Roger Williams University shares how they are using the portfolio tools within the Sakai CLE to create a virtual accreditation platform and meet accreditation standards.

1. Roger
Williams
University:
Using
Sakai
to
meet
accredita7on
standards
A
Collabora)on
between
the
School
of
Architecture,
Art
and
Historic
Preserva)on
and
Department
of
Instruc)onal
Design
Dean
Stephen
White,
Greg
Laramie,
Linda
Beith,
Russell
Beauchemin

2. About
RWU
SAAHP
• 1999-­‐
programs
in
Architecture,
Art,
and
Historic
Preserva)on
were
brought
together
• Core
Values:
– learning
in
context;
seeking
balance
• 500
students
• 27
FT
faculty
and
30
PT
• Programs
abroad:
Florence,
Prague,
Vienna,
Brazil,
Argen)na,
Egypt,
Amsterdam,
Turkey
and
growing!

3. Ini)al
Goal
2011-­‐2012
Virtual
Accredita)on
Visit
from
the
Na)onal
Architectural
Accredi)ng
Board
(NAAB)
Virtual
Accredita)on
Sample
Accredita)on
Evidence
Room

4. Challenge
• Crea7ng
a
Program
Curriculum
Map
-­‐
Iden)fying
which
courses,
and
which
assignments
within
courses
would
address:
– 32
NAAB
standards
– 2
levels
of
achievement:
• Ability
• Understanding

5. Solu)on:
SAAHP
Program
Map

6. Challenge
• Collec7ng
student
work
in
electronic
form
for
a
wide
range
of
courses
as
a
manageable
process
for
both
students
and
faculty

7. Solu)on:
• Implement
BRIDGES/SAKAI
Collabora)ve
Learning
Environment
(CLE)
• Add
electronic
assignments
to
each
Architecture
course
DIGITAL
VIDEO
SAKAI
ASSIGNMENTS
DIGITAL
PHOTOS
SCANS
PDF
DOCUMENTS

8. Bridges
CLE
allows
for
electronic
submission
of
assignments

9. Bridges
assignment
submissions
are
aggregated
in
the
course,
graded
and
linked
to
course
matrix
in
this
space

10. Challenge
• Tagging
student
assignment
submissions
as
sa)sfying
specific
criteria
at
either
of
two
levels
of
achievement

11. Solu)on:
• Develop
Course
Matrices
for
each
Architecture
course
on
Bridges
• Link
assignments
to
Matrix
Cell
by
standard
and
level
of
achievement

12. Students
upload
assignments
that
automa7cally
link
to
the
appropriate
standard
set
up
by
instructors

13. Note
that
with
a
simple
click
a
faculty
member
can
link
an
assignment
in
Sakai
to
a
specific
cell
in
a
matrix.
This
linking
a`aches
tags
to
the
data
that
iden)fy
it
by
standard
and
level
of
achievement
without
any
addi)onal
work.

15. Cycles
-­‐
First
Steps
1. PLANES
–
SAAHP
Annual
Planning
and
Assessment
Framework
tracks
structure,
processes
and
outcomes
of
SAAHP
Program
2. Faculty
map
courses/assignments
to
NAAB
standards
3. Spring
2010
pilot
conducted
– 14
Architecture
courses
built
in
Bridges
– 200
students
– 12
faculty
– U)lize
electronic
assignments
embedded
in
course
matrices
to
start
collec)ng
student
work

16. This
Curriculum
Assessment
and
Review
System
(CARS)
is
a
web-­‐
based
interface
that
aggregates
all
the
electronic
data
needed
for
the
accredita)on
team
in
one
convenient
loca)on.

17. Note
that
our
SAAHP
is
)ed
to
four
sets
of
accredita)ons.
This
system
can
be
customized
to
fit
each
one.

18. The
SAAHP
Dean
and
faculty
have
developed
curriculum
maps
for
each
program
that
iden)fy
which
courses,
and
assignments
within
those
courses,
supports
student
progress
towards
each
standard
and
level
of
achievement.

19. Evidence
by
Course
Course
Folders
Aggregate
Student
Work
Faculty
select
samples
of
exemplary
student
work
and
some
low
level
pieces
of
student
work
and
move
them
into
the
appropriate
course
folders
along
with
a
syllabus
and
framing
assignments
for
team
review

20. PORTS:
Evidence
by
Student
E-­‐Pordolios
Showcase
Exemplary
Work
Student
e-­‐pordolios
can
be
listed
for
team
review.
These
e-­‐pordolios
can
include
select
pieces
of
student
work
that
showcase
mastery
of
standards,
feature
student
reflec)ons
on
their
own
learning
and
development,
as
well
as
comments
from
instructors,
peer
reviewers
and
even
internship/co-­‐op
employers.
These
e-­‐pordolios
can
also
be
featured
on
the
SAAHP
website
in
a
revolving
gallery
to
illustrate
the
quality
of
work
done
by
our
students
to
prospec)ve
students,
parents
and
possible
employers.

21. NAAB
accredita)on
requires
samples
of
high
level
pieces
of
student
work
(A)
and
some
low
level
pieces
of
student
work
(C,
D
or
F)
from
each
of
two
courses
that
demonstrates
student
mastery
of
that
achievement
at
2
levels-­‐
Ability
&
Understanding
Note
that
each
piece
of
student
work
chosen
by
faculty
is
accompanied
by
the
framing
assignment

22. Individual
Student
E-­‐Pordolios
A
showcase
of
student
learning

23. Impact/Results
• Increased
student
performance
based
on:
– Student
awareness
of
learning
outcomes/professional
expecta)ons
– Observa)on
of
work-­‐in-­‐progress
– Ability
to
reflect
on
goals
and
achievements
• Increased
instructor
performance
based
on:
– Observa)on
of
student
learning
across
sec)ons
– Focuses
a`en)on
on
course
development
– Fosters
collabora)ve
course
development
among
faculty
– Collabora)ve
grading
of
team-­‐taught
courses
decreases
grading
ques)ons
and
increases
student
understanding
and
sa)sfac)on
with
grades

24. Impact/Results
• Increased
program
performance
based
on:
– Heightened
awareness
of
program
objec)ves
– Faculty
ability
to
see
whether
learning
outcomes
are
being
achieved
• Building
a
sense
of
academic
community
– Within
the
University,
student
and
faculty
mentoring
between
levels
– Na)onally,
working
with
a
network
of
ins)tu)ons
engaged
in
similar
prac)ces
• Increased
external
presence
through
publica)on
of
student
outcomes
and
showcasing
of
student
work

25. Lessons
Learned
• Start
early
• Think
outside
immediate
soiware
constraints
• Involve
faculty
from
beginning
• Establish
file
standards
early
(naming,
resolu)on,
format,
etc.)
• Iden)fy
faculty
mentors
• Develop
student
mentors
to
encourage
par)cipa)on
• Provide
training
and
technical
support
to
both
students
and
faculty
• Plan
beyond
accredita)on
to
con)nuous
improvement

26. Ques)ons??
Stephen
White
–
swhite@rwu.edu
Linda
Beith
–
lbeith@rwu.edu
Greg
Laramie
–
glaramie@rwu.edu
Russell
Beauchemin
–
rbeauchemin@rwu.edu
Photo
by
Davide
Res)vo.
Accessed
from
Flickr
at:
www.flickr.com/photos/somemixedstuff/2403249501/