Search News


Browse Archives

News

Learning From Online

December 7, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Most professors agree that more work goes into designing an online course than a face-to-face one. But if those professors are interested in improving their teaching skills, it might be worth the extra effort.

So say researchers at Purdue University at Calumet, who believe that learning how to do distance education properly can make professors better at designing and administering their classroom-based courses.

“Most of the professors who teach at the university level have had no experience with pedagogy or instruction in general,” says Janet Buckenmeyer, chair of the instructional technology master’s program at Calumet. “They’re content experts, not teaching experts.”

Since most professors have spent their lives holding forth from the front of a lecture hall, many have not had to engineer their lesson plans with the sort of rigor required of a well-designed online course, Buckenmeyer says.

When teaching online, she says, “You have to pay more attention to the navigation of the course, the clarity of the course, the objectives of the course, the reason why you’re assigning activities and assessments, [and make] certain everything is perfectly clear to the students. In a face-to-face situation, you can get by with just coming in and not having prepared and winging a class session. You can’t do that online.”

Or rather, you can’t do that online if you expect students to learn well. “You can develop a really bad online course,” says Buckenmeyer, without necessarily knowing it. In order to teach well online, she says, professors need guidance.

That was the thesis behind the creation of Calumet’s Distance Education Mentoring Project. The project takes faculty who are looking to adapt their classroom courses to the online environment and teams them up with Web-savvy colleagues. Those mentors advise the novices on best practices for online course design and oversee them through the first semester of the online version of the course. (An article detailing the project, authored by Buckenmeyer and two colleagues, is scheduled to appear in the January issue of the International Journal of E-Learning.)

Emily Hixon, an assistant professor of educational psychology at Calumet, is collaborating with Buckenmeyer and others to explore more formally how distance-education mentoring programs might affect professors’ teaching principles. While their research is still “in its infancy” -- they are currently waiting on survey results -- they state in a research brief that “there seems to anecdotal evidence that many faculty members experience shifts in pedagogical beliefs after developing and teaching an online course."

Interested in Technology Issues?
Visit our "In Focus" page, which
features highlights of our coverage
on distance ed, teaching with
technology, and other topics. And
sign up for our Twitter feed at
http://twitter.com/ihetech

The Calumet researchers plan to present their preliminary findings at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in April.

One of the researchers, Casimir Barczyk, a veteran professor at the Calumet school of management, is an alumnus of the Distance Education Mentoring Project. He says he was leery of the program at first, but was won over in the process of adapting a course on human resources management to the Web, and joined the research team about nine months later.

Barczyk had been a professor at the management school for more than two decades, including eight years teaching courses online, when he was instructed to undergo mentoring after students habitually dropped out of his online courses, or gave them poor reviews.

“I was skeptical,” Barczyk says. “I said, 'What can I possibly learn -- I’m a full professor, I’ve been doing classroom education for over 20 years, I’ve been doing online education for about eight years, so what can I possibly learn?' ”

What he learned was how to engineer assignments and assessments toward explicit educational objectives. If Barczyk needs students to learn how to think analytically about hiring rubrics, for example, he would not use simple true or false question to evaluate their progress.

After learning the value of objectives-oriented course design in his online courses, he applied the same principles to the classroom courses he had taught for decades. Student performance improved in both, he says.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Learning From Online

  • I'm Puzzled
  • Posted by Retired Prof on December 7, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • "After learning the value of objectives-oriented course design in his online courses, he applied the same principles to the classroom courses he had taught for decades."

    I encountered this situation many times in the course of my career (stretching back to the 1970s) attempting to help faculty develop technology based classroom materials - no objectives, unless you count some fuzzy goal statements in the syllabus, and no desire to write any. So, if one teaches a course and has not set down objectives, how does one prove one has taught anything? That question usually produced a deer-in-theheadlights look and, on one occassion, the statement, "Oh, I don't believe in that stuff."

    Hopefully these objectives will behavioral objectives and define A) the intended audience, B) the behavior required of that audience, C) the conditions under which it will perform, and C) the degree of acceptable behavior required to achieve the objective. Think "ABCD" -- audience, behavior, conditions, and degree. Fuzzy goal statements are not measurable; behavior objectives are.

    Now, the next step would be to introduce the faculty to Benjamin Bloom to determine the category into which the objective falls, and then determine which types of strategies and activities have been shown to be most likely to succeed in eliciting the desired behavior. (Hopefully, we will not need to wait another 40 years for this to happen.)

    It is exceedingly encouraging to see faculty in higher education giving course objectives the serious attention they deserve...

  • They don't belive in that
  • Posted by Instruction and assessment on December 7, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • To add a short comment to the previous post.

    From my experience most faculty indeed do not believe in the use and usefulness of learning outcomes. Unless faculty come from the School of Education it is very likely they did not hear about Bloom's taxonomy.
    And if they did (even some from schools of education), they do not know that it was revised in 2001, and keep referring to the 1956 version.
    I know faculty in school of education who are openly against any kind of behaviorist objectives, and measures, and of course against what Bloom is for, not talking about being against learning outcomes (those behavioral objectives that must be measurable, and not fuzzy).

    I think we do need 40 more years to have faculty learn what a good course design and assessment is. But then, I might be optimistic (sic).

  • On-line teaching
  • Posted by Betty , Adjunct Faculty on December 7, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • My opinion may not "matter" since I am Adjunct Faculty in a community college. I have taught through three generations. I always wrote objectives but teaching on line the last several years has increased my organizational ability for the class (I teach only one subject--in my area of education). I am going back into the classroom this spring and think I will do better in the classroom because of the on-line experiences. Plus I get to tell all the "stories" that not fit well on-line.

  • Composition Studies & Pedagogy
  • Posted by William Marcellino , Graduate Student at Carnegie Mellon University on December 7, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • In my department, PhD students serve as full instructors for the 101 writing course, responsible for writing their own syllabus and administering the course from soup to nuts. However, students in the rhetoric program are required to take a pedagogy seminar, whereas students in literary & culture studies do not receive any formal training in pedagogy beyond our first year practicum.

    It's perplexing--we hold ourselves out as teachers, but only a small minority of us study how to teach. It's either a disciplinary quirk (rhetoric & composition), or an individual quirk (hey, how does this stuff work?), but as Ret. Prof points out, pedagogy is a mystery or bunk to university instructors as a body.

  • It doesn't have to be terribly complicated
  • Posted by Susan on December 7, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • I work with faculty who are not interested in learning about instructional design (at all), and so I tell them that if they can answer just three questions they'll be on their way to an outstanding course:

    1) What do you want your students to be able to do as a result of taking your class?

    2) What should students do to learn how to do these things? (Note: this doesn't say, "What will you do to teach?")

    3) How will you know if they can do what you specified in your answer to question 1?

    97% of the people I work with couldn't tell you anything at all about instructional design, but they've done a great job with these three questions, which form the basis of just about every ID model you can name. Start with the key concepts, focus on how students learn (i.e., by doing something, also known as "engagement"), and introduce faculty to a wide variety of tools that they can include in their teaching repertoire. This is a simple idea -- albeit not necessarily an easy one -- and powerful enough to use with any discipline at any level with any group of students.

  • mandatory training for faculty who teach online
  • Posted by Kenneth Green at The Campus Computing Project on December 7, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • Data from the fall 2009 MANAGING ONLINE EDUCATION survey conducted by WCET and The Campus Computing Project reveal that more than half (53 pct) of the 182 institutions participating in the survey require faculty have mandatory training programs for faculty who teach online and that these training programs average 27.5 hours - a significant commitment for both the institution and the individuals. Moreover, the numbers stand in stark contrast to any mandated training for faculty who teach in "traditional," on-campus classes.

    Additional information about the survey are available on the web: www.campuscomputing.net/survey/online-education-2009

    Kenneth C. Green
    The Campus Computing Project

  • changing traditional pedagogy
  • Posted by Misty on December 7, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • One of the best experiences I have had is teaching a specific face to face while teaching the same course online. I was able to see firsthand how my teaching styles differ from one to the other and I have to say that, based on the grades and quality of participation, my online students learned more, had a better understanding of the concepts I was teaching, and interacted more with their peers and me than my face to face students.

    Being a graduate student who was given a book and a sample generic syllabus and told to “teach” a course, I found myself teaching the way I was taught. As student demographics change, so should one’s pedagogical style. One way to keep teaching and learning moving forward is to take advantage of advances in technology. Gone are the days when using AV materials in the classroom is considered progressive. What worked 20 years ago just doesn’t work now. As I move into my dissertation research regarding GTA perceptions of online teaching, I find myself looking back at my own first face to face class and am proud to say that my teaching has greatly improved as a result of teaching online courses.

  • You folks give me great hope
  • Posted by Retired Prof on December 8, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Susan's comment has it just exactly right; it doesn't need to be complicated. I went through grad school in the mid 70s when instructional design was just becoming a hot topic thanks to the emergence of systems design in the business and commercial world. The profs at that time made ID an extremely complicated proposition, and it can be. But ID folks have to make it simpler for faculty or they just won't do it. When I entered higher education I ran into an extremely wise colleague who -- without a background in the dicipline -- commented on ID. She said, "Always ask yourself why are they doing this and why are they doing it now." Blew me away. Summed up a number of years of study. We need to make it just that simple for our faculty and, as I said, Susan has it exactly right.

    Misty's willingness to delve into pedagogy and design is laudable, and I salute you for it. I believed -- long before I read this article -- that on line instruction would cause faculty to look more closely and critically at their pedagogy. If they bungle something in the classroom, it's most likely no one is going to say anything about it. Do that on line and students will let you know immediatley and incessantly. And there are also the facts that 1) a great deal of thought must go into molding the course to a new medium and 2) that you cannot think of just day one or week one or month one -- you must think in terms of day one through finals and see the course sequence in it's entirety.

    As I said in my earlier comment, things are looking up for teaching in higher ed.

  • Balancing online and in-calss education delivery
  • Posted by Keith Flotte , Adjunct Professor at Brevard Community College on December 8, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
  • I agree with Susan and Retired Professor regarding their comments on ID and "the end result" desired for the learner taking the course, including the associated instructional delivery methods. I too went through grad school in the '70s and that was a totally different era, i.e. "BI" - before Internet. Now, we (instructor and learners) have a plethora of methods for online research methods for any course that the instructor can, and should provide guidance to the learner. However, the guidance or "road map" for online research for the learners - in order to "energize" them - usually has to be instructor outlined for various reasons, primarily because the learners' emphasis is placed on the content of the textbook(s) associated with the course (where's the answer in the book?), and quite possibly, a weak syllabus that doesn't provide achievable expectations for both the learner and the instructor. I try to promote a "think outside the box" mentality with my learners and provide as many primary "roadmaps" for learner self-enlightenment regarding the course material. I believe our role as an educator in teaching online course content, and in providing the methodologies for the learner to fully explore and discover content on their own, is paramount to the expected outcome of the online course, albeit the learners' overall participation, the ways to learn within the online curriculum, and the application of the knowledge and skills learned to the best of their ability - makes it all come togther - for both the learner and the instructor.