Motivators

What makes faculty teach online?  What motivates instructors to step outside their comfort zone and try a differnt course delivey? Are there factors that would inhibit or de-motivate faculty from instucting online?  Qualitative research at a medium sized Eastern U.S. university in the Spring of 2006 revealed that certain common motivators exist to promote as well as inhibit faculty desire to teach online. 

According to Hiltz, Kim, and Shea in their 2007 paper to the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, five common motivators surfaced to explain why faculty would want to teach online.  Most notable of these factors was the inherent flexibility of online instruction.  Other factors, in order of decreasing importance, were better personal interaction through medium to improve pedagogy; challenge to develop creative skills along with professional development; ability to reach a more diverse student audience; and better course development. 

De-motivators (Hiltz et al., term, not mine, but I like the contrast and it's simple) that could inhibit faculty from teaching online included, foremost, the perception of doing more work with inadequate compensation; medium problems; lack of institutional support and/or adequate policies for online teaching; the inability to make online teaching fit all students; ineffective or poor evaluation; and lack of recognition.

Clearly, emotional factors exist to support a faculty member's decision to teach or not teach online, or to continue online teaching.  Flexibility, especially when the instructor is accomodating some of the same external demands as the students, is as powerful a motivator as the perception of doing more work for less compensation is de-motivator. 

Interestingly enough, very few faculty considered technical skill to be a factor.  Conversely, when technology was mentioned it was under the construct of being a challenge to learn new skills, or as a complaint that sufficient technical support didn't exist.  In other words, faculty isn't worried about technical skill--they either have it or will develop it.

A future quantitative study is planned, but I'm not so sure that study will illuminate the data any more than just adding a 'measurable' number.  This study's findings, in my opinion, are sufficient enough to generate effective thought on online teaching motivation and de-motivation.

Here's a link to a site that hosts the conference's proceeding.  You can purchase the document or check your library.  http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentCon.jsp?punumber=4076361

Digital Immigrants

I read another interesting commentary recently.  The author, Shirly Duglin Kennedy, provided some cogent, pithy thoughts on social networking and the citizens who comprise this segment of the digital community.  She discussed the impact of technology on older and younger workers, some pertinent demographics on social networking participants, and made reference to digital natives (you know, the generation that's grown up with all this wonderful digital technology) and the digital immigrants (you know, those who grew up speaking analog but learned to speak digital out of necessity).  Kennedy makes an excellent point that just because some new technology or application is, well, new, does not necessarily mean that it has any application at all.  That's brings us to the tie-in between any technology and its importance to e-learning.  While technology can certainly make our lives easier to manage and can keep us connected in ways so far removed from the 1800s Pony Express as to be almost unimaginable, we need to make sure that any technology we use to deliver our e-message is the right application for the right audience at the right time.  And with that responsibility comes the requirement that we need to know how to use the technology, be we 'immigrants' or 'natives.'

Here's the link to where you can either read the abstract or purchase Kennedy's article in Information Today:  http://tinyurl.com/ykw97ul.  If you don't choose to buy the article, here's a link to a site she references that provides robust social networking demographics and data--I recommend bookmarking this one:  http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/01/11/a-collection-of-soical-network-stats-for-2009/

Developing and Encouraging

Distance Education Report magazine's June 2005 edition provides a succinct, cogent article on developing online teaching skills.  The central figure to this article is Charles R. Harris, a former instructional developer at Troy University (formerly Troy State University).  According to Harris, effective development will hopefully encourage experimentation which should lead to greater online teaching/learning experiences (Harris, 2005).

Harris offers a rather simple approach for developing online instructors that begins with focusing on technology and pedagogy without creating too much of a burden.  To affect pedagogy, Harris recommends an understanding of Bloom's taxonomis of competencies in the cognitive domain--knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Harris, 2005).  Armed with even a rudimentary knowledge of Bloom's taxonomy, online instructors can create learning outcomes that begin with the end in mind. 

Once online instructors are comfortable with pedagogy, the next developmental step is to learn technology. Harris recommends all prospective online instructors take a self-assessment test because interest in learning and applying technology often has a direct correlation to the course development and deployment, both good and bad.  Those instructors who display a desire to excel in the online environment usually want to shae their experiences; therefore, according to Harris, institutions should look for opportunities to facilitate information sharing (Harris, 2005).

Harris then recommends applying the elemets of ADDIE instructional design: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.  Within this non-linear framework, instructors should evaluate throughout the process (see Formative evaluation).  In addition to applying ADDIE, instructors should also consider the following elements that affect course quality:  academic standards, consistency, and communication     (Harris, 2005).

Becoming an effective online instructor is not an impossible task; however, the process requires planning the work and then working the plan.

References

Harris, C. R. (2005). Developing basic online teaching skills, encouraging experimentation. Distance Education Report, 9(11), 5-8.

Are we there yet?

A professor and doctoral studen at the University of Wisconsin conducted a survey in 2005 that set out to capture the future of e-learning in higher education and training environment.  Over 12,000 requests were sent to college professors, instructors, and designers who were members of MERLOT, and more than 20,000 request were sent to workplace training professionals. Although the respondents were surprisingly low (562 for higher education and 239 for workplace), the authors apparently concluded the sample was sufficient to warrant some conclusions (Bonk & Kim, 2005). 

The higher education survey consisted of 42 questions on the future of online learning in higher education. The workplace survey consisted of 49 questions regarding the current status and future directions of e-learning in workplace learning settings (Bonk & Kim, 2005). 

While the survey and results are dated, I believe we can make some assumptions about the accuracy of the respondents' predictions.  Higher education respondents were asked to comment on the "future growth of online education and blended learning, the quality of future online education, future e-learning technologies, and online pedagogy and teaching skills" (Bonk & Kim, 2005).  Workplace respondents were asked about their "attitudes towards e-learning, future growth of online and blended learning, future of online trainers/instructors, quality of future e-learning, and future e-learning technologies and pedagogy" (Bonk & Kim, 2005).

Higher education respondents predicted a shift from "warehousing students in online environments to engaging them in interactive and motivational activities" (Bonk & Kim, 2005).  Further, these respondents identified "collaboration, case learning and problem-solving learning" as key online instructor techniques, and also noted that the future should see the Web as a tool for "virtual teaming or collaboration, critical thinking, and enhanced student engagement, not as a tool for student expression" (Bonk & Kim, 2005).

Workplace respondents predicted their organizations would focus on "creation and delivey of e-learning content, as well as evaluation of the content" over the next few years (Bonk & Kim, 2005).  Additionally, workplace respondents believed "knowledgement tools, online simulations, and reusale content objects" would impact online learning the most in years to come (Bonk & Kim, 2005).  Further, these respondents thought Internet technologies, multimedia presentations, authentic learning experiences, and global collaboration and perpsective sharing would most significantly impact online learning (Bonk & Kim, 2005).

So how did these prognosticators do?  I'm still searching for a recent survey that will address these same or similar topics, so in the interim I'll opt to use my own experience.  In the world of higher education, collaboration and problem-solving techniques are in widespead use at my university.  Instructors encourage and facilitate student interaction and collaboratio through wikis, blogs, discussion boards, and voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) technology, notably Skype.  While the higher education respondents were on the mark concerning virtual collaboration, critical thinking, and enhanced engagement via the Web, they missed the mark on the student expression prediction.  The Web has evolved from a read-only version 1.0 to the much-bandied read-write Web 2.0.  The advent of Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and the likes has made "expression" possible.  Couple this ability to publish content to the Web with the ability to capture critical reflective thought in e-portfolios  and I argue that the e-learning possibilities far surpass the 2005 predictions. 

As far as the workplace predictions are concerned, my workplace offers numerous online courses, some moderated, but most multimedia, self-paced instruction.  As predicted, the Internet, and more importantly I think, the Intranet, has had a tremendous positive impact on the proliferation of e-learning within my workplace.  My work is still struggling with how to effectively incorporate collaboration and perspective sharing, but my hope is we get there soon.

References

Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K.-J. (2005). Future of e-learning in higher education and training environments. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1404.pdf.

What's age got to do with it?

The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty Methodology Report (available online at the US Department of Education)  provides a plethora of data regarding the characteristics, workload, and career paths of full- and part-time postsecondary faculty and instructional staff at public and private not-for-profit 2- and 4-year institutions in the United States.

The report offers a lot of data that could be subject to creative interpretation, but one arguably indisputable fact presented in the report is the age of faculty members.  Part-time faculty averaged 49.2 years of age, and full-time faculty averaged 49.8 years of age.  These average ages make the faculty members baby boomers.  Without getting into a entirely separate discussion on baby boomers, the faculty did not grow up in the computer age but they are surely working in it. 

At a minimum, faculty have to have basic computer skills (e.g., create electronic documents, check and compose email).  With the proliferation of online course offerings found at many colleges and universities, faculty may need additional technical skills.  If you believe in natural selection, faculty that do not possess requisite skill relative to the requirement, regardless of age, will, I dare say, not be faculty for long.

What's age got to do with it?  Nothing.  Technical skill is not a function of age.  Technical skill is a function of necessity.

Social Presence & e-Learning

I discovered a new 'social' word this week--social presence.  As best I can tell, social presence is a nice blend of socialization (recognizing, adopting, learning, embracing a culture's values, attitudes, dos/don'ts) and presence (in this context, the level of participation in the virtual world) and according to an article by Mirah J. Dow, is a predictor of "satisfication with online learning" (Dow, 2008). 

Dow's article discusses a case study conducted with graduate students in 2002-03 whose goal was to uncover student perceptions of interpersonal awareness in online learning.  (I'll admit here that I think some of the students' perceptions, and therefore some of the conclusions, are out-dated, but I'll address the relevance later.)  According to Dow, "results indicate that factors impacting online social context and online communication and interactivity are effective dialog, well-structured interactions, ease of use, and transparency in computer-mediated interactions" (Dow, 2008).  These factors are still key today for effective e-learning.  (You'll have to forgive me for switching back and forth between online and e-learning. When I have a choice, I prefer the more encompassing term 'e-learning.')

Below is a theoretical model Dow uses to provide context for discussing the previously mention factors.  The model can be a useful tool as a succinct starting point for both student and instructor in working towards effective e-learning.

With regards to effective dialogue, Dow notes that student responses ranged from being overwhelmed by the number and frequency of postings to appreciating the "convienence and cost-effective access to teachers and other students" (Dow, 2008).  I argue that in today's Facebook, Twitter, wiki, and blog-dominated virtual world, post count is irrelevant, but the ability to make contact with classmates and the instructor(s) will always be important and without interaction, social presence will likely negatively impact perceptions. 

In her discussion of well-structured interactions, Dow reports that students want teachers to use "instructional methods that provide clear beginnings and endings to learning activities, and utilize features of the electronic program to structure and improve communication and facilitate interactions" (Dow, 2008).  In other words, instructors should begin with the end in mind and know how to maximize the technology. 

Regarding ease of use of media tool, Dow states that students responded positively towards using programs such as WebCT or Blackboard, provided that all the class members could use the technology.  Suffice it say that both students and instructors' ability to use these learning management systems must be identified as soon as possible in order to provide instruction and/or build a lesson plan that allows ease of use relative to technical skill. 

In discussing transparency of computer-mediate communication, Dow notes that student comments ranged from dissatisfaction with no face-to-face interaction and not being able to discern emotions to satisfaction with e-learning's ability to 'remove human prejudice'  and provide  a way to make new friends.  I argue that today's technology (video Skype, video teleconferencing, etc.) and the advent and proliferation of texting and its associated shorthand language make face-to-face possible (okay, you're not 'really' there, but you see the person through another lens other than your eyes) and allow for accurate, written emotional conveyance (OMG!, typing in all caps to denote yelling, emoticons, etc.). 

If the goal of e-learning is to provide an environment in which e-learners learn through effective instruction/construction, then establishing the conditions which maximize social presence would seem to be paramount.

References

Dow, M. (2008). Implications of social presence for online learning: A case study of MLS students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(4), 231-42. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from Education Full Text database.

A little help please

Online instructors’ technical competence is enhanced by robust technical support for whatever learning management system employed. We’ve previously discussed a variety of learning management systems topics, but part of selecting a system should include a thorough scrub of the support services offered.

Re-visiting edutools.com, I made a swag at picking learning management systems for comparison. I’ll admit that my learning management system choices were based entirely on familiarity or having heard of the system. Not very scientific, I’ll admit, but the method served my purpose which was to compare specific attributes to make some attempt to gauge technical support. Edutools allows users to compare up to 10 different systems and 10 different features.

I chose Angel 6.3, ATutor 1.5, Blackboard 6.2 Enterprise, Desire2Learn 7.4, Moodle 1.5.2, Sakai 2.0, and WebCT Vista 4. I chose the following features from which to compare technical support: Instructor Helpdesk, Course Templates, Customized Look and Feel, and Instructional Design Tools.

The helpdesk support varied from face-to-face training workshops, online courses, or content sensitive help to online instructor manuals, online instructor help communities, or subscriber 24/7 help support.

Each system offered course templates to create content, but some offered templates to create calendars, announcements, or discussion boards. Some offered editable templates or the option to create templates.

All systems provided the option to use pre-defined look-and-feel templates. The compared systems also offered user-defined templates for those institutions desiring to use their own images and layouts.

With regards to instructional design tools, all systems but two offered the choice to design either linear or non-linear content. Some systems offered reusable content or document sharing.

I’m not going to say one system is better than the other, so you may ask “What’s the point?” Based on the needs identified during your assessment of learning management systems requirements, make sure you select the system that provides the level of help you need. Making the right, informed decision on what you need may pay dividends in reducing instructor self-induced stress and enhancing the final product’s effectiveness in promoting learning.

Where there's fear there's...fire?

I just finished reading an excellent article in the MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching titled "Perceptions of Distance Learning Among Faculty of a College of Education"  (Mills, Yanes, & Casebeer, 2009).  Although the study was conducted at a Southwestern US university, I dare say the findings likely echo across other institutions as well.

The study's purpose was to "ascertain faculty perception of value and viability of distance education in their context." (Mills, et al., 2009) The researchers designed a two-part survey: 1) demographic variables regarding age, gender, years teaching, faculty rank, and technology competence, and 2) five open-ended questions to gather data about faculty perceptions and beliefs concerning online learning

(Mills, et al., 2009). The questions were:

What are your perceptions of the use of technology in higher education?

What is your perception of distance education?

What barriers would you anticipate you might experience if you taught a distance class?

What elements would influence your decision to design and teach an online class?

What significant differences do you perceive between distance education and on campus education classes? (Mills, et al., 2009)

Five major themes emerged from survey response analysis: Significance of Distance Education, Technology Competence, Administrative Support, Barriers, and Low Response Rate (Mills, et al., 2009).  While pertinent discussion followed on each of the topics, my focus is the theme of Technology Competence.  "Most respondents indicated that their own skill limitations would be a barrier to creating a distance education course" (Mills, et al., 2009).  The identity and professional self-esteem of faculty members, based on their comments, appeared threatened when educational practices deviate from the traditional methodologies that have forged their beliefs about teacher/student interaction (Mills, et al., 2009). The instructors are afraid for students to see their indecisiveness and inexperience with technology, likely falsely believing that they will lose status with their students.  In other words, instead of using that fear to fuel their motivation to 'step outside their boxes' (Isn't that part of challenging students in hopes of acheiving intellectual growth?), these instructors allow fear to color their perceptions and impact their ability to achieve effective online courses.

Mills, S. J., Yanes, M. J., & Casebeer, C. M. (2009). Perceptions of distance learning among faculty of a college of education Journal of Online Learning and Technology, 5(1), 10.

Home grown

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the data compiling-massaging-distributing arm of the US Department of Education, released a report in December 2008 titled "Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07."  This report is a comprehensive collection of responses to distance education questions posed to the almost 4200 Title IV degree-producing post-secondar institutions in the US.

The report's statistics are derived from academic year 2006-07.  You can view the entire report here, but the following bullets are notable extracts for 2- & 4-year institutions:
-66% offered online or blended courses
-65% offered college level credit granting distance education courses
-68% identified flexible schedules as a primary reason for offering distance education courses
-67% identified providing access to students who otherwise would not have access (i.e., geographic, family, or work-related)
-75% delivered distance education via asychronous Internet-based technologies
-94% developed courses in-house as compared to using commercial vendors

The 94% is significant in that this number clearly represents the fact that institutions are overwhelming not out-sourcing course development.  Institutions are retaining course development control.  In other words, instructors or course development staffs are producing the products distance students are accessing. The report does not mention or detail at all who is developing the courses, but savvy instructors would be well advised to have a vested interest in course development.  Instructors may not need to know how to create a course, but they definitely to know what material is presented and, most importantly, how.  A little technical knowledge may assist is producing the right home-grown product.

Growth is coming

The US Department of Education released its report titled "Projections of Education Statistics to 2018" last month (September 2009).  This report provides projections for

"key education statistics, including enrollment, graduates, teachers, and expenditures in elementary and secondary schools. Included are national data on enrollment and graduates for the past 15 years and projections to the year 2018, as well as state-level data on enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools and public high school graduates to the year 2018" (Hussar & Bailey, 2009).

The focus of this post is the report's projections for post-secondary education.

College enrollment is expected to increase 13.6% to 20.6 million students.  Expect this growth to equate to an increase of "9% for students who are 18 to 24 years old;  25% for students who are 25 to 34
years old; and 12% for students who are 35 years old and over" (Hussar & Bailey, 2009).  Full-time enrollment is expected to increase 15% and part-time enrollment 10%.  Undergraduate enrollment will increase 12%; graduate enrollment 18%; and first-professional 20% (first-professional is defined as one that signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that required for a bachelor’s degree).

This report states from the outset that post-secondary projections do not account for the impact distance learning might have on enrollment, but I am encouraged the US Department of Education acknowledges e-learning.  Although this report does not address whether or not the enrollment is online, some of these students will earn their degrees via online instruction. 

The projected enrollment increase coincides nicely with a US Bureau of Labor statistics projection that education employment opportunities will increase as well.  The logical conclusion should be that as enrollment increases, these new students will be well versed in collaborative technologies due to the proliferation of social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, wikis, and blogs; therefore, educators will likely need to be proficient at these technologies as well in order to incorporate them into their instruction plan. 

Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2009). Projections of education statistics to 2018. Retrieved 
     September 16, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009062.

"How" is as important as "What"

How you teach may be almost important as what you teach, especially with respect to technical competence. Pedagogy drives design, delivery, and evaluation of any instruction, but e-learning requires the content delivery occur via technology. The instructor’s ability to use technology may enhance or hinder delivery and/or learning.

I haven’t found any link yet between online instructor technical competence and pedagogy, but consider these two teaching strategies: A constructivist pedagogy, by definition, is student-centered and seeks to create conditions in which the student is responsible for learning, within the context of previous experience and hopefully real-world environments and situations. For the sake of this argument, a behaviorist pedagogy is teacher-centered and seeks to gauge learning based on proper responses to stimuli. Behaviorists often focus on the attainment of measureable objectives.

Using the basic differences between these strategies for my argument, I believe constructivists may have to be more technically competent since the ‘freedom’ they create in the classroom (yes, I’m talking virtual here) may use a number of technologies to achieve the student-centered environment—wikis, blogs, discussion boards, peer reviews. Behaviorists on the other hand may require less technical competence because every part of their lesson plans potentially can be developed using a couple of programs (Word and PowerPoint immediately come to mind). Behaviorists could use other programs or software (arguably some do) to present their material, but variety is not necessarily required. Behaviorists likely can get by with having minimal technological experience. Because behaviorists focus on themselves, students could reasonably expect that all they need do is log in and progress through an orchestrated series of lessons.

I am not advocating that one pedagogy equates to any technical competence capacity. Obviously some level of competence, regardless pedagogy, is required since instructors are going to have to create content and, in some cases, post content online. But the constructivist, in my opinion, possesses greater freedom in deciding what that content will be since students will not generally be restricted to a prescribed lesson plan.

No matter the pedagogy, the instructor must know what technical competence is required to create and deliver content and then make the necessary effort to obtain the required technical competence.

Maximizing your IT

How responsive is your information technology (IT) department?  Are your IT questions, suggestions, or comments treated professionally?  Do you view your IT staff as part of the solution or problem?  The answers to these questions may have an impact on how well technology is used to maximize e-learning.

We can safely make an assumption that the vast majority of e-learners and educators have some experience with computers and, by simple association, technology.  Although the IT support that makes technology work is normally transparent to the users, these users have developed an expectation that systems will work as designed more often than not.  For those times when systems are not working, users have also developed (as a function of efficient IT staffs) an expectation that time systems are not working will be minimal.  The IT staff must foster and maintain an atmosphere of responsiveness in order to permit users to maximize their time and effort toward e-learning; othewise, why make the effort?

Regardless of techical competence, everyone I know wants their input submitted to the help desk to receive professional consideration.  If the IT staff conveys a condescending attitude towards user input, the likelihood of users minimizing or stopping their use of technology because they believe their input "won't matter" is not that far a leap from perception to reality.

IT staffs should be the vanguard of insuring systems work and providing users with the technological know- how.  Those of us having the unfortunate experience of being in an organization in which systems didn't always work, and training was an afterthought, all know the frustration that comes from such a situation.  What invariably happens is individuals develop workarounds that may be effective but usually aren't efficient.

IT staffs have an important role in the e-learning environment.  Most IT staffs accomplish their missions with little fanfare and probably less visibility (unless, of course, things don't work!).  Incumbent upon those charged with facilitating e-learning is the responsibility to ensure the effective mesh between IT support and e-learning content occurs.

...and another thing

Let's talk a litte more about learning management systems (LMS).  The more I research online instructor technical competence requirements, the more I uncover that the LMS is important to this competence.  Knowledge transfer is easy with some LMS.  Other LMS require a steeper learning curve; however, I can't recall any LMS that doesn't offer some level of training support.

In Michael Feldstein's blog e-Literate, he provides some succinct yet comprehensive advice for small schools on LMS selection.  I argue that large schools could benefit from his advice as well.  As I read Feldstein's post, I thougt about needs assessment, discrepancy evaluation modeling, and common-sense requirements (thanks Dr A for the eye-opener).

The reality with LMS is there's possibly an application for every need.  LMS exist that are hosted, open-source, proprietary, scalable, easily migrated/upgraded, etc.  If you're concerned about what technical skills your instructors need to possess to use the LMS, ask about it. Feldstein implies we humans resist change well. We should not let a perceived 'comfort zone' limit our ability to present an effective e-learning experience regardless our technical competence.

Open source learning management systems

I was googling for learning management system (LMS) proliferation and stumbled upon an article from 2004 about a project named "Sakai."  I never did learn the genesis for the name, but the really interesting stuff was the project's goals:  create an open source LMS that would harness the brightest and best IT minds at participating higher education institutions world-wide.  In other words, one huge global collaborative effort to produce a free, scalable, and extensible LMS.

The article is really a series of Q&A with Ira Fuchs, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation's VP for research in information technology, on his vision for a modern LMS.  The article is an easy read and Fuchs covers each question thoroughly.  You can click the link for the full piece, but here's are some cogent comments:

That eventual goal is still in sharp contrast with where we are today. Now, if an institution acquires a commercial, proprietary LMS, and then finds that the system is deficient in some way, they often must wait until the vendor decides it is financially viable to develop the enhancement—an event that may never occur. Ideally what we’re seeking is a situation in which the schools that want a new capability added to an LMS can, if they wish, develop it themselves, and then make it available to the higher education community so that others may benefit. That’s the point of leveraging collaboration among institutions.

Today, you have a plethora of choices among learning management systems. There are sites on the Web listing dozens of them. But for institutions seeking to move away from their current LMS, there is a cost to change. The cost comes in many forms, not the least of which is that people grow accustomed to an interface.

Perhaps the most important fact to remember is that the industry we represent, higher education, is unique in our willingness to collaborate and to share our labors, such as we have in this IT space. There are a lot of smart people in each of these institutions, and if we can harness them behind the same projects and use a set of standards, starting off with a good base piece of software such as I think Sakai will deliver, then we can do wonders.

So I'm reading this article from 2004 and wondering if all the things Fuchs says we might have are really available now.  Another search on the Sakai Project returned a link to the project's website.  From what I can tell without too much data mining, Sakai has indeed delivered as promised--free, open-source software that supports teaching, learning, and scholarly collaboration.  The site offers an interactive map of Sakai partners.  I was somewhat disappointed to not find any Alabama school listed, but that discovery may be a function of vendor contracts.  I know my university uses WebCT, but when I compare Sakai's tools, at least on the surface, I think it may offer more functionality than WebCT. 

This post is not an advertisement for Sakai because there are a lot of open-source LMS available (check out http://php.opensourcecms.com/general/ratings.php), but rather a look at another set of tools online instructors may be able to use to enhance the e-learning experience. 

LMS are permanent fixtures at higher education institutions; therefore, we should maximize the ability as institutions to acheive collaboration and info sharing.

What you want is important

Regardless the setting (online, blended or traditional), students want course information available online.  Students are demanding access to materials at course onset.  Students are letting us know what they're thinking and we would be well advised to listen to them. 

A 2006 study of a major southeastern university that used WebCT as the primary means to deliver online course content noted that "bottom-up pressure from students desiring content online is more important than pressure from above, and that the ‘extended class’ (24/7 access) may be the most important feature of an online class component" (Harrington, Staffo, & Wright, 2006).

In every instance, the instructors in Harrington's et. al, study stated the pressure to deliver content online came from the students, and all instructors complied.  While continuous research is warranted regarding the effectiveness of the online learning (and I argue this research is no more important for online learning as would be desired for any kind of learning!), the facts seems to support that notion that online learning, with its student-centeredness, seems to provide deeper learning.  Perhaps the prospect of introspection and responsibility for their own learning is the driving force behind student access demands.

24/7 access, according to the study, does a couple of things.  First, access expands the classroom.  Online students already know the advantage of having round-the-clock access, but with blended and traditional delivery methods, having access outside normal class hours seems to promote deeper learning and reflection.  In other words, students have more opportunity to mull over the material.  Second, access generated more collaboration and interaction.

What does this mean to online instructors?  The obvious answer is we must deliver the online content.  An implied mission is we must know 'how' to deliver the content.  I'm not saying we need to be technical experts, but we need to know more than just how to access the software.  Harrington's et. al, study focused on seven instructors with technical expertise ranging from 'expert' to 'novice.'  Although the novices acknowledged their need for program-use training, not one instance was reported in which content was not delivered.  In other words, technical competence was not an issue.  I will note here that robust technical support was available, so technical competence was not addressed in the study.

As the demand for e-learning continues to expand, online instructors, operating in an atmosphere of student centered learning, must listen to what the students are saying.  Students, after all, are the reason we exist.

References

Harrington, T., Staffo, M., & Wright, V. H. (2006). Faculty uses of and attitudes toward a course 
    management system in improving instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(2), 13.

10% Smarter

Growing up in the Marine Corps about the time jarheads started embracing technology other than the rotary telephone taught me that you always have to be 10% smarter than the technology...or you end up looking pretty foolish.  That axiom came to mind as I came across a story about a guy who blamed his car's GPS unit for almost running his car off a cliff.  Here's the link so you can see for yourself.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510495,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/personaltechnology

How is this story related to this blog's topic?  I look at it this way.  If the guy had been just a little smarter than the technology (or maybe he needed a lesson in situational awareness), he would have realized that his equipment was wrong.  But as it turned out, the guy almost lost his life, and everything he experienced was avoidable. 

Avoiding problems with technology in the online environment can also be accomplished if you simply take a little time to conduct a self assessment.  Analyze the software.  Ask the IT folks what skills you might need to use the program.  If you need training, get it.  If you can use the program and understand how it works relative to what you want to accomplish in your course, then I argue that you can probably avoid falling off the virtual cliff.  You'll be prepared to know when to stop and ask more questions...without looking foolish in the process.

Sometimes the e-learning challenges simply reside in the over- or under-estimation of our technical competence.  If we'll adopt a mindset to be smarter than the technology, if only by a little, and always be prepared to query the technical experts, I believe we can create a better teaching and learning environment.

A multi-layered cake

After nine mouse clicks, I finally arrived at the "Leave and TDY" calendar sitting on our shared portal.  Getting to the same document used to take two clicks.  I suddenly had this vison of a chocolate tower truffle cake from The Cheesecake Factory.  You know the one I'm talking about--many, many layers of chocolate cake with scrumptuous chocolate icing sandwiched between.  I thought how very similar locating just about anything on the shared portal is to this cake--layer upon layer upon layer.  And then I thought about the four-click rule (well, maybe it's the three-click rule but I'm giving our IT folks a break!) in which, if after the fourth click you haven't found what you're looking for, the website developer should be hung from the nearest yardarm (that's naval-speak for getting an attitude adjustment).  I thought about how I'm a captive audience and if my workplace (I work for the guv-mint and I am here to help you!) were a business, we'd be out of business because no one wants to drill and drill and drill just to find information that should be easily accessed. 

Once I finished updating the calendar, my thoughts returned to the layered shared portal and how aggravating its navigation is.  While I realize that some layering may be unavoidable, planning access and minimizing layers is crucial to building an effective site.  If the site is difficult to use or the navigation cumbersome, people often will look somewhere else.  I know we have all experienced websites that were simply too busy.   I dare say we didn't bookmark those sites!

The same consideration for website design must be applied to online course development.  Whether or not the instructor is involved with the design, the online coure must generate use and facilitate students' desire to learn.  Instructors don't necessarily need to know how to write code, but they should be able to communicate a design to developer that coincides with their pedagogy.  And instuctors should be able to test the course to ensure the design and content presentation meets their requirements. 

If the design is begun with the end in mind, I thinking that instead of clicking and clicking and clicking and wondering how far down the file tree I'll have to go to find my information, I may just have enough time for a slice of that cake.

Learning Management Systems: Commercial-off-the-shelf or Do-it-yourself?

Part of the e-learning experience is interacting with the software. Depending on the organization’s size, e-learners can expect online course content delivery through a robust commercial product such as WebCT (one of the many content/learning management systems (C/LMS)) or a locally developed multimedia product created from software such as Camtasia or Dreamweaver.

C/LMS are often expensive with cost savings usually a function of full-time enrollment (FTE) students; however, most of these systems are designed to manage content, course, and student work. Many C/LMS often provide the capability to design, store, and share content across all users. Training is generally available to provide instruction in using the application. Usually, dedicated technical support is provided with the subscription so instructors do not have to become technical experts. In some organizations, the instructor’s role is simply to teach the course. EduTools offers an excellent comparison tool to assist e-learning course developers and implementers in deciding which product is right for a particular application.
(http://www.edutools.info/item_list.jsp?pj=4)

Do-it-yourself products most likely will not contain the multi-functionality found in the commercial products. Chat, discussion board, and other collaborative tools, if required or desired, will have to be imported into the content. Course content, once developed, will require server upload. In this instance, the instructor most likely will have to know how to develop the content using a variety of software applications, and instruct the course. Perhaps an unintended consequence is the instructor becomes a software subject matter expert, which could mean the students will turn to the instructor for technical help.
(http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp)
(http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/)

Commercial-off-the-shelf or do-it-yourself? It depends on the organization’s goals, personnel, and, ultimately, budget.

Who are these online students and what do they want?

Online students come from all parts of society, thanks in part to the proliferation of the Internet. 2007 US census data reports that over 70% of US households have Internet access, and that almost 11 million citizens ages 15+ will use the Internet to take an online course.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 2008 report reveals that 68% of 2008 high school graduates enrolled in either colleges or universities (the average from 2001-2008 is 66%). Of those high school graduates who enrolled in higher education, 93% were full-time students (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm). Unfortunately, the BLS report does not provide details on online enrollment; however, the Sloan Consortium’s 2008 survey provides these nuggets: almost four million students took at least one online course in the fall 2007—a 12% growth over 2006 and significantly higher than the 1.2% growth of the overall higher education student enrollment; and over 20% of all students took at least one online course in fall 2007
(http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf)

The 2008 National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) reports online students, when compared to classroom learners, were likely to be older (and also managing family and external responsibilities), transfer, and first-generation. The NSSE report also found courses delivered online seem to stimulate students’ intellectual challenge and promote educational gains. The report also noted an increase in the number of colleges and universities offering course content using online technology (content management systems, discussion boards, and video conferencing). (http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-14-2008.pdf

We can safely assume the online instruction demand shows no signs of abating. As the online instruction boom continues, we must guard against satisfying the demand at the expense of the student. Future online students should receive the same intellectually challenging courses as current students enjoy.

Your an online instructor. So what?

With few exceptions, everything we do is digitized and computerized. Being online, all the time, is the life-line, the addiction, and the “way it is.”

Learning, for many people, is also online, all the time. We’re the e-learners. E-learning has become a welcomed traveler on the information-interaction-social networking highway.

Institutions have escaped their brick-and-mortar bonds and now offer accredited degree programs in many subjects. Teachers who once delivered their material via lecture in traditional face-to-face settings are now facing new instructional challenges created by the e-learning boom. The expectation that effective learning will occur regardless the setting is not unreasonable; therefore, the expectation necessitates thought, planning, and application.

During one of my data mining sessions, I stumbled across an interesting article that focused specifically on instructor competencies. Since my current focus is instructor technical competencies, the material naturally attracted my attention. Although I couldn’t discern the actual date, I concluded from the references that the piece was likely written in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Even though we could consider the material ‘dated,’ I posit the information remains valid.

The article defines instructor competencies within the online context and proceeds to expand areas deemed important: technical knowledge and skills, time, relationships with students, instructor support, instructional design support, technical support, and institutional support.

Viewed holistically, the article is a template that answers the title’s question, “So what?” If we believe the article’s assertion that “instructors involved in web-based course design and delivery require competencies that have not necessarily been considered important in a face-to-face and print-based distance education context,” we must also believe an e-learning instructor may require a personal as well as institutional paradigm shift.

Central to answering the “so what” question is acknowledgement that e-learning instructors perhaps have to consider more variables—not necessarily difficult ones, just more—than their traditional counterparts. Clearly no “one size fits all” template is applicable or desired, but I am convinced an appropriate template and attitude will provide enough detail and impetus to produce an effective online e-learning experience for both instructor and student.

Here’s the link - http://stats.macewan.ca/learn/staff/lit_comp.cfm. I think the article provides, if nothing else, a starting point for either effective change or reinforcement in perceptions of what it takes to effectively teach online. What do you think?