Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (18)
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Faculty as students: One model for faculty to develop and teach online
Ähnlich wie Faculty as students: One model for faculty to develop and teach online (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Faculty as students: One model for faculty to develop and teach online
- 1. Faculty as Students: August 12, 2015 Distance Teaching & Learning Conference Kathy Keairns & Heather Tobin http://tinyurl.com/facultyasstudents One Model for Preparing Faculty to Develop & Teach Online
- 2. Presentation Agenda Discussion Faculty & Student Feedback Benefits & Challenges Workshop Tour Why Quality Matters? History & Evolution
- 6. History & Evolution Teaching Online Workshop (TOW) 1 2 3 4 2005 2015
- 7. TOW: Early Results 98% 92% 91% I want to teach online again at DU.“ “ I received adequate support from OTL to teach online.“ “ Learning to teach an online course has influenced how I teach my on-campus courses in positive ways. “ “
- 8. TOW: Stats 3+ Sessions Offered per Year 200+ Graduates Since 2010 Tenure-Track, Full- Time, Adjuncts, and Staff
- 9. TOW: Structure • 1 Week • 1-3 Hours • Readiness & Introductions Pre-Workshop • 5-10 Hrs/Week • Discussions, QM Activities, Peer-Reviews Workshop Weeks 1-3 • 1-2 weeks • 3-5 hrs/week • Presentations, Self-Reviews Post- Workshop Weeks
- 10. TOW: Before Quality Matters (ECP Rubric) Course Design Interaction & Collaboration Assessment Learner Support 2 4 1 3
- 11. Why Quality Matters? Adds Legitimacy
- 12. Why Quality Matters? Not tied to an LMS
- 13. Why Quality Matters? Customizable rubric & review
- 14. Why Quality Matters? Promotes student learning
- 15. Workshop Tour
- 16. Workshop: QM Internal Standards
- 17. Workshop: Structure • 1 Week • 1-3 Hours • Readiness & Introductions Pre-Workshop • 5-10 Hrs/Week • Discussions, QM Activities, Peer-Reviews Workshop Weeks 1-3 • 1-2 weeks • 3-5 hrs/week • Presentations, Self-Reviews Post- Workshop Weeks
- 18. Workshop: Objectives I. Identify how & where to locate resources for the design & facilitation of your online course. II. Develop an organized and effective syllabus appropriate for an online class. III. Design an organized and logically structured online course. IV. Identify types of activities most appropriate for online learning. V. Demonstrate the use of evaluation tools within the Learning Management System. VI. Identify components of a quality online course using the Quality Matters rubric.
- 27. Workshop: Syllabus Rubrics & Guidelines
- 30. Workshop: Syllabus Privacy, FERPA, Disability, & Conduct Code Policies
- 31. Workshop: Design
- 32. Workshop: Design – Course Resources
- 33. Workshop: Design – Module
- 34. Workshop: Design – Module
- 35. Workshop: Design – Module
- 36. Workshop: Design – Module
- 37. Workshop: Design – Module
- 38. Workshop: Design – Assignments
- 39. Workshop: Design – Assignments
- 40. Workshop: Design – Assignments
- 42. Challenges TOWLMS Accounts Lack of Buy-In Instructor hasn’t taken TOW Time Commitment Constant Re- development Lack of Time
- 43. Faculty & Student Feedback Who’s taking TOW? Who are they teaching?
- 44. Faculty Testimonials “I think my perception of teaching/completing online courses has completely changed! I really enjoyed learning about the content and connecting with other professionals who are teaching online courses!” -Sports Psychology Instructor (Graduate School)
- 45. Faculty Testimonials “Participating in the TOW helped me recognize what quality online learning looks like and changed my perception of online courses for the better.” -Assistant Professor (Department of Psychology)
- 46. Faculty Testimonials “This was my first experience in taking an online class and I had many reservations that I realize now were misconceptions. I did not feel the “loss” of community that I originally anticipated. I feel as if I learned (and will hopefully retain) an incredible amount of information in a short amount of time.” -Field Instructor Trainer (Social Work)
- 47. Faculty Testimonials “Being a student in an online class was a practical way to experience what our students will encounter and it was a helpful first look for me, since I have never taken an online class before.” -Gender & Health Instructor (International Studies)
- 48. 2014 Student Survey 83% Requirements for my interaction with the instructor, content, and other students were clearly explained.
- 49. 2014 Student Survey 78% The course and learning activities provided multiple opportunities to interact with fellow students.
- 50. 2014 Student Survey 87% The course learning objectives describe outcomes that I was able to achieve.
- 51. 2014 Student Survey 84% It was clear how the assignments and activities were connected to the learning objectives of the course.
- 52. Research Project 2015 Student Survey Research Questions • Does faculty participation in professional development activities impact the quality of their courses (as measured by selected QM standards)? • Do undergraduate students in face-to-face courses rate quality standards and course satisfaction higher, lower, or the same as students in online courses?
- 53. Resources http://otl.du.edu/our-programs/teaching-online/ http://otl.du.edu/our-programs/teaching-online-workshop/ http://otl.du.edu/our-programs/hybrid-3d-workshop/ 2014 Student Survey InfoGraphic http://tinyurl.com/facultyasstudents http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ Sener, J. (2012). The seven futures of American education: Improving learning and teaching in a screen captured world. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Link to slides for this presentation
- 55. Contact Us Kathy Keairns Director of Web-Based Learning kkeairns@du.edu http://kathykeairns.com Heather Tobin Instructional Designer heather.tobin@du.edu https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherdeck
Hinweis der Redaktion
- The University of Denver, aka, DU, is a private University located in a residential neighborhood a few miles south of downtown Denver. 11,500 students, even split between grad and undergrad. During this presentation, we’ll be sharing our faculty development model known as TOW which stands for Teaching Online Workshop
- Here are the topics we plan to cover, some a bit more quickly than others because we want to save plenty of time for discussion at the end. We’d love to learn about your own faculty development models so if you hear something you want to share during the discussion, please make a note of it. And of course, you’re also welcome to ask questions or make comments as we go.
- Our Teaching Online Workshop is an intensive 5 week almost fully online workshop which faculty are expected to complete before teaching online. I’m assuming many of you have similar programs. The Teaching Online Workshop was designed so instructors could experience online learning first-hand from the student perspective before teaching their first online course. Faculty members participate in the online workshop as students and begin build & design their online course as part of the workshop activities. After the online portion of the workshop, faculty members complete a peer review of one of their colleagues online courses and complete a self-review of their own online course using our Internal QM standards (you have a copy). During the post workshop we also schedule several in-person meetings where each faculty member presents their online course to the group.
- Read Quote – Unlike K-12 teachers, most higher ed faculty learn how to teach… This quote illustrates one of the reasons why we use the faculty as students model because many faculty members had no frame of reference about how to teach in the online environment.
- Read Quote – College teaching may be… This quote is by Richard Felder, a Professor emeritus of Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University who has written alot about this subject. He goes on to say that many professors are surprised to learn that...”There are well-defined instructional technique that make teaching more effective and his website offers guidance for using these techniques” - especially in the Stem fields. The good news is that online education and technology are slowly changing this paradox as more and more faculty members participate in professional development activities to learn how to teach in the online environment. And from our experiences, this training is also having a positive impact on how they teach their F2F courses. Surprise to folks outside of the Academy
- The University of Denver has been offering online courses and fully online degree programs through our professional and continuing studies division, University College, since 1997. However, online courses are relatively new within our traditional academic programs. Those are the programs we work. The workshop has evolved quite a bit since we first offered it in 2005, but we’ve always designed it as a “faculty as student model” Phase 1: During Phase One, the workshop was optional and our participants were primarily adjuncts and full-time faculty teaching in a few of our early online graduate degree programs. Phase 2: In 2009, 14 full-time faculty members participated in a pilot project exploring the value of providing traditional undergraduate students the opportunity to take online courses. The workshop was slightly revamped as part of the Teaching Online Initiative. During this phase, we began paying stipends to full-time instructors who completed the workshop and we added the post-workshop presentations. We also collected a lot of data from both faculty and students during the early phases. Phase 3: As the number of online courses began to grow during the summer term, faculty members who completed the workshop shared positive comments about the value of the workshop with their colleagues and the administration. Completion of TOW became a strong expectation, or, “requirement” for faculty members planning to teach online at the University of Denver Phase 4: Current Phase – We revamped the workshop again during Phase 4 after the university adopted QM standards and integrated the standards in the workshop.
- Faculty members Agreed or Strongly Agreed We added this question to the survey during phase II and III of the initiative after hearing from faculty that TOW was changing the way the teach f2f.
- TOW has been taught 34 times since 2005. There were lots of drop outs in the early days but well over 200 graduates since 2005. In the last year, 33 instructors completed the workshop and of those, almost 1/2 were full-time faculty members.
- We experimented with many different models over the years– 3 weeks, 5 weeks, 4 weeks with a break, and finally adopted this model. There was a bit of pushback because we said the workshop was 3 weeks long, but added post workshop activities after the initial pilot in 2010 when we began awarding stipends to full-time faculty who complete workshop. The pre-workshop leveled the playing field to account for varying levels of experience.
- Prior to adopting QM, we used an in-house rubric for self and peer reviews adapted from Blackboard’s Exemplary Course Rubric Program The 4 elements of the Blackboard rubric are listed here - 1. Course Design – elements of ID including clearly stated learning objectives 2. Interaction & Collaboration – emphasis on type and amount of interaction (learner to learner, learner to content, learner to instructor 3. Assessment – Quality and types of assessments 4. Learner Support – concerned with resources made available to students – clear instructions, technical support, readability and ADA and institutional policies
- During our more recent redevelopment, we were careful to integrate and align with the QM Standards because: 1) Using a nationally recognized rubric for quality adds to the legitimacy of what we do.
- 2) The QM rubric is not tied to a specific LMS, so can be applied no matter which LMS we are using at the time
- 3) The QM rubric and review process are customizable and were relatively easy to adapt to our purpose
- 4) We believe that aligning with the QM Standards allows us to improve the courses overall and promote student learning.
- Next, I’d like to give you a brief tour of the current Teaching Online Workshop, along with some resources that could be adapted for similar efforts.
- There are currently 43 specific Quality Matters review standards. We narrowed that list down to 30, including those that are 3 point standards (or, mandatory in a QM review), and a few additional Standards that directly apply to our intentions with the workshop. You can view the full list with descriptions on the “Internal Quality Matters Standards” handout that we’ve provided. Throughout the workshop, participants are required to complete several “activities” creating elements in their online courses that are in line with these QM Standards. At the end of the workshop they also complete self and peer reviews using an adapted version of the QM review worksheet to confirm that their course meets all of the Standards. They are also provided with feedback & suggestions on each of the Standards throughout the workshop. The workshop itself is also designed around these Standards, which will be illustrated in some of the following slides.
- The 5-week structure is still used in the current version of TOW, with; 1 week pre-workshop, 3 weeks of content, and a 1-2 week post-workshop. Quality Matters stresses careful consideration of the alignment between overall course (and module level) learning objectives with all learning materials, learning objectives, and assessments. We designed the Teaching Online Workshop with that concept at the core.
- For the first step in redeveloping the workshop to align with QM, we refined the learning objectives for the course as follows (These can also be found on the “TOW Syllabus” handout” During this step, we were careful to ensure that all of the course level learning objectives are specific and measurable in support of QM Standard 2.1. One of the first assignments in the workshop requires participants to list their own course learning objectives as part of a discussion. During that discussion we provide guidance on how to ensure that the objectives meet the expectations for QM.
- Next, we aligned each goal (or, objective) with at least one supportive learning material, assignment, and assessment (and vice-versa) to eliminate extraneous information and busy-work. This practice is in direct support of QM Standards 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 which state that all assessments, instructional materials, and learning activities appropriate measure, contribute to the achievement of, and support the course learning objectives. The “Workshop Outcomes Map” handout provides a detailed overview of the alignment between each course level objective, module level objective and the corresponding learning activities and assignments in the Teaching Online Workshop. We also ask participants to demonstrate alignment for each of the objectives for the course they are designing during the workshop.
- Finally, we built the course content into the LMS (Canvas), starting with a QM aligned course syllabus – which provides important information about course requirements and expectations for both participants and instructors. The Syllabus handout includes all of the details that we provide on the workshop syllabus organized around categories of information recommended by Quality Matters. The categories include: an overview
- the Learning Objectives for the course and each individual Module within it,
- prerequisites, textbook, and instructor information,
- communication policies,
- student and instructor expectations for participation and performance,
- the course grading structure,
- course schedule,
- grading rubrics and guidelines,
- technical requirements,
- support information,
- and privacy, FERPA, disability, and conduct code policies. The TOW Syllabus directly supports QM Standards 1.2-1.8, 2.1, 3.2, 5.3, 7.1, and 7.2. We encourage participants to download the TOW syllabus to use as a template when designing their own, which is a requirement during the first week of the workshop.
- This screen shows the workshop home page. We designed the TOW homepage to meet QM Standard 1.1 which requires that instructions make clear how to get started in the course, and where to find various course components. The first section of this home page covers how to “get stated” and where to find the Canvas Tutorials, Welcome Video, and first module.
- When redeveloping the workshop, we recognized that participants had been having some difficulty locating common forms and resources throughout the weeks. Standard 8.1 requires that the course navigation facilitate ease of use, so in an effort to improve on this issue we created a specific “Course Resources” module where participants can access the Internal QM Standards, Canvas Tutorials, and Internal Review form at any time.
- This screen illustrates the basic structure of a module in the workshop. This is the table of contents view for the “Week 1” module.
- In order to further facilitate ease of use and navigation in the workshop, we used a few standardized elements in every module including: An overview of the module where participants can view a description of the content to be covered and a comprehensive assignment list for the week
- Content pages where lecture notes, interactive materials, videos, and links to external resources are provided
- A discussion (where we typically ask participants to reflect on a particular QM Standard or concept and how they might incorporate it into their course)
- And an assignment where participants are asked to create content within their courses that directly supports the DU Internal QM Standards.
- Here is a screenshot of the week 1 assignment where students are asked to customize their course navigation menu, create an announcement on the home page for the course, upload a draft of their course syllabus, and create the first module (with an overview) in their course.
- The assignment instructions always include details about which specific QM Standards will be addressed that week
- As well as the individual Standards that each specific activity relates to. This allows us to maintain a healthy level of transparency which seems to help participants to understand the intentions behind our focus on QM.
- The benefits of the current version of the workshop are that it; Provides a model for faculty members that utilizes active learning principles, gets faculty out of silos Facilitates peer learning, creates faculty advocates/expertise in Online Learning, improved teaching in ALL course (faculty comment: “I have introduced more online components to my on-site classes, such as blogs and discussions. Online discussions in the course that I teach are more structured and I provide a rubric for grading (this I learned in the workshop). In addition, I’ve developed the Blackboard sites for all my classes in a more structured and consistent way with weekly course modules. I’ve received positive students’ evaluation about the way I use Blackboard.”) Enhances flexibility – Instructors can take TOW from anywhere as well as teach from anywhere – which allows us to retain quality adjuncts Increases student satisfaction (student comment: Online posting provided me the time to carefully craft an argument or opinion, before commenting in (or starting) a discussion. This allowed me to truly consider the reading on a deeper level in discussion, not feeling the pressure of a classroom environment. Also as a private university our tuition is very high so we knew we needed to do it right from the get go!”) We also believe that it increases potential learning benefits.
- There were also some challenges: Not everyone has an LMS Account, e.g. last minute hires, which can make access to the workshop difficult. Lack of buy-in and support from some administrators and faculty members – still a struggle Sometimes a course is already on books to be taught even though the instructor hasn’t taken TOW It takes up quite a bit of time for faculty and facilitators Facilitators need to stay on top of field and constant redevelopment – because we are providing a model, very responsive and provide a lot of detailed feedback Lack of time devoted to TOW One of the biggest challenges of the Teaching Online Workshop is the faculty and staff time commitment. Two full-time OTL staff members are responsible for the design and facilitation of the Teaching Online Workshop 2-3 times per year for the past 10 years. Technology changes rapidly and the facilitators need to stay abreast with changes to remain one step ahead of our faculty members. As a result, we are continually redesigning the workshop each time it is offered. Another challenge is balancing the number of technologies we share during the workshop without overwhelming visitor and novice instructors, and boring those who are more experienced.
- During the first several phases of the initiative, we collected a lot of feedback from faculty members through the online discussions and workshop surveys. We also sent surveys to both students and faculty members after the course. Taking TOW - tenure track, full-time, adjuncts, and staff have taken TOW since 2005… Who are they teaching - Mostly undergraduates – we are offering 99 online courses this summer to our undergraduates students.
- http://otl.du.edu/our-programs/teaching-online-workshop/
- This will be shared with other faculty members and usually changes again after they teach online for the first time. Instructors are pleasantly surprised at the level of interaction and quality of online discussions.
- We were surprised when even long-time tenure track faculty members who completed TOW reported benefits from their participation and expressed gratitude for our help.
- Last year we sent a survey to all online Summer students and included questions based on QM standards. Approximately 283 completed the survey which was about a 30% response rate. QM Standard 5 – Course Activities & Learner Interaction
- Standard 5: Course Activities and Learner Interaction
- Standard 2 – Learning Objectives
- Standard 3 – Assessment & Measurement
- Survey to ALL 2015 Summer Undergraduates Students (not just online students) Statement of Purpose: The purpose of this research is to examine if faculty participation in professional development activities impact the quality of their courses. Research Question: Does faculty participation in professional development activities impact the quality of their courses (as measured by selected QM standards)? Do undergraduate students in face-to-face courses rate quality standards and course satisfaction higher, lower, or the same as students in online courses? Until the majority of our faculty members have experienced online learning from the student perspective, we will continue to use this faculty as students model to help faculty make the transition to online teaching. Hopefully efforts to prepare faculty members to teach in this new learning environment, will also improve their teaching skills in all college courses whether they be online, hybrid, face-to-face courses, or whatever comes next. *Results? How do faculty on your campus learn how to teach in the classroom How do prepare faculty to teach online?
- How do you prepare your face-to-face instructors to teach? How do you prepare your online instructors to teach? Required or Optional?