The Gold Standard
-
Upload
drpmcgee -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.373 -
download
0
description
Transcript of The Gold Standard
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
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?
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