Group items tagged

Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) Areas measured by the AUSSE The survey instruments used in the AUSSE collect information on around 100 specific learning activities and conditions along with information on individual demographics and educational contexts.The instruments contain items that map onto six student engagement scales: Academic Challenge - the extent to which expectations and assessments challenge students to learn; Active Learning - students' efforts to actively construct knowledge; Student and Staff Interactions - the level and nature of students' contact and interaction with teaching staff; Enriching Educational Experiences - students' participation in broadening educational activities; Supportive Learning Environment - students' feelings of support within the university community; and Work Integrated Learning - integration of employment-focused work experiences into study. The instruments also contain items that map onto seven outcome measures. Average overall grade is captured in a single item, and the other six are composite measures which reflect responses to several items: Higher-Order Thinking - participation in higher-order forms of thinking; General Learning Outcomes - development of general competencies; General Development Outcomes - development of general forms of individual and social development; Career Readiness - preparation for participation in the professional workforce; Average Overall Grade - average overall grade so far in course; Departure Intention - non-graduating students' intentions on not returning to study in the following year; and Overall Satisfaction - students' overall satisfaction with their educational experience.

Learning Emergence deep learning | complex systems | transformative leadership | knowledge media

"The Social Networks Adapting Pedagogical Practice (SNAPP) tool performs real-time social network analysis and visualization of discussion forum activity within popular commercial and open source Learning Management Systems (LMS). SNAPP essentially serves as a diagnostic instrument, allowing teaching staff to evaluate student behavioral patterns against learning activity design objectives and intervene as required a timely manner. Valuable interaction data is stored within a discussion forum but from the default threaded display of messages it is difficult to determine the level and direction of activity between participants. SNAPP infers relationship ties from the post-reply data and renders a social network diagram below the forum thread. The social network visualization can be filtered based upon user activity and social network data can be exported for further analysis in NetDraw. SNAPP integrates seamlessly with a variety of Learning Management Systems (Blackboard, Moodle and Desire2Learn) and must be triggered while a forum thread is displayed in a Web browser."

"Abstract The authors compared the underlying student response patterns to an end-of-course rating instrument for large student samples in online, blended and face-to-face courses. For each modality, the solution produced a single factor that accounted for approximately 70% of the variance. The correlations among the factors across the class formats showed that they were identical. The authors concluded that course modality does not impact the dimensionality by which students evaluate their course experiences. The inability to verify multiple dimensions for student evaluation of instruction implies that the boundaries of a typical course are beginning to dissipate. As a result, the authors concluded that end-of-course evaluations now involve a much more complex network of interactions. Highlights ► The study models student satisfaction in the online, blended, and face-to-face course modalities. ► The course models vary technology involvement. ► Image analysis produced single dimension solutions. ► The solutions were identical across modalities. Keywords: Student rating of instruction; online learning; blended learning; factor analysis; student agency"

"Accrediting associations have expectations that call on institutions to collect and use evidence of student learning outcomes at the programmatic and institutional to confirm and improve student learning.  This section of the NILOA website lists both regional accrediting associations and specialized or programmatic accrediting organizations along with links to those groups."

About Cohere The Web is about IDEAS+PEOPLE. Cohere is a visual tool to create, connect and share Ideas. Back them up with websites. Support or challenge them. Embed them to spread virally. Discover who - literally - connects with your thinking. Publish ideas and optionally add relevant websites Weave webs of meaningful connections between ideas: your own and the world's Discover new ideas and people We experience the information ocean as streams of media fragments, flowing past us in every modality. To make sense of these, learners, researchers and analysts must organise them into coherent patterns. Cohere is an idea management tool for you to annotate URLs with ideas, and weave meaningful connections between ideas for personal, team or social use. Key Features Annotate a URL with any number of Ideas, or vice-versa. Visualize your network as it grows Make connections between your Ideas, or Ideas that anyone else has made public or shared with you via a common Group Use Groups to organise your Ideas and Connections by project, and to manage access-rights Import your data as RSS feeds (eg. bookmarks or blog posts), to convert them to Ideas, ready for connecting Use the RESTful API services to query, edit and mashup data from other tools Learn More Subscribe to our Blog to track developments as they happen. Read this article to learn more about the design of Cohere to support dialogue and debate.

Conference Papers - Networked Learning Conference Symposia Symposium Number Symposium Details

"Rethinking Educaitonal Leadership: mapping the terrain of leadership in learning organisations in conditions of complexity, diversity and change Jul 26 2015 0 Rethinking Educational Leadership: an Open Space Symposium The purpose Symposium was to provide experienced practitioners and researchers with an opportunity to bring fresh thinking to the current challenges facing school leaders and to generate new ideas about leadership development. The Open Space Technology provided a means of capturing the collective intelligence generated by the group in response to the core question. This post reports on the outcomes of this Open Space Symposium which was held in 2013. "

"Built as a Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) integration for the learning management system Canvas, Threadz is a discussion visualization tool that adds graphs and statistics to online discussions. Online discussions provide valuable information about the dynamics of a course and its constituents. Much of this information is found within the content of the posts, but other elements are hidden within the social network connection and interactions between students and between students and instructors. Threadz is a tool that extracts this hidden information and puts it on display. The visual representations created from social network connections and interactions between students and instructors in a discussion assist in identifying specific behaviors and characteristics within the course, such as: learner isolation, non-integrated groups, instructor-centric discussions, and key integration (power) users and groups. By identifying these behaviors and characteristics, the instructor can affect change in these interactions to help make the discussions and classroom discourse more accessible to all."

"What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team"

National Survey of Student Engagement What is student engagement? Student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning. What does NSSE do? Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about student participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college. NSSE provides participating institutions a variety of reports that compare their students' responses with those of students at self-selected groups of comparison institutions. Comparisons are available for individual survey questions and the five NSSE Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice. Each November, NSSE also publishes its Annual Results, which reports topical research and trends in student engagement results. NSSE researchers also present and publish research findings throughout the year.

Try yourself: Explore ::Visualizations :: Data sets :: Comments :: Topic centers Participate :: Create a visualization :: Upload a data set :: Create a topic center Learn more :: Quick start :: Visualization types :: About Many Eyes :: Privacy :: Blog

"Examples of Direct and Indirect Measures Examples of Direct Measures of Student Learning"

Recommended for You March 16, 2012 - 3:00am By Steve Kolowich Completing assignments and sitting through exams can be stressful. But when it comes to being graded the waiting is often the hardest part. This is perhaps most true at the end of a semester, as students wait for their instructors to reduce months of work into a series of letter grades that will stay on the books forever. But at Austin Peay State University, students do not have to wait for the end of a semester to learn their grade averages. Thanks to a new technology, pioneered by the university's provost, they do not even have to wait for the semester to start.

Reflective learning at Work

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Significant State Data Capacity is Required to Measure and Improve Teacher Effectiveness  States Increasingly Focus on Improving Teacher Effectiveness: There is significant activity at the local, state, and federal levels to  measure and improve teacher effectiveness, with an unprecedented focus on the use of student achievement as a primary indicator of  effectiveness. > 23 states require that teacher evaluations include evidence of student learning in the form of student growth and/or value-added data (NCTQ, 2011). > 17 states and DC have adopted legislation or regulations that specifically require student achievement and/or student growth to "significantly" inform or be the primary criterion in teacher evaluations(NCTQ, 2011).  States Need Significant Data Capacity to Do This Work: These policy changes have significant data implications. > The linchpin of all these efforts is that states must reliably link students and teachers in ways that capture the complex connections that  exist in schools. > If such data is to be used for high stakes decisions-such as hiring, firing, and tenure-it must be accepted as valid, reliable, and fair. > Teacher effectiveness data can be leveraged to target professional development, inform staffing assignments, tailor classroom instruction,  reflect on practice, support research, and otherwise support teachers.  Federal Policies Are Accelerating State and Local Efforts: Federal policies increasingly support states' efforts to use student  achievement data to measure teacher effectiveness. > Various competitive grant funds, including the Race to the Top grants and the Teacher Incentive Fund, require states to implement teacher  and principal evaluation systems that take student data into account.  > States applying for NCLB waivers, including the 11 that submitted requests in November 2011, must commit to implementing teacher and  principal evaluation and support systems. > P

Abstract Few traditions in higher education evoke more controversy, ambivalence, criticism, and, at the same time, support than student evaluation of instruction (SEI). Ostensibly, results from these end-of-course survey instruments serve two main functions: they provide instructors with formative input for improving their teaching, and they serve as the basis for summative profiles of professors' effectiveness through the eyes of their students. In the academy, instructor evaluations also can play out in the high-stakes environments of tenure, promotion, and merit salary increases, making this information particularly important to the professional lives of faculty members. At the research level, the volume of the literature for student ratings impresses even the most casual observer with well over 2,000 studies referenced in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) alone (Centra, 2003) and an untold number of additional studies published in educational, psychological, psychometric, and discipline-related journals. There have been numerous attempts at summarizing this work (Algozzine et al., 2004; Gump, 2007; Marsh & Roche, 1997; Pounder, 2007; Wachtel, 1998). Student ratings gained such notoriety that in November 1997 the American Psychologist devoted an entire issue to the topic (Greenwald, 1997). The issue included student ratings articles focusing on stability and reliability, validity, dimensionality, usefulness for improving teaching and learning, and sensitivity to biasing factors, such as the Dr. Fox phenomenon that describes eliciting high student ratings with strategies that reflect little or no relationship to effective teaching practice (Ware & Williams, 1975; Williams & Ware, 1976, 1977).

Dragan Gasevic