Links to resources
Sakai Confluence Site with timelines and meeting dates, as well as committee members
OpenEd Practices Site with previous rubrics, application, TWSIA descriptions, past winners, etc.
Adobe Connect meeting room:
Seperate catagory for portfolios - using OSP or other Sakai tools (no outside vendors), for a total of 5 catagories
Any category can use free and tools integrated with Sakai; the use of the tools itself is not innovative, but how that tool is used to improve student learning outcomes.
How should we handle this "other" category (Portfolios, Projects)?
Does having multiple rubrics work best?
How will we train judges? Should we do separate trainings for each category? How does that impact the number of preliminary judges we may get?
Nominations for Portfolio Judges: Darren Cambridge (willing to be nominated), Paul Treuer, U of Minnesota-Duluth (honored to be nominated but declined due to lack of time), Marij Veugleurs, u of Amsterdam (yet to be asked)
Goal is to simplified application process.
The current "entry form" taken from web site:
1) We all agree that we need to simplify the application process and focus on what's important while still getting what we need in the OpenEdPractices database. We hope to convert part of the application to a WORD doc that will be submitted as a PDF. We also need to look at the US-centric language and try to make some changes.
2) We all agree that the TWSIA rubric is course-centric, and we need to think about how it applies to portfolio and project sites. We may want to develop a second rubric for portfolio and projects, based on appropriated design lenses, keeping in mind that we have only four weeks to do this work.
3) There was also some discussion about judges, with several suggestions. Will this group meet soon?
Kate will draft a entry form with steps 2 & 3 combined and send it to Salwa by Wednesday COB. Salwa will make additions, corrections, suggestion and send to all (for next meeting?)
Shirley will review entry form & rubric for an international perspective.
Janice will work on criteria for judging portfolio and project sites, trying out the lenses. Loretta volunteered to help.
We meet in Adobe Connect, which worked OK after we turned the cameras off.
Problem with web form: Plain text difficult to read, both for judging and for users who what to read about the entry.
Can we use a Word doc instead of the web form/ What information needs to be in the webform/database? Make use of tags.
Clarify what screen shots should be included, and what is the limit.
Set up IU Connect room for next meeting.
We had a great first meeting and already everyone has stepped up to review, evaluate, and participate in the planning for this award. After looking over the Doodle, the following dates are the best for the majority of people on this committee. Please mark them in your calendar. Note the times below are all Pacific Time.
Tuesday, Nov. 22 9:00am
Tuesday, Nov. 29 9:00am
Friday, Dec 2nd 9:00am
Monday, Dec 12th 9am
I'm going to look for a different webconferencing system that is easier to use than the Calif. Community College system. I will email the information for that no later than this weekend.
As a reminder, here are the items we all agreed to continue:
1. We will keep the four categories of entries developed last year.
2. The fourth category will be renamed "Sakai sites for portfolios, projects, and other innovative purposes."
3. We will include the definition for "innovative practice" in the actual rubric to make sure it is clear to both submitters and judges.
This is what each person promised to do for the next meeting.
ALL OF US will look at application at http://openedpractices.org/twsia and come prepared to make any suggestions for clarifying the application process. The concerns that were discussed today included:
1. Including the definition of "innovation" within the rubric and application.
2. Determining clear instructions for what types of screenshots or additional material is requested/required. The thought is to make sure all proposals have an equal opportunity to present additional material instead of only those who choose to upload lots of materials.
3. Review for any other areas where those who submit need additional clarification.
KATE ELLIS will send out a copy of the scoring sheet used in the past for each of us to review. She and Salwa have participated in judging for several years and can act as a primary resource on that process and how it works. The questions we are trying to answer are:
1. Does the scoring sheet work effectively for all judges and in all categories?
2. Is there a minimum score we want to determine (and publicize) is required to make the final round? If not, is there any instruction we wish to include for judges/submitters around differentiators for scoring or how to get some type of inter-rater reliability into the process.
JANICE SMITH will evaluate the rubric and bring back ideas for clarification. Specifically, she is looking at the two columns of "Not Applicable" and "Not Evident." She will also look at the wording in each section to determine if there is anything that may be unclear to either the submitters or the judges. With Janice's extensive experience with rubrics and fresh eyes into the process, we anticipate this will be very useful.
SALWA KHAN verified that she still has administrative access to the OpenEd Practices space. She will be the one to update the space with current information as it is determined. Also, Salwa shared that she has completed her dissertation and will be graduating with her PhD in December. Congratulations!
I realize not everyone was able to attend the first meeting, and it may be that other meetings don't fit your schedule either. However, you can still participate by sharing your ideas via email and we will include them in our discussions at the meetings.
I know the timeline is short and we got a late start. However, I am feeling confident that we can still make this a great year for winners and build on what has been done in the past. Thank you to everyone who is volunteering their time on this.