Final Project Demonstration Audio (Week 16 post)

Laura Black & Katelyn Neary
Week 16 Discussion Board

Option 1: Voicethread
https://voicethread.com/?#q.b5220299.i26582849

Option 2: Jing
https://blackboard.bsu.edu/courses/1/2013Fal_EDAC635s801/db/_4175860_1/Final_EDAc.swf

November Monthly Summary

Neary Commented on Group 3 & Group 6 Monthly Summary.
WOW- I can’t believe this month is already over. There was so much going on; it felt like it flew by with no break. This month we had many readings that covered topics including: physical learning, relationships in learning, distance learning, working with groups, evaluation, training costs, and training consultants. All of these topics helped piece together everything discussed over the course of the semester. During November, two large assignments were due: the Syllabus Evaluation and Project Demonstration. For the Syllabus Evaluation, our team had 3 educators evaluate our syllabus design; therefore, which resulted in great feedback and recommendations to strengthen our syllabus even further. The project demonstration required our group to look at all the hard work we completed over the semester and ‘bring it all together.’ After finishing the project demonstration, a weight was lifted off my shoulders. I am not sure how my other classmates felt, but I was and still am relieved. This course has taken a large amount of dedication, time, and hard work to complete. I’m so thankful that I took this class as an elective because I learned so much about teaching adult learners- without this course; I would not be as knowledgeable. I am very grateful that I had a great team member, Laura Black! Laura- was a wonderful contributor and hardworking individual, without her things would not have been done nearly as well. Also, Professor Bo Chang helped by always been available and easily to contact no matter the hours of the day or night! The last assignment to complete during the month of December is the Reflection Paper! 

Laura's November Monthly Summary

Laura commented on Group 3 and Group 4
November Summary

I didn't think it was possible for November to go faster than October, but it happened! The past few weeks have been increasingly busier preparing for the holidays. We spent time collecting, revising, and reflecting on past assignments to create our final project demonstration. This has been a very productive month for me in terms of reflecting. It helped a lot to review our individual and group assignments and make the necessary improvements. All of the projects throughout the semester have created a very cohesive demonstration.

I really enjoyed working on the syllabus evaluation. There was invaluable information given when we had three different evaluators review our syllabus. It was incredibly helpful to get advice from educators and facilitators that have been to numerous seminars or even facilitated seminars in the past. We were able to reflect on the positives and revise the potential challenges involved in our syllabus design. It was encouraging to receive praise for certain portions of our syllabus design and incredibly helpful to have other parts critiqued so that the syllabus could be adjusted to better fit all participants.

The weekly discussions and videos were very informative. I especially enjoyed learning about the different ways that peers have been involved in distance learning. Additionally, my introduction to voice thread was very positive. In fact, I plan on using voice thread in my classroom in the near future…very cool!
Moving ahead to the month of December, Katelyn and I will begin reflecting on the semester as we write our own reflections about adult learning theories and how we can connect them to the practical world. I feel lucky to have a partner that is organized, very dependable, and communicates well. All of these attributes made it incredibly easy to work with Katelyn. I've had a very positive experience working with Katelyn!

Group 2 Project Demonstration

Black commented on Group 5 and Grop 6 Project Demonstrations
Neary Commented on Group 4 & Group 5 Project Demonstrations.
Click on link below to view powerpoint
http://www.slideshare.net/lablack2/group-2-project-demonstration

Group 2: Katelyn Neary & Laura Black

Project Demonstration Abstract

The purpose of this project was to design, evaluate, and present a syllabus for adult learners; therefore, to configure a productive method to educate adult learners while incorporating context and learning environments. The theory behind ‘real life’ environments use in a learning setting interested each author and required further exploration. After a literature review was conducted individually by each author it was determined that using a ‘real life’ environment could provide an efficient and effective approach to teaching adults. The overall purpose of the project was to provide educators reliable recommendations for ways to improve adult learning with use of a ‘real life’ environment. In order to identify the most effective and efficient way to educate adult learners the authors performed a review of the literature and program investigations with relation to ‘real life’ environment. 

Extensive research was conducted to gain a better understanding of how to help adults become more effective learners, exploration into how the physical, cultural, power, knowledge, and ‘real-life’ environments can help nurture adult learning. After individual literature reviews, the group decided to focus on real-life environments in the classroom and the implications for practical use. 

Investigated of three specific programs that used ‘real life’ environments for learners was conducted. The first program, “PricewaterhouseCoopers Experiential Case Study,” emphasizes using practical experience from industry professionals in the classroom to enhance the context of the course. The second program, ‘Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing’ provides learners in an environment with scenarios involving ‘patients’ that are used to help individuals learn in the medical field. The third program investigated, ‘Learning from others: Learning in a social context’ concentrates on teacher’s importance and how their use of social interactions within an environment can have a large impact on what individuals learn from one another. Through the investigations, conclusions illustrated creating ‘real-life’ environments is beneficial, challenging, and requires active participation from all learners.

The rationale of the syllabus is based exclusively on the literature reviewed and programs investigated. The syllabus incorporated ideas and concepts from all programs investigated and review of the literature. Using these concepts will allow the facilitators to provide a ‘real life’ learning experience for students to engage in a more effective and efficient learning environment. The program tried to create a learning environment conducive to as many individuals and learning styles as possible while using a ‘real life’ environment approach. Attention to all five learning contexts and environments was given, including: physical, cultural, knowledge, power, and ‘real life’ environment; furthermore, extra emphasis was given to ‘real life’ environments. Many great ideas were provided from using this approach and highlighted key features in using a ‘real life’ environment. The main conclusions originated from the literature review and program investigation and served as the basis for the syllabus design. Three main features were implemented into the syllabus from these conclusions:

1. Instructors highlight benefits and possible barriers of using case study in classroom setting.

2. Strategies learned can be applied to design additional learning experiences.

3. Students should act more as researchers compare to traditional students.

Using these features a syllabus was created for a seminar titled, “Learning & teaching effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom”. To implement these features into the design of the syllabus, modifications were needed to maximize their effectiveness within the syllabus. The first feature was advocated in the syllabus by the use of reading material and learning tools, with encouragement from facilitators to treat the case as ‘real work’ rather than another assignment and promoting the numerous industries that would appreciate the ‘real world’ experience; therefore, while also discussing the difference between ‘real world’ and classroom problems. The syllabus included activities to reiterate the second feature by highlighting the professional skills acquired from the use of a ‘real life’ or case study experience. The third feature was included in the syllabus by encouraging social interactions in several different settings such as giving students more responsibility in the classroom; furthermore, for example allowing them to check email in class and encourage communication to be that of a business professional. 

Each one of these features help mold the seminar syllabus. Without the extensive process these conclusions would have been unforeseen and unidentified.

Group Contributions for  Project Demonstration:
Katelyn Neary: Introduction, rationale of syllabus, editing, revising, creating powerpoint
Laura Black: Findings, evaluation of syllabus, editing, revising, creating powerpoint

Syllabus Evaluation

Neary Commented on Group 1 & Group 3 Syllabus Evaluation. 

Syllabus Evaluation

Laura Black and Katelyn Neary

Ball State University

EDAC 635

November 11, 2013

After designing the syllabus “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom”, three educators from diverse backgrounds evaluated our syllabus. Educators received a copy of the syllabus and rationale to evaluate. Evaluators answered questions including, “What they liked about the syllabus design” and “What should be improved and why?”

Sarah Hill, Evaluator One, has been involved with vocational services since 1994, but is currently employed at Cummins Behavior Health Systems as the Director of Employment Services where she educates the community to eliminate barriers and stigma associated with mental illness. She serves on the Indiana Mental Health Committee and is also a liaison to State of Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

Lucas Gobel, Evaluator Two, is currently employed with MSD Warren Township and spends his day with seventh graders in his interactive science room. He is also the Science Olympiad Coach where he has taken his team to the state championships for the last five years. During his school breaks, Lucas serves as the Camp Kikthawenund Program Director where he is responsible for all Boy Scout participants, leaders, and volunteers.   

Suzan Davis, Evaluator Three, has been an English and Communication Instructor for over 20 years. Currently, Suzan is an Adjunct English Communication faculty and professional development coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College. Among her duties as a professional development coordinator; planning working luncheons, workshops, and seminars have all been coordinated and created by Suzan.

Please find the first evaluation below:

Evaluator One: Sarah Hill

Occupation: Director of Employment Services at Cummins Behavior Health Systems in Indianapolis.

1) What do you like about the syllabus design?

Overall, I was very impressed with the syllabus design of Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom. I found the design to be well thought out, clearly defined, and very structured.  

As a director of employment and facilitator of vocational workshops, I really enjoyed how the skill level requirements of the participants were clearly noted. This would help me determine if the seminar is more beneficial to my clients or my staff members.

I can’t speak enough about the accommodations section! I especially appreciated the information on parking because parking in Indianapolis can be exasperating and expensive. In fact, this is sometimes a deterrent for participants. The website your group provided seminar participants gives clear directions for parking availability and location. From experience, I’ve been to many cities and spent over an hour trying to find parking and that gives participants a negative impression before the seminar ever begins!

            The Pre-session questionnaire empowers participants to be successful because there is no guess work on the material that will be covered. Giving participants a sense of purpose and preparedness is a great start to any learning experience. Additionally, reading assignments are very clear and gives participants a timeline that is conducive with busy adult schedules. Lastly, the accommodations section for people with handicaps was a great idea. I’ve been to several seminars where people with disabilities have needs that were overlooked because there was no way to communicate with facilitators to set-up alternatives.  

2) What do you think should be improved? Why? How?

It was unclear to me if the seminar would allow for course credits or not. I know there was a certificate of completion/attendance, but if someone wanted to earn credits could it be an option? Also, I did not see a post-seminar survey/evaluation. This is important because it allows facilitators to know if the participants grasped the concepts being taught and give facilitators feedback on what needs to be improved and what was executed well.

Reflection of Evaluation One

We were excited to have a director/facilitator evaluate our program design since she has first-hand knowledge of how to create successful seminars and workshops. Sarah Hill was highly complementary overall, but was particularly impressed with our notations on skill level requirements for seminar attendees. She mentioned that this information is usually left out of seminars she attends and this is helpful for her to know to determine if her clients (mentally ill adults) or staff would benefit from attending or have the skill set to do so. I definitely agree that this aspect is crucial; I’ve been to many seminars that were confusing and didn’t connect to me because a skill level requirement was not mentioned on the seminar application form.

Sarah also thought the section addressing parking in Indianapolis was especially helpful and I agree that it was pertinent to add to our design. I think extra details, such as parking information, are often overlooked. From a personal stand point, I have a lot of anxiety when I travel somewhere I am not familiar because I have no sense of direction. I agree that our parking information, website, map, etc. allows participants to plan ahead to make travel arrangements if necessary and ensures that participants will arrive on time. Our parking guide takes the guesswork out of where to park and how much it will cost, etc. We are glad that this was well received.

Mrs. Hill was also a fan of creating clearly defined timelines to complete the reading assignments for the seminar. I agree on this standpoint as well (especially being a student with many assignment deadlines to complete). It is true for every participant attending a seminar: life is incredibly busy no matter what or who is involved. Giving deadlines lessens anxiety of participants by giving them very realistic and manageable tasks to complete. As a working adult, deadlines help me balance my stress levels and calm my nerves or feelings of being overwhelmed.

Sarah made same great suggestions that I did not think of previously. She was concerned that our syllabus design did not have a post-session survey/evaluation. This is an incredibly powerful tool that our group overlooked. A post survey from participants would give us the feedback necessary to make improvements and changes were needed. Our group will definitely add a post-session survey on Sunday, February 2^nd at 3:30pm during our farewell and dismissal portion of the session. Sarah mentioned that post-surveys allow facilitators to assess participants understanding of the content. We designed a syllabus that allows for frequent check points during question and answer times as well as group discussions, but a post-survey would encompass the entire program. This would give us a clear view of what participants found most helpful and what they retained over the course of our program. 

Sarah also mentioned that it was unclear whether or not course attendees would get credits. This is something that was originally overlooked by the creators of the syllabus. The possibility of offering ‘continuing education’ credits might make attendance to the seminar more attractive. Contacting the proper personnel to get accreditation for the credits could be difficult but definitely worth it; furthermore, clearly stating the skill level requirements for attendees.

The second syllabus evaluation can be found below:

Evaluator Two: Lucas Gobel

Occupation: 7th Grade Science Teacher, Science Olympiad Coach, Camp Kikthawenund Program Director

1.) What do you like about the syllabus design?

I really like how the expectations are laid out in the participants’ handouts. It had every answer to every question I would have. I also liked the thought that was put into the set-up with a combination of instructor directed, group directed, and then participant directed activities. I found the syllabus well-researched in teaching philosophy. The variety of activities would make a more valuable learning experience to anyone that participated. All research points to small group activities being effective.

2.) What do you think should be improved? Why? How?

While the syllabus does a great job of setting up expectations, I could not find the value of taking said seminar in any of the participant materials. Why should I take this? What value will this serve me in my company or classroom? Why should I attend this seminar? These questions could be answered up front with the description and objectives. I am always cautious of participant lead assignments. Even though they are valuable, if the effort isn't put forth by the participants of the whole group then everyone suffers (including the instructor).

Reflection of Evaluator Two

Evaluator two, Lucas, had very similar observations as Sarah (Evaluator One) which shows how consistent the positives are as well as the negatives. Lucas stated that he was very impressed by the expectations stated in the participant handbook. Also noted by Lucas was the fact that every answer to any question he had was answered in that handbook. The set-up of the workshop was appreciated because of the range of instructor, group, and participant directed activities. Lucas thought the syllabus was well researched; furthermore, leading to us to the most effective instructional methods for adults.

Lucas felt that there were some areas of improvement in our syllabus. The value of taking the seminar was a major concern of evaluator two; therefore, he felt that the value needed to be mentioned somewhere in participant materials. The evaluator was also weary of using participant led assignments in the workshop. The evaluator cautioned that if effort is not made by participants the entire group and instructor are affected negatively and takeaways from the workshop could be minimized. The syllabus creators agree that there is a risk when using participant led assignments, but given the required skill and experience level hopefully participation is not minimal.

Please find the third evaluation below:

Evaluator Three: Suzan Davis

Occupation: Technical and grammatical recommendations by Suzan Davis, Adjunct English and Communication facility and Professional Development Coordinator at Ivy Tech Community College.

Evaluator Three Suggestions: Throughout the syllabus: Observe ten and under rule, except for times or measurements, write out numbers under ten, as this is an academic setting

Make times consistent: You have 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on one line and 8am to 4 pm on three. Make it all the same.

It is very good you put not only the day of the week, but also AM and PM because one can never assume, even when it seems obvious.

Under Skill Level for attendees:

Second line: Interest and/or experience in using “real life case study.  Make it a real life case study. OR write case studies.

Third line: At least 5 years’ experience as an instructor or fascinator at particular university. What do you mean by particular? Does this mean any university? The first line already mentions Indiana professors or instructors so I am confused by this.

The Seminar Format section clearly not only shows the participants what to expect, but the range of activities makes the seminar attract to numerous learning styles. Recommendation: last sentence: “arrive with time to check in, collect name tags, etc….this can be interpreted many ways. Instead: Check in 15 to 30 minutes before the first seminar at 8 AM.

Attendance: Third sentence needs a complete rewrite. It is a fragment and does not express a complete thought.

It is very nice that guests can walk via enclosed walkways from the convention center to their hotels. This is important information, often overlooked.

Parking The interactive map is a fantastic addition. The last time I was in downtown Indy, I was asked where hotels were located compared to meeting places three times in three minutes. This will help guests envision where they are going.

The early assignments and time lines help prepare participants to maximize the experience, and for their fascinators to do a better job.

Overview: The clear headings help readers navigate thought the syllabus. It appears to cover all the important points of the seminar day by day, plus prior preparations needed, navigational tidbits that will make it easier for out-of-town participants, and post seminar requirements. Based on the syllabus, it is an event I would love to attend myself.

Reflection of Evaluation Three

Evaluator three provided great suggestions as well as grammatical fixations that went unnoticed by the syllabus creators. Even though Evaluator Three used a different format in comparison to the other evaluations, there were many great acknowledgements made. Numerous recommendations were provided some small and some large. One suggestion included making the time 8:00 AM consistent throughout the schedule, rather than have 8 AM in some places. This seems like a very small detail but it could confuse someone and it will make the spacing more consistent. Suzan examined the syllabus thoroughly and found some additional areas that can be improved. One area in the syllabus is titled, “Skill level requirement for seminar attendees”, Suzan pointed out that the wording used when describing the skill level for attendees was confusing. After an additional review- I agree that the verbiage isn’t the most effective and could be better. Another suggestion for that section calls for further clarification determine what the syllabus creators mean by attendees required to have five years’ experience from a particular university. The syllabus writers meant that attendees need consecutive years of teaching experience from a single university; furthermore, compared to an individual that might have taught for two years at an elementary school, two years at a high school, and then one year at a university. Suzan makes a good point to change the phrasing of this to make it clear to the attendees of what the skill level requirements are. Under the, “Seminar Format” section there could be more a description to define how much time in advance workshop attendees should arrive to check-in before the seminar begins. Suzan suggested putting an actual amount of time, not just ‘arrive with time to check in’ – how it is stated in the syllabus presently. She suggested putting 15 to 30 minutes in the syllabus; furthermore, this will make expectations of attendees clear and concise.

Many positives were highlighted by Suzan throughout her evaluation of the syllabus. She notes how important it is to put AM and PM on the end of any time. I agree and nothing is ever ‘common sense’ when it comes to times of meetings especially for those from a different time zone. Another feature Suzan appreciated was the seminar format and how it provided a clear and concise expectation for workshop attendees. The range of learning styles that will be reached by using the various instructor and attendees involvement will provide many learning opportunities to various learning styles all at one workshop. As evaluator one noted, the parking is a wonderful addition to the syllabus and can really help with attendees traveling. After hearing all the feedback about parking, proper documentation has been made in the syllabus creator’s memory to always consider parking prior to any event. Parking can seem like a ‘given’, but it individuals don’t have places to park close by, the chance of them attending the event is decreased and their approval and over all feeling about the event is diminished and replaced with frustration from a long walk, expensive parking ticket, or worse lost car. Suzan also mentioned the benefit of having the assignment due dates early for the participants. I agree because the participants can be aware of the topic that will be discussed on each day ahead of time. Rather than not having any idea what is going on that day. Overall, Suzan said the syllabus was very thorough and easy to navigate. She said she enjoyed reading it so much she would like to attend the “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom” workshop!

CONCLUSION

All three evaluators did a great job assessing, “Learning & Teaching Effectively: From the classroom to the boardroom” syllabus design. Each evaluator provided great recommendations and suggestions to strengthen our workshop. The evaluators come from various backgrounds and each provided a little different view of the syllabus; furthermore, this gave our team a more well-rounded assessment. The evaluators highlighted the strong and weak components of our syllabus design and all suggestions will be considered to improve our design. The consistency of the comments verified that the syllabus could be successful in practice. The input from the various educators enhanced the importance and practice of the workshop, while providing great suggestions for improvement. The syllabus creators would like to give much appreciation to all the evaluators and their helpful recommendations. 

Team Member Contributions:

Laura: Recruited Evaluator 1 & 2, Provided reflection of Evaluator One, Wrote background description for Evaluator 1 & 2, edited and revised

Katelyn: Recruited Evaluator 3, Provided reflection of Evalation 2 & 3, Wrote background for Evalutor 3, conclusion, editted 

Black's October Monthly Summary

Laura commented on Group One and Group Three's October summaries

October Summary

This month has gone so quickly! We spent numerous hours continuing our research of multiple case studies revolving around the environment and context of real life. The beginning of the month we finalized our program investigation and found many relevant programs to gather information from and apply to our “real-life” examples.

Shortly after our program investigation, we continued our weekly discussions on the information processing model, how the brain is wired, multiple intelligences theory, mental processes of cognition, and Piaget’s cognitive stages of development.

Between our weekly discussions and comments, we found the time to work on our syllabus design. As a group, we were really proud of final product. (Personally, I would sign up for our “real-life” workshop; I loved the format and content that we created.) We could see how our program investigation was the framework for our syllabus design. It has been rewarding to see how our group efforts have come together to create a program that could be used in the real world with many applications that adult learners could benefit from.

As a group, we came closer during the middle of the month as we were assigning different parts to complete for our syllabus design paper. We made a group pact to finish a few days early and give ourselves time to proofread and finalize. Unfortunately, when push came to shove, we didn’t meet our personal timeline, but still managed to complete the paper and submit it before the class deadline expired. Go team!

We are looking forward to bringing it all together with our project demonstration next month! 

October Monthly Summary

Neary commented on Group 3 & Group 4 Monthly Summary Blogs.
October Monthly Summary

The month of October has flown by! I actually had to look at my planner to see what all specifically has been accomplished in this month! It seems like just yesterday I was writing my September monthly summary!

The month started off with our Program Investigation being due our team (Group 2: Environment & Context) worked together for the first time. Everything and everyone worked well together. I was very pleased at how well things worked out between all three of us being graduate students with different day-to-day schedules. Each of us brought a different view to the table and helped provide our team with multiple perspectives on environment and context in adult learning. This month focus shifted to assignments and less emphasis was on the reading materials, books, videos, etc. Even though we still had some reading, it was nice to take what we have been learning this semester and apply it.

Also due this month was the Syllabus Design. This was definitely one of the most challenging things I have done in my graduate studies because I have no experience in creating any syllabus, lesson plan, or anything of that sort. It was difficult to start, but I used the required reading materials from this course and they provided a very good foundation and suggestions. Our team ended up designing a syllabus for a seminar for facilitators using ‘real life’ environment in the classroom. After completing the seminar syllabus- I saw how much I have learned from this class. The skills I have learned would not have been acquired if I had not taken a course outside of my program. I am very excited to continue on with the class and see what the month of November brings!