Meeting Notes: Goals

We'll start keeping meeting notes here:

Monday, June 26--Kelly, Olivia, Debbie

Olivia shared a seried process models for different fields. 

• We LOVE THIS! 

• Next steps: Assign disciplines / areas of study to these models [Engineering, Anthropology, Writing, Computer Science, Sociology, Business, Marketing, Art, etc.] + It's fine to have some disciplines listed more than once. It is fine to have Herron's process among these options

BRAINSTORMING VISUALS for the PROCESS: We commented on liking the entry into a project and exit from a project as part of the visual--part of why Herron's is so versatile and visually engaging. We commented on eye track and simplicity. We commented on cycles in the center with "areas" for Goal/Artifact at the major "stage". Kelly will share a sketch with Olivia [copy here?]

Kelly commented that the Gold Standard characteristics differ from the process: which is a good thing to clarify

Debbie commented that we're imagining the three levels as a student apprenticeship into PBL which teaches them effective processes and approaches for conceptualzing, creating, communicating products [map this onto the Profiles? innovator, problem solver, communicator] for authentic audiences [community contributor]

We still like the idea of three levels of PBL, but might shift the language to "entry" "mid" and "elite" [Deb still likes foundational, but let's move forward -- we can tweak the terminology later]

We suggested that faculty might be at three levels: new, intermediate, experienced and that those faculty might be teaching courses that engage students at different levels [foundational, optimized, elite]--thinking of this as a tic-tac-toe board might be helpful [Debbie was thinking of Johari's Window and the way it uses squares, but adding to this model] 

#

FOR THIS YEAR: We're focusing on tools to help faculty update/modify/design PLB classes. Those faculty members may be new to PBL, experienced with PBL, or experts on PBL. Maybe we have tabs for each? Much of the info from one could be repeated in another, but with a spin to meet the unique needs of these "user cases"

Think: beginners want visuals created/fully populated; intermediate might want to edit/update visuals; experts might design completely new tools.

FUTURE PBL FOLKS can tackle program oriented PBL curricular designs.

We can also imagine UNIVERSITY WIDE PBL Initiatives and how these tools can help individual fauclty, then programs, then university level programming.

OLIVIA's LIKERT scale and examples look great--love the steps concept!

TO DO: 

Kelly is tackling the Home page, into to PBL, [PBL VS PBL, other VS? like PBL vs Internships/Study Abroad], PBL characteristics differ from process, levels of PBL and the Likert moments [reading/content, artifacts, more lecture/more consultation] --all the language from Deb/Kelly emails is fair game + the Taxonomy

Olivia is working on the process visual--starting with a W231 model to see if that maps onto the bigger picture -- if not, we can add to that one .  . . or commission a new design :>

Debbie will meet with Olivia and consult with Kelly on an as needed bases + schedule a meeting for next week.

Friday, June 17: Zoom--Debbie and Olivia

Olivia: please think back over our phone call and share notes

IDEAS for PBL Chart: pasted below--I like the recursive nature of Herron's aorund the Define, Ideate, Prototype, Evaluate stages and think this works well for PBL.

Maybe we have something that looks like a vertical double helix over the first stage--one of the most challenging parts is using PURPOSE and AUDIENCE and NEED to point to a challenge, then defining the scope of the project challenge [being open to that scope shifting], then dividing it into practical topics/segments for an individual or team to tackle. It's scaffolding and building from the earliest stages to help initiate a PBL/Design/Engineering process--all of which have overlap/similarities.