Inclusivity Essentials_ Creating Accessible Websites for Nonprofits .pdf
Tried & TestedMore Grounded Pedagogies for Online & Blended Courses
1. 2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference
Michael M. Grant, University of South Carolina
Charles B. Hodges, Georgia Southern University
Tried & Tested
More Grounded Pedagogies
for Online & Blended
Courses
2. Michael M. Grant
The University of South Carolina
http://viral-notebook.com
@michaelmgrant
3. Charles B. Hodges
Associate Professor
Instructional Technology
chodges@georgiasouthern.edu
Follow me on Twitter: @hodgesc
19. Many
insOtuOons
use
a
course
design
template
for
online
courses
because
it
provides
students
a
standardized
web
navigaOon
experience.
(Collins,
Weber
&
Zambrano,
2014)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference19
20. Online
Course
OrganizaOon
IntroducOon
or
overview
Provide
a
brief
introducOon
or
overview
of
the
unit
or
topic.
Provide
your
own
voice
here.
Emphasize
your
personality.
Use
media
(e.g.,
slideshows,
videos,
graphics,
graphic
organizers)
to
gain
the
learner’s
a+enOon.
Reference
the
media
in
your
introducOon.
Use
links.
Standards
or
ObjecOves/
SPIs
Share
the
objecOves/standards:
“At
the
end
of
this
unit,
YSBAT…”
This
is
helpful
for
accreditaOon.
Readings
&
Media
List
here
the
texts
and
other
media
you
would
like
the
learners
to
digest.
Be
sure
you’ve
considered
how
these
KSAs
will
be
embedded
within
other
learning
acOviOes.
(Use
other
media
beyond
the
text.
Embed
others’
content.)
AddiOonal
Learning
Resources
Consider
adding
a
secOon
for
addiOonal
learning
(i.e.,
differenOaOon).
For
example,
bookmarks
to
tools
and
instruments,
parOcipaOon
in
a
blog
conversaOon,
links
to
relevant
sites
or
examples.
AcOviOes
List
here
the
acOviOes
learners
will
engage
in
to
apply
and
process
the
KSAs
from
the
Readings
&
Media
(e.g.,
projects,
discussions,
interviews,
assessments,
summaries).
Consider
a
cafeteria
plan
opOon.
Developed
in
collaboraOon
with
Lee
Allen,
Trey
MarOndale
&
Clif
Mims.
22. Using
a
screen
and
video
capturing
program,
I
post
a
short
weekly
video
announcement
to:
(1)
let
students
see
me
and
recognize
that
I
am
a
real
person;
(2)
conduct
housekeeping
acOviOes,
such
as
reminders
of
upcoming
assignments
and
due
dates;
(3)
provide
“just-‐in-‐Ome”
comments
and
discussion
about
topics
that
need
further
explanaOon
or
clarificaOon;
and
(4)
discuss
current
events.
These
weekly
video
announcements
reinforce
…
that
I
am
here,
acOve,
and
enthusiasOc
about
the
course.
(Hoffman,
2010)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference22
28. • Don't
have
to
flip
everything,
all
the
Ome,
all
at
once.
Do
a
day
or
two
where
you
have
good
content/media
for
outside
of
class.
• Also,
don't
worry
too
much
about
the
quality
of
your
video.
• If
you
make
your
own
video,
it
won't
be
perfect,
studio
quality.
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference28
30. Use
groups
or
teams
Image
from
~FreeBirD®~
at
flickr.com
31.
32. Students
should
be
required
to
complete
an
orientaOon
to
online
learning
as
a
prerequisite
for
enrolling
in
an
online
course,
followed
by
a
course
navigaOon
skills
quiz.
(Collins,
Weber
&
Zambrano,
2014)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference32
33.
34. Consider
the
use
of
outside
guest
speakers.
"That
was
something
the
instrucOonal
designers
pushed
me
to
do,"
recalled
Mills.
"I
thought,
I'm
the
expert.
Why
am
I
doing
this?"
(Shaqauser,
2015)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference34
38. Through
quick
quizzes
an
instructor
can
uncover
what
isn’t
fully
understood
by
the
students.
(Shaqauser,
2015)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference38
39. Encourage
student
interacOon
with
the
content
by
offering
mulOple
self-‐
assessment
opportuniOes
(e.g.,
short
quizzes,
exercises,
acOviOes).
(Hoffman,
2010)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference39
40. Undergrads
cared
most
about
these
teacher
behaviors
in
an
online
class
(Hodges
&
Cowan,
2012)
• Makes
course
requirements
clear
• Creates
a
course
that
is
easy
to
navigate
• Provides
clear
instrucOons
on
how
to
parOcipate
in
course
learning
acOviOes
• Clearly
communicated
important
due
dates/Omeframes
for
learning
acOviOes
• Clearly
communicates
important
course
topics
• Clearly
communicated
important
course
goals
• Sets
clear
expectaOons
for
discussion
parOcipaOon
• Always
follows
through
with
promises
made
• Provides
Omely
feedback
on
assignments
and
projects
• Lets
me
know
how
I
am
doing
in
the
course
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference40
41. Providing
Feedback
with
Rubrics
• Developing
rubrics
and
lerng
them
evolve
from
class-‐to-‐class
is
worth
the
Ome
• You
may
need
to
teach
students
how
to
interpret
the
rubric
before
they
start
the
assignment
• And
to
understand
that
the
scored
one
probably
gives
them
a
good
idea
what
they
did
wrong.
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference41
49. MANIC
Discussion
Strategy
• What
was
the
Most
important
thing
in
the
reading?
• What
was
something
you
Agree
with
in
the
reading?
• What
was
something
you
do
Not
agree
with
in
the
reading?
• What
was
something
you
found
InteresOng
in
the
reading?
• What
was
something
you
found
Confusing
in
the
reading?
(Curry
&
Cook,
2014)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference49
51. Include
a
model
or
example
of
typical
discussion
responses
and
final
products.
(Kerr,
2011)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference51
52. SeRng
Expecta-ons
When
responding
to
someone
with
whom
they
disagree,
students
are
instructed
to
(1)
state
the
person’s
name
to
create
some
inOmacy,
(2)
paraphrase
the
other
person’s
point
to
demonstrate
understanding
the
post,
and
then
(3)
provide
an
alternaOve
perspecOve
or
construcOve
criOcism.
(Collins,
Weber
&
Zambrano,
2014)
53. Assign
roles
to
students
(e.g.,
QuesOoner,
Responder,
Reviewer)
for
online
discussions
that
would
require
students
to
facilitate
and
monitor
course
discussions.
(Kerr,
2011)
Use
online
role
play
with
different
points
of
view
(e.g.,
Sage,
Devil’s
Advocate,
Supporter,
etc.)
And
consider
debates
from
differing
POVs
(e.g.,
Manager,
Developer,
End
User,
Client,
etc.)
(Bonk,
2015;
McGee
&
Reis,
2012)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference53
55. Each
type
of
interacOon
had
a
significantly
posiOve
average
effect
size:
§ Student-‐Student
=
0.49
§ Student-‐Instructor
=
0.32
§ Student-‐Content
=
0.46
Student-‐student
and
student-‐content
interacOons
were
significantly
higher
than
student-‐instructor
interacOon.
(Abrami
et
al.,
2011,
p.
85-‐86)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference55
56. In
computer-‐supported
learning
—
122
studies
—
small
group
learning
had
significantly
more
posiOve
effects
than
individual
learning
on
student
individual
achievement.
(Abrami
et
al.,
2011)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference56
57. Small
group
learning
was
enhanced
when
a) students
had
group
work
experience
or
instrucOon
b) specific
cooperaOve
learning
strategies
were
employed,
and
c) group
size
was
small.
(Abrami
et
al.,
2011)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference57
59. Group
work
can
leverage:
1) Goal
interdependence
(shared
group
learning
and
product
goals)
2) Resource
interdependence
(each
group
member
provides
porOons
of
the
learning
resources
necessary
to
the
group
learning
outcomes),
and
3) Role
interdependence
(each
group
member
performs
an
assigned
role
to
achieve
the
learning
outcome
or
product).
(Collins,
Weber
&
Zambrano,
2014)
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference59
60. Games
&
Gamifica-on
Terminology
• Games
&
gaming
disOnguished
by
their
original
purposes
of
entertainment.
• Serious
games,
which
are
most
akin
to
simula-ons,
are
designed
to
educate
first
(Michael
&
Chen,
2005).
• Gamifica-on
applies
game
design
elements
or
mechanics,
parOcularly
those
engendering
moOvaOon,
to
non-‐game
processes
(Kapp,
2012),
like
courses
&
instrucOonal
units.
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference60
62. C3PO
Challenge,
Pool,
Poll,
Predict,
Outcome
h+p://www.ascilite.org/
conferences/coffs00/papers/
marie_jasinski.pdf
63. Course
ideas
based
on
…
• Kenneth
Pierce
at
The
University
of
Texas
at
San
Antonio
• Craig
Shepherd
at
the
University
of
Wyoming,
• David
Gibson
&
Chris
Haskell
at
Boise
State
University
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference63
64. • Content
modules
designated
as
“core
levels”
• Assignments
idenOfied
as
quests
&
opOonal
modules
as
“upgrade
quests”
• Player
Omelines
• Player
discussions
• Grades
converted
to
experience
points
(XP)
• Badges
awarded
for
compleOon
of
specific
levels
or
acOviOes
65.
66.
67. References
• Abrami,
P.
C.,
Bernard,
R.
M.,
Bures,
E.
M.,
Borokhovski,
E.,
&
Tamim,
R.
M.
(2011).
InteracOon
in
distance
educaOon
and
online
learning:
Using
evidence
and
theory
to
improve
pracOce.
Journal
of
Compu-ng
in
Higher
Educa-on,
23,
82–103.
h+p://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-‐011-‐9043-‐x
• Allen,
I.
E.,
&
Seaman,
J.
(2014).
Tracking
online
educa-on
in
the
United
States.
Babson
Park,
MA.
Retrieved
from
www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
• Boling,
E.
C.,
Hough,
M.,
Krinsky,
H.,
Saleem,
H.,
&
Stevens,
M.
(2012).
Curng
the
distance
in
distance
educaOon:
PerspecOves
on
what
promotes
posiOve,
online
learning
experiences.
Internet
and
Higher
Educa-on,
15(2),
118–126.
h+p://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
• Bonk,
C.
(2015,
March
18).
Adding
some
TEC-‐VARIETY
for
online
mo-va-on.
Paper
presented
at
the
20th
annual
Cengage
Learning
CompuOng
Conference,
Phoenix,
AZ.
• Cerniglia,
E.
G.
(2011).
Modeling
best
pracOce
through
online
learning
building
relaOonships.
Young
Children,
66(May),
54–59.
• Collins,
D.,
Weber,
J.,
&
Zambrano,
R.
(2014).
Teaching
business
ethics
online:
PerspecOves
on
course
design,
delivery,
student
engagement,
and
assessment.
Journal
of
Business
Ethics,
125,
513–529.
h+p://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-‐013-‐1932-‐7
• Crews,
T.,
&
Bu+erfield,
J.
B.
(2014).
Data
for
flipped
classroom
design:
Using
student
feedback
to
idenOfy
the
best
components
from
online
and
face-‐to-‐face
classes.
Higher
Educa-on
Studies,
4(3),
38–47.
h+p://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n3p38
• Curry,
J.
H.,
&
Cook,
J.
(2014).
FacilitaOng
online
discussions
at
a
MANIC
pace:
A
new
strategy
for
an
old
problem.
The
Quarterly
Review
of
Distance
Educa-on,
15(3),
1–11.
• DiPietro,
M.,
Ferdig,
R.
E.,
Black,
E.
W.,
&
Preston,
M.
(2008).
Best
pracOces
in
teaching
K-‐12
online:
Lessons
learned
from
Michigan
Virtual
School
teachers.
Journal
of
Interac-ve
Online
Learning,
7(1),
10–35.
Retrieved
from
h+p://search.proquest.com/docview/233293907?accounOd=14723
• Eng,
N.
(2015).
K-‐12
MOOCs
must
address
equity.
Educa-on
Week.
Retrieved
from
h+p://www.edweek.org/ew/arOcles/2015/02/04/k-‐12-‐moocs-‐must-‐address-‐equity.html
• Hodges,
C.
B.,
&
Cowan,
S.
F.
(2012).
Preservice
teachers’
views
of
instructor
presence
in
online
courses.
Journal
of
Digital
Learning
in
Teacher
Educa-on,
28(4),
139–145.
• Hoffman,
S.
J.
(2010).
Teaching
the
humani-es
online:
A
prac-cal
guide
to
the
virtual
classroom.
Armonk,
NY:
M.E.
Sharp
Inc.
• Kapp,
K.M.
(2012).
The
gamificaOon
of
learning
and
instrucOon:
Game-‐based
methods
and
strategies
for
training
and
educaOon.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Pfeiffer.
• Kerr,
S.
(2011).
Tips,
Tools,
and
Techniques
for
Teaching
in
the
Online
High
School
Classroom.
TechTrends,
55,
28–31.
h+p://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-‐011-‐0466-‐z
• McGee,
P.,
&
Reis,
A.
(2012).
Blended
course
design:
A
synthesis
of
best
pracOces.
Journal
of
Asynchronous
Learning
Networks,
16(4),
7–22.
• Michael,
D.,
&
Chen,
S.
(2005).
Serious
games:
Games
that
educate,
train,
and
inform
(1st
ed.).
Course
Technology
PTR.
• Schaqauser,
D.
(2015).
8
best
pracOces
for
moving
courses
online.
Campus
Technology.
Retrieved
from
h+p://campustechnology.com/arOcles/2015/02/11/8-‐best-‐pracOces-‐for-‐moving-‐
courses-‐online.aspx
• Smith,
C.
(2015).
GeXng
started:
The
online
course
development
toolkit.
Paper
presented
at
FantasTech
2015,
Online
conference.
• Wei,
H.,
Peng,
H.,
&
Chou,
C.
(2015).
Can
more
interacOvity
improve
learning
achievement
in
an
online
course?
Effects
of
college
students’
percepOon
and
actual
use
of
a
course-‐
management
system
on
their
learning
achievement.
Computers
&
Educa-on,
83,
10–21.
h+p://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.013
2016 Cengage Learning Computing Conference67