ERIC ED381183: Improving Learning through Technology. Ocotillo Report '94.

35 Pages·1994·1.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 381 183
JC 950 040
AUTHOR Harper-Marinick, Maria, Ed.; And Others
TITLE
Improving Learning through Technology. Ocotillo
Report '94.
Maricopa County Community Coll. District, Tempe, AZ.
INSTITUTION
Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction.
PUB DATE
94
NOTE
35p.
PUB TYPE
Descriptive (141)
Reports
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Advisory Committees; *College Planning; Community
Colleges; Computer Networks; *Computer Uses in
Education; *Educational Improvement; *Educational
Technology; *Faculty Development; Nontraditional
Students; Programmed Instruction; Programming;
Student Needs; Two Year Colleges
IDENTIFIERS
Maricopa County Community College District AZ;
*Ocotillo AZ
ABSTRACT
Begun in 1988 to address issues of technology and
education, the Maricopa County Community College District's (MCCCD's)
Ocotillo program has expanded to provide a forum for faculty and
staff to address general issues of the quality of learning and
instruction in MCCCD through year-long committees on subjects of
interest. This document features the year-end reports for 1993-94 of
the following nine Ocotillo committees:
(1) the Authoring Languages
Committee, highlighting the need for college and district support of
(2) the Emerging Technologies
faculty programming activities;
Committee, reviewing its efforts on the Internet and indicating that
meeting attendance was poor;
the External Networks Committee,
(3)
discussing the status of District networks, user training, newsgroup
access, policy needs, and user expectations of MCCCD faculty;
(4) the
Information Literacy Committee, describing the group's activities and
plans for implementing an information literacy curriculum;
the
(5)
Intellectual Rights Committee, reviewing the efforts of the committee
to increase copyright law awareness, define copyright guidelines for
multimedia, and develop a policy on proprietary rights;
(6) the
Mechal.isms for Technology and Evaluation and Implementation
Commission, identifying the methods in which technology may be
the Open-Entry/Open-Exit
integrated into college systems;
(7)
Committee, describing issues related to education that does not
follow traditional timelines; (8) the Technology-Based Testing
Committe,, describing its efforts to identify models for a
the Technology Training
technology-based testing system; and (9)
Committee, discussing its plan to train faculty to use current
computer technologies.
(MAB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***************************************************A*******************
00
00
En
1:2)
OCOT
sr
improving learning through technology
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Od.c
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Educational Roman:A And Improvement
oI
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
M. Harper-Marinick
CENTER (ERIQ
.arre
en reproduced se
document het
041
received from the !aal or climanmeloon
oronahno It
0 Minor changes how boon made to 'woe,
c*OcOctucttoo quality.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Pants of yew Or ophicetatated in the docu-
ment do not no,mvsonly rosmoont oNiCm1
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
OEM Sooon
soAcy.
Or
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
Ocotillo Report '94 is a publication of the Maricopa Center for Learning and
WO'
Instruction for the faculty, staff, and administrators of tile Maricopa County
Community College District.
Ocotillo Report 694 Staff
ditors
Maria Harpor-Marinick
Naomi 0. Story
Tom Super
Christina Emmons
Production
100% Flocyclabl*
41,71
MIN
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Making Recommendations
3
Committee Reports
4
Authoring Languages
4
Emerging Technologies
8
External Networks
10
Information Literacy
13
71
Intellectual Rights
16
Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation
and Implementation
18
Open-Entry/Open-Exit
21
Technology-based Testing
24
Technology Training
28
4
Message from the Vice Chancellor
Painting Outside the Lines
When we first started Ocotillo in 1988, it was an atwmpt to answer some questions I had
asked our faculty about technology and its role *.ln learning. Ocotillo became a wonderful
opportunity for faculty and staff across the District to get together and become involved not
only in answering those questions but in generating additional ones. Our main concern then
was to learn how to manage technology to enhance the teaching/learning process.
Ocotillo has been and continues to be an evolving, learning process. Branches blossomed
into new agendas and fostered continuing ones that were still important. Some branches died
and others were revived after hibernation. And, over the years, Ocotillo has changed as
people began to "paint outside the lines" of the Ocotillo picture.
Although technology has remained an integral element of Ocotillo, it no longer is the key
component. Committees have begun to shift their focus and dialogues to the larger and
broader agenda which drives the entire Districtlearning. So, as part of our maturity with
Ocotillo, we have discovered that technology is only one of many tools we use to enhance
education, and that to talk about the underlying premises of learning is more meaningful to
everyone.
Ocotillo has been and continues to be the mechanism by which faculty, and staff with a
common interest can come together to explore issues of teaching and learning. It provides
faculty with a forum for voicing their reflections and insights regarding the quality of
learning and instruction across the District. It works!
I am grateful to all our faculty and staff who have participated in Ocotillo during 1993-94,
particularly those who have served as chairs and co-chairs of the different Ocotillo
committees. I thank Maria Hesse, Faculty Chair, and Maria Harper-Marinick, Project
Manager, for their leadership and vision for Ocotillo this past year and as they facilitate and
nurture ideas for the next Ocotillo.
I look forward to continuing a most productive dialogue on learning through Ocotillo next
year.
Muchas gracias.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr.
A Word from the General Faculty Chair and Project Manager
As we asked committees to prepare their year-end reports, we recognized that there were dialogues taking place
within the leadership of Ocotillo which were compelling. Several changes that have occurred this year and will
continue the next are particularly significant. First, Ocotillo has been redefined as a faculty forum for dealing with
issues of teaching and learning in general. Second, the process by which committees make recommendations for
change has been modified. Third, the Ocotillo Technology Showcase will be held in conjunction with the Student
Success and the Academic Advising conferences.
Emphasis on Teaching and Learning
As Dr. de los Santos says in his message, the nature of Ocotillo has changed over the years. It started as a
technology-related project. However, in the past few years it has moved beyond that. For example, the
Intellectual Rights Committee has dealt with issues of copyright law, first as it pertained to software development,
but also as it applied to books, videos, and other media. The Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation and
Implementation Committee has studied innovations which are successful in our District, such as Electronic Forum
and Collaborative Learning, whether they are technology-based or not.
Next year, Ocotillo committees will deal with a variety of topics. Some will be very specific to technology (i.e.,
the Internet, technology training for faculty, etc.); others will not (i.e., service learning, total quality learning, etc.).
All topics will be related to issues of teaching and learning. Ocotillo has become a District-wide think tank on
issues of teaching and learning, a faculty-driven endeavor that is well-supported by District staff, and a networkof
people who are interested in creating an effective learning environment for students.
New Method For Making Recommendations
Originally, Ocotillo committees were involved in discussing visions, dreams, and our future with technology. As
some committees met, they moved past broad visions and began developing specific recommendations and action
plans. Traditionally, these recommendations have been included in the Ocotillo year-end report. It was assumed
that people who read the report would move on items that pertained to their area or department. Sometimes, this
process worked; other times, it did not. Committees felt that the suggestions they made were not always given
adequate consideration by the appropriate groups. And with more committees beginning to make
recommendations, this created a challenge.
In an effort to ensure that specific committee recommendations were being heard by the "right" groups of people
within the District, a new preeess for making recommendations has been developed. Committees are being asked
to discuss their suggested recommendations with the Ocotillo General Faculty Chair and the Project Manager.
Once formulated, recommendations will be directed to and discussed. with Dr. de los Santos. He will then forward
them to the appropriate parties for discussion and review. The new recommendations process is illustrated on the
following page. We welcome your feedback on the suggested process.
Technology Showcase
The annual Ocotillo Technology Showcase will be combined with the Student Success Conference and the
Academic Advising Conference in one annual event. Faculty and staff will be provided with outstanding
professional development opportunities including excellent keynote speakers, an extensive technology showcase,
and many sessions on teaching and serving students effectively. Since resources are limited, the combined event
will ensure continued planning of a top-quality event and increase the opportunities for networking among faculty,
advisors, and other staff.
It's been a challenging and rewarding year working on Ocotillo. We've been lucky to interact with many
wonderful faculty and staff who are striving to create a dynamic and effective learning environment for our
students. As always, we welcome suggestions for improving (- ;otillo.
Maria Harper-Marinick
Maria L. Hesse
Ocotillo Project Manager
Ocotillo Faculty Chair
2
Process for Making Recommendations
ROLES:
Ocotillo Committees
Discuss and prioritize issues.
Formulate a problem statement.
Generate and describe alternative solutions to the problem, along with the implications for the
various alternatives.
Identify, involve, and consult the appropriate "players".
Strive to achieve group consensus.
Propose a recommendation which includes the plan, the timeframe, responsible parties, etc.
(See guidelines below.)
General Faculty Chair and 110:oject Manager
Act as a sounding board.
Help formulate sugggestions.
Create linkages.
Help avoid duplication of efforts.
Vice-Chancellor for Educational and Student Development
Evaluate recommendations:
May wish to discuss issues directly with committee or committee chairs.
May ask committee to revise recommendation(s).
Decide the action to be taken.
Decide to whom the recommendation(s) should be directed.
RECOMMENDATION GUIDELINES:
Focus each recommendation around one particular topic, issue, or problem.
Give a concise background of the problem or issue.
Provide a rationalewhy is this change important? What will the impact be if the
recommendation is put in place or not put in place?
Include information about the various solutions the committee discussed, including implications
pros and cons.
and
Prioritize the alternative solutions and explain their rationale.
Include the key players and desired timeframe.
Use a written format.
FLOW OF INFORMATION:
Committee
General Faculty Chair/
Project Manager
Vice Chancellor for Educational
and Student Development
If
.9
Others
(
3
Authoring
g
Members
Faculty Chair: Bernie Combs, SCC
Co-Chair: Alan Levine, DIST
Sharon Blanton, SCC
Jim Hogan, SCC
Dorothy McK4, PC
Ron Bleed, DIST
Elizabeth Cooper, GCC
Donna Rebadow, PVCC
Miguel Corzo, GCC
Jim Tipton, MCC
Ken Costello, MCC Fmma Walters, SCC
Michael Farabee, EMCCC
David Weaver, CGCC
Betsy Frank, RSCC
Sandra Wells, SCC
Rod Freeman, EMCCC
Chuck West, GCC
Karen Hob lit, GCC
Yvonne Zeka, GWCC
Charge
The Authoring Languages Committee is charged with identifying the
issues, requirements, and alternatives associated with technology-based
learning packages. The group will investigate various development tools,
discuss when to use or adapt commercial packages, discuss when and
how faculty would develop their own courseware, and may recommend
authoring languages which should be pursued for use within the
Maricopa system.
4
Authoring Languages
Introduction
uneven.
innovation, small workshops, and
There is a perception of less District
more advanced training in authoring
Two central directives can be distilled
support for instructional authoring
languages and technologies.
from the above charge:
than for administrative
Communication/Collaboration
Identify important issues of
programming.
authoring within our District.
The largest problem is time and
Decide which authoring tools/
money for content experts and
Presently there is too little
2.
languages the Maricopa system
programmers.
collaboration, particularly inter-
should support.
Developers want and need
college collaboration. Developers
contiguous blocks of time for this
view Districtwide collaboration as
The committee decided to pursue the first
intensive development. Suggestions
imperative for inter-college adoption
directive. Most developers are using
include: release time, grants, summer
of authored materials.
HyperCard, Toolbook, Macromind
sabbaticals, temporary reassignment.
District has made good efforts
Director, and, to a lessor extent, Course The money will most likely have to
through Ocotillo and its committees,
Builder, Authorware Professional, and
come from within our system (i.e.,
MCLI, and internal grants.
Interface Builder (for the NeXT
doing more with what we akeady
Colleges have made less effort but
platform). To borrow from the metaphor
have).
see tremendous potential in sharing
of Alan Jacobs' 1994 report on Possible sources of money include:
resources, expertise, software,
user fees, grants, business co-
instructional technology, It's a Riven Not
authored programs, and ideas.
a Lake, the popular tools themselves are
operatives (i.e.,with publishers),
District and colleges have different
just currents in the river. To view our
commissions from the sale of
roles and perceptions concerning
central task as one of supporting certain
authored programs.
support for multimedia development.
authoring languages does not address real
(See Appendix 3)
issues related to the use of authoring
For clarification, Appendix 2 describes
Possible answers within the District
languages. Our task is to view
the District's position on faculty
include: paid mentors, professional
development as a lake, not a river. And
ownership of developed products.
growth projects, electronic
so, the committee chose to examine the
conferencing, developers groups.
Models for Development
more global issues related to
Answers outside of the District
Team, Tool Kit, and Training
development using authoring languages.
include: Internet, bulletin boards,
Gopher, shareware, consortiums with
Year in Review
The ten Maricopa Colleges and
publishers and other educational
Center are all in different stages of
institutions (ASU?).
The Authoring Languages Committee evolution. Some colleges are in a
Distribution of Products and
held five meetings in 1993-1994 at position to produce multimedia CD-
Access to Information/Image
different locations. The meeting sites ROM disks while other colleges do
Bases
provided an opportunity to see the not have high-end computer
authoring environment at Phoenix resources for development much less
College, Glendale Community College,
student use.
How can we market, both within and
and the MCLI. Several committee Each college should consider having
outside of the District, our authored
members participated in the Copyright
a multimedia authoring center.
products? The District could help
Issues video conference with lawyer Ivan
Teams should consist of content
find markets as a stimulus and
Bender. Our committee also secured a experts, a technologist (hardware
funding mechanism and for District
detailed authoring syste n evaluation expert), an instructional designer, a
promotion. It may have more
document from Norther, Arizona
programmer, and a graphics/video
commercial "clout" than individual
University. In addition, the committee
artist.
colleges.
conducted a survey to gather data on the
Colleges are acquiring tool kits,
Copyright issues: If a project is for
present perceptions and uses of authoring authoring languages and hardware,
classroom use, a developer has
systems within the Maricopa system (See to fit their present needs. Colleges
access to much more under the rules
also need to analyze resources for
of "Fair Use." However, if the
Appendix 1).
providing multimedia that runs over
ultimate purpose is to sell a product,
The following summary presents the
a network.
the material should be all original or
results of our discussions. It is divided
Tool Kit platform and software are
permission should be granted. This
not major issues. HyperCard,
into four categories:
is a decision that must be made early
Development Requires Time and Toolbook and Macromind Director
in the development process.
are the most used tools. A good tool
Money
We should pursue agreements with
Models for Development Team, Tool is the one that can do the job.
providers of raw materials such as
MCLI is and should be part of the
Kit, and Training
video clips, still images, and music
Communication/Collaboration team, but roles and relationships
(i.e., publishers, news agencies,
should be clarified and expanded to
video vendors, etc.).
Distribution of Products and Access
help development at colleges.
to Information/Image Bases
Stimulate local production of grannie
District should support authoring by
design images, video clips, etc ,
Development Requires Time
site license purchases when possible.
through our art and graphics
and Money
A new training model should be
students.
developedNot the-greatest-good-
We should make a better effort to
Both District and colleges provide for-the-greatest-number but "on
pool our own information/images.
demand" support of leadership and
support, but it is inadequate and
5
Authoring Languages
Results from the survey indicate that:
needs and by working toward
Conclusions/Future Goals/
Authoring can be defined various
common solutions can we hope to
Specific Recommendations
ways.
overcome the NIH syndrome. We also
Macintosh is the most-used platform
need to forgo our pride and take a
for authoring, followed by IBM/PC-
If we want to be leaders in
closer look at using commercially
1.
instructional technology, we must
compatible and Amiga.
available software.
Lack of time and support were the
grant innovators continuous blocks of
biggest problems encountered when
time (such as summer sabbaticals or
We must work to facilitate developers'
4.
working with authoring programs.
temporary reassignments) and fund
access to the raw materials of
Respondents have had varying
development efforts. In his article,
multimedia production. This includes
degrees of success with authoring
"What's Wrong With Multimedia in
forging new relationships with the
programs.
Higher Education," Dr. Martin
purveyors of information (publishers,
Solomon (1994) points out that the
Respondents generally believe they
news agencies, sources of video and
have received insufficient support for
teaching load is so high (normally 15
graphic materials, and electronic
development.
or 18 contact hours per semester) in
networks and sources), as well as
Respondents design most frequently
teaching institutions that there is
doing more sharing among ourselves.
for lectures, presentations, and
insufficient time for faculty
development efforts. He further states computer labs.
Our committee shenld organize and
5.
Experience in developing programs
that it requires 100 different people at
ers groups" in
promote different
varied from no experience to about
a cost of about $15 million to produce
order to share ideas and techniques.
30 programs.
120 minutes of interesting material (a With just our meetings this has already
About half of the respondents have
movie), while a typical higher
started to happen on an informal basis.
used commercially available
education semester comprises over
We would like to see a periodic
gathering for a developers' workshop
courseware and have had mixed
2,000 minutes. Alan Jacobs (1994) as
results with it.
one of his final recommendations calls in which we can exchange ideas rather
for increased funding for instructional
than just show off the final products.
Appendix 2
technology development for
innovative projects. From our
We recommend more District support
Excerpt from a memo from Janice
experiences, authoring is an intense
for external grants writing so that
Bradshaw, MCCCD General Counsel,
exercise that cannot be dabbled in developers may be more successful in
December 14, 1993.
with an hour here and there.
obtaining outside funding sources.
Software developed by a faculty
We must encourage colleges, in
2.
References
member on his/her own time belongs
conjunction with District, to develop
to the faculty member, and he/she
the "team and tool.kit" concept as an
can sell it commercially with no
e
instructional technology stimulus.
Jacobs, A. (1994). It
Rivet; Not a Lake:
strings attached.
Development teams should include
A Report on Instructional Technology
content experts, a technologist
for the Maricopa Community
Section A.4.10 and Section C.8 of
Tempe, AZ: Maricopa
(hardware expert), an instructional
Colleges.
the RFP refer to materials generated
desigier, programmers, and perhaps a
Community Colleges, Maricopa
during a sabbatical and pursuant to
Center for Learning and Instruction.
gm:fifties/video artist. Tool kits should
an Educational Development and/or
include "appropriate" authoring tools
Professional Growth Project. If
and hrrdware for development. One
Solomon, M. B. (1994). What's Wrong
materials are developed under one
way to develop the "team and tool kit" with Multimedia in Higher
of these sections, the faculty member
concept is through training.
21 (7),
Education?.
T.H.E. Journal,
owns the copyright and can sell it
81-83.
commercially. The District does
In keeping with this team approach,
retain the right to use the materials
we should also develop a needs
Appendix 1
without payment of royalties.
assessment process/form that begins
with the definition of an instructional
Note: the full report is available from
There are, however, many
MCLI
problem and ends with the
circumstances which faculty
recommendation of a solution that
members develop materials, and
Ocotillo Authoring Languages
may or may not be technological. This
often the material is not created
Survey, Fall 1993
should be designed with input from
under one of the above sections. In
Executive Summary
other colleges and collaboration with
these instances, it is advisable for
MCLI.
the faculty member, through his/her
Ten of the 18 initial responses to the Fall
Dean of Instrut tion, to contact
1993 Ocotillo Authoring Languages
We must find creative ways to
3.
Legal Services Department to
Survey were from Scottsdale Community
promote communication and
analyze the extent of the faculty
College. Four responses came from
collaboration. Solomon (1994) points
member's rights.
Chandler-Gilbert Community College,
out that multimedia has failed to
two from Paradise Valley Community
spread, in part, because of the "NIH
College, and one each from Mesa and
(not invented here)" syndrome. Each
South Mountain Community Colleges.
faculty member wants to tailor the
Respondents represented II disciplines.
course to fit pnxisely his or her
notion. Only by identifying common
soramenwilmardow
6