Instructional Technology Presentation

Brian Daigle and I presented to almost 60 brand new LA’s, TA’s and IST faculty last night. We jointly presented on Canvas and various instructional technologies in two separate presentations. I also gave a presentation on the World Campus Undergraduate Student Population for those in the audience who are new to working with adult learners.

Previously, Amy Garbrick, our director, has been coordinating our office’s participation for these events. I was asked earlier this year to coordinate the IDs supporting this event. There are four of us and we’ve decided to split up and take different semesters. Brian and I covered this FA17 semester with Chris Gamrat providing backup if one of us got sick or was otherwise unable to present. Chris and Ronda Reid will cover the SP18 session and I’ll provide backup. After that it’s Brian and I again, but Ronda will be backup and then Chris and Ronda will present and Brian will provide backup. Then we’ll repeat the pattern.

I had some reflections on the presentation last night that I wanted to make sure I capture for the next time around. These thoughts are not necessarily listed in any particular order.

I will start off with saying that we should use our own devices for a couple of reasons. The first is familiarity. I’m good with Windows 10, but I do not use it every day. Under pressure, these podium machines threw me for a loop a few times. That’s the last thing I want to have to deal with during a presentation. The second reason is that we only have five minutes between sessions and it’s much better to have everything primed and ready to go so that we can do the presentation without wasting valuable time logging in to a new podium computer.

I’d like to see more coordination during the joint presentations if we continue to go that route. I’m not sure we’ll need to next time, but I did want to document this idea. Brian did a fantastic job, but I know we can do better next time as a team if we more clearly workout who’s covering what slides and how the other person can assist. I think we should seriously consider scripting presenter notes for each slide. I’m not suggesting that we read from them or memorize them, but having them in place will inherently lead to a more consistent and smoother presentation. We ask our faculty to do it and I should practice what I preach. Related to the recommendation above about using our own devices, it would be very important that both presenters are absolutely familiar with how all of the resources will be available on the computer being used before any joint presentations. If we decide to do more joint presentations, then I think I’ll recommend that we do a full “dress rehearsal” before the next presentation.

With regards to the presentations themselves, it’s time to have our graphic designers redesign the theme that we’re using. The aspect ratio of the background images are not scaled for 16:9 formats and the typography and other design elements need attention. I would also highly recommend that we move the presentations to Google so that we can collaboratively edit and comment on the work before and after the presentation. It’ll also make it easier to access during and after the presentation by the audience. Some slides are packed with text and we should definitely split that content up to make it more digestible. In general, I think we need to reconsider what we’re covering. There feels like there is too much content or we need to sharpen our focus.

We should consider handouts of the most salient aspects of our presentation. That way the audience has the links and email addresses they need. They can also use it to take additional notes if needed. Lisa mentioned that Amy created a sandbox space where all of the participants were added to that space so that they could actively do things during the presentation. We did create sandbox spaces, but used them for demonstration purposes only. We decided against adding people to our sandbox space partly for logistical reasons, but having gone through that now, I would recommend that we do add participants to the sandboxes and buildout the space to be more robust and follow the flow of the presentations more closely. It could be a mini-course that reflects our content. I think we could use one of the new Canvas Prides for this purpose.

I think we should consider a simple paper-based feedback form that people can fill out in a couple of minutes. It would help us to know what needs they have so that we can keep improving our presentations.

I always try to be as critical and honest with self-assessments as I can be. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. I have been told that I can be brutal at times, but since this is about my performance, I see no reason to sugar coat things. Having said that, I was very happy to present with Brian. He is an excellent match for our office and last night was just more evidence that he does awesome work here. He was receptive, cool under pressure, and presented very well in front of a new audience.

Canvas Course Restore Testing

BLUF

Everything looks as I would expect it except for the communications-aspect of the 3/12/16 version of the course (see below). Otherwise, the process to restore a course seems accurate from the instructor’s perspective.

Overall, I think this would be a very useful option in a limited number of use cases. It seems like a course restore would be a considerable effort that would require a significant situation to warrant such effort. I’m not sure I can imagine what a situation would be at this time. I would hope that good instructor practices and general practices around data security would severely limit the number of situations this would ever be needed, but I have seen some extraordinary cases in my relatively short time here at Penn State.

Background

On 6/30/17, I received a message from Brian Young that my SP16 section of IST 111S was restored to the previous date of 3/12/16.

This is an account of what differences I am seeing on my end, if any. I have broken my observations into three categories: content, assessment, and communication. Each category may have subcategories as well.

Logging in

I have to do the following to log in. The process does not work in Chrome for some reason. I get a “Page Error” warning in Chrome.

  1. Launch Firefox
  2. Use the following URL – https://psu-restore-tc.instructure.com/login/canvas
  3. Use the following username – kkm11@psu.edu
  4. Use the password that Brian Young sent me 7/3/17 @ 16:40

Communication – partial fail?

Announcements – success?

The announcement I have checked all look good in the 3/12/16 version of the course, just as I would expect it. The comments, links, and media all seem to be fine.

Older announcements did not load, but that’s probably because it’s on a different instance of Canvas. I just keep seeing the “Loading more results” message. The last announcement I could see was from 2/1/16.

UPDATE 8/4/17 15:00 – I was able to access earlier announcements today. I only had to wait a second or so before the list refreshed.

Conversations – unconfirmed, problematic

Nothing showed up when I went into the Inbox when I selected the class from the list of options. I checked each folder, but nothing was restored.

There is a bug in Canvas that exists in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari that disallows me from viewing a large number of courses or searching for specific courses from the Inbox. I was not able to confirm or view emails from my current, final version of the course compared to what I should be seeing in the 3/12/16 version of the course.

Discussions – success

The discussions looked as I would expect them to at the time of the restore. While this is not my favorite tool in Canvas, all of the content looks like it should.

Content – success

Referring back to the course changelog, I found the three entries that I needed to check in the restored version of the course. I would expect that none of these comments and subsequent changes, if any, would appear in the restored version of the course given that they were made after the restore date cut-off of 3/12/16.

The changelog itself is not surprisingly exactly as I would expect it would be if I were looking at it 3/12/16.

Interestingly, all of the icons and other styling are “older” – thought I cannot tell if they are accurate and representative of the restore date or just the CSS used on this special instance of Canvas spun up to hold the restored version of the course.

Assessment – success

Assignments

I’ve checked the assignments and they look as I would expect them – unchanged between both versions of the course.

Rubrics

On 4/4/16, I had a an entry in the changelog about an edit I had to make to the rubric for L06: Implications of Technology. Indeed the 3/12/16 version of the course does not have the updated rubric – an excellent indicator of a change that was made after the recovery date that should not appear in the recovered version.

Quizzes

This course does not contain quizzes in the traditional sense. There are two quizzes: an academic integrity quiz and an unpublished student questionnaire (formatted as a quiz). There are also a couple of surveys.

All of them were due before 3/12/16 and do look the same in both versions of the course as expected.

Minor note, SpeedGrader between both versions have different defaults, so I was presented with different initial information, but when I changed the settings, the 3/12/16 version of the course displayed all the information as expected.

The newer course showed a grayed-out name in the SpeedGrader that didn’t appear in the 3/12/16 version of the course. It is not a name I recognize. I assume it was a student that dropped the course early on.

Grades

One minor difference I noticed is that some students do not have an image/avatar next to their name in the 3/12/16 version of the course when there is one in the final version of the course. I cannot tell if the students added their pictures after the restore date however.

Spot checking the grades, all of the numbers look as I would expect it to in the 3/12/16 version of the course.

Closing

Having done some comparison between the 3/12/16 version of the course and the final state, I have some questions about this process. In no particular order:

  • Is this going to be an option for all faculty moving ahead?
  • What constraints will there be if this is offered as an option? How will faculty make requests? How long will a request take? Will there be a limit to these requests?
  • What is the impact of seeing an older version of the course that features “outdated” CSS or other functionality differences between a previous state of Canvas and a current one given the number of updates that Canvas applies in a given year?
  • What roles and considerations does the College Administration have in the procedure of making a restore request? Department heads? Designers? Other support staff?
  • Would a restored version of the course exist separately or could it replace an existing version of the course? What impact would a “forking” of a course have? Are students seeing both versions of the course? Probably not since I needed a separate log-in.
  • It wasn’t clear, but it looked like all of the assets are cloned, is that true? If so, are there storage limitations?
  • Can content be exported from one version to another?

Learning Design Summer Camp Breakout Session: Nearpod

An interesting take on interactive presentations that appear to be best suited for resident use. There are affordances for online delivery and faculty-learning design office support models. Unfortunately, the feature set really depends upon a paid license.

  • Website or app available
  • Allows for sharing presentations, even if the instructor doesn’t want to control the presentation
  • Lessons can be packaged and self-paced for online use
  • You can give students a code to enter the lesson, it is a way to track participation
  • You can use PowerPoint to build your presentations
  • Keeps metrics on if people drop out
  • Features Polleverywhere-like polling
  • Is there a way to keep notes within Nearpod?
  • There is a free and paid version available – actually there are four levels; Gold is limited to 50 students, Institutional levels allow for large 100+ students
  • There is a collaboration board feature as well – other features: quiz, draw it, FITB, memory test
  • How would we support Nearpods in our WC Online Delivery Course format; Cheryl doesn’t know, it’s not clear if a designer can create a Nearpod and share it with an instructor for use in their live course section

In-line CSS and Left and Right-alignment on a single line of text

In a few lesson pages in SRA 111, we have two different topics on the same page. The content appears sequentially on the page. I needed a solution to let visitors know that below the first chunk of content, there was indeed a second chunk of content.

I found information on two websites that have helped me with a possible solution:

With this information, I was able to code the following…

<h2 style=”text-align: left;”>[Title of Content Chunk 1] <span style=”float: right;”><a href=”#chunk2″>[Title of Content Chunk 2]</a></span></h2>

<hr />
<h2><a id=”chunk2″></a>[Title of Content Chunk 2]</h2>

The top of the page looks like this…

screen-shot-2016-12-12-at-10-29-22-pm

And the link takes the user down to where the <id> tag is…

screenshot of second chunk of content

While not an entirely standard way of formatting text in our lessons, I’m going to try this out and see how it works for now. It’s better than not doing anything!

A Leaner Meaner Syllabus

Different courses have different syllabus formats in our online undergrad IST program. Ravi and I have been talking about standardizing and streamlining that format since I’m working on the other online undergrad degree: SRA for 2013.Here are the following sections…

Different courses have different syllabus formats in our online undergrad IST program. Ravi and I have been talking about standardizing and streamlining that format since I’m working on the other online undergrad degree: SRA for 2013.

Here are the following sections in IST 110 (Section 002)

  1. Course title and information
  2. Instructor Contact Information
  3. Instructor Bio
  4. Course Description
  5. Course Goals and Objectives
  6. Materials
  7. MSDNAA & Labs
  8. Library Resources
  9. Technical Requirements
  10. Class and Course Policies
  11. Academic Integrity
  12. Accommodating Disabilities
  13. Additional Policies
  14. Email Policy
  15. Disclaimer
  16. Grading Scale and Information
  17. Course Schedule

We were considering the following changes

  1. Course title and information – no change
  2. Instructor Contact Information – undecided
  3. Instructor Bio – undecided
  4. Course Description, Goals and Objectives – consolidated
  5. Resources – new
    1. Materials – no change
    2. MSDNAA & Labs – undecided
    3. Library Resources – link to WC page
    4. Technical Requirements – link to WC page
  6. Class and Course Policies – does it have to be “Class and Course”?, undecided
    1. Academic Integrity – link to WC page
    2. Accommodating Disabilities – link to WC page
    3. Additional Policies – undecided
  7. Email Policy – undecided, move to instructor-related section?
  8. Disclaimer – undecided
  9. Grading Scale and Information – undecided, potentially move
  10. Course Schedule – link to a page in ANGEL

This process should significantly reduce the size of and clutter of the syllabus.

Instructional Ideas and Technology Tools for Online Success, Week 1

Reflections on Week 1 reading: “We’ll Leave the Light on for You: Keeping Learners Motivated in Online Courses”This article focuses on key strategies motivating student in an online learning environment. Elements of this article tie to discussions that we had…

Reflections on Week 1 reading: “We’ll Leave the Light on for You: Keeping Learners Motivated in Online Courses”

This article focuses on key strategies motivating student in an online learning environment. Elements of this article tie to discussions that we had in our last LD Community meeting. Jeff Swain was emphasizing the importance of being able to articulate our approach as designers. He shared an anecdote about walking away from a painting that he really liked because the artist couldn’t articulate the intentionality of their artwork. It’s a great point. If we cannot share what we hoped to express through our work, then what difference is that then a really lucky monkey pounding away at a keyboard?

How would I hope to express my work to faculty as we being to sit down on a new project? I think that would be a combination of my stated approach, an honest survey of my strengths and weaknesses, and lessons learned. I don’t know if this means developing three different lists or one well crafted statement.

Getting back to this article. I’ve been thinking that one very useful engaging question to start with faculty might be, “how (what are the strategies and techniques you use) do you motivate your students”? I think this kind of question would be very useful for identifying ways that we could structure their content to address engagement, meaningfulness, goals, interaction, feedback, tone, etc.

A reflection on the entire course… it’s difficult to find a path in all this openness. I know that’s kind of the idea, but I get lost in all of the content and areas to explore. It’s negatively motivating to feel like I’m missing a lot of what’s happening.

The cost of accessibility

This is a wake-up to everyone looking into transcribing content if you haven’t already. I’ve been doing the work, both transcribing and publishing media with captioning, but I haven’t been on the money end of things before.We recently send a…

This is a wake-up to everyone looking into transcribing content if you haven’t already. I’ve been doing the work, both transcribing and publishing media with captioning, but I haven’t been on the money end of things before.

We recently send a number of audio files to a quality transcription service who charges $150 an hour or $2.50 a min to transcribe audio. At these rates, it will cost us approximately more than $3700 for twenty three recorded lectures!

I’m not hear to complain about the costs since I think that $2.50 is pretty realistic for quality transcribing. I don’t know much about the business. I wouldn’t be able to say how much lower I think this charges could be. With higher demand and more competition, I wonder how sustainable business could be charging much under $2 a min.

The message I want to get out to other online course designers, program managers, and accessibility specialists is can we afford to transcribe all public audio content coming out of the university? Those fees don’t cover person-hours required to publish those transcriptions along with the media. The time to add transcriptions for video takes the least amount of time. I’m thinking 5-20 min depending upon the length of the video and publishing platform. Other formats, like published Captivate files can take considerably longer. How much to you pay your designers and multimedia specialists an hour? Multiply that for each video and then each course or website you support.

Please don’t mistake my post as an argument against accessibility. I strongly support designing for accessibility–what benefits a few, benefits all. We do have to take these costs into account when developing our budgets. I have a feeling that’s not really being done right now.

TestOut LabSim 4.0

Brenda and I attended the LabSim 4.0 webinar “Navigating LabSim 4.0” yesterday and I captured a few notes from the session. Testout will be posting a link to the recording in a few days at: http://www.testout.com/home/educator-resources/instructor-tools/webinars.What are we looking to…

Brenda and I attended the LabSim 4.0 webinar “Navigating LabSim 4.0” yesterday and I captured a few notes from the session. Testout will be posting a link to the recording in a few days at: http://www.testout.com/home/educator-resources/instructor-tools/webinars.

What are we looking to get from this product/service?

  • the ability to cherry pick activities within a course
  • reporting on performance within those activities
  • a means to manage multiple classes and account holders
  • ability to create new accounts
  • single-sign on access for our students
  • IT support for the product?
  • a licensing agreement?

Potential next steps

  1. contact one of their sales reps
  2. provide access to courses for faculty to return a list of possibilities for use with a PSU course (work with Brenda on this?)
  3. share our needs assessment with TestOut (Craig Russon?)
  4. discuss potential services

An “OpenU” approach to course design

Before I start, I wanted to say that I’m going to take a different approach. I just posted an incomplete post to prove or remind myself that I can’t possibly cover all of the things that are going on. I’m…

Before I start, I wanted to say that I’m going to take a different approach. I just posted an incomplete post to prove or remind myself that I can’t possibly cover all of the things that are going on. I’m having a hard enough time documenting what I do on an ongoing basis let alone add reflection to the work. At least I have what I am doing fairly well documented on my Google Site. So, my new approach isn’t to reflect on everything that has happened since my last post. I’m going to focus on one thing and try and build my skills there before considering something more expansive.

I don’t know much about The Open University in the UK, but we’re going to try an approach to developing courses that represents a significant shift for us here in World Campus Learning Design. Thankfully, I work with people who do understand what the Open University does and can help with understanding what and perhaps how we can use from their model.
The general approach that WCLD uses is based on a two-semester development time-frame. The basic idea is that if we want a course to launch in the Spring of ’12, we’ll start development in the Summer ’11 semester. One instructional designer will meet with one course author to develop and online course together. The author serves as the subject matter expert and is generally a faculty member selected by the academic-partner department head. The ID works with the author to provide pedagogical and design support. The ID is also a point-of-contact for numerous other resources like permissions, accessibility, multimedia, technical support, etc.
The big difference with this OpenU approach would be extending the development time to three months. The first month would be a brainstorming and planning session open to multiple ID’s and authors working on defining program-level design considerations. The second and third semesters would be used in a more traditional development tasks, however there would be differences how the ID’s and authors might collaborate during this time.
This is a fairly rough description of what we’re planning to do with WC Italian (IT) courses. I would be one of two ID’s, the other would be Juan Xia. Initially there would be three faculty members working together in the brainstorming session and then one would be selected as an author for each course. None of the faculty assignments are set yet, so we don’t know what that might look like.
I’m really looking forward to this approach. There are a number of reasons why this is potentially a great way to develop new courses in the future. First, I really like the idea of collaborating with another designer on a course. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, biases, perspectives, and styles. I don’t know Juan that well, but I’m sure we’ll get to know each other very well by the time this is over. Not only is she on a different design team, but she’s three time zones away! I would think this would be a great opportunity for her to feel more connected to the ebb and flow of daily life here in WCLD. She’ll bring to the table a very different set of competencies. Of course there will be challenges, but I think we’re the a great team to discover and work out potential bumps that the rest of the unit could benefit from.
Second, the brainstorming phase will potentially provide a unique chance to address faculty buy-in, faculty development, and explore a wide variety of solutions. I hope that we can get to the point where we can share inspirations from a variety of sources and define a strategy of offering innovative, world-class courses.
Lastly, I think we would be able develop higher quality courses for our learners because we’d be able to integrate support resources at the brainstorming stage and not during implementation. We’d be able to consider their ideas early enough when it would make a difference on the core design.
I’ll definitely be posting more about our progress and hang-ups.

Nursing Online CE Summer ’10 Update

8171A Pilot – test-out flow and function of groupsList of participantsNo creditSurveySummer Groupsmake changes given the upgrade: no GOTO function6003-6008 (see 6003 for changes)screen cap quizzes, then chuck them”You have now completed this course” change link2. Helpful Informationcheck presentation lengthsremove…

8171A Pilot – test-out flow and function of groups

  • List of participants
  • No credit
  • Survey

Summer Groups

  • make changes given the upgrade: no GOTO function
  • 6003-6008 (see 6003 for changes)
    • screen cap quizzes, then chuck them
    • “You have now completed this course” change link
    • 2. Helpful Information
      • check presentation lengths
      • remove maximize/minimize toggle button
      • remove “click here to return to the course content” link
    • 3. Presentation
      • no banner?
      • re-publish w/o toggle button
    • 4. Technical problems – add info to OTS
    • 5. AI – add alert
    • 6. Quiz
      • check feedback options
      • “all at once” questions
      • delete action
  • 6009
    • About page – text and recording?
    • Sections 1, 2, 4, 8, “You have now finished…”
    • screen cap and remove quiz
  • 6011
    • About page text
    • publish presentation
    • Sections 1, 2, 4, 8, “You have now finished…”
    • wrote Colin about deleted files??
  • 8171A
    • remove quizzes
    • reverse import from DEV?