Title:
Seven Principles of Effective Teaching: A Practical Lens for Evaluating Online Courses
Bibliography:
Graham, Charles et al West Valley College. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from Developing an Online Course Web site: www.westvalley.edu/trc/seven.html
Summary:
The authors of this article looked at several courses being taught online at a professional school at a large Midwestern university. The faculty teaching the online course also taught face-to-face courses. The authors looked to identify examples of each of Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. They researched four classes and then developed a lesson for online instruction for each practice. The seven principles and lessons are:
Good Practice Encourages Student-Faculty Contact
Lesson: Instructors should provide clear guidelines for interaction with students
Good Practice Encourages Cooperation Among Students
Lesson: Well-designed discussion assignments facilitate meaningful cooperation among students
Good Practice Encourages Active
LearningLesson: Students should present course projects
Good Practice Gives Prompt Feedback
Lesson: Instructors need to provide two types of feedback: information feedback and acknowledgment feedback
Good Practice Emphasizes Time on Task
Lesson: Online courses need deadlines
Good Practice Communicates High Expectations
Lesson: Challenging tasks, sample cases, and praise for quality work communicate high expectations
Good Practice Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
Lesson: Allowing students to choose project topics incorporates diverse views into online courses
Reaction:
I thought this article was practical in applying concepts that make good face-to-face teaching to online classes. Although there are many differences in face-to-face class facilitation and online class facilitation, there are many practices that are just good teaching! These practices can, in my opinion, be easily adapted to the online classroom. On the first point, I feel the instructor must set the “ground rules” right up front. It is unfair to the instructor and the students to assume that everyone will be available 24/7. Therefore, instructors have to let students know when they will be checking email, responding to discussion threads, etc. It has been my experience that online discussions can be rich with information and that usually the instructor will post/pose the question and students respond to that. Self-directed learning is necessary for student success and satisfaction in online courses. It is important to engage student in learning and by assigning course projects the instructor can facilitate the students’ learning; this is especially true for a comprehensive project i.e. the project includes all or most of the course concepts/learning outcomes. I thought the forth point was very valid. Students want to know that the information they have posted is legitimate and they also want confirmation that their assignments were correctly posted/turned in. How many times have you wondered if your assignments were missing in cyber space? It is appropriate to expect a high level of work from online students as well as face-to-face students. By providing examples of good work students have a benchmark they can use to measure their own work. The last point is being practiced is most of the CCE/IT courses I’ve had at WWU. I am a true believer that students not only learn from the instructor, but they also learn from other students! There is a lot of talent in our IT 518 class alone . . .there is much to be learned from your peers.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Week 2 Article 1
Title:
Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors’ Participation in Threaded Discussion in the Online Classroom
Bibliography:
Mandernach, Jean, Dailey-Herbert, Amber, & Donnelli-Sallee, Emily Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors' Participation in Threaded Discussion in the Online Classroom. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, Retrieved April 14, 2007, from www.ncolr.org/jiol.
Summary:
By conducting this study, the researchers examined frequency and time investment of an online instructor’s participation in course-specific threaded discussions in order to provide a more accurate picture of the faculty investment in the ongoing facilitation of an online course, independent of course development. In this paper, they report that “research suggests that online teaching requires more time and effort than face-to-face teaching.” They also discussed the difference between planning and instructing. Also, they noted the disparity in time spent teaching by faculty new to teaching online versus experienced online faculty. The following passage really spelled out for me how difficult the transition from face-to-face to online instruction can be:
Additionally, the online instructor must gain assurance and proficiency in using the Web as the primary communication between teacher-student, learn to successfully teach without the use of body language, and evolve from the role of content-provider to content-facilitator (Williams & Peters, 1997) . When one considers the number of new instructional skills that must be mastered, it is no surprise that many faculty report a greater time investment for the initial switch to teaching in an online environment.
There also seemed to be more time required for faculty members teaching a course for the first time online versus faculty members teaching a course that had already been established as an online course. This made logical sense! The authors also discussed concerns around the 24/7 online environment and how students can easily feel that faculty member should be available whenever the student is online. This may lead to increased frustration for both the instructor and students. Furthermore, students reported that the need to be concise in electronic communication (e.g. discussion boards and emails) rather than having open, oral discussion is very limited and thus a weakness of online classes.
The study consisted of ten randomly selected courses to determine the mean number of days per week of faculty interaction, the mean number of faculty posts per threaded discussion, and the mean faculty time spent on discussion activities.
Reaction:
I found the study very interesting. It provided me with much food for thought. I had not thought about the difference in time spent by new faculty versus the time “seasoned” faculty spend teaching a specific online class. I had thought about the enhanced skill set online faculty would need, but the authors of this article really spelled those out for the readers.
I thought it was interesting how they established their sample, and their method seemed to be well thought out. They even went so far as to identify areas of their data that might be skewed. i.e. the time instructors spend on the threaded discussions couldn’t be clearly defined as the system simply tracks the amount of time the instructor is logged into the system not specifically how long they spend on the discussion board. The system also does not track idle time. That is time the instructor was logged on but not actively engaged in the class site.
Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors’ Participation in Threaded Discussion in the Online Classroom
Bibliography:
Mandernach, Jean, Dailey-Herbert, Amber, & Donnelli-Sallee, Emily Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors' Participation in Threaded Discussion in the Online Classroom. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, Retrieved April 14, 2007, from www.ncolr.org/jiol.
Summary:
By conducting this study, the researchers examined frequency and time investment of an online instructor’s participation in course-specific threaded discussions in order to provide a more accurate picture of the faculty investment in the ongoing facilitation of an online course, independent of course development. In this paper, they report that “research suggests that online teaching requires more time and effort than face-to-face teaching.” They also discussed the difference between planning and instructing. Also, they noted the disparity in time spent teaching by faculty new to teaching online versus experienced online faculty. The following passage really spelled out for me how difficult the transition from face-to-face to online instruction can be:
Additionally, the online instructor must gain assurance and proficiency in using the Web as the primary communication between teacher-student, learn to successfully teach without the use of body language, and evolve from the role of content-provider to content-facilitator (Williams & Peters, 1997) . When one considers the number of new instructional skills that must be mastered, it is no surprise that many faculty report a greater time investment for the initial switch to teaching in an online environment.
There also seemed to be more time required for faculty members teaching a course for the first time online versus faculty members teaching a course that had already been established as an online course. This made logical sense! The authors also discussed concerns around the 24/7 online environment and how students can easily feel that faculty member should be available whenever the student is online. This may lead to increased frustration for both the instructor and students. Furthermore, students reported that the need to be concise in electronic communication (e.g. discussion boards and emails) rather than having open, oral discussion is very limited and thus a weakness of online classes.
The study consisted of ten randomly selected courses to determine the mean number of days per week of faculty interaction, the mean number of faculty posts per threaded discussion, and the mean faculty time spent on discussion activities.
Reaction:
I found the study very interesting. It provided me with much food for thought. I had not thought about the difference in time spent by new faculty versus the time “seasoned” faculty spend teaching a specific online class. I had thought about the enhanced skill set online faculty would need, but the authors of this article really spelled those out for the readers.
I thought it was interesting how they established their sample, and their method seemed to be well thought out. They even went so far as to identify areas of their data that might be skewed. i.e. the time instructors spend on the threaded discussions couldn’t be clearly defined as the system simply tracks the amount of time the instructor is logged into the system not specifically how long they spend on the discussion board. The system also does not track idle time. That is time the instructor was logged on but not actively engaged in the class site.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Week 1 Article 2
Title:
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
Bibliography:
Prensky, Marc (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. NCB University Press, 9,
Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%
20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm
Summary:
In this article, the author explores how instruction must adapt to the new generation of students that have grown up with technology. The author claims many instructors are challenged by technology yet technology is second nature to the students. The author has named these students Digital Natives. Those individuals that have not grown up with technology are referred to as Digital Immigrants by the author. The way Digital Natives process information is different than how student before them processed information. Digital Natives like to receive information very quickly and love to multi-task. This has caused, in the author’s opinion, the brains of Digital Natives to function differently than the generations of learners before them.
The author uses the analogy of immigrants to a new country compared to individuals that have had to learn to function in a world driven by advances in technology. Digital Immigrants may have adapted to the new technology (new language and activities), but as with most immigrants they still have an “accent.
The author feels that currently many instructors are Digital Immigrants. This causes a huge obstacle to learning because Digital-Immigrant instructors aren’t “speaking” a language their students can understand. The author claims that Digital Immigrants don’t feel students can possibly learn easily while watching TV or listening to music because Digital Immigrants often can’t. However, these are skills that Digital Natives have perfected over time because of their access and use of technologies that allow them to receive input from multiple sources simultaneously.
The author discusses how this hurdle has caused much unrest in education. The instructors feel like the students aren’t paying attention, and the students feel like the instructors are presenting information in a boring format i.e. there is not enough use of technology. The author then gave an example of how the use of CAD (computer aided drafting) software revolutionized engineering. Yet many engineers did not want to learn the new software. The marketers of the software realized that the majority of the software users were male engineers between 20 and 30 years old. The marketers decided to make a video game training program so that the engineers would play a video game that at the same time taught lessons about CAD. The difficulty came when the marketers tried to work with professors who wanted to follow traditional training methods. That is to say the professors wanted specific lessons to cover only specific tasks and each task had to be completed in a specific order. Ultimately the professors were able to compromise with the marketers and try something new. This resulted is a video game named Monkey Wrench that when played teaches the player how to use the CAD software.
Reaction:
Even though this article is over five years old, I think the author raises an interesting interpretation of things he has observed. The new generation of learners may process information differently, but I don’t think this means they can’t learn from more traditional teaching methods. What I am saying is we should throw away all the “old” tools of teaching and replace them with “new” technology. Do you agree that students of the new generation do actually learn (process information) differently than the generations before them?
I feel the true power of what the author suggests is that by using technology in a more creative way larger audiences can be reached. It will be important for developers of curriculum to not be too consumed with entertaining their audience and to remain focused on the true goal of educating the audience. I also support the movement of Universal Design. We as educators should strive to find different ways to meet the different learning styles of our students. As more and more classes are offered via distance education, faculty members should experiment with technology to see what works best for which student. As we make accommodations for a particular student the entire class may benefit from the accommodation. I support the notation of more research in the area of online learning, the use of technology, and the practice of Universal Design.
I think that instructors always have and will continue to struggle with reaching their audience. The use of advanced technology is yet another tool instructors can use to relay their message to the students in their class. What are some examples of advanced technology and how can they be used to advance higher education?
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
Bibliography:
Prensky, Marc (2001, October). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. NCB University Press, 9,
Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-%20Digital%
20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm
Summary:
In this article, the author explores how instruction must adapt to the new generation of students that have grown up with technology. The author claims many instructors are challenged by technology yet technology is second nature to the students. The author has named these students Digital Natives. Those individuals that have not grown up with technology are referred to as Digital Immigrants by the author. The way Digital Natives process information is different than how student before them processed information. Digital Natives like to receive information very quickly and love to multi-task. This has caused, in the author’s opinion, the brains of Digital Natives to function differently than the generations of learners before them.
The author uses the analogy of immigrants to a new country compared to individuals that have had to learn to function in a world driven by advances in technology. Digital Immigrants may have adapted to the new technology (new language and activities), but as with most immigrants they still have an “accent.
The author feels that currently many instructors are Digital Immigrants. This causes a huge obstacle to learning because Digital-Immigrant instructors aren’t “speaking” a language their students can understand. The author claims that Digital Immigrants don’t feel students can possibly learn easily while watching TV or listening to music because Digital Immigrants often can’t. However, these are skills that Digital Natives have perfected over time because of their access and use of technologies that allow them to receive input from multiple sources simultaneously.
The author discusses how this hurdle has caused much unrest in education. The instructors feel like the students aren’t paying attention, and the students feel like the instructors are presenting information in a boring format i.e. there is not enough use of technology. The author then gave an example of how the use of CAD (computer aided drafting) software revolutionized engineering. Yet many engineers did not want to learn the new software. The marketers of the software realized that the majority of the software users were male engineers between 20 and 30 years old. The marketers decided to make a video game training program so that the engineers would play a video game that at the same time taught lessons about CAD. The difficulty came when the marketers tried to work with professors who wanted to follow traditional training methods. That is to say the professors wanted specific lessons to cover only specific tasks and each task had to be completed in a specific order. Ultimately the professors were able to compromise with the marketers and try something new. This resulted is a video game named Monkey Wrench that when played teaches the player how to use the CAD software.
Reaction:
Even though this article is over five years old, I think the author raises an interesting interpretation of things he has observed. The new generation of learners may process information differently, but I don’t think this means they can’t learn from more traditional teaching methods. What I am saying is we should throw away all the “old” tools of teaching and replace them with “new” technology. Do you agree that students of the new generation do actually learn (process information) differently than the generations before them?
I feel the true power of what the author suggests is that by using technology in a more creative way larger audiences can be reached. It will be important for developers of curriculum to not be too consumed with entertaining their audience and to remain focused on the true goal of educating the audience. I also support the movement of Universal Design. We as educators should strive to find different ways to meet the different learning styles of our students. As more and more classes are offered via distance education, faculty members should experiment with technology to see what works best for which student. As we make accommodations for a particular student the entire class may benefit from the accommodation. I support the notation of more research in the area of online learning, the use of technology, and the practice of Universal Design.
I think that instructors always have and will continue to struggle with reaching their audience. The use of advanced technology is yet another tool instructors can use to relay their message to the students in their class. What are some examples of advanced technology and how can they be used to advance higher education?
Week 1 Article 1
Title:
How Will an Online Degree Affect Your Chances of Getting Hired?
Bibliography:
McGolerick, Elizabeth How Will an Online Degree Affect Your Chances of Getting Hired?. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from MSN Encarta Web site: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?article=HowWillOnlineDegree>
Summary:
This article looks to address how Human Resource (HR) managers perceive the value of online degrees. The author states that the same accrediting bodies evaluate both traditional and online schools determining that both are worthy of being accredited. In other words saying both can provide a quality education. The author questions whether or not HR managers give the same value to online degrees as they do traditional degrees. She quotes several HR managers, and they each interpret online degrees differently. Next the author addressed how important the educational experience is and the focus should not just be on completing the degree. According to the Sloan Consortium 40.7 percent of schools offering online courses agree that students are at least as satisfied with their online courses as their on-campus courses. As on individual that was interviewed stated, “Having a faculty member who is well trained can make online learning as social as—if not more social than—a typical on-campus experience.” The author closes the article by discussing how e-students have to work on educating hiring managers about the value of online degrees.
Reaction:
My personal educational background includes a degree from the University of Phoenix (UOP); I earned this degree by going to class one night a week and participating in study group activities each weekend. Yet UOP is known as one of the leading online schools. I wonder how many hiring managers assume my degree was completed online when it wasn’t. This speaks to the point the author makes regarding universities that award both types of degrees, and the fact that they often don’t differentiate between the two types of degrees on diplomas. Is this a good or bad thing? Next I would like to discuss the statement made by Murray Fetzer, director of operation for Cen-Clear Child Services. He is quoted, “Although pursuing an online degree is a commitment, the traditional student is committed at a different level, and I believe, gets more out of their education. Your colleagues are a critical part of the learning process.” I whole-heartedly agree with the last sentence in his statement, yet I can not agree with the first part. I don’t think online students are any more or any less dedicated than a traditional student. I would hope that you would agree with me that you get out of your education what you put into it. I still wonder why there is such a surge in online class enrollments. Are students taking online classes because they are more convenient? Are online courses perceived as being easier? What I do believe is that we as future educators must strive to develop online courses that are as rigorous as traditional courses. We must be creative in assessing our students’ learning as well as being vigilant in critiquing our own work. Are we teaching what we set out to teach? There is no doubt that online learning is challenging educational institutions to respond to the demand. Students want online degrees, and faculty have been charged with educating their students. Now, as faculty, are we also required to educate hiring officials about the value of online degrees?
How Will an Online Degree Affect Your Chances of Getting Hired?
Bibliography:
McGolerick, Elizabeth How Will an Online Degree Affect Your Chances of Getting Hired?. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from MSN Encarta Web site: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?article=HowWillOnlineDegree>
Summary:
This article looks to address how Human Resource (HR) managers perceive the value of online degrees. The author states that the same accrediting bodies evaluate both traditional and online schools determining that both are worthy of being accredited. In other words saying both can provide a quality education. The author questions whether or not HR managers give the same value to online degrees as they do traditional degrees. She quotes several HR managers, and they each interpret online degrees differently. Next the author addressed how important the educational experience is and the focus should not just be on completing the degree. According to the Sloan Consortium 40.7 percent of schools offering online courses agree that students are at least as satisfied with their online courses as their on-campus courses. As on individual that was interviewed stated, “Having a faculty member who is well trained can make online learning as social as—if not more social than—a typical on-campus experience.” The author closes the article by discussing how e-students have to work on educating hiring managers about the value of online degrees.
Reaction:
My personal educational background includes a degree from the University of Phoenix (UOP); I earned this degree by going to class one night a week and participating in study group activities each weekend. Yet UOP is known as one of the leading online schools. I wonder how many hiring managers assume my degree was completed online when it wasn’t. This speaks to the point the author makes regarding universities that award both types of degrees, and the fact that they often don’t differentiate between the two types of degrees on diplomas. Is this a good or bad thing? Next I would like to discuss the statement made by Murray Fetzer, director of operation for Cen-Clear Child Services. He is quoted, “Although pursuing an online degree is a commitment, the traditional student is committed at a different level, and I believe, gets more out of their education. Your colleagues are a critical part of the learning process.” I whole-heartedly agree with the last sentence in his statement, yet I can not agree with the first part. I don’t think online students are any more or any less dedicated than a traditional student. I would hope that you would agree with me that you get out of your education what you put into it. I still wonder why there is such a surge in online class enrollments. Are students taking online classes because they are more convenient? Are online courses perceived as being easier? What I do believe is that we as future educators must strive to develop online courses that are as rigorous as traditional courses. We must be creative in assessing our students’ learning as well as being vigilant in critiquing our own work. Are we teaching what we set out to teach? There is no doubt that online learning is challenging educational institutions to respond to the demand. Students want online degrees, and faculty have been charged with educating their students. Now, as faculty, are we also required to educate hiring officials about the value of online degrees?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)