January 21, 2010

Meeting Agenda:

  • Getting Folks Connected - via our Elluminate room; tabletop microphone didn't work well, so trying a new wireless mic
    • If you're remote and using Elluminate, try to get prepared early by making sure your headset works (if you have one) and doing the audio set up wizard in Elluminate: Tools > Audio > Audio Setup Wizard
  • Additions to Agenda
  • Welcome to our guests from the PIO and other institutions
  • Informal sharing (10 minutes)
  • Poster session at April ALT conference. Do we want to do a separate session proposal too (due 2/19)?
  • Review draft roles / topics, adjust / add on, and each member picks one or more
  • Possible consultants on web communication (Gary)
  • Applying the Quality Matters Rubric training (Ann facilitating)
    • Quality Matters Review: what do we remember about Quality Matters generally from our discussion about it at the last meeting?
    • Activity: Discuss how one of your online or hybrid courses (ideally, you've chosen a mature course that you've taught more than once) does or does not meet Standard 1 of the Quality Matters rubric. Quality Matters General Standard 1: The overall design of the course is made clear to the student at the beginning of the course. Specifically, look at standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7. You might demonstrate portions of your course to the group to illustrate your points. It's ok if your course does not meet the standard. Let's brainstorm ways to redesign our courses so that they will meet the standard.
    • Resource: Quality Matters Rubric
    • Resource: QM Rubric with Annotations
      • This document has annotations that help explain each standard. The annotations are very helpful when evaluating if a course meets a standard and / or thinking through what revisions could be made so that a course could meet a standard.
      • This is a printed handout for those at Shoreline Community College.
      • For those at Shoreline Community College, you also can access this document electronically by logging into Blackboard>Blackboard Users Group > Course Design > Instructional Design and Quality > Quality Matters > Quality Matters Rubric with Annotations.

  • Homework for next meeting:
    • Continue to apply Quality Matters Standard 1 to one of your online or hybrid courses and come prepared to discuss if your course does or does not meet the standard. We can discuss how to revise our courses so that they will meet the standard.

  • Next meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 3, 3 - 4:30 pm, room 4106 & Elluminate (for folks who can't come face-to-face)

Meeting notes/minutes: view the Elluminate recording of this meeting.

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT):

Attending: Debby Handrich, Ann Garnsey-Harter, Barbara Yasui, LInda Khandro, Donna Wilde, Gerry Baker, Gary Parks, Emma Agosta, Amy Kinsel, Gloria Anderson (via Elluminate), Judy Penn (via Elluminate), Andy William (via Elluminate) Vicki (via Elluminate)

Meeting opened with informal introductions and sharing of recent online teaching and learning issues.

Poster Session for Shoreline--The QM learning community has a poster session scheduled for the Teaching and Learning Conference in Vancouver, Washington, in April; Debby asked whether anyone is interested in putting in a session proposal; proposals are due February 19; Amy will create Doodle poll about interest in attending TLC in Vancouver in April.

Roles--Amy agreed to take on Addressing Accessibility; Betsey Barnett and Barbara Yasui will work on Multicuturalism; Linda Khandro and Judy Penn will work on improving online course; Emma Agosta is not sure she'll be able to follow through with Camtasia.

Communication Consultant---Gary Parks did some checking about communications consultants; he's interested to know what the group is looking for a communications consultant to do; ideas mentioned included how to use social networking in teaching and how to imbed video content onlint (copyright is a concern here); issue tabled for further discussion.

Quality Matters--this is a rubric to improve course design; it is peer reviewed, faculty to faculty; it does not necessarily evaluate course content, although discipline experts are needed for QM evaluations; the rubric includes annotations to help with evaluation of standards; this is a diagnositc tool.

Looked at Standard One with examples shown by Linda Khandro and Amy Kinsel