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:
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:
*The dialogue was taken & revised from a syllabus template originally created by Indiana University
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
No comments:
Post a Comment