Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences

Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences Stephanie Huffman University of Centra...

Author: Stephanie Huffman

95 downloads 1951 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences Stephanie Huffman University of Central Arkansas, USA Shelly Albritton University of Central Arkansas, USA Barbara Wilmes University of Central Arkansas, USA Wendy Rickman University of Central Arkansas, USA

INFORMATION SCIENCE REFERENCE Hershey • New York

Senior Editorial Director: Director of Book Publications: Editorial Director: Acquisitions Editor: Development Editor: Production Coordinator: Typesetters: Cover Design:

Kristin Klinger Julia Mosemann Lindsay Johnston Erika Carter Mike Killian Jamie Snavely Keith Glazewski & Natalie Pronio Nick Newcomer

Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2011 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cases on building quality distance delivery programs : strategies and experiences / Stephanie Huffman ... [et al.], editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: "This book targets pressing needs in distance education by connecting theory and practice, addressing emerging leadership issues, and identifying best practices in teaching and learning"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60960-111-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60960-113-3 (ebook) 1. Distance education--Administration. 2. Educational leadership. I. Huffman, Stephanie, 1969LC5800.C37 2011 371.35068--dc22 2010050363 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Editorial Advisory Board Robert Zheng, University of Utah, USA Tony Talbert, Baylor University, USA Angela Webster-Smith, University of Central Arkansas, USA Tonya McKinney, University of Central Arkansas, USA Tena Crew, University of South Carolina, USA Cheryl Wiedmaier, University of Central Arkansas, USA

List of Reviewers Tena Crew, University of South Carolina, USA Tonya McKinney, University of Central Arkansas, USA Tony Talbert, Baylor University, USA Angela Webster-Smith, University of Central Arkansas, USA Cheryl Wiedmaier, University of Central Arkansas, USA Robert Zheng, University of Utah, USA

Table of Contents

Foreword . ...........................................................................................................................................xiii Preface . ............................................................................................................................................... xvi Acknowledgment................................................................................................................................. xxi Section 1 History of Distance Education Chapter 1 A History of Distance Education............................................................................................................. 1 Wendy Rickman, University of Central Arkansas, USA Cheryl Wiedmaier, University of Central Arkansas, USA Section 2 Cases for Building Quality: Leading Chapter 2 Course Management Systems in Transition: A Mixed-Method Investigation of Students Perceptions and Attitudes of Distance Education.................................................................................. 13 Gary M. Szirony, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Carrie J. Boden, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Chapter 3 An Inquiry into the Policies and Practices for Online Education at One U.S. Doctoral/ResearchExtensive University: A Case Study...................................................................................................... 27 Peter A. Bruce, University of Utah, USA Robert Z. Zheng, University of Utah, USA

Chapter 4 Planning and Implementing Online Programs: A Case Study in the Graduate School of Education at the State University of New York at Buffalo ................................................................... 44 Kay Bishop, SUNY Buffalo, USA Christine Kroll, SUNY Buffalo, USA Chapter 5 Leading a Change Initiative: Efforts to Improve Faculty Perception of Online Courses...................... 59 Shelly Albritton, University of Central Arkansas, USA Chapter 6 The Case of Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning at the University of Alberta, Canada.......... 78 Dianne Oberg, University of Alberta, Canada Chapter 7 Full-Surround “Instructional Design” Support for Quality E-Learning: A Conceptual Case Study Out of Kansas State University................................................................................................... 91 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA Chapter 8 Leading an Online School.................................................................................................................... 109 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA Chapter 9 Library Support to Distance Learners: Case of a University’s Distance Library Services in India................................................................................................................................................. 122 Kshema Prakash, Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University), India Section 3 Cases for Building Quality: Teaching and Learning Chapter 10 Quality MattersTM: A Case of Collaboration and Continuous Improvement for Online Courses....... 135 Kay Shattuck, Quality Matters and The Pennsylvania State University, USA Chapter 11 Charting Student Physical Locations in the Virtual World.................................................................. 146 Terence Cavanaugh, University of North Florida, USA Elinor A. Scheirer, University of North Florida, USA Chapter 12 Technology-Supported Constructivism............................................................................................... 158 Melodee Landis, University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA

Chapter 13 Student Epistemic Beliefs as a Catalyst for Online Course Design: A Case Study for Research-Based eLearning................................................................................................................... 177 Samuel S. Conn, Kentucky State University, USA Simim Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA Michael K. Herndon, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA Chapter 14 The Third Time’s for Charm: A Three-Semester Journey of Learning to Facilitate Relational, Online Learning Communities.......................................................................................... 200 Angela Webster-Smith, University of Central Arkansas, USA Chapter 15 Working in a Wiki Environment: Preservice Teachers’ Experience and Perceptions: The Case of Geometry......................................................................................................................... 217 Wajeeh Daher, An-Najah National University, Palestine & Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Israel Chapter 16 Avoiding Isolation through Collaborative Learning and Lecture Videos............................................ 232 Gail D. Hughes, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Rudo Tsemunhu, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Chapter 17 Old Dogs, New Tricks: Self Study of Online Instruction.................................................................... 247 Nancy P. Gallavan, University of Central Arkansas, USA Section 4 The Future of Distance Education Chapter 18 Visions, Voices, and Virtual Journeys: The Future of Distance Education......................................... 269 Tony L. Talbert, Baylor University, USA Adeline Meira, Baylor University, USA Compilation of References ............................................................................................................... 290 About the Contributors .................................................................................................................... 312 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 319

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword . ...........................................................................................................................................xiii Preface . ............................................................................................................................................... xvi Acknowledgment................................................................................................................................. xxi Section 1 History of Distance Education Chapter 1 A History of Distance Education............................................................................................................. 1 Wendy Rickman, University of Central Arkansas, USA Cheryl Wiedmaier, University of Central Arkansas, USA This chapter provides a brief historical overview of distance education since the early nineteenth century, and the many terms and phrases with varying definitions used to describe distance education. Not limited to the United States, the humble beginnings of distance education were initiated by private entrepreneurs offering independent study courses to complete requirements for officious sounding certificates of study throughout Europe, Canada, the United States, and other countries. With new technologies, correspondence schools offered one-way communication through radio, film, and audiovisual technologies, and later adopted two-way communication through teleconferencing, before internet and mobile technologies were available. Section 2 Cases for Building Quality: Leading Chapter 2 Course Management Systems in Transition: A Mixed-Method Investigation of Students Perceptions and Attitudes of Distance Education.................................................................................. 13 Gary M. Szirony, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Carrie J. Boden, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA

This two-part study examined student perceptions of a change in course management systems (from WebCT to Blackboard) at a university in the southern United States. Participants were students and recent graduates (N=145) of an online rehabilitation counseling master’s degree program. The sample formed three groups of interest: those students who had experience with WebCT, those who had experience with Blackboard, and those students who had worked with both systems. Participants completed an online demographic and education questionnaire and a survey pertaining to their online learning experiences. Participants also responded to qualitative prompts regarding their online learning experiences. Chapter 3 An Inquiry into the Policies and Practices for Online Education at One U.S. Doctoral/ResearchExtensive University: A Case Study...................................................................................................... 27 Peter A. Bruce, University of Utah, USA Robert Z. Zheng, University of Utah, USA The case study examines the policies and practices for online education at one doctoral/research-extensive university. It uses interview findings from the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as well as key secondary sources to better understand these policies and practices. The context for the study is one of dynamic interest in online education and reduced funding for public higher education nationwide. There were six recurring themes throughout the primary and secondary data. These were: 1) students; 2) technology; 3) teachers; 4) services; 5) resources; and 6) costs. These emergent themes are analyzed using the standards for online programs established by the agencies that accredit all American universities. The participating university was found to be a leader and innovator in the application of online and technology-mediated higher education. The case study methodology is offered as a template for the further study of online higher education. Applications in secondary and transition programs are also noted. Chapter 4 Planning and Implementing Online Programs: A Case Study in the Graduate School of Education at the State University of New York at Buffalo ................................................................... 44 Kay Bishop, SUNY Buffalo, USA Christine Kroll, SUNY Buffalo, USA The purpose of this case study is to share the experiences in planning and developing online programs at school and departmental levels in a large research university. The chapter also addresses factors that facilitated the establishment of online programs, challenges that were encountered, and recommendations for planning, developing, and implementing online programs. Chapter 5 Leading a Change Initiative: Efforts to Improve Faculty Perception of Online Courses...................... 59 Shelly Albritton, University of Central Arkansas, USA This case study details the findings of technology committee at a Southern University, who explored faculty perceptions of online learning. The chapter presents the initial steps for improving practices and perceptions with online learning. However, the initial efforts of the technology committee have just

begun to scratch the surface of systemic change. The chapter concludes with the committee’s goals, objectives, and action plans to continue to lead the college through a change process to improve the practices and perceptions of online learning. Chapter 6 The Case of Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning at the University of Alberta, Canada.......... 78 Dianne Oberg, University of Alberta, Canada This chapter examines the online distance education program, Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning, which began in 1996 at the University of Alberta, Canada. Development of the program has been enhanced through: a distance education theoretical framework, analysis of distance education research, government incentive funding, and on-going policy relevant research and evidence-based practice. Current challenges include rapid program growth, new and emerging technologies, and maintaining flexibility. Chapter 7 Full-Surround “Instructional Design” Support for Quality E-Learning: A Conceptual Case Study Out of Kansas State University................................................................................................... 91 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA This case uses the instructional design framework to reflect on practical ways to support quality elearning. Supporting quality e-learning in an institution of higher education is a non-trivial task. This challenge stems from the complexity of online learning with a mesh of laws (such as intellectual property and accessibility ones) and policies that undergird the foundational level of quality. There are the ever-evolving technological challenges—of technological learning platforms, digital learning objects, authoring tools, multimedia, the Internet, and the Web. In an academic environment which emphasizes academic freedom, there are few levers to motivate quality—except through faculty-imposed standards, funding mechanisms, quality endorsements, or other incentives. Chapter 8 Leading an Online School.................................................................................................................... 109 Virginia E. Garland, The University of New Hampshire, USA The new online schools cannot succeed without visionary leaders who are also instructional leaders, data based decision makers, and student centered advocates. The case study of best practice in leading an online school looks at New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School, because it has an effective administrative team, which supports online learning in both accelerated and credit recovery programs. Chapter 9 Library Support to Distance Learners: Case of a University’s Distance Library Services in India................................................................................................................................................. 122 Kshema Prakash, Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University), India

The case discusses library support services in a distance education system, its value and importance in the overall development of a learner in general and a distance learner in particular. The chapter also traces how emerging digital technologies allow libraries to offer efficient support services to distance learners. This case of distance library services at a university in India describes the evolution, experiences and challenges of offering distance library services through the university. Section 3 Cases for Building Quality: Teaching and Learning Chapter 10 Quality MattersTM: A Case of Collaboration and Continuous Improvement for Online Courses....... 135 Kay Shattuck, Quality Matters and The Pennsylvania State University, USA Quality Matters, an inter-institutional quality assurance program for online learning, can be understood from a community of practice approach. It evolved from the response by a small inter-institutional group of online practitioners in Maryland as they problem solved a way to assure an acceptable level to the faculty of quality of shared online courses. The evolution from seed idea through a federal grant to establishment of a not-for-profit collaborative program is detailed. Chapter 11 Charting Student Physical Locations in the Virtual World.................................................................. 146 Terence Cavanaugh, University of North Florida, USA Elinor A. Scheirer, University of North Florida, USA The case used an interactive geographic map as a graphical form of dialogue. The maps supported active participation and visualized the relationships between other course members’ locations and themselves and regional resource locations. This class map acted as an ongoing reminder of the class makeup, and was an instructor tool for consideration of synchronous activities and weather issues. Chapter 12 Technology-Supported Constructivism............................................................................................... 158 Melodee Landis, University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA Distance learning is a powerful tool for addressing an age-old problem: learners assuming responsibility for their own learning. To accomplish this, however, it is important that technology is used to support a constructivist instructional process. This case provides an example of one way new technology tools can be used the improvement of learning through constructivism. Chapter 13 Student Epistemic Beliefs as a Catalyst for Online Course Design: A Case Study for Research-Based eLearning................................................................................................................... 177 Samuel S. Conn, Kentucky State University, USA Simim Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA Michael K. Herndon, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA

Epistemic beliefs represent an influencing factor in efficacious eLearning course construction. Institutions should determine whether online course development should alter in response to existing epistemic beliefs or strive to reshape epistemic beliefs through curricular and pedagogical design. The authors provide a method ology for determining student epistemic beliefs and application of the findings in online course construction and pedagogy. Chapter 14 The Third Time’s for Charm: A Three-Semester Journey of Learning to Facilitate Relational, Online Learning Communities.......................................................................................... 200 Angela Webster-Smith, University of Central Arkansas, USA This case examines a three-semester journey of an instructor’s efforts to augment face-to-face course delivery with online instruction. Her mission was threefold: (1) to update a school-based organizational leadership course to become more relevant to the profession, (2) to develop students’ proficiencies for building leadership capacity and organizational intelligence, and (3) to cultivate relational, online learning communities. Chapter 15 Working in a Wiki Environment: Preservice Teachers’ Experience and Perceptions: The Case of Geometry......................................................................................................................... 217 Wajeeh Daher, An-Najah National University, Palestine & Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Israel This case describes a case of using the wiki environment by a class of second year preservice teachers to discuss previously written geometry lessons, improve the lessons and build new ones. Constant comparative methodology was used to analyze the experiences of the preservice teachers in working with geometry in the wiki environment and in developing their knowledge of geometry and its teaching and learning. Chapter 16 Avoiding Isolation through Collaborative Learning and Lecture Videos............................................ 232 Gail D. Hughes, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Rudo Tsemunhu, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA This case examines the impact of collaborative learning and video lectures on 94 students enrolled in online graduate research and statistics classes. Students’ comments suggested that the instructional methods brought the classroom to the online learner for many students, yet did not reveal a most preferred learning option. Chapter 17 Old Dogs, New Tricks: Self Study of Online Instruction.................................................................... 247 Nancy Gallavan, University of Central Arkansas, USA

All educators benefit from self assessing their own practices systematically within the contexts of teaching, learning, school, and the educational enterprise. In this self-study, a seasoned educator examined her efficacy as she expanded into online instruction. Through deconstruction of instruction, the educator constructed a model to reveal what matters. Section 4 The Future of Distance Education Chapter 18 Visions, Voices, and Virtual Journeys: The Future of Distance Education.......................................... 269 Tony Talbert, Baylor University, USA Adeline Meira, Baylor University, USA The future of distance education is certainly promising but frenetic as well. With the aid of technologies easily accessible to students and teachers alike, geographic barriers that once allowed only the few to engage in educational opportunities are now bridged by technologies that promote distance learning, where students and teachers from diverse latitudes and attitudes are able to engage in real time teaching and learning interactions. This teaching and learning environment is called “Viral Education.” Teaching and learning processes can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, and multi-task oriented in both product and idea development. This chapter looks at the future of distance education and provides a brief survey of emerging technologies that are just moments or months away from reality. In addition, this chapter explores the notion of customized education as a continuation of democratic movements within and outside the classroom. Compilation of References ............................................................................................................... 290 About the Contributors .................................................................................................................... 312 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 319

xiii

Foreword

The diffusion of online distance learning environments is an earthquake that has shaken the undergirding of higher education over the past two decades, creating challenges that will fully engage the support and leadership of education at its most basic core (Ellsworth, 2000; Rogers, 2003). As Rogers (2003) suggests, “innovators” ventured into the unknown world of online learning very early, followed swiftly by the “early adopters.” Over the past several years, higher education has supported the efforts of the “early majority” and “late majority” as they slowly considered and subsequently engaged in online learning, while the “laggards” continue to be suspicious of online learning environments. Yet, the growing mandate by learners for online learning environments has begun to suggest the obsolescence of the “laggards” who may desire to maintain the traditional status quo instead of carefully analyzing and embracing the potential strengths of digital learning instructional environments. While scholars and practitioners have focused upon the preliminary, burgeoning phases of the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation of online distance learning environments, they must now look toward the future. More established planning and consideration—in organizational change and support, leadership training and experience, and better training of distance learning instructors—is needed for distance learning to thrive. Additionally, social and cultural perceptions must shift, along with a switch from the soft skills inherent in traditional face-to-face environments to those needed in distance learning environments. Many of the basic tenets of successful instruction and learning are being questioned by those practitioners who embrace distance learning environments. This book supports such forward-thinking conversations and case studies associated with quality distance delivery environments. As the growth of online distance learning environments has exploded, concerns about quality assurance have been acutely felt. Professional organizations were either formed (or further enhanced) to address the cultivation and promotion of professional standards to guide and support the design and development of these environments. Currently, a few of these professional organizations include North American Council for Online Learning (iNACOL); International Society for Technology in Education; The American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC); Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education; Task Force for the American Council on Education; The Alliance: An Association for Alternative Programs for Adults; International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction; and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). Additionally, subject-specific professional organizations have begun to address the obvious needs of their constituents. At this point, the proverbial pendulum has already begun to swing away from uncritical celebration and exploration of distance learning environments. The innovators and early adopters who were on the “bleeding edge” of online learning environment design, development and implementation have begun to question the quality assurance and as well as the net benefit of allocating the time and effort neces-

xiv

sary to develop, enhance and support successful online communities of learning. Others have raised concerns about the professional development of online instructors, the integration of online training and modeling within teacher education programs, sufficient and innovative support for teacher candidates and inservice educators, the ability to successfully shift from understanding the technology towards the successful integration and modeling of the technology within the instructional design, technical implementation of the course while maintaining a focus upon learning goals, training administrative leadership towards a more fully developed understanding and recognition of the time and effort inherent within successful distance learning environments. These points and other related concerns are now at the forefront of the discussion. The case studies within this text offer a snapshot of the historical context of online distance learning, the current state and successes of distance learning environments, and potential implications for the future of distance learning environments. Furthermore, they provide insight into the currently inadequately considered organizational and leadership needs which will be essential to the future of quality distance learning. The section Leadership Issues in Distance Learning offers a fully articulated vision and mission for distance learning environments, while integrating an understanding of the organizational change sustenance that drives professional development support. It even addresses larger structural issues, including how intellectual property and copyright issues are also part of the conversation, without ignoring the more specific instructional needs within the distance learning environment. This book describes the “grassroots” organizational realm through which the authentic support and sustenance for distance learning environments will ultimately transpire. A parallel, interesting and integral portion of the success of distance learning environments is their impact upon the learners and how they address learners’ needs, which are more fully addressed within the Teaching and Learning section. Finally, The Future of Distance Learning looks at “how social and technological developments are shaping the future” (World Future Society, 2010, para. 1), offering a “crystal ball” view of the opportunities and intentions which may guide future research and inquiry, and predicts the potential lessons and re-analysis that will guide the developing understanding of distance learning environments. The assembled case studies reflect the strategies and experiences of the untrodden road that innovators travel on the way towards successful enlightenment. Respectfully, Caroline M. Crawford, Ed.D. Caroline M. Crawford is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology at the University of Houston-Clear Lake in Houston, Texas, USA. Dr. Crawford has designed, developed and taught several courses during her tenure at UHCL, including the following: Trends and Issues, Advanced Applications of Technology; Multimedia design; Multimedia Development; Analyzing Emerging Technologies; Applications of Technology; Training Practicum; Advanced Grant and Proposal Writing; Applications of Java, Multimedia for Educators; Change Leadership, Creating Digital Resources; Project Management and Grant Writing; Web Development; Teaching and eLearning; Learning Theory and Instruction; and, Performance Technology.Â€Further, sheÂ€is in the process of designing and developing Systematic Design of Technology-Based Instruction. She has designed, developed, implemented and continuously redesigned no fewer than twelve online and hybrid courses over the past twelve year period, with strong formative and summative feedback from the learners within the courses and subject matter experts in the field. Crawford’s scholarly pursuits are varied, including a minimum of 60 international, national and regional refereed and nonrefereed journal articles, as well as edited book chapters. Further, Crawford has presented a minimum of 160Â€professional conference-focused presentations and thirteen poster sessions, with several invited presentations and a keynote presentation at a regional technology-focused conference, with a history of honored positions as a Managing Editor for the Society for

xv

Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) refereed review of conference manuscript proposals,Â€Review Editor for six international refereed journals, and reviewer for innumerable regional, national and international refereed journals. As well, Crawford’s book chapter titled Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’s Recognition of Industry Applications within Virtual Words: A Meta-Analysis of Distance Learning Instructional Achievements within Virtual World Architectural Environments, and Potential Implications for Higher Education, recently published in the book Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow, has been nominated by the book editor for the IGI-Global’s first annual Excellence in Innovative Research Award for Outstanding Book Chapter. The book chapter was nominated, based upon the following criteria: Innovativeness; Practicality of research/results; Potential impact on the field; Thoroughness of the research; Thoroughness of the references; and, Style or clarity of prose. Further, Crawford was awarded the prestigious University of Houston-Clear Lake 2009 Outstanding Professor Award. At this point in Crawford’s professional career, her main areas of interest focus upon communities of learning and the appropriate and successful integration of technologies into the learning environment. The learning environment may be envisioned as face-to-face, hybrid and online (virtual or text-driven) environments.

REFERENCES American Distance Education Consortium. (2010). ADEC – The American Distance Education Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.adec.edu/ Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (n.d.). Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/ Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology (ED 443 417). Retrieved from http://www.eric. ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/54/72.pdf International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2009b). Welcome to IBSTPI. Retrieved from http://www.ibstpi.org/ International Society for Technology in Education. (2010). International Society for Technology in Education Home. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/ North American Council for Online Learning. (2010). International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/ Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5 th edition). New York, NY: Free Press. ISBN: 0-7432-2209-1 Sullivan, E., & Rocco, T. (1997). A Credo for Going The Distance. Task Force for the American Council on Education and The Alliance: An Association for Alternative Programs for Adults. Retrieved from http://its.fvtc.edu/langan/BB6/PBS%20Guiding%20Principles%20for%20DE%20in%20Lrn%20Society%209697.htm Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2010). WICHE FRONT PAGE: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://wiche.edu/ World Future Society. (2010). Facts about the World Future Society. Retrieved from http://www.wfs. org/faq.htm

xvi

Preface

The field of education is continually changing to reflect the needs and demands of students. These changes are seen through the adaptations to traditional and non-traditional pedagogies. The greatest impact on education came with the introduction of audiovisual technologies, computer technologies, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Just as the industrial revolution impacted the educational system, the computer age has caused us to rethink how, when, and where we educate students. Institutions of higher education consider computer and Internet technologies to be the single most important IT issue facing their institutions over the next few years (Campus Computing, 2004). These technologies have not only had an enormous impact on traditional education, but have revolutionized distance education, which has been propelled to the forefront of educational debate. Across the field, distance education continues to be a hot topic. Policy makers, administrators, teachers, and students continually discuss the ramifications of distance education. Its inherent value lies within the opportunities it provides for the learner. It also improves the overall quality of teaching, which is becoming widely recognized (Moore, 2007). After the initial excitement brought on by the impact of Internet technology, faculty shifted their focus to learning the pedagogy of designing and delivering quality programs, and researchers began the process of answering pressing questions. In addition to helping faculty adjust to pedagological changes, administrators must channel their faculty away from traditional classroom roles to those driven by the information age. Students seem to adapt more quickly – their skill set being more advanced than the average faculty member. Students learn quickly how to benefit from the rigors and demands of distance education. There are many myths about teaching and learning via distance education both in a synchronous and asynchronous format. For instance, Thomas Cyrs (1997) observed that “Some faculty argue vehemently and emotionally that students cannot learn as much, as well, or as effectively as in a traditional classroom.” Numerous research studies have been conducted indicating that students taking courses via distance delivery methods achieve on a level equally with students taking courses via traditional methods (Moore, 2007). In addition, students taking classes via synchronous Internet conferencing has been found to be as effective as traditional teaching. The research also indicates that students who were taught via e-learning reported: 1) the overall educational quality of the course improved, 2) access to education was more convenient, 3) course interaction increased, and 4) greater access to their professor (Deloughry, 1998). It is clearly evident that students can and will learn through courses offered via distance delivery methods. It is the quality of instruction that impacts learning. Faculty need to further their skill set. Programs must have a dynamic engaging curriculum. Administrators must provide support – to faculty both financially and metaphysically. In the end it is still about the quality of the faculty teaching the

xvii

courses and developing the programs. In his book, Teaching at a Distance with the Merging Technologies: An Instructional Systems Approach, Cyrs outlined eleven qualities a teacher needs. These apply to teaching and program planning, designing, developing, and implementation. Qualities a Teacher Needs (Cyrs, 1997) • • • • • • • • • • •

The education of a college president, The executive ability of a financier, The humility of a deacon, The adaptability of a chameleon, The hope of an optimist, The courage of a hero, The wisdom of a serpent, The gentleness of a dove, The patience of Job, The grace of God, and The persistence of the Devil.

Finally, studies show inconsistency in online teaching and learning due to gaps between theories and practice (Irlbeck, Kay, Jones & Sims, 2006). Although there are numerous instructional design models/ theories, designing a course can be challenging. Clearly there is an imminent need for guidance on building quality distance delivery programs.

BUILDING QUALITY DISTANCE DELIVERY PROGRAM Leadership is the one area of distance learning that is often underdeveloped. Technology leadership should be a focal point on each level of the organization. Leadership begins in the classroom, whether a traditional or distance delivered classroom environment, with the instructor (Hoffman, 2002). This is true when building quality distance delivery programs. Instructors have a hand on both the pulse of the students and curricular needs of the course. Problems transpire when either the instructor does not have the appropriate skill set and/or is unwilling to adapt and/or develop the skill set necessary for planning, designing, developing, and implementing distance delivery courses and programs. When this particular problem arises, leadership issues weigh more heavily on administrators. Administrators must see that support mechanisms are in place (e.g., technology support specialists, instructional designers, and trainers). This is crucial in sustaining success. It is essential that training not focus solely on hardware and software skills. The primary focus must be on pedagogy (Huffman & Rickman, 2003). Flexibility and convenience are essential for maintaining student and faculty morale. The goal of this book is to explore the convergence of issues that occur when building quality distance delivery programs… from pit-falls to success stories. It includes both research rich case-studies and best practices pieces, which are primarily focused on two overarching themes: leadership issues and teaching and learning.

xviii

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS BOOK This book is intended as a case book targeting various issues that arise when developing a quality distance delivery program. This book addresses pressing needs in distance education by 1) connecting theory and practice, 2) addressing emerging leadership issues in distance education, and 3) identifying best practices in distance education teaching and learning. It targets educators globally, emphasizing leadership issues, teaching and learning issues, and multiple approaches to distance education. The overarching goal of this book is to bring together a collection of cases that not only can be used for teaching, but used as a resource for others who are foraging for answers on how to build quality distance delivery programs. At the theoretical level, it contributes to the knowledge base on distance education. It expands our understanding of the underlying issues, barriers, and pit-falls when tackling the task of building quality programs.

THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK The four sections of this book are organized to maximize the experience for the reader. It begins with a brief history of distance education, provides guidance on a potpourri of leadership topics, tackles questions on the teaching and learning front, and ends with a wonderful chapter which looks at the future of distance education. Section 1 provides a foundation from which to view the remaining chapters. It contains one chapter. In Chapter 1, a brief history of distance education is covered. Wendy Rickman and Cheryl Wiedmaier, University of Central Arkansas outline important key developments from the past. Section 2 presents a theoretical perspective on leadership issue involved in building quality distance delivery programs. It contains eight chapters. In Chapter 2, Carrie Boden and Gary Szirony, University of Arkansas Little Rock, research student perceptions. This two-part study examined student perceptions of a change in course management systems (from WebCT to Blackboard) at a university in the southern United States. Peter Bruce and Robert Zheng, University of Utah, examine policies issues in Chapter 3. The case study examines the policies and practices for online education at one doctoral/research-extensive university Chapter 4 delves into the planning and implementation of an online program. Kay Bishop and Christine Kroll, University of Buffalo, share their experiences in the planning and developing an online program. In Chapter 5, Shelly Albritton, University of Central Arkansas, details the findings of a research study that focused on implementing steps to improve practices and perceptions with online learning. How do we change faculty perceptions of online courses? Chapter 6 looks at the overall issues of developing an online distance education program. Dianne Oberg, University of Alberta, takes us on a journey through developing a theoretical framework, analysis of research, government funding, and the challenges of on-going policy changes. In Chapter 7, Shalin Hai-Jew of Kansas State University, uses the instructional design framework to reflect on practical ways to support quality e-learning. Supporting quality e-learning in an institution of higher education is a non-trivial task. In Chapter 8, Virginia Garland, University of New Hampshire, presents a case study of best practice in leading an online school – New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. Visionary

xix

leadership, administrative teaming and support for online learning are key components outlined in this chapter. Finally Chapter 9, targets library support services for distance learners. Kshema Prakash of the Indian Institute of Technology – Rajasthan tackles the importance of the overall development of library services for both students and faculty. Section 3 presents a theoretical perspective on teaching and learning issues that emerge when building quality distance delivery programs. It contains eight chapters. Chapter 10 address challenges of collaboration and continuous improvement for online courses. Kay Shattuck of Quality Matters, shares a quality assurance program for online learning – developed through collaborative efforts of a small group of online practitioners in Maryland. In Chapter 11, Terence Cavanaugh and Elinor Scheirer of the University of North Florida, share the results of their study on using an interactive geographic map as a graphical form of dialogue. This map acted as an ongoing reminder of the class makeup, and was an instructor tool for consideration of synchronous activities and weather issues. Chapter 12 addresses the age-old problem of learners assuming responsibility for their own learning. Melodee Landis, University of Nebraska at Omaha, looks the importance of using technology to support a constructivist instructional process. Samuel Conn, Kentucky State University, and Simim Hall and Michael K. Herndon of Virginia Tech focus on how epistemic beliefs represent an influencing factor in efficacious eLearning course construction. Chapter 13 challenges institutions to determine whether online course development should alter in response to existing epistemic beliefs or strive to reshape epistemic beliefs through curricular and pedagogical design. Chapter 14 examines a three-semester journey of an instructor’s efforts to augment face-to-face course delivery with online instruction. Angela Webster-Smith’s, University of Central Arkansas, mission was threefold: (1) to update a school-based organizational leadership course to become more relevant to the profession (2) to develop students’ proficiencies for building leadership capacity and organizational intelligence and (3) to cultivate relational, online learning communities. Chapter 15 describes a case of using the wiki environment by a class of second year preservice teachers to discuss previously written geometry lessons, improve the lessons and build new ones. Wajeeh Daher of An-Najah National University use constant comparative methodology to analyze the experiences of the preservice teachers in working with geometry in the wiki environment and in developing their knowledge of geometry and its teaching and learning. In Chapter 16, Gail Hughes and Rudo Tsemunh of the University of Arkansas Little Rock, examined the impact of collaborative learning and video lectures on students enrolled in online graduate research and statistics classes. Students’ comments suggested that the instructional methods brought the classroom to the online learner for many students, yet did not reveal a most preferred learning option. Finally in Chapter 17 Nancy Gallavan, University of Central Arkansas, discusses the benefits gained from self assessing when teaching online. The chapter encapsulates the individual experiences of one faculty member on her journey into online instruction. Section 4 serves as the book end for this work. It contains one chapter. This chapter looks at the future of distance education. In Chapter 18, a vision of the future is painted. Whereas Chapter 1 provide a brief history of distance education, in Chapter 18 continues the story by looking at emerging technologies and instructional strate-

xx

gies. Tony Talbert and Adeline Meir of Baylor University outline important key developments that will impact the future of distance education. Stephanie Huffman University of Central Arkansas June 2010

REFERENCES Campus Computing Project. (2004). The 2004 national survey of information technology in U.S. higher education. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www2.nea.org/he/techno.html Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Teaching at a distance with merging technologies: An instructional systems approach. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University. Deloughry, T. J. (1998, April 20). Remote instruction using computers found effective as classroom session. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A15, A21. Hoffman, R. (2002). Strategic planning lessons learned from a big-business district. Technology and Learning, 22(10), 26-38. Huffman, S. P., & Rickman, W. A. (2003). Keep it SIMPLE: Technology planning strategy. In Proceedings of Society of Information Technology and Teaching, Albuquerque, NM, Spring International Conference. Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The phoenix rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171-185. Moore, M. G. (2007). Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

xxi

Acknowledgment

We are grateful for all those whose support has allowed us to complete this collection of case studies related to building quality distance delivery programs. We have learned from professional educators through their insights and assessment of quality instruction and environments. We are especially grateful for our case contributors who responded to our requests for revisions and other requirements to complete this volume. To our reviewers, thank you for evaluating chapter contributions for real-world application of best practices in distance delivery programs. To our colleagues at the University of Central Arkansas, thank you for all of your encouragement. We would like to thank IGI Global for allowing us the opportunity to develop our idea into reality, for their efficiency and generosity in working with us, and for their competence and expertise. Special thanks go to our families for their patience as we focused on developing and editing this book. We could not have done it without their support. Stephanie Huffman University of Central Arkansas, USA Shelly Albritton University of Central Arkansas, USA Barbara Wilmes University of Central Arkansas, USA Wendy Rickman University of Central Arkansas, USA

Section 1

History of Distance Education

1

Chapter 1

A History of Distance Education Wendy Rickman University of Central Arkansas, USA Cheryl Wiedmaier University of Central Arkansas, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Known by many terms and phrases with varying definitions, distance education has been in use since the early nineteenth century. Not limited to the United States, the humble beginnings of distance education were initiated by private entrepreneurs offering independent study courses for officious sounding certificates of study throughout Europe, Canada, the United States, and other countries. Early distance education promised specialized training for the day laborer looking to advance his or her place in the factory, the ambitious housewife and househusband seeking to improve the familial condition, and the career woman or man looking to climb the ladder by seeking professional improvements. These individuals sought betterment through available resources including distance education. At that time, distance education entailed independent study, physical separation between the student and the instructor, and a stable postal service for mailing completed assignments to instructors. Flash-forward to today’s world of instant-access in a technology driven society, where distance education has grown in viability and become a business. Whether provided via a traditional, land-based university or college to earn a formal degree, to complete professional development, or to seek additional certification, or by a for-profit organization or corporation to train their employees and advance their workers’ skills, people can access a well-developed range of educational services through distance education to better their lives and livelihoods regardless of the physical separation between themselves and the sponsoring institution. The main difference between distance education’s beginnings and today’s educational services is the medium used to conduct learning. The postal services may still be used as a secondary mode of communication and print is still a constant technologic tool, but the expanding success of distance education can be attributed to providing education that (1) spans great distances between citizens and educational institutions, both geographically and socio-economically; (2) quenches the thirst for education; and (3) utilizes the rapid advancement of technology (Casey, 2008). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch001

Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A History of Distance Education

INTRODUCTION Distance Education. A generic, all-inclusive term used to refer to the physical separation of teachers and learners. (2) [Distance Education, Distance Learning, Distributed Learning] The application of information technology (and infrastructure) to educational and student-related activities linking teachers and students in differing places. (3) The student and instructor are physically separated by any distance. All communications are mediated by some type of electronic means in real or delayed time. Location is of no significance. (4) The organizational framework and process of providing instruction at a distance. Distance education takes place when a teacher and student(s) are physically separated, and technology (i.e., audio, video, and computers, print) is used to bridge the instructional gap. (5) The organizational framework and process of providing instruction at a distance. Distance education takes place when a teacher and student(s) are physically separated, and technology (i.e., voice, video, data, or print) is used to bridge the instructional gap. (See Distance Learning.) (USDLA, 2010). Distance Learning. A term for the physical separation of teachers and learners that has become popular in recent years, particularly in the United States. While used interchangeably with distance education, distance learning puts the emphasis on the learner and is especially appropriate when students take on greater responsibility for their learning as is frequently when doing so from a distance. (2) The desired outcome of distance education, i.e., learning at a distance. (See Distance Education.) (USDLA, 2010) Known by many terms and phrases with varying definitions, distance education has been in use since the early nineteenth century. Not limited to the United States, the humble beginnings of distance education were initiated by private entrepreneurs offering independent study courses independent study courses to complete requirements for officious sounding certificates of study

2

throughout Europe, Canada, the United States, and other countries. The start of distance education provided specialized training necessary for the day laborer looking to advance his or her place in the factory setting or the quickly growing industrialization of the western world, the ambitious housewife and househusband seeking to improve the familial condition, and the career woman or man looking to climb the ladder to break through the glass ceiling and become independent seeking professional improvements. These individuals sought betterment through available resources including distance education. At that time, distance education entailed independent study, physical separation between the student and the instructor, and reliance upon a stable postal service for mailing completed assignments to instructors. Flash-forward to today’s world of instantaccess in a technology driven society. Distance education is has grown in viability, albeit in an evolved existence. Distance education has matured through the years to become a business. Whether provided via a traditional, land-based university or college to earn a formal degree, to complete professional development, or to seek additional certification, or by a for-profit organization or corporation to train their employees and advance their workers’ skills, people can access a well-develop range of educational services through distance education to better their lives and livelihoods regardless of the physical separation between themselves and the sponsoring institution. The main difference between distance education’s beginnings and today’s educational services is the medium used to conduct learning. The postal services may still be used as a secondary mode of communication and print is still a constant technologic tool, but the expanding success of distance education can be attributed to providing education that 1) spans great distances between citizens and educational institutions, both geographically and socio-economically; 2) quenches the thirst for education; and 3) utilizes the rapid advancement of technology (Casey, 2008).


Today’s distance education is known as “any form of learning that does not involve the traditional classroom setting in which students and instructor must be at the same place at the same time” (Ko & Rossen, 2008). Simonson (2009) goes further to define it “as institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors (Simonson, 2003)”. According to Green (1999), the increase in distance education is due to the convergence of increased access, lifelong learning, and information technology. Distance education has continued to evolve technologically to allow both synchronous learning, “a mode of online delivery where all participants are ‘present’ at the same time” (Wikipedia, 2010), asynchronous learning where “participants access course materials on their own schedule” (Wikipedia, 2010), or a mixture of the two modes of online delivery. These variations of classroom organization provide the flexibility often needed for the success of the students; however, the teaching responsibilities and learning components still remain at the core of the education process. “Regardless of whether instruction is low tech or high tech, the learning components of an instructional strategy are still the key predictors of learner success” (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009). Despite the location of the classroom, the expectations of instructors do not change. Maloy, Verock-O’Loughlin, Edwards, and Woolf (2011) re-affirm that all instructors must: •

•

•

Convey essential academic material in ways that students will understand and remember, Teach and reach all their students by focusing on the unique individual possessing varied learning needs and interests through large-group and small-group learning environments, and Maintain learning for all students while balancing outside-of-school factors (i.e.,

social class, family income, race, gender, language, and exceptionalities) with inside-the-classroom dynamics (i.e., type of academic content, teaching methods, assessment practices, interpersonal dynamics, classroom management activities, tone of voice, and daily routines). Adapting these expectations to the distance education learning encompasses complex challenges critical thinking, and creative processes for designing and facilitating effective teaching and learning, two on-going concerns that educators have encountered since the inception of distance education.

ASYNCHRONOUS BEGINNINGS During the early nineteenth century, correspondence courses were touted across Europe and advertized in the Americas. Distance education at that time relied exclusively on postal correspondence. Fortunately, the maturity of the postal services throughout Europe and the Americas grew and benefited from the industrial revolution, the expanding commercialism, and the stabilization of governments. Concomitantly, early ventures in distance education were financed primarily by private ventures. Isaac Pitman’s shorthand course in 1840 (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Casey, 2008; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009) was advertised in English newspapers. Several years later, Pitman still provided his courses but through the Sir Isaac Pitman Correspondence Colleges. By 1852, Pitman’s shorthand courses were sought in the United States. By 1856, correspondence courses in language based in Germany were available through Charles Toussaint and Gustav Langenscheidt (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). One of the first American ventures in correspondence courses was based in Boston, Mas-

3


Figure 1. Timeline of Distance Education and Integrated Technologies

sachusetts, and focused on the familial sphere of influence. Created by Anna Ticknor in 1873, the Society to Encourage Studies at Home provided self-paced courses for women (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Casey, 2008; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). The courses “offered educational opportunities for women across class boundaries by providing correspondence instruction to 10,000 members over a 24-year period” (Bower & Hardy, 2004). The International Correspondence Schools established in 1891 became an example of correspondence courses advertised to specialized laborers. Created by Thomas J. Foster to provide instruction in mining and mine safety (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009), Foster also focused on providing certificates to allow participants opportunities to advance to positions of management in the mining field (Bower & Hardy, 2004). The International Correspondence Schools of 1891 has evolved into what is now known as Education Direct today (Bower & Hardy, 2004). Privately funded ventures were not the only choices for correspondence courses. In 1833, the

4

first opportunities for furthering education were initiated via a Swedish university offering composition studies (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). By the late nineteenth century, several other universities and colleges had joined the distance education field including Illinois Wesleyan College (1874); the Correspondence University of Ithaca; Skerry’s College, Edinburgh, Scotland (1878); New York (1883); University Correspondence College, London, England (1887); the Baptist Union Theological Seminary (1880s); and the University Extension Department of the University of Chicago (1892) (Bower & Hardy, 2004; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). The efforts at the University of Chicago would prove to be one of the more successful initiatives for academia. The turn of the 20th century in the United States saw academia’s distance education efforts begin to include the courses at the land-grant universities. The creation of agriculture extension distance education courses began to increase in enrollment. The University of Wisconsin initiated its rookie efforts by including Frederick Jackson Turner in


its instructional staff to make use of his expertise and as a means of attracting students (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). Yet, these early efforts by academia waned in popularity until the post-World War II educational boom. With the creation of the G.I. Bill allowing returning veterans and active service-members the opportunity of an affordable education, academia was soon flooded with students. Seating space was no longer available in the traditional college classroom. To handle the ever-increasing numbers of students, many colleges and universities chose to provide courses within programs of study via correspondence. Courses were created by faculty members and were taught with adjunct instructors and teaching assistants, but even these efforts proved not to be cost effective (Pauls, 2003).

THE ADDITION OF TECHNOLOGY As specialization of labor and increased factory organization were effects of the industrial revolution, the creation of educational technology and its evolution were significant results of World War I, World War II, and the military complex. Both wars warranted a significant demand to train large numbers of individuals in a variety of communication fields, survival, defense, nursing, first aid, piloting airplanes and ships, engine repair, etc. Therefore, the military complex began to study the efficiencies of teaching and learning in order to provide sufficient short courses for the military. Resulting studies demonstrated the need for more than instruction based on lecture and reading, giving rise to the instructional use of photography, images, films, and other audiovisual materials. In turn, these findings and technologies were shared with the educational sector and adapted for both public K-12 education and higher education classrooms. In 1923 the National Education Association’s Department of Visual Instruction in 1923, now known as the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT),

was established (AECT & Molenda, 2005). These emerging technologies were adapted quickly to the distance education classroom.

One-Way Transmission With the 1920s, the distance education classroom transformed to emphasizing more than just reading materials, written assignments and assessments, and correspondence envelopes. Radio broadcasts became a new communication medium for the distance learner, albeit communication was oneway. Radios were becoming more affordable for the average person. By the end of the 1920s, approximately 40% of the American population owned a radio (Craig, n.d.). Educational radio licenses were granted to universities starting in 1921. By the mid-1920s, United States Radio Farm School was one of the first one-way communication distance education courses. Listeners were recruited to enroll and participate in 15-minute sessions offered three days a week (Craig, n.d.). This program and many other similar programs were created and offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA routinely surveyed listeners and stations for programming feedback and feedback on print resources offered to accompany the programming. More than 170 stations were established at universities and colleges throughout the 1920s, (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). With the increasing popularity of the radio and its broadcasts, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in the early 1930s to help regulate licensing and programming across the United States. Because of the increasing popularity of distance learning via radio broadcasts, the AECT lobbied for the federal government to allow the FCC to provide specific radio bandwidths for non-commercial broadcasting. This effort was accomplished initially in 1938 and once more in 1945 (AECT & Molenda, 2005).

5


Television stations and programming for distance education were developed in the 1930s, yet they would not become an educational force until the 1950s. During those twenty years between 1930 and 1950, filmstrips began their long rise to domination of audiovisual technologies. However, they too, saw limited use as a distance education medium. In 1951, Western Reserve University began the first for-credit television programming available for the distance learner (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). The positive effects were immediate. By 1952, the FCC “reserved 242 television channels for non-commercial operation” (AECT & Molenda, 2005) known as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) “to provide a low-cost, fixed-range, subscriberbased system” (Casey, 2008) for distance learning. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB’s “primary purposes were to develop high quality programs, establish a system of national interconnection to distribute the programs, and strengthen and support local public TV and radio stations” (Casey, 2008). By 1969 the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was established as the first national public television system in the United States, and its affiliate stations began offering educational programming that included art instruction, cooking instruction, children’s programming, concerts, and other activities to be made available primarily to people who could not afford or access opportunities to participate in instruction in person. With both media of communication, one concern remained: the information was disseminated one-way with participants receiving the information, but they were not able to respond in a timely manner. Responses and questions could still be submitted by students through the postal service along with assignments and assessments, but this type of correspondence did not allow for a timely reply from the instructor or a quick adjustment in presentation as found in the traditional classroom.

6

Yet, both television and radio allowed the program to reach a multitude of people much greater than the traditional postal correspondence course reached.

Two-Way Transmission The medium of television matured over the next two decades and with the affordability and stability of satellite broadcasting, television-based distance education programming soon became two-way instruction. Learning modules could be broadcast live from one point such as a corporate training facility or university campus to satellite campuses established to receive the broadcast. Each facility and/or campus would have a phone available for students or participants to use for contacting the instructor to ask questions or participate in a discussion. “In 1985, the National Technological University (NTU), located in Fort Collins, CO, offered online degree courses in both continuing and graduate education using satellite transmission to access course materials from other universities and then download and redistribute course materials by satellite” (Casey, 2008). NTU marketed itself to the professional and non-traditional students who usually were unable to access traditional class-based universities due to the potential students’ schedules and obligations. This television-based evolution was quickly adapted for the K-12 sector of education as a way to offer classes unavailable at traditional public schools that lacked funds for hiring subjectspecific teachers or were situated in remote locations long distances from accessible resources. Television-based distance education quickly became popular in the 1980s in public education in the southeast and plains regions of the United States and in Alaska. The effort by schools to provide distance education via satellite transmissions was often underwritten financially by corporate investors and government-based grants. In addition to the accessible phone allowing communication during television transmissions, the ubiquitous presence of a facsimile machine,


or fax machine, provided another mode of communication. Created in the late 1960s, the fax machine allowed the real-time distribution of the written word and a written response as long as both the sender and receiver had a fax machine and an available phone line. Participants could fax copies of completed activities during the satellite transmission, participate in discussions, or receive immediate feedback. This mode of instruction was cumbersome and costly, but allowed for a more traditional learning experience for both the student and the instructor. Phone lines began to be replaced by fiber-optic cable by the late 1980s. Fiber-optic lines meant a larger bandwidth for transmissions and communication, but also a large cost in implementation. The offset of the high cost was that fiber-optic cable would allow for clearer, more stable video and audio transmissions, and two-way communication between participants and instructors with the use of microphones and speakers, rather than using a separate phone and phone line. Still in use today, fiber-optic distance education has become one of the most commonly used systems for distance education learning. Used in many states with large rural areas, fiber-optic cable allows universities and schools to provide access to learning resources otherwise unavailable. The Iowa Communications Network (ICAN) is one of the largest fiber-optic networks (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009).

AIM and the Open University The Articulated Instructional Media (AIM) Project was initiated in 1964 by faculty at the University of Wisconsin to study the application and efficiency of technology in distance learning practices (Casey, 2008). This was not a sole project. Other countries such as Germany, Australia, and England also were conducting studies of distance education and the rise of technology. The AIM project quickly became the standard in university distance education development.

In 1969, England created the Open University (OU) as decreed by Royal Charter (Casey, 2008). The Open University quickly became a leader in distance education development serving a large percentage of students seeking a collegiate degree in England, Belgium, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Luxemburg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, and Portugal (Casey, 2008). The distance learning process for students is highly organized. With a tutor or teacher assigned to each student, participants receive their materials via the mail. Materials include texts, other readings, videos, and audio resources. Radio and/or television broadcasts are offered regularly. Students contact their tutors or teaching assistants “over the telephone and in group sessions in the evenings or on weekends” (Matthews, 1999). England’s Open University has been noted as initiating the “modern movement in distance education” (Bower & Hardy, 2004).

SYNCHRONOUS ADAPTATIONS As two-way transmission became more common in distance education, synchronous distance learning efforts also began to develop into a reality. Teleconferencing, a strictly audio-based environment, quickly was embraced as a popular mode of communication. Groups of students could listen to a lecture and dialogue real-time with the instructor or communicate with a guest speaker. The newfound simplicity was capable as telephone or fiber-optic cable with a teleconferencing-capable audio device was necessary to communicate, and no video was involved. However, a newer technology was beginning to emerge as a possible tool that could be adapted to the distance learning environment: the computer. Although the computer was developed during the late 1940s, the current devices required large spaces and a sizeable investments posing two impediments to mass utilization yet to be conquered. The initial computer users were the government

7


and military, usually in conjunction with research at specific universities, such as MARK 1 at Harvard and ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania (Molnar, 1997) as well as large corporations across the country and around the world. As time passed, the technology evolved, size was reduced, and costs became incrementally more reasonable. The 1960s saw computers were incorporated in both higher education and public schools. Research began to examine the strengths and weaknesses associated with computer-assisted instruction (CAI) as a way to individualize learning for more students by providing self-paced drill-and-practice focused on reading and math (Molnar, 1997). The findings were positive, and the technology continued to evolve. By the late 1960s, computers started to be networked, or connected, to one another in rooms, across campuses, and via phone lines for research and communication. Approximately 30 regional networks were created with the support of the National Science Foundation, which increased access of the technology for over 300 universities, colleges, and secondary schools (Molnar, 1997). Then the computer evolved once more into the microcomputer. Thus the computer became a mass-quantity, manufactured item. Commodore 64, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Hewlett Packard, Apple, and Microsoft became well-known entities in helping to make the computer affordable for everyday use. While the machines varied slightly in the structures and functions, the 1970s brought the realization that computers could be made smaller and affordable; plus the market could handle different brands. Higher education and public education recognized the capabilities of the tool and endorsed its use for teaching and learning. With the increased numbers of personal computers on campuses and in classrooms, studies began to investigate the affects of computer-based instruction (CBI) in education. Kulik’s studies at the University of Michigan found that appropriate

8

CBI use “increase scores from 10 to 20 percentile points and reduce time necessary to achieve goals by one third” (Molnar, 1997). However, additional research conducted over time has shown that the design of the learning and not just the medium used affect learning (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009) The early 1980s brought an increased presence of networks and supercomputer to assist in providing access to information. By mid-80s, the Internet was created as a “high-bandwidth backbone” national network linking to other networks globally (Molnar, 1997). The World Wide Web, or WWW, became part of the new vernacular in education that provided access to information and people for students everywhere. The combination of personal computers and the Internet brought forth instant-access to other Internet users via email, chat rooms, and discussion boards. By the 1990s, the online presence of a person could be represented by avatars or online representations in online virtual worlds, blogs written daily, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) teleconferencing. All of these tools became the tools of educators limited only by time, training, and integration. Distance learning transformed teaching and learning taking a major step from teleconferencing with a video-based satellite feed to an online learning system with real-time chat capabilities, asynchronous testing, and VoIP audio feeds connected to real-time presentations. Distance education transitioned from servicing the few and dedicated to omni-present access.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Distance education and distance learning have been active and powerful participants in the teaching/learning process for almost 150 years. They are still young in their creation and continue to grow and change. As new technologies are introduced, adaptations and integration ideas abound, applications expand, and new iterations arise.


Thus, personal computing evolves once more in a different form. Instead of the microcomputer found in a desktop computer or even a bulky notebook, now it is available in the shape of the cellular phone, the 8 – 10 inch netbook, the MP3 player, or the tablet computer produced by many different companies. All of these devices are less costly, more accessible, and even more powerful than the original microcomputer. And each of these devices allow for improved integration, ready access to networking, and on-the-go learning. While some teachers and students complain of the lack of face-to-face interaction and the lack of social cues (Casey, 2008), the newer technologies being developed for personal computing negate the argument. To find a cell phone or notebook or tablet without a built-in microphone, aka mic, or video camera is often difficult. Students of all ages are using these technologies to learn as well as to communicate. Meeting students’ needs and building upon their interests has resulted in curriculum developers adding keyboarding courses into the K-12 curriculum. The electronic childhood and the subsequent immersion of media support the necessity to integrate keyboarding and computers and is a contemporary concern in elementary schools (Maloy, Verock-O’Loughlin, Edwards, & Woolf, 2011). To wait until the traditional time of middle schools/junior high schools risks allowing students to develop incorrect and inappropriate technological skills. Although many educators have embraced technology and developed skills in their early or late adulthood, most contemporary young students have not known life without computers. Elementary school-aged students are using search engines and digital reference materials to find resources and prepare homework assignments. Young students know how to integrate technology naturally and authentically into education since technology has been a vital part of their entire lives. Clearly, it is the responsibility of every educator to possess, model, and reinforce technology integration skills as well.

REFERENCES Bower, B. L., & Hardy, K. P. (2004). From correspondence to cyberspace: Changes and challenges in distance education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 128, 5–12. doi:10.1002/cc.169 Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45–51. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z Craig, S. (n.d.). “The farmer’s friend”: Radio comes to rural America, 1920-1927 [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://www.rtvf.unt.edu/html/ craig/pdfs/rural.PDF Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Green, K. C. (1999). When wishes come true: Colleges and the convergence of access, lifelong learning, and technology. Change, 31(2), 10–15. doi:10.1080/00091389909602674 Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2008). Teaching online: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Maloy, R. W., Verock-O’Loughlin, R. E., Edwards, S. A., & Woolf, B. P. (2011). Transforming learning with new technologies. Boston: Pearson. Matthews, D. (1999). The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T-H-E Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/ Articles/1999/09/01/The-Origins-of-Distanceeducation-and-its-use-in-the-United-States. aspx?sc_lang=en Molenda, M. (2005). Association for educational communications and technology in the 20th century: A brief history. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/ About/History

9


Molnar, A. (1997). Computers in education: A brief history. T-H-E Journal. Retrieved from http:// thejournal.com/Articles/1997/06/01/Computersin-Eduation-a-brief-history.aspx?sc_lang=en Pauls, T. S. (2003). The importance of interaction in online courses. Paper presented at The Ohio Learning Network Conference, Easton, OH. Retrieved from http://www.oln.org/conferences/ OLN2003/papers/Importance_of_interactivity_in_Distance_Education_1.pdf Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA). (2010). Glossary of terms. Distance learning: Key terms you might want to know. Retrieved from http://www.usdla.org/index.php?cid=105 Wikipedia. (2010). Distance education. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distance_ education&oldid=346787701

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT): Organization created in 1923 by the National Education Association’s Department of Visual Instruction to supports and provide resources for teachers, librarians, library media specialists, and administrators. Asynchronous Learning: Distance learning with activities and lectures provided by the instructor during which the students participate at different times. Audiovisual Technologies: Technology-based resources that include all media items, both visual and audio. Communication: All formal and informal correspondence between instructor and students

10

that can be conducted via written and oral speech, chat, email, letters, assignments, and so on. Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI): Student learning that includes drill and practice activities with a computer. Computer-Based Instruction (CBI): Selfpaced student learning that is conducted via computer.. Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB): Oversight body created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to organize programming on public television. Correspondence Courses: Distance education learning through activities and testing conducted through the postal service. Distance Education: Student learning that takes place with the instructor and student(s) in separate locations. Distance Learning: Education of students outside of the traditional, face-to-face, classroombased environments. Educational Technology: Technology and media integrated into the learning process. Federal Communications Commission (FCC): National oversight body created in the 1930s to organize licensing and programming; begun initially for radio broadcasts and now oversees television broadcasting. Independent Study Courses: Self-paced learning courses for the lone student. Information Technology: Technology and media that provide access to information. Lifelong Learning: Process of active education throughout one’s life. National Public Television System: An organized grouping of specific television channels offering non-commercial, educational programming. Networks: The grouping of resources including computer, television, or radio that are interlinked to provide increased access to information. Non-Commercial Broadcasting: Broadcast programming that is education-based or sponsored specifically for educational purposes.


On-The-Go-Learning: Learning that is selfpaced and accessible at any time and provides two-way communication with the instructor or organizing agent. One-Way Communication: Learning or other educational broadcasts that do not have the capabilities to offer learners, viewers, or listeners opportunities to dialogue with the instructor. Open University (OU): Distance education institution created in England in 1969 offering degree programs and training for students around the world. Public Broadcast Service (PBS): Nationwide television system that provides education programming in the United States. Public Broadcasting Act of 1967: Federal act created the Corporation of Public Broadcasting to oversee the programming efforts utilizing the 242 television channels for non-commercial broadcasting.

Synchronous Learning: Distance learning with activities and lectures provided by the instructor during which students and instructor meet online at the same time. Two-Way Communication: Learning or other educational broadcasts that offer the capabilities of interactive dialogue between and among learners, viewers, listeners, and instructors. United States Radio Farm School: School established in the early 1920s by the United States Department of Agriculture to offer training in listening for agriculture trades and farm product application. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP): Teleconferencing that is conducted via interactive dialogue between and among students and instructor over the Internet.

11

Section 2

Cases for Building Quality: Leading

13

Chapter 2

Course Management Systems in Transition:

A Mixed-Method Investigation of Students Perceptions and Attitudesof Distance Education Gary M. Szirony University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Carrie J. Boden University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This two-part study examined student perceptions of a change in course management systems (from WebCT to Blackboard) at a university in the southern United States. Participants were students and recent graduates (N=145) of an online rehabilitation counseling master’s degree program. The sample formed three groups of interest: those students who had experience with WebCT, those who had experience with Blackboard, and those students who had worked with both systems. Participants completed an online demographic and education questionnaire and a survey pertaining to their online learning experiences. Participants also responded to qualitative prompts regarding their online learning experiences. In the findings from the quantitative portion of the study, there were no significant differences between the three groups of interest. Most of the students in the sample preferred distance education to on-campus courses, asynchronous over synchronous learning, discussion boards over live chats, and video streamed content delivery over text-based delivery. For this sample, a change in course delivery systems did not have a negative effect upon students. In the findings from the qualitative portion of the study, five major themes emerged, those of Communication, Pedagogy/Androgogy, Time Management, Course Delivery Systems and Technology, and Access. Aspects of self-directedness appeared to be a theme throughout much DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch002


Course Management Systems in Transition

of the qualitative analysis. Negative factors included inability to reach instructors in a timely fashion, lack of interpersonal contact with other learners or with instructors, and frustration over technological glitches and hardware, software or Internet complexities, or a mixture of the three. The role of emotion in online learning was significant in several areas, particularly to the theme of Communication, where a personalized learning environment with two-way communication between peers and the instructor can lessen the isolation of online learning. Further study in this area is recommended.

LITERATURE REVIEW In an investigation of students’ perceptions of the effects of changing course management platforms, Szirony, Garner, Dickerson, & Pack (2010) found that a change in course management platforms had little or no practical impact on student learners. Another finding indicated that the transition from one platform to another may not be as significant for students as it appears to be for faculty and administrators, especially if the navigation of the new course seems similar to the old one for the students. In suggestions for future research, this study noted that although the practical implications of changing platforms were minimal, the affective and emotional components of such a change warrant further study. The emotional aspects of distance learners are salient to the learning process. This concept can be seen in recent literature. For example, Zembylas (2008) reviewed emotional constructs related to the learning process. Specifically, the emotions of adult learners in the context of a year-long participation process in an online course were examined. Zembylas studied how adult learners responded emotionally and talked about their emotions while involved in an online learning environment and tracked emotion changes from the beginning to the end of a course. Zembylas also explored how social and gender roles may play a role in the distance learning environment. In the literature, online learning has been criticized for being less emotional and more impersonal than conventional classroom learning environments. However, emotions are hardly absent from online learning and may include frustration, anger,

14

confusion, and boredom. Adding a confounding factor such as changing learning platforms may complicate or exacerbate such emotions. From a more positive perspective, higher levels of engagement and interest in a more convenient learning environment may also be included in the emotional constructs of online learners (Zembylas, 2008). Understanding these factors, the qualitative analysis of distance learning participants, especially during the transitional period of a change of platforms was warranted. Carrying forward from the need to examine emotional and qualitative factors of distance learning, learner satisfaction must also be considered. “Learner-centered evaluation allows for insights into the teaching and learning process, and learner satisfaction is particularly critical in determining quality in distance education” (Lee, 2009, p. 77). Little research exists on how changing platforms may affect learner satisfaction either positively or negatively. With nearly four million college students enrolled in at least one online course in the United States during the Fall semester of 2007 (Allen & Seaman, 2008), and with projections predicting further growth of online learning environments, the need to examine quality of delivery, satisfaction, and other qualitative factors is becoming increasingly important (Lorenzetti, 2003). The trend in educational instruction is moving toward becoming more learner-centered, less linear, and more self-directed, with technological fluency approaching a state of expectancy as a graduation requirement. In addition to that, lifelong learning appears to be increasing as a competitive necessity. According to Moore, Sener, and Fetzner (2006), the burgeoning growth and


increasing demand for collegiate online courses creates an imperative that those involved in the preparation and delivery of online learning environments, including the platforms upon which distance education courses are presented, respond to the needs of those online learners success in academic endeavors is to be an objective. Lee (2009) looked at the perceptions of students of a distance education setting to increase knowledge of the effectiveness of various learning activities in a course designed to present instructional strategies in a secondary education teacher preparation program. The key elements presented in this study included the necessity to examine, analyze, and improve upon the types of activities that were a part of the online course; course effectiveness is a significant consideration. Likewise, several factors were presented as recommendations for sound pedagogical design from Newlin & Wang’s (2002) recommendations. Among them included the use of active learning techniques, prompt feedback, timeliness, communication of high expectations, and the respect of diversity of talents and ways of learning. Surveying student perceptions regarding issues surrounding distance education, including changing platforms, would help to provide feedback for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the efficacy of distance learning. Dobbs, Waid, and del Carmen (2009) conducted a rather unique study which surveyed both students who had and who had not taken online courses. In a study of undergraduates, nearly three out of four participants who had been enrolled in an on-campus program reported that they preferred traditional classes over distance-based learning. In contrast, about half of those who had taken online courses reported a preference for online courses. The vast majority (81.8%), however, of those who had taken online courses reported that they would take more online classes in the future. Interestingly, those who had taken both online and conventional classroom courses found traditional courses to be easier than online courses. Students

in both groups noted that more effort was generally required to complete an online course over attending a conventional “brick and mortar” class. Perceptions of older age groups seemed to be more influenced by distance learning environments than by those of younger age groups. In a study by Allen, Mabry, Mattrey, Bourhis, Titsworth, & Burrell (2004), the results of their investigation of performance-based factors resulted in only minor differences between traditional and distance education settings. In online courses, performance did not appear to differ significantly when synchronous interactive technologies or classrooms were used. Results of their work suggested that distance education does not necessarily create a less effective learning environment and, in some instances, actually enhances learning effectiveness. Distance learning students tended to score slightly better than traditional students on measures of examination scores or grade achievement in a particular course. For online learners, significant differences were reported based on students’ abilities and confidence levels with online learning technology (Koohang, 1989; Hara, 1998; Hara & Kling, 1999). Student responses ranged from “not currently using these technologies” to being “comfortable and confident with online learning technologies” (as cited in Muilenburg & Berge, 2005, p. 30). Other significant factors for online learning include the students’ perceptions of learning effectiveness in an online environment along with perceptions of self-efficacy. Mungania (2003) polled 4,807 e-learners utilizing a web-based survey ultimately resulting in a response rate of just under 20% (n = 865). Several sectors were surveyed, included academic, government, and industrial settings. The purpose of their survey revolved around determination of which barriers were most challenging to online learners. Categorization of barriers to effective e-learning were noted as heterogeneous, encompassing “… personal organizational, content, situational, instructional and technological barriers” (p. 22).

15


The top three barriers that e-learners reported included having been overcommitted to multiple roles and responsibilities, interruptions at work or at home, and a lack of time to dedicate to studies. Conversely, reading level concerns, lack of selfconfidence in ability to participate in distance learning, and resistance to change were of little concern, ranking as the least common barriers to online learning. In a study of 1,056 students, Muilenburg and Berge (2005) conducted an exploratory factor analysis and found eight factors that tend to comprise student barriers to online learning. The eight factors found were (a) administrative issues, (b) social interaction, (c) academic skills, (d) technical skills, (e) learner motivation, (f) time and support for studies, (g) cost and access to the Internet, and (h) technical problems (p. 35). Generally only about half of course content can be moved from one course management system to another. “This means that faculty—who would need to restore course content that did not convert intact and accurately—will face increased workloads and frustration should an institution choose to change from one course management system (CMS) to another” (Smart, & Meyer, 2005). Fifty percent of the faculty viewed the CMS as a tool, having no effect on their teaching, in contrast to the students in the study who, in general, didn’t view the CMS switch as a significant factor. Faculty were then asked how willing they thought students might be in the face of changing course management platforms. Results were largely positive with 70% of faculty polled suggesting that students would be willing to change to a new CMS. The remaining 30%, however, felt that students might be unwilling to incur a change of platform or perhaps be opposed to any such change. In summary, faculty appeared overwhelmingly in favor of changing platforms with little or no aversive effects resulting.

16

METHOD Quantitative Research Questions Three distinct groups of students and graduates comprised the sample. These included: 1) students who had only had courses in Blackboard; 2) students who only had courses in WebCT; and 3) students who had taken courses in both Blackboard and WebCT. The sample composition allowed comparisons of the experiences of these three groups due to the change in course management systems. The purpose of this part of the study was to determine the perceptions, characteristics, and attitudes of the three unique groups. The research questions for this part of the study follows. Research Question 1. Are there significant differences among these student groups between preferences for the Blackboard or WebCT course management systems? Research Question 2. Are there significant differences among these student groups regarding their perceptions of their computer proficiency for the Blackboard and WebCT course management systems? Research Question 3. Are there significant differences among these student groups between specific demographic characteristics and their perceptions of their computer proficiency for the Blackboard and WebCT course management systems? Research Question 4. Are there significant correlations among the entire student sample regarding their characteristics, perceptions, and attitudes toward online distance education?

Qualitative Research Questions For this part of the study, the research questions focused on the students’ experiences with using Blackboard, WebCT, and video streamed course content. The research questions included: What are the common positive and negative experiences


of students enrolled in online programs? What elements of online delivery do students most like and dislike? How are students affected when there is a change in course management systems? Are there significant differences between groups of students who have used various course management systems and those who have used only one system? Are there significant issues related to the affective component of changes to learning environments?

Participants Participants consisted of students (N = 145) currently or formerly enrolled in an online master’s degree program in rehabilitation counseling at a university in the southern United States. Participants formed three student groups of interest. The first two groups included students who had experience with one of two course management systems, Blackboard or WebCT. The third group included students with experience working in both systems. For the first part of the study, prior to the Blackboard/WebCT merger, students who were enrolled in the program and recent graduates completed an internally-developed on-line survey instrument pertaining to their online learning experiences. For the second part of the study, students responded to several qualitative prompts. Although no names or identifying information were captured, following Institutional Review Board standards, a demographics section was included so that respondents could provide the authors with attributes related to the educational experience of the participants.

Data Collection and Analysis Students enrolled in the Rehabilitation Counseling Master’s degree (MRC) in the previous five years (N = 467) were sent an email message containing a link to participate in the study. Both parts of the study appeared as a single web-based survey. Of the possible 467 surveys, 145 usable

and unduplicated surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 31%. According to Sheehan and Hoy (1999), this is an acceptable common response rate for an online survey. In the quantitative part of the study, of students’ perceptions of the effects of changing course management platforms, Szirony et al. (2010) developed an instrument consisting of five sections. Several content experts reviewed the survey design to control for content and face validity. The first four sections of the survey were designed for quantitative analysis and consisted of 15 Likert-type questions intended to gather information regarding general experience in distance education, comfort level of each participant, college degree seeking information, a general demographic information section, (i.e., age, race, gender, disability, and location), and a technical information component intended to gather data regarding type of computer hardware and software utilized by each participant. Additional information regarding experience with Blackboard, WebCT, or other course platforms was also collected. Salient to this study was one question regarding location of where the participant did most of her or his work (i.e., work or home). The data for this part of the study were analyzed using ANOVA procedures, multiple independent samples t-tests, and Tukey’s HSD tests (Minium, King, & Bear, 1993). All tests were conducted at the ⟨ = .05 level of significance. The effect size was calculated using eta-squared (|2 = .01). In the second part of the study, students enrolled in the program and recent graduates responded to several open-ended prompts regarding their experiences with WebCT, Blackboard, video streamed course content, and general comments about the class or program. Responses for all prompts were coded and categorized using the constant-comparative method (Boeije, 2002; Glaser, 1965). Five themes emerged from the data. The following section offers a detailed discussion of each of the five themes.

17


RESULTS Demographics Participants in the study ranged in age from 22 to 66, with a mean of 39 years old. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents were female and 23% were male. Seventy-five percent of the respondents in the sample were Caucasian, 16.5% were African-American, and all other ethnic groups reported, American/Alaskan Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic, comprised less than 1% of the sample each. Respondents included participants from 31 states, and seven responded from outside of the continental United States. Thirty-two percent of respondents were from Arkansas. One hundred twenty-four participants reported disability status; 73% reported having no disability and 27% reporting having had a disability. Forty-two percent of those reporting their occupation were working in State Vocational Rehabilitation settings with 18.6% working in other rehabilitation settings. Thirty-four percent of the participants reported not working in the field of rehabilitation at the time of the survey. Of those responding, 84.2% were enrolled in the MRC program at a university in the southern United States and 15% were taking courses but not enrolled in the MRC program.

Additional results include the participants’ level of computer comfort, which was measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. Approximately 50% of respondents strongly agreed with having a high comfort-level in working with computers while 40% agreed. Slightly under 8% were unsure and just over 2% felt not at all comfortable with computers in general.

Summary of Quantitative Results Results of the quantitative analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between groups (Szirony, et al., 2010) among students who had used WebCT, Blackboard, or both, in terms of preference for one course management system over the other (WebCT or Blackboard). See Table 1. Similarly, between the three groups there were no significant differences in students’ attitudes regarding their proficiency in the Blackboard or WebCT course management systems. See Table 2. This finding suggested that a change in course delivery systems does not necessarily have a negative effect upon experienced student users. In another finding, there were significant relationships among the three student groups between the

Table 1. Results of ANOVA on Blackboard and WebCT groups SS

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Eta-squared

Between Groups

872.356

3

290.785

4.916

0.003

0.01

Within Groups

8280.532

140

59.147

Total

9485.889

143

expgroup

N

1

no exp

51

54.35

Subset for alpha = .05 2 Tukey HSD exp in bb

29

57.14

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

18

57.14


Table 2. Students and Attitudes and Preferences Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Variable

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€N

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Percentage

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Blackboard

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€74

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€52.86

Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Web CT



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Distance Ed (Off-campus)



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer On-campus



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Discussion Boards



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Chat Rooms



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Asynchronous



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Synchronous



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Video Streamed



Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Prefer Text



level of computer comfort and having previous experience with distance education, having experience with previous hours in the program, and having the perception that one learns more through distance education than through conventional learning methods. See Table 3. Finally, the results showed that the majority of the sample (85.71%) preferred distance education to face-to-face instruction (14.29%). Other

preferences included discussion boards over chat rooms (82%), asynchronous over synchronous learning activities (90%), and video streamed content delivery over text-based delivery (88%).

Qualitative Results The qualitative section of the study was based on several research questions regarding the respon-

Table 3. Correlations among variables including Computer Comfort, Previous Experience in Distance Education, Self-perceived learning and Hours Completed in the Program

Computer Comfort

Pearson Correlation

Computer Comfort

Previous DE Experience

Learn More with DE

Hours Complete

1

.238(**)

.389(**)

.165(*)

0.004

0.000

0.049

Sig. (2-tailed) Previous DE Experience

Learn More with DE

Hours Complete

N

144

144

144

144

Pearson Correlation

.238(**)

1

0.147

.229(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.004

0.079

0.006

N

144

144

144

144

Pearson Correlation

.389(**)

0.147

1

.288(**)

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.000

0.079

N

144

144

144

144

Pearson Correlation

.165(*)

.229(**)

.228(**)

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.049

0.006

0.006

N

144

144

144

0.006

145

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

19


dents’ experiences with utilizing Blackboard, WebCT, and video streamed course content. The research questions focused on areas such as the common positive and negative experiences of students enrolled in online programs, the elements of online delivery that students most like and dislike, and how students are affected when there is a change in course management systems. From the data, a research question about the affective/ emotional aspects of distance learning experiences of the respondents emerged. In results similar to those from the quantitative part of the study, the qualitative results suggested that a change in course management systems seemed to have little or no impact on learners involved in a distance education program. There were, however, several findings regarding the respondents’ experiences with utilizing Blackboard, WebCT, and video streamed course content, their positive and negative experiences in the online classroom, and the elements of online learning that respondents most liked and disliked. The data yielded five themes: Communication, Pedagogy/Andragogy, Time Management, Access to Resources, and Course Delivery Systems, and Technology. An in-depth discussion of the findings from each theme follows.

Theme 1: Communication The first theme that emerged from the data centered on the nature of communication in a distance learning environment. Within this theme, qualitative responses dealt with five basic areas of communication. In the first of these areas, respondents pointed out that the nature of oneway communication is a limitation in an online classroom. The respondents’ comments included items such as “There is no visible interaction with the [p]rofessor” and that students are unable to “ask the professor a question when watching the lecture.” In a second area of related comments, respondents mentioned the absence of classroom interaction. These comments globally applied to

20

courses utilizing any course platform (WebCT, Blackboard, etc.) and teaching methodologies (discussion boards, text-based lectures, or video streamed lectures). However, due to the pairings of comments for each respondent, it was clear that many respondents indicated that they preferred the convenience of online learning and were willing to trade a more personalized classroom experience for the convenience of the online classroom. In many cases, online learning was considered a suitable replacement for the brick-and-mortar alternative. Respondents’ comments included items such as “I missed the opportunity to interact in a live classroom with other students, but this is the next best thing!” In the third area, students commented on the impersonal nature of online learning. Student comments included items such as: “[I] miss peer interaction-email and [B]lackboard discussions just don’t always provide the same type of classroom interactions,” “I miss the interacting with the professor,” and “I don’t have the security of other students to models of get advi[c]e.” Other respondents’ comments focused on missing “the camaraderie of other students and staff,” and the negative effects of “diminished direct contact with peers [and] professors.” In the fourth area, there was a mixed-review of discussion boards. They were both touted as helpful for building community and improving skills while also being criticized for being busy-work and impersonal. Some respondents’ complaints about discussion boards centered on navigation, “Too many parts” or “you have to navigate around to many different sections,” while others focused on the occurrence of frivolous discussions, “members filling up space with ‘ok’ and chit chat not related to the topic,” or the method being overused in distance education, “Discussion [b]oards are over used.” Those who found the method to be useful pointed out advantages such as discussion boards “allow time to formulate ideas before posting them” and that discussion boards are a forum for “learning [from] different students’ comments


and experiences,” or “improving writing skills” through composing postings for discussion boards. In the fifth area, for many respondents asynchronous online courses offered an effective venue for communication. Respondents commented that advantages included the ability to “watch at any time that is convenient” for the student, to “stop/ pause/review lectures,” to “review grades,” to “post announcements” and to “email at will.”

Theme 2: Pedagogy/Andragogy In the second theme, pedagogy/andragogy, the respondents’ comments fell into six areas. The role of online pedagogy/andragogy in the concentration and absorption of information was the first of these areas. Respondents’ comments characterized Blackboard as an “excellent learning tool” that allowed students to “go at your own pace,” “rewind. .. if you miss something important,” and learn with “no interruptions.” Respondents placed a high value on this aspect of online learning. In the second area, respondents pointed out the advantages of the instructor’s ability to update the class and add additional information at any time. This format facilitated many ancillary learning opportunities for students that gave them the ability to find and learn “all current information.” In a closely-related third area, students pointed out that online learning environments offered the ability for both the instructors and the students to give their full attention to the course material. The comments included items such as the ability to focus because the “information [is] presented and repeated” as needed, and that the pedagogical focus is on the presentation of work assignments. In the fourth area, respondents commented on the pedagogical/andragogical effectiveness of courses that are simple and easy to use. In response to a prompt regarding what respondents’ liked about online learning and the WebCT and Blackboard platforms, a plethora of respondents’ comments included items such as: “easy to use,” simplicity—reliability,” “it is so user friendly,”

and “simple to operate.” Closely related to this theme was the fifth area, which included respondents’ comments on the pedagogical/andragogical importance of proper organization for the course. Respondents’ criticisms included comments that some courses that were “disorganized,” had “too much info,” or that forced students to “search through [the course] to find new stuff.” On the other hand, respondents’ indicated that they very much enjoyed courses that were well organized. Several respondents enjoyed the convenience of having “all of the information you need for the classes. That way if you lose papers you can print them out, “and having “everything in front of you at your hands.” Other respondents indicated that a well-organized course facilitated learning: The classes I find the most ease following are the classes [w]here the instructor organized the text files/lecture transcriptions that follow the video stream. This is a great point of reference for me to take additional notes, as well as serves as [a] good place if I choose to break a video stream into more than one session of watching. In the last area, respondents found online testing—especially timed testing—to be a questionable pedagogical/andragogical technique. Specifically, respondents reported that online testing was often a source of anxiety and a poor indication of demonstrating what they had learned. Comments included items such as I disliked: the “pressure of online testing,” and I disliked “timed tests.” Respondents indicated that timed tests were a source of anxiety because students feared making a mistake in navigating the test, accidentally submitting an unfinished test, or getting locked out of the test because of technical difficulties. Not all of the feedback on tests administered in Blackboard or WebCT was negative. A few respondents in the sample indicated that they enjoyed the instant feedback that this tool provided.

21


Theme 3: Time Management In the third theme, respondents’ comments focused on the ways in which distance learning allows them to manage their time and to self-pace their learning. For this theme, respondents’ comments were separated to into two areas: flexibility/convenience and location/drive time/parking. In the first area, there were an overwhelming number of comments that indicated that the respondents valued the flexibility and convenience of asynchronous distance education. Comments included items such as: I can “view when time permits,” I can “review,” I have “the ability to do it at my own pace an in my own time frame,” I “can repeat the content,” I have the “ability to learn at my convenience” and school “can be worked around my busy schedule.” Other advantages that respondents pointed out included items such as: “I can participate when I have time and for as long/short a time as I want. I work full time so it would be a hardship to have to go to class at a certain time each week,” and “I’m better at communicating through email than in person. It’s easier to take notes with video streams since they can be paused.” In the second area, respondents pointed out the advantages of not physically traveling to the campus for classes. One respondent commented “I do not have to worry about driving to a university and finding parking. Saves a lot of time.” Another respondent shared: I really like the fact that it is available to me whenever I have the time to do it. It would have been really hard for me to attend traditional oncampus classes because of location and available time during traditional hours. Other respondents shared that there was a “convenience of now travel” that helped in areas such as childcare and arranging for transportation. Comments included: “As a blind person, participating online means I have to arrange transporta-

22

tion to one less place,” and “I do not have to find a babysitter while I’m in class.”

Theme 4: Access For this theme, access, respondents’ comments were sorted into two areas: access to the instructor and access to technical assistance. For the first area, respondents found it most troubling when there were instances where they were not able to ask questions, get immediate or timely feedback on their questions, or were not able to get explanations right away. Comments included items such as: It was often VERY difficult to get in touch with the instructors, either by phone or e-mail and I often got very frustrated when their assignments were not clear, which happened frequently. It was hard not having a real person to talk to when there was something I did not understand. The instructors always said they were available for questions, but they were not. Especially during the summer semester, they might post the videostream segments [and] assignments and then be gone for 2 weeks! In addition to dislikes about the accessibility of instructors, another factor was the accessibility of technical support. Often respondents reported that they received technical support from a friend or classmate. Many students reported insufficient technical support, especially when the servers for Blackboard or WebCT were down. Students reported that they often became technically proficient because they were forced to from a lack of technical support: “The only reason I can resolve problems is because I have had to. Tech support is deficient [and] has never solved the problems I have had.”


Theme 5: Course Delivery Systems and Technology For the fifth theme, course delivery systems and technology, respondents’ comments were categorized into four areas. The first area includes respondents’ views on the use of video streams. In a finding similar to the one in the quantitative part of the study, respondents seemed to prefer courses video streams to courses using only textbased delivery methods. Comments included items such as: “I liked the flexibility of video streamed distance learning process. It was convenient, easy to access, direct. I liked working at my own pace,” and “I like the flexibility of video stream distance learning. For adult learners who hold jobs and have families, it’s really vital and much appreciated. .. if it was just a text-based course, I wouldn’t keep up as well.” Finally, to this effect another student noted, Listening to the video streams helped me to concentrate better than when I tried to just read from the web. I enjoyed the personal aspect of it, and it helped me to feel connected even though we were a very long way from Arkansas. I definitely would recommend the video streams to someone who is not [able] to be on campus. Several respondents indicated that they learned more in a virtual environment than they might have learned in a brick and mortar classroom. One student commented that I did not get an opportunity to say why I learn more from Blackboard—I can go to class when I am fresh [and] I can take tapes of the class with me in the car & play them over & over to learn. That’s much better than text. The ability to replay video streams until I learn & understand & get concepts into notes is a great advantage over classroom learning.

Another student commented that she “would not go back to brick and mortar” while another shared that he “wished that online education was available when I was in college in the late 70’s and 80’s. Many students cited the asynchronous nature of video streamed lectures as an advantage. One student noted, I like the videos because it still gives a sense of the classroom but more one on one availability. Plus there is never a question of what is said because it is recorded. The availability of asynchronous makes the video streams more available and easier to work into the schedule more often. My favorite thing about the video streaming is the fact that they are still posted throughout the entire semester so reviewing them really helps me study, throughout the semester and before major exams. Another student recounted that the “ability to pause [and] rewind lectures when needed” was a strong point of delivery content via video streaming. Even though overall the video streams were regarded as positive and effective, several respondents reported frustrations with technical issues. One of the issues was understanding the content being presented. One respondent wrote that it was “hard to hear” and “hard to see all the overhead slides.” Also, at times, it was “hard to understand the accent of some presenters or read the writing.” Likewise, another respondent wrote that he was not “able to see the illustrations/graphs/etc. very clearly to determine the content.” A separate issue dealt with the navigation of the video streams in the course management system. She commented that getting into the video streams takes another click because they seem to be down one more level— after you click on the video streams folder, then the actual one for viewing, it is necessary to find it again and enter to get it started.

23


The second area in this theme is focused on technical difficulties. These included difficulties with the system, such as “It seems like Blackboard was down fairly often,” difficulties with course content, such as “”documents shown not always readable” or “can’t hear.. . and was dependent upon the transcriptions,” and personal technical difficulties, such as “My lack of computer skills sometimes ‘hangs’ me up until I can get help to get it resolved. There were a number of comments regarding these difficulties, and it appears that this is a significant concern for the respondents. The third area in this theme dealt with the features that were utilized in Blackboard or WebCT. Respondents commented on the effectiveness of various features, the reliability of the technology, and the ease of use of features. Comments included items such as “some of the features were interesting to use, when they worked,” there were too “many functions” and I “don’t like cyber café.” The fourth area focused on the respondents’ experiences with Blackboard and WebCT. There were roughly an equal number of positive and negative comments regarding each system. This indicates that for this sample, there was not a clear preference for one course management system over the other. Comments suggested that certain features, such as attachments or videos, worked better in one system or the other. Comments included items such as: WebCT is “not as user friendly as Blackboard,” The video streams seem to be a little cleaner in Blackboard than they do in WebCT,” and “There doesn’t seem to be a lot of difference between it [WebCT] and Blackboard.”

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This two-part study confirms the findings from previous research that suggest that the change from one course management system (CMS) to another may have a dramatic impact on faculty, especially in terms of workload (Smart, & Meyer,

24

2005), but seems to have little or no effect on students’ learning and perceptions of their experiences (Szirony et al., in 2010). Further, the findings of this study support the taxonomy of barriers as reported in the work of Muilenburg and Berge (2005). Factors such as social interaction, technical skills, time and support for students, and technical problems also emerged in this study of distance education in transition. Another factor that cannot be overlooked is the role emotion in learning as presented by Zembylas (2008). This factor emerged as significant in several areas of this study, particularly as it relates to the theme of Communication, such as the importance of a personalized learning environment and interaction with peers and instructor, and to the theme of Course Delivery Systems and Technology, such as in the technical issues area where high levels of frustration and anger had a significant impact on the learners’ experiences. Online learning is largely self-directed. A characteristic of adult learners is that they are busy and often have childcare, work, parent-care giving, social, church, and other obligations. This makes them different from traditionallyaged college students (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Therefore, online learning methods that work well often tend to do so with tenets of andragogy and self-directed learning (Boden, Franklin-Guy, Gibson, Lasker-Scott, Scudder, & Smartt, 2008). For example, in areas of concentration and absorption, the comments that frequently appeared in the qualitative responses for this study suggested that adults can learn at their own pace, can rewind, return to previous learning modules, participate at their own peak performance times even though they may do so covertly, with little understanding of why they chose a particular time of day, night or day of week. This is a hallmark of andragogy. This was noted in area two ancillary learning opportunities, which may also be related to self-directed learning. Basically, adults can learn “how” they want and “what” they need to know, supporting the premise


that people construct meaning in their own ways. Online learning may contribute to the hallmarks of self-directedness, allowing learners to do just that. Knowing the material and presenting it in a decent way is just good teaching (attention to material, simplicity & ease of use, organization). For the last area, testing, this may also hold true. Both of these areas call for ways for adults to demonstrate that they have learned something. A possible piece of future research could focus on the role of emotion in distance education courses. Another strand of research could include strategies for addressing areas that students considered important—technical support, instructor and peer interaction, and assessment of student learning. The findings of this study support much previous research in the field of distance education. The authors suggest utilizing these findings, along with other current research, to build a model of best-practice for the online classroom. The model would include teaching techniques and practices and ways to address barriers. The model could be tested in various higher education settings and disciplines to see if there is a correlation between teaching techniques utilized, learning outcomes, student satisfaction, and student success. In conclusion, several factors resulted from this survey of online learners. The quantitative results indicated that there were no significant differences between groups of students who had used WebCT, Blackboard, or both. In general, students preferred distance education to brick and mortar courses, discussion boards over live chats, asynchronous over synchronous learning activities, and video streamed content delivery over text-based delivery. A significant finding was that a change in course delivery systems does not necessarily have a negative effect upon experienced student users.

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://www. sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/staying_course Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. The Journal of Communication, 54(3), 402–419. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02636.x Boden, C. J., Franklin-Guy, S., Gibson, D., Lasker-Scott, T., Scudder, R. R., & Smartt, J. T. (2008). Seven methodologies professors use to promote student epistemological development and self-directedness. The International Journal of Learning, 15(11), 11–21. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36, 391–409. doi:10.1023/A:1020909529486 Dobbs, R. R., Waid, C. A., & del Carmen, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of online courses: The effect of online course experience. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 9–26. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 426–445. doi:10.1525/ sp.1965.12.4.03a00070 Lee, K.S. (2009). The intersection of the scholarship of teaching and learning with online course design in teacher education. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 4, 77-85. Lorenzetti, J. (2003). Thirty-two distance education trends. Distance Education Report, 7(21), 325–330.

25


Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Minium, E., King, B., & Bear, G. (1993). Statistical reasoning in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Moore, J. C., Sener, J., & Fetzner, M. (2006). Getting better: ALN and student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 55–84. Muilenburg, L.Y., & Berge. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269 Mungania, P. (2003). The seven e-learning barriers facing employees: Final report. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://www.tjtaylor.net/ goto3.php?w=research/The-Seven-E-LearningBarriers-facing-Employees-Penina-Mungania-2003.pdf Newlin, M. H., & Wang, A. Y. (2002). Integrating technology and pedagogy: Web instruction and seven principles of undergraduate education. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 325–330. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_15 Smart, K., & Meyer, K. (2005). Changing course management systems: Lessons learned. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(2), 68–70.

26

Szirony, G. M., Garner, W. E., Dickerson, L. R., & Pack, T. G. (2010). Distance education in transition: A preliminary investigation of student perceptions, characteristics, and attitudes regarding a change in course management platforms. [copy on file with author]. Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult Learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29(1), 71–87. doi:10.1080/01587910802004852

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Course Delivery Platform: The software system used to deliver educational courses over the World Wide Web. Other terms include Learning Management System, Learning Platform or Managed Learning Environment. Changing Course Delivery Platforms: The process of moving online courses from one Course Delivery Platform to another; in this case, from WebCT to Blackboard. Distance Education: A system of education that focuses on pedagogy, technology, or instructional systems intended to deliver course content to students who are not physically present in a “brick and mortar” classroom. A method of instruction in which learners/students are separated by time, distance, or both. Online Survey: A survey delivered over the Internet or World Wide Web. A method of distributing survey questions and collecting the results in an online environment.

27

Chapter 3

An Inquiry into the Policies and Practices for Online Education at One U.S. Doctoral/ Research-Extensive University: A Case Study Peter A. Bruce University of Utah, USA Robert Z. Zheng University of Utah, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The case study examines the policies and practices for online education at one doctoral/research-extensive university. It uses interview findings from the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as well as key secondary sources to better understand these policies and practices. The context for the study is one of dynamic interest in online education and reduced funding for public higher education nationwide. There were six recurring themes throughout the primary and secondary data. These were: 1) students; 2) technology; 3) teachers; 4) services; 5) resources; and 6) costs. These emergent themes are analyzed using the standards for online programs established by the agencies that accredit all American universities. The participating university was found to be a leader and innovator in the application of online and technology-mediated higher education. The case study methodology is offered as a template for the further study of online higher education. Applications in secondary and transition programs are also noted. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch003


An Inquiry into the Policies and Practices for Online Education

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND Issues in Online Higher Education There is currently a lack of evidence-based research to build a well-informed understanding of the critical institutional components and leadership choices that shape the policies and practices for online education at American universities. In 2007, the Commission on Colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) that accredits all U.S. colleges and universities created the components for the document, Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). The Commission addressed the need for planning and assessing high standards of quality in U.S. university online programs, and defined the critical areas of concern in U.S. online higher education programs. These consist of: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. In drawing its conclusion, the Commission called for a reexamination of the online practices of U.S. universities in light of the newly established best practices for quality online higher education programs. Within an extensive body of research in online education, research on best practices as defined by the Commission on Colleges of the U.S. Department of Education is scarce (Bruce, 2010). This lack of research has increasingly affected program delivery in terms of the quality of the curriculum, pedagogy, and the assessment associated with online education. According to a recent report of more than 2,500 colleges and universities surveyed nationwide (Allen & Seaman, 2008), approximately 3.94 million students were enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2007. The growing number of students needing higher education has also placed increasing pressures on the university community to respond. Statistics indicate that online distance education has grown at all levels. A recent study by Bruce

28

(2010) indicated that almost all higher education institutions described online education as important to their long-term strategic planning. Evidently, the advance of online education has radically redefined higher education in terms of its curricular boundary and student composition. In the meanwhile, it has significantly changed the landscape in higher education with respect to its learning concepts, strategies and applications (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005; Zheng, 2009; Zheng & Dahl, 2009). Amidst the rapid growth of online higher education, there is a lack of general knowledge about the existing policies and practices pertaining to online learning in higher education. Therefore, the study of the existing policies and practices in higher education distance learning is warranted. The purpose of this study is to inform the online learning community, especially secondary and post secondary institutions, of the status of online learning in terms of policies and practices in higher education by presenting a case study on one U.S. doctoral/research-extensive university. The case study uses a metrics containing standards of quality online education recognized by the United States (U.S.) Department of Education. The focus is on investigating: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. The case study represents the first qualitative research that investigates the institutional policies and practices in online education, specifically in the five areas mentioned above. Further, it examines the existing institutional policies and practices and its self-reported compliance with the U.S. accrediting agencies’ standards for quality. As such, it is an important introduction to our understanding of a leading U.S. public university’s relationship to compliance with accrediting institution requirements across the five key areas of online policy and practice. It also represents a comprehensive and targeted template for further study in this dynamically growing area of higher education.


SETTING THE STAGE The case study involves a large doctoral/researchextensive university in the western United States. The university supports multi-delivery modes including online education in students’ learning. There is an infrastructure initiative for online distance education led by the university Chief Information Officer (CIO) to facilitate full, hybrid and online learning. Moreover, in collaboration with a state education technology network – a nonprofit organization that promotes technology integration in K-16 education, the university has progressively embarked onto new technologies such as wireless networking, two-way digital video technology, and cloud computing. The university enrolls about 30,000 students and has about 100 colleges and departments. The university offers through its continuing education college and other colleges more than 100 distance learning courses on a regularly basis. Despite the efforts to build a distance infrastructure at both college and university levels, there are some barriers which have been identified that hamper further growth of online learning both on and off campus. These barriers include (a) staff training, (b) software and hardware, (c) online pedagogy, and (d) faculty support. Associated with the barriers previously identified are the challenges to implement online distance education (Visual, Information and Technology Literacy Task Force, 2009). The challenges are summarized as follows: Software upgrades. The software upgrades and licensing (e.g., Adobe Connect which has been used to facilitate synchronous online learning) has been constrained by the institutional budget. Finding funds to support software upgrades and licensing has been a significant challenge to the online programs. Faculty technology use. There is a significant gap between what is available and what technology faculty use in their online instruction. Oftentimes, faculty members are not aware of what technologies are available to them. Of those

that are available, their use is limited to minimum capacity, that is, only those basic features in the technologies are used such as posting a syllabus and enabling assignment submission in WebCT. Thus, training faculty to utilize the technologies to their fullest advantage in online instruction has been a challenge. Policies in faculty training. There is not a policy in place that provides incentives to faculty training in terms of online pedagogy, technology and so forth. No policy has been made regarding faculty’s innovative development in online instruction and their tenure promotion. It was not clear from the policy viewpoint how to institute a certification system for faculty training. Funding. Funding is a major challenge that the university faces as it moves to more online courses. The university’s funding reductions were 9 percent this year. The CIO explained that it was only this low because of the one-time federal funding initiatives for education from the current administration. Tuition, without the additional funding, is expected to rise to 17 percent next year. This has, in turn, caused the university to increase tuition rates. The participating university raised tuition 9.5 percent last year. It is believed that the rapid increase of tuition may curb some potential applicants from going to higher education to obtain their academic degrees. Given the barriers and challenges described above, the university has taken important steps to develop policies that would meet the challenges and ensure successful implementation of online learning programs.

CASE DESCRIPTION The purpose of the case study was to (a) study the underlying reasons for the choices made by the university under study regarding their policies and practices for online education in the five areas of institutional activity defined by the eight regional accrediting agencies for U.S. higher education.

29


They include: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment; and (b) examine factors that guide policy and practice in the five areas of online institutional activity defined by the eight regional accrediting agencies for U.S. higher education. The procedure and methodology for the case study are described below.

Procedure Participant Selection Case studies provide a method through which indepth inquiry into certain issues can be examined. This inquiry may be approached through one or more cases within a defined context or setting. A case study may address the uniqueness of a certain case or it may represent an instance of some broader phenomena (Stake, 2005). This distinction is essential when considering participant selection. The case study concerns the broad phenomenon of one doctoral research/extensive university’s policies and practices for online education. Participant selection involved choosing a representative that is responsible for the management and integration of educational technology, including online courses and programs, at a university. The case study participant chosen is the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of one U.S. doctoral/researchextensive university. The Carnegie Doctoral/ Research Universities-Extensive (2007) category was established by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching for institutions that offer a broad range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. The participating university was selected from among the one hundred fifty-two doctoral/research-extensive universities identified nationally: 102 public and 50 private.

30

Purposeful Sampling Patton (1990) describes purposeful sampling in qualitative research as the selection of cases for study that will provide information-rich materials for in-depth examination. Cases are chosen because they are expected to provide a source of abundant information related to the issues under study, in this case the institutional policies and practices related to online higher education. It is not possible to determine at this state of investigation if the case chosen for this research is typical or not because of the small sample size (n = 1). It is expected, however, that a thorough single-case study may characterize one university’s policies and practices in online higher education.

Selecting the Case Representative The participant in the case study was chosen for their having met all of the primary and secondary criteria for selection. The primary criteria required the participant to be a Chief Information Officer (CIO), or hold an equivalent position, at a U.S. doctoral/research-extensive university. The participant should have the responsibility for management and integration of academic and educational technology systems for all departments, schools, and colleges of the university. The participant’s education, training, and professional qualifications constitute the secondary criteria for selection as the case study participant.

Instrument for Interview The questionnaire for the interview asked 29 formal questions as well as follow-up open-ended questions about the policies and practices for online education at the participating university. The interview questions are divided into five separate components. Each addresses a particular area of institutional activity relevant to online distance education in U.S. colleges and universities. The interview questions are an abridgement of the doc-


ument, Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). The five areas of online institutional activity interviewed are: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) student support, 4) faculty support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. The interview took just under one hour. A complete copy of the interview questionnaire is available on request from the authors.

Methodology The case study was set in a university which offers full, hybrid and blended online courses to its students. The methodology chosen for the qualitative research study on university distance education is a single-case study (Drew, Hardman & Hosp, 2008; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). This research methodology was chosen for its suitability in helping to arrive at an understanding of the current state of one doctoral/researchextensive university’s policies and practices as seen through the lens of their Chief Information Officer (CIO). Three sources of data were collected. They included transcribed data from an in-depth one hour interview with the CIO, field notes taken during the interview, and documents related to course management systems, technology integration, strategic planning for educational technology, mission statements, and a key white paper. Qualitative data analysis methods were employed that included triangulation and grounded theory. Both were used to generate findings to understand important policy areas in distance education including 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. Two qualitative data analysis techniques were used. They include: triangulation analysis and grounded theory. Grounded theory is operated upon three related concepts: open, axial, and selective coding, each representing a stage in

the process of data analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The open coding is to maximize “opportunities for comparing concepts along their properties for the similarities and differences … to densify categories, to differentiate among them, and to specify their range of variability” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 202). The axial coding reassembles the data that are fractured in open coding and builds the subcategories around the axis called the overarching category. Finally, the selective coding is a process of identifying the central phenomenon or central concept under which all other categories can be related, subsumed, and integrated to grow in depth and in explanatory power (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Findings from the grounded theory method were further triangulated with fields notes and other documents (e.g., course management systems, technology integration, strategic planning for educational technology, mission statements, and a key white paper) to corroborate and confirm the findings from different data sources and provide trustworthiness in methodology.

Data Analysis The coding process revealed six dominant themes: students, technologies, teachers, services, resources, and funding. A discussion of each theme follows.

Students The questionnaire for the interview asked 29 formal questions as well as some open-ended questions about the policies and practices for online education at the participating university. The CIO was asked about institutional context and commitment, curriculum and instruction, student support, faculty support, and both evaluation and assessment as they related to their online and technology-mediated courses and programs. The most common theme across both the primary and secondary data sources was students. A simple

31


word-count analysis of the interview transcripts showed the word “students” occurring more than twice as often as the next major theme. The questionnaire had four questions specifically related to student support. The first question asked about the institution’s commitment to its online programs and inquired into the activities that demonstrate that commitment. The CIO clarified that it’s the same commitment as with campus-based students. It starts with screening at registration and is continued through assessment updates and evaluations that describe what students are doing to complete their courses and programs. If anything, there’s more tracking with online students than with campus-based students because the technology is in place to know everything from course activity to completion of degrees. The second question asked about the institution’s policies and procedures to implement and evaluate the important components of admissions and retention. The CIO said that admissions and retentions are tracked very thoroughly. Again, it was noted that there is an even closer tracking with online students because of the technologies involved that provide a high degree of oversight. The Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS), the CIO explained, aids in this by producing data related to academic progress toward completion of a degree. The CIO added that DARS has a high degree of accuracy with student tracking. The next two questions enquired into policies and practices related to student services and fostering a sense of community for distance education students. The CIO’s response was that there are a complete range of services for online and distance education students, mostly at the undergraduate level and in the professional degree programs. A white paper written by the CIO and recently delivered to lawmakers outlined, among other things, services offered for students. These include being among the top wired universities in the country, i.e. providing exemplary computer and Internet access for students; open content;

32

course management systems; library resources and journal databases; computer centers; help desks; research services; online courses and programs; and access to all university services online.

Technology The questionnaire asked seven questions directly related to technology. The questions covered budgets and policy statements; technical and plant facilities; the process from authorization to implementation; the prioritization of learning over technology; technology frameworks and support; and the selection of technologies. In answering the series of questions the CIO explained that there is an initial screening of possible online students to see if they are good candidates for online education. Once admitted there is a fee for all distance education students which goes towards the support and infrastructure costs. Training for faculty is also a part of the cost. A distinction was made between capital costs, i.e. buildings and equipment, and funds from the state legislature. The legislature actually decides what can be used for higher education and what can be resourced through student fees. A clear process from authorization to implementation was followed in online courses and programs, most of whose policies are determined by the individual colleges. New technologies, software, and hardware are reviewed, approved, and implemented as needed or as they are made available. Learning outcomes are considered critically important and both resources and personnel are involved in the process. The technical framework and support structures lie in the individual centers that lead programs in technology assisted curriculum and teaching and learning. The individual colleges also contribute in major ways. A resource database of learning objects is available for instructors as are choices in course delivery systems. Finally, it was noted that it’s usually the faculty that makes the choices in equipment and course management system for their online


classes. Costs were recognized as a key factor in the provision of the best services at the best available prices.

Teachers There were five questions in the interview on curriculum and instruction and an additional five questions on faculty support. The CIO noted that there are policies in place and checks on every aspect of curriculum and instruction from instructional design to the technologies available for instruction. Program and process oversight was in the hands of the Dean of the Graduate School in these matters, not the CIO. Campus computers and services are available and online provisions are the same as those for campus-based students, or better in some ways. Legislative law is a significant factor in cost-sharing for such things as technologies, software, and licensing agreements, especially when the costs are dispersed widely across the state as in higher education. The CIO noted that this becomes a problem when there are cuts to higher education as there are now. The five questions on faculty support addressed issues of workload and compensation; intellectual property rights; faculty evaluations; administrative or faculty policy development; technical design and production support; orientation and training in program technologies and course design; and strategies for interaction. The interview revealed self-reported compliance with accrediting agency standards across the issues listed. Faculty members do play a part in policy construction and make many of the decisions for their own colleges and departments. Support is provided through the university technology center which has a wide range of services for its online teachers. These include services related to the program’s technologies, course design, and course management. The Graduate School and library provide additional services to faculty members. Most of it is implemented online at the direction of the departments. Finally, every teacher involved

in online teaching goes through a formal training program that involves course development, pedagogy, strategies to achieve learning outcomes, and other relevant matters.

Services In addition to the faculty services already mentioned, the participating university provides a considerable range of services to its online and distance education students. The five questions related to student support established that the university has an administrative, financial, and technical commitment to its online programs and courses. Most of these programs serve undergraduate students and graduate students pursuing professional degrees. University involvement is evidenced from enrollment to academic and support services to alumni programs. A collegial and long-term relationship with students is also evidenced throughout their policies and practices for online education. A key white paper written by the CIO noted other information technology services. These included open content courses and workshops for both teachers and students at the undergraduate and graduate levels; collaboration tools and technologies; technology assisted curriculum; learning objects; media on demand; lecture archiving; data storage; and both online and IT supported classrooms. Services are also abundant for the research and business aspects of higher education including automated proposal submission, institutional review, technology transfer, and a wide range of journal and research databases.

Resources The interview and secondary data sources revealed that resources are major considerations in broad areas of the participating university’s online policies and practices. These resources are directed towards learning outcomes and those faculty members, technologies, and tools that come to

33


bear in bringing the desired learning outcomes about. The university’s technology center is central to establishing and maintaining a range of resources from curriculum development to instructional design to both teaching and learning. Technical training is a powerful resource as is its A to Z tool guide for online instruction. As has been mentioned, the university is nationally recognized as a leader in being wired for technology. Another center of service has become nationally recognized for its innovations in the application of educational technology. It has established an education network across the state that includes public school districts, all of the state’s colleges and universities, an electronic high school, and the state’s library system. A center for excellence in teaching and learning provides another range of resources for faculty members, departments, and students. These include workshops, seminars, online classes, and a resource center. The Graduate School offers a wide range of online and campusbased resources for both faculty members and students. Still another resource center is their distance education program. Among their resources are online courses leading to various certifications; educational technology programs; professional education; lifelong learning; youth education opportunities; and a learning center. Funding and costs Higher education funding reductions are both a contextual issue nationwide and an ongoing practical issue for the participating university. The university’s Vice President for Academic Affairs pointed out recently in an interview with the student newspaper that budget cuts for higher education scheduled by the state legislature for the 2009-2010 school year totaled 17 percent. The one time stimulus monies provided by the federal government mitigated that so the actual cut was only 9 percent, but there is a likelihood that the 17 percent cut will occur in the next school year. Such a cut would very likely impact the quality of education at the participating university. Even the 9 percent budget cut has caused tuition to rise by 9.5 percent this school year and tuition will

34

undoubtedly rise significantly with even deeper cuts to higher education funding. Budget cuts also influence the university’s ability to fund faculty members and research staff at current levels. Should the university loose five professors to other universities because of the budget cuts, the President of the institution confirmed recently in an interview, the university will lose a quarter of a billion dollars of research funding. The university President explained that loosing faculty and the research funding they bring in impacts in a negative way the quality of education at the participating institution. Budget cuts also affect departments in negative ways. Budgets for departments are handled by the chairs of the various departments and by the deans of the schools and colleges they belong to. Where funding is provided in large part by federal sources a department will be less impacted, as is the case for medicine and health sciences at the participating university. Elsewhere, where departments rely more on professors to bring in research monies, the impact is felt more deeply. In addition, there are the ongoing infrastructure and support costs involved, and there are technology and software costs as well as service agreement costs with non-university providers. The CIO pointed out that the legislature plays a part in funding allocations university-wide and when there are cuts to institutional budgets it is reflected in diverse ways across the university, including the resources available for online programs. The CIO also noted that, although a good deal of time is given to address such matters, it is not entirely in their hands.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The case study identified several important areas pertaining to policies and practices related to online education. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of online learning programs in the participating doctoral/research-extensive university with its


policies and practices. These include student services, technology, teachers, services and resources. A comparison between the characteristics of the university online programs and standards for quality set by the Commission on Colleges would enhance our understanding of how a doctoral/research-extensive university performed in self-reported compliance with national standards in online education. The eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education established the standards for quality online programs in the five areas of institutional activity (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). Each area was interviewed in detail, the questionnaire being an abridgement that included all of these standards in question form. The complete wording of the accrediting agency standards in each of the five areas is also critically important for understanding how the participating university reflects these standards in their policies, practices, and initiatives.

Institutional Context and Commitment The standards established by the accrediting agencies for institutional context and commitment are: 1) The institution is aware of accreditation requirements and complies with them; 2) the institution’s budgets and policy statements reflect its commitment to the students for whom its electronically offered programs are designed; 3) the institution assures adequacy of technical and physical plant facilities including appropriate staffing and technical assistance, to support its electronically offered programs; 4) there is a clear, well-understood process by which the electronically offered program has developed/ is developing from conception to administrative authorization to implementation; 5) in its articulation and transfer policies the institution judges courses and programs on their learning outcomes, and the resources brought to bear for their achievement, not on modes of delivery; 6) the institution strives to assure a consistent and coherent technical framework for students and

Table 1. Characteristics of a doctoral/research-extensive university online program Categories

Characteristics of Online Programs

Student services

• Institutional commitment to provide students’ support • Online academic tracking for students’ progression • Admission and retention tracking • One of the top wired universities in the country

Technology

• An infrastructure for reviewing, purchasing and implementing software and hardware • A campus-wide network of tech support that is distributed across centers and individuals on campus • Faculty is trusted to make decisions about the equipment and resources for their online instruction

Teachers

• Dean oversight in programs, not the CIO • Faculty members play a part in policy construction • Faculty members involved in online teaching go through a formal training program

Services

• Open content courses and workshops for both teachers and students at the undergraduate and graduate levels • Provide collaboration tools and technologies • Provide technology assisted curriculum

Resources

• Technology center establishes and maintains a range of resources • Technical and instructional orientation, training, and support • A center for excellence in teaching and learning

35


faculty; 7) the institution provides students with reasonable technical support for each educational technology hardware, software, and delivery system required in a program; 8) the selection of technologies is based on appropriateness for the students and the curriculum and should include specific consideration of the match between technology and program; and 9) the institution seeks to understand the legal and regulatory requirements of the jurisdictions in which it operates. One question was added in this section that was not in the Best Practices document. It asked the CIO to name the specific accrediting agency that their online policies and practices were under the jurisdiction of. Primary data revealed that the university is aware of their agency and the accreditation standards and in self-reporting complies with them. In addition to the findings in Table 1, there were a number of findings of particular interest in understanding the institutional context and commitment of the university under study. These are its educational technology initiatives in the context of increased student interest in online access and reduced funding from the state legislature. Technology initiatives are evidenced campus-wide: the individual college initiatives; a technology aided curriculum center; a center for excellence in teaching and learning; an educational network that incorporates state school districts, colleges, universities, and library systems; and a new center to advance technology in education that is scheduled for launch in the new year. These institutional leadership choices in the context of significantly reduced funding evidence an exemplary commitment to the university’s online and technology-mediated courses, programs, faculty, and students.

Curriculum and Instruction The standards established for online curriculum and instruction are: 1) The institution assures that each program of study results in collegiate level learning outcomes appropriate to the rigor and

36

breadth of the degree or certificate awarded by the institution, and that the electronically offered degree or certificate program is coherent and complete; 2) academically qualified persons participate fully in the decisions concerning program curricula and program oversight; 3) in designing an electronically offered degree or certificate program, the institution provides a coherent plan for the student to access all courses necessary to complete the program, and assures that all students have access to appropriate services; 4) the criteria for selecting consortial partners and contractors, assuring that enhancing service to students is a primary consideration, and consideration is also given to the effect of administrative arrangements and cost-sharing on an institution’s decisionmaking regarding curriculum; and 5) the importance of appropriate interaction (synchronous or asynchronous) between instructor and students and among students is reflected in the design of the program and its courses, and in the technical facilities and services provided. The primary interview data confirmed that the participating university self-reports compliance with accrediting agency standards for electronically-mediated programs in this area. A number of items related to curriculum and instruction are noted in Table 1. Additionally, legislative law was noted as a cost-sharing factor, something that can be a recurring problem to public universities and colleges. Notwithstanding, the participating university has taken up the challenge and is innovating in many important ways. The same levels of commitment are seen in the university’s policies and practices related to the important areas of curriculum and instruction. These key areas of educational activity are served by the same centers mentioned above. The depth and breadth of these services to faculty members and students is again exemplary. In the face of funding reductions the university, according to a key white paper, is using online and distance education as a competitive advantage for reaching such audiences as working professionals. The


university currently offers nearly 450 courses in various technology environments. Educational technology initiatives at the participating university related to curriculum and instruction include options in course management systems; student course feedback; technical training; PowerPoint training; effective online instruction guides and workshops; an A-Z tool guide for online instruction; technology-enabled course design; a state-wide network of secondary and higher education institutions and library systems; video classrooms and telecourses; collaborative partnerships; licensing agreements; learning centers; curriculum collaboration; digital media; a learning object database; and technology integration.

Faculty Support The accrediting agencies’ standards are: 1) In the development of an electronically offered program, the institution and its participating faculty have considered issues of workload, compensation, ownership of intellectual property resulting from the program, and the implications of program participation for the faculty member’s professional evaluation processes; 2) the institution provides an ongoing program of appropriate technical, design, and production support for participating faculty members; 3) the institution provides to those responsible for program development the orientation and training to help them become proficient in the uses of the program’s technologies, including potential changes in course design and management; and 4) the institution provides to those responsible for working directly with students the orientation and training to help them become proficient in the uses of the technologies for these purposes, including strategies for effective interaction. The participating university self-reported compliance with all of the standards established by the accrediting agencies for faculty support in electronically offered programs. Table 1 summa-

rized the key findings. Additionally, the technology and service centers that are leadership initiatives in the areas of curriculum and instruction also serve as faculty support mechanisms. They are used campus-wide but are particularly evident in the professional graduate programs such as Nursing, Engineering, Social Work, Law, Medicine, and Education at the participating university. These centers also serve faculty members involved in traditional distance education courses, telecourses, lifelong learning courses, Certificate programs, and youth education courses and programs.

Student Support The standards for student support, already summarized earlier, are more exactly stated here: 1) The institution has a commitment— administrative, financial, and technical— to continuation of the program for a period sufficient to enable all admitted students to complete a degree or certificate in a publicized timeframe; 2) the institution has policies and procedures in place to implement and evaluate the important components of admissions and retention; 3) the institution recognizes that appropriate services must be available for students of electronically offered programs, using the working assumption that these students will not be physically present on campus; 4) the institution recognizes that a sense of community is important to the success of many students, and that an ongoing, long-term relationship is beneficial to both student and institution. It acknowledges the importance of the design and administration of the program by taking into consideration such factors as encouraging study groups, providing student directories (with the permission of those listed), and including off-campus students in institutional publications and events. The institution engages off-campus students in the academic community through such mechanisms as student government representation, invitations to campus events including graduation ceremonies, and similar strategies of inclusion.

37


Primary and secondary data sources again confirm self-reported compliance with national higher education online standards for quality in both policy and practice. The findings, summarized in Table 1, may be better understood through additional analysis. Compliance is evidenced in policies and practices that reflect a sustained administrative, financial, and technical commitment to its online and technology-mediated programs and students. Tracking online students is done through the technologies that report everything from course activity to completion of degrees. DARS was seen to allow student tracking with a high degree of accuracy. The university offers a complete range of services for online and distance education students from their initial contact with the university through all courses and degrees to inclusion in alumni services. This level of student support is again exemplary and engenders a sense of community between students and between students and the university. Another area of online institutional activity served by the many technology and learning initiatives and centers of the participating university is student support. The mission statements of the university and all of these centers name students as a primary service and support missions, be they indirectly, as with achieving learning outcomes through teacher training, or directly through academic enhancement and student support services. These services cover the areas of research, instruction, communication, and training. They provide a broad range of resources for their online students that include research databases; online article and journal databases across every academic discipline; specialty databases for professional disciplines; online short courses and workshops; video and digital media archives; and online help for student questions and problems.

Evaluation and Assessment The last areas of online institutional activity of concern to both universities and the agencies that

38

accredit them are evaluation and assessment. The specific standards established by the accrediting agencies for online programs are: 1) As a component of the institution’s overall assessment activities, documented assessment of student achievement is conducted in each course and at the completion of the program, by comparing student performance to the intended learning outcomes; 2) when examinations are employed (paper, online, demonstrations of competency, etc.), they take place in circumstances that include firm student identification, and the institution otherwise seeks to assure the integrity of student work; 3) documented procedures assure that security of personal information is protected in the conduct of assessments and evaluations and in the dissemination of results; 4) overall program effectiveness is determined by such measures as matching student learning with outcomes, meeting student intentions, student retention and satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, the provision of access to students not previously served, appropriate use of learning resources, student competence in skills of communication, comprehension and analysis, and cost effectiveness; 5) the institution conducts a program of continual self-evaluation directed toward program improvement, targeting more effective uses of technology to improve pedagogy, advances in student achievement of intended outcomes, improved retention rates, effective use of resources, and demonstrated improvements in the institution’s service to its internal and external constituencies; and 6) institutional evaluation of electronically offered programs takes place in the context of the regular evaluation of all academic programs. Answers to the five questions in the interview that addressed these matters provided data confirming the participating university’s self-reporting of compliance with accrediting agency standards. Assessment instruments are in place, mostly online, that track intended learning outcomes for each course. Learning outcomes, considered critically important by the CIO, are not


only for complying with the regional accreditation agency but for providing the best outcomes for students. It has been a very workable system for quite a number of years. All of the program exams, and all of the final exams, are done in person for full assurance that identification is confirmed for every student. Integrity of student work is also checked by teachers. The university has policies and procedures to assure that security of personal information is fully protected in the conduct of assessments and evaluations and in the dissemination of results. The CIO indicated the university is very confident in their procedures and instruments. The Graduate School conducts a program of continual self-evaluation towards program improvement, targeting of more effective uses of technology, and effective use of resources. Evaluations are also conducted towards improvements in pedagogy, advances in student achievement in relationship to intended learning outcomes, and improved retention rates. Such evaluations demonstrate the institution’s commitment to a high level of service to its internal and external constituencies. There are also evaluations for every course and a number of services are in place to address issues or problems, whether they come from a faculty member or from online students.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Emerging Trends There are a number of emerging trends in online higher education. The demand for online higher education has been growing dramatically nationwide since 2006 (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, 2008, 2009; Golden, 2006). Changes in law that allowed federal financial aid to students taking more than half of their courses online and to the institutions that offer more than half of their courses online have allowed access to students formerly underserved (Carnevale, 2006). The

year 2007 saw the first national standards for electronically-delivered higher education programs established by the eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). Funding cuts to higher education have also been seen nationwide over the past several years and are expected to continue. Additionally, educational technology hardware, software, and applications have grown in number and complexity over the past ten years and are both stabilized and secure at every level. The Internet has become a limitless repository of educational resources for teachers and students from elementary through graduate school and has become the preferred platform for distance education. A recent white paper written by the participating university’s CIO addresses the impact of these trends on higher education. The CIO sees their impact on the social, economic, and technological elements of society. Internet delivery of course materials and other information is both cheap and immediate. This trend influences markets, technologies, and social change. The learner is much more participatory now and in much greater control of their education, especially online and other distance education students. Online education offers exceptional access and saves both time and effort for university faculty, staff, and students. Open content is already underway at many leading universities. They offer, individually or collaboratively, free course syllabi, lecture outlines and notes, class exercises and activities, and both tests and simulations. The Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) was a pioneer in the concept of open content. It consisted of the entire Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) curriculum in concert with Stanford University and the University of Cambridge in England. Now an international movement, there are currently more than 200 institutions in 32 countries participating in open content initiatives. The CIO rightly raised the question: how will this affect teaching? There

39


are potentials for both the opportunity to improve teaching and learning and the threat of disruption to the campus-based institutions who may not be able to compete in an environment of funding reductions, rising costs, and the competition for higher education students. Specific responses to these trends have engendered educational technology initiatives by the participating university. These include matching the technology with the specified learning outcomes; assuring outcomes are based on proven teaching methodologies and strategies; courses founded in evidence-based learning research by instructional design teams and trained teachers and validated to be effective. A rich array of student and teacher services offers a depth and breath that is hard to parallel for free. A complex of other administrative, teacher, and student services completes the competitive package. These include financial services; auxiliary services; employee services; research services; and health and medical services. An extensive technology infrastructure includes nearly 400 technology classrooms. Network server capacity at the participating university has doubled each of the past 15 years and is expected to grow by 500 percent in the next five years, according to the CIO.

Future research, and the policies and practices that grow from them, must understand the emerging trends and offer evidence-based solutions to the issues of particular relevance. The CIO named a number of these issues including digital rights management; open source e-learning applications, customer resource management for students; federated identity management; e-textbooks; broadband wireless; tablet PC’s; social networking in education; Web and application hosting; cyber infrastructure and hosted virtual desktops; e-portfolios; and grid computing. Another key area of research is in programs and initiatives to integrate secondary students into higher education. The university is currently developing a pilot study in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects for just this purpose, taking advantage of the federal government’s targeted research funding initiatives. Finally, further research into the policies and practices for online education at diverse colleges and universities must be undertaken. In this effort, the current case study may serve as a model, using the national online quality standards as a matrix for analysis.

Future Research Directions

Overview

The education network established at the participating university has already gained national and international attention. Its consortium of public schools, colleges and universities, libraries, and government entities makes it a model for future study and research. Such connectivity, the CIO writes in a key white paper, is critical to any academic endeavor. Faculty centered governance of educational technology initiatives and end user focus are other initiatives in policy and practice. Emerging technologies are investigated as they gain traction in the higher education communities and incorporated as they better serve the mission of the university, college, department, or program.

The single-case study uncovered a university that has emerged as a leader and innovator in online and technology-mediated higher education. This has taken place in the context of significant and continued budget cuts from the state legislature and the growing costs of adding online educational infrastructure, applications, and services. The university was found to be in a high degree of self-reported compliance with the standards for electronically-delivered higher education programs established by the eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

40

CONCLUSION


The future of online higher education, according to the CIO, is an ever-changing environment with ever-advancing tools that is driven by the consumer. For those institutions that embrace such changes the opportunities are vast and its rewards great. The university under study here is one such institution and its initiatives provide a range of policies, practices, and initiatives that provide both a foundation and a future for the university and a model for higher education institutions nationwide.

Conclusion Guidance offered by the CIO for maintaining institutional relevance in the challenges of the information age include: 1) the recognition of faculty as the agents of change who need the orientation and training to use the new technologies; 2) standardization of Information Technology (IT) architecture campus-wide; 3) the central management of networks in close coordination with the schools and colleges; 4) a continued investment in technology to serve student and faculty access and security; and 5) the need to recognize technology as a tool to think more strategically, do things more efficiently and wisely, and reduce the overall cost of higher education. In conclusion, the case study methodology has proven useful in answering the two research questions posed. First, much has been learned about the underlying reasons for the choices made by the university under study regarding their policies and practices for online education in the five areas of institutional activity defined by the eight regional accrediting agencies for U.S. higher education: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. Secondly, the data revealed many of the factors that guide the participating university’s policies and practices in these five key areas of online institutional activity.

REFERENCES Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c. org/publications/survey/index.asp Bruce, P. A. (2010). Evidence-based practice in online higher education: An exploratory study of the online policies and practices of U.S doctoral/ research-extensive universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Carnegie Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive. (2007). Seattle, WA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, University of Washington. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.washington.edu/tools/universities.html Carnevale, D. (2006, February 3). Rule change may spark online boom for colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 6, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/ i22/22a00101.htm Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. (2007). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://pvc.maricopa.edu/~lsche/ resources/onlineteaching.htm Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L., & Hosp, J. L. (2008). Designing and conducting research in education. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Golden, D. (2006, May 9). Online university enrollment soars. The Wall Street Journal. [Cited July 16, 2009 in Post-Gazette.com]. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.post-gazette.com/ pg/06129/688698-298.stm# Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. 41


Patton, M. G. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–446). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. U. S. Department of Education. (2009). Report 1177. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ collegenavigator/# Visual, Information and Technology Literacy (VITL) Task Force. (2009). University of Utah Visual, Information and Technology Literacy Task Force Report and Recommendations. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Educational technology fact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/os/technology/facts.html U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Eight regional accrediting commissions. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from http://www.usdla.org/html/ journal/JUL02_Issue/article04.html U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Technology in higher education fact sheet. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ os/technology/index.html Zheng, R. (2009). Designing dynamic learning environment for web 2.0 application. In Yang, H., & Yuen, S. (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 61–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

42

Zheng, R., & Dahl, L. (2009). An ontological approach to online instructional design. In Song, H., & Kidd, T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on human performance and instructional technology (pp. 1–23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Program: The first U.S. national standards for online higher education programs. Established in 2007 by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education from the combined input of all eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Faculty Support: One of the five key areas of online institutional activity for higher education defined by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Includes addressing faculty issues such as workload; compensation; ownership of intellectual property; technical, design, and production support; and training in program technologies and uses. Faculty Training: Orientation and training in program technologies and uses for becoming proficient in program technologies including strategies for effective instructional design and delivery, pedagogy, and interaction in technologymediated learning environments. Funding: Legislative cost-sharing for public colleges and universities; research grants and awards; student fees and other sources that support and maintain the administrative, academic, research, financial, and technical programs and infrastructure of U.S. higher education institutions. Online Assessment: A key area of online institutional activity defined by the eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Refers to a component of an institution’s overall assessment activities; assessment of student achievement and learning


outcomes; and both course and program assessment. Online Learning: Student learning in online and electronically offered and technologically mediated environments, especially through Internet and hybrid (combined online and campus-based) courses and programs. Learning is most often defined as closely related to student learning outcomes and both skills and knowledge acquisition and application. Services: Refers to institutional policies, practices, and initiatives in education that may be directed towards administrative and staff services,

academic services, faculty services, and student services. Specific definitions are also given by the eight regional accrediting agencies for higher education for faculty and student support services in online educational programs. Technology: The range of resources (hardware, software, and delivery systems), equipment, tools, technical framework, and facilities required to construct, manage, deliver, and support electronically offered educational programs, whether the application is in higher, secondary, or primary educational settings.

43

44

Chapter 4

Planning and Implementing Online Programs: A Case Study in the Graduate School of Education at the State University of New York at Buffalo Kay Bishop SUNY Buffalo, USA Christine Kroll SUNY Buffalo, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study reviews the planning, development, and initial implementation of an online Master’s of Library Science (MLS) degree program at a large public research university. The development process will be presented from both a school-based and a department-based perspective. A review of the literature found articles and books that address online programs in education and library science; however, the majority of those publications focus on either the experiences of students or the concerns of faculty members who deliver courses through distance education technologies. Very few of the resources address the full spectrum of planning, developing, and implementing an online program. We found that the MLS program development process greatly benefited from existing school-based policies and procedures, while some barriers and challenges were also encountered in the context of customizing those policies and procedures for the Library and Information Studies (LIS) department. We believe our experiences will inform practices at other institutions and departments considering initiating online programs. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch004


Planning and Implementing Online Programs

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND On May 11, 1846, “The University of Buffalo Charter” was granted by the New York State Legislature and the University began as a private institution with a medical school as its first academic unit. In 1962, the University transformed from a private institution to a public institution, merging with the State University of New York. Currently, the University at Buffalo (UB) is the largest and most comprehensive campus in the 64-campus State University of New York (SUNY) system. It is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and is a comprehensive research-intensive public university. The Graduate School of Education (GSE) is one of thirteen schools and colleges at UB; LIS is one of four departments within GSE. The other departments are Learning and Instruction; Counseling, School and Educational Psychology; and Educational Leadership and Policy.

SETTING THE STAGE As one of the 13 professional schools at UB, GSE has access to a number of centralized university information technology services; however, a centralized office for distance education does not exist. In 2001, a special initiative to develop an online degree program was presented by the UB Provost’s office. This initiative allowed the Dean of GSE, Dr. Mary Gresham, to create a new position, Director of New Media. UB hired Dr. Christine Kroll for this position, and Kroll led the initiative to offer UB’s first fully online degree program: GSE’s Master’s of Education in General Education. The program launched in the fall of 2001, with the final student graduating from the program in the summer of 2009. Although the program was very successful, changes in New York State teacher certification requirements necessitated a program phase out as the program no longer met these new requirements.

In 2005, with the general education program phase out in progress, Dean Gresham made the decision to grow online programs within GSE. Specifically, she targeted the launch of five programs fully online within five years. To this end, Kroll who was now overseeing all educational technology initiatives in the school in the role of Assistant Dean for Educational Technology moved to a new position: Assistant Dean for Online Programs. An online programs coordinator was hired to manage the anticipated increase in student enrollment and a full-time instructional designer was assigned to Kroll to coach faculty through the transition from on-campus to online teaching. Along with these school-based resources, the University has the following support for online initiatives: 1. The Graduate School is the liaison to SUNY and the New York State Education Department (NYSED); both agencies must approve UB’s requests to offer degree programs online. 2. The University at Buffalo Information Technology group provides computing support for students and faculty, as well as video capture of on-campus courses that will eventually be taught online. 3. The Teaching Learning Center offers a variety of training workshops utilized primarily by the instructional designer who, in turn, provides one-on-one training to faculty. 4. The Student Response Center provides online and phone services for registration, billing, and financial aid. 5. The University Libraries provide vast online resources enabling students to complete all assignments, many of which are researchbased and require access to peer-reviewed publications. All aforementioned offices and personnel were in place prior to planning the online MLS program. This allowed the LIS department to interface with

45


one office, the GSE Office of Online Programs (OOP), rather than create independent relationships with each individual University office. The OOP has developed these relationships since 2001 through the development and implementation of the now inactive Master’s in Education in General Education degree program, as well as our current offerings: • • •

Master’s of Education in Science and the Public Master’s of Science in Rehabilitation Counseling Advanced Graduate Certificate in Gifted Education

The relationships are being used and cultivated in the following degree programs, currently in various stages of planning and implementation: • •

•

Master’s of Library Science Advanced Graduate Certificate in School Business and Human Resource Administration Advanced Graduate Certificate in Educational Technology and New Literacies

CASE DESCRIPTION: SCHOOLBASED PERSPECTIVE To reach Dean Gresham’s goal of launching five online programs in five years, Kroll developed a mission statement and a set of principles, aligned to the University’s 2020 vision plan, to guide the online programs team (http://www.buffalo. edu/ub2020/overview/). GSE OOP’s mission is to expand and diversify UB’s reach to those geographically, or otherwise, separated from our scholarship, research, education, and public service, via information and communication technologies. To support this mission, the following principles guide the OOP:

46

•

•

•

•

•

streamline global access to UB’s GSE online education programs by establishing a central point of communication; create a foundation for recruiting and retaining quality faculty by enhancing opportunities for teaching, engagement, and research; develop rich and unique learning experiences through the use of ubiquitous information and communication technologies designed and adapted to enrich and enhance learning opportunities for students; increase enrollment and diversify our student population by extending our online education offerings beyond Buffalo to worldwide audiences; and maximize efficiencies through the preservation of University resources and the environment by eliminating dependency on buildings, roadways, transportation, heat, electricity, etc.

To fulfill UB’s mission, GSE utilizes the following four-step framework to develop and deliver online programs:

Stage I: Identifying a Program for Online Delivery Identifying programs to be delivered fully online is challenging at a public research university. Beyond teaching obligations, most faculty are involved with scholarship and/or grant activities, often leaving them unable to commit to projects and programs outside the scope of their existing goals and priorities. Each year, after Kroll presents an annual report to Dean Gresham, the Dean requests that Kroll present her findings to the GSE faculty. Interested faculty then schedule meetings with Kroll to discuss the role they may take in OOP initiatives. Involvement ranges from teaching a course in an online program to exploring the possibility of offering an entire program online.


When a faculty member is interested in offering his or her entire program online, Kroll discusses the viability of delivering each individual course within the program curriculum online. After these preliminary discussions, the Dean is brought into the discussions to make a final decision based on the OOP mission, projected audience, potential enrollment, and resources needed to offer the program fully online. Once a decision is made to offer a program fully online, an Academic Program Director (APD) is immediately appointed by the department chairperson. The APD is typically a full-time tenured professor with a rank of associate professor or higher. In this role, the APD will interface directly with the Assistant Dean for Online Programs throughout the approval and planning stages. Eventually, when the implementation phase is reached, the APD will transition to working with the OOP program coordinator and instructional designer; however, the Assistant Dean remains involved in a supervisory capacity.

Stage II: Approval Under the regulations of UB, SUNY and NYSED, GSE must seek approval before delivering 50% or more of an academic program via distance learning technologies. To meet this requirement, an initial application is completed by Kroll and sent to the APD, the department chairperson, and the Dean for approval prior to submission to the: • • •

UB Graduate School; State University of New York (SUNY); and New York State Education Department (NYSED)

At each stage of submission, the reviewing agency may seek further information prior to approval. Once an agency approves the application, it forwards the application to the next agency and the approval process is repeated. To date, all GSE applications have been approved and the OOP

is slated to exceed the original planned target of offering five programs within five years; it is anticipated that a total of six programs will be launched within the original target. While documentation is proceeding through Stage II: Approval, the OOP concurrently initiates Stage III: Planning.

Stage III: Planning As a first step to the planning process, Kroll reviews current OOP policies and procedures with the APD. The policies and procedures are continually refined as new programs are added to the cadre of online program offerings. In certain cases, a policy or procedure may not be relevant to the new program being offered or the program and/or department many have specific cultural anomalies that necessitate changes for the betterment of the overall program. These changes are discussed at length with the APD, Department Chairperson, and Dean and then adopted as necessary. The existing policies and procedures drive the planning process, and the majority of details are agreed upon by all stakeholders at this stage. As implementation begins, adjustments are made regularly to customize OOP’s support to departmental needs. Staff size, availability of APD, and depth of resources are primary factors in adjusting and customizing support. The OOP has a policy, for example, that all online instructors must meet with the instructional designer at least 90 days before their online courses begin. When planning the online MLS program, the LIS department requested that all MLS instructors be required to meet with the instructional designer at least 120 days before their online courses begin. This change was agreed upon, and changes were made to all online MLS instructor contracts. If the request had instead been to allow online MLS instructors to meet with the instructional designer for the first time 30 days prior to class, the OOP would have refused the request. Given current staffing and resources, such a change in

47


policy would be detrimental to the instructor, the program, and the students. Each step in the planning stage is negotiated in a similar way. All involved parties work cooperatively to craft the best possible solutions to anomalies that could otherwise derail the planning process.

Stage IV: Implementation The implementation phase is a four-step process that is overlapping and cyclical in nature. Although presented below as a linear fashion, in practice all aspects of these four steps are initiated at various stages and continue and stop throughout the years a program is active. As unforeseen events occur during implementation, the planned process is continually evaluated, updated, and refined to align the program most closely to the stakeholders’ original vision. As the hub, the OOP staff members hold regular meetings and/or generate e-mail correspondence to the implementation team, which typically consists of Kroll, the online programs coordinator, the instructional designer and the APD. In some cases, the Dean, Assistant Dean for Resource Management, Assistant Dean for Enrollment Management, Department Chairperson, Director of Educational Technology, Network Administrator and/or Webmaster may be included or consulted during the implementation phase. Other members of the University, School, or Department are included in the implementation process as well; however, that level of detail is beyond the scope of this case study. The four steps of implementation are:

Step A: Instructional Design The GSE instructional designer, Jennifer Austin, is responsible for implementing all instructional design throughout GSE’s online programs. Using timelines and procedures established by the OOP, Austin begins by conducting a full review of the

48

program curriculum, existing syllabi, common course procedures, and accreditation guidelines. The department chairperson and/or academic online program director communicate the names and contact information of each instructor assigned to teach each course within the online program. The OOP coordinator, Louise Lalli, immediately contacts the instructors to introduce them to the support services the office offers and follows the conversation with a letter and contract from Kroll. The contract outlines the timeline for course design, informs the instructor of a mandatory consultation meeting with Austin, and provides the instructor with information concerning two separate stipends that the instructor will receive. One stipend is for course design, a stage the instructor will be supported through by Austin, while the other is the teaching stipend for the actual delivery of the course that has been designed. The contract timeline includes a preliminary 90-minute consultation meeting with Austin at least 100 days prior to the first day of class. During this consultation, Austin and the instructor discuss the instructor’s current level of comfort and knowledge with the communication technologies available to deliver coursework online. They will collaborate to develop a customized plan that will allow the instructor to meet the OOP’s timeline: •

•

•

•

100 days prior to class start date: deadline for meeting with instructional designer for 90 minute consultation 100 days–30 days prior to class: work independently or with instructional designer to completely design course for online delivery 30 days prior to class: course is now open and enrolled students can access section. Students only have access to the course syllabus and required material information unless the instructor chooses to release additional content, such as course reserve materials. 30--15 days prior to class: Austin reviews


the course using the OOP Course Readiness Evaluation (discussed below in Step 4 – Evaluation) to ensure it is ready to be fully enabled. She then contacts the instructor with any design recommendations that may enhance the learning experience for students. •

1st day of class: students have full access to all sections of the course that the instructor has released for the current learning unit.

Using this framework, along with the tool called Course Readiness Evaluation (CRE), which is discussed further in the Step D--Evaluation, the OOP directs that all courses include a clear communication policy, course objectives and outcomes, scoring rubrics for assignments, course technology, and University policies on academic integrity and accessibility. All of these required elements are discussed with instructors to ensure that their individual teaching voices and styles are at the forefront of class structure and communication. The OOP policies are in place to minimize student questions regarding course structure and expectations and to maximize time spent on course content and interaction. Due to the extensive depth of instructional materials created by the OOP, a fully online training course is currently under development that will allow instructors to work independently of our instructional designer after their initial consultation. The online course will allow instructors to reinforce skills they have learned, find the most recent research on online programs, and explore best practices from locally-based colleagues, as well as from faculty teaching online worldwide.

Step B: Marketing Operating on a school-based budget, while competing against programs supported by hefty institutional budgets or for-profit universities, can be challenging. The OOP approaches this challenge

by treating GSE online programs as “boutique” offerings. Boutiques typically cater to a specific clientele and deliver high-end services to ensure their customers are satisfied. The OOP takes this “boutique” approach to marketing by targeting specific clientele who are most likely to be interested in GSE online programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, for example, reports that only 27.5% of adults in the U.S. hold a bachelors degree (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2009). Using such information, the OOP focuses on this small percentage of the population who hold the requisite bachelors degree required for entry into all GSE graduate programs. Moving a layer deeper, in an effort to tailor marketing to specific GSE offerings, the OOP targets professional organizations where potential students congregate physically at annual conferences or virtually through organizations’ websites or publications, such as the American Library Association. Once organizations are identified, the OOP works with the organization to reach out in a way that best serves their members. In addition to partnering or advertising through professional organizations, the OOP has created relationships with education portals such as the SUNY Learning Network (http://www.sln.suny. edu/) and the New York State Workforce Development (http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workforcenypartners/wfnyp_index.shtm). Students who are searching for programs with keywords such as distance learning or distance education often end up at large web portals such as these; by partnering with such organizations GSE has attracted prospective students at very low costs compared with mass marketing initiatives. The OOP uses additional methods of marketing, such as word-of-mouth, alumni referrals, GSE faculty presenting at international/national conferences, frequent press releases announcing the launch of new programs, and accessing existing student data that includes where students heard about a GSE program.

49


All of these methods are grounded in data provided through Google Analytics, a free web-based service that allows organizations to pinpoint web traffic sources. Combining and analyzing web data, along with building relationships, partnering, and advertising strategically, OOP has reached a core audience of prospective students, using a fraction of the resources that marketing to a mass audience with various levels of education would have cost.

Step C: Admissions and Student Services GSE’s Office of Admissions provides an online application linked directly to the OOP Website. The admissions office staff prepares all application packets and delivers them to the APD for review. Upon acceptance, to continue the “boutique” approach Lalli initiates the first contact with the newly-accepted student, often before the student receives the official acceptance letter in the mail. Lalli remains the students’ primary contact throughout the program. They begin by participating in an online orientation, and once they are fully up and running in the program, they are enrolled in a password protected web-based section unique to their program and cohort. Through this web-based section, students are sent all pertinent information regarding opportunities and deadlines. Lalli works directly with the APDs to constantly revise and refine the content in the web-based program information portal, including frequently asked questions, changes in guidelines or deadlines, as well as information about the University-at-large, enabling students to feel more connected to the University. Lalli also communicates with students frequently by phone or through our secure webbased videoconferencing system, Elluminate.

Step D: Evaluation There are two methods the OOP uses to ensure consistency among courses in GSE online program

50

offerings: course readiness evaluations (CRE), and end-of-semester evaluations. The CRE was initially developed by Kroll to provide the instructional designer with a checklist of items vital to course success, to streamline common procedures used in the course design process, to provide a transparent framework to instructors assigned to teach online courses, and to reduce student and instructor attrition. The CRE tool is designed as a scoring rubric. Specific areas are outlined, and Austin designs each course aligning it to the CRE. The course is deemed “ready” when it meets the minimum standard of the CRE rubric. The CRE process includes using the CRE tool beyond the design phase by rescoring the course at weeks 3 and 9 within a 14-week semester. In the event Austin finds a discrepancy during the CRE process, she contacts the instructor via e-mail with suggestions for bridging the gap in the course before students are aware or affected by the divergence. An example of a discrepancy may be in the instructor communication policy. The instructor may have stated that the instructor will engage in each discussion board thread and at a minimum reply to students on Tuesdays and Thursdays on a weekly basis. Austin may observe on week three that the instructor has not participated in the discussion board at all. Austin would immediately contact the instructor and discuss the circumstances and offer alternate strategies to meeting the policy that was communicated to the students at the beginning of the semester. Courses being scored for “readiness” prior to and during the semester also supports both student and instructor retention. Issues that arise from poor or inconsistent course design are unnecessary and distract both student and instructor from course content and redirect time and attention to logistical issues that can and should be thoroughly addressed in course design, communication policy, and expectation statements. The CRE process was used for the first time in the fall 2009 semester and has already shown great promise in reduc-


ing common issues that tend to arise in online programs in a typical semester. The OOP would, for example, receive phone calls throughout the semester with instructors or students needing clarification or feedback (i.e. non-responsive student or instructor, grades not being updated on time, assignments not being turned in on time). The OOP would then serve as a facilitator between the instructor and student(s) to rectify the concern as efficiently as possible to ensure the challenge was not distracting the instructor or student from the course content. Although it has not been officially studied yet, use of the CRE in the first semester seems to be directly related to a near elimination of uncertainty and discrepancy from both instructors and students. The final version of the CRE is expected to be in place by May 2010, prior to online MLS courses being designed. In addition to the CRE process which begins with the first instructor meeting and extends past the end of the semester, the OOP distributes webbased end-of semester-evaluations to collect student feedback. Lalli sends all students a web-based survey that includes the same questions on-campus students receive in their pencil-based evaluations, with additional questions added by OOP regarding course delivery. All responses are collected and presented to Kroll, the chairperson of the department, and the APD. Depending on the preference of the department and program director someone, typically Kroll, summarizes the evaluations and constructs an e-mail to the instructor with a detailed summary of student feedback. Positive aspects of the evaluations are highlighted, while challenges presented by the students are couched in immediate recommendations for rectifying the challenge before the course is offered again. In addition to this overarching mechanism of support, Austin is copied on the feedback and immediately extends an invitation to all faculty to meet with her at the end of the semester so that she may collect their fresh feedback on triumphs, challenges, or changes they are considering for future course offerings. Through this process Austin identifies strategies

for rectifying those issues, as well as extending these real-world issues into other courses in an effort to prevent someone else from getting into similar situations.

CHALLENGES Offering online programs at a large public research university provides opportunities for students who would never have physically attended the university to interact and engage with top-notch researchers, seasoned practitioners, and students from around the world with similar academic interests. The opportunities for rich discourse are endless, and the scholarship is unique as it is infused with current, often developing areas of research. It also presents challenges as faculty are largely consumed with pre-existing teaching, research, and grant opportunities, limiting opportunities to offer a wider range of degrees due to the depth and range of existing faculty commitments. This is often frustrating to interested students and administrators who are eager to extend the reach of their school and/or department beyond on-campus instruction. Beyond lack of time, there is also a reluctance of some faculty to participate in online program delivery due to the unfounded notion that web-based instruction is not as effective as classroom instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Finally, the absence of a University-wide initiative may also lend credence to faculty that online programs are not important or valued. With these challenges in mind, the OOP will continue to develop programs in key areas where faculty and department support are available. Future plans include extending our expertise to other schools on campus that are just now beginning to envision online program options for their own unit. The OOP also plans to work closely with the APDs in pursuing grant funding to enhance existing online programs past their current delivery

51


techniques, as well as analyzing data collected through student surveys over the past three years. To uphold our mission, it is our goal to continue to integrate online student services into mainstream on-campus student services in order to liberate online program staff from working around the current system catering to on-campus students.

RECOMMENDATIONS • •

• •

• •

• • •

When possible, gain commitment of institutional leaders. Obtain adequate resources, beginning with experienced personnel with a wide range of skills. Visit faculty meetings to introduce ideas and established programs. Use forward-thinking faculty to deliver messages to other faculty members whenever possible; leadership is often best when it is happening behind the scenes. Collaborate with others on-campus or throughout the online community. Provide coaching and instruction for faculty from an instructional viewpoint, not a technological one. Provide incentives and rewards for faculty (stipends, teacher assistants, etc.). Focus on content, not technology. Remember the curriculum is always the same; only the delivery mechanism changes (online instead of on-campus).

CASE STUDY: DEPARTMENTBASED PERSPECTIVE The American Library Association (ALA) currently lists fourteen ALA accredited library schools in the United States that offer a full online program in which a student can earn a Master of Library Science (MLS) degree. These programs differ in format, with some of the programs involving

52

visits to the campus for initial training and/or intermittent seminars. Some programs use cohorts of students who take prescribed courses, while in other institutions the students progress through the programs individually, each at their own pace. The University of Buffalo MLS degree program was added to the ALA list of full-degree online programs in the fall of 2009 when they began recruiting applicants for their online cohort program.

Historical Background The Department of Library and Information Science (LIS) began to offer a few online courses in 1996, primarily being taught by one full-time associate professor. A 2005 survey of students indicated an interest in more online courses and a fully online MLS program. More full-time faculty members began to offer their courses online during one or more semesters during the next few academic years. In addition, some distance education courses were taught by interactive video, and face-to-face classes were conducted at the Monroe Community College campus in Rochester. Thus, distance education in LIS incorporated a variety of delivery formats, and faculty and students participated in it by choice, with numerous options for face-to-face courses being available.

Planning of the MLS Online Program In 2007 Dr. Judith Robinson, LIS Department Chair, began working cooperatively with Dr. Christine Kroll in the GSE Online Program Office to obtain approval through several levels of authority for an online MLS program. In January 2008, Robinson announced at a Faculty Council meeting that the program had been approved by the State of New York and we would be able to proceed with planning an all-online MLS program. Kroll and Louise Lalli, Coordinator of GSE Online Programs, visited an LIS Faculty Council meeting in September 2008 to provide information about the GSE Online Programs Office and


the current operation of the online programs. The Faculty Council meeting included LIS faculty, some LIS staff, and student representatives to the Council. Kroll and Lalli explained the start-up procedures for GSE distance learning programs. Kroll noted that if LIS decided to be part of the GSE model, the first step that needed to be taken was designating an Academic Program Director (APD) who would work out the details of the program with Kroll. A long, lively discussion of the program model and whether an MLS degree could fit into the GSE cohort model followed Kroll and Lalli’s presentation. Other models including those used by institutions such as Florida State University and the University of Illinois were also discussed. Because the GSE model was already an established successful model that offered financial and full-time personnel support, those attending the Council meeting decided it would be the best model for an online MLS program. The discussion also included how to develop a curriculum for one or more of the specialized LIS areas. It was suggested that a general reference curriculum could address the needs of students interested in academic and public librarianship, as well as some possible special libraries. A perusal of “Put a Buffalo in Your Library,” an LIS website that helps employers identify UB job candidates, included a high percentage of students listing reference in academic or public libraries as one of their specialization areas. Thus, the faculty and students attending the Council meeting thought this area could serve a definite need. Due to preparation for the upcoming accreditation process, SUNY budget constraints, and faculty position vacancies, faculty members unanimously voted to begin courses in an online MLS program in fall 2010, with continued planning and exploration to be handled by the LIS Academic Programs Committee. During the fall and spring semesters of 2008-2009 members of the Academic Programs Committee, which included three faculty members and one student, met numerous times to discuss

and propose the area of concentration and curriculum for the online program. On March 19, 2009, Dr. Gail Dickinson, a member of the ALA External Review Panel for accreditation, sent via e-mail some questions about the online MLS program to Dr. Christine Kroll. As part of her e-mail response, Kroll noted the following: As you know, the University at Buffalo (UB) is part of the State University of New York (SUNY). As such, we must adhere to SUNY policies when offering 50% or more coursework towards a degree. In the Graduate School of Education (GSE), we consider an online program to be fully accessible to anyone in the world. Right now, DLIS offers distance learning selected courses that students may take and use towards their degree, but ultimately students must complete a portion of their coursework on-site in Buffalo to complete degree requirements. As of 2010, after a careful planning process, DLIS plans to offer a degree option that is fully online. I am involved as all programs that are delivered fully online are under my umbrella. As per SUNY/New York State Education Department (NYSED) guidelines, we have already been through a lengthy 4-step approval process to offer the degree fully online. Please note that each step is typically a process in that it requires additional documentation and information before the packet is approved and moved to the next step. I assisted DLIS in preparing documentation that was approved by: 1. 2. 3. 4.

GSE Dean UB Graduate School/UB President SUNY NYSED

Once the packet was approved by NYSED, it was registered in the official NYSED database as an approved distance learning offering a fully

53


online MLS degree program (C. Kroll, personal communication, March 19, 2009). In March 2009, Kroll met with Dr. Frances K. Groen and Dr. Edna Reid, External Review Panel members, during the ALA Accreditation Panel’s visit at UB. Kroll explained the existing GSE online cohort programs, the roles the fulltime personnel play in supporting programs and students, and the steps that had been taken in planning for the MLS program. At the April 2009 meeting of the Faculty Council Dr. Ying Sun, Chair of the Academic Programs Committee, presented the following curriculum for an online MLS degree focusing on general reference: Required Core Courses LIS 505 Introduction to Library and Information Studies LIS 506 Introduction to Information Technology LIS 518 Reference Sources and Services LIS 571 Organization and Control of Recorded Information I LIS 581 Management of Libraries and Information Agencies Additional Courses LIS 515 Information Sources and Services in the Sciences LIS 516 Information Sources and Services in the Social Sciences LIS 517 Information Sources and Services in the Humanities LIS 523 User Education LIS 566 Digital Information Retrieval LIS 567 Government Information LIS 587 Collection Development The area of reference and the suggested curriculum for the online program were unanimously approved by the LIS Faculty Council members.

54

At the end of the spring semester Dr. Kay Bishop, Associate Professor and Director of UB’s School Library Media Program, was appointed as Academic Program Director of the MLS Online Program. Robinson stepped down as Department Chair and was going on a year sabbatical leave; however, she agreed to take the Academic Program Director position beginning in fall 2010 when courses actually would begin. Because her academic background is in reference services she would also be able to serve effectively as advisor to the 24-student cohort that was being planned. Bishop’s responsibilities were to plan the details of the program, write a program of study for the online program, draft information for the web pages, market the program, recruit students for admission into the program, and begin the selection of instructors for the courses.

Development of the Online MLS Program In the summer of 2008 Bishop began actively planning the program with GSE Online Program Personnel (OPP). Bishop wrote a draft of information for the program and met with Kroll and Lalli for input. Kroll and Lalli discussed the importance of finding a student-oriented instructor for the introductory course LIS 505 Introduction to Library and Information Science. Kroll reviewed with Bishop the extensive support provided by the GSE Online Programs Office, which had been handling the administration (including instructional design) of all online programs for GSE since 2001. Bishop revised the draft of information for the program and then sent it to Robinson and to Dr. Dagobert Soergel, the incoming Chair of the LIS Department who was joining the faculty from the University of Maryland at College Park. Both Robinson and Soergel provided feedback and additional input. With suggestions from Bishop and Robinson, Soergel asked Dr. Valerie Nesset to serve as “lead instructor” for LIS 505 and to teach the online version of the course beginning in fall 2010.


Nesset met with the GSE full-time instructional designer, Jennifer Austin. Austin immediately arranged for Nesset’s fall 2009 classroom sessions to be captured digitally to use as part of the online course in fall 2010. Again with input from Robinson and Soergel, Bishop wrote a document listing all the planning steps for the online program. She also drafted a program of study for the students in the online program, as well as the information that would appear on the MLS Online Program Website. Soergel sent a message to the LIS faculty with attachments of drafts of four documents relating to the MLS Online Program: Online Program Information, Information for Web Pages, Planning for the Online MLS Program, and the Online Program of Study. He asked the faculty to send any comments to Bishop before the first Faculty Council meeting on September 3 and noted that discussion of the program would be on the agenda for that meeting. He also sent to the LIS Department’s Advisory Board draft documents of the Online Program Information, Information for Web Pages, and Planning for the Online MLS Program and requested feedback from the Advisory Board members and assistance in publicizing the program after official announcement of the program was made. Soergel, Kroll, and Bishop met to discuss the online program. Soergel had specific requests and possible changes relating to admission procedures, the schedule for instructors to meet with the instructional designer, fee charges for online students, and technology resource assistance for online courses. Kroll explained which of these concerns were negotiable, and Bishop then made revisions to the documents based on the information exchanged at the meeting. Bishop sent the LIS faculty and staff members a message relating to possible admission procedures for the MLS Online Program and informed them that the procedures would be discussed at the Faculty Council meeting on September 3. At that meeting two procedures dealing with admissions

were questioned by members of the faculty; thus, those two items were referred to the LIS Admissions and Academic Standards Committee for further discussion and recommendations. The Admissions and Academic Standards Committee met and discussed the two items dealing with admission requirements for the MLS Online Program: the provision that students applying to the program reside at least 60 miles away from the UB campus and that the most highly qualified applicants would be accepted first. GSE Dean Mary Gresham, Radhika Suresh (in charge of GSE Admissions), Kroll, Lalli, Soergel, and Bishop met to discuss some of the issues and wording of the written recommendations that would go to the Faculty Council on October 8. Several e-mail messages were exchanged among members of the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and Soergel. That resulted in written recommendations for the admission requirements. The recommendations were discussed and voted upon; they passed by a large margin, but without unanimous approval. In the next few weeks several e-mail messages regarding the planned online program were exchanged between Dean Gresham, Suresh, Kroll, Soergel, and Bishop. Bishop and Soergel then reviewed drafts of the web pages for the MLS program and sent suggestions for changes to Michael Tinsmon the website designer, and Monica Williams, a new staff member hired to assist the growing GSE Online Programs Office. On October 22, 2009 Kroll, Suresh, Bishop, and Soergel met to finalize the admission requirements and the wording of some admission items for the web pages, including an online application for the program. Final design of the pages was worked on by Kroll and Tinsmon, while Lalli began to make marketing contacts relating to the program. On November 3, 2009 the pages for the MLS Online Program Website became “live,” and the program was ready to receive applicants for its 24-student cohort.

55


Conditions that Facilitated the Planning and Development of the MLS Online Program Without a doubt, the fact that successful programs were already established in the GSE Online Program greatly facilitated the planning and development of the MLS Online Program. Several time-saving decisions regarding the MLS program were already made because of established policies and practices. The support personnel in the GSE Office of Online Programs were willing to provide many of the management tasks (the paperwork involved with issuing contracts to instructors, orienting students to the program, assistance with the design of program web pages, and the evaluation of online courses). This was instrumental in selecting the GSE Online Programs Office as the most effective means of delivering the MLS degree. The incentives offered to instructors to teach in the online program (stipends, course design assistance from instructional design personnel, and student assistants) made online instruction more attractive to the LIS faculty. Unlike some university faculty or administrators, the LIS faculty did not need to be persuaded to utilize distance education. Faculty members were well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of delivering online courses; thus, they did not need to be educated in this area or convinced of the benefits of establishing an online MLS degree program. Finally, the financial support provided by GSE and the enthusiasm of Dean Gresham to establish effective programs that serve the needs of students were tantamount in being able to plan and develop an online MLS degree program. Without such support we would not have been able to establish our online program.

56

CHALLENGES Although there were several factors that facilitated the planning and development of the MLS degree program, challenges and frustrations were also present. When we first became serious about trying to serve the needs of our distant students through online programs, time constraints and work loads of the faculty were significant problems. In 2007 when our more formal planning began we had a shortage of faculty, were conducting searches for four open faculty positions, and were in the timeconsuming process of preparing for an accreditation visit. Finding the faculty and administrative time for planning an online program was quite daunting. Students enrolled in library and information science programs generally prepare for one specialization area (academic librarianship, public librarianship, school media librarianship, or special librarianship), and therefore we found it difficult to decide on a single area of concentration for our MLS degree. School media librarianship, with its required program of study that includes only two electives, would have been a logical choice for us since some of the faculty teaching in that specialty area had already developed online courses. Also, a full distance education MLS degree with New York teacher certification had recently been completed for ten students in rural areas of central New York. This program that was supported by an IMLS grant involved online courses taken with other LIS students at UB, interactive video courses with one site being the Oneida-Herkimer BOCES in central New York, and a few visits made by the UB Director of the School Media Program and the School Library Media (SLM) Program Assistant for all-day seminars with the students at the BOCES site. However, since SLM students make up approximately half of the student enrollment in LIS at UB, some faculty members wanted an opportunity to increase the enrollment in other areas of librarianship. After much discussion, we decided to create an online concentration


specialization in reference, which would meet the needs of students preparing for public, academic, or special libraries. In order to provide for specific courses in each area of librarianship, we decided that six of the required 36 hours for an MLS degree would serve as optional electives that could either be taken at the UB campus or transferred into the program. All online students would be required to take five required core courses. They could choose to enroll in all 12 of the courses (36 semester hours) offered online or substitute up to two courses for those online. Another challenge was to decide the specific courses that should be included in the program and the number of courses students should enroll in each semester. This list was revised several times. Because a large number of students taking online courses work full-time, we decided to require that students enroll in two courses each semester, including one in each of two summer sessions. This would ensure that the cohort of 24 students would move through the program together and complete the MLS degree in two years. During our online program planning we had to be continually vigilant to maintain the same policies and standards in the online program as in our on-campus MLS program. This was a subject of discussion each time a policy was proposed and became particularly controversial among some members of the faculty when admission requirements were introduced. Rovi, Ponton and Baker (2008) note that “The school’s faculty members are important stakeholders who should be consulted during the strategic planning process in order to take their views into account and engage them in the process (p. 59).” Although we agreed with this basic philosophy it was not always an easy process. This was our greatest challenge, and it consumed over two months of negotiations while we tried to please all constituents involved in the MLS Online Program. Our new chair had specific ideas he wanted in the program, and some faculty members also wanted to see changes in a few of

the policies and the wording of information that would be presented on the MLS Online Program Website. Numerous e-mail exchanges and meetings occurred, and the time required in negotiations and “wordsmithing” became frustrating to some faculty who were eager to get our website “live” and begin recruiting students. Our future plans will most likely present additional challenges. We expect to continue the current reference concentration course of study for three years, enrolling a new cohort of 24 students each fall. With the assistance of GSE personnel, we will have an ongoing evaluation of the program and make needed changes. If financial resources are sustained and faculty are increased, we would also like to initiate an online program in school media librarianship, thus trying to help meet the critical shortage of certified school media specialists in New York. This will also necessitate finding practicum experience placements (student teaching mandated by the state of New York) for the distance education students and developing adequate assessment tools to evaluate the students in their placements. It will not be financially feasible for LIS personnel to visit and observe the students in each of two practicum experiences (elementary and secondary), as is the current practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS •

•

•

Read and talk to faculty from other universities about their experiences in the planning and development of an online program. Ask critical questions. Begin planning early (at least two years in advance of implementing the program, particularly if several levels of authority are involved in the approval of the program). Write a document that outlines the entire program, including the planning, development, and implementation of the program.

57


•

•

•

• • •

• •

•

•

Make certain the policies and quality of the program are in line with the on-campus program. Involve the faculty, student representatives, and advisory board in the planning process, but do not expect to please all your constituents when final decisions need to be made. Keep detailed documentation of the planning process for use in annual department chair reports and self-study program presentations to accrediting associations. Carefully consider admission requirements and terms of acceptance into the program. Have a written plan for marketing the program and recruiting students. Seek assistance from alumni, current students, and national, state and regional professional organizations to publicize the program. Conduct ongoing evaluation of the program focusing on student learning outcomes. Provide incentives to faculty who teach courses in the program and to the faculty member who plans and directs the program. Consider conducting action research to compare the student learning outcomes of the online program to those in the on-campus program. Express appreciation to any university personnel who support the establishment of your online program.

REFERENCES Chronicle of Higher Education (Ed.). (2009). What’s new in the almanac. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(1), 5.

58

Rovi, A. P., Ponton, M. K., & Baker, J. D. (2008). Distance learning in higher education. New York: Teachers College Press. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Online Programs: Academic programs leading to a degree or advanced certification that include courses offered totally in an online format and can be accessed through the use of a computer. Planning: The steps used to prepare for the initiation of an online program or programs. Development: The steps used to move the plan to later stages of maturation. Implementation: The steps involved with putting the plan into effect. Academic Program Director: The faculty member (generally tenured) in a department who is in charge of a specific online program and who works collaboratively with the Office of Online Programs. Challenges: The difficulties or barriers experienced in the planning, development, and implementation of online programs. Recommendations: The suggestions that are presented to help solve potential problems or to overcome barriers in the planning, development and implementation of online programs.

59

Chapter 5

Leading a Change Initiative: Efforts to Improve Faculty Perceptions of Online Courses Shelly Albritton University of Central Arkansas, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter explores the challenges that a college of education in a South-Central university faced with online learning. Nationally, there has been an exponential growth in the demand and subsequent delivery of online courses. The college experienced a similar growth trend and has had its share of successes and disillusionments in its journey. The college’s technology committee explored faculty perceptions of online learning. This case study details the findings of the action research and presents the initial steps for implementing changes to improve practices and perceptions with online learning. However, the initial efforts of the technology committee have just begun to scratch the surface of systemic change. The chapter concludes with the committee’s goals, objectives, and action plans to continue to lead the college through a change process to improve the practices and perceptions of online learning.

NATIONAL STUDIES ON THE GROWTH OF ONLINE LEARNING IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Online learning has proliferated in the past decade in higher education institutions across the nation resulting in an increasingly competitive market for distance learning among institutions (WilDOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch005

son, 2001; Rodriquez, Montanez, Yan & Ooms, 2005; Allen & Seaman, 2005, 2006; McCarthy & Samors, 2009). The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) reported there were “more than 90 percent of public institutions of higher education reporting online course offerings or degrees in fall 2005” (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2007, p. 7). In response to the rising demands to offer online courses, many


Leading a Change Initiative

colleges and universities have felt the pressures to maintain their viability with student recruitment or else “risk becoming ‘obsolete’ if they do not adapt to changing demographics and market forces, as well as to the expectations of both traditional and nontraditional students” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 7). In these past ten years, as students have become more technologically savvy, the attractiveness and demand for taking courses anywhere, anytime has placed a burden on many public colleges and universities to respond in earnest to the market forces by offering more online courses to simply stay abreast of an increasingly competitive market. With the rising market demand for online learning, many university leaders adopted the view that if more courses were offered online, student enrollment would increase (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2007). These views created a gap between many universities’ traditional values and their purposes within the university system to offer online courses and/or programs. Some universities have included online learning in their strategic planning processes, but for many, these efforts have not fully reconciled the traditional values of the university with their purposes for increasing online learning. McCarthy and Samors (2009) found that a majority of university leaders recognized the importance of offering online programs, but less than half of the institutions’ strategic plans included online programs, and “this gap exists even at a time when the number of students taking at least one online course continues to expand at a rate far in excess of the growth of overall higher education enrollments” (p. 9). While many higher education institutes may have recognized and responded to the market-driven forces, the response has been reactionary and primarily focused on attracting students to maintain enrollment numbers. For many public higher education institutions, online learning has challenged traditionally held values and has been met with a certain level of resistance among some university leaders and faculty.

60

However, online learning is now “embedded in the fabric of public higher education. Yet, while demand for online learning continues to accelerate, concerns persist that these institutions are not fully prepared to take strategic advantage of online to meet continuing challenges” (McCarthy and Samors, 2009, pp. 50-51). Universities may be responding to the market demands for more online programs, but many leaders and faculty members continue to struggle to keep pace with the changes and the emerging challenges that come with online learning. Coinciding with universities’ increased use of online learning, higher education institutions have also begun to systematically market their schools to attract more students. The rise of marketization, coupled with the increased use of online learning in universities, has placed additional challenges on the traditional values and purposes for higher education (Levidow, 2002; Askehave, 2007; Newman & Jahdi, 2009). In a discussion of the role of students, faculty, and universities, Barta (2009) interviewed university administrative and faculty members to ascertain their perceptions of the emerging role of today’s students. The essential questions centered on whether they viewed students as traditional students, or as customers, or as both. Another view that was discussed in the Barta paper was that students were a product (the graduates) of a university (the middleman) for the employment agencies (the customers). Compelling cases were made to support each view. The Seaman (2009) study noted that “a lack of acceptance by potential employers … consistently ranked at the bottom” of faculty’s perceived barriers to teaching online courses. Furthermore, Askehave (2009) offers the following comment on the current marketing trends of universities to offer … innovative products to ‘demanding clients’ on the look-out for the best possible university ‘experience’. A choice which I suggest is ideologically significant and may have consequences for our


long-term view of universities and their rationale for existence in the long run. Herein, the university is cast in the role of a serviceminded (sic), supportive, and in many cases, customer-driven organization to meet the needs of the picky student who is spoiled for choice. (p. 739) While marketing trends and online challenges are factors that may seem counterproductive to traditional value systems of higher education institutions and may have even contributed to university leaders and faculty members negative perceptions about learning outcomes and student performances, these are the current realities of many institutions that must be faced.

ONLINE LEARNING: PERCEPTIONS AND BARRIERS University leadership and faculty attitudes and perceptions about online learning continue to be a persistent barrier for fully embracing online learning into the fabric of an institution (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2007; McCarthy & Samors, 2009; Seaman, 2009). “More than six years of data from the national Sloan survey of online learning have shown that faculty acceptance of online education has consistently been seen as a critical barrier to its wide-spread adoption” (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission, n.d.). Another barrier to the wide-spread acceptance of online learning at universities is the time that faculty must invest to develop and teach courses in an online learning environment. Faculty are concerned that this time is not fully recognized at an institutional level and could have a negative impact on tenure and promotion issues and on faculty course loads. Other barriers found were dissatisfaction with institutional support, and faculty perceptions of students needing more discipline (Allen & Seaman, 2007a; Seaman, 2009). A note of interest found in the national studies was that faculty

views of earning extra income to develop and deliver online courses “was of considerably less importance than other factors as a ‘motivator’ to engage in online education (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 50). The Sloan studies have shown time and again that university leadership and faculty members do not consistently believe that courses delivered in online settings are of the same quality as courses delivered in traditional, face-to-face settings. Seaman’s (2009) study found that “this opinion is especially strong among faculty with no online teaching or development experience. Over 80 percent of that group believe that the learning outcomes for online are ‘inferior’ or ‘somewhat inferior’ to those for face-to-face instruction” (p. 29). However, a majority of faculty recommend an online course to students. The same study found that among faculty who have developed and taught online courses, there is the belief that learning outcomes are equal to or better than traditionally delivered instruction. In other words, experience with online learning has the most impact on perceptions about the quality of online learning. The frameworks for judging student performance in online settings are often based on the face-to-face model of delivering instructions, and this model is a completely different venue from an online delivery system. Online learning requires another mind-set for teaching and learning (Salmon, 2002). Face-to-face learning environments are most likely teacher-centered, and the role of the instructor is to impart knowledge and be directors of the learning processes using mostly lecture-based methods. In the online learning environment, the instructor must assume the role of facilitator, coach, moderator, technician, and content expert to effectively guide students through learning processes (Craig, Goold, Coldwell & Mustard, 2008). Clearly, the descriptions of faculty roles in the two models of delivery systems describe distinct differences in teaching styles. Teaching in an online environment insists that instructors teach differently than how they have taught in

61


traditional classrooms (Salmon, 2002). Faculty who are not equipped with skills and support to adjust teaching styles from a face-to-face setting to an online learning environment often fall prey to focusing on failures in student performance when teaching and learning go awry. The factors that were found to be barriers in the Sloan studies beg a discussion of the following questions: Are the barriers to online learning by-products of a university’s response to market-driven forces to stay competitive? In other words, could this be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog in universities’ efforts to stave off the pressures to maintain or increase student enrollments? Based on the Sloan studies over the years (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission, n.d.; Allen & Seaman, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2007; McCarthy & Samors, 2009; Seaman, 2009), it would appear many universities first focused on what they must do to with online learning (increase enrollments) but have yet to fully consider, on an institutional level, why online programs should be a part of the fabric of the higher education institution, leaving many faculty members to figure this out on their own. If negative perceptions about the quality of online courses, time constraints, lack of support, and student discipline are concerns among faculty, then why would faculty teach online and suggest students take online courses? Simply put, faculty members teach online courses to meet the needs of their students (Parry, 2009). However, without university-wide, ongoing conversations and collaborative experiences designed to resolve these challenges to online learning, negative perceptions prevail and an all-too-common reaction to confusion and frustrations (especially in light of the time it takes to develop and teach online courses) is a tendency to focus on perceived deficiencies in student performance. A systemic paradigm shift in the way university leaders, faculty members, and students think about

62

the practices of teaching and learning must occur (Salmon, 2005) to improve perceptions and concerns with student performance in online learning environments. McCarthy and Samors (2009) have identified the following four “key leadership and policy issues” (p.6) for campus leaders to consider in order to institutionalize full acceptance of online learning: 1) fully understanding the characteristics of online teaching and learning; 2) consistently communicating how online learning is related to the university mission and strategic planning; 3) understanding the factors that motivate (and hinder) faculty to teach online; and 4) identifying incentives and strategies to support faculty’s time commitment to develop and teach online. The authors stated that even though universities may be at varying degrees of maturity in implementing a wide-spread use of online learning, their studies have found that “many of these fundamental issues of structure, finance, and faculty support and engagement have resurfaced or emerged in new ways as programs have matured over the years” (p. 6). Continuous discussions among all stakeholders are needed to establish and maintain clarity for a university’s educational values, the purposes for its online programs, and must be central to the strategic planning for accomplishing the institution’s mission. Salmon (2001) provides a reminder to all that “online teaching and learning changes the scope and skills we require of academics and teachers. It changes what we actually do with students” (p. 2). It is imperative that improving perceptions of online learning and student performance be given institutional priority in order to change what faculty should do with and for students in online learning environments. The perceived problems of students lacking discipline may, in fact, be partially a response to a missing systemic institutional focus for why and how higher education develops and delivers online programs.


A COLLEGE’S ACTION RESEARCH TO EXPLORE ITS FACULTY’S PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE LEARNING The demand and growth of online courses at a South-Central university began to accelerate during the past decade much like the national reports indicated for many universities. The university began responding to the increasing demands for online courses and simultaneously began to actively market the university to increase student enrollments. Monetary incentives were offered to faculty to develop and/or convert traditionally delivered courses to online delivery. A universitywide training program was initiated to teach faculty how to use WebCT, the university’s online course delivery system at the time of the action research. Structures to support faculty efforts were established (help desk services, lunch and learn workshops, seminars, web sites, etc.). The university’s mission, strategic plans, and policies were revised to address online learning. During the 2007-2008 academic year, the college of education’s (COE) technology committee was charged by its dean to create a five-year technology plan. In partial fulfillment of the charge, the committee seized the opportunity to gain an understanding of the faculty’s needs and attitudes about online learning. The technology committee researched and discussed issues associated with online learning and created a self-reporting instrument to gather information about faculty needs, practices, and perceptions of online teaching and learning. The items that were included to explore attitudinal perceptions used the following Likert scale responses: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The survey also included multiple choice items, some of which the respondents were asked to ‘check all that apply’ and provided the respondent an opportunity to give a text comment. The survey concluded with two open-response items that provided faculty the opportunity to give comments concerning needs

for online training and for instructional technology to deliver courses. The survey was administered through AdvancedSurvey, a free online survey tool. An email message was sent to 48 faculty members in the COE that contained the purpose of the study, an overview of the survey, assurances of anonymity, and a link to the survey. A paper-based survey was also provided to faculty who did not wish to respond to the online survey.

The Survey Results Twenty-five faculty members completed the survey giving a 52.08% return rate. Six respondents reported they taught undergraduate courses only, six taught graduate courses only, and 13 taught both undergraduate and graduate courses. Nine respondents indicated they had been with the college 1-3 years and nine had been with the college 4-6 years. Two had been with the college 7-10 years, three for 11-14 years, and two for 15 years or more. Two questions asked faculty about their training and their use of WebCT and Centra (a voice over Internet protocol system), the two online instructional delivery systems most commonly used by the college at the time the survey was administered. The first question asked respondents if they had received training with WebCT and Centra. Ninety-two percent reported they had received training in WebCT and 64 percent of the respondents had received training with Centra. The next question asked about faculty’s use of WebCT and Centra. Eighty-eight percent reported they had used WebCT, but only 32 percent reported they had used Centra to deliver instruction. The survey explored faculty’s practices in delivering instruction. Respondents were questioned about their use of WebCT and Centra to deliver instruction. More than half of the respondents reported they most commonly used a combination of WebCT, Centra, and/or face-to-face sessions to deliver instruction. Forty percent of the

63


respondents reported they mostly deliver classes in face-to-face settings only. Slightly less than three percent used WebCT only to deliver courses, and less than two percent delivered courses using Centra only. The results indicated that blending instructional delivery systems was the most common practice among faculty. The respondents were then asked about their preferences for delivering instruction (see Figure 1). Respondents were asked the following three questions: 1) Would you rather teach blended courses (using a combination of face-to-face with WebCT, and/or Centra); 2) Would you rather teach blending WebCT and/or Centra only (no face-toface); and 3) Would you rather teach face-to-face courses only in a traditional classroom setting. The survey results indicated that faculty’s practices and preferences were somewhat aligned concerning teaching blended courses using either a combination of face-to-face with WebCT and/ or Centra and a combination of WebCT and/or Centra only. Slightly more than half indicated they taught using a blended system, and slightly less than half indicated they preferred blending course delivery systems. Forty percent had reported they taught face-to-face courses only, but the preferences of respondents indicated that 60 percent would rather teach face-to-face courses only. Even though 92 percent of the respondents indicated they had received training with WebCT, and 64 percent had received training with Centra, Figure 1. Faculty’s Teaching Preferences

64

more than half indicated they preferred teaching face-to-face. One possible explanation for these results could be a result of the training the majority of the faculty received. Most of the training was in large group settings and focused on how to use WebCT and Centra tools. Little emphasis was placed on integrating effective online design elements to meet the needs of adult learners when developing online courses. In the comment section of the survey, many respondents indicated they wanted more sustained, follow-up training sessions in small groups so that specific concerns and issues could be addressed on an individual basis. Barriers faculty believed hindered online teaching and learning were explored next (see Figure 2). Ten possible barriers were provided including an “Other” option, and respondents were asked to check all that apply. Respondents also were asked to provide comments, particularly if they had checked the “Other” option. *Faculty comments provided for the barrier labeled ‘Other’ on the survey were •

[The university’s] technology infrastructure (limited bandwidth) is a problem during peak usage times, and this often prevents WebCT and Centra from being fully operational at those times.

Figure 2. Faculty Perceptions of Barriers to Teaching Online Courses


•

Online students are not as likely to ask the instructor for help and some students are more likely to submit the work (in part or the whole assignment) of someone else.

The barriers the respondents listed on the COE survey were aligned with other studies addressing barriers to teaching online (Wilson, 2001; Allen & Seaman, 2007a; Seaman, 2009). The respondents’ perceived barriers included concerns about the increased time for developing and teaching online courses, limited institutional support, and student discipline issues. The comment about students submitting the work of others produced a concern for the committee about the quality of some of the online courses. On the other hand, 40 percent of faculty reported they mainly teach face-to-face courses, and as Seaman (2009) noted, experience with online learning has the most impact on perceptions. The COE survey questioned respondents about why they believed student take online courses (see Figure 3). Six possible reasons were provided in the survey and a choice labeled ‘Other’ was given. Respondents were asked to check all that apply, and were encouraged to provide a comment if they chose the ‘Other’ choice.

Figure 3. Faculty Perceptions of Why Students Take Online Courses

*Faculty comments for the ‘Other’ option for why they believed students take online courses were •

•

Some students say they take a course online so they can get a friend to do their assignments for them. Some students say online courses are a joke. Students say: a friend will do my work for me; they don’t have to do as much work as in face-to-face; instructors grade fewer papers and the scoring isn’t as strict.

The respondents’ beliefs about why students take online courses were aligned with many of the reasons that are commonly used to commercially promote online classes, i.e., convenience, savings on transportation costs, flexibility, and course availability (Neal, 2003; Coleman, 2005; Brantley, 2006; Edvisors, 2009). Again, the comments were of great concern for the committee. The next set of questions on the survey asked the respondents’about their perceptions of learning outcomes in online courses (see Figure 4). Following are the three questions that were asked: 1) Do you believe students are successful in online courses; 2) Do you believe students learn as much in online courses as they do in face-to-face courses;

Figure 4. Faculty Perceptions of Online Learning Outcomes

65


Figure 5. Faculty Perceptions of Why Students Are Not Successful in OL Courses

and 3) Do you believe online courses have the same rigor as face-to-face courses? The results showed that approximately 90 percent of the respondents either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ students were successful in online courses. However, half of the respondents indicated they believed students learned as much in online course as they did in face-to-face courses, and nearly 40 percent of the respondents did not believe that online courses had the same rigor as face-to-face courses. These data were similar to the national studies that have been conducted (NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2007; McCarthy & Samors, 2009; Seaman, 2009). However, the results of the COE survey differed from the Sloan reports that indicated faculty who have developed and taught online courses have more positive perceptions about the quality of online learning experiences. The respondents of the COE survey do not bear out similar results of faculty perceptions found in the national studies. Also, taking into consideration the faculty’s practices with online learning (mostly using a blended method), the practices and perceptions suggest the COE faculty have not fully embraced the value of online learning apart from increasing student enrollment. Combined with the faculty comments on the two previous survey questions, specific

66

Figure 6. WebCT Tools Most Commonly Used

challenges for online learning in the college began to emerge. Respondents were then asked to choose all that applied from a list addressing why they believed students were not successful in online courses (see Figure 5). Of the eight items that received ten or more responses for why students did not succeed in online courses, half of the items respondents had chosen involved technological problems, and half were student discipline problems. Frankola (2001) gives the following reasons why adult learners’ are not successful in online courses: lack of time, lack of motivation, problems with technology, lack of student support, individual learning preferences, poorly designed courses, and teaching that is below standard. A category labeled ‘Other’ was provided on the survey, but no response was given for this category. It was possible that faculty may not have known why students were not successful, and it would seem that by not providing a response to the item labeled “Other” the respondents may not have fully explored the issue. Respondents were asked to select the tools in WebCT and in Centra they most commonly used and were instructed to ‘check all that apply.’ See Figure 6 for the tools faculty indicated they most commonly used in WebCT and Figure 7 for the tools most commonly used in Centra. The data show that of the top five WebCT tools most commonly used by faculty, only one (the


Figure 7. Centra Tools Most Commonly Used

•

•

• •

•

discussion tool) had the potential for supporting collaborative interactions. The other most commonly used tools used in WebCT allowed the instructor to disseminate information to students or provided one-way feedback in the way of assessing student work. Implications from the data on the WebCT tools faculty most commonly used were that faculty may not have seen the need to fully use the available tools because they were blending their courses, they may not have trusted that online learning could have the same rigor so they used the basics tools for disseminating information only, or they may have lacked the skills needed to employ the tools that were available to fully deliver an online course. On the other hand, for those who used Centra, four of the top five tools used in Centra had the potential for real-time instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactions. Only one faculty member responded he or she used the web camera tool. The survey ended with two open response items. The first asked for a response to the following question: What training or help would you like to have to improve your skills with teaching online courses? The responses given were •

Regularly offered workshops or lunch and learn (for conversation with other COE faculty using online teaching)

• • •

• • •

Intensive initial training with follow-up training (in small groups and with the equipment in front of you) General review so I can ask specific questions and seek help through individual tutorial as needed Increasing student interactivity Sharing time with others using the same program (Centra, etc. (To share common problems...solutions) Teaching schedule and committee duties conflicted with training times More training with Centra WebCT Training: Grade book, Exams and Assignments Participate in cooperative teaching with one who has a mastery of the delivery system and technology. Help getting started and ongoing support Adequate support to faculty and students Interactive activities

Following is the final question on the survey: What technology would you like to know more about or have available to you in order to deliver instruction in your online courses? • •

• •

Streaming video Centra, Skype, blue tooth headsets, other multimedia items to integrate into online courses I wish I knew how to make full use of Centra and video (recording and editing) Programs such as Camtasia.

The comments provided about training or help to improve skills with online courses tended to focus on more WebCT and Centra training with follow-up in more personal settings, such as small groups or individually, and opportunities to engage in conversation about online issues. Finally, the technology faculty stated they would like to know more about focused on utilizing video/audio technologies. After examining the

67


tools most commonly used in WebCT and Centra, and reading the final comments on the survey, it appeared faculty members were expressing their needs and interest to learn more about improving online practices to meet the needs of students. The committee viewed the results of the survey as a leverage point to initiate a process for change that would lead to improvements in the college’s practices and perceptions about online learning.

BEGINNING THE CHANGE PROCESS The technology committee found the results of the survey to be extremely useful for accomplishing its charge of developing a five-year master technology plan for the college. While the committee had found the survey results disturbing at times, the data proved to be insightful for the necessary directions of implementing improvements that could serve the academic needs of faculty and students. The responses from the college’s faculty were very similar to Seaman’s (2009) national studies. There are a number of paradoxes among the faculty survey responses. On the one hand, faculty say it takes a lot more time and effort to teach or develop an online course, they have serious reservations about the quality of the learning outcomes, and they believe that their institutions are below average in providing support and incentives. Yet, approximately one-third of all faculty have taught an online course, and around one-quarter are currently teaching online. (p. 37) Just as Seaman noted, the use of online learning has been on the increase in the college of education, and many of the faculty were more frequently converting and creating classes online. It was essential that the committee lead out and begin taking steps to address the perceptual and other deficiencies found in the survey results. Also, during this same time, the university was phasing

68

out its WebCT distance learning system and was adopting a version of Blackboard. This presented an opportune time for the college to begin introducing initiatives that would move faculty to the next level of developing and delivering quality online courses.

First Steps for Change The survey results, coupled with the university’s move to Blackboard, elevated a sense of urgency for the members of the COE technology committee to initiate a process for improvements with online learning in the college. The committee felt the most pressing issues to address were the faculty’s perceptions about student learning outcomes, particularly with those about online courses not being as rigorous as face-to-face courses and students not learning as much in online course. The committee agreed to seek out standards and expectations that faculty could be encouraged to use to guide the development and delivery of online courses. The committee members began researching the literature on online teaching and learning and adult learning needs. The results of the research lead to convictions that online courses should be viewed as a natural information- and technology-rich environment that when well-planned and developed, can facilitate best teaching and learning practices (Chickering & Gamson, 1986; Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Erhmann, 2003) and elevate learning experiences among faculty and students. The COE survey showed that 92 percent of the respondents had received training in WebCT, and the committee believed a solid foundation had been set that could be capitalized on to move faculty to the next level to address andragogical (Knowles, 1990) needs of adult learners. Additionally, the committee members researched possible guidelines or rubrics for standards and expectations that could be adopted to assist in guiding faculty to develop and deliver online learning. After discussions of the research and an examination of a variety


of rubrics, the committee chose Blackboard’s Greenhouse Exemplary Online Course Project rubric (Blackboard Greenhouse Awards, n.d.) for further consideration. The committee’s intention was to introduce an online course design rubric that would provide faculty the guidance and assistance for thoughtfully considering why and when a WebCT/Centra tool should be used that moves faculty beyond just how to use an online learning tool. The committee created a survey instrument using content from the Greenhouse rubric. The survey kept the language of the four sections of the rubric and the element descriptors that supported each section. The four sections are 1) Course Design (16 element descriptors); 2) Interaction and Collaboration (13 element descriptors); 3) Assessment (13 element descriptors); and 4) Learner Support (8 element descriptors). Two columns in the survey were titled “Absolutely must be in course” and “Nice to have in course” for each of the element descriptors in the four sections. This arrangement of the survey was designed to take into consideration that the majority of faculty reported they used a blended system to deliver instruction, and that not all elements would necessarily apply to their design considerations in their online component of course delivery. However, the committee believed that exposure to all the elements would raise faculty’s awareness of best teaching and learning practices that should be incorporated throughout all aspects of delivering courses. The survey was distributed to faculty members for their feedback. Faculty provided input for what they believed absolutely must be present and what would be nice to have in an online course. The results were tallied, and based on the majority of responses for the element descriptors, the rubric was finalized for what must be present and what would be nice to have in an online course. The COE technology committee distributed the rubric and encouraged faculty to use it in their online development and teaching.

On the open response items of the survey, faculty requested more personal training in small groups or on an individual basis. Training sessions were regularly scheduled for small groups in the college’s computer lab, but attendance was sporadic. Members of the technology committee offered support and training for individual faculty members as they requested assistance. The first two semesters after the rubric was finalized and distributed to faculty, an opportunity presented itself to pilot the use of the rubric. Two instructors were converting traditional courses to be fully delivered online. Both instructors had never taught an online course and requested assistance with the conversion of their courses. One instructor was in the college of education and one was in another university department. Ongoing oneon-one support was provided to both instructors during the development and delivery of their online courses. The instructors considered each section of the rubric and employed most of the element descriptors throughout all of the phases of development and delivery of their courses. Emphasis was placed on 1) course design that considered differentiated instructional strategies; 2) interaction and collaboration designed to build learning communities; 3) authentic, meaningful assessments with scaffolding activities to promote higher order thinking skills; and 4) strong learner support at the beginning of and throughout the online course (Blackboard Greenhouse Awards, n.d.). More importantly, during the development of their online courses, the instructors were able to explore not only how to use online tools, they were able to have meaningful conversations about why they should use the tools to support teaching and learning. Both instructors received excellent feedback from students during and at the end of the semesters in which they had delivered their online courses. Since piloting the rubric, it has been used in the college and across the university in another college and in a few university depart-

69


ments. However, wide-spread use has been slow to come. Although the college’s technology committee has initiated changes to address immediate needs for improving online learning, there is still much work to be done to continue improving the practices and perceptions with online learning. Following are suggested plans to continue these efforts for the changes that are needed to develop and deliver exemplary online courses.

Next Steps for Change The overarching goal of the COE technology committee is for the faculty in the college of education to improve their practices and perceptions of online courses. Following are the proposed objectives to achieve the goal: • • • • •

• • •

To create a climate for change To study and discuss adult learning needs for improved online teaching and learning To extend the college’s self-study and survey students’ perceptions of online learning To develop a shared vision for online learning in the college To provide continuous training for Blackboard, Centra, and supporting technologies To provide access to resources to support faculty and student online needs To share the COE’s efforts for improvement and the successes with online learning To collaborate with university leaders for wide-spread support for online learning

Following are the suggested action plans to accomplish the objectives. The COE technology committee should continue to take the lead for improving the practices and perceptions of online learning and serve as the catalyst for creating a climate for change. The committee could begin by studying and implementing Kotter’s (1996) eight-stage process for change:

70

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Establish a Sense of Urgency Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition Create a Vision Communicate the Vision Empower Others to Act on the Vision Plan for and Create Short-Term Wins Consolidate Improvements and Produce Still More Change 8. Institutionalize New Approaches The COE survey results and the move to Blackboard served to establish the sense of urgency for the members of the COE technology committee. As a result, the committee introduced a course design rubric to assist faculty with developing and delivering online learning. However, those efforts alone were not enough for wide-spread changes that needed to happen for improvements in faculty’s practices and perceptions of online learning. To capitalize on the committee’s initial steps for improvements, the next stages of the change process are to build a guiding coalition, and to engage in a visioning process. The technology committee should cast the net to gather faculty members who have expertise with online teaching, are devoted to distance learning, and are interested in improving online learning. These faculty members would comprise a professional learning community (PLC) (Dufour & Dufour, 2005) to serve as the powerful guiding coalition for the change process. Before the visioning process can begin, research and focused studies should be conducted to empower the PLC to be fully informed of online learning issues and needs. The results of the COE survey suggest that clarification is needed for the expectations, roles, and responsibilities for both students and faculty involved in online teaching and learning. The PLC should begin with an examination of the research on the needs of adult learners and effective online teaching and learning principles. The PLC should engage in discussions around andragogy and the characteristics of the adult learner in order to arrive at a common un-


derstanding of what it means to effectively teach and learn in online environments. Studies have shown that adults learners prefer problem-based learning, want to use their life experiences in the learning process, have established beliefs and opinions; have a wider range of differences in learning styles, and prefer to be self-directed (Knowles 1990; Ragan, 1999; Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2005; Mezirow, 2005; Hebert, 2006; Craig, Goold, Coldwell & Mustard, 2008). The PLC should particularly articulate the characteristics of the instructor’s role in online courses and how this role often transitions from lecturer to that of facilitator. The PLC should examine the issue of rigor for online courses. Parry (2009) notes that “professors judge online education with somewhat different criteria” (Recognition Deficit section, para. 8). Exactly what these criteria entail need further exploration to arrive at a common understanding of how rigor is defined in face-to-face courses as compared to online learning environments (Craig, Goold, Coldwell & Mustard, 2008). A study of current COE students’ perceptions of online learning should be conducted to inform the PLC’s discussions and decisions. Smart and Cappel (2006) observed that Although e-learning (and various blended approaches that integrate online components into traditional classes) continues to grow rapidly, it still remains at an early stage of development. Consequently developers and deliverers of online learning need more understanding of how students perceive and react to elements of e-learning (since student perception and attitude is critical to motivation and learning) along with how to apply these approaches most effectively to enhance learning. (Introduction section, para. 3) The COE faculty needs to know what their students are thinking in regards to online learning. Without this information, faculty are resting on their hunches and hopes that their online courses

are meeting the needs of their students. Results of the Craig, Goold, Coldwell, and Mustard (2008) studies show that students selected the following variables (in the order students chose as most important) for what contributes to their success with online learning: 1) faculty responsiveness to student needs; 2) the quality of online instruction; 3) timely feedback about progress; 4) quick institutional responses; 5) frequency of interaction with faculty; 6) financial aid; and 7) peer collaboration (Data Analysis section). The PLC should use data from a student survey to plan appropriately for improvements that target specific needs for improving online teaching and learning. Finally, an additional charge to the PLC would be to study the college’s retention rates for students in online courses. A majority of the respondents on the survey indicated students were successful in online courses. Yet, the survey results also indicated faculty believed that for the students who are not successful, it was partly due to a lack of discipline. A thorough exploration should be conducted on why some students are not successful in online courses. Could it be that faculty are not perceived to be responsive to their needs, the quality in the online learning may be lacking, support for problems is slow, interaction with faculty is slow (Craig, Goold, Coldwell & Mustard, 2008), or other factors that may be causing roadblocks to a seamless learning process? Faculty won’t know until an examination of this issue is conducted. Until then, many faculty may be prone to assign the catch-all reason for poor student performance on a lack of discipline without being fully informed of what students who are not successful may be trying to tell us. Herbert (2006) reports that student retention rates in online courses are “…one of the greatest weaknesses in online education” (Introduction section, para. 1). He goes on to state that, Unfortunately, the online learning experience has not been a positive one for a substantial portion of participating students. Thus, a key issue for

71


postsecondary institutions is that of trying to find ways in which student retention in online courses can be improved. (Introduction section, para. 2)

5.

These issues warrant attention and should be studied in order to inform discussions and decisions for improving the college’s online programs. The results should be used to guide the next step of the change process: visioning. After conducting an in depth contextual study of online learning in the college, the PLC should next articulate a compelling vision for online teaching and learning. The Scott, Jaffe, and Tobe (1993) process could provide guidance for the PLC’s visioning work. Following is a proposed visioning process with suggestions for the PLC to engage in each step of the process: 1. Share the dream: The PLC shares their dreams and hopes for the college’s online programs and how they believe the college’s ideal online learning should look. 2. Develop the rationale: The PLC discusses the importance of having a vision statement and addresses skepticism about whether a vision statement is useful. 3. Clarify values: This is the most crucial step to creating the vision. The PLC examines such issues as the market forces that are driving the demand for online courses and students’ motivations to take online courses beyond reasons of convenience. Coleman (2005) lists 15 benefits of online learning that should be part of the values discussion. Some of these benefits include increased student interaction; exposure to multiple sources of knowledge; skills in using technology; increased camaraderie, better access to instructors, and team learning. 4. Scan the environment: The PLC conducts a SWOT analysis to identify and discuss the implications of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that are present

72

6.

7.

8.

9.

and the impact on the online teaching and learning in the college. Brainstorm for the vision: The PLC breaks into subgroups of two to three members to continue to refine and clarify the identified values and refine or clarify the values. Questions to be addressed during this step could include a. What do we really want to do or create with the college’s online learning? b. What do we want the college’s online programs to be known for? c. What contribution are the college’s online programs making to the community and to society as a whole? d. How do we differentiate the college from the competition? e. What are the right things to do? f. What would be worth committing to over the next five years? g. How would we know if the college’s online learning was where we want it to be? Draft the vision statement: The PLC remains in subgroups of two to three members and each subgroup synthesizes the information completed thus far and writes a draft of a vision. Create a common vision: The PLC uses a consensus process to merge the subgroup drafts into common vision. Communicate and cascade the news: The PLC plans how to communicate and share the vision with every person who is important to the college. Review the statement: The PLC creates a time line to review and modify the statement as needed to sustain the college’s living, breathing vision for online learning.

The technology committee should continue to examine strategies that would provide optimal training and support for faculty. As previously noted, most of the respondents to the survey had


received training in WebCT, but the university phased this system out and adopted Blackboard and support was needed more than ever. The results of the survey also indicated that two thirds of the respondents had received training with Centra, but only a third of the respondents had used Centra. Faculty had also expressed interest in using more video/audio capabilities. Hughes (2009) states that “…videos provide both an additional learning option and a connection with the instructor” (p. 8). Additionally, Centra’s audio/video capabilities could provide the means to attend to multiple learning styles. Therefore, a concerted effort should be made to retrain and assist faculty to incorporate Centra in their delivery of online learning. The survey’s comment section indicated that faculty preferred training in small groups or on an individual basis. To empower others and to build capacity among the college’s faculty, the technology committee could identify faculty who have expertise with various Blackboard/Centra tools and match these individuals with faculty needing assistance to provide more personal collegial support. The survey results also indicated that support for problems with teaching and learning and technology difficulties were barriers to online learning. Even though the university had established support structures for online learning, these structures were not perceived to be serving the needs of the faculty and students in the college. Faculty expressed the desire for more individual support with online teaching during times that were conducive to their schedules. The technology committee should look for ways to provide better access to resources for faculty and students needing assistance with online learning problems. One way to accomplish this is to create a web page on the college’s web site that consolidates links to internal institutional support and external resources much like an online ‘clearinghouse’ for support. The web page could provide links to such resources as the institution’s help desk, to institutional training opportunities, tutorial videos to

assist students with getting started in Blackboard and Centra, Netiquette information, learning style inventories, distance learning surveys, sites for affordable/free plug-ins and software needed for successful online learning, to name but a few. These combined efforts to train and support online teaching and learning will help to accomplish the fifth step of Kotter’s (1996) change process: empowering others to act on the vision. The technology committee should plan for short-term and long-term successes with online teaching and learning. The online course design rubric should continue to be promoted and used to guide the design and implementation of online courses. Faculty members who use the rubric to develop and deliver online courses could be encouraged to invite colleagues into their courses to view their design and instructional practices. Colleagues could also be encouraged to use the rubric to assess each other’s online courses and to provide feedback. Faculty members could be encouraged to provide a demonstration of their course design to groups of colleagues. The college could give formal recognition to faculty members who model and practice exemplary online teaching and learning to celebrate their efforts and accomplishments. Finally the faculty members could be encouraged to submit their courses for national review and recognition in Blackboard’s Greenhouse Exemplary Online Course Program (Blackboard Greenhouse Awards, n.d.). Finally, to plan for consolidating improvements and institutionalizing approaches, the path to realizing the goal for improving practices and perceptions should begin with the following reminder to faculty of the college: By virtue of its discipline, a college of education is naturally immersed in researching and practicing the art and science of teaching and learning. Therefore, a college of education possesses a strong and credible voice that could be used to advocate best teaching and learning practices for online learning. As the college engages in the work of the proposed plan to improve online teaching and learning, it has

73


the potential for positioning itself as a model for other colleges in the university system. Additionally, the college could also bring a strong voice forward to advocate for improving institutional policies and practices for continual growth with online learning. One of the reported barriers to online learning is the amount of time that must be invested to develop and deliver online courses. Seaman (2009) reports that monetary incentive for faculty to develop and teach online courses ranked among the lowest motivators. The college could advocate for university leaders to study the Sloan Consortium reports and to initiate campuswide conversations to address online teaching and learning needs. These conversations could lead to creative solutions for addressing such barriers as the time commitment for designing and delivering online courses and for rethinking incentives and support that would motivate faculty to fully engage in online teaching and learning.

FINAL THOUGHTS ON LEADERSHIP FOR CHANGE Online learning in higher education is here to stay and the challenges that exist with online learning must be systematically addressed if best teaching and learning opportunities are to be available for students and faculty alike. There is no easy, quick fix for perceived problems with online learning. Policies, procedures, and organizational structures can be changed relatively quickly, but until the hearts and mind of the people change, no real improvements will be realized in a timely manner. It takes leadership focusing on the needs of people first to remove barriers that hinder online learning so that true and lasting growth and improvements can occur. Change such as this takes time, patience, vision, and must be managed with a well articulated plan. Kotter (1998) shares the following story as a reminder for all who venture into a change process:

74

Konosuke Matsushita started the Matsushita Institute of Government and Management -- his graduate school for people who want to go into public service -- he explained that his vision was to help Japanese politics become less corrupt and more visionary. When a skeptical reporter asked how long that would take, he said, “In my judgment, about 400 years -- which is why it’s so important that we start today. (Managing Multiple Time Lines section, para. 1) The plan proposed by the technology committee may not be perfect, and there will be setbacks, but with a diligent focus on the goal and the vision of changing faculty’s practices and perceptions of online learning, change can happen if we start today.

REFERENCES Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2007a). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006: Southern Edition. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2007b). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723-742. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/6/723


Barta, M. (2009). Administration and faculty perceptions (in an online post-secondary institution) of whether students are purely students, customers, or both. Paper presented at the Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE). Blackboard Greenhouse Awards. (n.d.). Blackboard Greenhouse Exemplary Course Program2007submission instructions and form. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://communities.blackboard.com/ bbcswebdav/users/aalleyne/Greenhouse%20 ECP%20Rubric%20v1.1.doc Brantley, A. (2006). 10 reasons why you should take online classes. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/ article/54397/10_reasons_why_you_should_ take_online_pg2.html?cat=4 Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1986). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. Retrieved March 19, 2007, from http:// www.tltgroup.org/Seven/Home.htm Coleman, S. (2005). Why do students like online learning? Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.worldwidelearn.com/educationarticles/benefits-of-online-learning.htm Craig, A., Goold, A., Coldwell, J., & Mustard, J. (2008). Perceptions of roles and responsibilities in online learning: A case study. [Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Institute.]. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4, 205–223. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Services.

Edvisors. (June, 2009). Top 5 reasons online classes rock. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2009, from http:// blog.edvisors.com/online-courses/top-5-reasonsonline-classes-rock/ Ehrmann, S. (2003). New ideas and additional reading. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http:// www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 53–59. Herbert, M. (2006, Winter). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter94/ herbert94.htm Hughes, G. (2009). Using videos to bring lecture to the online classroom. College Quarterly, 12(1). Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www. senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2009-vol12-num01winter/hughes.html Knowles, M., Holton, E. III, & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kotter, J. (1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 27-33. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/ journal.aspx?ArticleID=161 Levidow, L. (2002). Marketizing higher education: Neoliberal strategies and counter-strategies. In Robins, K., & Webster, F. (Eds.), The virtual university? Knowledge, markets and management (pp. 227–248). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

75


McCarthy, S., & Samors, J. (August, 2009). Online learning as a strategic asset: Volume I: A resource for campus leaders: A report on the online education benchmarking study. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities: Sloan National Commission on Online Learning. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/ Document.Doc?id=1877 Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. NASULGC-Sloan National Commission. (n.d.). Online learning benchmarking study: Preliminary findings. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.sloanorg/publications/survey/ nasulgc_prelim NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning. (2007). Online learning as a strategic asset: A survey of presidents and chancellors. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www. aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=443 Neal, R. (2003). Earning a degree online: Students find earning a degree online may be a smart decision. CBS News. Retrieved on December 1, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews. com/stories/2003/08/26/earlyshow/contributors/ reginalewis/main570268.shtml Newman, S., & Jahdi, K. (2009). Marketisation of education: Marketing, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 1–11. doi:10.1080/03098770802638226 Parry, M. (2009). Professors embrace online courses despite qualms about quality. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/article/ProfessorsEmbrace-Online/48235/

76

Ragan, L. C. (1999). Good teaching is good teaching: An emerging set of guiding principles and practices for the design and development of distance education. CAUSE/EFFECT, 1(22). Retrieved September 12, 2006, from http:// www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem99/ cem9915.html Rodriquez, M., Montanez, M., Yan, Y., & Ooms, A. (2005). Perceptions of online learning quality given comfort with technology, motivation to learn technology skills, satisfaction, & online learning experience. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Salmon, G. (2001). Creating the e-learning experience: Which way is forward? Plenary address to the BESTConference, Windermere UK. Salmon, G. (2002). Pedagogical requirements of virtual learning environments (VLEs): PETS and PLANETS. The 24 hour University: Stretching the limits. Keynote address to the UCISA TLIG-SDG User Support Conference, Leeds UK. Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. AltJ. Research in Learning Technologies, 13(3), 201–218. Scott, C. D., Jaffe, D. T., & Tobe, G. R. (1993). Organizational vision, values, and mission: Building the organization of tomorrow. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp. Seaman, J. (2009, August). Online learning as a strategic asset: Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning. Babson Park, MA: Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/ Document.Doc?id=1879


Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(5), 201–219. Wilson, C. (2001). Faculty attitudes about distance learning: A study of distance learning in Kentucky’s higher education system revealed faculty willing to use the technology but needing more institutional support. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2, 70–71.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Centra: a voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) system for synchronous delivery of online instruction that allows participants to see and hear one another. A variety of tools are available to support learning experiences, such as the agenda builder to list documents and PowerPoint presentations for the session; breakout rooms for small group collaboration; application sharing to view web sites and documents. Sessions can be recorded and published for viewing after the session. WebCT: a synchronous and asynchronous online course delivery system used to organize course materials and deliver instruction. A variety

of tools are available to support learning experiences, such as modules to organize units of study, a calendar that can be linked to modules, discussion board, syllabus, chat rooms, organizer pages, assignment, student presentations, and quiz tools. Face-to-Face (F2F): traditionally delivered instruction in a classroom setting where the instructor and the students physically meet at designated times. Blended Courses: a system of instructional delivery that uses a combination of face-to-face, WebCT, and/or Centra. Online Learning (OL): the use of WebCT and/or Centra only or a blended course to deliver instruction. Barriers: any real or perceived problem that hinders the acceptance and application of effectively using online learning for teaching and learning. Perceptions: and individual’s understanding that is derived from facts or assumptions that influence beliefs and attitudes. Change Initiative: a systematic process that is planned and managed to shift perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes to influence improved behaviors and practices.

77

78

Chapter 6

The Case of TeacherLibrarianship by Distance Learning at the University of Alberta, Canada Dianne Oberg University of Alberta, Canada

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The online distance education program, Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning, was developed and implemented in the Department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta, Canada beginning in 1996. At the time, neither the university nor the department had the interest, funding or infrastructure required for such an undertaking, but these developed over time through a combination of careful planning and serendipity. The program’s instructional team has utilized various approaches to establish, maintain and continue the program: a distance education theoretical framework, analysis of distance education research, one-time government incentive funding, and on-going policy relevant research and evidence-based practice. Current challenges facing the organization are program growth, new and emerging technologies, and maintaining flexibility. The solutions to these challenges include a cohort model for the majority of program delivery; a stand-alone course introducing new and emerging technologies as a launching pad for integration of these technologies; and graduate certificate programs for meeting the short term needs of teachers new to the field.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND The University of Alberta is a large researchintensive comprehensive university in Western Canada. The University was established in 1908 DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch006

as the province’s first university; today it has 17 faculties and over 37,000 students. The Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta was the first Faculty of Education in Canada, and it is home to two kinds of library education: an accredited MLIS (Master of Library and Information Stud-


The Case of Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning at the University of Alberta, Canada

ies) program for all types of librarians, offered by the School of Library and Information Studies, and a school library specific MEd program for teacher-librarians, offered by the Department of Elementary Education. The first MEd and MLIS students graduated from the two programs in the early 1970s but undergraduate courses in library education had been offered at the University since the 1950s. Both the School and the Department offered their programs in library education in a traditional on-site and face-to-face format, but occasionally also offered outreach courses in response to students living in other cities in Western Canada. Because in the 1970s another university in the Province of Alberta, Athabasca University, was established with the mandate of providing distance learning in the province, initiatives for distance learning have been slow to appear at the University of Alberta. In the 1990s, the provincial government ministry responsible for post-secondary education began to show increased interest related to using technology for learning in the post-secondary sector. This interest, and the competitive funding that came along with it, opened the doors for University of Alberta faculty members interested in “distributed learning,” that is, using technology to support and enhance traditional face-to-face delivery, but it also provided opportunities for faculty members interested in distance learning. The funding was available on a competitive project basis over a limited time: this meant that infrastructure and maintenance of the technology and curricula developed with the funding would have to find continuing funds from other sources.

SETTING THE STAGE Through the 1990s, the admissions to the accredited MLIS program held steady at approximately forty students annually. The school library education programs in the Department of Elementary

Education did not fare as well. The numbers of students applying for the school library education programs (both the MEd route and the postbaccalaureate Diploma route) began to diminish in the early 1990s. There were a number of factors that combined to reduce the viability of what had always been a small niche program. The initial impetus for developing an online program was the financial cutbacks of the 1990s in the K-12 education system in the Province of Alberta. Schools, when forced to cut their budgets, began to lay-off or re-assign non-classroom-based staff. Counsellors and teacher-librarians were particularly hard hit. The cutbacks exacerbated the impact of two other factors related to the number of positions for teacher-librarians: (1) a provincial school library policy that recommended but did not mandate particular types or levels of school library staffing, and (2) a school-based budgeting system that delegated staffing decisions to the individual school level. Together, these factors resulted in a rapid decline in the number of students seeking admission to programs in teacher-librarianship. For me, as the faculty member responsible for school library education at the University of Alberta, the only viable option appeared to be to increase the pool of applicants and thus the number of students enrolled in the Diploma and MEd programs through some sort of distance education. However, the cutbacks to the post-secondary system and the declining student registrations in school library education meant that it was very difficult to make a case for the Faculty or Department to allocate the resources needed to develop distance education programs. Another obstacle was the scarcity of personnel to do the development work for a distance education program. Course and program development is seen at the University of Alberta as a faculty responsibility primarily: faculty are 12-month employees whose workload is generally thought of as 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service or citizenship. Teaching involves supervision of graduate students and advisement of undergradu-

79


ate students as well as classroom teaching. Teaching responsibilities are assigned for 40% of each of two four-month terms (normally involving teaching 6 credit hours per term), leaving 40% of the third four-month term for teaching-related activities such as course and program development. However, many programs in library education rely on sessional or adjunct instructors to teach part of the program, and these part time instructors are hired for teaching contracts over terms, generally ranging from three weeks to four months. Course and/or program development work is rarely seen as work to be done by sessional or adjunct instructors and, within the University budget system, there is rarely any funds that can be re-allocated to hire sessional or adjunct instructors to do this kind of work. Building a distance education program in teacher-librarianship did not seem feasible since I was the only faculty member in teacherlibrarianship at the University of Alberta in the 1990s and there was no funding to hire our sessional or adjunct instructors to re-develop their courses as distance learning courses. In the 1990s, re-allocation of budget for teaching innovations was not possible because the Faculty was targeting its scarce resources to improving its research profile nationally and internationally. Neither the Faculty nor the University had the infrastructure, in terms of the technology or in terms of support for new pedagogies, which would be needed to support distance education. At the time, distance education was seen as the mandate of the Faculty of Extension, the University of Alberta’s outreach unit which was at that time focussed on continuing education for adults, and of the Province’s distance education university, Athabasca University which focussed on undergraduate education. Neither had the interest in nor the mandate to deliver post-baccalaureate or graduate level education in librarianship.

80

CASE DESCRIPTION The need for a distance education program in school library education was evident, but there were many obstacles to overcome. First was my own ignorance about distance education: I had never taken a course by distance education, let alone taught one. I wondered if the quality of a face-to-face program could be sustained in a distance format. I had little experience of online technologies, other than email and web browsing. Leaders in my Department, Faculty, and University were not interested in distance learning. There were no sources of funding within the University system allocated for distance learning. There was no centre or unit dedicated to assisting faculty in developing distance education or in supporting faculty who decided to teach in a distance education mode. The situation was not all bad, however. I did have access to people who could help me in various ways. Within the University, the Dean of the Faculty of Education gave me a small fund to purchase some sample materials from an Australian institution that was known for its delivery of school library education by distance education. The Director of the ALA-accredited library school had been the co-supervisor of my doctoral studies and, although the library school faculty were not interested in distance education, they and she were interested in applications of technology, and she could see the potential of that technology in delivering distance education. Beyond the University, I also knew the leaders in the school library community through my service on the executive boards of both provincial and national school library associations, and I knew I could turn to them for advice.

Concerns about Faculty Capacity The first essential step was to educate myself as a faculty member about distance education. My sabbatical leave in 1993 gave me the opportunity I


needed to explore distance education options in a serious way. I turned first to the research literature and then to observation of ongoing programs. There were reports of programs and “best practice” in distance education for teacher-librarianship but there were very few, if any, research reports. There was, however, an extensive literature (both research and theoretical) on distance education and a substantial research literature on distance education in library education. My reviews of those literatures informed my sabbatical application, and they were later published in provincial and national professional school library journals (Oberg, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b). Publishing in provincial and national school library journals was important since I realized that I would need to build an awareness of and an interest in distance education within the school library community if I were to start such a program—I would need them and their colleagues as students! The distance education literature provided a theoretical framework from which I could build my understanding of the various approaches to distance education represented in the literature and in practice. Basic to that theoretical framework is the concept of distance as separation of teacher and student. That distance or separation can be understood in terms of structure and dialogue (Keegan, 1990, 1996). Structure involves the extent to which a program can be shaped by student needs; dialogue involves the provision of two-way communication between teacher and student. A high-structure program is typified by precisely defined objectives, by detailed study guides, and by common assignments, deadlines and examinations. A high-dialogue program provides many opportunities for interactions between and among teachers and students. There is no one best combination of structure and dialogue; each program needs to be designed to meet the needs of the participants in each particular program. Some key themes emerged from my review of the distance education literature. First, distance education and conventional or face-to-face edu-

cation are more alike than different (Garrison, 1989). What is foundational to all education is the communication between and among teachers and students, a two-way communication that involves transforming information into knowledge. What is different about distance education is the way in which the components of teaching and learning are organized. Second, effective distance education is not defined by the delivery system; high cost sophisticated technologies have not proven to be more effective than simpler low cost technologies.

Concerns about Student Achievement and Satisfaction Analysis of the research showed that distance education could be used to provide high quality academic programs. Two common ways of assessing the quality or effectiveness of distance education programs are by measuring student achievement and by measuring student satisfaction. Overall, in terms of academic achievement, distance education students in the field of library and information studies appeared to do as well or better as their counterparts in the traditional classroom (Barron, 1987; Haynes & Dillon, 1992; Pribesh, Dickinson & Bucher, 2006). Students’ academic achievement did not seem to be affected by the instructional format or technology being used to deliver the course. The exception might be the case where students react very negatively to the technology involved in a distance education course, particularly where the technology is prone to failures. However, distance education does not fare as well in terms of student satisfaction with the learning experience. Some students prefer face-to-face instruction, and some would take a distance education course only if it were the only possible way to take that course (Haynes & Dillon, 1992). Distance education could provide satisfying learning experiences but instructors needed to be aware that learning style preferences might affect distance education students’ attitudes

81


towards their course and their perceptions of their academic achievement. Instructors needed to vary instruction to encompass the different learning preferences that were likely to be present in any class of students. Providing students with opportunities for interaction with the instructor (Lei & Pitts, 2009) and for access to general academic advisement services also increased student satisfaction with the distance learning experience. For observation of ongoing programs, I turned to colleagues in Australia who had been delivering library education at a distance since the 1970s, initially by correspondence school methods (paper self-study packages sometimes augmented with audiovisual materials). In 1993, I spent part of my sabbatical leave in Australia, focussing on the first of the distance programs at Charles Sturt University in New South Wales. I also spent time at three other universities offering both face-to-face and distance format programs. I was impressed with the distance education units that supported faculty members, in all four universities, throughout the teaching and learning process, from course and program design and production through to receiving and returning student assignments. The data that I collected during the sabbatical was subsequently analysed and published (Oberg, 1993, 1996). The four programs that I observed in Australia could be characterized as high-structure, high-dialogue programs, combining carefully designed courses with close personal contact with students. From analysis of the data, I identified four key learnings that were important to my situation. First, teaching and learning at a distance need not involve complex technology: more important was the design of materials to ensure that they suited the needs of the students and their cognitive and affective characteristics. Second, effective use of technology could be used to increase the efficiency of course development and of contact with students. Third, distance education programs could be designed to provide essential professional learning experiences such as the practicums and professional development activities that are

82

part of conventional face-to-face programs, and maintaining some of the structures of conventional face-to-face courses, such as common starting and ending dates, recommended timelines for coursework, and assignment deadlines, appeared to help busy students, most of them working full-time, to complete their programs. Fourth, distance education programs needed to emphasize independence less and interdependence less (Garrison, 1989). A dynamic balance in control of teaching and learning between instructors and students is what was needed: highly structured programs ensured that new competencies were developed by all students while choices within the courses, especially as to the assignments offered students, ensured that new competencies could be considered and practiced in relevant professional contexts.

Concerns about Initial Support My concerns about my capacity to become a distance educator were somewhat assuaged by my review of the research and theoretical literature on distance education and my investigation of distance education programs in Australia, but other concerns remained. How would I find the organizational support, or at the least assurances that no obstacles would be erected, for a distance education program? What aspects of the infrastructure of a research-intensive University could be used or adapted to support a distance education program when there were no distance education units in place to assist in the development and delivery of distance education courses? Shortly after returning from my sabbatical leave, two unexpected sources of support for distance education in teacher-librarianship were offered to me, first from two unit heads from within the University and then from a new funding program from the Provincial Government. The Director of the School of Library and Information Studies needed a faculty member to teach the required library management course and in turn could offer me some in-kind support for my


investigations into distance education; the Chair of the Department of Elementary Education agreed to my teaching the library management course as part of my teaching load and also found in-kind resources in the form of one course release for me. The new funding from the Provincial Government came in the form of the Learning Enhancement Envelope (LEE) in 1995. The goal of the LEE program was to enhance the use of technology in post-secondary teaching and learning; the program was designed to support a variety of activities: 1. development of distance learning courses and programs 2. development of curriculum for technologically supported models of learning 3. development of training programs for students, staff or instructors working in settings that integrate technology with learning 4. research contributing to the knowledge base on integrating technology with teaching and learning 5. devising and testing models of learner support 6. equipment and infra structure (i.e., classroom, instructional laboratories) to increase access or to enhance teaching and learning My proposal, Development of a Distance Learning Diploma Program in Teacher-Librarianship, focussed on the development of online versions of established courses (activities 1, 3 and 5) over three years, 1996-1999. The LEE grant was competitive, and I was successful in winning a three-year grant for a total of $81,000. The first year grant was $32,000 and funds in subsequent years were dependent on successful completion of planned activities in previous years. The money seems ridiculously small now, but at the time it was the seed money that I needed. Although course development is considered part of all faculty members 12-month workload at the University of Alberta, I needed some funds to hire sessional (adjunct) instructors in areas for

which I had no or limited expertise and to hire a technology specialist to support and advise the instructors who were all new to online teaching and learning. The University provided instructional design consultants and technical consultant through a new unit, Academic Technologies for Learning, developed to respond to the needs of faculty who were successful in obtaining LEE grants. My project had the advantage of involving very experienced and skilled instructors who were open to using new pedagogies as well as new technologies. Another important support for the project was the technology consultant who had focussed on new technologies in his Master of Library and Information Studies program and who brought to the project experience as a classroom teacher and as a teacher-librarian. Each member of the team was committed to working in a collaborative way. Together, we learned about new pedagogies and new technologies. Together, we designed the basic framework for the courses in the program. Each course would have six or seven two-week modules, consistent with the University’s standard 13-week instructional term. Each module involved a text with embedded questions, readings, and activities. Assignments were designed to give students considerable choice: they needed to be flexible, practical and relevant to the professional practice of teacher-librarians. The program we designed was both high-structure and high-dialogue.

Concerns about Technology One of our first tasks as a team was to select one of the various software platforms made available to us through Academic Technologies for Learning. Our choice was WebCT, designed at the University of British Columbia in the mid 1990s and later selected by the University of Alberta as the software supported across the University for online course delivery. Before WebCT was available to us, however, we decided to pilot a course using the FirstClass computer conferenc-

83


ing software. Unfortunately, some students were unable to access FirstClass and we had to use a simpler email bulletin board system for the online portion of the course. These difficulties and the students’ evaluation of the pilot course content and instruction motivated us to seek out an integrated well-designed course delivery software (a learning management system) ‘sooner rather than later.’ The students’ evaluations of the pilot course showed that, although student achievement was consistent with that in face-to-face versions of the course, student satisfaction was low primarily due to frustrations with technical difficulties and the instructor’s lack of knowledge and experience with online teaching. The change in student satisfaction was rapid once courses were offered using WebCT. The change was not entirely attributable to a new flexible and robust technology, however. The work of an instructor team, enabled by the LEE funding, focussed strongly on improving our pedagogies and on orienting students to online learning.

Concerns about Program Development From the beginning of my tenure with the teacherlibrarianship program, I and my colleagues have conducted a number of studies to help us understand and improve our courses and program routes. These studies have been conceptualized within two frameworks, policy-relevant research and evidence-based practice. All studies were designed and conducted to meet the standards for ethical research required by the University of Alberta. Safeguards for students were especially important (and closely scrutinized by the Research Ethics Board) because in many cases the research was being conducted with students currently enrolled in the program. The first study was conducted in 1992 before distance education was seen to be a viable option for the program. The study (Easton & Oberg, 1993; Oberg & Easton, 1995) used focus groups of prac-

84

titioners and employers to determine if the program was addressing the issues in teacher-librarianship most significant at the time. Six themes emerged from this study: four having to do with program content (taking a leadership role, developing the program, managing technical services, and coping with technology) and two having to do with program pedagogy (sequencing learning and modelling/mentoring). Studies were conducted related to the online program, beginning with the pilot course in Fall 1996. The study of the pilot course (Oberg, 1997) used analysis of course evaluation and feedback forms to explore the students’ experiences as new online learners and their perspectives on course delivery improvements. Because I was teaching a face-to-face version of the same course, I also was able to compare assignments from the two classes to assess differences in student achievement; the comparison assuaged any doubts that I may have had about student achievement because the range of grades and quality of assignments in the online class were very similar to that in face-faceversions of the course which I had been teaching approximately once a year over the previous ten years. Student satisfaction and student rating of my teaching in the online course, however, was much lower in the online course. Students found the technology frustrating and overwhelming. As noted earlier, the FirstClass computer conferencing system had to be abandoned because technical difficulties made it impossible for some of the students to participate, and replacing it with a simpler email bulletin board system delayed the start of the class. Some students were very new to electronic communication and found it quite daunting. Others commented that communication in the course was ‘tedious’ and ‘lonely’: all commented on missing the face-to-face interactions with the instructor and other students. The low ratings of my online teaching convinced me that it was critical to find a more sophisticated course delivery system, and it was critical as well that I


learn how to practice my relationship-based teaching approach in an online environment. The next study (Oberg, 1998) used a mail survey of students in the program to assess the impact of online coursework on professional practice. All survey participants had completed at least two online courses at least one full year before they were being surveyed. Survey participants rated the usefulness of the course they had taken and the impact of the courses on their professional practice particularly in the area of technology use. Students responded that they found the courses useful or very useful (87%), that they had noticed changes in their professional practice that they could attribute to taking the courses (73%), and that they had noticed changes in their technology use that they could attribute to taking the courses (67%). Some responded “no” to the question about impact of the courses on their technology use (27%) but explained that they had been exploring new technologies before taking the courses. Over the next decade, the Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning (TL-DL) program grew in student numbers and a second faculty member was hired who took on the role of program coordinator, but few substantial changes were made to the structure of the program. Each year, however, with the leadership of the program coordinator, incremental changes were made to course content and pedagogy, based on twice yearly feedback sessions held with instructors in the program. In Spring 2008, the program coordinator and her graduate research assistant surveyed graduates from the TL-DL program to examine their experiences with and attitudes about the TL-DL program and to seek their perspectives on what new topics or issues needed to be addressed in the program (Branch & deGroot, 2009). Of the last 30 MEd graduates, 28 responded to the survey. Two themes emerged in response to questions about what needed to be added or addressed more extensively: technology and leadership. The respondents said that they needed to learn more about technology, especially about Web 2.0, but also about selecting

databases, creating electronic pathfinders, and using specific tools such as e-readers. They also said to be effective leaders in their school that they needed to learn more about change and school reform, about action research and evidence-based practice, about broad educational topics such as literacies and assessment, and about continuing their professional education. Later that same year, the program coordinator and I utilized the USA’s Fulbright Program in order to bring a Senior Specialist to the University of Alberta to help us to review our current offerings, to integrate the survey findings with standards for teacher-librarian competencies (see, for example, American Association of School Librarians, 2007; Canadian School Library Association and Association for Teacher-Librarianship in Canada, 2003; International Society for Technology in Education, 2008), and to think about new ways to improve education for teacher-librarianship. Dr. Marcia Mardis, now at Florida State School of Library and Information Studies, came from Wayne State University to work with the program coordinator, with instructors, and with local practicing teacherlibrarians. The work with Dr. Mardis affirmed the leadership focus of the program and initiated consideration of phasing out the Diploma program and delivering the majority of the MEd program using a cohort model. The work also helped us to clarify our mission and values (see Figure 1).

TL-DL at Age 10 TL-DL is housed administratively within the Department of Elementary Education. Two tenured faculty members are responsible for the program, one Professor who is also the Chair of the Department and one Associate Professor who serves as program coordinator and has major responsibilities for instruction in the program and for student advisement. Of the five other instructors in teacher-librarianship, three have doctoral degrees and two have master’s degrees. All instructors--the sessional (adjunct)

85


Figure 1. Mission and Values of TL-DL at the University of Alberta

instructors and the tenured faculty members--have had extensive professional experience as schoolbased teacher-librarians, school district consultants, and/or ministry of education personnel. The program draws students primarily from Canada but also as far afield as China, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and Australia. Many of the students are Canadian citizens teaching abroad. Others are students enrolled in an MEd program at another university, taking up to four courses through TL-DL, either through the Western Deans’Agreement (a graduate course exchange program for universities in the four westernmost provinces of Canada) or through registration as Special Graduate Students or Open Studies Students. Admission to the MEd program is competitive: although the Department requires a minimum 3.0 grade point average on a 4.0 scale for admission to master’s programs, the majority of those admitted to the MEd program have grade point averages of at least 3.3. The TL-DL students complete at least three

86

courses along with other MEd students (a research methods course, a curriculum studies course, and a final capping course) and consistently perform in the top half of these classes. Ten years ago, the number of Diploma students taking courses in teacher-librarianship far outstripped the number taking the MEd program. Over time, more students became interested in the Department’s MEd program which had been reduced from 48 credits to 30 credits and revised to meet the needs of working professionals—part time and course-based. Today, in school library education, the MEd is larger than the Diploma group. About 60 students are currently enrolled in the 30-credit MEd program while another 20 students are completing an 24-credit Diploma program. Most students in both programs are working full time and take only one course per academic term; they typically complete their programs over three to four years of study. From the earliest years of the online program, we


have been very proud of our student completion statistics. Over 90% of students admitted to the Diploma and MEd programs complete their programs. Diploma completion statistics are lower than the MEd completion statistics, but much of the difference can be attributed to the number of Diploma program students who transfer to the MEd program.

CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE ORGANIZATION Each year in Teacher-librarianship by Distance Learning brings new challenges: the three most pressing challenges currently revolve around the rapid growth of the program, the impact of new and emerging technologies, and the need to maintain the flexibility of the program in a time of financial uncertainty.

Program Growth The rapid growth of the Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning programs has astounded even those involved in creating that growth. The number of students presents tremendous challenges for the faculty members who are responsible for advising them. The teacher-librarianship students are the largest group within the Department’s Diploma and MEd programs and are advised primarily by two faculty members, one of whom is Department Chair and carries only a small number of MEd student advisees. The diversity of students also presents tremendous challenges for the faculty who are responsible for advising them. Our students come from all over the world and are working in very diverse school systems. The program and career advising previously done on a very intensive individual level was suitable for a small number of advisees but this approach is becoming unworkable especially for the faculty

member who has carried the bulk of the advising responsibilities.

New and Emerging Technologies No longer are our students hesitant about learning online. Now they are concerned about learning how to use the new social networking tools (Web 2.0), and how to integrate them into the teaching and learning in their schools. The Web 2.0 challenge for us has been two-fold: content (learning how to integrate learning about Web 2.0 and learning how to provide a leadership role in schools related to this and other new and emerging technologies) and pedagogy (learning how to integrate Web 2.0 into the teaching of our courses). The curriculum for the program has always been full, and the resources for course development always scarce.

Maintaining Flexibility Because in the Province of Alberta and in other areas of Canada, positions for teacher-librarians are not mandated there is a great deal of movement in and out of the profession. Those coming into the profession often do so on very short notice and with the new “teacher-librarian” having little or no education in teacher-librarianship. Thus, from the students’ perspective, one important strength of the program has always been its flexibility. Students can take their first course as an Open Studies or Special Students, and apply for admission to the program after they have already begun studying. Students can transfer six credits of coursework into their programs, either courses taken before their admission or courses taken from another institution during their program. Students have had a great deal of choice in their programs: for the MEd program, only three of the ten courses needed to complete the MEd program are required (a research course, a curriculum studies course, and a final capping paper course); for the Diploma

87


program, students could choose from an extensive list of recommended but not required courses. This flexibility, though valued by student and faculty advisors alike, sometimes has resulted in completed programs that did not address all of the competencies that teacher-librarians need to attain (see Canadian School Library Association and Association for Teacher-librarians in Canada, 2003).

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Program Growth In response to the rapid growth of the program and the resultant pressure on scarce faculty resources, especially those required for student advising, the faculty members have selected two solutions: closing the Diploma program and developing a cohort model for the MEd program. The phasing out of the undergraduate-level Diploma program means that the Department eventually will offer only one route in school library education. This will simplify student advising since the Diploma program has no required courses and each student’s program has had to be individually designed. The Diploma program was becoming less viable as a route for education for teacher-librarianship because several of the courses that are essential to today’s school leaders were not available to them. Because the Diploma program is an undergraduate program, the students cannot enrol in graduate-level courses in research methods and in curriculum studies. Closing the Diploma program will close a less-rigorous route to teacher-librarianship while freeing up scarce faculty resources. The MEd cohort model will also free up scarce faculty resources because the students are admitted to the program as a group of about 25 students and, as much as possible, complete the program together in a set sequence of courses. Our

88

original MEd program allowed students to enter at any one of three academic terms; this meant that there were students new to the program and new to online learning in every class. Because less time will be spent orienting each new class and addressing concerns of the “newbies,” we anticipate that students will move faster through the content of the courses and will have increased time to dig deeper into the content. This has the potential to increase the rigour of the program. The cohort approach is designed to bring greater coherence and consistency to the program. Not only will students take the courses in a more logical order, each cohort will have the opportunity to form a strong professional learning community where the students themselves take on many of the advising roles once carried solely by a faculty member or other instructor.

New and Emerging Technologies The rapid emergence of Web 2.0 led to the development of a new course for learning the potential of social networking and other emerging technologies. The program had always had a course in technology for learning; this second course can now focus on research and practice related to the integration of technology in schools and to the role of the teacher-librarian as a technology leader in schools. The first course is designed to have our students have the same “playing with technologies” experiences as are today’s children and young adults (e.g., uploading videos to YouTube, sharing photos using Picasa or Flickr, building relationships on social networks, and so on). Our students also need to be thinking critically about Web 2.0 and then considering the implications of these tools for teaching and learning, both of which activities can be fruitfully carried out on a course blog. The work of our instructors in learning and teaching about the new and emerging technologies has resulted in the use of these technologies in their teaching. Instructors use a variety of


technologies in their pedagogy, e.g., blog casting, twittering, and so on, so that they are modelling for our students the pedagogical uses of the new and emerging technologies. Instructors also are researching the experiences of their students in order to continue the work of course and program development from a base of evidence (see, for example, deGroot & Branch, 2009).

Maintaining Flexibility Although the Diploma program is being phased out and the MEd program is moving to a cohort model to increase program rigour and manageability, there is still a need to respond to the needs of teachers newly-appointed to positions in teacherlibrarianship without the requisite school library education. There is also a small but growing number of teachers who already have graduate degrees but are interested in some of the courses offered in teacher-librarianship. The answer for us might be Graduate Certificate Programs. The University has become very interested in these short programs of three to four courses which can be completed as stand-alone certificates or as part of a graduate program. These certificate programs could meet the needs of those with master’s degrees who make a career change into teacher-librarianship or those whose education in teacher-librarianship from the 1980 and 1990s needs some upgrading. Current plans are to seek University and government approval for four-course certificates in areas such as multi-literacies, new and emerging technologies, and inquiry-based learning.

REFERENCES American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st century learner. Chicago, IL: American Association of School Librarians.

Barron, D. D. (1993). Perceptions of faculty and administrative staff toward part-time and distance students in LIS. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 34, 200–217. Branch, J., & deGroot, J. (2009, September 2-4). The future in focus: Preparing teacher-librarians for the 21st century. In Preparing pupils and students for the future: School libraries in the picture: Papers from the 13th International Forum on Research in School Librarianship, the 38th Annual Conference and the IASL-IFLA Joint Meeting, Abano Terme, Padova, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.iasl-online.org/members/ papers/2009conference.htm Branch, J., deGroot, J., Mardis, M., Barronoik, L., & Galloway Solowan, D. (2009). Education for teacher-librarians in the 21st Century. TheMedium. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http:// www.ssla.ca/medium_articles/submissions/pdf/ winter2009_pdf/Educationforteacherlibrariansin21stcentury_universityofalberta_winter09.pdf Canadian School Library Association and Association for Teacher-Librarianship in Canada. (2003). Achieving information literacy: Standards for school library programs in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Library Association. deGroot, J., & Branch, J. L. (2009, 6-8 March). “Learning to speak Web 2.0”: Teacher-librarians playing with 21st century technologies. In Proceedings: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education and Practice, Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba (pp. 58-68). Easton, E., & Oberg, D. (1993). Focus groups in the evaluation of a school library education program. Alberta Learning Resources Journal, 12(1), 18–25. Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. London: Routledge.

89


Haynes, K. J. M., & Dillon, C. (1992). Distance education: Learning outcomes, interaction and attitudes. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 33, 35–45. doi:10.2307/40323480 International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). The ISTE international educational technology standards (NET-S) and performance indicators for teachers. Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/ NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf Keegan, D. (1990). Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Lei, L., & Pitts, J. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. [Retrieved from Library, Information Science & Technology database, http://search. ebscohost.com]. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175–185. Oberg, D. (1989). Education for teacher-librarians: A status report. School Libraries in Canada, 9(3), 23–28. Oberg, D. (1995a). Keys to distance education. Teacher-Librarian Today, 1(2), 44–45. Oberg, D. (1995b). School library education: Distance education explored. Teacher-Librarian Today, 1(1), 29–30. Oberg, D. (1996a). Going the distance: Opportunities for distance t-l education in Canada. School Libraries in Canada, 16(1), 19-24, 31. Oberg, D. (1996b). Achievement and satisfaction in distance education. Teacher-Librarian Today, 2(1), 47–49. Oberg, D. (1997). Distance learning: On the ground running. Teacher-Librarian Today, 3(1), 45–47.

90

Oberg, D. (1998). The impact of distance learning on professional practice. Teacher-Librarian Today, 4(2), 32–34. Oberg, D., & Easton, E. (1995). Focus group interviews: A tool for program evaluation in school library education. Education for Information, 13(2), 117–129. Pribesh, S., Dickinson, G. K., & Bucher, K. T. (2006). A comparison of online and face-toface cohorts in a school library media specialist graduate program: A preliminary study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 303–323. doi:10.2307/40323823

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Dialogue: In distance education terms, the provision of two-way communication between teacher and student, synchronously or asynchronously, by voice or text or image. Distance Education: Instruction delivered in ways in which student and teacher are separated in location. Distributed Learning: using technology to support and enhance traditional face-to-face delivery. Learning Management System (LMS): A software application or Web-based technology used to plan, implement, and assess a specific learning process. An LMS allows instructors to create and deliver content, monitor student participation, and assess student performance. It may also provide students with the ability to use interactive features such as threaded discussions, video conferencing, and discussion forums (http:// searchcio.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid182_ gci798202,00.html). Structure: In distance education terms, the extent to which a program can be shaped by student needs.

91

Chapter 7

Full-Surround “Instructional Design” Support for Quality E-Learning: A Conceptual Case Study Out of Kansas State University Shalin Hai-Jew Kansas State University, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Supporting quality e-learning in an institution of higher education is a non-trivial task. This challenge stems from the complexity of online learning with a mesh of laws (such as intellectual property and accessibility ones) and policies that undergird the foundational level of quality. There are the ever-evolving technological challenges—of technological learning platforms, digital learning objects, authoring tools, multimedia, the Internet, and the Web. In an academic environment which emphasizes academic freedom, there are few levers to motivate quality—except through faculty-imposed standards, funding mechanisms, quality endorsements, or other incentives. The variance in learning domains may make a shared concept of quality more elusive and likewise variant. Professional subject matter experts and faculty members have different preferences and standards as well, and their choices of teaching methods will vary. Learner expectations affect the concept and perception of quality. The normal constraints of resources, budget, time, knowledge, and skills, also apply as potential challenges to a friction-free development of quality e-learning. This chapter uses the instructional design framework to reflect on practical ways to support quality e-learning. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch007


Full-Surround “Instructional Design” Support for Quality E-Learning

INTRODUCTION Instructional designers provide important support to a college campus to promote quality e-learning even though theirs is a support service. The procurement of instructional design may be within the institution, whether the designers work within the department or college or are centralized with cross-college and cross-departmental services. Others are independent consultants who work for pay. Often, instructional designers support faculty or subject matter experts during a particular phase of a project, and the rest of the work is done by the originating subject matter expert (SME) team given the do-it-yourself (DIY) sphere. (This approach has its limits given the pedagogical and technological expertise required and the natural limited absorptive capacity and time resources of most faculty and SMEs.) The initial rush to get learning and courses online has left the quality angle addressed in limited piecemeal ways for many campuses. The definition of quality e-learning has changed with more research on a number of fields: mediated human communications; e-learning platforms; multimedia development and human cognition; online curriculum development; culturally sensitive learning; virtual teaming and collaborations; telepresence and social presence; learning in immersive 3D virtual spaces, and a range of research on the applicability of a number of pedagogical theories. Technological advancements in the carrying capacity of the Internet, the searchability and perceptual richness of the World Wide Web 4.0 (known as the “customized” and “connective” Web), the sophistication of authoring tools, and programming in virtual worlds, have also changed the concept of quality. Quality e-learning involves a greater profusion of multimedia-rich contents, 3D immersive learning and simulations, and greater ubiquitous mobile learning. As e-learning matures, it is bringing with it a greater range of learners with more diverse needs (Muntean & Muntean, 2009).

92

The wide availability of open-source digital learning objects and contents as well as packaged open learning courseware affect expectations of quality contents through modeling (Lawless, Hederman, & Wade, 2008). Open-corpus harvesting of digital contents has been enhanced with a variety of complex Web-based and other search tools, and newer tools make it easier to repurpose such found contents (Steichen, Lawless, O’Connor & Wade, 2009). Even the availability of amateur-made contents affects the public consciousness. Social networking tools have redefined expectations among learners and made real-time appreciation and dissension of online learning experiences fodder for global consumption. These have lowered barriers between instructors and learners and increased the channels for access. Wikis have been deployed for the co-creation of knowledge and the management of this knowledge in terms of searchability and findability. The contents of student eportfolios often become part of the larger semantic Web with the machine awareness of rich digital contents. The culture of e-learning evolves based on a variety of such factors. Web-based services involve authoring tools and content storage in the “clouds.” Learners may access a range of support services fully online—from registration to advising to counseling to research to learning to socializing. Much of the university experience is delivered through the Web. The use of digital resources enables a deep level of data-mining to evaluate learner needs and to increase quality assurance (Hajra, Birant, & Kut, 2008). Poor quality e-learning often leads to negative learning (misconceptions) and poor knowledge and skills acquisition. Learner complaints have cited “criticisms of assignments or a textbook, frustration with software or hardware, expressions of feelings of isolation from other students or the instructor, or concerns about their grades,” with various challenges identified: ineffective organization and scheduling, insufficient techni-


cal support, inadequate student preparation, and social isolation of learners based on the low level of intercommunications and interaction (Hentea, Shea, & Pennington, 2003, p. 161). Instructors and the larger academic community may need to collaborate to mitigate for the often lower quality of social interactions online (Hung, 2003). With the “flat earth” competition, learners will go to programs which are effective and have reputations for quality in their selected domain fields (Hajra, Birant, & Kut, 2008).

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE “Quality” or a standard of excellence is an abstract concept. In the same way as discussing value-sensitive (morals-based) and value-centered design (usability and context), an important part of the work involves defining intrinsic and elusive concepts through envisioning and prototyping and exploratory designs (Cockton, 2006). Various e-learning objects may adhere to particular specifications or reference models in terms of metadata labeling or interoperability standards between technological systems (like SCORM or IEEE-LOM models), but the quality in e-learning itself is addressed in domain-specific, case-specific ways. E-learning environments are designed to be platform-agnostic and educational-theory agnostic, for the broadest applications. Learning objects should have cultural and contextual elements stripped out for easier transferability and reusability in other learning contexts. Nowadays, e-learning standards are abundant and cover all aspects of e-learning and distance education, from representation, packaging, and publishing of learning objects (LOs); to metadata that describe LOs, learning design, instruction delivery, assessment procedures, and learners; to architectures of learning management and educational applications. These standards are important because they establish high-level

principles for organizing learning resources and developing Web-based education (WBE) applications. They also regulate interoperability between applications and enable interchange and reuse of learning artifacts across different e-learning systems, in spite of the heterogeneity of formats and metadata descriptions (schemas) across domains. (Devedžić, Jovanović, & Gašević, 2007, p. 19)

THE DEFINITION OF QUALITY IN E-LEARNING There are no widely accepted official or even de facto standards for e-learning (Stiglic, Verlic, Povalej, Strmečki & Dinevski, 2009). Quality may be defined conceptually and built on a “measurement and evaluation framework” that may be evolved to a “model-centered methodology” to address issues (Covella & Olsina, 2006, p. 1). The research literature comprises definitions of quality builds for some cases of experiential learning, student assessments, decision support systems, and special purpose learning. Online laboratories may be assessed for the quality of experience it provides (Chen, Wu, Chang & Lei, 2009). There are works that describe ways to build effective action learning experiences—through problem-based and project-based works for more authentic learning (Richards, 2009). There are details for scaffolding for novices and experts in a learning circumstance. One of the few and fairly widely accepted unified models or rubrics of e-learning quality is the Quality Matters™ rubric created by MarylandOnline, with eight broad standards focused on the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Course Overview and Introduction Learning Objectives Assessment and Measurement Resources and Materials Learner Engagement Course Technology

93


7. Learner Support 8. Accessibility (Quality Matters, 2010) The values behind this rubric focus on informational transparency, structure, and alignment; it is built on a structure of high-touch and social constructivism. This model integrates research from the learning domain and is collaboratively created. The Holistic Model for E-Learning Accessibility describes e-learning as a process. This conceptualization focuses on a learner-centered approach to enhance five factors: accessibility, usability, local factors, infrastructure, and learning outcomes. This model focuses on the whole student and strives to customize learning based on “individual needs and local cultural, political and social factors” (Sloan, Heath, Hamilton, Kelly, Petrie, & Phipps, 2006, p. 125). Quality learning should exploit learners’ intrinsic motivation to learn (Zaharias, 2006). Yet another online learning standard focuses on scripting the learning object to be adaptable to a variety of learners with varying needs. For example, computerized recommender systems may enhance lifelong learning (Santos, 2008) by identifying relevant learning objects and experiences for learners as their needs change and their expertise grows. The IMS Global Learning Consortium learning design specification integrates machine and human awareness. • •

•

94

Completeness: The learning object fully describes the teaching-learning process. Pedagogical flexibility: The digital object is able to express all kinds of pedagogies and does not prescribe any specific pedagogical approach. Personalization: The adaptation is based on learner’s preferences, portfolio, preknowledge, and/or educational needs. The control of the personalization can be performed by the student, staff, computer or designer.

• •

•

•

•

Formalization: The learning object makes automatic processing possible. Reproducibility: This digital object makes the execution of the learning design possible in different settings/persons. Interoperability: This learning object has the ability to make the exchange and use learning designs possible among different platforms and courses. Compatibility with Other Specifications: This object is compatible with multiple specifications, especially those from the IMS e-learning framework. Reusability: The digital object identifies, decontextualizes and exchanges learning elements, in order to reuse them in other contexts. (Berlanga & Garcia, 2005, pp. 191 – 192)

While a range of abstract principles affect the building of online learning quality, most systems have to be adapted for local use. It may be that a healthy interplay between international, national, and local standards may offer the most flexible option. A local applied sense of e-learning quality may be understood as meeting fundamental requirements of clean intellectual property and accessibility standards. The design or course-build should conform to university policies. The learning should be built around clear learning objectives that are supported by the learning and designed interactivity and assessments. The course information should be accurate and up-to-date. The content should be usable and understandable. Technologically, the user interfaces should be intuitive and clear; all objects should be playable on the various platforms by adhering to relevant technological standards. Help should be available 24/7/365. If the course materials need to be cross-cultural, they should be inoffensive and meaningful to the various learning constituencies. The metadata needs to be complete and accurate. The learning should have a clear structure or sequence, based


on learner progress, learner profile, learner needs, developmental phasing, and / or other relevant factors. These are general principles, and unique instructional design situations require much clearer definitions of standards.

CASE BACKGROUND A number of factors affect e-learning quality at a university. Together, these factors comprise the authorizing environment, workplace culture, and structural enablements that support the work of instructional design and e-learning. Some of these factors are measureable and others somewhat less so.

Leadership One crucial element involves leadership. This is often dispersed throughout a university, and these involve creating a standard of quality and the environment to support e-learning quality. This focus on quality affects hiring—of administrators, faculty, and staff; it affects technology purchase choices; it affects the funding of various positions that support e-learning; it affects policy-making and enforcement. Leadership affects which projects are funded and supported and which grants are pursued.

Policies Various institutions of higher learning may have their own proprietary and homegrown quality standards. These may be embedded in the grant funding and contracts / memorandums of agreement (or understanding) that are signed for the various course builds. University policies on the (shared) ownership of course materials and funding structures will create the incentives or disincentives for going online. Policy-wise, for most institutions of higher learning, the online curricular materials need to

comply with a range of federal and state laws. The electronic learning should be accessible, based in part on Section 508. That has implications for the transcription of audio and video and educational games; that also affects alt-texting images. File types need to be screen-readable and universal. Digital items need to be annotated properly. Intellectual property laws (copyright, trademark, patents, and trade secrets) affect the contents. The creation of new learning in academic institutions is also affected by IP policies affecting reproducible scientific research (Stodden, 2009). There are now even accessibility standards in educational videogames (Torrente, del Blanco, Moreno-Ger, Martinez-Ortiz, & Fernández-Manjón, 2009). Laws specific to e-learning also apply. Online learners have to be authenticated in terms of their identities. These learners often must sign off on informed consent before going into online worlds.

Institutional Investments The university’s investment into the technological infrastructure--the hard wiring for connectivity, routers, equipment, software, data storage, security, human resources, and other elements—will affect the constraints of what services a campus may provide to both local and remote learners. The subscriptions to digital collections and repositories as well as site design will affect learners’ access to rich information streams for their learning and research and enhance object-based learning (Topp & Din, 2005). The support for campus repositories of research and dissertations also enhance collaborations and knowledge management. These align with Web 2.0 values of sharing contents in open information communities for broad shared learning (Bonk, 2009).

Human Resourcing Administrators, faculty, and staff require a high level of technological and e-learning literacy to build online learning experiences that resonate

95


with off-site learners. Teaching online changes the dynamics of the teaching work and require faculty to work as subject matter experts (SMEs); to project themselves through “warmth” and telepresence (Wise, Chang, Duffy, & del Valle, 2004, p. 571) ; to communicate broadly and widely through digital means, and to even lower their sense of privacy given their digital trails. Instructors need to glean the Web for relevant information and learning objects, and they need to integrate inherited learning objects from other developers. They need to create virtual environments that support community building and learner intercommunications. This field has high learning curves for those who would be masterful e-learning instructors.

Information Technologies On the technology front, online learning involves learning platforms—whether unified in a learning / course management system (L/CMS) or cobbled together functionalities from various systems, devices, software, and venues. Dozens of authoring tools and recording equipment are used to output a wide range digital content file types; these contents must be playable on a number of websites and learning systems; they must be portable and occasionally must comply with technology standards in particular fields. Kansas State University (K-State) also builds its own learning / course management system (L/ CMS)—Axio Learning™ (instantiated as K-State Online on the campus)—a system which is used not only at K-State but at a half-dozen other colleges in Kansas and some national organizations. Different fields use proprietary software and databases and websites to deliver the learning, and to promote virtual communities and networks-of-practice.

Changing Learner Expectations The changing cultures of next-generation learners, who live so-called “digital lifestyles,” also affect

96

the quality of the learning. The rich online social connectivity of students through Web 2.0 technologies affect the integration of blogs, wikis, social networking tools, shared “cloud computing” documents, virtual collaborations, and other elements. Theirs is a kind of new conversational knowledge management (Wells & Brook, 2003). Such Web 2.0 technologies encourage user-generation of contents and the harnessing of collective intelligence in dynamic ways (Pollacia & McCallister, 2009). Contemporary learners expect to contribute to their own and their peers’ learning and maintain a sense of shared responsibility, which suggests a need for a “contributing student pedagogy” (Hamer, Cutts, Jackova, Luxton-Reilly, McCartney, Purchase, Riedesel, Saeli, Sanders, & Sheard, 2008, p. 194); this approach may involve peer evaluations, shared notetaking captured on wikis, and much greater learner power and control in the online classroom. Learners expect e-learning to be extensive with a variety of learning formats and methods (Hentea, Shea, & Pennington, 2003). The effects of rich media and game cultures have led to greater uses of simulations and virtual worlds. The pervasiveness of mobile devices emphasizes the importance of ubiquity in terms of access. The preparedness of learners for e-learning is also a critical angle for over-all e-learning success.

EXISTING SUPPORTS FOR E-LEARNING QUALITY Faculty members, who hail from numerous fields and backgrounds, have academic freedom and different preferred teaching methodologies. They have severe time limitations given their pursuit of research, grant funding, pro-social contributions, and governance responsibilities. Many have little experience with information and communications technologies (ICT). This suggests that a supportive and incentivized strategy to promote quality e-learning would be more effective than


any top-down mandate (although support at every level for quality e-learning is important).

this unit has been subsumed into the marketing endeavors of the campus.)

Administrative Support

Helpdesk Supports

The Division of Continuing Education provides a range of existing supports for faculty via their website. The coordinators also support their faculty by helping direct university resources towards departmental and individual instructor needs. They supported the building of an in-house rubric for quality e-learning and have pointed faculty to the Quality Matters™ one. They publish a bi-monthly newsletter to connect the e-learning community. They supported the development of the ELATEwiki to enhance collegial sharing of information on the E-Learning and Teaching Exchange. These supports are in addition to the supports provided by local departments, programs, and colleges within the university.

The Information Technology Assistance Center (iTAC) offers helpdesk supports for learners. They troubleshoot systems both remotely and in-person. The Instructional Design Technologies Roundtables (ITD Roundtables) feature faculty and staff speakers to support faculty and staff building e-learning. Their presentations and workshops support hands-on learning. Electronic tips (E-Tips) are webinars that are shared through Wimba™ via people’s desktops.

Learning / Course Management Supports The Office of Mediated Education, which creates the Axio Learning L/CMS, holds an annual conference for the users of the L/CMS. They have an accessible and multi-media-rich context-sensitive help within the learning / course management system. OME also offers videography, web design, graphic design, lecture capture, and other supports as works-for-hire. A quarterly newsletter Axio Quarterly is published to share pedagogical strategies.

Professional High-End Video Captures The Educational Communications Center (ECC) offers high-end video recording and studio work. They have many ties to local broadcasting stations and create video contents for professional distribution. (Since the publication of this chapter,

An Online Course: Online Teaching, Design and Development A free (non-credit) five-week online course titled Online Teaching, Design and Development (OTDD) is taught by one of the instructional designers and brings together people from higher education and government in Kansas to support the development of course materials for various types of online courses. The curriculum for this course evolves with the pedagogical methodologies, technologies, and policy changes. This course showcases faculty-designed curricular materials. Individuals are encouraged to take this as part of a cohort for mutual support. There is both a university and a K-12 track for this course.

Informative Presentations and Special Interest Groups Research and Extension offers TechBytes presentations that focus on hands-on technologies that may be used in both online learning and face-to-face classrooms. The K-State Second Life Users Group is also supported from Research and Extension, and this group hosts monthly in-person meetings. They also maintain an electronic mailing list of interested faculty and staff.

97


Media Development Resources

Off-Campus Resources

The Media Development Center offers access to a range of video and audio editing tools and equipment, including one high definition station. They feature large scanners for image and text capture. They enable the transferring of audio from cassettes to digital audio formats and videocassettes to digital video formats (where intellectual property allows). They have a sound booth. They have batch scanning of documents to PDF. They offer CD /DVD recording and imprinting. They also feature an 8x8 green screen. They loan out digital video cameras, digital still cameras, tripods, digital audio recording equipment to students, faculty, and staff.

The campus offers a range of online informational resources. InfoTech Tuesday, a weekly publication, highlights new technologies and information technology (IT) resources for faculty. The Instructional Design Open Studio blog addresses issues related to instructional design. The E-Learning and Teaching Exchange (ELATE) wiki captures information about freeware, teaching resources, and other relevant information—and forms a virtual community of interest around e-learning.

The campus works with many allies that may support the e-learning. They use open-source technologies like MediaWiki™. They tap into social networking tools to connect with the larger publics. They use the Web and Internet extensively. They use contents from MERLOT and also contribute resources to that digital learning objects referatory. They maintain an open-access repository (K-REX or K-State Research Exchange) of published resources by K-State faculty and staff. They collaborate with and co-publish works with colleagues. They participate in the local Colleagueto-Colleague (C2C) organization in their annual conferences and two annual forums as well as their electronic mailing lists. They take part in a range of national conferences in order to keep up with the advancements in the field. Online course builds usually tap various skill sets—of “professional writers, instructional designers, graphic and visual interaction designers, human factors specialists and software engineers as it migrates through the analysis, design, development and verification process” (Talbott, Gibson, & Skublics, 2002, p. 216). Such endeavors may cut across various bureaucratic organizational structures to achieve the online course build and delivery, and a coherent online learner experience.

Direct Faculty, Administrator, and Staff Consultations and Trainings

CAVEATS

Online Resources

There are direct one-on-one consultations with faculty working on e-learning projects, with an initial 10 – 15 hours of free consultation extended to faculty by the campus’ three main instructional designers. More in-depth building of contents usually entails charges for cost recovery. Federal and state grants fund some of the instructional design work—particularly those involving multiple institutions and other complexities.

98

This listing of resources is not to suggest that there are friction-free supports. As with most institutions, instructional design is under-resourced. While some complimentary design hours are offered to faculty working on new course builds and some continuing ones, the billing structure may be prohibitive for some departments and colleges. The awareness-raising outreaches to the various faculty and staff do not involve fullcampus penetration. While there are commonalities between course-building strategies, each new


faculty client’s curricular build requires some customized solutions. The types of e-learning that may be supported are varied but inevitably limited. Some types of learning use proprietary computer systems. The e-learning may be self-paced or highly structured in time; it may be mostly asynchronous or synchronous; it may be informal (non-credentialed) or formal (credentialed) and standardized; it may be single-learner or multi-learner; it may offer a freeform curriculum or a defined one; it may involved automated and machine-delivered learning or human-facilitated learning; it may offer openended and creative learning or close-ended and non-creative learning; it may offer near-transfer learning or far-transfer learning. The learning may be provided by a single institution or a consortium of multiple institutions. Often, learning circumstances vary widely. The various projects vary in terms of granularity—learning objects, e-books, modules, courses, certificate and degree programs. The domain-based conventions of the learning vary. The targeted learners—with various backgrounds and attitudes, learning styles and preferences, and access to technologies—have differing needs. The research describes outreaches to learners from marginalized rural communities and those with special learning needs and adult at-risk populations (Weissman, 2003). Then, too, more difficult instructional design issues may arise from unique project challenges. One project may involve creating automated learning sequences for those with a low level of English language literacy but who are critical for agricultural biosecurity. Another may involve the use of webisodes to tell a story and convey broad public learning about study skills at a university. Another may involve creating 3D objects with scripted behaviors to evoke a county fair. Another may involve the creation of an e-portfolio rubric for non-traditional assessment of students in educational psychology. One endeavor involved building context-sensitive help for a learning / course management system—to enhance help-seeking

behaviors by users. Another involves creating a decision support system for assessing risks. Yet another project involves creating a mystery case study in public health. Another involves a role play simulation related to a national debate over Native American gaming. One project involves building a discovery learning space for emotional health and well being. On the near-horizon are other possibilities— described in various grant proposals. What does quality look like in an augmented reality space— a physical space with digital installations and projectors that involve kinesthetic learning and physical space experiential learning? What are quality ways to engage data collected from sensors in a field or live webcams? What is quality m-learning (mobile learning) or ubi-learning (ubiquitous, pervasive learning)? What is effective avatar design in a virtual world? What is a quality tutoring system, with artificial intelligence (AI) agents? What sort of digital learning tools (such as digital note-taking, doodling spaces, audio note-taking / think aloud tools) are effective for simulated online labs?

A Theoretical and Practical Gaps Analysis Even with many instructional design resources, there are numerous support gaps that still exist between the status quo and high quality e-learning. At an organizational level, there may be gaps in resources, instructional design knowledge, organizational supports, faculty identity development and maintenance, e-learning design and development skills, and e-learning standard-setting. Figure 2, A Theoretical and Practical “Gaps Analysis” for Quality E-Learning, suggests that a range of changing factors set up challenges for those striving to build quality. The sliders in Figure 1 suggest that these measures are constantly changing, and the resources that would be employed to raise the quality will have differing levels of effects based on

99


Figure 1. A Star Diagram of the Diversity of ELearning Types and Features

enhance quality to ensure that these issues will be addressed. Design Artifacts: Stylebooks, quality checklists, and designed metrics for quality may be defined early on. These artifacts are understood to evolve over time and as the work progresses. Standards like master course outlines, university policies, extant laws, and pedagogical theory constraints should be archived for easy reference.

2. Research and Design

the different circumstances in each organization. This visualization is not to suggest a gaps analysis for any particular institution but serves as a conceptualization.

Life Cycle Influences Figure 3, Life Cycle Influence on E-Learning Quality, focuses on the various stages of a course’s conceptualization, design, development, deployment, and revision when quality may be encouraged and supported.

1. Project Parameters In the Project Parameter phase, quality may be encouraged with the proper selection and application of pedagogical theories and strategies to the design build. Optimally, pedagogical theories would be aligned with the project objectives. Having a conversation among the development team about quality standards and how these affect project goals will also be important. Surfacing the assumed values of the domain field will also

100

Pedagogical research into e-learning may be applied to the digital content structure and design. The design must consider the various technological dependencies required to actualize and deliver the learning. It must also consider the extant resources that may be used for the learning. Design Artifacts: There should be an overall design plan described. Templates of slideshows, prototypes, storyboarding of action video or simulation sequences, the mapping of location-based learning, and other elements may be defined at this stage. Sample transcription templates may also be drafted. Early-version samples of the digital objects may also be created as models. Scripts for interviews and video shoots may be written. Interactivity opportunities may be designed.

3. Raw Captures The raw captures of audio, video footage, photos, artworks, machinima, and other digital artifacts will require defined quality standards and the definitions of file types. Information will also need to be clearly provenance. The importance of record-keeping will be an important angle to minimize intellectual property liabilities and to promote a “clean” build. This information will also be needed for proper metadata labeling of the digital artifacts. Consistent naming protocols for the various files will be important, and if files are versioned, they should be labeled to indicate which version is in use. Design Artifacts: A digital repository will need to be created to house the raw


Figure 2. A Theoretical and Practical “Gaps Analysis” for Quality E-Learning

materials, and to capture the annotations describing each. There should be records of what was captured when…and those who need access to the raw files should have access—while all contents should also be protected against inappropriate revision or tampering. Raw digital files, which are in the least lossy format, should be protected and archived in unprocessed format—in case of the need for later use. All rights releases and clearances should be clearly recorded.

4. Development The development phrase of a pedagogical build requires sophisticated authoring and editing tools to edit the sound, video, photos, imagery, and other digital artifacts. For the sake of accuracy, it would be important to have notes accompanying the various pieces describing the processing work (unless the processing is matter-of-course, such as batch-processing of digital imagery). Processing standards need to be defined early

Figure 3. Life Cycle Influence on E-Learning Quality

101


on. The file formats that will be rendered and deployed also need to be clearly defined. Once the objects are finalized, they are uploaded into a learning system for learner access, information gathering, learner tracking, and assessment. Design Artifacts: The design artifacts for learning objects, websites, learning / course management systems, photo albums, e-books, modules, and courses will vary—but many of the contents will be standard audio, video, photographic, 3D and other defined formats. A generic syllabus may be used to help give the curriculum a sense of order.

5. Testing and Evaluation It is important to set up feedback loops about course quality. Alpha testing involves in-house (in vitro) testing of all the functionalities, linkages, and playability of files; this is sometimes known as the technical review (Talbott, Gibson, & Skublics, 2002, p. 219). The Beta testing involves bringing in groups of users to test the learning; this may also involve in vivo testing, with feedback about how the learning is used in the world, in a live setting. Some campuses require an editorial review of the contents before a course launches, and this is often conducted by subject matter experts in the field. Even after a course goes live, the assessment and evaluation continues, with an eye towards improving quality. Design Artifacts: Testing and evaluation notes / rubrics / checklists record feedback from the various testers and suggest changes. Once those changes have been troubleshot and addressed, that should be recorded. Many use a “ticketing” system to track the necessary changes and the fixes that follow.

6. Deployment The deploying of a learning object, module, or course, usually involves the use of a learning platform. The deployment also involves the instructor interactions, learner intercommunications and collaborations, and various assessments.

102

During this rich time, there should be information gathered from the instructor and learners to assess for quality. All feedback should be captured for revision purposes. Design Artifacts: Back-end data-mining of learner behaviors in the learning system should be gathered. Formal evaluations of the instruction, the course contents, the technologies, and other aspects may also be collected for quality-based improvement.

7. Revisions The development team should review all feedback and decide what changes may need to be made. If the changes are small, the instructors should have leeway to make non-fundamental changes to the curriculum. Design Artifacts: An updated stylebook should capture the changes made particularly if the changes affect the project standards. At every phase of this recursive process, instructional designers and others may come alongside subject matter experts and enhance the quality of the course build and online learning.

8. Continuing Use To enhance the inheritability of digital learning by other instructors, there should be clear notes for instructors. If accessibility was not fully actualized the first time around, then the accessibility retrofitting should be done. The digital creations need to be “future-proofed” in terms of content relevance and learner engagement. Design Artifacts: Continuing notations of changes made to the course should be recorded and made available.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The gaps that need to be bridged to achieve high quality e-learning are ones that are not unusual to K-State. Yet, the resources that may be used to close these gaps are also ones that may be used


to address a wide range of other institutional needs—in a time of serious financial crisis. In an environment of scarcity—with many years of projected scarcity to come—the following are some fairly low-cost possibilities.

An E-Learning Quality Endorsement K-State is looking for more ways to have the discussion of e-learning quality and to encourage quality work. There are some ideas such as creating a quality “endorsement” or seal for a course which passes pre-defined quality muster. Those who would go through this process may potentially benefit from more course development funds along with having the prestige of a course that is branded with a seal. There is consideration of having this seal renewable over certain periods. The challenges of any endeavor are the constraints of funding, human motivations, time, and work.

A Modularized Training Course The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) is discussing the creation of an automated modularized online course that may help faculty with a range of different levels of expertise with elearning to learn more and transition to teaching part of their load online. The concept here is that the learning will be automated. Also, the learning will be targeted to three different ranges of instructors: beginning, experienced, and advanced online instructors. A Faculty Share aspect to the site will offer ways for faculty to share their experiences, digital resources, and ideas, with each other. One conceptualization (developed by this author) has the main areas of focus being the following six for each of the categories: Instructor Strategies and Support, Pedagogy, Digital Domain Contents, Social Learning, Technologies, and Policies and Practices. This is currently an evolving and likely long-term project. Each of the module templates includes some core elements (summaries, learning takeaways, module pre and post-tests, contents, ex-

amples, how-tos, references, and extra resources. Also, the open-source MediaWiki technology is being used for the most flexible delivery of these contents for K-State’s faculty, administrators, and staff involved in e-learning. This training is available at http://elearningfacultymodules.org/ index.php/Main_Page.

Templating Templating may be used to establish quality standards for particular learning contents. Various models have been used to define digital learning objects and online learning modules. Currently, the university is developing a template for the deployment of short courses (1-2 hours of continuing education units) per training to aid in the creation of learning courses. These short courses may be taken by professionals in the field, lifelong learners, amateurs, and any variety of people. For example, a template in development involves the use of metadata for each of the short courses; this data includes applicable interdisciplinary fields for the short course; the topic of learning; the level of learning (including prerequisites); the number of credits; the length of

Figure 4. K-State E-Learning Faculty Modules

103


time for the learning; the structure of the learning and learning contents; the languages of the learning; costs; required course materials; credits and copyright releases, and the contact name(s) of the subject matter experts. A short course may be required to have a short paragraph-length description. It could also be required to include the following elements:

Live Online Events The promotion of live online events may enhance online learning awareness, particularly with ground-breakers from other campuses present-

ing in webinars and web conferences. Faculty may request trainings on the live webinar tool used as part of the learning / course management system. Many others are training on several offcampus tools used by other educational entities. Such desktop-based trainings will continue to be delivered to promote faculty learning.

Promoting Efficiencies Some easy efficiencies include the creation of a model syllabus with e-learning policies and phrasing integrated. Instructors may inherit these and make the changes that they need. Media releases

Table 1. Learning Objectives (2-3 total per short course) Measureable Verb phrasing Pre-learning priming Learning context Principles Organizational setup Pre-assessment (T/F, multiple-choice, matching, ordering, and other types of assessments) Content (accessible: transcribed video, alt-texting of images) E-texts (ebooks, e-publications, downloadable open-source articles) Slideshows Photo albums Lecture captures Interviews Audio files Videos Opt-in interactivity and virtual experiences / learning aids for note-taking, audio notetaking, downloadable images and drawing (doodling) Post-assessment (T/F, multiple-choice, matching, ordering, and other types of assessments) Post-learning debriefing (with downloadable resources)

104


for videography, copyright releases for student work, letters requesting copyright clearances from publishers, and other sample documents are also available. Sample templates of slideshows and transcripts are also widely available from the instructional designers. Lists of companies that transcribe audio and video are made available through the Disability Support Services office and their popular website, including K-Access accessibility features.

Peer Modeling Instructional designers have created a sample course with a wide variety of digital contents from instructors across campus that shows various “best practices” in terms of e-learning. A greater “open house” of such materials may raise awareness and interest. This is an instructor-led online course, named Online Teaching, Design and Development (OTDD), that is taught once or twice a year as a free course offering for faculty. This runs for five weeks, along with a pre-week and a post-week.

Virtual E-Learning Communities A virtual community of e-learning instructors may be supported through the creation of a regular newsletter, regular meetings, and the provisions of some incentives and supports. Currently, only a few special interest groups exist, but no unified virtual community for e-learning exists on this campus.

Consortial Endeavors Various institutions of higher education also have shared challenges related to building quality in e-learning. Virtual collaborations and pursuits of grant funds between institutions may result in shared benefits. Currently, the university is working with multiple universities across the US in developing contents for e-learning faculty trainings.

CONCLUSION The challenges of quality e-learning have been and will be an issue for many years to come. With the many changes and new discoveries of effective online teaching and learning, a nimble institution of higher education needs to keep up with the research and technological advancements and make the appropriate policy, resource funding, hiring, training, and process-and-procedural moves to improve the quality of online learning. Open-source contents are continually coming online, and the ability to “inherit” pre-made digital learning objects and to integrate them into a learning trajectory is important. There is no point-of-arrival at which a university has attained the highest quality. Any e-learning quality endeavors should align with the campus endeavors for ensuring quality curriculum development and instruction. External to the educational organization are accreditation agencies—whose periodic visits result in many focused endeavors for institutional improvements and the promotion of educational quality. There are international and domestic universities (who are both competitors and allies-in-endeavors) that provide the creative frictions for continuing improvement. Within the educational institutions, there are many offices that endeavor to enable educational quality—the Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning that supports faculty sharing events, professional development events, course assessments, the peer review of teaching, and the mentoring of new faculty—among other endeavors. The K-State’s Faculty Senate Council has oversight for approval of new courses, which must meet certain standards. Hiring committees and Human Resources will ensure that new hires are experienced, credentialed, professional, and supportive of learners. All the colleges and departments have in-house standards that align with the standards of the various fields. Students provide formal evaluations and feedback for each of their

105


courses—whether face-to-face, blended, or fully online, and their feedback does play a role in tenure and in course updating and revision. Approaching e-learning quality along the instructional design track adds plenty of value—to both inform and support the larger campus in quality e-learning. A thorough gaps analysis may help an educational institution identify insights about perceived and real needs to reach quality standards. Most importantly, the first step may be to define quality e-learning for the institution and then for the various digital learning object / module / course builds. Clearly, universities and colleges need to define many of these standards for themselves, with the proper selected emphases. This chapter offers some organizational level strategies for enhancing e-learning quality through various practical and efficient endeavors. Plenty may also be achieved with one-on-one development and mentoring of e-learning faculty, for a multiplicative effect across the profession. While various resources are harnessed around campus to provide quality electronic learning, and much positive and professional collaboration occurs, a full-surround instructional design approach enhances the academic community, and provides ideas and work for continuing e-learning quality improvements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thanks to the various project principal investigators (PIs) and faculty who push for high quality learning experiences for their students and are willing to put their shoulders to the task to make this happen. Those who push at the edges help make positive changes in all of our work—to enhance the learning. Some local “change agents” in this endeavor include Dr. Sue C. Maes, Lynda Spire, Dr. Roger McHaney, Josh Works, Dr. Bettie Minshall, Rosemary Boggs, and Brent A. Anders. I am grateful to those with whom I work in the

106

trenches—because that is where much of the work gets done. For R. Max.

REFERENCES Berlanga, A. J., & Garcia, F. J. (2005). Authoring tools for adaptive learning designs in computerbased education. In the proceedings of the CLIHC ’05: The Second Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Cuernavaca, Mexico (pp. 190 – 201). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Bonk, C.J. (2009). The World is Open for a Reason: Make that 30 Reasons! eLearnMag.org, pp. 1-9. Retrieved Dec. 18, 2009, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/ 1600000/1595436/090702_a-bonk.html?key1=1 595436&key2=1558048521&coll=portal&dl=A CM&CFID=61898517&CFTOKEN=94791058 Chen, K. T., Wu, C. C., Chang, Y. C., & Lei, C. L. (2009). A crowdsourceable QoE evaluation framework for multimedia content. In the proceedings of MM’09: Multimedia conference, Beijing, China (pp. 491–500). New York: Association of Computing Machinery. Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. In the proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2006), Oslo, Norway (pp. 165 – 174). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Covella, G., & Olsina, L. (2006). Assessing quality in use in a consistent way. In the proceedings of the International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE ’06), Palo Alto, California (pp. 1 – 8). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Devedžić, V., Jovanović, J., & Gašević, D. (2007). The pragmatics of current e-learning standards (pp. 19–27). IEEE Computer Society.


Hajra, A., Birant, D., & Kut, A. (2008). Improving quality assurance in education with Web-based services by data mining and mobile technologies. In the proceedings of the Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems (EATIS ’08), Aracaju, Brazil. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., & Purchase, H. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. Inroads, 40(4), 194–212. Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance education. In the proceedings of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Curriculum, Lafayette, Indiana (pp. 160 – 167). Hung, W. (2003). Building learning communities by enhancing social presence: Implementing blended instructional delivery methods. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 24(3), 79–84. Lawless, S., Hederman, L., & Wade, V. (2008). Enhancing access to open corpus educational content: Learning in the wild. In the proceedings of the Hypertext ’08 (HT ’08), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (pp. 167–174). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Muntean, C. H., & Muntean, G. M. (2009). Open corpus architecture for personalised ubiquitous e-learning. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13, 197–205. doi:10.1007/s00779-007-0189-5 Pollacia, L., & McCallister, T. (2009). Using Web 2.0 technologies to meet Quality Matters™ (QM) requirements. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 155 – 164. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.jise.appstate.edu/ Issues/20/V20N2P155-abs.pdf Quality Matters Program. (2010). The quality matters rubric. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Online. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://www. qualitymatters.org/Rubric.htm

Richards, D. (2009). Designing project-based courses with a focus on group formation and assessment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 9(1), article 2. Santos, O. C. (2008). A recommender system to provide adaptive and inclusive standard-based support along the elearning life cycle. In the proceedings of the Recommender Systems 2008 (RecSys’08), Lausanne, Switzerland (pp. 319–322). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Sloan, D., Heath, A., Hamilton, F., Kelly, B., Petrie, H., & Phipps, L. (2006). Contextual web accessibility – Maximizing the benefit of accessibility guidelines. In the proceedings of the 2006 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility: Building the Mobile Web: Rediscovering Accessibility? Edinburgh, UK (pp. 121 – 131). Steichen, B., Lawless, S., O’Connor, A., & Wade, V. (2009). Dynamic hypertext generation for reusing open corpus content. In the proceedings of the Hypertext conference (HT ’09), Torino, Italy (pp. 119–128). New York: Association of Computing Machinery. Stiglic, M., Verlic, M., Povalej, P., Strmečki, A., & Dinevski, D. (2009). E-learning for SME employees—A case study on e-learning quality. In the proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI 2009), Cavtat, Croatia (pp. 467 – 472). Stodden, V. (2009). The legal framework for reproducible scientific research licensing and copyright. Computing in Science & Engineering, 35–40. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2009.19 Talbott, D., Gibson, M., & Skublics, S. (2002). A collaborative methodology for the rapid development and delivery of online courses. In the proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Toronto, Canada (pp. 216 – 225).

107


Topp, R., & Din, H. W. H. (2005). Modular small-scale media: Achieving community curation throughout rural Alaska. In the proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, California (Article 11). Torrente, J., del Blanco, A., Moreno-Ger, P., Martinez-Ortiz, I., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Implementing accessibility in educational videogames with <e-Adventure>. In the proceedings of The First ACM International workshop on Multimedia Technologies for Distance Learning (MTDL ’09), Beijing, China (pp. 57 – 66). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Weissman, E. J. (2003). An evaluation of online learning environments (OLE) on the adult at-risk population. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(3), 142–154. Wells, M. A., & Brook, P. W. (2003). Conversational KM—Student driven learning. In the proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2004), Dunedin, New Zealand (pp. 335 – 341). Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. In the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences: Santa Monica, California (pp. 568 – 575). Zaharias, P. (2006). A usability evaluation method for e-learning: Focus on motivation to learn. In the proceedings of CHI 2006: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Montreal, Canada (pp. 1571 – 1576).

108

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Agnostic: Not requiring a particular technological system as a dependency, non-absolute; able to function across multiple platforms Augment: To add to or strengthen, to enrich the quality of reality with digital overlays Assessment: Evaluation, testing Cross-Cultural: Combining multiple cultures Domain: A formal field of study Endorsement: A sign of approval or support Helpdesk: A support service for the users of a computer network or e-learning system Instructional Design: A purposive plan used to promote learning through the application of theories, strategies, and tactics Metadata: Information about data, used to label contents Platform: A unified technological system that was created for a purpose Quality: Of high and enduring value Referatory: A digital library of Web addresses that point to a number of online resources Remote: At a distance, from far away geographically Repository: A digital library or collection of digital objects (which may be part of curated collections or not) Rubric: An assessment protocol consisting of a table with factors that may be assessed or measured; a table-based metric Standard: An approved principle used as a basis for judgment; a rate of measure Webisode: A web episode or series of short videos that tell a story cumulatively and sequentially

109

Chapter 8

Leading an Online School Virginia E. Garland The University of New Hampshire, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2009, one million secondary level students took online courses in virtual schools throughout the United States. Since their inception twelve years ago, the virtual school movement has grown exponentially, giving rise to the need for transformational leadership of educational practices in a digital world. The new online schools cannot succeed without visionary leaders who are also instructional leaders, data based decision makers, and student centered advocates. Virtual school administrators are faced with significant challenges in state and local policies, which impact funding and organizational change strategies. Through collaboration with policy makers, teachers, parents, instructional designers, and technology experts, educational administrators can better meet the needs of their diverse online learners. The case study of best practice in leading an online school looks at New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School (VLACS), because it has an effective administrative team, which supports online learning in both accelerated and credit recovery programs.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ONLINE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP Terminology Distance education started over a century ago with correspondence schools and evolved with changes in technology. By the twenty first century, it became commonly known as courses delivered to remote locations through computer or video DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch008

technologies. A relatively new category of distance education is online learning, which relies on the Internet for curriculum and instruction (Rice, 2009). Most online students are in higher education. However, the number of virtual or online schools servicing K-12 students has increased dramatically in the past few years. Virtual schools are online learning platforms that deliver synchronous and/or asynchronous instruction, usually to secondary level students. The terms “online schools,” “cyber schools” and “virtual schools” are used interchangeably for the


Leading an Online School

purposes of this study, although the case analyzed is New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School (VLACS) for middle and high school students across this primarily rural state.

Online Education and the Failing High School Many educational researchers agree that the traditional public high school is not adequately meeting the needs of today’s adolescents. One policy analyst recently explained why secondary schooling in the United States has failed, citing the high dropout rate and the lack of improved achievement levels throughout the past century: “Although graduation rates rose steadily from about 1900 to 1970, the share of public high school students who graduate with regular diplomas four years after starting ninth grade has remained at about 75 percent since then. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found no improvement in reading or mathematics for seventeen-year-olds between 1971 and 2004. Although large numbers of high school graduates are going directly to college, the number completing college degrees has risen much more slowly. The system seems to be stuck, despite the constant efforts of teachers and repeated waves of reform.” (Sterns, 2009, p. 212) An educational administration researcher contends that the situation in American high schools is far worse, claiming that the dropout rate exceeds one quarter and is particularly high among urban African-American and Hispanic young men, “Nationwide, nearly one-third of high school students fail to graduate with a diploma, with an average of 7,000 dropping out every day. The problem is even more severe among AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students, with nearly 50 percent not completing high school on time. Overall, in the nation’s 50 largest cities, only

110

53 percent of high school students graduate on time, according to Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap, a report issued this year by America’s Promise Alliance, a nonprofit founded in 1997 by Gen. Colin Powell and his wife Alma Powell.” (Dessoff, 2009, pp. 44-45) In response to the failure of efforts to reform education in order to raise achievement levels and lower dropout rates, some concerned educators and parents formed a school choice movement that has gained momentum in the past twenty years, culminating in current support for charter schools on the federal level. A key education policy maker, the editor of the American School Board Journal, comments on the importance of this national advocacy of school choice for leaders at all levels: “Now, with the Obama administration’s open embrace of the charter movement and its tie to Race to the Top funding, choice is poised to have an even more significant and lasting role in how we educate future generations of children…look at emerging developments in the charter, magnet, and virtual school movements.” (Cook, 2009, p. 4) Charter schools have gained this recent support from the President and the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who helped to start a massive charter school movement when he was Superintendent of the Chicago schools. With bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans alike, virtual charter schools are receiving federal start-up monies from sources such as the Race to the Top initiative. Online charter schools, such as the one discussed in this study, are initiated by varied agencies, both public and private. Some are operated by state education departments, including the Florida Virtual School (FLVS), others are developed by public school districts, and some are part of a consortia of educational institutions. Virtual charter schools are addressing many of the needs of American high school students with their current


focus on both enrichment for advanced students and credit recovery for those who failed courses or may drop out entirely. Effective online programs offer a greater range of course offerings and more opportunities for students to continue learning when sick, disabled, or in need of the greater scheduling flexibility of “anytime, anywhere” web-based courses.

Leadership of Virtual Schools Virtual school leaders are visionaries who collaborate with policy-makers and teachers in servicing the needs of both advanced placement and at-risk students. The key roles for the successful online school leader are those of fund raiser on the local, state and federal levels, collaborator with faculty and technical support staff, instructional leader who uses data based assessments to evaluate distance delivery models, and advocate of learnercentered, differentiated instruction. Effective school administrators use transformational leadership skills to initiate and implement changes in policies and practices, which affect learners. They must change the bureaucratic nature and purpose of traditional schools in order to prepare students for the digital age, Students leave this place thoroughly prepared to enter a world that existed one hundred years ago. Calls for schools to improve are everywhere, but recently calls for schools to transform have proliferated, based on the idea that schools are not simply underperforming but outdated if not obsolete. Most prominently, scholars and authors such as Phillip Schlechty, Peter Senge, and Francis Duffy have targeted school and school system leaders with books calling for whole-system or systemic change to make schools compatible with other information-age social systems. (Doblar, 2009, p. 117). In addition to this moral imperative to change schools in order to meet the needs of students in

a technology driven global world, school leaders are faced with national demands to change the failing high school. Educational leaders are pressured by federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act to increase achievement levels and to reduce the dropout rates, The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to offer alternative schooling options to students attending schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress. Some states, school districts, and local administrators see site-based distance education as a viable option for choice…Expanding curricular offerings through online courses may include advanced, remedial, elective, or creditrecovery courses…Benefits for administrators include the option of ensuring course content is aligned to standards and providing resources to high-risk students. (Huett, Moller, Foshay & Coleman, 2008, p. 63) Public school leaders need to secure funding for online programs, whether in site-based distance education models or in virtual charter schools. To do this, they must address local and state fiscal policies, which may not be favorable towards virtual schools. School district officials are also competing to secure additional funding under the Race to the Top federal program. The rapid emergence of new technologies in the field of distance education has given twenty-first century leaders the opportunity to revolutionize education while meeting federal requirements. Distance learning researchers are finding that that the use of specific delivery methods by highly trained teachers can positively influence student achievement levels, particularly if there is collaboration with qualified instructional designers.

Growth of Online Schools In the United States, the first two online schools opened in Massachusetts and Florida about twelve years ago, but virtual schooling started in Canada

111


some seventeen years ago (Barbour, 2008). By 2009, forty-two states were running online schools, with Alabama and Michigan making Internet based learning a graduation requirement. In 2008, ninety thousand Florida students took online courses. The FLVS enrollments are expected to continue to increase, due to a state law passed in 2008 that requires all Florida students to have access to full-time virtual courses. The state sponsored online program covers all subjects and grades, taught by qualified, certified teachers. Starting in 2009, Florida students could take all their courses online, from kindergarten to high school graduation, without leaving home. Full-time and part-time online programs for middle and high school students have shown dramatic increases nationally, with some virtual schools growing 50 percent per year (Rice, 2009). According to a 2008 survey of 867 educational leaders from public schools in all states, seventyfive percent of all districts offer some type of online courses (Davis, 2009b). Virtual schools are meeting the needs of not only those students who might otherwise drop out of school, but also students interested in advanced placement courses and those learners who attend secondary level schools with limited course offerings. One type of virtual school is the cyber charter school, which has sometimes been criticized for competing for funds with other public schools in the state or district. Early virtual charter schools attracted mainly college preparatory students, and then grew to accommodate potential dropouts and traditionally underserved students. According to Cavanaugh (2009), achievement levels of the variety of learners in virtual schools are equivalent to their classroom-based counterparts. Furthermore, she states that online schools are addressing the needs of both advanced learners and special student populations. Despite the fact that about one million K-12 students took at least one online course in the 2007-2008 school year, four million college students took full-time online courses in 2008 (Dillon, 2009).

112

Although the increase of secondary level online programs is impressive, why have virtual schools not reached more public schools? The answer is complex, and relates to how public schools are funded and organized at state and local levels. In addition, the more prevalent use of the Internet in the past decade has been for communication and social, rather than educational, purposes. Some purport that higher education students are more self-motivated learners than their younger high school counterparts; and, that the former more mature students are not adversely affected by the possible isolating factors inherent in distance education.

Best Practices in Online Schools Online or virtual schools, when expertly developed and implemented, are especially advantageous for students in rural or property poor school districts (Hannum, Irvin, Banks & Farmer, 2009), for advanced placement students, for adolescents who might otherwise drop out of school (Dessoff, 2009), and for other students underserved by traditional high schools. Since virtual charter schools operate independently of local school districts, they usually require state funding. However, research on effective practices in online educational environments is still in its infancy since these secondary level public cyber schools have only been operating in the United States for the past twelve years at most, and many are recent start-up operations. One can more easily review the research on higher education online programs, which have been in existence longer than virtual high schools, but there are significant differences between college students and adolescents, and between public and private institutions. Another difficulty in evaluating and comparing virtual middle and high schools is in the lack of similarity in key funding, organizational, technical, content delivery, administrative, teacher, support staff, and student factors. Despite these


limitations, there are some common elements in successful virtual schools. The oldest American virtual schools have been growing exponentially over the past decade. The Virtual High School (VHS) in Concord, Massachusetts, and the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) had different start-up funding sources, the former from the federal government and the latter from the Florida state legislature: “The VHS was created through a 5-year, $7.4 million federal grant, while the FLVS was established through an allocation of $200,000 from the state legislature. The following school year, (i.e., 199798) the VHS offered 28 courses to 28 schools that were a part of the initial consortium. The FLVS also began offering courses that same year with an enrollment of 157 students.” (Barbour, 2008, pp. 357-358) State aid is now the primary funding source for most virtual schools, but even level funding is at risk during the economic recession, “And it’s natural to look to Florida for signs of where online schools are headed, even in a down economy that saw state legislators slash 10 percent of per-pupil funding in May from the Florida Virtual School’s (FLVS) $116 million budget. Despite the cut, a state mandate requiring districts to provide online learning opportunities across grade levels began in August.” (Dillon, 2009, p. 28) In the past dozen years, the FLVS went from an initial budget of $200,000 (1997-1998) servicing 157 students, to an annual state aid of $116 million (2009-2010) for some 90,000 online students. This is unheard of growth in both state support and student enrollment for a singular public school. However, educational administrators of virtual schools still need to be active fund raisers and advocates of state policies which support online education, particularly on the state level, and dur-

ing a troubling economy where school budgets are being cut in all states across the nation. The organizational framework of online schools varies according to delivery models. Success in student retention may be affected by the lack of students’ direct interaction with teachers in some virtual schools. “While some districts rely on traditional face-toface interaction between teachers and students, many are adopting online solutions offered by commercial vendors, and others are implementing programs that blend face-to-face and online instruction. Some create their own programs from free online resources and their own curricula. In some states, education agencies and virtual schools provide complete programs.” (Dessoff, 2009, p. 44) Hybrid formats, such as that implemented by the Jackson, Michigan Public Schools and the University of New Hampshire, enable students to meet regularly with faculty members as well as have an online component to their courses. In the Michigan Virtual School, program directors and teachers work with students in a computer lab and there are strict attendance requirements (Dessoff, 2009). At the University of New Hampshire (UNH), the author of this study is teaching pre-service teachers with a hybrid online course format, in which students meet half of the time in class and the other half of the time online. Faceto-face time allows both the high school and the college students to work in groups, make oral presentations, and interact directly with teachers or professors. Media rich components of the UNH teacher education, virtual course include streaming video, PowerPoint slides, research articles, and case studies. The use of live chat rooms also enables students to work directly with teachers, although not face-to-face.

113


Advanced Placement and Credit Recovery Online Programs

program, Fresno, California’s Cyber High School as exemplary,

When the purpose is credit recovery and advanced placement, effective online programs can help establish equity in opportunity between rural and urban property poor schools and their suburban, property rich school counterparts.

Any student can receive Carnegie units certified by the state of California through Cyber High, but its students typically have nontraditional needs, such as * Acceleration * NCLB ‘credit recovery’ * Home schooling * Daytime jobs * Unstable residency * Dropout status * ‘Aged-out status’ Students at Cyber High participate in a combination of computer-based objective assessments offering instantaneous feedback to support selfpaced curricula and research-and-project-based assessments scored by teachers. The innovative design allows students to complete California’s graduation requirements (interest-based courses are not available) when and where they are able and as quickly or slowly as they require. (pp. 121-122)

Online Advanced Placement courses, which offer college-level material to high school students, are at the forefront of the online education movement. Their popularity has continued to grow as online instruction has evolved, and as what online educators consider misconceptions about virtual education - such as worries that teachers do not get to know their students well - have increasingly been dispelled. Since about 40 percent of high schools do not provide AP courses, online offerings are a way to level the playing field between bigger and better-off schools and the rural and urban schools that lack such resources. (Davis, 2009a, p. 14) In a national survey of distance education in 394 rural schools, Hannum, Irvin, Banks, and Farmer (2009) found that most districts were using online programs to offer advanced courses in English, foreign language, and mathematics. Despite current challenges in both funding and scheduling, rural school districts across the nation need additional course offerings. For example, Georgia’s Virtual School has a state approved curriculum that includes Japanese and Chinese for students in this largely rural state (Benton, 2010). Credit recovery is another important area in which virtual schools servicing rural and urban areas are assisting potential dropouts to stay in high school and graduate. Providence High School is an online program founded in 2005 by a teacher, Donna Johnson, to give at-risk students opportunities to earn credits for high school diplomas (Cech, 2005). In his 2009 study of ten outstanding schools, Doblar selected another secondary level

114

Whether it is for advanced placement or credit recovery, online schools enrolled more than a million K-12 public school students in the United States alone last year, and the number is growing. School leaders, such as those of the five thousand Hudson school district in Wisconsin, which established an online program at an initial financial loss, believe that the experience is still of immense valuable to the students (Ash, 2009). The transformational leader is willing to take risks in order to provide meaningful learning opportunities in virtual learning for students of the twenty-first century.

CASE STUDY: VIRTUAL LEARNING ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (VLACS) VLACS Background VLACS was established in 2007 with the approval of the New Hampshire Board of Education. Students in the academy may gain credit


recovery, take advanced placement courses, and advance their graduation rate. It is available for free to any New Hampshire student, and at tuition cost to out of state students. This virtual charter school describes itself as uniquely positioned to best serve the online educational needs of New Hampshire public school students, A few NH schools currently offer online classes through agreements with out-of-state providers; however, participation is contingent upon funding by the sponsoring school district and/or reciprocal teacher loaning. New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School is the region’s first-of-its-kind model. (VLACS, 2009, p. 1) The political and fiscal skills of the virtual charter school leaders were key factors in the successful implementation of VLACS in New Hampshire, a state with no state income or sales taxes, and last of all states in the nation with state support for public education. An editor of New Hampshire’s conservative newspaper, The New Hampshire Union Leader, described the recent charter school movement in the state as a cost effective, businesslike venture. The state’s 11 public, charter schools have learned to operate like savvy private businesses. They joint venture, define their brands and niches, seize fleeting market opportunities, trim costs, compete for state and federal money and lobby lawmakers….It’s a growing type of business, and they thrive by tapping the passions of teachers and kids while operating on $5,000 in state aid after their three-year federal seed grants expire. The proposed state budget increases that to $5,450, less than half the state average…The Exeter School District has founded two charter schools that offer a proliferation of online courses. The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School…Kids from 220 communities take at least one course with an instructor and classmates they never see. The

state pays $700 for each student in each course. (Dornin, 2009, p. 1) New Hampshire state Republicans and Democrats alike agree that VLACS is successful in its dramatic increases of students and course offerings in only its first one or two years of existence. According to a more liberal Massachusetts newspaper source, The Eagle-Tribune Online, The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School, which offers high school courses online, has doubled its course offerings since it was established last year. The academy is now available in more than 200 communities in the state and allows students from neighboring states to pay tuition to use the program… Taking courses online can be advantageous to students looking for advanced courses and to those who are struggling with material because they can begin and end at any point during the year… The academy is based in Exeter, but teachers for the program are scattered throughout the Northeast. They conduct the courses through text and audio and video clips online. (Bencks, 2009, p. 1).

VLACS Leadership and Teachers What leadership attributes of the VLACS leadership team explain this astounding success in establishing a virtual charter school, which is growing exponentially in a primarily rural state with scant state aid? The VLACS administrative roster includes not only Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kossakoski, but also seven other key educational leaders. The breadth and scope of their expertise explain some of the reasons why this online school is meeting the needs of a growing number of students. The VLACS administrative team is comprised of CEO Kossakoski, Chief Learning Officer Tirone, Chief Information Officer Oquist, Instructional Design Specialist Reed, Director of Academic Support Lane-Wortley,

115


Personalized Pathways Coordinator Baldasaro, Director of Guidance Services Cote, and Guidance Counselor LaBelle. Six of the administrative team members have advanced degrees in their field, and most have prior experience in a New Hampshire public school district. All have significant skills in delivering online courses of quality for at risk, advanced, and other underserved student groups. VLACS CEO Kossakoski earned his Doctor of Philosophy in Education degree from the state’s premier research public university, the University of New Hampshire (UNH). His UNH program included advanced educational administration courses. He was Assistant Superintendent of the Exeter AREA school district, the district which founded VLACS and serves as its home base in the former Exeter high school building. Chief Learning Officer Tirone, a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS) in Educational Administration degree graduate and current doctoral student at UNH, joined the VLACS team because he believes this model meets both the acceleration and course recovery needs of students across the state (2009). Tirone established flexible scheduling practices to ensure student success at all levels, such as assisting students who are homebound as well as those students who travel for sports (i.e., snowboarding) or those in student exchange programs overseas. Baldasaro, also a CAGS graduate in the UNH Graduate Programs in Educational Administration and Supervision programs, assumed the role of VLACS Personalized Pathways Coordinator. As part of the administrative team, Baldasaro oversees a “quality learning environment” (2009) of competency recovery and extended learning opportunities for students, particularly important for those students at risk of failing traditional high schools. The leadership team collaborates with VLACS teachers, who are all New Hampshire certified and considered by state standards to be highly qualified. They are selected through “a specialized, comprehensive hiring process” by VLACS

116

administrators and are mentored by individuals who provide “professional coaching, support, and advice.” (VLACS, 2009) As of December, 2009, there were 150 VLACS instructors.

VLACS Students Kossakoski (2009) indicated that VLACS opened in January, 2007, with 500 students, two-thirds from the public schools. The online school had about 4,000 students as of December, 2009, an eight-fold increase in less than two years. At the end of 2009, there were 150 VLACS instructors, who live and work from all six of the New England states. The VLACS CEO explained that 95% of the students are part-time. Of all the VLACS students, 2% are from other New Hampshire charter schools, 4% are dropouts, 5% are full-time VLACS students, 6% are from private schools, 17% are home-schooled, and 66% are from public schools in the New England region (Kossakoski, 2009). It is expected that VLACS will serve New Hampshire students well by lowering dropout rates and increasing college acceptance rates. Its flexible schedule and pertinent courses are augmenting the academic programs of traditional middle and high schools, Most VLACS students are part-time, enrolling in one or two courses to supplement their regular high school education. It allows them to graduate faster and take classes not normally offered at their school or that they don’t have time for in their standard school day. The on-demand, anytime, anywhere, learn-at-your-own-pace paradigm of VLACS is perfect for athletes with packed schedules, students confined to home because of an illness or disability and dropouts looking to get back on track… (Claffey, 2009, p. 1) In the accelerated VLACS courses, students can take both high school and college level courses. Tirone (2009) also indicated that students in the course recovery courses might be able to retake


courses without loss of credit, or to stop and restart courses in which they are having difficulty. Some special homebound students include young mothers, one who suffered an accident, and some in drug rehabilitation institutions. One success story in this rural state involved a student who was home schooled until his father died and he was then in charge of running the family farm. By taking online courses with VLACS, he can still get his high school courses and save the farm. The VLACS Chief Learning Officer is an advocate of flexibility for accommodating student needs for extended learning opportunities.

VLACS Curriculum and Support Systems There are several components in the VLACS philosophy and course content delivery systems that illustrate why this online academy is so effective. When it started in 2007, The Academy purchased most of its curriculum from the Florida Virtual School, a successful virtual school that has been operating since 1997. During the past 11 years, the FVS curriculum and coursework has been evaluated and revised to meet rigorous academic standards. In addition, FVS’s instructors, administrators, students and parents continually evaluate the curriculum and coursework. (VLACS, 2009, p. 1) There are several other “keys to success” with VLACS, including the following: a student-centered approach, personalization, communication, professional development, “customer evangelists,” and a “pioneering spirit” with tolerance for “ambiguity in starting this type of school.” (Tirone, 2009). The 150 teachers currently on the roster must take two days of training onsite prior to teaching any VLACS course, with additional online opportunities for professional development. One participating school, Souhegan High School,

uses online opportunities for both teacher action research and critical friends groups. VLACS students were recently surveyed about their virtual school’s philosophy of offering courses any time, any place and any pace. When asked “What part of this statement is most important to you in relation to your VLACS courses?”, the student response was tallied as 47% any pace, 45% any time, and 8% any place (Tirone, 2009). These survey responses are congruent with the recent research on effective distance learning programs. The one age, one classroom, in a bricks and mortar school approach of one pace for all during the past two hundred years has proven to fail the adolescent learner of today’s digital age (Doblar, 2009; Sterns, 2009). Where some online programs fail to provide adequate counseling and other direct support for students, VLACS has been successful. Funded through a state of New Hampshire Department of Education (NHDOE) grant, the VLACS Personalized Pathways (P2) program has designated course competencies for thirty-one of its courses. In a brief sent out to partnership schools, VLACS Director of Academic Support Ollire Lane-Wortley (2009) states, All of our competencies and competency assessments are linked to the State Frameworks, and to Webb’s Depth of Knowledge. Additionally, they are in a searchable database which can be easily accessed by your staff and allow your students to meet a specific competency by completing targeted modules in a course. This program will allow you to have students do competency recovery online with less interruption to their course schedule at your school...Having course competencies for our courses will allow us to work with schools and students to provide Extended Learning Opportunities - ELOs for possibilities that may be available outside the school, school day, or academic calendar. (p. 1)

117


The mission of serving both accelerated and credit recovery programs remains in the future. There are plans for VLACS to expand to adult education, with a GED preparation course available online for the first time in the spring of 2010. However, the funding for such a program limits this program to those students less than 21 years of age. The CEO stated that he is in talks with a New Hampshire university to offer an associate’s degree for high school students (Kossakoski, 2009). There is also an effort to make courses more engaging, such as game-based history and English courses. In these interactive courses, students work collaboratively in an “intuitive web-based” online environment.

CURRENT CHALLENGES IN ONLINE SCHOOLS There are some critics of virtual schooling. A common perception is that students in online courses are too socially isolated from their peers. Others claim that students are successful only if they are self-motivated, which may work better for those in advanced placement courses but not for at risk students in credit recovery programs. Another concern is that students with special needs are generally not included in virtual schools. Regarding student achievement, it is still unclear whether or not students in online courses perform better than their counterparts in traditional school courses.

Isolation and Motivation of Online Learners In a study of college students’ perceptions of Internet based learning, it was found that significant numbers of students felt isolated not only from their classmates but also from their teachers. A sense of isolation or a lack of community is another weakness identified with online learning… in addition to feeling isolated from the instructor,

118

online learners typically feel isolated from other students in the course as well. (Barbour, 2009, p. 359) As one of the oldest online schools, the Florida Virtual School has recognized this challenge of possible student isolation. FVS has addressed this issue by establishing policies whereby students directly communicate with their teachers by telephone, instant messaging and email. Even though it is not face-to-face interaction, Students can call teachers from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day, and there are scheduled monthly phone conversations between teachers, students and their parents. In addition to providing online assessments of student success, teachers conduct ‘discussion-based assessments’ by phone during courses. (Dessoff, 2009, p. 46) The blended or hybrid approach of both face-toface and online teaching might be the best solution to solving the isolating factors of online programs. In the blended approach, students go to computer labs where teachers assist them. The hybrid model is more prevalent on the post-secondary level, where students attend classes both in regular classrooms and online. Collaborative projects might be a way to involve online students with each other, but there is still a problem with the lack of extra-curricular activities, such as sports, for cyber school students. In Duluth, Minnesota, two sisters attend the same virtual school, fifteen-year-old Maria and her sister, thirteen-year-old Anna. Maria loves the online course format but Anna hates the lack of interaction with her peers, ‘That’s one of the great things about online school,’ Maria said. ‘You get to use your notes when you’re taking tests.’ Another great thing about online school: instant grades. A few moments after Maria answered the last test question, her score popped up…Anna…’I hate it, ‘ she said about going to


school online…Anna said she misses her friends, extracurricular activities and the structure of traditional school. (Horner, 2009, p.1) Barbour (2009) suggests that there needs to be new research on secondary level students’ online experiences, In addition to issues of design, additional research should be conducted on how to evaluate the level of self-directed learning skills that secondary level students possess and how we can provide opportunities for them to strengthen areas of weakness prior to engaging in independent learning opportunities such as virtual schooling. (p. 366) Motivation is of particular concern for at risk youth. Unless they have significant support mechanisms, such as guidance counselors or mentors, they tend to drop out of school. This need for support is especially crucial in the online environment, where learners must be independent, self-starters, ‘One of the things people think is that online school is automatically a solution for troubled kids,’ says Sandra Rowe, director of global services for the nonprofit Virtual High School, a Massachusettsbased collaboration between 300-plus schools worldwide that share courses and teachers online. ‘If you have a high-risk student who isn’t motivated…they’re not going to do well online just like they didn’t do well in the classroom.’ (Cech, 2005, p. 36) Concerted efforts by online school leaders are needed in order to involve all students as a community of learners. Although more research is needed on motivation factors for adolescents, it is becoming evident that some direct communication between teachers and students in the cyber school is needed, whether it be face-to-face or through the web-based tools of email and live chats. Ad-

ditional support for at-risk youth is also vital to their online success.

Achievement of Online Learners It is difficult to determine the comparative levels of achievement in online courses as opposed to traditional courses because of the variety of virtual programs and the nature of the differing student populations served. However, preliminary and limited research seems to indicate that students in online courses achieve equally to their counterparts, Results from this study indicate that although comparative research studies per se are not a high priority, it appears to be important to establish that the distance learning environment is the same as or better than face-to-face learning environments. However, the possibility of ever determining whether online courses are equal to face-to-face courses seems unlikely. (Rice, 2009, p. 174) Other researchers agree that is it difficult to measure student academic success in the rapidly changing virtual learning school setting. Since funding may be tied to student achievement levels, the effectiveness of online schools needs to be appropriately measured, State governments typically establish virtual K-12 schools directly or provide funding to traditional schools to create online programs. Equivalent funding of online and face-to-face courses implies the instruction delivered is equally effective - an invalid comparison and potentially dangerous assumption as rapid changes in the field of online learning may not result in high quality programs. (Huett, Moller, Foshay & Coleman, 2008, p. 63) What is needed in the educational community of scholars is additional research on the relationship between student achievement levels and the instructional medium. Well thought out online

119


school evaluations should consider multiple factors of distance learning, including student outcomes as connected to retention, curriculum standards, and assessment strategies.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONLINE SCHOOL LEADERS Distance education is light years away from the correspondence schools of a hundred years ago. Virtual school leaders have much to learn from the incipient research on online education. Online schools must progress from “is to ought,” from isolated self-study experiences to communities of learners engaged in interactive activities in web-based platforms, taught by highly qualified teachers and supported by counselors and instructional designers. Early online schools attracted mostly advanced placement students, but effective virtual schools are incorporating programs for a wider variety of students. Student populations in online schools are beginning to resemble those in traditional schools. However, online schools have added credit recovery and closing the achievement gap to their missions, and some have reported serving students with identified special needs at the same rate as are served in the public schools. Correspondingly, course completion rates of large virtual schools have been reported in the later 2000s to exceed 90% as a school average. (Cavanaugh, 2009, p. 29) The virtual school is a new revolution in learning. It now supplements the traditional school, but it could become the new way of educating all students, regardless of where they live or who they are academically and socially. Educational leaders are encouraged to review the models of best practice, such as New Hampshire’s Virtual Learning Academy Charter School, in order to meet the needs of the students of the twenty-first century.

120

REFERENCES Ash, K. (2009). Experts debate cost savings of virtual education. Education Week, 28(25), 1. Barbour, M. (2008). Secondary students’ perceptions of web-based learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 357–371. Bencks, J. (2009, February). NH’s online high school sees meteoric growth. The Eagle-Tribune Online. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http:// www.eagletribune.com Benton, B. (2010, March). Virtual school extends courses across Georgia. Chattanooga Times/ Free Press (TN). Retrieved April 12, 2010 from Newspaper Source Database. Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Effectiveness of cyber charter schools: A review of research on learnings. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(4), 28–31. Cech, S. (2005). The outsiders. After 28 years of educating students who slip through the cracks, Donna Johnson is looking forward to one thing in retirement: Doing it all over again, online. Teacher Magazine, 17(2), 34–37. Claffey, J. (2009, August). New Hampshire’s first virtual high school classroom program in Exeter getting good grades. Fosters. Retrieved 12/29/09 from http://www.fosters.com Cook, G. (2009). From the editor. The American School Board Journal, 196(11), 4. Davis, M. (2009a). Advanced placement secures online niche. Education Week, 28(26), 14–15. Davis, M. (2009b). Web-based classes booming in schools. Education Week, 28(19), 5. Dessoff, A. (2009). Reaching graduation with credit recovery. District Administration, 45(9), 43–48.


Dillon, N. (2009). A slow build. The American School Board Journal, 196(11), 28–29. Doblar, D. (2009). Ten schools and school districts to get excited about. Educational Horizons, 87(2), 116–117. Dornin, C. (2009, March). As charter schools flourish, business models apply. New Hampshire Union Leader. Retrieved December 30, 2009 from http://www.unionleader.com Hannum, W., Irvin, M., Banks, J., & Farmer, T. (2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(3), 1–15. Horner, S. (2009, December). ‘Virtual schools’ gain popularity in Duluth, nationwide. Duluth News-Tribune (MN). Retrieved December 28, 2009 from Newspaper Source database. Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. Part 3: K-12. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 63–67. Kossakoski, S., Tirone, G., & Baldasaro, A. (2009, December). Learning online: The Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. Presentation at the 2009 Christa McAuliffe Technology Conference, Nashua, NH. Lane-Wortley, O. (2009). VLACS Partnership Program. Unpublished report. Retrieved December 28, 2009 from http://www.vlacs.org

Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 163–177. Stern, D. (2009). Expanding policy options for educating teenagers. The Future of Children, 19(1), 211–239. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0027 Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. (2009). Frequently asked questions [Unpublished report]. Retrieved December 28, 2009 from http://www. vlacs.org

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Online Schools: web-based learning platforms that deliver synchronous and/or asynchronous instruction, usually to secondary level students, also referred to as virtual or cyber schools. Transformational Leaders: visionaries who have expertise in school change to better meet the needs of learners in a digital age. Credit Recovery: programs which offer failing students or dropouts the opportunity to complete the courses needed for a high school diploma. Advanced Placement: programs which offer high school students the opportunity to take college preparatory or college level courses. Charter Schools: programs offering parents alternative choices to the traditional public school, with state education requirements often waived. Differentiated Instruction: learner-centered teaching to meet individual student needs. Hybrid Format: blended instruction in both traditional classrooms and online teaching.

121

122

Chapter 9

Library Support to Distance Learners:

Case of a University’s Distance Library Services in India Kshema Prakash Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University), India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The chapter discusses library support services in a distance education system and their value and importance in the overall development of a learner in general and a distance learner in particular. The chapter also traces how emerging digital technologies allow libraries to offer efficient support services to distance learners. This case of Distance Library Services at a university in India describes the evolution, experiences and challenges of offering distance library services through the university. The chapter focuses on information literacy and use of social networking tools. Development of information literacy is critical for distance learners, and social networking tools based on Web 2.0 technologies may provide library services and impart information literacy to distance learners. The chapter concludes with some suggestions pertaining to opportunities and future propositions.

INTRODUCTION Modern day learning experience has come a long way beyond pedagogical instructions and faceto-face interaction. As globalization advances, education is increasingly crossing borders of regions and nations. Educational systems have to now respond to other profound changes, such as the knowledge explosion, the changing interacDOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch009

tion between the public and private spheres etc. Universities have also to respond to quantitative changes, including a massive overall increase in intake everywhere. The demands of the learners are also changing. With the continuing explosion of knowledge and the breaking down of the old fixed patterns of employment, learners are increasingly demanding a type of education that allows them to update their knowledge whenever necessary and to go on doing so throughout their working lives. All of these developments are closely intertwined


Library Support to Distance Learners

with the most striking development of all, which is the phenomenal growth of information and communication technologies. These are having a profound effect at all levels of education, including traditional university programmes; however, they arguably are noted to benefit the distance learners in particular. In this chapter, the term ‘distance learners’ is being used to denote students enrolling themselves into either distance education or off-campus programmes. Most distance learners face time, mobility and financial constraints because of their career and family circumstances. Given the right computer technology, they can give themselves maximum benefit of flexible learning. Generally, most major distance education universities operate a mixture of the synchronous and asynchronous modalities for broadcasting or disseminating their programmes to their students. Students who are enrolled in distance education programmes often are unable to come to the campus or off-campus location for the administrative, student, and academic services they need. Institutions offering full programmes via distance education need to provide the full range of services at times and in ways that are convenient for these students. These services include admissions and registration, enrollment advising, academic advising, financial aid, career counseling, library resources, self-learning materials ordering etc. Advances in technology have had a significant impact on the way that institutions provide services, particularly administrative and library services, to all of their students. This has helped to narrow the differences in the way distance learners and on-campus learners are served. Yet, it does not always result in distance learners receiving a full range of services.

WHAT MAKES DISTANCE LIBRARY SERVICES VALUABLE? Several professional bodies like the Indian Library Association (ILA), American Library Association

(ALA), Association of College and Research Libraries under ALA, Commonwealth of Learning (COL) etc., have clearly spelt out standards and guidelines for offering distance library services. Owing to the quantum leap in online and distance learning systems and institutions, globally the body of literature on distance library services is also observed to be increasing rapidly. But what makes distance library services valuable? Distance Education (DE) or Distance Learning (DL) or Online & Distance Learning (ODL) or be it any name such as education through correspondence or even e-learning, the very obvious fact is that the teacher and the taught are physically separated by means of time and space; and this calls for sound support in terms of supplementary materials for a fruitful learning experience to take place. This very fact itself makes distance or off-campus library services valuable. •

Collapsing boundaries: Even though distance education has a long and diverse history, dating back to 1840, in the last ten-to-fifteen years it has been completely transformed by the emergence of webbased technology. Over the last decade, an increasing number of academic institutions have built satellite campuses and developed online courses to meet the needs of distance learners. As these academic institutions have expanded, demand for library service has increased significantly. It also infers that today’s increasingly e-learning culture collapses the boundaries between regular on-site students and off-campus, external programme students (i.e., distance learners). Hence any kind of library service extended as a part of distance library service using emerging digital media also benefits the on-campus students. For example, the COL Topical Guide on Developing Library and Information Services for Distance Education (Watson, 2003) mentions the most important distance library service

123


•

•

124

considerations to be timeliness of service; high level and quality access to distance library materials; and, where possible, to initiate and maintain personal contact with students and faculty. If distance library services are designed keeping in view these considerations, they can be as beneficial for the on-campus learner as they will be for off-campus learner. This is one of the aspects that make distance library services valuable. Accreditation: For institutions of higher education, accreditation and re-accreditation are facts of academic life. Since accreditation standards now include distance education and related support services, librarians and library administrators involved with distance learners and distance education programmes need to know the published guidelines and methods for demonstrating that standards are being met. Jerabek (2004) discusses ways to become familiar with relevant accreditation standards, and reviews pertinent items from the Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Guidelines for Distance Learning library services. The article also notes practices suggested in the Guidelines, especially those related to assessment and evaluation, which provide methods and later that can be used to document how specific standards are met. The accreditation and re-accreditation procedures and the pre-requisites that are needed to be fulfilled by the institutions are yet another aspect that makes distance library services valuable in the present day context. Faculty-Librarian Collaboration: In 2001, Texas Tech University Library surveyed faculty who taught distance learning courses. Hufford (2004) reports the findings of the survey. Implicit in the article is the belief that a clear understanding of the

•

needs and expectations of faculty serves as a foundation on which librarians can build a solid program of support for distance learners. This clear understanding may also serve as the basis for better strategies to educate faculty on how librarians can improve distance learning courses. Unfortunately, what faculty think about library support for distance learning courses is not always clearly understood. To a significant extent, this limited understanding is due to a dearth of information in the professional literature on the subject, the author of the article quips and recommends that more surveys need to be completed and the results published so that distance learning librarians can better understand faculty and better inform them, optimizing support for distance learners. The underlying aspect that the distance librarians can help improve distance learning courses by collaborating with the faculty is one more dimension that can be showcase the value of distance library services. Information Literacy: Russell Ackoff (1989) a systems theorist and professor of organizational change is widely credited with proposing a five tier structure of human learning viz., data, information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. By now it is widely accepted that when data is processed it takes the shape of information, when information is applied it is knowledge, and the assimilation of knowledge that displays the ability to make good judgment is wisdom. In fact, the aim of the modern education is to cultivate personality and creative intelligence of the students. The purpose of education is to cultivate the mind of students so that a life-long learning becomes possible. In 1974 Paul Zurkowski, the president of the U.S. Information Industry Association, first used the term ‘Information Literacy’,


to refer to people who knew how to apply information resources to their work. A widely accepted definition of Information Literacy is the statement given in 1989 by the Presidential Committee on Information Literacy of American Library Association (ALA), “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information.” ‘Conscientious use’ is as important as the ‘effective and efficient use’. By ‘conscientious use’ what is meant is that, there should not be any violation of Intellectual Property Rights. Other social and ethical concerns like censorship, privacy, security etc. should also be kept in mind while using information. Different kinds of information literacy are: ◦âŠ¦ Library Literacy: Library Literacy relates to an individual’s ability to explore the library efficiently with ease. Thus, the proficiency in the use of library resources and services is referred as Library Literacy. ◦âŠ¦ Media Literacy: Today an individual receives information from a variety of media of communication like books, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, Internet or even cell phones. Media Literacy refers to the ability to evaluate the information received from such diverse sources of information. ◦âŠ¦ Computer Literacy: Since computers have pervaded almost the entire area of human life, any literate person now must have the skills to interact with the computer. Thus, Computer Literacy denotes the skills needed to interact with the computer and have some general idea about its hardware and software.

◦âŠ¦

◦âŠ¦

◦âŠ¦

Network Literacy: The ability to type in the computer alone is not enough if one wants to access and use the billions of documents available on the World Wide Web. It is essential to have the ability to navigate the Internet or any other computer network. Such ability is called Network Literacy. Digital Literacy: The searching and retrieving skills that are required to explore the online databases, digital libraries or documents on CDs and DVDs are referred as Digital Literacy. Visual Literacy: Visual Literacy is the ability to understand and produce visual content. Owing to the prevalence of multimedia environment, visuals are often used in teaching learning process. Hence, Visual Literacy requires not only skills relating to the art, design and technology aspect but also skills of deep perception and visual intuition.

Importance of information literacy in general and for a distance learner in particular is: • •

To become an independent life-long learner. To develop a critical thinking approach, which is important for the progress of a society. ◦âŠ¦ To assess and filter the information in the electronic environment, as on the face of it, all Web based information looks alike. ◦âŠ¦ To respect the ownership of information, especially in the digital environment. ◦âŠ¦ To recognize and prevent intentional or unintentional plagiarism. ◦âŠ¦ For ethical use of information.

125


◦âŠ¦ ◦âŠ¦

◦âŠ¦

For sound decision making and personal empowerment. To understand different cultures and empathize with the view point of others. To detect disinformation and misinformation.

However, the basic library and information services needed by the distance learners are: •

• •

Access to information resources such as texts, supplementary reading and reference services. Learning how to find the information they need from the information that is available. Developing ways to apply the information gleaned to make sound, information-based decisions.

Having identified the requirements of distance learners, how effectively and efficiently the librarian provides these services to his clientele, i.e., the distance learners is what finally makes distance library services the most valuable. The emerging digital media technologies have thrown open new vistas for developing innovative methods of reaching out to the distance learner not only for the faculty but also for the librarians. The succeeding section discusses about employing emerging information communication technologies and digital media for offering distance library services.

WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS AND LIBRARY 2.0 FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS Libraries can make wide use of Web 2.0 technologies to assist learners in making better use of their physical as well as electronic library resources. Both didactic resources and more interactive technologies can be used to offer individual or

126

group assistance. Libraries can also produce videos such as library tours, explanations of how to use some of their resources like databases, search tools, electronic journals etc. and also for imparting information skills, which can be hosted on the library website or other external social video sharing site such as YouTube or TeacherTube. For example, Lee (2004) from Regent University shared that, in an attempt to expand its course offerings to distance learners, the university began offering online courses during the early 1990s, and it also developed a new satellite campus. As the Regent University Library has explored new and varied ways to serve students on the new satellite campus and other distance learners, the implementation of services has been challenging, but rewarding, for the library staff. Likewise many educational institutions in western countries are widely using Podcasts and vidcasts to complement traditional ways of communicating information about library services and resources. They include virtual library tours that are particularly appreciated by distance learners who have limited access to the facilities on campus. Blogs are one of the widely used social networking software by libraries to announce new resources and general news. They are also used as a platform by the librarians and their user community to share ideas and feedback. Slideshare can be used to make PowerPoint presentations on information skills, bibliographic instruction and information literacy available to all the users, particularly to distance learners. Users can subscribe to RSS feeds for keeping themselves update with the sites they regularly visit for gathering information. Such RSS feeds are provided by RSS aggregators like Pageflakes, Atom, Feedburner etc. Social bookmarking tools can be used in a similar way to bookmark the pages, sites, information on web that are of users’ choice and tag them with the keywords of their choice. Examples of such social bookmarking and social tagging tools


are TagCloud, Bibsonomy, Del.icio.us, etc. Such widgets can be incorporated by the librarian into his blog or library website, enabling the user to participate and collaborate. The University of Calgary Distance Education Librarian keeps distance learners up-to-date on library services through RSS feeds to the library’s distance education page and all course e-learning sites and online tutorials by posting information to a blog which is distributed either as email or an RSS feed; a chat icon on the course sites can be used to access the librarian when available. Motivated by several such examples, a library has stepped forward to offer support to the distance learners of their parent institution is explained in the case study.

CASE OF DISTANCE LIBRARY SERVICES OF A UNIVERSITY IN INDIA The University under reference has its roots in the field of education beginning in the year 1915. The University imparts education to a research degree level in disciplines viz., the sciences, arts, social sciences, education, commerce, and engineering. The University also has Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with various institutes and universities of global repute in India and abroad. The University launched distance education in the year 2002. The main focus was to offer educational programmes to those unable to matriculate on campus due to physical location or lack of funding, and to facilitate flexi-time, flexiplace learning to all, at their doorstep, which is on par with on-site education in terms of quality. Current programmes offered are in vocational skills with several study centres in India and a few situated abroad. The various programmes are designed and developed in-house by the University with the help of different course coordinators. When we look

at the profile of the students being enrolled, some interesting developments are apparent. While in most of the programmes, major enrolment has been accounted for by youth and young adults, some programmes like vocational programme in dress designing, tailoring & apparel making, a significant number of older adults, particularly females, have been entering the system. Such development is encouraging in the Indian system of education. As per the norms spelt out by the Distance Education Council (DEC) (2009), the apex body for coordinating and approving the distance education institutions in India, clearly state that every study centre and regional centre should have a library for supporting the information needs of students. Accordingly, the University in reference, instructs at the time of the establishment of the study centres, to create a moderate library at their respective centres. For this work the study centres receive sufficient funding from the parent body. During the Orientation Programme that is conducted at the head quarters for the administrators and the faculty members of the study centres, participants are made aware of the importance of having a library at their centres, how to establish and maintain libraries at their centres, how to provide information services to their students, etc., regularly by means of a presentation and an interactive session on the topic. They are also encouraged to visit the Central Library, interact with the library professionals, and get help in their library related matters. A point to be taken note of here is the study centres, in view of the size of their programmes and enrollment, cannot be expected to engage a dedicated person possessing library skills. Hence, attempts are made to impart functional library skills to the administrative personnel of study centres. The situation can be reviewed at a later stage depending upon the nature of growth of study centres.

127


ORGANIZATIONAL CONCERNS AND ISSUES In spite of the instructional efforts towards the staff of study centres, there were some pertinent issues that needed to be addressed practically, as follows: 1. Physical location of study centres is a major concern, as the centres that are situated in cities and fairly well-connected towns were able to procure books, while the ones that were situated in remote places in India could not. They did not know from where and how to buy books for the centres’ library. 2. There was a requirement for a specifically recommended and prescribed reading list in every programme, so that those books can be purchased for the library. 3. Lack of library-trained manpower in centres became a reason for calling support from the head quarters. This fact further emphasized on imparting library training to the people working in study centres. When these issues were communicated and discussed, the University officials felt there was a strong need for the parent body to extend library support to the study centres, from the head quarters. The Central Library of the University was requested to coordinate with study centres for extending these services. Thus, the Distance Library Services started with a senior, experienced library professional being assigned an additional charge as Coordinator for Distance Library Services. The expected outcome of this service was supported in addressing various library related issues at the centres by offering virtual information and reference services to the distance learners, on demand and being able to plan for future networking of all centres’ libraries. The factors that were considered before planning library services to distance learners were:

128

1. Location of study centre 2. Age and background of learners, in case of adult and female adult learners 3. Mode of instruction 4. Background of learners, whether working fulltime 5. Array and level of programmes being offered by the distance learning institution For this purpose, the coordinator identified four kinds of services that will be required to be offered. They are: 1. Establishing collection of relevant supporting learning material at individual study centres. As all study centres were already instructed to create a moderate library with the library funds that were allocated, the coordinator’s job was to communicate and take stock of the situation. The centres in-charge were then contacted. In view of their practical difficulties in locating and procuring the recommended reading material for their libraries, support in terms of acquiring the material on their behalf, was extended from the head quarters. The course coordinators were requested to provide recommended reading lists, course reserve lists, and reference texts pertaining to the programmes offered through distance education mode. Their availability in market was then verified. This was tedious but an essential task. The pragmatics of ordering and supplying of these recommended books, the terms and conditions, the turnaround time, payment mode and other formalities all parties involved were studied. After ensuring and fulfilling all the required conditions, the centres were instructed to register their orders with the coordinator. As the books started to be supplied, it rendered some momentum to the centres in initiating library activity. In view of vernacular medium of instruction at some places, the centres were advised to add dictionaries, bi-lingual in nature, and glossaries, to their collection. The centres


were also encouraged to purchase books from reading lists, after discussions with the Course Coordinators and subject experts. As a continuing part of this service, detailed brochures including templates of library records in the form of computer files were supplied to the Centre-in-charges along with tutorials and instructional material on establishing, maintaining and developing their libraries, explaining basic library functions and services, lending procedures and systems were mailed to all centres. Hard copies of this material were also supplied to a few, on demand. The library procedures instructed for the centres were modified, simplified, and customized as per their infrastructure, framework and requirements. Once the centres filed the library accession records into the accession register template, they were requested to send in their accession data to the coordinator; and do so whenever they updated their records. It was observed that the young and tech-savvy personnel at centres shared their data as well as a few snap shots of their libraries with the coordinator, promptly, while the others are doing it over a period of time. Simultaneously, in the Distance Library Services section of the Distance Education Programme, which is presently operational from the Central Library, a database of study centres, their requests, orders and supply, communication, their accession records were maintained. This data is expected to give detailed idea of every centre’s holdings, aids in sharing resources, and planning in future networking. Additionally, a Distance Education Programme library was also set up. Its specific collection is comprised of one set of recommended readings suggested by the Course Coordinators in all programmes, a few reference tools and texts, some books on distance learning as a subject, and one set of the Self Learning Material (SLM) pertaining to the programmes on offer. This is accessible to all Course Coordinators, the faculty, and students from different study centres during their visits to the head quarters.

2. Providing document services. At present, document delivery service is being extended as a part of Distance Library Services to the learners on demand. Turnaround time varies with the nature of document and the location of the study centre. Many times a request is fulfilled in a single day. As the level of programmes and learners advance, there is a growing need for information from varied sources apart from the print based resources, i.e., books that are made available to the learners locally. Besides lending books, providing photocopies and printing service, the centres are encouraged to network with local institutional libraries for external memberships both at the library level as well as learner levels. Here, the copyright issues are addressed as multiple copies of the same information may be distributed to several recipients as a part of this service. 3. Library literacy as a part of information literacy. As the famous Chinese proverb says ‘feed a man with fish, he will eat for the day; teach him how to fish, he will eat for his life’. Extending initial support had set the wheels of centres’ libraries rolling. They have to now learn to sustain and function independently, not only in terms of their library services, but the students also should be taught library and information literacy skills such as accessing library resources and technology. This can be initially supported during Personal Contact Programmes (PCP). 4. Answering information and reference queries. The reference and information queries are presently answered by the coordinator via email, instant online messaging, text messaging, and phone. Generally, distance learners, removed from direct teaching and devoid of face-to-face teaching and interaction, occupy an ambiguous space and are often unsure of how to find additional information

129


resources. Any effort by the librarian to reach out to such learners would definitely be welcomed. Once the librarian bridges this gap with distance learners through electronic/digital media, such as through e-mail, instant messaging, discussion forums and listservs, which are not constrained by time, the distance learners can be at ease in utilizing the resource to seek out information. In the light of these facts, in addition to answering reference queries on demand (i.e., the ‘pull method’), the coordinators have begun to ‘push information’. It is for the users to choose what to take. Interacting with distance learners over a blogging platform is observed to be effective and simple. Hence, a blog for distance library services was initiated. The objectives for creating the blog were to: •

•

•

•

Provide a common platform for the distance learners to interact with the coordinator for their information needs. It was intended to serve as a common platform to share information and support peer learning for the students. Create awareness related to library and information resources among distance learners. Initiate and promote library instruction and information literacy among distance learners. Provide information resources to distance learners through electronic/digital media.

The potential target groups for the blog were the students in the undergraduate and a few postgraduate degree programmes. Though students in the vocational programmes were not the potential audience, the author of the blog posted useful reading materials for course coordinators, developers, mentors, and facilitators who served as teaching mediators at the study centres. The blog initiative was given wide publicity through emails to faculty, staff, and students. Good response was received from course coordinators, developers, administra-

130

tive and academic functionaries at several study centres, as well as some post-graduate students. Of the responses received from students, the majority were from those earning a post-graduate diploma in theology.

SOULTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The important factors that are traced in organizing the distance library service are cost, facilities, personnel, and maintaining public relations. Certain issues were observed in providing distance library services, such as, providing access to materials and document delivery, which need to be more streamlined; consultation services and reference services have to be organized properly at study centre levels, as well as the learners needing to be more informed regarding such facilities so that they can frequently and fervently interact with the distance librarians for fulfilling their information needs.

Information Literacy Concerns Future challenges that are foreseen are related to bibliographic instruction and information literacy instruction. Though developing bibliographic and information literacy media packs is an easy task, penetration and percolation of such material is up to the individual learner at every study centre and is a challenge which needs to be addressed carefully with strategic planning, so that the desired result can be achieved at least pragmatically. One major concern in this regard is the medium of instruction and the language issue at the vocational programmes level. The distance learners enrolled in vocational programmes such as dress designing, come from rural and elderly backgrounds. The elderly female populace in such programmes cannot be expected to learn information literacy skills in a similar fashion as digital literacy or computer literacy in a short


period. As discussed earlier, information literacy comprises of six different kinds of literacy with library literacy and information technology skills at the base (SCONUL, 1999). Such an initiative to be successful and continuous, requires an untiring effort on part of the librarian, as well as the teachers or mentors. Librarians and library services are the supporting role players in an education system. “Developing lifelong learners is central to the mission of higher education institutions” (Association of College & Research Libraries, 2000). This is what information literacy attempts to achieve. Developing information literacy ought to be the responsibility of academic institutions, be it schools, colleges or universities; however, as the librarians today are well versed with IT skills, library skills and with domain knowledge of certain subjects, they can collaborate well with teachers in developing Information Literacy among students. Online tutorials on information literacy in short individual modules can be developed, which can be accessed anywhere, at anytime creating a flexible online learning environment as a collaborative effort of subject specialists, distance librarians, and the instructional design librarian (Lo & Dale, 2009).

Application of innovative Web 2.0 and Social Networking Tools Any initiative will naturally be countered by challenges that need to be met, before it stabilizes. The librarian blogger in this study has limited time to devote to updating and maintaining the library blog. Generally speaking, sometimes a mere 10 to 15 minutes is sufficient, but with a growing readership and an increasing number of topics to cover, time management becomes an increasingly important and necessary skill. Additionally, the blogger being the public face of the department and the parent body, sufficient care should be taken to post only relevant, authentic and quality information, following the University’s guidelines about posting in electronic/digital media.

Other challenges from blogging include the fact that blogs cannot target all audiences regularly. Getting target readers to the blog is another challenge. Unless there is regular response from the target audience, communication remains one-directional. Regular responses or the lack thereof, affect the momentum of the blog. In fact, the overall success of a blog can be measured by patron interaction. While a stat-counter is an effective way to measure the number of hits and visits a blog receives, patron interaction remains the more reliable indicator of its success. There are many other potential uses of blogging. Not only does blogging help to reach out to distance learners but is also useful to communicate with the administrators of various distance learning centres. When an academic institution initiates a distance learning programme, the study centres are also expected to maintain libraries, though small, at their respective centres for the convenience of the students registered with the centre. If the centre is located in an already operating academic location, setting up and/or maintaining the centre’s library does not pose too much of a problem to the centre administrators. If the administrators are new to the field, they may face problems in providing learning and information support to the centres’ students. In such instances, the librarian(s) at the main branch can help support them in establishing and maintaining libraries at the centres. They can adopt various modern electronic/digital methods to interact with the centres’ administrators, such as e-mail, instant messaging, telephone, and so forth, so that the job can be done in a timely and accurate fashion. Blogs are particularly useful in this case. Because of the versatile features of such methods, the librarian can easily and effectively interact with the centres and offer solutions and services efficiently and effectively. With the availability of various collaborative software tools like e-Snips, SlideShare, and embeddable media tools, the librarian can now host a range of instructional materials, audios, videos, podcasts etc., by which

131


to instruct and assist administrators in setting up their own libraries.

REFERENCES Ackoff, R. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http:// www.acrl.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ standards.pdf Distance Education Council. (2009). Norms and guidelines. New Delhi, India: Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www. dec.ac.in/Norms_for_ODL.doc Hufford, J. (2004). Library support for distance learners: What faculty think. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 1(3), 3–28. doi:10.1300/J192v01n03_02 Jerabek, J. (2004). They give credit for that? Accreditation, assessment, and distance library services. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 1(3), 79–86. doi:10.1300/ J192v01n03_06 Lee, M. (2004). Red, white and blues: Library services to a satellite campus. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 1(3), 65–78. doi:10.1300/J192v01n03_05 Leitjau, J. (2009). Breaking out of the Asynchronous Box: Using Web conferencing in distance learning. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 3(3&4), 108–119.

132

Lo, L. S., & Dale, J. M. (2009). Information literacy “learning” via online tutorials: A collaboration between subject specialist and instructional design librarian. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 3(3&4), 148–158. doi:10.1080/15332900903375325 SCONUL. (1999). The seven pillars of information literacy. London: Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL). Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www.sconul.ac.uk/ groups/information_literacy/seven_pillars.html Secker, J., & Price, J. S. (2008). Libraries, distance learners and social software: Providing social spaces to support learning. Proceedings of Towards a Social Science of Web 2.0 Conference. York, UK: University of York. Watson, E. (2003). Developing library and information services for distance education. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from Commonwealth of Learning http://www.col.org/resources/publications/trainingresources/knowledge/Pages/library. aspx Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information environment: Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Distance Learning: An educational system and a process that focuses on the pedagogy, technology, and instructional system designs that aim to deliver education to students who are not physically “on site” in a traditional classroom or campus. A form of learning where the instructor and the students are in physically separate locations. It can be either synchronous or asynchronous; can include correspondence through mail, video or satellite broadcasts, or e-Learning. This kind of learning usually implies the higher educa-


tion level and it connects learners to distributed learning resources. Library Services for Distance Learners: Providing library support services to the distance learners. This includes exploring a variety of non-conventional forms and media to connect the learner with resources as the learner is situated at a distance in terms of physical proximity. Information Literacy: To recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information. It can be divided into six sub-components viz., library literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, network literacy, digital literacy, and visual literacy. Web 2.0: Web 2.0 is the second generation of the World Wide Web. It is the transformation from static WebPages to dynamic and shareable content and social networking. It underlines the fact that the consumer can now play role of a content creator or contributor as well. The term “Web 2.0” is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web, and owes its genesis to Tim O’Reilly. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups, and folksonomies. Library 2.0: Library 2.0 as a subset of library services designed to meet user needs caused by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0 services,

and leveraging concepts of the Read/Write Web using Web 2.0 as Platform. It is the application of interactive, collaborative, and multimedia web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections. The definition includes all implementations of Web 2.0 methodologies and technologies by libraries; however, this concept is not about replacing traditional technologies already in use, but rather about adding functionality. In other words, Library 2.0 is a service model. The heart of Library 2.0 is user-centred change. It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both physical and virtual services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings. Social Networking: The interaction between a group of people who share a common interest, be it personal or professional. In present times, Internet based digital technologies are widely used for this purpose. Social Media: The term social media describes media that is posed by the user and can take many different forms. Essentially they are web-based technologies such as forums, message boards, blogs, wikis and podcasts. Social media applications include Google, Facebook and YouTube etc. It is an umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology and social interaction of people. Social media transform the users from being mere consumers to content producers.

133

Section 3

Cases for Building Quality: Teaching and Learning

135

Chapter 10

Quality MattersTM:

A Case of Collaboration and Continuous Improvement for Online Courses Kay Shattuck Quality Matters and The Pennsylvania State University, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter approaches Quality Matters, an inter-institutional peer review quality assurance program for online learning, from a community of practice perspective. Key foundations of Quality Matters are an undergirding of best practices, antecedent research literature, and recognition of a systems perspective of online distance education. The case begins with scene setting of online education in the early 2000s and continues with description of the response by a small inter-institutional group of online practitioners in Maryland as they problem solved a way to assure an acceptable level of quality to the faculty of shared online courses. The evolution from seed idea through a federal grant to establishment of a not-for-profit program is detailed. The two key components of Quality Matters – the rubric and the process – are presented. Finally, by following the threads of collaboration and continuous improvement, the chapter ends with highlighting the growth of, some emerging data from, and some challenges and recommendations for Quality Matters.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND Quality Matters is a peer review system in which faculty collaborate to assure quality in online courses. Developed under a federal US Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education

(FIPSE) grant, the project evolved into a not-forprofit, subscription-based program. As of December 2010, Quality Matters has 478 subscribers in 45 U.S. States, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Bermuda. More than 7,000 institutional faculty and staff have been trained by Quality Matters.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch010


Quality MattersTM

SETTING THE STAGE Survey reports from the SLOAN Consortium of Institutions and Originations Committed to Quality Online Education document online education growth in the U.S. from an opportunity to be “sized” in 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2003) to a reality “entering the mainstream” in 2004 (Allen & Seaman, 2004) to an arrived position of growth patterns that surpass general enrollments in higher education in 2008 (Allen & Seaman, 2008). The growth of online distance education over the past decade raised the discussion of quality assurance within and outside of the academe. Inglis, Ling, and Joosten (1999) suggested that quality assurance is a term that moved into education from industry more than a half century ago. Best practices and benchmarking are important concepts. Best practices are, “The adoption of work practices which, when effectively linked together, can be expected to lead to sustainable world-class outcomes in quality, customer satisfaction, flexibility, timeliness, innovation and cost-competiveness” (p. 198). Benchmarking, as defined by Inglis, Ling and Joosten is, “the on-going systematic process of measuring and comparing the work processes of one organization with those of another. The purpose of benchmarking is to provide a point of reference for evaluating the improvement in a process” (p. 197). Quality in education generally focuses either on a process or on outcomes. Thompson and Irele (2007) pointed out the confusion of words like “quality”, a term “generally used to refer to program characteristics and processes (technological infrastructure, student services, etc), and “effectiveness” as the term while “effectiveness” more usually refers to outcomes (learning outcomes, participant satisfaction, etc). Moore and Kearsley (2005) provided a widely cited definition of distance education that frames the breadth and multi-levels of quality assurance issues from a systems perspective: “Distance education is planned learning that normally oc-

136

curs in a different place from teaching, requiring special course design and instruction techniques, communication through various technologies, and special organizational and administrative arrangements” (p. 2). From this broader systems view of distance education, Sherry (2003) highlighted three viewpoints of quality – from the institutional level, from an instructor level, and from a learner’s perspective. Ruhe and Zumbo (2009) noted other stakeholders such as accreditation organizations and funders. The issue of quality assurance gathered focused energy as online distance education came to be seen as a serious challenge the accepted standard bearer – traditional, classroom-based education. Therefore, faculty and administrators invested in a culture of traditional, classroombased education can be identified in the list of stakeholders.

MarylandOnline MarylandOnline (MOL) was established in late 1990s as a not-for-profit consortium of 19 community and four-year colleges and universities to facilitate sharing of online courses among members institutions (Shattuck, 2007) and to “leverage the efforts of individual campuses that were committed to the expansion of online educational opportunities in Maryland through collaborative activities” (Legon, 2009, p. 1). MarylandOnline is a voluntary organization that includes presidential level appointments from each member institution to sit on the Board of Directors. The primary work group is the Distance Leaning Initiatives Committee (DLIC). In addition to facilitating the smooth interinstitutional sharing of online courses, members of the DLIC discussed quality assurance and shared faculty development resources. Many DLIC members had been doing so since 1994 when they problem-solved in collaboration with College of the Air. As hands-on practitioners (faculty and distance learning program coordinators/directors), their work included course design, student

Quality MattersTM

support issues, and teaching and faculty development, in addition to technology, management, and administrative experiences. This informal interactive learning can best be understood as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1998; Schön, 1983; Cousin & Deepwell, 2005; Hung, Chee, Hedberg & Thiam-Seng, 2005; Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006). A community of practice is a “group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2006, para. 3). Concepts of domain, community, and practice are key to understanding the dynamics of informal learning that emerges from a group with shared values and “shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems” (para. 5). As a community of practice with a shared history and traditions of cross-institutional collaboration, members of the DLIC used problembased learning (McConnell, 2002) to move quality assurance in shared online courses from a single evaluative activity to a faculty-centered process that would improve online learning. A facultyfocused process would also address the concerns of faculty within their institutions, especially the quality of courses adopted from other MarylandOnline partners. A collaborative process was conceived whereby faculty experienced in teaching online would work together and across MarylandOnline institutions to review sharable online courses. The faculty peer-review system focused on the course design features of an online course, not on the dynamic, teaching (delivery) of the online course. As a voluntary inter-institutional consortium, MarylandOnline has no jurisdiction or desire to monitor faculty evaluations. That function resides within each independent member’s institution. Course design however was viewed as the component of quality assurance that could be discussed at an inter-institutional level. A mini project was conceived and piloted among a few MarylandOnline member institu-

tions. Best practice standards that focused on course design were identified from previous DLIC/MOL faculty development projects. Those projects had been based on Chickering and Ehrmann’s 1996 Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever and on the American Council on Education’s (ACE) 1996 Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in a Learning Society. An informal pilot project was developed at a faculty level, not an administrative one, and focused on professional peers sharing experiences and recommendations for the improvement of the design of a specific online course.

CASE DESCRIPTION In 2003, Maryland Online submitted the idea to US Department of Education’s Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) and was awarded a three-year $509,177 grant to develop a replicable faculty peer review program for the improvement of online education (See Shattuck, 2007, for further historical detail). Ron Legon, the executive director of Quality Matters noted, “The agency was interested in this proposal among many that involved quality assurance in online education because of the prospect of developing standards that would be inter-institutional and inter-segmental and the peer-to-peer structure of the proposed course review process” (p. 1). The Quality Matters rubric of quality course design standards was developed from best practices and supported by existing distance education research. Building on experience from the small, pre-FIPSE project, the faculty-centered peer review process was further developed. The rubric guided the review and recommendations for improvement of an online course by a team of experienced online faculty. In the traditions of collaboration and sharing, partners outside of Maryland, including Kentucky Virtual University, Michigan Virtual Community College Consortium, the Western Cooperative for Educational

137

Quality MattersTM

Telecommunications (WCET), the Sloan-C consortium, and the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) were welcomed to advise the development process. One hundred eleven reviews were completed during the FIPSE grant period (Sener, 2006). A groundswell of interest resulted from the energy put forward in combining a rubric of standards and a faculty-centered process for continuous improvement of online courses. During the last half of the grant period, the Quality Matters project directors disseminated information about the project and delivered a number of presentations at regional, state, and national conferences. The project was recognized in 2005 with the WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) Award and the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) 21st Century Best Practice Award. The direct impact of the FIPSE supported project was on the more than 2,500 faculty and staff from 158 institutions across 28 US states who had participated in the project. In 2006,with the conclusion of the FIPSE grant insight, the Board of Directors of MarylandOnline conducted a study to determine the feasibility and options for the continuation of Quality Matters. The decision was made that MarylandOnline would establish a self-supporting, not-for-profit program using a subscription-based business model. Materials created during the FIPSE grant would be in the public domain, but any future updated versions of the Quality Matters RubricTM or to the peer review process would be copyrighted. As of December 2009, Quality Matters has 365 subscribers in 42 U.S. States, Canada, and Bermuda. More than 5,000 institutional faculty and staff have been trained by Quality Matters.

Underlying Principles of Quality Matters A set of principles informed the development, implementation, and continuation of Quality Matters since the inception of what would become the Quality Matters program. The ultimate goal of the

138

Quality Matters program is to positively impact student learning, satisfaction, and retention in online course by assisting faculty to improve the design of their online courses. This is informed by the principle of utilizing established best practices and instructional design principles in conjuncture of existing distance education research. This value is reflected in the initial development of the rubric (2005 and 2006-2007 versions) and in the development of the post-FIPSE 2008-2010 edition of the Quality Matters RubricTM. The process is a faculty-centered, collegial one that focuses on course design (the forethought or planned structure of a course), and not on evaluation of faculty teaching. As such, only experienced online instructors are eligible to become Quality Matters peer reviewers. In addition, the faculty member whose course is under review is considered a non-reviewing associate of the peer review team. The value of continuous improvement is a key principle. In fact, a course under review does not need to be “perfect” to meet Quality Matters overall standards of quality, but is required to meet a threshold of quality at a “B+” or “85 percent” level – a concept operationalized under the assumption that teachers can relation to that threshold. All courses submitted for Quality Matters peer review are expected to meet overall Quality Matters standards at the B+ or 85 percent threshold – if not initially, then upon consideration and implementation of recommendations from the peer review team. The values of collaboration and a community of practice, in this case, those teaching online are furthered by inclusion of at least one peer reviewer on the peer review team who is external to the institution which houses the course under review. The value of approaching online distance education from a systems approach is furthered by the recognition that the Quality Matters review and improvement process is an integral, but not exclusive component to a whole continuous quality assurance process for institutions.

Quality MattersTM

The Quality Matters RubricTM The Quality Matters RubricTM serves as the guideline for reviewing online courses. It is comprised of eight general standards and forty specific standards. The eight general standards include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Figure 1. Quality Matters: Peer Course Review Process (© Quality Matters, 2009, Used with permission of Dr. Deb Adair, Director, Quality Matters

Course overview and introduction Learning objectives Assessment and measurement Resources and materials Learner engagement Course technology Learner support Accessibility

An overview of the most recent edition of the Quality Matters RubricTM specific standards can be found on the Quality Matters website. The Quality Matters RubricTM is under copyright and available to subscribers in a booklet and electronic format. Reviews are done using a sophisticated online rubric that tracks scores and comments/recommendations from each reviewer and produces a combined final report. Each of the 40 specific standards has a set point value of three, two, or one. Those standards with values of three-points are essential standards and must be successfully addressed in the design of a course, those with values of two points are very important standards, and those with values of one point are important. To meet standards an overall score is require of 85%, including meeting each of the 17 essential standards. The concept of alignment is an important one when working with the Quality Matters RubricTM. Alignment is a basic design principle which requires that the learning objectives are reflected in the assessments and measurements. Those components (objectives and measurements) are connected when the resources and materials, learner engagement (activities), and course technologies are all in place to facilitate and encourage

that students meet the stated learning outcomes as evaluated by the assessments.

The Quality Matters Course Review Process The review process is lead by a chair who has additional training and is an experienced Quality Matters peer reviewer. The team also includes two other active reviewers. Within this group of three peers, one must be a subject matter expert in the discipline of the course under review and at least one reviewer must be from another institution. The faculty member whose course is under review is an associate of the review team. She or he provide background information about the course and can request special attention on problematic areas of the design. Initially, this is done as the instructor completes an electronic instructor worksheet which is the team’s first introduction to the course. The instructor is available during the review to answer questions and is encouraged to act on recommendations whenever possible during the review process. Members of the review team are given student level access to the online course and encouraged to advocate for students as they seek evidence of each of the 40 specific standards. True to the

139

Quality MattersTM

values of collegiality and continuous improvement, a key activity of the review is comments and recommendations made by each reviewer. The Quality Matters training and guidance from the review team chair promote that recommendations must be constructive, specific, measurable, sensitive, and balanced. This is a professional, peer collaboration. The peer review process begins and ends with a team conference call. This process is important as it allows for professional peers to discuss any different observations. The automated scoring on the rubric is not done by consensus, but upon a major rules formula. For example, if two team members think a particular standard is met at the B+, 85% threshold, and the other team member thinks it is not, the major rule would indicate that the standard is met. In the spirit of collaborative openness, all comments and recommendations are included in the final report that is sent directly to the instructor whose course was reviewed. Once the final report is provided to the instructor whose course has been Quality Matters reviewed, she or he is encouraged to work with local supports, including course designers and other faculty members to make necessary modifications to meet Quality Matters standards. The instructor works with the team chair to determine when that is accomplished.

Quality Matters as a Faculty Training and Course Development Tool The Quality Matters RubricTM and process was originally developed under a federal grant for review and improvement of online courses. Even during the grant period training in applying the rubric was a component in preparing and certifying that faculty could serve as a Quality Matters peer reviewer. This training was quickly accepted as a faculty and staff development activity by those involved with Quality Matters. Although only those who actually teach online can serve as peer reviewers, many other supportive and

140

administrative positions eagerly engaged in the training. While not the original purpose of the Quality Matters RubricTM, it has become a tool used by many in the initial development of an online course.

Impact of Quality Matters The impact of Quality Matters has been documented from several viewpoints. •

•

•

A FIPSE-grant follow-up study (Sax & Wells, 2009) found that ninety-seven percent of faculty members who had their courses reviewed by the Quality Matters peer review process would recommend the Quality Matters process to other faculty. Review of the 2008 end of peer review survey indicated that more than 50% peer reviewers report that they make improvements to their own course while reviewing another course (Shattuck, 2009). Aman’s 2009 dissertation reports that, “there may be a carryover effect to nonreviewed courses when an institution commits to the Quality Matters standards” (Shattuck, 2009). He found that student satisfaction is higher in Quality Matters reviewed courses and non-reviewed courses at Quality Matters institutions than in courses at non-Quality Matters institutions. Essentially, he suggested that faculty peer review using a Quality Matters RubricTM provided higher levels of student satisfaction.

Quality Matters provided five research grants to independent researchers during FY10 to investigate the impact of Quality Matters on learning. Quality Matters has no access to student or course records and can only encourage subscribers to conduct research that involves privacy issues. Those results will be shared at the Quality Matters Second Conference in Chicago in June 2010.

Quality MattersTM

CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING QUALITY MATTERS The success of Quality Matters presents a number of challenges. Recommendations will follow in the next section. •

•

•

Responding to Quality Matters subscribers and other interested parties for modification or expansion of the rubric and process into other learning situations and formats. For example: ◦âŠ¦ Improving K-12 online education ◦âŠ¦ Evaluating continuing and professional training courses, especially self-paced courses ◦âŠ¦ Assessing online teaching (delivery) of course ◦âŠ¦ Peer reviewing traditional classroombased course design. Scaling the inter-institutional peer review model to assure rigor of the Quality Matters review process as demand for Quality Matters evolves to a national level of acceptance. (As of December 2009, there were 365 subscribers in 42 U.S. States including 13 state-wide systems, Canada, and Bermuda.) ◦âŠ¦ While the original model was designed to be replicable it was envisioned during the grant period at a smaller level than the reality of the overwhelming national response. Simultaneously facilitating hundreds of course reviews by the small Quality Matters staff soon turned to be a challenge. ◦âŠ¦ The not-for-profit, subscriptionbased business model, along with values of professional sharing and of dissemination with all who wanted to improve online education precludes centralized empire building. Guarding that the faculty collegial focus

•

in the review and improvement process remain a key value in a subscription business model. ◦âŠ¦ The support and involvement of faculty is a key principle and component of the Quality Matters peer review process. Quality Matters is not an evaluation system, but is a supportive peer model. ◦âŠ¦ While subscription rates for institutions are reasonable ($3,000 max for full options subscription) and a statewide/consortia option allows for a $1,000 subscription), they require administrators to make decisions about bringing Quality Matters to an institution. This can extend any existing culture of distrust between of faculty and administration. ◦âŠ¦ As institutions invest in online education additional supportive roles and positions are frequently added, such as course designers and program directors. What is their role within a faculty-centered peer review process? Gathering and using original research for the continuous improvement of the Quality Matters model. ◦âŠ¦ Quality Matters is not a course delivery organization, but a support for those who are. As such, Quality Matters has no access to student records or other confidential data that would be required to show specific impact of Quality Matters on learning. Subscribing institutions control that data. ◦âŠ¦ While broad issues, such as student retention and learning outcomes have been linked directly to the implementation of the Quality Matters model, recognition of the complexity of those issues can make it challenging to single out the impact of Quality

141

Quality MattersTM

•

Matters. ◦âŠ¦ The faculty-centered nature of Quality Matters is missing a real student voice. While each faculty peer reviewer is asked to advocate for students and to review from a student’s perspective, actual students have not been included in the Quality Matters process. Preparing for the possibility that online learning will evolve away from the linear, teacher-student-“classroom” model. ◦âŠ¦ Gaming techniques, spontaneous communities of learning, connectivism, cloud computing, immersion of social networks are just some of the growing list of possibilities that will impact education delivery to a currently unknown degree. What will be Quality Matters’ response?

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To the above challenges, the following recommendations are made: •

142

Regarding the requests of a rubric and process that can be applied at a K-12 and at professional training levels: It can be noted that Quality Matters has recently worked in partnership with the Florida Virtual School to modify and to field test the Quality Matters rubric and process for Grades 6-12. It can also be noted that there is some discussion at a staff level of modification and utilization of the Quality Matters rubric and process in with professional training courses which are often self-paced. It would be prudent for Quality Matters staff to facilitate focused discussion with members of the Quality Matters’ Academic Advisory Committee and oth-

er invited experts on the conditions and types of interactions required in self-paced course designs. Regarding the requests for a rubric and process to assess online teaching and for traditional classroom-based course designs: Quality Matters was envisioned and built to focus on course design as one of the key, but not exclusive, components in assuring quality in online education. There are a myriad of online teaching rubrics available elsewhere. However, Quality Matters training might consider additional “faculty development” offerings to approach the issue from a “teaching voice” (Donald, Blake, Girault, Datt & Ramsey, 2009) perspective to open discussion on the impact of teaching philosophy on both design and teaching online. Those close to the existing Quality Matters process can easily see the challenges of making a distinction between course design and delivery in a traditional classroom and of the magnitude of inter-institutional team reviewing the design of a whole course within traditional semester-based classroom setting. It is recommended that Quality Matters make a statement about that on their website. They might consider recommending that Quality Matters subscribers might want to adapt elements of the Quality Matters rubric for the traditional formats of delivery. •

Scaling the inter-institutional peer review model to assure rigor of the Quality Matters review process as demand for Quality Matters evolves to a national level of acceptance. Implementation of subscription options/levels is laudable. This allows more tailored usage of the Quality Matters Rubric TM and process, especially since it is widely known that the Quality Matters Rubric TM is frequently adapted to course design and development phases within institutions. However, the key to maintaining the rigor and validity of the Quality

Quality MattersTM

•

•

Matters Rubric TM is that it remains under copyright for the official version. Any new version will be announced and disseminated to subscribers. Only the official Quality Matters RubricTM will be used in an official Quality Matters review. Quality Matters is to be commented in allowing for training of potential peer reviewers to be available by subscribing institution staffing. Assurance of rigor within the review process was addressed by new required train-the-trainer sessions and with additional requirements for those to serve as chairs on an official peer review. It is recommended that there be some follow-up study to determine that inter-rater reliability is maintained. Guarding that the faculty-centered, collegial focus in the review and improvement process remains a key value in a subscription business model. It is recommended that Quality Matters develop a strategy to increase interaction with faculty who are working within new Quality Matters subscribing institutions. The assumption can no longer be made that it was a faculty-led decision to participate in Quality Matters and faculty need to understand that it remains at-heart a faculty-driven, collegial process of improving online course design. Presenting at faculty-oriented conferences and publishing in academic/discipline journals is recommended. Quality Matters is to be commended for encouraging course designers and others necessary to assure quality from a systems perspective. Gathering and using original research for the continuous improvement of the Quality Matters model: Quality Matters staff is to be commented on setting processes in place for the collection of data. While some of that data is reviewed for specific comments regarding the rubric and the process, the data has not been sys-

•

tematically analyzed. It is recommended that Quality Matters invite a few graduate students with appropriate credentials and interest to conduct a complete analysis of the existing data. The result would be a fine contribution to the research literature. It is further recommended that Quality Matters establish some research strategies for tackling the relationship of student retention, student learning, and course design. Preparing for the possibility that online learning will evolve away from the linear, teacher-student-“classroom” model. It is recommended that Quality Matters take the lead in raising this issue nationally. An invitational summit to include distance education theoreticians and researchers to open the discussion would be appropriate.

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003, November). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ sizing_opportunity.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004, November). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/ files/entering_mainstream_1.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008, November). Staying the courses: Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ staying_the_course.pdf

143

Quality MattersTM

American Council on Education. (1996). Guiding principles for distance learning in a learning society [Brochure]. Washington, DC: ACE Central Services. American Council on Education. (2001). Distance learning: Evaluation guide [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Center for Adult Learning and Educational Credentials. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http:// www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html Cousin, G., & Deepwell, F. (2005). Designs for network learning: A community of practice perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 57–66. doi:10.1080/0307507052000307795 Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design: Past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179–199. doi:10.1080/01587910903023181 Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 159–171. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00171.x Hung, D., Chee, T. S., Hedberg, J. G., & Thiam Seng, K. (2005). A framework for fostering a community of practice: Scaffolding learners through an evolving continuum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 159–176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00450.x Inglis, A., Ling, P., & Joosten, V. (1999). Delivering digitally: Managing the transition to the knowledge media. London: Kogan Page, Limited. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

144

Legon, R. (2009). The Quality Matters program. In Rogers, P. L., Berg, G. A., Boettecher, J. V., Howard, C., Justice, L., & Schenk, K. D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. McConnell, D. (2002). Action research and distributed problem-based learning in continuing professional education. Distance Education, 23(1), 59–83. doi:10.1080/01587910220123982 Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Quality Matters. (n.d.) Quality matters rubric. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http:// Quality Mattersinstitute.org/home/Public%20 Library/About%20Quality Matters/RubricStandards2008-2010.pdf Ruhe, V., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Evaluation in distance education and e-learning. New York: The Guilford Press. Sax, C., & Wells, M. (2009, October). Transforming power of the Quality Matters rubric and process. Presentation at The 15th Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL. Schön, D. W. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Sener, J. (2006). Quality Matters project final evaluation report. (FIPSE Grant P116B030646) Shattuck, K. (2007). Quality Matters: Collaborative program planning at a state level. Online Distance Learning Administration, 10(3). Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdla/fall103/shattuck103.htm Shattuck, K. (2009, August). Research guiding and flowing from practice. Presentation at The 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI.

Quality MattersTM

Sherry, A. C. (2003). Quality and its measurement in distance education. In Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 435–459). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thompson, M. M., & Irele, M. E. (2007). Evaluating distance education programs. In Moore, M. G. (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 419–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wenger, E. (2006, June). Community of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Online Learning: the process of achieving knowledge and skills within a web-based environment.

Distance Education: a system of education in which communication technologies are used to connect the learner with the instructor and the teaching institution. Special attention to course design, teaching strategies, and learner support are required. Online Best Practices: standards of quality established by experienced online educators based on their practice and vetted with a community of practice. Online Course Design: the instructional mapping of how an online course will produce specific learning goals. Peer Review: the process in which colleagues work collaboratively to improve their own work. Quality Assurance: a deliberate process in which designated outcomes are identified and strategies for effective achievement of those is planned. Community of Practice: an informal group of colleagues who share a common history of problem solving and focused

145

146

Chapter 11

Charting Student Physical Locations in the Virtual World Terence Cavanaugh University of North Florida, USA Elinor A. Scheirer University of North Florida, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Distance-learning courses are primarily designed for Internet-based asynchronous delivery of instruction. This case describes the use of Web 2.0 GIS technologies to create a graphic representation of student locations on an interactive map. This class map then became a multi-purpose resource for online class members and the instructor: to locate and highlight students’ distances from the instructor and among themselves; to remind the instructor to be sensitive to possible effects of locations on students due to environmental factors such as weather conditions; to help the instructor tailor proximity-based resources or course requirements for students; to help the instructor connect distance-learning students with each other geographically for group projects based on their locations; and to facilitate the efforts of students and the instructor in identifying locally available resources relevant to their coursework.

EDUCATIONAL SETTING The students in this case were enrolled in online courses in order to achieve a variety of career goals. Some focused on becoming technology-using developers of materials and media for their own and their students’ learning, and others intended to become leaders in the use of educational technology within their organizations. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch011

The online course sections were offered to students who were enrolled in educational technology courses comprising a graduate educational technology track within several master’s-degree majors or serving as electives within the educational leadership program. The majority of the students were educators in K-adult organizations. Geographically, the students resided within the state in which the course originated. However, during the terms in which the courses were offered, some of the students as well as the instruc-


Charting Student Physical Locations in the Virtual World

tor traveled beyond state and national borders. These students ranged in technology experience from sophisticated users of media and Web-based technologies to others who possessed only the basic skills necessary for enrolling in a distancelearning course. The instructor for the courses described in this case was an assistant professor of instructional technology with 26 years of teaching experience across all levels of public education, 11 of those years as an educator using distancelearning formats in higher education. The university offering the courses described in this case is a comprehensive, state-supported, fully accredited institution located in the southeastern region of the United States with a total enrollment of approximately 16,000 students and a graduate enrollment of approximately 15% of the total enrollment. Of the university’s courses offered in a particular term, Internet-delivered, distance-learning courses comprise between 4% and 6% of the total course offerings, depending on the semester. The courses in the case were offered by the College of Education, which is accredited by the department of education at the state level, accredited by its regional association, and accredited by professional organizations at the national level.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Distance-learning experiences are becoming increasingly common within professional teachereducation courses. These experiences may be synchronous or asynchronous and may occur within blended courses or be the defining characteristic of the courses. Indeed, they comprise significant elements of the ecology of professional learning and teaching within universities at the beginning of the 21st century. Given rapidly changing technologies, the development and implementation of courses including distance learning have been dynamic and fluid experiences in pedagogical innovation.

As faculty design the structure of these courses, they also experiment with particular pedagogical strategies and tools to achieve their instructional goals. Understanding how such pedagogical decisions occur and the nature of their impact on subsequent learning and teaching not only can inform the further development of the courses themselves, but also can contribute to professional knowledge about the potential of individual pedagogical tools within distance-learning environments. In addition, examination of the processes behind these decisions can provide insight into how innovation occurs as faculty and students work with instructional tools within the context of distance-learning courses. Asynchronous, Internet-based, distance-learning courses have become common in online learning environments for the delivery of postsecondary education. During the 2006–2007 school year, 66% of the 2-year and 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the U.S. offered college-level distance-education courses, with approximately 11,200 college-level programs designed to be completed totally through distance education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008). Asynchronous Internet-based technologies were the most widely used technology for instructional delivery within the courses offered. Although many students may be selecting online courses for convenience or increased access, their educational needs still extend beyond the provision of the delivery of content. The North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL, 2007) has identified elements for effective distance-learning courses including student-centeredness and the use of constructivist pedagogies such as projects to build upon students’ current understanding (Bruner, 1966). Distance-learning courses and programs should be designed to meet students’ learning needs by providing content and activities delivered across a spectrum of options that align with different visual, auditory, and hands-on learning styles and address many of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (1993).

147


Several arguments support the use of asynchronous online teaching and learning. The sharing of information among students about each other and about content has been shown to increase students’ sense of community within a class (Cutler, 1995), which in turn leads to increased social interaction. The ability of the online environment to foster interaction and collaboration among a diverse and geographically dispersed group of students has been noted as one of its positive attributes. Furthermore, such efforts within online courses can create more democratic environments for communication because they allow learners time for research, development, and reflection (McComb, 1993). In addition, socialization is central to cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978), a principle from learning theory that leads to the necessity for the application or integration of collaborative activities within course design in order to promote student engagement and thereby learning. Therefore, reducing the social distance in an asynchronous environment is not only possible, but also desirable. However, asynchronous distance-learning courses can face challenges in meeting this student need for collaborative or interactive activities. For example, students can become anxious as they adapt to asynchronous interactions within the online classroom (Irwin & Berge, 2006), a reality leading to the identification of the lack of social interactions as one of the top eight barriers to online learning (Berge & Muilenburg, 2005). Most current asynchronous forms of dialogue within Internet-delivered course-management systems (CMSs), such as Blackboard and Moodle, rely heavily on text, with visual collaborative elements being reserved for the more synchronous course designs. However, the digital resources available today, which can be integrated or accessed through a CMS environment, do allow for incorporating rich media experiences to engage the learner’s attention and thereby to address many individuals’ learning styles (Dede, Dieterle, Clarke, Ketelhut & Nelson, 2007; Reeves, 1998).

148

THE PEDAGOGICAL CASE FOR MAPPING This case describes how one faculty member used a digital tool, the class map, to display the physical location of students on an updatable map as a community-building resource to support pedagogical purposes. From the class map’s initial use, its role in shaping instruction extended over several semesters as a key element in an asynchronous, Internet-delivered, educational technology graduate course within two master’s programs in education. Thus, this case focuses on two teaching processes—first, the implementation and repurposing of an instructional activity and, secondly, the development of one faculty member’s personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) regarding the use of technological tools within graduate, distance-learning environments. Further, the case also depicts how the environment of online graduate courses could be adapted to promote constructivist learning using Web 2.0 technologies. The class-map tool summarized data provided by students about themselves in a visual/spatial format on a map displayed within the course management system (CMS). Its purpose was to create a shared interactive map as a graphical form of dialogue and to build community in order to enhance students’ social presence within the online course environment (Rovai, 2002). Along with this focus on teaching practices was an analysis of how the instructor developed professional knowledge through reflection on the educational processes used. In this setting, the instructor’s reflective journal entries provided a means to analyze both the use of the pedagogical tool and its significance in developing student learning in educational technology that, in turn, led to further development of the course activities in subsequent semesters. These processes of reflection, used in order to expand and refine teaching, demonstrate Schön’s (1983) reflection-in-action, a framework for practice moving from problem


identification to experimentation to analysis based on prior knowledge. In addition, Louden’s (1991) 16 categories for pedagogical reflection—along the dimensions of the purposes for reflection and the forms of reflection—also organized the faculty member’s pedagogical thinking and the documentation of both the changes that occurred and the rationale for such changes. Within this perspective, reflection occurred in reference to solving a pedagogical problem using strategies of inquiry.

Technology Concerns Course management systems (CMSs) both support asynchronous forms of dialogue using tools such as threaded discussions, blogs, and wikis, and support synchronous forms of dialogue using tools such as chat and shared applications. These CMS-supported forms of dialogue are typically text-based, with the exception of shared applications. Figure 1 illustrates the range of synchronous and asynchronous tools used in online courses and the comparative forms of control over the collaboration supported by each tool (Cavanaugh & Cavanaugh, 2008). Tools that fall near the democratic end of the control spectrum are those that allow equal participation and control among students and instructors. In contrast, tools near the authoritarian end of the spectrum tend to be dominated by only one or a few individuals.

The class-map tool falls in the upper right quadrant of the figure because it enables democratic interaction within an asynchronous CMS.

Technology Components The class-map tool can be used in online courses to create a shared interactive map summarizing data provided by students about themselves within a visual/spatial format (Cavanaugh & Cavanaugh, 2008) and displayed within a CMS. These interactive maps are Web 2.0 tools for social networking and user-created content that hold potential for collaborative work in distance education (Moore, 2007). The class map integrates social, visual, and spatial media with an interactive geographic map as a form of dialogue going beyond text-based community dialogue tools. The process of the students constructing the class map acts as a graphical form of dialogue, providing a supplement to the other CMS-supported forms of dialogue including threaded discussion, blogs, and wikis. The development of shared course maps requires three components: an online tool to identify longitude and latitude from a street address, a shared data set for the longitude and latitude data provided by each student, and the map to display the location data. The Geographic Information System (GIS) tools used also needs to be compatible for use in a Web-delivered course, relatively easy to use, capable of producing a quick and

Figure 1. Synchronous and asynchronous tools used in online classes (Cavanaugh & Cavanaugh, 2008)

149


understandable graphical display, and be freely accessible. In each online course, an interactive (GIS)based map was used to build student experiences with Web 2.0 tools and to have students interact in the online environment. GIS systems input, store, retrieve, and analyze data sets corresponding to geographic locations, often in the form of maplike spatial representations. Using Google Maps and a shared, linked online editable data set, the course instructor created interactive digital maps on which the students interacted spatially with each other. The interactive class maps supported active participation in the course and put the students in control as they visualized the relationships between other course members’ locations and themselves. After the initial use of the class-map tool as a discrete activity, the shared map system became the home page for the course. That is, when students entered the CMS, the web page with the course map was displayed first.

Implementation Once the functionality of the mapping tools within the CMS had been successfully tested, student instructions were developed and placed within the course. The collaborative class map (See Figure 2) contributed to the class design, reflecting the Sloan-C Pillar of Quality Online Education that is central to student learning, “learning effectiveness” (Sloan, n.d.). The class map assisted with the learning effectiveness pillar for effective practices related to course design, learning resources, interaction, and learning outcomes. The goal of this pillar is providing quality learning experiences. In this pillar, as in the course that used the map, community building is emphasized. An assignment was developed for the students, so that at the beginning of the course, one of the initial assignments was to participate in the map development. To facilitate the students’ sense of connection with their peers in the course, the class map was posted in the initial opening page of the

150

course within the CMS. Students added locations to the map to represent themselves. Some students chose to post their work locations, others posted their current home addresses, and others posted their hometowns. In each course section, several students and the instructor updated their location postings to indicate their travels during the course, and thus provided real-time updates on activities. In addition, using collaborative resources, students added other information to the map: their names, places of work, course goals, and other general personal information. The information was then saved and then automatically updated on the map display after each person had added his or her information. The GIS data were plotted on a Google Map that was then placed in the CMS (see Figure 2). The interactive class map embodies the central Web 2.0 concept of social networking though user-created content with the potential for collaborative knowledge-building in distance education (Moore, 2007), especially through the use of collaborative tools that can reduce student isolation. While the primary purpose of the shared student location maps was to provide the students with experience in using Web 2.0 tools, the activity produced significant additional effects among Figure 2. Digital map of student locations placed in course management system. © 2009 Google, Map Data © 2009 LeadDog Consulting, Tele Atlas. Used with permission.


the students by enhancing their social presence within the course.

THE CASE’S USE OF REFLECTIVE JOURNALING The role of reflection in promoting professional growth has a long history in American education. Beginning with Dewey, the connections among thinking, inquiry, and education set the stage for reflection as a resource for teachers in both understanding and improving their practice (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988). This perspective, coupled with Schön’s (1983) description of the process of reflection-in-action, have led teachers to adopt strategies that use reflection to clarify their personal practical knowledge (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) and to foster their development as reflective practitioners (Schön, 1983). Journaling is one such strategy to encourage professional growth and practice—taught explicitly in many teacher-education programs and recognized as important in the professional lives of many educators (Holly, 1989). In this case, the instructor—one of the coauthors of this chapter—used journaling as a way to document his efforts in repurposing a technological tool and thereby to understand more clearly how pedagogical innovation might occur in the university classroom. The journal entries revealed the subtle processes of learning from practice and using such insight to improve instruction. What follows are excerpts from these entries to describe how the process of reflection led to thinking and subsequently to changes in practice.

First Feelings: Distance Learning, Not for Distance Sake I first adapted the class-map concept from a mapping literature project that I was working on as a reading activity for K-12 instruction. From my experiences in creating the maps for literature, I felt

that constructing a class map would be something easy enough for entry-level technology users to be able to apply as a Web 2.0 collaborative activity. This activity occurred toward the latter half of the course. The students were indeed successful in using the collaborative spreadsheet tied to the map display. Once completed, the results gave me insight regarding my students that I had not had before. What I noticed from the display of the student locations showed me that, in that initial online class, all of my students were within what was considered standard driving distance to the university, but that they had not taken the course when offered in person. Although I could have figured this out from reading their personal introductory writings at the beginning of the course, that realization had not developed into a visual sense of where students were located within a physical space. Instead, my thoughts had previously focused on the content areas and grade levels that students taught rather than their physical locations. Many of the schools that they mentioned were unfamiliar to me. I then realized that most students do not elaborate on their school locations; they just give their school names and expect others to be familiar with their school districts and to know where their schools are located. The map display of the students’ locations demonstrated to me that they were not taking a distance-learning course because of prohibitive driving distances to campus, but instead were more likely influenced by other factors, such as time of course offerings and convenience and access to campus.

Class Representation Via a Visualization Tool Once I had the class map created as part of a class activity and I was observing and grading students’ participation and work on their course projects, I realized that the map was allowing me to see my class as a whole, composed of multiple parts via individual student placemarkers on the map display. My view of the class as a whole reminded

151


me of how you see a class when the students are in a room and seated in desks or chairs. Before that realization, the only other real class representation that I had was the roster name lists or gradebook. This class map instead seemed more real as representative of the group of students, not only indicating the locations of the students, but also providing information about them—where they lived and worked, where they were in relation to me, and so on. This spatial representation of my class, occupied by a number of students, provided a sense of the whole that a text list never did. I also feel that the map imparts to the students the sense that they are part of a group. Often in online classes, students feel isolated as they take courses, especially when they think back to inperson classes they may have taken. Instead of coming into a room and seeing a number of other students in your situation, in the online environment students usually only see themselves and the teacher-created or selected content within the course management system. I feel that the class map helps to remind students that they are not alone with only an online information resource of the teacher in some other location. Instead, the class map helps them see that they are part of a larger group composed of a number of students who are all taking the class.

Movement of the Introductory Activity to the Home Page for Teambuilding Once the initial class-map activity was completed by the students, I noticed that they then moved on and did not return to the online class location where the map was housed. I concluded that the students had seen the map as just another activity among many and had not seen the possibilities of the visual representation. I also feel that the use of the activity later in the course contributed to their not returning to the map; they had not developed a “habit” of using the tool for other purposes. In order to move the activity from just being a

152

Web 2.0 collaborative experience to one more of teambuilding, I moved the timing of the activity to the first class activity completed in the online environment. This timing ensured that all students saw the map, not just once as they participated in its construction, but multiple times. I made the map a component part of the online course home or initial screen so that every time students entered the course environment, they would see the class map and be reminded that they were part of a group and not just a single student using an online interface to interact with a teacher. In this way, the class map can help build feelings of community and decrease transactional distance.

Program Support for Distance Learning From Administrators As the class map was being integrated into the course frameworks, the educational technology program was also being developed as an online program. One issue that had been discussed with administrators involved the recruitment of students into the program and how faculty were going to recruit students from across the state who might be located 600 miles from campus. Possible strategies included recruiting at state conferences and advertising in state journals. However, when some of the initial classes were scheduled online, the enrollment numbers were doubling and sometimes tripling in comparison to face-to-face classes. The class map brought to the administration a visual representation of data that indicated that the vast majority of the increase in enrollment actually was due to students who were classified as local students, but who preferred online options. The initial decision was that recruitment efforts needed to be no different than those already used within our programs.

A Form of Social Networking The class map creates a form of social networking, initially as a shared activity, and then as a sup-


port for shared interests. I noticed that with the introductory writing of blogs, more students were writing to each other with questions about their schools. This process had not occurred prior to the use of the class map when individual students submitted their own postings with only infrequent responses from others, most likely people whom they already knew. But with the map visible, the number of questions and comments shared with others increased. This interaction was especially true in a class that included international students, thereby also raising awareness of the diversity of the students enrolled in the online class. While similar students had enrolled in the courses prior to the use of the class map, after its use students actually seemed to notice each other’s locations. I see the class map also as a light form of a virtual environment; that is, although the students were not interacting with each other directly, such as in a synchronous environment like Second Life, they were interacting in an asynchronous format in a way that would have been impossible previously. With the class map, an environment was created that used very few resources, such as bandwidth and processing, but that still created a “place” where the students could “see” each other.

Social Networking for Students to Interact Locally With Others The class map not only encouraged students to interact more with each other in a social virtual environment, it also facilitated the process of students meeting face-to-face. The maps helped students find each other locally, to the extent that two students who did not know each other well discovered in the class that they worked at the same school. Students who were in close proximity to each other sometimes became project partners, sometimes turned to each other for assistance with their work, and even formed study groups. The maps assisted in getting the students together because they were reminded that they were not alone in a class and that actually there were often

students living relatively close to them. These student connections reminded me of the Levanthal social experiments (Gladwell, 2000) during which the availability of a map resulted in 28% of a given population subsequently visiting a particular location, an increase from the previous rate of 3% visiting the location. Gladwell referred to this phenomenon as the Stickiness Factor. In these courses, the concept of the class group became more memorable with the addition of a visualization tool and thus more likely to be used within course activities; and, such a modification required only minor changes in the presentation and structure of the student-shared information within the CMS.

Timing Of Course Events I noticed a change in my own behaviors regarding time. Although the classes that I taught were asynchronous in their delivery, there were still synchronous events, such as online office hours, student virtual presentations to the classes, and assignment deadlines. The class map acted as a constant reminder that I needed to inform students who were in different time zones of the actual times of the meetings. It was no longer sufficient to post to the classes announcements that a meeting was on Tuesday at 8 PM; I also had to include information about the time zone. Because other issues in reference to time might be relevant—for example, the use of daylight savings time in different locations, I added additional resources to the courses in the form of world clock converters where the students could identify the time in my location and then calculate the time for themselves in their locations.

Awareness of Weather Conditions Along with an increase in time consciousness, there was also an increase in awareness of weather conditions. Classes that used the class map have faced weather conditions such as ice storms, tropi-

153


cal storms, and hurricanes, all outside of my local area. Because classes had students living outside the region where the campus was located, I became more aware of weather conditions in their areas. And, because I saw the class map at least daily, I viewed weather forecasts for other locations more attentively. With that information, I would adapt course requirements proactively instead of reactively by communicating with specific students regarding due dates for assignments. This process prevented me from trying to contact students about missing work when they were either unreachable or unable to complete the work due to power outages or area evacuations. This information also made students more aware of weather conditions where the course was housed; for example, with the approach of a hurricane, students communicated with me and were able to make alternative arrangements before the campus closed.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of the journal entries reveals the processes used by the instructor in repurposing the class-map tool as a key component for online graduate courses in education. Figure 3 reflects the descriptions in the journal entries as they chronicled the development of the use of the tool from a discrete activity among many course assignments to an initial activity framing course experiences. Further, the diagram depicts how the faculty member’s use of the class-map tool both highlighted common pedagogical challenges in distance education and indicated possibilities for enhanced student engagement in course activities. The use of the visualization tool increased the faculty member’s awareness of the class as a whole and of individuals within it in terms of their geographic locations. Such awareness led to course accommodations to take into account students’ working in different time zones and the effects of weather conditions that students may be facing

154

Figure 3. The impact of integrating a map visualization tool for community within a distancelearning class

in different locales. In addition to highlighting these practical challenges, the tool also assisted in developing in-person networking among students and better directing students to locally available resources, field-based opportunities, and information such as educational standards that may vary from place to place. The class map also became useful in matching students geographically for group projects and for displaying locations of relevance to course content. Importantly, this case describes how the faculty member himself moved from the use of the tool as a discrete activity to using the tool to develop a concept of the class as a whole including the individuals within it, similar to how one might view an on-campus class. This stage led subsequently to deliberately capitalizing on its potential as a key component of course structure. It also became apparent that students’ distance from the institution’s physical location may not be as central a variable influencing their enrollment in online graduate courses as originally presumed. Such awareness thus led to a more complex understanding of the dynamics relevant to program and course devel-


opment in online graduate education. Throughout this process of rethinking and repurposing the use of the class-map tool, the instructor became aware that additional possibilities may be inherent in technological tools beyond those applications for which they were originally designed. Distance-learning courses for adults are now designed primarily for Internet-based asynchronous delivery of instruction, a course structure creating distance among students in both time and location. As more courses are developed for this medium and as students select asynchronous learning for greater flexibility in their learning times and places, effective community-building tools are needed to provide information to the students and the instructor concerning the makeup of the class and to support student learning and satisfaction in this course delivery model. The use of class maps can contribute much to meeting these needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE Analysis of this pedagogical case contributes to our understanding of graduate online education in several ways. First, it underscores how the classmap tool can integrate social, visual, and spatial media with an interactive geographic map using free or open-source applications. As such, the tool is extremely cost-effective in the implementation of an online course. The tool itself requires little time for an instructor to add to a course, so that the cost-benefit of using the tool far outweighs the effort invested for its use. A second practical implication drawn from the case for other graduate programs relates to program development for online learning. Information generated by the class-map tool indicated that many students enrolled were not located at a great distance from campus. This information thus increased the instructor’s awareness that the development of online graduate courses may

involve consideration of more student variables and preferences for learning environments than merely their distance from the physical location of the institutions offering the courses. In addition, the use and development of this class-map tool over several semesters highlighted how using a simple tool can help address major challenges faced by both instructors and students in online courses, such as conceptual and intellectual isolation and the omission of the contributions of social contexts in promoting teaching and learning. Thus, analysis of this case suggests the possibility that other tools may also hold similar latent benefits beyond their original purposes. Indeed, this description of the repurposing of an instructional activity in educational technology not only indicates how such activities might evolve within courses in higher education but also reminds us how faculty processes in repurposing tools and pedagogies can contribute to the quality of teaching and learning within complex learning environments. Because most online courses are primarily asynchronous in the delivery of instruction, it is important to develop tools to better reach these students. Not only did the use of the class map in this setting positively influence the sense of community among the students, it also influenced how the faculty member structured class activities and assignments.

REFERENCES Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269 Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

155


Cavanaugh, T., & Cavanaugh, C. (2008). Interactive maps for community in online learning. Computers in the Schools, 25, 3–4. doi:10.1080/07380560802367811

Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In Moore, M. G. (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 89–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press.

North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2007). National Standards for Quality Online Teaching. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://www.inacol.org/resources/nationalstandards/NACOL%20Standards%20Quality%20 Online%20Teaching.pdf

Cutler, R. H. (1995). Disturbed presence and community in cyberspace. Interpersonal Communication and Technology: A Journal for the 21st Century, 1(2), 12-32. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/ optek/1995/n2/cutler.txt Dede, C., Dieterle, E., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning styles. In Moore, M. G. (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 339–352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown & Company. Holly, M. L. (1989). Writing to grow: Keeping a personal-professional journal. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Irwin, C., & Berge, Z. (2006). Socialization in the online classroom. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 9(1). Louden, W. (1991). Understanding teaching: Continuity and change in teachers’ knowledge. London: Cassell. McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer-mediated communication in a small college setting. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 1(3), 1993.

156

Reeves, T. C. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools: A research report prepared for the Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/ edit6900/BertelsmannReeves98.pdf Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Sloan Consortium. (n.d.). The five pillars of quality online education. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/5pillars U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009-044) Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044. pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Asynchronous: Not synchronous; digital communication that is occurring among users at different times.


CMS (Course Management System): Software program used to manage and publish online information. Common course-based CMSs include Blackboard, WebCT, and Moodle. Digital Map: electronic representation of an area, displaying the spatial relationships among elements. GIS (Geographic Information System): Software program that inputs, stores, retrieves, and analyzes data sets corresponding to geographic

locations, often in the form of map-like spatial representations. Reflection: The process of looking at one’s own teaching in order to understand its meaning and to improve practice. Web 2.0: Second generation of the World Wide Web, using sharable content and social networking. Social Network: a social structure made of individuals connected though a shared resource.

157

158

Chapter 12

Technology-Supported Constructivism Melodee Landis University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter asserts that the processes used in on-line, computer-based distance learning are a natural fit for constructivist learning. Learners today may be too dependent on teacher-centered instruction; the independent problem-solving required of the learner in on-line learning may be more likely to stimulate a deeper grasp of concepts under study. This case study was conducted with five face-to-face meetings and an online course management tool. While the enrollment of seventy-two new teachers appeared unmanageable, the use of on-line learning communities helped to personalize the course. The chapter includes an overview of constructivist approaches to instruction, citing both classic and contemporary experts, and continues with a description of how technology was used to support constructivism. The chapter concludes with an analysis of specific technology tools that can enhance different stages of constructivist learning.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND The College of Education in the University of Nebraska at Omaha serves the metro area of Omaha, Nebraska. Partnerships for course delivery are often formed between the College and its urban and suburban districts. These courses

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch012

are delivered to in-service teachers for graduate program credits.

SETTING THE STAGE The course described in this chapter was a collaborative effort. A suburban school district of metro Omaha, Nebraska, was interested in their newly inducted teachers receiving advanced training in


Technology-Supported Constructivism

three instructional approaches: Madeline Hunter (in Hunter, 2004), Robert J. Marzano (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001). and differentiation. The district was willing to pay the tuition of the teachers and provided two staff members to assist with the course. The University offered the three-credit course titled “Productive Approaches”. Two or three University instructors participated in the delivery of the course during each of the two semesters examined here.

CASE DESCRIPTION Take a moment to consider the common experience many newcomers have with distance learning. If it is their initial experience with learning on-line, the first reaction is often confusion or shock. There is a sense of isolation in comparison to traditional schooling modes. Learners’ comments indicate that they feel lonely, even abandoned. There is often an expression of floundering or being adrift without a rudder. Some are just not sure how to behave, what to do first, what to do next. These emotions have been expressed by students of all ages but the discomfort appears to be especially acute for individuals who call themselves “people” persons and those who have little experience with technology. While our first instinct is to try to assuage our learners’ discomfort, perhaps it is time to consider whether it is malaise that will promote the growth needed in our learners at this point in time. If we look more closely at this adjustment period, we might recognize Jean Piaget’s (1985) process of adaptation at work. As we emerge from the pall of standardized tests and recognize the dire need for higher levels of understanding and analytic capabilities, perhaps we will find that one of the most powerful combinations for reintroducing introspection and independent scholarship is through constructivism powered by modern technologies. The applications available today have the potential to help learners not only equal

traditional learning, but to improve learning if used in combination with research-proven constructivist strategies (Dusca, 1975; Jonassen, 1991, 2000; Strommen & Lincoln, 1992; Blumberg, Everson, & Rabinowitz, 2004). Consider the tools that modern technology can offer in the Richardson’s (1997) description of Piagetian-style constructivist instruction to achieve higher conceptual levels: In order to reach these higher levels. Students must be actively engaged in reconstructing their existing understandings by restructuring their cognitive maps. The teacher encourages this in two ways: facilitating an environment in which students undergo a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, and devising tasks that hopefully lead to a reorganization of existing cognitive maps. By and large, this has been translated into instructional practices such as hands-on activities (for example, the use of manipulables); the engagement of students in tasks that are meant to challenge their concepts and thinking processes; and certain forms of questioning that dig deeply into students; beliefs, turn the beliefs into hypotheses, and provide a non-threatening atmosphere in which those beliefs may be examined. (p. 5) The nature of the on-line and distance learning experience seems a logical fit for this emphasis on individual construction: 1. Technology-based learning requires the learner to shift into an independent mode of learning that is not nurtured by the average modern classroom (Goodlad, 2004). 2. The “cognitive dissonance” experienced by the learner in this new environment forces the learner to develop new schema, new modes of learning, new “habits of mind” (Marzano et al., 1988) that move the responsibility for learning from the teacher to the student.

159


3. Presentation and graphics tools can aid the learner in first acquiring knowledge and then depicting knowledge in visual forms. 4. The anonymity of on-line learning provides a more secure environment for self expression by those who are reticent in the traditional classroom but extroverted on-line. (Carnevale, 2003) While Piaget’s (1985) emphasis is on the individual learner’s conceptual development, other theorists have stressed the need for social interaction in cognitive development. Reflect, then, on technology’s facility in supporting the social constructivist approach taken by theorists such as Lev Vygotsky (1978), again described by Richardson: Social constructivists have a very different view of the process of the construction of knowledge from Piagetians. They do not focus, primarily, on the individual but view the social as instrumental, if not essential, in both the construction and appropriation of knowledge. (1997, p. 7). The power of modern technologies to spark new connections among learners is no longer debated. Interactive video and audio systems and on-line learning communities are now commonplace throughout the country. Jonassen’s and Kwon’s research (2001) comparing face-to-face group communications with computer-mediated group discussions revealed that computer-mediated group problem-solving discussions more closely followed the problem-solving process and were more focused on tasks than face-to-face interactions. The computer conferencing participants were also more satisfied with the process and valued the problem-solving process more than computer-based participants. Thus, it appears that on-line interactions may in fact offer advantages for some social constructivist activities. A problem related to social constructivism that has been acknowledged by experts (Dewey, 1970;

160

Labinowicz, 1980; Cuban, 1990) is the difficulty of relating “school” knowledge to the real experiences of students’ lives. Distance educators have discovered, however, that the recent emergence of social networking tools has the potential to provide their students links to sources more relevant to the learner than traditional instruction (Graham, 2008; Hoffman, 2009). Thus, in addition to the above assets, technology-based instruction can provide an all-important bridge between the content and the learner’s own world of experiences.

Contemporary Constructivism and Technology Many contemporary researchers are rediscovering the wisdom of constructivist approaches as well. In the midst of the debates between traditionalists and reformers over the best practice, Lloyd Bond (2005), an educational leader in assessment and evaluation, wrote that there are touchstones that zealots from both camps should be able to rely upon. Bond (2005) asserts that a wide variety of studies of classroom experiences have proven that, with appropriate instruction, “…proficiency develops from novice to expert in an orderly way and is characterized by a sequence of more or less distinct stages” (p. 1). The principles he describes can be summarized as follows: 1) New information is processed through memory registers, each with its unique limitations and capabilities. 2) Proficiency depends critically upon the acquisition of “automaticity”. Automaticity involves the ability to use acquired skills and information in complex tasks. 3) Problem-solving ability and reading with understanding are skills that can be acquired by most people. 4) Specific subject matter expertise depends crucially on how relevant knowledge is organized and stored in long-term memory.


5) Proficient performance is supported or hindered by how learning activities are represented internally. (p. 1) These qualities are the processes involved in constructivist learning. Many of the most prominent models of instruction today recognize the importance of requiring the learner to make sense of the content, apply the content to meaningful situations and incorporate their learning into new behaviors. Robert J. Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning (Marzano et al., 1988) is a well-known model in education circles that describes a process of building knowledge in a tiered fashion until the essential learning becomes “seated” in the learner. He describes learning as situated in attitudes, perceptions and “habits of mind” which influence what and how the learner takes in information and also what the learners integrate into their personal skill sets. To provide adequate experiences for the learner, instruction must help learners develop these habits of mind and provide increasingly sophisticated practice with essential concepts by requiring them to: a. Acquire and integrate knowledge, b. Extend and refine knowledge, and c. Use knowledge meaningfully. Access to tools for creating learning experiences as described by Marzano and others (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) are becoming more available all the time. The explosion of Web 2.0 and 3.0 applications has provided some exciting possibilities for the creative instructor. There are sophisticated graphics tools to create depictions that enhance knowledge acquisition, concept mapping tools to aid the learner in organizing and relating the new to existing knowledge, research that discriminates effective media techniques from ineffective, and powerful social tools for more profound discussion and knowledge sharing among experts and colleagues.

The majority of technology applications to date, however, have not aligned these tools to produce the change desired by some (Cuban, 2001). The aim of this chapter is to evaluate the attempts made in two offerings of a course designed to apply technological tools to a constructivist approach. The self-reported data from the students, in this case newly-inducted teachers, will be analyzed. The technology tools used in the course will be evaluated against the Marzano Dimensions of Learning framework (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) and a précis of implications for distance learning designers will be offered.

Controlling One’s Learning It must be emphasized that the learner is the central focus of the constructivist approach. Constructivists reject the traditional view of students as receptacles for information because research has proven that the knowledge imparted by the teacher is not the knowledge acquired by the learner. Because computer-mediated learning is uniquely dependent on an individual user’s initiation and interaction, there is the opportunity to empower the learner to create knowledge and develop skills in an individualized fashion. It is time to explore whether today’s technologies can provide experiences that are relevant to learners’ unique experiences and interests so that more profound growth can occur. With this learner-centered goal in mind, a college course was developed for new teachers in a large suburban school district. The course was offered in both the spring and fall semesters of 2009 with 72 participants in the spring section and 61 in the fall. These teachers were within the first three years of being hired by the district and this course was a part of the district’s induction program. Three instructors from University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) provided instruction during the first semester with facilitation provided by two district staff members; two UNO instructors

161


were assigned to the spring semester offering with, again, considerable instructional and facilitative help from two district staff members. The course was designed to be offered predominantly on-line, primarily to accommodate the teachers’ busy schedules. Because this was the first technologybased course most had taken and because it was hoped that supportive interpersonal networks would form as an outgrowth of the activities, a schedule was created that consisted of five faceto-face meetings with ongoing on-line activities over the course of a semester. The graduate-level course, titled Productive Approaches, was offered through UNO with the teachers’ tuition being paid by the district. The content and instruction for the course was collaboratively planned by UNO and district personnel. The content goals of the course were as follows: a) to extend teachers’ knowledge and application of Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Theory Into Practice (ITIP) model (in Hunter, 2004), b) to practice applying the nine instructional strategies promoted by Robert J. Marzano (2001); c) to plan “strands” of instruction using Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning model (Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 1988) and

d) to expand skills in differentiating instruction for students. In designing the instruction for the course, the instructors attempted to model the use of the strategies that made up the content of the course. The Hunter lesson planning (in Hunter, 2004) and Marzano instructional strategies (Marzano et al., 2001) were applied where relevant; differentiated options were available for some assignments; and Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning (DOL) and planning models provided an overall framework for the course (Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 1988). The Dimensions of Learning model was the most complex content studied in the course. This model assists instructors in the identification of essential learning targets in several domains, focusing their planning on the deep comprehension of knowledge or skills related to their content. Marzano’s planning models (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992) offered the most effective planning method for planning the course itself as well. It was hoped that modeling the strategies would help to ensure a deep level of knowledge and skill acquisition. The technology strategies were selected based on their capabilities to empower the learners and facilitate the Dimensions of Learning approach.

Table 1. Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning at work in the Productive Approaches Course Habits of Mind

• Use of on-line resources for learning • Computer-based learning shifts locus of control to learner • Collaboration with learning community to solve problems

Extend & Refine Knowledge

• Use of online analysis tools to determine relevance • Sharing of lesson designs & projects • Feedback & dialog in group on-line discussion boards • On-line reflection & evaluation

Use Knowledge Meaningfully

• Online district objectives used in activities • Online reflections at checkpoints • Use of Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) and other apps modeled • Graphic organizers for easy retrieval for transfer

Attitudes & Perceptions

• Positive, consistent support for tech use & other problems • Frequent on-line announcements and e-mail • Support and sharing in job-alike groups

162


Table 1: Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning with Technology in the Productive Approaches Class illustrates the technology strategies used for each of the components of the Marzano model (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001). It was hoped that the natural shift in responsibility for learning from the instructor to the learner that on-line technology requires could be further supported with these electronic tools. Tools were selected that had the potential to empower the learner to acquire the knowledge, deepen personal understanding of the content, and experiment with application of the models in their own environment.

Participating in On-line Learning Communities Social constructivists believe that optimal cognitive development is best nurtured through interaction with others (Fosnot, 2005) so it was important to find ways to provide for interaction on course content. A cornerstone of Lev Vygotsky’s work (1978) describes learning as a process wherein a learner gains knowledge from a teacher or peer with insight just above that of the learner. It was the opinion of the instructors of this course that a great deal was to be learned from the teacherlearners’ colleagues during the semester. The desire for peer interaction and the large enrollment in these courses (72 and 61) spurred the instructors to strategize some way for the individuals to get feedback and support from each other in on-line learning communities. Since Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) was the course management tool used by both the University and the school district, teachers were assigned to “Group Pages” according to their job assignments. These pages made available to each group a discussion board, a collaboration area with virtual classroom and chat functions, file exchange capabilities and e-mail facilitation. These job-alike learning communities served as the course participants’ major support bases and

provided opportunities for dialog and evaluation on activities throughout the semester. It was intended that all members in one group share as many job attributes as possible and they were titled accordingly. Names such as “K-1,” 5” and “2-3” were elementary teacher groups while groups like “Math,” Language” and “Speech” were secondary teacher groups. In some cases, especially secondary teachers, there were not enough of a given subject area to constitute a group so interdisciplinary teams were formed. The members of these interdisciplinary groups seemed to appreciate one another every bit as much as those have peers whose assignments were more closely related. Some felt it gave them insight into what happened with different subjects at their level, which was valuable in their own planning. Early in the course, participants were assigned a section of the Robin Hunter text, Madeline Hunter’s Mastery Teaching (2004), to review for colleagues in their small group. This text was provided by the district and had been used in staff development activities that occurred prior to this course but, in the view of district personnel, this content needed review and application activities. The laptop computers used by the teachers were also provided by the district. In a face-to-face session, the large group reached consensus on their approach to the review task. Thus, each section from the Hunter text was outlined by one person in each small group and presented for review by other members on their group discussion board. Many used graphic tools to capture and communicate their section’s essence. This activity served as a “warm up” exercise, providing the necessary brief review of the material at the same time providing practice for those who were not used to interacting on threaded discussion boards. Once the outlines were posted, group members were required to review all other outlines and post comments using the following headings: value, comparison, example and bottom line. The quality of the outlines and the responses were rich and interaction on the topics often went

163


Table 2. On-line Discussion of Hunter Concepts Respondent #1: Â€Â€Â€Value: The four techniques mentioned to make material meaningful and the ways to check for understanding are simple to implement, yet sometimes easy to forget. Reviewing these techniques will keep them in the forefront of my mind when planning and delivering lessons. Â€Â€Â€Comparison: I sometimes find myself falling into the pattern of using words like “OK” and “Do you have any questions?” when trying to complete a lesson quickly. I need to remember to save enough time at the end of a lesson to check for understanding. Â€Â€Â€Example: Checking for understanding is an important part to any lesson. I use the example of hand signals stated in this chapter. I often have kids use thumbs up/down to answer group discussion questions. Â€Â€Â€Bottom Line: Assessing understanding and making material meaningful are two key components to any instruction. They should not be overlooked. Respondent #2: Â€Â€Â€I have also been working on not saying “Ok?” I have to stop myself from saying in and rephase (sic) what I should say! It is a hard habit to break. Respondent #3: Â€Â€Â€I think we all have our words that we over use (sic) in the classroom. Usually we don’t notice them until someone else tells us the word we over use. Respondent #4: Â€Â€Â€When our principal does our observations she transcripts everything we say. She has mentioned numerous times how helpful it is for her teachers to see what they say in the classroom because they find themselves repeating phrases like “ok” over and over without even noticing it. It’s a good tool for reflection.

beyond that required. One entry in one group’s discourse on the topics of “Making Material Meaningful” and “Checking for Understanding” is offered here in Table 2: On-line Discussion of Hunter (Hunter, 2004) Concepts. Throughout the course, most of the work the participants did on their own lesson designs and unit planning was posted to their group’s discussion board for review and response from their fellow group members. The groups also sat together for nearly all activities during the face-toface sessions. Often, members would be asked to post their work one week and then review and respond to a partner’s work the next. This allowed them to compare and contrast their own approaches to the assignment with others’ and reportedly gave them ideas and angles they would not have thought of on their own. The two layers of this assignment moved participants’ thinking levels to analysis, linking new ideas from their cohorts to their own work and, in the meantime, attaining the relevance championed by constructivists. The course instructors divided up the groups for the purposes of grading and feedback. This provided some consistency in consultation dur-

164

ing the course of the semester and enabled the instructors to become somewhat familiar with their learners.

Bridging Between Existing Knowledge and Personal Experience An important part of constructivist learning is assisting the learner in exploring the linkages between the models under study and their own experiences. The most complex (and possibly the most profound) models under study were the Dimensions of Learning and planning models that Robert J. Marzano (1988, 1992) proposes for use by educators. This abstract content was taken in several stages. First the content was presented in a face-to-face meeting using a visually-enhanced PowerPoint (Microsoft, 2009) that was uploaded to the Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) course site for later reference. During that same session, teachers were asked to examine their district objectives to identify “essential” learning targets (Marzano, 1992), those goals or objectives they felt had relevance beyond their own content and entailed skills or knowledge that they wanted every student to master. Time was spent in small


groups, working for consensus on defining what was most essential. The process was then moved on-line where teachers were asked to submit to their group discussion board and to an instructor a potential essential learning target on which they could build a “strand” of learning experiences that would extend over a unit, semester or academic year. Once the teachers received feedback from their colleagues and instructor on their essential learning target proposals, they were to use a template provided by the instructors to develop a skeletal plan of this “strand” of instruction. Planned reinforcement of the targeted content/skill over time is advocated by Marzano (1992) to help insure a deeper proficiency than the results of routine day-to-day planning undertaken by most teachers. This activity, identifying essential learning targets, reaped varying levels of success. The analysis involved requires an ability to rise above the curriculum and look across it with an eye to what is most important for their students. For some new teachers, it requires a degree of experience they may not have yet. It was the opinion of the instructors that allowing these teachers to do this task to the degree they were capable was an expanding experience in itself. Reflections by learners reinforced this notion since many labeled it the most valuable portion of the course. This was the activity in the course that most revealed the cognitive dissonance described by Piaget (1985). It was interesting to note, however, that some who expressed frustration with the process ended up choosing to do another “strand plan” as a final project. The face-to-face and on-line interaction within the learning communities and with their instructors combined with the graphic framework for the plan supported the learners to the degree that they were all able to complete the assignment successfully. An Animoto (Animoto Productions, 2009) multimedia video was created to highlight essential learning targets identified by some of the participants. Hopefully, this reinforced some

of the targets identified by some and helped those still struggling to get direction from examples that may have expanded their thinking.

Other Constructivist Elements Many constructivists point to the importance of image and graphic representations of concepts to enhance comprehension and retention (Marzano et el., 2001; Clark & Mayer, 2008; Blumberg et al., 2004). Since the course resources were limited to on-line and instructor-created materials, effort was invested in creating images that visually illustrated the concepts under study. PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, 2009) and the on-line tool, Animoto (Animoto Productions, 2009), were used to provide effective visual representations of the content. Commonplace graphics and image applications were used as well, such as Inspiration (Inspiration Software, Inc., 2009) and Photoshop (Adobe Systems, Incorporated, 2009). Many of the research-proven techniques for media design established by Richard E. Mayer and associates were also used in the design of the images used in the course (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Some aspects of the Blackboard’s course management capabilities (Blackboard, Inc., 19972009) assisted with visual enhancement as well. Graphics were integrated where possible to make the site more inviting. An attractive banner using Wordle (Feinberg, 2009) was inserted to greet participants as they entered the site. Jing (TechSmith Corporation, 2010) was used for technology how-tos. During the fall semester, the banner was changed periodically to relate to the content under study. Using other Web 2.0 techniques such as embedding via SlideShare (SlideShare, Inc., 2009) and Animoto (Animoto Productions, 2009), a couple of presentations were inserted so that they could be streamed into the site without downloading and opening the files separately. The “Reviewing” capacities of Microsoft Word (Microsoft, 2009) proved valuable for enhancing lesson designs by participants. Teachers

165


were first asked to create a lesson plan using a Hunter-based template (Hunter, 2004) and submit it their group discussion board for review by a group member. When the Marzano strategies (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) were introduced, they were asked to use the same template but add and label Marzano strategies using the “Comments” function of the Word review toolbar. This provided a more threedimensional way to conceptualize their lesson, enriching the Hunter template (Hunter, 2004) by adding Marzano strategies. Participants were again encouraged to use the Word functions in their final projects, if appropriate. All final projects were produced using technology-based templates provided via Microsoft Word (2010) and submitted on-line using the Blackboard assignment function (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009). To provide better access to the complex aspects of Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001), a table was created that listed techniques related to each dimension of the model. This “Mega-table” served dual purposes: a graphic organizer for deeper comprehension or better recall and a retrieval tool that could be referenced for future application of Marzano’s strategies. Another helpful cognitive tool called the Visual Ranking Tool (Intel Corporation, 2009) was used to assist participants in evaluating the relevance of

the Hunter (Hunter, 2004) and Marzano strategies (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) in their instruction. The participants worked with their group members to prioritize which strategies were most relevant for their teaching. There are other tools available from this site that will be useful in future online offerings as well. One tool, called the “Seeing Reason” tool, helps users gauge the strength of concepts’ relationships; another, “Showing Evidence”, requires users to construct a framework arguments supported by evidence.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES As mentioned earlier, an effort was made to assign activities that provided opportunities for participants to evaluate the value of models for their own instruction. Each lesson plan and major activity was posted to their group discussion board where they received feedback from their learning community colleagues, inspiring many changes and adjustments.

Reflection Self-reflection was another constructivist technique used because it ensured that learners were relating material to their own situations and comparing new concepts to former knowledge struc-

Table 3. Assessment Tools for Productive Approaches Course Assessment Tool

Purpose

Technology

Pre-survey

Assessment of self perceptions of prior knowledge of course content

Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) Survey Manager (Likert-style ratings)

First Reflection

Opportunity for participants to reflect on the course format, the technology, the Hunter material (Hunter, 2004) and the activities performed to this point

Blackboard Test Manager (Likert-style ratings and open comment field)

Second Reflection

Opportunity for participants to reflect on Marzano instructional strategies, Dimensions of Learning and planning models (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001)

Blackboard Test Manager (essay questions)

Classroom Practices Inventory

A self-assessment for teachers to pre-assess their differentiation practices

Blackboard Test Manager (Likert-style ratings)

166


tures. Several assessment activities were planned to help provide feedback, reflection and evaluation as the course progressed. Pre-assessment, formative and summative on-line tools were used that provided an opportunity for participants to process learning and inform the instruction as the course was in progress. (See Table 3.) Reflections by course participants on the various instructional methods appeared valuable to learners and instructors alike as the course proceeded. With so many new approaches being introduced to the learners, it was important to provide opportunities for learners to process their reactions by reflecting on their experiences. The first reflection indicated that participants were surprisingly positive. All items received a majority of positive responses; most felt comfortable with the format (69% agreed or strongly disagreed) and nearly 77% strongly agreed or agreed that the shared group activities added value to their work. The second reflection consisted of open-ended questions that asked teachers to specify ways they were applying Marzano’s approaches (Marzano et al., 1988; Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) to their teaching. It was inspiring, indeed, to see the many ways teachers were using the content of the course at that point!

The Classroom Practices Inventory asked teachers to indicate the degree to which they felt they used differentiation strategies in their instruction. These results were used to heterogeneously regroup the teachers for the face-to-face session on differentiation. After taking the inventory, teachers were asked to reflect on their responses to the instrument, hopefully stimulating some introspection regarding this complex process.

Self-Report of Cumulative Gains The most revealing assessment information was obtained by examining the results of the pre- and post-surveys. Teachers were asked to rate themselves on a Likert scale on statements about their abilities to apply the course content to their teaching. Most items on both surveys were identical. For each statement on the survey, respondents were asked to select from “Strongly Agree,” Agree,” “Neither Agree nor Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree” and “Not Applicable.” To portray a general impression of the responses, a reporting of the positive and negative responses are reported in the tables below (See Tables 4 and 5). For each item the total percent of strongly agree and agree responses on the pre-survey were

Table 4. Spring semester differences between positive and negative responses on the pre- and post-survey Question

Strongly Agree & Agree

Disagree & Strongly Disagree

1. I know how to apply Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Theory into Practice in my instruction.

+6.34%

-1.92%

2. I am competent in differentiating the content of my instruction.

+15.95%

-5.77%

3. I am competent in differentiating the learning process for my students.

+12.39%

1.92%

4. I am able to vary the complexity of the products required of my students.

+19.80%

-2.21%

5. I know which instructional strategies are proven effective by research, according to Marzano & associates.

+58.828%

-32%

6. I am skilled in applying Marzano’s research-based instructional strategies.

+64.11%

-35.47%

7. I am able to apply Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning to my instruction.

+67.68%

-22.29%

8. I am confident in incorporating Hunter, differentiation & Marzano strategies into my instructional planning.

+51.70%

-15.67%

9. Hunter, differentiation and Marzano approaches are relevant to my assignment and can help me improve my teaching and student learning.

+16.80%

-56%

167


Table 5. Fall semester differences between positive and negative responses on the pre- and post-survey Question

Strongly Agree & Agree

Disagree & Strongly Disagree

1. I know how to apply Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Theory into Practice in my instruction.

+35.41%

-11.32%

2. I am competent in differentiating the content of my instruction.

+12.77%

-5.66%

3. I am competent in differentiating the learning process for my students.

+8.12%

3.77%

4. I am able to vary the complexity of the products required of my students.

+14.79%

-4.65%

5. I know which instructional strategies are proven effective by research, according to Marzano & associates.

+56.30%

-19.88%

6. I am skilled in applying Marzano’s research-based instructional strategies.

+65.29%

-21.76%

7. I am able to apply Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning to my instruction.

+53.66%

-21.33%

8. I am confident in incorporating Hunter, differentiation & Marzano strategies into my instructional planning.

+53.4%

24.55%

9. Hunter, differentiation and Marzano approaches are relevant to my assignment and can help me improve my teaching and student learning.

+14.22%

-3.77%

numerically subtracted from the same total from the post-survey to illustrate the percentage gain reported by the participants. Likewise, the percentages for “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree” from the pre-survey were subtracted from those of the post-survey to estimate the percentage of negative responses lost. Some observations can be made concerning the data in the above tables that are related to the use of distance technology. First, the gain in positive responses during the fall semester on the first item concerning the ability to apply Hunter techniques (Hunter, 2004) was greater than reported during the spring semester. This may be related to the on-line different instructional approaches used for this portion of the content. In the spring semester, teachers were merely asked to use the Hunter lesson plan format (Hunter, 2004) for their lesson designs. In the fall semester, participants were asked to outline a section of a Hunter text, post it for review by group members, then read and respond to each other’s outlines. The resulting interaction posted in each group’s discussion board provided not only a review of the material but also provided the opportunity to share how their colleagues valued

168

and applied different elements of the model. This was valued by the participating teachers. Another observation is that the positive gain related to the differentiation of instruction (items 2, 3 and 4) was somewhat lower during the fall semester than during the spring semester section of the course. This is possibly due to the high self-ratings on the pre-surveys indicating that participants already felt confident in these skills but may also be related to the fact that the articles related to this topic were not available on-line as they were in the spring semester. Since participants were unable to access the articles on-line, they had to be overviewed in the face-to-face session, allowing little time for study and digestion. Perhaps the most probable cause for the difference, however, is that instructors did not allot as much time on this topic in the fall as in the spring. Finally, in both semesters the gains in participants’ self-perceptions between the beginning and the end of the course indicate that participants perceived growth in their knowledge and skills related to course content. Responses to all items show a healthy positive gain. Hopefully, the gain means that this on-line learning experience


translated into meaningful improvement in the teaching skills of participants.

Assessment of Products Rubrics were created in Microsoft Word (2010) for many of the assignments including the lesson plans, “strand” plans and final projects. Scores for rubric criteria were included in the notations attached to grades as posted in Blackboard’s Grade Center (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) along with instructor comments. Though this feedback was adequate, an on-line application that would be helpful would be the development of a rubric center where instructors could create a rubric then use it to rate each of their students, saving each rating and referencing it for each student to access. The instructors noted a marked improvement in the quality of the lesson plans from the beginning to the end. Not only did participants use the template provided, they also showed an increased ability to enhance their plans by using the “Comments” function available in Microsoft Word (Microsoft, Inc., 2009). The most involved assignment apart from the final project was a “Strand Plan” using Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning and planning models (Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001). Teachers conducted the following activities to complete this assignment: 1. Learners worked in face-to-face groups to sift through district objectives seeking out “essential” learning targets that run through much of the planned curriculum, have implications for use outside of one grade or content area and involve knowledge or skills that are deemed most important for all students to acquire. 2. Learners submitted proposed essential learning targets to their small group discussion board, review and discuss each other’s submissions.

3. Learners submitted proposed essential learning targets to their instructor for feedback using the “Assignment” function of Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009). 4. Learners used a Word template to develop a strand of instruction spanning a semester or school year that would support students in acquiring the essential knowledge/skill, extending it and using it in a meaningful way. The assessment process used with the Strand Plan process illustrates the difference between a constructivist response and a more linear cognitive response to student learning outcomes. Participants fell along a conceptual continuum in their abilities to comprehend and identify an “essential learning target,” an abstract concept. With coaching (or “scaffolding” as Vygotsky [1978] would label it) from peers or instructors, some were able to achieve mental leaps in identifying the overarching conceptual targets they wanted to achieve; others, usually those with more experience, comprehended and valued the exercise as a valuable addition to their instruction; a few already felt they did this to some degree but appreciated Marzano’s enrichment (Marzano, 1992; Marzano et al., 2001) of their awareness; some struggled to grasp the concept and settled for relatively concrete targets they spread over time. The constructivist instructor values the entire spectrum of these responses. Each level of response is indicative of the conceptual stage of the learner. Most products received high scores with feedback from instructors that reinforced choices and encouraged growth. In the fall semester, thirty-three of the 58 participants chose options for their final projects that involved strand planning, a testimony to teachers’ appreciation of the most sophisticated tool offered during the semester. Perhaps experiencing this segment of the content, enduring a bit of disequilibrium and producing a personal

169


Table 6. On-line responses to Kadin’s ideas for an essential learning target Group member 1: Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€I think your Strand Plan, and your essential learning, is a great way to make sure all dimensions of learning can be applied. The best part of your plan is preparing your students for life after school. I especially like that the plan helps students write a resume, fill out job applications, and how to participate in an interview. Good job with your plan. Group member 2: Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€Your strand plan is extremely knowledgable (sic) and appropriate. I like the way you provide practical steps starting the KWL chart and culminate (sic) with the mock interviews. During the classification activity in which you discuss what should be on a resume, it might be useful to have the students actually look at sample resumes. Perhaps you already had this in mind. Great job! Instructor: Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€This seems pretty broad but certainly has the depth and universal application Marzano is talking about, Casey. Perhaps you’d want to focus on one employability skill?

response to it left the learners with a feeling of accomplishment and growth. It is important to discuss candidly the discomfort experienced by those who have difficulty grasping concepts that are challenging to them. This is the discomfort, sometimes quite aggravated, that too many instructors avoid. They instead condense down the content to its “lowest common denominator” by dividing it into more easily attainable concrete steps. Make no mistake, this is classic cognitive disequilibrium, vintage Piaget (1985), and provokes agitation and anger in some students. During the face-to-face session where groups were working to sift through district objectives for essential learning targets, aggressive behaviors emerged. Some blamed the district for such shallow objectives and the difficulty experienced retrieving their specific objectives; others attacked the instructors, often for not providing the step-by-step directions they were used to receiving; some even blasted Marzano’s notion of essential learning targets, labeling them impractical and useless. It must also be said, however, that most of the learners had quality, deep discussions about which targets they deemed most essential – the type of discourse constructivist instructors relish! The technology definitely played a role in this process. Most of the emotive responses occurred during the face-to-face session and it was important for teachers to be able to express this frustration and gain what insight they could from each other.

170

When the process was continued on-line, however, the emotional quality of the assignment was tamped. No doubt it can be argued that this shut down growth for some, but for others, it moved it again to a personal locus of control where each had to individually find their own solution to the assignment with some help from their group members and instructor. This independent search is at the heart of the power of constructivism and on-line learning. The individual, at a computer, working to understand and construct meaning for themselves, finding the words to use in a group discussion that will clarify their own search and assist others in theirs, epitomizes work within the “zone of proximal development” described by Vygotsky (Fosnot, 2005). The learner receives the help of others while bridging the gap between their own conceptions and what Vygotsky termed the “scientific” concept being studied. An examination of the discussion board interactions uncovered some of this searching in progress. For example, one teacher, we’ll refer to him as Kadin, first proposed the following essential learning target for his strand plan: “Students will work on employability skills and improve on their vocational rubrics through a variety of strategies.” In Table 6 are some of the responses to Kadin’s ideas: The group members reinforce Kadin’s work but fail to challenge the fact that his essential learning target was too broad. The instructor, however, gently challenges him about it. Mean-


Table 7. Melanie’s idea for an essential learning target Melanie: Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€ I am planning to help students learn to explore possible career options based on self-reflection with regards to a passion or life “spark” and then comparing those refletions (sic) to feedback generated from several career assessments on Naviance. Kadin: Â€Â€Â€Â€Â€What a crucial activity for students! It is definitely deep enough for all Dimensions of Learning to be applied. It is very necessary for students to be self aware so they are able to be successful and happy with their life choices. Would it be beneficial for students to classify and sort several occupations to the lifestyles they would be able to have within that occupation if their occupation does not suit their desired lifestyle? Great work Maureen!

time, another colleague, Melanie (pseudonym), submits another essential learning target that is related to the same content. Table 7 shows her idea and Kadin’s response to it. While the difference between Melanie’s more focused target and his much broader one seems to allude him, an examination of Kadin’s final report reveals that he indeed delimits his final target to helping students understand the elements of the interviewing process and the importance of preparing for a job interview. Kadin has somewhere in these processes discerned that his initial concept was too broad and narrowed it to something more workable. This is the process of learning described by constructivist experts. The assignment called for an individual response to an abstract concept. The interactions with the instructor and colleagues provided him a testing ground for his first idea. Kadin sifted through all of the information available to him and restructured his notion of an essential learning target, either because of the feedback or because of his own process of developing his idea into a plan of action. Somewhere in the process, the assimilation, disequilibrium and accommodation (Piaget, 1985) occurred, moving him to a more precise understanding of the concept and hopefully enabling him to lay out a path of experiences for his students to do the same. Would this be as likely to happen in a traditional learning environment?

Participants’ Responses to Technology One item was added to the post-survey provided for the fall participants in the course. This item asked for the same Likert ratings as above in response to the statement, “I have grown more adept at using technology for learning during this course.” Compiled results showed that 58% responded with “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” while 16% responded with “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree.” The positive gain is encouraging but the 16% of negative responses should spur the instructors to work to incorporate more technology tools in future offerings. Most of the assessment tools called for personal reflection or subjective comments as well as ranking and rating responses. An analysis of these comments, which included categorizing and tallying them, produced some generalizations that were worth noting for future planning. Usage data compiled by the Blackboard site was studied as well (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009). Observations related to technology use that were drawn from the assessment feedback gathered during the courses include the following: 1. Participants’ responses were overwhelmingly positive concerning the efficacy of their small learning communities. These job-alike groups relied on the Discussion Board capabilities of Blackboard for communication. 2. The number of comments expressing gratitude for the ability to do work on-line so that

171


less travel and meeting time were required outnumbered the number of comments unhappy with the mode of delivery. 3. Those who did not access the Blackboard course site on a regular basis were missing the most assignments despite regular e-mails with reminders and directions. 4. There was a wide span of computer skills among the participants. During the fall semester, it appeared that the needs of novices were better met than during the spring semester. Those with more advanced skills may have felt much of the time learning technology was wasted, especially during the fall semester. Technology adjustments that were made in the fall offering of the course based on the comments from the spring included more regimented and regular announcements and e-mails, more feedback from instructors on coursework, reorganization of the Blackboard sections (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009) and provision for the on-line submission of the final project.

CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE ORGANIZATION While this experience was surprisingly successful, it is one of those fleeting learning opportunities unlikely to occur in this specific form again. With the difficulties of the economy, the school district has announced that it is no longer able to pay tuition for all teachers to take this course. Also, requiring new teachers to assume the extra load of a three-hour course as they are learning their new jobs caused a great deal of stress for some individuals. Another challenge was the wide span of technology skills possessed by these newly inducted teachers. The size of these classes exacerbated the problem. Those with few computer skills expressed the most discomfort but comments

172

from those with more advanced skills were visible in the summative assessment questionnaire when they indicated that they didn’t grow much in their tech skills during the run of the course. All professions are facing problems with the uneven development of technology skills but it is especially poignant when teachers do not have the skills to help the younger generation to become proficient with the tools that will surely be crucial for their future success.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A pillar of constructivism is the continual process of evaluation – constant analysis of new information and experiences and, hopefully, a recasting of conceptual frameworks. The analysis of participants’ self-reports as well as their interactions and products gave rise to some generalizations that may be of use in the future. This experience has revealed some ways in which technology has added value to the construction of new learning, exposed the need for some adjustments in the technology and revealed some relationships between technology tools and constructivism. Using the three central conceptual processes Marzano (1992) emphasizes for guidelines, there are some ways that technology appears to have enhanced constructivist learning in these courses. The tools that assisted learners in acquiring and integrating knowledge were the visual representations generated using PhotoShop, Inspiration (Inspiration Software, Inc., 2009), PowerPoint (Microsoft, 2009), Blackboard (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009), Jing (TechSmith Corporation, 2009) and Animoto (Animoto Productions, 2009). The on-line activities supporting this assimilation were the on-line learning communities created by the small group, job-alike, discussion boards; frequent postings of announcements and e-mails; and online presentations, occasional streaming videos and sample products explaining and illustrating


concepts. Also valuable were the graphic tools that condensed systems into visuals that revealed relationships among concepts as well as the lesson plan and strand plan templates. The most powerful tool that assisted learners in extending and refining their knowledge was the on-line learning communities. Another valuable tool was the Visual Ranking Tool (Intel Corporation, 2009). The review outlines presented in their job-alike learning communities and subsequent responses and interactions received positive feedback from participants. The graphic tools created

as cognitive organizers and conceptual maps were also deemed valuable. The primary technology that supported learners’ use of knowledge in meaningful ways was again the Blackboard tool that enabled the formation of small, on-line learning groups. The sharing of lesson plans, strand plans and final projects with their job-alike groups not only provided feedback on each individual’s work but also gave each participant the opportunity to review and respond to others’ approaches to the same products. These groups provided the intrapersonal connection that is so vital for learning. It is also argued above that,

Table 8. Constructivist technology tools Constructivist Dimension (Marzano, 1992 & 1988)

Tools used in past course offerings

Tools that can potentially be added in the future

Attitudes and perceptions

On-line reflections in Blackboard discussion boards, quiz activities and surveys (Blackboard, Inc., 1997-2009). Frequent posting of announcements, reminders and e-mails. On-line learning communities on Blackboard discussion boards.

Blogs for journaling, reflecting and online discussion Glogster – Poster Yourself (2010) to express attitudes and perceptions graphically Collaboration tools: Google tools (Google, 2010), course management applications, Wikis, Skype (Skype Limited, 2010), etc.

Acquisition and integration of knowledge

Inspiration Software Inc. (2010), PhotoShop (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2010), PowerPoint (Microsoft, 2009) and Animoto (Animoto Productions, 2009) for graphic representations and concept mapping On-line learning communities on Blackboard discussion boards.

Linking to past knowledge through graphics creation by learners with tools such as Paint Shop (Corel Corporation, 2010), Microsoft Word graphics (Mcrosoft, 2010), Glogster (Glogster – Poster Yourself, 2010), Prezi (Prezi. com, 2009), Gliffy (Gliffy, Inc., 2010) etc.

Extension and refinement of knowledge

On-line reflections in Blackboard discussion boards, quiz activities and surveys. On-line learning communities on Blackboard discussion boards. Intel Visual Ranking Tool (Intel Corporation, 2009)

Intel “Seeing Reason” Tool (Intel, 2009) Wiki space or Google site (Google, 2010) with student-generated products Student-created Bio Cubes and Venn diagrams (International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English, 2010)

Meaningful use of knowledge

On-line learning communities on Blackboard discussion boards. Independent learning required by on-line learning

Intel’s “Showing Evidence” Tool (Intel Corporation, 2009) Intel project-based learning tools (Intel Corporation, 2009) Wiki space or Google site (Google, 2010) and blog for ongoing reference to peers’ products and analyses. Presentation tools for personal products: Gliffy (2010), Prezi (2009), PowerPoint (Microsoft, 2009), graphic organizers, etc. Project-based learning tools (Intel Corporation, 2009)

Habits of mind

On-line learning communities on Blackboard discussion boards. Independent learning required by on-line learning

Wiki space or Google site (Google, 2010) and blog for ongoing reference to peers’ products and analyses.

173


conversely, the solitary nature of some of the online learning activities required introspection that was conducive to personal conceptual growth. Though the technologies discussed above were valuable to the learning processes of course participants, there are more tools that can be used in future renditions of the course. To assist in acquiring and integrating knowledge more visuals should be generated to provide more stimulation and to better illustrate relationships among concepts. More collaborative writing and drawing tools are available. Furthermore, learners should also be required to use more graphics tools to draw their own relationships among past and present conceptualizations. This case study has explored the experiences of participants and instructors of two offerings of an on-line course for teacher-inductees in a large suburban district. The course was designed to use technology to support the construction of learning by participants. The elements described by Marzano dimensions and the related technologies used in past course offerings as well as those projected for use in the future are summarized in Table 8. With continued work to incorporate increasingly sophisticated technology tools, on-line constructivist learning opportunities will no doubt thrive in the future. It is hoped that the experiences reported here will serve to assist those interested in improving learning by combining the power of constructivist strategies with the best technology applications available.

Blumberg, F. C., Everson, H. T., & Rabinowitz, M. (Eds.). (2004). The design of instruction and evaluation affordances of using media and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bond, L. (2005). Throwing out the baby with the bath water. Carnegie Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_Se archValue_0=ED498985&ERICExtSearch_ SearchType_0=no&accno=ED498985 Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Corel Corporation. (2010). PaintShop. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.corel.com Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X019001003 Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dewey, J. (1970). The way out of educational confusion. Westport, CT: Greenwood. (Original work published 1931) Dusca, R., & Whelen, M. (1975). A guide to Piaget and Kohlberg. New York: Paulist.

REFERENCES

Feinberg, J. (2009). Wordle. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.wordle.net/

Adobe Systems, Incorporated. (2010). PhotoShop. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://adobe.com

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Animoto Productions. (2009). Animoto. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://animoto.com/ Blackboard, Inc. (1997-2009). Blackboard. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://www. blackboard.com/

174

Gliffy, Inc. (2010). Gliffy diagram software. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.gliffy.com/


Glogster – Poster Yourself. (2010). Glogster – Poster Yourself. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://glogster.com

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1984). Retrieved December 29, 2009, from http:// books.google.com/books?id=VuoGoQrmqwkC

Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. II. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35–51. doi:10.1007/BF02504505

Google. (2010). More Google products. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.google.com/intl/ en/options/ Graham, M. (2008). Continuing thoughts on social networking. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 127–129. doi:10.1080/08923640802241067 Hoffman, E. S. (2009). Evaluating social networking tools for distance learning. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://docs.google.com/ viewer?a=v&q=cache:rv_W249_Y_UJ:etec. hawaii.edu/proceedings/2009/hoffman.pdf+dist ance+education+social+networking+tools Hunter, R. (2004). Madeline Hunter’s mastery teaching: Increasing instructional effectiveness in elementary and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Inspiration Software, Inc. (2009). Inspiration software. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://inspiration.com/ Intel Corporation. (2009). Free teaching tools and resources. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://www.intel.com/education/tools/index.htm International Reading Association, & National Council of Teachers of English. (2009). Read – write – think. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.readwritethink.org/index.asp Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28–33.

Labinowicz, E. (1980). The Piaget primer: Thinking, learning, teaching. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Microsoft Corporation. (2009). Microsoft office online. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/ default.aspx Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Prezi. (2009). Prezi. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://prezi.com/about/ Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

175


Skype, Limited. (2010). Skype. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from http://www.skype.com SlideShare, Inc. (2009). Slideshare: Present yourself. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http:// www.slideshare.net/ Strommen, E. F., & Lincoln, B. (1992, August). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24, 466–476. doi:10.1177/0013124592024004004 TechSmith Corporation. (2009). Jing. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://www.techsmith. com/jing/ Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Constructivism: A belief that learners build their own knowledge and skills based on past experiences and idiosyncratic perceptual schemas. Electronic Teaching Tools: computer-based applications that can be used in instruction.

176

Essential Learnings: a term used by Marzano (1992) to refer to the targets that teachers deem most crucial to future success. These are learning targets that span across subject matter and are critical to real-world functioning. Graphic/Cognitive Organizers: visual diagrams that indicate relationships among concepts/ ideas. Higher Level Thinking: skills that involve analysis, creativity, evaluation and discrimination. Instructional Technology: the study of teaching with modern electronic tools. Learning Communities: a group of people working together to increase knowledge and skills. Marzano: Robert J. Marzano created the Dimensions of Learning model, a constructivist system for building deep learning. Student-Centered Instruction: planning learning activities that respond to student needs Technology-Based Learning: a form of instruction that relies on electronic tools for much of the course of study. Web 2.0: applications or tools available on the Internet that are user-created, interactive and/or community-oriented.

177

Chapter 13

Student Epistemic Beliefs as a Catalyst for Online Course Design: A Case Study for ResearchBased eLearning Samuel S. Conn Kentucky State University, USA Simin Hall Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA Michael K. Herndon Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Online course development at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) follows a structured development life-cycle methodology based on a sequential progression of seven phases. Each phase is distinguished by activities, techniques, best practices and procedures that combine to construct viable, sustainable, efficient, and useful online courses. In concert with online course construction, guiding heuristics and a philosophical foundation are required to optimize learning efficacy (Molenda, Pershing, & Reigeluth, 1996; Song & Keller, 2001). Influencing factors and criteria in online course construction generally involve instructional design, educational theory, technological infrastructure, and/or applied research from the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Foci in this case study include an investigation of student epistemic beliefs, establishment of research-based guiding heuristics, and establishment of a materialized rubric for use in construction of an undergraduate online course in Mechanical Engineering.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch013


Student Epistemic Beliefs as a Catalyst for Online Course Design

Student epistemic beliefs represent an important influencing factor in construction of efficacious eLearning. Epistemic beliefs are qualitatively related to self-regulated learning. Moreover, student epistemic beliefs are related to meta-cognitive standards and achievement of learning goals through positive affective foundations. Student reception and acceptance of pedagogy is largely shaped by predispositions, assumptions, experiences, and fundamental epistemic beliefs developed over time. Academic institutions should determine whether online course development should alter in response to existing student epistemic beliefs or strive to reshape student epistemic beliefs through curricular and pedagogical design. The construct of this chapter (a research-based case study) provides detail regarding the analysis of research on undergraduate student epistemic beliefs to develop and apply a rubric for eLearning course development (Hannafin & Hill, 2007). According to Ravert and Evans (2007), students have differing epistemic beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and knowing. In this chapter, the authors provide a methodology for determining the epistemic beliefs of a given student population and application of the findings in online course construction and pedagogy.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND Founded in 1872, Virginia Tech is located in Blacksburg, Virginia and is home to nine colleges and a graduate school. Over 30,000 full-time students are enrolled in one of Virginia Tech’s 65 bachelor’s degree programs or 145 master and doctoral degree programs. Virginia Tech is a higher education and research institution, ranked 46th in university research in the United States. The main campus includes more than 125 buildings on 2,600 acres, including an airport. Virginia Tech also includes off-campus educational facilities in six regions, a study-abroad site in Switzerland, and a 1,700 acre agriculture research farm near the main campus. University leadership is comprised of a board of visitors appointed by the governor of Virginia. The president of the university reports to the board of visitors and, along with the provost and vice president for academic affairs, leads the senior management team of the university. Governance at the university involves the University Council and University Commissions. University Commissions formulate and recommend policies to the University Council, which in turn presents recommendations to the president of the university. Virginia Tech’s annual operating budget exceeds

178

$1 billion. The budget funds operations for the university division and the Cooperative Extension / Agricultural Experiment Station division. A portion of the funds are appropriated from the state and the remainder originate from student tuition and fees, grants and contracts, sales and services, federal sources, user fees, and other fees. Virginia Tech’s Foundation manages approximately $926 million in assets and managed funds and $527 million in total endowment. Within the College of Engineering resides the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the venue for this case study. The department offers a wide range of undergraduate and graduate degree specialties, all with a focus on integrating classroom theory and practical hands-on projects. One of the largest departments within Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering, the department now is venturing into undergraduate online education.

PROBLEM STATEMENT Student Epistemic Beliefs and Online Course Design and Pedagogy The problem examined in this study involves the use of epistemic beliefs in the design of an online


course. Student epistemic beliefs, juxtaposed against the theory of knowledge, degrees of student self-regulation, and cognitive development theories can be used to design more efficacious online courses if an integrative methodology is applied. Creation of an online course development methodology involving the use of student epistemic beliefs is problematic. Relating theory of knowledge, degrees of self-regulation, and cognitive development theory as dimensions to construct a student population profile and use of student epistemic belief data to position a given student population within the construct is complex. In this investigation, the authors illustrated the congruence of theory of knowledge, degrees of student self-regulation, and a cognitive development theory as a framework for determining appropriate online course development strategies. A rubric involving student profile, pedagogical strategies, and assessment tools was constructed and applied in response to a prescriptive-diagnostic approach (Schunk, 1983). Through this research and case-based study the authors wanted to know: a) what are students’self-efficacy beliefs regarding problem solving and epistemic beliefs regarding instruction; b) how do students use technology to collaborate with peers to accomplish coursework; c) what is the current learning environment within a Thermodynamics course as designed by the instructor; and d) once these three factors have been assessed how can the information be used to design curriculum and instruction in an online course to promote increased self-regulation, higher order cognitive development, and constructivism with respect to knowledge and discovery?

LITERATURE REVIEW Philosophy addresses the nature and rationale for human knowledge through an area of concern referred to as epistemology. According to Hofer and Pintrich (1997), individual epistemology, or epistemic beliefs, involves one’s beliefs regard-

ing the nature of knowledge and knowing. Early theorists (e.g., Perry, 1970; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schoenfeld, 1985; Hofer & Pintrich, 2002) promoted the idea that epistemic beliefs alter students’ learning strategies, problem solving capabilities, comprehension, and achievement of learning outcomes. Major theories developed by educational psychologists such as Buehl, Alexander, and Murphy (2002), Hofer and Pintrich (1997), Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006), Piaget (1950), and Schommer (1990) incorporate and apply some element of student epistemic beliefs. As a result, epistemic beliefs are deemed to influence learning, motivation, and cognition. Integrative studies of student epistemic beliefs with other learning theories and models have evolved over the past few decades (e.g. Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956; Ryan 1984a, 1984b; Muis, 2007). Based on Hofer and Pintrich (1997), epistemic beliefs affect four dimensions of knowledge: (a) certainty of knowledge, (b) simplicity of knowledge, (c) justification for knowing, and (d) source of knowledge. According to Schommer (1990), certainty of knowledge is reflected as a continuum with a belief that knowledge is absolute and unchangeable on one end as opposed to a belief that knowledge is tentative and evolving on the other end. Moreover, simplicity of knowledge is illustrated as a continuum with a belief on one end that knowledge is defined as isolated, unambiguous chunks as opposed to a belief that knowledge is defined as highly interrelated conceptualizations. According to King and Kitchener (1994), justification for knowledge also can be depicted as a range where knowledge requires no justification to where knowledge is constructed and critically refined and reevaluated. Based on Kuhn (1993), epistemic beliefs influenced by “source of knowledge” can range from total reliance on and acceptance of authoritative experts, to critical evaluation of expert knowledge. In accordance with Muis (2007), two high-level architectures exist with respect to epistemic beliefs,

179


one motivated by a developmental perspective and one motivated by a multidimensional perspective. Perry’s (1970) work illustrates a developmental perspective in defining a student’s initial view of knowledge (absolutism/objectivism), a progression to a more advanced view of knowledge (multiplism/subjectivism), and progressively the highest view of knowledge (evaluativism/ objectivism-subjectivism). In contrast, Hammer and Elby (2002), Hofer and Pintrich (1997), and Schommer (1990) proposed multidimensional frameworks, where incremental, non-sequential knowledge dimensions assemble to form and represent knowledge. Muis (2007) established a relationship between epistemic beliefs, self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning. Investigations (e.g., Ryan, 1984b; Schoenfeld, 1983, 1985; Schommer, 1990; Hofer, 2000) have determined a relationship between epistemic beliefs and levels of meta-cognition. According to Knight and Mattick (2006), researchers increasingly are finding a relationship between epistemic beliefs and disciplinary domains, i.e., epistemological beliefs are discipline specific. In effect, student epistemic beliefs can be juxtaposed with known theories and models of learning to establish baselines for given populations defined by discipline or content domain. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) demonstrated that successful self-regulated learners possess higher levels of motivation (personal influences), apply more effective learning strategies (behavioral influences) and respond more appropriately to situational demands (environmental influences). In addition, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) hypothesized that epistemic beliefs affect achievement mediated through self-regulated learning. Schunk (1995) defined self-regulated learning as “learning that results from students’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of their learning goals” (p. 125). Moreover, Bandura (1986) showed that self-efficacy beliefs impact performance because these beliefs represent people’s perception of their

180

capabilities to perform a task at designated levels. These researchers have provided empirical data on causal or correlational relationships between selfefficacy and epistemic beliefs and self-regulated behaviors and performance in subjects such as mathematics (Pajares & Miller, 1994; Schommer et al., 1992; Schunk, 1981, 1984). Social constructivism (Pajares, 2002) provided a basis for this case study’s online course construction effort and related instructional strategies. Social constructivism suggests that the exchange of critical feedback among peers as well as from the instructor can encourage students to modify their work. Learners engaged in a collaborative problem solving process receive feedback and comments from peers and from the teacher on related steps of planning, implementing, and executing problem solving processes rather than only receiving feedback from the instructor on their performance. Feedback is an important consideration because it requires transfer of knowledge and therefore represents students’ gain in problem solving (Clark & Mayer, 2003). In particular, feedback from peers may push students to perform higher level cognitive functions (Schoenfeld, 1983). Furthermore, social cognitive theory posits reciprocal interactions between behaviors, cognitions, and environmental variables (Bandura, 1984) can enhance self-efficacy as it relates to problem solving skills. Feedback from peers and instructor are environmental variables as well as the modes of course delivery that can influence student confidence as it relates to the acquisition of problem solving skills (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Moreover, social cognitive theories posit that it is possible to design the educational experience so that learning occurs and is enhanced as a result (Marra & Palmer, 2004). Designing a course so that student learning takes place requires examining student epistemic beliefs, how feedback is utilized during learning, as well as student perceptions of teaching and learning. For instance, students who require and expect more instruction do so in part


because of their epistemic beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and knowing. Research has shown that epistemic beliefs affect how students approach learning tasks (Schoenfeld, 1983), monitor comprehension (Schommer et al., 1992), and plan for solving problems and carry out those plans (Schommer, 1990). Course design can be used to enhance collaboration and feedback through active engagement with materials and collaboration with peers and instructors. Online resources such as chat, discussion forum, blog, and wiki can play an active role in facilitating collaboration and feedback. One appeal of asynchronous technologies is that learners can access materials, complete assignments, participate in discussions, and take exams according to schedules that they themselves determine. Hypermedia learning environments offer particular advantages to learners who are inherently self-directed learners (Mayer, 2002). However, at many institutions the current population taking online courses consists of traditional undergraduates. These students typically require and expect more structure and instruction (Ravert & Evans, 2007). Many students, particularly those with low motivation and achievement, are unwilling to do mindful work, such as executing

higher level cognitive processes that are involved in problem solving (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004).

METHODOLOGY In this mixed-method investigation a qualitative case study methodology was applied and supported by quantitative data from one undergraduate Mechanical Engineering course. The prescriptive-diagnostic framework involves a logic chain beginning with collection of data from a discipline specific population regarding student epistemic beliefs. Data analysis and heuristics yield prescriptive indicators of placement of a given student population relative to a threedimensional framework (Figure 1) constructed in concert with accepted learning theories and models (i.e., developmental perspective models and multidimensional perspective models) and the social cognitive theory of self-regulated learning. Based on the three-dimensional framework, 27 design elements for online course construction were identified and organized to form a rubric. Design elements in the rubric accommodate Bloom’s hierarchy of cognitive development,

Figure 1. Framework for determination of learner epistemic beliefs profile

181


synchronous and asynchronous pedagogical strategies, and assessment of learning achievement by relevant item type. Online course designers and developers can apply the design elements to achieve an online course in harmony with an existing student population’s epistemic beliefs, or to construct a pathway to alter epistemic beliefs toward an optimal goal of constructivism, commitment and constructed knowledge, and high levels of selfregulation. As noted in Figure 1, three axes representing continuums based on Perry’s scheme, theory of knowledge, and levels of self-regulation can be abstracted as a cube with 27 distinct co-ordinate dimensions: x1, y1, z1 through x3, y3, z3. This three-dimensional representation can be used to identify specific characteristics and profiles for a given population of learners. To create the x-axis (Figure 1), the author’s grouped Perry’s (1970) nine “positions” relative to knowledge and learning into three groups: dualism, relativism, and self-affirmation/commitment. Dualism includes Perry’s positions of basic dualism, pre-legitimate multiplicity, and legitimate but subordinate multiplicity (Marra, Palmer, & Litzinger, 2000). Relativism includes full or legitimate multiplicity,

contextual relativism, and foreseen commitment; self-affirmation and commitment includes commitment within relativism. Based on items means from the data collected, a given learner population can be described within the three-dimensions. For example, a population located in the x1, y1, z1 dimension (Figure 2) would characteristically be identified by tendencies toward dualistic knowledge and learning, absolute knowledge, and low levels of self-regulation. This non-optimal position would indicate epistemic beliefs of the lowest order, thus requiring instructional design and pedagogy consistent with initial levels of cognition, student motivation, and self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2005). Any shift in the dimensional positioning would indicate movement in a positive direction, where mutual recursion or other reciprocal relationship may be evident. In another example (Figure 3), a population located in the x3, y3, z3 dimension would characteristically be identified by tendencies toward self-affirmation/commitment, high levels of meta-cognition, an ability to construct knowledge through collaboration, synthesis, and evaluation, and a high level of self-regulation. This optimal position would indicate highly evolved epistemic

Figure 2. Framework positioning for non-optimal learner epistemic beliefs profile

182


Figure 3. Framework positioning for optimal learner epistemic beliefs

beliefs that could accommodate instructional design and pedagogy consistent with advanced cognition and self-efficacy (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). With respect to phenomena involving reciprocity between axes in the framework, a learner population with the cognitive ability to construct new knowledge and act as a source of knowledge would demonstrate higher levels of self-regulation. Conversely, learner populations with higher levels of self-regulation would possess the attitudes and epistemic beliefs to construct knowledge, use interdisciplinary approaches in problem solving, and appreciate and incorporate multiple perspectives in the creation of new knowledge.

CASE DESCRIPTION Within the university and specific to the case study resides the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the College of Engineering. Virginia Tech’s Mechanical Engineering Department serves its students, alumni, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the nation through a variety of academic,

community services, and research programs. The Mechanical Engineering Department educates the engineers of tomorrow by integrating classroom theory and practical hands-on projects, by emphasizing the process of learning and critical thinking, by conducting original research, and by promoting professional relationships among the university, the business community, and engineering colleagues. The Department of Mechanical Engineering is one of the largest departments within Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering, awarding approximately 270 undergraduate, 50 masters of Science, and 15 Doctoral degrees annually. Virginia Tech’s programs in Mechanical Engineering are consistently ranked in the top 10-15% of Mechanical Engineering Departments in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. The case study involves a methodology used to design the online version of a thermodynamic course in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Virginia Tech. This is the department’s first effort in online design and teaching of an undergraduate course. Thermodynamics is considered an abstract course and in the field of engineering

183


education is known to be a difficult course in which to acquire mastery of concepts, principles, and procedures. Students are formally introduced to engineering problem solving in the course and as a result, must actively integrate prior knowledge of differential equations and statics with new materials to solve engineering problems related to thermodynamics. Problem solving is central to engineering work; therefore, problem solving must be central to engineering education. In traditional teaching of thermodynamics, instructors use classroom lecture and example problems to facilitate students’ learning of the subject. In the design of the course for online teaching, a discipline specific requirement will involve introducing students to the rigor of problem solving through motivation to exhibit increased self-regulated learning behaviors to improve contextual learning, review, and meaningful collaboration during problem solving exercises. Epistemic beliefs influence self-regulated learning via the personal standards individuals set for learning. For example, students in a traditional engineering course normally attend the class twice a week, thus communication with instructor and peers often is limited to those prescribed times. In an online or distance education setting, students typically are required to participate in a discussion forum and post or contribute more frequently; therefore, monitoring and integrating information requires a different paradigm for time management and engagement. Thus, task definitions influence setting goals or pursuing a particular tactic or set of tactics or strategies. Standards influence tactics and strategies learners use to carry out a task. Online teaching of a thermodynamics course would offer several advantages, including: (a) hypermedia learning environments offer particular advantages to adult learners who are inherently self-directed learners (Mayer, 2002); (b) the Web allows for a flexible learning environment and increases the accessibility of courses, allowing students who are traditionally unable to attend

184

or uncomfortable attending a standard classroom environment; (c) students’ lives are becoming much more asynchronous for multiple reasons, including the need to work, military service, dependent children, etc.; (d) students in “co-op” situations would still like to participate in courses; and (e) students need to collaborate and help each other in virtual situations. However, there also are disadvantages associated with Web learning: (a) in a computer-mediated learning environment, social presence consisting of vocal tones and/or facial expression may be reduced and instructors must rely on the student to communicate his/her challenge in learning the material; (b) Web learning requires a student to exhibit higher level of self-regulated behavior than a student in a traditional classroom setting; and (c) current populations taking engineering courses are composed of traditional undergraduates who typically require and expect more structure and instruction (Ravert & Evans, 2007). Students who require and expect more instruction do so due to their epistemic beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and knowing. As noted, research has shown that epistemic beliefs affect how students approach learning tasks (Schoenfeld, 1992), monitor comprehension (Schommer et al., 1992), and plan for solving problems and carry out those plans (Schommer, 1990). The authors used the aforementioned factors and theories as the framework for constructing the rubric to design the online Web-based undergraduate thermodynamics course. The rubric was developed in concert with the framework used to identify the epistemic beliefs of one student population taking this course. Ravert and Evans (2007) showed that expecting students at earlier stages of development to learn from courses based on principles of negotiation, shared construction, and peer-to-peer learning could be problematic. As seen in the case study, the authors used quantitative and qualitative assessment methods to provide baseline data to establish design elements for a Web-based thermodynamics course that promotes


Figure 4. Mixed-method research approach

self-regulated learning, constructivism, and commitment, and enhances student performance in courses that require intense problem solving skills.

Research Method The authors employed a mixed-method research approach (Figure 4) to formulate the ontology for the study. Based on Creswell and Clark (2007), qualitative and quantitative approaches were applied. Moreover, the authors utilized a survey, and field notes, classroom observations, and a focus group to construct the case study involving one fall 2009 section of ME 3134 Thermodynamics, an undergraduate engineering course. Survey data were collected, organized in subscales and analyzed to illustrate the mean and standard deviation in tabular form. Subscales were organized based on indication of self-regulation, theory of knowledge, and Perry’s Scheme. A means procedure was utilized to establish the item means, by subscale, for use as an overall indicator of variable strength. Construction of the case study relied on field notes collected during the investigation, formal classroom observations, and discussions with a focus group of students.

Population and Data Collection Following approval by the university’s Institutional Review Board, an online survey was administered to each of 45 students enrolled in the course. During the first week of class, students who were enrolled in the course received an email explaining the goals and purposes of the study and were asked to complete the survey by following a link included in the email. The survey was developed to measure: a) students’ self-reported confidence as it relates to problem-solving, b) students’ perceptions of instruction, and c) students’ use of technology as it related to accomplishing course work. The survey solicited demographic data and information regarding how students rate their frequency of participation in class discussions. Five survey questions related to self-efficacy and asked participants how confident they were in solving various equations and their self-confidence as it related to stating what is known or what is to be determined after reading a sample engineering problem. Response options involved a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no self-confidence) to 5 (a high level of self-confidence). Twelve survey

185


questions related to perceptions of instruction. For example, items asked respondents whether they believed good instructors often raise questions that have more than one correct answer and whether instructors should present various ideas and perspectives on an issue. Survey items also asked students whether they enjoy an instructor who asks questions that have more than one answer or who raises questions where the instructor also has no answer. Survey respondents chose from a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Three survey items asked participants how they used technology to collaborate with peers and accomplish course work. Survey items asked whether they met in-person, whether they used text messaging or email to accomplish course work, or if they completed work individually. Respondents again chose from a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Observations of student behaviors during class also served as a method of assessment. Three main questions served as the basis for the observations: a) how does the instructor facilitate problem-solving? b) what examples of studentcentered pedagogy does the instructor use as it relates to teaching problem-solving skills? and c) how do students approach problem-solving when presented with a problem set in class? A focus group was conducted with students divided into two groups. Five main questions served as the basis for the interviews: (a) how do you approach problem solving when presented with a problem set in class? (b) where do you get your confidence in problem solving? (c) what roles do peers play? how do you use your peers? (d) what role does the instructor play to facilitate problem solving? and (e) what role do you think technology play in problem solving when presented with a problem set in class? Of the 45 students enrolled in the course, 35 (29 men, 6 women) students completed the survey. Mean scores were computed for each item on the survey. Factor analysis was used to develop

186

three scales for the tree constructs measured by the survey. Chronbach alpha scores were used to ensure reliability for the three scales. The mean age for the 35 students was 20.5 (SD = .92).

ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA Self-Efficacy Item responses to the five item self-efficacy instrument were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (no confidence) to 5 (a high level of confidence). The instrument had a reliability coefficient of 0.82 in this pilot test with 35 students. The mean of the self-efficacy scale was 21.14 with SD = 2.71. The mean and standard deviation for each item is shown in Table 1. On average, students scored above the mean for self-efficacy in solving engineering problems.

Perception of Instruction Items used for the “Perception of Instruction” subscale were created by Ravert and Evans (2007). Ravert and Evans used this scale to obtain undergraduate student responses regarding knowledge, instruction and instructors teaching courses in pedagogy and instructional strategies. The authors examined student perceptions regarding knowledge, instructor, and instruction as related to problem solving in an undergraduate engineering course. Item responses in the 12 item “Perception of Instruction” instrument were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The instrument demonstrated a reliability coefficient of 0.67 in this case study with 35 students. The mean of the scale evaluated to 37.89 with SD = 5.26. The mean and standard deviation for each item is shown in Table 2. The authors examined student preferences for: (a) knowledge, (b) pedagogy, and (c) instruction taking place between students and instructor. In


Table 1. Self-efficacy subscale Self-Efficacy Subscale

Mean

Std. Deviation

1. How confident are you with solving engineering problems?

4.09

.658

2. How confident are you with stating what is known after reading an engineering problem?

4.49

.742

3. How confident are you with stating what is to be determined after reading an engineering problem?

4.51

.658

4. How confident are you with listing all simplifying assumptions to solve an engineering problem?

3.83

.785

5. How confident are you with drawing a diagram to solve a problem?

4.23

.690

the study the authors investigated whether students preferred: (a) absolute or certain knowledge that is factual and unambiguous; (b) absolute instruction, with the learning process being singularly controlled and orchestrated by the instructor; and/ or (c) open-ended collaborative activities such as peer-managed discussion boards. Based on the literature, the authors posited that students with higher epistemic beliefs exhibit more self-regulated behaviors, have less preference for absolute knowledge, are able to evaluate multiple views and approaches toward solving problems and learning theories, do not depend on instructors as a singular source for learning, do not think instruc-

tors are authority figures and are the only source of knowledge, and enjoy and willingly contribute to peer discussions and collaborative learning. A different set of course design elements and instructional strategies would be indicated: (a) if students believed knowledge consists of isolated facts and they did not engage in transfer or considered relationships among facts, (b) if students viewed instructors as the only possessor of knowledge, and/or (c) if students were not prepared developmentally to engage in peer collaboration to solve engineering problems. In Ravert and Evans’ (2007) study, the four items in Table 3 represented the absolute knowl-

Table 2. Perception of instruction as it relates to problem solving Subscales

Mean

Std. Deviation

1. A good college instructor often brings up questions that have more than one correct answer.

3.43

.884

2. College instructors should present various ideas on an issue.

4.11

.583

3. It’s not necessary for the instructor to answer all of my questions I post in class; fellow students can often do it instead.

3.00

1.213

4. I like it when an instructor brings up a question that he or she doesn’t know the answer to.

2.91

.981

5. In a course I would learn as much from fellow students as I would from the instructor.

3.26

1.010

6. I usually like it when my instructor answers a question with “it depends” and follows this by a discussion of the topic.

3.31

1.105

7. In the class, I would want the instructor to answer the questions I ask instead of other students answering my questions.

3.46

.817

8. Working with students on solving problems should be an important part of a class.

4.20

.677

9. If I heard an instructor say “we don’t know the answer to that” I would worry about taking a class from him/her.

2.63

1.003

10. An instructor who says “nobody really knows the answer to that” is probably a bad instructor.

2.11

.900

11. There is one right answer for most questions and a good instructor knows it.

2.91

.981

12. A good instructor gives facts and leaves theories out of discussion.

2.54

.950

187


Table 3. Survey results on students’ preferences for Knowledge (Item numbers correspond to the items in Table 2) Subscales

N

Percent Agree

9. If I heard an instructor say “we don’t know the answer to that” I would worry about taking a class from him/her.

35

23%

10. An instructor who says “nobody really knows the answer to that” is probably a bad instructor.

34

6%

11. There is one right answer for most questions and a good instructor knows it.

35

26%

12. A good instructor gives facts and leaves theories out of discussion.

35

17%

edge subscale. Student agreement with these items represents their beliefs that knowledge is composed of isolated facts. Responses to the four item “Perception of Knowledge” subscale were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (uncertain), 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). The mean and standard deviation for each item is shown in Table 2. Students responding with a 4 or 5 indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that “If I heard an instructor say ‘we don’t know the answer to that’, I would have reservations in taking a class from him/her.” Agreement with this sentence indicated an assertion that knowledge is absolute, factual, or unambiguous; students worry if questions do not have a single answer. Thus, a high score indicated low perception of knowledge or tendency toward absolute, factual, or unambiguous knowledge. The mean of the subscale was calculated to be 10.20 with SD = 2.69, the overall mean for 35 students on all four items in the knowledge subscale is 2.55 (SD = .67). This figure indicates that, on average,

students were inclined toward knowledge that is evolving. Table 3 represents survey results on student agreement with each of the items in the absolute knowledge subscale. The percentages of students who agreed or strongly agreed with these four items ranged from 6% to 26%. These results indicated that generally less than 30% of case study students believed that knowledge is simple, whereas more than 50% believed knowledge is evolving. Items in Table 4 represent a subscale that measured a preference for instruction that comes from a singular source (Ravert & Evans, 2007). The responses to the four item “Perception of Instruction” subscale were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (uncertain), 4 (agree) to 5 (strongly agree). The mean and standard deviation for each item is shown in Table 4. Students responding with a 4 or 5 indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that “A good college instructor often brings up questions that have more than one correct

Table 4. Survey results on students’ preferences for instruction (Item numbers correspond to the items in Table 2) Subscales

N

Percent Agree

1. A good college instructor often brings up questions that have more than one correct answer.

35

54%

2. College instructors should present various ideas on an issue.

35

94%

4. I like it when an instructor brings up a question that he or she doesn’t know the answer to.

35

29%

6. I usually like it when my instructor answers a question with “it depends” and follows this by a discussion of the topic.

35

48%

188


answer.” Therefore, as perceived and believed by the student, good (i.e., effective) instruction promotes multiple answers to questions. As a result, high score values indicated a preference for instruction originating from multiple sources. With the first item, students ranged from uncertain to a preference for instruction or learning sources. Students responding with a 4 or 5 indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that “I like it when an instructor brings up a question for which he or she doesn’t know the answer”. This indication illustrated a student belief that instructors are not the primary knowledge authority. Students’ response mean to this item calculated to be 2.91 (SD = .98), indicating that their preference ranged from disagree to uncertain regarding an instructor not knowing the answer to the question. Likewise, students responding with a 4 or 5 to the other two questions agreed or strongly agreed that there exists a multiplicity of sources for instruction. The mean of the subscale calculated to be 13.77 with SD = 2.36, the overall mean for 35 case study students on all four items in the Instruction subscale calculated to be 3.44 (SD=.59). This figure indicates that, on average, students were uncertain as to their preference for instruction from a singular source. Results in Table 4 indicated that 54% of case study students showed a preference for instructors who promote multiplicity of knowledge and knowing. Responses to question two, where 94% agreed that instructors should present various ideas on an issue, confirm a conclusion from the first question.

However, the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed with “I like it when an instructor brings up a question for which he or she doesn’t know the answer,” dropped to 29%, indicating a preference for instructors as authority figures who should know all the answers. Responses to question 6 indicated that 48% agreed or strongly agreed that an instructor should discuss topics in the context of questions. Students who responded in the focus group also agreed and expressed a preference for instructors who use questions as opportunities for discussion of the topic, rather than only lecture pedagogy. The authors modified four items from the Ravert and Evans’ (2007) study to measure student preferences for classroom instruction that focused on instruction taking place between an individual student and the instructor. Data in Table 5 represents survey results on students who agreed with each of the items in this subscale. Responses in the four item “Perception of Instructor” subscale were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (uncertain), 4 (agree) to 5 (strongly agree). The mean and standard deviation for each item is shown in Table 2. Students responding with a 4 or 5 indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that “It’s not necessary for the instructor to answer all questions I pose in class; fellow students often can answer instead.” The mean for this item was 3 (SD = 1.21) indicating that students were uncertain regarding peers who answer their questions instead of the instructor. As a result, high scores

Table 5. Survey results on students’ preferences for instructors (Item numbers correspond to the items in Table 2) Subscales

N

Percent Agree

3. It’s not necessary for the instructor to answer all of my questions I post in class; fellow students can often do it instead.

34

40%

5. In a course I would learn as much from fellow students as I would from the instructor.

35

37%

7. In the class, I would want the instructor to answer the questions I ask instead of other students answering my questions.

35

54%

8. Working with students on solving problems should be an important part of a class.

35

86%

189


indicated a preference for instruction originating from an instructor as well as peers. Students responding with 4 or 5 indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that “In a course I could learn as much from fellow students as I could from an instructor,” showed preference for peer collaboration. Students responding with a 4 or 5 to item 7 indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with “In the class, I would want the instructor to answer the questions I ask instead of other students answering my questions,” showed preference for instruction originating solely from the instructor and not peers. The mean of the subscale calculated to be 13.91 with SD = 2.05; the overall mean for 35 case study students on all four items in the Instructors subscale calculated to be 3.48 (SD=.51). Forty percent of the case study students (question 3) agreed that they would rely on peers for answers to their questions. The percentage of case study students who indicated that they learn just as much from peers as an instructor (question 5) was 37% and was in-line with responses obtained for question 3. However, the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed with an instructor answering a question instead of other students providing an answer increased to 54%. This increase indicated a preference for an instructor who passes knowledge directly to an individual student. Student responses in the focus group clarified and supported the survey results. Focus group students indicated that when an instructor involved students in class discussion, they benefited from the collaboration and, as a result, eliminated any confusion. However, they indi-

cated a preference for an instructor who showed the problem steps and emphasized conceptual understanding. In the focus group, student responses to question 8 indicated that students believed solving problems with other students in class is important, but having an instructor who could monitor the activities and provide guidance was essential. Table 6 features survey results on student preferences for using communication and computational technology in a thermodynamics course. The subscale mean evaluated to 9.46 with SD = 2.79; the overall mean for 35 case study students for all three items in the Technology subscale calculated to be 3.15 (SD = .93). Student survey data, supported by focus group responses, with respect to the use of technology in completing homework, class projects, and time-on-task study indicated a student preference for face-to-face meeting with peers. In spite of prevalent use of technology for day-to-day communications, these students showed their strongest preference for face-to-face interaction to be with other classmates. The mean of self-efficacy in problem solving evaluated to be 4.23 (SD = .54) for all 35 case study students. As a result, they were self-confident regarding their general problem solving skills in engineering courses. In the focus group, students pointed out that they were using the instructor provided forum in the Learning Management System (LMS) to read the instructor’s helpful tips for solving problems. Students did not feel self-confident regarding a contribution to such forums because, in most cases, they did not know how to verbally articulate a problem.

Table 6. Survey results on students’ preferences for use of technology Subscales

N

Percent Agree

13. I usually use text messaging or email to do homework, work on projects, and/or review class material with classmates.

34

60%

14. I usually meet classmates face-to-face to do homework, work on projects, and/or review class materials.

35

40%

15. I usually complete homework, class projects, and/or study on my own.

35

63%

190


With respect to using computational technology, some students enjoyed using software to solve problems; however, other students indicated a strong preference for sophisticated calculators, paper, pencil, and book tables for calculations associated to problem solving.

Rubrics for Online Course Design Figures 5, 6, and 7 feature rubrics with design elements constructed for this study to design online courses that promote self-regulated learning, self affirmation and constructivist perspectives. Numeric values of 1, 2, or 3 in the rubrics identify Figure 5. Student profiles design elements

the coordinate positioning within the framework (Figure 1). The first rubric (Figure 5) illustrates student profiles. Faculty and course designers can pinpoint student learning characteristics along the x, y, and z axes. The second (Figure 6) rubric displays pedagogical strategies. These strategies are useful in assisting faculty to develop instructional activities, assignments and coursework leading students toward the optimal x3, y3, and z3 coordinates of the design model (Figure 3). The last rubric (Figure 7) provides design elements for student assessment. For example, if students are accustomed to multiple choice examination items, assessment recommendations are provided for faculty to lead students to the highest coordinates of the model.

Application of the Rubric The student survey data, organized in Tables 1-6, are related to Figure 1, a framework to profile learner epistemic beliefs, via item means. Indicators for the framework x-axis, a range from dualism to self-affirmation and commitment, are seen in Tables 2 and 3. Further, indicators for the framework y-axis, a range from absolute knowledge to constructivism, are seen in Tables 4 and 5. Finally, indicators for the framework

Figure 7. Assessment tools design elements Figure 6. Pedagogical strategies design elements

191


z-axis, a range from low self-regulation to high self-regulation, are seen in Tables 1 and 6. Following a means procedure, item means for each table were calculated (Table 8). The item means were divided into three ranges that reflect one of three axes positions in the framework: 1, 2, or 3; defined as in Table 7. Prescription of a given learner population, in this instance the subjects of the case study, was achieved by scoring each variable item mean to an axis position according to the (relative) indicators defined in the framework. Based on the item means for each variable (Table 8) and the item means to axes positioning, the case study population of students was defined within the framework as x2, y3, z2. The positioning of x2 indicates the learner population is characterized as midway between dualistic tendencies and self-affirmation/ commitment. According to Perry (1970), this learner population has moved past earlier views that answers are either right or wrong and problems have only one solution, to a view that knowledge is largely contextual and transient. The learner has accepted himself of herself as a legitimate source of knowledge and do not consider the

teacher to be the absolute authority or source of knowledge. Positioning of the learner population as y3 is a result of variable means from Tables 4 and 5. In this position the learner population is characterized as having a preference for and being capable of constructivism. By reflecting on previous experience, collaborating with peers, creating mental models, and applying cognitive schema, learners in this coordinate position are capable of constructing new knowledge if given appropriate tools and directions. Learners in the y3 position also exhibit a predisposition toward learning, can manipulate a body of knowledge to abstract salient points, and can visualize abstract concepts and models. Moreover, learners in this position can incorporate nascent experiences into an existing cognitive framework or reference and accommodate new theories, concepts, and schema (Perry, 1981). Learners at this higher cognitive level also are active learners and generally learn by doing. The third axis position, z2, indicates that the learner population is moderately self-regulated. Learners in this population are guided by meta-

Table 7. →

Item Means

Axis Position

0.00 - 1.67

1

1.68 - 3.34

2

3.35 - 5.00

3

Table 8. The MEANS Procedure Variable

N

Mean

Std Dev

Self-Efficacy (Table 1)

35

4.23

0.54

Perception (Table 2)

35

3.16

0.44

Knowledge (Table 3)

35

2.55

0.67

Instruction (Table 4)

35

3.44

0.59

Instructor (Table 5)

35

3.48

0.51

Technology (Table 6)

35

3.15

0.93

192


Figure 8. Case study learner positioning in epistemic beliefs framework

cognition, actions defined by forethought, and higher levels of motivation to learn. Increased meta-cognitive skills provide the learners with a proven path or plan for how to learn, based on prior learning accomplishments. The z2 learner population can develop a successful approach to problem solving, demonstrate persistence toward difficult problems, and alter learning strategies in response to levels of success in meeting learning goals and objectives. This learner population is characterized by increased self-awareness, higher levels of self-efficacy, and an ability to monitor, evaluate, and alter individual performance, initiative, time-on-task, and level of effort. Figure 8 illustrates the positioning of the case study learner population from the item means translated to three coordinate axes. In so doing, the learner population is defined such that design elements can be applied in the construct of an online course to more fully engage and accommodate the leaner population, or to develop a strategy to alter the trajectory of the learner population toward the optimal position of x3, y3, z3. Once the coordinate position of the learner population is determined, design elements (Figures 5, 6, and 7) with respect to student profile, pedagogical strategies, and assessment tools can be applied in the online course design. Essentially, mapping

the case study learner population position within the epistemic beliefs framework (Figure 8) to the design elements (Figures 5, 6, and 7) provides the requirements for an online course design that most efficaciously meets the needs of the learner population. Moreover, as noted previously, the methodology can be used to establish a trajectory of design to move a given learner population from its defined position to a more optimal position within the framework.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The authors suggest an innovative approach to research-based online course development as reflected in the reciprocity between axes in the framework where a learner population’s epistemic beliefs can be determined and prescribed within the framework and related to course design rubrics. Application of the 27 design elements, based on current online learner positioning or intended trajectory within the framework, supports innovation in the research via a prescriptive-diagnostic approach where course design elements are mapped to coordinate positioning within the framework based on student epistemic belief data.

193


The methodology constructed and applied in this case study advances the literature concerning the relationship between student epistemic beliefs and online course construction. The authors offer this methodology and the following solutions and recommendations to academic institutions involved in similar online course initiatives and facing challenges in advancing students’ cognitive development, increasing self-regulation, and achieving constructivist learners.

Recap/Summary Empirical data is needed to measure the effectiveness of problem based online offerings of abstract engineering courses such as thermodynamics courses. Problem solving is central to engineering work; therefore, problem solving should be central to an engineering student’s education. Hypermedia learning environments offer particular advantages to learners who are inherently self-directed learners (Mayer, 2002). However, the case study population taking this course consisted of traditional undergraduates who required and expected more structure and instruction (Ravert & Evans, 2007). Many students, particularly those with low motivation and achievement, are unwilling to do mindful work, such as executing higher level cognitive processes. Learners in the collaborative problem solving process receive feedback and comments from peers, and from the teacher on the steps of planning, implementing, and executing problem solving processes rather than only receiving feedback from the teacher on their performance. Therefore, peer pressure, as a motivating factor, may push students to perform higher level cognitive functions. In addition, social constructivism (Pajares, 2002) suggests that the exchange of critical feedback among peers as well as from the instructor can encourage students to modify their work. Additional research is needed that will provide insights for engineering departments in design, implementation, and evaluation of online

194

engineering undergraduate courses, especially those that are designed to teach and improve the problem solving skills among students. This study enhanced the scholarship of online teaching and extended the state of knowledge in Human Performance Technology by contributing to the theories of computer-assisted instruction, distance education, and Web-based learning applications in abstract engineering subjects. In the case study, the authors presented data collected from a classroom based thermodynamics course using problem-based design. The authors expect application of the methodology described herein to design and deliver instruction through an online Thermodynamics engineering course that students’ problem solving skills will more quickly advance in comparison with conventionally inclass taught students. Students’ perceptions of various aspects of teaching and learning in a course play an important role in their engagement and performance (Schommer, 1993). Research shows that the effective employment of Web-based teaching and multi-media instructional materials could transfer superficial, passive, and mostly memorization learning to a deep, engaging, and reflective environment. One indelible aspect of Web learning is the opportunity for learners to collaborate during problem solving and actively participate in their learning. However, Ravert and Evans (2007) showed that expecting students at earlier stages of development to learn from courses based on principles of negotiation, shared construction, and peer-to-peer learning could be problematic. Therefore, if tools employed in teaching and learning or instructional design run contrary to students’ epistemic beliefs, the result could be student frustration and distress. As a result, the instructional design and pedagogical strategy should address these issues during the course design phase.


Recommendations The authors used the aforementioned factors and theories as the framework to design the first undergraduate Web-based thermodynamic course on Virginia Tech’s campus. In the present case study the authors used several assessment methods to provide baseline data to design a Web-based thermodynamics course that promotes self-regulated learning and enhance students’ performance in courses that require intense problem solving skills. Collecting the baseline data associated with this study allowed the authors to gauge how much structure and guidance to include in the online courseware, given the online student population who will be taking the thermodynamics course. Specifically, the authors wanted to know: a) what are students’ self-efficacy beliefs about problem solving and epistemic beliefs about instruction; b) how do students use technology to collaborate with peers to accomplish coursework; c) what is the current learning environment within a Thermodynamics course as designed by the instructor; and d) once these three factors have been assessed how can the information be used to design curriculum and instruction in an online course to promote increased self-regulation, higher order cognitive development, and constructivism with respect to knowledge and discovery”? In this chapter a case study examining student epistemic beliefs was presented. We offer the following suggestions for further discovery to faculty, instructional designers, and administrators who develop curricula for undergraduate students: 1. The researchers suggest that faculty consider the use of epistemic beliefs when developing course syllabi. Instructors should determine if the course design elements are structured in such a way to challenge and positively alter students’ epistemic beliefs or do they merely reinforce their epistemic beliefs. 2. Epistemic beliefs among students were discussed in our research; however, examining

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the influence of faculty members’ epistemic beliefs on students’ epistemic beliefs is fertile ground for future research endeavors. Little to no scholarship has been devoted to this line of inquiry. This case study involved students in mechanical engineering. The quantitative findings of our research may be generalized to students in other disciplines, as they relate to epistemic beliefs. Follow up study is needed to apply our methodology to broader disciplinary boundaries (e.g., the liberal arts). To effectively explore students’ epistemic beliefs, institutional commitment must exist. Key administrators at colleges and universities may be influential in overseeing the process of the analysis of epistemic beliefs among their student populations. These administrators are critical to secure faculty buy-in at the beginning stages of analysis. Researchers should further compare and study epistemic beliefs across disciplinary boundaries. The results will inform new efforts and planning phases in interdisciplinary studies. While the authors used one proven instrument to assess the epistemic beliefs in this case study, multiple tools exist. Course designers should choose an instrument that is appropriate for their population and then apply the findings as was done in this case study. Finally, the authors suggest that the study of epistemic belief should occur in a longitudinal fashion. Institutions may gauge students’ epistemic beliefs at the beginning of the first year and periodically assess shifts and trends among students throughout the undergraduate experience. This process may allow faculty members to fine tune academic assignments, promoting growth among their students.

195


REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 231–255. doi:10.1007/BF01172995 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay. Buehl, M., Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449. doi:10.1006/ ceps.2001.1103 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hammer, D. H., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of personal epistemology. In Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 53–61). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026

196

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Knight, L. V., & Mattick, K. (2006). When I first came here, I thought medicine was black and white: Making sense of medical students’ ways of knowing. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 1084–1096. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.017 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. doi:10.1002/ sce.3730770306 Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2004). Encouraging intellectual growth: Senior college student profiles. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 111– 122. doi:10.1023/B:JADE.0000024544.50818.1f Marra, R. M., Palmer, B., & Litzinger, T. A. (2000). The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the Perry Scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 39–46. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55–71. doi:10.1002/tl.47


Molenda, M., Pershing, J. A., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). Designing instructional systems. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook: A guide to human resources development (4th ed., pp, 266-293). New York: McGraw-Hill. Muis, K., Bendixen, L., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemological research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54. doi:10.1007/s10648-0069003-6 Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173–190. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/ eff.html Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995, April 18-22). Role of self-efficacy and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Paper presented at AERA San Francisco, CA. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193 Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In Chickering, A. (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1950). Introduction a l’epistemologie genetique. Paris: Presses University de France.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ravert, R. D., & Evans, M. A. (2007). College student preferences for absolute knowledge and perspective in instruction: Implications for traditional and online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 321–328. Ryan, M. P. (1984a). Conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1226–1238. doi:10.1037/00220663.76.6.1226 Ryan, M. P. (1984b). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 249–258. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.2.248 Schoenfeld, A. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(4), 329-363. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In Grouws, D. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498 Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.406

197


Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 435–443. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.435 Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93–105. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.93 Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848–856. doi:10.1037/00220663.75.6.848 Schunk, D. H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1159– 1169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1159 Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Maddux, J. E. (Ed.), Selfefficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Wigfield, W., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15–31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6 Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York: Guilford Press. Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 5–22. doi:10.1007/BF02504925

198

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Report to Congress: Improved data on program costs and guidelines on quality assessments needed to inform federal policy. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.gao.gov/new/ items/d04279.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Absolute Knowledge: May be described as knowledge that is fixed and has no room for interpretation or variations in the human experience. Persons who subscribe to absolute knowledge tend to be binary thinkers. For example, persons who embrace this philosophical approach may have strong opinions about what is perceived to be universally “right” and “wrong.” Thus, knowledge is predicated upon natural universal laws. Constructivism: The belief that knowledge is grounded and generated by human experiences. Therefore, constructivists maintain that knowledge is relative. Constructivists allow for interpretation of issues about “right” and “wrong,” based on the acquisition and use of knowledge in varied human experiences. Thus, knowledge is socially constructed. Epistemic Beliefs: Refers to a person’s view about knowledge, it source and nature. It further relates to one’s knowledge and the validation of such. Meta-Cognitive Standards: Processes that encourage individuals to think critically, acquire, and arrange information, utilizing a higher order of thinking skills. Self-Efficacy: Relates to one’s perceived ability to perform certain tasks and attain specific goals. Self-Regulated Learning: This kind of learning refers to learning that is driven by the student, as opposed to the instructor. It also involves the use of meta-cognition or “thinking about thinking.” Individuals who operate at a high degree of


self-regulated learning tend to take responsibility for their successes and failures. SoTL: Scholarship of teaching and learning. Prescriptive-Diagnostic: For the purposes of this study, this term relates to the authors’ ability

to pinpoint the stages of students’ epistemic beliefs and suggest design elements to move them in directions to optimize self-regulated learning, constructed knowledge, and self-affirmation.

199

200

Chapter 14

The Third Time’s for Charm: A Three-Semester Journey of Learning to Facilitate Relational, Online Learning Communities Angela Webster-Smith University of Central Arkansas, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case examines a three-semester journey of an instructor’s efforts to augment face-to-face course delivery with online instruction. Her mission was threefold: (1) to update a school-based organizational leadership course to become more relevant to the profession, (2) to develop students’ proficiencies for building leadership capacity and organizational intelligence, and (3) to cultivate relational, online learning communities. The author shares the failures and triumphs she experienced in developing her capacity for quality, online course design and instruction and in realizing the aforementioned goals in an online environment. The differentiation of instructor strategies and learner outcomes are highlighted vis-à-vis standards of quality online design and time-honored student reflections.

ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND The University of Central Arkansas (UCA) has a history that spans over 100 years. UCA is the second-largest university in Arkansas, with about 13,000 students enrolled. UCA’s diverse array of academic offerings includes 160 undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degree programs. The College of Education at UCA is dedicated to providing exemplary programs for the preparation of professional educators, including teacher preparation, educational leadership, school counDOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch014

seling, library media, instructional technologies, higher education student personnel administration, and other related professional fields.

SETTING THE STAGE Do you remember the sinking feelings you experienced after reflecting upon the first course you ever taught? If you felt chagrined, then your feelings bore a striking resemblance to what I felt after my first semester as a novice instructor. This, in my mind, was a good enough reason not to become a novice online instructor. Even though


The Third Time’s for Charm

I was conversant with crisscrossing instructional platforms and was genuinely excited about the instructional stretch of augmenting my traditional course delivery with online instruction, I grimaced at the déjà vu of being a novice instructor. Despite my shortcomings, the unique challenges of updating a school-based organizational leadership course beckoned me to the vulnerable role of novice instructor once more. I accepted the challenge to enhance the faceto-face (F2F) delivery of this course with online instruction for three primary reasons. First and foremost, I wanted to address the public criticism that educational leadership programs are chiefly theoretical and insufficiently practical (Albritton and Klotz, 2005). That school leadership programs are grounded in cognitive-based content rather than practical applications suggests that leadership programs neither reflect the realities of modern day school operations nor the veracity of their diverse student populations. This indictment motivated the me to strengthen the relevance of our pre-service leadership program by not only training emerging school leaders in the requisite knowledge, skills and dispositions but by also designing performance-based activities that would simulate the everyday functions of 21st century school leadership teams. The second reason to accept the challenge was the dire need for schools to expand their leadership capacity (Perkins, 2003) and engender organizational intelligence (Wilensky, 1967). Much like corporate America, school districts are filled with “telling” leaders and “doing” staff who work in isolation. Even though leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow, when transactional leadership reigns, the relationship oftentimes disintegrates into an association of exchanges (Burns, 1978). Even though the strategy to divide and rule is a sound motto as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once stated, to unite and lead is a better one. Leadership as a cohesive relationship is often seen in transformational leadership which is characterized

by mutual interests, genuine trust, plus shared values and vision between leaders and followers ((Burns, 1978; Flumerfelt, 2006). Since future school administrators will be leading complex organizations where pervasive leadership capacity and organizational intelligence is essential, school leadership programs must prepare candidates for the full scope of leadership challenges and opportunities that lay ahead, including team leadership. Transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Flumerfelt, 2006) is viewed as one of the means by which school cultures can segue into professional learning communities for the purposes of student achievement and overall school improvement (DuFour & DuFour, 2005). These understandings inspired me to plan for activities that would allow key players such as aspiring principals, counselors, directors of gifted/talented programs, special education, curriculum and other instructional leaders to replicate functional school-based teams. Sensitivity toward the schedule of today’s professionals was the third reason to forge ahead. I grappled with philosophical, pedagogical, and administrative challenges in designing an online course that would remain true to preparation for the profession while it also accommodated the lifestyles of the professional. This necessitated a balancing act in that most students wanted fewer F2F classes but at the same time were not comfortable with technology’s inability to take the place of the human touch. Students were equally repulsed by the notion of learning to use new technology. I attempted to quiet these storms by touting the significance of learning to lead functional teams, whether team members were distant or F2F. I also corroborated that online learning was not only forward thinking but a boon in the fulfillment of our purposes (i.e. less F2F classes, 24-7 communication, digitized organization, and a venue to house course and program documents, etc.). When I first began the renovation of this traditional course for online delivery, it was natural for me to think about the teaching and learning

201


aspects of the redesign. For example, I readily considered constructivists approaches to teaching and learning, appropriate content and materials, critical discourse, methods of presentation, incentives and motivation to participate, expectations for student work load during and in between sessions, assignments and grading, institutional cooperation, and students’ prior experience with technology. As a novice online instructor, however, I did not consider the social and emotional needs of students. Even though I consider such needs when developing F2F courses, I did not account for them within the context of online delivery. Such oversights would prove costly in terms of learner outcomes. As I more closely examined the structure, instructional strategies, and student reflections for the course, I learned that I had, in fact, neglected several social and emotional essentials. For instance, I omitted the key value of trust-building (Parsons, Kieser, McRae & Doherty, 2007) that fosters positive peer- and instructor interaction. I disregarded communication styles, personal interests, social contexts of dialogue and the notion of shared community (Edelson, 2000; Herod, 2000; Hrabe, Adamy, Milman, Washington & Howard, 1998; Lee, Bray, Carter-Wells, Ivers & Street, 2001; Parsons, Kieser, McRae & Doherty, 2007; Perry & Edwards, 2004). Likewise, I did not plan for how we, as a class, would bring to bear our personal styles (Herod, 2000) and other critical identifiers for relationship-building. These elements would be important in capturing characteristics such as wit, sarcasm, conciliation (Herod, 2000), passive-aggressive behavior and other verbal cues. Moreover, I did not chart a course to make up for the loss of physical cues (Herod, 2000) that disclose nuances only detected in facial expressions, gestures and other body language. What is more, I did not place socializing on the agenda. I did not take into account that absent these qualities, some students would never wholeheartedly engage or feel as if they were part of the course community. In terms of

202

course content, I did not plan for ways that students could communicate their collegial style (Herod, 2000). As an illustration, the course structure did not afford ways for students to express their academic strengths, the contributions they would like to make, and how they produce their best work, alone and in groups. Overlooking ways for students to convey their collegial styles would prove deleterious to my aspiration of developing students’ proficiencies for building leadership capacity and organizational intelligence. The upshot is this; I had received training in the navigation of the online learning system. I had also received guidance on interacting with students using the technology. I had the requisite preparation to facilitate a basic online course. But I needed more. I had a need for additional professional development in the design of quality online instruction and even more information on how to facilitate relational online communities. My pursuit of knowledge had to continue if I stood any chance of accomplishing my objective of having an exemplary online course that modeled the knowledge, skills and dispositions for leading contemporary, collaborative school leadership teams. The conceptual framework for collaboration and community among school leadership teams is corroborated in the body of work that suggests that the place for the Lone Ranger dictator-type leader has passed and that a culture of collaboration has arrived (Barth, 2006; DuFour, 2004; DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008; DuFour & DuFour, 2003; DuFour & DuFour, 2005; Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2006). A singular school leader cannot transform a school through individual efforts alone; however, districts have, historically, been too dependent upon principals for the success of schools. In the face of compelling evidence and best practices, many school principals and teachers continue to work in isolation (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008). To wit, school reform typically does not progress on a wide-scale basis until the disproportionate dependence on the principal is


lessened. Therefore, emerging school administrators must learn to develop leadership capacity among the ranks of school personnel and work with them to achieve the collective purpose of student achievement and school improvement. In essence, school leaders must create structures that promote a collaborative culture (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008). One of the more forward thinking efforts to advance collaborative school teams is DuFour’s professional learning community model (DuFour, 2004; DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008; DuFour & DuFour, 2003; DuFour & DuFour, 2005; Dufour & Eaker, 1998). This model is a marked departure from the great man theory of leadership (Carlyle, 1888) and the single-brain approach to leadership (Savage, 2006). Conversely, it favors collaborative thinking that embraces ideas from team members, pursues a shared vision, shared meaning, shared knowledge (DuFour & DuFour, 2005) and a cohesive school culture. It is typically guided by transformational leaders who interact with followers in order to increase organizational effectiveness as well as human potential, having the effect of working collaboratively, cleverly, and ethically (Flumerfelt, 2006). Having DuFour’s professional learning community model as my prototype, I believed that this course presented a rich opportunity for me to foster a proliferation of leadership (Fullan, 2006) by replicating professional learning communities among emerging school leaders in an online learning environment. This case, then, will offer the lessons I learned along my three-semester journey to update the school-based organizational leadership course to become more relevant to the profession, to develop students’ proficiencies for pervasive leadership capacity and organizational intelligence and to cultivate a relational, online learning environment. As the study was conducted with three groups of students, I will present the characteristics of the three groups as well as share the results of the data that provided insight for improving the course’s design and instructional strategies. It is

my hope that my discoveries will assist not only educational leadership faculty but instructors in other disciplines as well.

CASE DESCRIPTION I agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson who once said A man can stand anything except a succession of ordinary days. So, I committed several classes to authentic school-based teaming simulations that were best carried out F2F. With this decision, I selected a hybrid model for course delivery rather than fully online delivery. The WebCT learning system (selected by the University) was used to augment F2F classes which may or may not include the use of compressed video. The WebCT discussion board was used extensively to establish small and whole group activities that would foster the development of online learning communities in between F2F meetings. To ensure that students gained the experience of modeling team leadership, they were organized into learning circles in WebCT. Learning circles conducted collective research, engaged in article discussions and provided abstracts, made presentations, and collaborated on projects. Each learning circle had its own, private discussion board to accomplish collaborative assignments. Data were collected over the course of three semesters from Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3, respectively. The curriculum and the instructor, otherwise, remained consistent. Students’ WebCT activity was examined using the number of times a student entered the WebCT site, the number of messages each student read on the discussion board, and the number of messages each student posted on the discussion board. The data were analyzed to evaluate the relationships between the number of times students entered WebCT and their engagement in the online learning community as indicated by the number of messages read and posted on the discussion board. Data were also analyzed by the number of times students read messages on the discussion

203


board with the number of messages posted on the discussion board. Group mean scores were examined to determine if differences existed between the groups. On-going and end-of-course student reflections were used to gauge the perceptions and progress of the online learning communities. With a goal to alleviate the disadvantages of distance and to foster mastery in team leadership, instructional practices were modified from group to group based upon findings.

Qualitative Data Analysis and Results

delivery. All materials that were not presented F2F were placed on the WebCT class site for students to read, discuss, and reflect on, either privately or publicly. WebCT activities were scheduled to be completed in between all F2F meetings. I had grandiose goals for the first semester. But in all honesty, the majority of my energy was invested in converting course materials to a digital format and identifying the most appropriate and logical location for them to be housed and used in WebCT. A sampling of students’ end-of-course reflections revealed mixed messages regarding technology and team building:

Semester 1 Participants, Approaches, and Reflections

•

Group 1 consisted of six males and 14 females (n=20). Sixteen of the students attended classes on the campus site and four of the students were at a remote site using compressed video. Two of these students had the advantage of an extensive orientation of WebCT during a previous semester. However, this was the first time students would explore the concept of professional learning communities. Group 1 received introductory letters prior to the commencement of the semester that provided information about the course, the schedule, and WebCT. WebCT information included self-registration instructions in order to create a WebCT account and basic instructions on how to navigate WebCT. With these pieces of information, students were requested to begin preliminary readings and to engage in discussions with their learning circles prior to the first F2F class. The first F2F meeting was scheduled three weeks into the semester so students would have ample opportunities to become familiar with the WebCT platform, the course possibilities, and the course responsibilities. Six F2F classes on Saturdays were held during the semester. Course materials, critical discourse, and methods of instruction for the F2F delivery were consistent with traditional course

•

204

•

•

•

•

•

•

I felt like we should have met face-to-face prior to having assignments on a program that I was unfamiliar with. I didn’t feel 100% comfortable. It was too time consuming for me. I am a more traditional learner. I enjoy sitting in a class listening to the instructor. I believe either a class should be an online class or a traditional class. I was checking email and discussion many times a day and still didn’t know what was going on. Too much information all at once! I had problems navigating WebCT. I couldn’t always follow the written instructions. I was overwhelmed at first, but once I got going, it was fairly easy to navigate. I was excited that part of the coursework is online. That enabled me to complete work on my own schedule and still spend valuable time with my family. I found WebCT very easy to navigate. I found the instructions were very to-thepoint and user friendly. I was not very comfortable with building a community online. I like conversations, not reading and responding. I don’t feel like I got to know my teammates as well in this format. My group spent too much time talking about WebCT and finding information


•

•

and not enough time talking about the assignments. I really liked the discussion group, but I am upset that some group members didn’t pull their weight. The group work was frustrating at first until I got comfortable with WebCT. I would much rather do group work electronically than be required to meet. E-teams are great!

Because most of the student reflections from Group 1focused more on the technology of the course rather than on the content of the course, I was compelled to immediately alter the course structure in two ways. First I had to provide more technological assistance at students’ fingertips. Second, I had to provide a means for students to feel a sense of community and belonging.

Semester 2 Participants, Approaches, and Reflections Group 2 consisted of five males and twelve females (n=17). All students met F2F at a remote site. This was the second semester the group was intact although this was the first time students would explore the concept of professional learning communities. My goal to structure the class to minimize technology anxieties but maximize the ‘human touch’ was initiated with early and more frequent student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction. This semester, the first F2F class was scheduled during the first week of the semester. The schedule was also revised to meet one night during the week rather than on weekends. While Group 2 also received introductory letters before the start of the semester and had received an extensive technology orientation of WebCT the previous semester, students received another extensive technology and course orientation during the first class. In addition, students participated in introductory games and team-

building activities in the first meeting. The social activities were designed to engender acceptance and appreciation for one another, as well as to help students make a connection to classmates as part of a community of learners. WebCT activities were still scheduled to be completed in between all F2F meetings but students were given additional online team-building activities that would extend social bridges between the F2F classes. Besides, students who had never met prior to the course were allowed opportunities to engage in risk-free, fun activities before the heavier assignments were given. In essence, the notion of ‘community’ commenced early in the semester and continued throughout. In addition, I communicated a vision of interdependence and modeled teaming principles such as online collaboration, consensus, decision making, and conflict management and resolution. Although students readily touched base with me, as they would in an F2F environment, I resisted the temptation to be the center of attention by advancing a learner-centered, shared community so that students could learn from each other rather than rely solely on me for teachable moments. Student reflections pointed to a difference between Groups 1 and 2 that indicated a shift from a technology focus to that of a community focus. A sampling of students’ end-of-course reflections disclosed more favorable comments regarding the technology and the teamwork: •

• •

•

I do like the flexibility of WebCT, but I really struggle with some aspects of this type of teamwork. I need to see people when I have conversations. I really like WebCT! It is a great time saver. This was my first experience with WebCT and I really enjoyed it. Time is an issue for everyone and WebCT allowed everyone to work at their convenience. I enjoyed using the WebCT. I am not very comfortable with technology and I think this has helped me. I loved working with my team, they were great. It made me less

205


•

•

•

•

•

•

206

stressed working with them. I knew I had someone to assist me if I was struggling with any part of an assignment. I liked the WebCT teamwork activity. It was very challenging, but, at the same time rewarding. I enjoyed working with my classmates, because it gave me an opportunity to collaborate with others. I believe WebCT assisted in holding each member of my team accountable and encouraged communication. I liked the WebCT work. Unlike class assignments, it allowed us to complete the work when we could find free time. I found it very beneficial because it gave us a chance to examine class topics more in depth. Our team worked really well together. It made us accountable to one another, and everyone carried their own share of the workload. Personally, it gave me a chance to get to know everyone better. As a team, I think we worked well with the format. Everyone was conscientious and thoughtful about the assignments and responses. I enjoyed the articles and the sharing we did. I liked the WEBCT work. It makes it really easy to work together but still carry on a normal life. Nobody had to be reminded to post their part of a project. It was truly teamwork! I thought the teamwork was a good way for us to research articles and reflect on them. I would much rather do it through teamwork than for everyone to each find an article, write a reflection, and turn them in for YOU to read all of them! I found teamwork very beneficial because it gave us a chance to examine class topics more in depth. Our team worked really well together. Our team worked well, and never seemed to falter on our assignments. WEBCT is exactly what the Dr. ordered for me.

Group 2’s technology fears were, for the most part, quieted. Students also responded favorably to the warm welcome into the learning community as well as the community norms that were modeled and established just as they would have been in an entirely F2F course. One of the benefits of enhancing the technological and social aspects of the class was that future courses might be offered fully online without the benefit of any F2F classes. Regardless of the format, I wanted students to be empowered to use the technology effectively and efficiently and I wanted students to be active participants in a community of learners.

Semester 3 Participants, Approaches and Reflections At this juncture, I am pleased about providing better technological assistance and more social opportunities to students. I am delighted that students have caught a glimpse of what it means to collaborate in an online community. However, the course is yet to represent all the ideals I envisioned. While students had shifted from a technology focus to a community focus, I fell short of moving students to an ideal level of mastery in core course content as it pertains to team leadership. Besides, I did not want students to perceive collaboration only as congeniality and group camaraderie. I needed to improve the instructional design so that students could focus more on the complex matters of leading collaborative, school leadership teams by way of engagement in meaningful, professional dialogue and partnership. So, before the semester began, I sought additional advice from the general university information technology center as well as the technology learning center in the College of Education. I struck gold, however, when I began meeting with seasoned, online instructors who also sought to foster collaboration, camaraderie, and community within their online courses. They were gracious enough to introduce me to the quality design principles and criteria contained in the Greenhouse


Online Exemplary Course Rubric (Blackboard Greenhouse Awards, n.d.). Equipped with additional online instructional knowledge, strategies, and standards for quality online course design, I began to integrate the newly found principles. Group 3 consisted of seven males and nine females (n=16). Five students met at a remote site (using compressed video) and 11 students met on the home campus. While this was the second semester the group was intact, this was the first time students would explore the concept of professional learning communities. The content, schedules, activities and expectations were consistent with those of Group 2. But rather than send mere introductory letters, a welcome packet was sent this time with additional curriculum materials. For instance, a WebCT ‘Getting Started’ module was included containing a plethora of information for students such as course expectations, rubrics to guide and measure academic and behavioral performance, as well as learning style and distance learning inventories that included reflective thinking for the online environment. To help with course content regarding team leadership, students received information on how they could identify one another’s strengths and weaknesses, how to work with team diversity, set team expectations, have effective team meetings, work through team disagreements, and dispense team roles. Along with the contact information for student support (within the college and university-wide) library services contact information and resources were provided. Students were also given easy access to web links with an abundance of technology tools that allowed for software add-ons for successfully navigating and connecting in WebCT. What is more, tips for troubleshooting technology problems were provided in addition to technology tools for socializing. A case in point is the netiquette websites that students could reference to gain knowledge in online etiquette. They could also take quizzes to assess their knowledge of appropriate online behavior. Providing students

with common yet acceptable online language and abbreviations gave the course the appeal of social networking. It also afforded students ways in which their personal styles could shine through, making up for potentially lost nuances of physical and verbal cues. Not only did this help students, it liberated me to return to my signature sense of humor in the classroom that I had abandoned for fear that it would not prove as meteoric through cyber space. A sampling of students’ end-of-course reflections divulged that their social and technology needs were largely met and that students focused more on the course content: •

•

•

•

•

I enjoyed being able to get to know everyone a little more during this class than we have been able to do in other classes. The growth of my professional relationships this semester has been great. I was very lucky to be in this group. I also learned quite a bit about my team after completing the survey and reviewing the data. It gives us a place to start making the changes that need to occur for own staff members to become a team where everyone is working toward a common goal. Every article my learning circle researched will help me down the road. I want to take this time to thank each of you for working with me and letting me do the first two articles; you all are great. I’ve really enjoyed this class and found it to be so real to the experiences I have had and to the ones I continue to have. From the very first few sessions, we realized the importance of collaboration and “buy in.” I started this class with just the intention of getting a pay raise, but the more I experience this the more I really like it. I think that we are greater for having the diversity and the perspectives we shared. I know I will not be happy as just a passive teacher in administrative workings after my time in this program.

207


•

•

•

•

•

I really enjoyed building the personal and professional relationships. Although the discussion board was a hot topic at times, that diversity, passion, and open communication is what will help us be successful. The class and WebCT discussions were great. Everyone had different opinions based on their different experiences, and it was very valuable to gain insight on the views of others. I look forward to working with you all in the future. I look forward to having the opportunity to expound on what we have learned in here and to apply the learning in our contextual settings. The activities highlighted the areas that I need to work on like consensus, conflict management, time management, and making decisions that consider the whole and not just myself. I hope that as we finish this program and begin work in our respective places that we can remain in contact and help each other through the difficult times about which we worry now. I’m really enjoying spending time with you guys and learning not only from the instructors but from you all. It really opened my eyes to hear honest, open discussion about what goes on at your schools. Sometimes those things happen at my school, but when you’re close to the situation, you take it more personal and don’t see it with an objective mind. So, I thank all of you to for opening my mind to being more objective and seeing things I normally would not.

Quantitative Data Analysis and Results The qualitative data offered revelations that could not be ignored. Now, I wanted to see if the quantitative data would tell a story that was consistent with student reflections. So I reviewed the distance learning system’s data even more closely. Even though the system’s data were showing a considerable number of times students entered WebCT, qualitative data suggested that this was no guarantee of functional teaming, community building, or content mastery. It turns out that students sometimes entered to check emails, post assignments, and read lesson module content but did not routinely enter the discussion board where the learning community and team leadership activities took place. Now the story behind the numbers would become even more salient. SPSS 15.1 was employed to conduct the analysis of the quantitative data collected in the case study. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 provide an overview of the descriptive data for the combined WebCT activity for Groups 1, 2 and 3. Table 1 specifically provides the frequency with which students entered WebCT, read messages and posted messages in the discussion board while Table 2 shows the frequencies, mean and standard deviation scores for all groups combined.

ANOVA Analysis One-way analyses of variance were conducted to evaluate the relationships between the group means for the number of times students entered

Table 1. Descriptive data for groups: Times entered, messages read and posted in WebCT Group

Times in WebCT

Messages Read

Messages Posted

Group 1 (N=20)

13,788

3,811

473

Group 2 (N=17)

10,925

3,182

388

Group 3 (N=16)

12,231

4,075

527

Totals (N=53)

36,943

11,068

1,388

208


Table 2. Descriptive data for all three groups (N=53) WebCT Activity

Frequencies

M

SD

Total # of Times in WebCT

36,943

697.04

261.91

Total # of Messages Read

11,068

208.83

58.19

Total # of Messages Posted

1,388

26.19

11.33

Table 3. ANOVA analysis of WebCT activity for all three groups (N=53) Comparison b/t Groups

df

f

ŋ

p

Total times in WebCT

2

.902

.035

.412

Total # of Messages Read

2

9.45

.274

.001

Total # of Messages Posted

2

4.47

.157

.014

p < .05

Table 4. Descriptive data for messages read and posted in discussion board WebCT Activity/Group

M

SD

SE

190.55

53.875

12.047

Message Read Group 1 (N=20) Group 2 (N=17)

187.18

47.485

11.517

Group 3 (N=16)

254.69

49.349

2.337

Messages Posted Group 1 (N=20)

23.65

10.297

2.302

Group 2 (N=17)

22.82

6.957

1.687

Group 3 (N=16)

32.94

13.752

3.438

WebCT, the number of messages read, and the number of messages posted in the discussion board. There were no significant differences found between the group means and the number of times students entered WebCT. Significant differences were found, however, when the means were compared for messages read and posted in the discussion board. Table 3 presents the results of the ANOVA. The ANOVA indicated significant differences with large effect sizes in the comparison of the means for messages read and posted in the discussion board. Follow-up tests consisted of conducting pairwise comparisons set at the .05 level between the groups for messages read and messages posted.

Using the Bonferroni method, the post hoc analyses indicated statistically significant differences for both messages read and posted in the discussion board between Groups 1 and 3 and between Groups 2 and 3, but not between Groups 1 and 2. Table 4 provides descriptive data of messages read and posted for each group. Quantitative and qualitative data substantiate that the adjustments I made to the course structure and the instructional strategies contributed to the statistically significant difference between Groups 1 and 3 and between Groups 2 and 3. Integrating quality design and instructional strategies resulted in a marked transition from an ‘I’ to ‘we’ spirit that lay bare from group to group and

209


a transition from simply teaming to applying the course concepts to their roles as school leaders. Students not only demonstrated attainment of the academic content through critical discourse. They also exhibited key collaborative skills in their assignments such as problem-solving, knowledge management, the ability to connect, integrate, share information and extract meaning from data. With better course design, smart people became smart groups. Using the professional learning community model, students came to depend less on their solo intelligence and relied more on the power of their team intelligence (Perkins, 2003). My hope is that the lessons students learned will transfer to their leadership of schools as collaborative organizations.

CURRENT CHALLENGES FACING THE ORGANIZATION Students in online classes do not become learning communities as a function of matriculation. What is more, physical proximity (Parsons, Kieser, McRae, Doherty & 2007) plus students’ social and emotional needs will likely play a role in whether students wholeheartedly engage in online learning communities and in course content. In fact, if technology and social needs are not met, students may never concentrate on course content. This is critical when considering that academic departments are increasingly converting more courses from a traditional format to either a hybrid model or online format. Beyond that, many of us are developing students for people-oriented disciplines. To be certain, the school-based organizational leadership course must remain immersed in the business of people. Tenets of this course included effective communication and relationshipbuilding, leadership styles, time management, establishing a culture of trust, listening, team and consensus-building, shared decision making, the process of change, conflict management and resolution in addition to engaging in difficult

210

conversations. Considering that leadership is a relationship, it is imperative that instructors of leadership and of other people-oriented courses afford students a myriad of opportunities to learn “soft skills” that pertain to emotional intelligence, social graces, friendliness, optimism, and other personal habits that characterize effective relationships with others. Such opportunities should include conceptual and applied use of “soft skills” in authentic and weighty situations, the course format notwithstanding. Online instructors (fully or hybrid) must attend to the human element. As shown in this study and other studies (Edelson, 2000; Herod, 2000; Hrabe, Adamy, Milman, Washington & Howard, 1998; Parsons, Kieser, McRae & Doherty, 2007; Perry & Edwards, 2004), when instructors design high quality online courses, students are more likely to gain the learning outcomes and transformative learning (Lee, Bray, Carter-Wells, Ivers & Street, 2001; Perry & Edwards, 2004) that we expect. For these reasons, instructors should work to stem technological concerns and apportion some social conveyances into their online courses (Herod, 2000) so that students focus on the commodities of the course content.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I would imagine that instructors and universities, in the U.S. and abroad, have a sincere desire to provide alternative, flexible course delivery that accommodates the needs of their students. This is especially important to instructors and universities that feel a moral imperative to extend their net of educational access to students that are not geographically situated near their campuses. In spite of their purity of heart, instructors do not always readily possess the knowledge, skills and dispositions to design quality online learning experiences for students. Even when instructors have extensive experience as educators in gen-


eral, designing quality online courses calls for more precise intentions, thoughts, and strategies. Therefore, I offer several recommendations: One recommendation for online instructors is to be aware that just because students enroll in a fully or partially online course does not necessarily mean that they are technologically savvy or technologically curious. In this case study, some students were terrified of the technology while others were simply apathetic about learning it. Most of the students were keenly interested in a reduced class schedule and perceived, abbreviated work load. Rather than protest their reasons for enrollment, we as instructors must take the necessary leadership in helping students move beyond their technological limitations Since a lack of technology skills can stand in the way of students’ engagement in the community of learners and can impede their academic participation and learning outcomes, ensuring that students acquire the necessary technological wherewithal is vital to the success of the course. My second recommendation for online instructors is to offer social activities much like those in a F2F course. In this case study, I learned that letters are not enough! Students needed the ‘human touch’. Students desired avenues to meet other students with similar interests and life circumstances just as in F2F courses. They wanted to take the journey with others and they wanted others to commiserate with them. Basically, social needs are not abandoned when students enroll in an online course. We must also remember that the social elements of online design should be regarded when considering how students learn in association with other people (Dunn, 2000). Instructors must take into account which content and how much of the content students should learn alone versus how much of the material should be processed with peers and, of course, how this will be evaluated. In addition, we must think about how students might respond to the authority vested in other students through teamwork and how we will teach students to respect such distributed

leadership among their classmates. Because social concerns are personal and academic, instructors must ensure that safe, early and ongoing social conveyances are carefully considered, formally set in place and routinely monitored. Recommendation three for online instructors is that they honor the personal, collegial, and learning styles of students. One advantage of online courses is that they naturally accommodate some of students’ biological and developmental styles (Dunn, 2000). In this case study, students had some control over their schedules and learning environments in that the online work was asynchronous. They could benefit from their own physiological preferences in terms of time-of-day energy levels, eating or not, and sitting still or not while engaging in online work. However, it was incumbent upon me to consider the personal, collegial, and psychological elements of their learning and processing. From experience, educators know that students arrive in our classrooms with varying individual and intellectual styles. One method of instruction is unlikely to meet the learning needs of all our students. Likewise, we cannot assume that switching between different styles will come easily or naturally to all our students (Kolb, 1984). Students tend to have learning style preferences and tend to learn more effectively if teaching and learning are orientated according to their preferences (Kolb, 1984). Therefore, we must bear this in mind in the online environment. When we disregard students’ learning preferences and fail to differentiate our instruction, it is tantamount to ignoring their personalities and discounting their highest possible achievement potential. Recommendation four calls for teaming considerations. Part of developing a spirit of community is the notion of collaboration and high-performing teams do not happen by chance. Even though individuals in groups are aware of one another, interact with one another, and think of themselves as a group, teams are different in that they actually influence one another toward the accomplishment of an organizational objective

211


(Diamond and Diamond, 2007). More specifically, teams are regarded as individuals united to achieve common goals and objectives. The work of teams is generally considered to be joint actions that allow each person to contribute to the goals and objectives even though they might have different skills, interests, opinions, and ways of expression. Such diversity allows them to perform above and beyond individual accomplishments. Lencioni (2005) purports that team functionality includes trust, passionate and unfiltered debate of ideas, commitment to decisions and plans of action, accountability of its members, and attention to results. In order for these characteristics to develop among teams, the individuals on the teams must first know themselves as it pertains to their motives, values and dispositions. They must be willing to respect and honor the diversity of the group and foster inclusiveness. Structuring course activities that help students respect the journey, ideas, opinions, contributions, idiosyncrasies, and passions of others is instructive. Recommendation five is to remember that just as leaders emerge within traditional classroom settings, they arise in online settings. Simply put, students like to shine in classroom settings and they want us to notice. So it was in this case study. Some students showed their leadership in learning the technology and helping others. Others advanced in team leadership. Still others showed a propensity toward creativity or attention to detail while different students mastered the course content with ease and offered teachable moments for us all. Providing leadership opportunities helps to meet the personal needs and goals of students, fosters confidence in students, and increases student satisfaction (Ormrod, 2008). Weimer (2000) asserted that learner-centered instructors go beyond teaching content. They help to develop students’ intellectual maturity, learning skills, and awareness so they can function as independent and interdependent learners. She further purports that when we make students thirsty for our content and its power to answer important questions and

212

solve significant solutions, students will rise up as leaders and act in ways that support the learning efforts of others. With this, structures should be put in place for student strengths to be identified, noted, and capitalized on so that student leadership can be seized within the online environment. My final recommendation for online instructors is to analyze the learning system’s data as thoroughly as possible. Even though the system’s data may show a high number of times a student enters the system, this is no guarantee that critical academic discourse is occurring, that functional teaming or community building is taking place, or that students are actually coming to grips with the course content. In this study, Group 1 entered the system more times than the other groups but in reflections reported the least technological mastery plus accounted for the slightest team cohesiveness, and the smallest amount of engagement with course content. They were likely going into the system frequently to figure things out as opposed to going in to interact with the content. In fact, all groups entered WebCT considerably more times than reading and/or posting which is where the optimal learning might have occurred. Close examination of the quantitative data pinpointed statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 3 and between Groups 2 and 3. The data verified that while I modified the instruction and design between Groups 1 and 2, the changes were not substantial enough to bring about revolutionary gains. However, the overwhelming changes that I made between Groups 2 and 3 were substantial enough to bring about the statistically significant differences found between these two groups and between Groups 1 and 3. So, while it may be instructive to capture quantitative data frequently, it is equally important to dissect the data along with qualitative measurements to gauge the merit of engagement and intellectual discourse. The overarching lesson to be learned from this case study is that online instructors will likely need to seek personal and professional development, over time, to design quality courses that


replicate the excellence they have experienced in traditional courses. Even seasoned educators using the traditional format are likely to need the additional assistance in order to offer authentic experiences that are true to their field (especially if it is people-oriented), to ensure that the course content remains at the forefront of the course, and to alleviate the disadvantages of student-to-student and student-to-instructor distance. For my first goal which was to update a schoolbased organizational leadership course to become more relevant to the profession, I wrestled with which types of online activities would enhance students’ proficiencies with organizational leadership. Even though much of the learning would take place in the online classroom, the development of the “soft skills” of leadership remained as much the focal point as the business strategies. Therefore, it was crucial to the profession to ensure that students had authentic means of developing them. So I had to provide realistic school-based teaming exercises in which students could observe, for instance, that it is easier to tell people what to do than to ask them in ways that empowered them to perform at their highest levels. They needed practical experiences that showed that it takes time to build coalitions, to facilitate change, and to successfully complete projects using the constructs of emotional intelligence. They had to see first-hand that soft leadership is hard and hard leadership is soft (Locander & Leuchauer, 2006). I was also met with challenges when aspiring to realize my second goal of developing students’ proficiencies for building leadership capacity and organizational intelligence. Even though I strategically assigned students to learning circles with specific goals for them to build leadership capacity among their teams and I provided assignments, time lines, and consequences that would bolster their efforts, there was no promise of functioning teams with distributed leadership and shared vision. Students had to personally encounter the challenges of identifying the potential in others rather than allowing it to go undetected and un-

tapped which occurs much too often. Students needed direct experiences that supported the notion that the best leadership relationships are grounded in the belief that people can be lifted into their better selves (Burns, 1978). Similarly, my initiatives to cultivate a relational, online learning community initially fell short. In other words, it did not just happen! Students were unaccustomed to learner-centered practices where the instructor did less “telling” so that they could experience more discoveries (Weimer, 2000). This strategy was intentionally used to imitate the behaviors of a transformational leader. While students were familiar with the constructivist approach to learning, they were less conversant with the social contexts of learning communities that gain vigor from each person’s background, experience, and culture (Bruffee, 1993). I had to tread lightly to teach them to replicate the traditional, collaborative learning environment where students joined forces, electronically, to complete projects, create solutions to dilemmas, and handle conflict without intervention from someone in authority. To be certain, this three-semester journey was wrought with peaks and valleys but very well worth the trip. I would envisage that it would be the same for other instructors. For no one model fits each instructor, group of students, or institution. By the same token, each instructor must find her own way of attaining pedagogical and technological excellence. At any rate, instructors must remain vigilant in seeking personal and professional development, instructional support, and holistic feedback in order to experiment and rethink approaches to online instruction (Edelson, 2000). Over time, other instructors will also harvest great outcomes where appropriate seeds have been planted and nurtured. I will certainly persist in my pursuit of online instructional and design excellence as I am fully persuaded that due diligence can make all the difference in the quality of teaching and learning in online courses. In my case, quality online course design and instruction

213


neither happened in the first semester nor in the second semester. For me, the third time’s for charm.

REFERENCES Albritton, S., & Klotz, J. (2005). Developing a vision statement: A format for principal preparation programs to transfer theory to practice. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 55, 1–5. Albritton, S., & Webster-Smith, A. (2008, November). Just because you build it, doesn’t mean they will come: The lessons learned when building an online community of learners. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN. Blackboard Greenhouse Awards. (n.d.). Blackboard Greenhouse Exemplary Course Program2007submission instructions and form. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://communities. blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/users/aalleyne/ Greenhouse%20ECP%20Rubric%20v1.1.doc Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Carlyle, T. (1888). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. New York: Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother. Diamond, L., & Diamond, H. (2007). Teambuilding that gets results: Essential plans and activities for creating effective teams. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Dufour, R. (2004, May). Schools as learning communities? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11. DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2003, May). Building a professional learning community. School Administrator, 60(5), 13.

214

DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Services. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. Dunn, R. (2000). Learning styles: Theory, research, and practice. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 3–22. Edelson, P. (2000, June). Virtual and face-toface learning: Meeting points. Paper presented at the a Formacion Virtual en e Nuevo Milennio, Madrid, Spain. Flumerfelt, S. (2006, April). Understanding transformational leadership. weLEAD Online Magazine. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/2003%20 Archives/april06/sf-april06.html Fullan, M. (2006, November). Leading professional learning. School Administrator, 63(10), 10–14. Herod, L. (2000, November). Interpersonal presence in computer-mediated conferencing courses. Paper presented at the International Online Conference on Teaching Online in Higher Education, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN. Hrabe, M., Adamy, P., Milman, N., Washington, L., & Howard, L. (1998, March). Curry CONNECT: How online discourse creates community for education students. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC.


Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, J., Bray, M., Carter-Wells, J., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2001). Discovering the meaning of community in an online master’s degree program. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/a7/f9.pdf

Wilensky, H. (1967). Organizational intelligence. New York: Free Press.

Locander, W., & Leuchauer, D. (2006, January). Leadership paradoxes. Marketing Management, 15(1), 46–48.

Emotional Intelligence: Coined by Daniel Goleman, it is regarded as a predictor of success in the workplace. Its constructs include self awareness, social awareness, self management and relationship management. Great Man Theory: A philosophical theory purported by Thomas Carlyle that describes and explains history in the context of the impact of tremendously influential individuals. Learning Circle: A group of students that are convened for the purposes of extending learning opportunities through shared discussions, projects, and reflections. Professional Learning Communities: Richard Dufour’s idea of educators working collaboratively to achieve better results for the students they serve. PLCs, are they are called, work together continuously to collectively inquire and conduct action research with the assumption that it will yield academic achievement for students and professional development for educators. Organizational Intelligence: Harold Wilensky conceived this description of how people in organizations pool their intelligence for functions such as gathering, processing, interpreting, and communicating important information needed for decision-making. Single-Brain Leadership: A command style of leadership that, according to David Savage, has little regard for collaborative thinking. Team Intelligence: David Perkin’s concept of an effective command hierarchy that calls for all-hands-on-deck. Skill and decision-making are honored at all levels. All team members know their

Ormrod, J. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Parsons, J., Kieser, D., McRae, P., & Doherty, M. (2007). Educational embodiment within an online graduate program. Paper presented at the Implications of Embodied Site Visitations to an Online Graduate Studies Program Symposium. Retrieved March 23, 2008 from http://www. ualberta.ca Perkins, D. (2003). King Arthur’s round table. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2004). Exemplary online educators: Creating a community of inquiry. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www. athabascau.ca Savage, D. (2009). Intelligent leadership. Retrieved on April 24, 2009, from http://www. resultsexecutivecoaching.co.nz/articles/SAVAGEintelligentleadershi.html Webster-Smith, A., & Albritton, S. (2008, August). Building solid foundations for online learning communities: How to build on rock and avoid the sandpit. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, San Diego, CA.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

215


jobs and exercise discretion within their scope of responsibilities. The team member in the best position guides specific processes. Team Leadership: The art of leading a team in a way that energizes people to work smarter and to make the best possible decisions for the greater good. Transformational leadership: Conceptualized by James MacGregor Burns, it is a style of leadership that leans toward an interdependence between leaders and followers that also develops

216

interpersonal, organizational relationships that are consistent with the culture and mission of the organization. Transactional Leadership: Also conceptualized by James MacGregor Burns, this is a style of leadership where the leader is most characterized by self interest and exchanges rewards and punishments with followers in order to reach organizational goals.

217

Chapter 15

Working in a Wiki Environment: Preservice Teachers’ Experiences and Perceptions: The Case of Geometry

Wajeeh Daher An-Najah National University, Palestine & Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Israel

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter describes a case where a class of preservice teachers used the wiki environment to discuss existing geometry lessons, improve the lessons and build new ones. The constant comparative methodology was used to analyze the experiences of the preservice teachers in working with geometry in the wiki environment and in developing their knowledge of geometry and its teaching and learning. The case study shows that the discussion option in the wiki was used by the preservice teachers not only for discussing issues related to geometry lessons, but also for discussing issues related to psychology and philosophy. This points at the potentiality of the wiki to be a rich educational and cultural environment for students. The wiki environment enabled student-only discussions, as well as student-instructor discussions. This implies that students working in the wiki environment can have control over their own learning. In addition, the wiki environment did not only give the preservice teachers an opportunity to develop their knowledge as learners and teachers of geometry, but as designers and builders of web sites. The preservice teachers confronted four types of difficulties throughout their whole work in the geometry wiki environment, but they could overcome these difficulties using different means, especially discourse. Overall, the preservice teachers found that the wiki environment benefited them and appreciated the various functions which the wiki enabled. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch015


Working in a Wiki Environment

BACKGROUND

SETTING THE STAGE

Wikis are used and constructed by students for various targets. Taylor (2006) described the advantages that wiki technology offers: (1) it is available 24 hours a day, (2) it is easy to navigate, search and make contributions, (3) changes, new information and successful improvisations can be quickly documented, and (4) new, revised or alternative worksheets can be attached for subsequent use by anyone. Grant (2006) described wikis as “new and powerful form of software capable of supporting a range of collaborative ventures and learning activities”. Forte and Brukman (2007) suggested that wikis could be used by students not just as a kit for writing to learn, but as a kit for public knowledge building in schools. Head and Eisenberg (2009) found that higher education students use Wikipedia as a unique and indispensible research source for conducting their researches. They added that this collaborative, communitybased online source gave students a big picture and language contexts for their research projects. Head and Eisenberg (ibid) reported that in 8 out of 11 of the student discussion sessions there was a strong consensus among the students that their research process began with Wikipedia. It can be concluded that the wiki technology serves various educational functions for teachers and students. This makes the wiki technology an option that preservice teachers can utilize to build their knowledge. This chapter will describe preservice teachers’ wiki-experiences in the case of discussing, improving and building geometry lessons, and in the case of developing their content and pedagogic content knowledge. In addition, the chapter will describe the difficulties encountered by the preservice teachers while living the experiences, how they overcame these difficulties and the benefits they found in working in the wiki environment.

Wikis in Education

218

Wikis can support the delivery of class curriculum and projects, as well as the discussion during the process of creating and sharing knowledge (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). Tonkin (2005) identified four categories of the wiki use in the education field: •

•

•

•

Single-user: This use allows individual students to write and edit their own thoughts. It is useful for revision and monitoring changes in understanding over a period of time. Lab book: This use enables students to peer review notes kept online by adding commentary, annotations or other additions to existing lecture notes, seminar discussions, lesson plans, etc. Collaborative writing: This writing can be carried out by a team for joint project or for research such as a group initiative, essay or presentation. Knowledge base: Through collaborative entries, students can create course content that supplements and extends delivered material.

Raman, Rayn, and Olfman (2005) examined the use of wikis in facilitating the creation of a knowledge management system. They chose the wiki technology for its following characteristics: (1) Wiki technology is easy to install (and free), (2) Wiki technology provides capability for easy access and editing, (3) Wiki technology allows a class to develop a knowledge base readily, and (4) Wiki technology can aid knowledge creation and sharing in both corporate and academic settings. Raman, Rayn, and Olfman (ibid) found that wikis can support collaborative knowledge creation and sharing in an academic environment. The factors that influence the success to provide such support


are: familiarity with wiki technology, careful planning for implementation and use, appropriate class size, and motivation of students to engage in discovery learning.

Effectiveness of Wikis as Learning Environments Coutinho and Bottentuit Junior (2007) described a collaborative learning experience of post graduate students who attended a program on research methods in education, where the experience involved the use of wikis in advanced collaborative forms and participative assessment as part of the teaching method. They pointed out that the feedback received from students showed that wikis could be effective in learning environments; however, the evidence obtained, regarding the potential of wikis to promote learning in the zone of proximal development, was clearly inconclusive: students enjoyed working in groups, but they did not believe group work to have better quality; nor did they learned more working in teams than working individually. The researchers stated that the findings could be explained by the lack of vertical interaction teacher/student. This interaction was minimal to enable student-centered learning.

Wikis as Collaborative Educational Environments Carr (2008) described attempts to integrate the wiki in an education course for preservice teachers. The goal of this integration was supporting nets of classroom collaborative knowledge building, in addition to building a model for authentic integration of technology in the curriculum. The preservice teachers learned in an environment of problem solving that integrated face to face learning with online learning which included the wiki. Carr (ibid) stated that the preservice teachers’ responses point to intensive engagement in the wiki environment, which facilitated the group interaction and the collaborative learning. Carr

concludes that there is a need “to further work in instilling a culture of collaboration and collective knowledge creation to realize the full potential that wikis offer an educational setting” (p. 147). Lin (2008) examined the preservice teachers’ perception of the wiki, of the collaboration in the wiki environment, and of the future uses of the wiki in educational programs of teachers in elementary school setting. Fifty-three preservice teachers from three classrooms participated in the research. The preservice teachers contributed to a wiki site, which was involved with innovations in educational technology. The findings showed that the preservice teachers appreciated the collaboration characteristics of the wiki environment, its visual representation, and its capability to contribute to their projects at the individual level. Additionally, the preservice teachers expressed concerns regarding the technical limitations of the wiki, and thought that different strategies for using the wiki in their future teaching and learning could be developed. Kessler (2009) studied student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing among preservice non-native speaker (NNS) English teachers. He found that the overall tendency among these NNS English teachers, when editing each other’s wiki-posts, was to focus on meaning rather than form. When the teachers revised the form, they did so with some additional attention to the content, so this revision of form was not just an isolated incidence of error-correction. The teachers deferred to meaning, design and style rather than grammatical errors. When asked to explain their behavior, the teachers responded that they did not attend to grammatical errors because they had no problem understanding the meaning of the sentences. The wiki environment, thus, was appropriate as collaborative educational environment, but not for the ‘form’ aspect of language. This can be explained by the wiki being a public source of knowledge and not a source associated with language and literature.

219


Grant (2006) described a wiki project in which three Information and Communication Technology 9th grade classes took part. The teachers assigned students to random groups of between six and nine students, each with their own separate wiki. The students were required to work in their groups on a history-based research project regarding innovations in technology since 1950. They were asked to present their project in the wiki. Grant (2006) stated that the students worked on their own wiki pages, and very few edited material on others’ pages. The interviewed students agreed that it was better to write one’s own page rather than edit someone else’s; however, the students did consider commenting on each other’s design of the wiki pages as acceptable and legitimate practice, and did so. The author concluded that knowledge-building network did not arise in this experiment, and explained that this happened because the students imported practices of individualized written texts and assignments from their school community. These findings point to the importance of watching the work of students in new technological environments, so that they don’t import to it their previous learning practices. Wilkinson and Huberman (2007) pointed to the following measures that serve to compute the collaboration in editing an article in wikis: (1) the number of edits on an article, (2) the number of contributors, (3) visibility or relevance of the article, and (4) age of the article. Meishar-Tal and Tal-Elhasid (2008) stated that in educational wikis, the number of contributors should not be taken into account when measuring collaboration, and instead the relative diversity of contributors should be taken into account. They defined relative diversity as the ratio between the number of actual contributors and the number of potential contributors. For example, potential contributors could be the number of group members who work on a wiki article. Meishar-Tal and Tal-Elhasid added to the previous measures another measure, which they called ‘intensity’. They defined ‘intensity’ as the number of edits that the contributors performed;

220

this should be taken into account proportionally to the relative diversity of the collaboration.

Wikis as Environments for Educational Dialogue or Interaction Cohen (2009) described the process of creating a mathematical dialogue by means of a collaborative editing of a wiki document about the mathematical term ‘function’. She reported that participation of the practitioners who collaborated in editing the term contributed to an improvement of the information about the term “function”. Aharony (2008) found the following types of interactions in the discussion section of a wiki that was constructed by 19 undergraduate second-year students who participated in an information-management academic program: courtesy, instructor’s comments (supportive comments, style and bibliography, substantive comments), students’ constructive comments (structure and bibliography comments, clarification, expanding the assignment, deep comments), and students’ response (communication with the instructor, emotional reaction, technical and structural comments, appreciation, direct response to other students’ comments, substantive deep comments).

CASE DESCRIPTION: THE PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ WIKI EXPERIENCES Stages of the Preservice Teachers’ Wiki Experiences The experiences of the preservice teachers in this case could be generalized to fit all learners who work in the wiki environment, examining, evaluating and building learning materials and lessons. The preservice teachers’ experiences consisted of three stages: (1) reading and evaluating existing geometry lessons and suggesting, in the wiki discussion sections, improvements for the lessons, (2)


carrying out the suggested improvements, and (3) writing new geometry lessons. Described below in detail are the preservice teachers’ experiences in each of the three stages.

Evaluating Existing Geometry Lessons and Suggesting Improvements In this stage the preservice teachers were required to visit sites of geometry lessons built by preservice teachers in the previous year to evaluate the sites and suggest improvements for the lessons. Each preservice teacher was required to evaluate at least two lessons and write suggestions for improvement in the discussion section of the same lesson. The preservice teachers were also required to give their opinion regarding the suggested improvements. Additionally, each one of the preservice teachers was required to write feedback regarding at least three suggested improvements. The goal of the feedback was to discuss the suggested improvements and agree that they actually improved the lessons. An electronic forum was opened for the preservice teachers to put in it the links to the wiki pages that contained the improvements suggested. The goal of this action was to facilitate the discussion of the whole class because the wiki lessons’ web pages of the previous year’s students numbered more than one hundred. At the beginning, the preservice teachers suggested technical improvements. This led to a requirement to suggest improvements for geometric content or geometric pedagogic content. Doing so, the preservice teachers also suggested improvements related to pedagogic knowledge. Described below are the improvements which the preservice teachers suggested for the technical aspect of the lesson, the geometric content aspect, the geometric pedagogic content aspect, and the pedagogic knowledge.

Improvements Related to the Technical Aspect of the Lesson’s Site The following improvements were the most common suggestions of preservice teachers: (1) changing the font’s size or color, (2) making the font bold or underlined, (3) adding a background to a web page or replacing a background with another to better suit the color of the text, (4) adding a link to the previous or the following web page, (5) replacing pictures that represent bullets with ordinary bullets, (6) deleting a picture which has no relation with the text that it accompanies or that has a decorating function, and (7) adding a space between two subsequent titles.

Improvements Related to the Geometric Content Knowledge The preservice teachers suggested different improvements that could be related to the geometric content knowledge. The most common suggestions were: (1) changing the definition of a geometric concept in order to fulfill one or more of the definition criterions, (2) describing all types of a geometric shape, (3) giving equivalent definitions of a geometric, (4) correcting a sentence to better fit a geometric relation (e.g., adding a missing multiplication sign between ‘length’ and ‘width’ to represent the area of a rectangle), and (5) adding an applet which describes another aspect of the geometric object or topic.

Improvements Related to the Geometric Pedagogic Content Knowledge The preservice teachers suggested different improvements that could be related to pedagogic content knowledge: (1) giving examples of a definition, (2) giving examples of different shapes that represent a geometric concept (e.g., giving the concave and convex types of a rhombus), (3)

221


writing questions of different levels keeping in mind Bloom’s taxonomy, (4) giving alternative definitions in order for students to understand, (5) writing a sentence which clarifies a preceding or a following sentence or geometric concept or relation, (6) correcting a sentence verbally so that its meaning becomes clearer (e.g., to rewrite the sentence “the product of the two areas” into “the product of the triangle area and the square area”), (7) adding a relevant shape that clarifies a geometric concept or statement, (8) replacing a picture with another picture which is more relevant to the mathematical topic (e.g., replacing a picture of a real life cube with another picture to suit better the cube geometric concept), (9) adding an applet which helps the student to understand a mathematical topic, and (10) adding a summary to a previous mathematical topic, so that the new mathematical topic becomes more accessible to the student.

Improvements Related to Pedagogic Knowledge The preservice teachers suggested different improvements that could be related to pedagogic knowledge: (1) writing in detail, on the first page of the lesson, the exact components of the lesson and not just writing: part I, part II, etc., (2) adding an illustrating picture which is not a geometric shape to make clearer the non-mathematical content of a story in the lesson, (3) changing an illustrating picture which is not a geometric shape to fit better the non-mathematical content of a story in the lesson, (4) making an illustrating picture, which is not a geometric shape, smaller to give sufficient attention to the verbal text, (5) correcting the dictation of a word to make a sentence meaning clearer to the reader, (6) adding a verbal text which describes the non-mathematical phenomenon of the problem, (7) re-writing a sentence to make its meaning clearer, (8) changing the title of a wiki page to fit the non-mathematical content of the page, (9) changing a verbal text

222

of a non-mathematical content to make it more coherent, and (10) adding a verbal text which explains the importance of a mathematical topic in our daily life. When a preservice teacher gave a suggestion for improvement, the discussion stage began. Other preservice teachers gave their opinions about the suggested improvement. An example of a discussion on each type of the previous improvements follows.

A Discussion on a Technical Aspect of a Lesson’s Site The page formatting: “I didn’t like the page formatting, especially the colors and the pictures. I think the page contains too many pictures.” (Jasmine) Colors and pictures: “Why didn’t you like the colors Jasmine, and why do you think the pictures are too many?” (Instructor) Yes, the colors: “I agree with Jasmine that there is a problem with the colors. In fact there are too many colors in the page. To say the truth, when I entered the site I didn’t feel I want to continue reading the text.” (Malak) To Malak, the color issue: “Malak, why do you think the page colors made you stop reading?” (Instructor) Explaining the issue of colors and pictures: “In my opinion, colors have an important role in the page design, especially if the lesson is designated for school students. How can we use


the yellow color if we want to show the site on a big screen? Nobody will be able to follow the text. Add to this that we may have students with vision impairment who will suffer from a web page whose colors don’t fit each other or don’t assist easy reading. Regarding the pictures, there are four pictures that say ‘Welcome’to the visitor. What is the need for so many ‘welcomes’? It is better if we leave just one picture and add another one which illustrates the topic of the lesson.” (Jasmine) Explaining the issue of colors: “It is not the number of colors which annoys me but the colors mix and how much they fit each other. If they don’t fit I will not be able to bear the sight of the page and will stop reading. I think it is a psychological matter which exists in each of us.” (Malak) We see that one preservice teacher suggested improving the formatting of a wiki web page regarding its color and number of pictures which are not mathematical. The instructor and another preservice teacher responded to the first preservice teacher suggestion of improvement, where the second preservice teacher agreed with the point of view of the first one, while the instructor discussed with them their claims.

A Discussion on an Issue Related to Geometric Content Knowledge The rhombus definition: “The rhombus definition isn’t correct. I suggest replacing it with a better one. (Sami) “Wrong!! Why?” “I do not understand why Sami says the rhombus definition is incorrect. It is all right for me.” (Amir) Wrong definition of the rhombus:

“What is wrong with the rhombus definition Sami?” (Instructor) A reason for the incorrectness of a definition: “The rhombus definition does not satisfy the criterion about the minimal properties.” (Sami) Criterion of minimal properties: “I understand this criterion, but why doesn’t the rhombus definition satisfy it?” (Amir) Edges not angles: “It’s enough to describe the relations between the edges of a rhombus; the relations between its angles result from the relations between the edges.” (Sami). Agreeing with Sami: “Of course, I now remember that the relations about the angles of a rhombus come later after we define the rhombus. Thanks Sami for explaining.” A correct definition of the rhombus: “So how do you suggest defining the rhombus Sami?” (Instructor) Suggesting a definition for the rhombus: “Here is a possible definition: A rhombus is a quadrilateral which has a pair of two equal adjacent edges and the other two edges are equal too.” In the previous discussion, the center of the discussion was on the correct definition of a geometric shape, in our case a rhombus, where the discussion was almost entirely between two preservice teachers, and the instructor interfered only to inquire about the first preservice teacher’s

223


claim, and at the end to require the same preservice teacher to suggest a better definition.

A Discussion on an Issue Related to Geometric Pedagogic Content Knowledge Exterior angles: “I read what is written about exterior angles. I think the written text and stated geometric relations are not enough for the students to understand the exterior angles deeply.” (Suha) Drawings: “I agree with Suha and at the same time want to point at the absence of enough geometric shapes that show one exterior angle of a triangle, the six exterior angles of a triangle, the three exterior angles of a triangle that are generally counted when referring to the triangle exterior angles, exterior angles of a quadrilateral, etc.” (Lama) Why so many drawings: “Lama, don’t you think that the wiki page will be stuffed then with pictures? The students then will not be able to read the text.” (Souna) Not enough information: “Suha, what other information you want to include about the exterior angles of a polygon?” (Instructor) Which exterior angles? “Souna, which exterior angles you think are enough for the students in order to know the concept of the exterior angles?” (Instructor) A suggestion:

224

“I agree with you Souna, so I suggest dividing the text about exterior angles of a polygon, so no page will get stuffed.” (Lama) Two exterior angles: “I think it is enough to give two shapes: a shape which shows a triangle with one exterior angle and a shape which shows the three counted exterior angles of a triangle.” (Souna) Important property – theorem: “There is no mention for the sum of the exterior angles of a polygon. The students should know that the sum of the exterior angle of a polygon is 360 degrees for all polygons.” (Suha) In the previous discussion three preservice teachers were involved together with the instructor. There were suggestions for improvements, agreements and disagreements, in the way to change part of the geometric lesson to make it better for the learning of the students.

A Discussion on an Issue Related to Pedagogic Knowledge Importance of a topic: “There is no description of the importance of the topic of lines and straight lines, so students may not give enough attention to the topic.” (Salma) Old days: “When we learned about lines and straight lines back in the elementary school nobody told us about the importance of this topic.” (Lama) Why talking about the importance of a topic:


“We too didn’t learn about the importance of any geometric topic, but this is the reason why we didn’t like geometry at that time.” (Salma) Describing the importance of a topic: “Do you think we should describe the importance of every topic or is it enough to describe the importance of geometry?” (Lama) Both:

case wrote lessons that emphasized history, art, and geometric trips. The preservice teachers were given the freedom to write the lesson individually or in pairs.

Benefits of Working in the Geometry Wiki Environment The preservice teachers mentioned many benefits of working in the wiki environment, discussing, improving, and writing geometry lessons:

“Both are most important, but describing the importance of every topic is especially beneficial. When we know the uses of the topic, for example in real life, we make more effort to learn it, and as a consequence we benefit from learning it”. (Salma)

•

Just two preservice teachers participated in the previous discussion, discussing a pedagogic issue, which emphasized the importance of every topic that the students learn, in order to make them like the topic more and want to learn it.

•

CARRYING OUT THE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS After ten days of suggestions regarding the improvement of geometric lessons that were written in the previous academic year, ten days of actual improvements started. The preservice teachers changed the lessons according to their suggestions and discussions. Only changes which were agreed upon were carried out. The actual improvements were done individually.

Writing New Geometry Lessons Writing new geometry lessons lasted for one month. The preservice teachers are required every year to write geometry lessons that emphasize new aspects of geometry learning. The preservice teachers whose experiences are described in this

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Seeing and discussing geometry lessons that were written in previous years by preservice teachers gave us a picture of the components of geometry lessons. Seeing and discussing geometry lessons developed our geometry knowledge. Seeing and discussing geometry lessons made us more sensitive to the learner. Writing new geometry lessons will help future preservice teachers and inservice teachers in their teaching. Working in the wiki environment, we deepened our knowledge regarding definitions and methods of proving in geometry. Working in the wiki environment, we performed the first steps of writing geometry lessons. In the wiki environment we worked as teachers. Working in the wiki environment, we mastered a new tool which could be used for teaching. Working in the wiki environment, we knew an electronic tool which is suitable for building geometry and mathematics lessons. Working in the wiki environment takes time and effort but it is fun and enjoyable.

225


Advices for Geometry Learners Who Will Work in the Wiki Environment The preservice teachers stated the following pieces of advice for preservice teachers who come to work geometrically in the wiki environment. • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

226

Master first the wiki language. This will save your time and facilitate your work. Discover what preservice teachers from previous years wrote, and try to write geometry lessons that avoid the negative aspects of their lessons and follow the positive aspects of those lessons. Know that the wiki language is good for mathematical equations too – of course geometrical equations included, so there is no need to include mathematical equations as images. Don’t include images just for decoration. Decorative images distract the attention of the student. If you work in pairs try to agree between each other what each one should do, so the work will be done in due time and no problem will occur between you. If you confront any difficulty in building your own site consult a preservice teacher from a previous year or the instructor. Almost always they will have an advice for you. If you want to write what is similar to something that you have seen in the wiki, and you do not know how to do that, you can discover the wiki way to do that by going to “view source” in the main menu or to “edit this page”. Don’t put a space at the beginning of a raw unless you want a sentence to be inside a rectangle. When you finish writing or editing a wiki page don’t forget to save it. If not, your work will get lost.

CHALLENGES FACED BY THE PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN THEIR WORK IN THE GEOMETRY WIKI ENVIRONMENT The preservice teachers reported the following difficulties while working in the geometry environment: • •

• • •

• •

•

Getting used to the wiki environment structure. Remembering to log in to the wiki environment before participating in the discussion, in editing already existing pages or in writing of new pages. Learning a new language – the wiki language. Choosing an aspect (history, art, and trip) to emphasize in the geometry lesson. Choosing a phenomenon or a field whose aspect the preservice teacher wanted to emphasize (for example, if the art aspect was chosen, then the preservice teacher had difficulty to decide on phenomenon or field whose art he wants to talk about (drawings, pictures, carvings, etc.). Choosing a geometry topic that fits the chosen phenomenon or field. Writing learning materials that fit the phenomena or field representing an aspect and at the same time the geometry topic Writing questions of different levels

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The solutions, suggestions, recommendations, and reflection presented here do not just focus on difficulties confronted during this case, but also difficulties that could occur in similar cases, as well as what can be defined as proper educational wiki working methods.


The work in the wiki environment was enjoyed by the preservice teachers. It took preservice teachers’ time and effort to suggest improvement for the already written geometry lessons, to perform the suggested improvements, and to write new lessons; however, they enjoyed the work in the wiki and committed much time in carrying out the wiki assignment. The wiki discussion section was not used by the preservice teachers only for discussing issues related to geometry lessons, but also for discussions of issues related to psychology and philosophy (e.g., one of the preservice teachers talked about the soul of the geometry text and so a discussion ensued about the text soul and the human soul). The preservice teachers also considered the wiki environment as another home where they could say hello, good morning, good night, etc. to each other. The wiki was a rich environment for the preservice teachers educationally, culturally, and socially. Though the wiki was a rich environment, it had its difficulties too. The following means and working methods were used to overcome most of the difficulties in an educational setting that is wiki-based. These means and working methods could be related to different aspects of working educationally in the wiki environment.

Combining Different Electronic Media to Overcome Possible Difficulties in Educational Communication An electronic forum was opened for the preservice teachers, so that they were able to report links to the wiki pages that contained suggested improvements. The intensive use of this electronic forum by the preservice teachers resulted in three issues. First, it is important to connect between the wiki sites, which are ‘outside sites’ for the preservice teachers and the course site which is an ‘inside site’, which is a site that no one can enter, but them. This connection helped the preservice teachers consider the wiki sites as their own because

it was related to a site of their own – the course site. Second, it is difficult to follow multiple and simultaneous discussions, where the multiplicity resulted from discussions occurring at many wiki sites. Lastly, it is difficult to know who wrote what in the wiki sites when the writer forgot to register before writing and did not identify himself at the beginning or the end of his text. To overcome the described difficulties, a familiar environment was utilized (i.e., the electronic forum). We see here two working strategies, which could be utilized when trying to overcome difficulties of working in electronic environment like the wiki: (1) merging between two electronic environments and (2) utilizing familiar environments or work methods, which the students master.

Discussions in the Wiki Environment The wiki environment enabled student-only discussions, as well as student-instructor discussions. When participating in a discussion, the instructor minimally communicated to let the preservice teachers settle their discussions by themselves. It is suggested that instructors give students the opportunity to initiate and develop their own discussions without unneeded interference; however, it should be made clear that the instructor should observe the work of students and intercede where needed. The absence of the instructor in the wiki environment can lead to the inefficiency of the work of students (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior, 2007). The structure of the wiki discussion section, which shows all of the discussions, enabled the preservice teachers to put their discussion in place of their choosing. This enabled the preservice teaches to follow the discussion themes easily and thus encouraged them to intensify their participation. The wiki environment could be utilized for fruitful discussions also when discussions were not the first stage of knowledge building but the main stage of such building.

227


The Wiki as an Environment for Developing the Preservice Teachers’ Different Types of Knowledge By suggesting improvements for the geometry lessons and wiki sites, performing the suggestions, and writing new geometry lessons, the preservice teachers developed content, pedagogic content, and pedagogic knowledge. The wiki environment has sections, which allow for discussion of existing texts, editing, and writing of new ones. To do so, the preservice teachers critically evaluated geometry texts and wrote new ones taking into consideration learning from the first two stages. It can be claimed that the wiki is a rich environment for the preparation of preservice teachers as future teachers. The preservice teachers in this case were empowered as learners and at the same time as teachers. This support for developing different types of knowledge enabled by the wiki environment agrees with Solvie (2008) who found that the wiki encourages the preservice teachers’ construction of knowledge in reading methods courses. The case reported, along with the findings of Solvie, implies that the wiki can serve preservice teachers of sciences as well as of language and arts. The wiki can be suggested as a basic tool in preparing preservice teachers. In addition to the previous three types of knowledge, the preservice teachers developed their knowledge in web design and site construction. At the beginning, they discussed the already constructed wiki sites and edited them according to agreed upon context of presenting the geometry lessons in the wiki sites. Afterwards they constructed their own sites taking into consideration what they learned about site design in the discussion and editing stages. The wiki did not only give the preservice teachers an opportunity to develop their knowledge as learners and teachers of geometry, but as designers and builders of web sites. The preservice teachers’ experiences in this case indicate that the wiki environment could be used to prepare the preservice teachers for

228

various teaching functions. What emphasizes this suggestion is the appreciation that the preservice teachers felt for working with an electronic tool, which could be used for teaching, and especially for building geometry and mathematics lessons. This appreciation focuses on two points: (1) the need of the preservice teachers for tools that assist in preparing learning materials, and (2) that the preservice teachers are aware of the various functions of the wiki as a tool for teaching and learning, and find these functions helpful for them as learners and teachers. This explanation of the preservice teachers’ appreciation is supported by Jones (1999) who, detailing the functions of tools, emphasizes that “Tools are instruments of access to the knowledge, activities and practices of a community”. Here, the community is the community of learners in the wiki environment. This chapter suggests the wiki environment not only for preparing the preservice teachers for future teaching, but also for providing learners with a rich educational environment. The preservice teachers reported the fun with which they learned in the wiki environment. This fun could be attributed to the dynamic and collaborative nature of the wiki environment. The later two components encourage learning and make it enjoyable (Nada, Kholief, Tawfik & Metwally, 2008; Ragasa, 2009).

Solutions to Difficulties confronted by the Preservice Teachers The preservice teachers confronted four types of difficulties throughout their whole work in the geometry wiki environment: (1) learning a new web language, (2) choosing an educational aspect, a phenomenon related to the educational aspect, or a geometry topic, (3) writing learning material which best fits the previously chosen educational aspect, the phenomenon and the geometry topic, and (4) writing geometry learning materials with different levels of difficulty. To overcome the mentioned difficulties, the preservice teachers used the following means:


discussion of difficulty with partners and the instructor, references to previously written lessons and wiki sites, and consultation of study books and theoretical sources about teaching. The main method which the preservice teachers used to overcome the difficulties they confronted was the first method (i.e., discourse with the instructor and peers). Cobb, Boufi, McClain, and Whitenack (1997) found that discourse increased conceptual development. Latham (1997) found that discourse increased knowledge of a domain area, while Menke and Pressley (1994) found that discourse resulted in the improvement of task-related knowledge. This case suggests that learners utilizing the wiki should be encouraged to discourse with their instructor, but especially with each other to overcome their difficulties when working in the wiki environment.

Utilizing the Various Functions of the Wiki Environment The wiki discussion section was not used by the preservice teachers only for discussing issues related to geometry lessons, but often in the discussions stretching into issues related to psychology and philosophy. This demonstrates that the wiki can be a rich educational and cultural environment for students. The wiki environment enabled student-only discussions, as well as student-instructor discussions, meaning that students can have control over their own leaning in the wiki environment. The wiki environment did not only give the preservice teachers an opportunity to develop their knowledge as learners and teachers of geometry, but as designers and builders of web sites. It is suggested to use design contexts like the wiki in the preparation of preservice teachers, because developing the preservice teachers’ classical types of knowledge in such context results, as well, in developing their knowledge of web design which

they may need to accomplish their different roles as teachers. The preservice teachers emphasized the importance of being introduced to already written geometry lessons and discussing these lessons. These two actions were the basis, which helped the preservice teachers to write new geometry lessons. The model that this chapter suggests for using the wiki for educational purposes is to introduce the students to the wiki environment, require the students to evaluate, criticize and suggest improvements to the existing wiki educational texts, require the students to discuss their suggestions and agree on specific improvements, ask the students to perform the improvements they suggested, and ask the students to write their own wiki texts.

REFERENCES Aharony, N. (2008). The use of Wiki in a knowledge management academic course: A qualitative investigation. Proceedings of the annual Chais conference for educational technology research, Open University, Israel. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://telem-pub.openu.ac.il/users/ chais/2008/morning/2_1.pdf Carr, N. (2008). Wikis, knowledge building communities and authentic pedagogies in preservice teacher education. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www.ascilite.org. au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/carr-n.pdf Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258–277. doi:10.2307/749781

229


Cohen, D. (2009). The impact of Wiki-based collaborative environment on mathematical dialogue. Learning in the Technological Era, Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research, pp. 64-69. Coutinho, C., & Bottentuit, J., Jr. (2007). Collaborative learning using Wiki: A pilot study with master students in educational technology in Portugal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimédia, Hypermedia e Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA), Vancouver, Canada [CD-ROM] (pp. 1786 – 1791). Retrieved November 15, 2009, from https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/6720/1/ Edmedia2007.pdf Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. Retrieved October, 19, 2009, from http:// www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Forte_WikiSym2007_ConstructingText.pdf Grant, L. (2006). Using Wikis in schools: A case study. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www. futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/discussion_papers/Wikis_in_Schools.pdf Head, A., & Eisenberg, M. (2009). Finding context: What today’s college students say about conducting research in the digital age. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.projectinfolit.org/pdfs/ PIL_ProgressReport_2_2009.pdf Jones, K. (1999). Student interpretations of a dynamic geometry environment. In I. Schwank (Ed.), European research in mathematics education, Osnabrueck, Germany. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.fmd.uni-osnabrueck. de/ebooks/erme/cerme1-proceedings/cerme1proceedings-1-v1-0-2.pdf#page=245 Kessler, G. (2009). Student initiated attention to form in autonomous wiki based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-94. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http:// llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf

230

Latham, A. (1997). Asking students the right questions. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 84–86. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration of the web. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Lin, C. (2008). Wikis in the teacher education program: Preservice teachers’ perceptions and perceived future applications. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3375-3379). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www. editlib.org/p/27759 Meishar-Tal, H., & Tal-Elhasid, E. (2008). Measuring collaboration in educational wikis: A methodological discussion. In Proceedings of the 6th Meytal conference, Haifa (pp. 16-18). Menke, D. J., & Pressley, M. (1994). Elaborative interrogation: Using ‘why’ questions to enhance the learning from text. Journal of Reading, 37(8), 642–645. Nada, N., Kholief, M., Tawfik, S., & Metwally, N. (2008). Dynamic mobile knowledge toolkit. Paper presented at The International Arab Conference on Information Technology, Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia. Ragasa, C. (2009). Making mathematical modeling enjoyable and instructive by using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2285-2291). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(3), 311–321.


Solvie, P. A. (2008). Use of the Wiki: Encouraging preservice teachers’ construction of knowledge in reading methods courses. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 9(2), 57–99. Taylor, G. (2006). The Wiki as a collaborative tool for staff and students in secondary schools. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www. decs.sa.gov.au/learningtechnologies/files/links/ Web_2_tools2006_Taylor.pdf Tonkin, E. (2005). Making the case for a Wiki. ARIANDE, 42. Retrieved December 11, 2009 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/tonkin Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Assessing the value of cooperation in wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://arxiv. org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0702/0702140v1.pdf

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Wiki: The wiki is a website that allows easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked

web pages, using a simplified markup language called the wiki language. Wiki language: The wiki language has syntax which is similar to the html syntax but is less formal, for example it is enough to write without writing at the end to prosecute the syntax. Wiki environment: The wiki website with all of its components: the article, the discussion section, the editing section and the history section. Preservice teachers: Students learning to become teachers of a school subject like mathematics. Geometry lessons: Lessons that are written for geometry students, so they are more similar to lessons that we find in a geometry book than to lesson plans, but, at the same time, wiki lessons are different from lessons in a book because of the dynamic nature of the wiki. Discourse: It is the exchange of ideas, stands, opinions, etc. Course instructor: The teacher or lecturer of the course.

231

232

Chapter 16

Avoiding Isolation through Collaborative Learning and Lecture Videos Gail D. Hughes University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA Rudo Tsemunhu University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To examine the impacts of collaborative learning and video lectures, 94 students enrolled in online- graduate research and statistics classes completed a survey rating the impacts of course instructional methods and learning style preferences. Students’ comments suggested that the instructional methods brought the classroom to the online learner for many students, yet did not reveal a most preferred learning option.

ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND When institutions first offered online courses, the paramount research question was whether online courses were as effective as onsite courses. Because the question of equal effectiveness has not been entirely resolved, the exponential growth in online course offerings suggests that online courses are permanent fixtures in higher education and, therefore, necessitates a shifting of the research focus from equality with onsite courses to improvement of online courses. Students’ inDOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-111-9.ch016

dividual differences impact their learning experience. Learning theorists have long advocated the use of multiple modes of instruction to appeal to the diverse learning styles of students; however, many online courses offer only text-based instruction. Reading the textbook, instructor notes, and emails might not meet the learning needs of all students. How can online instructors help students avoid the isolation of online learning and best meet their learning needs? The research reported in this chapter was conducted in the College of Education (COE) at a metropolitan university in the Southern United States. The university was founded in 1927 as a


Avoiding Isolation through Collaborative Learning and Lecture Videos

junior college and has grown to 11,000 students and 500 full-time faculty members. The university serves a diverse student body of 65.4% CaucasianAmerican students, 26.5% African American, 3.7% Asian American, 2% Hispanic American, and 2.4% other. As a metropolitan institution, the majority of students are non-traditional (older, employed, and often married) and 18.6% of students are enrolled in graduate programs. The COE is comprised of three departments--Teacher Education, Educational Leadership and Counseling, and Adult and Rehabilitation Education and three centers including the Center for Applied Studies in Education, the Center for Advance Placement and Gifted Education, and the Center for Literacy. The COE prepares school personnel through Bachelor’s, Master’s, Specialist, and Doctoral degrees in education. To accommodate students’ nontraditional schedules, many COE classes are offered during the evening hours, on weekends, and online. The COE offers three online degree programs and offers 64 online courses from which students from all degree programs may enroll. All courses, both online and onsite, are provided an online-course shell in the University’s course management system and onsite instructors often enhance their traditional courses through utilizing various course shell features. Supports are available for the incorporation of technology in all aspects of teaching and learning. The COE is housed a building with numerous smart classrooms, two student computer labs, and the Scholarly Technology and Resources (STAR) office that offers frequent workshops on teaching online and individual tutoring for faculty. Faculty and students are given support for teaching and learning with the institution’s course management system. The university provides opportunities for training and professional development, instructional design and course development services, multimedia production, course shell administration and support, and technical support for faculty and students.

SETTING THE STAGE Online Instruction Distance learning has experienced phenomenal growth with the advent of online learning. In 2004, online course enrollment reached 2.35 million exceeding even the predictions of the Center for Education Statistics more than ten times over (Allen & Seaman, 2005). The flexibility of both time and place allows a broader population to participate in higher education, especially adult learners. Institutions of higher education are now offering more online courses than ever before, especially graduate courses. According to Allen and Seaman (2005), “Sixty-five percent of schools offering graduate face-to-face courses also offer graduate courses online. Among all schools offering face-to-face Master’s degree programs, 44% also offer Master’s programs online” (p. 1). Despite the popularity of online courses, there are still concerns that students, professors, and institutions must address. Online students might experience greater insecurities in their learning, feel less connected with the instructor, miss on-campus academic support, and feel isolated (Galusha, 2008). Both students and instructors find their traditional roles and responsibilities shifting as online learning becomes more learnercentered with instructors facilitating learning more so than transferring knowledge. Such changes are necessary if educators are to maximize the potential for online learning, educators should examine pedagogical assumptions and “create a pedagogical model or models that enable educators to capitalize on the potentials afforded by online learning technologies” (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p. 476). Too often instructors design online courses to mimic traditional courses, in doing so instructors assume that traditional classroom instructional methods are the most effective and are worthy of replication in the online environment. However, not all traditional classroom instructional strategies are effective for all students in all

233


courses and their effectiveness in the traditional setting might not transfer to the online classroom. Instead, instructors designing online courses should choose the best strategies available and explore new instructional horizons suitable for the online learning environment (Battalio, 2007).

Learning Styles In seeking the best online instructional strategies, educators should consider student learning styles (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002; Battalio, 2007). With so many instructional strategies to choose among in the growing field on online instruction, educators must continue to explore what strategies work for different students in various courses. When Mehlenbacher, Miller, Covington, and Larsen (2000) compared two sections of an upper-level writing class (online and onsite) they found that learning style scores were related to grades for the online section but not the onsite. Specifically, online reflective learners scored higher than active learners and global higher than sequential indicating that “reflective learners who prefer solitary, quiet problem-solving as opposed to group discussion of problems, may have been more comfortable in the web course” (p. 191). The lower scores by active learners surprised the authors due to the interactive design of the website intended to favor active learners, as such the authors encouraged educators to ponder the meaning of activity online. Similarly, Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2002) found online students were more reflective and exhibited greater preference for abstract conceptualization than their onsite counterparts, however, controlling for student success factors negated the differences. Akdemir and Koszalka (2008) found no statistically significant relationship between learning style and learner perception of learning outcomes or engagement. Small sample sizes and different measures of learning outcomes could explain the findings of significance in some studies yet not in others. In a meta-analysis comparing student

234

satisfaction of online and onsite classrooms, Allen et al. (2002) found that a link between learning styles and students’ satisfaction with online courses might exist, yet the issue requires additional investigation.

Collaborative Learning Another learner aspect in online instruction that deserves further study is collaborative learning. Online and onsite classes are fundamentally different and will remain so; in onsite classrooms, students interact both academically and socially. Students routinely discuss course assignments, course content, and share aspects of themselves; yet in the online classroom students are separated by distance and do not share the same physical space. This separation can cause feelings of alienation and isolation which are the most commonly cited concerns of online students (Galusha, 2008; Hurt, 2008). Instructors might minimize these feelings by maximizing student interactions within the course (Brewer & Klein, 2006; İşman & Dabaj, 2004; Hurt, 2008). The value of collaborative learning in onsite courses combined with the desire to help students feel connected led to an immediate acceptance of the need for collaborative learning in online courses. The findings by many researchers supported the value of collaborative learning in online courses, finding improvements in both students’ attitudes and achievement (Johnson, 2007; Norton & Hathaway, 2008; Riley & Anderson, 2006). Typical student comments regarding collaboration include: having a sounding board…getting different perspectives...a feeling of human interaction… [collaborating] led to better products…I feel like our group bonded. Not only did we go through an online class together, we watched each other get married, get engaged, and have children…I learned so much from my peers’ thoughts, ideas,


and classroom experiences. (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p. 488) This is not to say that all studies of online collaboration found positive impacts, nor were all online students’ comments favorable. Online students are often busy parents and/or professionals whose life schedules may not afford them time to enroll in onsite courses. Students with these time constraints sometimes comment that they do not have the time required for online collaboration or resent their role in tutoring their online peers who were not as academically prepared. In a review of online collaborative learning research supplemented with original data, Battalio (2007) questioned the use of online collaboration and cautioned educators to consider the dictatorial nature of forcing students who prefer to work in isolation to work collectively with peers. Similarly other researchers found students preferred to learn the content on their own and devalued their peer interactions (Reisetter & Boris, 2004) and that participation in discussion was unrelated to exam scores (Ramos & Yudko, 2008). These findings leave a disparity in the literature and educators seeking research based instructional methods at a loss. Among the myriad of explanations for the divergent findings are student learning styles and the structure of online collaboration. Whether online or onsite, some students will always prefer to learn by themselves and others will prefer collaboration, thus, producing disparity in findings comparing collaborative to individual learning. Finally, online interactions are intricate processes further complicated by the various formats in which instructors utilize them and the differing expectations for the collaborative results. To maximize the impact of online collaboration and minimize student and instructor frustrations, instructors should provide a structured format for collaborating (Brewer & Klein, 2006; İşman & Dabaj, 2004; Thompson & Ku, 2006). Simply encouraging students to collaborate or requiring them to post messages to a discussion board does

not ensure effective collaboration. Instructors should divide students into small groups (İşman & Dabaj, 2004) and clearly specify the process, as well as the product of collaboration. By prescribing the process, instructors can alleviate students’ anxiety about the process. Instructors should also hold individuals, as well as groups, accountable for their grades to eliminate social loafing, or the tendency of some group members to make only minimal contributions (Thompson & Ku, 2006). Clear expectations about the collaborative product should enhance the nature of students’ interactions. The mere act of posting a message to a discussion board neither encourages nor demonstrates learning (Brewer & Klein, 2006; Dennen & Wieland, 2007; Reisetter & Boris, 2004); it is the content of the messages and the richness of students’ exchanges that mediate the quality of the interactions.

Video Lectures Students’ interaction with the content in online courses is typically in the form of reading (textbooks, instructor notes, and/or webpages), listening to audio files, or watching video lectures. One of the most commonly cited advantages of online instruction is the asynchronous nature of the content, in that students do not have to attend class at a specific time; instead, they might review the content at a time that is most convenient for them. Within the timeframe provided in the course, students may also control the pace of instruction. Course readings, audio files, and video lectures all allow students to pause, rewind, review, and reflect as they progress through the content. Additional advantages of audio files and video lectures include engagement of more areas of working memory, novelty, and a greater sense of knowing the instructor. Online students sometimes complain that the course is boring or that there is too much reading (Belcheir & Cucek, 2001), audio files and video lectures can provide additional learning options for these students

235


and increase their motivation (Choi & Johnson, 2005). Not only are students more motivated, the use of audio and video components also involves more areas of working memory than reading and, thereby, increases retention (Allen et al., 2002; Buckley & Smith, 2007; Choi & Johnson, 2005; Dusenbury, Hansen, & Giles, 2003; Kozma, 1991; Tempelman-Kluit, 2006). Furthermore, both audio and videos provide a more human connection between the student and instructor, as Reisetter and Borris (2004) stated, “We have often been surprised at how well our online students feel they know us through interaction with these materials and how appreciative they are of the efforts of the person they perceive behind the technology” (p. 288). Finally, video lectures offer the distinct advantage of the ability to model complex processes or procedures. The disadvantages of video lectures include video production time, technical difficulties, download speeds, students’ inability to have questions answered instantly (as they would in live lecture), and the preference by some students for learning only through reading.

Purpose The existing literature leaves some questions about online instruction unanswered. Determining which instructional strategies work best is an overwhelmingly complex question in that online class sizes are often small, difference might exist for course content, and the criterion for success varies from achievement measures to satisfaction indices. The researchers’ purpose for this study was to add to the body of literature by examining the online impacts of two instructional techniques, collaborative learning and lecture videos. It was hypothesized that students who prefer to learn through reading and writing would rate textbooks and instructor notes as their preferred instructional technique, visual and aural students would indicate a preference for lecture videos, and kinesthetic learners might prefer assignments and group activities.

236

CASE DESCRIPTION Participants Participants in this study were students enrolled in a graduate degree program to prepare for careers in public schools, educational leadership, and other specialized jobs in schools, community colleges, higher education institutions, business, industry, and medical settings or facilities. Students were taking required courses in master’s level introduction to research and basic statistics classes. Most of the 94 participants had taken an online class before (84%), 88% were working toward a master’s degree, and 81% were female.

Course Structure The instructor/researcher delivered all course content online via WebCT-course shells. The instructor offered question and answer sessions in the form of five optional on-campus meetings. Because not all students were able to come to campus, new material was not presented during the on campus meetings. The purpose of the on-campus meetings was to provide an option for face-to-face interactions with students who preferred asking questions in person, less than 25% of students attended the sessions. Students were encouraged to approach the course by first reading each textbook chapter, then reading the accompanying instructor note files, and, lastly, watching the video lecture for the chapter. To practice and apply their knowledge students were asked to take the online chapter practice quizzes, collaborate with their group members to complete group assignments, complete individual assignments, and, at the appropriate times, take the multi-chapter tests. The instructor provided students with detailed note files for each chapter to compliment the textbook material. To provide lectures for the online students, the instructor recorded abbreviated lecture videos for each chapter similar to the


lectures given during onsite classes. The lectures were not the full-length multi-hour lectures, instead the lectures were distilled to the key points to avoid overwhelming students with lengthy lectures (Young, 2008). Students could watch the streaming videos at their convenience, with the additional benefits of stopping and rewinding as needed. Students were encouraged to print the note files and use the files as they viewed the videos. In addition to reinforcing the material, providing students with the information in both printed and audio/video format assisted some students with disabilities who enrolled in the course. For these courses, the lecture videos were recorded in a similar fashion to that of the evening weather forecast utilizing a green screen. The note files appeared behind the professor who stood in front of the screen and presented the information as you would in front of any digital screen for a traditional lecture. The idea of recording videos could intimidate many professors; however, once the pressure to film the perfect lecture is replaced with the reality of simply sharing information with your students on camera, as you would in class, the process can become fulfilling. For more information about recording lecture videos see Hughes (2009). The format of the group assignments more closely followed that of the collaborative learning formats used in onsite classes than the threaded discussion format often utilized in online courses. The decision to use collaborative assignments instead of threaded discussions arose from the desired course outcomes, that of student products over discussion; in introduction to research students were expected to critique research articles and in basic statistics students were expected to analyze data sets. The description/instructions for group work given to students follows: To facilitate working with your colleagues, I formed groups based on your area of study. Each group has been assigned a discussion board which is the workspace for your group assignments and

for other questions and comments that you want to share with your colleagues. Throughout the semester I encourage you to take advantage of the knowledge and expertise of your colleagues and avoid the isolation that can occur in online courses. Please ask questions of your group mates and check your group board every two or three days to respond. I encourage you to communicate with your group members often and form your own “support” groups. Throughout the course, there will be graded group assignments that must be submitted by each group. Because group participation/discussion cannot be made up; it is critical that you keep up with your group and make arrangements to submit your ideas early if you will not have Internet access when assignments are due. To begin, you need to sign into your group discussion board and introduce yourself. Next, one member needs to volunteer to serve as the Group Leader for Assignment 1. Students were also given a detailed list of member responsibilities for completing the assignment and guidelines for participation.

Instrumentation and Procedures After obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the researchers asked students to complete an anonymous, online survey developed for the study to examine the impacts of the online instructional methods. Of the 120 students asked to participate, 94 submitted complete surveys for a response rate of 78.33%. The survey contained 27 items, consisting of 7 demographic items, 4 learning style items, and 16 questions about the course structure. Sample course questions included, “In this class, how important were the video lectures to your learning experience (not important, slightly important, somewhat important, very important, or extremely important)?” and “Did the video lectures impact your online learning experience? If so, please describe the impact of video lectures had on your learning experience.” To determine

237


students’ learning styles, students were asked to complete the free, online version of the Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic (VARK) Questionnaire (Fleming & Mills, 1992) and enter their scores for each category.

2

for the three course types [ c (2) = 6.53, p = .04,

C = .04] with more students stating a preference for totally online courses (standardized R = 2.09). When asked, “In which type of course do you feel that you learn the most material?” 16% of participants selected totally online, 13% responded web-enhanced, 31% chose traditional lecture, and 40% indicated that they learned equally well in all course formats. Results from a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated a statistically significant difference among students’ preferences

Data Analysis Numerical data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14.0 for Windows. Responses to open-ended items were analyzed inductively by item with categories emerging from the data. Ideas, not sentences were the units of analysis and ideas that only appeared once were combined into an “other” category.

2

for the three course types [ c (3) = 18.94, p
. In the proceedings of The First ACM International workshop on Multimedia Technologies for Distance Learning (MTDL ’09), Beijing, China (pp. 57 – 66). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Trotter, A. (2009). Educators assess ‘open content’ movement. Education Digest, 74(6), 61–64. Tschannen-Moran, A., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

U. S. Department of Education. (2009). Report 1177. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/# Visual, Information and Technology Literacy (VITL) Task Force. (2009). University of Utah Visual, Information and Technology Literacy Task Force Report and Recommendations. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Educational technology fact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http:// www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/facts.html U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Eight regional accrediting commissions. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JUL02_Issue/ article04.html U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Technology in higher education fact sheet. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/index.html U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Distance Education at DegreeGranting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009-044) Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://nces. ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Report to Congress: Improved data on program costs and guidelines on quality assessments needed to inform federal policy. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.gao.gov/ new/items/d04279.pdf United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA). (2010). Glossary of terms. Distance learning: Key terms you might want to know. Retrieved from http://www.usdla. org/index.php?cid=105

309

Compilation of References

Van Dusen, G. C. (1997). The virtual campus: Technology and reform in higher education [ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 25, No.5]. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School f Education and Human Development. Van Houtte, M. (2006). Tracking and teacher satisfaction: Role of study culture and trust. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 247–254. doi:10.3200/ JOER.99.4.247-256 van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Albany, NY: The State University of New York. Virtual Learning Academy Charter School. (2009). Frequently asked questions [Unpublished report]. Retrieved December 28, 2009 from http://www.vlacs.org Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wardrip-Fruin, N., & Montfort, N. (Eds.). (2003). The NewMediaReader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watson, E. (2003). Developing library and information services for distance education. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from Commonwealth of Learning http://www.col. org/resources/publications/trainingresources/knowledge/ Pages/library.aspx Webster-Smith, A., & Albritton, S. (2008, August). Building solid foundations for online learning communities: How to build on rock and avoid the sandpit. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, San Diego, CA. Wedemeyer, C. A. (1982). The birth of the Open University: A postscript. Teaching at a Distance, 21, 21–27. Wedemeyer, C. A., & Najem, C. (1969). AIM: From concept to reality. The Articulated Instruction Media program at Wisconsin. Syracuse, NY: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, Syracuse University. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weissman, E. J. (2003). An evaluation of online learning environments (OLE) on the adult at-risk population. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(3), 142–154.

310

Wells, M. A., & Brook, P. W. (2003). Conversational KM—Student driven learning. In the proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2004), Dunedin, New Zealand (pp. 335 – 341). Wenger, E. (2006, June). Community of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http:// www.ewenger.com/theory/ White, J., & Meendering, J. (2008). Four basic strategies for success in the early years of higher education. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(3), 32–34. Wikipedia. (2010). Distance education. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Distance_education&oldid=346787701 Wilensky, H. (1967). Organizational intelligence. New York: Free Press. Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Assessing the value of cooperation in wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/ pdf/0702/0702140v1.pdf Wilson, C. (2001). Faculty attitudes about distance learning: A study of distance learning in Kentucky’s higher education system revealed faculty willing to use the technology but needing more institutional support. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 2, 70–71. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. In the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences: Santa Monica, California (pp. 568 – 575). Woelfel, N., & Reid, S. (1945). Radio and the school. Yonkers-on-the-Hudson. NY: World Book Co. Wooley, D. R. (1994). PLATO: The emergence of online community. Retrieved on February 17, 2010, from http:// www.thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm Young, J. R. (2008). Short and sweet: Technology shrinks the lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(41), A9. Zaharias, P. (2006). A usability evaluation method for elearning: Focus on motivation to learn. In the proceedings of CHI 2006: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Montreal, Canada (pp. 1571 – 1576).

Compilation of References

Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge in selfstudies across teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 36–46. doi:10.1177/0022487106296219 Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult Learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29(1), 71–87. doi:10.1080/01587910802004852 Zheng, R., & Dahl, L. (2009). An ontological approach to online instructional design. In Song, H., & Kidd, T. (Eds.), Handbook of research on human performance and instructional technology (pp. 1–23). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Zheng, R. (2009). Designing dynamic learning environment for web 2.0 application. In Yang, H., & Yuen, S. (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 61–77). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Zurkowski, P. G. (1974). The information environment: Relationships and priorities. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

311

312

About the Contributors

Stephanie Huffman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Leadership Studies at the University of Central Arkansas. She earned her EdD in Educational Leadership from Arkansas State University. She also holds an MS in Library Media and Information Technologies and a BSE in Vocational Business Education. She currently serves as program coordinator for two graduate programs (MS in Library Media and Information Technologies and MS in Instructional Technology) and as Director of Distance Learning for the College of Education. Her research interests include distance learning, technology planning and leadership, literacy, technology integration. She is an active member in the American Association of School Librarians, Association for Educational Computing and Technology, and the International Reading Association. Last year she was named Technology Leader of the Year by the Arkansas Association of Instructional Media. Shelly Albritton is an Associate Professor at the University of Central Arkansas in the Department of Leadership Studies. She earned her Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Educational Leadership and Research of the College of Psychology and Education from the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. She was a teacher and a school leader in public schools for many years and now teaches graduate students who aspire to be school leaders. She is dedicated to providing her students with excellent teaching and learning experiences in distance learning environments. Albritton’s research interests include school leadership issues, parent involvement, and distance learning. She is a Certified Blackboard Trainer and has served as a Blackboard Exemplary Course Program Reviewer. Barbara Wilmes is an Associate Professor of Education in the Department of Early Childhood and Special Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Wilmes holds a BS and a MS from the University of Minnesota-Mankato and a PhD from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She taught in P-12 schools in Minnesota and university level courses in Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, Iowa and Arkansas. Wilmes served as Director of Education for the Seminole Tribe of Florida developing several programs and supervising the development of a tribal language program. She was instrumental in building and developing three tribal libraries with up-to-date computer equipment. Her research interests include environments that support university students’ learning, including technological/electronic environments and reading. Wilmes is the parent of four adult children. Wendy Rickman is an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Arkansas. She teaches a variety of courses in both the Library Media and Information Technologies Graduate program and the Instructional Technology Graduate program. Rickman has a Master’s of Science in Library Media and



Information Technologies from the University of Central Arkansas and earned her doctorate in Educational Leadership from Arkansas State University. With over 6 years of experience in K-12 education, Rickman has an incurable interest in technology, instructional integration, and censorship issues. *** Kay Bishop is an associate professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, where she currently serves as Director of the Online MLS Program. Bishop teaches both online and face-to-face courses in school library media and youth services. She has also been a faculty member at the University of South Florida, the University of Kentucky, the University of Southern Mississippi, and Murray State University. Bishop has over 20 years of experience as a school library media specialist at a variety of grade levels. She is the author of numerous articles, two books (The Collection Program in Schools: Concepts, Practices, and Information Sources, Libraries Unlimited, 2007 and Connecting Libraries with Classrooms: The Curricular Roles of the Media Specialist, Linworth, 2003), and the co-author of two other books (Staff Development Guide to Workshops for Technology and Information Literacy: Ready to Present, Linworth, 2005 and Inquiry-Based Learning: Lessons from Library Power, Linworth, 2001). Carrie J. Boden is Associate Professor of Adult Education and Coordinator of the Master of Adult Education Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in Adult Education from Kansas State University, a MFA in Creative Writing from Wichita State University, and a BA in English Language and Literature from Bethel College. Her memberships include the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education, the Arkansas Association for Continuing and Adult Education, and the Adult and Higher Education Alliance. Boden has an interest in international education. She has participated in exchanges in Cancun, Mexico and Graz, Austria. She has planned several international conferences and served as Associate Editor for The International Journal of Learning. She was Fulbright Scholar with Project ECHO and was participated in the NGO Forum on Women in Beijing, China. Peter A. Bruce has been active in higher education for over 22 years. He holds graduate degrees from universities in both America and England including a doctorate in Technology in Education from the University of Utah. His professional and research interests are in online higher education, online teaching and learning, and online instructional design. He has worked with leaders in educational technology and has guest lectured at universities in the U.S., England, and Scotland. He has led numerous educational technology workshops and has held administrative positions in the University of Utah’s School of Medicine and College of Nursing. He is a leader in online, hybrid, and campus-based instructional design and was the lead instructional designer on two university courses funded by $1.5 million in grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) that were accepted for use by 64 universities. Terence Cavanaugh is an assistant professor at the University of North Florida’s College of Education and Human Services in Jacksonville, Florida, USA. His areas of expertise include curriculum design, instructional technology, assistive technology, ESOL education, and teacher education. He has been a teacher educator for over 10 years, specializing in instructional technology, science, and science education, and was a 6-12 classroom teacher for 16 years. He taught science and technology in the US and the Caribbean, and worked with the State Department to provide assistive technology instruction to special

313


needs schools in Kuwait. His research has included work in adapting and repurposing media, integrating technology into education, and education and assistive technology, with current efforts focused on student visualization tools for online classes to build community and to support and assist in the area of reading. Samuel Conn serves as the Director of the Center for Innovative Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CITLA) at Kentucky State University. Prior to joining CITLA, he held the position of Director at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Institute for Distance and Distributed Learning. In this role he directed the eLearning technology group, instructional design, and the research and assessment program for distance and distributed learning. Conn’s academic resume also includes his work as Assistant Professor and Chair of the Department of Computer Information Systems at Regis University in Denver, Colorado from 1999 to 2008. In this position he led the university’s move to online education in graduate and undergraduate programs. He also served as co-director of the online joint-degree program with the National University of Ireland in Galway, Director of the Center for Database Research, and Co-Director for the National Security Agency Center of Academic Excellence. Conn has worked in higher education since 1999 after completing a 23-year career in the field of Information Systems and Technology. He maintains research and publishing tracks in nascent Information Systems Architectures, eLearning, and innovative teaching, learning, and assessment methods. Wajeeh Daher is an assistant professor at An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine, and a senior lecturer at Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Baqa, Israel. He has academic degrees in mathematics, mathematics education, technological education, economics and accounting. His PhD is from Haifa University and is in the field of web based mathematics education. Wajeeh Daher’s research interests include technology in mathematics education, alternative teaching methods of mathematics, distance learning, and teachers’ education. He wrote articles that probe the use of technology in the mathematics classroom, the integration of history in the mathematics classroom and the use of literature and language in mathematics lessons. Some of his latest articles examine the potentialities lying in using the mobile phone in mathematics education. In addition, he practiced and researched distance learning and still does so. Nancy P. Gallavan, Professor of Teacher Education at University of Central Arkansas, specializes in analysis and practice of teaching, cultural competence, performance-based assessments, and social studies education. Earning her master’s degree at University of Colorado and her doctorate at University of Denver, Gallavan taught elementary and middle school for 20 years in the Cherry Creek School District, Colorado, and was a teacher educator at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. With more than 100 published articles, chapters, and books, she is a prolific editor and author whose work includes Affective Education, Developing Performance-Based Assessments in Grades K-5 and Grades 6-12, Navigating Cultural Competence in Grades K-5 and Grades 6-12, Secrets to Success for Elementary School Teachers, and Secrets to Success for Social Studies Teachers. Gallavan is active in American Educational Research Association, Association of Teacher Education, National Association of Multicultural Education, and National Council for the Social Studies. Virginia E. Garland is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Educational Administration and Supervision at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) at Durham and Manchester.

314


In addition to serving at UNH, she taught and conducted research at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, Kobe University in Japan, and the Tianjin, Beijing, and Shanghai Institutes of Education in China. Garland has over thirty publications, many in the field of technology for school leaders. Her current book chapter, “Leading the Online School,” is supplemented by two other recent book chapters, “Wireless Technologies and Multimedia Literacies for K-12 Education,” and “Digital Literacy and the Use of Wireless Portable Computers, Planners, and Cell Phones for K-12 Education.” Garland is writing a textbook on the role of the school principal as technology leader. Shalin Hai-Jew works as an instructional designer at Kansas State University, and she teaches for Washington Online. She has BAs in English and psychology and an MA in English from the University of Washington, and she has an EdD with a focus on Public Administration from Seattle University (2005), where she was a Morford Scholar. In 2010, she wrote and published Digital Imagery and Informational Graphics in E-Learning: Maximizing Visual Technologies (IGI-Global). She reviews for several national educational journals focused on e-learning. She has a forthcoming title Virtual Immersive and 3D Learning Spaces: Emerging Technologies and Trends (an edited text) (IGI-Global). Simin Hall is a Research Assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (ME) at Virginia Tech (VT). She earned her PhD in Education and Statistics and a post master certificate in Adult Learning and College Teaching from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) and holds degrees from Virginia Tech in Engineering Science and Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Mathematics. She has research and applied experience at Virginia Tech and Nuclear Power Generation Industries focused in the area of structural engineering. In addition to industry experience, she has research and teaching experience in higher education setting. Her applied research in education is in cognitive functioning using online learning technologies. She has redesigned two undergraduate courses in Thermodynamics for online/Distance delivery at VT. She completed a postdoctoral work in the Department of Engineering Education at VT prior to joining ME. Michael Herndon served as Director of Undergraduate Studies in Virginia Tech’s Department of Interdisciplinary Studies before joining the Office of Distance Learning and Summer Sessions as Director of Summer Sessions. In this capacity, he taught the senior research seminar and oversaw departmental curriculum development and reform. Prior to his arrival to Blacksburg, as a graduate student, he worked as a Residence Education Coordinator at Longwood University for six years. He is the author of several scholarly journal articles and the editor of a textbook, An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies, published by Kendall Hunt. Gail D. Hughes is an Associate Professor of Educational Foundations at the University of Arkansas – Little Rock where she teaches online-graduate courses in research and statistics and mentors students through their dissertations. She is a member of the Editorial Board for Journal of Educational Research and Educational Technology, Research, and Development and serves as Copy Editor for Research in the Schools. Hughes was also honored with Faculty Excellence Awards for Teaching and for Research. Christine Kroll is the Assistant Dean for Online Programs in the Graduate School of Education at the University at Buffalo. She leads all online initiatives for the school, supervises a professional staff and teaches a variety of online courses in the fields of communication and education. In past roles, Kroll

315


has overseen online initiatives in several Latin American countries and worked closely with the Jane Goodall Institute on the creation of the lessons for hope curriculum created for K-12 institutions. She has 14 years of experience working in the field of distance education. Her primary focus is on advocating the use of universal design in course delivery to ensure all students, regardless of barriers, have access to online education. Melodee Landis is an Associate Professor in the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s College of Education. She teaches intro courses to teacher candidates, instructional technology and methods courses to graduates, some of which are offered on-line. She has also conducted professional development workshops with higher education faculty. She was the Director of the Educational Technology Center in the Nebraska Department of Education for several years where she helped to gain access to the Internet for public schools in the state and led the development of a twenty-three state distance learning course in Japanese language. She taught in the public schools for many years, working with learning disabled, gifted and talented, elementary, middle school and high schools students. Adeline “Addy” Meira is a Doctoral Student in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus in Technology at Baylor University (Waco, TX). A native of Sao Paulo, Brazil, she is also a graduate fellow at the Academy of Teaching and Learning, President of the Graduate Student Association, President of the Brazilian student association, part of the Baylor University Digital Media Studio Staff, Baylor’s Teaching and Learning with Technology Committee, the School of Education Media Center Staff, as well as the Instructor for TED 3380 (Social Issues in Education) and two sections of TED 1112 (Technology) lab. Her interests include Technology, Educational technology, Graphic Design/Art, Typography, and Social Issues in Education. Dianne Oberg is a Professor in teacher-librarianship in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta in Canada. Before coming to the University, Oberg worked as a classroom teacher and teacherlibrarian in the public school system. Her research focuses on teacher-librarianship education and on the implementation and evaluation of school library programs. She also was part of an international team studying the role of principals in developing information literate school communities around the world. Oberg is the editor of the international peer-reviewed journal, School Libraries Worldwide, and an active member of school library associations at local, national, and international levels. She is currently Chair of the Department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta. She previously held a joint appointment with that Department and the School of Library and Information Studies. Kshema Prakash is working as a Deputy Librarian in Indian Institute of Technology – Rajasthan. She has 12 years of rich and varied experience in the field of Library & Information Services in research and academic sectors. Her academic qualifications are BSc (Computer Sc.), Masters in Library & Information Science and a PhD in Management, and a qualified lecturer under University Grants Commission’s National Educational Testing. She has received University Gold Medals for securing top score in Library & Information Science both at bachelor’s as well as at master’s level. Her area of research specialization is Change Management in Academic Libraries. She has 3 journal articles, 4 book chapters, 10 conference presentations and 7 units of self learning material in Library & Information Science at Masters and Research Degree levels (with Vardhman Mahavir Open University, Kota) to her credit. Prakash is an active member in professional associations and societies like Systems Society of India. She is also

316


actively involved in imparting information literacy to university students at different levels, providing literature review service to researchers and faculty. She is also associated in providing consultancy and information services to local volunteers engaged in various activities viz., educational support to the socio economically underprivileged class, other non-profit charitable trusts, etc. Elinor A. Scheirer is a Professor in the College of Education and Human Services at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, USA, where she specializes in curriculum studies, foundations of education, progressive pedagogy, and qualitative research methodologies. She is also a member of the doctoral faculty in educational leadership. Her research and writing have focused on the promotion of progressive elementary and middle-school education, the requirements for curriculum dialogue and deliberation toward democratic public schooling, the application of diverse qualitative research methodologies too many fields in education, support for teacher empowerment, and teacher education for social justice. Her interest in evolving forms of instructional technology focuses on how they might facilitate constructivist learning and education for social justice. Kay Shattuck was a member of the initial group of Maryland distance educators who developed what would become the Quality Matters (QM) program. As director of research, she continues involvement with research issues related to the QM rubric and process. She is an adjunct assistant professor of education at Penn State and has taught in their online Masters of Adult Education program since 2000. Shattuck is also an associate of Penn State’ World Campus Faculty Development program where she authors and teaches online courses focused on online teaching for faculty. In 2008, she was honored as the Distance Learning Administrator of the Year by the Maryland Distance Learning Association. She received her DE. from Penn State under the guidance of Michael G. Moore. Gary Michael Szirony has more than 10 years experience in Distance Education. As a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and Trainer, he spent several years in Systems and Network Engineering at General Electric, NSE, and BMA Life and Health, where he served as Director of Information. He completed his Masters and Doctorate at Kent State University in 1997. He joined the faculty of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2003 with online and conventional teaching experience at Kent State and Penn State Universities. At Penn State, he taught Instructional Technology and Educational Psychology and served as a campus Instructional Design Consultant. He has developed several courses in Blackboard, WebCT, and straight HTML, and has taught several courses in the online Rehabilitation Counseling program at UALR using advanced audio and video systems. Proficient in both Mac and PC, he actively conducts research on the efficacy of distance education. Tony L. Talbert, Associate Dean and Associate Professor in the School of Education at Baylor University, is a qualitative and ethnographic researcher whose teaching and research areas of expertise include: qualitative and ethnographic research design and analysis; social and cultural education; democracy education; peace education; and, social justice education. Talbert refers to his field of research as Education As Democracy which integrates democracy, peace, and social justice education into a focused discipline of qualitative and ethnographic inquiry examining teacher and student empowerment through activist engagement in political, economic, and social issues confronting education. Talbert is pleased to discuss: qualitative and ethnographic research design and analysis; distinctions between democratic movements (e.g., market democracy vs. popular democracy); alternatives to war-centric curriculum and

317


practice in public schools and society; traditions of dissent within democratic societies; interactive peace and democracy teaching strategies and resources; and, the role of activism within education and society. Rudo Tsemunhu works as an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She received her PhD from Pennsylvania State University in Educational Leadership. She teaches issues in School Improvement and School and Community Relations. Her main research interest is School Leadership. Angela Webster-Smith completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Psychology and Research from The University of Memphis. In Memphis she also served as founding principal of two independent schools and as a consultant for public charter school design. Webster-Smith has been a faculty member in the US and abroad. Now as an Assistant Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Central Arkansas, she teaches and explores self reflection in leadership and in teaching and learning. She is passionate about cultivating reflective living and nurturing hope-based schooling practices for all learners. Webster-Smith speaks nationally on the topic of self reflection, hosts a radio spot on Reflective Living, serves on the board of trustees of a charter school, works with public school principals, and is active in the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration and the Association of Teacher Educators. Cheryl Wiedmaier is an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas where she teaches undergraduate and graduate technology and methods courses. Before entering a career in higher education, she taught business and computer courses in grades 7-12 in the public schools. Wiedmaier has taught a number of courses in the online environment. Her research interests include distance learning, educational technology, teacher education, and teaching strategies topics. Robert Z. Zheng teaches instructional design and educational technology courses in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Utah.Â€His research includes online learning and pedagogy, multimedia and cognition, and educational technology and assessment. He edited and co-edited several books including Understanding Online Instructional Modeling: Theories and Practices (2007), Cognitive Effects of Multimedia Learning (2008), and Adolescent Online Social Communication and Behavior: Relationship Formation on the Internet (2009) and currently serves as the editor-in-chief for the International Journal of Cyberbehavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL). He has authored 15 book chapters and 15 peer-reviewed journal papers on the topics of cognitive load, multimedia and cognition, Web-based instruction and design, and problem solving strategies in multimedia learning.

318

319

Index

Symbols

automated proposal submission 33

3D environment 279 3D virtual environments 280 3D virtual spaces 92

B

A absolute knowledge 182, 187, 188, 191, 197, 198 academic librarianship 56 Academic Program Director (APD) 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53 Adobe 29 adult learners 14, 23, 24 American Council on Education (ACE) 137, 144 American Library Association (ALA) 52, 53, 54, 80, 123, 125 American universities 27, 28 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 208, 209, 239, 242 Articulated Instructional Media (AIM) 7, 272, 274, 275, 289 artificial intelligence (AI) 99 Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 273 Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) 124 Association of Teacher Education (ATE) 249, 250, 253, 264 asynchronous environment 148 asynchronous learning 286 asynchronous online teaching 148 augmented reality (AR) 283 autobiographic self studies 247

Blackboard 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 blended courses 59, 64 blogs 88, 89, 149, 153 bookmarking 126 brick and mortar courses 25 British Open University 275

C Centra 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 77 change processes 247, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 260, 261 charter schools 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120, 121 chief information officer (CIO) 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 class-map 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 cloud-based applications 278 cloud-computing 277, 278 CMS environment 148 cognitive dissonance 159, 165 collaboration tools 33, 35 collaboration webs 278, 279 collaborative educational environment 219 collaborative learning 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 244, 245, 246 collaborative learning environment 213 collaborative school teams 203 Colleague-to-Colleague (C2C) 98 College of Education (COE) 232, 233 commercialism 3 Commonwealth of Learning (COL) 123


Index

community-building tools 155 community of practice 135, 137, 138, 144, 145 comparative methodology 217 Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) 276 computer-assisted instruction (CAI) 8, 10 computer-based distance learning 158 computer-based instruction (CBI) 8, 10 Computer Literacy 125 conflict management 205, 208, 210 constructivism 158, 159, 160, 170, 172, 177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 191, 192, 194, 195, 198 constructivist learning 158, 161, 164, 172, 174 constructivist pedagogies 147 content knowledge 217, 218, 221 conventional classroom learning environments 14 cooperative teaching 67 Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) 6, 10 course delivery 13, 20, 23, 24, 26, 158 course delivery systems 13, 18, 23, 25 course management systems (CMS) 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 146, 148, 149, 150, 153, 157 course maps 149 Course Readiness Evaluation (CRE) 49, 50, 51 course recovery 109, 116 credit recovery 109, 110, 111, 114, 117, 118, 120 cyber charter school 109, 112 cyber schools 109, 112, 121

D delivery systems 61, 63, 67, 77 Department of Audio-Visual Instruction (DAVI) 273 Department of Visual Instruction (DVI) 273 digital format 204 Digital Information Virtual Archive (DIVA) 279 digital learning 91, 92, 98, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106 digital learning objects 91, 92, 98, 103, 105 Digital Literacy 125 digital media 123, 126, 130, 131

320

digital natives 270, 282, 288 digital resources 92, 103 digital tool 148 Dimensions of Learning (DOL) 162 discussion boards 13, 19, 20, 21, 25 Distance Education Council (DEC) 127 distance education courses 15, 25 distance education (DE) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 144, 145, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 277, 280, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289 distance education system 122 Distance Leaning Initiatives Committee (DLIC) 136, 137 distance learners 14, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 distance-learning classrooms 271 distance-learning courses 147, 148 distance learning (DL) 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131, 132, 146, 147, 148, 151, 154, 158, 159, 161, 175, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286 distance-learning environments 147, 148 distance-learning formats 147 distributed learning 2, 79 Division of Continuing Education (DCE) 103 do-it-yourself (DIY) 92 dualistic knowledge 182

E Educational Communications Center (ECC) 97 educational enterprise 247, 251, 253, 255, 260, 263 educational instruction 14 educational leadership 45 educational psychology 45 educational technology 272, 273, 288 educational technology courses 146 educational technology programs 34 educational theory 177 EDUCAUSE 277

Index

EDUCAUSE LEARNING INITIATIVE (ELI) 277 e-learners 15, 16 e-learning 15, 26, 71, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 123, 127, 277, 285, 287, 288 E-Learning and Teaching Exchange (ELATE) 98 electronic environments 227 electronic high schools 34 electronic teaching tools 158 email bulletin board system 84 epistemic beliefs 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199 epistemological beliefs 180 essential learnings 158 essential learning target 165, 169, 170, 171

F face-to-face course delivery 200 face-to-face courses 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 82 face-to-face delivery 79, 90 face-to-face education 81 face-to-face (F2F) 122, 129, 152, 153, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 175, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211 face-to-face (F2F) classes 201, 203, 204, 205, 206 face-to-face group communications 160 face-to-face instruction 81, 247, 248, 253, 256, 257, 258, 260 face-to-face interactions 84, 160 face-to-face programs 82 faculty members 47, 58 faculty support 91 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 5, 6, 10, 273 Flickr 88 Florida Virtual School (FLVS) 109, 110, 112, 113 framework 177, 179, 181, 183, 184, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197

Fulbright Program 85 Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) 135, 137, 138, 140, 144

G geographic barriers 269, 271 geographic bridges 269 Geographic Information System (GIS) 146, 149, 150, 157 geometry 217, 218, 220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231 Graduate School of Education (GSE) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 graphic/cognitive organizers 158 great man theory 203

H habits of mind 159, 161 higher education (HE) 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 59, 60, 61, 62, 74, 75, 76, 77 higher level thinking 158 hybrid 113, 118 hybrid model 118 hybrid online course 113

I Indian Library Association (ILA) 123 individual epistemology 179 information and communication technologies (ICT) 96, 123 information literacy 122, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 Information Technology Assistance Center (iTAC) 97 Institutional Review Board (IRB) 237 instructional design 91, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99, 106 Instructional Design Technologies Roundtables (ITD Roundtables) 97 Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) 6 intellectual property rights 33, 125 International Society of Technology Education (ISTE) 249, 251, 253, 265 Internet-based asynchronous delivery of instruction 146, 155

321

Index

Internet-delivered course-management systems 148 Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) 249, 250, 253, 265 Iowa Communications Network (ICAN) 7 IT supported classrooms 33

K knowledge management 210, 218, 229, 230

L land-grant universities 4 learner-centered evaluation 14 learner satisfaction 14 learning communities 158, 160, 163, 165, 171, 172, 173, 174, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 207, 210, 213, 214, 215 learning / course management system (L/CMS) 96, 97 learning design 93, 94, 99 learning effectiveness 150 Learning Enhancement Envelope (LEE) 83, 84 learning environments 179, 184, 195, 217, 219 Learning Management System (LMS) 190 learning objectives 139 learning objects (LO) 93 learning on teaching 251 learning outcomes 25 learning platforms 91, 92, 96 learning style 232, 234, 237, 239, 242, 244, 245 learning theories 179, 181, 187 lecture videos 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244 Library 2.0 122, 133 Library and Information Studies (LIS) 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Library Literacy 125 library services for distance learners 122 library support services 122, 133 Likert scale 63 live chats 13, 25

322

M market-driven forces 59, 60, 62 MarylandOnline (MOL) 136, 137 Marzano 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176 Master of Library and Information Studies (MLIS) 78, 79 Master’s of Library Science (MLS) 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Media Literacy 125 Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) 127 meta-cognitive standards 178 methodology 177, 178, 179, 183, 193, 194, 195 MIND over Matter 247, 248, 253, 262, 263 mobile learning 92, 99 model-centered methodology 93

N National Academy of Visual Instruction (NAVI) 273 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 76 National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 270, 288 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 249, 250, 266 National Education Association (NEA) 273 National Technological University (NTU) 6, 276 National University Teleconferencing Network (NUTN) 275, 276 Network Literacy 125 New Media Consortium (NMC) 277 New York State Education Department (NYSED) 45, 47, 53 non-native speaker (NNS) 219

O Office of Online Programs (OOP) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 online academy 117

Index

online best practices 135 online class 146, 151, 152, 153 online classrooms 20, 25, 213, 234, 245 online collaboration 205, 232, 235 online collaborative learning 235, 246 online communities 202, 206, 214 online course 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 191, 193, 194, 195 online course construction 177, 178, 180, 181, 194 online course design 135, 143 online course management tool 158 online courses 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 155, 206, 210, 211, 213, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 256 Online & Distance Learning (ODL) 123, 132 online education 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 61, 71, 76, 78, 135, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143 online environment 200, 207, 211, 212, 233 online information resource 152 online instruction 200, 201, 202, 213, 247, 248, 249, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 266 online instructors 206, 211, 212, 232 online learner 232, 244 online learning 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 113, 118, 119, 135, 137, 142, 143, 158, 159, 160, 163, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 211, 213, 215, 232, 233, 234, 237, 241, 243, 246, 256, 258, 264, 266 online learning communities 200, 203, 204, 210, 213, 215 online learning environment 203 online learning system 202 online pedagogy 29 online programs 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38 online rubric 139 online school leaders 119

online schools 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120 online teaching 148 Online Teaching, Design and Development (OTDD) 97, 105 online tool 149 onsite course 232 open content 282, 289 Open Courseware Initiative (OCW) 282 Open Educational Resource (OER) 282 open source 285, 286, 287 Open University (OU) 7, 11 organizational intelligence 200, 201, 202, 203, 213

P Pan-Pacific Education and Communication Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) 275 pedagogic 217, 218, 221, 222, 225, 228 pedagogical strategies 179, 182, 191, 193 pedagogical tool 148 pedagogic content 217, 218, 221, 227, 228 pedagogic content knowledge 217, 218, 221 pedagogic knowledge 221, 222, 228 pedagogy 178, 182, 183, 186, 189 peer review 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143 Personal Contact Programmes (PCP) 129 Picasa 88 postal services 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 preservice teachers 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231 problem-solving 185, 186, 197, 210 professional development 202, 212, 213, 215 professional learning community (PLC) 70, 71, 72 program curriculum 47, 48 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) 6, 11 public librarianship 53, 56 pull method 130 push information 130

Q quality assurance 135, 136, 137, 138 quality e-learning 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 102, 105, 106

323

Index

Quality Matters 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144

R radio broadcasts 5 real time teaching 269 Rehabilitation Counseling Master’s degree (MRC) 17, 18 rubric 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 177, 178, 179, 181, 184, 191

S satellite communications 275 Scholarly Technology and Resources (STAR) 233 scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) 177, 199 school library education 78, 79, 80, 86, 88, 89, 90 School Library Media (SLM) 56 school media librarianship 56, 57 Schools of the Air (SOA) 273 Second Life 280 self affirmation 191 self assessment 247, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 259, 260, 261, 263 self-efficacy 179, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 247, 248, 249, 253, 254, 259, 261, 263 Self Learning Material (SLM) 129 self-regulation 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 199 self study 247, 248, 249, 251, 255, 260, 261, 264 single-brain approach 203 Skype 67 social bookmarking 126 social media 122, 133 social networking 122, 126, 133, 149, 150, 152, 157 social networking tools 122 social networks 88 social tagging 126 software upgrades 29

324

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) 138 special librarianship 56 staff training 29 State University of New York (SUNY) 44, 45, 47, 49, 53 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 238, 240 student epistemic beliefs 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 194, 195 student fees 32, 42 subject matter expert (SME) 92, 96, 107 synchronous learning activities 19, 25 systemic change 59

T teacher-centered instruction 158 teacher education 247, 249, 250, 251, 257, 258, 263, 264, 265, 267 teacher-librarianship 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning (TL-DL) 85, 86 teaching on learning 251 team leadership 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 212 technical aspect 221 technological environments 220 technological infrastructure 177 technological learning platforms 91 technologic tools 1, 2 technology assisted curriculum 32, 33, 35 technology faculty 67 technology-mediated higher education 27, 40 technology tools 158, 161, 171, 172, 173, 174 telecommunication 271, 275 television broadcasts 7 text-based delivery 13, 19, 23, 25 the cloud 278 theory of knowledge 179, 182, 185 traditional lecture 232, 237, 238, 242, 243 twittering 89

U ubi-learning 99

Index

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 5 United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) 138 University at Buffalo (UB) 45, 46, 47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 university resources 46 U.S. Department of Education 28, 35, 39, 40, 42, 51, 58

V video/audio technologies 67 video lectures 232, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244 video streamed content delivery 13, 19, 25 Viral Education 269, 271 virtual charter schools 110, 111, 112 virtual environments 279, 280 Virtual High School (VHS) 113 virtual learning 114, 119 Virtual Learning Academy Charter School (VLACS) 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121 virtual school 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 120 virtual schooling 111, 118, 119 virtual spaces 92 virtual worlds 279, 280, 287, 288 Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic (VARK) 238, 239, 244 Visual Instruction Association of America (VIAA) 273 Visual Literacy 125 voice over internet protocol (VoIP) 8, 11

W WCET Outstanding Work (WOW) 138 Web 2.0 85, 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 107, 122, 126, 131, 132, 133, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 161, 165, 176 Web 2.0 collaborative experience 152 Web-based education (WBE) 93 WebCT 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 77, 83, 84, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212 web-enhanced course 238 Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET) 137, 138 wiki discussion sections 220 wiki environment 217, 218, 219, 220, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 wiki language 226, 231 Wikipedia 3, 10 wiki project 220 wikis 218, 219, 220, 230 wiki technology 218, 219, 230 World Wide Web Instructional Committee (WWWIC) 279

Y YouTube 88

Z zone of proximal development 170

325

Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences

Quality Tourism Experiences

Building Great Customer Experiences

Measuring Information Systems Delivery Quality

Youth programs: promoting quality services

Quality Management for Projects and Programs

Applications and Experiences of Quality Control

Sourcing in China: Strategies, Methods and Experiences

Cases on Database Technologies And Applications (Cases on Information Technology Series) (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Dead on Delivery

Dead on Delivery

Cases on Telecommunications And Networking

Quality-Based Content Delivery over the Internet

Cases and Materials on Trusts

Management, Quality and Economics in Building

Quality Teaching: A Sample of Cases

Daylighting, Architecture and Health: Building Design Strategies

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 4

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 8

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 7

Cases on Information Technology: Lessons Learned (Cases on Information Technology Series) (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Cases on Strategic Information Systems (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World

Messenger - 02 Dead on Delivery

Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text and Cases

Oral delivery of macromolecular drugs: barriers, strategies and future trends

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 3 (Highinterest Building Vocabulary Skills & Strategies)

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 6 (Highinterest Building Vocabulary Skills & Strategies)

Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective Programs

Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences

Quality Tourism Experiences

Building Great Customer Experiences

Measuring Information Systems Delivery Quality

Youth programs: promoting quality services

Quality Management for Projects and Programs

Applications and Experiences of Quality Control

Sourcing in China: Strategies, Methods and Experiences

Cases on Database Technologies And Applications (Cases on Information Technology Series) (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Dead on Delivery

Dead on Delivery

Cases on Telecommunications And Networking

Quality-Based Content Delivery over the Internet

Cases and Materials on Trusts

Management, Quality and Economics in Building

Quality Teaching: A Sample of Cases

Daylighting, Architecture and Health: Building Design Strategies

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 4

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 8

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 7

Cases on Information Technology: Lessons Learned (Cases on Information Technology Series) (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Cases on Strategic Information Systems (Cases on Information Technology Series)

Building Learning Experiences in a Changing World

Messenger - 02 Dead on Delivery

Internet Business Models and Strategies: Text and Cases

Oral delivery of macromolecular drugs: barriers, strategies and future trends

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 3 (Highinterest Building Vocabulary Skills & Strategies)

Building Vocabulary Skills and Strategies Level 6 (Highinterest Building Vocabulary Skills & Strategies)

Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective Programs

Recommend Documents