Iterative design isn’t a new concept. It’s been one of my favorite approaches to course development and teaching since my earliest days as an instructional designer. You probably do this in your teaching practice without even thinking – when you tweak something from one term to the next based on how an activity went, or how well students responded to a prompt.
Before becoming an instructional designer in 2015, I was a teacher in the K-12 industry for 14 years. I specialized in teaching 3rd and 4th-grade self-contained classes, as well as the middle school classes in the areas of language arts and social studies. Since 2001 until now, teaching practices have changed due to pedagogy and the integration of technology. Kamau Bobb of Google‘s dedication to educational research advances the field. We live in an ever-changing technological society that impacts our lives at home and in our careers. With this being said, many teachers want to keep abreast of the latest pedagogical practices and technology developments, but it can be challenging due to time constraints.
As I compare and contrast the instruction I received in my undergraduate years in the College of Education at ISU vs the instruction I now give to undergraduate students in the College of Education at DePaul, a lot of the foundation is the same, but now there is a wide focus on how to integrate technology properly into the curriculum. Continue reading
At some point–even prior to the start of COVID-19–most online instructors have relied on the ‘Post Once, Reply Twice’ formula for their online discussions. It is unclear where this formula originated, but like the Pot Roast Principle, there is no real reason we need to be bound by it. Discussions remain a pain point for most online instructors, so what can be done? How do we make our online discussions something students want to engage in? What alternatives exist?
Continue reading
My wife and I recently returned from a two-week trip to Italy. It was my first time ever in the country and my first time to Europe in over a decade. We were hopping from AirBnB to AirBnB for over a week, living out of a carry-on-size bag each, before we stayed at a place that included a much-needed washing machine. But as we got ready to wash our clothes, there was a problem. We had no idea what the icons on the machine meant.
For years, the staff in my office have been talking about and writing about a platform of accessibility and concepts of Universal Design. Erin largely talked about a movement within accessibility called the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. UDL focuses designing and ensuring that spaces —physical or digital— can be used by virtually anyone. Joe, built upon this idea by explaining the three pronged approach that UDL uses:
Dee introduced some basic ways that we can implement these principles directly into our courses. However, while I was at D2L’s annual conference a couple weeks ago, I realized that we’ve done a pretty good job explaining what accessibility is, but we’ve never interrogated why it matters. Continue reading
That’s right, folks, I am on a mission (cue the Mission Impossible music)! That mission is to stamp out the use (and particularly, the overuse) of acronyms at DePaul. All of higher education is plagued with this issue, but DePaul, in particular, seems very fond of its acronyms. Why say the college of liberal arts and social sciences when you could say LAS? Public Relations and Advertising is so many syllables and PRAD is just one! It’s easy to see the genesis of this practice and even why it is so widespread. So what’s the problem? Does being pro-number make me anti-letter? No, my issue with acronyms is akin to my problem with the overuse of jargon. The problem is that these acronyms might not mean very much to those outside of your inner circles. Referring to CSH’s MENP program in NRSG will be perfectly clear to some and gibberish to most. The problem is that as we strive for more and stronger collaborations across our colleges, departments, programs, and courses at DePaul, acronyms will become more problematic. These acronyms, which were very clear in our department’s faculty meeting, might as well be a foreign language to the faculty we’re working with in a different college. They can also be overwhelming to new faculty, staff, and students who are adjusting to so many new things when they start at DePaul. It’s like everyone knows the secret handshake…and if you don’t, do you belong here?
What happens when you get stumped while working on a piece of writing? Many writers, students, academics, and others choose to visit writing centers. More often than not, the first thing the writing center will suggest is to read the work aloud, and listen to what has been written. Why? Because your brain processes information differently based on how you receive it. Sometimes the key to writing is actually putting aside your pen (or keyboard) and taking a moment to listen to what you have written.
In a recent meeting for DePaul’s ongoing series of GLE (Global Learning Experience), professor of Italian Caterina Farina Mongiat suggested facilitators of GLE might gain valuable insights from the field of intercultural communication to prepare for coordinating cross-cultural interactions between student cohorts.
Though conceptualizing what to apply from an entire scholarly field is difficult to do when also planning the logistics and curriculum for a GLE course, we can try to start somewhere with an accessible application. As a student of TESOL studies and now intercultural communication at the Illinois Institute of Technology, I have started by looking at W. Barnett Pearce’s (2005) initial work on the coordinated management of meaning (CMM). The context for Pearce’s work, though now dated, parallels our present challenges in engaging meaningful intercultural discussions, even within an academic space: global nation-state relations, misunderstandings of the cultural and social other, conflicting faith-based and cultural values, among the many complexities that cannot all be accounted for here.
Sidewalk cut-ins. Elevators. Buttons that open doors. If you’ve ever been out and about in a wheelchair, used a dolly to move furniture, or pushed a baby stroller, you know to look for and use these things. But the fact is these innovations are relatively recent and were not mandated until the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990.
While the aim of the ADA is to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities and provide for their access to public places, the effects of the law have impacted a broader segment of the population.
Without setting out to do so deliberately, I’ve developed a strong interest in accessibility and universal design over the last year. Last June, my buddy in the ELI/Penn State ID2ID program suggested that we collaborate on an accessibility project for a faculty audience. Then, in July, I attended the annual Distance Teaching & Learning conference in Madison, which had an unofficial “accessibility track.” After returning from the conference, I started talking with my colleagues and found that several of us were on the same page, so we have formed a working group to begin exploring how we might support implementation here at DePaul. Over the next two posts, I’m going to give an overview of the work our group has been doing.
