(Continued) *****************************************************************************

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Discussion and Recommendation.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM: 6.M

DATE: September 9, 2011

****************************************************************************** SUBJECT: Mobile Computing – Professional Development Updates

During their March 2009 meeting, the Board of Regents approved a $6.00 increase to the student technology fee to facilitate the integration of mobile computing throughout the Regental System. This resulted in considerable backlash from the Student Federation, and the Board provided assurances that the funds would be used for new investments that ensure a greater integration of mobile computing into the teaching and learning process; whereby, $4.00 of the fee would be devoted to infrastructure and the remainder to professional development activities. The Board also specified restrictions on those funds (i.e., prohibiting the purchasing of faculty hardware, departmental software, maintenance of current efforts, etc) and requested that each campus submit a plan that provided detail for how funds would be used during FY10. During their June 2009 meeting, the Board of Regents approved the infrastructure and professional development plans submitted by the campuses to account for this $6.00 increase in student technology fees.

As a part of the recommendations forwarded to the Board, it was specified that campuses

were not allowed to allocate funds from this fee toward faculty stipends, and that approval of expenditures would be made annually by the Board. Clarity was later added noting that if a campus wishes to utilize a portion of the development funds for course or curriculum redesign, stipends may be made available to faculty under the assumption that deliverable outcomes are obtained. If campuses intended to take this approach with these funds, then they were asked to put together an institutional RFP process and asked that faculty submit proposals that would be reviewed by academic affairs personnel. These RFP guidelines were to first be reviewed in the Board office before seeking faculty participation. To provide assurances to the Board and the Student Federation related to the mobile computing program, AAC representatives were asked to submit reports that included the following sections:

1. Established Objectives and Outcomes 1. What tangible outcomes were achieved this past year as it relates to mobile

computing? 2. What percentage of your faculty have been involved in some level of professional

development activities?

2

3. What are your institutional goals for this coming year for further integrating technology into the teaching and learning experience?

4. What types of professional development activities does your institution plan to employ?

2. Discipline/Program Participation Matrix 1. Which disciplines/programs have fully integrated mobile computing into the

curriculum? 2. Which disciplines/programs are you planning to target for FY12?

3. Proposed Budget and Budget Narrative

1. What are the total expenditures for each of the following professional development activities?

1. Personnel – (provide separate totals for all that apply) Instructional Designers, Training Specialists, Instructional Design Manager, Faculty Development Coordinators, Graduate Assistant, Faculty Stipends, Faculty Mentors, Consultants, Other (please specify)

2. Operating Expenses – Software, Hardware, Media Management, Supplies, Other (please specify)

3. Travel 4. Miscellaneous Expenses

2. How are the resources allocated in the budget used specifically to advance professional development activities as it relates to the mobile computing initiative?

Monte Kramer has also asked representatives from TAC to submit similar materials for

campus expenditures on infrastructure, and once these materials are available they will be sent to the Board of Regents along with professional development plans (see Attachment I) for their review.

3

Attachment I

Black Hills State University

1. Instructional Design and Development Expenditures 2010-2011 $300 stipends for 18 faculty to participate in 2-day workshop using technology to integrate experiential learning across the curriculum

$5,400

Summer contract for Teaching and Learning specialist to facilitate workshop and provide feedback with follow along to support fall implementation

$1,650

Student labor $55 Faculty travel to present results of mini-grant on innovative uses of technology to improve student learning

$1,188

Instructional Design Staff (1.5 FTE) $95,000 Instructional Design Staff OE ($3,000 per FTE) $4,500 Total Instructional Design and Development Expenses $107,793

2. Outcomes for Instructional Design and Development Activities: $300 Faculty Stipends for Workshop Eighteen faculty members participated in a two day workshop to examine ways to use technology to integrate experiential learning across the curriculum. This workshop was co-presented by two faculty development specialists and an Instructional Designer. Using Backwards Design, workshop participants developed lessons that utilized the Internet and D2L features to use technology to integrate experiential learning across the curriculum. Summer Contract for Teaching & Learning Specialist An additional Teaching & Learning Specialist was hired to co-facilitate the two day workshop with the Instructional Designer and provide individualized follow-along to prepare the lessons for fall 2011 implementation. As a result of the summer workshops, 18 lesson plans using technology to integrate experiential learning were developed by the faculty. The Teaching & Learning Specialist and the Instructional Designer are reviewing each lesson plan during the summer to provide individualized feedback and support when the lesson plans are implemented in the fall. 1.5 FTE Instructional Designers

- Quality Assurance Reviews: 50 courses were reviewed for Fall 2010, 45 courses were reviewed for Spring 2011, and 49 courses were reviewed for Summer 2011.

- 2 Online Student Orientation workshops were presented at the beginning of Spring and Summer semesters.

- A total of 18 faculty development workshops were presented on topics including best practices in using technology for teaching and learning, Web 2.0 technologies, Second Life, social media, and multimedia tools.

- 14 new self-paced video tutorials and 13 new PDF tutorials have been prepared. - One best faculty practice video was posted.

4

- Poster session was presented and interview was conducted during NCATE accreditation process.

- HLC X-Learning workshops were conducted during Summer 2011. - Developed 17 instructional videos for online/hybrid Wellness course. - Developed and incorporated Second Life simulations in 4 online courses. - Developed a series of 9 videos for online children’s literature course. - A new Instructional Design Services website is being designed to offer tutorials for

faculty to refer to when developing e-learning experiences.

3. Instructional Design/Faculty Development Plan for 2011-12

Faculty Development Activities $300 stipends for 30 additional faculty to participate in 2-day workshop on using technology to integrate experiential learning across the curriculum

$9,000

Purchase Smartboard and additional laptops for student and faculty use in the proposed X-Learning Lab in the library to address the general education goals related to information technology and information literacy

$25,000

Support for faculty to present Scholarship of Teaching & Learning projects that use technology to integrate experiential learning across the curriculum

$10,000

Summer contract for Teaching & Learning Specialist to facilitate workshop and provide feedback with follow along to support fall implementation

$1,650

Instructional Design Instructional Design staff (1.5 FTE) $95,000 Instructional Design staff OE ($3000 per FTE) $4,500 Total $145,150

5

Dakota State University Professional Development Expenditures Academic Year 2010-11

DSU has used its professional development training funds to enhance faculty technology skills in areas that will have a direct impact on curriculum delivery and student learning. The professional development funds were spent on direct faculty training (registration fees, travel, per diem, etc.) and/or on hardware and software to support that faculty training. Information Assurance / Network Security Expenditures:

• Training at Black Hat 2011 conference -- $8,000 • Information Assurance workshop -- $6,000 • Offensive Security / Hacking Training -- $2,500

Outcomes:

• Faculty attended Black Hat 2011 conference and participated in training workshops, etc. Faculty also attended information assurance and offensive security / hacking training sessions.

• Knowledge gained at these workshops / training sessions will be incorporated into information assurance, network security and network administration degree programs.

Cisco Academy / Certification Expenditures:

• Certification Training -- $650 • Hardware / Software to support Cisco Academy / Certification training -- $19,000

Outcomes:

• Faculty attended the first in a series of training workshops to gain Cisco certification and a Cisco Academy certification lab was established.

• The lab facility and faculty certification will allow DSU to offer Cisco certification to DSU students.

Digital Arts and Design (DAD): Expenditures:

• Digital Tutoring and Gnomon Workshop – $2,000 • Digital Tutoring subscription -- $1,000 • Digital Media Academy -- $4,750

6 Outcomes:

• These workshops provided on-line training for 10 professional-level software packages that are taught in the DAD major. The training will help faculty upgrade their software skills relative to some of the newest software packages in the field.

• Faculty attended a professional-level, digital media academy, to help upgrade their skills relative to digital storytelling and digital media production. The training will be incorporated into the courses taught in the digital arts and design – digital storytelling specialization.

Retention / GS 100 Expenditures:

• StrengthsQuest training -- $3,000 • Online Tutoring Workshop -- $1,500

Outcomes:

• StrengthsQuest is intended to help students identify their talents and identify strategies for using those talents / strengths to success academically. Faculty attended train-the-trainer workshops on StrengthsQuest, Follow-up training was provided on campus this summer, with another session planned for this fall. StrengthsQuest will be incorporated into GS100 courses in Fall 2011.

• Retention specialist attended a workshop on managing and improving online tutoring systems, which is critical to support student learning in DSU’s online program offerings.

English for New Media / Professional and Technical Communications Expenditures: FrameMaker workshops -- $7,550 Writing for New Media workshop -- $1,050 Outcomes:

• Faculty attended FrameMaker workshops, to expand their expertise in that area. • Faculty attended a “Writing for New Media” workshop, to help expand their expertise in

that area and also help shape curriculum in this new degree program for DSU. Total Professional Development Expenditures AY10-11: $57,000

7

Professional Development Activities – FY2011

Established Objectives and Outcomes

The goals of the NSU mobile initiative are threefold: 1) to promote an environment that

is conducive to anytime, anywhere learning; 2) to create a more learner-centered environment;

and 3) to promote acquisition of 21st century skills. For NSU’s initiative to successfully enhance

teaching and learning, significant attention is provided to faculty development and effective

instructional strategies. To address the needs of faculty preparedness, NSU sponsored numerous

professional development activities in FY2011.

• The Office of Instructional Services sponsored two faculty luncheons focused on mobile

integration.

• A series of faculty development training sessions were held throughout the 2010-2011

academic year to support faculty who are incorporating mobile technologies into their

curriculum. Topics covered during these sessions included:

o Creative Online Teaching; o Paperless Grading: Using the Comment and Semi-Automatic Features in MS

Word; o Using Atomic Learning Modules in Your Teaching; o Using the Wiki and Blog Server; o Lecture and Screen Cast For Teaching; o Copyright Law When Using Media; o Using Panopto; o Desire2Learn;

Quiz Feature Setting up Groups and Discussions; Creating and Using Audio Files; Content; Gradebook Chat;

8

Dropbox; o Elluminate; o Interactive Whiteboards: SMART Technologies; o iPads: Pros and Cons; o Google Docs; o Social Networking: Facebook and Twitter; o MS Office Tools: Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Expressions; o Respondus; o Podcasting; o Windows Movie Maker; o Learning Object Repositories;

• In spring 2011, faculty who were awarded a redesign stipend participated in several

workshops. Topics covered during this program included:

o Mobile device basics; o Panopto lecture capture; o Audio integration; o Web 2.0 tools; o Paperless grading; o Interactive whiteboards; o Video integration; o Elluminate web conferencing.

• Throughout the academic year, NSU sponsors various online webinars, including:

o Spotlight on Mobile Computing- Evaluating a Campus-Wide Mobile Learning

Initiative: Lessons Learned from ACU’s First Three Years – Educause;

o Creating Learning Environments- Virtual and Physical – SCUP-AASCU;

o Cloud Computing – Educause;

o Campus Technology Virtual Conference;

New IT Strategies for a Digital Society;

Creating Flexible, Technology-Enhanced Collaboration and Learning

Spaces;

Maryland's Mobile Learning Story;

Building a Foundation for Integrating Rich-Media on a Web 2.0 Campus.

• Two NSU faculty attended the annual Ubiquitous Computing Conference held at the

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and will be sharing what they have

learned during Fall 2011.

9

• The Center for Instructional Design conducted Technology Boot Camps in Summer 2010

and Summer 2011. Topics included:

o Creating a blog or wiki;

o Creating a website or e-portfolio;

o Teaching with a tablet pc;

o Designing online courses;

Outcomes from Professional Development Activities

Over forty percent of NSU’s full-time faculty have participated in the mobile course redesign

program. These faculty members who have participated in the course redesign process have

become invaluable mentors and resources to other faculty as well.

Table 1: Mobile Computing Course Redesign Stipend Recipients (2009-current)

Faculty Discipline Course Prefix/Number

Course Title Date

Kenneth Blanchard Political Science

POLS 100 American Government

Spring 2009

Andrzej Duszenko English ENGL 101/201 Composition I & II Spring 2009 Bill Wieland Music MUS 110/111 Music Theory I &

II Spring 2009

Anne Holmquest Speech SPCM 101 Fundamentals of Speech

Spring 2009

Mike Melko Math Math 102 College Algebra Spring 2009 Ding Li Economics ECON 202 Principles of

Macroeconomics Spring 2009

Duane Dolejsi Physics PHYS 111/111L Introduction to Physics I

Spring 2009

Fred Hemke Music MUS 373 Woodwind Methods

Spring 2009

Jonna Underwood & Todd Quinn

Library Information Literacy modules

Spring 2009

Gayle Bortnem Education ECE 211 Introduction to Early Childhood Education

Spring 2009

Stan Vinson Business BADM 312 Introduction to Banking

Spring 2009

Ann Vidoloff Sociology CJUS 201 Introduction to Criminal Justice

Spring 2009

Kevin Sackreiter Speech SPCM 101 Fundamentals of Spring 2009

10

Speech Susan Landon-Arnold

Biology BIOL 151L General Biology Lab

Spring 2009

Denise Finstad University College

READ 041 Reading for College Success

Spring 2009

Jon Schaff Political Science

POLS 100 American Government

Spring 2009

Virginia Lewis German GER 492 Art of German Translation

Spring 2009

Bill Broucek Business IDL 190 Interdisciplinary Studies: Business

Spring 2009

Grant Manhart Music MUS 100 Music Appreciation

Spring 2009

Boyd Perkins Music MUS 361 Instrumental Conducting

Spring 2009

Stan Vinson & John Peterson

Business IDL 190 Interdisciplinary Studies: Business

Spring 2009

Timothy Houge Education ELED 450 K-8 Reading Methods

Spring 2009

Alan Neville Education INED 411/511 South Dakota Indian Studies

Spring 2009

Johnath Weber Education ELRN 385 Educational Technology

Spring 2009

Lysbeth Benkert-Rasmussen

English ENGL 101 Composition I Spring 2010

Casey Black English ENGL 101 Composition I Spring 2010 Vicki Evans English ENGL 101 Composition I Spring 2010 Elizabeth Haller English ENGL 101 Composition I Spring 2010 Tanya Vanderlinde English ENGL 101 Composition I Spring 2010 Madia Droppers University

College IDL 101 University Success Spring 2010

Roseanne Rougemont

University College

IDL 101 University Success Spring 2010

Jennifer Olson University College

IDL 092/101 University Success Spring 2010

Steven Usitalo History HIST 122 Western Civilization II

Spring 2010

Juan Gonzalez Spanish SPAN 101 Introductory Spanish I

Spring 2010

Jennifer Ell Speech SPCM 101 Fundamentals of Speech

Spring 2010

Candice Hollingsead Special Education

SPED 100 Introduction to Persons with Exceptions

Spring 2010

Kami Fischbach Math MATH 021 Basic Algebra Spring 2010

11 George Nora Chemistry CHEM 106/L Chemistry Survey Spring 2011 Susan Landon-Arnold

Biology BIOL 101/L Biology Survey Spring 2011

Duane Dolejsi Physics PHYS 101/L Survey of Physics Spring 2011 Casey Black French FREN 101 Introductory

French I Spring 2011

Sara Schmidt Accounting ACCT 210 Principles of Accounting I

Spring 2011

Jodie Ramsay Biology BIOL 153L General Biology Spring 2011

Discipline/Program Participation Matrix

NSU’s approach to mobile learning is based on a cohort model. NSU completed the

second year of the campus-wide anytime, anywhere learning initiative during 2010-2011. Year

one of the initiative consisted of integrating mobile learning in to four courses each semester.

During the pilot year, there were 150 students enrolled in courses integrating mobile learning.

Year two of the initiative expanded into all sections of ENGL 101: Composition I, SPCM 101:

Fundamentals of Speech, IDL 092/101: University Success, MATH 021: Basic Algebra and

ENGL 033: Basic Writing and select sections of HIST 122: Western Civilization II and SPED

100: Introduction to Persons with Exceptions. These courses had a combined enrollment of 1437

students.

As NSU approaches its third year of the mobile initiative, courses and disciplines that are

integrating mobile learning based continue to expand. A complete list of courses and sections

that have fully integrated mobile learning can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Academic Year 2011-12 Mobile Courses

Discipline Course Prefix/Number

Course Title Sections

English ENGL 101 Composition I All English ENGL 201 Composition II All English ENGL 033 Basic Writing All Speech SPCM 101 Fundamentals of Speech All University College

IDL 092/101 University Success All

History HIST 122 Western Civilization II Select Spanish SPAN 101 Introductory Spanish I All

12

Proposed Budget and Budget Narrative

NSU supports faculty development activities through a variety of methods. Each spring,

NSU issues a request for proposals to all NSU faculty to support the redesign of first- and

second-year courses. In Spring 2010, thirteen course redesign stipends were awarded and in

spring 2011, six stipends were awarded. Faculty who were awarded a stipend in Spring 2011

participated in a series of workshops and are currently in process of redesigning their courses and

participating in ongoing faculty development workshops. Upon redesign, courses will begin

utilizing mobile strategies in Fall 2011.

In addition to awarding redesign stipends, NSU supports faculty development through an

experienced faculty mentor. This mentor is provided a stipend to assist faculty in developing

their courses, coordinating technical and instructional support, and serving as a liaison between

the faculty and administration. NSU also provided an opportunity for two faculty members to

attend the annual Ubiquitous Learning Conference, held December 10-11, 2010 at the University

of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The conference showcased the uses of mobile

technologies in learning.

Table 3: Detailed Expenditures

FY2011 Expenditure List Item Cost

Personnel – Instructional Design Manager $67,025.35

Special Education SPED 100 Introduction to Persons with Exceptions

Select

Math MATH 021 Basic Algebra All Chemistry CHEM 106/L Chemistry Survey All Biology BIOL 101/L Biology Survey Select Physics PHYS 101/L Survey of Physics All French FREN 101 Introductory French I All Accounting ACCT 210 Principles of Accounting Select Music MUS 110 Music Composition I All Music MUS 111 Music Composition II All Biology BIOL 153L General Biology II Lab Select

13 Personnel – Faculty Mentor $4,298.51 Personnel – Faculty Stipends $37,114.69 Personnel – Technology Fellow $3,097.03

Total Personnel $111,535.58 Operating Expenses - Hardware $0.00 Operating Expenses – Software $1,398.00 Operating Expenses – Supplies $0.00

Total Operating Expenses $1,398.00

Total Travel $2,783.62 Miscellaneous Expenses – Conference Registration $600.00 Miscellaneous Expenses – Faculty Development $10,195.00

Total Miscellaneous Expenses $10,795.00

Total Expenditures – Faculty Development Activities

$126,512.20

Professional Development Plan for FY2011

NSU is committed to providing ongoing faculty development opportunities to support our

campus-wide anytime, anywhere learning initiative. In Spring 2012, NSU will again issue a

request for proposals to support faculty during the redesign of their courses. The Center for

Instructional Design will continue to provide numerous workshops and training sessions

throughout the academic year and will develop an intensive workshop for May 2012. Topics to

be offered during the upcoming academic year include:

o Active learning strategies;

o Principles of good practice in undergraduate education;

o Beginning OneNote;

o Desire2Learn – Groups & Discussions;

o Desire2Learn – Dropbox;

o Desire2Learn – Gradebook;

o Desire2Learn – Introduction;

o Desire2Learn – Quizzes;

o Desire2Learn – Respondus;

o Elluminate web conferencing;

14

o Getting started with Twitter;

o Panopto lecture capture;

o Interactive whiteboard technology;

o Smartphone introduction;

o Mobile Apps;

o Using audio and video in teaching;

o Online object repositories; and

o Windows movie maker.

Working collaboratively with the Office of Instructional Support, workshops and sharing

sessions will also be scheduled during the academic year, utilizing faculty and external

consultants as resources. As mobile technologies and social media become more prevalent in our

curriculum, NSU is providing an opportunity for faculty and students to learn more about the

security implications of mobile device and social network usage. In October 2011, NSU will

bring John Sileo, a leading speaker on computer security, to campus to help educate faculty and

students on identity theft and Internet privacy.

15

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Mobile Computing Professional Development Plan, FY12

1. Established Objectives and Outcomes

0. What tangible outcomes were achieved this past year as it relates to mobile computing?

One of the faculty teams that received an internal grant from these monies received external recognition for their project by being selected to attend the National Science Foundation funded “Engineering Curriculum Design Project.” Part of this recognition includes project mentoring by four world class experts in curriculum design and evidence-based learning and teaching.

1. What percentage of your faculty have been involved in some level of professional development activities?

Approximately 7.5% of tenure line (or equivalent) faculty are involved in at least one internal mobile computing funds grant. Approximately 12% of faculty, representing nine departments, have attended a mobile computing faculty development workshop.

2. What are your institutional goals for this coming year for further integrating technology into the teaching and learning experience?

In FY12 SDSMT plans to continue the two-prong approach, specifically: 1. Continue raising the profile of mobile computing pedagogical options

among the faculty and provide development opportunities to the faculty to help them select appropriate technologies and opportunities for increasing student learning. This will include at least one external consultant who will conduct a workshop for faculty and hold one-on-one meetings with faculty on classroom mobile computing.

2. Conduct another round of the internal proposal competition for classroom mobile computing projects and work with the PIs of the currently funded proposals to see that their projects make progress and are sufficiently assessed and reported.

3. What types of professional development activities does your institution plan to employ?

In alignment with the SDSMT strategic plan, pedagogical oriented faculty professional development is committed to scholarly, evidence-based teaching and learning. Thus, SDSMT will offer workshops from internal and external speakers on evidence-based pedagogical techniques including mobile computing. In addition, SDSMT has assigned the faculty development coordinator to offer one-on-one mentoring to faculty

16

involved in funded mobile computing projects as well as those faculty considering adding more mobile computing to their classes.

2. Discipline/Program Participation Matrix

0. Which disciplines/programs have fully integrated mobile computing into the curriculum?

Funded mobile computing instruction proposals so far have included faculty from the following departments/programs: Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer Science, Industrial Engineering, Mathematics, and Mechanical Engineering

1. Which disciplines/programs are you planning to target for FY12?

For FY12, SDSMT will conduct another round of internal proposals in order to allocate the funds to those faculty most ready to use mobile computing for increased student learning, persistence, and retention.

3. Proposed Budget and Budget Narrative

0. What are the total expenditures for each of the following professional development activities?

Personnel: Faculty Development Coordinators ($8000), Graduate Assistant ($10,000), Faculty Stipends ($60,000), Faculty Mentors ($8000), Consultants ($3,000), Operating Expenses – Software, Hardware, Media Management, Supplies, Other (Assessment instruments and supplies): expected total: $13,500 Travel $7500

Miscellaneous Expenses $2500

1. How are the resources allocated in the budget used specifically to advance

professional development activities as it relates to the mobile computing initiative?

SDSMT will conduct a new round of the internal grant competition. The external peer review and internal student review processes assure that future projects will continue to be learning-focused, evidence-based, and well-designed. It is expected that FY12 projects will continue on the success of FY10 and FY11 projects. Projects funded in FY11 were: New Projects: An internal request for proposals (RFP) was opened to the faculty for projects that would use mobile computing in the classroom to

17

increase student learning. Proposal requirements included explicitly stating student learning goals and how the project will be assessed. Three new projects were funded through the FY11 RFP:

o Apollo 13 Project – The purpose of this project is to identify the best means to teach/develop students to be the Engineers of 2020. Specifically, knowing that the current generation of students have been “wired” since birth and are now “wireless, but continually electronically connected”, How do we teach skills and attitudes leveraging the student penchant for mobile computing platforms? The proposed project works off of the main attributes of the Apollo 13 success: partners, at a distance, solving real-time engineering problems using mobile computing. The project will place students in remote locations with different computing resources and information, and require them to solve real-time design problems. Multiple activities will be developed to address different skill sets, data communication skills and mobile computing skills. ($105,000)

o Mobile Machine Design – A developmental project to investigate the best practices of improving the learning environment in machine design courses through appropriate use of mobile computing. Machine design is representative of courses in engineering taken by most SDSMT students; the deliverable of this developmental project is a set of evidence-based design considerations for effective implementation of mobile computing in upper level engineering classrooms using Machine Design I as a case study. Solving Machine Design problems typically entails lengthy iterative calculations involving many algebraic equations and graphing. As such, they are poorly suited for classroom exercises if they are to be done by hand. Mobile computing can facilitate a more dynamic learning experience where students solve problems as part of the classroom experience. ($15,000)

o Mobile Computing for Dynamics Instruction – A developmental project investigating the potential use of mobile computing to improve student retention in traditionally “weed out” courses. ME-221 (Dynamics of Mechanisms) is a required course both for sophomore mechanical engineering students and for senior civil engineers. It is also widely considered to be one of the most difficult courses in the curriculum for students and routinely has a high failure / dropout rate. One of the major difficulties in teaching the class seems to be developing the visualization and intuition skills that help to make sense of the mathematics in the course. This proposal intends to address these difficulties by incorporating a software component to the class to aid in visualization and problem solving for in-class examples. ($15,000)

• Project Support and Assessment: Funds were allocated for people time and activities that support the rest of the portfolio of projects. This includes training personnel, finding or creating

18

research, classroom, and assessment resources, and performing assessments with and across the projects. ($15,000)

19

South Dakota State University

The AL Cloud: Active Learning on the 21st

Century Campus Professional Development Plan: Empowering Faculty

through In-Service Programs FY 11 Plan (Year 2)

Introduction Creating learning environments that promote active and collaborative learning, critical thinking, problem‐solving and knowledge creation is critical in meeting the needs of today’s college students. Generation Y (individuals born between 1979 and 1995) is considered to be “free agent learners”, who are self‐directed, un‐tethered to traditional education or physical networks and value experiential learning (Manville & Schiel, 2008). In addition to building the technology infrastructure, establishing technology‐enhanced learning environments, securing the sustainable resource base, a multi‐faceted professional development plan is needed to facilitate faculty understanding and use of new teaching technologies to enhance learning.

Purpose and proposed outcomes

The purpose of this professional development plan as related to Active Learning on the 21st

Century Campus is to empower faculty through in‐service programs with the insight, tools and savvy to adopt cutting edge, discipline‐specific pedagogies that will ensure active learning environments.

Faculty Outcomes include: 1. Increase knowledge base of available technology tools to enhance teaching and learning. 2. Increase knowledge base of current and cutting‐edge internet systems and technology

including the “Cloud”. 3. Adopt instructional technology in the teaching and learning environment. 4. Create and implement innovative instructional technology pedagogies in identified

courses and programs.

SDSU Professional Development Plan (Note: In 2009-2010, the AL Cloud task force functioned as the entity charged with reviewing and approving the AL Cloud professional development plan and use of funds. Beginning in 2010-2011, a new joint administrative/ faculty senate committee entitled, Campus Technology Committee will assume these responsibilities. The committee includes faculty, students and administrators.) The following components will be included in the SDSU Professional Development Plan for FY11:

20

1. Faculty Exploration Sessions Topics will include: a. Internet/Cloud Access Devices (laptop, netbooks, IPods, ITouch, etc.) b. Internet/Cloud Software (Turning Point, Microsoft Labs) c. Internet/Cloud Simulations (Second Life, Subject matter simulations) d. Internet/Cloud Computers (Aragon Labs, Oakridge Labs) e. Internet/Cloud Services (I Tunes U Podcasting, Elluminate web conferencing,

Question Pro Online Survey, etc. ) f. AL Cloud 101 (introduction to Cloud Computing and SDSU Cloud Computing) g. Others as identified

2. Faculty Development Workshops(Teaching, Learning and Technology Summer Academy) The primary opportunity for faculty to further develop their knowledge and skills in the use of technology to support teaching and learning is the TLT Summer Academy. Topics included during this two-week session are outlined below. For Summer 2010, SDSU is offering 9, 2-week sessions with 14-17 participants for each session

a. Teaching, Learning and Technology – characteristics of millennials, challenges, opportunities for teaching; different modes of learning with emphasis on active learning; course redesign rubric; new horizons in instructional applications to support teaching and learning.

b. Active Learning and Learning outcomes – focus on active learning, how to use National Educational Technology (NET) to create an effective course built around assessable learning outcomes. Writing learning objectives and assessment strategies.

c. Teaching content in multi‐media – multiple approaches to teaching and learning; Cloud Web 2.0 web services, obtaining and creating materials to effectively support teaching. Using the content tool in D2L, linking to the streaming server, Expression Web, PDF, PPT narration, Camtasia Studio, LectureScribe, Movie Maker, SDSU iTunes U, and other multimedia delivery such as CourseCast, Impatica delivery systems.

d. Learning interaction and group collaboration – effective use of class activities and group collaboration; how to use activities and group collaboration applications including clickers, IM, Chat, Elluminate, D2L discussion, Group Locker, WebQuest, Mind Mapping, online polling, MERLOT research, Live@EDU.

e. Assessment of student learning – principles of assessment and how to use D2L assessment tools. Respondus, StudyMate, ePortfolio, D2L dropbox, quizzes, LockDown Browser, discussion assessment, Snap Online, and other rubric/grading items.

f. New Cloud Devices in class (Kindle, Cloudbook, Multi‐touch Screen) – emerging technologies to support teaching and learning including laptops, tablets, SecondLife, PDA, iPod Touch, SmartBoard, etc. Classroom Presenter, DyKnow, and D2L user progress tools; Large class teaching pedagogies using

21

technologies. g. Special Topics:

i. User discussion ii. Course Redesign Models

iii. Hybrid Learning iv. Teaching with Web 2.0 v. Group Based Learning

vi. Copyright, accessibility and class policies vii. Implementation of active learning pedagogy

The Teaching, Learning and Technology Summer Academy for Summer 2010 has utilized a team-taught approach with the instructional design team and one faculty member who serves as a Summer Academy mentor serving on the teaching team for each Summer Academy session.

3. AL Cloud Mentoring Program The purpose of the mentoring program is to make available one-on-one support and

guidance to faculty as they implement Cloud technology and establish active learning environments. While group sessions on a variety of Cloud related topics are available, the mentoring program allows for specific needs of individual faculty to be addressed. While the individual needs of faculty vary, so does the degree to which mentors and mentees may choose to be involved in the program. Time and depth of knowledge are two issues to be considered in deciding whether or not to participate as either a mentor or mentee. Due to variability in the amount of time available and knowledge base and skills related to the use of technology to enhance learning, a multi-level mentoring approach is available. The following structure has been established: Level I: A level I mentor is included on a directory of faculty who are willing to work one-on-one with another faculty member on a specific issue. These mentors identify the area(s) in which they are proficient. This information is available through the online directory on Insidestate. Faculty requesting a mentor can contact the potential mentor themselves or work with the TLC director to access a mentor. Level II: A level II mentor agrees to perform the duties of the level I mentor with the addition of making themselves available at a specified time and location where faculty can go to get assistants, ask questions, discuss teaching and technology issues, etc. Level III: A level III mentor agrees to perform all of the duties of the levels I and II mentors and also carry out more structured mentoring activities such as providing department specific sessions, work with IDS staff to prepare and deliver topic specific training/mentoring in groups of faculty.

22

Mentors at all levels would agree to be in ongoing communication with the AL Cloud team and TLC director. They are expected to report specific needs/issues that may arise through their work with faculty and also submit a summary of their activity at the end of each semester.

4. Online Certification Program A training program focused on high quality online instruction will be piloted in Fall 2010. The program allows for instructors to become certified at one of three levels: basic, advanced and master. The certification levels will be obtained through a series of online courses designed to address issues critical to successful online teaching. The first online class begins on September 27th and ends on October 17th. Class One (Foundations) includes the following topics: a) quality assurance course review rubric, b) creating/writing measurable course objectives, c) alignment of goals, content and assessment, d) types of assessment, e) communication strategies, and f) course syllabi. Class Two (Collaboration) includes: a) collaboration strategies and activities, b) assessing discussions, c) assessment rubrics, d) social networking, e) Cloud Web 2.0 services and applications, and f) SDSU AL Cloud Program and Resources. Class Three (Special Issues/Topics includes: a) copyright, b) multi-media, c) student authentication, d) student-student mentoring, and e) emerging Cloud services and applications. Additional topics may be included depending on current needs and issues. See complete description of the Online Instructor Certification Program attached.

5. Discipline/Program specific plan development The AL Cloud team is working with department heads and faculty to develop discipline/program specific plans which outline the plan for integrating the use of technology to support teaching and learning for each major at SDSU.

6. Grants to colleges Based on number of faculty and student enrollment colleges are allocated AL Cloud funds to support more targeted faculty development efforts with college departments and programs.

7. Spring Faculty Development Conference The Office of Academic Affairs and the Faculty Development Committee also plans and delivers an annual spring conference. The theme of technology‐enhanced active learning will be the focus of the spring 2011 conference. Specific sessions are yet to be determined.

8. Other activities as identified throughout the academic year

Webinars including: • Advanced Podcasting and other Web 2.0 Multimedia • Advanced Second Life • Google Wave in Education

23

• Supporting and Engaging students through social media • Selection, incorporation, and assessment of new and emerging technologies

for online courses • Blended learning: Hyflex Course Design • Designed Blended Courses and Building a Blended Learning Community • Video and Audio tools for teaching and learning • Student Success Strategies: Teaching students techniques to utilize online

reference materials in their academic work • Academic integrity

Establishing Active Learning Environments Six disciplines currently embrace a technology supported active learning environment. The table below identifies the years in which all other disciplines will enact AL pedagogy enabled and empowered by the wireless access. The Deans, in consultations with students and faculty, may modify the plan as appropriate, with all programs participating by Fall 2012.

Wireless Access/AL Cloud plan:

Program Exists Now

Fall Fall Fall Fall 2012 2009 2010 2011

College of Agriculture & Biological Sciences Ag Business X Ag Education, Comm, & Leadership X Ag Systems Technology X Agronomy X Animal Science X Dairy Manufacturing/ Production X General Agriculture X Horticulture X Landscape Architecture X Biology/Microbiology X Park & Recreation Management X Pre‐Veterinary Science X Range Science X Wildlife & Fisheries X College of Arts & Sciences Art X Chemistry/Biochemistry X Clinical & Laboratory Sciences X

24 Communication Studies & Theatre X Economics X English X Graphic Design X Geography X History X Journalism & Mass Communication X Modern Languages X Music/Music Merchandising X Political Science X Psychology X Sociology X College of Education & Human Sciences Agricultural Education X Apparel Merchandising X Athletic Training X Consumer Affairs X Early Childhood Education X Family & Consumer Sciences Education X Health, Physical Education, & Recreation X Health Promotion X Hotel & Food Service Management X Human Development & Family Studies X Interior Design X Nutrition, Food Science, & Hospitality

X

Teacher Education (pedagogy & content areas) X

College of Engineering Ag & Biosystems Engineering

X

Civil Engineering X Computer Science X Construction Management X Electrical Engineering

X

Electronics Engineering Technology X Engineering Physics X Industrial Management

X

Manufacturing Engineering Technology X Mathematics X

25 Mechanical Engineering X Physics X Safety Management X Software Engineering X

College of General Studies General Studies X College of Nursing Nursing X

College of Pharmacy Pharmacy X

Evaluation/Assessment Plan

An external consultant was secured to conduct the evaluation/assessment. The assessment plan assesses the degree to which the program outcomes were attained:

1. Increase knowledge base of available technology tools to enhance teaching and learning. This outcome is assessed with a pre‐post test of faculty knowledge of technology tools and the evaluation of training provided through IDS. Assessment also includes an evaluation of the attendance at AL Cloud sponsored workshops and conferences.

2. Increase knowledge base of current and cutting‐edge internet systems and technology including the “Cloud”. This outcome is assessed with a pre‐post test of faculty knowledge of internet systems and technology.

3. Adopt instructional technology in the teaching and learning environment. This outcome is assessed via a selected review of course syllabi, faculty self‐assessment and classroom observations. Project initiatives including the Mentoring program and the Online Teaching Certificate will be evaluated for the benefits and limitations for assisting faculty and programs in the adoption of their defined goals.

4. Create and implement innovative instructional technology strategies in identified courses and programs. This outcome will be assessed via classroom observations and the system designed and distributed student survey.

The effectiveness of workshops and other educational experiences is assessed via survey and interview methods. Focus groups are also used to collect relevant data. SD BOR required data has been and will continue to be collected and submitted. The assessment plan and data will be evaluated with feedback throughout the year and a summary evaluation will be presented on the project in August.

26

AL Cloud FY 11 Proposed Budget

Personnel: 1. Instructional Designer (1 FTE) $79,539 (includes benefits)

2. Instructional Designer (1FTE) $62,228 (includes benefits) 3. Training Specialist (1 FTE) $47,533 (includes benefits) 4. Instructional Design Manager (.5FTE) $42,012 (includes benefits) 5. Communications Maintenance Technician (1 FTE) $42,000 (includes benefits) 6. Faculty Development Coordinator (.5 FTE) $42,000 (includes benefits) 7. Graduate Administrative Assistant (.49 FTE) $17,000 (includes benefits) 8. External Evaluator (Consultant contract- flat fee) $30,000 (includes benefits) 9. Consultants $10,000

10. Faculty stipends for Summer Academy $198,000 132 participants @$1500 each

11. Faculty Mentor stipends a. Summer Academy mentors $22,250

o Per each 2 week session ($2500 stipend) b. Academic Year mentors $5,000

12. Online Certification stipends for completers $20,000 $2,000 for level 3 completers only

o Forecast 10 completers for year 1 13. Summer stipends for faculty to work on discipline specific program plans. $20,000

Total Personnel: $637,562

Grants to Colleges: 1. Arts and Sciences $10,000

2. Agriculture and Biological Sciences $10,000 3. Nursing $7,000 4. Engineering $7,000 5. Education and Human Sciences $7,000 6. Pharmacy $5,000 7. Honors College $2,000 8. General Studies $2,000 Total College Grants: $50,000

OE: 1. OE for AL Cloud Project $2,500

2. Software • Turnitin ($19,975) • VoiceThread ($5,000) • Camtasia Studio ($11,000)

$35,975

27

3. Supplies and Materials for TLC director office $500 Total OE: $38,975

Special Events: 1. Fall Faculty Development Conference

costs covered by Academic and Student Affairs; focus will be Student Success $0

2. Spring Faculty Development Conference $4,000 3. Online workshops $1,000 Total Special Events $5,000

Travel: 1. Travel for AL Cloud, TLC Director; IDS staff $10,000

(To attend Teaching, Learning and Technology conferences) Total Travel $10,000

Educational Materials (books, videos, Educause ELI, etc. : $8,000

Total Educational Materials $8,000 GRAND TOTAL $749,537

1. Budget Narrative

Personnel: 1-4. Instructional Designers, Training Specialist and Instructional Design Manager - Two full‐time

instructional designers, one training specialist and one-half of the Instructional Design Manager will be funded with AL Cloud funds to work directly with faculty on integrating technology into the classroom environment. These instructional designers and the training specialist will assist with the delivery of the faculty exploration sessions, faculty development workshops, training faculty mentors, discipline‐specific sessions, and one‐on‐one sessions with faculty. These individuals will work with the Director of the Teaching Learning Center to collaborate on educational opportunities for faculty and other professional staff. The Instructional Design Manager serves on the coordinating team in the management of the overall AL Cloud faculty development program.

3. Communications Maintenance Technician - This individual assists faculty and students within the classroom setting on maintaining and using the “Smart classroom” technology.

4. Faculty Development Coordinator: Half of the Teaching Learning Center Director salary will be funded by AL Cloud funds. Half of the TLC director position will be dedicated to the on-going development and implementation of the overall professional development plan as presented in this document.

5. Graduate Administrative Assistant – The GAA position is responsible for assisting the TLC

Director with planning and implementing AL Cloud activities, tracking participation in events, scheduling and organizing department and college meetings/activities, assisting with assessment activities and reporting.

6. External Evaluator: A half‐time external evaluator will continue work on the AL Cloud assessment plan. The use of an external evaluator helps ensure the conduct of an objective assessment. Lisa Star will continue to serve in this capacity. Lisa has contributed to the SDSU AL Cloud project in numerous ways in addition to the assessment component. She serves on the coordinating team (weekly meetings) and has provided consulting services on the development of processes and procedures. However, she is not involved in the direct delivery of services and programs so as to remain as objective as possible.

7. Consultants: Consultants will be secured from organizations including The Collaboration for the Advancement of College Teaching and Learning as well as Teaching, Learning and Technology (TTL), National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT), Educause, Sloan Consortium, other BOR institution, etc. These consultants will work with discipline‐specific groups.

8. Faculty Stipends for Summer Academy participation and discipline specific workshops: Faculty who participate in the discipline‐specific workshops will be granted a $1500 stipend. 132 faculty registered for the Summer 2010 Summer Academy.

9. Faculty mentor stipends: Faculty who have extensive knowledge and experience in the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning as well as online teaching serve as co-facilitators to the IDS staff during the summer academy. Academic Year mentors – faculty with expertise in the use of classroom technology will serve as mentors. See description of the Mentoring

29

program. Level II mentors can receive a maximum stipend of $1000 each semester. Level III mentors receive a $2000 stipend for each semester.

10. Online Certification stipends for completers - faculty who complete all classes in the certification program will be awarded a $2,000 award. We anticipate 10 completers during FY11.

11. Summer stipends for faculty to work on discipline specific program plans.

Grants to Colleges:

Colleges will receive a small fund to help support college specific faculty development efforts specifically focused on increasing faculty expertise and use in classroom technology to enhance student learning. College may use the funds for the following activities: • Faculty participation in conferences with a clear, documented focus on teaching,

learning and technology. • Consulting services – colleges/departments may identify an expert in teaching,

learning and technology in specific disciplines to assist program faculty in developing program plans for integrating technology.

• Webinars, audio conferences related to teaching, learning and technology • College/department specific workshops – costs related to putting on a workshop

including external speaker/facilitator, travel costs, room rental and supplies. • Faculty stipends to work on program redesign. • Other – contact TLC director to discuss. These funds can not be used for: • Computers • Other computer hardware • Computer software • Hospitality

Colleges are also required to submit a report on the use of funds and if the use falls outside of these parameters funds will not be transferred to the college account.

OE: 1. OE for AL Cloud project – port charges, telephone, supplies

2. Software – three specific software packages are needed by faculty to support their AL

Cloud technology integration for course and program redesign: Turnitin, Camtasia Studio, and VoiceThread. During the SDSU summer academy, these three emerging technologies are introduced and explored. These are new to faculty. Participants show very strong interest in integrating these technologies into on-campus courses and online teaching. Among the 132 participants in Summer 2010, it is estimated that approximately 50 will adopt Turnitin to reinforce students’ academic integrity and online collaboration. The English department would implement the use of Turnitin for all faculty. Of the summer academic participants (just for summer 2010), about 110 will use Camtasia Studio to enhance teaching with interactive audio and video teaching content. Camtasia is becoming a commonly used multimedia production tool. We anticipate approximately 60

30

participants will incorporate the use of VoiceThread in their teaching to foster online communication and collaboration and engage students through multiple channels enabled by VoiceThread.

a. Turnitin – Turnitin Originality Checking allows instructors to check students; work for improper citation or potential plagiarism by comparing it against continuously updated databases. Turnitin PeerMark, an online peer reviewing tool, provides instructors with the ability to create peer review assignments that students use to evaluate and learn from one another’s work. Turnitin GradeMark is an innovative paperless grading tool that allows instructors to grade students’ work without using red ink and stacks of papers. ($19,975)

b. Voicethread – a collaborative multimedia slide show that holds images, documents, and videos and allows students to navigate pages and leave comments in 4 ways: using voice, text, audio file, or video (via webcam). A VoiceThread can be shared among students or colleagues to record comments. ($5,000)

c. Camtasia Studio – a video-baesd screen capturing software program. Common use of Camtasia include: tutorials; Web site tours, Narrated PowerPoint presentation; Narrated explanation of lecture notes, homework solutions or other materials; Video and audio podcast production. ($11,000)

3. Materials and supplies for TLC director/office – a new TLC director (faculty development coordinator) was hired beginning FY11. These funds will be used to cover costs related to the on-going functions of the office. The TLC office is located in the Briggs Library and was moved to this location in August 2009. The office is already equipped with desk, chair, computer, printer, etc. These funds will be used at the director’s discretion in support of the office and AL Cloud project.

Special Events:

Spring Faculty Development Conference - tentative plans include brining in 1‐2 consultants to present on technology related topics in addition to scheduled time to work in program groups.

Online Workshops:

These online workshops are available through Magma, etc. and are made available to all who want to attend.

• Using Technology to Facilitate Group Projects • Bringing Language Learning in Life through the Evolving Web • Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies • Enhancing Social Presence through using video • Virtual Field Trips • The Convergence of Lecture Capture and Social Media • Others as identified.

Travel TLC Director, IDS Staff:

Travel funds will be used to support staff directly involved in AL Cloud activities to attend teaching, learning and technology-focused conferences

31

Educational Materials:

• Educause ELI – The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative is a community of higher education institutions and organizations committed to advancing learning through IT innovation. ELI is a strategic initiative of EDUCAUSE. ELI specifically explores innovative technologies and practices that advance learning. By understanding learners and learning principles and how to use technology to appropriately support them, institutions can ensure successful learning. ELI stresses the role of technology to support learning.

• Books, educational packets, etc.

Reference Manville, G., & Schiel, G. (2008). Times Higher Education – Generation Y is wired up and ready for action so what’ the problem? Times Higher Education, Retrieved July 06, 2010 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=403177ioncode-26

32

The University of South Dakota FY12 Mobile Computing Faculty Development Report

33

Introduction The following report outlines the activities related to the faculty development program initiated at the University of South Dakota as a result of the mobile computing initiative (MCI). The MCI faculty development program is contained primarily within the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The CTL is enthusiastically committed to the development of vibrant educational experiences at the University of South Dakota, and is part of USD’s comprehensive goal to develop at all career states a diverse faculty of teacher/scholar/citizens dedicated to extraordinary teaching. I. Established Objectives and Outcomes What tangible outcomes were achieved this past year as it relates to mobile computing? USD has achieved a number of notable outcomes this past year relating to mobile computing. Information Technology Services (ITS) and Facilities Management have made significant progress on transforming the campus to a wireless environment, and all classrooms and residence halls are now wireless. In addition, 86% (65 out of 76) of our classrooms have been transformed into Smart Classrooms. The University has also completed an Active Learning Classroom, which fundamentally changes the nature of teaching and learning and enhances the use of mobile technology. Our Active Learning Classroom features large tables that seat twelve students each, switchable laptop-based technology, multiple fixed flat-panel display projection systems, and a central teaching station that allows the instructor to select and display table-specific information. The classroom is designed to foster an interactive, student-centered learning experience centered on the use of laptops. This room embodies the philosophy of learner-centered teaching, removing the instructor from the front of the class and taking advantage of a cooperative learning environment that encourages students to collaborate with each other. Students and faculty are also able to make use of learning spaces in the Library and University Center that enhance collaboration through the use of technology.

USD’s Active Learning Classroom

Students indicate that the university as a whole has become more proficient in using educational technology and believe that this technology use has enhanced their educational experience. The

34

Center for Teaching and Learning has gathered several types of data to measure the effectiveness of its mobile computing training. The data focus on direct outcomes and demonstrate that the CTL’s developmental programming has been effective in enacting meaningful change in faculty behavior regarding the use of technology in the classroom.

SmartBoards have become an important technological tool in the classroom

Outcome 1: Students will indicate that the University as a whole will show growing proficiency in using educational technology, as measured on Question 47 of the IDEA form, until the University average is 4.5 on a 5-point Likert scale. Question 47 on the IDEA form states that “The Instructor used educational technology to promote learning.” The question is measured by a 5-point Likert scale, where a rating of 1 indicates “Definitely False” and a rating of 5 indicates “Definitely True.” Figure 1: University averages for IDEA Question 47, by semester (Fall-Spring only)

4.024

4.0534.096

4.15

4.123

4.18

4.183

4.221

3.9

3.95

4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

FA07 SP08 FA08 SP09 FA09 SP10 FA10 SP11

IDEA Rating Question #47

35

Figure 2: University averages for IDEA Question 47, by semester (Summer only)

Analysis and Action: These data indicate that students believe that faculty as a whole are growing more proficient in their use of educational technology. Our goal for next year will be to increase each semester’s average by .05 points. Outcome 2: Students will indicate that faculty who go through MCI workshops make greater use of technology in their classes than the University average. These data are measured through Question 47 on the IDEA form, described above. This metric examines individual scores on this question and cross-indexes them with the number of MCI workshops that those individuals have attended. Figure 3: Average on IDEA question 47, differentiated by attendance in MCI workshops

Analysis and Action: Student responses for this measure indicate that we are reaching our goal. Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference between the scores of those faculty members who attended 3 or more MCI workshops and the University’s overall average.

4.299

4.385

4.434 4.44

4.2

4.25

4.3

4.35

4.4

4.45

4.5

SU07 SU08 SU09 SU10

IDEA Rating Question #47

44.14.24.34.44.5

University overall

Faculty who attended 1‐2

MCI workshops

Faculty who attended 3 or

more MCI workshops

4.1774.268

4.425

Q47 Means, Fall 2010

36

USD students indicate that faculty make greater use of technology in their classes.

Outcome 3: Students who are in MCI courses with faculty who have attended MCI workshops will answer more positively to the question “My class experience was enhanced by the use of laptops/tablets/ SMARTBoards” on the MCI student assessment than will students in MCI courses with faculty who have not attended MCI workshops. This outcome is being measured through USD’s MCI assessment, which measures questions on a five-point scale, where 1=”strongly disagree” and 5=”strongly agree.” Figure 4: Student Assessment of MCI: “My class experience was enhanced by the use of laptops/tablets/SMARTBoards.”

Analysis and Action: Students indicate that faculty members who were trained in MCI workshops were able to enhance the class experience through the use technology to a greater extent than faculty who were not trained. Our goal is to reach a consistent 4.0 average for MCI-trained faculty on this outcome.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Fall 2010 Spring 2011

4

3.53.8

3.3

MCI Trained

Not Trained

37

USD students believe that technology enhances their class experience.

Outcome 4: Students will indicate that 80% of the faculty who participate in the CTL faculty consultation process will show improvement the semester of and the semester after consultation in the category of “Excellent Instructor” (Raw Score All Courses) and “Excellent Course” (Raw Score All Courses) on the IDEA form. One of the most important resources that the Center for Teaching and Learning offers is the opportunity for faculty to obtain intense one-on-one consultation with the CTL staff. Students indicate that

• 71.4% of the faculty who go through the faculty consultation process show two consecutive semesters of improvement the semester of and the semester after the mentoring.

• 85.7% of the faculty who go through the faculty consultation process show one semester

of improvement (either the semester of consultation or the semester after). Students also indicate that faculty who go through consultation and attend four or more CTL events during the semester of consultation and the following semester show sustained growth over time (1.57 point gain on average over three semesters on “Excellent Teacher, Raw All Courses”, 0.91 point gain on average over three semesters on “Excellent Course, Raw All Courses”).

38

Figure 5: Average IDEA scores, “Excellent Teacher, Raw All Courses” for faculty that have attended four or more CTL events:

C = semester of consultation, C-1 the semester before consultation, etc. Figure 6: Average IDEA scores, “Excellent Course, Raw All Courses” for faculty that have attended four or more CTL events:

C = semester of Consultation, C-1 the semester before consultation, etc. Analysis and Action: We are very close to meeting our goal on this outcome. The CTL staff will continue to emphasize the need for faculty who are going through the consultation process to become engaged in other CTL activities. Outcome 5: Faculty evaluations of MCI workshops will show an average of 4.0 (on a 5 point scale where 1 = not useful and 5 = very useful) on the question “This workshop was useful”, and 90% of the faculty will indicate that they plan to implement one thing from the workshop they attended.

• MCI workshops received a 4.6 average rating for “This workshop was useful.” • 96.3% of the faculty who took MCI workshops indicated that they planned to implement

something from the workshop, and 94.4% of the faculty identified a specific technique

2.98 2.98

3.553.82

4.55

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

C‐2 C‐1 C C+1 C+2

Average IDEA score, Excellent Teacher, Raw All Courses

3.393.34

3.713.77

4.25

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

C‐2 C‐1 C C+1 C+2

Average IDEA score, Excellent Course, Raw All Courses

39

that they intended to implement.

Analysis and Action: We are meeting our goals on this outcome but will continue to monitor as part of the overall CTL/MCI assessment strategy. Outcome 6: 90% of the faculty who receive MCI development grants will identify in their after-grant reports specific, positive ways in which their teaching, pedagogical research or pedagogical service has been affected by their grant. Eleven out of twelve of the reports (91.7%) identified specific, positive ways that the grant impacted the recipient’s teaching, pedagogical research or pedagogical service as it related to implementing mobile computing in the classroom. For example: Mobile Computing Travel Grants:

Faculty 1: Technology tools I learned about included VoiceThread. I decided I want to explore this and deepen my understanding and use of both Audacity and Eluminate as teaching and learning tools for myself and my students. I would like to incorporate the student creation of an e-book at some point but that would require some restructuring of coursework.

Faculty 2: This [conference] explored interactive tools to facilitate learner collaboration in and out of the classroom. Twitter, Jaycut, Audioboo are a few of the tools that we will try to introduce our students to in the coming semester. These web 2.0 tools allow our students to create, collaborate, and communicate with peers and teacher in and out of the classroom.

Mobile Computing Best Practices Grants:

Faculty 1: The Nursing Department for USD received an award from the Center for Teaching and Learning in February 2010 to purchase a subscription for access to 30 contact hours of online webinars over a 12-month period of time. The goals were to provide nursing faculty, clinical adjunct faculty, and clinical preceptors with professional development opportunities to incorporate new technology into a newly developed curriculum, infuse new technology into clinical and simulation settings, and help faculty be better equipped with tools to utilize new technology.

Mobile Computing Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grants. Three projects are underway which will evaluate and assess the use of technology in the classroom. All will be concluded by Fall 2011. For example:

Faculty Project 1: Stemming from research at The University of South Dakota on pen-based technologies, their digital ink usage patterns, and pedagogical techniques (Reins 2007, 2010), Patient Problem Posing (3P) motivates experimentation with problem posing in the Ubiquitous Presenter (UP) environment. 3P combines pen-based computers with shared writing surfaces and real-time web interfacing to increase collaboration and interaction through active learning to enhance the individual’s leaning and contribute to the learning of others. This pedagogical technique can be used as in-class experiences or activities occurring outside of class time, and evokes and encourages students’ intuitions and allows opportunities to build a problem and its resolution. Support of this

40

project explores this UP problem-based environment in two university mathematics education courses, but its application is diverse in terms of disciplines, levels, and settings and its software is free. The study will be conducted during the spring and fall 2011 semesters from January through December in SEED 418 7-12 Math Methods and ELED 330 K-8 Math Methods.

Analysis and Action: We are meeting our goal here and believe that the grants have had a positive impact in raising awareness about MCI and the proper use of technology in the classroom that is reflected in our other outcomes. Outcome 7: Overall faculty use of D2L will rise. Measure: D2L course activation statistics. One of the easiest ways to incorporate technology in the classroom is through the features of D2L, and it is a technology that is ubiquitous within the system and fully supported by ITS. Our goal is to have 35% of the courses activated by 2015. Figure 7: Percentage of Courses Activated in D2L, by semester

Analysis and Action: We are making acceptable progress here, and will continue to measure this as evidence of our effectiveness. Outcome 8: 90% of the faculty who are contacted through our phone surveys will indicate that they have changed their teaching as a result of attending CTL workshops. We are midway through this assessment at the time of this writing. 100% of the phone surveys to this point have indicated that faculty members have implemented changes in their teaching as a result of attending CTL workshops. Analysis and Action: The survey at this point supports the other data. We will continue to use this measure to help us determine our effectiveness in implementing true change through our MCI development activities. What percentage of your faculty have been involved in some level of professional development

15.2 16.519.8

21.3 21.624.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fall 2008 Spring 2009

Fall 2009 Spring 2010

Fall 2010 Spring 2011

41

activities? The overall levels of participation in CTL workshops have increased dramatically this past year. In addition, the number of participants who took more than one workshop has increased, indicating a higher level of faculty engagement. CTL workshops reach faculty, staff, GTAs, and a smaller number of students and community members. Figure 8: Participation in CTL Events, AY 2009, 2010, & 2011

Figure 9: % Change in participation rates, AY 2009-AY 2011

Faculty members self-report their status on our sign-up lists, so it is difficult at times to differentiate between the variety of instructional categories (full-time faculty, part-time faculty, staff who teach, faculty who hold dual appointments, etc.). With that caveat:

• 246 participants indicated that they were faculty with rank, or approximately 61.5% of the 400 full time faculty.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

188 214292314

406

596684

895

1645

Classes Offered

Unique Individuals

Total Registrants

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

% Change AY09‐AY10% Change AY10‐11

13.83%

36.45%29.30%

46.80%

30.85%

83.80%

Classes offered

Unique individuals

Total Registrants

42

• 49 participants identified themselves as adjuncts, instructors, distance or online faculty. • 58 participants identified themselves as GTAs.

The CTL offered 292 faculty development events in 2010-11, 212 of which were directly related to technology training, with an overall attendance of 973 faculty, staff, students, and community members. In addition, the CTL processed 568 technology-related help calls. What are your institutional goals for this coming year for further integrating technology into the teaching and learning experience? Our goals are focused on what will best help our students and will be pursued at a variety of levels. The School of Education, which will be moving to a one-on-one computing environment for all teacher-education majors (see below), will be a programmatic focus for our developmental staff. We also intend to expand the number of courses that are offered in the prototype Active Learning Classroom (ALC) and to develop courses specifically for the technology enhancements that room provides. The XDIS course, which is currently being taught in the ALC, will continue to be a special focus for us as we train faculty how to best use this innovative room. The University will proceed with its goal of implementing technology into the general education curriculum by expanding the use of technology in SPCM 101 and in the core Mathematics curriculum. SPCM 101 is going to implement audience response systems and a sophisticated model of assessment and evaluation that uses recordings of student speeches to help them adapt to communicating in a high-tech world. Math continues its implementation of the Emporium model in its lower level general education courses. This method of teaching math incorporates master learning at an individualized pace in a student-centered learning environment. Math 021, 101 and 102 have been converted to this model, and we will continue to closely analyze the effectiveness of this method of teaching mathematics. This spring we are bringing in a consultant, John Squires, to help us assess and improve our implementation of this pedagogical strategy. The CTL will continue its professional activities as described below, and we anticipate that our intense two-week workshop will pay significant dividends as faculty are given the resources and training to incorporate technology into their classrooms in ways that are proven to enhance student learning and engagement. In addition to the three studies mentioned above in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grants, we will be closely monitoring a study that the Department of Psychology is conducting on the use of technology in PSCY 101. The CTL will also begin a program of designing and offering web-based instructional videos on how to incorporate technology into the classroom. In the future (but not planned for AY12), we would like to purchase small numbers of new mobile devices (tablets, smartphones) to lend to interested faculty so that they might explore new technologies under the supervision of our CTL and ITS staff. 4. What types of professional development activities does your institution plan to employ?

43

The CTL offers a full slate of professional development activities, ranging from general workshops on course design and assessment techniques to workshops on specific technology applications. We plan to offer the following MCI-specific workshops this coming year: Figure 10: MCI Workshops planned for AY 2012 Audience Response Systems (“Clickers”)

Audio Podcasting Backchannel Communication

Brainstorming Tools Collaborative Writing Desire2Learn (1-4) Desire2Learn Gradebook Desire2Learn Quizzes Desire2Learn Discussion Dreamweaver DVDs in PowerPoint Elluminate Excel (1-2) Facebook/My Space Flash Flip Video Games as Active Learning Google Docs Google Sites Internet Safety iTunesU Mobile Devices & Faculty Productivity

MS Word (1-4) OneNote (1-2)

Open Educational Resources

Outlook Photoshop

Podcasting for Active Learning

PowerPoint (1-2) PowerPoint Podcasting

Presentation Styles Prezi Psychdata Respondus Slidecasting SharePoint SMART Board SMART Podium Team Based Learning TurningPoint Turnitin Twitter Video Editing Video Mashup Video Podcasting Web 2.0 Tools for Formative Assessment

Web Design Wikis & Blogs

You Tube While workshops for the technologies listed above are an important element of our development strategy, the CTL also recognizes the need to have individualized attention available for faculty who are at more advanced stages in their application of educational technology. The CTL offers regular appointments and walk-in help, and also hosts a “BYOQ” (Bring Your Own Question) session regularly through each semester. Finally, in June of 2011 the CTL initiated an intensive two-week course design fellowship program that allowed ten faculty members to take a comprehensive look at course structure and to design (or redesign) a course to incorporate significant technology-enhanced pedagogy. Faculty participated in a number of active learning exercises throughout the program that were used to help them understand and incorporate the very best practices related to technology use in the classroom. Each participant has been assigned to a technology integrationist for the rest of the summer and the participants will receive focused attention to help them finalize their course designs and develop meaningful ways to assess their redesigns. They will also have either that person or another member of the CTL staff (including GTAs or Tech Fellows) help them with the implementation of the technology and pedagogy when they offer the course for the first time this upcoming Fall or Spring semester. Participants in the fellowship program are expected to

44

engage in data collection, and we will use those data to assess the program’s effectiveness. We plan to offer this program again next June and to double the number of faculty who participate.

Most first-year USD students will have at least one MCI course their first semester. II. Discipline/Program Participation Matrix 1. Which disciplines/programs have fully integrated mobile computing into the curriculum? USD has been integrating mobile computing at every level—from extra-disciplinary application of technology in the new University-wide XDIS program to school and college adoption down to individual courses. There has been a special focus on those courses that reach the most students and that are often taken by first-year students, but our implementation also reaches deeply into a number of our graduate programs. Students entering USD as first-year students are highly likely to encounter one and often more mobile-computing enhanced courses their very first semester. Fourteen of the top 20 enrolled courses at USD have implemented mobile computing:

45

Figure 11: Top-20 enrolled courses (per year) with MCI components PSYC 101 SPCM 101 MATH 102 PHGY 220/220L XDIS 310 MICR 230 MATH 101 SOC 100 ENGL 201 PHGY 230/230L ESCI 101/101L MATH 021 THEA 201 ACCT 210 The following courses within the general educational curriculum have an MCI component: Figure 12: Courses with MCI components within the General Educational Requirements Pre-Gen Ed: MATH 021 MATH 101 Goal #1 ENGL 201 ENGL 283 Goal #2 SPCM 101 Goal #3 ECON 201 ECON 202 PSYC 101 UHON 111* SOC 100 SOC 250 Goal #4 HIST 111 HIST 112 THEA 100 THEA 201 Goal #5 MATH 102 Goal #6 BIOL 101 BIOL 103 CHEM 116 ESCI 101 PHGY 220 PHGY 230 PHYS 185 PHYS 187 Goal #7 ENGL 201 SPCM 101 IGR Cross-disciplinary requirement

XDIS 310

*Individuals sections within this course utilize MCI. Overall, 298 courses have incorporated some element of mobile computing, and every school and college has had a significant implementation at some level, with the exception of our Law School. Figure 13: Implementation of MCI in undergraduate courses, College of Arts and Science by department. “Beginning” indicates 1-4 courses in the major have integrated MCI, “Developing” indicates at least five courses in the major have been integrated, and “Full” indicates a significant number of the major courses at all levels have incorporated mobile computing principles. Level of Implementation/Department:

None Beginning Growing Full NA

Anthology & Sociology X Biology X Chemistry X Communications Science & Disorders

X

Communication Studies X Computer Science X*

(Figure 13 continued on next page) Figure 13, cont.: Contemporary Media and X*

46

Journalism Criminal Justice X Earth Sciences/Physics X English X History X Languages, Linguistics, and Philosophy

X

Mathematics X Military Science X Native Studies** X Political Science X Psychology X *The computer processing requirements of the Computer Science and Contemporary Media and Journalism majors exceed the capacity of most laptops; consequently, these technology-intensive majors still make extensive use of computer labs. **The Native Studies Department is implementing a completely revised curriculum, and will be working on incorporating MCI this coming year. Figure 14: Implementation of MCI in undergraduate courses, Beacom School of Business by program. Level of Implementation/Department:

None Beginning Growing Full NA

Accounting X Economics X Finance X Health Services Administration

X

Human Resource Management

X

Management X Marketing X Figure 15: Implementation of MCI in undergraduate courses, School of Education by division. Level of Implementation/Department

None Beginning Growing Full NA

Curriculum and Instruction X Kinesiology and Sports Science*

X

*The Division of Kinesiology and Sports Science is implementing a completely revised curriculum and will be working on incorporating MCI this coming year.

47

Figure 16: Implementation of MCI in undergraduate courses, College of Fine Arts by Department. Level of Implementation/Department

None Beginning Growing Full NA

Art X X* Music X Theatre X *The Graphic Design emphasis within Art is fully integrated. Figure 17: Implementation of MCI in undergraduate courses, School of Health Sciences by Department. Level of Implementation/Department

None Beginning Growing Full NA

Alcohol and Drug Studies X Dental Hygiene X Nursing X Social Work X A number of our graduate programs have also embraced the Mobile Computing Initiative. One hundred eleven graduate courses have implemented elements of mobile computing, from every college and school except the School of Law. Graduate programs that are fully integrated into MCI with a one-to-one laptop requirement include:

• Occupational Therapy • Physical Therapy • Physician Assistant Studies

2. Which disciplines/programs are you planning to target for FY12? The most significant target for FY12 is the School of Education, which in partnership with the Bush Foundation is committed to preparing and supporting reflective professionals and leaders by moving to a one-to-one computing environment that will significantly impact most courses in the teacher education program. Beginning in the fall of 2011, all Curriculum and Instruction faculty will receive laptop computers. Faculty will be provided with training and support during the 2011-2012 academic year, and in the fall of 2012 students enrolling as teacher education majors will be required to obtain a laptop computer. The goal is that the School of Education will move into full implementation of the MCI by Fall of 2012 as a result of this initiative. The University will proceed with its goal of implementing technology into the general education curriculum by focusing on a redesign of SPCM 101 this year, and we will evaluate and modify the implementation of the Math Emporium model as well. This is the first year that the full MCI development team has been in place, and we plan to target those departments that are at “none” or “beginning” to help them develop a more rigorous implementation of the initiative.

48

III. Proposed Budget and Budget Narrative 1. What are the total expenditures for each of the following professional development activities? Figure 18: Proposed AY12 Budget

Personnel Technical Support Staff (2) $73,642.00 Educational Technology Integrationist (2) $110,524.00 Faculty Development Coordinator (partial) $15,000.00 GTAs (2) $16,000.00 Other (Secretarial Assistance) $7,000.00 Faculty Stipends (20 @ $1500) $30,000.00 Benefits $52,955.00 Personnel Subtotal $305,121.00 Operating Expenses Software $3,800.00 Hardware $2,700.00 Supplies $10,000.00 Other (Central Services, Audit Services, Payroll Insurance)

$1,500.00

Operating Expenses Subtotal $18,000.00 Travel $11,003.00 Miscellaneous Memberships (TLT, Educause) $4,500 Miscellaneous Subtotal $4,500 Total, All Expenses $338,624.00

2. How are the resources allocated in the budget used specifically to advance professional development activities as it relates to the mobile computing initiative? Technical Support Staff based in ITS support faculty in the laptop programs and those teaching classes that are laptop-enabled. The activities include support of the hardware, software, and network connectivity in smart classrooms, and support for audiovisual equipment, laptops and laptop carts used for instructional and complementary academic activities. Software is evaluated as requested by faculty. Educational Technology Integrationists and the GTAs are based in the Center for Teaching and Learning and along with our Techfellows (funded separately) offer the workshops identified in Figure 10 above. They also work with faculty individually to help them find specific technological solutions to unique pedagogical needs. These are all overseen by the Faculty Development Coordinator (the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning) and assisted by the secretary of the CTL. Faculty stipends will go to fund faculty participation in an intensive, two-week workshop that will allow twenty faculty members to take a comprehensive look at course structure and to design (or redesign) a course to incorporate significant technology-enhanced pedagogy.

49

There is a budget for software so that the CTL staff can explore new programs as needed in an attempt to find the best solutions for faculty needs. The hardware budget is for a computer for our latest hire (one of the technology integrationists). “Supplies” covers office supplies but also a series of books for the faculty taking the Course Design Workshop. Travel will be used primarily to support travel for the MCI staff to conferences such as ELI, EDUCAUSE, and POD national conferences. Finally, we will pay for institutional memberships in Educause and the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Group because these are important resources for bringing the campus to a more engaged application of technology in the classroom. Conclusion Our data indicate that we have made progress in implementing the Mobile Computing Initiative in ways that have made real and significant changes for our students and faculty. As we look ahead to AY12, we plan to build on this success so that our students are increasingly prepared for existence and employment in a world where technology is seamlessly infused into almost every aspect of daily life.