Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role GCU NUR646

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role GCU NUR646

NUR646 Nursing Education Seminar 1

Week 1 Discussion

DQ1 Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role. How are the expectations different for each role? What steps will you need to prepare to be successful in each?

Due to the threat of COVID-19, colleges and universities are facing decisions about how to continue teaching and learning while keeping their faculty, staff, and students safe from a public health emergency that is moving fast and not well understood. Many institutions have opted to cancel all face-to-face classes, including labs and other learning experiences, and have mandated that faculty move their courses online to help prevent the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. The list of institutions of higher education making this decision has been growing each day. Institutions of all sizes and types—state colleges and universities, Ivy League institutions, community colleges, and others—are moving their classes online.1 Bryan Alexander has curated the status of hundreds of institutions.2

Moving instruction online can enable the flexibility of teaching and learning anywhere, anytime, but the speed with which this move to online instruction is expected to happen is unprecedented and staggering. Although campus support personnel and teams are usually available to help faculty members learn about and implement online learning, these teams typically support a small pool of faculty interested in teaching online. In the present situation, these individuals and teams will not be able to offer the same level of support to all faculty in such a narrow preparation window. Faculty might feel like instructional MacGyvers, having to improvise quick solutions in less-than-ideal circumstances. No matter how clever a solution might be—and some very clever solutions are emerging—many instructors will understandably find this process stressful.

The temptation to compare online learning to face-to-face instruction in these circumstances will be great. In fact, an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education has already called for a “grand experiment” doing exactly that.3 This is a highly problematic suggestion, however. First and foremost, the politics of any such debate must be acknowledged. “Online learning” will become a politicized term that can take on any number of meanings depending on the argument someone wants to advance. In talking about lessons learned when institutions moved classes online during a shutdown in South Africa, Laura Czerniewicz starts with this very lesson and what happened around the construct of “blended learning” at the time.4 The idea of blended learning was drawn into political agendas without paying sufficient attention to the fact that institutions would make different decisions and invest differently, resulting in widely varying solutions and results from one institution to another. With some of that hindsight as wisdom, we seek to advance some careful distinctions that we hope can inform the evaluations and reflections that will surely result from this mass move by colleges and universities.

Online learning carries a stigma of being lower quality than face-to-face learning, despite research showing otherwise. These hurried moves online by so many institutions at once could seal the perception of online learning as a weak option, when in truth nobody making the transition to online teaching under these circumstances will truly be designing to take full advantage of the affordances and possibilities of the online format.

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role GCU NUR646

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role GCU NUR646

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role GCU NUR646

Researchers in educational technology, specifically in the subdiscipline of online and distance learning, have carefully defined terms over the years to distinguish between the highly variable design solutions that have been developed and implemented: distance learning, distributed learning, blended learning, online learning, mobile learning, and others. Yet an understanding of the important differences has mostly not diffused beyond the insular world of educational technology and instructional design researchers and professionals. Here, we want to offer an important discussion around the terminology and formally propose a specific term for the type of instruction being delivered in these pressing circumstances: emergency remote teaching.

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role

Compare the difference between a traditional faculty role versus the online faculty role

Many active members of the academic community, including some of us, have been hotly debating the terminology in social media, and “emergency remote teaching” has emerged as a common alternative term used by online education researchers and professional practitioners to draw a clear contrast with what many of us know as high-quality online education. Some readers may take issue with the use of the term “teaching” over choices such as “learning” or “instruction.” Rather than debating all of the details of those concepts, we selected “teaching” because of its simple definitions—”the act, practice, or profession of a teacher”5 and “the concerted sharing of knowledge and experience,”6—along with the fact that the first tasks undertaken during emergency changes in delivery mode are those of a teacher/instructor/professor.

Name:  Assignment Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

28 (28%) – 31 (31%)

The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

25 (25%) – 27 (27%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values.

An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague.

The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

0 (0%) – 24 (24%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing.

An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing.

The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing.

Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100

Name:  Assignment Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.