Seeking the goldgold standardSeeking the goldgold standard

what can we all agree on?what can we all agree on?

Has value

Remains valuable

Is attainable

Has value

Remains valuable

Is attainable

challenges & choices

access What technologies increases/sustains access?

accountability What technologies can document success against standards?

assessment What strategies can capture successful applications?

retention What technologies make life easier, better, more satisfying?

25%

25%

25%

25%

Poll: What is your priority?

1. Access

2. Accountability

3. Assessment

4. Retention

T&L&T

access Multiple communication modes

Multiple content formats

Just-in-time information and supports

accountability Data collection of what is really going on with the instructor, the learner and the departments that interact with both

Digital collections

assessment Recorded interactions and feedback loops

Data warehousing and analysis

retention Social networks

Ubiquitous access, even after graduation

more, more, moremore, more, more

environments & tools

LSU Alexandria

Not just in class

Not just via the Internet

Not just on a computer

outcomes

Employers report repeatedly that many new graduates they hire are not prepared to work, lacking the critical thinking, writing and problem-solving skills needed in today’s workplaces.

Spellings Report

evidence

Testing to doing

Documenting to capturing

Measuring to collecting

indicators

There are 799 million illiterate worldwide (2004)

Communication skills honed in higher education are critical to tech-mediated interactions

The US is 10th in world of 25-34-year-olds with associates degree or higher

retention

resources trumped all other factors [in retention]… schools with money were able to secure additional resources as necessary, could implement almost any strategy they wanted to, and, perhaps more importantly in the retention debate, were able to attract more qualified and competitive students - students that were almost surely going to graduate from college, even if they were from low-income backgrounds.

Lumina Foundation for Education (2002)

generations

Sara McNeil, 2005

generations

Veterans orTraditionalists

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Sara McNeil, 2005

1922-1943

generations

Veterans orTraditionalists Baby Boomers

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Sara McNeil, 2005

1922-1943 1944-1960

generations

Veterans orTraditionalists Baby Boomers Gen Xers

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Beginning to mid

work force

26-45 years old

Beginning to mid

work force

26-45 years old

Sara McNeil, 2005

1922-1943 1944-1960 1961-1980

generations

Nexters or Millennials

Veterans orTraditionalists Baby Boomers Gen Xers

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Retiring from the

work force

63-84 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Middle to end

work force

46-62 years old

Beginning to mid

work force

26-45 years old

Beginning to mid

work force

26-45 years old

In K-20 education

system

6-25years old

In K-20 education

system

6-25years old

Sara McNeil, 2005

1922-1943 1944-1960 1961-1980 1981-2000

25%

25%25%

25%

1 2 3 4

Poll: Which generation r u?

1. Veteran - Traditionalist

2. Baby Boomer

3. Gen X?

4. Nexter - Millennial

homeland

2001 - present

learnerslearners

The percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in prose literacy has actually declined from 40 to 31 percent in the past decade.*

Spellings Report

learners are…

Informal and “non-traditional”

A part of ubiquitous networks

Not so enamored of technology but believe tech skills may be an advantage (younger over older)

digital natives?

70% never used a PDA

APX 50% never edited video or webpage using WYSWYG

APX 50% never sent a picture via phone

75% never email via phone

68% never use phone internet

Most do not blog, wiki, have a web site, etc.

what about those natives?

I don’t want anyone to see me online!!

I want to separate school, work, and personal (family and social)

…

I don’t care who sees what?

acceptance & adoption

Alignment with K-12Undergraduate vs. graduate Student ownership of technologyGender/culture/disciplinary differencesMultiple formatsJust-in-time, low investment information and

supportsLife-school-work integrationAffordable education

facultyfaculty

Poll: Who are you?

100%

1

1. IT administrator2. IT manager3. Academic

administrator4. T&L Staff5. Faculty6. Students7. Other

then & now

Mid-1995’s Mid - 2 0 00 ’s

Ema il wit h s tu d e n t s is a n op t ion.

Ema il wit h s tu d e n t s is di fficu lt to a vo id.

S om e fa cu lty u s e co u rse web si te s t o d ist r ibu te inf or mat ion.

Many if no t m ost f a cul t y us e an o n lin e s ys te m to com mu n ica te with s t u d en t s.

Mos t u n ive rs it ie s d o n ot pr ovide re so ur ce s tha t c a n be ac ces s e d f rom h ome vi a t h e Int e rn et.

Mos t u n ive rs it ie s p rovide re s ou rces a cc e ss ib le f ro m of f ca mp u s l oca t ion s.

Mos t in s tr u ct ors d o n o t h a ve ho me In t er n e t s e rv ice a n d u s e the ir o ffice p ho n e on ly.

Mos t in s tr u ct ors h av e h ome Int e rn et s e rvice an d m obi le pho ne s.

Mid-1990’s Mid - 2 0 00 ’s

Fe w u n ive rs it ie s o ffe r o r re qu ire s tu d e n t e mai l ac cou n t s .

Many if no t m ost un ive rs it ie s re qu ire tha t st u de n t s h a ve em ail ac cou n t s .

Fe w if a n y cl as s room s h a ve Int e rn et ac ces s.

Mos t cl as sr oo m s h a ve In t e rn e t ac ces s.

Fe w cl as sr oo m s h a ve com pu t e rs wi t h pro je ct ors, but m os t h a ve ov er h ea d pro je ct ors.

Ab out o n e -h a lf o f cla s s rooms hav e com p u t e rs wit h p ro je ct o rs.

S om e u n ive rs it ie s p rovide t e chn ica l su p port.

Mos t u n ive rs it ie s p rovide fa cu lty su p port fo r t e ch n olog y, b o th t e chn ica l a n d in s t ru ct iona l.

Fe w st u de n t s us e t h e ir o wn t e ch n ology.

Many st ud en t s us e th e ir own t e ch n ology , e. g . ha n dh e lds , com pu t e rs , c a lcula t ors, e t c.

1 2 3

33% 33%33%

Poll: Where is your faculty?

1. Mostly left

2. Mostly right

3. Split

what to do?

Recognize the continuum of skill

Value and build on individual capabilities

Offer buffet-style supports

Just-in-time, just-in-need

Incentives/rewards/acknowledgements

disconnect

Faculty at different stages of use and adoption

Students living in a separate technology world

Technology changes daily IT units that deals with data management,

security, identity, wireless….

Different standards of…Different standards of…

Expectations

Assumptions

Operations

Expectations

Assumptions

Operations

Change occurs more readily when it is embedded in

Beliefs • Values • Traditions

Drew Gilpin Faust, President of Harvard

Managing Courses, Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want

Ali Jafari, Patricia A. McGee,Colleen Carmean

re-thinking “systems”re-thinking “systems”

issues

Browser incompatibility

User Interface (usability)

Internal tools optimization

Integration with other campus services

we need/want

Open sharing/publishing

Open-source, Licensed Packages, Out-source

Smartness

Multi-channel/modal

Transportability

Mobility

Scott Wilson, 2005

effect floweffect flow

connections

Macro - developing national curriculum, specifying qualification standards= societal societal or systemor system

Meso - designing an educational program or a course on institutional level = schoolschool

Micro - preparing course materials, designing learning environment = classroomclassroom

make it work

According to disruptive innovation theory, some organizations use relatively simple innovations to compete in new ways and “triumph over powerful incumbents.”

Ron Bleed (2007)

disruptive?

IM

email

SMS

keep learning @ frontkeep learning @ front

attention

practice

motivation

belief

assessment - evaluationassessment - evaluation

Course Outcomesenrollment, demand, fit

Experience Success

Graduate/Promotion

Pass Course/ Merit

Instructor Evaluation

Learner Learning

Individual Performance

Assessment

Other Courses Other Assessments

Program Quality Graduation Rates

Attrition Rates

Results

Transfer

Collective learning

Satisfaction

Evaluation

Alignment of Assessment & Evaluation

Course Outcomesenrollment, demand, fit

Experience Success

Graduate/Promotion

Pass Course/ Merit

Instructor Evaluation

Learner Learning

Individual Performance

Assessment

Other Courses Other Assessments

Program Quality Graduation Rates

Attrition Rates

Results

Transfer

Collective learning

Satisfaction

Evaluation

Alignment of Assessment & Evaluation

what I wantwhat I want

when I want itwhen I want it

cloud computing

Pedagogy + Web 2.0

Go2Web2.0

deep personalization

MY channel(s)

Connectivism

Mobility

Transferability

Individualism

Reuse

participatory pedagogy

Social networking

Learner contributions

Learner constructions

Learner instructions

Shared and Open Knowledge

Flipit 180 - Brenda Laurel

A Hero’s Journey -South Mountain Community College

open entry open exit

Flexible timeMultiple ways to complete assignmentsControlled assessmentTypically no required attendanceVariable credit“Correspondence” model

Schoolcraft College

modularized curricula

Self-paced

Learning Agents/Objects

Credit re-defined

Customizable

Revised roles

Gold standard?Gold standard?

patricia.mcgee@utsa.edu

http://faculty.coehd.utsa.edu/pmcgee

Cluster Tea c hing Style Preferre d Approa ch to Learning /Sup port

Strate gies

1 Expe rt/Formal Author ity (38%)

Dependen t/Pa rticipa nt/ Compet itive

One -on-one , hand s -on, r e ward/ acknowledg e ment

2 Persona l Model /Expe rt/ Formal Author ity (22%)

Participa nt/Depende nt/ Compet itive

Hands -on, one -on -one, rewar d/ acknowledg e ment

3 Facilita tor/Per s onal Model /Expe rt (17%)

Collaborativ e /Pa rticipat ive /Indepe ndent

Small g roup or peer/ mento r, hands -on, tutorial/re ferenc e materials

4 Delegato r/ Facilita tor/Expe rt (15%)

Indep ende nt/Collabo rative / Participa nt

Tutorial/re ferenc e material s , smal l grou p or pee r/me ntor, hands -on

Cluster Tea c hing Style Preferre d Approa ch to Learning /Sup port

Strate gies

1 Expe rt/Formal Author ity (38%)

Dependen t/Pa rticipa nt/ Compet itive

One -on-one , hand s -on, r e ward/ acknowledg e ment

2 Persona l Model /Expe rt/ Formal Author ity (22%)

Participa nt/Depende nt/ Compet itive

Hands -on, one -on -one, rewar d/ acknowledg e ment

3 Facilita tor/Per s onal Model /Expe rt (17%)

Collaborativ e /Pa rticipat ive /Indepe ndent

Small g roup or peer/ mento r, hands -on, tutorial/re ferenc e materials

4 Delegato r/ Facilita tor/Expe rt (15%)

Indep ende nt/Collabo rative / Participa nt

Tutorial/re ferenc e material s , smal l grou p or pee r/me ntor, hands -on

Anthony Grasha