Cycle 3 Reflection

What differences will be identified in participant syllabi now that the accessibility training has been completed? How will the application of the knowledge learned influence my participants' teaching methods? What is one lesson that my participants learned because of this research?

Cycle three was the second round of individual face-to-face meetings and concluded with the dissemination of the Post survey which I will include at the end.

At the beginning of this research, Professor Cameron started out with a multiple page Microsoft Word document he created and then converted to a PDF; previously he printed out the syllabus for all students so they would have a hard copy of the course calendar. It was visually appealing but only fractionally accessible. By the end, he had converted the existing (unchanging) course information into a Populr page and added the calendar from within the campus LMS. Now he only prints out one page for the students as compared to several. Populr has enabled him to maintain a visually pleasing syllabus that is also more accessible or as he put it "the best of worlds". Which he explained is why he only completed the first title and did not invest any time in the second title in Cycle 2 on creating accessible PDFs. Unlike Professor Gellar who finished the first title and perused the second title despite only using WordPress for the course syllabus. She was interested in refreshing her skills and understanding and expressed gratitude for backing up the strategies I introduced with training and resources. However, she would still like to see a specific set of guidelines that are adopted campus wide that would help inform faculty about accessibility while building instructional materials.

Professor Green was the only participant with no past experience working with student requiring specific accommodations. She began with a very lengthy course syllabus that has slightly been reduced. She expressed disappointment that she didn't have enough time to dedicate to working on my research and wants to be thorough in building "the most accessible course syllabus possible" and has yet to get to the PDF training. She is considering also adopting/leveraging Populr for her course syllabus. We have scheduled a standing meeting to continue working on improving the accessibility of her course materials. Professor Jackson started out with a Word doc syllabus for a course she will teaching the upcoming year. She was previously unaware that it is better to share PDFs than Word documents. I was very curious about her opinion to the online training to which she responded, "It was good. It was good to have to take the time to sit with Lynda.com and look at the training because it's not the kind of thing you make time for so it was an unexpected and eventful time for me."

Professor Matthews started out with a Populr page but still went far beyond what was required for both titles. This research was also a refresher for her and our conversation were more focused on ensuring her Populr page was as accessible as it could be. She had never previously explored Lynda.com and likes the idea of being able to utilize it further in the future when she is ready to apply what she is learning. Professor Thompson started out with a PDF and also did not complete the second title and when I asked him why he said because "Going forward I will likely start from scratch and rethink how I could improve my approaches." To which I responded that he could have changed the format during the research but he was more interested in how he could improve the existing format until he had more time to decide what he wanted to do going forward.

I would have to say that my last meeting with Professor Jones who started out with a PDF was the perfect culmination to my research. She demonstrated great foresight first by stating, "All of this made me think how horrible we all are as an institution for not doing this from day one as training for every professor, as a requirement for all professors but also with support because it's not easy" and at the end of our meeting when she said, "You don't know what you don't know... but how come I get to learn about this by being in your project and not by being a professor at the University?" 

While the third cycle meetings were shorter than the first the level of authenticity in the responses was profound and looking back makes me realize that my efforts have great potential to grow to permanency at CI. I can't help but feel proud... a smidgen more than a little.

Overall I would say that there were definitely notable changes of varying degrees from all participants. I am hopeful to attend the Accessing Higher Ground Conference in Denver in November to learn more about Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning.

I am also extremely pleased with the Post survey results particularly the open-ended responses about lessons learned, application of concepts, and even the feedback.

Cycle 2 Reflection

Cycle Two Research Questions:
How will the online training videos be received by the participants and will they find them to be useful, helpful, and relevant? How much of the assigned training will the participants complete? What will be the average completion rate? What will be the average time spent on the training?

Prior to my research I asked all participants a set of questions in the Pre-survey invitation some of which included:

• Years teaching in higher education:
  3-"too many to count" (presumably more than the second highest answer of 20 years)
• Previous accessibility training:
  Yes- 2; No- 4; Cannot Remember- 3
• 'Yes' participants were then asked about type of training and when it was completed (in-person; 3+ years ago) Neither of these participants had used (were aware) of Lynda.com and felt they needed to update their training
• Awareness of Lynda.com accessibility training:
  Yes- 1*; No- 8 [*This participant and one other withdrew during Cycle Two]

As the shortest of three cycles I did not want to over-stress participants with hours of online training. I chose two different Lynda.com titles:
1. Creating Accessible Microsoft Office Documents with David Rivers  (1hr 31m total)
2. Creating Accessible PDFs with Chad Chelius (4hr 5m total).
I then chose to break apart these titles into categories: required, recommended, and additional. No one attempted the recommended or additional categories.

Required category breakdown:

1. Understanding Accessibility and Creating Accessible Word Documents = 40m 39s/45%  

2. Creating Accessible PDFs  = 1h 7m/27%

Total time: 1:47:39

The required sections of the first title were completed to varying degrees by all participants (~25%-74% or 27-65m). However, not everyone completed the second title (0%-72% or 1-117m) but more on that in the Cycle Three post.

Required completion breakdown [title 1 and title 2 completion percentage]:

• Green = 25.37% and 0%
• Thompson = 43.04% and 8.2%
• Cameron = 44.63% and 0%
• Gellar = 46.52% and 12.57%
• Jones = 50.01% and 24.38%
• Matthews = 50.24% and 71.99%
• Jackson = 73.89% and 26.43%

Cycle Two was very stressful because only two participants actually completed the requirements during the original time frame and I was concerned with losing more participants. At the beginning of the cycle I stipulated that the training  and revisions must be complete prior to our last one-on-one in Cycle Three. Despite the last week of this cycle falling during spring break the majority of participants did not complete this cycle until much later (often just before our f2f). I recognize that this semester was quite hectic at CI especially for my participants since all of them are naturally busy and even over-committed across campus prior to my research. Initially I was quite concerned to see how few looked at the second title but that was cleared up in the third cycle.

This seems the perfect time to move onto the last cycle to tie it all together.

Cycle 1 Reflection

Cycle One Research Questions:
How will participants score their syllabi on the self-evaluation and what improvements will be identified? What level of understanding, awareness, and personal experience do my participants bring to this research?

The self-evaluation consisted of five sections, the first was a checklist of required elements and the remaining four were dichotomous in nature (yes/no format) However, an "N/A" option was also provided. There are nine required elements as indicated in the Academic Senate policy for CSU Channel Islands. The remaining four sections focused on Style & Structure, Tables, Images & Graphics, and Color Use. Overall there were fourteen questions to complete. An optional comments area was also available.

Cycle One was an exhilarating experience. The nerves I felt as I frantically prepared for my first f2f meeting makes me laugh in retrospect. I started each meeting with a couple housekeeping questions (i.e. Mac or PC, current version of Word and Adobe Acrobat Pro, when they make the course syllabus available to students?)

I also read the following dialogue* in an effort to frame our first conversation. as well as, to see what response it might elicit from each participant:

The ability to make documents accessible is an important part of your skill set as an instructor. Not only will this allow users with disabilities to fully utilize your course materials, but you are also doing your part to make CI a truly accessible university. Students frequently reference their syllabus for reading and homework assignments, and for this reason it is crucial that the material is fully usable by all students. For a document to be accessible, it must be created and formatted to be usable by people with a wide range of abilities. Technologies like screen readers (software programs that read and interpret what is on the screen out loud) allow for users with disabilities to conveniently engage with materials like never before. However, there are limits to these new technologies To be able to fully access a document, users need to be able to navigate between sections and subsections. When you see a section of the newspaper you do not wish to read, you visually skim over it. If you want to find the crossword puzzle in the newspaper, you skip to the appropriate section and page number. Screen readers allow users to make similar decisions using the formatting data included in the document such as headings. By making your syllabus accessible, user with disabilities can located their homework assignments for the day and topics for the week. The best meaningful text will explain the item and its purpose concisely and effectively.

For further information about participant insight and notes please refer to my earlier posts entitled "Participant profiles..." written on March 3, March 5, and March 6.

In addition to the dialogue, I introduced a  Screenreader into our first meeting. For ease of access I used VoiceOver because it was readily available on my work machine. All but one of them had never taken part in such an experience and it was their first time hearing a Screenreader interpret what was on the screen, their syllabi. This definitely was the most transformative experience for all participants I only wish I could have videotaped it to show them at the end of the research. Shortly after each one-on-one I sent a follow-up email with resources and the self-evaluation.

1. How will participants score their syllabi on the self-evaluation and what improvements will be identified?
        Subset: What level of understanding, awareness, and personal experience do my participants bring to this research?

In regards to the self-evaluation, participants scored themselves poorly but accurately and there were no major discrepancies compared to my analysis. However, I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just easier to rate themselves poorly since I could not see into their minds as they answered the questions. However, I will remain optimistic based on the feedback I received in which several admitted that their syllabi needed "lots of work" and that "I don't think I would have known what what you meant by some of these questions if we had not met earlier" and "this is all so revealing!".  I am glad that it was able to get them thinking, reflecting, and aware of possible areas to address (revise). Based on the feedback I believe all participants begun demonstrating an improved level of understanding and awareness. The range of experience was quite broad considering I was working with only a small sampling of faculty which included no experience, slight experience (had previously worked with Disability Resource Programs on campus to accommodate students), experience only in K-12 sector, and participating in a pilot UDL program at another institution.

I would definitely deem Cycle One as successful but the real test is Cycle Two which required them to independently complete specific online training.

Lessons learned:

• My perception of faculty is proving more accurate than that of what I was told it should be. (It is not that faculty don't care it's that they do not know. Not knowing and not caring are not the same)
• A simple fourteen question 'rubric survey' can be quite impactful and the beginning of change (small stone, bigger ripple)

*The dialogue was taken & revised from a syllabus template originally created by Indiana University

Cycle 3

Below are some of my notes from my f2f meetings during the third and final cycle.

Thompson:

"If you don't think about how somebody who needs to use some sort of tool for accessibility and how they would be using it then you don't think about it. You think 'oh, it's pretty'..."

Going beyond focusing only on the esthetic element and  instead going back to the basics of headings and bullets which makes it easier.

"It doesn't require much more effort to make [it] accessible. I don't feel like I'm losing anything."

Why did you participate?

1. I feel it's important stuff that you are doing so I'm happy to help.

2. I'm trying to reduce what my students pay for textbook costs (using open resources); I'm trying to make it so the stuff I put on Bb is accessible. 

"I'm more aware than I used to be. I always have several students each semester who need some kind of accommodation and while they can get by but how much easier we can make it for people who struggle with things."

"The information in the training and our meetings is useful but it's still going to take time. You can't expect a perfect result. Going forward I will likely start from scratch and rethink how I could improve my approaches. I have a folder now in my teaching resources called accessibility and I never would have had that if it wasn't for this [research]."

Matthews:

We engaged in a lengthy discussion about the use of color and formatting during our last f2f meeting.

She was glad to know more about Lynda.com videos and the benefit of utilizing them while able to apply what you learn.

Additionally, she noted that she does well when she can follow along with a transcript while watching a video.

Has had conversations with her department and with colleagues since this research.


Cameron:
Noted that his research experience was "eye-opening" since he is a very visual person and thought his original syllabus was great until he considered the accessibility aspect and realized that it wasn't so great. He know understands how to create something that is both visually appealing and accessible; "the best of both worlds".
Cameron's new syllabus is now two parts: all information but the calendar is shared digitally through Populr and the calendar is shared in the LMS (Bb).
Initially, he would print the entire syllabus so his students could have the calendar but now he only needs to print the calendar (so much paper saved!!)

Cameron will be department chair and would like to collaborate to facilitate faculty development workshops for the department to get hands on training and help with building course materials.


Green:
Expressed disappointment about not having the "Check Accessibility" feature within Word for Mac. *Hopefully Microsoft will get their act together and make the feature available on both PC and Mac platforms.*

"I'm committed to the importance of this despite the time struggle of not having as much time as preferred to focus on this during your research..."

Her goal is to have one version of the syllabus for all students that is accessible.
She shared that she learned how to properly add hyperlinks in her syllabus and the option of using HTML.


Gellar:
Tested out WordPress this semester. Participation in research served as a refresh.

When asked if able to identify the implications and ways of applying the material learned in future instances and other aspects of teaching with increased understanding and awareness: "I understand it [accessibility] a whole lot better than I did"

In past experiences someones "talks at you" and alluded to 1 or 2 of the various recommendations but there is no mention of training or how to do it.

Would like to have a set of guidelines to refer to while building instructional materials.


Jackson:
In regards to the online training: "It was good. It was good to have to take the time to sit with Lynda.com and look at the training because it's not the kind of thing you make time for so it was an unexpected and eventful time for me."

Also commented that even if a video was 15 minutes in duration it was easier than past experiences in-person that took several hours.

When asked why did you participate?
"What got me to participate to begin with is my educational philosophy which is rooted in issues of social justice... which included inclusion... it's an area I know has been lacking in my own development... [explains that understanding the technology needed to make something accessible was challenging and frustrating and often involved sending it to an external person that added an extra step that was difficult especially when under a time constraint] ...I haven't made the opportunity to teach myself the technology so I could do it myself I have always had to rely on other people to make that happen; and that just doesn't sit well because it's a really core piece... for anyone that lays claim to any kind of value for social justice ethics ...inclusive, accessible practice has to be a really conscious piece of our work... so that is what made me say yes [to participate]."

Take from: Indian Funny Picture

"Also, it was because it was you who asked and you've always been somebody who's been there for me when I need help and I really believe in supporting each other..."

When asked if there was a defining or pivotal moment in the research:

Thompson stated there were multiple including:

• learning the benefit of sharing PDFs over .doc or .docx files with students
• learning to use the "heading system" in Word
  (previously had focused on making it look how "it needed to look"
• first time experience using Lynda.com
  (previously unaware of the value that it brings to CI)

Mentioned the value and necessity to build accessible documents from the beginning because remediation is so challenging.

I think when people balk at learning this kind of thing... sometimes people get irritated because they just don't want to have to deal with it and that is privilege talking... I don't want to have to learn... it's inconvenient to me... privilege is at play more that we often realize.

Jones:
Also expressed disappointment in the MW for Mac not having the "Check Accessibility" feature.

"All of this made me think how horrible we all are as an institution for not doing this from day one as a training for every professor, as a requirement for all professors but also with support because it's not easy"

Discussed the idea of using her course syllabus as a template for her students to use for their own student teaching.

"You don't know what you don't know... but how come I get to learn about this by being in your project and not by being a professor at the university?"


I am very pleased with the progress that has been made thus far and I am confident that the discussions that have developed throughout this research and because of this research will continue to spread across campus.

Cycle 2

Cycle 2 in a nutshell..

The shortest of my three cycles consisting of only about 3 weeks for participants to complete the assigned online training tutorials. I decided to break them into three categories: required, recommended, and additional. I tried to keep the amount of time needed to complete at least the required section to under 1 hour. There was slight groaning amongst participants (as expected) training tutorials aren't known for being the most enjoyable experience (but in this case extremely important).

Unfortunately, two participants, Holland and Miller were forced to withdraw for personal reasons. I will do everything I can to maintain the remaining seven participants to the end.

Only one more cycle to go...


Note: I am now wrapping up my 3rd cycle and will hopefully have another entry soon.

Participant Profiles 7-9 (Cycle 1)

This is the last email of three to complete the participant profiles for my AR.

Professor Cameron: No previous Accessibility Training. PC user.

"My previous syllabus might be more accessible because for the newer one, in my mind I wanted to make it more visually appealing and attractive but I didn't consider the accessibility aspect of it."

Cameron may be transitioning to a third party tool to build future syllabi that are still visually appealing but that have proven to be more accessible. Cameron has shared their syllabus design with other faculty members within their major so I have offered to also meet with the others to discuss their options.


Professor Matthews: No previous Accessibility training (at CI). Previous experience with working with students with special needs. Mac user.

"Everything I do, I try to be colorful but you don't even think how it effects these other things. I feel I also would need to make a more straightforward week 1, week 2 and make a plain text version of it more than the chart." Stated while discussing a colored coded table used to display the schedule.

"One of the things that is emphasized in... classes is agency for students... but in order for them to have that agency they need to be able to have the same level of control over the documentation presented in the class the same as anyone else in the class would." Stated when discussing the importance of a class experience being fair to all students.

"Listening through the screenreader hearing through their eyes..."

"...when I had a student that was deaf in my class and I saw the translator signing... the whole time I was aware of every single word that I said. It makes you more aware of how you are presenting your material either verbally or in writing and how someone is going to make sense of that." Stated as an example of using meaningful text to explain concisely and effectively.

"I think so often our faculty are just used to doing things like they've always done them but at the same time these are people that claim to want... you're not on a campus like this if you don't want to deal with students that are going to have challenges. I think the hardest part is getting that cultural change across the campus... making it more integral (integrate these practices) and this is how we do things as opposed to curtailing faculty resistance to top-down authority on these kinds of issues but if you don't pay attention to it then you get a lawsuit... we don't want to be reactionary to these kind of things we want to be proactive and taking the lead."


Professor Miller: No previous Accessibility Training. Mac user.

"I understand what headings are and how I probably should be using them but probably aren't."

"I do different syllabi in different colors so I can keep track of them."

"It's visually appealing but probably not visibly accessible."

"This sounds like a cool project."


What's next: I need to finalize the 2nd cycle email and get that out by today!!

Participant profiles 4-6 (Cycle 1)

This is the second of three blog posts for Cycle 1 of my A.R.

Professor Gellar: Prior accessibility training  (in Bb) > 5 years ago. Is using a web based schedule rather than a paper one. Mac user.

“I’m pretty fearless and toss myself into things to figure it out. It’s overwhelming. I work way harder on technology now that I used to spend time with students”

“Where’s even the checklist that a program chair can be required to hand to a faculty member that said this is what accessibility looks like on paper? These are your requirements for meeting accessibility requirements. That would help.”

“How would I even know where to find it?” Stated while discussing existing campus resources that few to no faculty are aware are available

“I will say this for myself but I know it’s true for other people. It [accessibility resources] may have been thrown at me in some email but we get slammed with so much stuff. The truth is I do everything I can to stay up on student email so I lose some of them.” 

Professor Jackson: Previous Accessibility training  (web) > 4 years ago & experience working with students with special needs. Mac user.

"I believe in inclusivity. I believe in making sure every single student, every staff member, faculty member, and administrator at CI knows that they belong here." Stated when explaining why they agreed to participate in my research

"I'm always looking for ways to improve my skills and my awareness about cultures, in some ways, if you're talking about people who are blind or visually impaired as a form of culture that I want to share then I have to work extra hard to figure out what their reality is so that I can work at meeting them where their reality is and their working at meeting me at where my reality is."


Professor Thompson: No previous accessibility training. Mac user.

“Is it enough to put it in a PDF?” Question asked if a document is accessible if turned into a PDF while discussing that PDFs provide greater access to students as compared to sharing Word Docs. Making a doc a PDF is the first step in making a document accessible.

“I am not intentionally every trying to not make stuff accessible but you just don’t think about it. I think we need to be educated on what it means make course documents available and accessible.”

"So why do we not have training on this?" Stated as an “unprompted” question to take back to the ATI committee

“If I had been thinking seriously about accessibility versus just assuming things then I should have been more proactive but other things are easier for faculty to find that we think we are supposed to be doing. The fact that I never paid attention that Adobe Pro can do a check to see if a document is accessible… There is stuff out there we just need to know how to take advantage of it.”

“I’m glad you chose to do this project, it’s good for you and your research and program and I think it’s important for faculty to know how to do too. Good for you.”

Participant profiles 1-3 (Cycle 1)

I have successfully completed Cycle 1 for AR. This is the first of three posts.

I started each meeting with a couple housekeeping questions (Mac or PC, Current versions of MW and Adobe, and when they make their syllabi available to students...) and also read a "dialogue" to help frame conversation and prepare each of them.

I chose to introduce a Screenreader into our first meeting. For ease of access I used VoiceOver because it was readily available on my work machine. All but one of them had never taken part in such an experience and it was their first time hearing a Screenreader interpret what was on the screen, their syllabi.

My follow up email included links to: campus accessibility checklist, syllabus template, rubric survey form, and information on the ATI Initiative.

Below are participant profiles that include quotes (if available) and basic information.

Professor Jones: Assistant Professor. No previous Accessibility Training. Mac user.

"The system is not whole."  "...people are scrambling but they are trying to do their best." Stated while discussing the gaps in support for accessibility for faculty as compared to services provided for students.

"I want all the students to feel that it[the syllabus] is for everybody not only for some. It's very important." Stated after hearing the syllabus read via VoiceOver.

"Nobody knows that this template is available." Stated while I shared campus resources that are on the website and readily available to faculty to use.

"No one talks to us like this." Stated while discussing my approach as compared to the whirlwind of faculty orientation when there is so much information being shared and often times the bulk of it gets lost or is forgotten.

Jones was very open and receptive to the information that I shared and expressed a lack of understanding and awareness about existing faculty resources; guilt was also expressed since Jones works with students with disabilities and educating teachers to do the same. We discussed the importance of alt text when using images such as the CI logo and the use of active hyperlinks with descriptions.

Jones doesn't understand why there isn't more emphasis placed on supporting faculty in their efforts to make sure that class materials are accessible.


Professor Green: Assistant Professor. No previous Accessibility Training. Mac user.

"I would love more training on these kinds of things because there is so much that I don't feel I understand so that I knew how to better handle students in the classroom with special needs."

"I love the idea of personalizing this kind of training."

"I want to be better always at what I do and this [training] will make me better."

"Part of the reason we come here as teachers is because we want to contribute to accessibility in a wide notion, to the accessibility of education, to populations that don't often get it, to the accessibility of documents... I think it speaks right to the heart."

"It's everybody's job. I think if people knew how they would probably do it because most people want to be better and do good things" Stated when discussing the importance of all campus faculty have a basic knowledge of understanding of accessibility

"You're doing good work here."

"I'm wondering why I haven't seen this before maybe that is why you are here." Stated when going over the syllabus template

"I guess I never thought about it like that. I'm familiar with levels of headings from when I write articles which must be formatted according to a publication's expectations so I've thought about that before but not for syllabi. I never considered that H1s and H2s would be important for syllabi" Stated when discussing the use of styles and tags that are used to indicate document structure.

"I think that so much of the mission of this place is about bringing education, the CSU system is supposed to be the people's university... bringing education to everyone and I think we do a good job here... we serve a lot of underserved groups but I definitely don't think that I ever thought of disability accessibility the way I should have that is right at the heart of the promise we have here at this university. It's disconcerting that it never entered into my conceptual vision..."

Green expressed enthusiasm at getting better at making course documents accessible.


Professor Holland: Full-time Lecturer. No previous Accessibility Training. Mac user.

Holland has experience with working with students with disabilities (cognitively). When students identify themselves as have special needs Holland directs them more and gives them less freedom so that the class work is completed in a timely manner.

"I struggle with how do I give them what they need but also give them the experience that the course is as much about as any of the content we are trying to cover.

Holland referred to their course as an "open content course" in that content is chosen each semester as compared to have a set plan that never changes.

"I'm not comfortable with certain education ideas that purport that students must always know purpose and that they even must know purpose prior to the activity. The college classroom is a place for spontaneity and over planning limits that spontaneity. One of the challenges that we face is that how do we function in a college classroom with spontaneity and creativity which is at the heart of learning and education and at the same time meet the needs of a diverse set of learners that have to have materials in a certain way that is counterproductive to the creation of the learning process."

Holland feels that disciplines within the humanities must have the ability to incorporate spontaneity and creativity in the classroom.

Holland currently delivers course syllabi through a third party creation tool in lieu of the traditional paper syllabus.

Holland expressed that time constraints, personal ignorance, what it known and not known about accessibility all as implications for personal choices in regard to the delivery method of the syllabi.

Holland hopes to gain knowledge, understanding, and figuring out how to do things.


I hope to be ready to share the other two posts this week.

A rubric for my AR (K.O.)

I am using two "rubrics" for my Action Research. The first one is based off of the Universal Design Rubric and the second one I built into a survey for each participant to complete based on their instincts or opinions (to understand their perceptions)that will be completed before the 2nd cycle begins at the beginning of March. I chose to modify the UDL syllabi because it will provide me with added data and I'm officially in data hoarding mode!!! The second rubric starts with a section about required elements for syllabi according to the campus Academic Senate policy and then moves into sections about style & structure, tables, images & graphics, and color use in a Yes/No format on basic guidelines.
I am completing the first rubric alone for each syllabus whereas the second one will be completed twice so that I can compare my scores to those based on the personal perceptions of each participant.

The second cycle is the shortest since it is the intervention which is completing designated training and beginning to make necessary revisions to their syllabi. Revisions must be completed by our second face-to-face meeting that will be spread across about six weeks.


More blogs to follow shortly...

AR Fall '15 Update (KO) #1

It is time to get back into the AR blogging world so here goes:
There has been a significant amount of apprehension and anxiety lurking within me at the thought of AR and actually completing my plan in an effective manner.

I have sent out 9 invites for the 1st round of face-to-face meetings with my participants starting next week and thus far 8 of them have accepted. While I am convinced that I am not currently prepared for these meetings I cannot continue to dawdle and if I must force my compliance to my own schedule than so be it...hahahaha

I have already hit a slight snag in that a few of the participants are using online syllabi built from 3rd party programs and I'm not quite sure how to address it since the current template is paper based and the playlists that will be utilized in the 2nd cycle focus on using Microsoft Word.

I find that I am thinking about this on a subconscious level without even realizing it most of the times. I still have a lot to figure out before next Monday.

Wish me luck!! Back to conference life...