Offer peer review opportunities where faculty can share LMS courses with colleagues and receive valuable feedback.

Sample course: Provide access to a sample course that faculty can review and adapt to their needs.

A major implication of the lack of effective training is thatstudents are often left to struggle through disjointed, flawedlearning experiences while using LMSs during a class.

student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement.  Faculty concern helps students get through rough times and keep on working.  Knowing a few faculty members well enhances students’ intellectual commitment and encourages them to think about their own values and future plans

More importantly, transactional distance is not a static measurement, but variable with dynamics based on the interaction or gap between any one instructor and any one student—including face-to-face environments—and includes both psychological and communications space where there is potential for misunderstandings.  The space and time gap can be closed with deliberate elements of interaction by the instructor

. Moore (2013) found thatTD was the single biggest predictor of student satisfaction in online classes, a finding confirmed by morerecent research as well (Weidlich & Bastiaens, 2018). Low online retention rates are explained, in part, bythe potentially high barrier to contact and relationship-building between faculty and students in onlinecourses.

found that facultyperceived themselves as more accessibleto students than the students did. Studentsreported that because they were paying fortheir instructors’ time, they expected timelyresponses to their emails. Additionally,Foral et al. were surprised to learn that thestudents in the campus courses expected aquicker response from an email than did theonline students

Transactional distance is “...a psychological and communications gap, aspace of potential misunderstanding betweenthe inputs of instructor and those of thelearner” (Moore, 1991, p. 2) created by thephysical distance separating online instructorsfrom their learners

robust theme in the reasons given for preferringface-to-face delivery formats is the perceived lack of interactionwith an instructor in online courses.This was evident in statementsthat suggested that students believe they would have to “teachthemselves”, or that they would prefer a course taught by a “hu-man” or a “real teacher”.

the reason is that a perception 00:10:38 is kind of perceptual in structure and the buddhist world encodes this by arguing that the internal um sense the the manus venana is a sense faculty just like external faculties 00:10:52 and so just as our external faculties present us with a world that just seems to us even though we know it's not to be just as it is that we see it just as it is 00:11:03 it's tempting to think that we've got this apparent object distinct from our sensory apprehension of it but is but an object that's presented by a completely veritable process 00:11:15 because as i say perception just feels like it presents the world to us as it is i look at a red apple and i think damn i know exactly what that apple smells like looks like tastes like and 00:11:27 feels like forgetting that all i have is the apple as it's mediated by the peculiar perceptual system that i have and by all of the conceptual resources through which i filtered my perception 00:11:41 so in the same way a perception or introspective awareness just feels like it presents our own cognitive affective and perceptual states to us just as they are 00:11:53 independent of that appreceptive system and those conceptual categories so just as external perception gives us the illusion that we're just detectors of the world as it is inner perception can give us the illusion that we are just 00:12:06 detectors of our inner um our inner world just as it is so even when we remind ourselves as i'm reminding you right now of this 00:12:18 extremely complex mediation of our perceptual encounter with external objects we find ourselves in constantly experiencing our own experience as though 00:12:31 we've got the world just as it is and then we sometimes say okay maybe we're not getting the world just as it is but at least i'm getting my sensory experiences just as they are the apple might not be red but the redness i 00:12:42 experience is exactly the redness that i think i experience the sweetness that i introspect must be the sweetness just as it is and so forth so even if we give up for a moment and it's hard to give it up 00:12:54 for more than that the notion of immediacy with regard to external perception we often retreat to thinking that that's mediated but my awareness of my own inner episodes is the immediate 00:13:06 awareness that mediates my knowledge of the external world and i think that in the sense of that perception that sense of immediacy is even greater it's really hard for us to be convinced that our inner experience 00:13:20 could possibly be deceptive we seem to think that if i think that i believe something i must believe it if i think that i'm feeling something i must be feeling it and that feeling and that believing grab my inner 00:13:33 reality just as it is and so part of the problem that arises is that the mediation of our introspective awareness by our introspective faculty becomes 00:13:46 cognitively invisible to us just as what i'm seeing the world my visual faculty is invisible and it just delivers a visible world to me and i have to really think to to understand 00:13:58 what my own visual faculty visual organ and visual consciousness are contributing i think i experience my introspective faculty as just giving me inner objects and i have to think and remind myself 00:14:11 that actually my inner sense faculty is also a fallible instrument and that i may be misusing that instrument or that instrument might be intrinsically deceptive and that's a hard thing to get one's mind around 00:14:25 as a consequence we've become seduced by this idea that even if our knowledge of some things is mediated that mediation can't go all the way down we get seduced by the idea that there's got to be a 00:14:38 basic foundational level of experience to which we can have some kind of immediate access and to which when we know it we know it absolutely veritically in the theory of knowledge that leads us to foundationalism in the 00:14:51 philosophy of mind it leads us to sense datum theory um and i find that in a lot of buddhist situations a lot of buddhist practitioners take it to be this idea of an infallibility of an immediate kind of 00:15:03 experience if i'm sitting on the cushion just right so with all of that in play um i want to move to exercising that myth of the given that i've been characterizing 00:15:16 and to show that buddhist philosophy offers us powerful ways of doing that and i'm going to begin by talking about first person knowledge through the lens of the madhyamaka tradition

I have a long list of ideas I want to pursue in cosmology, quantum mechanics, complexity, statistical mechanics, emergence, information, democracy, origin of life, and elsewhere. Maybe we’ll start up a seminar series in Complexity and Emergence that brings different people together. Maybe it will grow into a Center of some kind.

Dilemma: should/ can the CTL be neutral territory (and can it be?)

When I hear people in a variety of contexts talking about “building community” for students or colleagues (or, customers), I worry about that, too.  Is the motivation an additive one?  “Let’s give them more people to connect with and rely on?”  Or is it intended to be a kind of capture?

What if we designed faculty learning experiences that took less time, were more consistent, and were packed with meaning that compelled us to share and connect with our colleagues and students? What would that look like? I’d think I’d like to explore that question with all of you in 2022.

Why is the 60-minute workshop the gold-standard in faculty development/learning?

Over the past several weeks, I’ve seen more faculty declining learning opportunities and expressing a need to protect their time than ever before in fifteen years of doing this work.

Men need to turn up to the teacher courses I attend on empathy and restorative practice. Men are consistently in the minority at these events and whilst the men who do attend are inspiring, the empty seats are a reminder that change is not happening quickly enough.

Pedagogy is not ideologically neutral

All topics were framed as specific but open questions

we first thought about starting a reading group, as many other institutions and departments have done. But we wanted to make the barrier to joining the conversation as low as possible

Regardless of an explicit requirement, it is an implication of membership in the academic community that its members have a responsibility, and a right, to contribute to the intellectual corpus of their time.

dynamic hub for teaching & learning praxis and community-driven academic professional development

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: OVERCOMING ANXIETY THROUGH FACULTY BOOTCAMP

Here are a few recommendations for designing a Faculty Learning Community centered around new technologies: Evolving Outcomes: Begin with clear outcomes for the community, and ask faculty to articulate their own project objectives in their applications for participation. However, keep in mind that there is an inherent openness to this process. Rework project outcomes as needed and provide progress updates at the beginning of each meeting. Multi-channel Communication: Include multiple types of interactions throughout the term to meet the many needs of participating faculty. Allow the participants to design the format of their face-to-face group meetings. Then supplement these scheduled sessions with one-on-one design meetings, online communications, self-help resources, and triage sessions. Campus Partners: Use the participant applications to imagine what types of support the faculty might need, and identify the people on campus best able to offer this support. Reach out to these campus partners in advance of the FLC, gauging their interest and availability to offer demonstrations, create online learning tools, purchase technologies, or meet with faculty one-on-one. Community Building: Remember that this is a community, and build it as such: work to develop a good rapport among participants; listen deeply to each participants’ goals; learn about disciplines outside of one’s own; require a certain level of participation; and bring drinks and food. Good learning environments tend to blend the formal and informal, supplementing expectations and plans with the free flowing nature of discussion and discovery.

FLCs are extended gatherings (typically a semester or more) in which participants organize around a clear objective but in an informal structure. Perhaps most importantly, the FLC itself is a process that develops as the group proceeds. The community members work together to direct the shape of the experience. This design engenders ownership (Cox & Richlin, 2011; Moore & Hicks 2014) in the project without requiring the faculty to become technical experts—ownership that promotes sustainable success.

Building Faculty Learning Communities: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 97, edited by Milton D. Cox, and Laurie Richlin, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2011.

Preparing Faculty to Work with Multilingual Writers

I launched the open textbook project over a summer, and because I teach at a public university where I had no easy access to graduate assistants or funding,

There is a growing need to establish literacies around open education, copyright, social media and networked learning as a foundational skill.

Mobile learning naturally brings smartphones to mind, like the iPhone or an Android-powered pho

The  Use  of  Mobile  Devices  for  Academic  Purposes  at  the  University  of  Washington:  Current  State  and  Future  Prospects

Can Tablet Computers Enhance Faculty Teaching?

Not Just for Students: Mobile Teacher Professional Development

Faculty Alert: You Can't Put the Mobile Genie Back in the Bottle

A Comprehensive Approach to Enhancing Faculty Use of Mobile Technology for Teaching

Faculty Handbook

That’s true not just within the classroom environment, but in the web of interactions students experience

More specifically

Like a phantom limb, you remember who you were as a reader but cannot summon that “attentive ghost” with the joy you once felt in being transported somewhere outside the self.

The Role of the Facilitator

In a strong culture, there are many, overlapping, and cohesive interactions among all members of the organization.

Indeed, the only published report that investigated perceptions of OER quality in the Canadian context is a survey of post-secondary faculty in British Columbia, a majority of whom perceived OER to be comparable or superior to traditional, proprietary materials (Jhangiani, Pitt, Hendricks, Key, & Lalonde, 2016).

New Faculty Program

Faculty members earn 15 percent less than others with advanced degrees,

"Clear the deck," said Cheryl Rock, 40, an assistant professor of human nutrition at the University of Michigan, who opposes the elimination of mandatory retirement. "The old professors are holding back the university."

Faculty development.

more emphasis should be on appointing people that know how to run a nonprofit or government organization that ensures a focus on educational integrity.

The Board of Regents and University will not assert an interest in faculty produced textbooks, scholarly writing, art works, musical compositions and dramatic and non-dramatic literary works that are related to the faculty member's professional field unless such work is commissioned by the University or is a work for hire pursuant to Paragraph F below.

works prepared by faculty as part of the general obligation to produce scholarly or other creative works, such as, but not limited to, articles, books, musical compositions, and works of art

UI employees and students retain all rights in the copyrightable materials they create except in the cases of “UI-Sponsored Materials” as defined in Subsection B-2-b below, materials subject to grant of a non-exclusive license to UI for public access as described in Subsection B-2-c below, materials covered by a Grant or Contract as discussed in Subsection E below, and materials covered by a valid written agreement between the natural person or persons and the UI as discussed in Subsection B-5 below.

In cases where a copyrightable work has been produced with support to Northwestern University from a government agency or other external source whose grant specifies that the copyright for any work created under the grant is the property of the University (as grantee), then, if permitted under the applicable grant terms, the University assigns the copyright ownership to the work to the creator(s), subject to the following conditions:

). In the case of Computer Software created by members of the Northwestern University Academic Community in the course of their employment the Creators shall grant to the University a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and license to use, perform, display, copy, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such works for all traditional, customary or reasonable academic or research purposes of the University.

In the case of Traditional Works that are instructional materials integral to the administration of an academic program (such as laboratory manuals, placement tests, internship handbooks, etc.), the University shall also have a perpetual, royalty-free right and license to use, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such works, for all traditional, customary or reasonable academic purposes of the University. When it proposes to exercise this right and license for instructional materials, the University shall make reasonable efforts to consult with the Creator(s)

If a faculty member’s work is subject to a contractual obligation of the University, such as a sponsored research agreement, then the ownership of the copyrights with respect to such work shall be governed by the terms of the contractual obligation of the University

A faculty member (an academic appointment in the professorial ranks, research ranks, or non-professorial ranks under Policy 201 “Faculty Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure,” or other policies referenced therein) owns the copyrights to scholarly works, literary works, art works, architectural works, musical works, syllabi and textbooks that such faculty member produces regardless of the form of expression

this policy provides that faculty members, staff researchers, and graduate and undergraduate students own the copyrights to works they produce during their academic careers at the University, subject to limited contractual exceptions and, in certain circumstances, limited use rights

Use of any materials or services paid for out of an external grant to the faculty member does not count toward substantial use.

If a substantial use of Florida Tech resources is involved in the creation of the product, the university and the faculty member should plan together to recover its investment over time. A separate contact must be developed at the start of the project to cover the concerns and interests of the creator(s) and the university. This includes intellectual property rights as well as such matters as initial investments, protections, editorial control, marketing, royalties, extended use and eventual disposition. Substantial use is defined as a threshold for the investment of institutional resources that requires additional planning and preparation to recover this investment over some period of time. If use is substantial, the university is acting with the faculty member as a partner in the development of stored materials and will have rights to those materials.

If the stored course material is created by full-time faculty in the context of the normal duties and does not involve substantial use of Florida Tech resources, the ownership of the intellectual property remain with the creator.

Copyrightable material resulting from a project assigned to faculty as a part of their regular duties shall inure to the university only if so specified in writing and signed by the faculty member, their department head and the dean.

In accordance with other institutions of higher learning and except as provided for in Paragraph 2 below, the right of first publication and of statutory copyright in any book, manuscript, television or motion picture script or film, educational material or other copyrightable work, whose author is a faculty member, shall be the property of the author.

Intellectual Property that is created by Covered Individuals and that relates to their clinical, instructional, or research work is considered ABOR-Owned IP, except if it constitutes Excluded IP as set forth in Section B.1 above. This includes tangible research property, such as lab notebooks, data, research tools, prototypes, records, or written results.

All Intellectual Property that is created by Covered Individuals in the course of performing research projects that are supported partially or fully by the University or any external agency (usually either a private company or a federal agency, in either case referred to as a “sponsor”) is ABOR-Owned IP, regardless of the form or type of Intellectual Property. Sometimes ABOR agrees to grant the sponsor certain ownership and/or license rights in such ABOR-Owned IP. If that is the case, that agreement governs Intellectual Property ownership. The University works with the principal investigator of such a research project when negotiating these agreements with sponsors.

ABOR does claim ownership of, and Covered Individuals assign to ABOR, all right, title, and interest to all other Intellectual Property not specifically excluded under paragraph B.1.a that is created in the course and scope of employment at the University or with significant use of ABOR or University resources.

ABOR does not claim ownership of the copyright (i.e., the tangible expression) in "Scholarly Works,” “Fine Art,” or “Student Works” created by Covered Individuals. All of these terms (Scholarly Works, Fine Art, and Student Works) are specifically defined in the ABOR IP Policy. Excluded IP includes, without limitation, scholarly publications, textbooks, journal articles, syllabi, course materials and notes, research bulletins, monographs, books, play scripts, theatrical productions, poems, music, movies, art, and instructional materials that are created by a Covered Individual, usually a faculty member or a student, at his or her own direction and with only incidental use of University resources.

the provision of office facilities, limited secretarial assistance, library facilities for which special charges are not normally made or other resources which are made available to the public without charge, shall not be considered substantial use of University resources.

Upon request by the University, the creator(s) will grant the University a nonexclusive, free of cost, world wide right and license to exercise all copyright rights in and to the work, except the right to commercially display, use, perform, or distribute copies of the work, unless to do so would impair the ability of the creator to have the work published or distributed.

In keeping with traditional academic practice and policy, ownership of copyrights to works of artistry or scholarship in the creator’s professional field such as textbooks, course materials, scholarly papers and articles, software and other computer materials when they are works of artistry or scholarship, novels, poems, paintings, musical compositions or other such works of artistic imagination produced by University employees who have a general obligation to produce such works where the specific choice, content, course, and direction of the effort is determined by the employee without direct assignment or supervision by the University shall reside in the creators

It is the policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma that all rights in copyright shall remain with the creator of the work unless the work is created with substantial use of University resources, is specifically assigned or commissioned by the University, is subject to non-University contractual or legal obligations, or is a “work made for hire” as that term is defined by U.S. Copyright Law.

For purposes of this policy, “work made for hire” should be as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement on Copyright.1 “Substantial use” means that the creator receives more than normal support for the project or receives time and/or resources specifically dedicated to the project.

The rights to copyrightable software with an actual or projected market value in excess of $10,000 annually, except software included in computer-mediated courseware, shall be determined pursuant to the Board's Patent and Copyrightable Software12 Policy (II.A.8.b).

When the University specifically directs the creation of mediated courseware by assigning one or more employees to develop the mediated courseware and supplies them with materials and time to develop the mediated courseware, the resulting mediated courseware belongs to the University and the University shall have the right to revise it and decide who will utilize the mediated courseware in instruction. The University may specifically agree to share revenues and control rights with the employee.

When employees develop mediated courseware without specific direction by the University, unless otherwise agreed, the ownership of the courseware shall remain with the employee.

The mediated courseware shall not be sold, leased, rented or otherwise used in a manner that competes in a substantial way with the for-credit offering of the University unless that transaction has received the approval of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

Notwithstanding any use of institutional resources or “work made for hire,” the ownership of textbooks, scholarly monographs, trade publications, maps, charts, articles in popular magazines and newspapers, novels, nonfiction works, supporting materials, artistic works, and like works shall reside with the creator(s) and any revenue derived from their work shall belong to the creator(s).

How can WordPress inflect your teaching and research? Let’s look at a couple of examples:

Adapt, Adopt, Build: Hospitality & #OER

‘Worth the Investment’

Faculty Development and Student Learning

They corre-spond to the three departments of the human mind, the Understanding, the Will, and the Feel-ings.

reatise on practical psychological rhetoric

How do I take Attendance using the Moodle Attendance activity? PageHow can I use the Attendance activity to track student participation or assess repeating assignments? Page

OER Stories

Remaking the Public U’s Professoriate

Eight Ways to Support Faculty Needs with a Virtual Teaching & Learning Center