Archives for October 2013

Piazza Building Block added to Blackboard on Wednesday, October 2nd

Bb-PiazzaEducational Technology will be adding the building block to Blackboard on Wednesday, October 2 during business hours. This will not cause any interruption in Blackboard services. is a free online service for questions and answers. It functions similar to a discussion board, but with much more interactivity between instructors and students. It fosters instructor-to-student and peer-to-peer instruction. Currently, over 100 S&T courses have been created at Now it will be available directly through Blackboard as a plug-in.

For information on how to integrate Piazza into your own Blackboard course, follow the link below:


  • You will need to create a account before integrating into Blackboard. It is a free service and it only takes a few minutes to create an account.
  • Under step 3 of the instructions linked above, the step should read: “Hover on Build Content and select Web Link to add the link.” (Note use of the phrase “Web Link”.)

For more information about Piazza, visit their website,

Multivariate Calculus at Missouri S&T

Guest Post by:

Associate Teaching Professor Dee Leach – Mathematics and Statistics

DeeLeach-doccamSeveral new resources involving technology aimed at improving student success and course availability have been implemented for the Missouri S&T Math 22 (Multivariate Calculus) course.  These resources were created and implemented in support of the Missouri S&T Strategic Plan and the Calculus course redesign initiative.  One of the resources involves delivery and recording of multivariate calculus classes via the Tegrity application.  The lecture/discussion from one section of Math 22 are delivered and recorded on a daily basis using Tegrity.  These lectures/discussions are used synchronously by some students who are not physically present in the classroom.  Other students use the recordings in an asynchronous manner as review or supplemental material in support of learning the subject matter.  The recordings are made available to all 330+ students enrolled in Math 22 at Missouri S&T.  Initial feedback from students has been overwhelmingly positive.  There have been over 200 viewings of the recordings in the first week.  Of equal importance, the students who are in the room while the class is being recorded report no degradation of their classroom experience.

This resource makes use of technology that is both currently-available and well-known on the Missouri S&T campus.  The system has proven to be very stable, “low overhead” and easy to use for students and instructor alike.  The challenge in this implementation has been the necessity of the instructor to use a doc cam rather than a blackboard as the writing medium.  Mathematics classes are not well-suited for pre-fabricated presentations (e.g., PowerPoint).  This is because it is very difficult or impossible to “walk” students through a proof or problem solution that has been written out in advance.  Thus, a large amount of writing on the part of the instructor occurs during these classes to help students to focus on the techniques being used.  Unfortunately, this is independent of the mode of instruction (lecture, discussion) and it a major reason why a lot of mathematics instructors prefer large spaces (blackboards/whiteboards) over an 11×17 piece of paper on which to show proofs, problem-solving methods, and worked examples of problems.  Asking a mathematics instructor to go from using a blackboard (large medium) to a doc cam (little piece of paper) is tantamount to asking that instructor to change her teaching style that she perhaps has spent her entire career honing to a fine art.

I am fortunate in that no one asked me to change anything; I made the decision to try the new approach (doc cam) with the idea that I could always go back to the blackboard if something unacceptable resulted from the change.  As it has turned out, I have found that, personally, I can deliver my lecture/discussion/problem demonstration/recitation using a doc cam and I can do this as effectively as I can do these things with a blackboard/whiteboard.  Surprisingly, it did not take long at all (a couple of days) to adjust from one medium to the other.   One aspect I find uncomfortable with using the doc cam is that I feel “chained” to the podium. My style is to walk back and forth as I write on the board and sometimes walk forward into the classroom seating area to interact with students.  I find that I am generally unable to do this with the doc cam.  One concern I had in the beginning was whether it would take additional time to write things on the small piece of paper because of neatness and readability concerns.  As it has turned out, my recorded lecture covers the same material as my later non-recorded lecture within 2-3 minutes either way.  Another concern I continue to have involves the impact (if any) on the students in the classroom with me during the classes that are recorded.  A promise I made to these students was that their experience would not be degraded or sacrificed in the name of “technology” or “progress”.  To address my own concern, I continually keep these students in the decision-making loop regarding such things as lighting in the room, color and size of pen to use, how fast/slow I’m conducting the class, etc.  I am fortunate in that I typically develop very good rapport with my students who are comfortable with giving me direct feedback on all aspects of the classes I teach and based on their suggestions (and concurrence) I have made modifications more or less “on the fly” as to how I present the material.

The implementation of synchronous delivery and recorded lectures for Math 22 has been relatively painless and trouble-free.  Students were, and continue to be, involved in the decision-making process and I believe that this is absolutely critical to the success of any strategic initiative implementation directed at students.   The transition from blackboard/whiteboard to doc cam for me was not huge as I discovered that many of my concerns quickly became non-issues.  In the future, I believe that the level of success for others in transitioning from one writing medium to another will be highly dependent on the individual instructors,  their preferences, their skills and abilities, and their respective teaching style.

Blackboard Review – Not Replacement

I wanted to take a minute to answer the question that I have been asked the most since we began this process for reviewing Blackboard.  Have we already made a decision to get rid of Blackboard and is this just a way to get a new LMS?  No. That is not the case at all.

When I started working at S&T over six years ago, my first assignment was to “make Blackboard better.”  As an educator my first question was, how did Blackboard affect teaching and learning?  I started working with instructors across campus, trying to understand their needs and whether Blackboard met or did not meet those needs.  Over the years, we have added different third party products in order to provide more functionality, but the overall question remains, Does Blackboard meet the teaching and learning needs of our campus?

About a year ago we began to evaluate all the tools used in teaching and learning on our campus (we call this our Learning Technology Portfolio). The objective was to see if we had any gaps or overlaps in our tools.  We wanted to make sure we were spending the money allocated for teaching and learning in the best possible way.  At the end of last year we had one item left to evaluate in the portfolio: Blackboard.  Do we or don’t we review? Many schools wouldn’t because it gets everybody excited on campus and it is labor intensive.  We decided that to truly evaluate our portfolio and be fiscally responsible we had to do a review.

Our objective with the Blackboard review isn’t to change to something different.  Our objective is to identify the needs of our campus for a learning management system (like Blackboard) and meet those needs as effectively as possible. We put together a committee of instructors and students.  We started a survey and have hosted two open forums.  The focused purpose is to determine what our campus needs from an LMS in order to help in the teaching and learning mission of our university.    The committee will analyze the information gathered from the survey and open forums and formulate a scoring guide or rubric that identifies all of the requirements for a learning management system. Using the scoring guide, we will score Blackboard to determine how it measures up to the needs of our campus.  The committee of instructors and students will recommend what the next steps are.  That decision will be what drives the next steps.  We want to make sure the students and instructors at S&T have the best possible technologies available for teaching and learning.

We want to hear from you. If you didn’t have a chance to take the survey or attend the forums, you can send an email to me at

–By Angie Hammons; posted by Joshua Woehlke

eFellows/eLearning Community of Practice Session Wednesday, December 4th

An eFellows session will be held in the Havener Center’s Meramec/Gasconade room on Wednesday, December 4th from 3:00-4:00PM.