Child pages
  • 2-29-2008 Conference Call
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Agenda Items

1. Rubrics

1.  Evaluation Rubric and Self-Assessment Formfor Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award.  Linked are the new drafts of these forms as discussed in the previous conference call.  These drafts reflect the following decisions:

    a. Addition of a low-point category to show the full range of possibility for each criteria.  In this draft, that category is titled "Not Evident."

    b. The minor editing of the effective and excellent categories to add a link to the 7 Principles, and again include accessibility criteria.

    c. Removal of the N/A and Innovative practice portions from the  rubric, and instead incorporated in the self-assessment form. 

Potential decisions as part of this call.  Is the judging rubric now complete?  Does the self-assessment form reflect all the data we need to appropriately judge for this award? What type of form will we supply the judges to make it easy for them to score and/or comment?

2. Rough Outline of Online Award Application Form

I. Award Overview - Narrative section that would explain (briefly) what this is all about and what we are looking for...as well as what you win and deadlines.

II. Basic information - Name, address, contact info, institution, etc.

III. Course Overview - Brief explanation of the course (i.e. subject matter, duration, etc.) they developed, we could also encourage them to submit their syllabus in this section.

IV. Course Development - Overall approach as to how they designed and developed the course...could touch on teaching/learning strategies used, etc.

V. Self-Evaluation of Course - Applicants would be asked to self-evaluate the course using the Rubric we're working on. We could provide a template or shell of the rubric that they would fill in. They would also score themselves.

VI. Innovation - In this section, applicants would be asked to explain how their course represents innovation. I often draw a distinction between teaching "automation" and "innovation" that could be useful here...automating the teaching process with technology generally does not fundamentally shift or change the teaching or learning process (e.g. using powerpoint instead of plastic transparencies) whereas innovating the teaching process does alter the process in some fundamental way (using a podcast to deliver a "pre-lecture" to students and then using class time to engage in team-based projects instead of a lecture). I think we may want to consider some type of overview like this to help people understand what we may be looking for....

  • Marist student will start working with Nate next week to build the form.
  • Need a mockup for the grad student.
  • Find a way to get judges to collaborate.
  • Ask applicant to profile their course first and have a second form for the application.
  • Judges will need to have a global view.
  • Narrative, Narrative + screenshots, Narrative + screenshots + access, learning objects? Try not to bias the judges.
  • Put out a PDF format first to help Faculty members to think about their application.
  • Must define Innovation --> Glossary entry + on the application.
  • Must focus on the practice.
  • Define Innovative pedagogy? Instruction? Teaching? (Josh)
  • Indicate that there is a specific Award rubric.
  • Needs to define scoring. Likert? 0-1-2
  • Innovation will be assessed separately.
  • Make sure we are not limiting. Separate the innovation for the self-assessment.
  • Judges feedback: to discuss next week.
  • May 15: notice to the winner.
  • Give a month to the judges. (April 15-May 15)
  • Paper version by Friday 3-14
  • Electronic version by Friday 3-21

3. Glossary

Glossary

4. Judges Invitations

  • Josh: 2 people
  • Matt: 1
  • Janet: 1
  • Maggie: 1

NATE: NEEDS HELP FINDING A NAME FOR THE REPOSITORY!!!

  • No labels