Select and use only one of these topics or discussion questions during one Brief Hybrid Workshop.  Consider using another one of these questions or a similar one of your own in a subsequent BHW.  You could also invite participants to recommend such topics or questions in advance of the BHW.

EXAMPLES:

• Terminology?
  At this institution, does it matter much whether we call this set of important needs "Information Literacy" or "Information Fluency" or something else?  Does one of these labels seem quite appealing to some important constituencies while offensive or confusing to others?  If so, what is the label that is most likely to be helpful to the greatest number?  The label that will clearly indicate the major thrust of these efforts and will irritate the fewest number of people?

• Need for Undergraduate Students?
  Describe one or two ways in which too many undergraduates are misusing or missing out on information resources at your institution.

• Institutional Resources - Strengths?
  Describe one or two resources that your own college or university already has available and that will be especially valuable in any program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy.  Do you already have effective ways for people to communicate and collaborate across departmental, office, or divisional lines?  People, money, courses, departments, ....?

• Institutional Resources - Weaknesses?
  What will impede the progress of a program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy at your institution?  What is already doing so?  What are practical obstacles to developing collaborative efforts to improve undergraduate information literacy?  Are there institutionalized practices or conventions that impede collaboration across departmental, office, or divisional lines?  Describe one or two key resources that your own college or university lacks entirely or has only inadequately available.  People, mission, money, courses, departments, ....?

• Who?
  Identify individuals who will be especially important at your own institution to include as active participants in any program that attempts to improve undergraduate information literacy?  Individuals important because of their professional role, their personal commitment and expertise, their stature among colleagues, etc.  Individuals likely to be able to represent significant but disparate views about information literacy and who are likely to be able to do so constructively with a collaborative sprit?

• Case Studies or Model Programs?
  Describe some characteristics of a successful program that improves undergraduate information literacy at some other institution (or at some other division of your own institution).  How does this program depend on or take advantage of collaboration across departmental, office, or divisional lings?  How have you learned about this program?  How could you learn more? What else would be useful to learn about it?

Back to top of page

• Think-Pair-Share

• Adapting CATs (Classroom Assessment Techniques)
  for online and hybrid courses “Web-Adapted, Low Threshold Assessments for Improved Student Learning,” TLT Group online workshop spring 2006

• Exploration Guide: Collaboration Online, Hybrid

• Web page from National Teaching and Learning Forum - overview of classroom assessments, including reasons for using them: Minute Paper, Chain Notes, Memory Matrix, Directed Paraphrasing, One-sentence Summary, Exam Evaluations, Application Cards, and Student-generated Test Questions

• Additional recommendations

  From Susan Ledlow October 22, 2008:  http://clte.asu.edu/active/lesspre.htm
  [Recommended by Allison Sloan, Valencia CC, October 22, 2008]

  ---

  From Ray Purdom October 22, 2008

• Assumption: These BHWs will deal with challenging issues that will benefit from reflection and discussion.  Here are just a few examples of many possible strategies for structuring this reflection and discussion.

  ·        Think (or write) – Pair – Share (Millis & Cottell, 72)

  ·        Gather examples or aspects or perspectives, or classify - Create a chart or matrix in Google Docs and have participants fill it in from their laptops.  Display from a podium and discuss results. (A higher level of the Defining Features Matrix from Angelo and Cross.)

  ·        Pre and/or Post survey – Google Forms (part of Google Docs spreadsheet function), SurveyMonkey, a CMS survey tool, or clickers if they are available.

  ·        Value Line  (Millis & Cottell, 80)– Before showing the e-clip, ask participants to line up (or define categories) relative to their opinion about an issue. After the e-clip, ask participants to repeat the activity.  Ask if any have changed their positions and why. (This could be done on Google docs as well.)

  ·        Corners  (Millis & Cottell, 83)– – After the e-clip is played, ask participants to group themselves homogeneously by their reaction. Then, group them heterogeneously, one person per point of view per group.  Ask them to discuss their views and come up with the best statement for each viewpoint. (The goal is to come to a better understanding of the various views.) 

  ·        Content, Form, and Function – participants analyze what  (form), why (function), and how (form) of an issue.  (Angelo & Cross, 172) 

  ·        Word Journal (Angelo & Cross, 188) – First, participants summarize the issue in one word. Then, participants write a paragraph explaining their word choice.  Share out.

  ·        Three-step Interview (Millis & Cottell, 84)  – A question about the e-clip is provided by facilitator; pairs interview each other; then get into quads and each person summarizes what the other person said.

  ·        Approximate Analogies (Angelo & Cross, 193) – Have participants develop an analogy from an issue in the e-clip and share. Or – provide the first part of the analogy (or provide multiple) and have participants provide the second.

  ·        Concept Map (Angelo & Cross, 197) – Have participants co-create a concept map from the e-clip and the issue it discusses.  Create the concepts first, then add the relationships.

  ·        Invented Dialogues (Angelo & Cross, 203) – Use this a little differently than Angelo and Cross envisioned. Call it “Re-invented Dialogues.”   Re-create the dialogue (as in improve for a better outcome).

  Millis, B. J. & Cottell, P. G. (1998) Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix Arizona: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.

  Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K. P. (1993) 2^nd Ed. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Also see:  "Managing—and Motivating!—Distance Learning Group Activities" by Barbara Millis for more general info about similar classroom activities that can easily and effectively be adapted for online, hybrid environments and used with a variety of "audiences" or learners.

Back to top of page