Presentation for the Midwest Scholars Conference 2013

2. Rate Your School
On your paper, take a minute and rate
your school in the various areas on a scale
from 1-5 regarding your perceived level
of university support in the various areas:

3. Session Objectives
Participants will:
0 Gain perspective on what it takes to provide
quality support for faculty transitioning to
online and hybrid classroom models
0 Gain knowledge about best practices
regarding faculty development for online
teaching and learning
0 Learn how to ensure that digital accessibility
for persons with disabilities is infused
throughout the training and support process

4. Our Campuses
0 Regional campuses of major public university –
Purdue University
0 Purdue Calumet (PUC) is located near the Illinois
border, 20 miles from Chicago
0 Mostly urban population
0 Large population of commuter, non-traditional students
0 Purdue North Central (PNC) is located about 40 miles
east of Purdue Calumet
0 More rural/suburban population
0 About half the size of PUC, mostly non-traditional
students

5. About Us
0 Anastasia Trekles- Clinical Associate
Professor, Purdue University Calumet
0 Pam Riesmeyer- Web Accessibility
Coordinator, Purdue University Calumet
0 Erin White- Coordinator of Learning and Technology
& Continuing Lecturer in Education

6. The First Step: Needs Analysis
0 Survey faculty to assess needs and to establish a baseline
of where to start regarding the development and future
implementation of faculty training for online teaching and
learning
0 Interview stakeholders- faculty, students, administrators,
and staff
0 Take inventory of current supporting infrastructure:
0 Web resources
0 Tech support
0 Training
0 One-on-one consultations

7. To illustrate…
0 Awareness of accessibility and comfort level
Question:
What is your understanding of Web site accessibility?
a. Very little, I'm just starting to
learn (10%)
b. I have some understanding
but need more (49%)
c. I am well aware of Web site
accessibility needs (41%)

8. I am comfortable using the following:

9. Expressed faculty concerns
A persistent theme was that a lack of knowledge exists
regarding the skills and support needed to design and
develop online course materials (best practices and
pedagogy)
63% did NOT feel competent in designing and
developing online course materials
They felt students need organized instruction in the online
education process

10. Identify
Problem(s)
Faculty Budget/
Motivation Incentives
Administrative Design &
Support
Develop a
Program
Technology Pedagogical (Redesign)
Support Support
Implement &
Assess

11. Format for Training
0 Mandatory or not?
0 PNC Faculty Senate passed ‘Recommendations for Online Courses’
0 At Calumet, some departments made Distance Learning
Certification program mandatory
0 Interactive or not?
0 In person or online?
0 One-on-one or group instruction?

12. What’s Been Successful?
0“Working Fridays”
0Walk-in assistance during the week
0Online Academy
0Mentorship between faculty
0One-on-one in person or virtual
(webcasts)
0DOC program (Develop an Online
Course)

13. Accessibility
0 Why do we need to address this?
0 Hearing/visually/mobility impaired
0 Colorblindness
0 Learning disabled
0 Should be infused into all training
0 Usability is accessibility – universal design
mindset
0 Accessibility doesn’t only benefit individuals with
disabilities – it benefits all learners

14. Accessibility Best Practices
0 PDFs, PowerPoint, Excel and Word docs
0 Closed-captioning for all videos: can be
searched, publishers can create CC videos (see
http://www.uiaccess.com/transcripts/transcripts_on_the_
web.html#benes)
0 Web Pages that adhere to accessibility standards (see
http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility)
0 Live Presentations (see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/accessible)
0 Testing (additional time available in LMS, images and audio
usage)

15. Examples
0Recommendations for training
0Checklist and guidelines for
accessibility
0Rubrics for online courses- PNC
Recommendations for Online
Courses

17. How did you rate your PD?

18. Commercials, faculty Stipend, Letter of
testimonials, chair’s Recognition, Publicity,
support, promote increase VCAA & Chancellor’s
in enrollment/ graduation endorsement
rates
Expanded support via web
resources, work study & currently Increased training via faculty
seeking to train helpdesk personnel to mentors, graduate
expand their role practicums, work study

19. Resources
0 Quality Matters: http://qualitymatters.org
0 QM rubric:
http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011-
2013.pdf
0 Office of Learning and Technology:
http://www.pnc.edu/distance
0 Purdue University Calumet Accessibility Resources:
http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility
0 Book on “human issues” in technology:
http://zelda23publishing.com
Download these slides: http://slideshare.net/andella

20. References
0 Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United
States, 2010. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences.
0 Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centered
learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors
encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research
Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi: 10.1015/j.edurev.2010.06.001
0 Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E. Wade, A., Wozney, L., . . .
Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational
Research, 74(3), 379-439. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003379
0 Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L., & Vanderheiden, G. (Eds.). (2008, December
11). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Retrieved from
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

21. References
0 Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011). The
2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved
from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf.
0 Kirschner, P.A., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2008). Ten steps to complex
learning: A new approach to instruction and instructional design. In T. L.
Good (Ed.), 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook (pp. 244-
253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
0 Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
0 Pernice, S., & Nielsen, J. (2001). Beyond ALT text: Making the web easy to
use for users with disabilities. Fremont, CA: Nielsen Norman Group.
Retrieved from
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility/beyond_ALT_text.pdf.

22. References
0 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794d, § 1400 et seq.
(1998). Retrieved from
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=stdsdoc.
0 Sener, J., & Shattuck, K. (2006). Research literature and standards sets
support for Quality Matters review standards as of 12/5/05. Quality Matters.
Retrieved from
http://www.qmprogram.org/files/Matrix%20of%20Research%20Standard
s%20FY0506_0.pdf.
0 Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online
course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design
experiment. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81-88. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002
0 Trekles, A.M. (2009). Putting people first: Human issues in instructional
technology. Highland, IN: Zelda23Publishing.
0 Wang, Y, Peng, H., Huang, R., Hou, Y., & Wang, J. (2008). Characteristics of
distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning
strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open
Learning, 23(1), 17-28 doi: 10.1080/02680510701815277.