Discussion Points for UVM Modules

Summary: Documents Delivered to UVM on December 15, 2000

Since this is the first online faculty development course, we felt that it was important for the tone of the course to be inviting and appealing to even the most non-technical person on the faculty. Our color choice, the graphics selection and the tone of the content itself all work together to create a less serious presentation of the subject matter. However, we do want the faculty members participating in these classes to get the impression that this content is important and their time spent taking these courses is time well spent. We hope that in our efforts to make this content appealing — we did not make modules feel too simplistic. We welcome your comments on the look and feel of both of these courses as well as the content, especially with regards to the issue of the overall tone (too simple? too general? too non-academic?)

Issues that we need to discuss in detail:

Content

tone (see above) I found it a bit too simplistic for faculty. You need to go deeper into theory and the pedagogy of portfolio assessment.
I don’t care for clip art at all. Pictures of students, UVM, screen shots of portfolios, all work better for me.
I do like the writing, the way you address faculty and the process you bring faculty through in helping them understand about portfolios.
use of language (see table of pop-ups below)
readings

Note that we have included articles written by both Holly and Joyce. Do we need to be concerned that we do not have articles written by anyone from the secondary ed program at UVM? We need to be concerned that we don’t have articles written by others. I don’t think anyone from secondary has anything published about portfolios, and definitely not electronic portfolios. There are some decent articles about electronic portfolios and how they’re doing them in other places. I think we need to include at least 4 or 5 of those.

activities

Need to discuss how to approach "assignments" for faculty. We are thinking that is would be good to give simple optional "assignments" each week. I wouldn’t make them optional. They don’t make their assignments optional.

Discussion Boards

While we will be creating starter questions before the first run of the modules is underway, the bulk of this content will be created as the course unfolds based on the direction that the faculty want to go. We need to discuss how to use the "discourse" pop-ups in light of this.

"Field Work"

This section needs some attention, as the information under this heading is a blend of additional readings that might be better listed under the "Lit Review" as well as some new activities. For example, this could require the faculty to go to a particular site and learn about a particular piece of software via a tutorial and then demonstrate this new knowledge by using it in their classroom. I don’t think this will happen. That’s too much for most faculty to do at this point. You might ask them to learn how a different college of education is having their students build electronic portfolios and compare them….

webct environment

We expect that you will be giving us detailed comments on the environment after the issues around the content are finalized. For now, please comment on the following environmental issues: page layout, use of pop-ups, page look and feel including graphic images (which are in the Word documents).

We have also outlined certain elements of each module and give you some of our thoughts for changes or indicate areas where there are issues that we need to discuss in more detail with you. You will also see in the body of the text of each module you will see our notations as [MORE:…] to indicate areas that we need to discuss in more detail with you.

Element Explanation / Questions

Titles for each module: Teacher Teaching with Technology: Modeling for Pre-Service Teachers Electronic Professional Portfolios: helping Pre-Service Teachers Make the Most of Theirs	Do these titles convey the course accurately? So they sound "good" to you as a faculty member? Teacher with technology puts too much emphasis on the technology.
Titles and explanatory text for pop-ups As you will see in the webct demo, the modules make use of pop-up windows to highlight readings, activities, discussion questions, etc…The following cells detail the names we have given to each of the pop-ups and descriptive text we have created for each. On the webct demo, the >> that you see online, are only used as a place-holder until graphic icons are created. These icons will be created when the text is finalized.	Are you comfortable with this text and the metaphors that we used? We tried to create names that suggest academic experience — but perhaps the metaphors cloud the meaning? Haven’t seen webct demo
Lit Review Click here to read current perspectives and background information.	This refers to online articles and other readings that give more explanation to the concept being introduced. Good Idea, important. I think this needs to be more developed with online and print references.
Discourse Questions to think and talk about.	This pop-up is used as a bridge page for the online discussion area. It provides a "preview" to the discussion threads that will be created there.
Practicum Put the ideas to work by trying an activity.	This refers to hands-on activities that the faculty can participate in to get a better understanding of the concepts. We need to flesh out exactly what these activities will be and how they will receive input on their work. Good Idea. An important piece.
Syllabus What's next on the learning curve.	This gives an overview of the work that is to come in the following weeks as well as an "action item "list that the faculty should prepare / complete prior to beginning the next week’s lesson. The exact content of the action items needs to be fleshed out in detail.
Field Work Take a look at and try out some sample applications.	This pop-up points to websites that include real applications of the concepts.

Timeline:

Date Event

December 15, 2000	SCN delivers first draft of modules to UVM (Word manuscripts and single-page webct demo)
December 18, 2000	SCN and UVM have conference call to review modules (Word manuscripts and single-page webct demo)
December 18 —20, 2000	UVM continues review process (Word manuscripts only)
December 20, 2000	SCN and UVM have second conference call to discuss, confirm and finalize content changes (Word manuscripts only)
December 21, 2000 - January 5, 2001	SCN incorporates changes and uploads final content into webct (full webct environment for both modules)
January 5 — 9, 2001	UVM reviews both modules in webct environment and provides comments on look and feel, navigation, and other environment specific issues.
January 9 - 10, 2001	UVM Inter-Session Days. SCN and UVM meet to discuss and finalize webct environment issues.
January 11-26, 2001	SCN incorporates webct environment issues into both modules
January 29 - March 9, 2001	First run of both modules
March 19 — April 27, 2001	Second run of both modules
May 7 — June 15, 2001	Third run of both modules