On behalf of students, minding the data, Meeting Reflections revisited

Proliferation. OK, maybe that’s not quite accurate and a little too dramatic (plus I’m not talking about cell reproduction or nuclear weaponry), but I doubt that either Ema Heimerl  or I considered that our April 2012 presentation to members of the School of Education Administrative Council on behalf of Dean Julie Underwood’s Student Advisory Board would generate additional speaking opportunities. Yet, that is what has happened. The two of us will be speaking at the School of Education’s Board of Visitors luncheon on May 3 and again at the May meeting of the School of Education’s Administrative Forum.

Our presentation’s focus is on issues that the Student Advisory Board identified as being important in our meetings with Dean Underwood and Associate Dean Jeff Hamm. Falling under the umbrella of a common theme these days, Educational Innovation (EI), and echoing much of what I’ve heard in several other EI settings, our priorities include topics related to course offerings, course delivery, student interaction and course assessment.

Within the context of course offerings, we highlight the ideas of timing and content. From a timing perspective, we are promoting the idea of offering more evening classes for undergraduates, weekend courses for graduate students, and developing January term (J-term) options, similar to those offered in compacted summer sessions. From a course content perspective, we understand there is a strong interest in art classes for non-art majors, which may be more easily realized if the College of Arts comes to fruition.

For course delivery, we are focusing on different delivery modalities – i.e., blended online/in-class courses or completely at-a-distance offerings. Several courses have already demonstrated successful blended delivery models, including Educational Psychology 301: Human Abilities and Learning. Creating online courses might open the door for students who are in professional, sequenced programs to participate in study abroad experiences, especially if the sequenced courses could be delivered online.

Student interaction with peers and with faculty is linked to positive academic outcomes. Some of the ideas we are putting forth involve creating student-to-student connections as early as orientation, particularly introducing new students to those who have been on campus for awhile and who can help familiarize them with the resources available. We also would like to see more informal opportunities for mingling with faculty members, basing it on the premise that getting to know a faculty member in a casual environment may raise students’ comfort levels with approaching faculty members in more formal settings.

Finally, an issue that was discussed in most SAB meetings was that of course evaluations. We even had staff from Testing and Evaluation Services spend part of a meeting facilitating a conversation around the issue. With that said, our recommendation is to implement mid-semester course evaluations across the School. These evaluations would be for formative purposes only – to help instructional staff understand what is working and what isn’t working for students, so they might be able to adapt what is happening in the class, if necessary. Recognizing the high stakes that are often placed on course evaluation as far as implications for tenure, we are emphasizing that we expect the mid-semester evaluation would go specifically to the instructor. We are also leaning towards recommending an online evaluation. While there were questions raised during the Administrative Council presentation about the validity of an online evaluation versus paper-based due to response rate concerns, Ema countered students could be advised ahead of time that they would need to bring a laptop to class on the day that the evaluation was being done. This would presumably result in a similar response rate as that of a paper evaluation.

There were also other topics of interest to students at the April Administrative Council/Academic Planning Council meeting, namely a report on the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the proposed College of Arts.

For students who are involved in research, the work of the Education IRB is likely familiar. We are very privileged to have a skilled and knowledgeable IRB team working on our behalf. They review about 500 new IRB applications a year, and most applications require more than one read, so the review count is likely closer to 1,300. Eric Camburn, chair of the IRB Committee, noted that the Webkit program is being replaced by ARROW this Fall. He also highlighted that the IRB website has been updated and now includes links to a number of resources.

On a personal note, I am in the midst of submitting the IRB application for my dissertation research. Based on this very real experience, I posed a question to Dr. Camburn about whether it might be possible to have exemplar IRB applications available for review. The response to my query was couched in the logic that there is such a tremendous amount of variation between studies and across research methodologies, so the best place to find an appropriate example would be from someone who has done similar research.  I have since followed that advice and have the language of two approved IRB application examples to consider as I pull mine together.

The last point from the April AC/APC meeting about which I will write is the vote of support from the School of Education for the College of Arts.  The two SoE departments which would be affected by this new campus entity are Art and Dance. If the College of Arts is established, we will lose approximately 350 out of 2,000 undergraduate majors. On the positive side, the establishment of an independent College of Arts would mean leadership under one Dean (instead of multiple, as it currently is) and that will promote the development of a shared campus identity among the various arts. This shared identity will likely strengthen the ability to negotiate for campus resources through a more prominent visibility of the arts, not to mention a streamlining of administrative processes across the individual departments by pulling them into one central administrative “home”.

Minding the data

One of the most valuable insights I’ve gained during my time as a graduate student and member of the campus community on my journey to becoming a skilled researcher, educator and administrator comes from comprehending the importance of seeing the big picture. Having one tidbit of data often translates into not having enough of a context to accurately evaluate how worthy that information is; indeed, operating from that limited mindset can actually be quite dangerous and costly. Several recent GPS experiences come to mind as demonstrations of this principle: one resulted in a car accident and the other led to $66 in toll charges. I share this “wisdom” after reflecting upon a number of aspects of the presentations which occurred at the May 2, 2012, AC/APC meeting.

Thinking about data takes me back to when I was first beginning my life as a graduate student. The importance of weighing the validity of data was driven home in an introduction to research methods class taught by Gary Price in Curriculum and Instruction. While it seems like ages ago, he helped lay a solid foundation of my understanding of data credibility and validity. Those concepts were re-emphasized in the class on survey design I had with Eric Camburn and in the course taught by John Wiley on accreditation. (Please note, although I’ve only mentioned three instructors by name, my learning has been nourished by many – in and out of the classroom – and they have all reinforced these same principles in some manner).

I do like data. In fact, managing data has been a substantial part of my responsibilities as a student hourly “research database manager” in the Department of Family Medicine for the past 2+ years. But, data – out of context – is not necessarily valuable and can be misused. It behooves everyone who uses data to be ever mindful of the way in which they plan to use the data. Ensure the metrics are valid. Ensure the context for the data is accurate and complete enough to understand and interpret the results. If doing comparisons, ensure that apples are being compared to apples and not to whales; if comparing apples to whales is required, find a common denominator and measure it the same way for both whales and apples. It is undeniable that data can be extremely valuable, but as I mentioned before, if misused or taken from an incomplete context, it can also be dangerous. Don’t make a left turn just because the GPS tells you to turn left – there might be something you don’t see.

Jumping off my minding the data soapbox, there were several items from the May AC/APC meeting of interest to students which are also worthy of mentioning.

Scholarship and Awards Committee Annual Report – In 2010, SoE donors provided $975,000 to graduate and undergraduate students in the form of scholarships and fellowships via the SoE Scholarship and Awards Committee. Some of those funds were disbursed directly through all-school awards ($215,000 to undergraduate scholarships; $90,000 to graduate fellowships), and the remaining funds were awarded directly through departmental mechanisms. The scholarship application process for undergraduate students for most scholarships is now merged with the campus Common Scholarship Application. In March, the Committee confirmed its decision to award minimum scholarships of no less than $1,000 and to base the maximum award on annual undergraduate tuition.

Doctoral Research Program (DRP) Update – On May 1, 2012, at the inaugural DRP Educational Research Conference, students who are part of the DRP had an opportunity to put into practice much of what they’ve been learning this year. Framed within the context of “research dissemination”, the event was a culmination of the program’s activities throughout the year, and allowed students to present their research projects – some in poster format, some in oral presentations.  Students not only presented, but they served as the event organizers as well. This type of practical experience has undoubtedly been invaluable reinforcement for the learning and professional development expectations of the program.

Ed-Graduate Research Scholar Notes (Ed-GRS) – On behalf of the Ed-GRS Advisory Committee Dang Chonwerawong reported on the School’s programming for this unique community of graduate students. There were a few points from her presentation that stayed with me:

• The Ed-GRS makes concerted efforts to pair new students with those who have been on campus already
• Unlike in previous years, Ed-GRS needs to submit an application with an itemized budget to garner recruitment dollars from the Graduate School
• The numbers of how many first-year versus second-year students who might be funded through Ed-GRS in any given year can vary greatly, because second-year students must be dissertators and some programs take longer to get to that stage
• The annual stipend is set on the lower side as compared to other fellowships on campus, and is done so to ensure that as many students can receive funding as possible; the stipend is the same for both years and is stated very explicitly in the letter of agreement

Meeting Reflections revisited

It was just about 6 months ago that I launched the Meeting Reflections blog to fulfill one scope of my responsibilities as an Associated Students of Madison (ASM) Shared Governance Committee (SGC) student appointee to the School of Education Administrative Council. While I’m sure some of my SGC peers may have tired of hearing about my blog and its far-reaching readership, I had numerous positive comments about the blog from different corners of campus. That feedback affirmed my commitment to being the student voice I was asked to be. (I also believe in leadership by example, and I hoped if I modeled a blogging behavior, more of my peer appointees might engage in it.)

The student representative experiences which have served as inspiration for the thoughts I share in the blog entries have simply been amazing. As an appointee in the School of Education, the opportunity to have a valued student voice “at the table” with world-class educational professionals is truly a privilege and will undoubtedly forever shape who I become. What I’ve learned these past months has enabled me to effectively participate in conversations elsewhere on campus. Getting an insider’s look at aspects of the School’s administrative framework has been so helpful in understanding issues at the campus and system levels too. I honestly could not have asked for a better learning opportunity. I strongly recommend the experience for any other student who aspires to be an educational leader.

And that, my much appreciated readers, is what TolaThinks …

Educational Innovation speed dating, where the rubber hits the road, a pilot’s license

I have a confession: the words of this edition of Meeting Reflections have been ripening for almost six weeks; the headline/themes have been framed as long, and I’ve even teasingly “advertised” its contents. Like an avocado or peach that was needing time to get to the perfect state for consumption, I hope that what TolaThinks has been worth the wait.

There was a melding of educational innovation (EI) minds once again on Friday, March 23, over the noon hour when School of Education (SoE) Dean Julie Underwood led an exploration of the 18 EI ideas she had received in response to her request for proposals. She charged attendees to consider three things as proposals were put forth:

• For a proposal to come to fruition, are there “needs” which Dean Underwood suggested to be necessary pieces that we don’t have – i.e., seed/start-up funding, staffing and/or specific expertise?
• What “obstacles” stand in the way of success, i.e., red tape, overcoming the plateau vs. non-plateau student dilemma, adjusting faculty work load/ compensation?
• Are there food-for-thought issues that are not necessarily a “need” or “obstacle”, but could be both, or are simply an overarching issue that warrants further consideration and needs to be placed in what Dean Underwood labeled the “parking lot”?

As I sat back and readied myself to observe the conversation, the phrase “where the rubber hits the road” came to mind. In fact, those very words were the first I wrote in my notes. Always mindful of making sure my thought processes aren’t totally off the mark, as I pondered what direction my blog would take, I did a google search of the phrase. My discovery clarified that my “logic” was plausible; the idiom’s roots are in racing, and it literally refers to when the vehicle starts moving forward (more about that later).

Speed dating

Although I have never personally participated in a speed-dating experience, the structure of the March 23 conversation seemed to reflect the media’s portrayal of that type of event. Proposal representatives were given 2 minutes to lay the groundwork for their respective ideas, and then others who were present were allowed several minutes to pose questions or share thoughts. To the sound of the muffled rhythmic drumming from what was likely the backdrop of a modern dance class elsewhere in Lathrop Hall, the EI speed-dating dance began with Dean Underwood adeptly choreographing the flow of the conversation through the five broad themes into which she had grouped the proposals.

As a point of clarification, for the March 23 conversation, the thematic groups were initially dubbed Batch 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. At April’s EI meeting, they were afforded more descriptive titles and some proposals were shifted to other “batches”. The following snippets of proposals presented at the March 23 meeting are merged into the descriptively named categories on Dean Underwood’s proposal spreadsheet at the April 20 meeting. Please note, my following “snippets” are also not an all-inclusive list of the proposals submitted to Dean Underwood; SoE educational innovation documents are available here:  School of Education Educational Innovations .

1. Opportunities for current students e.g. …

• Increasing the number of undergraduates from other campus schools/colleges who take SoE classes
• Implementing with-in cohort half-semester block scheduling
• Developing a “minor” in applied behavior for graduate students which leads to eligibility to sit for the behavior analysis board certification exam

2. Outreach or extended timetable options including …

• An early career consortium to provide support for new teachers and administrators
• An online sequence of coursework on English as Second Language learners for educators who want to know more about serving English learner
• January term instruction focusing on using technology in the classroom

3. Professional Master’s or Certificate Programs such as …

• Master’s in Global Higher Education for international students who are interested in educational leadership and policy analysis
• Master’s in Global Education and Sustainable Development to prepare students in the U.S. and abroad to work with others around the world on issues surrounding sustainability – conceivably partnering with USAID, UNESCO, etc.
• An online Special Education master’s, potentially targeting practicing special education educators who need additional credentialing
• A non-credit certificate around psycho-social health issues such as bullying, social conflict, emotional trauma 

4. Open digital resources i.e. …

• The School of Education Research Exchange will raise awareness of current ongoing SoE research endeavors and function as a bridge between research and practice across UW and with community partners
• Potentially opening access to SoE teaching and learning resources beyond campus including syllabi, digital sources and shared course materials

5. New human resources approach namely …

• Creating a hiring agreement between MERIT and the Wisconsin Institute of Discovery’s education group would allow for flexibility in staffing and result in the ability to quickly respond to RFPs from industry and government and connect MERIT with staff who can do software development – it’s a novel model that could potentially be replicated by other units

Rubber and the road

One of the principles Dean Underwood reminded us to consider as she began the March 23 meeting was whether the proposals are aligned with the School’s strategic priorities – do they reflect that we are driving in the same direction? While I didn’t specifically think about those words at the time Dean Underwood vocalized her charge, I realized later that at several points during the speed dating dance she asked if similar proposals might actually have possible alignment in their missions.  After the session, I listened to a conversation between representatives from two of the “same direction” proposals highlighted by Dean Underwood, and I believe that there were common themes they identified as meriting further dialogue. It will be interesting to see how these two particular proposals emerge from the EI process.

Attendees at the March 23 EI session were encouraged to consider the feedback they received, connect with others who might have ideas akin to theirs and to come to the next EI gathering expecting to be able to move their proposals one step closer to reality. With that said, the original intent of the April 20 was to provide an environment in which proposal developers could come together and get some tangible help from “experts” to move their projects forward – to help with the rubber hitting the road process, but there was a small surprise at the meeting.

A pilot’s license

On past occasions I’ve been asked about my strengths (and weaknesses). With a smile, I sometimes answer the strength question with, “I have a pilot’s license.” I then further explain that I earned it, because I have proven that I can fly well by the seat of my pants. In the previous paragraph, I alluded to the “surprise” encountered at the April 20 EI meeting. In response to the surprise, Dean Underwood deftly demonstrated that she too has a pilot’s license.

In setting the context for my pilot’s license reference, it needs to be noted that the April EI session was originally going to be held at the Natatorium due to its proximity to the Kinesiology Department. When the locations for the EI sessions were announced, Kinesiology decided to cancel a standing departmental gathering that was at the same time and in an adjacent room to where the EI conversation was to be happening. Somewhere along the line, the EI meeting location was changed to the Teacher’s Education Building.

As the meeting start time approached, several familiar faces began arriving, including the “experts” – Melissa Amos-Landgraf, Katie Duren, Beth Giles, and Dan Jacobsohn. With the seats in the room beginning to fill, it was soon realized that the attendees were not entirely reflective of who had been envisioned as coming to meet with the “experts” – a fact that was confirmed when brief introductions were made. The Kinesiology Department was well represented with perhaps 2/3 of the attendees announcing their Kinesiology connection, and most of them indicating they were graduate students.

Demonstrating her pilot license qualifications and her firm commitment to engaging the School’s stakeholders – including the students – in important conversations, Dean Underwood quickly provided an overview for those who were newly learning about the School’s EI conversations as well as at what was happening around the issue at the campus level. A Kinesiology faculty member raised a point about their recent programming transitions, and those comments provided Dean Underwood an opportunity to further frame what she had shared.

The session then moved into the structure that had been planned. Dean Underwood invited those who had specific EI proposals to meet with one of the “experts” for guidance on relevant needs. For instance, questions about budgetary issues were primarily directed towards Melissa (SoE Associate Dean for Administration); Dan (SoE Chief Information Officer) was there to address technology-related issues; Beth (Assistant Director of SoE Education and Outreach and Partnerships) was a resource for outreach and potential online courses; and Katie (Assistant Dean in the Division of Continuing Studies) came bearing a 3-ring binder dubbed “Accessible Post-Baccalaureate Program Development Toolkit”, a handy reference containing documents regarding program development and planning, budgeting, approval process, etc. Participants were invited to spend time with which ever “expert(s)” could help them most.

Rubber and the road one more time

At the May 2 SoE Administrative Council/Academic Planning Council, Dean Underwood announced she was postponing the last of the scheduled EI sessions, which was to be held May 8. She is still waiting for answers from the campus level about certain matters. While it’s not exactly surprising that a delay might occur given the dynamics of the bureaucratic engine that exists on campus, I certainly hope that the momentum we’ve gained as we’ve worked on proposals through the semester will not be completely tempered – the SoE educational innovation “rubber” has hit the road – yet the benefits of these efforts will only be realized when they are actualized.

Finding the sweet spot, making lighter work, ‘art’istic creation

Just by looking at me, one might never guess that I am a diehard softball pitcher who has been lobbing strikes for most of the past 30+ summers. Simply driving past a ball diamond after the snow melts, gets my softball adrenalin flowing. Perhaps you are asking yourself how this chatter about my passion for softball could possibly relate to School of Education meeting reflections, but there is a connection, and I heard that conceptual connection mentioned not once, but twice, within the conversations on which I focus this blog … I ask for a bit of patience as I set the stage before introducing you to this softball/meeting reflections overlap.

As part of the School of Education’s continuing engagement in the campus-wide educational innovation (EI) conversation, another sharing session was hosted over the noon hour on Thursday, March 8, 2012, in Room 259 of the Educational Science Building. Leading the roundtable discussion were Jack Jorgensen, Jeff Russell and Katy Duren. Jack heads the School’s Office of Education Outreach and Partnership; Jeff is the campus vice provost for lifelong learning and dean of the Division of Continuing Studies (DCS); and Katy is an assistant dean, also with DCS. One could correctly infer from the membership composition of the session resource/dialogue facilitation team (outreach/partnership and DCS) that the March 8 EI session was focused on educational innovations specifically targeting non-traditional students (i.e., for post-baccalaureate certificates, a capstone credential, working adults, professional master’s degrees, non-credit programming).

As the meeting began, Jack challenged the attendees to avoid focusing their EI brainstorming efforts on the funding aspect of the process, noting that to do so may inhibit creative ideas. He also reminded us that a campus-wide goal is for removing obstacles and barriers to make these innovations plausible and possible. Developing a financial plan should come into the picture once an audience has been identified … and the softball connection? I’m getting there.

Based on what I’ve heard in several conversations, audience identification is often an important piece of the EI puzzle that is undervalued. Knowing who might be a consumer of any new educational offerings is part and parcel of identifying the market demand for a “product”. Getting a lay of the market demand land requires going beyond only one person’s feelings or information. As the conversation would unfold over the course of the session, there were a number of potential untapped markets identified. Softball, anyone? In the next paragraph!

If you consider three, over-lapping circles, stacked in a triangle shape – one representing market demand; one representing an existing, unique academic strength; and one representing willing faculty and staff – where they all three overlap is a sweet spot. There’s the softball connection.

According to the Wikipedia entry for sweet spot (sports), “a sweet spot is a place where a combination of factors results in a maximum response for a given amount of effort” (accessed 3/22/2012). In softball (and baseball), the bat has a sweet spot that is approximately 6.5” from the end of the barrel. The explanation of the physics behind a bat’s sweet spot is too complex for inclusion here, but as a batter, when you are able to connect with the ball on a bat’s sweet spot, it feels amazing and you know that you have hit the ball well. Many homeruns come from batters who found their bat’s sweet spot.

An EI sweet spot will come when the unique educational offering overlaps with the faculty’s willingness and ability to participate in the offering and it meets an identified market demand –  when you’ve found an audience that you haven’t typically reached previously. At that point, a maximum response can be anticipated.

As described during the meeting, one example that could potentially find an EI sweet spot involves first-time teachers. Feedback from teacher education alums (market research) highlighted that their curriculum really doesn’t address the practicalities of what is involved in setting up a classroom. The idea proposed would be a one-day seminar for any first-time teacher on setting up a classroom (unique educational offering), between graduation and new school start. While the conversation at the session didn’t specifically identify who might teach the seminar (willing faculty/staff), I’m thinking that previous alums might be honored to be invited to share their knowledge with the new graduates. Connecting with alums is a nice segue into my next section, and is a shift of gears to reflecting on facets of the March 2012 Administrative Council/ Academic Planning Council meeting (AC/APC).

Lighter work

With my schedule (juggling responsibilities as dissertator, employee, wife, mom, volunteer, softball player), I am always grateful when unexpected help finds its way into my world. Conquering all of my tasks is always much easier, when I’m sharing the load.

At AC/APC, as Dawn Crim shared facets of her response to the Program Review of the External Relations Office (ERO), my thoughts went to my juggling identity and the phrase, “Many hands make light work”. Dawn is the School’s associate dean for external relations, and in her role she has been a catalyst for promoting and coordinating the visibility of the School. Some of ERO’s efforts specifically are targeting alumni. Interestingly, the March AC/APC meeting started with a showing of the Wisconsin Idea Scholarship video (

). The scholarship was initiated by this year’s graduating seniors and has already garnered tremendous response from the students and alumni.

In one of my past volunteer roles, I’ve served as the marketing chair for a small, private school. One of my constant goals was helping to convey the vision and convince others that when expenses can be distributed across multiple payers, the costs per student drop. Standing operational costs require a smaller per student dollar amount when more students are enrolled and contributing dollars. Many hands make light work.

Building on her efforts to promote the visibility of the school and connect with the School’s alumni and friends, Dawn is passionately and strategically striving to reach out and encourage engagement with some of the typically non-engaged younger alumni. Strengthening the School’s connection capacity with alumni and friends – of all ages – and helping them realize that their voice is an important part of our School’s mission can translate into the phenomenon of many hands make light work (and it might even lead to a “sweet spot” … see the last paragraph of the section above).

‘Art’istic creation

The Proposal for Creation of a College of the Arts (CotA) was presented to members of the School’s APC at the March meeting by Norma Saldivar and Darin Harris. The executive summary of the CotA proposal notes that “efforts to improve coordination and advocacy for the arts on campus have been underway for decades” (p. 3). Building off a strategic planning process in 2008-2009 which showed widespread support from all campus stakeholder groups for a unified college, a formal process began in 2011 to develop the proposal for faculty review and approval. As a bit of background on the arts on our campus (information also derived from the proposal) … they span three colleges and more than a dozen academic units, serve more than 1,300 undergraduate and graduate student majors through 119 faculty FTE and 155 FTE staff members (p. 5).

The scope of benefit themes identified in campus conversations for developing the College of the Arts includes:

• Improved visibility of the arts on campus, benefiting students, faculty and staff (through advocacy and recruitment)
• Increased potential for development and philanthropy (a dedicated dean to pursue development activities plus some philanthropists solely support the arts)
• Improved access for the arts on key campus decisions (including strategic planning and facilities development)
• Increased potential for resource sharing and management across arts units (distributed nature of current structure makes collaborative management extremely challenging)
• Improved position for the arts in the 21st century and beyond (merging faculty, students, staff and curriculum from different arts disciplines into one unified College creates an environment ripe for interdisciplinary connection and innovation)

On an interesting, semi-related side note, in a Shared Governance Committee EI brainstorming session several weeks ago, one student-generated idea revolved around identifying ways in which more core art classes might be made available to non-art majors. When I shared this tidbit of knowledge during the Q&A time at the APC, the response was that the creation of the College just might make it easier to be responsive to this perceived need. This brings me back to the idea of an EI sweet spot. While I am fully cognizant of the fact that non-art majors wanting to take art classes reflects the diversity of student identities on campus (traditional, non-traditional, graduate, special, etc.), I think it behooves us to see if there may be some creative way to tap into the uniqueness of this market.

Tola Ewers, M.S.
ASM Shared Goverance Committee Appointee

The playbook on funding streams

The School of Education held the third in its series of school-wide Educational Innovation sharing opportunities on February 14, 2012, over the noon hour. Our conversation focused on the funding framework for campus activities. As I listened to Tim Norris, director of the Vice Chancellor for Administration’s budget office, respond to questions about the multiple funding appropriation categories regulated by the state statutes that are potentially affected by our Educational Innovation efforts, my mind was swirling. It was almost as if I had been transported to the locker room of some sport team, and the coach was listing the plays that the QB, point guard, setter, etc. could call: 101, 104, 128, 131, 136, 150.

Getting beyond my “playbook” analogy, a main goal of the session was for attendees to gain a clearer understanding of the rules and regulations which could guide how their departments think about funding streams as they consider developing and implementing new programs in response to the campus call for educational innovation. Funding streams is campus speak for how money flows within the campus accounting system. For instance, a funding stream might be derived from the state budget allocation and general tuition receipts (101), an alternative source such as credit outreach in collaboration with UW Extension and Division of Continuing Studies (104-2), via an auxiliary program such as housing and/or food services (128), or as a refund on federal indirect costs (150). Certain funds have very strict guidelines on sources of deposited monies and how dollars are disbursed, particularly allowable expenses (e.g., salaries). Additionally, as I understand it, one of the more unique funding stream traits revolves around whether balances can be carried from one year to the next within a department or school, or if unspent dollars must be returned to the campus “pool” of funds.

The term “plateau student” also emerged in the session’s conversation, and while I couldn’t appreciate the significance of that language during the session, a little bit of after-the-fact background reading opened my eyes. Much of the Feb. 14 dialogue addressing the plateau student issue revolved around the need to ensure that a main focus of educational innovation efforts should be on non-plateau students. As I learned afterwards, the difference between plateau students and non-plateau students is grounded in the funding streams for the credits said students are taking, with plateau specifically meaning an enrollment plateau of 12 to 18 credits in a semester. While my explanation may be a bit simplistic, plateau students typically take campus-based credits that are connected to a 101 funding stream and attend on a full-time basis. Non-plateau students typically take 104-2 (or 131 or 136) funding stream credits offered after hours and on weekends, sometimes on campus and other times at a distance, primarily on a part-time basis. While it may not seem like a major deal for a student to take classes during the day and at night, as can be seen in the following example, it actually can present a problem.

Several years ago, large numbers of plateau students were enrolling in a few online classes that were developed with non-plateau students in mind. The problem arose out of how allocations for tuition credits and enrollment counts were determined. Plateau students, whose credit costs/tuition earnings should have been earmarked for a 101 funding stream, were also being considered in the 104-2 funds/counts. If my interpretation of the situation is accurate, it’s a matter of double dipping (for enrollment and income), and it creates a definite fiscal challenge. Avoiding similar situations is one of the admonitions that I heard very clearly in the Feb. 14 session. We want and need to expand our student base, but we need to do it without tapping into the existing plateau students. In other words, we need to identify new niches.

I will close this blog with details of a conversation I had with Professor of Art Jim Escalante and School of Education Chief Information Officer Dan Jacobsohn immediately following the session. I really enjoyed engaging with them in some out-of-the-box thinking as we talked through identifying one potential niche. At one point during the session, Dan had raised an issue that prompted me to think of a topic we’ve discussed in Dean Underwood’s Student Advisory Board meetings and at an ASM Shared Governance Committee student brainstorming meeting around educational innovation issues. After the meeting, I shared with the two of them that students have talked about (and expressed strong interest in) the possibility of there being created what is referred to in some circles as the “J-term” or condensed course offerings that happen between January 1 and the start of Spring semester. While it’s easy to recognize that there would be challenges with this idea (i.e., finding instructional staff willing to teach them), Professor Escalante was able to identify possible courses for art students focusing on developing their understanding of the technical side of digital art production such as video editing. In his mind, having a pre-session to bring students up to speed on a very technical program would enable him to deal with course content more fully, rather than getting bogged down on ensuring that everyone could tackle the technology during the class. We acknowledged that if we only were targeting the students who might enroll in his class, we might have a very limited audience, so another challenge might be in developing a curriculum that had learning outcomes applicable to a broader base of students while still meeting the needs of his students. I’m sure there are details about this “niche” conversation I’ve excluded, but perhaps there is a nugget of value in what I have shared that might spur further conversations in other contexts.

Tola Ewers, M.S.
Dissertator
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
ASM appointee to School of Education Dean’s Student Advisory Board and
School of Education Administrative Council

Making history … then and now

Back in the olden days – well, not exactly that olden – circa 2002ish, when I was a newly arrived undergraduate transfer student on the UW-Madison campus, I experienced my very first “large” lecture course – History of American Education. The class met in an expansive auditorium-style classroom in the Education Building on Bascom Hill (the building with the red doors that served as the staging area for ESPN’s GameDay festivities when we welcomed Nebraska to the Big 10 Conference earlier this semester). Fast forward to 9 a.m. on the first Wednesday in October 2011, and I find myself in that lecture hall once again. Yet the room I enter has seen an amazing transformation. Gone are the rows and rows of hard wooden auditorium seats sporting the swing-up mini writing platforms and seats that want to swallow the stack of papers you have precariously balancing on the spring-loaded seat next to yours. In their place is a topnotch, sophisticated multipurpose space. On that Wednesday in October, the room arrangement featured movable rectangle tables and comfortable office chairs. The chalkboard has been replaced with two projection screens and the technology I’ve come to expect in a UW classroom.

For me, the new look of this room has not changed why I find myself sitting in it and listening, although my capacity is different. The focus of the activities is still education, but instead of being an undergraduate learning about the history of American education, I’m a graduate student helping (hopefully) to make history in American education and its reach around the globe. Specifically, I am among the inaugural members of the Student Advisory Board for School of Education Dean Julie Underwood, and on that day in October, I was attending the School of Education Administrative Council and Academic Planning Council meeting as a student representative.

At October’s meeting, Dean Underwood introduced me to the group as well as her vision for broader student involvement in the various School of Education committees. She noted that ASM has provided a group of undergraduate and graduate students for an advisory board and asked members of the Administrative Council for a consensus vote of including an undergraduate and graduate student from that group as members of the Administrative Council. Associate Dean Jeff Hamm highlighted that the timing of the meeting (9 a.m. on the first Wednesday of the month) might preclude finding an undergraduate who could serve, but the vote still passed and was approved. I find it reassuring that this administrative group – whose focus is on education – recognizes the importance of including the student voice in the conversation.

As I absorbed the ambiance of that first meeting, I gained more insight into the behind-the-scenes action of life on the UW-Madison campus. A presentation by Nancy Mathews, director of the Morgridge Center, introduced a possible shift of the academic home for the Morgridge Center from the School of Human Ecology to the School of Education. The Morgridge presentation led to a unanimous vote to explore business and programmatic connections. I also watched Dean Underwood model the behavior of engaging with technology as she stressed the importance of contributions of SoE community members to the SoE strategic planning document by providing feedback using Google.docs. I was quite impressed.

In November, we learned about the School of Education’s embedded role with the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery via educational research. Dr. Kurt Squire highlighted some of the research activities and outcomes that have emerged from this partnership. Among one of the exciting efforts Dr. Squire shared were video games that have been developed as educational resources. “Virulent” is an award-winning computer game that teaches about viral infections. It is downloadable directly from this link (
http://discovery.wisc.edu/media/MIR_images/erca/virulent_web/VirulentWeb_08_17_11.html
) or as a free app from iTunes.

November’s meeting also introduced me to more of the School of Education infrastructure as we heard reports from Chairs of Standing Committees. Comments from a member of one committee drove home the importance of mission alignment and the potential impact that outside forces can have on institutional efforts. As an example, the work done by the School of Education’s Coordinating Council for Professionals in Education (CCPE) can be affected by Department of Public Instruction (DPI) mandates. Decisions about curricular offerings within the School need to align with what the DPI is requiring of teaching and education administrative professionals, and the CCPE functions in that coordinating capacity. For me, it’s an ideal example of how someone needs to bear in mind the big picture at all times.

And, that’s how I will end this blog entry. In 2002, when I really began my focused efforts to understand what “education” entails, I began the process of also understanding myself as a member of that community. Two of the main insights I’ve recognized about myself on this journey are that I am a kinesthetic learner (someone who learns effectively by doing) and  a big-picture thinker (I thrive in an environment which enables me to not only see all the little pieces of the process, but understand how they fit together). As a result of this self-knowledge, I am honestly excited to be able to catch a glimpse of how things happen, why things happen, who helps them happen, etc., by being an active part of the process. I recognize that this is a privilege for me as a learner, and I am honored to be provided this opportunity to contribute to the conversation on behalf of students. I truly hope that my engagement in the process will help shape history.

Tola Ewers, M.S.
Dissertator
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
ASM Student Appointee

On being connected, unintended consequences, and digital learning

I recently traveled to Fort Worth, TX, to attend the 10th Annual Conference of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students which was held January 25-27, where I made my first solo concurrent session presentation on the last day of the conference. At this point, you may wonder why I’m starting this blog about the February 1, 2012, meeting of School of Education (SoE) Administrative and Academic Planning Councils (and the SoE’s contribution to celebrating National Digital Learning Day) by focusing on a January conference elsewhere. Be patient; there is a method to my ‘madness’.

In previous blogs, I’ve covered the SoE’s creation of new degree programs along with the ending of degree programs. I perceive these comings and goings as part of the School’s efforts to be educational innovators. Exploring the back story of these types of processes will hopefully lay a groundwork of understanding and be a potential launching point for other conversations about educational innovation and its implications.

When Associate Dean Jeffrey Hamm provided an overview of the School of Education’s Course and Program approval process along with how it is situated within the contexts of the UW-Madison campus and UW System processes during the February 1 morning meeting, it was another opportunity to grasp the ways in which the world of higher education is extremely complex – and interrelated. As is the case in almost any facet of university administration, there are immeasurable interrelationships that are impacted by decisions.  (In all honesty, interrelationship was a theme I recognized in numerous presentations at the Fort Worth conference, so I was already ruminating on the concept by the time I heard his presentation.)

Being connected

To demonstrate this interrelationship phenomenon somewhat in the context of what Associate Dean Hamm shared, I invite you to consider the following. When a faculty member formulates a plan for introducing a new course offering, it involves more than just creating a syllabus, assembling course materials, writing learning objectives, etc. It goes without saying that basic foundation of the course developer’s idea is an important component, but the scope of what it takes to get a course into the timetable and eventually into the university catalog is much more involved. The process engages the Department, School/College and Divisional (campus) bodies. In the SoE, the Programs Committee is the School-level authority. Launching a new course involves, among other tasks:

• Identifying existing courses that might have overlapping content (and then obtaining documentation from those offering the other course indicating their support for the new course);
• Documenting the need/interest for the new course and whether it has the potential for a large or small audience, i.e., whether it should be a cross-listed course (we want students to enroll, instructional staff to be efficient in the use of his/her time, and for broad outcomes to meet some identified need, after all);
• Ensuring that the duration of class meeting times (contact minutes) and out-of-classroom study time meets federal requirements for credit hours;
• Developing a comprehensive syllabus that includes grading criteria, accommodations for students with disabilities, policies on religious observances, and plagiarism and academic misconduct

The first three of these bullet points have obvious implications of the interrelationship impact – (1) guaranteeing there is no course offering overlap reduces the likelihood that there is an undue waste of valuable resources (people/fiscal/space) on multiple fronts; (2) reaching across departmental boundaries to provide needed learning opportunities to every student who would benefit creates an environment in which high impact educational practices exist that foster interactions between students with different backgrounds; and, (3) examining course delivery modalities and capitalizing on available instructional space across campus as well as other institutional resources ensures that not only are credit hour requirements met, but scheduling of these resources in a coordinated mechanism displays an attitude of good campus stewardship.

Much of what I’ve covered in this section is framed in a very positive light, and because I tend to operate mostly from an optimistic perspective, it almost seems awkward to shift gears and focus on a negative example about an interrelationship impact that was highlighted at the meeting. Yet, the implications must be considered, especially as the campus embraces the educational innovation mindset.

Unintended consequences

At my January conference in Texas, there was a session which focused on the unintended consequences of statewide policies that were designed to be of benefit to certain student populations. I do want to acknowledge that sometimes unintended consequences can be of a positive nature. For instance, certain pharmaceutical products have been shown to treat a broad range of conditions beyond their original purpose. Also, an employee accepts the request to learn new software as part of an increase in job duties and, in the process of learning the new software, the employee realizes that it can be used in another area of the employee’s responsibilities to increase productivity. With that said, the word “consequence” often is used in a pejorative manner. The unintended consequence example that caught my attention at the February 1 meeting was definitely in the latter category.

I took Educational Psychology 301 – Human Abilities and Learning in my second semester on the UW-Madison campus. It proved to be one of the most valuable and enjoyable classes I had during the pursuit of my B.A. in history. At the SoE meeting, the focus on unintended consequences came out of the discussion surrounding the thought of reducing the number of sessions being offered of Ed Psych 301. There are majors – outside of the purview of the Educational Psychology Department – which include Ed Psych 301 as a core course students can take. In this case (and presumably other similar situations), when reducing course offerings is on the table, not having enough seats to accommodate “X number” of students from outside their anticipated targeted audiences would be an unintended consequence. As was pointed out by Associate Dean Hamm, identifying these types of scenarios is an onerous process, because there is not an easily accessible, central repository of this type of information. It reminded me of the Administrative Excellence conversation and the lack of a database which captures the instructional space across campus in its entirety. I have to wonder if unintended consequences occur because Department A wants to expand the offerings of Course A but is reluctant to do so, because of not knowing what instructional space is open beyond what is available through their own department.

Digital learning

Spinning off the positive side of unintended consequences, as we learned from those who packed the room for the SoE-sponsored Educational Innovation sharing session on February 1 from noon to 1:30 p.m., there are a number of ways in which technology is being incorporated across campus to enhance student learning. A few of the highlights from within the SoE follow.

Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab very enthusiastically shared how useful Twitter is for her in multiple ways including to recruit students for her classes via a link to her syllabi, answering student questions quickly, garnering ideas for additions to her syllabi, building research partnerships, etc. She recognized the larger audience she does reach with her tweets and noted that students from other campuses have asked for her classes to be put online.

Michelle Bass, an Educational Psychology doctoral candidate and TA in Curriculum and Instruction for videogames and learning, described how the Livescribe/smart pen software changed her life. This technology captures the audio recording of what’s being said as notes are being written. Michelle reported that she used it to capture the experience of the transition to college, specifically for underrepresented students, in her dissertation data collection. Within the classroom setting, she shared that it allows students to take notes at their own paces, but the audio playback function helps ensure they don’t miss anything.

Professor François Tochon introduced “SnapPages”, a free website hosting application that he has used in his classes. He and his students built their course website in about a week. I decided to explore the SnapPages website and, noted that all of its applications are designed to be as intuitive to use as possible. The demo tour seems to reflect that fact. Dr. Tochon used his course website as a space for students to post blogs and video reports.  They also kept in touch through the site between classes.

Edwin Avalos, a member of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research Technical Services staff and a recent undergraduate, shared that he found Moodle to be very useful during his undergraduate years. He was able to link back to course syllabi and archived class notes throughout his educational journey, which he said was extremely helpful, because his courses often built on previous content. He also recommended using the existing digital capital students possess (i.e., tapping into their current platforms rather than forcing them to learn a new one). He talked about the use of clickers, especially in large classrooms, as a mechanism for helping professors know when they need to go back and cover materials for which students have questions. This sort of technology might be especially valuable in promoting an atmosphere of student engagement where anonymity could be considered a safe place from which to acknowledge a gap in understanding.

Finally, fresh off my own experience with technology in a learning environment, I shared about using Blackboard Collaborate to connect with 3 off-site students who are enrolled in a class for which I TA on campus. As the instructor of the course noted, technology is wonderful, but we cannot allow it to get in the way of teaching and learning.  

I believe that is an important thought to keep at the forefront of the decisions we make as we consider any educational innovation.  Teaching and learning need to be shared goals in the campus community. There may be tension which arises with the interrelationships that exist on campus as we consider educational innovation; however, if we strive to ensure that we don’t lose sight of our goals, then if there are unintentional consequences, perhaps more of them will be on the positive end of the spectrum than on the other.

Tola Ewers, M.S.
Disserator
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
ASM appointee to School of Education Dean’s Student Advisory Board and
School of Education Administrative Council

Educational innovation is interwoven into the fabric of life in the School of Education

As I contemplated what I would highlight from the January 2012 meeting of the School of Education Administrative and Academic Planning Councils in this blog installment, the idea of educational innovation kept coming to mind. We’ve been hearing a lot about educational innovation lately, and I thought it might be helpful to put forth some possible ways to think about this concept of innovation. Merriam-Webster.com provides two definitions of the word innovation –“1: the introduction of something new; 2: a new idea, method, or device.” Businessdictionary.com puts a slightly different spin on it: “The process by which an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people will pay, or something that results from this process.” (Both websites were accessed on January 23, 2012).

The entire UW-Madison campus is searching for ways to address the $112.1 million budget gap that comes with efforts to balance the 2011-2013 state budget, so it seems natural that some “education innovations” are easily categorized in the context of the first portion of the businessdictionary.com definition. Indeed, I’ve recently heard several conversations about professional master’s programs that would allow for course delivery cost recovery as well as the role of online instruction delivery modalities in broadening the “reach” of the classroom and expanding the pool of potential students.

Technology threads

While it certainly expands far beyond the scope of online instruction delivery, the matter of technology and its impact on the School’s landscape – literally and figuratively – somewhat had center stage at the January meeting. Although Dean Julie Underwood was lighthearted in her recognition that the name of Dan Jacobsohn, Chief Information Officer for the School, appeared on the January meeting agenda for alternating items being discussed throughout the morning, as was obvious in his “State of Technology in the School of Education” address, technology can be a powerful tool to enhance the School’s efforts and provide definite opportunities to engage in educational innovation. Among the “technology” highlights made by Dan were:

• Educational Psychology assistant professor Erica Halverson’s collaboration with Life Sciences Communication Professor Larry Meiller on their inaugural experience of leading a First-year Interest Group (FIG). The end product of their FIG, “Representing Self Through Media: A Personal Journey Through ‘This American Life’”, was FIG students’ production of an autobiographical radio story.
• Serving in a parallel capacity to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the relatively new Wisconsin Center for Education Products and Services (WCEPS) will help license and market university faculty- and staff-created intellectual property in the field of education. They are also partnering with World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) and are exploring collaborative opportunities with the Value-Added Research Center (VARC) in the Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER).
• The online Academy of the Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth (WCATY) targets students in elementary through senior high school and the online 21st Century Teaching Skills course allows professional teachers the opportunity to earn an online teaching certificate.
• The Department of Educational Psychology offers a 90% distance education Master’s of Science in Professional Education (MSPE) program for teaching professionals in just two years.
• The office of Educational Outreach and Partnerships (EOP) offers a number of online learning opportunities for reaching professionals interested in enrolling for either credit or non-credit.

During the various times Dan had our attention in the meeting, he also discussed the proposed Media, Educational Resources and Information Technology (MERIT) external review plan for later this Spring. MERIT has not undergone a program review since its three previously separate units were merged in 2008.

His final “technology” conversation point was the introduction of a policy about network attached devices. It took some clarification about the policy’s intent regarding “electronic devices [which are] connected to the SoE managed network not extend[ing], aggregate[ing] or modify[ing] network capacity or function”, but I think the group understands his message. It’s not about controlling the wireless devices we use to access the university’s wireless network, rather it’s about not hooking an unauthorized router into the hard-wired SoE system. When you hook an unauthorized router into the hard-wired system, you potentially create a portal for unauthorized persons to access the SoE system.

The need to weave “new” degree pathways

Returning to my “education innovation” theme, there were two degree programs on the meeting agenda that, while they are not “new”, they do reflect program changes that are responsive to identified needs.

Members of the Academic Planning Council (APC) voted to approve the authorization to implement the new Bachelor of Science – Athletic Training degree housed in the Department of Kinesiology. While the “new” degree is a traditional, campus-based program that relies on classroom/laboratory courses, two of the pre-requisite courses are available in an online delivery format (Kinesiology 119 – Introduction to Kinesiology and Kinesiology 127 – Introduction to Athletic Training). Regarding responsiveness to an identified need, the Kinesiology Department’s athletic training education program has been accredited since 2000. With the program’s accreditation, graduates (who previously were awarded a certificate in athletic training) were eligible to sit for the national certifying boards. However, by 2014-15, all accredited programs must be elevated to a degree designation; only graduates of accredited programs will be allowed to sit for the credentialing exams and obtain a license to practice athletic training in Wisconsin.

Sometimes outside competition is the driver of innovation, and that is partially the case for the other proposed “new” secondary education teacher education program to which ACP members were introduced. Students seeking certification in secondary education from UW-Madison typically take longer to graduate (i.e., 5 years) as compared to those who are enrolled in other secondary teacher education programs in Wisconsin. The proposed program is a condensed post-baccalaureate degree for those who are seeking teacher certification in secondary mathematics, English, science and social studies. It bridges two summers and the intervening academic year. In addition to providing graduates certification in the previously mentioned subject areas, it provides certification in teaching English as a Second Language (ESL). One thing I really appreciate about this proposed program is that it models the Teach for America effort which has successfully attracted top students from UW-Madison.

Refining the fabric

As I close this blog, I want to touch briefly on a series of conversations that will be occurring across the School of Education during the Spring semester. Dean Underwood has asked for those of us who are a part of the School of Education family to consider engaging in these opportunities. We are world-class School of Education with a rich heritage. It is our responsibility to ensure that the legacy endures. In the face of the budget challenges the campus is facing, every voice has the potential to have an impact. I encourage you to be a part of the refining process.

Tola Ewers, M.S.
Dissertator
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis