|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Curriculum / Community Team Meeting
| | in our recent deiscussion about acitivite for online learning communites it was suggested that we would use teleconferencing for building the community. |
| | in Cox et at.al 2002 I found the next passage |
|
| |
|
| | ''What are the merits of different forms of computer mediated instruction available for post-graduate instruction? |
| | Due to the higher proportion of off the topic banter and casual chatter in the chats compared with the forums, it would appear that the chats might be a more suitable vehicle for the development of social cohesion within the class, than as a place to acquire knowledge. In chat 2 lecturer B introduced and explained the concept of a ‘simulacrum’, by giving an example of where it occurred. He referred to this concept the following week in the third chat, but the students could not remember what it meant. Another recent study that included similar analysis of an economics undergraduate course suggests that when there are clear learning objectives and strong agreements concerning process and effective facilitation the synchronous environment is useful (Carr et al. 2002).'' |
| | | |
| | | full article at : |
| Friday 4th February 2005, Avon 240, 10.00 – 12.00noon
| | [http://www.meg.uct.ac.za/colloquium/Papers/1_Coxhall.doc cox 2002] |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Incorporating the Implementation Working Group.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Present: Mary Allan, Phil Garing, Julie Mackey, Elaine Mayo, Nicki Page, Deborah McMahon.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Apologies: Victor Chen, Derek Chirnside, Dan Marsden, Gregor Ronald.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | | I would suggest to the development team that this acitivty would not be classified as 'community bulder' but rather as a possible extra support for some learners |
| Julie tabled notes from Derek Chirnside, generated following their telephone meeting about progressing the project, and spoke to them. She noted that she felt the dialogue between herself and Derek about generating A-type activities was very valuable and believed a further dialogue would be valuable for developing real examples of A-type activities.
| |
| | |
| Some points from Julie’s briefing:
| |
| | |
| * Derek placed high value on using teleconferencing as a tool within the community. Julie could see it having a role in A-type activities – facilitating unstructured, organic, emergent growth.
| |
| * An activity idea was suggested: “Pilot the use of SKYPE for own learning purposes and value to course participants”.
| |
| * On page 4, the use of the term “home group” was queried and it was decided that perhaps it was a term that meant the same as “course cohort”.
| |
| * A team member cautioned that the “Talk to a neighbour …” approach was not engaging enough to create a sense of community and that activities would need to be crafted carefully to ensure they are authentic and create motivation to engage.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Mary then led a discussion about her concern that we might be becoming too linear in our thinking with too strong a reliance on B-type activities.
| |
| | |
| A linear component was identified – that of time.
| |
| | |
| There was brief discussion that TT701 may not need to be constrained to 15 weeks duration – that it could extend to a year giving opportunity for students to “break away” and complete optional courses before returning to complete TT701.
| |
| | |
| It was decided that there was a need to minute a need to revisit the concern that we are not creating a linear structure.
| |
| | |
| Mary tabled two articles about building communities and recommended the team read and become familiar with them. She later agreed to circulate electronic copies of the articles to the team.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Elaine tabled the emailed agenda and notes for the Curriculum Team meeting and spoke to them. She proposed that with the evolution of the project there was now no longer a need for the Curriculum Team to meet regularly (following discussion of today’s agenda). The Implementation Working Group would report instead to the Project Team.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 1. Progress report on approval and accreditation.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| - all going according to plan -
| |
| | |
| - likely visit from NZQA in late April - [hopefully, not the week beginning 18th as I will be on leave!!!!]
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| - we need to identify people to nominate to go on that panel (a) our College (a senior academic not from this area) (b) a senior academic from another institution teaching in a similar area (c) two representatives from business/industry/professions (d) Maori stakeholder as identified in institution's charter. We do not have a say in the appointment of four others - the independent chair, two university academics, a qualifications authority evaluator.
| |
| | |
| - Kelly de Lambert from our institution will work with us in liaising with NZQA and supporting us in the development of the college wide documentation.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| The team gave the following names to Elaine as possible panel participants to suggest to the NZQA: Te Tapu Wai, Lindsey Connor, Barry Brooker, Don Rae, Alexander Fuller, a representative from the CDC.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 2. Progress report on course approvals.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| we need a reading list for the level 7 courses ultra-urgently (might some of you sent an endnoted list to Mary? Maybe level 8 at the same time.
| |
| | |
| - we are calling an advisory group meeting to look at the courses in some detail before they go to board of studies. We envisage sending them out to selected people from within School of Professional Development (and beyond) early next week and seeking feedback by Monday 14th Feb.
| |
| | |
| - who should read those courses for us - I have identified people within this school, but perhaps some of our advisory network should read them - Carol for example is an obvious person now that I think about it.
| |
| | |
| - level 7 courses would then go to ASC on 21 Feb and BOS on 24 Feb (and that will be them out of the way) Level 8 courses would go to March meetings of ASC and BOS.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| It was noted that Julie had sent some reading material suggestions to Mary this morning. Helen proposed generating an indicative list at this stage. Elaine proposed that a single reading list be generated appropriate for both Graduate and Postgraduate courses.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| The team suggested the following people as possible participants of the course advisory group: Glen Davies, Helen Gilmore, Nicki Page, Donna Morrow, Karen Gillie, Carole Cooper, Reiha Boyes. Lisa Gilano was also suggested and Phil Garing volunteered to raise the matter with her.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 3. Identification of first optional courses to be developed.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| - just seeking some clarification from the group here. The ideas are beginning to gel. There are two approaches to the task of identification - the analytical approach where we identify in advance what will be needed by analysing the likely needs of students, and the intuitive emergent approach where we identify some courses we know are essential and develop them and develop others as they emerge as being necessary. I favour a combination of the two. This means I favour a quick and nasty identification of what we need instantly, and begin to develop those, at the same time as developing a theoretical framework within which the courses will sit. Our current four strands is a good-enough framework for a start (but does it omit the community building focus?) but we should not be hamstrung by it. I have written this after talking with Mary and I think she would largely agree - but she may see it differently - lets talk.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| The following possible optional courses were identified:
| |
| | |
| i. eBusiness Case course (Phil to draft course descriptor blurb and forward to Mary/Deborah);
| |
| | |
| ii. Building Online Communities course (Mary to draft course descriptor blurb);
| |
| | |
| iii. Project Management / Project Process course (Phil to draft course descriptor blurb and forward to Mary/Deborah);
| |
| | |
| iv. Facilitating/Managing Communication/Discourse for Multidisciplinary Projects/Teams (Deborah to draft course descriptor blurb);
| |
| | |
| v. Relevant Hardware/Software, Telecommunications course (Julie, with the support of Phil if needed, to draft course descriptor blurb and forward it to Mary/Deborah).
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| It was decided that appropriate educational institutions be emailed to enquire if similar courses are already developed and being delivered. Mary, with the support of Deborah, was given this task. Mary sought clarification that we could approach PTEs as well as “state” educational institutions. The team clarified it was appropriate, and that PTEs will be particularly important in relation to technical courses.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| The team resolved that if a good level 5, 10 credit course (for example), be identified that we could build a level 7 course around it.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 4. Underpinning philosophy, vocabulary, meanings, understandings, principles, kaupapa, tikanga.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| work is needed on consolidating and articulating the assumptions we have come to share as a community, and a few that sit in the background that we have not yet spoken about much.
| |
| | |
| - in particular, the ways in which this community reflects and emerges from a believe in collective/community values and the ways in which it does or does not reflect Maori values. The bicultural aspects need strengthening in a meaningful way.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Elaine proposed collating what already exists and developing a glossary of terms.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| The meeting was then turned over to Phil Garing to address Implementation Working Group business:
| |
| | |
| · Phil agreed to email the Implementation Working Group with a suggested list of things to do for the meeting on February 9th (10.00 – 12.00noon) along with a draft outline of how the group might proceed with the tasks.
| |
| | |
| · Phil agreed to ask Emma Newman, Project Manager, to email the wider Advisory Group about the roles needing to be filled for the project/pilot and who might be interested in applying for any.
| |
| | |
| · Nicki agreed to send a list of relevant readings through to Mary by Monday.
| |
| | |
| · Deborah to email the Implementation Working Group team members advising themof the meeting on February 9th, 10.00 – 12.00noon.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| Action Points:
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 1. Mary Allan to circulate electronic copies of the following articles to team members:
| |
| | |
| · Kamma, R. and Spaniol, M. Supporting Communication and Knowledge Creation in Digitally Networked Communities in the Humanities.
| |
| | |
| · Shaffer, D. W. Pedagogical Praxis: Using Technology to Build Professional Communities of Practice.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 2. Phil Garing to talk to Lisa Gilano about her possible involvement in a course advisory group looking at courses in detail before they go to Board of Studies.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 3. Mary Allan, with the support of Deborah, to contact educational institutions about whether identified possible optional courses are already developed and being delivered.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 4. Mary to draft “Building Online Communities” course description.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 5. Phil Garing to draft course descriptions for “Project Management / Project Process” and “eBusiness Case”, and to forward these to Mary/Deborah.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 6. Julie Mackay, with support from Phil if necessary, to draft “Relevant Hardware/Software, Telecommunications” course descriptor and forward it to Mary/Deborah
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 7. Deborah to draft “Facilitating/Managing Communication/Discourse for Multidisciplinary Projects/Teams” course description.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 8. Deborah to email Implementation Working Group team members advising them of a meeting on February 9th, 10.00 – 12.00noon.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 9. Phil to email the Implementation Working Group with a suggested list of things to do for the meeting on February 9th (10.00 – 12.00noon) along with a draft outline of how the group might proceed with the tasks.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 10. Phil to ask Emma Newman, Project Manager, to email the wider Advisory Group about the roles needing to be filled for the project/pilot and who might be interested in applying for any.
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| 11. Nicki to send a list of relevant readings through to Mary by Monday (7th February).
| |
