1. Introduction

• Dr Nada Dabbagh opened with a review of the GMU Immersion Program and introduced the faculty and the Immersion team. The GMU Immersion team presented their Needs Assessment Report

2. Team Introduction

• GMU presented a brief overview of the performance analysis process and the results from the prior two steps, the project goal and target audience
• Dr Hardy commended the GMU Immersion team for a thorough report
• Dr Hardy also liked the idea of using WordPress and the wiki and wanted to know if wiki can be used for course development collaboration
• Dr Bannan-Ritland responded that a wiki provides a great learning environment, can be flexible, and can be mapped to your project while Dr Dabbagh  suggested that the messiness of the wiki could be an issue (file naming and folder upkeep)
• Dr Hardy expressed the importance of factors influencing decisions; DAU recently conducted a survey to find what people have on their desktops, bandwidth, etc.
• Dr Hardy validated the demographic birth year data [older] but noted changing demographics with the current on-going hiring of younger people

3. Interview and Survey Results

• GMU reviewed the purpose of the interviews and survey, and summarized the results
• Dr Hardy noted that DAU uses integrated process teams while Dr. Alfieri noted that the data suggest DAU operates in a collaborative environment
• Dr Hardy also noted the survey factors and ratings were pretty accurate although Dr Dabbagh cautioned that  the survey was not empirically based
• DAU is undergoing a big contract course revision due to be completed in April 2010; 30,000 waitlisted
• With regards to technology familiarity, Dr Hardy advised that the matrix we presented will change with droid and as well as familiarity will increase. Smartphones will be available in DAU within a year and he projected that within 2 years everything will be browser-based and DAU could do course reach back through mobile learning
• Some instructors don’t want technology because they don’t see anything wrong with the current system; for others it might be unfamiliarity with the technology

4.  Recommendations

• GMU presented the conceptual framework (decision component, resources, training/best practices, and user community)
• At the center of the framework is the user, in the case, the target audience
• Dr Hall Bayliss noted the difference in terms, pedagogy versus andragogy, and it is a significant distinction within DAU. K-12 may have rich resources that may warrant review as part of GMU’s research process. In lieu of pedagogically sound, consider something such as principle-based
• Ms Garcia suggested the inclusion of metrics or ROI within the Decision Component of the framework.
• Larrie Ferreiro suggested taking a targeted training course and using it to demonstrate the integration of ALT into a learning environment.
• Dr Dabbagh suggested that GMU’s research (white papers) could be published in Dr Alfieri’s DAU journal  

5.  Possible Next Steps

• DAU noted mobile technology is being very big
• Possible next steps mentioned: GMU could design a specific mobile technology stand-alone application; DAU could provide a targeted training course(s) for ALT integration as part of the pilot
• Dr. Hall Bayliss noted concern about how the information in the framework would be kept current and suggested managing it by KPOs as a Performance Learning Tool
• Dr. Bannan-Ritland suggested that DAU may want to consider the European model of embracing technology by allowing users to generate content
• Dr Dabbagh recommended DAU meet with Dr Clark and Dr Dabbagh early January to clarify next steps, especially if need to arrange for a mobile-app programmer