Child pages
  • TWSIA Oct 4, 2010 Mtg
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Call In Information
Phone: 218-862-1000
Code: 1021049

Notes:

http://titanpad.com/ZZSkmqMDmq

Participants:
Rob Coyle, JHU
Mathieu Plourde, Delaware
Salwa Khan
Rosemarie
Maggie Lynch, College of the Redwoods

General Announcements:
Educause - NEXT WEEK (Oct 12 - 14)
T&L Monthly Call - Moved to 10/20
Sponsorship Update
Wiley, rSmart are fine, waiting for IBM
Ian Dolphin will ask commercial affiliates
Updates to the award are appreciated

Agenda:

Confirming Final Judges
(See Below)
Confirming Category Definitions
(See Below) http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/PED/TWSIA+New+Categories
Discussing Rubric
(See Below)
Rubrics (Attachment) http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/download/attachments/69280404/STUDENT+ENGAGEMENT+RUBRICS.doc
Posters/Flyers for Educause
New Meeting Time Survey http://www.doodle.com/saribz6k3pni4bdw

Action Items: (What - Who - When)
Specific Feedback to Maggie about Rubric - All - ASAP
Draft Rubric to Group - Maggie - ASAP
Categories to Board Members - Maggie
Posters/Flyers designing - Rob - Today
Poster/Flyers Printing - Rob -Today
Prep OEP for Announcement/Flyer/Category Defs - Rob - This Week
Confirm Judges for Announcement - Sue - This week


Judges:

  • Sue has started a list of potential judges
  • http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/PED/TWSIA+2011+Potential+Judges
  • We have to pump up the number of judges, because of the categories
  • We would rather have non-Sakai community judges
  • Larry Ragan: Distance Ed. <--
  • Noriah Ismail (self-nomination), Sue to dig in a little <--
  • Brenda Boyd, heavily involved in Quality Matters, Antioch <--
  • Jim Zimmerman is a definite <--
  • Laurie Richlin <--
  • Alec Couros, <-- Accepted for K12

Send email to confirmed judges, tell them their names will appear in document at Educause (Sue)

Category Definitions:

General Instructions for Submitters
Submitters are asked to pick only one category for which they want their course to compete. The preliminary judging committee reserves the right to ask submitters to change their category if there is a reason to believe an alternate category might be a better fit.
A. Higher Education: Face-to-Face
This category covers courses for which a class generally meets face-to-face (physically) weekly during a semester and uses technology to supplement classroom-based teaching and learning.
B. Higher Education: Distance Education or Hybrid Course
This category covers any course where 50% or more of the content and activities are delivered online. This could apply to reduced weekly face-to-face time or skipped weeks of face-to-face meetings. Distance education courses, including ones with highly irregular face-to-face meetings and proctored exams, are also included in this category.
C. Primary - Secondary Education (K-12)
Any course, face-to-face, hybrid, or online, taught to an audience below the undergraduate (college/university) level, is included in this category. In North America, it is referred to as K-12 (Kindergarten to 12th grade). Elsewhere in the world, it is also referred to as elementary, early, primary, middle, and secondary education, and usually covers education provided to students under the age of 18 years old.
D. Non-Traditional/Non-Course Sites
Any other use of Sakai that does not fit the three previous categories, including project sites, portfolio initiatives, professional training and development, etc.

-------------

Rubric Notes:

  • The old rubrics did not ask participants to identify content specific processes.
  • Student engagement is a critical part, but not the only part.
  • Salwa to send comments to Maggie by tomorrow, has to be completed by Tuesday of next week.

Option 1 - Completely new Rubric. It is a complete redo of the rubric to focus on a student engagement framework. Though some concepts from the other rubric are included, they are framed in a different manner. In addition, other parts of the old rubric are not included at all (i.e., UI interface and general content/learning materials—though content is included in several of the engagement rubric pieces).
Pros:
• Is more tuned to student engagement and may be more easily applied across our four new groupings.
• Focuses on a more constructivist model, particularly in the "Excellent" category.
• Every criteria speaks to interactivity. There is no "static" environment in this rubric.
• Student engagement is what we are striving for in both the classroom and online, so attempting to measure it is forward thinking and innovative in itself.
Cons:
• Requires a much more technology savvy orientation.
• Requires judges to have a much deeper look at the course materials and interactions. There isn't any "counting" or straight is it there standards.
• Requires applicants to provide more detailed operational information and reveal their practices (e.g., turnaround time for messages, looking at the quality of student participation in every aspect).
• May not be as easily applied to basic skills content (i.e., elementary skills in reading, writing, math)

Option 2 - Old Rubric with Slight Modification. Keeps the old rubric as it was but adds a "student engagement" piece that attempts to get at the most important measure of engagement—participation.
Pros:
• People are used to the old rubric and only need to learn one more criteria.
• Keeps some of the basic course design stuff as it was (e.g., learn outcomes and assessment, basic navigation UI, and accessibility)
• Easier for judges to evaluate because it is a lot of basic comparison (e.g., are there objectives and are they stated).
• Closer to the Quality Matters approach.
Cons:
• Still relies too much on undergraduate education (need to remove that for K-12).
• Still tends toward a tool-based approach for each criteria instead of a more holistic approach.
• Uses what I would term "old" standards in the literature, standards that are discrete instead of holistic.

Option 3 - Some Combination of the Two Options
I didn't develop this, but somewhat assume it may be our outcome. I need to hear your feedback and discussion before I continue.

  • No labels