© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky preparing future faculty to teach effectively with technology alan wolf & gina svarovsky university of wisconsin-madison.
Post on 22-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
Transcript
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
preparing future faculty to teach effectively with technology
alan wolf & gina svarovskyuniversity of wisconsin-madison
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
overview
teaching with technology course, spring 2004
• introduction to CIRTL• design and development of the course• implementation• evaluation• open discussion - if you were to help us design
the course on teaching with technology what would you teach tomorrow’s professoriate?
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
overview
video from greg moses
eTeach Presentation(must use IE on Windows)http://ats.doit.wisc.edu/alan/Moses_Talk/top.html
View the video or slides(Quicktime)http://ats.doit.wisc.edu/alan/moses.mov
Greg’s Slideshttp://ats.doit.wisc.edu/alan/Moses_Talk/
Slides/Educause2005.ppt
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
developing the course
team composition
greg
jake
mike
gina
kitchpatricia
chere
alan
mary
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
developing the course
course learning objectives
students will be able to:• critically describe basic instructional
technologies;• demonstrate the ability to make appropriate
technological and instructional selections aligned with identified learning objectives and diverse student audiences;
• describe ways of conducting course evaluation and collecting assessment and evaluation data
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
developing the course
topics covered
five sections:• teaching and learning basics• overview of technologies, case studies, best
practices• evaluation of technology and student
assessment• distance education, eLearning standards,
universal design• design projects
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
developing the course
course website
• built on Desire2Learn• used to house course readings and activities,
discussion boards, and survey instruments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
implementation
design projects
• this was our big experiment• scope, topic, implementation strategy and
evaluation plans were intentionally vague to all students to be creative
• milestones began in earnest halfway through the course
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
data collection
• pre- and post-course surveys• reflection papers• design projects
• data were analyzed to see if:– students met learning objectives– students were satisfied with experience
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
While there are multiple examples of beneficial use of technology in changing learning environments for the better… it seems a bit dangerous to me technology/computers are implemented to take over the assessment of student learning. One has to be careful that the technique/technology used for assessment does not put constraints on the nature of the learning environment. I see that technology/computers could be used to enable frequent, voluntary and fun self-assessments (e.g. on-line tests and quizzes), and thus give the students quick feedback allowing them to focus on deficiencies.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
While there are multiple examples of beneficial use of technology in changing learning environments for the better… it seems a bit dangerous to me technology/computers are implemented to take over the assessment of student learning. One has to be careful that the technique/technology used for assessment does not put constraints on the nature of the learning environment. I see that technology/computers could be used to enable frequent, voluntary and fun self-assessments (e.g. on-line tests and quizzes), and thus give the students quick feedback allowing them to focus on deficiencies.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
While there are multiple examples of beneficial use of technology in changing learning environments for the better… it seems a bit dangerous to me technology/computers are implemented to take over the assessment of student learning. One has to be careful that the technique/technology used for assessment does not put constraints on the nature of the learning environment. I see that technology/computers could be used to enable frequent, voluntary and fun self-assessments (e.g. on-line tests and quizzes), and thus give the students quick feedback allowing them to focus on deficiencies.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
design project results
• highly variable output from students– Some students developed proposals and prototypes– Others implemented and tested projects
• factors that may have affected outcome:– context for implementation (did they have a course
or audience to try it out on)– technology chosen for project (some students did
not yet have the expertise for the technology they wished to use)
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
A great idea and a very valuable addition to the skill-set of any future professors/instructors. The variety of issues and technologies covered helped give a broad perspective to use of technology in teaching. The first part of the class [on teaching principles] was also essential to the introduction of technology into best practices. Also, team-teach approach allowed for lots of expertise and variety of activities. Also, discovering links to various web resources was great.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
A great idea and a very valuable addition to the skill-set of any future professors/instructors. The variety of issues and technologies covered helped give a broad perspective to use of technology in teaching. The first part of the class [on teaching principles] was also essential to the introduction of technology into best practices. Also, team-teach approach allowed for lots of expertise and variety of activities. Also, discovering links to various web resources was great.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
A great idea and a very valuable addition to the skill-set of any future professors/instructors. The variety of issues and technologies covered helped give a broad perspective to use of technology in teaching. The first part of the class [on teaching principles] was also essential to the introduction of technology into best practices. Also, team-teach approach allowed for lots of expertise and variety of activities. Also, discovering links to various web resources was great.
Student comments
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
student recommendations
• better name for course• class sessions were rushed at times• overview of technology came rather late• design projects were started too late
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
evaluation of 1st iteration
bottom line
• met our primary learning objectives– evaluation of student work demonstrated their
understanding and ability to apply concepts of the course
• student satisfaction was high• room for improvement driven by both
instructors and students
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
2nd iteration
changes
• new team members• new name (focus on effective uses)
– “Effective Teaching with Technology”
• longer time (2 hrs vs. 90 minutes)• “technology fair” for first class (held 4th week in 1st
iteration)• clarifying/repositioning design projects
with frequent milestones• new content - “clickers” and visualization/simulation
sessions
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
2nd iteration
Video of Kitch Barnicle and Mike Litzkow Video of Kitch Barnicle and Mike Litzkow discussing their class on universal designdiscussing their class on universal designand the team based approach of the courseand the team based approach of the course
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/alanwolf/web/EMW05.html
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
2nd iteration
Barb Ingham, Assoc. Professor (Food Science), Barb Ingham, Assoc. Professor (Food Science), describing her role in 2nd iteration of the coursedescribing her role in 2nd iteration of the courseand Brad Sleeth ,Ph.D. student, discussing his and Brad Sleeth ,Ph.D. student, discussing his impression of the course and its value.impression of the course and its value.
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/alanwolf/web/EMW05.html
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
open discussion
size of institution
geographical location
1. What types of technology/skills would be helpful at your institutions?
2. If you were to help up design the course what would you teach tomorrow’s professoriate?
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
resources
alan wolfinstructional technology consultant
university of wisconsin-madison
gina svarovsky researcher and graduate student
dept. of ed psychology, university of wisconsin-madison
CIRTL website http://cirtl.wceruw.org/
Delta Program website http://www.delta.wisc.edu
© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky
Links mentioned in the talk
West Point Bridge Builderhttp://bridgecontest.usma.edu/eTeach virtual lecture softwarehttp://eteach.engr.wisc.edu/newEteach/home.htmlEngage Projecthttp://engage.doit.wisc.edu/National STEM digital Librarieshttp://nsdl.orgMERLOThttp://www.merlot.org
Some of the example technologies and sources of learning resources presented in the course.
top related