Faculty Academy 2008

[edit] Plenary Panel Discussion: A Conversation with the University Committee on Digital Initiatives

Convener: Jeff McClurken, Chair Committee Members: Martha Burtis, Gardner Campbell, Teresa Coffman, Tom Fallace, Leanna Giancarlo, Tom McNulty, Brian Rizzo, Carolyn Parsons At this session, the members of the ad-hoc University Committee on Digital Initiatives will present a preliminary version of their findings and look to the audience for feedback and conversation about the current state and future path of digital initiatives at UMW. This feedback will help influence the final report of the committee to be given to the Provost and, eventually, our new University President. UMW Digital Resources Wiki. http://umwhistory.org/diginit/. Preliminary Report of the Committee -- MS Word or PDF Final Report of the Committee -- MS Word or PDF

[edit] For Further Reading

Primary documents 1. Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure (2003). 2. Follow-up report from the NSF: Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery (March, 2007). 3. Report on cyberinfrastructure in the humanities and social sciences sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies, Our Cultural Commonwealth (Fall, 2006). 4. ACLS Commission on Cyberinfrastructure. Commentary 1. The special December, 2007 issue of Academic Commons is entirely devoted to considering “Our Cultural Commonwealth.” Return to the Conference Program Notes from FA Q&A

• What if students, faculty, staff want to create their own space using non-UMW spaces? How do we manage and support these kinds of external activities?

Recommendations focused not on putting in place more UMW systems, but developing a deeper understanding.

• How do we get to the vision this report illustrates?
  • What propels us forward is not a machine but us -- a commitment to our own values and this new medium. Mindfulness.
  • Part of the point of YOTDC: start conversations in a wider community (on-campus, off-campus). Just bringing this committee together has been revelatory. We need to widen that conversation.
  • Can we do this on the side? Need full-time commitment.
  • Leadership: President, CIO, Provost
  • Urgency in the form of real leadership
  • Most of our colleagues are closer to being here than we may realize. This is about teaching and our commitment to our students.
  • Bring this to our President.
  • Catalyze the community
  • Pedagogical issue: education as a process/network vs. as a line
  • Teaching aspects of this conversation need to extend beyond year
  • Make the FAAR reflect these values in some way
  • Time needs to be created for faculty to engage with these issues (fellowships, course releases, other procedures)
  • Creating of more media production spaces to capture student activities
• We don't know where "there" is. It's going to keep moving forward. This isn't about manufacturing something but about vision and leadership
• We'll never get everyone involved -- maybe that's not the point.
• Accountability
  • Audit of our internal controls (in terms of technology)
  • Deal with existing vision
• About where we are now
  • shocked when talking to colleagues at other universities by how little technology enters into the conversation
  • happy to have resources we do have
  • also important for recruiting faculty -- how do we initiate them into this culture
• Leapfrog effect--our lack of resources has forced us to think strategically and imaginatively
• In order to get critical mass, we need to embrace both the visionary and the mundane

[edit] Understanding Relationships between eLearning Website Feature Preferences and Learning Styles

Mukesh Srivastava (Computer Information Systems)

The primary purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between perceived learning styles of the eLearners and their preference of eLearning website features. The secondary purposes of this study was to research various models of learning styles for examining learning styles and eLearning website Systems for studying eLearning website feature preferences of the eLearners. A broad research question was undertaken: What impact (if any) does an eLearner’s learning style have on their preferences for specific features in an eLearning website system? To follow an exploratory line of investigation three research questions were used to examine the broad question: 1) How can an eLearning website system be meaningfully selected to study eLearning website features preference? 2) How can an eLearner’s learning style be meaningfully categorized? 3) How do learning styles impact the eLearner’s preference of eLearning website features? Unlike Research Question 1 and 2 that were examined by mainly literature review, Research Question 3 was studied using a full-fledged empirical cycle involving setting up hypotheses, conducting a survey, and analysing data using statistical methods.

Mostly working undergraduate and graduate adult students, from CGPS at University of Mary Washington, were the participants in the survey study, and they completed three parts of the survey: background information, eLearning website feature preference and learning styles. Data analysis was carried out in four parts: descriptive statistics, relevant hypothesis testing, Cluster Analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA.

The descriptive statistical analysis was carried out to provide statistical information about the study participants, eLearning Website Feature Preferences and Learning Styles. Correlation studies and hypotheses testing have been performed to study the direction and magnitude of relationship between learning styles and combinations of learning styles. Cluster analysis executed to investigate how learning styles can be clustered and if there is a possibility of correlation between clusters and website features. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA of clusters and eLearning website features was done to examine the difference between clusters and eLearning website feature preference.

The results pertaining to correlation studies between learning styles and combinations of learning styles of the participants and eLearning website features preference indicated that largely there were non-significant correlations between the learning styles, combinations of learning styles and website feature preferences. There were few significant, but weak positive and negative correlations between the leaning styles and combinations of learning styles suggesting that a caution should be exercised by the eLearning website system designers and instructional designer in formulating eLearning website features using eLearning students’ learning styles as a consideration.

The association of learning style clusters and eLearning website feature preferences were examined and it revealed that Knowledge Seekers were the dominant group among all four clusters. The results indicated that at least two clusters (Knowledge Cultivator and Knowledge Seeker) have similar characteristics with small difference in the Pragmatist score. Kruskal-Wallis Test was conducted to compare the ranked mean scores on Clusters and eLearning website feature preferences. The results also showed that there is no difference in eLearning website feature preferences - among respondents in four Clusters – Knowledge Seeker, Thinker, Knowledge cultivator and Campaigner.

This research is one of the few studies conducted to provide suggestions for eLearning website system designers and online instructions designers about eLearning website feature preference based on learning styles. The results of this study suggest that there is no association between learning styles, combination of learning styles or clusters of learning styles and eLearning website features. Thus, future research should concentrate on exploring other factors that can be investigated in understanding relationships between learning styles and eLearning website features.

Return to the Conference Program

[edit] Personal Blogs The Easy Way

Warren Rochelle (English, Linguistics, and Communication)

If I can do this ... well, so can you. Working with Jim Groom, I learned how to use UMW Blogs to create a space to publicize my work and to make a Web page that is easy to maintain, straight forward, attractive, and did I say easy to maintain? In this space, I can announce upcoming readings and events, share work-in-progress, and maintain a web presence. This presentation will focus on how it was done and can be done, and how easy--did I mention that?--it is.

Return to the Conference Program

[edit] Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control: Blogging as an Extension of the Art Studio

Carole Garmon (Art and Art History)

Every studio art major in any university program knows that when they sign on to art, they have committed to much more than the six contact hours per week in each studio. They are well aware of the sleepless nights and the days when the professor cannot give them the individual attention and support that is sometimes needed to press ahead and make work from an informed level of understanding.

The studio major must develop a “support system” comprised of faculty and fellow art students. In upper-level studio art courses the emphasis shifts from basic technical expertise to more advanced conceptual and analytical thinking as students develop a more focused body of work. Fast, Cheap and Out Of Control, is my answer to extending the “physicality” of the studio beyond the limitations of the Melchers building. While students meet at the “mother blog” to speculate about Fast, Cheap and Out Of Control blog and then turn its focus on a student blog/portfolio.

Return to the Conference Program

[edit] Plenary Presentation: "Integration, Technology, and the Meaning of Life"

Gene Roche (College of William and Mary)

This presentation was triggered by a series of blog entries and comments written this spring by UMW students and faculty on a wide range of issues. The conversation ranged from existential reflections on the overall purpose of higher education and the philosophy of curriculum design to more pragmatic concerns about the use of little clickers or the value of tablet PC's. The goal of the presentation will be to help us think more clearly and creatively about our personal motivations, perceptions, and beliefs and to better understand how they shape the kind of decisions we make about integrating technology into our curriculum, courses, and classes.

Return to the Conference Program