 |
 |
2002 ALA Midwinter Conference
Emerging Technologies in Instruction Committee: Meeting II
Sunday, 20 January 2002
Members Present: Marianne Bracke, Erin Daix, Lori DuBois, John Hickok, Melissa Koenig, Carrie Kruse (Intern), Robin Lockerby, Kathy Magarrell, Leslie Murtha, Francesca Lane Rasmus, Judy Smith, Peter Tagtmeyer (ch), Sharon Verba, Janelle Wertzberger
Visitors: Norman Buchwald, Judith Downie, Susan Miller, Deborah Moore, Marcia Poggione, Michele Saunders, Claudia Timmann
Agenda:
- Introductions
- Announcements
No new announcements
Review of Saturday's meeting The Chair provided a summary of what was accomplished at yesterday's meeting:
- Looked at criteria
- Cleared up intentions, reworded, and re-ordered
- Decided to create the rubric online
- Began discussion of review timeline: still need to make final decisions and team assignments
Internet Education Project - Review Schedule [continued from Saturday]
Decision: we should still have deadlines, but can also review submissions that come in along the way.
How often should we do deadlines? Semi-annually? Quarterly? What happens if we get too many submissions to handle during a 3-month period? Suggestion: we could set a ceiling; if the number of submissions reaches X, we'll put the rest in the next review period.
Decision: Cap the number of submissions per quarter at 16. The four teams will each review four submissions.
Assignment of new teams: (count off)
Team #1: Erin Daix, Sharon Verba, Carrie Kruse, Melissa Koenig
Team #2: Marianne Bracke, Kathy Magarrell, Judy Smith
Team #3: Janelle Wertzberger, John Hickok, Robin Lockerby
Team #4: Lori DuBois, Leslie Murtha, Francesca Lane Rasmus
[Note: Peter originally was a member of team #3, removed himself to add Robin who arrived after the count-off. The committee also thought there were 16 members total, but the current roster shows only 14 members. All 14 members were present at this meeting. We have one team with 4 members; the other teams have 3 members.]
When should we set the quarterly dates? We need to finish our work on the criteria and scoring rubric. We need time to get announcements in publications.
Decisions:
- Use Calendar dates for quarters.
- Review periods: Jan-Mar, Apr-June, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec.
- Deadlines would be at the end of each review period: March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, December 31st.
- We will "close" a review period after 16 sites are submitted. Any submitters after we reach 16 will be contacted and told that they will be reviewed during the following period.
To do:
- Post the revised criteria (Carrie will provide new wordings in minutes)
- Discuss the rubric (online)
- Promote new deadline (March 30th) (publicity: John and Lori)
- Send notes to current submissions about change in criteria (Peter)
- Add note on Web site about change in criteria. Link to "old" criteria for comparison (Peter)
- Create IEP logo (with date) for accepted sites to add; this would link to IEP. (Francesca will draft a logo)
Promotion will be done as before: electronic announcements to email lists; IS newsletter, C&RL News, links from sites: LOEX, LIRT, DORIL (Directory of Online Resources for Information Literacy). We will not do a brochure as had been done in previous years because of the expense, questions of how to distribute, etc.
- Technology Surveys
There are two different surveys in process:
One: Instruction Technology Survey (http://cooley.colgate.edu/dbs/etechsurv/)
This is not operational yet and needs to be approved by the IS publications committee. This survey is to ask any and all people using technology in instruction to share what they are using and how they are using it in order to have the Emerging Technologies committee look at the results and find what are the commonalities and let people know where to look for more information on how the technology is being used. The Chair will be asking the Executive Committee
We need volunteers to promote this survey once it is accepted. Sharon, Kathy and Judy volunteered.
Two: IEP Survey
This is a follow-up survey to those accepted into the IEP. The results will let people know what was involved in creating the projects that are in the IEP: technology, staffing, funds, etc. The IEP would link to these results.
A draft of the IEP Survey had been created already. Melissa summarized the questions being asked. The committee agreed that the version drafted and previously discussed was acceptable. We need to add a question on the survey indicating who they are and what their project is.
How do we send the IEP Survey? An email message with a link to a Web form would be best.
Can the IEP Survey write the results to a database? How should the data be expressed (the output from the database)? We need to establish categories (e.g. Technology, Staffing, Funding) as short headings in the results.
Suggestion: Have the output be as one keyword searchable field. This would require post-processing the data into a report that categorizes (i.e. cutting and pasting).
The committee decided that the preferred output would be into multiple searchable fields.
To do:
- Post revised IEP survey to Blackboard site for discussion (Melissa)
- Comment period (all)
- Create Web form (Peter)
- Once it's all finalized and approved, connect the form output to database fields (Peter)
- IEP Scoring Rubric
Committee members will volunteer to divide up the new criteria and for each one, create a draft rubric of what to look for in scoring that criterion.
- The instructional design is pedagogically effective, i.e. it teaches well according to the scope and learning objectives stated by the submitter.
Rubric volunteer: Robin
- The technology used to create the material enhances the learning experience, i.e. is appropriate and effective.
Rubric volunteer: Janelle
- This material provides instruction using emerging technology, or existing technology in an innovative manner.
Rubric volunteer: Melissa
- The content and the language of the material is clear and effective.
Rubric volunteer: Sharon
- All information included within the material is accurate.
Rubric volunteer: Judy
- The organization of the material is clear and easy to use.
Rubric volunteer: Kathy
- This material demonstrates unique or creative use of graphics, examples, interactive elements such as programmed feedback and flexible learning paths, and other supporting elements.
Rubric volunteer: Marianne
- This material is relevant to those outside of the developer's institution either because of content or presentation of a model for other developers.
Rubric volunteer: Leslie
Peter will set up 8 discussion threads on the Blackboard site for committee members to respond to draft rubrics.
Scoring questions:
Do we need to keep half-point increments?
Decision: No. The rubric should solve this issue.
Do we need a N/A answer?
Decision: No. Sites should meet all criteria.
Do we keep the 1-5 scoring range?
Decision: Yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Kruse
Intern
Approved 1/28/02; corrected 2/5/02
Instruction Section Home Page
Send us your comments and questions
|
|
