All posts by Anna Luce

Test Driving the Digital Public Library of America

Earlier this month, the Digital Public Library of America launched its website to much nerdy fanfare online. This online platform aims to provide a singular portal for searching and accessing digitized content from a wide array of American libraries, museums, and research institutions. Forty-two cultural organizations have collaborated so far, in an effort spearheaded by the Berkman Institute for Internet and Society at Harvard. Though the idea has been around for a while, active planning and implementation over the past two years have finally yielded some results. According to Scott McLemee’s column in Inside Higher Ed, the DPLA currently catalogs “about 2.4 million digital objects, including books, manuscripts, photographs, recorded sound, and film/video.” (Impressive for a brand new endeavor; for comparison, the Smithsonian has more than 130 million items1, and DePaul’s library has just over 1.1 million.2)

Continue reading

Moving Online: What You Lose (and Gain)

Last month, I was lucky enough to be able to participate in the DePaul Online Teaching Series (DOTS) and talk with a number of faculty who are just starting to teach online. A common concern raised during our talks was what would be lost when translating face-to-face material into online or hybrid versions.

Faculty worried that they would no longer be able to recognize confusion on their students’ faces and might miss opportunities to clarify. They lamented that they would miss witnessing moments of discovery or realization when things finally clicked for students. They worried their students would have a difficult time forming connections amongst themselves, and that students wouldn’t feel like they had a real relationship with the instructor.

One instructor talked about how during one of the final meetings for a class he loves to teach, students rehearse and perform short sections of plays. This reminded me of a Shakespeare seminar I took in college where I stood before a group of awkward English majors and awkwardly delivered the memorable “ducket in her clack-dish” line from Measure for Measure while acting out the scene. I’ll remember that class—and that stretch of dialogue—for the rest of my life, because of the physicality of the experience and the way it truly brought the play to life.

I tried to find an image of a clack-dish, but the internet hasn’t expanded that far yet. So here’s Shakespeare.

How could we possibly create a similar experience in an online classroom?

These concerns are valid. While I would argue that there are ways to achieve high interaction between students online, and there are definitely ways to assess how your students are processing the material so you can provide appropriate feedback, modality does matter. There is no online counterpart that could capture the magic of theater in a classroom. Shakespeare was meant to be spoken aloud to a crowd hungry for entertainment. If an instructor feels too much would genuinely be lost if a course is moved online, maybe it shouldn’t be.  

Because the truth is, it’s different. Anyone claiming to be able to accomplish precisely the same outcomes online perhaps hasn’t thought everything all the way through.

More than once during DOTS, our wise facilitator (Daniel Stanford) advised faculty to take a moment to “mourn” something that would have to change when they taught a course online.

And once we soothe our anxieties and mourn our losses, let’s recognize that there are genuine advantages to an online course. There are worthy pedagogical outcomes that are actually easier to accomplish with an online course. So, have a moment of silence for the chemistry we’ll lose by not breathing the same air and think about the possibilities. Here’s a short list of stuff online course do better than face-to-face course.

In an online course,

  • … you can introduce your students to peers on the other side of the world and watch them work together.
  • … students can rewind your lecture and listen to it again (especially the tricky parts that you might have to repeat a few times in a face-to-face class before it made sense).
  • … you can see otherwise introverted students shine on discussion boards.
  • …students can determine the pace of materials. (Students won’t get bored if you’re moving too slowly, or frustrated if you move too quickly.)
  • … you can provide quick, private feedback if a correction needs to be made.
  • … you can often reuse content from quarter to quarter. (Once you get that introductory presentation done for your 101 course, you may never have to deliver it again. You can just transfer it to your next online class and spend your energy on interacting more with your students.)

“How do I know students aren’t cheating?”

It’s a question that comes up frequently when working with faculty to design and build their online courses. And it’s a valid one. Academic dishonesty is a longstanding issue in higher education, one colleges and universities take seriously with zero-tolerance policies and severe consequences for offenders. As more courses are offered online or in hybrid formats, instructors’ typical methods of deterring and detecting cheating might seem ineffective.

As information has become more easily available, and more quickly copied (and edited so as to appear original), it’s easy to see how an over-stressed college student may be tempted to cheat in any course. Online courses add another layer of perceived anonymity and actual, physical distance between instructors and students that one would think makes it easier to cheat. (The idea is that it’s easier to lie to your computer screen than your instructor’s face.)

When your students don’t take their exams in the classroom, how do you know they aren’t sharing answers? When you don’t interact with students face-to-face each week, how can you really get to know them, their ideas, and their unique perspective (which makes it easier to spot plagiarized content)? How do you know the textbook answer key isn’t open on their desk as they fly through quiz questions?

I was recently asked to do some research on this topic, and, I have to confess, I still can’t answer those questions. Here are some things I did find out:

The bad news?

  • It was really hard to find solid statistics about how cheating in online courses compared to traditional courses. And those studies that did provide quantitative results often didn’t account for important variables. For example, one study found more students admitted inappropriate behavior in face-to-face courses, but failed to account for the number of online courses offered at that university. Much more research needs to be done in this area.
  • Everyone—students and instructors—perceives the online environment as one that is really well-suited for cheating. One survey found 74 percent of respondents felt it was easier to cheat in an online class, and 61 percent thought that their classmates would be five times more likely to cheat in an online class. (This adds to the unfortunate sense that online learning is somehow illegitimate or lacking the integrity of face-to-face courses.)
  • There is a looming prediction that as online course offerings increase, so will ways to cheat.
  • Though these stats include both online and face-to-face courses, an incredible 60.8 percent of college students admitted to cheating, and 95 percent of those who cheated reported never getting caught.
  • The online environment may open doors for “imposter students,” people hired to do students’ work for them.

The good news?

  • The good news is that there doesn’t seem to be a dramatic increase in academic honesty violations when you move your course online. According to this study, students in online courses are less likely to cheat than their face-to-face peers, contrary to common perception.
  • There are things you can do. Thank goodness! This paper outlines four strategies to curtail cheating in online assessments. I particularly like Strategy #3, which suggests modifying curriculum from term to term, and considering alternative, project-based assessments which necessitate creativity instead of giving the same multiple choice exam over and over. However, if that seems daunting, Strategy #4 is simple and effective: provide students with an academic integrity policy and talk with them about it.

Here are some resources if you’re interested in reading more:

“Impact of an Honor Code on Cheating in Online Courses” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, June 2011. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/loschiavo_0611.htm

“Cheating in the Digital Age: Do students cheat more in online courses?” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Spring 2010. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.pdf

“Point, Click, and Cheat: Frequency and Type of Academic Dishonesty in the Virtual Classroom” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Fall 2009. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/stuber123.html

“Eight Astonishing Stats on Academic Cheating”, Online Education Database, 2002. http://oedb.org/library/features/8-astonishing-stats-on-academic-cheating

“Do Students Cheat More in Online Classes? Maybe Not” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 16, 2009. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/do-students-cheat-more-in-online-classes-maybe-not/8073

“Online Classes See Cheating Go High-Tech” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 3, 2012. http://chronicle.com/article/Cheating-Goes-High-Tech/132093/

“The Shadow Scholar” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2010.  http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329/

“Ethics and Distance Education: Strategies for Minimizing Academic Dishonesty in Online Assessment”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Fall 2002. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/olt53.html

“Online Plagiarism and Cybercheating Still Strong – 61.9%”, neoacademic.com, February 2011.  http://neoacademic.com/2011/02/04/online-plagiarism-and-cybercheating-still-strong/

Better Teaching through Play

As the parent of a toddler, I’m faced with the task of choosing a preschool for my son. The most important factor on my list? That the curriculum—if it’s even called “a curriculum”—be play-based. That means I want my son digging in dirt, running around outside, making up nonsense words to songs with his imaginary friends, and in general, just being the messy, loud, unorganized, joyful beast that he is. I don’t want there to be any concern about him reaching educational or developmental benchmarks, and I certainly don’t want there to be any evaluative assessments, report cards, or homework. This isn’t because I’m against learning, of course, but because I know (and research supports) that playing is the very best way toddlers learn.

In my time learning about instructional design geared toward working adults and college students (not a mutually exclusive distinction), I’ve seen “playful” design approaches applied to myriad subjects with great success.

Once, I worked with a team to revamp a day-long, face-to-face, lecture-driven training course on complex purchasing processes (are you bored yet?). Chunking the content into multiple shorter sessions was our first idea, but not an option. We needed learners introduced to all this information in one session. Our solution was to move the course into a computer lab and create an interactive day, where learners role-played scenarios and were sent on Web-based research “missions.” (We also changed the goal from comprehension and retention of content to familiarity with resources and ability to find answers to questions.) As students worked in groups to complete their research missions, I admit we occasionally played spy music in the background. Throughout the day, we reminded learners that in the afternoon, we were going to play a Jeopardy-type game about everything they’d learned, and there would be fabulous prizes for correct answers. (As I said “fabulous prizes,” I rustled a plastic bag of chocolate candies, so as not to get their hopes too high.)

Introducing this simple, game-like aspect to the day—a final mission where learners would have an opportunity to showcase their proficiency—completely changed the tone of the day from a passive, boring litany of lectures to a series of active, goal-oriented tasks.

The upshot of our silly music and fabulous chocolate prizes? Feedback said it was a little cheesy, but that, yes, they’d learned something and knew where to go to find answers to questions in a very complex organization. I’ll take that. The game itself may have been lighthearted, but it yielded serious results.

A few weeks ago, I helped out at DePaul’s Faculty Teaching and Learning conference. The theme this year was Playing with Purpose: Applying Game Design Principles for Learning. I attended a session with James Moore, Director of Online Learning with the College of Commerce, and Beth Rubin, Director of SNL Online. Both faculty members teach online and hybrid courses and offered great examples of integrating games and playful design aspects in their course design. Some quick examples:

  • Professor Rubin played the Telephone Game with an online class using real telephones. The goal was to teach a model of communication that included a sender, a receiver, and interference. She had played this game in face-to-face classrooms previously, and discovered it worked even better out in “the real world.” By the time the message reached the final recipient, it was completely garbled and students were intensely emotional about the experience and the effort they’d expended to succeed. In an online discussion forum of just nine students, over two hundred responses were posted, which displayed critical thinking and application of the theoretical model to the real world.
  • Professor Moore applies characteristics of video games (specifically Mario and Zelda, two of his favorites) when designing his Marketing classes. For example, video games have a narrative structure including an ultimate goal that is introduced straightaway, so Professor Moore is sure to introduce students to their final project at their first meeting. Video games also frequently provide what he calls “A Quiet Place to Explore,” where there are no threats or stress, and making mistakes is okay. To emulate this quiet place in online courses, Professor Moore creates a “Week 0” space where students can familiarize themselves with tools and play around with content on practice assignments that are not graded.1

What struck me is that, of course, all content doesn’t easily or organically lend itself to playful learning opportunities, but that with a little ingenuity and creativity, the enduring learning that happens when students are genuinely motivated and engaged—emotional states that are more likely to occur when we are playing. This is also why schools should work with School playground shelter specialists to create comfortable outdoor areas for pupils to learn and play, no matter the weather.

 

1. To view a video on Professor Moore’s presentation or download his presentation handout, visit http://condor.depaul.edu/jmoore/mario/