Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director Dr. Rob Bruce, Deputy Director

1. Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director Dr. Rob Bruce, Deputy Director Ms. Shan Evans, Associate Director Mr. Michael Sweet, Graduate Research Assistant

2. Overview • University Environment • Introduction to DIIA • From Assessment to Assessment • Administrative and Infrastructure Outcomes • Learning Outcomes • Classroom Management Outcomes • Pilots and Recommendations • Audience Participation • Questions

3. University Environment • 2000 Gilbert Report on Technology Enhanced Learning • Finally, as the use of technology in instruction becomes the norm, the missions of CTE and the CIT, as well as some of the functions of MEC, will increasingly converge. Already faculty find themselves in the position of needing to assess the degree to which they want to include technology in a course before making a decision to consult with CTE or the CIT. Faculty seeking advice on on-line evaluation and assessment must decide whether to contact MEC, CTE or the CIT. Clearly this is an inefficient and ineffective approach to providing faculty support. A more effective and efficient solution would be to strive for a one-stop service for faculty that provides them with a seamless portfolio of instructional support services. • Recommendation 7.0.2: The Provost should respond to the converging missions of CIT, CTE and MEC byfunctionally integrating all appropriate services, activities and expertise in order to provide faculty with efficient and effective instructional support services. • Final Report of 2000 TELC

4. University Environment • 2004 Kappelman Report on Technology Enhanced Learning • The committee recommends that the provost continue to respond to the growing faculty and program demands for TEL support by increasing the capacity of DIIA in promoting teaching excellence, providing instructional assessment, conducting measurement and evaluation of teaching and learning, and facilitating the integration of instructional technology. In addition, the relationship among teaching, learning, and technology should be investigated in light of outcome-based learning in order to inform and assist the accreditation process and improve our record of successes. • Final Report of 2004 TELC

5. Current Environment

6. Current Environment • SACS Accreditation • Summary • At the University of Texas at Austin, technology-enhanced learning represents one stage in the natural evolution of educational methods, integrating pedagogical advances with those of design, interaction, delivery, and assessment technologies. To ensure that its use of technology enhances student learning, is appropriate for meetings the objectives of its programs, and enables students to have access to and training in the use of technology, the university draws on several resources, including • the work of specialized university committees, • a centralized division created to focus on technology-enhanced learning, pedagogy, and assessment, • program support initiated by individual colleges and schools, and • initiatives pursued by Information Technology Services (ITS) and University Libraries.

7. Promoting effective and innovative instructional and evaluation practices Striving to bring about positive change in the teaching and learning process Making effective connections by sharing and building knowledge Integrating pedagogy, instructional technology, and assessment www.utexas.edu/academic/diia

8. Introduction to DIIA • Mission • DIIA integrates pedagogy, instructional technology, and assessment promoting effective and innovative instructional and evaluation practices in support of the University's core purpose and values. • Vision • iDIIA (idea) people providing instructional services that improve teaching to transform learning. • Position within University • DIIA is a centralized division which reports to the Office of the Provost. Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment

9. DIIA Teams

10. The DIIA Approach • Assessment • Collaboration • Infrastructure and Administrative Outcomes • Learning Outcomes • Classroom Management Outcomes • Pilot Phase • Assessment • Recommendation • Assessment

11. The DIIA Approach • Infrastructure and Administrative Outcomes • Learning Outcomes • Classroom Management Outcomes

12. Individual Participation • Think of a technology implementation you have either completed, are undertaking now, or are considering for the near future. • What are the major steps of this implementation? • What constituencies are involved? • Reflecting upon what you have heard so far: • What additional steps might you include? • Who else might you involve, and when?

13. Partner Participation • Briefly share your story and concerns with the person next to you. • Using the materials in the booklet and your own experience, help each other generate a list of: • objectives most in need of clarification in your project. • constituencies that could/should be involved in helping you clarify those objectives. • assessment steps and roles that these constituencies (and others) can help you can build into the implementation process.

14. Group Participation • Any concerns that reflecting upon objectives, constituencies, and assessment plans helped address? • Any concerns still not addressed that the whole room can help brainstorm?

15. Questions

16. Contact Information • Dr. Judy Ashcroft, Associate Vice President and Director • jashcroft@austin.utexas.edu • Dr. Robert Bruce, Deputy Director • rgb@austin.utexas.edu • Ms. Shan Evans, Associate Director • shan.evans@austin.utexas.edu • Mr. Michael Sweet, Graduate Research Assistant • m.sweet@mail.utexas.edu