Using Quality Matters™ to infuse interaction and engagement: Two instructional designers’ perspectives Susan Bontly and Suparna Chatterjee Learning Design & Technology, Curriculum & Instruction New Mexico State University Quality in Online Education at NMSU March 2, 2018
Purpose • Analyze & reflect on our choices • Focus on how we incorporated interaction • Study how we constructed understandings of relationship between engagement, interaction, & activity • Explore connections between self-as-developer, self-as-instructor, & self-as-student
Quality Matters™ Standard 5.2 ● Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning ● Summary of the evaluation criteria for implementation
Overview of Presentation • Discuss what we learned in the process • Include examples of some of our activities • Identify what we learned as result of this autoethnographic process
Our Methodology • Course development journals & research notes • Collaborative conversations (6-8 over 3 months) • Reflexive journal entries • Shifted focus from autoethnographic introspection to providing insights useful to other instructional designers
Suparna ● About the course ● How my experiences as a student influenced me ● Criteria for choosing an Activity/Assignment ○ Learner choice activities ○ Diversity/inclusivity ○ Relevancy & Interest ○ Contexts & stories ○ Facilitate support networks
Suparna How I incorporated interactivity & why I made these choices ○ Interactive Google slides & Discussion Boards ■ Student-content ■ Student-student ■ Student-instructor interaction ★ Create a context through stories Engagement ★ Share knowledge and resources Interaction/Participation ★ Connect students Build Learners Community
Suparna Challenges ● Finding relevant stories ● Creating activities around those stories that align with the objectives ● Scaffolding
Susan ● About the course ● How my experiences as a student influenced me ○ Content developer ○ Instructor
Susan ● How I incorporated interactivity & why I made these choices ○ Student-content - YouTube videos ○ Student-student - icebreaker, interview ● Challenges & obstacles ○ Not much variety of modifiable activities ○ Lack of examples for higher education ○ Activities required high adaptation
Susan ● Relationship between engagement, interaction & activity ○ From personal experience ○ From research ● Insights & connections ○ Self-as-student ○ Self-as-developer ○ Self-as-instructor
What did we learn as result of this process? • As instructional designer o Susan o Suparna • As content expert/instructor o Suparna o Susan
Do you have any Questions?
Thank You! If you have any further questions or would like to continue the conversation, please feel free to contact us at: Susan Bontly - susanbnm@nmsu.edu Suparna Chatterjee - suparna@nmsu.edu As social justice educators, we are concerned with the continued reinforcement of elitist notions of privilege in higher education including in the value placed on authorship order as it regards to publishing. Thus, we want to acknowledge that the authorship of this presentation and the associated manuscript is credited equally to both authors. We both contributed toward its visioning, construction, writing, and editing. Regardless of where names fall on the authorship list, we are both “first” author.
References Consulted Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 10 (2), 314. Cunningham, S. J., & Jones, M. (2005, July). Autoethnography: a tool for practice and education. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand chapter's international conference on Computer-human interaction: making CHI natural (pp. 1-8). ACM. Drouin, M.A. (2008). The relationship between student’s perception sense of community and satisfaction, achievement, and rete ntion in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (3), 267. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with students persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11 (1). Kotze, T. G., & Du Plessis, P. J. (2003). Students as “co - producers” of education: a proposed model of student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions. Quality assurance in education , 11 (4), 186-201. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16 – 39. MarylandOnline, Inc. (2014). Non-annotated standards from the QM higher education rubric, fifth edition. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40 (6), 1-14. Shuster, M., Vigna, J., Tontonoz, M., & Sinha, G. (2014). Biology for a Changing World with Core Physiology. Freeman & Company, New York. Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective. Internet and Higher Education , 9 , 107-115.
Recommend
More recommend
