Think about these two questions and discuss with fellow attendees! Then we’ll present! What are...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Think about these two questions and discuss with fellow attendees! Then we’ll present! What are...
Think about these two questions and discuss with
fellow attendees!Then we’ll present! What are the major educational initiatives on your
campus? What ways can IT units and faculty partner to
advance these initiatives?
Leila C. Lyons, Director, IT User Services
George H. Watson, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Martha Carothers, Associate Director, Office of Undergraduate Studies
University of Delaware
Partnerships for Educational Reform
Who’s Who and What’s What! Information Technologies (IT)
User Services PRESENT
University Media Services Problem-Based Learning and ITUE Center for Teaching Effectiveness (CTE) General Education Initiative (GEI)
About the University of Delaware Land-grant, sea-grant, space-grant, urban grant institution 1070 faculty (80% full time) 21,238 students
16,548 undergraduates (15,580 FT) 3,395 graduate students (2,519 FT) 1,295 professional and continuing studies students
http://www.udel.edu/main/aboutud.html
Fall 2004
Technology More than keeping systems running How can IT align with the institutional mission,
particularly the education of students? How do we reach faculty and empower them to
use technology in teaching and learning?
Faculty Support PRESENT – a teaching and learning resource center for
faculty Physical and virtual
Learning management system (WebCT) Instructional design Staff and graduate student support Technical advice and consulting
A History of Partnerships Faculty Institutes for Teaching, Learning and Technology Technology Assistance Grants to faculty (esp. in ITUE)
interested in active learning methods Course Redesign grants that led to further partnership
with CTE and General Education Initiative
Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education ITUE was created in 1997 to promote reform of
undergraduate education through faculty development and course redesign.
It was initially funded by the NSF program on Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education, subsequently by the Pew Charitable Trusts, internal sources, and additional grants.
ITUE Fellows receive hands-on experience in employing active learning strategies, particularly problem-based learning (PBL), and effective use of technology in their classrooms.
What is Problem-Based Learning?
PBL prepares students
to think critically and analytically, and
to find and use appropriate learning resources.
PBL is a learning approach that
challenges students to “learn to learn,”
working cooperatively in groups
to seek solutions to real world problems.
“The principal idea behind PBL is that the starting point for learning should be a problem, a query, or a puzzle that the learner wishes to solve.” Boud (1985)
What are the Common Features of PBL? Learning is initiated by a problem. Problems are based on complex, real-world situations. All information needed to solve problem is not initially
given. Students identify, find, and use appropriate resources. Students work in permanent groups.
Overview
Problem, Project, or Assignment
Group Discussion
Research
Group Discussion
Preparation ofGroup “Product”
Whole Class Discussion
Mini-lecture(as needed)
Assessment(when desired)
The Problem-BasedLearning Process
ITUE – Faculty PBL training from practitioners Collegial environment Ongoing peer support Funding and recognitions through grants Provide faculty who ask, “How can I make learning more
active?”
ITUE Technology Assistance Grants Grants staff and student time to apply active learning to
a specific course. Awarded to new ITUE fellows.
Collaborative WorkspaceSimilarities between PRESENT and PBL classrooms Flexible furniture Flexible equipment
Other IT/Faculty Collaborations ITUE three-day institutes using WebCT. PBL Clearinghouse. WebCT discussion group training co-taught by faculty and
IT in PBL format. Wireless notebook carts for PBL classrooms.
Course Redesign Grants Situate internal grant process within
General Education Initiative (GEI) context Outline criteria, online features, and development
support for grant process Highlight benefits and challenges
Overview of General Education Initiative (GEI)
1996: Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on GEI 1998: Ad Hoc Committee report – faculty initiative Fall 2000: 3-year pilot to implement and assess part of GEI (First-year
experience-LIFE, Pathways courses, Capstone experience, Discovery Learning experience)
2000: GEI grants and CTE High Tech grants 2001: General Education Institute Fall 2003: Report of pilot to Faculty Senate Fall 2003: Coordinate grant program with IT Spring 2004: Faculty Senate Resolution regarding GEI 2004-2005: Grant program implementation
GENERAL EDUCATION OVERARCHING GOALS
Translation
To consider general education as a total coherent experience and to organize the University of Delaware's academic resources to optimize the
learning environment
Implement and sustain via instructional grants
History of Grant Programs
Center for Teaching Effectiveness (CTE)
General Education Initiative (GEI)
Information Technologies (IT) w/ funding from Provost
2001-02 Advanced & Emerging Technologies
LIFE, Pathways and Capstone Courses
Student Assistants
2002-03 Advanced & Emerging Technologies
LIFE, Pathways and Capstone Courses
Technology Enhanced Course Redesign
2003-04 Center for Teaching Effectivenessand General Education Initiative
Technology Enhanced Course Redesign
2004-2005 Grant Program Combined CTE, GEI, and IT grants Coordinated expertise to review proposals and
support funded projects Streamlined and more efficient grant application
process Encourages faculty to be as creative as possible in
their thinking One review committee appointed by the Provost w/
sub-level reviewers
Institutional Context of Grants Infuse gen ed goals into dept. curricula Ensure sustainability of gen ed goals Enable faculty ownership of ge ed curriculum Offer faculty incentives to participate and remain
involved Provide formal recognition in reward structure
2004-2005 Grant Focus Address three targeted general education goals: oral and written communication
quantitative reasoningservice-learning
Innovative student-learning focused pedagogy:problem-based learningactive learning approachestechnology
Substantial transformation or enrichment of existing courses
Development of new courses embedded in curriculum Encouragement of interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary,
and faculty collaboration
Features of Grant Process Call for proposals (up to $20,000 per project) Grant website with online templates Faculty grant preparation sessions Pre-proposal stage Review process Invitation to final proposal Final proposal submission Grant implementation (July 1 – June 30) Project follow-up (mid-year and final report)
Grant Proposal Format Project description -- impact on student learning -- complement current methods: active learning, PBL,
technology -- impact on department, college, university goals -- utilization of existing resources Implementation -- timeline, stumbling blocks, sustainability Assessment -- student learning and project effectiveness Funds requested -- total amount, department, college contributions Support of department chair and Dean
Core Evaluation Criteria Advancement of general education goals Impact on student learning via active engagement Sustainability Evaluation of student learning / project effectiveness Budget request with justification Incorporation of feedback from pre-proposal
Timeline
Early December 03 Call for proposals
Mid-Nov & December Grant preparation session
End of January 04 Pre-proposals due
Mid-March Final proposals due
Mid-April Awards announced
Early July Funds available
End of January 05 Mid-term reports due
End of July Final reports due
Faculty Support General Education Institute Grant preparation session Feedback on pre-proposal Consultation with content experts: -- oral and written communication -- quantitative reasoning -- service learning Consultation with instructional technology, instructional
design, assessment, media, information resource experts Access to previously funded proposals and PIs Access to online resources
2004-2005 Summary of Grants 27 applications
-- 16 oral and written communication-- 3 quantitative reasoning-- 8 service learning
16 invited to submit final proposal 10 grants awarded
-- 4 oral and written communication-- 2 quantitative reasoning-- 4 service learning
23 faculty, 8 departments, 870 students impacted (approx.)
14 courses, 1 practicum, 1 program involved
Successes Faculty projects advance general education goals Faculty retain ownership of department curriculum
because gen ed goals are embedded in curriculum Promotes collaboration Coordination of internal grant opportunities Effectiveness and efficiency of online process Consultation and development support
-- preparation
-- proposals-- implementation
Faculty project showcase - General Education Institute
Challenges Application stage
-- budget template
-- assessment
-- focus faculty on one gen ed goal Support faculty effectively in implementation Tracking grant activity and impact once funds
expended – sustainability Assessing long-term impact
IT Support Lessons Learned To change the curriculum, we need to change how faculty
perceive teaching and learning. We infuse the campus culture with a variety of ways for
faculty to learn about pedagogy and to reinforce that learning.
Partnerships with faculty can help with faculty readiness.
Elements Encourage both Pedagogy and Technology Adoption Administrative Vision Robust Technological Infrastructure Partnerships Faculty Development/Encouragement Institutional Support Support Staff