1 / 20

Lone Star Community College Faculty Front End Analysis

Lone Star Community College. Lone Star Community College Faculty Front End Analysis. Design Team Carol Hasegawa John Paulin Penelope Pereboom November 27, 2007. Lone Star Community College. Instructional Resource and Technology Department. LSCC Faculty. LEGEND. Lines of

mattox
Download Presentation

Lone Star Community College Faculty Front End Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lone Star Community College Lone Star Community College Faculty Front End Analysis Design Team Carol Hasegawa John Paulin Penelope Pereboom November 27, 2007

  2. Lone Star Community College Instructional Resource and TechnologyDepartment LSCCFaculty LEGEND Lines of Communication Suprasystem System Subsystem

  3. Time management Standards Instructor professional development Communication Legend Mentors, peer influence Uni-directional Bidirectional Lesser degree Greater degree Personal life Student abilities Classroom environment Personal resources Subsystem LSCC Faculty Course load

  4. System Competing priorities LSCC Administration & Departments Time constraints Budget Professional development Instructional Resources & Technology Department Communication Legend Uni-directional Bidirectional Lesser degree Personnel Greater degree Facilities, infrastructure IRT Dept workload Teacher demands Resources & equipment Emerging technology

  5. University Community Students State Economy Communication Legend Uni-directional Bidirectional Lesser degree Federal Greater degree Accreditation Reputation & Competition Media Potential Students Suprasystem Lone Star Community College

  6. Executive Vice President Director, Budget & Finance Branch Dept Heads IRT Dept Select Faculty Director, IRT Dept Administrative Assistants Dean, Social & Behavioral Science Certain Change Leaders Dean, Math & Science Certain Gatekeepers & Faculty Change Leaders Gate Keepers Blockers

  7. Installation • Obtain agreement • Convince others of change value • Establish support structure • Allocate resources

  8. Long Term Maintenance • Schedule progress meetings • Compensate members • Review action plan annually • Maintain open dialog • Document lessons learned

  9. Data Gathering

  10. Discrepancy Chart What Is IRT dept provides course development support Course development process is not collaborative Lack of focus on the needs of potential students Turned away 20% of students due to lack of courses Community has limited access to courses Inputs Processes Products Outputs Outcomes What Should Be Teachers use course development support from IRT dept Course development is a collaborative process Meeting the changing needs of the digitally native students No students turned away due to lack of courses Increased availability of courses to meet community needs

  11. Needs Analysis Performance Analysis Constraints & Resources Learner Characteristics

  12. The Gap Where we are now Where we need to be Needs Statement • Complex course development process • Minimal collaboration • Underutilized IRT resources • Lack of consideration for potential and current student needs • Limited availability of courses

  13. Possible Solutions • Continued support from IRT dept • Expand the campus facilities, staff, and course offerings • Review and revise policies and procedures • Spread IRT resources throughout the campus

  14. Possible Solutions • Continued support from IRT dept • Expand the campus facilities, staff, and course offerings • Review and revise policies and procedures • Spread IRT resources throughout the campus

  15. Recommended Solution PHASE ONE Review and revise policies and procedures PHASE TWO Spread IRT resources throughout the campus

  16. Team Insights: What We Learned • Collaborative tools essential to process • Various perspectives are beneficial • Group work, while challenging, is also rewarding • The value of a thorough front end analysis

  17. Team Insights: What Went Wrong and Right • Not fully understanding the scope of the project • Anxiety over end product • Persevered by seeking guidance • Overcame anxiety by working together

  18. Team Insights: What Would You Do Different • Set and adhere to group deadlines • Use Google Docs instead of email • More face to face group meetings • Move on

  19. Team Insights: A Real Project • Establish the right team size • Consult with more subject matter experts • Allocate appropriate resources

  20. Lone Star Community College Front End Analysis Instructional Design Team Carol Hasegawa John Paulin Penelope Pereboom Under the direction of Professor Catherine Fulford and Chris Stark In fulfillment of ETEC 600 Theory & Practice in Educational Technology course requirements University of Hawaii at Manoa Fall, 2007 References Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K. & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. (Latest edition.) Gentry, Castelle G. (1994). Instructional Development. International Thompson (Latest edition.)

More Related