Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management systems tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyber learning to life for our students.

Click here to read Vol. 1, Issue 1. 

Click here to read Vol. 2.

Vol. 1, Issue 45, June 15, 2020

Through June, the BYTE presents a four-part miniseries on the topic of blended or hybrid learning, one of many teaching design and delivery strategies that can be implemented to support our classroom capacity initiatives to maintain appropriate COVID-19 pandemic physical distancing policies during the Fall 2020 term and beyond.  The HyFlex course design model, related to but not the same as the blended learning methodology, will be the subject of study in July. 

This week, the BYTE provides a get started guide on how to design a hybrid course, filled with practical ideas, supported by well-respected research.

Hybrid Course Design Strategies

Learning Objectives

The first step of designing a hybrid course, or any course for that matter, is to lay out the learning objectives, what you want your students to know or be able to do at the conclusion of the course and for each segment of it, whether it be units, modules, weeks, or some other structure that best aligns with the course of study.  Learning objectives should be clearly written and include action verbs (QM 2.1).  Place the learning objectives in a prominent area of the course syllabus and in the EduCat course room.

Course Mapping

Next, create a course map or schedule, perhaps using a course re-design document if a course has already been taught, or a design document if not previously offered.  Identify which day or days of each week will be face-to-face and online.  Distinguish for your students if the online segment will be synchronous or asynchronous.  If synchronous, provide students with virtual class participation instructions including the class meeting times and mode of attendance, such as Zoom.  Publish an abbreviated course map in the syllabus and an unabridged version in EduCat.

Learning Activity and Assessment Selection

When selecting learning activities and assessments for your hybrid courses, consider which are most suitable for face-to-face or online delivery.  Many activities can be facilitated quite successfully in the online learning environment with support from the appropriate technologies.  Think about how the multimodal activities and assessments align with one another to achieve learning outcomes based on the learning objectives.  In-class learning activities can ready students for the online segment of the week, or vice-versa.

McGee and Reis (2012) recommended a hybrid learning approach whereby in-class time is learner-centered, active and collaborative, with more time spent on problem-solving, group work, or for an interactive learning activity.  Out-of-class time could be comprised of watching videos, posting discussion responses and replies to others, reading or researching, collaborative assignments, or other interactive work.

Active Learning

Also, ponder how best the learning activities promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction, to engage and motivate students in meaningful ways and to deepen learning.  In the online portion of the course, learner-instructor interactions should be regular, substantive, and initiated by faculty (Klotz & Wright, 2017).  Learner-learner interaction should also be present.  Examples of learning activities that promote interaction include discussion boards (audio, video, written), role play, debates, faculty-recorded lectures or demonstrations, reacting to the past (RTTP), poster presentation sessions, panel discussions, think/pair/share, one-minute papers (student feedback, burning questions, key point summarization), ‘find someone who’, collaborative work groups, peer reviews, jigsaw, games, etc.  Future BYTES will underscore designing student activities for active learning.   

Course Design

Update the course design document to outline which activities and assessments will be on the ground or online.  Use grading rubrics and learning activity or assessment-specific instructions, especially for the online portion of the course.  Many student questions can be prevented by anticipating them when constructing the overall course design.  Estimate the amount of time that students should allocate to each learning activity and publish this information as part of the course map (George-Walker & Keeffe, 2010).

Student Readiness for Hybrid Learning

Essential to student readiness in the online portion of a blended course is for faculty to communicate their expectations and provide specific examples to show students how to be successful (Luna & Winters, 2017).  One suggestion is to spend in-class time reviewing the online component requirements, which reinforces student understanding, establishes a sense of comfort, and reduces stress (Futch, DeNoyelles, Thompson, & Howard, 2016).  Another way that faculty can prepare students for hybrid learning is to offer regular, prompt, and specific feedback.  Constructive and positive feedback bridges the gap between learning objectives (the plan) with learning outcomes (the results).  Students can make learning adjustments and/or corrections more quickly the sooner that faculty provide feedback.

Course Technology

Students must have a sufficient understanding of the course technology to be online ready in the short and long runs (Tuapawa, 2016).  Consider posting how-to videos and tutorials, FAQ information, and taking a few minutes of face-to-face class time to review the relevant technology.  Run technology tests or simulations with your students in advance of the official delivery need.  Host a Q&A forum in EduCat devoted specifically to tech questions.  Post the Help Desk contact information in the course room.  Offer upfront guidance as to what types of tech questions should be posed to the Help Desk, the internet provider, and/or you, as the faculty member.

Time Management

Time management and organizational skills are lead indicators of student success in the online learning environment.  Offer your students advice with respect to managing the course workload.  Consider publishing a weekly plan related to the requirements along with their expected time requirements.  This distribution can take place as an EduCat announcement on in class.  Another idea is to ask former students who were successful in the hybrid course to share their best practices with your current students.

Sense of Network and Community

Build a sense of network and community into the course design.  Students who have a sense of belonging or place are more engaged and motivated.  They realize superior learning outcomes and higher retention and persistence rates as opposed to those courses without a support system (Nurcan & Tugba, 2018).  To develop a virtual community space, communicate frequently with your students.  Consider incorporating activities into the course from the start so that students get to know one another and you, as faculty.  Answer questions promptly and provide support when needed.  Be available for your students and stay connected with them, especially in the online segment of the hybrid course.  Place a non-graded discussion forum in the course simply for the purpose of maintaining a learning community.

All of the design work discussed in this newsletter should take place before the start of the course.  Central to a delivering an effective hybrid course is purposeful design; otherwise, the cart is placed before the proverbial horse.

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Our blended learning miniseries continues over the next several weeks to include:

Part III 6/22/2020: Hybrid Course Delivery Strategies

Part IV 6/29/2020: Hybrid Course Assessment Strategies

Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Futch, L. S., DeNoyelles, A., Thompson, K., & Howard, W. (2016). Comfort as a critical success factor in blended learning courses. Online Learning, 20(3), 1-19.

George-Walker, L. D., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1-13.

Klotz, D. E., & Wright, T. A. (2017). A best practice modular design of a hybrid course delivery structure for an executive education program. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovation Education, 15(1), 25-41.

Luna, Y. M., & Winters, S. A. (2017). Why did you blend my learning? A comparison of student success in lecture and blended learning Introduction to Sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 45(2), 116-130.

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Online Learning, 16(4), 7-22.

Nurcan, A., & Tugba, T. (2018). The impact of motivation and personality on academic performance in online and blended learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 35-47.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Tuapawa, K. (2016). Interpreting experiences of students using online technologies to interact with students in

Vol. 1, Issue 44, June 8, 2020

Through June, the BYTE presents a four-part miniseries on the topic of blended or hybrid learning. This week, we begin with a definition of what a hybrid course is, the benefits of hybrid learning for our students and faculty, and how to begin the process of transforming learning activities to be online ready.

6/15/2020: Hybrid Course Design Strategies

6/22/2020: Hybrid Course Delivery Strategies

6/29/2020: Hybrid Course Assessment Strategies

On June 2, the President’s Office communicated, as part of the “Return to Work Document, Buyouts, and More” email, the following via the Course Scheduling Model Approved (for Fall 2020) section.

“Nearly all courses will have a face-to-face component, although some use of technology will be used in many where it is impossible to fit all of the students of a class section in the classroom and maintain social distancing. This might mean students alternating days of face-to-face with electronic instruction or one of several other creative solutions. Most courses with 20 or fewer students will be able to all be in a classroom and meet social distancing protocols. It will take about 3-4 weeks to complete the room scheduling and then faculty members and students will be informed about where each class is assigned.”

One of the “several other creative solutions” that you may be contemplating for fall course offerings is the hybrid or blended learning model.

What is a Hybrid Course?
A hybrid course combines both on-campus and online learning environments (Buzzetto & Sweat, 2006; Masie 2002). Conventional brick and mortar learning activities are transformed to be e-delivered. To achieve the ideal learning blend, pedagogic strategies must be implemented by careful design to align with both classroom and online environments. Active learning is an integral component of the online segment of a blended course design and a QM best practice (learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner content). Blended courses are most engaging when on-the-ground and online learning activities complement one another (Liu, Peng, Zhang, Hu, Li, & Yan, 2016).

Northern Michigan University Definition of a Hybrid Course (Academic Affairs policy)

Hybrid A: Face-to-Face Hybrid (designated 70-79)

Online/Web-based activity (either synchronous or asynchronous) is mixed with face-to-face classroom meetings, replacing a significant percentage, but not all required face-to-face instructional activities. Half (50%) or more of the course meeting time (but not all) is scheduled for in-person, face-to-face instruction either at the NMU main campus or at a satellite campus or designated meeting space. The web-based component of the course is typically delivered in an asynchronous format whereby students can complete all course requirements without any required synchronous web-based meeting times for any graded or non-graded requirements. However, if synchronous online activity is required (whereby students must be online at specific times and dates), the synchronous times should be explicitly listed or designated as “to be determined by student preferences” when courses are submitted to the registrar.

Hybrid B: Online Hybrid (designated 80-89)

Online/Web-based activity (both synchronous and asynchronous) is mixed with face-to-face classroom meetings, replacing a significant percentage, but not all required face-to-face instructional activities. Less than 50% of the course meeting time is scheduled for in-person, face-to-face instruction either at the NMU main campus or at a satellite campus or designated meeting space. The web-based component of the course is typically delivered in an asynchronous format whereby students can complete all course requirements without any required synchronous web-based meeting times for any graded or non-graded requirements. However, if synchronous online activity is required (whereby students must be online at specific times and dates), the synchronous times should be explicitly listed or designated as “to be determined by student preferences” when courses are submitted to the registrar.

Benefits of Hybrid Courses
Blended courses impart the flexibility, convenience, and time management of online learning without altogether compromising the face-to-face interaction of a traditional classroom learning experience. By incorporating technologies into the classroom, faculty are able to identify underperforming students more quickly as opposed to those that do not (Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, & Abrami, 2014; Chingosa, Griffiths, Mulhern, Spies, 2017). Hybrid courses benefit students who are underrepresented or not academically prepared, improving retention and persistence rates (Sithole, Chiyaka, & McCarthy, 2017). How popular are hybrid courses? A pre-COVID 19 statistic, blended course offerings have been adopted by nearly 80% of all public institutions of higher learning in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). This course design and delivery modality is and will continue to grow in acceptance in the short run COVID-19 pandemic planning process and beyond.

How to Transform Learning Activities to be Online Ready
In order to redesign a portion (50% or otherwise of the weekly course requirements) of a face-to-face course to be delivered online, begin with the learning objectives. Distinct agreement is mined from SoTL in that the most effective course design begins with clearly defined and measurable course learning objectives (Henrich & Sieber, 2009; Kim, Bonk, & Oh, 2008; Precel, Eshet-Alkalai, & Alberton, 2009).  Recall that learning objectives are what we want our students to be able to do or know by the end of a unit or units and/or the overall course, the plan for and expectations of learning. Learning objectives should be measurable and use action verbs for assessment measurement purposes (QM 2.1).

Create a syllabus that includes a blueprint that charts a course for the entire semester and the division of labor, so to speak between online and on the ground learning (Hensley, 2005). Consider creating a design document for the course, in total, and for each learning subunit.

Table Header

Remember, module and/or unit-level learning objectives should align with overall course learning objectives. Provide students with an estimated time required for each learning activity, assignment, or assessment.

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together. Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning. I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805. I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between. PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 45
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computers in Higher Education, 26, 87–122.

Buzzetto, N. A., & Sweat, R. (2006). Hybrid learning defined. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(1), 153-156.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Chingosa, M. M., Griffiths, R. J., Mulhern, C., & Spies, R. R. (2017). Interactive online learning on campus: Comparing students’ outcomes in hybrid and traditional courses in the university system of Maryland. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 210-233.

Henrich, A., & Sieber, S. (2009). Blended learning and pure e-learning concepts for information retrieval: Experiences and future directions. Information Retrieval, 12(2), 117-147.

Hensley, G. (2005). Creating a hybrid college course: Instructional design notes and recommendations for beginners. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(2).

Kim, K. J., Bonk, C. J., & Oh, E. J. (2008). The present and future state of blended learning in workplace learning settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5-16.

Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2016). The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1). doi:10.2196/jmir.4807

Masie, E. (2002). The ASTD e-Learning Handbook. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Precel, K., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Alberton, Y. (2009). Pedagogical and design aspects of a blended learning course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2).

Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., & McCarthy, P. (2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1).

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved fromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.

Vol. 1, Issue 43, June 1, 2020

For faculty who are considering teaching online this fall who are not yet online “qualified,” the BYTE announces the next offering of the “Teaching Online @ NMU” course:

July 6, 2020 – July 31, 2020

What is the Teaching Online @ NMU Course?

"Teaching Online @ NMU” is a four-week, instructor-facilitated course designed to prepare Northern Michigan University faculty to teach online courses. It introduces techniques and tools for leading online courses at NMU, as well as related policies, processes, and resources.  

To be distance qualified, anyone teaching an online course must have completed required professional development on online teaching competencies in four general categories:

  1. The NMU online teaching environment (e.g., methods for engaging students, instructor resources)
  2. NMU learning management system basics
  3. Managing and delivering online course content
  4. Grading and evaluation

This course focuses on the delivery, not design, of online courses.  There is no formal prerequisite for the course.  The assumption is that those enrolled either already have experience with online course design or are teaching in a program where the department has supplied a standardized online course.

Please visit the following link to register: https://www.nmu.edu/ctl/registration

Faculty who have previously taught online at NMU and are not yet “qualified,” can, instead, complete a self-paced tutorial, “Teaching Online @ NMU Overview,” delivered through NMU’s learning management system.  Alternatively, faculty who have previously taught online may choose to take the “Teaching Online @ NMU” course, discussed above, designed for new online faculty.

With approval from Academic Affairs, faculty who have previously taught online at another institution may be permitted to complete the self-paced tutorial instead of the four-week course.  Alternative professional development may be approved by Academic Affairs.

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 44
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 42, May 25, 2020

Today, on this Memorial Day, we remember those who lost their lives in the service of their people and countries.  To everyone who made the ultimate sacrifice, we thank you and celebrate your bravery and courage.  Your legacy will live on in infamy.

Trends in Student Academic Stress

Twenty years ago, one out of every ten students self-reported as in need of mental health services.  Today, one in three students demand support.  Of the 63,000 college students surveyed as part of the American College Health Association (2018) study, nearly 65% of college students reported overwhelming anxiety in the last year, 60% described intense concern and unease, and 40% conveyed symptoms of depression severe enough to impede regular function.  In addition, 50% of college students rated their mental health as poor and one in five students reported thoughts of suicide in the last year.  Approximately 39% of college students will experience a mental health issue (pre-COVID results). 

The Center for Collegiate Mental Health (2019) has recently identified that anxiety and depression are the most common concerns of students seeking counseling services.  Student self-reports of anxiety and depression are significantly on the rise.  Particularly concerning is that the rate of threat-to-self for students seeking counseling services has increased for the eighth year in a row.

Campuses are struggling to respond to the critical escalation of student mental health needs and keep pace with a pandemic-like demand. Colleges and universities across the country are undertaking an immense effort to evaluate how to increase outreach to students and expand counseling services resources and other support services (Beiter, Nash, McCrady, Rhoades, Linscom, Clarahan, & Sammut, 2015; Delucia-Waack, Athalye, Floyd, Howard, & Kuszczak, 2011; Kumaraswamy, 2013; Mahmoud, Staten, Hall, & Lennie, 2012). 

Mental health issues can trigger damaging effects to academic performance.  For one, test anxiety has been linked to lower grade point averages (GPA) in both graduate and undergraduate students (Chapell, Blanding, Silverstein, Takahashi, Newman, Gubi, & McCann, 2005).  Depression has been found to adversely impact assessment exam scores, overall academic performance, class attendance, participation, engagement, and student retention rates (Andrews & Wilding, 2004; Bohannon, Clapsaddle, & McCollum, 2019; Stocker & Gallagher, 2019).

These statistics are alarming.  Yet, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is further eroding the mental health of our students.  This week, the BYTE offers online course design and delivery strategies to reduce student academic stress during an accelerated summer term.

Strategies to Reduce Student Academic Stress in an Accelerated Online Summer Course

Accelerated summer terms provide our students with the opportunity to complete coursework with an abbreviated schedule outside of the traditional 15-week academic calendar.  During summer months, students often simultaneously work a part-time or full-time job while juggling course work and other commitments.  The sheer nature of handling multiple, sometimes conflicting, priorities like a job or a summer course is a challenge for the best of us.  However, a 6-week fast-tracked course that emphasizes the same learning objectives as its 15-week counterpart is prime for an exponential escalation and intensification of student academic stress.

In an attempt to counteract the debilitating pressure and tension that can result from an accelerated course, below is an abridged list of strategies to reduce student academic stress in an accelerated summer online course.

  1. Initiate class communications often, perhaps even daily. 
  2. Stay in tune with the class to promote student engagement and reduce isolation and stress.
  3. Be positive; construct a learning community that promotes social togetherness and support (Wood & Tarrier, 2010).
  4. Provide regular, meaningful feedback to students and grade assignments before other assignments are due to bridge the gap between learning objectives (what students should be able to do or learn by the conclusion of a course) with learning outcomes (actual results).   
  5. Use detailed but easy-to-follow grading rubrics to clarify assessment requirements.
  6. Consider hosting regular, weekly Zoom meetings (virtual office hours) for student questions related to course content, assignments, etc.
  7. Clearly communicate assignment and assessment requirements and deliverables.
  8. Consider posting exemplars to help students understand assignment requirements.
  9. Incorporate flexibility by offering an assignment “do over” or low-stakes extra credit.
  10. Design content to ground learning in a real-world context.
  11. Publish exam study guides to help students identify priority areas of focus.
  12. Offer partial credit instead of all-or-nothing grading.
  13. Combine a calming (green), yet energizing (orange) color scheme in the design of your online courses while being mindful of those with vision impairment.
  14. Keep the course navigation simple and consistent each module or unit so that students do not have to relearn the location of course essentials week after week.
  15. Chunk course content into micro-bites.  With smaller bites to chew, students gain content confidence more quickly and are more easily motivated to move forward.
  16. Impart humor into the class to relieve stress.
  17. Reach out to struggling students with guidance to improve their academic performance.
  18. Publish a best practices guideline to complete weekly course activities with anticipated time requirements.
  19. For term-length or larger, high-stakes projects, provide students with a midway check-in period or the opportunity to turn in a full or partial draft, or submit an abbreviated presentation recording for interim feedback.
  20. Encourage students to meditate as a mechanism to stay focused and reduce stress.  Embed a meditation website link in the course or host your own live student meditation sessions.

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 43
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

American College Health Association (2018). National College Health Assessment (NCHA) Fall 2018 Reference Group Data Report. Retrieved from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-II_Fall_2018_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf

Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 509-521.

Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., & Sammut, S. (2015). The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173, 90-96.

Bohannon, L., Clapsaddle, S., & McCollum, D. (2019). Responding to college students who exhibit adverse manifestations of stress and trauma in the college classroom. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 5(2), 66-78.

Center for Collegiate Mental Health (CCMH), (2019). Penn State 2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/ccmh/files/2019/01/2018-Annual-Report-1-15-2018-12mzsn0.pdf

Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268-274.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Delucia-Waack, J., Athalye, D., Floyd, K., Howard, M., & Kuszczak, S. (2011). Outreach for college students related to mood and anxiety management. In T. Fitch, J. L. Marshall, T. Fitch, & J. L. Marshall (Eds.), Group work and outreach plans for college counselors. (pp. 271-285). Alexandria, VA, US: American Counseling Association.

Kumaraswamy, N. (2013). Academic stress, anxiety and depression among college students-a brief review. International review of social sciences and humanities, 5(1), 135-143.

Lambert, S. F., Lambert, J. C., & Lambert, III, S. J. (2014). Distressed college students following traumatic events. Ideas and research you can use. VISTAS 2014.

Mahmoud, J. S. R., Staten, R. T., Hall, L. A., & Lennie, T. A. (2012). The relationship among young adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(3), 149-156.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Stocker, S. L., & Gallagher, K. M. (2019). Alleviating anxiety and altering appraisals: Social-emotional learning in the college classroom. College Teaching, 67(1), 23-35.

Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2010). Positive clinical psychology: A new vision and strategy for integrated research and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 819-829.

Vol. 1, Issue 41, May 18, 2020

The BYTE is back! During my recent hiatus, I researched teaching and learning scholarship: emerging, seminal, and everything in between, the results of which I will share via our Global Campus newsletter throughout the summer and during upcoming professional development offerings expected this fall.

Our first summer session online courses begin this week. As such, consider the adoption of an icebreaker learning activity during the first days of your online courses to engage learners right from the start and encourage teaching, social, and cognitive presences. The literature that supports this instructional strategy is embedded within the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison, 2000, 2011; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, 2010; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). The educational experience of learning is theorized to stem from the interconnection between three distinct presences: teaching, social, and cognitive.

Figure 1

The Community of Inquiry Framework

Chart

Note. This figure represents the Community of Inquiry framework as originally published in Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Teaching Presence

Broadly speaking, teaching presence is the outcome of a well-designed and delivered course. A majority of the BYTES published over the last year and the professional development sessions presented by the Global Campus emphasized approaches to create and facilitate teaching (and social) presence. The next several sections summarize the differences between online course design and delivery.

Course Design

Online course design includes the faculty’s role in the planning and development of a course, as well as in the conception and construction of all course components (syllabus, learning objectives, assignments, instructional materials, activities, assessments, accessibility, grading, technology, learner support, and opportunities for interaction). With course design, think Quality Matters (QM), the well-respected peer-reviewed set of standards employed to determine the quality of the design of online and blended courses, based on research-supported and published generally accepted teaching practices, and the foundation that supports the Global Campus Online Course Design Review Standards.

An optimal way to either build or reinforce your expertise with respect to Quality Matters is to enroll in the Global Campus-sponsored Online Teaching Fellows I and II programs, facilitated by the Center for Teaching and Learning team. The Summer 2020 Online Teaching Fellows (OTF) I program began last Thursday. Now, OTF is 100% online. This was our largest response yet! Faculty demand exceeded our usual class size capacity. The cohort size, typically a cap of 15-16, was increased to 20 to accommodate faculty demand and even then, some faculty applications were deferred to a future term. More information regarding the next Online Teaching Fellows I program offering is forthcoming.

Course Delivery

Course delivery is the teaching of the course, itself. Chickering and Gamson (1987) offered seven principles to promote teaching presence during the act and art of teaching including: 1) encourages contact between students and faculty, 2) develops reciprocity and cooperation among students, 3) encourages active learning, 4) gives prompt feedback, 5) emphasizes time on task, 6) communicates high expectations, and 7) respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Last summer, I devoted an 8-week BYTE series to online course delivery and each of these principles. Archived copies of the Online BYTE as found here: https://www.nmu.edu/online/online-byte-week

Social Presence

Social presence, or the degree to which one is perceived as a human being or real person in the virtual learning space, occurs through interaction (learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content). Interaction enables the opportunity for participants (faculty and students) to project themselves in such a way as to establish connectedness and build an online learning community (Swan & Shih, 2005). Students make up for the lack of visual and auditory cues through indicators of social presence. These cues can make all the difference between students who are engaged and motivated or those who feel isolated, disassociated, and unmotivated (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006).

Cognitive Presence

Quintessential to learning, cognitive presence (also known as thinking presence), is the holistic process of how students interact with course content, engage in critical thinking, reflect upon concepts, connect with and apply foundational knowledge or prior experiences to solve problems and develop greater understanding (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). Faculty play a leading role in the design and delivery of learning activities to foster cognitive presence (Archibald, 2010). Consider the 3 R’s of student engagement to promote cognitive presence when designing and delivering your courses: 1) relevance, 2) rigor, and 3) relationships (Littky & Grabelle, 2004). Relevance is the act of inspiring curiosity in our students with activities that establish connections to prior learning. Rigor is challenging students to solve problems that are personally meaningful to them. Relationships are formed when faculty design a learning environment where students work collaboratively with one another and with the faculty, themselves, to foster a community of inquiry.

Encouraging Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences through Introductory Activities

Introductory activities can help to establish a sense of community, break down social barriers, start conversations, build a collaborative network, introduce topics and content, and set the tone. Learners and faculty, alike, should participate in the introductory activities. Students should get to know each other and you, as their professor. Before creating an icebreaker, be sure that you establish a purpose for the activity, define the learning objectives of it, and clearly communicate the expectations to students.

Here are a few ideas to springboard your online course introductory activities. Consider incorporating VoiceThread, discussion boards, chats, or Zoom technologies to facilitate them.

  • Unique and Shared: Place students into groups of 4-5 and encourage them to discover what they have in common along with any interesting or unique experiences or attributes that sets them each apart. Then, at the end of the week after the group has conferred, they can report out to the class at large (think/pair/share).
  • Show and Tell: Provide students with the opportunity to showcase something that represents what interests them most: a topic, object, etc. VoiceThread works well with this type of activity.
  • Mix and Mingle: Set up a discussion forum, VoiceThread, or a synchronous Zoom meeting and let students walk around, so to speak, to meet one another, share their backgrounds, and/or any apprehensions prior to starting the class.
  • One Word at a Time: Create a series of sentences, equations, cases, etc. based off of prerequisite course content and ask students to fill in the blanks. Gamify it, make it a competition, and provide rewards. Encourage students to reflect upon prior learning before the class kicks off for the term.
  • Photo Shop: Have students take a picture from their windows and post them in the course room. Have other students guess where they are.
  • The Noun Game: Ask students to offer 8-10 nouns that represent them and describe why they symbolize who they are. Then, students are to find a noun provided by another student that most resonates with them and explain why. In addition, students should connect with someone with whom two nouns are in common. Discussion forums are optimal for the noun game.
  • Name Game: Students create a mnemonic of their name and use it to describe themselves.

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together. Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning. I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805. I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between. PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Have a fantastic start to the summer term! Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 42
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 73 – 74.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Durrington V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193.

Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/2

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E‐Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text‐based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5-9.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland‐Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland‐Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive, and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31-36.

Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone’s business. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136.

Vol. 1, Issue 40, April 29, 2020

Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system (LMS) tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyber learning to life for our students.

The Winter 2020 semester may have proven to be one of the most challenging times in history for higher education.  University leaders, faculty, administration, and support personnel found themselves immersed in the floodwaters of a global pandemic, all the while determined to realize their resolute commitment to the education, service, and well-being of our students.  Through the ingenuity, tenacity, and innovation of our faculty family, along with the technology and instructional support resources made available to us, we have unequivocally fulfilled our mission to deliver exceptional teaching.  We should be extraordinarily proud of what we, as faculty, have accomplished.  Our students should be equally, if not more, pleased with their achievements.  Humbly speaking, I applaud every one of you for your pedagogic successes despite the virulence and resulting impact we all currently face.

Now, or perhaps after grading has concluded for the term, we should take the time to reflect upon this inconceivable semester to determine how we excelled, how quickly we pivoted in the face of adversity, and perhaps what we can do to improve our course design and delivery effectiveness (Dawson & Hocker, 2020; Thomas, Chie, Abraham, Raj, & Beh, 2014). 

“The past, the present, and the future are really one: they are today.”  (Harriet Beecher Stowe).

Regularly, we use self-reflection as a continuous improvement tool to identify methods to develop and enhance our teaching.  Some of the information we incorporate to inform this introspection includes peer evaluations, student observations, peer observations from the Teaching and Learning Advisory Council (TLAC), the Online Teaching Fellows QM peer review learning activities, and the Global Campus online course design review process.

A few questions that we can ask ourselves in this summative contemplation exercise include the following, all of which start with “Did I” and end with “?”

  • Offer regular and substantive learner-instructor and learner-learner interaction opportunities
  • Select relevant course materials and activities that promote critical thinking and emphasize social justice and diversity
  • Clearly outline measurable learning objectives for the course and each learning module
  • Align all course assessments with module-level and course-level learning objectives
  • Strive to encourage student motivation throughout the course
  • Implement active or service learning techniques to promote student engagement and participation
  • Encourage learners to rethink their beliefs, ideas, and thoughts, to allow them a more profound learning experience
  • Utilize and embrace technology in the classroom, virtual or otherwise
  • Ensure that learners can effectively operate the technology used in class
  • Insist that courses are accessibility ready to meet the needs of our students
  • Clearly and regularly communicate with my students throughout the entire course via assignment instructions, learning outcomes, grading rubrics, announcements, and the syllabus
  • Exhibit enthusiasm in the classroom and take the time to get to know my students
  • Provide regular positive, constructive feedback to students to bridge the gap between learning objectives and outcomes
  • Set the bar high for student learning but outline a path to reach the goal
  • Cover all of the material originally planned for the course
  • Measure student learning outcomes using formative and summative techniques to assess student understanding
  • Identify a specific section of a course that was most effective, somewhat effective, or least effective and determine why
  • Adequately prepare for each unit, module, or class
  • Use class time effectively
  • Pose goals or objectives for each unit or module and show students how they align with overall course learning objectives
  • Provide an outline of the unit or module and stick with the plan
  • Convey the purpose of each learning activity
  • Encourage student questions and comments
  • Use positive reinforcement
  • Incorporate student ideas into the class and reword student questions and comments that need adjustment
  • Summarize the end of the week, unit, or module
  • Use examples to effectively explain course content
  • Make explicit statements to draw student attention to certain ideas
  • Demonstrate active listening techniques
  • Draw nonparticipating students into the class
  • Mediate conflict or differences of opinion
  • Allow enough time for practice or to complete active learning activities
  • Chunk lectures into 5-15 minutes in length
  • Have and encourage fun in the learning process
  • Emphasize how the knowledge gleaned from class will benefit them in the future
  • Encourage participation in events and student, service, and community organizations

Answers to these questions and many others asked during this reflection process can be examined to gauge the effectiveness of our teaching (Malkki, 2012; Ryan, 2011).  Faculty may consider attending workshops or professional development sessions such as conferences or those offered by the Global Campus and the Center for Teaching and Learning to expand their pedagogic perspectives.  We can collaborate with peers in our own departments or in others to discuss ways to enhance our teaching.  Please continue to offer your professional development workshop suggestions to the Global Campus or the CTL.  We, sincerely, appreciate your feedback.

This Online Byte is dedicated to my mom, Darlene, who unexpectedly passed away on Easter Sunday.  Throughout her life, she encouraged me to reflect on various things from who I am as a person to my career goals.  She taught me to live by the “golden rule” and treat others as I, myself, want to be treated.  She had a big heart and love of life that was truly inspirational.  She did not compromise who she was for anyone.  I so admired that about her.  Her laugh was infectious and her smile was bright.  I will miss you forever, mom.   

Let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional development sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and Yooper strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 41
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Dawson, S. M., & Hocker, A. D. (2020). An evidence-based framework for peer review of teaching. Advances in Physiology Education, 44(1).

Malkki, K. (2012). From reflection to action? Barriers and bridges between higher education thoughts and actions. Journal of Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 33-50.

Ryan, M. (2011). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching Reflection in Higher Education, 18(2), 144-155.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Raj, S. J., & Beh, L. S. (2014). A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 112-159.

Vol. 1, Issue 39, April 20, 2020

Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system (LMS) tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyberlearning to life for our students.

This week’s BYTE offers steps for a successful semester completion and final exam alternatives for consideration.

Steps for a successful semester wrap-up:

  1. Develop a plan for how you will administer final exams and/or projects.
  2. Communicate the plan to your students via EduCat Announcements and/or email (Chang, Beth, & Annice, 2015).
  3. Communicate the exam requirements such as Respondus Lockdown Browser, Respondus Monitor, Zoom, calculators, etc.
  4. Request that students share any specific testing needs or concerns with you as soon as possible to allow ample time for resolution (DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2010).
  5. Forward an Announcement or email with a reminder about final exams, the day before and day of the exam.
  6. Provide students with guidance on how to minimize distractions while taking final exams such as closing doors, silencing cell phones, finding a private, quiet area, etc. (Berry & Westfall, 2015).
  7. Communicate the anticipated day/time when students will receive their final exam and/or project grades.

Final exam alternatives for consideration:

  1. A case study, reflection or integrated paper, presentation, project, discussion, group exam, or other assignment (Chandler, 1997).
  2. Provide students with a choice (Universal Design for Learning) between two assessments that measure the same learning objectives.  For instance, students could be given the choice between a written assignment and a final exam (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
  3. Be sure that accommodations have been set in EduCat for those who need them.

The Center for Teaching and Learning (Matt Smock) in conjunction with the Global Campus (Stacy Boyer-Davis) will be hosting a Respondus Monitor training webinar today, Monday, April 20, at 3 pm EST. We will host an overview session on Monday at 3pm via Zoom (password: monitor). Respondus offers live webinars regularly and also has a recording available for their sessions. 

As faculty family, let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together. Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805. I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between. PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 40
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Berry, M. J., & Westfall, A. (2015). Dial ‘D’ for distraction: The making and breaking of cell phone policies in the college classroom. College Teaching, 63(2), 62-71.

Chandler, T. M. (1997). An alternative comprehensive final exam: The integrated paper. Teaching Sociology, 25(2), 183-186.

Chang, C. W., Beth, H., & Annice, M. (2015). You’ve got mail: Student preferences of instructor communication in online courses in an age of advancing technologies. Journal of Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 8(1), 39-48.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R., Black, E., & Preston, M. (2010). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(3), 10-35.

Luckie, D. B., Rivkin, A. M., Aubrey, J. R., Marengo, B. J., Creech, L. R., & Sweeder, R. D. (2013). Verbal final exam in introductory biology yields gains in student content knowledge and longitudinal performance. Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 515-529.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 38, April 12, 2020

Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system (LMS) tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyberlearning to life for our students.

For this wintry week’s BYTE, I interviewed the Center for Teaching and Learning team and asked them to provide their expert guidance to help faculty navigate the rest of the winter term and finals week via distance delivery and the upcoming online summer term.  Matt Smock, Director for the Instructional Design and Technology Unit and Scott Smith, Instructional Technologist, weighed in; their valuable insight, including suggested resources, is summarized below.

  1. What are the most popular questions that you have received over the last several weeks from faculty in response to distance delivery teaching? 

Matt stated that “the number one question area, at least initially, was Zoom, which was new to the majority of the faculty.  We’ve also had a lot of questions about recording and posting video lectures.  Beyond that, questions have been all over the board, depending on a particular faculty members’ past experience using EduCat and related tools.  Some faculty have been learning EduCat basics for the first time, while others are trying more advanced tools for the first time as a way to deliver content that they usually teach face-to-face.  Faculty have been doing a great job of adapting and we appreciate how incredibly patient they’ve been during this stressful time.”  Scott agreed that Zoom questions were the most asked by faculty, especially how to avoid Zoom bombing and how to set passwords.  The CTL published the following resources on Thursday, April 2, regarding those two topics.

More on Preventing Zoom Bombing

Link to Resources to Prevent Zoom Bombing

Additional Information

You may also be interested in reading "Best Practices for Securing Your Virtual Classroom," which Zoom recently posted on their user blog. 

  1. What should faculty know how to do to be successful during finals week with exams and grading via distance delivery?

According to Matt, “Advance planning is key, especially if you’re new to giving exams in an online environment.  Don’t try to set up your exam one or two days before it is taking place.  We have sessions coming up on EduCat quizzes and the gradebook, and if needed, we will add more.  We are also planning to make a new tool, Respondus Monitor, available prior to finals.  Monitor deters cheating by recording students as they take EduCat exams through the Lockdown Browser.”

“We’d also like faculty to know that IT has been doing everything possible to optimize the performance of EduCat this semester, and we are optimistic that there won’t be major problems during finals week.  However, we also want everyone to be aware that occasional performance issues are possible.  We expect the load on the system to be higher than ever before, and some disruptions are possible.  Faculty may want to consider allowing their exams to be taken asynchronously during Finals Week, rather than limiting them to a specific period.  Academic Affairs will be sending out some guidelines for final exams.”

Scott Smith provided, “get exam requests in early.  A week is supposed to be the norm.  Become familiar with question formatting so that there is no delay in processing your request.  Put no more than 5 questions on a single page of your quiz/exam.  The answers save when students go to the next page.  If the internet drops, their answers won’t be lost.”

Resources for Quiz (Exam) Formatting

Quiz Settings

Link to Quiz Settings Resources

Quiz Question Format 

Link to Quiz Question Format Resources

  1. What could faculty be doing now to prepare for online courses this summer?

Matt suggested “I’m going to sound like a broken record, but any advance planning now will help ensure a good experience with summer courses.  If you are going to be teaching online for the first time, contact your CTL liaison as soon as possible to start talking about planning your course and what you need to be ready for.  It isn’t too early to start designing your course, even if you only have limited time to spend on it.”

Resources for Course Requests

Link to Resources for Course Requests

  1. What additional professional development sessions will be offered this term and into the summer to continue to expand upon and foster high quality distance delivery and online teaching design and delivery?

Matt reported, “I’ve already mentioned our sessions on the quiz and gradebook.  I should also mention that we have recorded several of our sessions over the last several weeks, including the one that Amy Barnsley led this past Friday about assessing written work in a distance environment.  We will have some informational sessions about Respondus Monitor.  EduCat is due for an upgrade before the summer session, so we also plan to have some informational/feedback sessions about its updated interface later this month.”

Scott advocated for the Online Teaching Fellows 1 course, which begins May 14 and the 4-week Teaching Online @ NMU program.  More information on it will be shared by the CTL soon.

Link to Online Teaching Fellows I Course Information

Teaching Online @ NMU 4-Week Course:

Link to Teaching Online @ NMU 4-Week Course

Link to Teaching Online @ NMU 4-Week Course Registration

As faculty family, let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) team, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 39
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 37, April 6, 2020

This week’s BYTE serves up a smorgasbord of SoTL-informed hacks for successful distance delivery.

  • There is no such thing as over-communication with your students.  Communicate using a variety of methods: email, announcements, discussions, chat, Zoom, VoiceThread.  Be clear and concise with your communications.  While less is more, (fewer words with greater meaning), craft communications with sufficient detail to anticipate and answer student questions before they are posed. 
  • Construct learning activities and assignment instructions from the perspective that students may not know what is expected of them or how to use related technologies.   
  • Verify that PowerPoint slides or other documents used during lectures (synchronous or otherwise) are viewable on smaller devices such as smart phones; many students are using their cell phones to log into class.
  • Consider the use of Zoom breakout rooms and live group chats to encourage learner-learner interaction.
  • Keep the length of video recordings between 5-15 minutes to maximize student engagement. 
  • Identify students who are struggling with distance delivery and offer tailored guidance and support.
  • To better accommodate student needs, record and share your live lectures.
  • Use Slido, Kahoot!, or iClicker polls during synchronous class periods to offer opportunities for student participation.  
  • Be prompt in providing feedback to help students more rapidly connect the gaps between learning objectives (what you expect them to be able to do or learn) and their current performance.
  • If using Zoom conferencing for lectures, call on students just as you would in class.  Students can either use the chat feature or audio and video to respond.
  • Invite guest speakers into your Zoom class.  Guests who have been unavailable to participate prior to the COVID stay-at-home orders, may now have room on their calendars.
  • Publishers are now providing students with free access to many textbooks and other resources.  For instance, Cambridge University Press is offering free HTML access during the COVID-19 outbreak to over 700 titles.  Cengage is providing free access to all of its digital learning platforms and ebooks.

As faculty family, let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together.  Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) instructional designers, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 38
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 36, March 30, 2020

Encouraging Online Social Togetherness while Social Distancing

“There is a difference between solitude and isolation. One is connected and one isn’t. Solitude replenishes, isolation diminishes.” (Henry Cloud)

Social distancing, while integral to reduce the spread of coronavirus, can very quickly grow into feelings of isolation, loneliness, and despair. This week’s BYTE is devoted to ways to support our students and encourage online social togetherness while social distancing.

Uncertainty and fear are more prevalent than ever right now. Nearly every person on our planet has been impacted in a significantly life-altering way by COVID-19: from the thousands of our friends, family members, and colleagues either inflicted with or who have succumbed to the virus, a shortage of ventilators, medical supplies, hospital bed capacity, and COVID tests, job layoffs, food and housing insecurities, business closures, stock market upheaval, and a massive number of grim, sobering news reports. Social distancing, a must to counteract spread of the virus, has forced us into an emotional trauma of sorts in acclimating to isolation. In this time of pandemic, students and faculty, alike, are victims of the virus without even contracting it, experiencing a seclusion and remoteness of a magnitude beyond compare. Social interaction is simply innate to being human.

Isolation from others can have effects far reaching beyond the physical symptoms of COVID-19. Short-term, separation can lead to feeling stressed and more tired than normal with less vitality, increased likelihood of anxiety and developing depression, more frequent sickness with longer recovery times, feeling lonely more regularly, decreased levels of satisfaction and happiness with life. Long-term, the effects can be even more damaging (Bohannon, Clapsaddle, & McCollum, 2019).

Social interaction and togetherness can be facilitated by means of technology. Faculty have a sundry of resources available to encourage interaction with their students, between their students, and to support learning engagement during this time of incredible distraction. The online environment is ripe with tools and prime for pedagogic techniques that can sustain and enhance the social needs of students and our faculty. A few of these include: Zoom meetings, VoiceThread, virtual group projects, synchronous office hours, discussion forums, chat sessions, emails, and Remind 101 messaging. 

Another way for students to feel more connected and less isolated is to keep the lines of communication open and connect with them more frequently. Consider sending regular class announcements, perhaps even daily; offer best practices to help students learn and be successful with learning in a distance delivery environment. Be as flexible and as accommodating as possible with your students, given our unprecedented circumstances.  Be as available as you can be for your students for questions, guidance, or just for a virtual conversation.

Students who are socially interactive are far more engaged learners as compared to those who are not (Lambert, Lambert, & Lambert, 2014; Stocker & Gallagher, 2019; Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2011). Routman (2005) emphasized that students have a greater learning capacity when they are able to speak to one another and be actively involved in the learning process. Today’s technology has enabled humans to remain socially active even across vast distances. With digital technology, not only can higher learning objectives still be met, but also the social interaction needs of students and faculty can be maintained at some level.

Please share your social togetherness success testimonials and suggestions with THE BYTE. We want to highlight how all of you are “making it work” in your courses and provide inspiring ideas for our faculty community.   

In addition to providing support through the virtual classroom, a multitude of resources are available online to assist students with emotional and financial needs.

Some of the resources include:

As faculty family, let’s continue to weather this COVID-19 storm - together. Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) instructional designers, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning. I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu (preferred) or (906) 227-1805. I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between. PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 37
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Bohannon, L., Clapsaddle, S., & McCollum, D. (2019). Responding to college students who exhibit adverse manifestations of stress and trauma in the college classroom. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 5(2), 66-78.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Lambert, S. F., Lambert, J. C., & Lambert, III, S. J. (2014). Distressed college students following traumatic events. Ideas and research you can use. VISTAS 2014.

Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials: Raising expectations and results while simplifying teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Stocker, S. L., & Gallagher, K. M. (2019). Alleviating anxiety and altering appraisals: Social-emotional learning in the college classroom. College Teaching, 67(1), 23-35.

Vacca, R.T., Vacca, J.L., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Vol. 1, Issue 35, March 23, 2020

I thought that it may be helpful to provide our faculty with a brief update regarding the professional development opportunities that have been and will be provided now throughout the end of the semester.  While I am not an official spokesperson for the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), as the online faculty scholar, I thought it important to provide a report on the faculty professional development initiatives currently underway in response to this unprecedented time in our profession and the world.  

Lisa Flood, the Teaching and Learning Scholar and I have been working diligently and in tandem with the CTL to provide immediate training: Lisa for the School of Nursing and I for the College of Business.  Dispatching us to our areas of concentration took some of the pressure off of the CTL so that they could focus their attention elsewhere.  In addition, Lisa and I have been offering virtual guidance throughout the first week of the COVID health precautions to various faculty and areas of campus.  We are also developing teaching and learning workshops that will launch this week and throughout the rest of the term.  

At the onset of the COVID-19 health precautions, the CTL posted a Basic Distance Delivery Course Kit, full of resources, links to videos, recordings of previously held CTL workshops, tutorials, and more.  A link to the toolkit is provided here: https://www.nmu.edu/ctl/emcoursekit

A number of synchronous professional development sessions have been offered by the CTL team over the last week including Zoom presentations, Introduction to EduCat, EduCat Gradebook, EduCat Quizzes, Studio102, etc.  These sessions were repeated several times last week.

The CTL is communicating upcoming professional development workshops via email only; the workshop registration system is not being utilized at this time to prevent any hurdles for attendance and yet another thing for faculty to do in our already demanding schedules.  Below is a list of the workshops planned for the second week of our distance delivery modus operandi.  Lisa is offering a session on Tuesday, March 24: Beyond Question and Answer Discussion Forums.  I am providing a workshop on Friday, March 27:  Designing Effective Distance Delivery Team Projects.

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS

To facilitate social distancing, all workshops will be offered only over Zoom. To join a workshop, click the links below at the designated times. If you have trouble connecting, please call the CTL at 227-2483. 
 

  • Monday, March 23

11:00am – 12:30pm
Recording Lectures with Camtasia
Learn how to record PowerPoint presentations and other things from your laptop, edit them, and post them online.
 

  • Tuesday, March 24
    12pm – 1pm
    Beyond Question and Answer Discussion Forums
    Teaching and Learning Scholar Lisa Flood leads a discussion on creative options for engaging students with course content and promoting student-student and faculty-student interactions in the distance environment.

    3:00pm – 4:30pm
    Working with the EduCat Gradebook
    Learn how to set up your gradebook to calculate final grades, as well as how to create grade categories and items, drop low scores, mark items as extra credit, curve grades, set up letter grades, and export to a spreadsheet.
     
  • Wednesday, March 25
    5pm – 6pm
    Detecting Plagiarism with Unicheck
    Learn how you can use an online tool in EduCat to help detect plagiarism in student assignment submissions.
     
  • Friday, March 27
    10am – 11am
    Designing Effective Distance Delivery Team Projects
    ELCE Scholar Stacy Boyer-Davis provides recommendations and  information on best practices to facilitate meaningful and authentic learner-learner interaction opportunities through distance delivery team projects.

2:30pm – 4:00pm
Captioning for Inclusive Course Design

After completing this 90 minute workshop, participants will be able to describe the benefits of video captioning, and add captions to their videos using Camtasia or VoiceThread. We recommend having Camtasia installed on your laptop prior to attending this workshop.


On Friday, the CTL, along with the faculty scholars, launched a very brief survey (3 questions) to hone in on what faculty professional development opportunities are needed now and throughout the rest of the semester.  We will use this data to develop additional training.  A link to that survey is found here: https://nmu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_87GW1nA0ISSOpa5

Discussions are taking place regarding the creation of a share drive to house professional development resources for distance delivery teaching best practices.  As proposed, all faculty would have access to this drive.  This site is also suggested to have discussion forums to allow faculty to reflect on their teaching experiences and stay connected.

I continue to publish the Online Byte of the Week, a weekly newsletter to share with faculty current scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system (LMS) tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyber learning to life for our students.  Lisa is also distributing her Teaching Tips via email on a regular basis.

The previously scheduled Learning Circle led by Mollie Freier and the Faculty Learning Community led by Lisa will continue to meet for the rest of the semester via Zoom.  Lisa has also emailed all of the full time faculty hired within the last two years to offer resources and support. 

The CTL is in the very early stages of prototyping Respondus Lockdown Monitor, a feature that uses a student's webcam and analytics to prevent cheating during non-proctored exams.  Professor Bob Marlor and I are testing this add-on software in our courses within the next week.  More to soon follow on this.

Lisa and I continue to make ourselves available for any and all faculty consultations regarding teaching and learning, online or otherwise, via telephone, email, or Zoom.  Both scholars continue to respond to questions from faculty requesting assistance.  We are able to suggest solutions, provide new ideas, and offer support.

Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) instructional designers, and the Teaching and Learning Scholar, Lisa Flood, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu (preferred) or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

 

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 36
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 34, March 16, 2020

We open this week’s BYTE with a special message from Dr. Steve VandenAvond, Vice President for Extended Learning and Community Engagement.

*************************************************************************************************************

As we begin our first week of distance delivery for most of the NMU course offerings, I wanted to recognize the work of the staff in the Center for Teaching and Learning (including the CTL and ELCE teaching scholar), Information Services, and Broadcasting and Audio Visual Services.  Although this transition has meant extra work for all of us, these folks have been burning the midnight oil to get us ready for the upcoming weeks.

I also wanted to recognize the amazing work of the faculty in converting courses to distance delivery.  I am most familiar with the work being done in the College of Technology and Occupational Sciences, who have done a remarkable job in finding creative ways to offer even the most hands-on coursework at a distance, but my impression is that we are close to being ready campus-wide to meeting this challenge.  

Not only am I impressed, I am proud to be part of a learning community in which everyone (students, faculty, and staff alike) have pulled together for the greater good.  I am expecting that this year's commencement, in whatever form it takes, will be a celebration not only of our graduating students, but also of the way that we have worked together to meet this challenge.  

Steve VandenAvond, Ph.D.
Vice President for Extended Learning and Community Engagement

*************************************************************************************************************

Next, a second contribution to the BYTE, made by Carol Johnson, Dean of the College of Business, is provided below:

Hello Faculty,

I would like to share with you some wise words that were shared with me.

"I am going to encourage you to recognize that no single grade, class, or semester can undermine the hours our students have spent with you and each other. As such, please extend yourselves and students grace as we make this transition. The class may not be as structured as you would like, the student experience as deep, or their final project as polished. Yet, our students will still shine because their experience is more than these six weeks. In fact, the most valuable thing our students can learn right now is resilience, teamwork and grace. The most valuable thing we can give our students is a sense that we care about them and their future. If I can do anything to support that, please let me know." 

*************************************************************************************************************

Faculty have been exceedingly generous this week, (thank you so much), sharing with me distance delivery resources, teaching and learning strategies, and professional development opportunities.  A special thank you to Dr. Wendy Farkas, AAUP President and English department faculty, and Ms. Kathryn Johnson, History department faculty.  With permission, I offer their contributions to you via this week’s BYTE.  

Webinar to Engage Students in Online Learning: Monday, March 16 at 8 am EST

First, from Kathryn Johnson:

The European Association for Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) is delighted to partner with the National Institute for Digital Learning (NIDL) at Dublin City University (DCU) to host this special webinar on Monday March 16th. As many universities and higher education institutions around Europe look to move swiftly to online teaching in response to the Coronavirus, this webinar will share a number of valuable tips and helpful suggestions from experienced educators.

The intention is to provide some quite practical ideas and relatively simple ways of how educators with limited prior online teaching experience can engage students in active and meaningful online learning experiences. The session draws on evidence from theory, research and best practice to demonstrate how online teaching can be a creative, highly interactive and very effective way for students to keep learning under the current circumstances. There will be opportunities to ask questions and we invite other experienced online educators to join the webinar to contribute their own suggestions as part of an active back channel discussion. EADTU has a long history of supporting distance education and seeks to share its experience drawing on key partners in helping European universities to keep teaching in the face of an increasing number of campus closures.

Monday, March 16th, Time: 1:00pm Central European Time [8am EST]
Zoom Room: https://dcu-ie.zoom.us/j/701759679

Classroom Announcement and Course Schedule Examples

Next, Dr. Wendy Farkas offers her class announcement and revised course schedule for EN103 as an example of how she transitioned this course to the virtual environment.

EN103_Farkas pdf

Zoom Attendance Roster

I have received several questions this week regarding how to generate a meeting attendance roster from Zoom.  I am exceptionally pleased to offer the following instructions to generate this information.

 

Within Zoom, click on “Reports.”

 

Zoom

 

Then, click on “Usage.”

 

Zoom usage reports

 

Select the date for which a roster is required.

 

Zoom usage reports

 

Note that the maximum report duration is one month.


A list of the completed meetings will appear.

 

 

Zoom usage reports example

 

A continuation of the meeting information from above.

Zoom usage reports example

 

 

 

 

Notice that the number of participants above is in blue, meaning that the information is actionable, like a web link.  Click on the number of participants.  A list of participants will appear as per below.  Click on the “Export” tab on the right hand side above the participants to obtain a list of Zoom meeting attendees.

 

Zoom Meeting Participants

 

A sincere thank you to our faculty Online Teaching Fellows alumni who came to the aid of their colleagues this week with training to use EduCat, Zoom, etc. to make this transition process as seamless as possible.

Please know that I am always here, as are the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) instructional designers, to support our faculty at large with distance learning delivery or online teaching and learning.  I am only an email, phone call, or Zoom meeting / Google Hangout away: sboyerda@nmu.edu (preferred) or (906) 227-1805.  I will deliver one-on-one training sessions to full department offerings and anything in between.  PLEASE reach out to me if I can be of any help whatsoever.

Please be watching your email in the coming days and weeks for more distance delivery resources and professional training sessions from the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Global Campus.

Good luck this week with your distance delivery endeavors.  Stay healthy, safe, and SISU strong my faculty friends.

 

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 35
*************************************************************************************************************

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 33, March 9, 2020

This week, the BYTE presents another active learning strategy, guided notes, along with a few other note-taking recommendations collected from teaching and learning research.

What are Guided Notes?

With guided notes, also called skeletal notes, the instructor creates an outline of the content or concepts to be studied in assigned readings or lectures, with blank spaces inserted into it.  Student fill in the blanks, identifying key information and/or supporting details (Kiewra, 1985; Lazarus, 1991; Narjaikawe, Emarat, & Cowie, 2009).  Instructors may elect to use Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Google Docs, or a discussion forum to administer their guided note outlines, which should be made available in advance of an applicable learning unit.  Faculty may collect and grade guided note submissions, offer low value extra credit for them, or encourage discussions about them.

Why Guided Notes?

Guided note taking fosters deeper learner-content interaction and can improve the process of thinking about and connecting with course content.  According to the literature, guided note taking enhances student engagement and overall learning (Chang & Ku, 2014; Rahmani & Sadeghi, 2011).  This one pedagogic practice has been shown to substantively improve student learning across all grade levels (elementary through college) and for those with a range of disabilities (Haydon, Mancil, Kroeger, McLeskey, & Lin, 2011).

Sketchnoting

A complement to traditional notetaking is visual notetaking, or sketchnoting, the process of adding diagrams, charts, drawings, symbols, doodles, or images to represent concepts, themes, and information.  Sketchnoting taps into the theory of dual coding, whereby mental imagery has a positive relationship with memory and learning (Wammes, Meade, & Fernandes, 2016).  A document camera or Studio102 can be utilized for sketchnote lecturing.  An alternative to video sketchnoting is to post a document with guided text and visual notes. 

Encourage Note Taking

Students should be encouraged to take notes.  Consider explicitly reinforcing this learning activity.  Provide students with guidance on how best to take notes in a given discipline.  The process of encoding information into text and images via note taking creates new pathways in the brain, which may support more advanced long-term learning (Suritsky & Hughes, 1991).

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 34

REFERENCES

Chang, W., & Ku, Y. (2014). The effects of note-taking skills instruction on elementary students’ reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 278–291.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., Kroeger, S. D., McLeskey, J., & Lin, W. J. (2011). A review of the effectiveness of guided notes for students who struggle learning academic content. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(4), 226-231.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Providing the instructor’s notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 33-39.

Lazarus, B. D. (1991). Guided notes, review, and achievement of secondary students with learning disabilities in mainstream content courses.  Education and Treatment of Children, 14(2), 112-128.

Narjaikawe, P., Emarat, N., & Cowie, B. (2009). The effect of guided note taking during lectures on Thai university students’ understanding of electromagnetism. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 75.

Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2011). Effects of note-taking training on reading comprehension and recall. The Reading Matrix, 11(2).

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Suritsky, S. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1991). Benefits of notetaking: Implications for secondary and postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 7-9.

Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2016). The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9).

Vol. 1, Issue 32, February 24, 2020

This week, the BYTE presents an extensive homegrown library full of valuable information, templates, and videos to support faculty with the design and delivery of online (and on the ground) courses.

The CTL Resources Library

https://www.nmu.edu/ctl/ctl-resource-library

Instructional technology resources for the following applications and software include:

  • NMU EduCat
  • iClickers
  • Camtasia
  • VoiceThread
  • Wildcast video podcasting
  • Plagiarism checking software
  • Qualtrics

The NMU EduCat folder emphasizes LMS specifics such as:

  • Assignment creation
  • How to track attendance in EduCat
  • Book creation
  • Chat feature
  • Course settings
  • Creating a glossary of terms
  • Gradebook
  • Lesson development and management
  • Quizzes
  • Respondus Lockdown Browser
  • Uploading a file
  • Embedding videos
  • Zoom virtual classroom

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 33

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 31, February 17, 2020

This week, the BYTE presents the online version of a commonly used in-class student reflection formative assessment technique and a continuous improvement teaching tool, the Minute Paper (Angelo, 1993).  The Minute Paper is a simple and efficient way to collect instant feedback on student learning.  Faculty are provided with an immediate awareness of what students believe they have learned during a particular unit or module and/or if any gaps exist between learning objectives, what we want our students to learn and be able to do by the end of a unit or module, and learning outcomes, what the students actually learned or can do.  Faculty can even employ the Minute Paper to reflect on their teaching delivery and make corrections or changes as they see fit, based on the responses.

In a face-to-face setting, faculty usually administer a Minute Paper at the beginning or end of a meeting period throughout the semester.  Students have 1-2 minutes to respond to two questions (which can vary):

“Of what you learned, what did you consider most important and why?”
“What questions remain unanswered about the content?”

The Minute Paper can be expanded to capture additional information.  In e-learning, faculty may elect to incorporate a Minute Paper mid-week and/or at the conclusion of each week to plan for the next week.

To add a Minute Paper to an online course, consider using an embedded Qualtrics link, a quiz, or an assignment drop box so that students can upload a document to it.

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 32

REFERENCES

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 30, February 10, 2020

This week, the BYTE provides tips to improve the visual accessibility of the PowerPoint slides that we often use to narrate lectures in our online courses.

Alt Text
PowerPoints often include a variety of graphics, images, tables, and charts.  Include text descriptions with all visuals.  Alternative text (alt text) is a word or phrase that explains an image. 

To add alt text:

  • Go to “Format” and “Alt Text.”
  • Include a phrase or a sentence to describe the image and its context to someone who may not be able to view it. 

To edit alt text, right-click on the visual, itself, and select “Edit Alt Text.”

For visuals with embedded text, repeat the text in the presentation and add alt text to describe the image and text within it. 

For tables, use a simple structure, one that does not contain merged cells or nested tables and provide column header information.  Screen readers keep track of their location by counting cells.  If a table is nested or cells have been merged, screen readers will lose count. 

Color
Font or image color should not be the primary means of conveying information.  Consider using a strong contrast between text and background (darker text on a white or off-white background and vice versa) for people with low vision and the colorblind.

Font
Use sans serif fonts such as Arial or Calibri, size 18pt or larger.  Avoid excessive use of italics or all capital letters. 

Slide Titles
Consider labeling each slide with a unique title to aid those who are blind, visually impaired, or have a reading disability with navigating the PowerPoint.  Check the sequence of PowerPoint slides to ensure they can be read in the order intended.

Accessibility Checker
To evaluate the accessibility of a PowerPoint, use the Accessibility Checker, available for Microsoft office files.  From the “File” tab, select “Info” from the menu.  Then, select “Check for Issues” and “Check Accessibility.”  A report will identify issues related to images without explanation, color-coding, font size and type, italics, capital letters, etc.

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 31

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 29, February 3, 2020

This week, the BYTE presents Studio 102 and a related tech talk regarding how this immersive technology can be integrated into our online classrooms to enhance the quality of course design and delivery, increase learner motivation and engagement, and provide faculty with an opportunity to evidence regular, substantive learner-instructor interaction.

Studio 102
First, a bit of history.  Funded in part by the Distance Education fee, Extended Learning and Community Engagement, the Center for Teaching and Learning, along with AV and Broadcast services established Studio 102 in 2018.  Amy Barnsley, associate professor in Mathematics, first, proposed the Studio 102 idea for adoption at NMU.

What is Studio 102?
Studio 102, an online media production recording space, is a soundproof room for faculty to record content for online courses and explore virtual reality tools.  A lightboard is a specialized glass board, resembling a whiteboard, that is internally lit and recorded through so that instructors can write on it with fluorescent markers while making ‘eye contact’ with their audience.  Studio 102 (named after its location, room 102, in Harden Hall) is set up with a recording area that is acoustically treated and an editing computer to prepare video to share with students.  Faculty can add background images to and change the colors of the ‘green screen.’  The lightboard offers a more personalized faculty connection with the learner audience in virtual learning.

Studio 102  Studio 102

Integrating Studio 102 into E-Learning
Studio 102 is perfect for producing short lecture clips.  Faculty may also develop demonstrations to solve complex problems, illustrate and explain diagrams and equations, or introduce new vocabulary.  Other ideas include recording a video to address the most frequently asked questions in a course module or unit and to superimpose PowerPoint slides into the video to draw further emphasis to course content.

How to Schedule Studio 102
Please contact the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) to set up a more in-depth tour of the room or to use the facilities.  Book now!  The room schedule is a busy one.  Consider using Studio 102 for your Summer 2020 online courses.

The CTL contact information is as follows:
(906) 227-2483
ctl@nmu.edu
or, contact your academic department CTL liaison.

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 30

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 28, January 27, 2020

This week, the BYTE offers an engaging formative assessment technique that we can incorporate into our online courses.  The name of this learning activity sounds like something from an accounting class, the “Double Journal Entry.”

Double Journal Entry
Learners develop a deeper and more profound understanding of course materials through the process of reflection.  The Double Journal Entry, which could be administered via VoiceThread or discussion forum, enables students to describe, explain, or apply course content such as vocabulary, theories, frameworks, concepts, or calculations, while they simultaneously record their personal reflections, experiences, or reactions to it (French & Worsley, 2009).

An example Double Journal Entry assignment may look like this: assign students a book chapter, journal article, or excerpt to read and then ask them to identify several meaningful excerpts from it.  Students should explain why the content was chosen and then reflect upon their personal reactions (agreements, disagreements, or questions) to it.  Students may be asked to reply to the responses of their classmates by giving feedback, addressing interesting points, and comparing and contrasting with their own experiences.  Faculty would, then, comment, provide constructive feedback, make corrections, ask follow-up questions, redirect discussions, and offer their own experiences.

This assessment technique informs faculty on how students read, explore, and react to course materials (Berthoff, 1988).  Faculty can acquire valuable insight as to student likes, dislikes, values, and concerns.  Students develop an awareness of how they read and why they respond to various course materials (Angelo & Cross, 1993).  This learning activity, as prescribed, would offer learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content interactions in an online course.

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 29

REFERENCES

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment technique: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berthoff, A. (1988). Forming, thinking, writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

French, A., & Worsley, J. (2009). Double-entry journals: Developing an embedded programme of writing development for first year early childhood studies degree students. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 2(2), 1.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 27, January 20, 2020

This week, the BYTE offers reading and studying strategies for our online students.  Research suggests that students do not often complete required readings (Berry, Cook, & Stevens, 2010; Griggs & Jackson, 2017).  One study found that over 70% of students reported to rarely or never complete their course readings as scheduled (Clump, Bauer, & Bradley, 2004; Connor-Greene, 2000).  We know that reading is essential to the achievement of course learning objectives.  Students who regularly read the assigned course materials earn higher assessment scores as compared to their peers and are more engaged with course discussions (Leeming, 2002; Sappington, Kinsey, & Munsayac, 2002; St. Clair-Thompson, Graham, & Marsham, 2017). 

SQ4R: Strategies for Reading and Studying

SQ4R stands for: Survey, Questions, Read, Record, Recite, and Review

Based on cognitive psychology and pedagogic principles, SQ4R can improve learning by teaching students how to intentionally read and study (Lei, Rhinehart, Howard, & Cho, 2010; Major, Harris, & Zakrajsek, 2016; Williams 2005).  Most students are not formally trained to effectively read academic materials.

Survey
Students should initially preview the course material, survey the content, skim the chapter headings, the first sentence of paragraphs, any boldface words, vocabulary in the margins, and then read the introductions, outline summary, and/or conclusions sections.  The survey strategy is intended to introduce students to the course material and to begin the process of thinking about what they are supposed to learn as they read.

Questions
Before reading, encourage students to make up questions from their initial contact with the content.  Often, students can develop questions by transforming a section header into a question.

Read
As students read the full content, they should take notes, endeavor to understand the vocabulary, and answer the questions they previously developed.  What students think about while they read is one predictor of what they learn (Lei et al., 2010).

Record
Students should take concise notes and identify main ideas, key points, new terms, formulas, philosophies, or frameworks.  The key is for students to be selective in their notetaking.  The notes should serve as a prompt for current and future review.

Recite
Students should practice reciting the course material and answering the questions they previously developed.  Consider incorporating VoiceThread or discussion forum activities in your online courses to encourage students to recall and recite the knowledge they gained during readings.

Review
Students should then attempt to recall the content and then test themselves.  They should ask questions while doing so including “what,” “how,” and “why.”  

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 28

REFERENCES

Berry, T., Cook, L., Hill, N., & Stevens, K. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31– 39. https://doi-org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.509376

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Breadley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 227.

Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27(2), 84–88. 

Griggs, R. A., & Jackson, S. L. (2017). Studying open versus traditional textbook effects on students' course performance: Confounds abound. Teaching of Psychology, 44(4), 306– 312. https://doi-org.nmu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0098628317727641

Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 210–212. 

Lei, S. A., Rhinehart, P., Howard, H. A., & Cho, J. K. (2010). Strategies for improving reading comprehension among college students. Reading Improvement, 47(1), 30-42.

Major, C. H., Harris, M. S., & Zakrajsek, T. (2016). Teaching for learning: 101 intentionally designed activities to put students on the path to success. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 272–274. 

St. Clair-Thompson, H., Graham, A., & Marsham, S. (2017). Exploring the reading practices of undergraduate students. Education Inquiry, 9(3), 284-298.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Williams, S. (2005). Guiding students through the jungle of research-based literature. College Teaching, 52(4), 137-139.

Vol. 1, Issue 26, January 13, 2020

Happy New Year and welcome to the Winter 2020 term!  As we begin the delivery our online (and face-to-face) courses this week, please take into consideration these helpful suggestions to get off to a great start!

Being Present
Plan the number of hours per week you intend to spend in the online classroom.  Think about how much time you spend teaching a face-to-face class in addition to the time spent prepping and grading.  Schedule an equivalent amount of time (or more) to be present and engaged in your online courses.  The more engaged faculty are in the online classroom, the more likely that their students will be, too.  The more engaged online students are, the greater the likelihood of improved academic achievement, retention, graduation, and overall satisfaction with the learning experience (Oblinger, 2014).

A few methods to design visible presence in an online course include:

  • To establish persona and begin making connections with your students, create a faculty introduction narrative accompanied by photos, or post a short bio video.
  • Early during the first week of classes and to start the process of building a learning community, ask students to introduce themselves to you and to the rest of the class.  Consider using a discussion forum or VoiceThread for this learning activity.
  • Post announcements (beginning, midweek, and end-of-week) to offer an overview of the coming week’s content and due dates, recap the prior week, review muddy points, explain course content and assignment requirements, or reinforce expectations.
  • Create a Q&A forum; monitor and respond to questions within a reasonable amount of time.  Turnaround time of 24 hours or less is a common standard and generally, the expectation.
  • Consider holding Zoom office hours as needed or on a regular, scheduled basis.
  • Interact with students via discussion forums.  (A future Online Byte of the Week will focus on how to create and facilitate engaging, high-quality discussion forums.)
  • Post informal videos in addition to written instructions and rubrics, to provide an overview of assignment expectations.
  • Give ongoing meaningful, personalized feedback and communicate learning progress throughout the course.
  • Reach out to struggling students and applaud those who are meeting or exceeding expectations.
  • Remind students that you are available to help them.  This reassurance goes a long way to building social presence.
  • Show your personality in the classroom and have fun with the learning experience.
  • Reference your background and connect real-world experiences and current events to the content.
  • Create a safe, supportive learning space that upholds academic freedom.
  • Remind students of the University services available to them as online students.

Please stay tuned each week throughout the term for the Online Byte of the Week.  Topics for future newsletters include:

  • Motivating students in the online learning environment
  • Active learning techniques
  • Creating and facilitating engaging, high-quality discussion forums
  • Tech Talk: LMS Tips and Techniques
  • Writing measurable learning objectives
  • Universal design for learning (UDL)
  • Andragogy vs Pedagogy
  • Ensuring accessibility in course design
  • Dealing with disruptive students

For additional resources regarding the latest insight on what works in the classroom, consider subscribing to The Chronicle of Higher Education ‘Teaching Newsletter’ by following the link below.

https://chronicle.com/account/signupnewsletter/35

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 27

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Oblinger, D. (2014). Designed to engage. EDUCAUSE Review, 49(5). Retrieved from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/9/designed-to-engage

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 25, December 9, 2019

Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyber learning to life for our students.

Since finals week is upon us, our focus this week is on strategies to prevent final course grade questions and disputes.

Grading Policy

The first best practice to minimize grading questions or disputes is to provide students with a clearly stated grading policy.

A grading policy should include (QM 3.2):

  1. A list of all activities, tests, etc., that will determine the final grade, along with their weights or points
  2. An explanation of the relationship between the final course letter grade and accumulated points or percentages
  3. An explanation of the relationship between points and percentages, if both are used
  4. A clear statement about how late submissions will be graded, including information on any point deductions for assignments submitted late

Consider adding a syllabus quiz, interactive H5P game, or a discussion forum to your online courses prior to the start of a course with specific questions or activities designed to reinforce student understanding of the grading policy and assessments.  Another recommendation is to record VoiceThread videos or create a discussion forum to describe each learning assessment and the related expectations in detail and/or the grading policy, as a whole.

Assessments

Another strategy to enhance learner understanding related to grading is to provide a clear and complete description of the measures used to assess coursework (QM 3.3).  Evaluative criteria, such as a grading rubric, should be distributed prior to the launch of an assessment.  The criteria should provide students with guidance related to the instructor’s expectations and required components of the coursework and participation.  Information on how an assignment or activity grade is calculated should also be made available.  In addition, consider posting an exemplar (with permission, of course), as a guide for students to interpret the meaning of assessment criteria through the observation a high quality contribution that meets expectations (Handley & Williams, 2011; Rust, Price, & O’Donovan, 2003).

Timely Feedback

Grading questions may be lessened if students receive frequent, substantive, and timely feedback (QM 3.5).  Meaningful and prompt feedback can significantly improve student learning and satisfaction with learning, which may reduce questions related to progress and standing (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Optiz, Ferdinand, & Mecklinger, 2011).  Exceptional feedback should apprise students how to bridge the gap between their performance and learning objectives.  Constructive feedback should be supportive, balanced, and delivered in a regular and timely manner (Bailey & Garner, 2012; Lizzio & Wilson, 2008). 

Gradebook

A final recommendation in the management of student grading questions is to utilize the EduCat gradebook in the NMU Moodle learning management system (LMS), set it up early (prior to the start of the course is ideal), and keep it current.  If a student does not complete an assessment and earns a zero score, be sure to enter a “0” in the gradebook for the associated activity.  Learning assessments with an empty grade (no entry) are ignored and not calculated into the final course grade.

Course letter grades are not shown by default.  To enable the “show letter grades” feature of the gradebook:

  • Go to “Grades”
  • From the menu, select “Setup” and “Course Grade Settings”
  • From the “User Report”, select “Show” from the “Show letter grades” selection box as per below

 show letter grades

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

While Issue 25 is our last Byte for 2019, the newsletter will resume at the start of the Winter 2020 term.  Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 26

REFERENCES

Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2012). Is feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 187-198.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235.

Handley, K., & Williams, L. (2011). From copying to learning: Using exemplars to engage students with assessment criteria and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Learning, 36(1), 95-108.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perception of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.

Opitz, B., Ferdinand, N. K., & Mecklinger, A. (2011). Timing matters: The impact of immediate and delayed feedback on artificial language learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5.

Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 147–165.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfromhttps://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 24, December 2, 2019

I hope that everyone who traveled for the break has returned safely to the U.P. and electricity has been restored to those homes with outages resulting from the snowstorms. Now that we have stirred from our tryptophan comas and shoveled a foot or more of wet snow, it is time to shift our focus to the flurry of activity that is the end of the academic term.  While next semester may not yet be on the radar, consider attending one or both of the Global Campus sessions as part of the Winter 2020 Faculty Professional Development Day to be held on Tuesday, January 7, 2020 (times to be determined).

The first is a presentation entitled:

Active Learning in the Online Environment: A Faculty Panel Discussion 

Presenters will highlight the course designs and teaching pedagogies that they utilize to encourage learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction in online learning.

Faculty panelists include:

Dr. Amy Barnsley, Mathematics and Computer Science
Dr. Wendy Farkas, English
Professor Sara Potter, Communication Studies
Dr. Lisa Flood, Nursing and the Teaching and Learning Scholar
Dr. Stacy Boyer-Davis, Business and the ELCE Scholar

The second Global Campus session is an encore presentation from the Fall 2019 Professional Development Days:

The Global Campus Online Course Review Process: Laddering from Entry-Level to Minimum Standards

This session, presented by Stacy Boyer-Davis, the ELCE Scholar, will help participants develop a strong awareness (at a high level with only 90 minutes for the session) of how the standards change and what is required of them to teach online beginning Summer 2020.

Learning objectives include:

  • Describe the Global Campus online course review process and timeline
  • Examine entry-level and minimum standards and their related rubrics
  • Explain how the expectations change beginning Summer 2020
  • Review and analyze "not met" and "met" examples for each standard
  • Apply the minimum standards to a current or future course

Please be watching for emails from the Center for Teaching and Learning for more information and with details regarding how to register for these sessions and several others that will be offered.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 25

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 23, November 18, 2019

Over the last six weeks, we have digested a number of delectable Bytes whipped up to prepare our online teaching palates for the Global Campus Minimum Standards for online course design effective Summer 2020.

  1. Issue 17, 10/07/2019: An overview of the online course design review process
  2. Issue 18, 10/14/2019: Course learning objectives
  3. Issue 19, 10/21/2019: Assessment of student learning
  4. Issue 20, 10/28/2019: Evaluation of student learning
  5. Issue 21, 11/04/2019: Instructional materials
  6. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities

This week, the Byte will serve up the final course of our seven-course Minimum Standards SoTL feast:

  1. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

The first issue of the Byte, published on June 12, 2019 explored QM 5.2 relative to active learning and interaction.

Learning activities that promote social presence in asynchronous courses enhance student engagement, commitment, learning, and as a result, completion (Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, & Stevens, 2012; Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Uijl, Filius, & Cate, 2017).  Social presence has been described as the degree to which students feel connected in a learning environment (Bickle & Rucker 2018; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010).  Social presence can be facilitated through three types of interaction: learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content (QM 5.2). 

Activities to promote learner-learner interaction in a virtual course might include assigned collaborative activities such as group discussions, team projects or group problem-solving assignments, or peer critiques. 

Examples of learner-instructor interaction may consist of regular faculty feedback, a frequently asked questions (FAQ) discussion forum moderated by the instructor, and VoiceThread, Camtasia, or Studio 101 lectures. 

Learner-content interaction examples include, but are not limited to, readings, assignments, and online exercises such as H5P or hot potatoes.

For the next phase of the online course review process, course syllabi and the online courses, themselves, must demonstrate learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 24

REFERENCES

Bickle, M. C., & Rucker, R. (2018). Student-to-student interaction: Humanizing the online classroom using technology and group assignments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 19(1), 1-11.

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118-126. doi:10.1016/ j.iheduc.201UT006.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective.  The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Uijl, S., Filius, R., & Olle, T. (2017). Student interaction in small private online courses. Medical Science Education, 27, 237-242.

Vol. 1, Issue 22, November 11, 2019

Before we delve into this week’s issue, the Global Campus would like to honor and celebrate our Veterans for their patriotism, service, courage, and dedication to our country.  Thank you for ensuring the freedoms that we experience every day.

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process.  This week, the Byte focuses on learning activities and their alignment with course learning objectives, a Minimum Level Standards requirement for online courses at NMU.

Learning Activities

Learning activities are meaningful tasks or experiences employed by faculty to engage students and encourage their achievement of a set of intended learning objectives (QM 5.1).  Learning activities may include but are not limited to case studies, quizzes, discussions, lectures, role-playing, one-minute papers, debates, think-pair-share, brainstorming, simulations, games, labs, and presentations.  As part of a well-designed online course, learning activities should align with the course and module/unit-level learning objectives, assessments, and instructional materials (QM 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1).

Quality Matters offers guidance regarding the alignment of learning activities with learning objectives.  An example of alignment is a learning objective with an expectation that learners to deliver a persuasive speech.  The learning activity includes choosing an appropriate topic for the speech, creating an outline, and recording a practice of the speech delivery (p. 29).  An example of a mismatch between activities and objectives is the objective requiring learners to deliver a persuasive speech but the activities in the course do not include any practice of that skill (p. 29).

Next week’s issue will investigate the final Minimum Design Standards criterion: active learning and interaction.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 23

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 21, November 4, 2019

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process.  This week, the Byte focuses on instructional materials and their alignment with course learning objectives, a Minimum Level Standards requirement for online courses at NMU.

Instructional Materials

Instructional materials are the resources that faculty employ to convey information or course content to facilitate student learning.  According to Quality Matters, instructional materials may include textbooks, open educational resources, publisher or instructor created materials, slide presentations and interactive content such as simulations, expert lectures, videos, images, diagrams, and websites.  Faculty should strive to incorporate a variety of instructional materials to engage students and maximize learning.

During the next phase of the Global Campus online course design standards review process, which begins Summer 2020, online courses should demonstrate that instructional materials used in the course align with the course learning objectives or competencies by contributing to the achievement of those objectives or competencies (QM 4.1).  Instructional materials align with the learning objectives or competencies in order to provide the information and resources learners need to achieve the stated learning objectives or competencies.  When a course is aligned, all critical course components including learning objectives (QM 2.1), assessment (QM 3.1), instructional materials (QM 4.1), learning activities (QM 5.1), and course technology (QM 6.1), reinforce one another to ensure that learners achieve the desired learning outcomes.  When aligned, assessments, instructional materials, learning activities, and course technologies are directly tied to and support the learning objectives.

Upcoming issues will investigate each of the remaining Minimum Design Standards criterion including:

  1. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities
  2. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 22

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 20, October 28, 2019

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process. This week, the Byte focuses on the course grading policy for assessment of student learning, the third of six Minimum Level Standards required for online courses at NMU.

Minimum Standards for the Online Course Design Review Process

During the next phase of the Global Campus online course design standards review process, which begins Summer 2020, online courses should demonstrate that a course grading policy is provided and clearly stated. The Minimum Standards criterion related to the evaluation of student learning is: A course grading policy is stated clearly. (QM 3.2)

A clear, written statement at the beginning of the course should fully explain to learners how the course grades are calculated. The points, percentages, and weights for each component of the course grade are clearly stated. The relationship(s) between points, percentages, weights, and letter grades are explained. If grades are reduced because of late submission, the grading policy on late submission should clearly state the amount of the reduction.

Examples of a clearly stated grading policy include:

1. A summarized list of all activities, tests, etc. that will determine the final grade, along with their weights or points

2. An explanation of the relationship between the final course letter grade and the learner’s accumulated points or percentages

3. An explanation of the relationship between points and percentages, if both are used

4. A clear statement about how late submissions will be graded including information on any point deductions for assignments submitted late

Example of a Clearly Stated Grading Policy

An example of a summarized list of all activities, tests, etc. that will determine the final grade, along with their weights or points:

Activities

Total

Points Each

Total Points

%

Course Learning Objectives

Homework

12

10

120

17.1%

CLOs 1-12

Quizzes

12

10

120

17.1%

CLOs 1-12

Paper

1

60

60

8.6%

CLO 3, 4, 5

Exams

4

100

400

57.1%

CLOs 1-12

 

 

 

700

100%

 

 

An example explanation of the relationship between the final course letter grade and the learner’s accumulated points or percentages:

93-100% A
90-92.9% A-
87-89.9% B+
83-86.9% B
80-82.9% B-
77-79.9% C+
73-76.9% C
70-72.9% C-
67-69.9% D+
63-66.9% D
60-62.9% D-
Below 60% F

How to calculate the final course grade: 600 points earned out of 700 points possible = 85.71%, B

An example statement about how late submissions will be graded including information on any point deductions for assignments submitted late:

Late homework assignments will be accepted up to one week after the original due date for half credit prior to grading for accuracy. Assignments will not be accepted after the one-week extension.

Upcoming issues will investigate each of the remaining Minimum Design Standards criterion including:

1. Issue 21, 11/04/2019: Instructional materials
2. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities
3. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805. Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 21

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 19, October 21, 2019

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process.  This week, the Byte focuses on assessment of student learning, the second of six Minimum Level Standards required for online courses at NMU.  Upcoming issues will investigate each of the remaining Minimum Design Standards criterion including:

  1. Issue 20, 10/28/2019: Evaluation of student learning
  2. Issue 21, 11/04/2019: Instructional materials
  3. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities
  4. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

Assessment of Learning

Volumes of scholarship have been devoted to assessment of learning and the definitions, theories, frameworks, strategies, and the instructional design and delivery practices associated with it.  Assessment is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to establish if students are successfully meeting or have effectively met course learning objectives (Knight, 2002; Leach & Scott, 2003).  Further, the literature describes two types of assessment: formative, or assessment for learning, and summative, or assessment of learning (Hernandez, 2012).

Formative Assessment (Assessment FOR Learning)

Assessment for learning, also called formative assessment or formative feedback, is the process of monitoring student learning during the learning process and providing ongoing feedback to bridge the gap between learner performance and learning objectives (Kearney, 2013).  Examples of formative assessments include iclicker polls, exit tickets, one-minute papers, quizzes, games, projects, presentations, and group activities.

Summative Assessment (Assessment OF Learning)

Assessment of learning, also known as summative assessment, is the accumulation and evaluation of student learning evidence at the conclusion of a module, unit, and the course for certification, accountability, and accreditation purposes (Maclellan, 2004).  Examples of summative assessments are standardized, comprehensive, or unit exams, portfolios, and final projects.

QM Standard 3.1

According to Quality Matters Specific Review Standard 3.1, the assessments incorporated into a course should measure the achievement of the stated learning objectives.  Course assessments, ways of confirming learner progress and mastery, should align with course and module (or unit) level learning objectives by measuring the accomplishment of those objectives.  Instructional materials (QM 4.1), learning activities (QM 5.1), and course tools (QM 6.1) support the learning objectives and enable learners to be successful on the assessments.

Examples of alignment between a learning objective and an assessment include:

  1. An essay or discussion shows that learners can “explain” or “describe” something
  2. A multiple-choice quiz verifies that learners can “define” or “identify” vocabulary
  3. An assignment shows that learners can “write” or “compose” a composition
  4. A video of a learner presentation in a foreign language shows that learners can “speak” or “translate” a foreign language
  5. Participation in a game reveals learners can “analyze” and “evaluate” complex factors and “make good decisions” that allow progress through the game

Examples of lack of alignment between a learning objective and an assessment are:

  1. The objective is to “write a persuasive essay” but the assessment is a multiple-choice test
  2. The objective is to “create a body of work that illustrates your photographic vision” but the assessment is a 25-page thesis about contemporary photographers.

Minimum Standards for the Online Course Design Review Process

During the next phase of the Global Campus online course design standards review process which begins Summer 2020, online courses should demonstrate that assessment of learning aligns with and maps to course learning objectives.

The Minimum Standards criterion related to assessment reads as follows:

The assessments measure the stated learning objectives or competencies (QM 3.1).

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ide7

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 20

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Hernandez, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64(4), 489-502.

Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: The use of authentic self-and-peer-assessment for learning to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875-891.

Knight, P. T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-286.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12(1), 91-113.

Maclellan, E. (2004). How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 311-321.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 18, October 14, 2019

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process.  This week, the Byte focuses on how to write measurable course learning objectives, the first of six Minimum Level Standards required for online courses at NMU.  Upcoming issues will investigate each of the remaining Minimum Design Standards criterion including:

  1. Issue 19, 10/21/2019: Assessment of student learning
  2. Issue 20, 10/28/2019: Evaluation of student learning
  3. Issue 21, 11/04/2019: Instructional materials
  4. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities
  5. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

According to Quality Matters Specific Review Standard 2.1, course learning objectives should clearly describe what learners will learn and be able to do if they successfully complete a course.  Course objectives describe desired learning mastery using terms that are specific and observable enough to be measured by the instructor.  In addition, well-written course learning objectives should be aligned with programmatic and/or discipline-specific goals and can be assessed through one or more indicators (exams, quizzes, papers, homework, projects, discussions, etc.).

Bloom’s Taxonomy, originally published in 1956, groups learning into six hierarchies: 1) knowledge, 2) comprehension, 3) application, 4) analysis, 5) synthesis, and 6) evaluation (Bloom, 1956).  Revised in 2001, the cognitive categories were renamed to: 1) remembering, 2) understanding, 3) applying, 4) analyzing, 5) evaluating, and 6) creating (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001).  The framework provides a cognitive order to learning, meaning that higher learning is contingent upon having acquired prerequisite knowledge at lower levels.  Figure 1 offers a description for each of these learning categories.

Bloom’s Taxonomy verb tables can aid in course design and, specifically, with writing measurable course learning objectives that are aligned with cognitive learning categories.  For instance, if the overarching goal of a course is for students to be able to choose among several tax strategies for different business scenarios, students must have prerequisite knowledge in order to do so, comprehend that knowledge, and can apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate that specific knowledge.  Therefore, an “evaluation” action verb should be used when developing the associated learning objective.  For this example, the recommended course learning objective could be written as follows:

Select appropriate tax strategies for different business scenarios.

Notice, the action verb “select” was sourced from the “evaluation” learning category as shown in Figure 1.  Two additional verb tables have been provided and are embedded as part of the web links below.

Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy Higher Order Thinking Skills

Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy Higher Order Thinking Skills
Retrieved from www.edublogs.com

Verb table links: 

https://www.apu.edu/live_data/files/333/blooms_taxonomy_action_verbs.pdf

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/assesments/Blooms%20Level.pdf

Examples of measurable course learning objectives include:

  • Develop a comprehensive, individualized wellness action program focused on overcoming a sedentary lifestyle.
  • Demonstrate correct use of personal protective equipment.
  • Apply microeconomic principles to explain why environmental problems occur.
  • Create original music compositions using computer technology.
  • Analyze a business situation to determine an information management need.

Examples of course learning objectives that are NOT measurable are:

  • Understand the nature of reasoning.
  • Demonstrate understanding of the role of digital marketing.
  • Know basic statistical vocabulary and appropriate data collection methods.
  • Learn the basic elements of a media production software interface.
  • Be aware of the grammar conventions of standard American English.
  • Realize the significance of recent advances in genetic research.
  • Demonstrate an appreciation of contemporary art.

Words or phrases such as understand, demonstrate understanding, demonstrate knowledge of, know, learn, be aware of, demonstrate an appreciation of, and realize, are not measurable.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

 

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 19

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 17, October 7, 2019

Issues 17-23 of the Byte will emphasize the Global Campus online course design review process.  This week, the Byte focuses on the origin of the online course review process, the research that supports it, and the importance of it to the University’s current and future accreditation.  Upcoming issues will investigate each of the Minimum Design Standards criterion including:

  1. Issue 18, 10/14/2019: Course learning objectives
  2. Issue 19, 10/21/2019: Assessment of student learning
  3. Issue 20, 10/28/2019: Evaluation of student learning
  4. Issue 21, 11/04/2019: Instructional materials
  5. Issue 22, 11/11/2019: Learning activities
  6. Issue 23, 11/18/2019: Active learning and interaction

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is the accrediting body of our institution. During the HLC’s 2017 site visit, the evaluation team identified that a subset of online courses were not consistent in terms of rigor or expectations. This sub-group of courses showed inconsistencies when compared to our traditional brick and mortar courses to their online counterparts. Processes for development, delivery, and supervision of content, expectations, and communications in online courses varied by discipline and faculty. The HLC recommended the development of an inclusive, systematic process to ensure quality, consistency, and rigor in the online environment. The HLC recommendation, as per page 32 of the Comprehensive Quality Review Report (3.A.3), states:

HLC online learning quality review


Directed by the HLC, NMU is not sanctioned to offer correspondence education courses in the online environment. 

From the HLC site visit report:

Distance and Correspondence Courses and Programs


The HLC definition of a correspondence course is provided below.  To summarize key points regarding correspondence education, interaction between the instructor and student is limited, not regular nor substantive, and is generally student-initiated.

Correspondence Education


NMU is authorized by the HLC to provide distance education courses.  The HLC (and the Department of Education) describes distance education as promoting regular and substantive instructor-initiated interaction with students.

Distance Eduaction


Course design is the process and methodology of creating quality learning environments and experiences for students.  Through deliberate and structured exposure to instructional materials, learning activities, and interaction, students are able to access information, obtain skills, and practice higher levels of thinking.  Course delivery is the act of teaching a course or implementing course design.  The Global Campus online course review process was developed to evaluate the quality of course design.

Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-driven peer-review process used to ensure the quality of online and blended course design.  QM standards were developed and revised based on research and established standards in the fields of instructional design and online learning.  QM is a grass roots effort that began in 2003 at Maryland Online, Inc., a consortium endeavoring to solve a common problem among institutions: how do we measure and guarantee the quality of a course? This question was especially important as institutions began to create a system where they could share available seats in their online courses with other institutions. They needed a way to ensure course quality, that courses would be equivalent for their students, regardless of where the course originated.  Today, there are over 1,300 institutions and 60,000 members of QM.  More about Quality Matters can be found at https://www.qualitymatters.org  The Global Campus online course design review process, developed and normed by our faculty, is grounded in the well-respected and world-renowned Quality Matters standards.

Beginning Winter 2019, in accordance with NMU’s agreement with the HLC, the Global Campus began a stepwise approach to improve communication and rigor in online course design and, as a result, delivery.  Currently, all online courses at NMU are required to meet Entry Level Expectations for online course design.  Beginning Summer 2020, the Global Campus will level up to Minimum Design Standards.  Throughout the next six weeks, the Byte will examine what these Minimum Design Standards are and strategies to bridge to them from our existing Entry Level Standards.

quality check online learning


The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 18

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 16, September 30, 2019

Throughout the month of September, the Byte will focus exclusively on EduCat plug-ins and add-ons, most of which promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction. This week, our last in the September EduCat series, we will highlight the newest tech tools, bells, and whistles available in our learning management system, which are:

1. Unicheck
2. Google Assignments
3. VoiceThread with Closed Captioning

Unicheck

Effective this term, NMU has shifted away from VeriCite and exclusively to cloud-based Unicheck as our plagiarism detection software solution. Unicheck authenticates documents and writings by generating and distributing a detailed similarity report to learners and their instructors. The plagiarism detector is instantaneous and checks for similarities across 5 billion web pages, open access databases, and documents stored in the NMU library of learner submissions. In order to produce a similarity report for a paper or discussion forum, select “Enable Unicheck Plagiarism Services” when creating an EduCat assignment.

Plagiarism Plugin

Having used Unicheck, VeriCite, and Turnitin, all are relatively similar in terms of their plagiarism detection functionality and subsequent reporting. If interested in learning more about Unicheck, please contact your CTL liaison or watch your email for future professional development offerings.

Google Assignments

The Google Assignments platform is now compatible with and available via the EduCat learning management system. Why use Google Assignments? Google Assignments have built in rubrics, two-way feedback commenting, a bank of most frequently used comments, originality reports, and grammar checks. Google Assignments auto-saves work. Google Assignments can be created and graded directly in EduCat. Students can submit their Google Assignments via EduCat and Google Assignments automatically syncs grades to the EduCat gradebook.

Google Assignments is a preconfigured external tool, (as is VoiceThread).

Adding a new external tool

Google Assignments

Several CTL Google Assignments workshops have been offered this term and more are expected. In the interim, please contact your CTL liaison for more information regarding how to add Google Assignments to your EduCat classroom.

VoiceThread Closed Captioning Services

I have exciting news for those of us who use VoiceThread and previously created transcripts (manually or otherwise) for accessibility purposes. NMU (the Global Campus) has invested in the VoiceThread closed captioning subscription service. Thank you, Steve! Use of the closed captioning service is automatic. Simply create a new VoiceThread or copy an existing one and the closed captioning script will appear at the base of the recording in about 5-10 minutes. Remember to check the captioning text and edit as needed.

To learn more about VoiceThread and/or the closed captioning subscription service, please join Scott Smith this week on Wednesday, October 2 at 3pm in the LRC, room 106, for a professional development workshop. Please sign up to attend the workshop at the following link: https://www.nmu.edu/ctl/registration

For any questions regarding how to use any of these tech tools in your online courses, please make an appointment with your CTL liaison or Stacy, the ELCE scholar.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted. For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 17

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 15, September 23, 2019

Greetings NMU faculty and welcome to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK, a newsletter created to share current scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) related to the virtual learning space, online teaching best practices, EduCat learning management system tips and techniques, and to spotlight the exceptional means by which we bring cyber learning to life for our students.

Throughout the month of September, the Byte will focus exclusively on various EduCat tools or add-ins that promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction. This week, we will gamify the Northern e-learning experience with Kahoot!, a free game-based active learning application.

Interactive learning has become a pedagogic hallmark of high-quality online education. One way to encourage interaction in our virtual learning spaces and achieve learning outcomes is through the use of digital game-based learning (DGBL). DGBL can be designed to enhance student skill acquisition (skills-based learning), knowledge transfer (cognitive learning), and attitudinal or behavioral changes (Chen & Hwang, 2017; Mayer & Johnson, 2010). Students participating in DGBL may be more motivated in and engaged with the learning process and improve their self-efficacy (Moos & Marroquin, 2010). DGBL can have a positive effect not only on students’ attitudes towards learning but also on overall learning quality (All, Castellar, & Van Looy, 2015; Erhel & Jamet, 2013).

Kahoot! is a DGBL multiple-choice quiz game that can be accessed via embedded URL in EduCat or mobile application. Kahoots! can be designed for any subject using any language, on nearly any device. A Kahoot! can be created in just a few minutes. The length and format of each Kahoot! is easily customizable. Videos, diagrams, and images can be integrated into a Kahoot!

Kahoots! can be constructed to enables Kahoot!’ers to compete individually or in teams. Kahoot! even has a library of millions of games with over 500 million public questions at the ready (Kahoot!, n.d.). Kahoots! can be played asynchronously or synchronously; 1 billion subscribers have Kahooted! (Kahoot!, n.d.). Kahoots! can serve as a formative assessment method to monitor and evaluate student learning progress, target areas that students struggle to understand, reinforce learning, encourage student engagement and retention, and improve teaching.

The Kahoot! website link is: https://kahoot.com/

As a College of Business faculty member, I would be remiss if I did not mention that over 97% of Fortune 500 companies use Kahoot! for employee training and engagement exercises (Ark & Poth, 2019).

For any questions regarding how to use Kahoot! in your online courses, please make an appointment with your CTL liaison or Stacy, the ELCE scholar.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction (regular and substantive, initiated by the instructor) because correspondence courses are not permitted. For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805. Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 16

REFERENCES

All, A., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2015). Towards a conceptual framework for assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning. Computers & Education, 88, 29-37.

Ark, T. V., & Poth, R. D. (2019). Kahoot!: Kid’s game that all the Fortune 500 companies use. Retrieved from https://www.gettingsmart.com/2019/08/kahoot-kids-game-that-all-the-fortu...

Chen, C. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2017). Effects of the team competition-based ubiquitous gaming approach on students’ interactive patterns, collective efficacy and awareness of collaboration and communication. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 87-98.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67, 156-167.

Kahoot!, (n.d.). Retrieved from https://kahoot.com/b/

Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241-265.

Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265-276.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe... ationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 14, September 16, 2019

 Throughout the month of September, the Byte will focus exclusively on various EduCat tools or add-ins that promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction. This week, we will explore the Remind app, a mobile text message communication platform.

Email overload is described as being inundated with more messages than one can process and becoming overwhelmed, distracted, apprehensive, inefficient, and disengaged as a result (Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014). Email or information overload may facilitate avoidance behaviors by besieged recipients such as ignoring or deleting unread messages (Schuff, Turetken, & D’arcy, 2006). College students are among the afflicted. One study concluded that college student email avoidance ranges between 11%-39% and is correlated with the originator of the message (Ha, Joa, Gabay, & Kim, 2018).

The communication method of choice among college students is the cell phone. A recent study by Ha et al. (2018) indicated that text messaging is preferred (50.2%) followed by social media (35.3%), emails (12.2%), and phone calls or voice mail messages (2.3%). Approximately 94%-98% of college students have a smartphone (Ha et al., 2018; Student Pulse Survey, 2017).

The Announcements forum of EduCat is commonly used by faculty to broadcast general course information and reminders. Once announcements are posted, EduCat automatically distributes an email copy to students enrolled in the course. Since students prefer mobile communication methods and may elect to ignore emails, consider the use of Remind, a free mobile app accessible by both Apple and Android devices, in conjunction with course announcements.

Remind enables professors to send text messages to one student, small groups, or the entire class. Personal contact information remains private. Cell phone numbers are not exchanged. Remind can be used on any device, including text-only phones. A smartphone is not needed to use it. Remind messages are limited to 300 characters. PDFs, voice clips, and photos can also be exchanged.

To get started, visit the Remind website or download the app and create a free faculty account. Then, “Create a Class.” I name my classes using the course code and term, for instance “ACT 301 Fall 2019.” Each class is assigned a unique access code. Provide the access code to your students and they can, then, join the Remind class. Communication with your students can be simple and instantaneous. Consider embedding the URL for Remind in EduCat with instructions to encourage students to join. Remind fosters learner-instructor interaction.

For any questions regarding how to use the Remind app in your online courses, please make an appointment with your CTL liaison or Stacy, the ELCE scholar.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted. For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805. Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 15

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Ha, L., Joa, C. Y., Gabay, I., & Kim, K. (2018). Does college students’ social media use affect school e-mail avoidance and campus involvement? Internet Research, 28(1), 213-231.

Reinke, K. K., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. T. (2014). When email use gets out of control: Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 502-509.

Schuff, D., Turetken, O., & D’arcy, J. (2006). A multi-attribute, multi-weight clustering approach to managing email overload. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1350-1365.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Student Pulse Survey, (2017). Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/12/12/students-want-to-use-th...

Vol. 1, Issue 13, September 9, 2019

Throughout the month of September, the Byte will focus exclusively on various EduCat tools that promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction. This week, we will explore Zoom, a communication software plugin for EduCat that provides video conferencing, chat, and mobile collaboration opportunities.

Zoom technology can be used to e-meet in real time with one student or an entire class, facilitate virtual office hours, and create a platform for study groups or team project work. Zoom meetings can be recorded and shared. Once a recorded meeting has ended, Zoom will convert the footage to a file which can be accessed by the host and posted on EduCat. A designated meeting attendee can insert closed captioning subtitles during a meeting and the transcription log can be saved to a file for later retrieval.

The host can screen share or enable one or more participants in the meeting to do the same. The annotations tool enables the host, or those sharing their screens, to draw, type text, and add shapes to the document or presentation on display. The meeting organizer can also capture and save a screenshot of the annotation. In addition, the organizer can transform their desktop into a whiteboard. The whiteboard feature provides the host with the option to type, sketch, and insert lines, symbols, or shapes and do so in multiple colors.

Participants can chat with one another, publicly or privately, throughout the meeting using the chat setting. During the meeting, chat messages can be directed to one person or multiple attendees. The meeting organizer can save the chat log and refer to it later or use it to take attendance.

The host can mute all participants as well as those who join the meeting after the designated start time. The meeting organizer can assign control to the participants to mute or unmute themselves.

Lastly, a unique aspect of Zoom is that the host can create breakout sessions. Breakout groups have the same audio and video functionality as the meeting itself. The breakout sessions can be programmed to occur automatically or manually and the host can switch between sessions.

The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) has constructed a tutorial to add a Zoom learning activity to an EduCat classroom. A link to the Zoom guide is provided below.

https://www.nmu.edu/ctl/sites/Drupalctl/files/UserFiles/Documentation/Instructional_Technology/NMU_EduCat/Zoom.pdf

For any questions regarding how to install or use Zoom in your online courses, please make an appointment with your CTL liaison or Stacy, the ELCE scholar.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted. For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805. Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 14

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 12, September 2, 2019

Throughout the month of September, the Byte will focus exclusively on various EduCat tools that can be used to promote learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction. This week, we will explore VoiceThread, a web-based application that encourages student engagement and enhances the online presence of both learners and instructors. With VoiceThread, users are provided with the opportunity to create, share, and comment on videos, audio files, images, presentations, documents, and other course content using webcam, microphone, text, phone, and audio-file uploads.

VoiceThread is an external tool that seamlessly integrates into EduCat. VoiceThread can also be accessed via iOS and Android apps. Instructors can add one or many VoiceThreads to an online course. VoiceThread is a multimodal communications platform and thus, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) friendly as users have the flexibility to type, audio or video record their comments. With VoiceThread, users can leave a comment or post a message on each slide of a presentation. VoiceThread even has a doodle tool so that users can annotate their presentations. Users can have as many takes as they want and are able to redo replies and VoiceThread has closed captioning capability.

To add a VoiceThread to your online course, select “Turn editing on,” the pencil icon located on the task bar (top, right of the course) as identified below.

Educat Header

Then, locate the “Add a resource” or “Add an activity” drop down selection boxes.

Drop Down Menus

From the “Add an activity” menu, select “External tool.”

Drop Down Menus

From the “Preconfigured tool” menu, select “VoiceThread.”

Voice Thread tool addition

VoiceThread grading can also be fully integrated into EduCat. A link to the VoiceThread grading tutorial is located here: https://voicethread.com/howto/moodle/

Before using VoiceThread, create a free new user account by following these steps:

1. Go to http://voicethread.com

2. Click “Register” in the top-right corner of the page

3. Fill out and submit the short form (use your nmu.edu email account)

4. Check your email for the confirmation message and click on the verification link in the message

VoiceThread learning activity ideas include:

  • Introductions (student and faculty)
  • Syllabus review
  • Discussion forums
  • Debates
  • Peer reviews
  • Presentations (group or individual)
  • Case study responses
  • Faculty lectures or demonstrations of various course content

VoiceThread hosts a user blog full of various lesson ideas. The following is a link to the user blog: https://voicethread.com/blog-categories/lesson-ideas/

For any questions regarding how to install or use VoiceThread in your online courses, please make an appointment with your CTL liaison or Stacy, the ELCE scholar.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on the Global Campus online course requirements or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching design and delivery practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Best regards,
Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 13

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 11, August 26, 2019

The Byte will now be served each Monday as a SoTL starter to begin our week.

For the last eight weeks, the Byte focused on the Chickering & Gamson (1987) Seven Principles, high impact teaching practices adopted by the Global Campus for course delivery standards. This week, as suggested by our faculty readership, we will examine the importance of communication tone and style to strengthen online interaction.

Even though we may not be physically present in a classroom while teaching online, we can and should make ourselves accessible and interact with our students on a regular, substantive basis. Research indicates that learner-instructor interactions matter far more than any other kind (Cho & Cho, 2014; Moore, 2014). Faculty interaction with students develops a sense of community, enhances student engagement and satisfaction with online learning, improves overall student learning, and increases student retention and persistence (Estes, 2016). These interactions must have a clear purpose, encourage and support student learning, and deepen understanding.

One way to build online presence is to set expectations for communication tone and style (Kelly, 2014). The following is a series of recommendations compiled from the literature to frame course communication (Grandzol & Grandzol, 2006; Liu & Kaye, 2016; Reisetter & Boris, 2009; Sorensen & Baylen, 2009).

  • Construct a welcoming and safe virtual learning environment.
  • Express clear communication policies from the start.
  • Offer netiquette protocols for online discussion and interaction.
  • Model the tone and style of the communication you expect.
  • Get to know your students and allow them to get to know you.
  • Communicate how learning activities and materials are relevant to your students.
  • Send students positive, motivational messages. Let them know that you care about their success in the course.
  • Solicit student feedback on a regular basis.
  • Give timely, positive, meaningful, constructive feedback to your students.
  • Guide students on how to close the gap between current and expected performance.
  • Suggest ways that students can succeed in the course. Provide examples, study or reading strategies for your specific discipline and methods for thinking in it.
  • Respond swiftly to offensive communication or signs of harassment.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

All the best,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 12

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Cho, M., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 25-30.

Estes, J. S. (2016). The pivotal role of faculty in online student engagement and retention. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses (pp. 65-87). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Grandzol, J., & Grandzol, C. (2006). Best practices for online business education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1-18.

Kelly, R. (2014). Feedback strategies for online courses. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/feedback-strategie...

Liu, J. C., & Kaye, E. R. (2016). Preparing online learning readiness with learner-content interaction: Design for scaffolding self-regulated learning. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses (pp. 216-243). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Moore, J. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 69(3), 271-288.

Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2009). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning: In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 157-178). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Sorensen, C. K., & Baylen, D. M. (2009). Learning online: Adapting the seven principles of good practice to a web-based instructional environment. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 69-96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 10, August 14, 2019

This week, we have reached the end of our summer long tour of the seven principles in undergraduate education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments: respects diverse talents and ways of learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

What does the statement “respects diverse talents and ways of learning” mean as far as our pedagogic practice online or otherwise? While the concept of VARK (visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic) learning styles is widely debated in the literature with little empirical evidence to support the theory, we should, at least, recognize that students do have learning preferences (Fleming & Mills, 1992). Our students are diverse and bring with them unique experiences, ideas, thoughts, and perceptions. For instance, some students may have a penchant for theoretical or abstract work but struggle in an applied setting.

Based on cognitive neuroscience, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a conceptual framework that promotes the use of flexible learning environments to accommodate individual learning preferences (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL seeks to break down the barrier of the rigid one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and learning.

UDL is based on three main principles:

1. Multiple Means of Representation (MMR): The WHAT of learning Offer information and learning content in more than one format. For example, instead of presenting information in a text-based format only, incorporate audio and video recordings.

2. Multiple Means of Action and Expression (MMAE): The HOW of learning Differentiate assessments and provide students with a choice to demonstrate their achievement of learning. For instance, students may choose between an exam, apresentation, and a group project to assess the same student learning objectives.

3. Multiple Means of Engagement (MME): The WHY of learning Motivate students with engaging learning activities. Meaningful learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions promote engagement. Active learning involves engaging learners by “doing” something, such as discovering, processing, or applying concepts and information. Active learning entails guiding learners to increasing levels of responsibility for their own learning (QM 5.2). Activities for learner-instructor interaction might include an assignment or project submitted for instructor feedback; learner-instructor discussion in a synchronous session or an asynchronous discussion board exchange; or a frequently-asked-questions (FAQ) discussion forum moderated by the instructor. Activities for learner-learner interaction might include assigned collaborative activities such as group discussions; small group projects; group problem-solving assignments; or peer critiques.

UDL in higher learning has been evidenced to promote learner performance, engagement, social presence, satisfaction, and learning flexibility (Davies, Schelly, & Spooner, 2012; Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2015; He, 2014; Kumar & Wideman, 2014). To support diverse learners, learning activities should be designed to provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate progress and mastery. Rather than having an online course dominated by discussion forums, consider the inclusion of a mix of other interactive activities such as reflective journals, group projects, portfolios, written papers, presentations, multimedia projects, interviews, debates, role playing, to name a few (QM 3.4).

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around “what not to do” in the online teaching space.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

All the best,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 11

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2012). Measuring the effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220.

Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, Rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137-155.

Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic reader. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 72–83.

He, Y. (2014). Universal Design for Learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners ’ confidence to teach online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–298.

Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 9, August 7, 2019

A delectable appetizer will start off this week’s BYTE, and then we will ease into the main course of SoTL. Let’s briefly revisit last week’s topic, emphasizes time on task, and one of the teaching recommendations that was previously sautéed: to communicate with students the length of time each learning activity should take to complete, on average. Professor Gary Stark, NMU Teaching and Learning Scholar emeritus and an avid reader of the BYTE, applauded this practice and offered a productivity tool from Rice University that can be used to estimate time on task for various learning activities. A link to the calculator, entitled the Course Workload Estimator, is housed at the following website: https://cte.rice.edu/workload?cid=nwsltrtn. Thanks, Gary, for your contribution to the BYTE and NMU, please keep those pedagogic pearls of wisdom coming!

Now, for this week’s chef d’oeuvre, the sixth of the seven principles in undergraduate education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments: communicates high expectations (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

This week’s BYTE continues with a spoonful of psychology to contemplate from Rosenthal and Babad (1985) that “when we expect certain behaviors of others, we are likely to act in ways that make the expected behavior more likely to occur.” The Pygmalion effect, also known as the Rosenthal effect, Hawthorne effect, expectancy effect, and the self-fulfilling prophecy refers to the tendency that we shape our own personal value and competence through the perceptions of others (Merton, 1948; Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1968).

In the seminal research conducted in an educational setting, an intelligence pre-test (the Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition) was administered to elementary school students. The researchers provided the teachers with the names of the students who exhibited “unusual potential for intellectual growth” (Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1968). The teachers were not made aware that the students with presumed atypical aptitudes had no connection with the pre-test and were randomly selected. Eight months later, Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) retested the students, including those from the test group, and found that the students experimentally categorized as having a remarkable propensity for academic development scored significantly higher than other students. The authors claimed that student scores from the “gifted” group radically improved because teachers spent more time with those that they believed had the highest hopes. Teachers were thought to have devoted more energy to the students perceived to be top achievers by way of providing more interaction and feedback.

The implications of this research are profound and highly relevant to our practice of teaching. For one, establishing what the expectations are is imperative so that students have a distinct understanding of and precise trajectory to academic success. Perhaps, even more importantly, is how we communicate expectations to our students as “positive expectations influence performance positively” and “negative expectations influence performance negatively” (Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1968). Of course, the research conclusions and repercussions reach far beyond faculty and student interactions but to include those between peers or colleagues, employer to employee relationships, organizational leadership, etc., but I am beginning to transition the scope of this week’s newsletter beyond the original intent. Therefore, the next segment will demonstrate actionable methods of communicating high expectations in our classrooms through the scholarly lens of the Rosenthal effect: expect more to get more.

Communicating High Expectations

  • Clearly, encouragingly, and regularly communicate faculty expectations of students. Consider the use of announcements, discussion forums, VoiceThread recordings, or a learning activity to express them. Remember, classroom expectations should stretch well beyond grading.
  • Foster an inclusive climate of high expectations and reinforce them throughout the course.
  • Post expectations in the course syllabus and/or in an area of the course room devoted to expectations.
  • Create a faculty expectations contract. Ask students to acknowledge their understanding of the requirements. A discussion forum or a quiz can be used to document student agreement of faculty expectations.
  • Model the expectations that you expect from your students.
  • Give all students realistic but supportive feedback. Learner-instructor and learner-learner interactions can provide opportunities to bridge the gap between performance and expectations or inspire students to advance beyond them.
  • Provide student exemplars. Seeing an example of a job well done that exceeds expectations can raise the tide and lift all boats.
  • Reward correct answers or redirect those that may be off base in a discussion forum with follow-up questions that extend knowledge, and expectations, even further.
  • Avoid forecasting failure in the classroom. Instead, prepare students for a difficult exam or assignment and encourage their success.

The Pygmalion effect is the professor’s proverbial magic wand. Setting high expectations leads to improved student self-concept and academic performance. Understanding how to wield this powerful praxis, the teacher expectancy effect (TEE), can lead our students to superior achievement (Szumski & Karwowski, 2019). Beware of the Golem effect whereby setting low expectations can drive poor performance (Babad, Inbar, & Rosenthal, 1982).

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around the last of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to Stacy, the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

To end this week’s BYTE, I leave you with an anonymous quote, “the best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don’t tell you what to see.”

All the best,

Stacy
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholar

Read Vol. 1, Issue 10

REFERENCES

Babad, E. Y., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: Investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 459-474.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193-210.

Rosenthal, R., & Babad, E. Y. (1985). Pygmalion in the gymnasium. Educational Leadership, 43(1), 36-39.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobsen, L. (1968). Pygamalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2019). Exploring the Pygmalion effect: The role of teacher expectations, academic self-concept, and class contexts in students’ math achievements. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 8, August 1, 2019

This week’s BYTE continues our study of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise. 

  1. Encourages contact between students and faculty
  2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students
  3. Encourages active learning
  4. Gives prompt feedback
  5. Emphasizes time on task
  6. Communicates high expectations
  7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Our focus this week is on the fifth of the seven HITP: emphasizes time on task. 

In e-learning, time management can be challenging for students.  Often, students have the perception that an online course may require less time and not be as rigorous as one delivered in a traditional classroom.

To reframe student thinking, consider the following techniques:

  • Communicate in the syllabus and/or the course room how much time students should expect to devote to the class each week.  The general rule of thumb for undergraduate courses delivered during a traditional academic term is that one credit hour equals 2-3 hours of studying outside of class.  Therefore, a 4-credit hour course would require an investment of approximately 8-12 hours per week.
  • Provide students with the length of time each learning activity should take to complete, on average.  Establishing activity completion benchmarks may help students to avoid procrastination.  
  • Encourage students to create a personalized course schedule, based on their life and time commitments.
  • Promote the use of a weekly checklist to stay organized.
  • To help students stay on track, consider the use of the EduCat course calendar or a stand-alone course schedule document to outline when learning activities are due.
  • Adopt the EduCat Activity Completion tool to enable students with the ability to mark a learning activity as completed and track their progress.

To enable Activity Completion in EduCat for all learning activities, select “Edit Settings” in the course room (the gear icon identified below).

Educat Header

 

Then, select “Completion Tracking.”

Completion Tracking

To “Enable completion tracking”, select “Yes.” 

This setting will activate completion tracking for the entire course.  Students will be able to tick the box that appears to the right of the learning activities in the course room.

Reading Assignments 

(Example of a learning activity with an Activity Completion check box)
 

Additional Activity Completion tracking details can be set at the activity level as per below.

Activity Completion 

Other conditional settings such as requiring students to view the activity before they tick the box or that students receive a grade to complete an activity are available.  Expected ‘complete by’ dates can be enabled. 

For more information on the Activity Completion functionality of EduCat or the use of the course calendar, please contact your CTL liaison for assistance.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).  The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor.  Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2).  For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around HITP six of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: communicates high expectations.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK.  Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. 

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 9

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 7, July 24, 2019

This week’s BYTE continues our study of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise.

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Our focus this week is on the fourth of the seven HITP: gives prompt feedback.

Feedback is quintessential to the student learning process. A number of studies have been conducted relative to feedback, the results of which indicated that meaningful and prompt feedback can significantly improve student learning (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Optiz, Ferdinand, & Mecklinger, 2011). High-quality feedback should inform students how to bridge the gap between their performance and learning objectives. Good feedback should be encouraging, balanced, and delivered in a continuous and timely manner (Bailey & Garner, 2012; Lizzio & Wilson, 2008).

What is considered “timely” feedback according to the literature, the subject of this week’s BYTE? At a minimum, feedback should be presented for an activity before the next one is due (Crisp, 2007). However, feedback turnaround time is most effective when rendered immediately or soon thereafter. When feedback is not timely, students can easily become demotivated, disengaged, and dissatisfied. Delayed feedback or the absence thereof can inhibit the ability for students to connect their proficiency and achievement relative to learning expectations and thwart continuous improvement opportunities throughout a course.

A Guide to Delivering (Timely) Feedback

  • Communicate a feedback policy in the course syllabus.
  • Use grading rubrics to clearly define expectations.
  • Align feedback with learning objectives.
  • Consider the use of tools like VoiceThread to provide audio and/or video feedback.
  • Provide feedback that is specific, constructive, personalized, and actionable.
  • Prioritize feedback to focus on areas that will have the greatest impact on learning.
  • Connect feedback to lived experiences for deeper meaning.
  • Remember, that feedback does not need to involve a letter grade.
  • Avoid the use of pens with red ink or red text as the color can invoke a negative student response (Dukes & Albensi, 2013). Instead, consider using pens or text with blue, green, or other neutral colors (Kaya & Epps, 2004).
  • Incorporate activities that enable peer feedback such as critiques and discussion forums.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted. Feedback can serve as a facilitator of learner-instructor and learner-learner interactions.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around HITP four of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: emphasizes time on task.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. Another potential topic contributed by the BYTE readership is the incorporation of the critical social justice framework in online teaching pedagogy (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). Thank you and please keep those ideas coming.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 8

REFERENCES

Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2012). Is feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 187-198.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571-581.

Dukes, R. L., & Albanesi, H. (2012). Seeing red: Quality of an essay, color of the grading pen, and student reactions to the grading process. The Social Science Journal, 50(1), 96-100.

Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Kaya, N., & Epps, H. (2004). Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college students. College Student Journal, 38, 396-405.

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perception of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.

Opitz, B., Ferdinand, N. K., & Mecklinger, A. (2011). Timing matters: The impact of immediate and delayed feedback on artificial language learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5.

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vol. 1, Issue 6, July 17, 2019

This week’s BYTE continues our study of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise.

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Our focus this week is on the third of the seven HITP: encourages active learning.

What is Active Learning?

Active learning refers to a wide range of teaching strategies that promote student participation in the learning process. Rooted in constructivist epistemology, active learning provides opportunities for students to engage with the course content in meaningful ways as opposed to passively studying the information (Fink, 2005; Jonassen, 2001; Lowman, 1984; Prince, 2004; Savery, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Interaction serves to facilitate active learning. In specific, three types of interaction must be present in a course in order for students to actively learn (QM 5.2). These types of interactions are: learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content. Activities for learner-instructor interaction may include an assignment submitted for instructor feedback, discussion forums, or a frequently-asked discussion forum moderated by the instructor. Activities for learner-learner interaction may include group discussions, small-group projects, group problem-solving assignments, or peer critiques. Finally, learner-content interaction includes assigned readings from an article, textbook, or other source, completion of a problem, case study, or a project.

Why Use Active Learning Teaching Practices?

Students learn more when they actively participate in the process of learning (Shah et al., 2013). Neurologically speaking, active learning triggers the brain to activate both sensory and cognitive networks which aid in the processing and storage of new information (Willis, 2011). Students are able to learn more when multiple neural pathways are stimulated. Additional benefits of active learning teaching practices identified in the SoTL literature include improved

student motivation, satisfaction, retention, critical thinking skills, course grades, and course learning outcomes (Michel, Cater, & Varela, 2009; Owens, Sadler, Barlow, & Smith-Walters, 2017; Wingfield & Black, 2005). Conversely, students in non-active learning courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students enrolled in active learning courses (Freeman et al., 2014).

Examples of Active Learning Teaching Practices

  • Learner responses (audio, video, text, text marking, drawing) to instructor lectures or
  • learner-presentations in VoiceThread.
  • Encouraging learners to inquire, share connections, and ask questions that are explored
  • in small-groups or whole-class forums or VT discussions.
  • Inviting students to share what they know, self-assess their background knowledge,
  • and/or to set learning goals through activities like course entrance tickets, surveys,
  • module feedback surveys, or course exit-tickets
  • Encouraging learners' self-assessment, reflection, and progress-monitoring
  • Designing the course to include opportunities for learners to use/apply course concepts
  • and/or skills to situations, to events or contexts outside of the course, or to their personal
  • learning goals.
  • Providing choices for readings or for ways for students to demonstrate their
  • understanding of course concepts.
  • Role playing, jigsaw discussions, experiential learning (site visits), brainstorming, games
  • or simulations.

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer- reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner- content interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content interaction because correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around HITP four of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: gives prompt feedback.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas. Recently, a faculty member contributed an article regarding “what not to do” as teacher in the online learning environment, a focus of a future issue. Thank you and please keep those ideas coming.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 7

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Fink, D. (2005). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Lowman, J. (1984). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Michel, N., Cater, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397-418.

Owens, D., Sadler, T., Barlow, A., & Smith-Walters, C. (2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 1-25.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of English Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.

Shah, C., Erhard, K., Ortheil, H. J., Kaza, E., Kessler, C., & Lotze, M. (2013). Neural correlates of creative writing: An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 34(5), 1088-1101.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the Development of Children, (pp. 29-36), New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Willis, J. (2011). Writing and the brain: Neuroscience shows the pathways to learning. National Writing Project, 3.

Wingfield, S. S., & Black, G. S. (2005). Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 81(2), 119-123.

Vol. 1, Issue 5, July 10, 2019

This week’s BYTE continues our study of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise.

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Our focus this week is on the second of the seven HITP: develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.

Collaborative Learning Theory

An effective means by which learners can build knowledge and develop skills online or otherwise is through socially-constructed interactions and collaborations (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Piaget, 1952; So & Brush, 2008; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Parente, & Bjorklund, 2001). The broadest explanation of online collaborative learning theory (OCL) is a model of learning whereby two or more students are encouraged to work together to learn or endeavor to learn through exploration, innovation, problem-solving, and active learning, informed by and grounded in the content of the discipline and the expertise of the instructor (Harasim, 2012; Lohmann, Pratt, Benckendorff, Strickland, Reynolds, & Whitelaw, 2019).

Results of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)

Research has indicated that both under and over-achieving students in a collaborative learning environment outpace their peers in individual learning environments (Ocker & Yaverbaum, 2001). In addition, student learning outcomes in collaborative online courses have been observed to be superior to those in which students learned on their own (Arbaugh & Benbunan-Finch, 2006; LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2004; Zhu, 2012). Moreover, collaborative learning can result in greater learning satisfaction (Chaparro-Pelaez, Iglesias-Pradas, Pascual-Miguel, & Hernandez-Garcia, 2013).

Examples of Online Collaborative Learning (OCL)

Some examples of online practices that encourage reciprocity and cooperation among students include:

  • Building course community through learner introductions using VoiceThread or discussion forums, especially when faculty prompt students to respond to peer introductions, share their learning goals or other course-related experiences
  • Collective brainstorming on a problem or project using discussion forums, VoiceThread, or Google docs
  • The joint construction of some learning artifact (assignment, case study, rubrics)
  • The use of team-based learning (TBL) simulations, inquiries, or debates
  • Faculty support of the development of collaborative learning skills
  • The use of student-led small group discussion leaders who initiate discussion around an instructor-identified topic, and respond to peers, or offer resources to their group
  • Designing discussions or other activities for meaningful, intentional learning in communities

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-learner interaction, in addition to learner-instructor and learner-content, because correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around HITP three of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: encourages active learning.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 6

REFERENCES

Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 435-447.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Chaparro-Pelaez, J., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Pascual-Miguel, F. J., & Hernandez-Garcia, A. (2013). Factors affecting perceived learning of engineering students in problem based learning supported by business simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 244-262.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college. What evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26-35.

LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106.

Lohmann, G., Pratt, M., Benckendorff, P., Strickland, P., Reynolds, P., & Whitelaw, P. A. (2019). Online business simulations: Authentic teamwork, learning outcomes, and satisfaction. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 77(3), 455-472.

Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427-448.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence, and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123-130.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136.

Vol. 1, Issue 4, July 3, 2019

This week’s BYTE continues our study of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, the widely-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise.

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Our focus this week is on the first of the seven HITP: encourages contact between students and faculty. Frequent, meaningful interactions among students and faculty in online courses are directly related to and strongly correlated with increased student motivation, engagement, satisfaction, retention, persistence, and overall success (Dixson, 2012; Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005; Soffer & Nachmias, 2018; Toven-Lindsey, Rhoads, & Lozano, 2015). In contrast, the absence of student-faculty connection in virtual learning can induce student isolation, low engagement, and dissatisfaction, resulting in inadequate academic performance and attrition (Soffer & Cohen, 2019; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004). In general, drop-out rates in face-to-face courses across the country are approximately 10–20% but can climb to 25- 40% or more in online courses (Cohen, 2017). Increasing interaction is critical not only to cultivate the online student learning experience but also to close the gap between synchronous and asynchronous course withdrawal rates.

Some examples of online practices that encourage contact between students and faculty include:

  • A VoiceThread faculty and student introduction forum
  • Virtual office hours using Zoom or some other technology
  • Personalized welcome letters
  • Posting regular course announcements
  • Periodic student check-ins with faculty
  • Reaching out to students who are struggling
  • Mentoring individual learners
  • Participating in online discussion forums
  • Providing substantive, personalized feedback
  • Responding to emails, questions, and discussions promptly, ideally within 24 hours
  • Incorporating an instructor-facilitated Q&A forum into an online course
  • Inclusion of multiple methods for students to interact with the instructor

The Global Campus has adopted the Seven Principles to serve as the framework for online course delivery standards (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Quality Matters (QM®) peer-reviewed quality assurance program has been adopted to evaluate course design rigor. Both methodologies align with and parallel the call for learner-instructor interactions to promote active learning engagement (QM 5.2). For HLC accreditation purposes, all online courses must include learner-instructor (and learner-learner and learner-content) interaction as correspondence courses are not permitted.

Stay tuned as next week’s issue will center around HITP two of the Chickering and Gamson (1987) Seven Principles: develops reciprocity and cooperation among students.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 5

REFERENCES

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Cohen, A. (2017). Analysis of student activity in web‐supported courses as a tool for predicting dropout. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1285– 1304.

Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1– 13.

Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 531– 563.

Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2019). Students’ engagement characteristics predict success and completion of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 378-389.

Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2018). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34, 534– 543.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59– 70.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Toven‐Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1– 12.

Vol. 1, Issue 3, June 26, 2019

 

This week’s BYTE is the first of an eight-part series related to well-recognized high impact teaching practices (HITPs) that are applicable to all learning environments, synchronous or otherwise. This issue (Issue 3) will provide an overview of these effective pedagogic methods while the next seven issues (Issues 4 through 10) will focus specifically on each practice through both theoretical and practical lenses. Recommendations will be offered for classroom implementation. Bon appétit!

It has been well over 30 years since Chickering and Gamson (1987) published Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Yet, this course delivery framework continues to stand not only the test of time but also the technological transformations to our educational landscape and learning spaces. Their research amassed over 50 years of higher education literature to model a framework of ‘good practices’ which:

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

3. Encourages active learning

4. Gives prompt feedback

5. Emphasizes time on task

6. Communicates high expectations

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Next week’s issue will begin our study of these practices and specifically, the first: encourage contact between students and faculty.

For more information on any of these instructional strategies or the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about high impact teaching practices in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 4

REFERENCE

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Vol. 1, Issue 2, June 19, 2019

Last week, we did not BYTE off nearly what we are able to chew. Therefore, this week’s BYTE-sized morsels provide even more appetizing examples of learning activities designed to promote learner-learner interaction in an online (or face-to-face) course (Angelo & Cross, 1993; McGlynn, 2001; Morrison-Shetlar & Marwitz, 2001; Silberman, 1996; Smyth, 2011; VanGundy, 2005; Watkins, 2005; Yee, 2019). These activities were showcased at the Upper Peninsula Teaching and Learning Conference (UPTLC) last month (Hamlin & Kemppainen, 2019). Please consider attending the UPTLC in May 2020 at Lake Superior State. More information regarding the UPTLC conference will be distributed by the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) later this year.

Pass the problem: Divide students into teams. Give the first team a problem (or case) and ask them to identify and document the first step in solving the problem or analyzing the case. Pass the problem on to the next team and have them identify the next step. Continue until all groups have contributed.

Role playing: Assign roles for a concept, students research their parts, and then they act it out. Student observers critique and ask questions.

Jury trial: Separate the class into various roles (including witnesses, jury, judge, lawyers, defendant, prosecution, and audience) to deliberate on a controversial subject.

Polar opposites: Ask the class in small groups to examine two written-out versions of a theory or concept, where one is incorrect, such as the opposite or a negation of the other. In deciding which is correct, student groups will have to examine the problem from all angles.

Haiku: Students write a haiku (a three-line poem: 5-syllables, then 7, then 5) on a given topic or concept, and then share it with the class. The class can either respond to the haiku or write a new haiku based on another student poem.

Pick the winner: Divide the class into groups and have all groups work on the same problem and record or document an answer or strategy. Then, ask groups to switch with another group and evaluate their answer. Allow each set of groups to merge and ask them to select the better answer from the two choices, which will be presented to the group as a whole.

VoiceThread recordings or discussion forums may be utilized to administer these interactive learning activities.

For more information on any of the interactive learner-learner techniques including the SoTL related to them, and/or to curate a conversation about learner-learner interaction in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 3

REFERENCES

Angelo, T., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques, (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hamlin, AJ, & Kempppainen, A. (2019, May). Supplemental instruction activities for your classrooms. Presentation at the 3rd annual meeting of the Upper Peninsula Teaching and Learning Conference, Houghton, MI.

McGlynn, A. (2001). Successful beginnings for college teaching. Madison, WI: Atwood.

Morrison-Shetlar, A., & Marwitz, M. (2001). Teaching creatively: Ideas in action. Eden Prairie, MN: Outernet.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Smyth, R. (2011). Enhancing learner-learner interaction using video communications in higher education: Implications from theorising about a new model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 113-127.

VanGundy, A. (2005). 101 activities for teaching creativity and problem solving. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Watkins, R. (2005). 75 e-learning activities: Making online learning interactive. San Francisco, CA:

Pfeiffer. Yee, K. (2019). Interactive techniques. Retrieved from https://www.usf.edu/atle/documents/handout-interactive-techniques.pdf

Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 12, 2019

Learning activities that promote social presence in asynchronous courses enhance student engagement, commitment, learning, and as a result, completion (Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, & Stevens, 2012; Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Uijl, Filius, & Cate, 2017). Social presence has been described as the degree to which students feel connected in a learning environment (Bickle & Rucker 2018; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010). Social presence can be facilitated through three types of interaction: learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content (QM 5.2).

  • Activities to promote learner-learner interaction in a virtual course might include assigned collaborative activities such as group discussions, team projects or group problem-solving assignments, or peer critiques.
  • Examples of learner-instructor interaction may consist of regular faculty feedback, a frequently asked questions (FAQ) discussion forum moderated by the instructor, and VoiceThread, Camtasia, or Studio 101 lectures.
  • Learner-content interaction examples include, but are not limited to, readings, assignments, and online exercises such as H5P or hot potatoes.

For more information on any of the abridged research provided above and/or to curate a conversation about fostering social presence and interaction in your online courses, please reach out to the Extended Learning and Community Engagement Scholars (Stacy, Christi, or Liz) via email onlreview@nmu.edu or telephone (906) 227-1805.

Faculty are encouraged to contribute topics of interest to the ONLINE BYTE OF THE WEEK. Please email Stacy directly at sboyerda@nmu.edu with your ideas.

Stacy, Christi, and Liz
Extended Learning and Community Engagement (ELCE) Scholars

Read Vol. 1, Issue 2

 

REFERENCES

 

Bickle, M. C., & Rucker, R. (2018). Student-to-student interaction: Humanizing the online classroom using technology and group assignments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 19(1), 1-11.

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118-126. doi:10.1016/ j.iheduc.201UT006.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.

Standards from the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric, 6th Edition. Quality Matters. Retrievedfrom https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Standardsfromthe...

Uijl, S., Filius, R., & Olle, T. (2017). Student interaction in small private online courses. Medical Science Education, 27, 237-242.