Avatar photo

Virtual Sign-up Sheets

Back in December of 2007, Rick Salisbury (see 12 Web Tools of Christmas Post) mentioned EditGrid as one of his top tools. While EditGrid is a great tool for creating shareable spreadsheets with many advanced, Excel-like features, I have found a new use for this application in online classes—virtual sign-up sheets! More than a few times in the past few months, I have needed a tool to allow students to sign up for something—be it to lead a discussion, create a blog post, or choose a book for review. With our current learning management system (LMS), Blackboard 8.0, there is no easy way to do this, so faculty are left using some sort of e-mail/discussion work-around or simply assigning students. While these work-arounds suffice, the process has always seemed clunky and overly difficult. I recently remembered Rick’s post, and the idea of using EditGrid to create a virtual sign-up sheet was born. I am currently piloting it in my own class, and students seem to be able to sign up without difficulty, and I am able to see the results easily. A win-win in my book.

So, you may ask, how would I go about creating a sign-up sheet for my own class? First you will need an EditGrid account. Once you have an account, you can simply create a basic sign-up sheet in Excel (or any of these other supported spreadsheet programs: OpenDocument, Gnumeric, OpenOffice.org 1.0, Lotus 1-2-3, or CSV). Note that EditGrid doesn’t support the .xlcx extension, so you have to save your Excel file as an Excel 97–2003 Workbook.

EditGrid

Then, upload it to EditGrid. Because I need the students to be able to edit the sheet (by typing in their name), I set the permissions on the worksheet to allow for Public Read/Write. (You can actually set the default permissions so that whenever you upload spreadsheets, they are always Public Read/Write but not searchable, if you don’t want them to be found using the search box on the EditGrid homepage.)

Once the spreadsheet has been uploaded, select the cells you want to embed in your course Web site—I selected the  two columns that had times to sign up for and cells for the students’ names. Then choose Publish Cell/Region.

Publish Cells

Once it is published, you will see a box with code to embed an EditGrid widget.

Embed Cells

Simply paste this code in your course Web site. (You typically have to change the options for the text box from TEXT to HTML. In Blackboard, click the button above the text box that looks like this: <>.) Save the item and viola! You have a virtual sign-up sheet.

Getting Students Talking in Synchronous Sessions, Part II

In my post from November 9th, 2009, I suggested two discussion starters—polling and pros and cons—and promised more strategies in future posts. So, here are two strategies for getting your online students talking to each other in more depth about course content.

  1. Roles in a Case Study – present the class with a short case study and assign each group a part to play in that case. Each group discusses their “part” identifying primary concerns, varying influences, and possible actions for that stakeholder. Each group reports when everyone reconvenes. Discussion flows from there to identify differing approaches to the problem and possibilities for a mutually agreeable solution. I’ve seen this work particularly well using an ethical situation; it would work well in any course addressing conflicting concerns and interests.
  2. Problem Solving Based in Theory – In this activity the instructor (or selected students) provide a real-life situation. Each group develops a response based on a different theoretical stance. When the class reconvenes each group reports, and a discussion ensues about the differences between the responses.

Why might these work? In each case, breaking up the class into smaller groups 1) puts more pressure on each student to participate and 2) eases the pressure of individually putting an idea out to the entire class.

The advantage to the instructor? As with the discussion starters of November 9th, you get the opportunity not only to see what students think they know—and so have an opportunity to correct misconceptions—but also to see whether or not they can apply what they know.

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. In addition, resorts are prioritizing digital marketing over traditional channels. A resort marketing report by OriginOutside.com reveals a notable shift away from traditional media like print and radio, with ski resorts increasingly investing in digital and social media platforms. This trend reflects the industry’s push for more measurable and targeted campaigns.

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 →