Recent Changes

Title: Your Students Won’t Be Leaders if They Can’t Get on the Bus—A Video Training to Get Paperwork Right!
Description: Los Angeles’ Beyond the Bell Branch provides leadership training activities for students at many of its high school after school programs. This year there are 25 schools participating; next year there will be 40. These activities include single day trainings, weekend retreats, and a district wide culmination. What all activities have in common is the need for complete and accurate paperwork. The project will produce video trainings to ensure site supervisors process student paperwork correctly.
Size and Scope: There will be two pilot video trainings for site coordinators. The first willreview the paperwork and procedures needed to bring students to a training orientation aboutthe program at the end of September. The second will review procedures for the fall weekend retreat in the beginning of November. The effectiveness of the trainings will be evaluated and it will be determined whether to produce three more training modules for the year’s activities.
Project Context: To participate in any of the leadership activities, field trip paperwork must becompleted and completed correctly. The longer the trip, the more complicated the paperwork. To be fully prepared for any emergency situation that could arise, students’ paperwork must be completely accurate or they will not be allowed to go. Too often, site supervisors receive apacket of paperwork with inadequate instruction. As a result, the paperwork is often returned with errors and then the site supervisor has to scramble to get the documents corrected andre-submit them. As the program increases in size, there will be more problems unless BTBmoves towards a different training model. BTB is also facing major budget cuts along with therest of the school district. This means there will be fewer staff members expected to deliver even more services with fewer resources. Using video to provide site supervisors and theirstudents step-by-step directions represents a cost effective way to provide on-demand stafftraining and reduce the number of errors in field trip paperwork.
Major Steps: Video technology will not produce more accurate paperwork processing in itself. In planning the training, it is important to carefully consider what will make a meaningful learning experience for the participants (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Caffarella (2002) maintains that project planning must focus on ensuring learning transfer, i.e. if site coordinators do not acquire new competencies as a result of the video, then it will not be a useful format for training. To achieve an effective training, the following steps are essential:
· Analyze what the paperwork process requires for a single day event and for a weekend retreat.
· Write the script for each of the training modules incorporating the samples of good paperwork as well as typical errors.
· Share the script with Beyond the Bell staff, planners of leadership activities, and the District’s Risk Management Section to ensure that all content is aligned with District and Branch policies.
· Video tape each of the trainings
· Arrange to have each video on the BTB Website before paperwork for each event is distributed to school staff.
· Analyze the effectiveness of each video based upon paperwork results submitted and make necessary revisions based upon what is learned.
Key Activities: To ensure that video modules are effective, it is essential that the process for each major steps be carefully thought out.
Analysis of paperwork:
· Determine what paperwork is needed for each trip.
· Create samples for the fall orientation field trip and the fall weekend retreat.
· Analyze errors from the paperwork submitted for the Spring 2010 day training and weekend retreat, so that training video will highlight mistakes site coordinators need to avoid making.
Script Writing:
· Create a storyboard for each of the modules.
· Emphasize the correct process so participants will understand why each element is important.
· Incorporate examples of good practice and highlight common errors to avoid.
Review of Script:
· Submit script to administrative coordinator and assistant superintendent for approval and suggested revisions.
· Make any suggested revisions.
· Submit to Risk Management to ensure that all information is consistent with District policies.
Videotaping:
· Rehearse script with staff responsible for reviewing paperwork.
· Select attractive setting to make training presentation
· Arrange for Branch staff that do video to be available.
· Create video trainings and edit to ensure quality.
· Review final product.
Placing training on the BTB Website:
· Prepare field trip packets for each of the two fall events to be distributed to site coordinators three weeks before each event.
· Work with contractor who manages BTB website to get each video posted prior to distribution of paperwork for each event.
· Test to ensure that the video is properly working.
· Remove video for first training before placing second module on the website.
Review of effectiveness:
· Meet with staff following each event to determine how effective training was based on accuracy of paperwork submitted.
· Identify revisions that should be made based on feedback from site coordinators who received training and District staff who had to review paperwork.
· Determine if project should be continued and video modules created for Spring 2011 activities.
Responsible Parties: Project will be managed by the BTB Field Coordinator who is under administrative coordinator and assistant superintendent. Analysis of paperwork will be done with the clerical staff who process the paperwork. The Field Coordinator will be responsible for creating storyboard and script. Videotaping and editing will be done by BTB’s video person. Actual performance will be by clerical staff who process paperwork. Approvals will be required from the administrative coordinator, assistant superintendent, and manager of Risk Management.
General Timeframes: For the first training module to be ready for staff to access when they receive the paperwork for the fall orientation, it needs to be ready by August 16, 2010 ensuring 2 weeks for the contractor who maintains the website to post it. The second must be ready by September 30, 2010.
April: Analyze paperwork needs based upon problems identified in Spring paperwork issues. By working closely with staff who are preparing for May culmination activities, the project planner can develop an understanding of the process and procedures.
May: Create necessary examples, storyboard, and write script.
June: Share with staff and once BTB’s suggested revisions are done; send to Risk Management for approval.
July: Create and edit both videos once approval is received.
August: Prepare paperwork packets and arrange to have the first video put online by end of August.
September: Post second video by end of September.
October/November: Analyze if training has been successful based on fewer errors and determine whether to expand training.
Resources Needed: The necessary infrastructure, production equipment, and staff are already in place to create this project. If successful, it represents a way forward to provide necessary staff development to after school providers not only about field trips, but other policies such as attendance and financial reporting. The need for improved staff development is not going away. However, the number of individuals who will be available to assist in training will be greatly diminished.
Performance Measures: The following performance measures will serve as benchmarks for success:
· Completion of all tasks by necessary due dates.
· Paperwork that requires fewer corrections than are presently occurring.
· Feedback from staff site and their supervisors indicating satisfaction.
· Fewer student no shows at activities due to paperwork errors.
Assessment Strategies: The overall effectiveness of the pilot will be determined by the following assessment strategies: Compare percentage of paperwork errors made by site supervisors during Spring, 2010 activities with Fall, 2010.
· Survey site supervisors about their perceptions of the effectiveness of the training.
· Determine if there were any technical problems by staff in accessing the training or understanding the content.
· Interview BTB staff that process paperwork to assess whether video modules reduced the amount of time they had to spend working with site supervisors on each trip.
References
Caffarella, R. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners (Second ed.). San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Table I: Learning Outcomes for Online Video Training:
Desired Learning Outcomes (What?)
Rationale (Why?)
Relevant Activities (How?)
Potential Uses of Technology
Participants will use training so they can work with students and their parents to complete field trip paperwork accurately and completely.
Students whose fieldwork paperwork is incorrect would not be able to participate in program’s leadership training opportunities and activities.
Participants will be trained to perform all of the necessary steps to complete field trip paper work.
On demand video training from website will demonstrate how paperwork for student field trips must be completed.
Participants will be able to explain paperwork procedures to students and their parents
Because all of the activities require parental permission it is essential that program leaders be able to communicate how and why these procedures are important
Training will model how to program staff should communicate with students and their parents when paperwork needs to be processed.
Having on demand video, makes it possible for staff to view procedures with their students. In addition, a Spanish version of the same training can assist parents whose English skills are limited understand what is required.
Participants will be able to manage preparation for upcoming field trips and turn in accurate student paperwork by the due date.
When paperwork is submitted correctly it saves staff time from having to redo the work. It ensures that students and parents will not be disappointed because staff failed to follow through.
Show examples of common errors so that staff can recognize problems immediately and explain to the student and/or parent how to correct the error.
Because video can be edited relatively easily, issues that may be unclear based upon common errors can be dealt with in more depth.
Table 2: Relating Video Technology to Learning Outcomes
Teaching/Learning Feature(s)
Activities the Feature Supports (How?)
Activities’ Academic Driver(s) (Why?)
Desired Learning Outcomes (What?)
Training on paperwork procedures will be readily available to all program staff rather than relying on program supervisors to explain how field trip paperwork must be processed.
Video training can take participants through the process step-by-step.
Promote more competent program leaders.
Staff will demonstrate greater accuracy when submitting student paperwork for field trips.
Using an online video training makes it possible to provide much more specific instruction for those activities (e.g. weekend retreats) which require additional forms for students and their parents to complete.
Since some activities require additional steps, training can be tailored for specific trips.
Program leaders will better understand why these procedures are necessary.
Program leaders will know immediately when there are additional steps necessary.
Program staff will be better prepared to inform students and their families about all of the necessary documentation that is essential for each trip.
After each activity, central office personnel can analyze the effectiveness of the video training and revise training accordingly.
By making the same training available to all program leaders through video technology, it will be possible to assess effectiveness of actual training based by determining if there are fewer errors and less staff time in follow-up.
Assessment on effectiveness of training can be measured and trainings refined based upon performance and feedback from program staff.
Central staff will pay more attention to developing complete and accurate training

Journal Entry for Module Four
Course Management Systems and Pedagogy
In “Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy,” Lisa Lane (2008) argues that course management systems that are promoted as a toolbox to help instructors develop online classes can undermine good teaching practice because these systems have a built-in pedagogy. Lane (2008) states that “typical commercial CMS…encourages novice instructors to ‘plug in’ their content under the appropriate category instead of effectively translating their individual teaching styles into the online environment (p. 5). Her analysis suggests that instructors that prefer a more constructivist approach to instruction are often limited by the constraints of the CMS. The reasons for this may be their lack of understanding how to use the available tools to produce lessons that reflect their preferred orientation or that such add-ins often are available with commercial systems, but with additional costs to the institution. Obstacles are also built into the system because their primary design is based upon software designs to manage resources and organize information in much the same way that business or inventory applications do (Lane, 2008).
There are some assumptions that Lane (2008) makes that may not have anything to do with the quality or the capability of the course management system. First, she provides no information that would indicate what percentage of college instructors rely on traditional pedagogy (lecture, review, and test) compared with those who prefer constructivist approaches with social interaction, self assessment, and independent projects (Lane, 2008). She admits that these systems can be used for more creative teaching but suggest that most instructors who ask for more professional development want to know what the technology can do rather than how to achieve their teaching and learning goals (Lane, 2008).
Lane seems to assume that once one’s face to face class is online, it should have all the attributes of the original class. Anyone who has ever taught a class the first time knows that the first time is often rocky and the class is modified and improved over time. There is no reason to believe that the same process wouldn’t also be true in an online class. Good teachers will learn to use the available tools or seek out alternative means in Web 2.0 applications to accomplish their aims. Their efforts may not be perfect the first time, but neither was the first edition of their face to face class. Poor teachers will simply do what they have always done. As Garrison and Anderson (2003) point out that teachers have to pedagogically mindful about what constitutes a meaningful and worthwhile learning experience. A course management system will never be designed to ensure quality instruction.
Likewise any course management system will have its advantages and disadvantages. In many instances, the selection of a course management system is often influenced by considerations that have nothing to do with instruction. In larger systems like Blackboard, the learning applications are only one part of a package that also manages the course catalog, student support systems, and fiscal management. The instructor has to work with what is—wishing it were different is futile. One also has to remember that teaching is often very hard work. An instructor may have to seek out professional development opportunities in order to realize what he or she wants to accomplish. Good instructors have always kept up with changes in their discipline. The online environment in one sense is simply another change that they must learn about. Course management systems can automate many class management aspects of teaching that used to consume considerable time.
A course management system can be a toolbox or a trap. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Lane’s (2008) contention that the fault lies with the system may not be entirely correct. The instructor does not have to limit what he or she does simply because the right tool is not immediately available. There are numerous resources available on the web that the instructor could use to accomplish the same goal.
References
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Lane, L. (2008). Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly , 31 (2), 4-6.

Part II: Understanding The Problem
The Los Angeles Unified School District has devoted considerable human and economic resources towards developing the High School Leadership Take Action Campaign. The program has expanded from 16 after school programs in 2008-09 to 25 schools this year. It is hoped that it can be expanded next year to include all of the District’s 50 high school after-school programs. The students at each school organize a number of activities on their respective campus to promote student education about issues related to funding that the District receives for anti-smoking, anti-drug, and anti-violence education. The students also organize a talent show on their campuses in which students demonstrate artistic, dance, musical, poetic, and media arts talents. The winners at each campus perform in a final district-wide competition near the end of the school year.
resubmit them.
The
The current delivery proposed training:
· encourages contact between students (site staff) and faculty (staff responsible for processing paperwork,
importance of accurate
accurate paperwork
· resources to review
review process,
· gives prompt feedback (so staff know that any questions and problems will receive prompt attention).
similar situations.
Cognitive
Cognitive presence is student trips.
Finally,
Finally, there is (Anderson, 2008).
Properly
Properly designed, the processed correctly.
References
Theory and
practice
practice of online Athabasca University
Press.
Chickering,
Press.
Chickering, A., & practice in
undergraduate
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin .
Garrison,
Garrison, D., & for research
and
and practice. New Routledge Falmer.

Part II: Understanding The Problem
The Los Angeles Unified School District has devoted considerable human and economic resources towards developing the High School Leadership Take Action Campaign. The program has expanded from 16 after school programs in 2008-09 to 25 schools this year. It is hoped that it can be expanded next year to include all of the District’s 50 high school after-school programs. The students at each school organize a number of activities on their respective campus to promote student education about issues related to funding that the District receives for anti-smoking, anti-drug, and anti-violence education. The students also organize a talent show on their campuses in which students demonstrate artistic, dance, musical, poetic, and media arts talents. The winners at each campus perform in a final district-wide competition near the end of the school year.
To prepare students to organize and lead these activities, student leadership groups receive training at a number of activities throughout the year. These include single day trainings as well as weekend retreats at the District’s outdoor education center in the local mountains. A select group are also selected to attend a weeklong camp during the summer operated by the students of UCLA. To participate in any of these activities, field trip paperwork must be completed. The longer the trip, the more complicated the paperwork. To be fully prepared for any emergency situation that could arise, students’ paperwork must be completely accurate or they will not be allowed to go. The problem, however, is that in large organizations like LAUSD, training on such procedures is provided only periodically and usually only to the supervisors who will in turn assign its completion to site supervisors. Many times the site supervisors receive a packet of paperwork with no other instructions but to get it completed and turned in by the due date. Of course, in many cases, the paperwork is returned with errors and then the site supervisor has to scramble to get the documents corrected and resubmit them.
The current delivery system for training is not working. It is not realistic to offer face to face trainings for each activity. Therefore, a more practical solution would be to take advantage of video technology and create training modules that would take program staff through the paperwork for different activities step-by-step. While these training modules are not exactly like an online class, there are a number of elements from good e-learning practice that can ensure the training modules that will meet the needs of both program and district staff. Chickering and Gamson (1987) identify seven characteristics of good practice in instruction. The first four of their characteristics of good practice are relevant in ensuring quality outcomes in the proposed training:
· encourages contact between students (site staff) and faculty (staff responsible for processing paperwork,
· develops reciprocity and cooperation among students (allowing site staff to help their students understand the importance of accurate paperwork
· uses active learning techniques (so that site staff can learn to perform paperwork tasks and have immediate resources to review process,
· gives prompt feedback (so staff know that any questions and problems will receive prompt attention).
Garrison and Anderson (2003) have developed the theory of Community of Inquiry that suggests that there are three components that must be present for successful learning transactions in the e-learning environment: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Garrison and Anderson (2003) define social presence as the as the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry. For learners to have the confidence necessary to express themselves assumes that there is a climate that encourages questions and the contribution of ideas (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Ideally, for these training modules, learners will feel comfortable in asking questions about the procedures and dealing with situations not addressed in the training. Likewise, they will receive prompt feedback from either district staff or peers who have dealt with similar situations.
Cognitive presence is defined as an environment that supports sustained discourse, knowledge acquisition, and application (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). In this respect, the modules and the corresponding videos which will take staff through the proper procedures to complete students’ paperwork will provide ample opportunities for staff to acquire both knowledge about the procedures and why they must be followed as well as a preparing them to use this knowledge in preparing for student trips.
Finally, there is the element of teacher presence. Garrison and Anderson (2003) see teaching presence as essential in identifying relevant knowledge, designing experiences that will foster discourse and reflection, and performing diagnosis and assessment. Because it is important that staff responsible for completing paperwork develop a relationship with the staff who process the paperwork, it is best if the persons who appear in the video are actually the staff members that field staff will be interfacing with. It is much more likely that a staff member with a question will feel much more comfortable addressing that question through the website, email, or phone contact with someone that they are familiar with. Also, because it is important for e-learning to be assessment centered in order to gauge its effectiveness and to determine ways in which the training can be made even better (Anderson, 2008).
Properly designed, the video modules will offer a way for site staff to develop the requisite skills to process student paperwork for trips and become proactive in seeking assistance when problems arise. It will also allow both new staff as well as current staff the opportunity to review procedures when they need to. They will not necessarily have to depend upon their supervisory staff to provide them with the understanding of what this aspect of their job entails. This should decrease the number of issues that district staff have with paperwork and reduce the amount of work and stress resulting on local site staff when paperwork is not processed correctly.
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and
practice of online learning (Second ed., pp. 45-61). Edmonton: Athabasca University
Press.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin .
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Critical Thinking # 2
Part One: “With the proliferation of information and the convenience of access to this vast ocean of information, it is the primary responsibility of the teacher to chart a way through this chaos, to provide order and create the conditions to encourage a deep approach to learning.” (Garrison & Anderson, 2005, p. 17)
The quotation by Garrison and Anderson (2005) addresses the reality that education and
learning is being changed dramatically by technology and by the exponential growth in new
information that technology makes possible. These changes necessitate a reconsideration of
what the role of a teacher is in the 21st century. In the not so distant past, education and
learning was fixed both in place and how it could be accessed (Jarvis, 2006). A learner
generally had to go to an institution and receive the learning from instructors. Information in
every discipline is now being created so quickly, it is now largely impossible for anyone to know
everything about something.
While one could become overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge available and the
challenge of keeping up with it, I see the amount of information available and the ease that it
can be accessed as making it much easier to be a learner. Both as an undergraduate and a
graduate student, I can recall long hours spent in the university library taking copious notes to
complete assignments. Starting a paper meant spending a day or two in the card catalog and
recording the necessary information to go look for sources. I can also recall the endless hours
spent with the ERIC Thesaurus and using microfiche to complete the necessary background
research for my master’s thesis.
I certainly prefer the ease of which I am able to complete assignments in this program. I
have always tried to keep up professionally by taking courses, going to professional
conferences, and reading journals in my field. The main reason I enrolled in this program was
that is was a way for me to work my way back into teaching having been out of the classroom
doing administration for the past decade. Even though I was out of the classroom, I was
certainly aware that the classroom I might return to would be a very different one from the one in
which I had taught.
Teachers still have to teach students both practical and critical thinking skills. While I
could have learned about the world of online teaching through self-study and trial and error
practice, being part of a system where the information is organized is both obviously helpful and
efficient. Doing it alone by some other means might make deep learning somewhat harder to
achieve since there would not necessarily be someone who provides feedback on one’s
learning. I see my professors as guides and mentors who help filter the tons of information
that is available and provide a basic introduction to the practical and analytic skills one would
need to be successful as an instructor in an online environment. In that respect they serve as
Garrison and Anderson’s (2005) ideal teacher who shows the learner how to navigate so that the learner
can follow a similar model taking other learners though the vast sea of current and future knowledge.
Part II
After viewing each of the videos by Michael Welsh, “A vision of students today” (2007)
and “The maching is us/ing us” (2007), I think the first video about students today confirms
what I described about being a student in the past and how it differs from being a student today.
As I said, a major reason for my deciding to pursue this program was the recognition that the
classroom I would return to would be a very different one from the one I left. Obviously, as the
Welsh (2007) video suggests, many teachers remain stuck in the educational world of the past.
In contrast, most students today (at least in advanced countries) are technologically adept. That
is the world they live in and they communicate and learn using those modes to access and
manage information.
An educator today needs to have the same skills that his or her students have. When I
taught college writing, the department’s curriculum required all students to write a research
paper. As instructors, we used the tools that were available then—the card catalog, indexes to
periodicals, etc. Technology has changed what is possible. Therefore, it seems only logical
that the same assignment today would utilize different tools. Students should expect that their
instructors are competent using these tools or they should seriously question the quality of
educational program they are receiving. As an educator who sees myself as a learner as well, it
is my responsibity to keep up with what the students know or I will be a very poor guide to show
them how to navigate through the ever expanding amount of knowledge.
References
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Jarvis, P. (2006). The theory and practice of teaching. London: Routledge.
Welsh, M. (2007, October 7). A vision of students today. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from
Digital ethnography at Kansas State University:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
Welsh, M. (2007, March 7). The maching is us/ing us. Retrieved January 16, 2010, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g