1 / 31

Training Session # 2 Further Practice with the IWBW Approach

Training Session # 2 Further Practice with the IWBW Approach Lance C. Pérez, Russ Pimmel, Roger Seals, and Sheryl Sorby January 31, 2013. Record Your Responses. When you do the activities, make a permanent record of your responses and send it to us after the session

felton
Télécharger la présentation

Training Session # 2 Further Practice with the IWBW Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Training Session #2 Further Practice with the IWBW Approach Lance C. Pérez, Russ Pimmel, Roger Seals, and Sheryl Sorby January 31, 2013

  2. Record Your Responses • When you do the activities, make a permanent record of your responses and send it to us after the session • We will use these to improve the materials

  3. Introduction • Project Goal: Five IWBWs to be offered to PIs of current TUES projects and people thinking about writing TUES proposals. All STEM disciplines included • IWBW Goal: Provide participants with knowledge and skills that enable them to improve their projects/proposals.

  4. IWBW Design Process • In our last training session, we believe we jumped ahead. There is an intermediate step called “Themes.” • The instructional design process we are using to develop the IWBWs involves: IWBW Design Process Goals Themes Outcomes Activities Topical Context

  5. SessionGoals • Goal 1:Provide IWBW developer-presenters with the knowledge and skills needed to develop effective interactive IWBW activities • Goal 2: Begin the planning for IWBW content • To be further refined as the materials are actually developed

  6. Activity 1 Initial Reflection • List theone to three most important things you learned in the first training session

  7. Expected Outcomes of the Session • Goal 1: Provide IWBW developer-presenters with the knowledge and skills needed to develop effective interactive IWBW activities • Goal 2: Begin the planning for IWBW content • Expected outcomes: Participants should be able to • Discuss important characteristics of an effective IWBW activity (G1) • Design activities that support the stated outcomes (G1) • Refine activities based on feedback (G1) • List materials to be prepared in support of an IWBW (G2) • Discuss pre-/post-activities, e.g. evaluation survey, for IWBWs (G2)

  8. Recall: Standard Framework for a Virtual Interactive Activity • Given a problem or task • Think -- Answer individually to recall current knowledge • Share -- Discuss with one or two others • Pair share • Local Report – Selected participants report to local group as directed by local facilitator • Virtual Report -- Selected facilitators report to virtual group • Learn – Feedback giving PD’s responses or ideas from published reports or papers

  9. Activity 2Characteristics of Effective Interactive Activities • When defining a think, share, report, learn (TSRL) activity, what are the important characteristics of the activity? • e. g., A clear statement of the task to be performed during the activity

  10. Recall: Suggested Characteristics of an Effective Interactive Activity • Clear statement of task • Aligned with an expected outcome • Tied to reality (an authentic issue) • Nontrivial, but doable in the allotted time • Meaningful across disciplines • Concludes with some authoritative information

  11. Recall: Formats for an Interactive Activity • Remember • List what reviewers will expect to see… • Understand • Identify the characteristics of an effective… • Apply • Interpret data about … • Analyze • Compare these two approaches for … • Evaluate • Select the best tool for… • Create • Given a specific proposal idea, write the outcomes… Note that these are based on the revised Bloom’s taxonomy http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/pedagogical/blooms-taxonomy/ http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

  12. Activity 3IWBW Interactive Activity Development • Given that a theme is on “instruments,” for the following outcome, design an activity that uses the Bloom’s framework. • Participants should be able to findappropriate evaluation instruments for specific project outcomes and discuss selection criteria and process In an outcome for an IWBW, we would expect only one of these cognitive activities.

  13. Response • Remember • List three evaluation instruments appropriate for a given outcome. • Understand • Discuss the limitations of a given evaluation instrument. • Evaluate • Determine whether or a not a suggested evaluation instrument is appropriate for the outcome. • Create • Create a process for identifying appropriate evaluation instruments.

  14. Activity 4IWBW Interactive Activity Development • Given the theme of “project transportability,” for the following outcome, design an activity that uses the Bloom’s framework. • What factors enhance/facilitate the transportability of a project? Give specific examples and their strengths and weaknesses. In an outcome for an IWBW, we would expect only one of these cognitive activities.

  15. Response • Understand • Identify components of a transportable project. • Analyze • Explain which components of the existing project can be modified and which cannot. • Evaluate • Select which components of the project must be preserved. • Create • Formulate a scenario for how this project could be adapted to a much larger institution.

  16. Activity 5IWBW Interactive Activity Development • Given a theme of “reviewer expectations,” for the following outcome, design an activity that uses the Bloom’s framework. • Participants will be cognizant of what reviewers are looking for in a competitive proposal.

  17. Response • Remember • List the questions that a reviewer might want answered in a proposal in light of the solicitation review criteria. • List the questions that a reviewer might want answered in a “fill in the blank” section of a proposal in light of the solicitation review criteria. • NOTE: Time constraints would dictate which of these you might select. • Analyze • Given two proposal project summaries, determine which will review better and why. (Handout required for this activity but IWBW designers must account for reading time) • Could be for a “fill in the blank” section of a proposal • Evaluate • Given a proposal project summary, argue its strengths and weaknesses. (Handout required for this activity) • Create • Develop a set of guidelines on formatting and style that could be used in writing a proposal that takes into account the reviewer perspective.

  18. Reminders • In designing an activity, you will need to consider constraints: • Time, variations in level of expertise, virtual format, and multiple disciplines, etc. • Need for “response” material

  19. Recall: IWBW Logistics • IWBWs will be “led” by a local facilitator and will include several participants at that site • Individuals will not be allowed to apply for an IWBW. Only groups of participants are allowed • There may be up to 100 sites online for any given IWBW • Unknown number of participants • Unknown disciplinary and proposal writing expertise • Unknown … • Local facilitators will receive little to no training (other than technical assistance), but will be provided written guidelines.

  20. IWBW Time Requirements • The IWBWs are planned for 1.5 hours each. • We are considering including 15 minutes before the start of the session and 15 minutes after the end of the session for local activities.

  21. Activity 6Materials Needed for IWBW • List the materials to be developed by the team that are likely to be necessary for an IWBW

  22. Potential Materials for IWBWs • Powerpoint slides • Multiple versions (presented, posted, annotated for facilitator) • Plain white? “Branded” template? • Training materials/instructions for local facilitators • Handouts for local facilitators • Handouts/readings for participants • Handouts/readings for pre-activities • Handouts/readings for post-activities • Evaluation survey questions (content-based) • Poll questions (Go to Meeting)

  23. Activity 7Suggestions forPre-IWBW local activities • List 1-2 activities that could be accomplished at the local sites before the IWBW starts • For each activity you list, think about what the desired outcomes are. • For each activity you list, what are the potential logistical considerations?

  24. Potential Pre-IWBW activities • Registration of individual faculty • Participants would need access to computer/web? Paper and pencil? • Individual faculty complete a brief pre-workshop survey • Participants would need access to computer/web? Paper and pencil? • Brief (one-paragraph) assigned local reading with guided discussion by facilitator • Handout and discussion prompt would need to be developed prior to the IWBW • Local introductions among faculty participants • No resources required • Spending time reading workshop documents, e.g., sample proposal summaries • Handouts would have to be prepared by IWBW developers • Poll questions (Go to Meeting) • These would have to be prepared ahead of time and take into account the logistics of the IWBW

  25. Discussion • What pre-IWBW activities should we use and who should design them? • Several constraints will play a role in this

  26. Activity 8Suggestions forPost-IWBW local activities • List 1-2 activities that could be accomplished post-IWBW at the local sites • For each activity you list, think about what the desired outcomes are. • For each activity you list, what are the potential logistical considerations?

  27. Potential Post-IWBW activities • Registration of individual faculty • Participants would need access to computer/web? Paper and pencil? • Individual faculty complete a brief post-workshop survey • Participants would need access to computer/web? Paper and pencil? • Content-based? Attitude-based? • Question and Answer period for participants • Presenters might be put “on the spot” • Local discussion among faculty participants • IWBW developers would develop discussion prompts for local facilitators

  28. Discussion • What post-IWBW activities should we use and who should design them? • Several constraints will play a role in this

  29. Activity 9Final Reflection • List the three to five most important factors to consider in developing an IWBW activity

  30. Questions?

  31. References • Paper on earlier work • http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/8/papers/3716/view • Webinar Guidelines • Adobe http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/webconferencing/pdfs/Best_Practices_for_Webinars_v4_FINAL.pdf • BeconLivehttp://beaconlive.com/2011/05/09/7-habits-of-highly-effective-webinar-presenters/ • eLearnMagazine http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1710034 • SIGnetworkTech Topics http://signetwork.org/wpblog/?p=356 • Presentation Guidelines • www.thevirtualpresenter.com

More Related