© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky preparing future faculty to teach effectively with technology alan wolf & gina svarovsky university 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) View the video or slides (Quicktime) Greg’s Slides Slides/Educause2005.ppt

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky developing the course team composition greg gina

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky developing the course team composition greg jake gina alan

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky developing the course team composition greg jake mike gina kitch alan

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky developing the course team composition greg jake mike gina kitch patricia 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 2 nd 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 2 nd iteration team composition greg jake mike gina kitch patricia chere alan mary

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky 2 nd iteration team composition greg jake mike gina kitch alan barb

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky 2 nd iteration team composition greg jake mike gina kitch tim stuart alan barb

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky 2 nd iteration Video of Kitch Barnicle and Mike Litzkow discussing their class on universal design and the team based approach of the course

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky 2 nd iteration Barb Ingham, Assoc. Professor (Food Science), describing her role in 2nd iteration of the course and Brad Sleeth,Ph.D. student, discussing his impression of the course and its value.

© 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 wolf instructional technology consultant university of wisconsin-madison gina svarovsky researcher and graduate student dept. of ed psychology, university of wisconsin-madison CIRTL website Delta Program website

© 2005 gina navoa svarovsky Links mentioned in the talk West Point Bridge Builder eTeach virtual lecture software Engage Project National STEM digital Libraries MERLOT Some of the example technologies and sources of learning resources presented in the course.