An Assessment of the TA Web Certification Program:

Four Years of Supporting the Use of Instructional Technology at the

University of Minnesota

Brad Cohen, Ph.D., U of MN Digital Media CenterBill Rozaitis, Ph.D., U of MN Digital Media CenterJ.D. Walker, Ph.D., U of MN Digital Media Center

The Program in a Nutshell

Four week course integrating software training, multimedia design, pedagogy

Students receive certificate of completion and software

Offered six times per year Over 250 TAs have participated

Program Goals and Objectives To support faculty in the

development and implementation of instructional technology

leverage TAs as mentors and change agents

TAs support faculty needs train future faculty to create and use

instructional technology

Program Goals and Objectives To provide TAs with the skills and

confidence to create instructional technology

introduce TAs to a methodology for developing instructional technology

integrate software training with thoughtful pedagogy

provide opportunities for practice, reflection, and application so TAs can hit the ground running

Program Curriculum 4 Part Multimedia Development Process Pedagogy

goals and objectives active learning strategies and tools learning styles

Software Dreamweaver Photoshop WebCT

A History of Change

Began in Fall 1998 three week course 21 instructional hours

Spring 2000 increased to four weeks: open lab

time 30 instructional hours

A History of Change Summer 2001

30 instructional hours plus 15 out of class added a full day of WebCT training streamlined the development process added a hands-on project: WebCT course site

Since then… new course Web site active learning: face-to-face, online discussions careful integration of pedagogy

Program Evaluation

Pre/post class surveys Follow-up questionnaire for all

graduates n = 56 response rate 27%

Self-Reports of Learning: Technical Items

HTML/web editors highest ranking WebCT lowest ranking

Self-reports of learning: technical items

3.8

3.41

3.21 3.2

2.93

3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

HTML/webeditors

web graphics uploading files WebCT

means, scale 1-5

Self-Reports of Learning: Technical Items

Why low rating for WebCT? our teaching about WebCT stinks could reflect awareness of WebCT’s

complexity compare with desire for more and

different WebCT tools

Self-Reports of Learning: Technical vs. Pedagogical

Overall, graduates gave lower ratings to pedagogical items than to technical ones: question 1 mean = 3.4 question 2 mean = 3.2

Self-Reports of Learning: Technical vs. Pedagogical

Possible explanations: our teaching about pedagogy stinks polarization of TAs about usefulness

of pedagogical components lack of (online) teaching experience

Supporting evidence from U of Minnesota faculty survey

The Dominance of Information

4.24

2.9 2.88 2.84

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

informationalresource

collectingstudent data

supportinginteraction

means tocheck

grades

means, scale 1-5

The Dominance of Information

Degree of dominance unusual Possibly explained by lack of

experience More support from faculty survey

Correlations

No significant correlations involving: age gender number of courses TAed/taught

Themes from Open-Ended Questions

Positive perceptions of the effects of TEL on student learning

Many graduates report increased comfort/confidence with technology

Themes from Open-Ended Questions

Concern about “dehumanizing” education, echoed in faculty survey may reflect impoverished vision of

the potential of TEL Desire for more pragmatic,

troubleshooting exercises

Questions??

Two Challenges to Address

TAs need and desire more advanced WebCT training (related to desire for more practical training in troubleshooting)

Students are consistently polarized by the pedagogical material

WebCT: The Challenge

Currently, we cover WebCT Basics and CMC Tools

Time constraints prohibit adding formal training on more advanced features

Pre-course surveys indicate TAs need Basics and CMC instruction

WebCT: The Solution

Modify final project assignment to require the addition of an advanced tool (e.g., quiz or content module)

Replace the requirement for a revised design plan with a WebCT trouble-shooting exercise set

Pedagogy vs. Technology: The Challenge

Persistent and dramatic polarization

Primary explanation for disdain of pedagogy is lack of experience TAs view Web sites primarily as

resource containers

Pedagogy vs. Technology:The Solution

Day 1: More explicitly emphasize dual nature of course and our reasons for it provide bibliography share results of faculty survey

Infuse technical skills training with pedagogical material

Pedagogy vs. Technology:The Solution

Require robust web sites as final projects

Showcase pedagogically interesting sites

Better utilize our online discussion forum to explore issues

Require actual project?

The Future of TA Web

Evolving skill set of graduate students

Introduction of new technologies (e.g., iMovie, Flash)

Increasing collaboration Reconceiving learning

environments

Thank you! For more information, contact:

Brad Cohen, cohenb@umn.edu Bill Rozaitis, rozai001@umn.edu J.D. Walker, jdwalker@umn.edu

© Brad Cohen, Bill Rozaitis and J. D. Walker, Digital Media Center, Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota, 2003. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on this reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to

republish requires written permission from the authors.