Wiki page for contextual inquiry meeting today

[Daphne Ogle]

Great feedback Peter!  Thanks!

The one main difference I've seen in previous research between say a  
Public R1 institution and a large Private institution is the people  
involved in managing the course content.  For instance, at Stanford  
we found that departments can have instructional technologists that  
create and manage course sites at some level.  So it will be  
important for us to understand what that means to the flow and  
collaboration around course content.  Although this was mostly the  
case at professional schools and as you mention that's probably an  
important distinction for us to understand from several aspects.

-Daphne

On Dec 22, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Knoop, Peter wrote:

> Sure, department could be a good proxy.  With your low number of  
> samples though, you probably want to make sure you don’t get that  
> one oddball the department has who is pushing teaching with  
> technology, and so often teaches a bit different than their  
> colleagues J
>
> Since you are very limited in how many folks you’ll be able to talk  
> to – I see a lot of 2’s and 3’s in your table – I might also  
> suggest that if your goal is “80%”, then the difference between  
> institution types is might be less important than some of your  
> other factors, at least in my field (which is perhaps a proxy for  
> science departments here).  I’ve attended a number of Teaching  
> Geosciences in the 21st Century workshops over the last couple  
> years.  The groups are deliberately selected to represent the use  
> of new and innovative pedagogies at a cross section of educational  
> institutions.  One of the main beliefs of these workshops is that  
> whether you’re at a large R1 University or a small 2-year community  
> college, most good pedagogies are generally applicable across  
> institution types.  For lower-level courses in particular, the  
> textbooks used, the organization of courses, etc. is pretty much  
> identical.  There are differences, but they commonly only surface  
> in terms of money-related details, as you might expect.  An R1  
> university can generally give students first-hand experience with  
> expensive lab equipment and facilities as part of their learning  
> experience, whereas a small, urban, community college, will  
> typically rely more on simulations and virtual experiences, but  
> also might have to include some remedial background material.  The  
> students with hands-on experience may learn a bit more about the  
> practical aspects of the work, particularly if that is one of the  
> courses’ educational goals; however, the main focus of the learning  
> is on analyzing and interpreting the data and responding to or  
> placing in context the results.  Good pedagogies that address the  
> latter part generally work well at any institution type.
>
> For instance, concepts maps are emerging as a great tool for  
> teaching geosciences, and while the approach is not yet that  
> common, it is evolving simultaneously across the institution types  
> you’ve defined.  Its definitely not trickle-down from R1’s or  
> trickle-up from Teaching Colleges.  So I think slicing this space  
> up by institutional type may not be as informative as the  
> opportunity for increasing the N’s for other factors.
>
> I’m not advocating you toss all your Institution Types though.  I  
> think you’ve identified an important factor in terms of “Distance  
> Learning” versus traditional courses.
>
> Now, having said all that, it reminds me that another “proxy  
> department” you might want to consider, in addition to humanities  
> and sciences, is professional.  Their programs and courses often  
> require real-world experiences, such as internships, practicals,  
> community-service, community-engagement, etc. as part of their  
> learning experience.
>
> I’ll also mention while I’m thinking of it that I see very little  
> difference regionally in the US in teaching geoscience courses,  
> other than the obvious impact of the geology you can visit in your  
> backyard.
>
> -peter
>
> From: Daphne Ogle [mailto:daphne at media.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:13 PM
> To: Knoop, Peter
> Cc: fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> Subject: Re: Wiki page for contextual inquiry meeting today
>
> Great point Peter!  It may come out in some the of the factors but  
> I think it's worth pulling out on its own.  We've expressed this in  
> variance in departments before.  So as you say humanities and  
> sciences will have much different kinds of content.  Do you think  
> that is at the right level?  I'll also list the idea of subject  
> matter in general.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> -Daphne
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Knoop, Peter wrote:
>
>
> Hi Daphne,
>
> One thing that jumped out at me under your “factors to consider”  
> was the perhaps you might also want to consider the subject matter  
> or content of the course, if its not already part of one of the  
> other factors you list?  I’m thinking here about differences in  
> needs between humanities and science courses as an example.  For  
> instance, a 300-person introductory history course has much  
> different needs from Sakai than a 300-person introductory  
> oceanography course.  Even if the structure is the same at a gross  
> level (your class type/structure factor?) -- one large section with  
> all the students in it and dozens of smaller sections to break the  
> students up into manageable groups for activities -- what goes on  
> inside that structure is often very different, i.e., what you would  
> like to accomplish and facilitate in a discussion section is  
> generally not the same as in a laboratory section.  Such  
> differences will likely reach down to smaller class sizes as well.
>
> -peter
>
> From: fluid-work-bounces at fluidproject.org [mailto:fluid-work- 
> bounces at fluidproject.org] On Behalf Of Daphne Ogle
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:05 PM
> To: fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> Subject: Wiki page for contextual inquiry meeting today
>
> Hi there,
>
> Here's the link I mentioned to those of you on the planning call,  
> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/0xQa.
>
> Please note it is a work in progress.  As I mentioned some of it  
> may not even make sense on its own yet.  We'll talk through it on  
> the call.
>
> The goal of the meeting is to come up with a strategy to move the  
> contextual inquiries / needs assessment forward as quickly as  
> possible while continuing to move some of our other very important  
> design work forward.
>
> We'll give breeze a try as Toronto's network issues seem to be better.
> Daphne Ogle
> Senior Interaction Designer
> University of California, Berkeley
> Educational Technology Services
> daphne at media.berkeley.edu
> cell (510)847-0308
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Daphne Ogle
> Senior Interaction Designer
> University of California, Berkeley
> Educational Technology Services
> daphne at media.berkeley.edu
> cell (510)847-0308
>
>
>
>

Daphne Ogle
Senior Interaction Designer
University of California, Berkeley
Educational Technology Services
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
cell (510)847-0308



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20071227/742b79d9/attachment.html>