Você está na página 1de 3

Observation of Online Teaching Form

Faculty Member: __Raychelle Harris_____ Evaluator:____Frank Griffin____________


Course(s):___Fall 2016 ASL 741: Methods and Theories of Sign Language Teaching
OL1/OL2
Scope of Observation: The online course, lectures, modules and discussion board.______
Goals: Easy to navigate; bilingually balanced in both ASL/English; encourages
engagement/interaction; provides immediate and constructive feedback for students_____
Observation
Date(s):______September 28, 2016____________ Time Duration(s):______1 hr______
Context:__The focus is on the goals mentioned above____________________________

Rating: 0 - No evidence, 1- Needs extensive mentoring, 2 - Needs improvement, 3- Satisfactory, 4- Done


Well and 5 - Truly Exemplary, and N/A - does not apply.

1. Course LMS: Is the course layout user-friendly, clear, and


navigable? Is the design consistent throughout? Is the content chunked
in manageable portions?

Score: 5

Notes: Yes the sidebar is especially clear as to where various items needed
for the course is allocated. Furthermore, each content folder has a clear
outline of what is included.
2. Faculty & Student Interaction: Does the course delivery and design
promote genuine academic interaction between faculty and
students? Between students? Do all students have opportunities to
contribute?

Score: 3

Notes: Yes, office hours, announcements as well as methods of contact are


clearly outlined.
3. Subject Area Mastery: Does the faculty member show evidence of
content area expertise? Are they familiar with current trends, research
and publications in their field? Are they able to answer questions, guide
and support students in mastering the content?

Score: 5

Notes: Feedback is consistently given to student responses (both in written


English and ASL) via Discussion board, GoReact and assignment submission.
4. Instruction: Does the faculty member present clear objectives or plans

Score: 5

for the lesson? Was the pacing appropriate? Were various presentation
formats used? Were difficult concepts approaches in a variety of ways?
Notes: Instructor incorporates substantial visual tools (instructional videos,
infographics) and additional resources from a variety of sources. These
resources are included both in the instructional materials as well as in the
resources center located in the LMS.
5. Active and Personalized Learning: Are students actively signing,
writing, typing or utilizing other forms of self-expression? Do students
have opportunities to gather, synthesize, analyze information? Are there
collaborative learning activities? Are there alternatives or flexibility in
format submissions or topic selection for students?

Score: 4

Notes: Numerous opportunities are given for students to produce a variety of


items demonstrating understanding and application of materials learned.
These opportunities are seen through the LMS discussion board. To date,
observer saw use of GoReact in week 3 as well as planned activities in later
weeks of the course.
6. Assessment: Are the course and assignment grading criteria
communicated clearly? Are the rubrics clear and provide meaningful
feedback for students? Are large projects split up in smaller
assignments? Are there opportunities for students to receive informal
feedback? Are feedback and grades posted within a reasonable amount
of time? Is the grading center updated frequently and accessible?

Score: 5

Notes: Rubrics are clearly explained in English and ASL. Dr. Harris has
consistently provided feedback/grades in a timely fashion as seen in the Grade
Center.
7. Inclusion: Are student characteristics such as race, gender, class,
Score: 5
ability/disability, religion, language, geographic region, sexual orientation
taken into consideration in the course syllabus, design and delivery? Are
different perspectives and viewpoints included? Does the course material
represent a variety of voices?
Notes: Diversity is a topic of discussion among students themselves as well in
instructional materials training current students as future teachers to be
sensitive and aware to issues facing minority groups in education.
8. Bilingualism: Are both languages provided in a balanced
format? Does the instructor introduce him/herself in ASL? Are the
syllabus, course assignments and assessment tools introduced and

Score: 5

discussed in ASL? During interactive discussions, do the students have


opportunities to discuss content in ASL and English? Are there
opportunities for students to complete assignments in ASL?
Notes: This is an especially important point that is obviously seen in Dr.
Harriss course. Content delivery is nearly always bilingual. The only two
areas I saw that were dominantly English were due to the nature of the sources
publications. Video publications are very rare in the educational field, so the
articles and resources shared in the course are pre-dominantly English.
Student expectations/opportunities for bilingual products are clear and
numerous.
This dfdf

Total:__37/40________
Additional Notes:__Dr. Harriss course is wonderfully designed with three clear goals
in mind, student engagement, effective delivery of materials and establishing a
community of learning. This can be a daunting task for constructing an online course,
however, Dr. Harris achieves this well.
Recommended Areas for Improvement:__The syllabus should have a link in the
sidebar or a clear indication of where it can be readily accessed. This link could be made
available after module 1? In addition, I would suggest adding a link to GoReact to the
sidebar for students for quick navigation. ______________________________________
Signature of Observer:__________________________ Date:______________________
9/28/2016

Faculty Member Signature*:______________________________ Date:______________


9-28-16
*The faculty members signature means that they have read this report fully, and does not
necessarily mean that they agree with the observation.