On This Page:
The conference will be organized into four tracks. Participants may move between tracks. During the final session on Tuesday campus teams will meet to share information and ideas.
Track 1: Data Driven Decision Making and Evaluation
Co-Chairs
- Vicki Williams (The Pennsylvania State University), vqw@psu.edu
- J.D. Walker (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), jdwalker@umn.edu
- Bart Collins (Purdue University), bcollins@purdue.edu
Description
As the use of learning technology (LT) in education has grown, so has the need for information about how this technology is affecting the environment in which instructors and students teach and learn. Information about technology's effects on student learning outcomes is of particular interest, given increasing calls from accrediting agencies, granting organizations, and governmental entities for greater assessment and accountability in higher education. In the Data Driven Decision Making and Evaluation track, faculty, administrators, researchers, and LT staff will describe their efforts to provide such information through systematic evaluation strategies. This track will focus on several facets of LT evaluation:
- administrative issues in the evaluation of learning technology (coordinating large-scale evaluation projects, connecting with national initiatives, leveraging evaluation results to improve teaching and learning, etc.);
- technical issues (obtaining useful data from course management systems, dealing with privacy concerns, etc.);
- methodological issues (which research methods are most appropriate for evaluating learning technology); and
- actual evaluation projects and results (large and small scale, from quasi-experiments through correlational research to case studies, ethnographies, etc.).
Session Details
Session 1
Monday, November 6, 200610:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.
Room 324 Coffman Memorial Union
- Allan Gyorke, Chris Millet, Gary Chinn, Tom Davis (The Pennsylvania State University)
Hot Teams: Rapid Evaluation of Learning Technologies
Enhanced podcast of the presentation
The presenters will describe the "Hot Team" process that they have used to quickly evaluate a learning technology and summarize the results in a whitepaper. The team will use four completed hot team analyses, both as examples of the process and to share what they have learned about those specific technologies.
Session 2
Monday, November 6, 20061:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
Room 324 Coffman Memorial Union
- Kimberly Arnold (Purdue University)
Evaluating the Learning Impact of IT Systems
Learning outcomes assessment is typically undertaken at the course or program level, and is usually linked to specific instructional practices, not system-use itself. As a consequence, IT organizations are not well equipped to make business decisions based on teaching and learning needs. Purdue is developing a framework for assessing the impact of centrally supported IT systems on learning impact. Following Chickering and Gamson's principles of good practice in undergraduate education as a conceptual model, we developed an initial methodology for assessing IT impact on learning. This presentation will discuss how we used the methodology to assess nine teaching systems, show how this data provides a meaningful index of how well an IT organization is facilitating learning, and discuss how this data might drive IT decisions in educational technology support.
Session 3
Monday, November 6, 20062:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
Room 324 Coffman Memorial Union
Education and Technology: Successes and Challenges in Assessing Student Learning
Evaluating the effects on student learning of educational innovations can be difficult in a live educational environment. Tracking the effects of technological change presents special challenges, both because those effects are often diffuse and because technology often changes the instructional environment in fundamental ways.
Panelists from Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, and the University of Minnesota will describe their attempts to evaluate the effects on student learning of educational technology on their campuses. After these brief presentations, session leaders will engage the audience in a discussion of evaluation-related successes and challenges at their home institutions.
Track 2: Gaining Efficiencies
Co-Chairs
- Blaire Bundy (University of Wisconsin—Madison), bundy@doit.wisc.edu
- Lanny Arvan (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), larvan@uiuc.edu
Description
Gaining efficiencies can be thought of, or comprised of a collection of approaches to optimizing the cost, time, development, and effectiveness of teaching and learning. The range of efficiencies can be described as (not limited to) the following examples:
- content sharing through the use of reusable learning objects and digital repositories (MERLOT and beyond);
- working in partnership with content providers and publishers to allow the tailoring of content to be more course specific (customization and selection of learning materials);
- effective and efficient use of hybrid learning practices that optimizes student and instructor time inside and outside of the classroom;
- clearing adminstrivia out of the way so faculty members can work more closely with students on what is most central to learning (teach more students while maintaining the appearance of personalization);
- customization of CMS model/tools for discipline specific needs (and also variation between the needs of large enrollment undergraduate, professional school, and distance education programs); and
- adherence and application of IMS and IEEE standards and specifications.
Session Details
Session 1
Monday, November 6, 200610:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.
Room 303 Coffman Memorial Union
- Blaire Bundy, moderator (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
- John Harwood (The Pennsylvania State University)
- Brad Cohen (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities)
- Kathy Christoph (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
Panel Discussion: Lessons in Large Course Redesign
Session 2
Monday, November 6, 200612:40 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
Room 303 Coffman Memorial Union
- Gary Chinn (The Pennsylvania State University)
- Patti Banyas (Michigan State University)
- Aprille Clarke (The University of Iowa)
- Tsvetomir Ross-Lazarov (The University of Iowa)
- Mike Halm (The Pennsylvania State University)
- Allan Gyorke (The Pennsylvania State University)
Developing and Implementing a Blended Learning Program
You Let Them Do WHAT? Distributed Administration and Organizational Architecture
Online@Iowa: A Completely On-line Student Experience
Online@Iowa: Introduction to the University of Iowa's Digital Campus (PDF)
Attachment I: Architecture (PDF)
LionShare: Academic Collaboration and Sharing
Session 3
Monday, November 6, 20062:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
Room 303 Coffman Memorial Union
- Geoff Holden (Purdue University)
- J. Nathan Leech (Purdue University)
- Louis P. Scott (Purdue University)
- David Eisert (Purdue University)
- Ron Cramer (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
- Doug Worsham (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
The Evolution of Boilercast: A Look at the Purdue Implementation of Podcasting
Podcast Polyglots: Language Faculty Speak Beyond the Borders of the Campus
Track 3: Learning Technology System Integration
Co-Chairs
- Dirk Herr-Hoyman (University of Wisconsin—Madison), dirk@doit.wisc.edu
- Bart Collins (Purdue University), bcollins@exchange.purdue.edu
Description
The Learning Technology System Integration track will explore opportunities and challenges that extend the traditional enterprise course management system (CMS) to new levels of enhanced, intergrated functionality with next generation teaching and learning tools. Media tools, collaboration tools, classroom response systems, e- portfolios, and a variety of online assessment tools provide robust add-on components to supplement the central CMS and enhance distance learning and blended learning opportunities for students. In this track, system and application architects and developers can share their strategies for developing and integrating third party applications and open source initiatives into the learning technology framework. Topics addressed might include;
- How are common APIs and open standards faciliating and supporting the integration efforts needed to develop seamless transitions between teaching and learning applications?
- What promises do open standards (IMS Tools Interoperbility, I2 Shibboleth, OpenID) and open source CMS (Moodle, Sakai) hold for future development?
- What security issues are escalated with integration? How is sensitive data being protected? What is the role of identity management?
- What security issues exist with third-party vendor integrations? How are expectations and SLAs being managed?
- What policy issues exist with third-party vendor and open source integrations? How are expectations and SLAs being managed?
- What opportunities exist for institutional cooperation and collaboration toward joint-development initiatives?
Session Details
Session 1: What is an LMS?
Monday, November 6, 2006
10:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.
President's Room, 332 Coffman Memorial Union
- Dirk Herr-Hoyman (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
And the Kitchen Sink: Making All of Your Apps Into LMS Tools
Apple Keynote version (KEY)
QuickTime movie version (MOV)
- Jack Pinette (The University of Iowa)
Session 2: Challenges from Non-HTML Technologies
Monday, November 6, 2006
1:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
President's Room, 332 Coffman Memorial Union
- Maggie Jesse (The University of Iowa)
The Penn State Approach to Streaming Systems Integration and the TEACH Act
- Patrick Besong, Thomas Davis (The Pennsylvania State University)
Session 3: Our Experiences with Vendor and Internal Partnerships
Monday, November 6, 20062:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
President's Room, 332 Coffman Memorial Union
- Eric Frierson (University of Michigan)
Thinking Beyond the Book Bag: Partnering with Online Textbook Publishers
- Elizabeth Pyatt, Terry O'Heron (The Pennsylvania State University)
- Dirk Herr-Hoyman (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
Extending Commercial LMS Functionality Through Partnerships with Third Party Vendors
- John Ulmer (Purdue University)
Track 4: Training, Support, and Faculty/Educational Development
Co-Chairs
- Robert Baird (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), r-baird@uiuc.edu
- Leslie Hammersmith (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), lkhammer@uiuc.edu
- Beck Andre (The Ohio State University), andre.1@osu.edu
Description
This track focuses on how learning technologists should address or have addressed the evolving needs of faculty members, instructors, and students as we move beyond the CMS deployment. The training needs of the majority of our users are shifting from needing the basics of our CMS to being able to understand, integrate, and even differentiate between the many technological options available to them. The learning technology professional must be able to identify relevant technologies, demonstrate effective use of various technologies for instruction, and provide expertise to tie all of the pieces together, both technologically and pedagogically, with the faculty. The implication of these expectations on our roles, services, and support of faculty members teaching with technology can be explored through this track. Some questions that might be addressed through this track are:
- What modes of training are you finding the most effective?
- What faculty development programs have gained the most success on your campus?
- What successful strategies have been used to encourage faculty participation in professional development opportunities with learning technologies?
- Are you retooling your support in order to meet new demands or expectations in service?
- What has been necessary to keep instructional technologists prepared to work with faculty members on their projects?
- How do we keep the value in our services even as the technology changes around us?
- How do we balance the need to support the CMS and to help faculty members move forward in their teaching with technology?
- Given that any one campus can only provide extensive project planning and support to a few major systems and initiatives, what models can be used to support the need to identify, manage, and track more numerous but smaller experiments, trials runs, and deployments?
Session Details
Session 1
Monday, November 6, 200610:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.
Mississippi Room, 321 Coffman Memorial Union
- TBD, moderator
- Christine Greenhow, Cristina Lopez, Kurtis Scaletta (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities)
- Doug Mills, Al Weiss (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- Jeff Swain (The Pennsylvania State University)
- Jeff Bohrer (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
Faculty Development In the Age of Courseware and at the Dawn of Web 2.0
This panel explores the ways in which campus technology units are meeting their goal of supporting major courseware systems simultaneously with exploration and innovation in Web 2.0 technologies. Do support, marketing, training, and help desk models employed in support of major courseware systems work as well with Web 2.0 technologies and opportunities? The challenges of balancing established systems with promising pilots, of picking technology horses that will actually finish the race, of engaging and keeping faculty attention in a time of rapid change and unproven models, will all be addressed.
After introductions from each of the panelists, the moderator will guide the panel through a conversation centered upon a series of pertinent topics and questions, with a concluding question and answer session involving the audience.
Session 2
Monday, November 6, 20061:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, 321 Coffman Memorial Union
- Joanne Dehoney, moderator (The Ohio State University)
- Ken Clinkenbeard, Kyle Gassiott (The University of Iowa)
- Joe Conte (Purdue University)
- J. Maybaum (University of Michigan)
- Catherine Stephens, Carole Turner (University of Wisconsin—Madison)
- Jim Witte (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- how her/his/their model ties to campus missions,
- practices that didn't work well, and
- practices that were particularly effective.
Innovative Models Supporting Faculty Endeavors
UM.SiteMaker (PDF)
Supporting Creativity ... and Living to Tell About It (presentation; PDF)
Supporting Creativity - and Living to Tell About It (proposal; PDF)
What is ComETS? (DOC)
This panel provides an opportunity to explore various innovative models from multiple campuses. Brief model descriptions will be distributed prior to the panel to provide history and context. Panel members will concentrate on
Discussion will build upon general ideas that may be adapted for local realities.
Insights and experiences will be shared through a collaborative conversation conducted by a moderator. We believe this format will provide us with the best method for sharing a wide variety of information and knowledge from across our CIC institutions.
Session 3
Monday, November 6, 20062:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, 321 Coffman Memorial Union
- Robert Baird (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- Leslie Hammersmith (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
- Beck Andre (The Ohio State University)
Exploration of Web 2.0 and Faculty Endeavors
This session will combine panel members and audience participants to explore the ideas introduced in the two Track 4 panels presented today.
