Time Log

Document should be viewable below but if not, click here.

Below the document is a narrative description containing further details of the Time Log.

The first half of January was spent engaging in a great deal of Self-Training - specifically, completing the 2-week Improving Your Online Course (IYOC) workshop, offered through QualityMatters.org. But a prerequisite component of that was simply having an online course with which to work. That posed a challenge in that I currently do not teach any semester-long, credit-bearing courses and therefore had to request a "developmental" (DEVL) course shell be set up by my institution's Online Teaching and Learning (OTL) department.* Additionally, I had to work quickly to design at least one learning module with various activities and assignments. The workshop was highly interactive and employed the practice of peer review among learners; this, in turn, provided broad exposure to various styles of course design, learning activities, and assessment models.

The workshop itself was centered around investigating and dissecting the Quality Matters (QM) Higher Education Rubric (6e) and applying it, ideally, to one's own online course(s) in real time. This was accomplished via a Self-Review process whereby my classmates and I were expected to upload several 'mini' self-review worksheets demonstrating our understanding of and compliance with each QM Review Standard. The eight General Standards of the Rubric are:

1. Course Overview and Introduction

2. Learning Objectives (Competencies)

3. Assessment and Measurement

4. Instructional Materials

5. Learning Activities and Learner Interaction

6. Course Technology

7. Learner Support

8. Accessibility and Usability

For more information about the Rubric, click here.

Upon completion of the workshop my internship supervisor and I began reviewing the QM Rubric in the context of its applicability to specific Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) courses. These meetings were especially useful as they aided in transitioning my knowledge from a conceptual model of understanding to a more nuanced apperception. By walking me through an actual SFCC course my supervisor was currently reviewing, I was able to see how the QM Standards were to be applied and why various elements of the course did - or did not - meet those Standards.

Around the same time, I began designing the Information and Digital Literacy (IADL) 1110 course in earnest. This would involve the creation of eight (8) Modules for which there would be a variety of instructional content. This stage of my internship necessitated much more time spent on Research and Planning, Curriculum Development and Instructional Design. Because designing such a course has been a long-standing goal of mine, I had been saving, storing and bookmarking instructional content and teaching ideas for some time; much of this material I either used or drew heavy inspiration from. Other times, I had to start fresh and seek out or create compatible content.† This process of course design continued throughout the duration of my internship.

After completing several QM Review Standards meetings with my supervisor, I was charged with the task of reviewing a Dental Assisting course: DAST 133. The faculty member teaching it was gracious enough to agree to a longer-than-anticipated review period while I 'cut my teeth,' so to speak, on an actual course currently being taught at SFCC. While rigorous and exhaustive, this process was mitigated somewhat by the cognitive bridge created by the many meetings my supervisor and I had, for which I am grateful. Subsequently, my supervisor, the DAST 133 course instructor, her assistant and I all met virtually to go over my findings. This portion of my internship provided me with real-world QM review experience that carried with it measurable consequences.

The final stage of my internship entailed applying the QM Rubric to my own IADL 1110 course. Once again, due to the scaffolded manner in which my supervisor guided me through the QM Review protocol, this process was not particularly onerous and was, in fact, rather enjoyable. I would say the Standard that was most challenging for me to meet compliance was #2: Learning Objectives. Making sure that module learning objectives described outcomes that are measurable and consistent with course-level objectives was more challenging than I'd anticipated. I attribute this to my lack of recent experience teaching semester-long, credit-bearing courses. § I will hypothesize that recent and regular exposure to this practice likely would have made this a less formidable challenge. Notwithstanding, it turned out to be an area of considerable learning and growth for me as an educator.

The completed QM Review sheet can be viewed here.