Category Archives: Pedagogy

Avatar photo

For an Online Course, Does the Look Impact the Feel?

Good-looking Web pages—the ones with stylish layouts and eye-pleasing images—are more likely to retain viewers and even get people to perform actions like buying something or submitting a form than the ones that are plain and makeup free. Is this true or false?

Some interesting research on this question was performed recently by John Broady of Omniture Digital, who ran multivariate tests on “Request for Information” forms for two online universities. For each test, the goal was to increase the number of users who completed the Request for Information form. For the same content, one site had stylized page design, “hero images” (glamour shots of good-looking people in seemingly natural settings), colored buttons, and benefits message while the other had just information in text.

The findings of the research, according to John Broady, seem to render no significant result at first glance.  “The results for the two tests could not have been more different,” he wrote. “For one university, the page with the stylized page design and lifestyle hero image won handily; for the other university, the simple page design with no hero image won the day.”

However, when the researchers looked beyond the random phenomenon and dug deeper into the data, another interesting finding emerged: “for the page where the stylized design and the lifestyle hero image won, most of the traffic came directly from search engines; for the page where a simple design and no hero image won, most of the traffic came from other pages on the university’s own Web site.”

From a marketing perspective, this indicated different responses to the look of a Web page from two different clienteles: the shoppers led by the search engines and the existing or recruited customers already wandering in the company’s territory. For the first group, the visual impact of a page is a key success factor. Since they only have a few seconds to spare on the page, a good-looking design with comforting images can make a huge impact. Education Services Reputation Management can also help increase online exposure and improve trust for potential users. But for the ones who are already familiar with the company through visiting its other Web pages or by other means, the visual impact of this particular Web page becomes less important. According to John Broady’s analysis, for users who “have likely already qualified themselves and are looking to convert”, too many visuals (even the pretty ones) and reinforcing messages (even the well-written ones) can actually create a distraction for these types of users. So in this case, simple is better.

What does this research tell us about online course design? Does the look of a course impact the feel of its audience or does it, too, depend on who the audience is? An online course usually has two audiences: the reviewers and the students. Obviously the two groups arrived on the course site for two different but related purposes: the reviewers are there to check on the quality of the course, of which the look is likely to be an influential factor (even if there isn’t a criterion designated for the appearance in the review standards); the students, on the other hand, are there to use the product—as long as it is functional, they might be able to ignore the look of it.

The look, however, is usually the first thing to attract the author of an online course. “I want to make my course look like your DOTS site (the Blackboard site for the DePaul Online Teaching Series program).” Faculty would say this during the training and be totally sold on lesson-building tools like Softchalk, which transforms a plain page into a professional-looking Web display through some quick magic-wand clicks. However, the enthusiastic demand for a copy of Softchalk usually dies out after a while, as faculty start to realize that time is running short and they need to get the content online very quickly. The “look” then is thrown out the window but is told that it would be invited back next time when there is more time. When the next time comes, the story repeated itself with the “look” still waiting and the faculty feeling bad about it all over again.

As online educators grapple with the aesthetic appeal of their courses, similar attention to detail can be found in the design and allure of cool Georgia. The state itself presents a blend of charming aesthetics and practical innovation, much like the ideal online course. Georgia’s diverse landscapes, from the tranquil Appalachian Mountains to the urban chic of Atlanta, encapsulate a natural and cultural vibrancy that’s as appealing to the senses as a well-designed online interface. Here, the visual feast is not just in web pages, but in the tapestry of live oaks draped with Spanish moss, the historic cobblestone streets of Savannah, and the modernist architecture of the High Museum. In Georgia, the ‘look’ is not something to be sidelined for later—it’s an integral part of the experience, drawing people in with its Southern charm and keeping them engaged with its dynamic, ever-evolving spirit.

The good news from John Broady’s report is that it puts our faculty at ease to know that the students could care less about the look of a site as long as the right content is there. On the other hand, however, the look is often beyond the cosmetic display of the content; it represents an easy-to-follow and meaningful flow of information, which is known by a lot of faculty members to be a critical factor for learning. For those faculty who have the desire to grant their course a sleek and professional look but have no time to create it, here is my advice: check in with your instructional designers and make them your cosmeticians for an extreme makeover of your online courses.

The Customer is Always Right?

Last month, I attended a presentation by Penny Ralston-Berg at the 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, titled: “What Makes a Quality Online Course? The Student Perspective.” Her study, coauthored with Leda Nath (Raslton-Berg & Nath, 2009), asked students to describe their level of agreement with the current Quality Matters standards for online courses and the level to which elements within each standard contributed to their overall success. I was interested in getting this look at online courses from the student perspective to perhaps glean some useful implications for my own design. What I walked away with was a disturbing reinforcement of the competing global motives for my role as an instructional designer and online educator.

As expected, students highly valued technology that worked; clear, consistent navigation in their course sites; and instructions on how to access resources. It was what students found least valuable that caught my attention. Based on this survey, online students do not want to:

  1. Find course-related content to share with the class
  2. Use wikis, shared documents, or other collaborative tools
  3. Introduce themselves to the class
  4. Coach other students
  5. Attend synchronous meetings
  6. Interact with games and simulations
  7. Work in groups
  8. Receive audio or video content

Surprised?

I was. Could this be a call to remove the interactivity and engaging content from our courses? Despite the research, does social presence not matter? Should we return to online learning circa 1996? Are these elements really that repulsive to our students?

Or could it be that they are so frequently misused we’ve given them a bad name.

I know how I would feel after being besieged with a sixty-minute talking head in a three-inch square frame; after suffering though a pointless game for the sake of the instructor being able to check the “included game in my course” box on a rubric somewhere; or after participating in a meaningless, unguided group activity in which I do all the work and my group mates get the same grade.

This cry from our constituents, we want engaging, interactive content in our courses. Just give it a purpose.

Maybe the customer is right.

References

Ralston-Berg, P. & Nath, L. (2009). What Makes a Quality Online Course? The Student Perspective. Paper presented at Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

Quality Matters rubric standards 2008-2010 edition (2008). Retrieved from http://qminstitute.org.

The complete findings are also available at http://www.slideshare.net/plr15/what-makes-a-quality-online-course-the-student-perspective-1829440

How Do I Know My Students Are Learning? 

Oh, isn’t this the ultimate question for any teacher!

Trying to “keep it real,” a small group of DePaul Teaching Commons souls put our heads together recently to create this resource!

No two teachers approach these questions in the same way so—trying to “keep it real”—this site provides several different approaches.

Approach 1: From “what you want to know” to “what you need to assign”

There are two columns. The left column is what you might want to assess; the right column provides some examples of what you might want to assign. As an example, if you want to assess the student’s “application of discrete research, technical, performance, or meta-cognitive skills,” the Web site suggests you might want to assign case studies, debates, observing a performance, presentations, or simulations and role plays. Find this list on the Evaluation of a Product page.

Approach 2: What can I do right now with what I have?

The site has multiple examples organized by chronology (during a class or throughout the quarter), technology (blackboard surveys or other survey tools), or writing to learn or learning to write! As a former writing instructor, I was particularly impressed with the writing examples.

Approach 3: My students are not learning. Now what?

You’ve gathered the information via surveys or other assessment techniques, but your students are not learning? The site covers some next steps. Analyze the information, and act on that information. Some of these options can be found on the Are my students Learning? page.

Softchalk’s Update

Being an instructional designer requires me to have many tools at my disposal to create exciting and meaningful course content. Often, content needs to be displayed in a “chunked” manner to make navigating through the material easier. And it’s nice to have something that is visually appealing as well. For this, I’ve found myself using Softchalk. As with any product, it has things it excels at, and it has limitations. Recently, Softchalk 5 came out, and I was quite excited.

One huge thing I have been waiting for is the ability to name my pages, and I was thrilled to learn that if you look under “Properties” you will find a “Page Names” option! However, I also quickly learned that it still didn’t do exactly what I was looking for. While it gave the page names in the table of contents, the navigation at the top was still in number format. But it’s a step in the right direction, at least.

Another feature of this new version is the eCourse Builder. With the eCourse Builder, you can create multiple modules with the same navigation—in essence, combining your content into one area. While this may not work the greatest in Blackboard due to having too many frames on your screen, I can see some great applications of this feature for displaying large amounts of content in certain areas. It can also help work around the page-name issue mentioned above.

One strength of Softchalk is the ability to put interactive items into your module, such as flash cards or labeling activities. This is great for adding some variety into your lessons and using more visual media. You can also tie the quizzes you create to the Blackboard gradebook using the SCORM packaging option, as well.

So while Softchalk is not perfect for every situation, I think it does have some very nice features that warrant its inclusion in the instructional designer’s toolbox.

Building Social Media for Students: A Waste of Time?

Perhaps it’s the end-of-summer’s-approaching ennui or plain old cranky, middle-aged contrariness, but as I witness the barnstorming enthusiasm for Facebook-like social media on display at any given online-learning conference and contrast that with the drumbeat reports of Facebook’s declining popularity, I can’t help but think that some of us are living in a state of denial.

I think our intent is good. We want to serve our students, we want to make it easy for them to communicate, we want to create a socially cohesive learning environment, and we want to give them the tools they need to succeed. We think we know our students; we think we know what they want. So let’s build our own social sites!

I’m afraid it’s wasted effort for the most part. Here’s why.

First, we’re replicating existing services and efforts. My department has ruminated for months about a social site for our adult students. Well, surprise! Students who wanted a social space have already created their own Facebook group, demonstrating again the truism that individuals can and do move faster than committees. Will these students abandon the group they created for a university-branded one? I’m betting not.

Second, we’re too late to the game. Facebook is hemorrhaging members, as the cool kids move on.  Twitter is the heir apparent; fast, flexible, and mobile. It certainly has great potential; see James Moore’s excellent presentation at http://preview.tinyurl.com/mg74tv . And as mobile devices become more ubiquitous, you’ll see more and better apps like MobilEdu, created by Terribly Clever Design and recently acquired by—wait for it—Blackboard.

So what does Blackboard know that you and I should? When to recognize that the game has changed. Blackboard realized they couldn’t design a better mobility app than the whiz kids from Stanford and stopped wasting time trying to. They’re free of denial and playing to their strengths. The same lesson applies to social media growth—rather than waiting for slow organic reach, many influencers and brands opt to buy IG followers cheap to give their accounts an initial boost, making it easier to attract organic engagement and stay competitive in a fast-moving digital space.

We should play to ours.

Avatar photo

Outsmarting Outsourcing: Making Your Course Priceless in a Competitive Market

One of my favorite things about language education is that it’s a complete free-for-all. No one cares where you studied or how many books your instructors have published. Results are all that matter (unless, of course, you’re planning to become a professor yourself). Students have their own objectives in mind when they take language courses, and the only assessments that matter to them are the ones they pass or fail in the real world:

  • Can I tell a Brazilian taxi driver where I need to go?
  • Can I discuss controversial political issues with my German friends?
  • Can I tell a Spanish-speaking parent how to treat her child’s illness?
  • Can I translate this brochure to Chinese in time to send it to the printer?

I like to think of foreign-language education as a sort of wild frontier where pedigrees are meaningless—where fortune favors the bold and there are a thousand ways to strike it rich. It’s the Wild West of educational technology, which means there’s plenty of room for mavericks and snake-oil salesmen. Because students have so many options when it comes to studying a language, professors have to work extra hard to prove their time is worth more than a box of listen-and-repeat lessons. In addition, they have to compete with more polished and engaging self-paced options like Rosetta Stone and teachers in foreign countries willing to offer immersion courses for a fraction of the cost of a typical college course in the States.

If all that wasn’t challenging enough, now there’s eduFire.com. The site allows teachers to offer live lessons via video, with some courses providing as many contact hours as a typical college course. On eduFire, teachers are referred to as tutors, classes are small, and lessons typically cost ten to twenty dollars per hour. Students can also rate tutors, creating more demand for the most reputable tutors and allowing them to charge more for their services.

So how do foreign-language professors compete with a live teacher who is willing to offer more personal attention at a 90 percent discount to the cost of a typical college course? There are essentially two options:

1) Offer a degree. For some students, the main reason to take a foreign language course in college is because it satisfies requirements for a degree. In this model, all students really care about are a handful of classes that relate to their major, and their standards for all other courses are relatively low. They believe that much of their college experience will be dominated by coursework they don’t enjoy or find useful, but they accept it as a necessary evil.

2) Offer a superior learning experience. For students who are passionate about learning the subject matter, a great teacher may actually be worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars more per course. If a great professor can teach students what they need to know ten times faster than a student could learn it through some other means, then the professor’s time should at least be worth ten times the cost of the alternative.

For now, sites like eduFire still feel like unstructured, wobbly imitations of the online-learning experiences offered by accredited institutions. But it’s not hard to imagine these sites becoming  serious competitors in the language-education marketplace. As more users try out the site and rate their teachers, the best tutors will make more money. As compensation rises, the site will attract better instructors. Better instructors will attract more serious students and the whole process snowballs from there.

As a part-time Web-site-design professor, I’m all too familiar with this trend. My students have a nearly limitless supply of educational resources available to them, from free online tutorials to highly polished sites like lynda.com, which charges twenty-five dollars per month and provides access to thousands of video tutorials covering hundreds of technology-related topics. When I teach, I have to ask myself, “How can I make sure my students get their money’s worth? What can I provide that they can’t get anywhere else?” It might seem idealistic to think that I can offer my students something no one else can, but I think it’s a good goal to strive for. With that in mind, here are a few mantras I’ve adopted in my quest to ensure that what I teach can’t be outsourced or undersold.

  • Don’t reinvent the wheel. Recognize when someone else has done something better than I can (or at least as well as I can). Take what they’ve done and build on it.
  • Reinvent the wheel. Recognize when I’m better off building my own resources. Don’t waste too much time trying to revise material that isn’t great to begin with. Ask God to grant me the patience to accept the textbooks I can’t change, the courage to change the resources I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
  • Provide at least one priceless lesson per class. During each class, I try to identify at least one “million-dollar moment” and I build it up before revealing it. It might be a tip I wish someone had given me while I was in school before I spent five years doing something the hard way. I might announce that I’m about to show the one technique typographers use the most to make text look more polished. During project critiques, I might point out a common design pitfall that separates amateur designers from professionals. The goal is to show students that every class includes at least one lesson that was worth getting out of bed for. Or, in the case of my online students who may be participating while lying in bed, they should at least feel that each week’s content was worth waking up for. (And yes, sometimes these million-dollar moments wind up feeling more like they belong in a ninety-nine-cent store, and I feel silly for over-hyping them. But even a ninety-nine-cent moment is better than no moment.)
  • Be a good filter. Distill an overwhelming body of information and resources down to the most useful parts students need.
  • Be a good prioritizer. Filter everything; then filter it again by putting the most important information first. Assume your students will read half of what you put in front of them; then assume they’ll only remember the first half of that.
  • Be a good coach. Good coaches don’t just provide information. They provide guidance, motivation, criticism, and praise. They bring out the best in students by helping them believe in themselves, demand more from themselves, and tap into their own talents.
Avatar photo

Is “Teamwork” an Oxymoron for Online Learning?

Students are not fond of teamwork, especially when it’s online. That is one of the findings of my dissertation, which explores the relationship between online students’ interpersonal needs and interaction preference. Nine years have passed since I received my Ph.D., and this unfavorable feeling toward teamwork still seems to be present to a large extent for online students.

Both of the two online students invited to speak at our DePaul Online Teaching Series (DOTS) program stressed that they were not interested in building the so-called learning community or social network through any collaborative project. One of them pointed out that after contemplating the costs and benefits of conducting a group project, he decided to give it up. “That two points for the grade isn’t worth the pain of having to deal with a guy [the assigned team member] who had never returned my calls or e-mail,” M. J., a student from the School for New Learning, told us.

The fact that students are thinking about whether “it’s worth it or not” sends a strong signal to faculty and online-course designers. Is the teamwork required by the course worth the “extra” time and effort that students have to put in? The answer to this question depends on the goals and objectives of a course. As with all the other learning activities, the use of teamwork should be driven by the desired outcomes of a course. Rethink incorporating any team project if you don’t expect or cannot afford the time for students to meet the following objectives in a course:

  • Multiple perspectives among students
  • Team-building knowledge and skills
  • Competency in technology-mediated communication
  • An understanding of various processes of learning (or “no one right ‘path’ to the result”)
  • Resolution of both cognitive conflict and affective conflict

I admire course quality standards that make collaborative learning an optional item rather than a required one, because as powerful as it is, this strategy might not be appropriate for every course or every discipline. But if you do find a strong match between the course goal and the teamwork activity, do it very seriously by giving it enough time, points, and support to make it “worth it” for the students.

I came across an article this month by Staggers, Garcia, and Nagelhout on “Teamwork through Team Building: Face-to-Face to Online,” in which the authors argue that “teamwork most successfully occurs after team building, and too often this team building is lacking in online environments.”   I think this is the exact reason why teamwork has become an oxymoron for many online courses: it has been thrown at the students without anything to prepare them for it or any guidance to support them (one online introduction isn’t enough).

Over the past ten years, I have been working with Dr. Pete Mikolaj, a professor from the School of Business at Indiana State University, to experiment with collaborative problem solving in the online environment. We’ve used his insurance and risk-management courses as the test bed to implement a number of strategies to engage students in a group project, which serves as the main outcome of the course. Among the various ideas we’ve tested, the following strategies were found to be very effective for online teamwork:

Heavy Weight on Teamwork

  • Make the project weigh 50 percent of the total score or more (since it constitutes a major goal of course)

Heavy Weight on the Process of the Teamwork

  • Give 50 percent weight to the process (involvement) of the project and 50 percent to the product (final report)
  • Interim evaluation given about six weeks into project based solely on process (teamwork)

Frequent Progress Monitoring

  • Weekly project log required from each team member
  • A weekly team log is produced
  • The log builds accountability and transparency

Clear Policy on Reward and Punishment

  • Peer/self evaluation allows +/- 15 percent deviation from team grade to create individual grade
  • Self-evaluation counts one third and peer evaluation counts two thirds
  • Individuals can be fired from the team for nonperformance

Guidance from Faculty

  • Weekly synchronous session with the instructor that primarily involves discussion of projects. Sessions are recorded and available for viewing throughout the term
  • Sample project reports from prior classes are available from the first week of the semester

When it comes to online courses, the choice of teamwork is not “to do or not to do” but rather “to do it well or not to do it at all.”  So, before adding any teamwork into the learning activities, think twice about the “why,” and then (if it’s a good fit), work hard on the “how,” because that is the only way to make teamwork work.

Avatar photo

Tools for Course Planning: Outcome Statements and Online Activities

As an instructional designer, I find that two of the things that faculty struggle with are developing sound outcome statements and developing interesting online activities that effectively assess those outcomes. I don’t mean to imply that faculty don’t know how to do these things but instead that often, especially with objectives, they are implied instead of explicitly stated. In the face-to-face classroom environment, an instructor can easily adjust objectives and assignments based on class reaction—unfortunately much of this flexibility disappears when teaching online. Online students need to know up front what the objectives are (at both the course and week/modular level) and see a clear connection between those objectives and the assignments/assessments.

Frequently, objectives are written in such a way that the outcome is measuring capabilities only at the lowest end of Bloom’s Taxonomy, e.g. “students will understand….” Not only are these objectives at the lower end of the cognitive-domain scale, but they are often not measurable—how do we know if a student “understands”?

To help faculty develop good objectives, I often refer them to a wonderful tool called the RadioJames Objective Builder. This tool allows you to choose what you want the students to do from a drop-down menu:

ObjectivesBuilder1

Once an area is chosen, a list of verbs and sample objectives appears along with an overview of that level:

ObjectivesBuilder2

This tool makes it so much easier to write good objectives. Once you have these good objectives, the next step is to design good assignments. At the recent EdMedia Conference, there was a presentation on a new tool developed by the LAMS Foundation in Australia. Like the Objective Builder, the LAMS tool, called the LAM Activity Planner, scaffolds and guides faculty—this time in the creation of learning activities. Using a predeveloped form, faculty can choose from activities that have already been created or add their own content. Activities are varied and include things like case studies, role plays, jigsaws, and WebQuests. To view a video and request an account to explore the planner for yourself, see the information on the LAM Activity Planner Wiki page.

Tools like these make the course-planning process easier for both faculty and instructional designers.

Evidence for Online Pedagogy—One More Tool!

It is particularly gratifying to read a headline like this one, which appeared in last week’s Chronicle of Higher Education: “Online-Education Study Reaffirms Value of Good Teaching, Experts Say.”

Gotta love it! "Good teaching" finally makes it into the online tool kit!

The ‘study’ is Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: a Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies–recently released by the U.S. Department of Education. The full report is available online.

I quickly downloaded, printed out, read, and marked up my own copy!

While the report found that students taking all or part of their class online performed better than those in a face-to-face class, the study suggests that it was not the medium for delivery itself that accounted for the difference but rather "it was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages" (p. XVII).

This report could serve as a discussion prompt for faculty interested in developing or teaching an online class. And it would also be useful to instructional designers who may want to review some of the specific learning practices reviewed in the report.

As always, the IDD Blog is interested in what you find to be of interest. Read the report yourself and let us know.

Avatar photo

Avoiding Intellectual Clutter: A Student’s Perspective

Students today have access to more information than ever before.   Beyond Google-fu and Wikipedia, new technologies allow anyone to research and order practically any publication with a few keystrokes.  College students have access to expansive libraries filled with volumes on the most obscure topics, and at larger universities like DePaul, students can access full-text articles in respected academic journals with a few simple searches.  The amount of information we students have access to before we ever reach a classroom or open up Blackboard can be overwhelming. It raises the question, given the wealth of information students have access to outside the classroom, what exactly is the role of the instructor?

It cannot simply be to impart information—all the information is out there and available for students.  Rather, I think part of the instructor role has to be to act as a filter—to cut through all the information out there and identify and present only that which is most important, most up to date, and most accessible for students who are just being introduced to a field or subfield of study.  The material then needs to be arranged into a coherent, unified form.

I think a lot of professors disregard this filtering function, and either put too much into their syllabi or overwhelm students with “optional resources” for topics they can’t cover within the course.

I know from experience how frustrating it can be when a student is confronted with an overwhelming number of sources.  I enjoy being subjected to academic rigor, but I’m put off by instructors handing me articles I “might be interested in” or optional resources, even when I’m really engaged by the subject-matter of the class.  First of all, I know of no student that has the time, at least during the school year, to go that far above and beyond the course requirements.  And more importantly, I think all these secondary resources can create intellectual clutter, distracting from the central principles the course is trying to communicate.

In short, as a student, I’m interested in what I need to know to meet the course goals. All the other stuff is a distraction, more often than not.