Skip to main content

Scott Schopieray

Setting up an HC site like Known's post feature

2 min read


What it looks like is that my options are limited to do what I really want to do with the sites at the moment

Ideally I want something that mimics the permissioning in Known... where I can have a draft, private post, members only post, or public post

but what I'm seeing so far is that I can have a few of those, but not all

So if I want to be able to do public posts I have to choose to let the blog be available publicly, which then means that in order to have members only posts I have to make Colleague 1 and 2 editors on the site

then I can draft something and not publish, publish to only visible to editors and admins, or publish publicly

but it requires me to make the members of the site editors... which is not a big deal for Colleagues 1 and 2, but it is if I want to add others who are not savvy or who I don't implicitly trust

The flip side of that is that I can restrict the site to "Visible only to registered users of your site." which in theory (I haven't tried it yet) will allow me to have Colleagues 1 and 2 be subscribers and to see posts, but I can't post them publicly and have them indexed with a search engine

in both cases I can do a private post by pass protecting the post (though it's not as elegant as it is with known)

but if I were to treat "published" things as something that becomes a core deposit, that might work

and what would be sweet would be to have something that would allow one to press a button to send a blog post to a core deposit





Scott Schopieray

4 A’s of Learning Model as a means of promoting reflective practice

2 min read

As I was reading through a book this morning I was struck by a section outlining the "4 A's of Learning" a stage-based model they list as 

Acquire :: Anchor :: Activity
Automatic :: Add :: Analysis
Application :: Apply :: Abstraction
Always :: Away :: Application

This model has also been written about as being ANCHOR, ADD, APPLY, and AWAY, or also Activity, Analysis, Abstraction, and Application. 

I don't love the particular words used here, but these stages could be an interesting model to use when thinking about working toward habits of reflective practice. 

Acquire is the initial modeling we do with someone as part of the introduction, getting them to do it once in a very bounded context.

Automatic is moving them toward doing it in a very specific way (E.g. bowling bumpers) with some sort of fluency/frequency but still very directed and bounded (this speaks to a colleague’s point about needing to tell people what to do, and it becomes something they can do with the prompt immediately and automatically) - process of learning, repetition and practice within the bounds. 

Application is where the issue of transfer comes in… they are able to start to do it on their own, without prompts/guidance, and more generalized across their work/life

Always is the point where they have a consistent practice that is being tuned, maintained, etc.

Scott Schopieray

Forming and Supporting Faculty Development Networks

2 min read

There are two kind of competing ways of thinking about how to bring groups of folks together around teaching and learning support...

One is the way we do it in EDLI which is essentially to leverage existing communities of practice and network them, building "trust bridges" and encouraging formation of new communities as they are needed... We also I think move slower in this way because we are intentional about bringing in new voices and intentional about ensuring the trust of the community before bringing a new one in

Other way is to throw everyone who has a similar interest into a group together and see if it gels... This is the ID network strategy and I think what we see there is that the active folks may be those who don't already have a robust community of practice to rely on. I wonder in the case of the ID network what would happen if you took the 5 "loudest" folks in there and asked them to form a cabanas like structure?


We've seen both work, though I think the first model is more effective long-term... the second model has the possibility of being quickly effective, but I've seen them fizzle out long-term due to some of the trust and work habit issues that come up in that sort of sink or swim approach.

I suspect long-term our needs on campus are for both of them to be working in tandem and intentionally so


Do a network map of individuals participating in ID Network



Scott Schopieray

Informed Instructional Design Using Quality Matters

2 min read

co-authored by EDLI team conversation

Objections to using the Quality Matters rubric and program in teaching quality usually have little to do with the theory behind the framework and all to do with the implementation. QM's structure for implementing the rubric and framework is inflexible, and reviews, while rigorous, are so formal that they become cumbersome for those administrating the reviews and review process, and too time-consuming for faculty participating. 

I find myself more drawn to how QM informs the course design process, and how it can be used as a more informal evaluation tool to inform revision. For example, can we break down the framework into broad strokes and think about how the big pieces fit together...

Course Objectives and Unit Objectives must be present to make this work. 

Then the broad strokes work is to look at how these objectives interface with :

1. Course content and presentation

2. Learner assessment and evaluation

3. Learner interaction

4. Learning activities



[12:31 PM] Schopieray, Scott


the mid semester review as an instrument that indicates alignment to some of that QM informed stuff is super interestin[12:31 PM] Thomas, Stephen

That piece of implementation is so key. Objections to QM usually have little to do with the theory and all to do with implementation.


[12:31 PM] Schopieray, Scott

and it would be interesting to have similar questions/ratings in the end of semester SIRS

g to me

Scott Schopieray

Thinking about Course Modalities

3 min read

As we think about course modalities I'm drawn to thinking about how I define modalities that I'm working with, and also how I take the main components of a course and think about different modalities for them well. How can some of these models and ideas guide thinking about modalities of instruction and learning?

Perhaps we start with four of the components that we find embedded in the Quality Matters rubric of thinking about the content presentation, activities that learners engage in, assessment of learning, and student interaction.

For example, as we think about student interaction then we should think about Moore's Theory and consider that students need to interact with other students, with the instructor, and with the content.

Building further off that, we could look at models such as the TPACK model that takes into consideration the technical, pedagogical, and content knowledge components of a course from the instructor's perspective. How can TPACK guide thinking around modalities?

For each of these components, how do we understand what modality means and what would be alternate modalities than the traditional face-to-face mode? Or some we may find that there are many different modes of thinking about this oh, and four others there may not be as many at this point but perhaps they will come to us as we continue to think and work about this.

An additional layer of thinking through this work would be to start to consider what we might call the context of the students (related to TPACK). This could be in areas such as the technical (devices they are using and relatedly their movement in space/time with these devices), internet access and reliability of it, time in terms of not only time zones which are related to their geographic location in the world, but time in terms of schedules that are driven by Family Life, work schedules, or needs and preferences of the individual. Additionally, we could think about areas such as identity in terms of their status as a student, their identity in the world, or the plethora of other opportunities that are there based on how one identifies oneself in the world. Finally, we might think On a related note to identity is their experience which drives how the student sees and identifies with the course, what they bring to the course, and how their interaction may work with others to improve learning across all students.




“Demographic Modality” - this is the dotted line in TPACK

  • Technical

    • Device (can be movement-related)

    • Internet access

  • Time

  • Geographic

  • Identity

  • Experience


learning/content presentation




Interaction types - moore’s theory

Scott Schopieray

Credit on "lower p" academic work

2 min read

Recently I went down a deep rabbit hole looking at contribution, acknowledgment, and authorship models for academic work. All of the work I found (sample resources at bottom) focused on traditional scholarship, but I’m trying to imagine how do you bring some of those notions to work in the more informal publishing ("publishing with a lowercase p") we do with our daily work as learning designers, administrators and those working on sharing knowledge within our institution. 

A big question to wrestle with in this area is “what is enough” in terms of giving credit. There are times when people get left out accidentally, then there are times where you are trying not to overburden the person by inviting them to write even though you know that they have contributed to something, and other times where the person may have contributed to ideation or otherwise to the though without knowing (e.g. through conversation or having inspired a thought). 
So then, how do you credit them in a way that gives that credit or acknowledgment of their contribution to something, but which doesn’t indicate authorship? How do you do it in a way that they know about? For example, I could credit a colleague for something that they've influenced me on but never say anything to them about it, and then if a third-party asked them about the credit I gave and they wouldn't know about it.
From reading through work on the topic, this boils down to three main "classifications" of credit - authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgment. What are these three and how do we (your community of practice) define them, practice them, and ensure others are sharing the same understanding? 

Scott Schopieray

Designing Workshops to be MultiModal

3 min read

As we continue through this transformational period of teaching and learning I find myself thinking more and more about how teaching with and across multiple modalities is becoming increasingly important. We have opportunities to transcend space and time, to use multiple modes of content delivery and ways of engaging learners. This is no less important in faculty development work, where our learners are our colleagues who are all leading just as busy and hectic lives as we are.
Workshops and tipsheets have long been the backbone of faculty development work and they work well in different scenarios. Workshop attendance on campuses is often sporadic and it can be difficult to anticipate properly the interest level in the work by those who may want to learn more but couldn't/didn't attend. Tipsheets can be extremely helpful but with the regular updates that happen to most educational technologies these days they can often go out of date and become ineffective or irrelevant. Effectiveness has often been measured by attendance or "hits" on a tipsheet page, not by long-term engagement or change in practice.
At the heart of what we are doing is a desire to create effective faculty development opportunities that are accessible, and most importantly, used by our colleagues. How do we move from a focus on attendance and headcounts to these more long-term changes in practice and engagement?
Designing Workshops to be Multimodal
What if we were to design our workshops to be multimodal by nature? What if, by design, the workshops could be just as easily offered synchronously face-to-face as they could asynchronously online? And how would we do this in a way that isn't resource intensive on the part of the workshop leader or other staff?  
For the first pass we may think about identifying the natural stopping points in the workshop video as cut points, and then introducing some sort of active opportunity in that spot would be good.
potential current model:
5 min intro video
reflect on your goals for attending
10 min intro a topic
do a worksheet or discuss with a partner, etc.
then maybe some linked resources or next step suggestions at the end... perhaps a link to a learning community, mailing list or other sort of campus-level thing that could be of interest
 A longer-term goal would be figuring out how to encourage faculty to take more of a multimodal approach to planning their workshops... e.g. planning for the asynchronous audience as they plan the synchronous session

Scott Schopieray

AWS Back end storage for Omeka S

1 min read

There is a really great module that was developed by Jared Howland at BYU that allows for Omeka-S users to use cloud services as a back-end for their Omeka sites. This module makes it easy to use something such as an AWS bucket for storage of large media objects that are being uploaded to Omeka.

We have found this useful for some work in DH that faculty are doing with archival quality scans of comic books or photographs. These are projects that would normally eat up allocated space on a web server fairly quickly. In something like our instance of Domain of One's Own, a shared webhosting platform, our faculty are only given 1GB of space by default. In a project like these above we would find the allocated space being consumed within about 5-6 uploads. This module allows us (for a reasonable price using our campus contract) to use AWS as the back end for these projects. We don't have to provision an additional space for them, they can use their own domain space for it without using up all of their space. 

Tutorial is in development at:

Scott Schopieray

Fixing Omeka and Wordpress in the same directory issue

2 min read

This is an excerpt from a conversation trying to fix a student project where there was a wordpress site in the home directory and someone installed Omeka over top of it, then when Wordpress auto updated it overwrote the index.php file and rendered the Omeka site useless.
The trick is once we know that is fully correct you can blow away everything in the main directory, and clone the bk.hussa100 back over to the main directory. There is another omeka install in there that is called omekadelete that can be deleted as well
So the fix (which I'm going to document in my known site) is that I cloned the Omeka instance off to a subdomain, but when I did that it took the files that were changed by wordpress yesterday... The key file that was screwing everything up will not be surprising, it was index.php. So I installed a new version of Omeka and copied the index.php file from there over to the bk.hussa100 site. 
Moral of the story... we now know that when you install wordpress over Omeka in a directory, that the index.php file appears to be the only one that is overwritten by WP. Because the Omeka Classic index.php is not different from one Omeka instance to another any copy of an Omeka Classic index.php would work (so in theory I could have grabbed it from their github as well)

Scott Schopieray

Scaffolded Model for Technologically Enhanced Reflective Work

1 min read

Several colleagues and I (Sandra Logan, Daniel Trego, Madeline Shellgren, Jessica Knott) have been working on a model for scaffolding technologically enhanced reflective work with the Citizen Scholars program in the College of Arts and Letters. This model was implemented starting in September 2019 and is working toward stage 4 by the end of spring 2020.