sacramento State
â˘âŻ Various research and publications on effective teaching, learning, design,
assessment, syllabi, etc.
9. RESULTING QOLT EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
1.⯠Course Overview and Introduction (8)
2.⯠Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning (6)
3.⯠Instructional Materials and Resources Utilized (6)
4.⯠Student Interaction and Community (8)
5.⯠Facilitation and Instruction (8)
6.⯠Technology for Teaching and Learning (6)
7.⯠Learner Support and Resources (3)
8.⯠Accessibility and Universal Design (4)
9.⯠Course Summary and Wrap-up (3)
10. â˘âŻ Participants should not enter into lightly
â˘âŻ Participation time estimated at 1+ hour
â˘âŻ Course evaluation, not simple survey
â˘âŻ Process is about analysis and reflection
â˘âŻ Pay-off is informed course redesign
â˘âŻ Validation of teaching effectiveness effort
11. QOLT SCORING PER OBJECTIVE
There is also an open-ended box per section for descriptive.
12.
13.
14.
15. Section 1. Course Overview and Introduction
Instructor gives a thorough description of the
course, as well as introducing students to the
course protocol and expectations.
16.
17. 1.B. âCOURSE DESCRIPTIONâ BASELINE
§ď§âŻThere should be specific meaning to the course,
section, instructor, and students, not just the
minimal course description that appears in the
catalog.
"Directed conversation in Spanish for elementary-level
students. Includes individual and class assignments in
laboratory. May be repeated for credit. Admission by
consent of instructor."
23. 1.D. âONLINE ETIQUETTEâ SAMPLE
§ď§âŻDo not dominate any discussion.
§ď§âŻDo not use offensive language.
§ď§âŻNever make fun of someoneâs ability to read or write.
§ď§âŻUse simple English.
§ď§âŻUse correct spelling and grammar.
§ď§âŻShare tips with other students.
§ď§âŻKeep an âopen-mindâ and be willing to express even your minority
opinion.
§ď§âŻBe aware of the Universityâs Academic Honesty Policy.
§ď§âŻThink before you push the âSendâ button.
§ď§âŻDo not hesitate to ask for feedback.
§ď§âŻWhen in doubt, always check with your instructor for clarification.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2010). Netiquette: Make it part of your syllabus. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 6(1),
24.
25. 1.F. âTECHNICAL COMPETENCIESâ SAMPLE
§ď§âŻConnect to the Web using a web browser.
§ď§âŻNavigate around the Web and use search engines.
§ď§âŻSend and receive e-mail with attachments.
§ď§âŻBasic word processing, including cutting and pasting.
§ď§âŻOpen, save, and manage files.
§ď§âŻOrganize folders and files (create, name, rename, move).
§ď§âŻCompress files and folders.
*Depends on course level and proportion of online mode
28. SECTION 2:
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING
Student Evaluation and Assessment refers to the
process used to gather evidence of the
achievement of the Student Learning
Objectives/Outcomes (SLOs).
We strongly recommend that instructors contact
the Office of Academic Assessment (or similar) for
assistance and information about this section.
29. Objectives Example
2.a All Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes (SLOs) are If the mandated course level objectives are not measurable, then
specific, well-defined, and measureable. module level objectives should be measurable and support course
level objectives.
2.b The grading policy is clearly stated for the course and Instructor provides late submission policy and scale, weights of
individual assignments. respective assignments, and the corresponding letter grade if scores
are accumulated at the end.
2.c The learning activities (including the assignments and Instructors explain how learning activities such as assignments,
ungraded activities) promote the achievement of the SLOs. discussions contribute to the achievement of the stated SLOs.
2.d The assessment instruments selected are sequenced, There are multiple ways to demonstrate mastery-e.g., project, paper,
varied, and appropriate to the student work being assessed. tests. One is built upon the other tool.
2.e Throughout the semester Instructor provides multiple Activities may include but not limited to blogs for reflection, peer
opportunities to give feedback on students learning (strengths review, practice test and draft of term paper, module summary.
and weaknesses) and to âself-checkâ students learning/progress.
2.f Throughout the semester, instructor provides multiple Instructor may consider the use of surveys, discussion forums, or
opportunities to solicit feedback from their students about their item analyses to collect feedback or attitudinal data (that goes
learning and on the course for the improvement of the course. beyond student learning outcomes) on the effectiveness or difficulty
of the resources and activities (e.g., âMuddiest Pointâ), or item
analysis of test questions in order to improve the course in the future.
30. Objectives Example
2.a All Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes (SLOs) are If the mandated course level objectives are not measurable, then
specific, well-defined, and measureable. module level objectives should be measurable and support course
level objectives.
2.b The grading policy is clearly stated for the course and Instructor provides late submission policy and scale, weights of
individual assignments. respective assignments, and the corresponding letter grade if
scores are accumulated at the end.
2.c The learning activities (including the assignments and Instructors explain how learning activities such as assignments,
ungraded activities) promote the achievement of the SLOs. discussions contribute to the achievement of the stated SLOs.
2.d The assessment instruments selected are sequenced, There are multiple ways to demonstrate mastery-e.g., project,
varied, and appropriate to the student work being assessed. paper, tests. One is built upon the other tool.
2.e Throughout the semester Instructor provides multiple Activities may include but not limited to blogs for reflection, peer
opportunities to give feedback on students learning (strengths review, practice test and draft of term paper, module summary.
and weaknesses) and to âself-checkâ students learning/
progress.
2.f Throughout the semester, instructor provides multiple Instructor may consider the use of surveys, discussion forums, or
opportunities to solicit feedback from their students about item analyses to collect feedback or attitudinal data (that goes
their learning and on the course for the improvement of the beyond student learning outcomes) on the effectiveness or
course. difficulty of the resources and activities (e.g., âMuddiest Pointâ), or
item analysis of test questions in order to improve the course in
the future.
34. Sample Online Assignment Rubrics
â˘âŻ Online Discussions
â˘âŻ Student/Group Wikis
â˘âŻ Student Blogs
â˘âŻ Twitter
â˘âŻ PowerPoint or Enhanced PodCast
â˘âŻ ePortfolio
â˘âŻ Video Production
http://tinyurl.com/7vbvag2
35.
36. Section 3.
Instructional Materials and
Resources Utilized
The instructor has carefully selected a variety
of materials and material formats to represent
course content and enable students to
meet relevant learning outcomes.
37. Objectives Example
3.a Instructor provides students with adequate Instructor includes instruction in the syllabus or elsewhere in the course as
time and notice to acquire course materials. to acquire course materials including textbooks, and other types of
external resources.
3.b Syllabus lists whether textbooks and Instructor separates the materials and labels them as either required or
materials are required or recommended. recommended.
3.c Instructor articulates the purpose of all For required and recommended materials, there are brief statements as to
materials as to how they are related to the the value/purpose in meeting student learning objectives/outcome(s). If
course and module learning objectives. external links/websites are used, the links should be self-evident or a short
description of the specific link needs to be provided instead of posting a
general link for students to explore.
3.d When possible, instructor provides s Course materials include both the Open Educational Resources (e.g.
options in terms of how students acquire MERLOT) and external materials
course materials, including Open Educational
Resources (e.g., MERLOT).
3.e There is a variety of instructional material Materials types include PowerPoint, videos, text. Multiple perspectives
types and perspectives, while not overly relying refer to different opinions from scholars in the field.
on one content type such as text.
3.f All resources and materials used in the These resources and materials include text, images, tables, videos, audio,
course are appropriately cited. and website.
38. Section 4.
Student Interaction and Community
(Course Design)
Addresses how the instructors provide opportunities
for students to interact with the content,
peers, instructors and the LMS and promote
students to become active learners and
build the online community.
39.
40. Section 5. Facilitation and Instruction
(Course Delivery)
Instructor facilitates the course and communicates
with students frequently and engages
them to be active learners.
Instructor actions reinforce the development of a
sense of community among course participants.
41.
42. Section 6.
Technology for Teaching and Learning
Instructor utilizes technology to effectively deliver
course content, engage students in learning
activities (individual, student-to-student, instructor-
to-student) and for students to express themselves
or demonstrate learning.
43.
44. Section 7.
Learner Support and Resources
Learner Support and Resources refers to
program, academic, and/or technical
resources available to learners.
45.
46. SECTION 8
ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
The course utilizes principles of accessibility and
universal design that are critical to some learners,
as well as offering benefits to all learners.
We strongly recommend that instructors contact
the Universal Design Center (or similar) for
assistance and information about this section.
47.
48. Students with Disabilities
Upon identifying themselves to the instructor and
the university, students with disabilities will
receive reasonable accommodation for learning
and evaluation. For more information, contact
Services to Students with Disabilities in Building,
Room (x4232).
49. Universal Design Statement
âAs your instructor, I feel I have a responsibility to do
everything within reason to actively support a wide range
of learning styles and abilities. As such, I have applied
the principles of Universal Design for Learning to this
course. Feel free to discuss your progress in the course
with me at any time. In addition, if you require an
accommodation, submit your verified accommodations
form to me during the first two weeks of the course.â
50. Section 9
Course Summary and Wrap-up
The course gives students an opportunity to
summarize the semester, and establish the
connection with other courses, and prepares
students to start the next phase of their journey.
53. Gathering Student Ratings
â˘âŻ Online evaluations due December 15, 2012
â˘âŻ Minimal demographic information
â˘âŻ Confidential (coordinator and instructor only)
â˘âŻ Ratings submitted directly to QOLT Central
â˘âŻ Process will be streamlined via Likert items
o⯠Optional open-ended at end of each section
â˘âŻ Results used toward determining most
exemplary per campus and across system.
54. Purpose of Student Ratings
1.⯠Identify any gaps between instructorâs
perception and actual student experience.
2.⯠Make changes to courses based on evidence
3.⯠Use the data to receive administrative support
to teach online or hybrid
55.
56. Student
 ratings
 from
 the
Â
Quality
 Online
 Learning
 and
Â
Teaching
 (QOLT)
 survey
Â
Â
Dora
 Preminger
Â
Dept.
 Physics
 &
 Astronomy
Â
â˘
Â
Li
 Wang
Â
Faculty
 Technology
 Center
Â
â˘
Â
California
 State
 University
 Northridge
Â
57. The
 course
Â
Physics
 220A
 â
 Classical
 Mechanics
Â
Calculus-Ââbased
Â
 (Engineers)
Â
Â
Why
 use
 the
 QOLT
 survey?
Â
â˘âŻ New
 hybrid
 format
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 Is
 the
 course
 well-Ââdesigned?
Â
(Survey
 makes
 QOLT
 rubric
Â
â˘âŻ Is
 it
 viable?
 concrete)
 Perceptions
 of
 students
Â
â˘âŻ Improve
 for
 future?
 Weak/missing
Â
 elements?
Â
58. Sample
 Results:
 Instructional
 Materials
 and
 Resources
Â
The
 instructor
 uses
 a
 variety
 of
 All
 materials
 are
 meaningful
 to
 me
 as
Â
instruc9onal
 material
 types
 and
 presents
 to
 how
 they
 are
 related
 to
 helping
 me
Â
mul9ple
 perspec9ves,
 while
 not
 overly
 achieve
 the
 course
 learning
 goals
 and
Â
relying
 on
 one
 content
 type
 such
 as
 text.
Â
 objec9ves.
Â
Some
 Student
 comments:
Â
â˘âŻ There
 are
 way
 too
 many
 course
 materials
 for
 this
 course...more
 so
 than
 the
 non-Ââhybrid
Â
counterpart
 which
 would
 already
 have
 been
 borderline
 too
 expensive.
Â
â˘âŻ The
 Ac9ve
 physics
 assignments
 are
 very
 confusing.
 I
 was
 not
 able
 to
 understand
 how
 to
Â
properly
 use
 it
 9ll
 the
 instructor
 told
 me
 that
 should
 use
 the
 diďŹerent
 browser
 to
 use
 it
Â
properly.
Â
59. Sample
 Results:
Â
 Students
 Interaction
 and
 Community
Â
Â
At
 the
 beginning
 of
 the
 course,
 GeBng
 I
 ďŹnd
 the
 naviga9on
 throughout
 the
 online
Â
to
 know
 other
 course
 par9cipants
 components
 of
 the
 course
 is
 reasonable,
Â
gave
 me
 a
 sense
 of
 belonging
 in
 the
 intui9ve
 and
 straighEorward.
Â
course.
Â
The
 learning
 ac9vi9es
 encourage
Â
me
 to
 interact
 with
 the
Â
instructor,
 my
 peers,
 and
 the
Â
course
 content
 frequently.
Â
60. Sample
 Results:
Â
 Overall
 Satisfaction
Â
Please
 rate
 your
 overall
 course
 Would
 you
 recommend
 this
 course
Â
learning
 experience.
 to
 your
 friend?
Â
LeastâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ.Most
 sa9sďŹed
 NoâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ.Yes,
 deďŹnitely!
Â
61. Summary
Â
Survey
 results:
Â
â˘âŻ Nice
 breakdown
 of
 the
 diďŹerent
 elements
 of
 the
Â
course
 â
 helps
 me
 see
 how
 I
 am
 ďŹBng
 them
Â
together
 (or
 not!)
Â
â˘âŻ Easy,
 quick
 view
 of
 statistics
Â
â˘âŻ Hear
 student
 voices
Â
â˘âŻ View
 of
 overall
 student
 experience
Â
â˘âŻ Pinpoint
 areas
 for
 course
 improvement
Â
Â
Â
63. AFTER JANUARY 20
â˘âŻ Each Campus Coordinator is given their data
set within 1 week
â˘âŻ They take 3 weeks to review the self-evaluations and
respective student rating
â˘âŻ With permission, may use sysadmin course access
â˘âŻ They rank-order Top 5 and submit with their comments to
QOLT Review Panel via survey
â˘âŻ QOLT Review Panel begins with #1 from each campus as
CSU âTop 15.â Reviews #2s next to see if any elevate.
Followed by #3s, etc. Top 20 result.
â˘âŻ Review panel "triangulates" between faculty, student, and
coordinator data.
65. Recognition Process, After March 15
â˘âŻ All faculty who submit a full self-evaluation receive a
letter of participation from Campus Coordinator
(draft provided to Campus Coordinator)
â˘âŻ Top 5 designated from each campus receive an
additional letter of recognition from CSU ATS.
â˘âŻ Top 20 systemwide receive additional letter of
recognition from CSU ATS and are featured at
website and via QOLT dissemination (e.g., ITL
newsletter; spring webinar; CATS)