Increasing Learner Motivation through a Collaborative Online Experience: Working with Wikis
Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. This session will discuss the relationship between online collaboration through a wiki and student engagement and motivation in a face-to-face environment and provide ideas and suggestions for using a wiki in the classroom.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Collaborative web sites, or wikis, can be a powerful tool for increasing student engagement in the classroom. The objective of this presentation is to introduce attendees to the early stages of a study investigating the relationship between wikis and student engagement and motivation. This session will also to initiate a conversation about the possibilities of using wikis to enhance student engagement and motivation in a face to face classroom setting. In many college classrooms, instructors are challenged with finding innovative methods for motivating their students and getting them to connect to the course content. In most cases, the level of motivation may determine a learner’s involvement or engagement in learning activities. It is important to consider this when developing learning activities and lesson plans. Hofer (2006) has observed that there is a direct relationship between a learner’s level of motivation and his or her engagement in the learning process. If learners do not see value in the activity they are presented, they are less likely to engage in that activity. It is important for teachers, instructors, and curriculum developers to understand what motivates learners and how that can be incorporated into learning activities. When one looks at the many different theories of motivation, there are a several key elements that affect one’s drive for achievement. Research has shown that many motivators are connected to internal personal needs rather than external factors (Schunk, 2008). These internal factors can include a need for recognition, an internal drive to succeed or meet a set of personal needs (Malone & Lepper, 1987; Schunk, 2008; Hofer, 2006). In their research, Malone and Leper developed a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. One motivator that they identified was a learner’s sense of control over the experience (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Based on their research, a learner’s perception of control over an environment increases the learner’s level of interest. This is also shown in Rotter’s Locus of Control theory (Schunk, 2008). According to Rotter’s theory, learners are more likely to engage in activities and academic tasks if they believe they have control over their personal success or failure. Knowing this, it would makes sense that giving learners some control or even the perception of control over their learning environment would have a positive effect on their interest and motivation to engage in learning. Another aspect of control is the learner’s ability to make choices about their environment. Hofer (2006) identifies choice as an index of motivation. She explains that learners who are allowed to choose their learning tasks are more likely to perform well in those tasks and are motivated to succeed. Malone and Lepper also discuss choice as a factor in increasing motivation (Malone & Lepper, 1987). They state that not only can choice in task and goals can have an effect on instruction but even the illusion of choice can have a strong effect on interest (Langer as cited in Malone & Lepper, 1987). Giving the learners some control of course content and choice in learning activities not only increases learner motivation but is also one of the central ideas behind a learner-centered classroom versus as content-centered classroom (Halonen, 2006). Today’s students have been brought up in collaborative online environment and are accustomed to a high level of interaction with material and people. Research has shown that students are comfortable and even expect collaborative technology to be present in their classes (Caverly, 2001). It is necessary for educators to meet them where they already are in terms of using technology. The challenge for educators is to incorporate collaborative technology into the classroom without ignoring pedagogical principles. It is also important to remember that our purpose for using technology is based on pedagogy; hence, pedagogy should be the driving force behind developing learning activities (Stahl & Boylan, 2003). This session will discuss research designed to evaluate new web technology within this framework. The study to be discussed is an action research investigation which is an adaptation of a completed pilot study that investigated online interaction as a tool for increasing student engagement and motivation. The original study used a mixed-method approach to data collection. In order to answer the research questions, a student opinion survey was used. The opinion survey consisted of a two-part group-administered questionnaire. Part one contained fifteen items using a Likert-type format to assess the students' perceptions of the course and connection to the material. Part two included four open-ended questions designed to assess the students' opinion of the course and course material. The current study will use a similar approach with some modification to the tool. The session will review the research and provide information that can increase an educator's knowledge of how different collaborative web-based activities affect student motivation and engagement. An understanding of what activities draw deeper connections and improve motivation can be used when designing effective instructional practices and technology integration strategies.
Friday, February 20, 2009
instructional design
Title:
Instructional Design Heuristics (Rules of Thumb)
Short Description:
This study was designed to explore the heuristics (rules of thumb) experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. Qualitative methods were used to capture and describe individual and shared heuristics. A short video will demonstrate rules of thumb as expressed by the participants themselves.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Background Solving problems is key to the practice of instructional design (Muraida & Spector, 1993; Perez & Emery, 1995; Rowland, 1991; Seel, Eichenwald, & Penterman, 1995). Johnson (1988) stated, “… no single correct procedure exists, and there is no definitive way of assessing the correctness of a rule based upon the outcome of a single case. There is no optimally correct rule… only rules which are relatively more accurate” (p. 212). This study is about expert use of heuristics in instructional design. Heuristics are “simple decision rules through which individuals make judgments” (Dudczak, 1995, p. 4). For purposes of this presentation, ‘heuristics’ and ‘rules of thumb’ will be used interchangeably (Abel, 2003). Purpose This study was designed to explore the heuristics experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. A phenomenological framework (Patton, 2002) was used to develop a deep understanding of instructional design heuristics from the perspective of 16 instructional designers. In order to achieve this, we interviewed people who have been directly involved in instructional design. Specifically, the research question was: What heuristics do experienced instructional designers use to solve instructional design problems? Methodology A purposeful sampling technique (Creswell, 2007) was used to select participants. A semi-structured interview was used to elicit a story about a complex or challenging instructional design problem on which the instructional designer had worked. In-depth information was obtained from each participant in the form of personal narratives (Kvale, 1996). Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, was audio/video-taped, and transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis In order to answer the research question, What rules of thumb do experienced instructional designers use when solving ID problems? transcripts were qualitatively coded, beginning with a search for evidence that related to the research question. Rules of thumb were extracted from participants’ responses and categorized according to common themes. Systematic steps (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) were used to generate categories of rules of thumb (Creswell, 2007). Results Analyses of interview transcripts have identified ten categories of heuristics. Categories included: communication, management, learner/audience, pedagogy, solutions/deliverables/outcomes, process, team/people, problem/situation, client, and technology.. Within these categories, there are multiple heuristics identified. Due to limited space in this proposal, all results cannot be discussed. Some examples of results that emerged from the category Communication are the following: • When communicating with the client, listen more than you talk. (Go to the meeting and keep your ears open. They are going to say things there that you are going to need to know about later. [E.B.] I want the client to lead the conversation at this point, because they are the ones with the situation that they want to have resolved in some way. And the more that they get into talking about it, the more they begin to reveal things. [J.Q.] I let people describe the problem. And again, even though it can be difficult for me, I will not ask any questions, what so ever, until they are completely finished. [J.Q.] I very much stay quiet. I listen a lot more than I usually would. [M.G.] As a designer, you need to listen more than you talk. [R.B.]) • Verify things you’ve heard. (The first thing I want to do is I verify things that I’ve heard. Just literally, honestly, and completely verify the things that I’ve heard. Not to ask a leading question, but just simply for me to verify that what I think I’ve heard is what the client is trying to say. [J.Q.] I put things in writing and I say “do you agree with this? Is this accurate? Let’s change this until it’s accurate.” [S.P.] The confirmation message is worth gold. After a meeting, very soon after a meeting, same day if possible, “thank you for the meeting, I look forward to taking care of these things/items that we discussed at the meeting which were these things and here’s the action item list I am drawing from that.” 1 out of every 2 messages comes back with, “whoa… we really meant this,” and you have an exchange of email to clarify. [R.B.]) • Utilize visuals and tangible documents when communicating with the client. (It is always more successful for me to show people what I am thinking, than it is to tell them about it. [E.B.] People can almost never tell you what they want until you show them something they don’t want. [E.B.] Visually portray whatever process model you will be using and consider sharing that with the client or the primary stakeholder group early on in the process to help make sure the lines of communication are clear. [R.B.] When you actually create the task analysis diagram and use that in your meetings it tends to facilitate a quicker and deeper level of conversation. [R.B.]) Future efforts will be devoted to validating these heuristics as well as determining the best methods by which to share the resulting rules of thumb with novice designers Conclusion “Procedures for intelligently applying past knowledge to new experience often seem to require common sense and practical rules of thumb in addition to, or instead of, formal analysis” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 3). This study elicited these rules of thumb from experienced instructional designers as a way of expanding our understanding of what practicing instructional designers utilize during their design process. This knowledge of instructional design heuristics should be imparted on novice instructional designers while they are learning the intricacies of becoming an instructional designer as a way of providing them some wisdom from more experienced designers. References Abel, C. F. (2003). Heuristics and problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 53-58. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dudczak, C. A. (1995). Heuristic elements of plausible reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. Ingram, A. L. (1988). Instructional design for heuristic-based problem solving. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36, 211-230. Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209 - 228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muraida, D. J., & Spector, J. M. (1993). The advanced instructional design advisor. Instructional Science, 21, 239-253. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95. Rowland, G. (1991). Problem solving in instructional design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seel, N. M., Eichenwald, L. D., & Penterman, N. F. N. (1995). Automating decision support in instructional system development: The case of delivery systems. In R. D. Tennyson & A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 177-216). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Instructional Design Heuristics (Rules of Thumb)
Short Description:
This study was designed to explore the heuristics (rules of thumb) experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. Qualitative methods were used to capture and describe individual and shared heuristics. A short video will demonstrate rules of thumb as expressed by the participants themselves.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
Background Solving problems is key to the practice of instructional design (Muraida & Spector, 1993; Perez & Emery, 1995; Rowland, 1991; Seel, Eichenwald, & Penterman, 1995). Johnson (1988) stated, “… no single correct procedure exists, and there is no definitive way of assessing the correctness of a rule based upon the outcome of a single case. There is no optimally correct rule… only rules which are relatively more accurate” (p. 212). This study is about expert use of heuristics in instructional design. Heuristics are “simple decision rules through which individuals make judgments” (Dudczak, 1995, p. 4). For purposes of this presentation, ‘heuristics’ and ‘rules of thumb’ will be used interchangeably (Abel, 2003). Purpose This study was designed to explore the heuristics experienced instructional designers use when engaged in the instructional design process. A phenomenological framework (Patton, 2002) was used to develop a deep understanding of instructional design heuristics from the perspective of 16 instructional designers. In order to achieve this, we interviewed people who have been directly involved in instructional design. Specifically, the research question was: What heuristics do experienced instructional designers use to solve instructional design problems? Methodology A purposeful sampling technique (Creswell, 2007) was used to select participants. A semi-structured interview was used to elicit a story about a complex or challenging instructional design problem on which the instructional designer had worked. In-depth information was obtained from each participant in the form of personal narratives (Kvale, 1996). Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, was audio/video-taped, and transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis In order to answer the research question, What rules of thumb do experienced instructional designers use when solving ID problems? transcripts were qualitatively coded, beginning with a search for evidence that related to the research question. Rules of thumb were extracted from participants’ responses and categorized according to common themes. Systematic steps (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) were used to generate categories of rules of thumb (Creswell, 2007). Results Analyses of interview transcripts have identified ten categories of heuristics. Categories included: communication, management, learner/audience, pedagogy, solutions/deliverables/outcomes, process, team/people, problem/situation, client, and technology.. Within these categories, there are multiple heuristics identified. Due to limited space in this proposal, all results cannot be discussed. Some examples of results that emerged from the category Communication are the following: • When communicating with the client, listen more than you talk. (Go to the meeting and keep your ears open. They are going to say things there that you are going to need to know about later. [E.B.] I want the client to lead the conversation at this point, because they are the ones with the situation that they want to have resolved in some way. And the more that they get into talking about it, the more they begin to reveal things. [J.Q.] I let people describe the problem. And again, even though it can be difficult for me, I will not ask any questions, what so ever, until they are completely finished. [J.Q.] I very much stay quiet. I listen a lot more than I usually would. [M.G.] As a designer, you need to listen more than you talk. [R.B.]) • Verify things you’ve heard. (The first thing I want to do is I verify things that I’ve heard. Just literally, honestly, and completely verify the things that I’ve heard. Not to ask a leading question, but just simply for me to verify that what I think I’ve heard is what the client is trying to say. [J.Q.] I put things in writing and I say “do you agree with this? Is this accurate? Let’s change this until it’s accurate.” [S.P.] The confirmation message is worth gold. After a meeting, very soon after a meeting, same day if possible, “thank you for the meeting, I look forward to taking care of these things/items that we discussed at the meeting which were these things and here’s the action item list I am drawing from that.” 1 out of every 2 messages comes back with, “whoa… we really meant this,” and you have an exchange of email to clarify. [R.B.]) • Utilize visuals and tangible documents when communicating with the client. (It is always more successful for me to show people what I am thinking, than it is to tell them about it. [E.B.] People can almost never tell you what they want until you show them something they don’t want. [E.B.] Visually portray whatever process model you will be using and consider sharing that with the client or the primary stakeholder group early on in the process to help make sure the lines of communication are clear. [R.B.] When you actually create the task analysis diagram and use that in your meetings it tends to facilitate a quicker and deeper level of conversation. [R.B.]) Future efforts will be devoted to validating these heuristics as well as determining the best methods by which to share the resulting rules of thumb with novice designers Conclusion “Procedures for intelligently applying past knowledge to new experience often seem to require common sense and practical rules of thumb in addition to, or instead of, formal analysis” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 3). This study elicited these rules of thumb from experienced instructional designers as a way of expanding our understanding of what practicing instructional designers utilize during their design process. This knowledge of instructional design heuristics should be imparted on novice instructional designers while they are learning the intricacies of becoming an instructional designer as a way of providing them some wisdom from more experienced designers. References Abel, C. F. (2003). Heuristics and problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 53-58. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dudczak, C. A. (1995). Heuristic elements of plausible reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. San Antonio, TX. Ingram, A. L. (1988). Instructional design for heuristic-based problem solving. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36, 211-230. Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209 - 228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muraida, D. J., & Spector, J. M. (1993). The advanced instructional design advisor. Instructional Science, 21, 239-253. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95. Rowland, G. (1991). Problem solving in instructional design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Seel, N. M., Eichenwald, L. D., & Penterman, N. F. N. (1995). Automating decision support in instructional system development: The case of delivery systems. In R. D. Tennyson & A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 177-216). Germany: Springer-Verlag.
wikis blogs podcasting
Title:
How and why professors use wikis, blogs and podcasting
Short Description:
Podcasting, wikis and blogs are becoming increasingly popular in teaching and learning in higher education. We conducted extensive interviews with five professors from three universities about the use of these tools, specifically focusing on 1) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, 2) how the tools were used in their teaching, and 3) what role the tools had on student achievement. We will discuss the results, common themes, and future directions.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
In this roundtable session we will discuss the results of our qualitative study on instructors’ use of current Web 2.0 tools, namely podcasting, wikis and blogs, in teaching and learning. This session is designed for instructors who are interested in using these tools, instructors who are currently integrating these tools into their courses, and instructional designers that support instructors integrating these tools into the curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to determine 1) why professors would decide to incorporate these tools into their courses, and 2) the effect using these tools has on student learning outcomes.
Background
As these technologies become more popular, their use in higher education continues to rise. Yet as adoption of these tools increases, we contend that the pedagogical potential of the tools is still evolving. The significance of using tools such as podcasting, wikis and blogs in higher education is the potential to incorporate a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. A learning environment designed for collaboration carries the potential for student learning to be socially constructed through conversations and interaction (Brown & Adler, 2008). This design can support self-regulated learning that occurs when students are able to reflect on what they know and construct meaning from information (Akbulut, 2007). The tools provide the potential for students to function as both learners and teachers, (Rogers, Chan, & Isom, 2007) sharing their knowledge with others while creating a deeper understanding for themselves. The collaborative nature of these tools allows for the harnessing of “collective intelligence” (Sreebny, 2007) of learners, where learners collaboratively achieve understanding of the content via discussion and reflection. The use of wikis, blogs and podcasts in a learning environment encourages learners to create new knowledge and continue to refine what they know over time (Richardson, 2006). Because these tools are relatively easy to use and require minimal formal training to learn, students can engage and share ideas with classmates and teachers quickly. Students are empowered to share their ideas, reflections, and understanding of the content (Brown & Bussert, 2007). These student artifacts can be published online to disseminate the constructed knowledge to a wider audience of peers and potentially the entire Internet community. Methodology
Professors from three Tennessee Board of Regent universities were interviewed about their use of blogs, wikis, and podcasting. These five professors represented four disciplines--science, business, English literature and education. The research questions focused on a) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, b) how these tools were used in their teaching and c) the role these tools had on student learning outcomes. Professors were interviewed at length, either face to face or through audio conference tool about the selection of the tools they used and the implementation of the selected tools. The transcribed interviews were analyzed for relevant themes as they supported the purpose of the study.
Conclusions Several themes emerged from this qualitative study. These themes included a) the overall shared experiences that learners had with each other and the instructor b) the experiences with the use of these tools in learning, c) student as teacher and technology mentor, d) the ability for technology to transcend the classroom and time, e) the interaction learners had with the content, f) technology safety, g) technology difficulties, and, h) selecting the appropriate technology. The participants also attempted to describe characteristics of instructors who choose to use these tools in their instructional design as well as why they would take the initiative to continue experimenting with these tools. We will discuss specifics about the wide range of instructors using these tools, and about how they use the tools. Interestingly, each of our five participants used the tools in markedly different ways. We will also discuss ideas for future research related to instructor variables and instructional strategies connected with these tools.
References
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Instructional use of weblogs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), 6-14.
Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-32.
Brown, N.E. & Bussert, K. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: Empowering students through personal engagement. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Chan, P. & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 1, 16-33.
Sreebny, O. (2007). Digital rendezvous: Social software in higher education.Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, 2.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
How and why professors use wikis, blogs and podcasting
Short Description:
Podcasting, wikis and blogs are becoming increasingly popular in teaching and learning in higher education. We conducted extensive interviews with five professors from three universities about the use of these tools, specifically focusing on 1) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, 2) how the tools were used in their teaching, and 3) what role the tools had on student achievement. We will discuss the results, common themes, and future directions.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
In this roundtable session we will discuss the results of our qualitative study on instructors’ use of current Web 2.0 tools, namely podcasting, wikis and blogs, in teaching and learning. This session is designed for instructors who are interested in using these tools, instructors who are currently integrating these tools into their courses, and instructional designers that support instructors integrating these tools into the curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to determine 1) why professors would decide to incorporate these tools into their courses, and 2) the effect using these tools has on student learning outcomes.
Background
As these technologies become more popular, their use in higher education continues to rise. Yet as adoption of these tools increases, we contend that the pedagogical potential of the tools is still evolving. The significance of using tools such as podcasting, wikis and blogs in higher education is the potential to incorporate a collaborative approach to teaching and learning. A learning environment designed for collaboration carries the potential for student learning to be socially constructed through conversations and interaction (Brown & Adler, 2008). This design can support self-regulated learning that occurs when students are able to reflect on what they know and construct meaning from information (Akbulut, 2007). The tools provide the potential for students to function as both learners and teachers, (Rogers, Chan, & Isom, 2007) sharing their knowledge with others while creating a deeper understanding for themselves. The collaborative nature of these tools allows for the harnessing of “collective intelligence” (Sreebny, 2007) of learners, where learners collaboratively achieve understanding of the content via discussion and reflection. The use of wikis, blogs and podcasts in a learning environment encourages learners to create new knowledge and continue to refine what they know over time (Richardson, 2006). Because these tools are relatively easy to use and require minimal formal training to learn, students can engage and share ideas with classmates and teachers quickly. Students are empowered to share their ideas, reflections, and understanding of the content (Brown & Bussert, 2007). These student artifacts can be published online to disseminate the constructed knowledge to a wider audience of peers and potentially the entire Internet community. Methodology
Professors from three Tennessee Board of Regent universities were interviewed about their use of blogs, wikis, and podcasting. These five professors represented four disciplines--science, business, English literature and education. The research questions focused on a) why they chose to use these tools in their courses, b) how these tools were used in their teaching and c) the role these tools had on student learning outcomes. Professors were interviewed at length, either face to face or through audio conference tool about the selection of the tools they used and the implementation of the selected tools. The transcribed interviews were analyzed for relevant themes as they supported the purpose of the study.
Conclusions Several themes emerged from this qualitative study. These themes included a) the overall shared experiences that learners had with each other and the instructor b) the experiences with the use of these tools in learning, c) student as teacher and technology mentor, d) the ability for technology to transcend the classroom and time, e) the interaction learners had with the content, f) technology safety, g) technology difficulties, and, h) selecting the appropriate technology. The participants also attempted to describe characteristics of instructors who choose to use these tools in their instructional design as well as why they would take the initiative to continue experimenting with these tools. We will discuss specifics about the wide range of instructors using these tools, and about how they use the tools. Interestingly, each of our five participants used the tools in markedly different ways. We will also discuss ideas for future research related to instructor variables and instructional strategies connected with these tools.
References
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Instructional use of weblogs. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (3), 6-14.
Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-32.
Brown, N.E. & Bussert, K. (2007). Information literacy 2.0: Empowering students through personal engagement. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Chan, P. & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 1, 16-33.
Sreebny, O. (2007). Digital rendezvous: Social software in higher education.Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, 2.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
aect-effective online course
Developing Effective Online Courses
Short Description:
This session will discuss the variety of elements and skills needed in the development of an effective online course at every level. Assessment and measurement techniques will be covered as well as multiple ways to utilize technology to allow for use of higher order thinking skills in the online environment. Effective ways to develop and encourage interaction in a remote environment will also be highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
In today’s internet based environment, more and more schools at every level are working towards providing students with online learning opportunities. In some cases there seems to be a movement to take a traditional class and place it online with little or no modification. Often times this is seen as the responsibility of an individual teacher who is familiar with the course. This is a serious mistake that can lead to ineffective classroom learning and frustration on the part of the students and teachers alike.Development of online classes needs to be a team effort. There are 4 sets of skills needed to develop an effective learning environment online. The team needs a subject matter expert (SME) usually the teacher, an instructional designer, an expert in the field of assessment and measurement, and a technology expert to build the online environment.Online classes need to be developed with specific goals in mind. The particular audience that is being anticipated for a class will guide the development of those goals. Once the audience and goals are identified, a team is needed to work through the steps of an instructional design process to choose the curriculum content to be covered, the best methods of presentation, the best methods of interaction, what student assignments should be and how to assess the learning that has taken place. An additional factor to be considered is how to meet all of the student’s needs when they are located far from campus.Each of these elements will be discussed in detail. Starting with the choice of courses to be offered online and the degree of remoteness anticipated. Is this course best suited to the hybrid classroom, the blended program, or a completely remote situation? What audience will you be seeking with your program: traditional students, non-traditional students, military personnel, international students, a combination?Once the audience and degree of remoteness has been identified, we need to identify the content to be taught, the skills to be developed, and the long term goals to be achieved. This should include not just content, skills and goals for the subject matter but should also consider technological ones as well.After developing a comprehensive list of content, skills and goals the development team needs to move into identifying specific behavioral objectives and the means of assessing the mastery of these objectives. The objectives must be set for each unit to be covered and must lead to the achievement of the goals set for the class.Then the instructional design specialist goes to work with the SME to design the presentations, activities, and assignments of the class. The assessment and measurement specialist can also work with this team to design effective assessment techniques for the assignments and the learning that is taking place. A team discussion of the background needed for this virtual class is of utmost importance. Depending on the level of remoteness, more or less student help will be needed. For a student taking an online class in a completely remote environment, many important elements of a learning community must be incorporated into the class background or virtual campus to allow for the emotional and social needs of the students to be met. Also since the student has no access to a campus, services and support materials must also be provided in an extended online environment. Since few instructors are likely to have the skills needed to develop a highly interactive virtual campus to meet these needs, a technology expert will need to work with the team to develop an appropriate virtual campus. Here again we need to go back and consider the intended audience. If we are expecting to work with traditional students straight out of secondary school, we can assume they have basic computer skills and internet familiarity. However if we are looking for the nontraditional, older learner we may need to provide additional instructional assistance in software use and internet searching.Finally, the team needs to work on an evaluation plan to identify weaknesses in the program and develop revisions to improve the courses. This is pretty much a never ending cycle. As the job skills needed in the field change, and as new technologies emerge, we need to constantly update our online courses, as well as our traditional courses to prepare our students for a career in the real world of work.This presentation will cover all of these elements and discuss specifics of each: What to look for, How to evaluate their importance and their effectiveness, and how to improve what you have.
Short Description:
This session will discuss the variety of elements and skills needed in the development of an effective online course at every level. Assessment and measurement techniques will be covered as well as multiple ways to utilize technology to allow for use of higher order thinking skills in the online environment. Effective ways to develop and encourage interaction in a remote environment will also be highlighted.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
In today’s internet based environment, more and more schools at every level are working towards providing students with online learning opportunities. In some cases there seems to be a movement to take a traditional class and place it online with little or no modification. Often times this is seen as the responsibility of an individual teacher who is familiar with the course. This is a serious mistake that can lead to ineffective classroom learning and frustration on the part of the students and teachers alike.Development of online classes needs to be a team effort. There are 4 sets of skills needed to develop an effective learning environment online. The team needs a subject matter expert (SME) usually the teacher, an instructional designer, an expert in the field of assessment and measurement, and a technology expert to build the online environment.Online classes need to be developed with specific goals in mind. The particular audience that is being anticipated for a class will guide the development of those goals. Once the audience and goals are identified, a team is needed to work through the steps of an instructional design process to choose the curriculum content to be covered, the best methods of presentation, the best methods of interaction, what student assignments should be and how to assess the learning that has taken place. An additional factor to be considered is how to meet all of the student’s needs when they are located far from campus.Each of these elements will be discussed in detail. Starting with the choice of courses to be offered online and the degree of remoteness anticipated. Is this course best suited to the hybrid classroom, the blended program, or a completely remote situation? What audience will you be seeking with your program: traditional students, non-traditional students, military personnel, international students, a combination?Once the audience and degree of remoteness has been identified, we need to identify the content to be taught, the skills to be developed, and the long term goals to be achieved. This should include not just content, skills and goals for the subject matter but should also consider technological ones as well.After developing a comprehensive list of content, skills and goals the development team needs to move into identifying specific behavioral objectives and the means of assessing the mastery of these objectives. The objectives must be set for each unit to be covered and must lead to the achievement of the goals set for the class.Then the instructional design specialist goes to work with the SME to design the presentations, activities, and assignments of the class. The assessment and measurement specialist can also work with this team to design effective assessment techniques for the assignments and the learning that is taking place. A team discussion of the background needed for this virtual class is of utmost importance. Depending on the level of remoteness, more or less student help will be needed. For a student taking an online class in a completely remote environment, many important elements of a learning community must be incorporated into the class background or virtual campus to allow for the emotional and social needs of the students to be met. Also since the student has no access to a campus, services and support materials must also be provided in an extended online environment. Since few instructors are likely to have the skills needed to develop a highly interactive virtual campus to meet these needs, a technology expert will need to work with the team to develop an appropriate virtual campus. Here again we need to go back and consider the intended audience. If we are expecting to work with traditional students straight out of secondary school, we can assume they have basic computer skills and internet familiarity. However if we are looking for the nontraditional, older learner we may need to provide additional instructional assistance in software use and internet searching.Finally, the team needs to work on an evaluation plan to identify weaknesses in the program and develop revisions to improve the courses. This is pretty much a never ending cycle. As the job skills needed in the field change, and as new technologies emerge, we need to constantly update our online courses, as well as our traditional courses to prepare our students for a career in the real world of work.This presentation will cover all of these elements and discuss specifics of each: What to look for, How to evaluate their importance and their effectiveness, and how to improve what you have.
aect-hybrid instruction
What is the Lived Experience of Designing and Teaching Multiple Delivery Methods -Live Meeting, Hybrid, Online, and Face To Face (f2f) within a Semester at a Technical College Setting?
Short Description:
The author documented the experiential teaching in designing and implementing four delivery methods for her Sociology, Diversity, Developmental Psychology, and Contemporary American Society via Live Meeting, hybrid, online, and f2f started in the spring semester of 2009. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of each learning environment among the author, students, the IT department, and the administration illustrates the challenges of instructional and non-instructional issues situated in a highly contextualized setting.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15 to 16 for many higher educational institutions. The paper is intended for stakeholders who are interested in obtaining information regarding how learning technologies are implemented in the significant yet controversial educational institution – the technical college, both in instructional and non-instructional dimensions.My research question is: What is the lived experienced of a social study instructor teaching four delivery formats within a semester? Three cycles of a small scale of design research method has been integrated with an autoethnographical phenomenology case study. Each cycle lasts for five weeks.The purpose of this research has two levels of significance:At the individual level-1. To obtain the first hand experience of exploring different combination of teaching methods and resources to assist multiple delivery formats within a semester. 2. To observe Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory in action. 3. To illustrate differences and challenges between constructivism and the instructionism (instructional aspect) in online, Live Meeting, hybrid and f2f with web-enhanced methods in a technical educational setting.At the college level-1. To experience the dynamics among the instructor, students, IT Department, and administration in a contextualized setting (non-instructional aspect).2. To pay attention to the research potentiality of learning technologies practiced in the technical college contexts.Research BackgroundIn the research domain, some researchers have been interested in studying 2-year colleges’ online teaching and learning issues. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of the college setting that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution, they are fundamentally different in many aspects. Such as educational missions, climate, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of 2-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. Recently, learning-centered approach has been evincing with successful learning outcomes (Conti, 1985b; National Center for Education Statistics 2001; Allen et al. 2002; Migliete and Strange 1998; Post et al. 1998; Parisot, 1997). In online learning environment, researchers and scholars have been touting the potential to transition higher education from a teacher-centered orientation to the constructivist student-centered approach (Sherron and Boettcher 1997; Beaudoin 1990; Dillon and Walsh 1992; Chanchaem 2001; Berge 1997; Kearsley 2000). But researchers indicate that there is a discrepancy between the promoted learner-centered style and what is happening in the online learning environment. Online facilitation is different from the face to face instruction in terms of pedagogical approaches and learning technologies application (Zhao, 2003). However, online instructors tend to carry face to face pedagogies into the online environment (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Parisot (1997, 5) stated “little has been done to understand the changing role of faculty in adapting to technology and the changes in the psychological and physical environment promised by distance learning”. A decade later, Barrett et al’s research echoes such observation, “….each new technological advancement engenders great expectations regarding its impact on instruction. Regardless of the changes in technology, teaching style has not changed and remains teacher-centered”(Barrett, Bower, & Donovan, 2007). In order to implement quality online course, Kochtanek and Hein (2000) contend that transformation of the instructor’s role from instructor to facilitator was an important initial step. They argued that a successful student-centered learning environment requires that the instructor’s role to changed from a knowledge transmitter to a knowledge facilitator. Research Procedures:To gain better understanding of the above research results and suggestions, the author situates herself beyond the dichotomy of online vs. on-ground by adding the hybrid and the currently piloting Live Meeting (to replace the high cost ITV and increase the accessibility to students) into the repertoire. Through a year’s endeavor and preparation, the author obtained the opportunity to gather four major delivery formats within current semester (started on January 12, 2009)– online, hybrid, Live Meeting (similar to Adobe Connect/Breeze), and traditional face to face with web-enhanced methods for her six social studies courses. As an antoethnographical study, the author documented the ADDIE process with design research components. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of contents, pedagogies, and technological affordances in each learning environment among the author, students, IT department, and administration policy has been recorded for further study. Instrumentations: Two instruments are using in this study. One is student basic information survey (age, gender, GPA, income, employment conditions, level of technology familiarity, delivery format preference), designed by the author. The other one is “The Principle of Adult Learning Scale” (PALS, developed by Gary Conti in 1978) to be my self-report to discern the teaching style. Student learning outcomes have been collected during a five week's duration.As aforementioned, there are multiple purposes of this exploratory study. At the first cycle, this paper mainly concentrates on the instructional or pedagogical aspect of this case study. The subjectivity and inter-subjectivity between the author and her four delivery formats to experience the concepts of knowledge transmitter and knowledge facilitator, or student-centered versus direct guidance learning is the focal point.ConclusionThe challenge of constructivism versus instructivism (i.e., the instructional aspect) is intensively involved with the contextual forces (i.e., the non-instructional aspect) affecting the daily teaching and learning process. These forces identified so far are the social class of students(typically from low-income households),learning readiness (prior knowledge),the author's teaching style, school policy changing dynamics, and vicissitude of funding sources (e.g., decreasing the IT support). Currently, this study is moving toward the second cycle. There will be thicker information available for this work-in-progress study. Different levels of analyses will be continued.
Short Description:
The author documented the experiential teaching in designing and implementing four delivery methods for her Sociology, Diversity, Developmental Psychology, and Contemporary American Society via Live Meeting, hybrid, online, and f2f started in the spring semester of 2009. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of each learning environment among the author, students, the IT department, and the administration illustrates the challenges of instructional and non-instructional issues situated in a highly contextualized setting.
Abstract: (Click here to view other format again)
Technical colleges play a key role to bridge PK-12 and 15 to 16 for many higher educational institutions. The paper is intended for stakeholders who are interested in obtaining information regarding how learning technologies are implemented in the significant yet controversial educational institution – the technical college, both in instructional and non-instructional dimensions.My research question is: What is the lived experienced of a social study instructor teaching four delivery formats within a semester? Three cycles of a small scale of design research method has been integrated with an autoethnographical phenomenology case study. Each cycle lasts for five weeks.The purpose of this research has two levels of significance:At the individual level-1. To obtain the first hand experience of exploring different combination of teaching methods and resources to assist multiple delivery formats within a semester. 2. To observe Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory in action. 3. To illustrate differences and challenges between constructivism and the instructionism (instructional aspect) in online, Live Meeting, hybrid and f2f with web-enhanced methods in a technical educational setting.At the college level-1. To experience the dynamics among the instructor, students, IT Department, and administration in a contextualized setting (non-instructional aspect).2. To pay attention to the research potentiality of learning technologies practiced in the technical college contexts.Research BackgroundIn the research domain, some researchers have been interested in studying 2-year colleges’ online teaching and learning issues. But there is limited amount of research focusing on the complex educational ecology of the college setting that affects the daily teaching and learning, in particular, when relating to learning technologies. Though most two year technical colleges, comprehensive community colleges, and four year colleges tend to be lumped together as the post-secondary educational system or “higher educational” institution, they are fundamentally different in many aspects. Such as educational missions, climate, diversity of student body, specific roles of faculty and staff, funding, infrastructure and the overall ecological configuration, just to name a few, comprise the uniqueness of 2-year technical colleges that stand out as a special and controversial educational entity. Recently, learning-centered approach has been evincing with successful learning outcomes (Conti, 1985b; National Center for Education Statistics 2001; Allen et al. 2002; Migliete and Strange 1998; Post et al. 1998; Parisot, 1997). In online learning environment, researchers and scholars have been touting the potential to transition higher education from a teacher-centered orientation to the constructivist student-centered approach (Sherron and Boettcher 1997; Beaudoin 1990; Dillon and Walsh 1992; Chanchaem 2001; Berge 1997; Kearsley 2000). But researchers indicate that there is a discrepancy between the promoted learner-centered style and what is happening in the online learning environment. Online facilitation is different from the face to face instruction in terms of pedagogical approaches and learning technologies application (Zhao, 2003). However, online instructors tend to carry face to face pedagogies into the online environment (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Parisot (1997, 5) stated “little has been done to understand the changing role of faculty in adapting to technology and the changes in the psychological and physical environment promised by distance learning”. A decade later, Barrett et al’s research echoes such observation, “….each new technological advancement engenders great expectations regarding its impact on instruction. Regardless of the changes in technology, teaching style has not changed and remains teacher-centered”(Barrett, Bower, & Donovan, 2007). In order to implement quality online course, Kochtanek and Hein (2000) contend that transformation of the instructor’s role from instructor to facilitator was an important initial step. They argued that a successful student-centered learning environment requires that the instructor’s role to changed from a knowledge transmitter to a knowledge facilitator. Research Procedures:To gain better understanding of the above research results and suggestions, the author situates herself beyond the dichotomy of online vs. on-ground by adding the hybrid and the currently piloting Live Meeting (to replace the high cost ITV and increase the accessibility to students) into the repertoire. Through a year’s endeavor and preparation, the author obtained the opportunity to gather four major delivery formats within current semester (started on January 12, 2009)– online, hybrid, Live Meeting (similar to Adobe Connect/Breeze), and traditional face to face with web-enhanced methods for her six social studies courses. As an antoethnographical study, the author documented the ADDIE process with design research components. The dynamics of coordinating and adjusting structures and functions of contents, pedagogies, and technological affordances in each learning environment among the author, students, IT department, and administration policy has been recorded for further study. Instrumentations: Two instruments are using in this study. One is student basic information survey (age, gender, GPA, income, employment conditions, level of technology familiarity, delivery format preference), designed by the author. The other one is “The Principle of Adult Learning Scale” (PALS, developed by Gary Conti in 1978) to be my self-report to discern the teaching style. Student learning outcomes have been collected during a five week's duration.As aforementioned, there are multiple purposes of this exploratory study. At the first cycle, this paper mainly concentrates on the instructional or pedagogical aspect of this case study. The subjectivity and inter-subjectivity between the author and her four delivery formats to experience the concepts of knowledge transmitter and knowledge facilitator, or student-centered versus direct guidance learning is the focal point.ConclusionThe challenge of constructivism versus instructivism (i.e., the instructional aspect) is intensively involved with the contextual forces (i.e., the non-instructional aspect) affecting the daily teaching and learning process. These forces identified so far are the social class of students(typically from low-income households),learning readiness (prior knowledge),the author's teaching style, school policy changing dynamics, and vicissitude of funding sources (e.g., decreasing the IT support). Currently, this study is moving toward the second cycle. There will be thicker information available for this work-in-progress study. Different levels of analyses will be continued.
aect-flexible design for online course
Flexible Design Model for Online Course Development
Short Description:
This presentation will describe how the instructional design and development the World Campus at Penn State has evolved over the past years in order to develop effective and efficient online courses. Also, the presenter will discuss the flexible design models to meet different faculty needs.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The Pennsylvania State University has been involved in distance education since 1892 and has produced courses that have been delivered via a variety of media. In 1997 Penn State launched the World Campus as the primary delivery unit for courses offered to students at a distance. This year also marked the beginning of development of online courses for our distance education students. While courses in the past had integrated listserves and gophers, 1997 marked the beginning of the design and development of wholly online courses delivered through WebCT. Now Penn State’s World Campus offers more than three hundred online courses and enrolls students from around the world. When an instructional designer of the World Campus works with the subject matter, Penn State faculty to design and develop an online course, two semester model and two weeks model are usually adopted. Two-Semester Model Two-semester model allowed for an eight to twelve month development cycle where faculty authors first met with the designers to review their existing face-to-face course and examine existing print based course. At the end of the initial meetings the faculty left with a course design guide in hand and constructed in writing their course content. This process took six to eight months. For the first semester, faculty write the syllabus, lesson content and lesson activities. Designers did not begin work on the courses until all content had arrived for the second semester. However, delayed course content from the faculty can lead missed deadlines, which again lead to delayed launches or courses starting when they were not complete. This added a great deal of pressure to the faculty authors, designers, and instructors. Two-Week Cycle Model The Two-Week Cycle model allows designers to develop and get each lesson or unit of a course ready for review in two weeks. During the first week of each two-week cycle, designers work closely with faculty in order to get lesson content on time. Then during the second week the design staff mocks up the lesson online and prepares it for review by the faculty. If a Web-based course has twelve lessons, ideally, twenty-four weeks (six months) later, the course should be ready for final review and editing prior to opening. One of the key benefits of the Two Week Cycle model is designers receive content every other week, which keeps things moving. Another benefit is constant communication with faculty, it allows faculty to get each of the lessons in on time, which is the desired goal of the designer. When the designers work with the faculty, the guiding documents to help the faculty get started are provided by the World Campus. The Flexible Design Models In the Two-semester model and Two-week Cycle model, the designers play important role to develop online courses. As new technologies are rapidly developed, more and more departments and students from Penn State express their interests in having online courses. At the same time, more and more faculty expresses their needs to control the course content without through the designers during their online development. To meet the faculty needs, some flexible design models are created to allow the faculty to control the course content. Because during online development, the instructors feel what was current information for students may not be the latest information any more. Thus, they need to update the lesson content through the development. If some flexible design models can be provided for the faculty so that the development can be more effective and efficient, that would make everybody happy. Simple Editor Faculty is an unique group in terms of using technology. After faculty works with an instructional designer for a repeat online course for one semester, he or she should very familiar with the World Campus online course templates. If the same faculty teaches the same course for the second time, he or she may request some minor changes, for example, add more explanation to the lesson content, assignment instructions and assignment rubrics. Most of the lesson content for the World Campus courses is in our server. Before the simple editor is added, the minor changes from the faculty request need to be done by the designers. Some of the faculty don’t want to touch ftp access, but are willing to make minor changes by themselves. If there is a way to allow faculty make minor changes easily and quickly, it will save the time for the faculty to wait for the designers to get back to him or her. Based on the faculty needs, the World Campus adds simple editor to the course in order to meet the faculty needs. The interface of the simple editor is like Word file. After the changes have been made, click on the submission button. The whole process to make minor changes is so easy and quick. Flexible Design Template As more and more faculty express their needs to control the online course by themselves rather than through the designers, the World Campus created Flexible Design template for those faculty who would like to control their online courses by themselves. For this flexible design template, we don’t need to put anything in our server. Instead, we use the Course Management Systems only. The whole course content will be uploaded as one folder. Within that folder, there are following components: • Lesson folders with page files • Flash file to show the interface of table content • Excel sheet file to change the table of content • Images folders for the interface of table content • CSS folder During this session, the presenter will show an example template using Flash and Excel file. When the Flexible Design models are adopted, some issues may raise as well. Thus these issues will be discussed during the presentation. Also the presenter will share the best practice to the audience for the Flexible Design Models.
Short Description:
This presentation will describe how the instructional design and development the World Campus at Penn State has evolved over the past years in order to develop effective and efficient online courses. Also, the presenter will discuss the flexible design models to meet different faculty needs.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The Pennsylvania State University has been involved in distance education since 1892 and has produced courses that have been delivered via a variety of media. In 1997 Penn State launched the World Campus as the primary delivery unit for courses offered to students at a distance. This year also marked the beginning of development of online courses for our distance education students. While courses in the past had integrated listserves and gophers, 1997 marked the beginning of the design and development of wholly online courses delivered through WebCT. Now Penn State’s World Campus offers more than three hundred online courses and enrolls students from around the world. When an instructional designer of the World Campus works with the subject matter, Penn State faculty to design and develop an online course, two semester model and two weeks model are usually adopted. Two-Semester Model Two-semester model allowed for an eight to twelve month development cycle where faculty authors first met with the designers to review their existing face-to-face course and examine existing print based course. At the end of the initial meetings the faculty left with a course design guide in hand and constructed in writing their course content. This process took six to eight months. For the first semester, faculty write the syllabus, lesson content and lesson activities. Designers did not begin work on the courses until all content had arrived for the second semester. However, delayed course content from the faculty can lead missed deadlines, which again lead to delayed launches or courses starting when they were not complete. This added a great deal of pressure to the faculty authors, designers, and instructors. Two-Week Cycle Model The Two-Week Cycle model allows designers to develop and get each lesson or unit of a course ready for review in two weeks. During the first week of each two-week cycle, designers work closely with faculty in order to get lesson content on time. Then during the second week the design staff mocks up the lesson online and prepares it for review by the faculty. If a Web-based course has twelve lessons, ideally, twenty-four weeks (six months) later, the course should be ready for final review and editing prior to opening. One of the key benefits of the Two Week Cycle model is designers receive content every other week, which keeps things moving. Another benefit is constant communication with faculty, it allows faculty to get each of the lessons in on time, which is the desired goal of the designer. When the designers work with the faculty, the guiding documents to help the faculty get started are provided by the World Campus. The Flexible Design Models In the Two-semester model and Two-week Cycle model, the designers play important role to develop online courses. As new technologies are rapidly developed, more and more departments and students from Penn State express their interests in having online courses. At the same time, more and more faculty expresses their needs to control the course content without through the designers during their online development. To meet the faculty needs, some flexible design models are created to allow the faculty to control the course content. Because during online development, the instructors feel what was current information for students may not be the latest information any more. Thus, they need to update the lesson content through the development. If some flexible design models can be provided for the faculty so that the development can be more effective and efficient, that would make everybody happy. Simple Editor Faculty is an unique group in terms of using technology. After faculty works with an instructional designer for a repeat online course for one semester, he or she should very familiar with the World Campus online course templates. If the same faculty teaches the same course for the second time, he or she may request some minor changes, for example, add more explanation to the lesson content, assignment instructions and assignment rubrics. Most of the lesson content for the World Campus courses is in our server. Before the simple editor is added, the minor changes from the faculty request need to be done by the designers. Some of the faculty don’t want to touch ftp access, but are willing to make minor changes by themselves. If there is a way to allow faculty make minor changes easily and quickly, it will save the time for the faculty to wait for the designers to get back to him or her. Based on the faculty needs, the World Campus adds simple editor to the course in order to meet the faculty needs. The interface of the simple editor is like Word file. After the changes have been made, click on the submission button. The whole process to make minor changes is so easy and quick. Flexible Design Template As more and more faculty express their needs to control the online course by themselves rather than through the designers, the World Campus created Flexible Design template for those faculty who would like to control their online courses by themselves. For this flexible design template, we don’t need to put anything in our server. Instead, we use the Course Management Systems only. The whole course content will be uploaded as one folder. Within that folder, there are following components: • Lesson folders with page files • Flash file to show the interface of table content • Excel sheet file to change the table of content • Images folders for the interface of table content • CSS folder During this session, the presenter will show an example template using Flash and Excel file. When the Flexible Design models are adopted, some issues may raise as well. Thus these issues will be discussed during the presentation. Also the presenter will share the best practice to the audience for the Flexible Design Models.
aeet-teacher education through video
Bridging the Distance to Cooperating Teachers through Online Video
Short Description:
This session will describe the design, development, and implementation of a web-delivered information session for cooperating teachers using the ADDIE framework. Presenters will discuss the analysis of need for new approaches for delivering information to cooperating teachers, and the rationale for use of an online video tool. Evaluation of the use of video as a means for communicating expectations of cooperating teachers at the University of Memphis will be shared, along with considerations for transfer.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The role of a cooperating teacher is vital to a student teacher’s success. Student teachers have long identified the relationship with a cooperating teacher as an important and meaningful part of the student teaching experience (Ganser,1996), but preservice teachers report a significant amount of variance in their relationships with cooperating teachers (Forsbach-Rothman, 2007). Cooperating teachers who are capable of providing student teachers with environments that are accepting and give students opportunities for ownership of the learning environment provide the most successful student teaching experience (Duffield, 2006). Cooperating teachers generally have a deep understanding of their role in the student teacher education process (Graham, 2006). Consequentially, cooperating teachers have been found to have a significant influence on factors such as, enhancing the success of student teachers they mentor, providing constructive evaluative feedback to the student teacher; modeling and promoting learner-centered instruction; and, modeling appropriate classroom management and interacting with student teachers on issues such as discipline, instruction, materials, and time management (Patterson, 2008). The recruitment of cooperating teachers is often a difficult task for teacher education programs (Sinclair, Dowson, & Thistleton-Martin, 2006). One factor identified that impacts the quality of the relationship between student teachers and cooperating teachers is the amount of preparation cooperating teachers receive to mentor their assigned students. Cooperating teachers may have limited experience with mentoring, may have unfounded assumptions about their role as a mentor to novices, or may find working with student teachers to be too demanding. To be successful, the cooperating teacher should have a clear conceptualization of how their role is related to furthering the student’s growth as a teacher and how the role of a cooperating teacher relates to student’s college or university (Graham, 2006). The University of Memphis’ Teacher Education Program (TEP) experiences many of the same challenges when preparing cooperating teachers for their student teacher mentoring experience. Over the past two years, the participation rate for the face-to-face cooperating teaching informational/orientation sessions has been less than 30%. Given the importance of the role of cooperating teachers in student-teacher preparation, university TEPs must find alternative methods to provide the professional development necessary for cooperating teachers to recognize their roles and satisfy the expectations of both the student teacher and the teacher education program. Online education may be part of the solution. The University of Memphis Teacher Education Program will implement an online cooperating teacher information and orientation program beginning with the Fall 2009 semester. The function of this online training with imbedded video is to provide current and on demand information to cooperating teachers about their roles and responsibilities and new student teaching requirements. Participants in this session will learn what the literature reveals about the effectiveness of an online delivery model for Cooperating Teacher training, and the effect of the University of Memphis online program. As part of the session, participants will be provided an opportunity to experience some of the online video-based information package used at the University of Memphis. The voiced-over content will showcase cooperating teachers, student teachers, and administrators. Topics to be covered in this informative video will include cooperating teacher’s roles and responsibilities, communication, and mentoring. Background Using the ADDIE framework (Peterson, 2003), the presenters investigated the issues with the face-to-face cooperating teacher information sessions. Analysis revealed low participation was due to conflicts in personal schedules; in addition, location and time were also barriers to cooperating teachers participating, yet, they were still assigned student teachers. Subsequently it was determined that offering the cooperating teacher training in both synchronous and asynchronous format would increase the amount of participation in the information sessions by selected cooperating teachers. During Spring 2009, the presenters will design the online program, using a storyboard to guide conversion of the face-to-face session content to a video-based presentation of approximately 20 minutes in duration. The development of this online program will begin in April 2009, and will be made available to subject matter experts in July 2009. The final version will be implemented at the beginning of the Fall 2009 student teaching semester, and will be hosted online at the University of Memphis. The tool will be available for use from August – October 2009. A survey will be administered following the video to determine if the tool was visually appealing, informative, and perceived to be useful to the target audience. During the session, the presenters will share their experiences in analyzing the viability of a web-delivered information video, the design processed followed, the development of the tool, and the implementation plan and evaluation results. Video synapses will be shown to those attending the session. Implications for transfer to other cooperating teacher programs will be discussed, and supporting documentation provided. If time permits, a question and answer period will follow the presentation. References Duffield,S. (2006). Safety net or free fall: The impact of cooperating teachers. Teacher Development, 10(2), 167-178. Forsbach-Rothman, T. (2007). The mentor role: Is training necessary? Journal of In-service Education, 33(2), 245-247. Ganser, T. (2002). How teachers compare the roles of cooperating teacher and mentor. Educational Forum, 66(4), 380-385. Graham, B. (2006). Conditions of successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research, 22(8), 1118-1129. Patterson, B. (2008). Supervising student teachers. SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine, 107(5), 42-43. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241. Sinclair, C., Dowson, M, and Thistleton-Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research, 22(3), 263-279.
Short Description:
This session will describe the design, development, and implementation of a web-delivered information session for cooperating teachers using the ADDIE framework. Presenters will discuss the analysis of need for new approaches for delivering information to cooperating teachers, and the rationale for use of an online video tool. Evaluation of the use of video as a means for communicating expectations of cooperating teachers at the University of Memphis will be shared, along with considerations for transfer.
Abstract: (Click here to enhance readability)
The role of a cooperating teacher is vital to a student teacher’s success. Student teachers have long identified the relationship with a cooperating teacher as an important and meaningful part of the student teaching experience (Ganser,1996), but preservice teachers report a significant amount of variance in their relationships with cooperating teachers (Forsbach-Rothman, 2007). Cooperating teachers who are capable of providing student teachers with environments that are accepting and give students opportunities for ownership of the learning environment provide the most successful student teaching experience (Duffield, 2006). Cooperating teachers generally have a deep understanding of their role in the student teacher education process (Graham, 2006). Consequentially, cooperating teachers have been found to have a significant influence on factors such as, enhancing the success of student teachers they mentor, providing constructive evaluative feedback to the student teacher; modeling and promoting learner-centered instruction; and, modeling appropriate classroom management and interacting with student teachers on issues such as discipline, instruction, materials, and time management (Patterson, 2008). The recruitment of cooperating teachers is often a difficult task for teacher education programs (Sinclair, Dowson, & Thistleton-Martin, 2006). One factor identified that impacts the quality of the relationship between student teachers and cooperating teachers is the amount of preparation cooperating teachers receive to mentor their assigned students. Cooperating teachers may have limited experience with mentoring, may have unfounded assumptions about their role as a mentor to novices, or may find working with student teachers to be too demanding. To be successful, the cooperating teacher should have a clear conceptualization of how their role is related to furthering the student’s growth as a teacher and how the role of a cooperating teacher relates to student’s college or university (Graham, 2006). The University of Memphis’ Teacher Education Program (TEP) experiences many of the same challenges when preparing cooperating teachers for their student teacher mentoring experience. Over the past two years, the participation rate for the face-to-face cooperating teaching informational/orientation sessions has been less than 30%. Given the importance of the role of cooperating teachers in student-teacher preparation, university TEPs must find alternative methods to provide the professional development necessary for cooperating teachers to recognize their roles and satisfy the expectations of both the student teacher and the teacher education program. Online education may be part of the solution. The University of Memphis Teacher Education Program will implement an online cooperating teacher information and orientation program beginning with the Fall 2009 semester. The function of this online training with imbedded video is to provide current and on demand information to cooperating teachers about their roles and responsibilities and new student teaching requirements. Participants in this session will learn what the literature reveals about the effectiveness of an online delivery model for Cooperating Teacher training, and the effect of the University of Memphis online program. As part of the session, participants will be provided an opportunity to experience some of the online video-based information package used at the University of Memphis. The voiced-over content will showcase cooperating teachers, student teachers, and administrators. Topics to be covered in this informative video will include cooperating teacher’s roles and responsibilities, communication, and mentoring. Background Using the ADDIE framework (Peterson, 2003), the presenters investigated the issues with the face-to-face cooperating teacher information sessions. Analysis revealed low participation was due to conflicts in personal schedules; in addition, location and time were also barriers to cooperating teachers participating, yet, they were still assigned student teachers. Subsequently it was determined that offering the cooperating teacher training in both synchronous and asynchronous format would increase the amount of participation in the information sessions by selected cooperating teachers. During Spring 2009, the presenters will design the online program, using a storyboard to guide conversion of the face-to-face session content to a video-based presentation of approximately 20 minutes in duration. The development of this online program will begin in April 2009, and will be made available to subject matter experts in July 2009. The final version will be implemented at the beginning of the Fall 2009 student teaching semester, and will be hosted online at the University of Memphis. The tool will be available for use from August – October 2009. A survey will be administered following the video to determine if the tool was visually appealing, informative, and perceived to be useful to the target audience. During the session, the presenters will share their experiences in analyzing the viability of a web-delivered information video, the design processed followed, the development of the tool, and the implementation plan and evaluation results. Video synapses will be shown to those attending the session. Implications for transfer to other cooperating teacher programs will be discussed, and supporting documentation provided. If time permits, a question and answer period will follow the presentation. References Duffield,S. (2006). Safety net or free fall: The impact of cooperating teachers. Teacher Development, 10(2), 167-178. Forsbach-Rothman, T. (2007). The mentor role: Is training necessary? Journal of In-service Education, 33(2), 245-247. Ganser, T. (2002). How teachers compare the roles of cooperating teacher and mentor. Educational Forum, 66(4), 380-385. Graham, B. (2006). Conditions of successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research, 22(8), 1118-1129. Patterson, B. (2008). Supervising student teachers. SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine, 107(5), 42-43. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241. Sinclair, C., Dowson, M, and Thistleton-Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research, 22(3), 263-279.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)