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?