Course Overview & Introduction

• 0/3 points: 1.1 Instructions make clear how to get started and where to find various course components.
• 0/3 points: 1.2 A statement introduces the student to the purpose of the course and to its components; in the case of a hybrid course, the statement clarifies the relationship between the face-to-face and online components.
• 0/1 points: 1.3 Etiquette expectations (sometimes called “netiquette” for online discussions, email, and other forms of communication are stated clearly.
• 0/1 points: 1.4 The self-introduction by the instructor is appropriate and available online.
• 1/1 points: 1.5 Students are asked to introduce themselves to the class.
• 1/1 points: 1.6 Minimum student preparation, and, if applicable, prerequisite knowledge in the discipline are clearly stated.
• 1/1 points: 1.7 Minimum technical skills expected of the student are clearly stated.

Learning Objectives (Competencies)

• 3/3 points: 2.1 The course learning objectives describe outcomes that are measurable.
• 3/3 points: 2.2 The module/unit learning objectives describe outcomes that are measurable and consistent with the course-level objectives.
• 3/3 points: 2.3 All learning objectives are stated clearly and written from the students’ perspective.
• 3/3 points: 2.4 Instructions to students on how to meet the learning objectives are adequate and stated clearly.
• 2/2 points: 2.5 The learning objectives are appropriately designed for the level of the course.

Assessment & Measurement

• 3/3 points: 3.1 The types of assessments selected measure the stated learning objectives and are consistent with course activities and resources.
• 3/3 points: 3.2 The course grading policy is stated clearly.
• 2/2 points: 3.3 Specific and descriptive criteria are provided for the evaluation of students’ work and participation.
• 0/3 points: 3.4 The assessment instruments selected are sequenced, varied, and appropriate to the content being assessed.
• 0/3 points: 3.5 “Self-check” or practice assignments are provided, with timely feedback to students.

Resources & Materials

• 3/3 points: 4.1 The instructional materials contribute to the achievement of the stated course and module/unit learning objectives.
• 3/3 points: 4.2 The relationship between the instructional materials and the learning activities is clearly explained to the student.


• 2/2 points: 4.3 The instructional materials have sufficient breadth, depth, and currency for the student to learn the subject.
• 1/1 points: 4.4. All resources and materials used in the course are appropriately cited.

Learner Engagement

• 5.1 The learning activities promote the achievement of the stated learning objectives.
• 5.2 Learning activities foster instructor-student, content-student, and if appropriate to the course, student-student interaction.
• 5.3 Clear standards are set for instructor responsiveness and availability (turn-around time for email, grade posting, etc.)
• 5.4 The requirements for student interaction are clearly articulated.

Course Technology

• 3/3 points: 6.1 The tools and media support the learning objectives, and are appropriately chosen to deliver the content of the course.
• 3/3 points: 6.2 The tools and media support student engagement and guide the student to become an active learner.


• 0/3 points: 6.3 Navigation throughout the online components of the course is logical, consistent, and efficient.
• 2/2 points: 6.4 Students have ready access to the technologies required in the course.
• 1/1 points: 6.5 The course components are compatible with current standards for delivery modes.
• 0/1 points: 6.6 Instructions on how to access resources at a distance are sufficient and easy to understand.
• 1/1 points: 6.7 The course design takes full advantage of available tools and media.

Learner Support

• 0/2 points: 7.1 The course instructions articulate or link to clear description of the technical support offered.
• 0/2 points: 7.2 Course instructions articulate or link to an explanation of how the institution’s academic support system can assist the student in effectively using the resources provided.
• 0/1 points: 7.3 Course instructions articulate or link to an explanation of how the institution’s student support services can help students reach their educational goals.
• 1/1 points: 7.4 Course instructions answer basic questions related to research, writing, technology, etc., or link to tutorials or other resources that provide the information.

Accessibility

• 3/3 points: 8.1 The course incorporates ADA standards and reflect conformance with institutional policy regarding accessibility in online and hybrid courses.
• 2/2 points: 8.2 Course pages and course materials provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content.
• 0/2 points: 8.3 Course pages have links that are self-describing and meaningful.
• 1/1 points: 8.4 The course ensures screen readability.

Based on my review, I made a chunk of changes, especially with the beginning of the course. I believe that the "getting started" steps and support are a lot stronger due to this process; however, I did not make all the changes requested of me. Two major changes I did not make:

1. My peer-review committee thougth that by requiring Animoto for self-introduction videos I was introducing too many new technologies during an already chaotic begin to the course (not that my course was especially chaotic, just that all courses are chaotic). Whereas I agree with not wanting the beginning of an online course to be any more chaotic than necessary, I was/am not willing to give up the Animoto Introduction assignment. In over two years of having this assignment, I’ve never had a student ask for help on how to use Animoto; the application is silly easy! But what is more impressive, the Animoto Introductions are about the only assignment that almost all the students go look at every single other student’s posting. This one assignment has been worth it’s weight in gold in building course community.
2. The peer-review committee also didn’t like how I had the due dates for all the assignments in only one location. They wanted dates in multiple locations so that students could easily find them when needed. Again, I understand the desire to make materials easily accessible for students; however, I also know the dangers of having due dates in multiple locations. Susan Miller-Cochran and I did usability testing on earlier versions of our online ENG102 courses and found that if dates are in multiple locations, students may latch on to the wrong area of the course to guide them and then not find the rest of the work that they need to complete. Therefore, unless required by the learing management system (like setting up "assignments" in drop-boxes and such), I give all assignments associations with a deadline number, or now I use the phrase "due date." Then, in the syllabus, I give the list of dates associated with each due date number.

Ultimately, I did not make the "big" changes that my peer-reviewers required for a QM stamp-of-approval. Therefore, I failed!

I know some of my colleagues disagree with my decision to reject "suggestions" by my peer-reviewer colleagues. Maybe my experience as a rhetoric & composition scholar impacts my interpretation of "peer review" as just suggestions. However, I think I was more of stickler because although the QM process is a great for helping faculty improve their online courses, it is still a "peer" review process. I have my students conduct peer-review in writing courses; ulitimately, these reviews are not conducted by the "real" audience. Therefore, my interpretation of the requests made of me, especially the two listed above, I belive that how I have my course designed works better for the real audience of the class...the students.

• Course Objectives: course objectives are clearly defined: 4.41
• Course Organization: Course syllabus, outline, and other materials are made available.4.23
• Time in Class: The full class period is used effectively: 3.74
• Instructional Materials: The instructional materials (textbooks, slides, tapes, films, reference books, etc.) are used effectively and are easily understood: 4.29
• Assignments: Assignments are clearly presented: 4.24
• Testing: Exams cover material on which I expect to be tested: 3.79
• Grading: Grades are assigned fairly: 4.24
• Students’ Progress: I am gaining a good understanding of the concepts and principles in this course: 4.35
• Knowledge of Subject: The instructor demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area of the course: 4.64
• Ability to Communicate: The instructor gives clear explanations and responds effectively to students’ needs for clarification:4.36
• Ability to Create Student Interest in Subject: The instructor encourages questions and/or participation and makes good use of examples and illustrations: 4.41
• Enthusiasm for Teaching: The instructor maintains a positive atmosphere in class and seems to enjoy teaching: 4.53
• Attitude Towards Students: The instructor displays respect for students: 4.61
• Instructor Availability: The instructor is accessible other than class time: 4.39

The two lowest scoring categories, the only two under a 4.0 average, (Time in Class, the full class period is used effectively and Testing, exams cover material on which I expect to be tested) sent me back to figure out what classes were being evaluated. These averages come from a variety of courses:

• ENG101: First Year Composition
• ENG102: First Year Composition
• HUM206: Intro to Television Arts
• HUM/WST209: Women & Films
• ENH241: American Literature before 1860
• CIS237: Web-Based Teaching & Learning II
• ENH255: Contemporary U.S. Literature & Film

In this time period, all of the ENG101 and ENG102 courses were taught online (as was the ENH241 and CIS237). HUM206 was a hybrid, and one out of four sections of HUM/WST209 was online, the other four face-to-face.  I sorted the results via course and I’m relieved to see that both areas, use of class time and testing, were above 4.0 in the HUM/WST209—the only course I consistently teach face-to-face and actually have “tests.” A lot of folks in online courses marked “1: does not apply to this course” on the use of class time question. Similarly, many writing students marked a 1 for the testing question. In both cases, that would lower the overall average when in reality the students were marking the question did not apply. (So I’m thinking maybe 0 needs to be the answer for that response so not to skew the results. Time to go talk to someone in institutional research and planning.)

I was happy to see my two highest ratings, both above a 4.5 average were: Knowledge of Subject: The instructor demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area of the course Attitude Towards Students: The instructor displays respect for students Although I’m happy to know that students are confident in my knowledge, I’m thrilled to know that they recognize that I respect their knowledge and experience as well.

As for the open ended responses, the four questions are: 

• Comments on the Instructor:
• What do you LIKE MOST about the course?
• What do you LIKE LEAST about the course?
• What changes would you suggest in class procedures?

I read through the comments and my general responses to the categories are as follow…

Comments on the Instructor:

The general vibe was a positive one! There were lots of repeated comments about students being engaged by my enthusiasm and passion. There were also lots of comments about me being knowledgeable about the topics. I sincerely appreciated the various comments about my promptness and helpfulness in responding to general calls for help.

That being said, the major negative thing that was repeated was my lack of promptness on grading. UGH…I know this is a problem (I really, really hate grading papers); however, reading through these make me realize I’ve got to start being much more disciplined about turning around graded papers in a prompt manner. This also resonates with the statistics about students higher satisfaction with their course management system when they are using the CMS more than once a week (from the 2009 ECAR Student Technology Usage study). In other words, I need to be more active in online course’s (specifically with grading major assignments; however, I know I need to make more general appearances/announcements as well). I’ll admit, part of the reason I’m returning to the classroom (I’m only teaching hybrid courses at MCC this fall) is because it is much harder to put off grading and returning papers when you’ve got to look students in the eye during class the next day.

What do you LIKE MOST about the course?

As usual with course evaluations, there were comments all over the place, some discussing very specific assignments and/or readings. In terms of repetitive comments, I got a lot of comments from my women & film students about the variety of films we watched. I’ll confess, the core design of my course is based off of Nancy Hellner’s course; however, I have swapped in and out various films over the 5+ years I’ve taught the course.

I really appreciated all the positive comments about peer reviews. I’ll admit, I also got negative comments in the later two open comment areas from people who did not get prompt and/or any peer reviews because of some students not participating.

There were also a sprinkling of comments appreciating the techiness of the courses. These students generally either thanked me for working with contemporary technologies and/or appreciated learning about them.

What do you LIKE LEAST about the course? and What changes would you suggest in class procedures?

The repeated message I got across the types of courses was “too much work.” Within those comments there were two general aspects: “this is a summer course and should be easier” as well as “to much fluff work, focus on the papers.”

I’ll admit, the comments about making summer classes easier makes me cranky! These courses have the same course competencies/outcomes as a traditional course and transfer with the same credits as a full course. For the past couple of years I developed online courses with 15 deadlines; these could function as one deadline a week for full semesters, two a week for 8 week courses, and 3 a week for 5 week courses. All this to say that I don’t intend to make these courses easier; I’ll just need to be much more explicit about this at the beginning of the shorter session (which I was this summer and promptly lost students the first couple of days).

The second comment was referring to all of the invention work in the writing classes. This makes me think I need to be much more explicit about what/how/why invention work is as well as the point of a writing course being to share some writing strategies that you may or may not use every time you compose. I already started talking with Devon about this…we’ll see how we develop this reasoning and how we share it with students in future courses.

• one more 200 level required course, and
• some capstone activity.

It took three full semesters for our Composition Committee to finally reemerge with a new proposal. We added a 200 level Workplace Writing course as well as a Portfolio Capstone requirement. Since the courses have to already be approved and in the course bank before a program can require them, we submitted the two course proposals during the Spring 2010 semester; both were approved by the end of the semester. And although the Writing Certificate Program proposal is officially submitted, we are now waiting for the district to revise it’s academic certificate proposal process.
One of the reasons the process slowed down is because we introduce more people into the process. During the Fall 2008 semester we also had hired on two more rhet/comp faculty members who were very excited about developing the writing certificate program and had definite ideas of their own. We ended up basically starting from scratch; however, had much more critical and reflective discussions and developed a more robust program proposal. I’ll admit that I still don’t necessarily agree that the required upper division level course for this certificate should be focused on workplace or professional writing; however, this process was all about negotiation for all of us on the committee.

Ultimately, I am very proud of the work of our committee and our resulting writing certificate program proposal and can’t wait for it to be approved so we can start advertising to students.

Even before the 90 minute presentation started, I asked participants to do a pre-presentation survey (at first I called it "homework" and found I needed to figure out a new word quickly!). I asked them which technologies they wanted to cover, and which ones they didn’t recognize by name. I was then able to use the results to both drive the presentation and what we covered as well as demo what Google Forms can do (especially the automagic compilation of data to make simple charts). 

I also made a sample Diigo list through the entire event, both to take notes as well as demo what Diigo can do! 

Although I got fabulous feedback (they had evaluation forms and gave them to us on the spot), I know it was a little messy/chaotic:

• first, my laptop glitched right before the presentation and I had to reboot it. Although that is the typical price we pay for doing technology, it was frustrating to have to re-log back into everything with everyone watching & waiting. :-( Not much I can do about that (except maybe get Baylin, my mac, looked at...she’s been doing this more and more often).
• I try to demo technologies as alternative presentation methods, discussion starters, etc. The results of the Google Form were all over the place and I then bounced to much in my organization/presentation. So when I’m working from results like that, I need to just make a list and say "we’ll definitely get through the first ## and then cover more if we have time."

I’m also happy to say Tom came down for the weekend and we explored San Antonio, including the Alamo and walking around the River Walk "track"...twice! Although I did not take the picture below (I love Flickr!) we did do those stairs more than once! That walking got me motivated enough to come back to Phoenix and continue walking.

I think everyone enjoyed thinking about using other search engines and repositories beyond Google. And sometimes everyone just needs to be reminded that it is as easy as saying "I will search with something else" or "I will assign specific search engines/databases for my students to use." I added sample text of how I ask my students to do that on the Alternate Search Engines page.

Although we did not get to talk about the media repositories portion as much as I would have liked (60 minutes goes by fast), we did end the discussion on legal issues, especially copyright, fair use, and creative commons. I also realized I had forgotten to metion at the beginning of the webinar that the "heart and soul" of the Can You Digg It? material is the matrix that Susan and I revised from an earlier, much smaller, version.

I have to thank Devon Adams for agreeing to being the Chat Space Facilitator for a bunch of the webinars in the series. He was especially helpful this time because there were a lot of questions, comments, and suggestions flying in the chat area.

I also have to do a big shout out, THANK YOU, to all the participants. I combed through the chat record and found lots of resources that participants shared. Most of them got added to the Can You Digg It? resource website. The archive for the entire webinar, include the chat, can be found here (it is using Elluminate).

I love presenting at GWCC; first, they have a lot of occupational programs, so I get to think about how/why these technologies, pedagogies, and all-around crazy ideas work in classes like nursing and radiation.  My favorite moment of the event was when I asked that if a student produced a robust annotated bibliography like this, or this, do they really need to take the next step and write up the paper? John’s (the director of GWCC’s Center for Teaching & Learning) mouth fell open! 

I’m not talking to only English/Composition faculty here! I’m suggesting that folks in other disciplines sincerely think about what are the learning objectives of a "large" or research project and do they require the final step of writing a paper? As you can see from the first example, this student produced A LOT of "writing" without producing a "paper."

Second, I like visiting Laura!  I am grateful to Laura, GWCC’s instructional technologist, for giving me some feedback before I took the short-term show on the road! She also LiveBlogged the event.

Like many of my workshops at this point, this one did not develop out of a vacuum. Obviously it emerged from a variety of things; however, the two main precursors were the writing of The Wadsworth Guide to Research and the development of Creating Research Assignments that Foster Critical Thinking and Information Literacy workshop. I’m on a roll of using Google Sites for workshop materials for a variety of reasons: quick and easy collaborative wiki editing, no advertisements (I love Wetpaint Wikis , but the ads are not pretty), and an excuse to play in the wiki/ePortfolio application that my district has adopted.

At EDUCAUSE we presented a 3.5 hour workshop. Since it was a mixed audience (not just English faculty), we spent the first half of the workshop philosophically situating our overall project as well as providing a brief overview of the rhetorical situation (using Prezi). We spent the second half of the workshop discussing various technologies. Yeah...everyone there would have preferred more tech and less theory. We can’t help it...we think those philosophical assumptions are important! 

If I were to do this workshop again with a similar audience, I’d figure out a way to cut back the philosophy/theory portion and "get to the damn demo" (as CogDog likes to say). Maybe do a better job of using the "presentation" technologies to present and demo the technology at the same time? 

• Committing to Brilliance by Reading RSS Feeds
• Exploring Ideas with Alternative Search Engines
• Tracking Innovations with Social Bookmarking
• Making Connections with Mind Maps
• Developing Innovations with Personal Portals