Avatar photo

Online Classes for the Web, Not Just on the Web

When instructors who have years of experience teaching face-to-face classes start teaching online, it’s tempting to try to simply “port” their traditional classes into the online environment—that is, to convert their existing classes to a new medium with no modification. These instructors have developed well-tested teaching techniques, sometimes through a painstaking trial-and-error process, and are often understandably hesitant to change them.

But while studies have shown that a well-designed online class can be as effective as a traditional class, there should not be a one-to-one correlation between how a traditional class is put together and how an online class is put together. Web environments have different capabilities and limitations than a face-to-face classroom. For example, online classes allow a discussion to stretch over a period of days (allowing more thoughtful contributions) but limit the immediacy of an in-class conversation, perhaps making it harder to generate the same energy. Online classes allow a nonlinear class experience but limit the instructor’s control over the student’s attention. These capabilities and limitations should be considered in the design of an online course.

I am not the first on this blog to suggest that an online class should be tailored to the capabilities of the Web environment. Dee Schmidgall wrote recently about an online-class design that made him feel more like a voyeur than a student, and Melissa Koenig has written about the danger of online classes becoming merely a teched-up version of a correspondence course.

But I would like to reiterate this point using an example from outside academia that will hopefully clarify why Web content should be developed with the capabilities and limitations of the Web in mind. This will show what kinds of problems can develop from simply “porting” information to the Web.

Last year, I did some research on the concept of genre in new media and the public sphere. I studied, among other things, the differences between the quality of discourse generated in user comments on political blogs and user comments on newspaper editorials presented online. (By quality of discourse, I mean the tendency of participants to cite evidence for their claims, use logical arguments, avoid ad hominem attacks, etc.) Without going into too much detail about my study, let me just say that I found more productive discourse in the comments attached to political blogs. Why is this?

There may be a number of factors, but one is that when newspapers establish an online presence, they generally just move their articles and editorials onto the Web with no modification. They are not developing online content as much as just presenting their print content on a Web page.

Political blogs, on the other hand, do not simply port content to the Web that was developed for another medium. Rather, they utilize the capabilities of the new technology in creating content. For example, they use hyperlinks to cite their sources, allowing readers to independently verify that the blogger’s characterization of those sources is fair. And bloggers draw on comments to their posts for insight, raw data, and differing perspectives, sometimes even modifying or supplementing their original post in response to user comments.

Because blog entries engage readers using techniques that are unique to the Web experience, they generate a more productive (though still seldom polite) exchange of ideas in their comments sections.

So, how does this relate to online learning? Just as newspapers fail to engage participants by simply porting print content to the Web rather than developing Web content, online classes run the risk of failing to engage online students by porting a face-to-face class to the Web, rather than developing a Web-based class.

So how does an instructor go about developing a class for the Web rather than just on the Web? I’m afraid that’s a large question with a variety of possible answers, and this is beyond the scope of this humble entry. There is plenty of specific advice in other entries in this blog, and if instructors need more help, why, that’s what instructional-design consultants are for!

FERPA and the Web 2.0 Classroom

For the Educause Learning Initiative’s annual meeting, I’ve been preparing a workshop about various legal issues to keep in mind when designing assignments for a course. Specifically we’ll look at copyright, Creative Commons, and FERPA.

Most people look at me funny when I mention FERPA. Working at different institutions of higher education, it is always mandated that I know something about FERPA. Usually it’s just that student educational records are private, that they shouldn’t be shared, and that directory information can be shared unless a student opts out. Normally FERPA is seen as the concern of administrative offices that hold what have been traditionally seen as student records (grades, registration dates, etc).

But FERPA actually covers a bit more than that, and it comes down to how ‘educational record’ is defined. According to the Department of Education, “Education records are currently defined as records that are directly related to a ‘student‘ and maintained by an ’educational agency or institution‘ or by a party acting for the agency or institution.”

This goes beyond grades and dates of attendance. It can include anything submitted by the student to an agent acting on behalf of the institution in the course of their academic endeavors. So yes, this would include an assignment submitted to a faculty member for a course.

Now, I know most faculty members wouldn’t go about giving access to student submissions to anyone who asked, but there tends to be a gray area that can straddle the line of allowable or not.

Scenario: you want to use some Web 2.0 technology in your course, so you have each student create a blog on Blogger to have them chronicle their work and thoughts through the term. As an instructor, you visit these sites and leave comments on the blog. In order for you to keep track of which student has which blog, you ask them to have their names on the front page of their blog and for them to e-mail you the URL so that you can go through them all, moving from one blog to the next. No grades are shared via the blog, and your final evaluation for the student comes in feedback that you provide within the Gradebook area of Blackboard.

Is this a violation of FERPA?

Please discuss. I have my own interpretation and viewpoint on this—I want to know yours.

The LMS and Feeling Good

All the talk about learning management systems (LMS) around the office lately reminded me of a dataset a couple of colleagues and I put together last year. Dr. Florence Martin, Dr. Yuyan Su, and I undertook the task of validating an instrument to measure LMS self-efficacy.

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as beliefs in one’s abilities to carry out a desired course of action. I’ll spare you the details of orthogonal exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

One of the many variables we decided to examine was whether student LMS self-efficacy was a predictor of course performance. After all, is not learning the primary motivation for using a learning management system?

Reported self-efficacy was generally low. However, students enrolled in hybrid courses reported significantly lower self-efficacy than students in face-to-face or fully online courses. In addition, for students enrolled in hybrid courses, we found a significant positive correlation of LMS self-efficacy with course performance.

It is perplexing that a significant positive correlation occurred only for the hybrid learners. One would think that the use of the LMS as a supplement to face-to-face instruction would require less confidence with the system than in a course in which all content is delivered though the LMS.

Hybrid learners often had the option to enroll in a fully online version of the course but self-selected into the hybrid version. Is this due in part to their lower self-efficacy with the LMS? Or does it mean there is a baseline competence with LMS use required for success, but once that level is perceived to be reached, greater self-efficacy with the system is not required?

Finally, the only instrument category that did not yield a significant difference between modes of delivery was “Accessing Information.” This section included items like logging in to the LMS, navigating a course site, accessing text-based class materials and grades, etc. This was also the highest rated category for self-efficacy. We hypothesize that this finding is an indication of the predominant use of a LMS throughout each student’s experience. As suggested by Bandura (1997), the formation of self-efficacy beliefs is based primarily on reflection on and interpretation of past performance.

In my pervious post, I referenced the Raslton-Berg & Nath (2009) report that says students are uninterested in the bells and whistles in online courses. But consider further the abundance of media-comparison “studies” and no-significant-difference studies that essentially nullify each other.

Is it possible that students actually do like the bells and whistles but lack the confidence to learn from them?

What a pickle.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Ralston-Berg, P. & Nath, L. (2009). What Makes a Quality Online Course? The Student Perspective. Paper presented at Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

CAEL 2009: What about Online?

A couple of weeks ago, I was a presenter at the CAEL 2009 International Conference. CAEL (The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning) is by definition broadly interested in assessing and serving adult learners in a variety of programs; nevertheless, I was struck by how few workshops offered anything geared toward online learning.

This isn’t a small matter. Each keynote speaker I heard addressed the importance of serving the underserved, of finding ways to identify, assess, and recruit adult populations who would benefit from increased access to adult and/or continuing education. There’s tremendous opportunity for institutional growth, they declared, and there’s a moral obligation and societal responsibility to do so. However, most presenters were thinking of these efforts as they pertain to on-ground, classroom-based models. Online learning–if mentioned at all–seemed to be regarded as an add-on option of dubious value to traditional academic delivery.

This kind of perspective has to change if there’s any hope of bringing significantly more adults into our community of learners. Do those who sit on marketing and enrollment committees really want to exclude everyone who might benefit from and contribute to a university learning community but for their inability to be physically present in a traditional classroom? Wouldn’t it be better to design and build a scalable online program that could reach and serve adults regardless of their geographic location? Wouldn’t it be better to spend marketing dollars to identify and attract adult learners to an online program, adults who because of family, work, or other obligations will never step foot in another traditional classroom but who could and would take courses online if given the opportunity? Social media marketing is also a highly cost-effective way to expand your reach. You can visit this website to increase your chances of attracting organic engagement. 

I hear all the time that we must not cannibalize our on-ground programs, as if access to education were a kind of zero-sum game. News flash: a single parent facing a long after-work commute in rush-hour traffic to attend even a suburban-campus night class will almost never occupy a seat in your classroom unless he or she has exceptional resolve and resources. That same person could and would complete a degree online if it’s made available, attractive, and affordable.  My evidence of this is anecdotal, but I’m convinced it would be affirmed by some targeted marketing research. Of course, that would take institutional vision and commitment. And a change of perspective, looking out and away from the classroom to where new opportunity awaits.

Avatar photo

Teaching Frustrations: Why Don’t Students Follow My (Clearly-Labeled, Logically Organized, and Bold/Highlighted/Flashing) Instructions?

Instructors who teach in online environments often devote extensive time and energy into designing a Web space that is inviting and useful to students. But frustration inevitably ensues when, despite the careful consideration given to the most logical placement of a discussion forum and the “clearest” instructions provided to students on how to post to the forum, the instructor still receives e-mail from students asking, “So, where is this discussion forum? And what am I supposed to do?” Why has this gap in communication occurred?

One reason for this may be the typically linear design of course sites. Often, learning-management systems adopted by universities have default settings that establish some of the design considerations for the instructors—i.e., the location and style of course navigation. These linear designs generally have the best intentions, since they try to organize information so that students can navigate course material easily, following step-by-step instructions and information.

However, with recent developments in eye-tracking software showing how users really view content on the Web, we can see why this linear design isn’t quite ideal. This video shows a user’s eye movements when scanning IKEA’s Web site, and several other examples available online confirm this rapid pattern of eye movement that jumps all over the page. It’s no wonder, then, that students miss the carefully placed, bolded, and highlighted instructions for turning in an assignment that you were sure everyone would see and follow—considering how the brain ingests and computes information from the screen, it’s easy to see how a linear design style for course materials might not match the ways in which users view the content.

So, what is the solution? Unfortunately, there isn’t a Band-Aid design scheme that addresses this issue, and because instructors are often working within an institutionally mandated learning-management system, course design happens within set boundaries. One important step is usability testing, which can reveal issues that designers can’t see once they are invested in their design decisions. This may seem like an onerous and time-consuming task, but it doesn’t need to be—usability guru Jakob Nielsen recommends five users for testing, but as this data shows, even finding two or three people to look at your course and perform key tasks can give you helpful information to improve your course design.

Another important step is realizing that, just as in face-to-face classrooms, your goal (for students to follow instructions) needs to clearly align with your assessments:

  • Include instructions in a logical location, as determined by your course design.
  • Ensure that students have seen these instructions. One effective method is to give students a graded quiz at the beginning of the term that asks them to locate important information throughout the online course.
  • Show students that following instructions is important by grading them on it. Depending on your class, you might make part of an assignment’s grade based on following the assignment’s instructions, or you could refuse to accept an assignment until the student has followed the directions.

Again, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution for designing courses that adhere to the ways users view information on the screen. This also isn’t a “lost cause” for instructors—just because users naturally view Web content in a nonlinear way doesn’t mean that the design of online course materials needs to be completely overhauled. Thoughtful design can help students, but supporting your design with clear expectations and assessments can also help students navigate your course more effectively.

Avatar photo

Putting a Concrete “Why” in Front of a Necessary “How”: Ideas for Faculty Technology Training

“Often faculty don’t need more training on the tool, they need more training on the affordance of the tool and how to use it to support learning.” Patricia McGee, associate professor from the University of Texas, made this statement while offering tips for training faculty on teaching with technology in the newsletter Higher Ed Impact: Weekly Analysis, published by Academic Impressions.

What she said about learning the tools versus learning the affordance of the tools reminded me of a lot of trainings and conference presentations I have attended, which are usually made up of a lengthy PowerPoint presentation followed by a little bit of product/project demo. The PowerPoint usually covers vendor introductions, the tool’s primary functions displayed as bullet points, a theoretical framework or the background of the product/project (sometimes), the implementation process, and eventually, student feedback. If I am lucky, I might be able to get a few screenshots of the site or a quick run-through of the final project, but often these come at the very end. While a big introduction does help build expectations, without any concrete examples, it is hard for me to understand what exactly this particular technology could bring to my own teaching practice.

Compared to academies, tool providers seem to do better at addressing the issue of affordances up front. If you’ve read Melissa Koenig’s blog entry Story-Telling Tools—Beyond PowerPoint, you might have noticed that almost all of the tool sites incorporate a good number of samples on their home pages (check out PhotoPeach, Gloster, and Toondoo). This shows that the tool producers have figured out the best way to capture the attention of today’s busy and impatient Web visitors—by showing (instead of “telling”) them what has been done by and with the tool. The only challenge here is that many of the examples are for a “general” audience instead of being targeted at educators. Examples of faculty and student use of technology for instructional purpose are usually not presented in one collection. However, that does not mean that they cannot be found (Isn’t it a general rule that you can find anything on the Internet?). It is up to the trainer to locate the appropriate examples that could get instructors thinking, “How should I use this in my class?”

Speaking of selecting appropriate examples for faculty, Patricia McGee provided another practical tip in the article—adopting a tailored approach. Offering generic examples of educational use of the technology is not good enough, since faculty in different disciplines will have different needs. One type of technology that works well for one content area may not work for another. Given the various needs of different disciplines, Patricia McGee pointed out that campus-wide training might not be the ideal option. This is exactly why we developed a tailored DePaul Online Teaching Series (DOTS) program with a well-matched combination of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) and implemented a liaison model to embed technology consultants in schools and colleges. Now it is time to bring the same tailored mode beyond the systematic program (such as DOTS) and implement it into all training events.

According to the  CDW 21st-Century Campus Report, faculty’s lack of technology knowledge remains the greatest campus technology challenge perceived by students, and training is the type of support most needed by faculty. Whether faculty training is useful has become a determining factor for how successful technology integration on campus is. The answer to this could be as simple as a tailored training curriculum structured in a meaningful sequence. The one I’d like to propose includes the following three easy steps:

  • Step 1: Provide concrete and relevant examples (a demo of the affordance)
  • Step 2: Pause to choose the best tool for meeting instructor needs
  • Step 3: Train on the use of the chosen tool and the necessary technology
Avatar photo

Story-Telling Tools—Beyond PowerPoint

More and more over the past few weeks, I’ve found that I have been recommending that faculty visit a wonderful Wiki site called CogDogRoo, which was developed by Alan Levine. I usually make this recommendation when the subject of student presentations—and how to do them effectively in an online class—comes up. While there is nothing wrong with having students create PowerPoint presentations, I find that there are often other tools available that allow for better interaction and more creative presentation or just allow students to explore a new way to present information. Most recently, I have been working with faculty from our School of Education, and there is often a mandate that their students be able to effectively integrate technology into the classroom. As a parent, I am well aware that “technology integration in the classroom” often means using PowerPoint (including all of the crazy animation—don’t even get me started there) and Google. But I am finding that the faculty I work with feel empowered knowing that there are sites like CogDogRoo out there that can help inspire not only them but also their students to think about classroom technology in new ways.

Browsing the list of over fifty tools that Levine links to is certainly one way to inspire some creative thought, but I decided to highlight a few of my favorites from the list:

  • Blabberize – Perhaps not the most “sophisticated” of tools, but who hasn’t wanted to create an animated talking animal! Think about using this tool for students to do their class introductions instead of the traditional discussion forum.
  • Toondoo – Instead of a traditional PowerPoint, why not have students try their hands at creating their own educational graphic novels? No drawing skills are required, and the results are not bad.
  • Glogster – Have students create poster sessions that distill the essence of their research projects and present them with Glogster. (See this example from a 6th grade class on polar bears.)

And of course if you are looking for slideshow/presentation tools, there are lots of those as well—many will allow you to simply upload existing PowerPoint/keynote presentations, allowing for better Web sharing and viewing options. Some of the best of these include:

For slide-like tools but not PowerPoint presentations per se, try one of these:

  • Imageloop – Upload images or PowerPoint slides, and choose from interesting templates (see this example). Presentations can be embedded on other pages or shared via a link.
  • PhotoPeach – Upload images and overlay them with music (library provided), add captions and effects, and share.

Try some of these favorites or some of the others from the list, and be creative with your next “presentation” assignment.

Get Students Talking in Synchronous Sessions Part I

Recently a faculty member asked, “How do I get more conversation out of online students during Wimba sessions?” (Wimba Live Classroom is a synchronous whiteboard tool and a building block in DePaul’s Blackboard installation.)

Here are two suggestions for discussion starters. I’ll cover some other strategies in later posts.

“Discussion starters” get students thinking and open up opportunities for more discussion. The key to these types of discussions is that there may not be one “right” answer—there is room for discussion. Here are two examples:

  1. Pros and Cons – Divide the whiteboard into two halves (do this with a pre-created PowerPoint slide). Have the students write on one side or the other. One side might be pros and the other cons to a particular issue. Can the responses be categorized? Do any responses appear on both sides?
  2. Create a poll on what students believe about a topic or concept—prior to presenting it or having them research it. Show the results and have students share why some believe a, or b, or c. Continue reading →

Beyond YouTube: Great Places to Find Video for Your Online Course

Here’s a statement I have been hearing a lot lately that some may find surprising:

“I wish there was a video online about X. I searched on YouTube, but I couldn’t find anything.”

Now, X could be anything—Biology, Economics, Politics—and while I doubt the search came up empty, I understand the sentiment.

The great thing about YouTube is there is a great video about practically any subject or concept you can imagine. The problem with YouTube is there are a thousand awful videos about practically any subject or concept you can imagine. If you are looking for a specific video, you can probably find it on YouTube, but if you are interested in discovering video that be used in an educational context, YouTube can be really frustrating.

To end the frustration, I thought I should give a list of some my favorite places to find educational content and post an example video for each. I will use “Biology” as my search term, and I promise not to spend more than two to three minutes searching on each site.

 

Academic Earth

Academic Earth offers a great collection of classroom lectures and course materials from leading universities such as Harvard, Berkeley, and Yale. It’s not original content. The videos on Academic Earth are the same ones on YouTube or on the individual Universities Open Course sites. Academic Earth acts as an aggregator and curator of the videos and presents them in a manner that makes them easy to find and embed. The Academic Earth videos offer a great way to present a survey of prerequisite material as a review before delving into your course’s more specific objectives.

The biology test:

Biochemistry I

Watch it on Academic Earth

 

Fora.tv

Fora.tv is another video aggregator that hosts discussions, panels, and debates with leading experts and researchers.

The biology test:

Genomics: Where Have We Come and Where Are We Going?

 

Big Think

Big Think also offers interviews with experts and deep thinkers. Big Think is different from Fora.tv and Academic Earth because Big Think offers original content that is available no place else.

The biology test:

E.O. Wilson on the Century of Biology

 

TED Talks

If you haven’t ever taken a look at the TED Talks make some room on your calendar to have your mind blown. TED is an organization known for its annual conference on “ideas worth spreading,” an invitation-only event that asks its speakers to give the “talk of their lives.” Since 2006, the Talks have been available online. While originally focused on technology, entertainment, and design, hence the name TED, the Talks scope has expanded and includes a wide array of subject matter including business and science.

The biology test:

Robert Full: Learning from the gecko’s tail

 

The Daily Show

Did you know that every segment from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is online and keyword searchable? How is Jon Stewart educational content? Finding an interview with a popular author or finding a humorous piece that’s related to your course is a great way to build a connection between your students and the materials and to create a “lean-in” moment.

The biology test:

Doing a quick search for “biology” on the Colbert Web site yielded this great interview with author Stephen Johnson.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Steven Johnson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Religion

Confessions of an Online Student: Voyeur or Classmate?

Until I had to withdraw due to family obligations, I recently spent four weeks as an online student in one of DePaul’s Cinema and Digital Media courses. While much of the experience was positive, I’m left with some negative impressions as well.

Readers of my earlier posts know that while I design multimedia for DePaul’s School for New Learning online program (SNL Online), I’m usually not enthusiastic about actually taking online courses myself. I normally like the experience of sitting in a physical classroom and interacting with my classmates. For this course, though, I felt that online would be perfect. It was a subject that didn’t lend itself to a lot of group interaction and discussion. There were clearly defined learning objectives supported by a comprehensive textbook, appropriate learning activities and assessments, and a proprietary LMS that would deliver recorded classroom sessions with video, audio, whiteboards and presentation screens that I could view at my convenience. I would read, watch, and produce. What could be easier?

Well, the online classroom experience was completely unsatisfying. I had anticipated being able to supplement the readings and clarify key concepts and directions by downloading and efficiently viewing the classroom presentations. I had, in fact, found this to be a useful perk when in the past I’d taken CDM courses on-ground, where I could note the time a key concept was discussed, then search for and review it later.

This time, however, with my only classroom contact being virtual and asynchronous, I found that I was by turns bored or frustrated. Removed from the distractions of a live classroom I was struck by how much of a three-hour class was filled up with empty space; the instructor shuffling papers or searching for files or waiting for something to load from the Web. Painful waits for students to respond to questions seemed to stretch into hours. And while there were certainly segments of the recording that were useful, there was no way of knowing where those might actually be without sitting through the entire session. It seemed to me that there was about a three-to-one ratio of dead air to useful information. This was not what I’d anticipated.

Oh, and did I mention the actual recording quality? As I peered through my two-inch video portal, I strained to see the instructor, hear what was being said, and make out what was being written on the whiteboard. Though each session could be displayed full screen and had zoom capabilities, the video was very low quality and heavily pixelated even at smaller display sizes. The whiteboard captured input intermittently. Adding to my frustration, the instructor would physically interact with projected data, pointing out and clarifying important equations and processes that the in-class students could follow, but weren’t captured clearly by the video or whiteboards. The online section of this course was an afterthought, it seemed. I felt more a voyeur than a participant.

That said, I’m planning to take the same course online next quarter. But I now know that the online component is really an afterthought, that I’m really on my own for learning the material from the textbook and exercises, and that I’m essentially taking a correspondence course. Because just putting a recording of a classroom session online does not make it an online course. And just watching one makes you more a voyeur than a classmate.