Calendar of Bush Fellow Recruitment and Training Sessions

with Evaluations

2003

20 February: Recruitment/Demonstration Session

Summary: Three Bush Faculty Fellows selected for the Model Fellows Semester (Spring, 2003) presented earlier work with technology, writing, research, and multimedia to about 10 faculty interested in the application process.

2 May: Faculty DemonstrationóDennis and Stanley

Summary: Professor Karla Dennis presented her virtual museum exhibit for Nigerian sculpture, and Professor Tarshia Stanley presented her studentsí website for Raising Awareness of Women (RAW): The Ashley Project, a website targeting information and advice for young women from 8-18. The group had an extended discussion about artistic expression, concerns about censorship, and the need for an editorial group among Bush Fellows.

Attendees: Baxter, Goler, Lindsay, McCarty, Moore, Nesin, Shafiei

Responses: 4

Please answer the next questions using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):	Responses
1. I attended the workshop on May 2
2. The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	4
3. The presenters made their course goals clear to the participants.	4.75
4. The presenters made their process and activities clear to the participants.	4.87
5. The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	4.25
6. The coursework and activities presented showed that students were engaged in critical thinking.	4.5
7. This use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	4.87
8. This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	4.5/NA
9. I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	3.62
10. This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	4.87
Comments: I learned from and was impressed by the quality of my colleaguesí work. I found this workshop was very useful. I found the presentation on the web for children very impressive. I think we should do more. I found the workshop helpful because it allowed me to see how others had made use of the technology, its benefits as well as the new challenges sometimes presented when technology is introduced. I especially appreciated the discussion surrounding the issues of copyright, permissions, and other institutional concerns with the establishment of public or local websites.

8 May: Faculty DemonstrationóKnadler and Phillips-Lewis

Summary: Professor Stephen Knadler presented research on webpages constructed by his students in the Latino/a Literature seminar, called Spelnotes and intended as a resource for others studying these texts. Professor Phillips-Lewis discussed the digital storytelling project she conducted with her ADW students and presented the most outstanding of the group narratives about a South African woman.

Attendees: Baxter, Hampton, Meadows, Scott, Strange, Woods

Responses: 2

Please answer the next questions using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):	Responses
1. I attended the workshop on May 2
2. The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	5
3. The presenters made their course goals clear to the participants.	5
4. The presenters made their process and activities clear to the participants.	5
5. The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	5
6. The coursework and activities presented showed that students were engaged in critical thinking.	4
7. This use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	5
8. This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	4.5
9. I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	5
10. This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	5
Comments: I was interested in the various level of technology used by participants. Some had refined their strategies and others were still developing their courses. The range allowed me to realistically access the use of technology, and it helped to allay fears or reservations about using WebCt. I am excited about the options that technology provides to enhance pedagogical strategies.* (I am not a fellow, but the information will help me formulate a project)

4 June: Session with Bill Condon

Summary: This workshop with hands-on problems in learning about intellectual property guidelines and in recovering information and images from the web was a special session attached to a three-day Writing Across the Curriculum Workshop for the Comprehensive Writing Program. Professor William Condon of Washington State University gave a 3-hour workshop to Bush-Hewlett Fellows who wished to learn more about the techniques and protocols surrounding the publication of websites. The enthusiasm of participants and their perception of a need for ongoing training in evaluation and publication persuaded us to establish Professor Condon and a principle consultant and source for outside evaluation.

Attendees: Hampton, Meadows, Shafiei, Strange, Woods

Responses: 2

Respond using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)óor NA for not applicable:	Responses
1. The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	5
2. The presenter demonstrated a clear process for achieving goals of group work.	5
3. The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	5
4. The activities presented encouraged student engagement in critical thinking.	5/NA
5. The use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	5
6. This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	5/NA
7. I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	5
8. This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	5
9. I would like for this presenter to return for a second workshop on evaluation/assessment.	5
Comments: It will enhance my use of technology in my teaching. Students will be encouraged to do more research online and document their review of this research in proper academic format. This workshop was well worth the time.

25 July: Dreamweaver Training with Clarissa Collins

Summary: Several Fellows had asked for supplementary training to show them the basics in using Dreamweaver for building websites. A recent graduate and former laboratory assistant guided a small group of Fellows in using the application.

Attendees: Bonnie Tidwell, Sadie Long, Jeanne Meadows, Fatemeh Shafiei

Responses: 3

Questionnaire (disagree-1 and strongly agree-5)	Ave. Response
The workshop was useful for introducing me to Dreamweaver.	3.6
The workshop facilitator introduced key procedures in the application.	3.6
The workshop will assist me in planning my activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	3.6
The informal setting and small group enhanced the learning process.	3.6
This use of technology is appropriate for student learners as well as for faculty.	3.6
This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	3.6

18-22 August: Annual Fellows Workshop

Attendees: Veta Goler, Tarin Hampton, Arturo Lindsay, Joan McCarty, Jeanne Meadows, Opal Moore, Sharan Strange, Lydia Woods

Summary: This week-long training session for Bush Fellows included the activities listed below and established approaches for working with group projects and with the student assistants, who also attended. Evaluation of this workshop will be a part of the mid-year faculty evaluations.

	Bush-Hewlett Fellows Workshop
Day	Morning		Afternoon
8/18	Overview of the Project 1. 1. Focus on Student Learning 2. 2. Process Emphasis: Scaffolding & Sequencing 3. 3. Folding in Assessment Tools 4. 4. Exemplary Practices (Virginia Ball Center) 5. 5. Searches for Student-developed sites	Intellectual Property & Academic Honesty 1. Fair use and documentation 2. Locating and obtaining images 3. Public domain and permissions 4. Editing techniques and support (peer review)
8/19 10 am	Achieving a Final Product 1. 1. Breaking Down Assignments 2. 2. Individual and Group Work 3. 3. Infrastructure: Protocols of the LAN 4. 4. Infrastructure: Copy & View Only pages	First Faculty Meeting Project Group Meetings: Scheduled 30-minute meetings with Dan and Anne
8/20	Multiple Assessments: External & Internal Internal Assessment Workshop by Stephen Knadler	First Dreamweaver Workshop 1. 1. Introduction to Webpage Design 2. 2. Building Webpages 3. 3. Developing Group Webpages
8/21	Second Dreamweaver Workshop 1. 1. Incorporating Media 2. 2. Survey of Media Databases 3. 3. Capturing Audio/Fair Use Protocols	Review of Project Goals and Objectives Revision of Pre- and Post-Test Flashlight Questionnaires
8/22	Video Techniques 1. 1. Interviewing 2. 2. Introduction to Video Editing a. a. iMovie b. b. Photoshop	Group Presentations of Projects/Interviews Project Deadline Schedules Save the Date: Professor Bill Condon November 3, 5-8 p.m. Methods of Follow-up

5 November: Second Critical Thinking/Web Development Workshop

Summary: Professor Condon discussed several key points about the Fellowsí web building projectsóespecially the key idea that the projects will be extended in time, added to and altered, through future student efforts. He discussed with the group some of the major concerns with obtaining and publishing images, with conducting responsible and productive group work, with achieving properly edited texts, with intellectual property. Other time was spent in reviewing his critical thinking rubric, and the possibility of our becoming part of a cohort of schools with faculty trained to use the rubric and prepared to train other faculty. We looked at several examples and discussed the measures of his success. In addition, Professor Condon showed faculty some other techniques for evaluating the development of critical thinking: an activity requiring students to formulate study questions every week, with increasing complexity and context, and an activity developing student responses to course goals (student learning objectives) conducted at the very beginning of class and at the end of the semester. Information is available on the Washington State University website: http://wsuctproject.ctlt.wsu.edu/

Attendees: Goler, Hampton, Lindsay, McCarty, Meadows, Moore, Strange, Shafiei, Woods

Responses: 5

Respond using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
1. The workshop was useful for developing assessment strategies in my classes.	4.8
2. The presenter made his process and activities clear to the participants.	4.8
3. The workshop will assist me in formulating my assignments as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	4.4
4. This use of the critical thinking rubric showed a way to enhance student performance.	4.6
5. This use of the critical thinking rubric showed a way to quantify a qualitative performance.	4.8
6. This workshop would be effective for a broader group of faculty.	4.8
7. I would like to participate in a cohort for training in the WSU critical thinking rubric.	4.4
Comments:
I truly like the way the critical thinking rubric used is adaptable for all disciplines. One of the things I notice is that overall departments and faculty score low in student ratings on the question that asks whether the course motivated them to do more on their own. This is a critical thinking matter. If we adopt the methods suggested in this workshop and the rubric, I think students will be more motivated through critical thinking to propel,themelves forward intellectually in every course, every discipline. I believe Billís input and expertise are important to me in formulating and re-thinking the process of putting my project on the boards. I believe his friendly manner coupled with his experience in the program makes him well-suited to consult with us on our projects. Including information on how the rubric fit a number of disciplines was very helpful since a lot of what I do is multidisciplinary. The workshop had an informal component that helped to facilitate learning (dinner and conversation). The writing assessment rubric was very helpful. Iím less comfortable translating that to assessment of other activities than writing. And while Iíll be able to use it for assessing writing, Iím not sure how it will affect my development of assignments. I definitely think that our relationship with Bill Condon and the WSU project offers us a very effective way to advance our own ongoing efforts in student writing development and assessment.

2004

20 January: Rubric Training and Deansí Meeting with Bill Condon

Summary: Bush-Hewlett Fellows met with Bill Condon in a morning session at 9:30 a.m. and a late afternoon session at 5: 30 p.m. We reviewed the ìrepeatableî assignments and essays on the student learning objectives, . In the early afternoon, Bill Condon met with Myra Burnett of the BEAMS project and the Academic Deans to review the assessment modes and their possible application to the Spelman core curriculum. The group decided to go forward with across-the-curriculum training on the Critical Thinking Rubric.

11 February: Faculty All-call for developing Bush-Hewlett group grant applications and the 2004-2005 Bush Fellows

Presenter: Sharan Strange

Summary: Professor Strange presented the online journal, a creative project she and Professor Opal Moore are producing as part of the Bush-Hewlett Program. The goals of the Bush-Hewlett grant and the work of the fellows were discussed in a context of faculty with related pedagogical goals or writing and technology projects.

Participants: Bernice Scott, Moshe Haspell, Daryl White, Larry Schenbeck, Veronica Norris, Anne Warner, Dan Bascelli

End-of-the-Year Workshops

30 April. Bush-Hewlett End-of-the-Year Workshop I:

Health/Physical Education and Political Science

Professors Tarin Hampton, Lydia Woods, Fatemeh Shafiei, and Jeanne Meadows

Summary: The Fellows introduced three websites, the first about the college cohort of Black women, their nutrition, and their exercise; the second, about global ecology and government policies; and the third, about international views of U. S. foreign policy.

Attendees: Moshe Haspell, Bernice Scott, Opal Moore, Tinaz Pavri, Joan McCarty, Wayne Smith, Larry Schenbeck, Kevin Johnson, Pushpa Parekh, Daryl White

Bush-Hewlett Workshop I. Participant Evaluations

Please answer the questions using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	4.8
The presenters made their course goals clear to the participants.	4.8
The presenters made their process and activities clear to the participants.	4.7
The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	3.8
The coursework and activities presented showed that students were engaged in critical thinking.	4.1
This use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	3.8
This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	4.7
I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	4.7
This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	4.8
Comments: *This is a very wonderful and important program with regard to the overall education of our students. *A very good initiation into the project. *If possible, upload the presentations on each desktop. It was difficult to see from afar. *The Bush participants were very clear on the benefits and challenges of a very important learning tool.

3 May. Bush-Hewlett End-of-the-Year Workshop II

Artistic Production and Critical Translation

Professors Arturo Lindsay and Xuexin Liu, and Dr. Andrea Barnwell

Summary: The Spelman Senior Art Exhibit from 2003 was presented with critical remarks by Arturo Lindsay, who is also working on a website for the 2004 senior exhibit. Drs. Barnwell and Liu discussed the afro-asiatic allegory, a³, an exhibit in the Spelman College Museum of Fine Art and the work of Dr. Liuís Japanese language students responding to the exhibit.

Attendees: Daryl White, Barbara Nesin, Opal Moore, Rick Langhorst, Tony Dahl, Jim Gillam

Bush-Hewlett Workshop II. Participant Evaluations

Please answer the questions using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	4.2
The presenters made their course goals clear to the participants.	4.5
The presenters made their process and activities clear to the participants.	4.5
The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	3.6
The coursework and activities presented showed that students were engaged in critical thinking.	4.5
This use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	4.9
This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	4.6
I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	4.5
This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	4.7
Comments: *I look forward to conversations with the Bush Fellows about item #1. We skimmed the subject today, but a conversation specifically about pedagogy would be invaluable. *Gave me food for thought. *Would like to hear how we can avoid ìcut & pasteî learning/plagiarism. This workshop gave me some ideas, even though the topic was not specifically addressed. *Needs clarification of the degree to whichóand specifically howóprojects depend on students doing the actual work. *Enjoyed hearing about the variety of classroom uses of technology. Also learnt ways to integrate sites that may be useful for my course. *Great insights into the positives and the negatives. Suggestions for curriculum development (core course perhaps) of visual literacy courses were very useful. *(1) This was useful because I saw ways to add to/change my own WebCT course. (2) The goals were pretty clear, especially Dr. Liuís, since she wrote them out coherently. The process was clear to me and gave me ideas on what else I can do. (6) and (7). Of course, Dr. Lindsay and Dr. Liu showed results of having students use technology to effectively engage the course and also show that they could do research across time and space.

4 May. Bush-Hewlett End-of-the-Year Workshop III

Creative Arts: Online Journal, Black Presence in American Dance, and Drama Archives and Management

Professors Sharan Strange, Opal Moore, Veta Goler, and Joan McCarty

Summary: Faculty introduced three websites, the first, with poetry and fiction, videos or readings and interviews, and multimedia literary projects; the second, with biographies and histories of black artists in dance; and the third, The Black Box, a newsletter about the activities of Drama and Dance, and a pictorial archive of events in the department.

Attendees: Pushpa Parekh, Sharon Washington, Akua McDaniel, Kathleen Phillips-Lewis

Bush-Hewlett Workshop III. Participant Evaluations

Please answer the questions using a scale from disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):
1. The workshop was useful for developing a pedagogy using technology with course content.	5
2. The presenters made their course goals clear to the participants.	4.6
3. The presenters made their process and activities clear to the participants.	5
4 4 The workshop will assist me in formulating my goals and activities as a Bush-Hewlett Fellow.	4.6
5 5 The coursework and activities presented showed that students were engaged in critical thinking.	4.3
6 6 This use of technology showed a way to enhance student engagement.	4.6
7 7 This use of technology showed a way to deepen student research skills.	4.6
8 8 I can employ some of the strategies presented in the workshop.	5
9 9 This workshop was generally effective for the participants.	5
Comments: *I feel as if I have a fairly good idea of what to expect. This prior knowledge will make the experience less stressful for me. The workshop presenters were all candid, which helped a great deal. *The projects illustrated the various facets of integrating technology (multi-media) as well as the challenges. The presentations will greatly assist me in designing my class web project in Fall. Thanks a lot! *I really understand how this can work in the classroom. I didnít have a clear understandingóNow I understand how it can work!

1-3 June 2004

WAC/BEAMS/CWP Workshop on Using the Critical Thinking Rubric

Presenters: Professors Bill Condon, Diane Kelly-Riley, and Cathy Perillo from Washington State University.

Participants: Tim Askew, Geneva Baxter, Jean Billingslea-Brown, Michael Burns-Kaurin, LaConyea Butler, Joanne Chu, Marilyn Davis, Jeff Ehme, Angela Farris-Watkins, Estelle Finley, Margery Ganz, Cornelia Gilyard, Fannie Haughton, Anne Hornsby, Armand Jones, Stephen Knadler, Mark Lee, Joan McCarty, Opal Moore, Sandi Patterson, Tinaz Pavri, Margaret Price, Larry Schenbeck, Fatemeh Shafiei, Tarsha Stanley, Sharan Strange, Franita Ware, Daryl White.

Tentative Agenda

June 1 9 a.m.-Noon: Introduce rubric and possible adaptations. Look at faculty checkpoints (for evaluating what faculty assignments are looking for in the way of Critical Thinking in student performance.

Lunch in Cloister

June 1 1-4 p.m.: Work with rubric /adaptations. Go over rating techniques, esp. as related to grading.

June 2 9 a.m.-Noon: Faculty development of individual assignments. Then discussion of assignments first in expert and jigsaw groups; Disciplinary groups, then in other groups of multi-disciplines (for student view). Peer Review of the assignments.

Lunch in Cloister

June 2 1-4 p.m.: Work on faculty checkpoints (coherence with various dimensions in the presentation of the assignment) on a developed design of a usable assignment.

June 3 9 a.m. (through lunch) until 2:30 p.m.: Dr. Perillo will present a variety of "mature" models of various assignments developed over several years--targeting different disciplines (and crossing disciplines) and targeting upper and lower division levels.