Research Anthology on Remote Teaching and Learning and the Future of Online Education 1668475405, 9781668475409

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Editorial Advisory Board
List of Contributors
Table of Contents
Preface
Section 1: Fundamental Concepts and Theories
Chapter 1: Online Education Past, Current, and Future
Chapter 2: Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution
Chapter 3: Thriving Through Disruption
Chapter 4: Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning
Chapter 5: Impact of Online Learning in K-12
Chapter 6: Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings
Chapter 7: Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis
Section 2: Development and Design Methodologies
Chapter 8: Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts
Chapter 9: Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning
Chapter 10: Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?
Chapter 11: Intentionality in Blended Learning Design
Chapter 12: Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students
Chapter 13: Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching
Chapter 14: From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning
Chapter 15: Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods
Chapter 16: Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments Using Universal Design for Learning
Chapter 17: Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL
Chapter 18: Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory
Chapter 19: Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment
Chapter 20: Continuity and Developments in Terms of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments
Chapter 21: Andragogy and Online Discussions
Chapter 22: The Same but Different
Chapter 23: Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context
Chapter 24: Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program
Chapter 25: Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning
Chapter 26: Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration
Chapter 27: Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America's K-12 Teachers
Chapter 28: Faculty Development for Online Teaching
Chapter 29: Designing and Delivering Online Professional Development Courses for Online Educators
Chapter 30: Applying a Teaching Decision Cycle to the Design of Online Learning Within Faculty Professional Development
Chapter 31: Self-Directed Learning in Cooperative Online Networks
Chapter 32: Design, Development, and Implementation of an E-Learning Course
Section 3: Tools and Technologies
Chapter 33: Defining Multimedia
Chapter 34: Technology and Culturally Competent Strategies for the Online Classroom
Chapter 35: Using Learning Management Systems to Promote Online Instruction
Chapter 36: Emerging Instructional Design and Strategies for Online Courses
Chapter 37: Surviving Learning and Teaching Online
Chapter 38: Strategies for Engaging Students in the Online Environment
Chapter 39: Student Clustering Based on Learning Behavior Data in the Intelligent Tutoring System
Chapter 40: Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome
Chapter 41: Understanding the Use of Online Tools Embedded Within a Virtual Learning Environment
Chapter 42: Assisting Peer Learning Performance Using Online Collaborative Tools in Virtual Learning Environments
Chapter 43: Live Sessions and Accelerated Online Project-Based Courses
Chapter 44: MOOCs Learners
Chapter 45: ISTE Standards for Students, Digital Learners, and Online Learning
Chapter 46: Writing Bees, Wikis, Problem-Based Learning, and Assessment
Chapter 47: Transforming Online Learning Beyond the Digital Data
Chapter 48: Engagement in Emergency Remote Education
Chapter 49: Engaging Online K-12 Students
Chapter 50: Using Multimodal Pedagogy to Teach Languages Online
Chapter 51: Online Learning for the Adult Learners Using Andragogy
Chapter 52: Synchronous Online Learning
Chapter 53: Engaging a Workbench Dialectic Inquiry Model in an Online Master's Degree Program
Chapter 54: E-Transformation in Higher Education and What It Coerces for the Faculty
Chapter 55: Holistic Evaluation Strategies to Empower Remote Adjunct Faculty
Chapter 56: Investigating Online Instructors' Experiences With Constructivist Pedagogy in a Private University
Chapter 57: Moving Targeted Online Learner Analytics Into the Hands of Teachers
Chapter 58: Role of ICT for Community in Education During COVID-19
Section 4: Utilization and Applications
Chapter 59: Student Behavior in an Online Learning Environment
Chapter 60: Gender Characteristics
Chapter 61: Understanding Self-Regulated Learning and Its Importance in Online Learning
Chapter 62: Online Learning Support in a Ubiquitous Learning Environment
Chapter 63: Fostering Social Presence on Virtual Learning Teams
Chapter 64: A Theoretical Perspective of Inequities in Online Learning/Education Based on Generational Differences
Chapter 65: A Case Study in the Application of Transformative Learning Theory
Chapter 66: Reflecting on Self-Reflection
Chapter 67: Building Engagement in K-12 Online Learning
Chapter 68: Engaging Graduate Students During a Pandemic
Chapter 69: Developing Successful Online Degree Programs at a Historically Black University
Chapter 70: Designing Caring and Inclusive Online Classroom Environments for Non-Traditional Learners
Chapter 71: A Case Study Examining How Online Andragogy Has Reshaped Expectations for Face-to-Face Instruction
Chapter 72: Scaling Online Education at a Small, Private University
Chapter 73: Engaging Students in Emergency Remote Teaching
Chapter 74: The Transformation of an ESL Teacher From the Face-to-Face to the Online Environment
Chapter 75: The Potential of English for Social Purposes and Cooperation for Emergency Remote Language Teaching
Chapter 76: Completing Student-Teaching Internships Online
Chapter 77: Factors Influencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching
Chapter 78: The Impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) on Language Education
Chapter 79: State of the Art About COVID-19's Impact on Santiago University, Cape Verde
Chapter 80: How COVID-19 Has Stimulated Innovation in the Chinese Education Sector
Chapter 81: Case Study on Coaching Community College Faculty Member Experiences Transitioning to Online Education During COVID-19
Section 5: Organizational and Social Implications
Chapter 82: Computer to Community
Chapter 83: Early Predictors of Persistence and Performance in Online Language Courses
Chapter 84: Perceptions of Presence and Community in Immersive Online Learning Environments
Chapter 85: The Importance of Social Presence and Strategies for Incorporating It Into an Online Course
Chapter 86: Experiences of Educators in Imparting Digital Education and 21st Century Skills to Modern Students
Chapter 87: Student Perceptions of Learning Digital Literacy Online in a Leadership Program
Chapter 88: Prove You Are Not a Dog
Chapter 89: A Close Look at Trust Among Team Members in Online Learning Communities
Chapter 90: Learner “Mixed Embodiment” in Face-to-Face, Blended, and Fully Online Learning
Chapter 91: Expectations, Experiences, and Preferences of Students in a Dual Mode Program
Chapter 92: Lessons From the Other Side of the Computer
Chapter 93: Comparison of Student Achievement and Problem-Solving Techniques for Integration Between Online and Face-to-Face Calculus Courses
Chapter 94: Online Education in India and the Widening Digital Divide
Chapter 95: Investigating Creativity in Online K-12 World Language Classrooms
Chapter 96: Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching
Chapter 97: Investigating Student Perceptions and the Effectiveness of K-12 Blended Learning Communities
Chapter 98: Institutional Policies and Online Education in Developing Countries
Chapter 99: Examining Graduate Students' Cooperative Learning Experiences in an Online Reading Course
Chapter 100: Factors Influencing Virtual Learning System Usage in Higher Education
Chapter 101: Cultivating the Online Graduate Student Experience
Chapter 102: Private Interactions in Online Discussions
Chapter 103: The K-12 Teacher's Perspective on Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Chapter 104: From In-Person to Online Teaching
Chapter 105: Digital Literacy Gender Gap in E-Education Through Social Media During the COVID-19 Lockdown in Pakistan and Turkey
Chapter 106: Inequities Revealed
Chapter 107: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on E-Learning Strata Among University Students in Morocco
Section 6: Managerial Impact
Chapter 108: Online Strategies for Stimulating Learner Engagement
Chapter 109: Maximizing the Social Dynamics, Work Processes, and Target Outcomes of Learning Groups Online
Chapter 110: MOOCs and the Challenges They Pose to Higher Education
Chapter 111: Examining the Evolution of Key Characteristics in Faculty Mentoring Programs for Online Adjunct Faculty
Chapter 112: A Conceptual Study on Employer Perception towards Hiring Employee with Online Degree/Certification
Chapter 113: Faculty Resistance to Change
Chapter 114: Beyond Onboarding
Chapter 115: Managing Online Teaching Faculty
Chapter 116: What Teachers Should and Shouldn't Do During Online Teaching
Chapter 117: Supporting Faculty and Students During Pandemic Conditions
Section 7: Critical Issues and Challenges
Chapter 118: Considering the Fourth Quadrant Learning
Chapter 119: Do Student-Written Responses to Reflection Questions Predict Persistence and Performance in Online Courses?
Chapter 120: Cross-Cultural Communication Differences in Online Learning
Chapter 121: Unexpected Opportunities
Index

Citation preview

---

Research Anthology on Remote Teaching and Learning and the Future of Online Education Information Resources Management Association USA

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2023 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Information Resources Management Association, editor. Title: Research anthology on remote teaching and learning and the future of online education / Information Resources Management Association, editor. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This reference explores the recent developments, strategies, and innovations in remote teaching and learning that have been implemented globally, covering topics such as emergency remote teaching, psycho-social well-being, and cross-cultural communication”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022039951 (print) | LCCN 2022039952 (ebook) | ISBN 9781668475409 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781668475416 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Web-based instruction. Classification: LCC LB1028.57 .R47 2023 (print) | LCC LB1028.57 (ebook) | DDC 371.33/44678--dc23/eng/20220914 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022039951 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022039952 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Editor-in-Chief Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, DBA Information Resources Management Association, USA

Associate Editors Steve Clarke, University of Hull, UK Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, University of Tampere, Finland

Editorial Advisory Board Sherif Kamel, American University in Cairo, Egypt In Lee, Western Illinois University, USA Jerzy Kisielnicki, Warsaw University, Poland Amar Gupta, Arizona University, USA Craig van Slyke, University of Central Florida, USA John Wang, Montclair State University, USA Vishanth Weerakkody, Brunel University, UK



List of Contributors

Abernathy, Dixie Friend / Queens University of Charlotte, USA.......................................... 2059, 2435 Adanır, Gulgun Afacan / Ankara University, Turkey........................................................................ 721 Akella, Nirupama / Independent Researcher, USA......................................................................... 1419 Akgün-Özbek, Ela / Anadolu University, Turkey............................................................................ 1086 Alexander, Paul C. / University of Toronto, Canada........................................................................ 2030 Altowairiki, Noha / University of Calgary, Canada.......................................................................... 294 Amina, Tabassum / University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA........................................... 883 Amponsah, Samual / University of Ghana, Ghana........................................................................... 219 Anane, Prince / University of Ghana, Ghana.................................................................................... 219 Arnold, Jackie Marshall / University of Dayton, USA.................................................................... 1969 Aşan, Cihat / Piri Reis University, Turkey......................................................................................... 349 Atay, Tülay / Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Turkey................................................... 2103 AuCoin, Dena / Purdue University Global, USA............................................................................. 1653 Aysu, Semahat / Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Turkey........................................................... 1580 Badu-Nyarko, Samual Kofi / University of Ghana, Ghana............................................................... 219 Bagasra, Anisah / Kennesaw State University, USA....................................................................... 1401 Bai, Hua / Northeastern Illinois University, USA............................................................................ 1737 Banu, Diana Elena / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania.............................................. 1333 Baran, Mette L. / Cardinal Stritch University, USA............................................................................ 79 Bartlett, Michelle E. / North Carolina State University, USA......................................................... 1635 Beisser, Sally R. / Drake University, USA........................................................................................ 1121 Bell, Andreea Roxana / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania......................................... 1333 Bezboruah, Karabi C. / The University of Texas at Arlington, USA................................................. 857 Black, Ginger C. / Queens University of Charlotte, USA....................................................... 1830, 2435 Blake, Marlene N. / Grand Canyon University, USA....................................................................... 1112 Boboc, Marius / Cleveland State University, USA............................................................................ 370 Bolt, Les / Appalachian State University, USA................................................................................ 1691 Boothe, Kathleen A. / Southeastern Oklahoma State University, USA.............................................. 155 Bordea, Constanța / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania............................................. 1333 Bowen, Mauvalyn M. / Bethel University, USA................................................................................. 554 Bradley, Vaughn Malcolm / Montgomery County Public Schools, USA.......................................... 700 Brett, Clare / University of Toronto, Canada.................................................................................. 2030 Brieger, Earl William / Gannon University, USA.............................................................................. 401 Brigui, Hind / Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco.................................................................. 2142 Brunhofer, Lindsay / University of Denver, USA................................................................................ 32  



Bularca, Elena Corina / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania........................................ 1333 Bunkowski, Lisa M. / Texas A&M University, Central Texas, USA................................................. 2244 Burns, Amy / University of Calgary, Canada................................................................................... 294 Camilleri, Vanessa / University of Malta, Malta............................................................................... 617 Ceglie, Robert J. / Queens University of Charlotte, USA................................................................. 2435 Ceglie, Robert John / Queens University of Charlotte, USA........................................................... 1830 Chakravarti, Sriya / Higher Colleges of Technology, UAE............................................................ 1721 Chan, Ka Long Roy / The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong................................... 2337 Cheney, Amelia W. / Appalachian State University, USA................................................................ 1691 Chitanana, Lockias / Midlands State University, Zimbabwe............................................................ 570 Chitiyo, Rufaro A. / Tennessee Technological University, USA...................................................... 1300 Chuang, Szufang / Indiana State University, USA.......................................................................... 1223 Cohen, Anat / Tel Aviv University, Israel.............................................................................. 1672, 2401 Commander, Nannette / Georgia State University, USA................................................................ 1241 Cortes Kennedy, Alyssa S. / University of the Incarnate Word, USA.............................................. 1382 Cottrell, Gregory / North Hunterdon High School, USA................................................................ 1154 Crowder, Cindy L. / Indiana State University, USA........................................................................ 1223 Davis, Kate / University of Southern Queensland, Australia........................................................... 1808 Degeng, I Nyoman Sudana / State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia.................................. 804 Dennis, Michelle / Adler University, USA............................................................................... 236, 2359 Dolfi, Jordan / North Carolina State University, USA..................................................................... 1635 Doman, Evelyn / University of Guam, Guam.................................................................................. 1497 Dommett, Eleanor Jane / King’s College London, London, UK....................................................... 821 Dos Santos, Luis Miguel / Woosong University, South Korea......................................................... 1540 Ekici, Murat / Usak University, Turkey........................................................................................... 1562 Ellington, Linda / Southern New Hampshire University, USA....................................................... 2217 Elliott, Joshua / Fairfield University, USA...................................................................................... 1708 Espinet, Tamara / University of Southern California, USA............................................................ 2306 Fatawi, Izzul / State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia........................................................ 804 Fenderson, Douglas Graham / Midwestern State University, USA................................................. 2074 Ferguson, Sarah / Old Dominion University, USA.......................................................................... 1851 Festinger, Eitan / Tel Aviv University, Israel................................................................................... 1672 Filback, Robert A. / University of Southern California, USA.......................................................... 2306 Fincham, Naiyi Xie / University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA............................................................. 449 Fleetwood, April / Florida Virtual School, USA............................................................................. 1929 Flores, Serena / University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA.............................................................. 979 Fuller, Mila Thomas / University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA........................................ 904 Gabbay, Hagit / Tel Aviv University, Israel........................................................................... 1672, 2401 García-Pastor, María Dolores / Faculty of Education, University of Valencia, Spain...................... 958 Garretson, Christopher J. / Columbus State University, USA........................................................ 1022 Gillow-Wiles, Henry / Southern Oregon University, USA.............................................................. 1063 Glick, Danny / University of California, Irvine, USA...................................................................... 2401 Goda, Yoshiko / Kumamoto University, Japan.................................................................................. 254 Goldstein, Allie / The Pennsylvania State University, USA............................................................. 2011 Gratz, Erin / University of La Verne, La Verne, USA..................................................................... 2290 Greenberg, Daphne / Georgia State University, USA..................................................................... 1241



Grubišić, Ani / University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia.............................................. 785 Gulbahar, Yasemin / Ankara University, Turkey.............................................................................. 721 Guzman Foster, Sandra L. / University of the Incarnate Word, USA............................................. 1382 Hai-Jew, Shalin / Kansas State University, USA..................................................... 48, 124, 1790, 2191 Hall, Carol A. / University of Phoenix, USA...................................................................................... 275 Hampel, Regine / The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK............................................................ 174 Hartmann, Elizabeth / Lasell University, USA................................................................................. 315 Hartshorne, Richard / University of Central Florida, USA........................................................... 1929 Henry, Katya / Queensland University of Technology, Australia.................................................... 1808 Hewapathirana, Gertrude I. / Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait....................... 554 Hill, Laurie / St. Mary’s University, Canada..................................................................................... 294 Hirashima, Tsukasa / Department of Information Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Japan.............................................................................................................. 804 Hlas, Anne Cummings / University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA............................................... 1886 Hlas, Christopher S. / University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA.................................................. 1886 Hoffman, Michael S. / St. Bonaventure University, USA................................................................. 1463 Hogan, Robert P. / Walden University, USA.................................................................................... 2169 Howard, Lyz / University College Isle of Man, UK........................................................................... 911 Huah, Goh Lay / HELP University, Malaysia.................................................................................. 2378 Huertas-Abril, Cristina A. / University of Córdoba, Spain............................................................ 1517 Inel Ekici, Didem / Usak University, Turkey................................................................................... 1562 Iqbal, Iqra / University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan......................................................... 2103 Isaboke, Caroline Nduku / The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya............................... 2323 Jack, Shelley / St. Bonaventure University, USA............................................................................. 1463 Jaleel, Haniffa Beevi Abdul / Taylor’s University, Malaysia............................................................. 938 Jalil, Habibah Ab / Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.............. 840 Jiang, Zhongyue / Independent Researcher, China......................................................................... 1612 Johnson, Carol / University of Melbourne, Australia........................................................................ 294 Johnson, Jennie Larry / University of North Texas, USA.................................................................. 535 Johnson, Karen R. / University of North Texas, USA........................................................................ 554 Jones, Janice E. / Cardinal Stritch University, USA............................................................................. 79 Kammer, Jenna / University of Central Missouri, USA.................................................................. 1314 Kanga, Anne W. / The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya............................................. 2323 Kato, Hiroshi / The Open University of Japan, Japan...................................................................... 254 Kavun, Natalia / Ohio University, USA............................................................................................. 331 Kennedy, Caran / University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA....................................................... 654 Khan, Adil Akhtar / University of North Texas, USA........................................................................ 535 Khan, Rubaina / University of Toronto, Canada............................................................................. 2030 Kiekel, Jean / University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA................................................................. 979 Kipp, Kristin / Boise State University, USA.................................................................................... 1360 Kwapy, Justina Elise / Grand Canyon University, USA.................................................................... 667 Kwok, Samuel / Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China......................................................... 1612 Lancaster, Sean J. C. / Grand Valley State University, USA............................................................. 473 Lazăr, Elena Diana / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania............................................. 1333 Lemoine, Pamela A. / Troy University, USA.................................................................................... 1022 Li, Guofang / University of British Columbia, Canada..................................................................... 449



Lim, Chee Leong / Taylor’s University, Malaysia.............................................................................. 840 Lin, Yu Peng / University of Detroit Mercy, USA............................................................................. 1202 Ling, Pauline Teo Hwa / Taylor’s University, Malaysia.................................................................... 938 Little, Sharon C. / Walden University, USA..................................................................................... 2169 Lock, Jennifer / University of Calgary, Canada............................................................................... 294 Lohmann, Marla J. / Colorado Christian University, USA............................................................... 155 Looney, Lisa / University of La Verne, La Verne, USA.................................................................... 2290 Luongo, Nicole / Saint Peter’s University, USA................................................................................. 496 Mahoney, Jamie / Murray State University, USA.............................................................................. 275 Mangwende, Lina / University of South Africa, South Africa........................................................... 101 Ma’rof, Aini Marina / Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia............................................................. 840 Matsuda, Takeshi / Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan.............................................................. 254 Matuga, Julia M. / Bowling Green State University, USA................................................................. 517 McClannon, Terry / Appalachian State University, USA............................................................... 1691 McGinn, Amy L. / Loyola University Maryland, USA..................................................................... 1044 Mense, Evan G. / Southeastern Louisiana University, USA............................................................. 1022 Michalec, Paul / University of Denver, USA........................................................................................ 32 Miyagawa, Hiroyuki / Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan................................................................ 254 Monteiro, José Mascarenhas / Santiago University, Cape Verde................................................... 1597 Mphahlele, Ramashego Shila / University of South Africa, South Africa....................................... 1265 Muchapondwa, Edwin / University of Cape Town, South Africa & Luleå University of Technology, Sweden....................................................................................................................... 101 Mulder, David J. / Dordt College, USA............................................................................................ 1758 Nadolny, Jesselyn J. / University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA................................................... 1886 Naresh B. / Pune Institute of Business Management, Maharashtra, India....................................... 2275 Nduagbo, Kieran Chidi / Independent Researcher, USA...................................................................... 1 Ng, Boon-Yuen / Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore............................................ 1479 Nguyen, Linh Cuong / Charles Sturt University, Australia............................................................. 1808 Nhatuve, Diocleciano / University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe & Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique................................................................................................................................ 1952 Niess, Margaret L. / Oregon State University, USA......................................................................... 1063 Northcote, Maria / Avondale College of Higher Education, Australia............................................. 425 Ntuli, Herbert / University of Cape Town, South Africa................................................................... 101 Ntuli, Victor / National University of Lesotho, Lesotho.................................................................... 101 Nussli, Natalie / University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland.................................................................................................................................... 191 Nyemba, Florence / University of Cincinnati, USA......................................................................... 1300 Obodai, Godfred Alfred Nii Sai / University of South Africa, South Africa..................................... 219 Oh, Kevin / University of San Francisco, USA.................................................................................. 191 O’Malley, John A. / Regis University, USA.......................................................................................... 32 Orr, Lynne / William Paterson University, USA & Walden University, USA.................................. 2169 Ostrowski, Christopher P. / University of Calgary, Canada............................................................. 294 Owiny, Ruby L. / Trinity International University, USA.................................................................... 315 Özkul, Ali Ekrem / Anadolu University, Turkey.............................................................................. 1086 Padayachee, Indira / University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.................................................. 1985 Palacios-Hidalgo, Francisco Javier / University of Córdoba, Spain............................................... 1517



Partridge, Helen / University of Southern Queensland, Australia.................................................. 1808 Paulson, Karen / The Pennsylvania State University, USA............................................................. 2011 Peart, Tasha / Louisiana State University – Shreveport, USA......................................................... 2422 Pesce, Raquel / Florida Virtual School, USA.................................................................................. 1929 Poirier, Sandra / Middle Tennessee State University, USA............................................................... 517 Potter, Rachel / Mary Baldwin University, USA............................................................................. 2125 Rajalakshmi M. / Pune Institute of Business Management, Maharashtra, India............................ 2275 Ramahi, Refa Jamal / Birzeit University, Palestine........................................................................... 634 Ray, Beverly B. / Idaho State University, USA................................................................................. 1445 Resende, Isabel Christine / Nazareth Area School District, USA.................................................... 1154 Rice, Kerry L. / Boise State University, USA................................................................................... 1360 Richardson, Michael D. / Global Tertiary Institute, USA................................................................ 1022 Robinson, Timothy J. / Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA................................................................................................................................ 785 Saad, Wan Zuhainis / University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia............................................................. 840 Saçak, Begüm / Erikson Institute, USA............................................................................................. 331 Saeed, Anum / Center for Advance Studies in Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan......................... 1174 Saito, Yutaka / Fuji Electric Co., Ltd., Japan................................................................................... 254 Sanders, Robert L. / Appalachian State University, USA................................................................ 1691 Sanlı, Şeyda / Uşak University, Turkey............................................................................................ 1580 Šarić-Grgić, Ines / Faculty of Science, University of Split, Split, Croatia........................................ 785 Sarmento, Eduardo Moraes / CEsA-CSG, Lisbon University, Portugal & Lusófona University, Portugal....................................................................................................................................... 1597 Savitskaya, Alyona / Rubtsovsk Public Library System, Russia...................................................... 2103 Sayyad Abdi, Elham / University of Southern Queensland, Australia............................................ 1808 Schwam, Dina M. / Mercer University, USA.................................................................................... 1241 Sengstock, Chuck A. / Drake University, USA................................................................................. 1121 Šerić, Ljiljana / University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia.......................................................................................... 785 Setyosari, Punaji / State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia................................................. 804 Shambaugh, Neal / West Virginia University, USA........................................................................... 598 Shepherd, Andrew / Florida Virtual School, USA.......................................................................... 1929 Şihmantepe, Aydin / Piri Reis University, Turkey............................................................................. 349 Solmaz, Murat Selçuk / Piri Reis University, Turkey........................................................................ 349 Spuderca, Lorena Mirela / Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania................................... 1333 Stevenson, Rosalind Rice / Writing on the Go, UK......................................................................... 1721 Stickler, Ursula / The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK............................................................. 174 Stone, Jennifer / Royal Roads University, Canada......................................................................... 1282 Tang, Yingqi / Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, USA.................................................... 1774 Tapoler, Colton J. / Florida Virtual School, USA............................................................................ 1929 Taskiran, Ayse / Anadolu University, Turkey.................................................................................. 1911 Taylor, Cathy L. / Park University, USA.......................................................................................... 2244 Tayyab, Muhammad / Taylor’s University, Malaysia.................................................................... 1174 Thompson, Sherwood / Eastern Kentucky University, USA............................................................. 743 Thornburg, Amy W. / Queens University of Charlotte, USA.......................................................... 2435 Thornburg, Amy Wooten / Cato School of Education, Queens University of Charlotte, USA....... 2059



Thorpe, Clare / University of Southern Queensland, Australia...................................................... 1808 Tolosa-Casadont, Lou / University of Georgia, USA...................................................................... 1000 Topper, Andrew / Grand Valley State University, USA..................................................................... 473 Tovine, Gina / Florida Virtual School, USA.................................................................................... 1929 Tseng, Hungwei / Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, USA............................................... 1774 Ucar, Hasan / Anadolu University, Turkey........................................................................................... 17 Ulfa, Saida / State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia........................................................... 804 Usmani, Raja Sher Afgun / Taylor’s University, Malaysia............................................................. 1174 Vuong, Phuong M. / University of Southern California, USA......................................................... 2306 Waldow, Jason L. / Purdue University Global, USA........................................................................ 1653 Waller, Robert E. / Columbus State University, USA....................................................................... 1022 Walters, Nicole McZeal / University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA............................................... 979 Wang, Viktor / California State University, USA............................................................................ 2217 Ward-Jackson, Jerri / University of West Alabama, USA.................................................................. 60 Ware, Ninawari Dilip / Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, ILS Law College, Pune, India............................................................................................................................................ 1870 Warren, Carrol / North Carolina State University, USA................................................................ 1635 Weekley, Linda / Walden University, USA...................................................................................... 2169 Whiter, Kimberly A. / Faculty Guild, USA........................................................................................ 763 Wilton, Lesley / University of Toronto, Canada.............................................................................. 2030 Wooldridge, Deborah G. / Bowling Green State University, USA..................................................... 517 Yamada, Masanori / Kyushu University, Japan................................................................................ 254 Yeh, Hsin-Te / Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, USA........................................... 1774 Yu, Chien / Mississippi State University, USA..................................................................................... 60 Yu, Poshan / Soochow University, China......................................................................................... 1612

Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................................ xxvi

Volume I Section 1 Fundamental Concepts and Theories Chapter 1 Online Education Past, Current, and Future............................................................................................ 1 Kieran Chidi Nduagbo, Independent Researcher, USA Chapter 2 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution............................... 17 Hasan Ucar, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 3 Thriving Through Disruption: COVID-19, Online Education, and Innovation.................................... 32 Paul Michalec, University of Denver, USA Lindsay Brunhofer, University of Denver, USA John A. O’Malley, Regis University, USA Chapter 4 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning............................... 48 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA Chapter 5 Impact of Online Learning in K-12: Effectiveness, Challenges, and Limitations for Online  Instruction.............................................................................................................................................. 60 Jerri Ward-Jackson, University of West Alabama, USA Chien Yu, Mississippi State University, USA Chapter 6 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings: Focus on Team Effectiveness............... 79 Mette L. Baran, Cardinal Stritch University, USA Janice E. Jones, Cardinal Stritch University, USA  



Chapter 7 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis: The Case of Higher Education in Some Countries in Southern Africa................................................................................................. 101 Herbert Ntuli, University of Cape Town, South Africa Edwin Muchapondwa, University of Cape Town, South Africa & Luleå University of Technology, Sweden Victor Ntuli, National University of Lesotho, Lesotho Lina Mangwende, University of South Africa, South Africa Section 2 Development and Design Methodologies Chapter 8 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts....................................................... 124 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA Chapter 9 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and  Learning............................................................................................................................................... 155 Marla J. Lohmann, Colorado Christian University, USA Kathleen A. Boothe, Southeastern Oklahoma State University, USA Chapter 10 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?.............................................. 174 Ursula Stickler, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Regine Hampel, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Chapter 11 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design: Applying the Principles of Meaningful Learning, U-Learning, UDL, and CRT................................................................................................................ 191 Natalie Nussli, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland Kevin Oh, University of San Francisco, USA Chapter 12 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students............. 219 Samual Amponsah, University of Ghana, Ghana Samual Kofi Badu-Nyarko, University of Ghana, Ghana Godfred Alfred Nii Sai Obodai, University of South Africa, South Africa Prince Anane, University of Ghana, Ghana Chapter 13 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching................................................................................. 236 Michelle Dennis, Adler University, USA



Chapter 14 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online  Learning............................................................................................................................................... 254 Yoshiko Goda, Kumamoto University, Japan Masanori Yamada, Kyushu University, Japan Takeshi Matsuda, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan Hiroshi Kato, The Open University of Japan, Japan Yutaka Saito, Fuji Electric Co., Ltd., Japan Hiroyuki Miyagawa, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan Chapter 15 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods.......... 275 Jamie Mahoney, Murray State University, USA Carol A. Hall, University of Phoenix, USA Chapter 16 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments Using Universal Design for Learning.................................................................................................. 294 Jennifer Lock, University of Calgary, Canada Carol Johnson, University of Melbourne, Australia Noha Altowairiki, University of Calgary, Canada Amy Burns, University of Calgary, Canada Laurie Hill, St. Mary’s University, Canada Christopher P. Ostrowski, University of Calgary, Canada Chapter 17 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL......................... 315 Ruby L. Owiny, Trinity International University, USA Elizabeth Hartmann, Lasell University, USA Chapter 18 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory....... 331 Begüm Saçak, Erikson Institute, USA Natalia Kavun, Ohio University, USA Chapter 19 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment: Engaging Students as Teams................................................................................................................................ 349 Aydin Şihmantepe, Piri Reis University, Turkey Murat Selçuk Solmaz, Piri Reis University, Turkey Cihat Aşan, Piri Reis University, Turkey Chapter 20 Continuity and Developments in Terms of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments........................................................................................................................... 370 Marius Boboc, Cleveland State University, USA



Chapter 21 Andragogy and Online Discussions: The Design and Facilitation of Effective Online Discussion for Adult Learners................................................................................................................................ 401 Earl William Brieger, Gannon University, USA Chapter 22 The Same but Different: Reframing Contemporary Online Education in Higher Education Towards Quality and Integrity............................................................................................................. 425 Maria Northcote, Avondale College of Higher Education, Australia Chapter 23 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context: The Case of Adult EFL Learners in China.......................................................................................... 449 Naiyi Xie Fincham, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA Guofang Li, University of British Columbia, Canada Chapter 24 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program: A Case Study in a College of Education............................................................................................................................ 473 Sean J. C. Lancaster, Grand Valley State University, USA Andrew Topper, Grand Valley State University, USA Chapter 25 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning: Faculty Development Options for Distance Learning Instructors............................................................................................................................................ 496 Nicole Luongo, Saint Peter’s University, USA Chapter 26 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration.................... 517 Deborah G. Wooldridge, Bowling Green State University, USA Sandra Poirier, Middle Tennessee State University, USA Julia M. Matuga, Bowling Green State University, USA Chapter 27 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12  Teachers............................................................................................................................................... 535 Jennie Larry Johnson, University of North Texas, USA Adil Akhtar Khan, University of North Texas, USA Chapter 28 Faculty Development for Online Teaching.......................................................................................... 554 Karen R. Johnson, University of North Texas, USA Gertrude I. Hewapathirana, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Kuwait Mauvalyn M. Bowen, Bethel University, USA



Chapter 29 Designing and Delivering Online Professional Development Courses for Online Educators: Lessons From the iEARN Online Professional Development Courses............................................... 570 Lockias Chitanana, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe

Volume II Chapter 30 Applying a Teaching Decision Cycle to the Design of Online Learning Within Faculty Professional Development................................................................................................................... 598 Neal Shambaugh, West Virginia University, USA Chapter 31 Self-Directed Learning in Cooperative Online Networks: Faux Learning or Genuine Education?.... 617 Vanessa Camilleri, University of Malta, Malta Chapter 32 Design, Development, and Implementation of an E-Learning Course: A Case Study Implemented in the COVID-19 Pandemic................................................................................................................. 634 Refa Jamal Ramahi, Birzeit University, Palestine Section 3 Tools and Technologies Chapter 33 Defining Multimedia: A Toolkit for Online Education........................................................................ 654 Caran Kennedy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA Chapter 34 Technology and Culturally Competent Strategies for the Online Classroom...................................... 667 Justina Elise Kwapy, Grand Canyon University, USA Chapter 35 Using Learning Management Systems to Promote Online Instruction............................................... 700 Vaughn Malcolm Bradley, Montgomery County Public Schools, USA Chapter 36 Emerging Instructional Design and Strategies for Online Courses..................................................... 721 Yasemin Gulbahar, Ankara University, Turkey Gulgun Afacan Adanır, Ankara University, Turkey Chapter 37 Surviving Learning and Teaching Online: Using High-Impact Practices to Enhance Instructional Strategies.............................................................................................................................................. 743 Sherwood Thompson, Eastern Kentucky University, USA



Chapter 38 Strategies for Engaging Students in the Online Environment.............................................................. 763 Kimberly A. Whiter, Faculty Guild, USA Chapter 39 Student Clustering Based on Learning Behavior Data in the Intelligent Tutoring System................. 785 Ines Šarić-Grgić, Faculty of Science, University of Split, Split, Croatia Ani Grubišić, University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia Ljiljana Šerić, University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia Timothy J. Robinson, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA Chapter 40 Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome..................... 804 Izzul Fatawi, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia I Nyoman Sudana Degeng, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia Punaji Setyosari, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia Saida Ulfa, State University of Malang, Malang, Indonesia Tsukasa Hirashima, Department of Information Engineering, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Japan Chapter 41 Understanding the Use of Online Tools Embedded Within a Virtual Learning Environment............ 821 Eleanor Jane Dommett, King’s College London, London, UK Chapter 42 Assisting Peer Learning Performance Using Online Collaborative Tools in Virtual Learning Environments....................................................................................................................................... 840 Chee Leong Lim, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Habibah Ab Jalil, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Aini Marina Ma’rof, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Wan Zuhainis Saad, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Chapter 43 Live Sessions and Accelerated Online Project-Based Courses........................................................... 857 Karabi C. Bezboruah, The University of Texas at Arlington, USA Chapter 44 MOOCs Learners: Self-Motivation and Success in Online Learning................................................. 883 Tabassum Amina, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Chapter 45 ISTE Standards for Students, Digital Learners, and Online Learning................................................. 904 Mila Thomas Fuller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA



Chapter 46 Writing Bees, Wikis, Problem-Based Learning, and Assessment: Teaching With Online  Discussions.......................................................................................................................................... 911 Lyz Howard, University College Isle of Man, UK Chapter 47 Transforming Online Learning Beyond the Digital Data: Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) for Blended Learning........................................................................................................................... 938 Haniffa Beevi Abdul Jaleel, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Pauline Teo Hwa Ling, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Chapter 48 Engagement in Emergency Remote Education: The Use of Digital Storytelling With StudentTeachers of English.............................................................................................................................. 958 María Dolores García-Pastor, Faculty of Education, University of Valencia, Spain Chapter 49 Engaging Online K-12 Students: Using Instant Messaging to Foster Teacher-Student  Relationships........................................................................................................................................ 979 Jean Kiekel, University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA Serena Flores, University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA Nicole McZeal Walters, University of St. Thomas in Houston, USA Chapter 50 Using Multimodal Pedagogy to Teach Languages Online: Reimagining Language Teaching With Elementary School Children.............................................................................................................. 1000 Lou Tolosa-Casadont, University of Georgia, USA Chapter 51 Online Learning for the Adult Learners Using Andragogy............................................................... 1022 Pamela A. Lemoine, Troy University, USA Christopher J. Garretson, Columbus State University, USA Robert E. Waller, Columbus State University, USA Evan G. Mense, Southeastern Louisiana University, USA Michael D. Richardson, Global Tertiary Institute, USA Chapter 52 Synchronous Online Learning: The Experiences of Graduate Students in an Educational Technology Program.......................................................................................................................... 1044 Amy L. McGinn, Loyola University Maryland, USA Chapter 53 Engaging a Workbench Dialectic Inquiry Model in an Online Master’s Degree Program: TPACK Development Through Communities of Inquiry................................................................................ 1063 Henry Gillow-Wiles, Southern Oregon University, USA Margaret L. Niess, Oregon State University, USA



Chapter 54 E-Transformation in Higher Education and What It Coerces for the Faculty.................................... 1086 Ela Akgün-Özbek, Anadolu University, Turkey Ali Ekrem Özkul, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 55 Holistic Evaluation Strategies to Empower Remote Adjunct Faculty............................................... 1112 Marlene N. Blake, Grand Canyon University, USA Chapter 56 Investigating Online Instructors’ Experiences With Constructivist Pedagogy in a Private  University........................................................................................................................................... 1121 Sally R. Beisser, Drake University, USA Chuck A. Sengstock, Drake University, USA Chapter 57 Moving Targeted Online Learner Analytics Into the Hands of Teachers.......................................... 1154 Gregory Cottrell, North Hunterdon High School, USA Isabel Christine Resende, Nazareth Area School District, USA Chapter 58 Role of ICT for Community in Education During COVID-19.......................................................... 1174 Raja Sher Afgun Usmani, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Anum Saeed, Center for Advance Studies in Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan Muhammad Tayyab, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Section 4 Utilization and Applications Chapter 59 Student Behavior in an Online Learning Environment: A Small Sample Study............................... 1202 Yu Peng Lin, University of Detroit Mercy, USA

Volume III Chapter 60 Gender Characteristics: Implication for Cross-Cultural Online Learning......................................... 1223 Szufang Chuang, Indiana State University, USA Cindy L. Crowder, Indiana State University, USA Chapter 61 Understanding Self-Regulated Learning and Its Importance in Online Learning............................. 1241 Dina M. Schwam, Mercer University, USA Nannette Commander, Georgia State University, USA Daphne Greenberg, Georgia State University, USA



Chapter 62 Online Learning Support in a Ubiquitous Learning Environment.................................................... 1265 Ramashego Shila Mphahlele, University of South Africa, South Africa Chapter 63 Fostering Social Presence on Virtual Learning Teams...................................................................... 1282 Jennifer Stone, Royal Roads University, Canada Chapter 64 A Theoretical Perspective of Inequities in Online Learning/Education Based on Generational  Differences......................................................................................................................................... 1300 Rufaro A. Chitiyo, Tennessee Technological University, USA Florence Nyemba, University of Cincinnati, USA Chapter 65 A Case Study in the Application of Transformative Learning Theory: The Redesign of an Online Course in Order to Achieve Deep Learning....................................................................................... 1314 Jenna Kammer, University of Central Missouri, USA Chapter 66 Reflecting on Self-Reflection: Overcoming the Challenges of Online Teaching in a Romanian School Through Action Research...................................................................................................... 1333 Andreea Roxana Bell, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Diana Elena Banu, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Constanța Bordea, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Elena Corina Bularca, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Elena Diana Lazăr, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Lorena Mirela Spuderca, Colegiul Național “Andrei Șaguna”, Romania Chapter 67 Building Engagement in K-12 Online Learning................................................................................ 1360 Kristin Kipp, Boise State University, USA Kerry L. Rice, Boise State University, USA Chapter 68 Engaging Graduate Students During a Pandemic: Critical Thinking, Creativity, Communication, and Collaboration in Emergency Remote Learning........................................................................... 1382 Alyssa S. Cortes Kennedy, University of the Incarnate Word, USA Sandra L. Guzman Foster, University of the Incarnate Word, USA Chapter 69 Developing Successful Online Degree Programs at a Historically Black University: Challenges and Opportunities for Broadening the Impact of HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions........... 1401 Anisah Bagasra, Kennesaw State University, USA



Chapter 70 Designing Caring and Inclusive Online Classroom Environments for Non-Traditional Learners: A Case Study Exploring the Andragogical Teaching and Learning Model.......................................... 1419 Nirupama Akella, Independent Researcher, USA Chapter 71 A Case Study Examining How Online Andragogy Has Reshaped Expectations for Face-to-Face Instruction.......................................................................................................................................... 1445 Beverly B. Ray, Idaho State University, USA Chapter 72 Scaling Online Education at a Small, Private University.................................................................. 1463 Michael S. Hoffman, St. Bonaventure University, USA Shelley Jack, St. Bonaventure University, USA Chapter 73 Engaging Students in Emergency Remote Teaching: Strategies for the Instructor........................... 1479 Boon-Yuen Ng, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore Chapter 74 The Transformation of an ESL Teacher From the Face-to-Face to the Online Environment............ 1497 Evelyn Doman, University of Guam, Guam Chapter 75 The Potential of English for Social Purposes and Cooperation for Emergency Remote Language Teaching: Action Research Based on Future Teachers’ Opinions..................................................... 1517 Francisco Javier Palacios-Hidalgo, University of Córdoba, Spain Cristina A. Huertas-Abril, University of Córdoba, Spain Chapter 76 Completing Student-Teaching Internships Online: Instructional Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic............................................................................................................................................ 1540 Luis Miguel Dos Santos, Woosong University, South Korea Chapter 77 Factors Influencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching........... 1562 Murat Ekici, Usak University, Turkey Didem Inel Ekici, Usak University, Turkey Chapter 78 The Impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) on Language Education........................... 1580 Semahat Aysu, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Turkey Şeyda Sanlı, Uşak University, Turkey



Chapter 79 State of the Art About COVID-19’s Impact on Santiago University, Cape Verde............................ 1597 Eduardo Moraes Sarmento, CEsA-CSG, Lisbon University, Portugal & Lusófona University, Portugal José Mascarenhas Monteiro, Santiago University, Cape Verde Chapter 80 How COVID-19 Has Stimulated Innovation in the Chinese Education Sector................................. 1612 Poshan Yu, Soochow University, China Samuel Kwok, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China Zhongyue Jiang, Independent Researcher, China Chapter 81 Case Study on Coaching Community College Faculty Member Experiences Transitioning to Online Education During COVID-19................................................................................................ 1635 Michelle E. Bartlett, North Carolina State University, USA Carrol Warren, North Carolina State University, USA Jordan Dolfi, North Carolina State University, USA Section 5 Organizational and Social Implications Chapter 82 Computer to Community: Fostering the Online Classroom Environment........................................ 1653 Jason L. Waldow, Purdue University Global, USA Dena AuCoin, Purdue University Global, USA Chapter 83 Early Predictors of Persistence and Performance in Online Language Courses................................ 1672 Hagit Gabbay, Tel Aviv University, Israel Anat Cohen, Tel Aviv University, Israel Eitan Festinger, Tel Aviv University, Israel Chapter 84 Perceptions of Presence and Community in Immersive Online Learning Environments.................. 1691 Amelia W. Cheney, Appalachian State University, USA Terry McClannon, Appalachian State University, USA Les Bolt, Appalachian State University, USA Robert L. Sanders, Appalachian State University, USA Chapter 85 The Importance of Social Presence and Strategies for Incorporating It Into an Online Course........ 1708 Joshua Elliott, Fairfield University, USA



Chapter 86 Experiences of Educators in Imparting Digital Education and 21st Century Skills to Modern  Students.............................................................................................................................................. 1721 Sriya Chakravarti, Higher Colleges of Technology, UAE Rosalind Rice Stevenson, Writing on the Go, UK Chapter 87 Student Perceptions of Learning Digital Literacy Online in a Leadership Program......................... 1737 Hua Bai, Northeastern Illinois University, USA Chapter 88 Prove You Are Not a Dog: Fostering Social Presence in Online Learning....................................... 1758 David J. Mulder, Dordt College, USA Chapter 89 A Close Look at Trust Among Team Members in Online Learning Communities........................... 1774 Hungwei Tseng, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, USA Hsin-Te Yeh, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, USA Yingqi Tang, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, USA Chapter 90 Learner “Mixed Embodiment” in Face-to-Face, Blended, and Fully Online Learning: An Exploratory and Applied Conceptual Work....................................................................................... 1790 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA Chapter 91 Expectations, Experiences, and Preferences of Students in a Dual Mode Program: A Thematic  Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 1808 Linh Cuong Nguyen, Charles Sturt University, Australia Kate Davis, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Elham Sayyad Abdi, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Clare Thorpe, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Katya Henry, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Helen Partridge, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

Volume IV Chapter 92 Lessons From the Other Side of the Computer: Student Perceptions of Effective Online Instruction.......................................................................................................................................... 1830 Robert John Ceglie, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Ginger C. Black, Queens University of Charlotte, USA



Chapter 93 Comparison of Student Achievement and Problem-Solving Techniques for Integration Between Online and Face-to-Face Calculus Courses....................................................................................... 1851 Sarah Ferguson, Old Dominion University, USA Chapter 94 Online Education in India and the Widening Digital Divide............................................................. 1870 Ninawari Dilip Ware, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, ILS Law College, Pune, India Chapter 95 Investigating Creativity in Online K-12 World Language Classrooms.............................................. 1886 Anne Cummings Hlas, University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA Jesselyn J. Nadolny, University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA Christopher S. Hlas, University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire, USA Chapter 96 Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching: General Scope and Suggestions for Improvement........................................................................................... 1911 Ayse Taskiran, Anadolu University, Turkey Chapter 97 Investigating Student Perceptions and the Effectiveness of K-12 Blended Learning  Communities...................................................................................................................................... 1929 Gina Tovine, Florida Virtual School, USA April Fleetwood, Florida Virtual School, USA Andrew Shepherd, Florida Virtual School, USA Colton J. Tapoler, Florida Virtual School, USA Richard Hartshorne, University of Central Florida, USA Raquel Pesce, Florida Virtual School, USA Chapter 98 Institutional Policies and Online Education in Developing Countries: Challenges for a Globalizing Education/University......................................................................................................................... 1952 Diocleciano Nhatuve, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe & Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique Chapter 99 Examining Graduate Students’ Cooperative Learning Experiences in an Online Reading  Course................................................................................................................................................ 1969 Jackie Marshall Arnold, University of Dayton, USA Chapter 100 Factors Influencing Virtual Learning System Usage in Higher Education........................................ 1985 Indira Padayachee, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa



Chapter 101 Cultivating the Online Graduate Student Experience: Considerations for Creating Co-Curricular Opportunities..................................................................................................................................... 2011 Allie Goldstein, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Karen Paulson, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Chapter 102 Private Interactions in Online Discussions: Instructor Perspectives.................................................. 2030 Lesley Wilton, University of Toronto, Canada Rubaina Khan, University of Toronto, Canada Clare Brett, University of Toronto, Canada Paul C. Alexander, University of Toronto, Canada Chapter 103 The K-12 Teacher’s Perspective on Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic........ 2059 Dixie Friend Abernathy, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Amy Wooten Thornburg, Cato School of Education, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Chapter 104 From In-Person to Online Teaching: Experiences of Secondary Educators During the COVID-19 Pandemic............................................................................................................................................ 2074 Douglas Graham Fenderson, Midwestern State University, USA Chapter 105 Digital Literacy Gender Gap in E-Education Through Social Media During the COVID-19 Lockdown in Pakistan and Turkey..................................................................................................... 2103 Iqra Iqbal, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan Tülay Atay, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Turkey Alyona Savitskaya, Rubtsovsk Public Library System, Russia Chapter 106 Inequities Revealed: Pre-Pandemic Online Students and Faculty During the Global Health  Crisis.................................................................................................................................................. 2125 Rachel Potter, Mary Baldwin University, USA Chapter 107 The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on E-Learning Strata Among University Students in Morocco: Assessing Mechanics of Knowledge Reception, Cognition, and Approbation................. 2142 Hind Brigui, Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco



Section 6 Managerial Impact Chapter 108 Online Strategies for Stimulating Learner Engagement.................................................................... 2169 Lynne Orr, William Paterson University, USA & Walden University, USA Linda Weekley, Walden University, USA Sharon C. Little, Walden University, USA Robert P. Hogan, Walden University, USA Chapter 109 Maximizing the Social Dynamics, Work Processes, and Target Outcomes of Learning Groups Online: A Pre-“Research Design” Exploration.................................................................................. 2191 Shalin Hai-Jew, Kansas State University, USA Chapter 110 MOOCs and the Challenges They Pose to Higher Education........................................................... 2217 Viktor Wang, California State University, USA Linda Ellington, Southern New Hampshire University, USA Chapter 111 Examining the Evolution of Key Characteristics in Faculty Mentoring Programs for Online Adjunct Faculty: Bridging the Distance............................................................................................ 2244 Cathy L. Taylor, Park University, USA Lisa M. Bunkowski, Texas A&M University, Central Texas, USA Chapter 112 A Conceptual Study on Employer Perception towards Hiring Employee with Online Degree/ Certification....................................................................................................................................... 2275 Naresh B., Pune Institute of Business Management, Maharashtra, India Rajalakshmi M., Pune Institute of Business Management, Maharashtra, India Chapter 113 Faculty Resistance to Change: An Examination of Motivators and Barriers to Teaching Online in Higher Education............................................................................................................................... 2290 Erin Gratz, University of La Verne, La Verne, USA Lisa Looney, University of La Verne, La Verne, USA Chapter 114 Beyond Onboarding: Building a Culture of Continuous Professional Development for Effective Online Instruction.............................................................................................................................. 2306 Tamara Espinet, University of Southern California, USA Phuong M. Vuong, University of Southern California, USA Robert A. Filback, University of Southern California, USA



Chapter 115 Managing Online Teaching Faculty: A Case Study and Review of Literature on Mentoring of Online Faculty.................................................................................................................................... 2323 Anne W. Kanga, The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya Caroline Nduku Isaboke, The Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya Chapter 116 What Teachers Should and Shouldn’t Do During Online Teaching: A Case Study in a University Setting................................................................................................................................................ 2337 Ka Long Roy Chan, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Chapter 117 Supporting Faculty and Students During Pandemic Conditions: An Online Department Chair’s Perspective......................................................................................................................................... 2359 Michelle Dennis, Adler University, USA Section 7 Critical Issues and Challenges Chapter 118 Considering the Fourth Quadrant Learning: Facilitating Learners Towards Acceptance of Blended Learning............................................................................................................................................. 2378 Goh Lay Huah, HELP University, Malaysia Chapter 119 Do Student-Written Responses to Reflection Questions Predict Persistence and Performance in Online Courses? A Text Analysis Approach..................................................................................... 2401 Danny Glick, University of California, Irvine, USA Anat Cohen, Tel Aviv University, Israel Hagit Gabbay, Tel Aviv University, Israel Chapter 120 Cross-Cultural Communication Differences in Online Learning...................................................... 2422 Tasha Peart, Louisiana State University – Shreveport, USA Chapter 121 Unexpected Opportunities: School Leader Perceptions on the K-12 Transition to Online  Learning............................................................................................................................................. 2435 Dixie Friend Abernathy, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Robert J. Ceglie, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Ginger C. Black, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Amy W. Thornburg, Queens University of Charlotte, USA Index................................................................................................................................................... xxix

xxvi

Preface

The sudden implementation of emergency health procedures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic forced many educators and educational institutions to explore new territory in terms of policy, teaching strategy, and more. Now that many institutions are familiar with online education, innovations have been developed and implemented. It is essential to study these best practices and innovations that have been developed in remote teaching and learning to better understand the future of online education. Staying informed of the most up-to-date research trends and findings is of the utmost importance. That is why IGI Global is pleased to offer this four-volume reference collection of reprinted IGI Global book chapters and journal articles that have been handpicked by senior editorial staff. This collection will shed light on critical issues related to the trends, techniques, and uses of various applications by providing both broad and detailed perspectives on cutting-edge theories and developments. This collection is designed to act as a single reference source on conceptual, methodological, technical, and managerial issues, as well as to provide insight into emerging trends and future opportunities within the field. The Research Anthology on Remote Teaching and Learning and the Future of Online Education is organized into seven distinct sections that provide comprehensive coverage of important topics. The sections are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Fundamental Concepts and Theories; Development and Design Methodologies; Tools and Technologies; Utilization and Applications; Organizational and Social Implications; Managerial Impact; and Critical Issues and Challenges.

The following paragraphs provide a summary of what to expect from this invaluable reference tool. Section 1, “Fundamental Concepts and Theories,” serves as a foundation for this extensive reference tool by addressing crucial theories essential to understanding online education strategies and practices. The first chapter, “Online Education Past, Current, and Future,” by Prof. Kieran Chidi Nduagbo, Independent Researcher, USA, addresses the paradigmatic shift in traditional education. It presents a historical overview of online education as a content and framework for understanding its current state and highlights how online education has become entrenched in business and in higher education worldwide. The final chapter, “Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis: The Case of Higher Education in Some Countries in Southern Africa,” by Prof. Victor Ntuli of National University of Lesotho,  

Preface

Lesotho; Prof. Herbert Ntuli of University of Cape Town, South Africa; Prof. Edwin Muchapondwa of University of Cape Town, South Africa & Luleå University of Technology, Sweden; and Prof. Lina Mangwende of University of South Africa, South Africa, examines inequality in accessing online education in the context of a crisis in a developing region. Section 2, “Development and Design Methodologies,” presents in-depth coverage of the design and development of remote teaching and learning practices. The first chapter, “Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts,” by Prof. Shalin Hai-Jew of Kansas State University, USA, explores the extant literature on practice design and proposes some initial approaches for defining practices-for-learning in online learning. This work provides a construct for highlighting the main levers of practices-for-learning (through interrelated paragraphs of mapping sentences). This work also asks some critical questions for the design of learning practice in online contexts. The last chapter, “Design, Development, and Implementation of an E-Learning Course: A Case Study Implemented in the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Prof. Refa Jamal Ramahi of Birzeit University, Palestine, discusses an e-learning course at the Faculty of Education in Birzeit University that had been designed and developed years earlier. The researcher’s experience as an assistant professor in curriculum and instruction within this university represents a valuable asset which has enabled her to present this research effectively by demonstrating how technological innovation changes the way that universities teach and students learn. Section 3, “Tools and Technologies,” explores the various tools and technologies used in successful remote teaching and learning methods. The first chapter, “Defining Multimedia: A Toolkit for Online Education,” by Prof. Caran Kennedy of University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA, analyzes the importance of integrating multimedia in online education and how it can create students to pursue media entrepreneurship. Consequently, this chapter shows its support of the integration of multimedia tools in communication education by discussing the benefits of these systems and how they are used as a stepping stool to the phenomenon, entrepreneurship. The final chapter, “Role of ICT for Community in Education During COVID-19,” by Prof. Raja Sher Afgun Usmani of Taylor’s University, Malaysia; Prof. Anum Saeed of Center for Advance Studies in Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan; and Prof. Muhammad Tayyab of Taylor’s University, Malaysia, discusses how ICT is helping the community during COVID-19 and how it is catering to the young population’s education needs. Section 4, “Utilization and Applications,” describes in detail the effects of online education on students and educators. The first chapter, “Student Behavior in an Online Learning Environment: A Small Sample Study,” by Prof. Yu Peng Lin of University of Detroit Mercy, USA, explains how students behave when studying an online course can provide a great insight into the effectiveness of online delivery. The last chapter, “Case Study on Coaching Community College Faculty Member Experiences Transitioning to Online Education During COVID-19,” by Profs. Michelle E. Bartlett, Carrol Warren, and Jordan Dolfi of North Carolina State University, USA, focuses on the experiences of coaches and community college faculty who participated in the coaching portion of an emergency remote transition project. Section 5, “Organizational and Social Implications,” includes chapters discussing the impact of online education. The first chapter, “Computer to Community: Fostering the Online Classroom Environment,” by Profs. Jason L. Waldow and Dena AuCoin of Purdue University Global, USA, explains that the presence of online faculty is vital for building interaction and connectedness between faculty and student, and student and student. There are a variety of ways to achieve this, including facilitating connections between discussions, assignments, and live interactions, merging conceptual learning to pragmatic application, connecting cohorts of students, and leveraging synchronous tools to manage an interactive atmosphere. The final chapter, “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on E-Learning Strata Among University xxvii

Preface

Students in Morocco: Assessing Mechanics of Knowledge Reception, Cognition, and Approbation,” by Prof. Hind Brigui of Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco, investigates the e-learning experience of Moroccan public university students during the COVID-19-prompted quarantine. Section 6, “Managerial Impact,” covers the internal and external impacts of remote teaching and learning. The first chapter, “Online Strategies for Stimulating Learner Engagement,” by Prof. Robert P. Hogan of Walden University, USA; Prof. Lynne Orr of William Paterson University, USA & Walden University, USA; and Profs. Linda Weekley and Sharon C. Little of Walden University, USA, discusses the benefits of online student engagement as described by three professors using synchronous strategies in their online courses. The last chapter, “Supporting Faculty and Students During Pandemic Conditions: An Online Department Chair’s Perspective,” by Prof. Michelle Dennis of Adler University, USA, explores relevant challenges from the perspective of a chair of an online department. Section 7, “Critical Issues and Challenges,” presents coverage of academic and research perspectives on challenges to online education. The first chapter, “Considering the Fourth Quadrant Learning: Facilitating Learners Towards Acceptance of Blended Learning,” by Prof. Goh Lay Huah of HELP University, Malaysia, assesses the level of acceptance of online learning and to document the attempts of the facilitator to create an independent, student-directed, and student-centered learning environment. The final chapter, “Unexpected Opportunities: School Leader Perceptions on the K-12 Transition to Online Learning,” by Profs. Amy W. Thornburg, Robert J. Ceglie, Ginger C. Black, and Dixie Friend Abernathy of Queens University of Charlotte, USA, explores the perceptions of school leaders, many of whom may have felt lacking in their own skill set related to online teaching. Although the primary organization of the contents in this multi-volume work is based on its seven sections, offering a progression of coverage of the important concepts, methodologies, technologies, applications, social issues, and emerging trends, the reader can also identify specific contents by utilizing the extensive indexing system listed at the end of each volume. As a comprehensive collection of research on the latest findings related to online education, the Research Anthology on Remote Teaching and Learning and the Future of Online Education provides educators and administrators of both K-12 and higher education, pre-service teachers, teacher educators, librarians, government officials, IT managers, researchers, and academicians with a complete understanding of the applications and impacts of online education. Given the vast number of issues concerning usage, failure, success, strategies, and applications of online education, the Research Anthology on Remote Teaching and Learning and the Future of Online Education encompasses the most pertinent research on the applications, impacts, uses, and strategies of remote teaching and learning.

xxviii

Section 1

Fundamental Concepts and Theories

1

Chapter 1

Online Education Past, Current, and Future Kieran Chidi Nduagbo Independent Researcher, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter addresses the paradigmatic shift in traditional education. It presents a historical overview of online education as a content and framework for understanding its current state and highlights how online education has become entrenched in business and in higher education worldwide. Beginning with distance education’s contributions to the paradigmatic shift, this chapter provides a framework for understanding online education. It focuses on the connections and contributions of distance education to present day online education, the current trends in online education, and the projections of the future of online education. This chapter concludes that the nature and practice of online education across the globe will change in the next few years.

INTRODUCTION Online education grew out of distance education, which has been in existence for the past 100 years. With the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web, online education can now reach students around the globe. Present day online education provides high quality educational resources in various forms of media to students. It supports both real-time and allochronous communication between students and instructors and between diverse students (Means, Toyama, Murphy & Jones, 2010). Institutions of higher learning now view online education as a means of boosting enrollment, aiding student who otherwise would not have been able to attend traditional college/university due to reasons that include distance, jobs, and family-related issues (Wilson, 2015). For students, however, online education is convenient, accessible, it has flexible scheduling, and it has accelerated courses. Additionally, online education provides opportunities for independent study at one’s own pace, location, and time. Finally, compared to traditional education, online education allows for a faster degree acquisition, and promotes a high level of accountability for one’s own learning (Sit, Chung, Meyric, & Chow, 2005). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch001

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Overall, online education is growing rapidly. For the past decade, it has grown significantly faster that overall college/university enrollment has grown (Allen & Seaman, 2009) and has remained steady for several years. According to Allen & Seaman (2009), over 4.6 million students were taking at least one online course during the fall of 2008, which represents a 17% increase over the number reported in 2007-fall term. By 2010, the number of college students taking at least one online courses rose to 6.1 million, which represents an increase of 560, or 1000 students more than the number reported in 2009.

WHAT IS ONLINE EDUCATION AND HOW DOES IT WORK? Online education refers courses in which 80% or more of contents are delivered online via the Internet and without any face-to-face meetings or interactions (Allen & Seaman, 2009; Allen & Seaman, 2011; Wilson, 2015). Online education can be offered in several different ways: •

•

• • •

Synchronous: Students enrolled with this method of online education have the lectures and materials transmitted to them via the Internet at a specified time. Just as in physical classrooms, students in synchronous online education take part in a lecture, discussion, or class activity in real-time from different locations. Asynchronous: Here, students have access to pre-recorded lectures and materials given to or not given to a physical audience by an instructor in the form of a video at their own time with deadlines to keep the class on track. In asynchronous online education, students can also be provided with course objectives and a schedule. Additionally, they are allowed to work when they are able to and progress toward weekly or bi-weekly milestones. Distance students: Distance students do not have any need to come to campus, except at the end of their online education when they are ready for their final defense. Another method of online education is where students enroll as on-campus students, living close to the university or college, but chooses to attend and take courses offered by the university online. Free MOOCs: Students can also choose to taking non-credit hour courses offered free of charge through Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) by a university without being enrolled in the university. Recently, some higher institutions in the United Stated have started offering the MOOC courses for credit and with stipulations that include enrolling in the university, attending meetings with the instructor, and taking required additional coursework (Lewin, Allen & Seaman, 2015);.

The Early Years of Online Education Online Education brings together many historical threads-distance learning, computers, and telecommunication. This means that the history of online education dates back much further than the birth of the internet. Online Education also merges educational theory, computer technology, and legislation. All of these play vital roles in the development of online education.

Correspondence Courses Online education in the United States began with the first correspondence course offered by University of Chicago in the late 1800s. Correspondence courses are courses in which the instructor sends lessons 2

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

and assignments to a student at a different location by mail and receives completed assignments by mail (Mclsaac & Gunawardena, 2001). Prior to this time, education - especially in Europe - was available only to male children of rich elite families. The popular mode of instruction was bringing the male students together at a specified time and location to learn from one instructor. In 1890, notable educators, such as William Rainey Harper, attempted to establish an alternative form of education, but they were unsuccessful. Later, correspondence courses were developed to provide educational opportunities for people who were not from rich elite families and for those who could not afford to reside full-time at institutions of higher learning. At first, many people considered correspondence courses inferior to elite courses. Some educators viewed it as a form of business operations (Pittman, 1991; Mclsaac & Gunawardena, 2001). Although many people did not accept correspondence courses at the beginning, it nevertheless later became a vital means of providing equal access to educational opportunities to all students, which is an integral part of our nation’s democratic ideals (Mclsaac & Gunwardena, 2001).

Industrial Age and Early Computers The first computers were developed during the Industrial Age (1760-1820). A computer is any device that takes in information and deploys it for a certain outcome based on ordered instructions (History. com Editors, 2009). Historians regard the Industrial Age as the beginning of computers because it was during this period that the first semi-automated computing machines, radios, and motion pictures, which played significant roles in effectiveness of correspondence study, were developed. With the development of radios during World War I and television in the 1950s, people began to have more interest in instruction outside of traditional classrooms (Ferrer, 2013). Radios and television were used for the first time in schools to deliver instructions to students at distant locations. Wisconsin’s School of the Air, for example, took the first initiative in the 1920s in engaging in distance learning. Today, audio and computer teleconferencing have influenced instructional delivery in many institutions of learning, universities, community colleges, elementary and secondary schools, military, industry, and business schools. Additionally, institutions of higher learning have established open universities based on a model that was developed in Britain in the 1970’s. Universities worldwide are today using media to provide more effective distance education following Charles Wedemeyer’s initial use of media in 1986 for instructional delivery to distance learning students (Ferrer, 2013). In the early 1960’s, University of Illinois created a computer system known as the Intranet for its students. The Intranet is a system that connected many computer terminals, making it possible for students to access course materials and to listen to recorded lecture without being physically present. The Intranet later evolved into PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic teaching Operations), the initial global computer-assisted instruction system (Woolley, 1994; Ferrer n.d.). University of Illinois used PLATO to offer coursework to its students in elementary school through university. PLATO included valuable pedagogical features, such as text, keywords, and feedbacks intended to respond to alternative answer (Stifle, 1971). Until the late 1970’s, PLATO supported graphic terminals distributed worldwide and ran on varied networked mainframe computers (Dear, 2017; Ferrer, 2013). Today’s modern idea of multi-user computing, such as forums, message boards, online testing, emails, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games, and MMORPGS was first created on PLATO (Ferrer, 2013, Dear, 2017).

3

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Distance Education Distance education is the education of students who are not or cannot be physically present at a traditional educational location, such as a classroom or a school (Moore, & Kearsley, 2005; Kang, 2009). During its early years, distance education involved Correspondence Studies and courses. It requires focused planning, organizational systems, teaching and learning systems, which address learning at varied locations. Today, distance education is synonymous to online education in its varied forms. More recent developments in online education include MOOS delivered through the Worldwide Web or other network technologies, e- learning, virtual classroom, and distributed learning, to mention a few. According to Schlosser & Anderson (1994), distance education has been around for about 175 years. For example, in 1833, an ad in a Swedish newspaper announced the availability of studying “composition through the Post” (Holmberg, 1986; Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). In addition, in 1840, England’s penny post granted Sir Isaac Pittman permission to deliver shorthand instruction through correspondence study. Later, in 1843, England legalized distance instruction with the establishment of Phonographic Correspondence Society, which existed before Sir Isaac Pittman’s Correspondence Colleges (Holmberg, 1986; Scholsser & Anderson, 1994). Furthermore, distance education developed in Germany in the form of correspondence study. Two university foreign language instructors, Charles Toussaint and Gustave Langenscheidt, began mailing out letters of correspondence in French to their students in 1856. Immediately after World War I, the percentage of students enrolled in distance education and the types of distance education grew significantly because many people who wanted to make up for lost time during the war enrolled in distance courses, hoping to enhance their scholastic and professional education (Steffen K, 1998). In the United States in 1873, Anna Eliot Ticknor founded a society called Ticknor Society in Boston, Massachusetts, which was founded to encourage studies at home. The society consisted of a group of women instructing other women through the mail and offered courses in classical studies (Bergman, 2001). Within 24 years, it attracted more than 10,000 students (Schlosser & Anderson, 1994; Watkin, 1991) - mostly women - who enrolled in the classical studies curriculum. Through the mail, these women communicated with their instructors, who provided them with guided readings and recurrent tests on a monthly basis. New York State approved the academic degree of Ticknor students between 1883 and 1891 through Chautauqua College of Liberal Arts after their completion of summer institutes and correspondence courses. (Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). Following the example of the Ticknor Society, Thomas J. Foster, the editor of The Mining Herald, a daily newspaper based in eastern Pennsylvania, started proffering correspondence studies in mining and the prevention of mine accidents. In 20 years’ time, Foster’s business grew very fast and became an international school with student enrollment skyrocketing from 225,000 in 1900 to more than 2,000,000 in 1920 (Rose, 1991; Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). Meanwhile, correspondence education continued to grow in Europe with the establishment of Hermond’s institute in 1898, the development of the Skerry’s College in Edinburgh, England in 1978, and the Correspondence College in London in 1887. Simultaneously, the university extension movement in the United States and in England encouraged correspondence study methods in Wesley, Illinois in 1877 and the University of Chicago in 1892 (Holmberg, 1986; Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). As part of Oxford, Cambridge’s and London’s models, Wesleyan Illinois provided courses that led to Bachelors, Masters, and doctoral degrees. About 750 students enrolled in Wesleyan from 1881-1890, among which 500 were in the degree programs. Unfortunately, in 1906, Wesleyan was forced to close due to concern regarding its program quality (Watkins, 1991). In 4

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

the University of Chicago, Correspondence Study was successful in numbers and thus became an essential part of the university. Yearly, 3,000 students enrolled in the 350 correspondence courses offered and taught by 125 professors. Nonetheless, interest in the program gradually started to die out because of financial issues (Schlosser & Anderson, 1994; Watkins, 1991). Across the globe, distance education began to impact high schools in the 1920s. For example, in the United States, teachers at high schools in Benton Harbor, Michigan provided students with vocation courses, while University of Nebraska experimented with correspondence courses in 1923. That same year, responding to the advent of the war, the French Ministry of Education created a government correspondence college called Centre National d’ Eseignment par Correspondence to teach children (Holmberg, 1986; Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). In 1962, University of South Africa became a distance education University. This brought significant changes in the practice of distance education in many parts of the world. Additionally, in 1971, the United Kingdom established Open University, a degree-granting distance education university program providing varied programs, sophisticated courses, and innovative use of media (Holmberg, 1986; Schlosser & Anderson, 1994). Open University also enhanced the status of distance education, promoted the development of similar institutions in the developed world, such as Japan and Germany, and in the developing world, such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Schlosser & Anderson, 1994, Holmberg, 1986). From the onset of distance education, its goal has always been to educate adults with occupational, social and family obligations. Today, this goal has not changed. Distance education still offers adults the chance to broaden their intellectual horizons, and to enhance and upgrade their professional knowledge while emphasizing individuality and flexibility of learning (Schlosser & Anderson, 1994).

The Current Trends in Online Education Today, online education is entrenched in American higher education and is thriving. It is successfully providing more and more innovative possibilities for diverse students, faculty, and educational institutions across the globe. The majority of what practitioners learn today is already taught in blended courses (Mayadas, Bourne, & Bacsich, 2009). This approach is currently improving pedagogical and teaching methods, and it is decreasing the amount of time it takes to complete a college degree in traditional institutions. Online education today offers superior opportunities and access to education. Many students are already benefiting from it. These opportunities include diverse classes and graduate and postgraduate degrees in varied courses, such as Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, pure sciences, applied sciences, Engineering and Technology, physical sciences, and Computer Science, to mention but a few (Keebler, 2014). In an article published in 1995, Eli Noam of Columbia University declared that at the rate people are getting information from the Internet, the Internet would present significant challenges for traditional higher education institutions in the future. Noam also stated, “As one connects in new ways, one also disconnects the old ways” (Noam. 1995 p 247, Mayadas, Bourne & Bacsich 2009). About 28 years after internet was developed and 23 years after Noam’s article, online education has become an essential component of education. Today, online learning is rapidly developing in K-12 education settings, and it is already widely used in the cooperate world and in higher institutions across the globe (Mayadas, Bourne, & Bacsich, 2009). In the cooperate world, Professionals us online learning to access short-term training modules, such as new product information, quality practices, orientation, and on-board training that employees can study on their own via their company’s Internet. In doing so, businesses are replacing 5

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

CD-ROMS and printed materials, and they are simultaneously making distribution efficient and effective (Mayadas, Bourne, & Bacsich, 2009). Higher education institutions, however, uses online education to offer classes that are similar to traditional classes(for example, the cohort program) but are at the same different(hybrid/blended learning). In most institutions, online courses are taught by faculty members, who often require students to be actively involved in class discussion and in the exchange of ideas with other classmates online. For example, students can get help on a problem or request clarification of an assignment from classmates or from the faculty who are in another location via the Internet. This availability of student-to-student, student-to-faculty interactions immediate access to information and resources on the internet and the effective distributions of course materials differentiate current online education from its predecessor distance education (Mayadas, Bourne, & Bacsich, 2009; Bates, 2005). In today’s online education, all that students in any part of the world need is a personal computer and an access to the Internet. Students connect to their classes at different times and in different locations. It is not necessary for the faculty to meet with students at a particular location or at a particular time as is with traditional classrooms. Students also use more recent innovative devices such as iPads, Second Life (SL) (online virtual world), mostly in cooperate environments for learning. However, institutions of higher learning are in the experimental stage with these devices (Downes, 2005, Brown & Diaz, 2010) Presently, online education is changing the way students are taught. Students now learn in an environment that is constantly changing and is full of possibilities. These growing approaches to learning and pedagogy are part of innovative opportunities marked by “Web Mediation” (Ferrer, 2013).The following are some of the most current trends in online education across the globe:

Flipped Classroom Salman Khan developed Flipped Classrooms, and teachers first used them Khan Academy. As the names indicate, Flipped Classroom turns things around, changing the time that students dedicate to lecture, class, and homework. In Flipped Classroom, students complete their assignments and projects in class. As a result, they always have access to a teacher when they have difficulty with a problem. However, faculty /teacher complete their lesson plans and classwork at home, using videos and on-screen tutorials. Most science and math classes today espouse Flipped Classroom as their model. Many math and science classrooms have adopted this model, made famous by the highly acclaimed founder of Khan Academy Salman Khan and chemistry teachers Jon Bergeman and Aaron Sams (Ferrer, 2013; Khan Academy, 2007; Bergman and Sams, 2012)

Project-Based Learning (PBL) Project-Based Learning (PBL) is a new method of learning that teaches numerous skills essential for success in the twenty-first century. In PBL, instructors play the role of the facilitator, while students work collectively as a group, researching and constructing projects that mirror their knowledge (Bell, 2010). Learning in PBL occurs through inquiry. Students ask questions, research answers to their questions, and create projects based on knowledge gained from research. Online education today has broadened the use, interest, and benefits of PBL in education. It provides opportunities for students to use programs, such as blogs and Wikipedia, to create projects for public use and consumption. Using online education, students can also create Wiki classes to host their projects. Online PBLs also make gamification of learning easy, according to Kiang and Gee (2003). In gamification, students make some mistakes that have no 6

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

long-lasting effects, while attempting to achieve their goal and use varied methods. They also go through many routes before achieving success or their goals. Project-based learning has similar characteristics as traditional learning. However, in PBL, the real world provides the many routes, the information, the mistakes or failures, and the success or goals that are needed as students work collaboratively to create their projects (Orlando, 2016).

Collaborative Online Learning Currently, collaborative learning is progressively becoming very common in many online classrooms. Collaborative learning refers to the idea that students learn better while working together in groups (Ferrer, 2013). It also emphasizes that students learn from each other, through each other, and about each other as they collaborate to finish or complete projects. Realizing this, online educators are now incorporating collaborative learning into their online courses, and students are collaborating more in online education through social media technologies, such as videoconferencing, texting, email, teleconferencing, and workflow programs, including Trello, Slack, ClearSlide, Goggle Docs and Skype. These modern technologies make global collaboration simple and easy(Bowser, Davis, Singleton, & Small, 2017)

Blended Learning or Hybrid Learning Blended learning has become an exciting instructional learning technique in higher education today. Many institutions now create or seek to create their own hybrid of learning courses as alternatives for students and instructors who wish to replace some part of traditional in-person class meeting time with online instruction (Olapiriyakul & Scher, 2006). Blended or hybrid learning is a combination of inperson class sessions or taking courses on-site with online learning (Kilmova & Kacetl, 2015). It entails delivering curricular materials, providing access to learning resources, and submitting tasks online. In blended learning, online discussion is either allochronic or synchronic in nature (Buzzetto-More & Sweat-Guy, 2006; Ferrer, 2013). At first, blended learning was not widely embraced by institutions of higher learning. However, today, according to Allen and Seaman (2003), the percentage of students registering in hybrid courses is significantly greater than the percentage of students in total online courses. Allen and Seaman (2003) also predicted that in the future, blended learning would continue to make considerable impacts on higher education globally. Other research (Hodges, 2004; Buzzetton-More & Sweat-Guy, 2006; Bhatti, Tubaisahat & El-Quawasmeh, 2005) found that blended learning has vital benefit for students. For example, Hodges, (2004) found that blended learning minimizes the feelings of isolation and frustration often experienced in full online learning. Bhatti, Tubaisahat and El-Quawasmeh (2005) showed that students’ satisfaction increased with hybrid learning while their dependency on the instructors decreased. Research also reported that students consider hybrid learning viable, convenient, accessible, and favorable.

Mastery Learning Many online colleges and schools today use mastery learning. Although the idea of Mastery learning has been around since 1968, when Benjamin Bloom first proposed it, it Khan Academy has made it very popular. Mastery learning is an instructional strategy that advocates the notion that students must master certain levels of performance before moving on to the next level (Slavin, 1987). For example, students 7

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

must achieve 90% of the concept of knowledge tested before being allowed to move on to study and learn the next information. Thus, in mastery learning students who achieve a 60 or 70 percent must continue to learn a topic, concept, or set of information until they show that they have mastered it by answering at least 90% of the questions correctly before moving on. Many colleges and school that use mastery learning today rely greatly on online tutoring, to make it successful (Ferrer, 2013)

Virtual Learning Environments Current virtual learning environments (e.g. Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas and Renweb) now extend both the classroom, the instructor’s and the administrator’s offices. Today educators use Moodle and Blackboard to complete their teaching responsibilities, such as gradebooks, attendance sheets and assessments, and administrative duties like enrollment, updating class lists, sending emails to absent students, tracking payroll and accounting information (Wilcox, Thall, & Griffin, 2017, Ferrer 2013)

Massive Open Online Courses A more current development in online education that is rapidly gaining media attention is MOOCs. Massive Open Online Courses represent a growing practice of online education, and they were motivated by the philosophy of connectivism (i.e. the belief or idea that the ability to look for current information and the ability to filter secondary and unnecessary information must be present for learning to occur (Rodriguez, 2012). Both students and instructors need to conceptually change their perspective to implement and use it successfully. According to Rodriquez (2012), “massive” refers to the number of participants that can easily have quick access to one online course. For example, “Thousands of students simultaneously engaged in one courses; ‘open’ is related to several concepts: software as used is open-source, registration is open to anyone, and the curriculum is open or loosely structured and it can even change as the course evolves, the sources of information are open, the assessment processes (if they exit) are open, and the learners are open to range of difficult learning environment” (Rodriquez, 2012, p.3-4). MOOCs offer interactive opportunities for students and teachers. Characteristically, MOOCs do not provide credit or charge tuition. Institutions of higher learning, such as Stanford and MIT, and companies like Coursera and Udacity, provide and offer MOOCs that are currently reaching and educating many people worldwide (Rodriguez, 2012).

Unschooling An area of innovation in online education originated from the homeschooling movement. Many homeschools use college-level online education, such as dual-enrollment classes, dual-credit classes, or college-level courseware for middle and high school students. Thus, online education has been beneficial in developments in the unschooling movement. Unschooling is a new trend in homeschooling in which students lead the way in directing their learning. Unschooled students learn at home and during fieldtrips. Unschooling is different from homeschool in that parents acts as teachers in homeschooling, directing their children’s learning, whereas unschooling operates with the belief that children are naturally curious and will follow their interest in their own way. Thus, children direct their own learning (gary &Riley, 2013). Just like online education technology, which enables an expanded and almost infinite world of

8

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

exploration, unschooling promotes a borderless world of learning. These current trends in online education are creating innovative avenues for learning and new models for success.

Redesigned Classrooms Previously, online education entailed chatting with or sending emails back and forth with an instructor. Currently, our classrooms are “tech-savvy and act as smart rooms to facilitate better learning”. (Lynch 2018, p.1). These classrooms allow students to interact with instructors in real time and to connect with guest speakers or business partners worldwide (Lynch, 2018)

ONLINE EDUCATION IN THE FUTURE A country’s economy is interlinked with the education system. Thus, for any country to complete successfully in the global market of the future or to be able to keep up with the fast-changing global market, the country needs to strengthen and reform its education system (Lynch 2018). Online education is the future of education at all levels, particularly in higher education. As distance education or learning evolved from cassette tapes and telephone learning to high-speed, interactive Internet learning, online education will provide access to education and learning for students who lack access to traditional education and for students for whom traditional education was not ineffective. The following are anticipated trends in online education in the next 5-10 years.

Course Management System (CMs) According to Kyong-Jeep & Bonk (2006) Course management system (CMss) will increase substantially in the next few-ten years. Likewise, video streaming, online testing and exam tools and learning objectives libraries would be used greatly on campuses. Educational institutions will be using more videos for open education. These videos will be created so that students can pause and replay them anytime. Moreover, because these videos will be accessible through websites, such as YouTube, students can use them to review and study lesson or lectures that they did not understand in class the previous day. They can play the videos repeatedly until they have a good understanding of the lesson. Additionally, these videos will be very engaging, interactive and interesting so that students will not be bored, as they may be with textbooks. They will encourage students to ask questions that they may not feel comfortable asking in class...

More MOOCS Ruth (2012) in her study titled Can MOOC’s and Other E-Learning Paradigms Help Reduce College Costs. Can MOOC’s and Existing E-Learning Efficiency Paradigms Help Reduce College Costs? Parad assert that MOOCS can help to solve the problem of rising costs and inaccessibility of higher education. MOOCS are free online courses, and, as such, they are accessible to everyone who has access to a computer and Internet. In the future, students worldwide will be able to view and join the courses and lectures that are taught in prestigious institutions by accessing MOOCS websites. Currently a not all students across the globe have access to these courses In the future Open Course Ware Courses will be 9

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

available to all students. Then most students will not have to pay the high tuition that is currently required to attain a high-quality education.

More Adaptive Learning Platforms/Technologies Adaptive Learning Platforms, such as, Khan Academy and Knewton, will help reshape the face of education in the near future. Currently, these websites already provide online materials for students based on their individual learning styles, thereby helping them to understand lessons or lectures immediately. Bill gates refer to this kind of education as “personalized education. Using adaptive learning platforms, such as Knewton and Khan Academy, students can create their own account, watch videos created by instructors view instructional materials, and answer virtual exams. The instructors, in turn, monitor and track students’ progress as necessary. For example, the instructor can assist a student as soon as he or she notices that the student is stuck or is having significant difficulties with algebraic equations for a prolonged period of time (Linardopoulos, 2010). With current enrollment numbers in online higher education growing rapidly, the future of education lies in online education. As institutions of higher learning adapt to serve the increasing number of online learners, they will be making significant progress in educating students across the globe (Lynch 2018).

New Feedback System= Improved Teaching Approach New Feedback System is a feedback channel that will enable teachers to assess whichever areas of their instructional approach need improvement to help them become more effective. In the future, with the use of this new feedback system, teachers or instructors will receive comprehensive feedback that will customize their methods to help their students learn more and excel in school.

Mobile Learning In the past, access to online course materials were only possible with desktops or laptop computers. Now and in the future, all online course materials will be very easy to access on varied handheld devices, such as smartphones, iPads, tablets, and chrome books with special educational apps that facilitate instruction (Lynch, 2018), According to a Tehnavio study conducted in 2017, more and more students are enrolling in online education due to mobile access to courses andwith the high penetration of the Internet, students use these handheld devices to access course assignments, lesson plans, and complete coursework (Bogardus Cortez, 2017),

Free College Online: Driven Education With student loan debts currently increasing to trillions of dollars, college education may change and become free, online-driven education in the future. Additionally, college may begin to align students’ skills with in-demand jobs.

10

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Blending the Traditional with the Technological In the future, the Internet will play much more significant roles in higher education. While people are currently debating the need for traditional college degrees, progress is already being made in integrating traditional college education with online classes. The Internet is gradually becoming a vital learning tool for higher education, and its importance will continue to increase in the future. According to David L. Warren, president of National Association of Independent College and Universities, about 50% of all private colleges in the United States have some kind of online programs blending traditional classroom learning with online learning. This percentage is significantly higher in public institutions of higher learning Bhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005 (www.goodcall.com).

Mobile-Friendly Course Content Present-day online students have smartphones, iPads, or tablets, and the majority of them are already using these devices for their online studies. An International Staff study conducted in June of 2018 revealed that 87% of future or prospective online students use their handheld devices to search for potential programs online, and 67% of online students have completed their online coursework using their smart phones. Thus, higher institutions must adapt their websites and course content to function effectively with mobile platforms if they want to keep pace.

Open Online Courses Open online courses are examples of what online education will look like in the future. According to Alemi and Maddox (2008), open online courses are courses that are offered and provided completely online. This means that the lectures, assignments, syllabi, class discussions, and projects, are all open for everyone to see online without disclosing students’ personal information. Open Online Courses reduce the cost of marketing for higher institutions, and the customer relationship tools reduce the time that faculty spend on individual emails. Additionally, Open Online Courses enhance student-faculty interaction drastically because the provide students with quick and free access to online courses through varied search engines Furthermore, they allows for fast improvements of courses through ongoing feedback from the Internet. Unlike other online education courses, where access to courses is limited to registered students with password and identifications, open online course provides lectures, assignments, student evaluations and students’ comments online without a password or login information. Thus, students and non-students can read the course content without any limitations. Anyone from anywhere can see the video lectures and the software used to evaluate data, listen to instructions on difficult theories, write comments, see answers to questions posted by others, interrelate with other students, and, in some courses, they can even add their own lectures or projects. However, interaction with faculty is strictly limited to students who get grades for their assignments. Unregistered students are not permitted access to these parts of the courses. In open online courses, lectures are assigned as readings materials to students because the courses are not password protected. Faculty from different institutions can also access Open Online Courses, they and are free to use all or some parts of the course materials to teach their own courses. Open online courses have very rich content, are available in searches, and are often found on the first page of the search. Recently, open online courses have become a web destination. 11

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Three –Dimensional Online Education Three-Dimensional immersive spaces, such as Second Life (SL) are the new faces of online education. According to Staley and Hoffman (2010, p. 167), in the future, people will begin to navigate web spaces instead of webpages. Three-dimensional web spaces will then replace the current 2-dimensional webpages. Already, large corporations, such as Coca Cola, IBM, and Toyota, have purchased real estate inside of SL. Some businesses have tentatively begun to interview prospective candidates in a Second Life (SL) “virtual job fair”. (Hoffman, 2010, p Similar to people who hide behind the mask of their avatars and play at different personas inside SL, businesses use the site as a way to play with different products and services or to test out and virtually marketing ideas that they might then launch in the real world (Hemp, 2006). Some institutions of higher learning intend to launch and use virtual spaces to attract prospective students and to permit them to “visit” their campuses without the cost of real trips to the real campus (Joly 2007). Others use virtual campuses to stay connected with their tech-savvy alumni, and some are already experimenting with virtual space as an educational space. In the past, online education was criticized for not providing students with opportunities for “faceto-face” interaction, which is an important element of the educational experience. Three-dimensional virtual course in an SL-type environment would address this issue. For example, with three-dimensional web spaces, higher education institutions can construct a virtual classroom, seminar room, or theater, where a class of avatars might meet. This type of virtual classroom will replace the complex chat function presently used in most online education settings. In three-Dimensional virtual space students will meet and mingle freely, as in a real space. They can cluster together in groups to chat, work on group projects, or simply listen to a lecture together. As avatars become more communicative, body language, and other nonverbal cues will become possible (Hoffman, 2011, p. 157). Three-dimensional virtual immersive spaces will provide online students the “feeling of presence” that is now nonexistent in today’s online education, which has only text and sometimes motionless photographs (New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 2007: Hoffman, 2011, p. 157).

Globalization of Online Education Higher education is gradually experiencing the effects of globalization. For example, the demand for higher education is now a global phenomenon, and thus the demand for higher education services currently has no boundaries. Many U.S. institutions of higher learning are currently collaborating with other non-U.S. institutions of higher learning in different parts of the world. United States universities today have regional campuses in places including the Middle East, China, and India (Hoffman, 2010, p. 167). University of Maryland and Phoenix, for example, currently have online presences in Europe and Asia. Although the United States’ higher education is currently considered to be the model of higher education worldwide, countries including China, India, and Brazil, which have a growing and steady rise in economic prominence, may in the near future present challenges to United States’ prominent role as the leader in higher education. Chinese universities, for example already have their own version of online programs and online classes. With time, they will begin to attract students from around the world, including American students, and thus, they will become a significant competitor to United States due to their prominence in online education (Hoffman, 2011,). Additionally, “online education from this non-Western world could represent an important new market for teachers; globalization reflects not only a global competition for students, but also a poten12

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

tial global supply of teachers. In an online world, where teaching and learning are asynchronous and not location-specific, it does not really matter if the teacher or the students are located in Illinois or in India”. (Hoffman, 2010, p. 167)To readers in the Western world, it is possible that your next online teaching job will be working for a Chinese-based or Indian-based online college (Zhao, Zhang, & Li 2006; Hoffman, 2011, p. 157). Online learning has roots in the tradition of distance education, which goes back at least 100 years to the early correspondence courses. With the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the potential for reaching learners around the world has increased greatly., Online learning today offers rich educational resources in multiple media and the capability to support both real-time and asynchronous communication between instructors and learners as well as among different learners. Institutions of higher education and corporate training were quick to adopt online learning. The future of online is more than an upward trend line of boosting enrollments. The numerous trends identified here suggest that the nature and practice of online education will be changed in the next few years. Changes include how teaching and learning will happen, how online education will be managed and organized, and, most significantly, how people in the online environment will understand the meaning of education.

REFERENCES Alemi, F. F., & Maddox, P. J. (2008). Open courses: One view of the future of education. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 25(4), 329–342. PMID:19655635 Amirault, R. J. (2012). Distance learning in the 21st century university: Key issues for leaders and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(4), 253-265, 269. Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Taylor Francis Group. doi:10.4324/9780203463772 Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society of Technology in Education. Retrieved from https://www.liceopalmieri.edu.it/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Flip-Your-Classroom.pdf Bhatti, A., Tubaisahat, A., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (2005). Using technology-mediated learning environment to overcome social and cultural limitations in higher education. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 2, 67–76. doi:10.28945/811 Bogardus-Cortez, M. (2017). Emerging tech boost online education growth over next 4 years. Retrieved from edtechmagazine.com Bowser, A., Davis, K., Singleton, J., & Small, T. (2017). Professional learning: A collaborative model for online teaching and development. SRATE Journal, 26(1), 1–8. Brown, M. B., & Diaz, V. (2010). Mobile learning: Context and prospects. EDUCAUSE: Mobile Learning. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/MobileLearningContextandProspe/204894 Buzzetto-More, N.A., & Sweat-Guy, R. (2006). Incorporating the hybrid learning model into minority education at a historically black university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(1), 153-164.

13

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Dear, B. (2017). The Friendly Orange Glow: The Untold story of the PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture. Audiobook. Delisio, E. R. (2009). Merging online education with social networking: Welcome to present. Podiatry Management, 28(6), 73–76. Downes, S. (2005). e-Learning 2.0. ACM e-Learn Magazine, (10). Retrieved from http://www.downes. ca/post/31741 Ferrer, D. (2013). The One World Schoolhouse by Salman Khan—A Review. New York: Twelve/Hachette Book Group. Ferrer, D. (n.d.a). The History of Online Education. Retrieved from https://thebestschools.org/magazine/ online-education-history/#pre1900 Ferrer, D. (n.d.b). Current Trends in Online Education. Retrieved from https://thebestschools.org/magazine/current-trends-online-education/ Gray, P., & Riley, G. (2013). The challenges and benefits of unschooling according to 232 families who have chosen that route. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 7, 1–27. Helm Coordinated Science Laboratory. (1960). SL Quarterly Report. Urbana, IL: Online Learning and Innovative Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.innovativelearning.com/online_learning/ timeline.html Hodges, C. (2004). Designing to motivate: Motivational techniques to incorporate in e-learning experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(3), 1–7. Hoffman, D. D. (2016). Considering the Crossroads of Distance eEducation: The Experiences of Instructors as they Transitioned to Online or Blended Courses. Education Database. Retrieved from https:// search-proquest-com.ezproxy.shu.edu/docview/1806944939?accountid=13793 Hoffman, S. J. (2011). Teaching the Humanities Online: A Practical Guide to the Virtual Classroom: A Practical Guide to the Virtual Classroom. Armonk: Routledge. Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and Structure of Distance Education. London: Croom. Kang, H. (2009). A comparative study of the distance education history in China and the United States: A socio-historical perspective (Ph.D. Dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University. Keebler, B. (2014). Online education: Past, present, and future. Momentum, 45, 35–37. Klimova, B.F. & Kacet, J. (2014). Hybrid learning and its current role in the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182(2015), 477-481. Kyong-Jee, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says…. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4). Retrieved from http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Research%20Groups/On-line%20Learning/Bonk%20(2006).pdf Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605. doi:10.3102/00346543076004567

14

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Linardopoulos, N. (2010). A cross-comparison of perceptions of online education: A case of an online MBA program. Education Database. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.shu.edu/doc view/741224498?accountid=13793 Linda, L. (2015). The current conundrum of state authorization for online education programs and clinical placement. Journal of Allied Health, 44(3), 188–192. PMID:26342618 Lynch, M. (2008). What is the Future of Online Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from https:// www.thetechedvocate.org/future-online-learning-higher-education/ Mayadas, F., Bouren, J., & Bacsich, P. (2009). Online education today. Reprinted with permission from AAAS. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 49. doi:10.1126cience.1168874 Moe, R. (2014). The evolution and impact of the massive open online course. Education Database. Retrieved from https: //search-proquest-com.ezproxy.shu.edu/docview/1554699058?accountid=1379 Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Nicoll, L. A. (2016). Bringing education online: Institutional logics in the legitimation of and resistance to online higher education. Education Database. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy. shu.edu/docview/1785398290?accountid=13793 Noam, E. M. (1995). Electronics and the Dim Future of the University. Science, 270(5234), 247–249. doi:10.1126cience.270.5234.247 Olapiriyakul, K., & Scher, J. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: Employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 287–301. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.001 Orlando, J. (2016). Understanding Project-Based Learning in Online Education. Magna Publication. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com PLATO User’s Guide. (1981). CDC. Retrieved from http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/plato/97405900C_ PLATO_Users_Guide_Apr81.pdf Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI_Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct Courses Formats for Massive Open Online Course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E- learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ9829.pdf Rose, S. N. (1991). Collegiate-based noncredit courses. In B. B. Watkins & S. J. Wright (Eds.), The foundations of American distance education (pp. 67–92). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Ruth, S. (2012, June 18). Can MOOC’s and Existing E-Learning Efficiency Paradigms Help Reduce College Costs? Available at SSRN: doi:10.2139/ssrn.2086689 Steffens, K. (1989). Open and distance education in Germany. Retrieved from https://scholar.google. com/scholar?cluster=18015051997387056388&hl Stifle, J. (1972). The Plato IV Architecture. Retrieved from http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/ pdf/univOfIllinoisUrbana/plato/X-20_The_Plato_IV_Architecture_May72.pdf

15

 Online Education Past, Current, and Future

Watkins, B. L. (1991). A quite radical idea: The invention and elaboration of collegiate correspondence study. In B. L. Watkins & S. J. Wright (Eds.), The foundations of American distance education (pp. 1–35). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Wilcox, D., Thall, J., & Griffin, O. (2017). One canvas, two audiences: How faculty and students use a newly adopted learning management system. In Proceedings of the 2016 Society for Information Technology & teacher education international conference, USA (pp. 1163–1168). Retrieved from http:// er.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/123456789/193/LMS%20new%20adopted.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Google Scholar Wilkins, J. (2007). The future is now: Online education and the future of higher education. Sheriff, 59(3), 37. Woolley, D. R. (1994). PLATO: The Emergence of Online Community. Matrix News. Retrieved from http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Creating Meaningful Experiences in Online Courses; pages 85-100, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

16

17

Chapter 2

Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution Hasan Ucar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9174-4299 Anadolu University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Developments in information and communication technologies have reached an all-time high. These improvements have accelerated the transformation of higher education milieus on all sides. Accordingly, higher education institutions have begun to be delineated by these technological developments, activities, and practices. This technoculture era has started a new interaction among communication technologies, teachers, and learners. Herein, transhumanism regards changes in societies through these technological interactions and transformations. The worldwide technological transformation is approximating all societies and cultures to Marshall McLuhan’s notion of a global village day by day as a consequence of the technology paradigm. The heydays of the developments in technologies affect all human beings at all points from living, learning, communicating to eating and even thinking styles. Taking these points into account, this chapter will explore how these variables may influence the online distance education milieus in terms of technoculture and transhumanism perspectives.

INTRODUCTION Technological revolutions have changed the globe continuingly. Further, the stream of technology has been removing all barriers among the biological, psychical, and physical zones of human beings. Increasing globalization as a result of developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) demonstrates its effect from industry to the economy, and from education to our way of thinking. Therefore, the last quarter of the 20th century witnessed rapid and intense changes. With the advent of the Internet and other online technologies, it is often said that a very different future, which is probably beyond our imaginations, waits for us. Although it was foreseen that the 21st century would be technologically difDOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch002

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

ferent from the last century, it was not possible to predict such dazzling changes. The most important source of these changes has been the ICTs and the increasing appearance of their applications all over life. The applications of these changes have been implemented in the world of industry. By this means, the business world is changing on and on, so the way of teaching and learning must also be changed to keep up with the world of work. Within the technological revolutions, education has been undoubtedly the most important area that exposed to change. Even though this area tries to catch the stream of the change, most implementations and practices are still in their infancy. In the past, the requirement of being in a certain place and time for learning has changed and the opportunity to learn at any time and place has become part of the mainstream education. Initially, the change happened in the distance education area and following this change this field has been transformed into online learning by means of ICTs. Taking the current position of the technological sphere into account, much can be done to help all the current stakeholders to overcome the constraints in today’s online learning environments. Considering that artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and blockchain technologies have penetrated to our lives, it will be inevitable to see the substantial changes in open and distance learning processes and environments, too. Even though we are at the dawn of the technological shift, AI-integrated and blockchain-reinforced online and distance learning environments can strengthen their immune system and adapt themselves to these changes. We are now in the era of transhumanist paradigm where we should decide on our route and take the best of these views and applications to accord the online distance learning environments. This is because the increasing number of technophiles entails the authorities to adjust their present ways to take advantage of these transformations. The founder and executive chairman of the world economic forum, Klaus Schwab, pointed out to this transformation and stated that: We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society. (Schwab, 2016) In many areas, but most especially in online distance learning milieus, educational institutions should, metaphorically, begin to offer an a la carte menu instead of table d’hote menus. In order to take advantage of this wind of change, the authorities should adjust their practices to keep up with today’s societies that also exist in virtual spaces. Especially unorthodox learners who do not have the same learning patterns of prevailing teaching methods need to be taken into account. That is, in terms of technoculture and transhumanism perspectives, this chapter will explore how these variables may influence the online learning milieus. Based on the above thoughts, this chapter aims to discuss the strengths, downsides, and opportunities of these technologies will be discussed. Additional, this chapter further presents the inevitable changes, probable challenges, opportunities, and some suggestions will be presented.

18

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

BACKGROUND Upon examination of distance education history, it can be seen that there is a transformation from more conventional technologies to advanced, transhumanist technologies. In this regard, this section deals with a brief history of distance education and then examines current transhumanist technologies.

Distance Education: A Growing Future of Education Distance education can simply be defined as the separation of learners and teachers in time and space. The distance education system, which dates back to the early 1800s, has emerged to make more use of learning opportunities and has become one of the mainstream education types (Demiray & İşman, 2003; Moore & Kearsley, 2005). By eliminating limitations, especially between learners, instructors and learning resources, and inequalities among learners, distance education has come to be included in the main movements of the educational sphere. According to Moore and Kearsley (2005) distance education system witnessed five eras till today. The five phases are given in Figure 1. Figure 1. Five eras of distance education (adapted from Moore & Kearsley, 2005)

The journey of distance education began with the correspondence phase. In the phase of correspondence, the main medium used was mail. The materials were sent to the learners via postal services in order to give them the opportunity to study at home. This era lasted nearly for a hundred year. The second phase of distance education began with the use of radio in 1925s and television in 1935s. During this era, the learners began benefiting from audio and visual aspects of information delivered. The third phase of

19

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

distance education began with the foundation of Open University in the UK. In this era, the correspondence, audio, and visual aspects of teaching were integrated with the industrial system approach (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). The fourth phase was when the audio and video teleconference systems were used in delivering courses. In this era, learners and instructors were introduced synchronous group interaction. The fifth era began with the invention of the Internet. Within this phase, all materials have been provided across the online networks and online technologies have enabled online learning in virtual classes. Eventually, the distance education phenomenon has evolved to online distance education paradigm. Distance education is an interdisciplinary field which is defined with many terms, such as, distance learning, distance teaching, online learning, open learning, e-Learning, web-based learning, and online and distance learning (Demiray, 2003; Saba, 2013). Even though these terms are attributed to different meanings, the distance education expo has a universal consent. The traditional education system in higher education is restricted to physical classrooms and face to face interaction. The system was disposed to leave out the learners who are away from the campus and cannot attend to classrooms or/and afford the charges. Technology integration with distance education enables learners to reach educational opportunities, and vice versa. In this sense, online distance education targets to overcome the obstacles of attending the education mainstream and provides learners opportunity to enter the education system which is independent in time and place through information and communication technologies (Kanwar, Carr, Ortlieb, & Mohee, 2018). In the 21st century online distance education, a great deal learning processes are carried out through the Internet and computers or mobile devices. These technologies are naturally involved in the learning continuum. ICTs are quintessentially incorporated into the online distance education journey (Spector, 2012). Furthermore, these technologies are transforming the spirit of learning context and placing the online distance education into the center of the orbit. However, online distance education has changed the old habits and removed all barriers that facing learners in entering the higher education (Demiray, 2003). Especially with the Open Educational Resources (OERs) innovation commenced in 2001, many online learning resources have been shared for free (Tait, 2018). As a result of this, the underprivileged have found a big chance to enter the educational process through online access to learning materials. Tait (2018) also added: Opening up Higher Education as the Open Universities have done all around the world has made a huge contribution to education for development, and this movement can be situated in the context of resistance to the elitism that has gone before. It represents a political statement about the value and rights of all citizens rather than a few. (Tait, 2018) In the course of these events, online distance education has become a mighty alternative to higher education. It offers equal and mostly free access to courses from all over the world. Furthermore, online distance education has potential, though not completely, to displace higher education. According to a report prepared by Magda and Aslanian (2018), the future of online education is shiny because ICTs are easing the way of this type of education and the number of the learners is increasing all the time. They also added that the value of getting an online degree is more important than its cost and because of this, online learning has a positive effect on learners’ investments. The authors also suggested that online distance teaching institutions must take the following issues when preparing their courses in order to be in tune with the technological developments and today’s learners.

20

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

• • • • • •

Mobile friendly content Career services that help online learners Varied programs Innovations that reduce the cost and time to complete a program Interactions and relationships with other learners Using different channels for advertising and marketing

Magda and Aslanian (2018) also emphasized that higher education has been confronting a prevalent reduction in the number of learners, but online distance education has not experienced this issue so far. Similarly, Otto Peters (2014) stated that “online distance education is the way of tomorrow”. So, all shareholders, related to online distance education issue, should take the best of technological changes wrought by the rampant technological revolution.

Online Distance Education in the Shadow of Technological Innovations With the help of technological innovations, online learning opportunities have become more available, prevalent, and efficient. Insomuch that today millions of learners are earning degrees without even stepping into a classroom. According to Dron (2014), the winds of change in online distance education take place on account of many drivers. These factors come together and form a group of circumstances. These issues are given below: • • • • • • • •

New technological opportunities, The restrictive bounds of available technologies, Path dependencies caused by earlier decisions, Learners’ expectations, The barriers related to learners and learning environments, Other factors outside of the learning context such as rivals, legislation, funding, and with prior learning situations, Changes in the learning paradigm, Trends, position, and attitudes to learning and to existing technological opportunities.

Together, with the power of online technologies many universities, mostly in Ivy League, have begun to produce and offer Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Bozkurt and Keefer (2018) stated that MOOCs have emerged with the uptrend of online network technologies and this let the public learn openly. Even though there are many criticisms about these courses, such as dropout rates and quality issues, the cream of the universities mostly has partaken in this procession. According to Bates (2018), over 20 million learners enroll to these courses each year. Also, MOOCs providers assure today’s learners by offering learning and certification opportunities (Bates, 2018; Bozkurt, Akgün-Özbek, & Zawacki-Richter, 2017). On the other hand, online distance education movement has a great influence on higher education teaching methods. That is to say, higher education institutions have begun to integrate the online education with face to face teaching, and a new fashion teaching method that is hybrid or blended learning stream has come up (Bates, 2018; Halverson, Spring, Huyett, Henrie, & Graham, 2017). Regarding the blended learning issue, Bates (2018) stated that:

21

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

The real issue lies with faculty and especially departments moving to blended or hybrid learning that do not understand the need for learning design or the needs of students who are not on campus all the time. The integration of online and campus-based learning will often highlight the inadequacy of prior campus-based teaching methods. There is much that campus-based faculty can learn from distance education, in terms of more effective teaching. (Bates, 2018) Magda and Aslanian (2018) are drawing attention to the challenge of this breakthrough because they have concerns for quality in these courses as some of the higher education institutions do not have any experience in online distance education processes. Despite these concerns, many higher education institutions live up to online distance expectations and they are moving from single mode (face to face teaching) to dual mode position (both online and face to face teaching) (Bates, 2018).

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Technologically enhanced online and distance learning environments show promise in facilitating the way of our teaching and learning practices further. The emerging technologies, such us, robotics, Internet of Things, integration of brain and computer, AI, and blockchain technology will be apparently the default part of the educational processes in near future. However, AI and blockchain technology appear to be the significant tools that have a promising future. Based on these arguments, the main focus of this chapter will be on AI and blockchain technology, and their reflections on online distance education.

Artificial Intelligence AI is a concept that describes technological machines exhibit actions like human intelligence. AI is a result of the machine and deep learning notions that cover the big data and activator technologies (Vander Ark, 2017a). Even though this technology dates back to 1950s, with the help of today’s convenient and cost-affordable devices, and prevalent programming knowledge, AI has become widespread (Vander Ark, 2017a). However, according to Butler-Adam (2018), AI’s inception is not known for sure, but it came around a few years ago and come to the light in favor of digital technologies. These technologies conceive new facilities (Figure 2). The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing. (Schwab, 2016) There are many views both optimistic and pessimistic related to AI technology (Butler-Adam 2018; Vander Ark, 2017a). The main hopeful view is that the AI technology will help to humankind in easing the current workload and on this wise, people will have a more comfortable life. On the other hand, the doomy view, maybe the real, is that AI technology will substitute millions of people in the workplace and push millions out of work. This will unquestionably change nature of the human being. One of the most efficient organizations that promote the ethical usage of AI in favor of Homo sapiens is called 22

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

Humanity+ (Vita-More, 2016). This international nonprofit organization manifested a Transhumanist Declaration (Appendix 1), which was modified in 2009, with eight articles (Humanity+, 2018). The declaration draws attention to the future of humanity in the first article and states that: “Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.” (Humanity+, 2018) Figure 2. The form of artificial intelligence (Vander Ark, 2017a)

Even though AI provides many opportunities, it may also pose the following challenges as well (Vander Ark, 2017a): • • • • • • • • • •

Unemployment Acceleration of income inequality Privacy Algorithmic prejudice Access to AI technology and safety Ethics Weaponized AI Threatens to humanity Genome editing Bad usage of AI

Besides those challenges, AI technology will definitely have a great influence on present online and distance learning processes as a consequence of the improvements in ICTs (Kose, 2015).

23

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

AI and Its Reflections on Online Distance Education AI has not had total and clear reflections in education milieus, yet. In fact, there are still very few applications with their full potential. However, as the significance of competences and skills, such as creativity, critical thinking, self-management, problem-solving, and collaboration, in learning process increase, AI technology will adapt itself and come into play more (Roll & Wylie, 2016). Dickson (2017) states that AI will help the educators in solving many present problems. He also indicated that: Because of the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, a slow but steady transformation is coming to education, under the hood. In a few years, teachers will no longer be alone in shouldering the burden of training the young generation or the workforce at corporations (Dickson, 2017). While AI is rampant in other industries, it has a delay in reaching the education field. This is because the education domain is large and has a dynamic nature. However, AI apparently has a big potential to transform the present mass classrooms into more personalized ones. It can also help educators by performing basic duties, such as grading or tracking learners’ performances. And it’s clear that the traditional one-size education model will not continue, instead, AI can serve many evolvements (Vander Ark, 2017a). Here are some opportunities and supports that AI may provide (Vander Ark, 2017a): • • • • • • •

One-to-one tutoring Efficient and personalized assessment Efficient and personalized recommendations Upskilling in teacher development Hiring gap-fillers to keep up with the developments Maximizing learning processes Transportation of learners

Those are some of the opportunities that can support learning environments. When online and distance learning environments are equipped with AI-powered applications, instructors can easily detect the deficient issues related to learners and the learning environments and produce solutions accordingly. Besides, online learners may have digital tutors that guide them in an efficient and productive way. There are some examples of AI-powered educational applications, such as Zoomi, Thinkster Math, DreamBox, MATHia and Brainly, which help the learners and guide the instructors to produce better learning outputs. Further, with the help of special algorithms-drive AI, demotivating issues related to course design, materials, or learning environment can be determined and this can help the authorities to solve these issues in due time.

Blockchain Technology Blockchain technology is a novel endeavor that will probably be a vital part of the many online structures in our lives in the near future. According to Grech and Camilleri (2017) “a blockchain is a distributed ledger that provides a way for information to be recorded and shared by a community.” In other words, blockchain technology is a kind of record keeping regulation within a particular set of characteristics (Andolfatto, 2018). Because of its distributed and decentralized nature and operating smart contact among 24

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

users, this neologism has vital opportunities. These hallmarks of emerging blockchain technology vary from the Internet-based operations and give the blockchain a promising future (McArthur, 2018; YliHuumo, Ko, Choi, Park, & Smolander, 2016; Vander Ark, 2018). Grech and Camilleri (2017) present some of the opportunities that blockchain technology serves: • • • • • •

Self-domination on personal data, Confidence in payments and certifications Transparency in conducting transactions Inalterability of records Disintermediation Collaboration without a mediator

Blockchain technology has an invariable system that can be verified and controlled. Also, the recordings or assets cannot be hacked. Due to its distributed feature, blockchain technology will have far and wide many implementations related to digital records. Online distance education is a candidate for this technology to develop itself on a sound basis.

Blockchain Technology and Its Reflections on Online Distance Education Blockchain technology emerged with the orientation of cryptocurrency but now this technology has reached a new age with various applications. The blockchain technology has gone over many fields and now it is in search of helpful applications in education area where confidence is quite important (Albeanu, 2017; Hartley, 2018). The blockchain technology can aid the higher education institutions and the society to amend their mutual relationships (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2017; Vander Ark, 2017b). Besides, according to Universa Blockchain (2018), blockchain technology will simplify the communication and interaction among all shareholders in education context (Figure 3). In this respect, this technology may have vital roles in online distance education field where interaction has utmost importance. According to Grech and Camilleri (2017) accreditors, validators, testers, employers, learners, and teachers are the educational shareholders that quite likely take advantage of blockchain technology (Figure 4). According to Tapscott and Tapscott (2017) higher education institutions can benefit from blockchain opportunities within the following four issues: • • • •

Identity and Learner Records: Identifying learners and keeping their recordings secure Emerging Pedagogy: Creating new models of learning Fund and Reward: Funding education and rewarding learners for their successful work Designing a new Model of University (a Meta University Model): Designing new models of higher education

Blockchain technology can simplify and strengthen the assessment and management processes by providing permanent, transparent, and sustainable recordings of the learners and giving them access all the time (Jirgensons & Kapenieks, 2018). However, this technology can keep all diverse recordings easily and create a documentation mechanism for formal and informal learning operations, too. For this purpose, the recordings of learning processes should be digitalized and integrated into the registry of lifelong learning (Jirgensons & Kapenieks, 2018). Thus, learners’ encrypted documents can be used to 25

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

develop a lifelong learning process according to learners’ drawbacks and needs. Moreover, according to Matthews (2017) blockchain technology can reduce administrative costs and create a more secure environment to host these educational certifications. Herewith, this technology can accelerate higher education institutions in the validation of learners’ academic credentials. Figure 3. Blockchain technology in education area (Universa Blockchain, 2018)

Figure 4. Educational shareholders in blockchain technology (Grech & Camilleri, 2017)

26

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The dazzling changes and innovations in information and communication technologies for the past few years make the transformation of teaching and learning processes unavoidable. With the help of the ICTs and Internet technologies, the number of learners has been increasing all over the world and the lifelong learning phenomenon has been accepted as a must approach in a constantly changing globe where learners are exposed a great deal of information. Further, the rampant technological evolution creates many opportunities for higher education shareholders. The recent advancements in technology have necessitated the higher education institutions to keep up with these developments and transform their teaching ways. Thanks to this technological push, online and distance education is evolving all the time. Further, the ubiquity of online and distance education phenomenon led this field to be a more remarkable one. Considering the developments in AI and blockchain technology, radical changes will eventually transform the online and distance learning spaces. These technologies will probably pave the way for better interaction among the learners, learning materials, and teachers. The online distance learning environments will remain at a rough guess the same, but by means of new technologies and innovations, such as AI and blockchain technology more efficient and faster learning processes will quite likely take place. Online and distance education is now standing at an important crossroad where the authorities must decide on how to utilize AI and blockchain based technologies to contribute to issues such as personalized and differentiated learning, maximizing learning and educating processes, collaboration, and transparency. Moreover, the competition in current traditional education institutions will evolve to new technologies and innovations in online distance education. So how will online distance education field handle these innovations, and what aspects of these improvements and technologies need online distance education to be focusing on? The answers to these questions are important to show us the right way.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank Dr. Aras Bozkurt for his helpful comments on this chapter. I am also grateful for all his help.

REFERENCES Albeanu, G. (2017). Blockchain technology and education. In G. Albeanu, M. Popovici, R. Jugureanu, A. Adăscăliței, & O. Istrate (Eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Virtual Learning (pp. 271-275), Bucharest, Romania: Bucharest University Press Andolfatto, D. (2018). Blockchain: What it is, what it does, and why you probably don’t need one. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 100(2), 87–95. doi:10.20955/r.2018.87-95 Bates, T. (2018). Why is innovation in teaching in HE so difficult? Integrating online and distance learning into the mainstream. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2018/08/01/why-is-innovationin-teaching-in-he-so-difficult-4-integrating-online-and-distance-learning-into-the-mainstream/

27

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

Bozkurt, A., Akgün-Özbek, E., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Trends and patterns in massive open online courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOCs (2008-2015). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 118–147. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080 Bozkurt, A., & Keefer, J. (2018). Participatory learning culture and community formation in connectivist MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 776–788. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1412988 Butler-Adam, J. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution and education. South African Journal of Science, 114(5-6), 1–1. doi:10.17159ajs.2018/a0271 Clark, D. (2016). 10 ways Blockchain could be used in education. Retrieved from https://oeb.global/ oeb-insights/10-ways-blockchain-could-be-used-in-education Demiray, U. (2003). Defining distance education. In A. İşman, M. Barkan, & U. Demiray (Eds.), Online Distance Education Book. TOJET. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/e-book/ebook.htm Demiray, U., & İşman, A. (2003). History of distance education. In A. İşman, M. Barkan, & U. Demiray (Eds.), Online Distance Education Book. TOJET. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/e-book/ebook.htm Dickson, B. (2017). How artificial intelligence is shaping the future of education. Retrieved from https:// www.pcmag.com/article/357483/how-artificial-intelligence-is-shaping-the-future-of-educati Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and change: Changing how we change. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda (pp. 237–265). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. Grech, A., & Camilleri, A. F. (2017). Blockchain in Education. Inamorato dos Santos, A. (Ed.) EUR 28778 EN; doi:10.2760/60649 Halverson, L. R., Spring, K. J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C. R., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Blended learning research in higher education and K-12 settings. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology (pp. 1–30). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_31-1 Hartley, R. (2018). What is the role of blockchain in education? Retrieved from https://edtechnology. co.uk/Blog/what-is-the-role-of-blockchain-in-education/ Humanity+. (2018). Transhumanist Declaration. Retrieved from https://humanityplus.org/philosophy/ transhumanist-declaration/ Jirgensons, M., & Kapenieks, J. (2018). Blockchain and the future of digital learning credential assessment and management. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 145–156. doi:10.2478/ jtes-2018-0009 Kanwar, A. S., Carr, A., Ortlieb, K., & Mohee, R. (2018). Opportunities and challenges for campusbased universities in Africa to translate into dual-mode delivery. Distance Education, 39(2), 140–158. doi:10.1080/01587919.2018.1457944 Kose, U. (2015). For an intelligent e-learning: A managerial model suggestion for artificial intelligence supported e-learning content flow. In U. Kose & D. Koc (Eds.), Artificial intelligence applications in distance education (pp. 149–160). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6276-6.ch009

28

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

Magda, A. J., & Aslanian, C. B. (2018). Online college students 2018: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House. Marlin, D. (2018). Millennials, this is how artificial intelligence will impact your job for better and worse. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmarlin/2018/01/16/millennials-this-is-howartificial-intelligence-will-impact-your-job-for-better-and-worse/#4a9bad4f4533 Matthews, D. (2017). What blockchain technology could mean for universities. Retrieved from https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/news/what-blockchain-technology-could-mean-for-universities McArthur, D. (2018). Will blockchains revolutionize education? Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/ articles/2018/5/will-blockchains-revolutionize-education Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Peters, O. (2014). Foreword. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 237–265). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599. doi:10.100740593-016-0110-3 Saba, F. (2013). Building the Future: A Theoretical Perspective. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 49–65). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch4 Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-howto-respond?utm_content=buffer8a47b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_ campaign=buffer Spector, J. M. (2012). The future of distance learning technology: It’s not about the technology and it’s not about the distance. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education (pp. 21–29). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_2 Tait, A. W. (2018). Education for development: From distance to open education. The Journal of Learning for Development, 5(2), 101-115. Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2017). The blockchain revolution and higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(2), 11–24. Universa Blockchain. (2018). Blockchain in education. Retrieved from https://medium.com/universablockchain/blockchain-in-education-49ad413b9e12 Vander Ark, T. (2017a). Ask about AI: The future of work and learning. Retrieved from http://www. gettingsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/17-EdIn-05-white-paper-rd9-1.pdf Vander Ark, T. (2017b). How blockchain will transform credentialing (and education). Retrieved from http://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/12/blockchain-will-transform-credentialing-education/

29

 Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

Vander Ark, T. (2018). 20 Ways blockchain will transform (okay, may improve) education. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanderark/2018/08/20/26-ways-blockchain-will-transform-okmay-improve-education/#1d4cf0f04ac9 Vita-More, N. (2016). Transhumanism: The growing worldview. In N. Lee (Ed.), Google It: total information awareness (pp. 475–487). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6415-4_27 Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology? - A systematic review. PLoS One, 11(10), 1–27. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163477 PMID:27695049

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Artificial Intelligence (AI): The theory governing the development of computer systems that are able to perform tasks which normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages. Blended Learning: It is a term that describes the combination of online learning and traditional classroom practices. It is also known as hybrid learning. Blockchain Technology: It is an online ledger distributed across the networks in which the data, independent of each other, that is blocks, are connected to each other by means of algorithms and consequently the chains are formed. Distance Education (DE): Planned and organized teaching and learning in which learners are separated from teachers or facilitators in time and space. Dual Mode University: A university model that offers both campus-based and distance education programs. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): It is a term that defines the integration of information technologies and computers. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): These courses are mostly online free courses that planned for a large number of participants. The courses are also open to everyone without entry qualifications. Online Learning: It is an educational approach that benefits from online technologies. Open Educational Resources (OERs): The teaching, learning, and research materials that are open to everyone and completely free to use without any restrictions. Single Mode University: A university model that offers only distance education programs.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism; pages 237251, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

30

Online and Distance Education in the Era of Rampant Technological Revolution

APPENDIX Transhumanist Declaration 1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth. 2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions. 3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress. 4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented. 5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded. 6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future. 7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise. 8. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies. Source: https://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/

31

32

Chapter 3

Thriving Through Disruption: COVID-19, Online Education, and Innovation Paul Michalec University of Denver, USA Lindsay Brunhofer University of Denver, USA John A. O’Malley Regis University, USA

ABSTRACT In this chapter, the authors will explore the ways COVID-19 initiated widespread reform in how faculty approach online teaching. The researchers will focus on how they addressed the shift from emergency remote teaching to faculty empowerment, centered on best practices in online learning. The change, like many campuses around the nation, happened quickly and with limited resources. A central argument of this chapter is that the pandemic created unexpected opportunities for collaboration and innovation across the divide between face-to-face and online instructional design. In tackling this challenge, the researchers were inspired by the community of inquiry framework. The framework is a social constructivist model describing the learning environment as the intersection of three key “presences”: teaching, social, and cognitive. Combining this framework with social-emotional learning theory suggests that online instructional designers consider the trinity of feeling, doing, and creating when designing and delivering faculty professional development.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch003

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Thriving Through Disruption

INTRODUCTION Three words that undoubtedly define the higher education landscape now and perhaps long into the future: COVID-19, disruption, and online. The changes to instructional design, implementation, and assessment in college classrooms, even after the return to normal campus operations, feel permanent. They foreshadow a deeply changed instructional landscape. When and if things return to “instructionalnormal,” students and faculty will have developed, experimented with, and refined forms of online education that just a few months ago seemed unlikely and unwarranted. The COVID-19 pandemic initiated previously improbable changes. Take for example the heretical thought, on many campuses, that massive open online courses (MOOCs) and online program management companies (OPMs), would be the universal norm across the nation and world. This time of pandemic-driven instructional disruption is opening new ways to approach teaching and learning in online spaces. The new normal is online education since there are no real scalable alternatives. And post-pandemic, many faculty and staff will likely continue working remotely. The conceptual and practical dominance of face-to-face education has been disrupted, dislodged, and separated from notions of the status quo in higher education classrooms. In this article, the authors will explore the ways COVID-19 initiated widespread change in how faculty approached teaching in a College of Education. The researchers will focus on how they addressed the shift from emergency remote teaching (Hodges et al., 2020) to faculty empowerment centered on best practices in online pedagogy. Our shift, like many other campuses around the nation, happened quickly and with limited resources. A central argument of this article is that the COVID-19 pandemic created opportunities for collaboration and innovation in the College across the instructional cultures of face-to-face and online instruction. In making this argument, the researchers will rely on the Community of Inquiry (CI) framework (Garrison, et al., 1999) and its three key “presences:” teaching, social, and cognitive.

BACKGROUND The three authors represent three distinct roles and voices in the College: an online instructional designer, a faculty hired to teach in partnership with an OPM, and a faculty teaching primarily face-to-face classes. Examples of educational planning in times of crises show that creativity is important but often hard to foster when there is high-stakes pressure to quickly retool. Within the context of the College making the rapid transition to fully online education, the authors investigate the question: What is required in faculty professional development to move from survival instincts of “how to do” online instruction to the creative flourishing of “now, what can I try?” In tackling this question, the researchers were inspired by the widely researched framework for designing learning experiences in online environments, the Community of Inquiry (CI) framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999). The Community of Inquiry framework is a social constructivist model describing the learning environment as the intersection of three key “presences:” teaching, social, and cognitive. Combining CI with the authors’ shared experiences in leading reform in a time of rapid change, three operational frames resulted that instructional designers can consider when designing and delivering faculty professional development: feeling, doing, and creating. Later in this paper, after the authors provide context and historical background, the researchers will connect the Community of Inquiry framework to the three instructional frames of feeling, doing, and creating. What

33

 Thriving Through Disruption

the researchers will present in this article is an intimate portrait of how three members of an academic community responded to the disruption in ways that were generative and life-giving. As the College of Education made the rapid change in instructional approaches required by shelterin-place orders, the three authors found themselves collaborating to help faculty transition to online instruction in a matter of weeks. The immensity of the disruption to “normal” did feel normal in its universal quality; there was no opting out of teaching online for anyone. The College has always valued community and the sharing of ideas and expertise, so collaboration was nothing new to the authors. However, COVID-19 added an element of urgency and emotional intensity to the researchers’ professional development work. This sense of embodied (felt) urgency elevated ideas and strategies that might be less evident when stress levels are lower, and the instructional body is less inclined toward fight or flight (Menakeem, 2017). Instead of gravitating toward existing strategies for faculty professional development in online education, the researchers turned toward each other with the openness and curiosity of saying, “We can figure this out together in a way that demonstrates fidelity to our professional expertise and the needs of our college faculty.” For many College faculty, the approach to teaching in response to COVID-19 was survival (Hodges et al., 2020). The goal appeared to be to hang on, believing that in futureacademic quarters some of what counts as a face-to-face instructional space will return. On the researchers’ campus, roughly 50% of faculty had little or no experience organizing or teaching courses through the learning management system Canvas. This was the case even though teaching through Canvas was a university-wide expectation prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the rapid change, in a matter of days, from face-to-face to fully online, a survival response made sense. The researchers noted that for some College of Education faculty, this was exciting and for others, fear and uncertainty flavored their changed landscape. Suddenly, any form of resistance or hesitancy to teach online was no longer an option. Yet the transition in pedagogy and curriculum, even in the hands of skilled professionals, was too abrupt to facilitate thoughtful, generative, and staged change. The technical elements of online course design and implementation overshadowed, by necessity, other instructional considerations such as instructor authenticity, course design, or how to form instructional relationships with students. The university responded to instructional needs with the tool closest at hand, technical skill building, which left the social-emotional aspects of online teaching less well defined. This paper reports on the ways the researchers learned to create space for and amplify the social-emotional component of effective teaching in professional development. Alongside technical approaches, the authors encouraged faculty to consider the role of their feelings as a foundational element in instructional design and implementation in online education. The near universal perception of face-to-face instruction as the primary form of teaching and learning in higher education is experiencing a severe case of identity crisis. For many faculty, the shift feels terminal, or at least in a state of slow transition. There is little doubt that when higher education returns to instructional “normal,” teaching and learning will not look like the status quo of old. Disruption and innovation are likely to be the new normal. The financial, instructional, and emotional costs of shortterm and long-term change are high. In addition to COVID-19, higher education is already facing an enrollment cliff. Demographically, by 2026, there are not enough graduating high school seniors to fill available seats in college classrooms (Campion, 2020). It is now widely accepted that because of declining enrollment, colleges and universities, especially private for-profit institutions, will experience increased rates of closure in the next five to 10 years (Vasquez and Bauman, 2019). The pandemic has accelerated the speed of change in higher education.

34

 Thriving Through Disruption

COVID-19 AND INNOVATION IN ONLINE EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT In the next section of this chapter, the authors will present two innovative responses to emergency remote teaching in online spaces. The first frame was to elevate faculty stories of transition as a form of knowing that could inform instructional design practices in the College. The second frame involved adjusting the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al, 1999) to the instructional context of the College of Education. The resulting modification yielded three questions the researchers found helpful in guiding their professional development work in service of their colleagues as they fully engaged online instruction: “What are you feeling?”, “What are you doing?”, and “What are you creating?”.

Story and Technology as Knowing It is hard to imagine what might replace the intimate human relationships that often form in face-toface educational spaces. This is how people have learned from each other since the dawn of human consciousness. Caves, firepits, and communal gatherings are sites of storytelling that often formed the sacred spaces where essential knowledge was passed from one generation to the next (Lopez, 2020). The power of transferability in education is generated through a good story; a narrative told by an expert who has fully and deeply experienced the phenomena at hand and a listener eager to hear the story to its end. This, it seems, is what faculty do when they are at their instructional best. According to Palmer (2017), faculty who change the lives of students are gifted at connecting the big story of their academic discipline with the more intimate story of the student’s life and professional passions. As humans, we are story, and story is the gift of teaching. This is how teaching and learning has apparently occurred for tens of thousands of years. Armstrong (2009) argues that the caves and drawings in Lascaux, France are essentially teaching spaces where adolescents, through elaborate rituals, were initiated into the adult life of the community. Her scholarship suggests that 17,000 years ago, youth entered the cave as one type of person (a child) and exited transformed into a new person (an adult and community member). Her analysis and cultural comparisons suggest that elders and shamans told stories, accented by the visual images of animals (real and mythic), to teach initiates new ways of seeing and being in the world. This seems like an ancient version of the modern-day classroom in higher education, where young minds are introduced to the wisdom and knowledge of the academic discipline. Upon graduation, students leave the metaphorical sacred space of the campus and enter society as more complete human beings, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. What is also striking, especially for the purposes of this article, is the use of technology in both instructional spaces. The proto-educators in Lascaux used colored pigments to create images that conveyed important learnings to the community youth. Faculty in the College of Education, now more than before, use computers to translate their personal story and disciplinary knowledge into digital media with the intent of enhancing the knowing of their students. Synchronous technologies such as Zoom allow faculty and students to virtually see and interact with each other (Martin, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Budhrani, 2017). One goal of higher education is to graduate students who are emotionally and intellectually prepared for their chosen roles in society. Technology is an important part of that transformation of self. One of the questions the authors explore in this article is how online education has impacted the human quality of teaching and learning through story. Though the physical nature of on-campus learning spaces cannot be replicated in the online environment, many other elements can be recreated. The 35

 Thriving Through Disruption

universal shift to online education presented the College of Education with an opportunity to consider and embrace the advantages of online learning.

Community of Inquiry as an Organizing Framework for Professional Development The researchers, in their vision of professional development, resisted the pull toward emergency remote teaching – the type of teaching that favors moving basic course materials online and lectures to a video conferencing platform (Hodges et al., 2020). While emergency remote teaching can be an efficient approach in times of crisis, the authors preferred to pursue an expanded sense of faithfulness and fidelity in instructional design (Palmer, 2017). In short, emergency remote teaching can be efficient, but it didn’t fit the sense of instructional integrity the College of Education faculty wished to embody in their teaching. Instead, the researchers aimed to support faculty in creating effective online courses by utilizing instructional designs and techniques that enhance learning, while also capitalizing on the social emotional components of teaching. The authors framed professional development in the belief that online courses, when designed around intention and best practices, can respond to unknown challenges during a time of global upheaval (Hodges et al., 2020). In addition, new opportunities for creating a more inclusive environment opened with the implementation of Universal Design for Learning in the online instruction. In the College of Education, the initial response to the rapid shift from face-to-face to online education was spontaneous and carried a sense of urgency. In a matter of days, three different professional development sessions were offered to the faculty and more were planned. The need for instructional support emerged organically out of the interests of individual faculty and staff. John, one of the authors of this paper, realized that instead of disparate and reactive sessions, the College could form an online council to coordinate and leverage the expertise of faculty and instructional designers. He recruited Lindsay, another author, to co-host a Zoom session to ascertain the interest in the College around an online instruction steering committee. Paul, the third author, attended that meeting in which the viability of an online council, the immediate instructional challenges in the College, and the interests and expertise of the assembled faculty and staff were explored. In the post-meeting reflection, the three authors identified three questions forming a framework for integrating the social-emotional, instructional, and imaginative elements of online instruction: What are you feeling? What are you doing? What are you creating? Lindsay realized that the three questions organically emerging from the context of the College of Education fit with the Community of Inquiry model for instructional design. The Community of Inquiry framework uses a social constructivist model to describe the learning environment as the intersection of three key “presences:” teaching, social, and cognitive (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 1999). Teaching presence is the intentional design, teaching, and facilitation of the social and cognitive presences. Social presence is collaboration and group cohesion in a learning group. Cognitive presence is the extent to which learners can construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999). Taken together, these three presences form the Community of Inquiry framework in which learning experiences are co-constructed by learners and teachers. As such, this model helped guide the development of the authors’ three essential questions for faculty development: “What are you feeling?” (opportunities for demonstrating social presence), “What are you doing?” (opportunities for demonstrating cognitive presence), and “What are you creating?” (opportunities for developing teaching presence). All three questions were used in subsequent professional development sessions hosted by Lindsay and John. 36

 Thriving Through Disruption

In the remainder of this article, the authors will articulate the meaning and purpose behind each question. They will also offer practical ways these questions can turn the disruption of COVID-19 into a generative space for effective online education by creating a structure for deep professional reflection in a time of crisis. With few additional resources and a short amount of time, the authors naturally turned to their individual strengths as researchers, scholars, and practitioners of education. The researchers shared resources including best practices in online and face-to-face teaching, research on social-emotional learning, and experience with the Community of Inquiry model. In combination, these perspectives show promise for broadening emergency remote teaching to include more expansive pedagogies and instructional designs for online education. The authors’ articulation of the three questions will begin with feeling, move to classroom instruction, and conclude with an invitation for faculty to explore the creative edge of online education.

What Are You Feeling?: Demonstrating Social Presence in Online Courses The authors start with the question of feeling because of their belief that the social-emotional underscores all other considerations and approaches to instructional design, implementation, and assessment (CASEL, 2020). In the Community of Inquiry framework, social presence in the learning environment is crucial to the development of cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999). The authors knew they had to tackle the “What are you feeling?” question first in their professional development sessions for faculty to deeply engage cognitively and begin to manage their own teaching presence in an online environment. In The Happiness Hypothesis, Johnathan Haidt (2006) offers the image of an elephant and a rider to capture the role of emotions and feelings in human cognition and behavior. The elephant represents the core of emotions and feelings. It is an ancient, well-established center of human knowing and understanding. It is often characterized by evolutionary biologists as the lizard-brain and is considered millions of years old. The rider is the mind, a recent addition to human knowing and meaning-making. In contrast to the lizard-brain, the rider is young, roughly 60,000 years old. These two brains process information differently and follow unique neural pathways. But together, they form the central decision- making and meaning-making center of human knowing. For the researchers, as designers of professional development, the functional beauty of the metaphor is the way it captures the complex responses educators have to the unexpected. Do they respond with openness and imagination or their fight, flight, or freeze impulse? Is the rider or the elephant informing the initial response to the unforeseen disruption on college campuses as COVID-19 spread and all instruction went online? Knowing the difference is important because the elephant, the lizard-brain, is big, ponderous, and often unpredictable. It is easily frightened into flight, freeze, or erratic behavior. Menakem (2017) shows that when our ancient and first “lizard-brain” takes control, the rational brain can struggle to act in a predictable fashion. When under stress, people can often act in what appears as irrational ways and they often can’t explain later why they took the action they did. They just acted out of instinct. When the elephant bolts, it will take the rider where it wants to go, regardless of the reasoned strategies of the mind. A frightened and fearful instructor, even while not fully aware of those emotions, can find it difficult to engage in wise instructional design with clarity and purpose. Flight, a natural human response, from the instructional space makes more sense than remaining in a state of uncertainty. There are several key aspects of this metaphor that are important to this article and the authors’ work to improve online education in the College of Education: 37

 Thriving Through Disruption

Aspect One: The elephant and the rider (emotions and intellect) function best as a team, instead of each trying to control the other Aspect Two: When in conflict, the elephant wins even when the mind feels like it is making rational decisions regarding behavior Aspect Three: The mind can contribute structure to the power of emotions Aspect Four: Stress or unfamiliar environments can disrupt the integration of emotions and mind. Emotions, feelings, and reason materialize in complex ways within the body and they are present and play a role in faculty professional development, whether or not the instructional designer or the faculty attend to them. COVID-19 had the markings of a major stress event for many faculty because of the speed with which it initiated a change in pedagogy from face-to-face to fully online. Years of experience and instructional wisdom were inadequate to the challenge, given the pace, ubiquitous nature, and novelty of the changing instructional context. The elephants of fear, uncertainty, and anxiety were present in the College, as everyone dove into the task of making meaning of the immediate and long-term changes to courses, enrollment, employment, emotional-health, and programing. Like most campuses, the shift to a coronavirus world was immediate. One week was face-to-face; the next week was fully online. There was no other choice but to retool to a completely different approach to teaching and learning. The authors’ initial response was to focus on the technical elements of instructional design and implementation. The researchers needed to rely on the strategic mind and structured professional development to meet the immediate need of faculty to flip their courses to online platforms. There was simply no other choice. But for many faculty, the elephant of emotions was still rumbling away in various stages of discontent, fear, or frustration. Parker Palmer (2017) reminds all educators that “We teach who we are” (p. 1). The emotional state of the educator has a direct impact on the implementation of the technical and procedural elements of instruction. The more attuned the teacher is to their inner-life, the more authentic and integrated their classroom presence can be. As Palmer notes, a fearful teacher projects fear into the classroom, infecting students, and content with an array of negative feelings that can disrupt the learning process. Negative instructional emotions can become a form of “shadow curriculum” (Uhrmacher, Moroye, & Flinders, 2016) that informs and influences the ethos of the face-to-face and online classroom. Fear focuses attention, but it can also stimulate an instructional move toward structure and compliance which can limit learning (Brackett, 2019). Students who are also experiencing elements of fear and uncertainty match their emotions to the in-class presence of the professor. Faculty fear can fuel student fear, and elevated levels of anxiety can trigger a transactional response to learning where mastery is defined by the course syllabus and is exchanged for a grade. When knowledge is a commodity, knowing as a deepening of self in relation to the world and others is diminished. “The problem, of course, is that schools and other institutions of education are not places of knowing, but places of knowledge. Knowledge is form separated from life. It stands by itself, removed from the vitality and dynamics of life, from the spirit” (Huebner, 1999, p. 351). The opposite is equally true, as a centered and confident educator projects calm, certainty, and passion for their content and pedagogy. The rider and the elephant operate as a team to advance learning across the full range of emotional and intellectual parameters. Together, they can create a space of authenticity and “emancipatory knowledge” (Cranton, 2016) that students recognize as an invitation to join the teacher on the journey into the complex and rewarding terrain of learning (Palmer, 2017; Rendón, 38

 Thriving Through Disruption

2012). In classroom spaces where teacher and student are engaged in the shared endeavor of conversing with the bigness of the academic discipline, the transactional nature of learning is diminished in favor of transformation and transcendence (Cranton, 2016 & Schwartz, 2019). Educational philosopher and curricularist Dwayne Huebner (1999) names this human desire as “moreness,” stating “The moreness in the world, spirit, is a moreness that infuses each human being. Not only do we know more than we say, we ‘are’ more than we ‘currently are.’ That is, the human being dwells in the transcendent, or more appropriately, the transcendent dwells in the human being” (p. 404). It seems humans are hardwired to seek relational and emotional transformation in ourselves and others, especially in the context of learning (Cranton, 2016, Schwartz, 2019, Palmer, 2017 & Rendon, 2012). This observation is supported by the Community of Inquiry model of learning where social presence is an essential pillar in the educational experience (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The authors noticed that some College of Education faculty moved quickly in their application of best practices in online learning. They employed short videos with time to reflect through course discussion boards before moving into shorter Zoom meetings using a flipped classroom mindset. They seemed to grasp the importance of attending to the relational and emotional elements of online instruction. Other faculty were more hesitant and sought ways to integrate into their online classes less viable face-to-face approaches to what education should or ought to look like. It became clear to the authors during professional development sessions that many instructors were hesitant to discuss what they were doing out of an apparent fear of being judged. Their online classes met for the full class duration via Zoom, lecturing during most of the live session. They seemed to act as if little had changed in their instructional approaches except moving from face-to-face to online. The researchers sensed they needed to help faculty move past the necessary but limited effectiveness of technical expertise (running Zoom) to an understanding that the social-emotional component of professional development is an equally important starting point in the transition to online teaching. According to Garrison and Arbaugh (2007), elements of social presence in the Community of Inquiry model include affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion. The researchers’ aim was to provide opportunities for social presence to spur cognitive presence and the formation of high-quality learning environments for students. Beginning professional development with “What are you feeling?” opened the coaching space for affective expression and sharing. Naming our common fears and uncertainties helped to develop a sense of camaraderie and connection with other faculty members experiencing similar challenges. The awareness that “I’m not alone right now in feelings of fright or fear,” increased the capacity for deeper conversations on the challenges and opportunities of adjusting face to face instruction to better fit effective forms of online instruction. The “feeling” question seemed to provide a bridge for faculty who were seeking ways to transfer passion for their subject matter and instructional expertise in face-to-face classrooms to online platforms. It invited faculty to consider new ways of teaching that could encourage students to form a learningrelationship with that which is bigger than self and self-knowing; the deep wisdom of the academic discipline. It leans toward Huebner’s notion of “moreness” in online instruction. This shift is consistent with the ABC theory of personal change, an approach within Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (Ellis & Harper, 1961). It argues that it is not the activating event (moving online), the “A” in the model, that encourages change, but rather the belief, emotions, and feelings around the event, the “B” in the model. The ABC model helped the authors to understand and respond to faculty beliefs around what education “should” or “ought” to look like in online education. It underscored our belief that starting workshops

39

 Thriving Through Disruption

with the social-emotional domain (“B”) could help clarify faculty feelings about online education and their willingness to consider new approaches to teaching and learning. By building rapport and exploring the social-emotional domain, faculty began relaxing their beliefs about teaching, opened up, and were more likely to share what they were doing to respond to online education. As Palmer (2017) would argue, teaching is not just a job but rather a calling for many educators. Therefore, asking faculty what they are doing is not just about asking what their courses look like, but rather who they are as a person and teacher. Asking about feelings invited faculty to build the rapport and trust necessary to explore “What are you doing?” with online delivery. The two questions, feeling and doing, are intertwined, yet can be approached separately when considering instructional design. While keeping this mutual relationship in mind, the authors now turn to the “What are you doing?” question.

What Are You Doing?: Demonstrating Cognitive Presence in Online Courses As the College of Education continued to move instruction online, it became evident to the researchers that the social-emotional domain (“What are you feeling?”) was necessary but not sufficient. As the Community of Inquiry (CI) model suggests, the “What are you doing?” question is aimed at cognitive decision-making and intellectual curiosity for faculty. The question is intended as a collegial invitation to share, not a critical interrogation of teaching practices. According to Garrison and Arbaugh (2007), indicators of cognitive presence in CI are puzzlement, information exchange, connecting ideas, and applying new ideas. This element of the Community of Inquiry model represents thinking in action, or what is sometimes referred to as critical reflection (Schwartz, 2019 & Shea & Bidjerano, 2012). The researchers learned that a hard part of introducing the “What are you doing?” question for instructional designers is adjusting the pace of information and range of teaching techniques. For instance, during professional development sessions, the authors realized that their enthusiasm and depth of knowledge for online education could be a hindrance. The researchers’ expertise and scholarly understandings could be problematic when some of their faculty colleagues were unfamiliar or uncomfortable with online instruction. The authors learned to temper their excitement about sharing all the emerging ideas around best practices. Too much passion, too early, can overwhelm faculty when the instructional designer shares too many solutions to the questions or challenges faculty face in redesigning the structure and delivery of their courses. The authors were regularly tempted to offer all their knowledge about discussion boards, short sync videos, interviews faculty could record with national leaders, project-based learning, experiential learning in roleplays via Zoom, or building online assessment tools. In the researchers’ effort to help their colleagues, they were tempted to jump the Grand Canyon gap between their expertise and the capacity of College of Education faculty to absorb all the new information and teaching techniques. Many faculty perceive online education as on-ground education delivered through a computer. When addressing the “What are you doing?” question, faculty would often reflect on what they did in their on-ground course while asking how to do the same online. There is a strategic quality to this response since many faculty in the College are nationally recognized experts in their discipline and applauded through student feedback for their teaching. They have decades of experience, effectively delivering education in a face-to-face classroom. Educational psychologist and social constructivist Lev Vygotsky (1987) writes that attentiveness to the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is key to effective instruction. He argues that learners, especially when mastering complex ideas or learning new skills, can encounter limits to how fast or how far ahead of their current intellectual and emotional space they can move. When an instructor requires too 40

 Thriving Through Disruption

much, too quickly, the learner can struggle to make sense of the learning and can withdraw, shut down, or master only small amounts of the curriculum. When the authors crossed this line in their professional development, they recognized the overwhelmed expression of faculty as they flooded them with technical information or offered too many instructional considerations. Slowing down, which isn’t easy in a crisis requiring immediate response, and framing the doing question with intention and thought can lead to successful change in practice. In his signature research, Carl Rogers (1961) compared different strategies and procedures for leading people toward change. From his data, Rogers proposed a person-centered learning theory for successfully helping people transition to new ways of being and thinking. Rogers’ theory focused on several key points, “…(a) pointing out and labeling the behaviors which had proven unsatisfying, (b) of exploring objectively with the client the reason behind these behaviors, and (c) of establishing through re-education more effective program cling habits” (p. 47). The authors found that Rogers’ theory of change could be modified to fit the professional development interests of faculty to include: One: Helping to name the elements of online instruction that they think are not working Two: Seeking to understand the reasons why they are continuing face-to-face strategies that were illfitted to online education Three: Coaching toward best practices for online education to improve instruction and achieve learning goals In this era of COVID-driven online education, face-to-face education is no longer the norm. But in our professional development work, the authors realized the importance of starting a conversation on change by stepping into a faculty member’s experience of traditional models of face-to-face education. This meant that the “What are you doing?” question must attend to and account for the implicit pull toward on-ground education in the minds of faculty. By starting coaching conversations with their known practices, the researchers invited faculty to share what they value in their approach to education. The authors were more successful starting with appreciation of faculty instructional skill instead of jumping right to techniques and strategies for online instruction. The researchers invited faculty to tell stories of past successes. Thus, allowing instructional designers and faculty to walk together, exploring a range of online options that were within the range of change for particular faculty. What the authors are suggesting in the Rogers’ example, for instructional designers and coaches, is that it is important to remember that the rational and emotional are intertwined. Rogers reminds anyone seeking to change another person’s behavior that “to withhold one’s self as a person and to deal with the other person as an object does not have a high probability of being helpful” (p.4). Therefore, when exploring what faculty are doing, a coach must connect first and build a relationship before introducing best practices in online education. The “What are you doing?” question for online education requires rethinking, relearning, and starting anew when approaching student learning. The authors invite instructional designers to listen to the stories of faculty as they talk about student impact over the years. And slowly, with a strong collegial relationship intact, introduce new ways to achieve the same learning outcomes using online approaches. As change agents the researchers learned to slow down. To listen to the strengths of each instructor. Then they could introduce online techniques for “doing” instruction to increase student learning that could bring the faculty member satisfaction in this new way of teaching.

41

 Thriving Through Disruption

What Are You Creating?: Developing Teaching Presence in Online Courses The authors’ third guiding question for their professional development work in the College of Education, “What are you creating?”, builds on the previous themes of social-emotional and cognitive domains in the Community of Inquiry model. The question seeks to empower faculty to imagine and create a strong teaching presence in their online classroom by designing learning experiences that foster the social and cognitive presence of the students. While the rational element of designing these learning experiences is important, the researchers’ goal was to invite faculty into a place of creative problem-solving in order to move from a place of instructional discomfort to comfort in teaching in the online environment. Essentially, the authors’ challenge in instructional design became creating opportunities and strategies for turning faculty in-person presence to faculty online presence. The authors approached this by addressing the social-emotional (“What are you feeling?”) and the cognitive (“What are you doing?”) before developing a creative teaching presence (“What are you creating?”) As described by Garrison and Arbaugh (2007) in the Community of Inquiry model, indicators of teaching presence include: establishing curriculum and methods, sharing stories of personal meaning, and focusing discussion. While the art of fostering an instructional presence during in-person classes was well known to the College faculty, the process of establishing presence in the online learning environment was new. A common observation of the faculty was that the emotional connection that permeates a face-to-face classroom tends to flatten out in the virtual classroom composed of digital boxes, one per student. In the Community of Inquiry framework, teaching presence requires the ability of instructors to project social and cognitive presence to students. Yet video conferencing platforms turn three-dimensional students into two-dimensional screen images. Accurately reading and feeling the emotional connections between the students, professor, and the content can be challenging. Instructional designers are trained to provide faculty with the knowledge, tools, and support to meld teaching presence with creativity in the online classroom. These skill sets include knowledge of novel course modalities such as hybrid and hyflex, strategies for course alignment, utilization of educational technologies and assessments. The authors’ approach to professional development invited the College faculty to engage the instructional design process by encouraging faculty to envision a space of independent creativity within their learning environment. Creativity is defined as the “use of skill or imagination to produce something new” (Oxford Learners Dictionary, n.d.). The researchers use the term to refer to the process of faculty transitioning from emergency remote teaching to engaging the challenges and opportunities of online learning to the creation of something personally unique in support of learning. Examples of this type of creativity in the online environment might include the novel use of existing technology to create active engagement, the re-design of a course assignment, or the design of original activities to heighten the social and cognitive presences of students in the classroom. The “What are you creating?” question invited faculty into a stance of creativity in their work, which seemed to promote collaborative experiences in professional development, provided practice for the use of technology to facilitate online learning, and introduced College faculty to resources and materials to further their development beyond the formalized spaces of professional development. Given the rapid transition to online education, it is understandable that in the forefront of many faculty is the thought “what do I need to know now in order to teach tomorrow?” (Hodges et al., 2020). It is a challenge to infuse creativity into a professional development space charged with uncertainty and the pragmatic push toward short-term action. Yet, the researchers believe creativity can turn technique into 42

 Thriving Through Disruption

presence and the two-dimensionality of best practices into the three-dimensionality of human-to-human interaction. As suggested by Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, the authors learned many College of Education faculty were willing to lean into the “growing edge” of their transition to online education (Thurman, 1956). But the authors also learned that many faculty appreciated the caring and engaged presence of an instructional designer and coach willing to approach learning with creativity and imagination. Central to the Community of Inquiry model is “community” – according to Garrison et al. (1999), a deep and meaningful learning experience requires a collaborative-constructivist design. The researchers designed professional development sessions to provide faculty with opportunities to apply, adapt, and reimagine their face-to-face teaching skills in ways that could fit the online classroom. This form of creative problem-solving was best done in collaboration with other faculty, as ideas and suggestions were shared and tested. The authors created small group learning opportunities focused on a specific topic such as facilitating breakout rooms in Zoom. And the researchers encouraged faculty to share ideas, experiences, and fears by using the “What are you feeling?” and “What are you doing?” questions before tackling existing instructional challenges with the “What are you creating” question. In addition to providing a space for collaborative learning, the authors focused professional development on opportunities to practice new technologies and techniques. As Malcolm Knowles (1984) explores in his theory of andragogy, adult learners find the most value in relevant, task-oriented learning. And as Patricia Cranton (2016) and Harriet Schwartz (2019) demonstrate in their description of practices and principles for adult learning, it is important to provide just-in-time resources to spark creativity around the formation of effective learning environments. Beyond these formal professional development sessions, the researchers provided College faculty with asynchronous videos, resources, and support communities. Additionally, the authors supported faculty by providing learning management system templates, topical how-to guides, recommendations for podcasts and webpages, and a connection to the university’s Office of Teaching and Learning asynchronous and synchronous instructional resources. In a recent study, Wolf (2020) found these informal, asynchronous opportunities for learning improved faculty online instruction. By fostering faculty social presence (the “What are you feeling?” question), cognitive presence (the “What are you doing?” question), and teaching presence (the “What are you creating” question), the authors hoped to engage faculty across the full-range of emotional, intellectual and practical expertise. All three elements are critical to the Community of Inquiry framework and the formation of an effective teaching presence in the online learning environment. In this way, faculty were able to creatively tackle the difficult questions of teaching online in a global pandemic while adapting to the changing learning needs of their students and course structures.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For faculty and higher education practitioners seeking to deliver faculty development regarding online education, they should consider the Community of Inquiry framework and the three questions posed in this paper: What are you feeling? What are you doing? What are you creating? The authors recommend posing these questions in the order written in this paper. Faculty undergoing emergency teaching development must understand their teaching presence as well as adjustments to curriculum required by online education. Whether seismic shifts are required again in the future, such as COVID-19 spurred in 2020, or an organization-wide initiative asks faulty to move to online learning, it is the recommendation 43

 Thriving Through Disruption

of the authors that using the frameworks in this paper can help ease the fears related to change and help faculty thrive in adjusting to online learning.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The three questions at the center of this paper were developed in an organic process. The researchers did not intend to discover their usefulness for instructional design. They emerged in the natural process of engaging faculty in the College of Education in professional development associated with the move from face-to-face to online education. The questions materialized as a heuristic for planning and delivery as the authors reflected on sessions they were leading with College faculty. One future direction of research is to examine other institutions of higher education to see if the same three questions would emerge from professional development around online education. An important element of this question is to what extent the prominence of the three questions is tied to the speed of change from face-to-face to online? Or if they have potency even in situations where change is less rapid and all encompassing. In short, once there is no longer a global pandemic to contend with, will the three questions still be viable tools for guiding faculty professional development? Another important series of questions to purse in the future involves interviewing faculty around their experiences with the three questions. The researchers offered their perspective in this chapter, but the voice of College faculty is silent.

CONCLUSION The author’s goal in describing the move to online instruction in the College of Education was to offer instructional designers and faculty three questions to assist in the design and implementation of their courses and professional development (What are you feeling? What are you doing? What are you creating?). The researchers have, for rhetorical reasons, presented the three questions as separate points of entry into the online classroom. But, in practice, it is hard to consider one question without linkages to the other two. For example, how can feelings exist in instructional design without attention to the practical questions of implementation? Feelings are the fuel of authenticity that students perceive when watching an instructor teach. The authors believe that the two are almost inseparable. One metaphor that speaks to the integrated nature of the three questions is that of an elevator. Fred Korthagen (2013), in his coaching model for teachers, uses the image of an elevator to capture the way a coach moves up and down three instructional lenses: thinking, feeling, and wanting. According to Korthagen’s research, the most effective coaches ask questions and provide perspectives to help a teacher move up or down the elevator in response to the instructional situation. Each floor of the elevator offers a unique perspective on an instructional moment. Like Korthagen, the authors believe that the three questions invite faculty to see online instruction anew and thus consider teaching in new ways. The instructional designer, in a coaching session, can consider where faculty might be stuck and ask questions to move them up or down to a new location. For instance, it can be difficult to provide professional development related to innovative forms of online instruction if faculty are preoccupied with feelings of fear, uncertainty, or anger. In this instance, perhaps a better place to start is by addressing the feelings in the room before inviting faculty to envision creative

44

 Thriving Through Disruption

approaches to teaching their content. It seems that fluidity and flexibility in online instructional design are essential tools for navigating toward creative solutions to global instructional challenges.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors acknowledge the support of Victoria O’Malley and Grace Rieke with editing.

REFERENCES Armstrong, K. (2009). The case for God. Random House Digital, Inc. Brackett, M. (2019). Permission to feel: Unlocking the power of emotions to help our kids, ourselves, and our society thrive. Celadon Books. Campion, L. L. (2020). Leading Through the Enrollment Cliff of 2026 (Part I). TechTrends, 64(3), 542–544. doi:10.100711528-020-00492-6 CASEL. (2020). Benefits of SEL. https://casel.org/impact/ Cranton, P. (2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice. Stylus Publishing. Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. (1961). A guide to rational living. Prentice-Hall. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/ S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001 Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Basic books. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27. Huebner, D. E. (1999). The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner. Psychology Press. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. Jossey-Bass. Korthagen, F. A., Kim, Y. M., & Greene, W. L. (Eds.). (2013). Teaching and learning from within: A core reflection approach to quality and inspiration in education. Routledge. Lopez, B. (2020). Horizon. Vintage.

45

 Thriving Through Disruption

Martin, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Budhrani, K. (2017). Systematic Review of Two Decades (1995 to 2014) of Research on Synchronous Online Learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 3–19. doi:10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807 Menakem, R. (2017). My grandmother’s hands: Racialized trauma and the pathway to mending our hearts and bodies. Central Recovery Press. Oxford Learners Dictionary. (n.d.). Creativity. In Oxford Learners Dictionaries.com. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/creativity Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons. Rendón, L. I. (2012). Sentipensante (sensing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social justice and liberation. Stylus Publishing. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin. Schwartz, H. (2019). Connected teaching: Relationship, power, and mattering in higher education. Stylus Publishing. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 316–326. https://doiorg.du.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011 Thurman, H. (1956). The growing edge. Friends United Press. Uhrmacher, P. B., Moroye, C. M., & Flinders, D. J. (2016). Using educational criticism and connoisseurship for qualitative research. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315559421 Vasquez, M., & Bauman, D. (2019, April 4). How America’s College-Closure Crisis Leaves Families Devastated. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-americascollege-closure-crisis-leaves-families-devastated/ Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934) Wolf, D. (2020, October). Increasing the Effectiveness of Faculty Professional Development with Open Educational Resources and Instructional Video. In SITE Interactive Conference (pp. 229-234). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

ADDITIONAL READING Doyle, T., & Zakrajsek, T. (2019). The new science of learning: How the learn in harmony with your brain. Stylus (Rio de Janeiro).

46

 Thriving Through Disruption

Jarvis, P., & Parker, S. (Eds.). (2005). Human learning: An holistic approach. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203463321_chapter_8 Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online: A practical guide. Routledge. Lave, J., & Etienne, W. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Palmer, P., & Zajonc, A. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. Jossey-Bass. Rice, G. (2018). Hitting pause. Stylus (Rio de Janeiro).

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Adult Learning: The unique ways adults approach and respond to the process of learning new materials or ideas. The process often involves disruption, reflection, and formation of new habits. Community Inquiry: A social constructivist framework for describing learning spaces. The framework is premised on three overlapping “presences:” teaching, social, and cognitive. COVID-19: A worldwide pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus. In higher education, it precipitated the rapid shift from face-to-face education to online education. Disruption: The process by which the taken for granted becomes no longer viable and new ways of teaching and learning must be investigated and implemented. Professional Development: The intentional organization of workshops and sessions geared toward helping educators learn about and develop instructional skills to address challenges and opportunities. Professional development is often geared to the needs of a context or group of educators. Social-Emotional Learning: An approach to learning valuing emotions and feelings in the process of acquiring new knowledge and developing new instructional approaches. Transformation: The process of accepting that past practices are no longer effective and imagining new ways of being in the world. Transformation often requires elements of the unexpected, reflection and movement into novel intellectual and emotional spaces.

This research was previously published in Shifting to Online Learning Through Faculty Collaborative Support; pages 39-54, copyright year 2021 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

47

48

Chapter 4

Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning Shalin Hai-Jew https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8863-0175 Kansas State University, USA

ABSTRACT Optimally, the learning sequence experienced by learners is addressed in the instructional design plan. So too is the sequencing of learning objects in the modules, related modules in the course, related courses in a degree program, and so on, from granular objects to larger ones. A variety of learning contents may be conceptualized, at a zoomed-out level, as “serialized” or a part of a series. Serialized online learning refers to any number of types of large-scale sequenced learning, such as endeavors that continue over extended time (such as a number of years), that involve a number of interrelated learning objects (like podcast series), and that serve both new learners and continuing learners. The instructional design for serialized online learning requires front-loaded design considerations and approaches that consider the continuing nature of such learning.

INTRODUCTION In applied instructional design, sequences have virtually always been part of the consideration. What are the assumed pre-requisites for the learning? What order should the experienced learning occur in (Simple to complex? Developmental to more advanced?)? What about the sequence of learning activities? (For example, before a field trip or a group simulation, what should the lead-up learning consist of?) What is a reasonable sequence of learning outcomes? In an analytical case study, what information should learners have access to first and then in what sequence thereafter, to highlight different available insights? How should learners transition from one level of knowledge to another? If a process or procedure is taught, what base knowledge should be available to learners, and then how should the sequences be represented DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch004

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

for optimal performance? In learning where social interactions are required, what should be the order of interactivity—and to what depth and to what learning ends? At a zoomed-out level would be large-scale serialized online learning, including projects that continue over years, the creation of a number of interrelated learning objects (in large sets or large series, like podcast series or online encyclopedias), and that serve both new learners and continuing learners. What has not generally been addressed is how to plan, design, and develop such serialized online learning in a way that supports the learners, whether they are new or continuing ones. For example, such serialized online learning may include the following: • • • • •

A large set of similar or related learning objects A podcast series A video series An electronic book series A public wiki based on a particular topic or domain, and others

This work provides some initial design considerations for large-scale serialized online learning, with some basic assumptions: • • • • • •

Large-scale serialized learning generally deals with complex learning in particular domains and related fields. The complexity in the learning may be understood cumulatively. Large-scale serialized learning will attract a range of learners with evolving needs over time. Some learners will be new ones, and others will be continuing ones. ◦◦ Learners tend to prefer consistency and recognizable patterning. The teams that contribute to long-running serialized learning projects will experience turnover and so will need to integrate new contributors (including new leadership) over time. The work standards need to be transferable, and the work practices need to be robust over time. The content domain space will evolve and change over time. The technological underpinnings for the online learning will evolve over time, so some digital preservation efforts will be important, along with endeavors for future-proofing. Large-scale serialized learning may be closed-source or open-source or some combination.

This work explores some of the considerations for building large-scale serialized online learning, with a focus on initial setups of such projects and some maintenance. While most instructional designs are for discrete-sized objects (learning objects, modules, courses, etc.), this challenge involves openendedness in terms of the series of learning contents and longitudinal time in terms of learning object / learning resource production. The underlying research informing this work stems from decades in the area of online learning design and development.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE At some level, all learning has some intersection with the world, for authentic learning. Some offers focuses on “real-life learning tasks” as the base motive for the learning (van Merriënboer & Stoyanov,

49

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

2008, p. 84). One of the main survival demands of modern life is to handle complexity, with the requisite perspective(s), knowledge, decision making capabilities, and resources. One researcher proposed a descriptive rendition of problem types as the following: “logical problems, algorithmic problems, story problems, rule-using problems, decision making problems, trouble-shooting problems, diagnosis-solution problems, strategic performance problems, case analysis problems, design problems, (and) dilemmas” each requiring different learning activities to acquire (Jonassen, 2000, pp. 74 - 75). How the “problem space” is conceptualized is relevant “because rich problem representations most clearly distinguish experts from novices and scaffold working memory (an essential cognitive component in problem solving)” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 82). Finally, this typology, while informative in an academic space, may be even a little textbook and non-inclusive of real-world hard problems writ large. Teaching and learning has been undergoing a “movement towards ill-structured problem-solving, domain-general competencies, expert learning, metacognitive skills, and broad reference situations” (van Merriënboer & Stoyanov, 2008, p. 84). There are well-structured problems, which are defined and identifiable, with known required thinking and actions to solve. Worked problems can enhance learners’ capabilities of acquiring the necessary schemas to understand and solve the challenges. The intuition is that “instruction-based learning took fewer trials than trial-and-error learning to reach a similar performance level”…and “repeated instructions” were even better than single instruction (Ruge, Karcz, Mark, Martin, Zwosta, & Wolfensteller, 2018, p. 4). Then, too, there are ill-structured problems, hard problems, complex ones, which do not have worked solutions. These require awareness, wisdom, accurate information, complex collaborations, mixed skillsets, and various resources. These problems do not have pre-defined paths for their solution, if indeed, they are solvable. Hard problems in various fields can remain open ones for hundreds of years, and in some cases, they may remain extant (with various proofs of impossibility). In some cases, ill-structured problems pose different design problems along the way, with many parts unsurfaced and elusively undefined: Ill-definition means that the design problem being solved itself develops as design progresses. Further, criteria in design may remain tacit throughout (Woodbury, Mohiuddin, Cichy, & Mueller, 2017, p. 40) To function effectively, learners need the proper knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) (van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003), and they need the ability to coordinate and cooperate. To effectively address ill-structured problems (which lack tested prior worked solutions), people need both domainspecific and domain-general competencies: Recent research points out that different intellectual skills are needed for solving well-structured problems, which rely on applicative or recurrent skills that are highly domain-specific, and ill-structured problems, which rely not only on applicative but also on interpretive or non-recurrent skills that are less domainspecific (Cho & Jonassen, 2002; Hong, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003; Van Merriënboer, 1997). In this respect, the meaning of domain-specific and domain-general competencies is also changing because the combination of both is needed to solve ill-structured problems. (van Merriënboer & Stoyanov, 2008, p. 71) Ill-structured problems are conceptualized as being “more situated” (context-dependent) with wellstructured problems relying “more on general problem-solving skills, such as means-ends analysis” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 68) although the opposite can also be true where “ill-structured problems, in the form 50

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

of dilemmas, can be fairly abstract” (Jonassen, 2000, p. 68). To solve ill-structured problems, knowledge alone is insufficient and inert. They need to think creatively and divergently (not in ways that everyone else has thought about the challenge before), from a place of deep knowledge of particular areas of expertise but also from outside that domain. They need to be able to apply analogical solutions. They need to be able to apply knowledge, skills and abilities from one area to another, through transfer. Said another way, the intrinsic cognitive load--“a basic component of the material” (Sweller, 1994, p. 295)—is by definition higher for ill-structured hard problems. The difficulty level is intrinsic. To solve these, they must apply simultaneous learning with schemas that interact (Sweller, 1994, p. 295). Learning relevant pieces in isolation, without application to the constraints in the challenge, will not be sufficient. Problem solving requires “cognitive operations” that are properly sequenced and goal-directed (Anderson, 1980, p. 257, as cited in Jonassen, 2000, p. 65). To make complex tasks more understandable, most break the challenge down into respective parts and solve the individual parts. Perhaps they may reorganize the tasks into meaningful sequences. Perhaps the orders of the sequences may result in solving more critical parts of a complex challenge with fewer unintended outcomes, less negative second- and third-order effects. Others may start at the macro level and reframe the challenge there, and work the issue from the outside in. With complex problems, there may be desirable end states and “equifinality” in some cases (different solution approaches resulting in the same end-state solution) or not (different solution approaches resulting in different end-state solutions). In terms of large-scale serialized online learning, both novices and experts will be accessing the contents. Providing the same instruction to both novices and experts can be problematic. For the novices, advanced directions may be impossible to comprehend, at one extreme. At the other, experts may experience the “expertise reversal effect” in which instructional methods decline as “levels of learner knowledge in a domain change” (Kalyuga, 2007, p. 510). There has to be an artful approach in the presentation of learning tasks so as not to “unbalance” the executive function: “…if external guidance is provided to learners who have sufficient knowledge base for dealing with the same units of information, learners would have to relate and reconcile the related components of available long-term memory base and externally provided guidance. Such integration processes may impose an additional working memory load and reduce resources available for learning new knowledge” (Kalyuga, 2007, pp. 512 - 513). Said another way: “If learners already have acquired information, requiring them to process that information again via the borrowing and reorganising (sic) principle may result in an extraneous cognitive load due to the narrow limits of change principle. Learners who already have acquired information will be unnecessarily processing excess interacting elements” (Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011, pp. 155 – 156). For novices, by definition, they aspire to ultimate expertise, even if this requires years of effort. High-level professional expertise requires years of extensive learning and practice in a specific domain (Ericsson et al. 1993) and involves many essential attributes in addition to the relevant knowledge base. However, one of the most important characteristics of expertise in any domain is the availability of a large number of domain-specific organized knowledge structures (schemas). High-level professional experts are in most cases also experts in solving specific routine tasks in their domains. Task-specific expertise is the ability to perform fluently in a specific class of tasks. A typical indicator of such expertise is performing rapidly advanced stages of solution by skipping some (or all) intermediate steps. Developing task-specific expertise is an important and necessary prerequisite for becoming a higher-level expert in a broader domain. (Kalyuga, 2007, p. 511)

51

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

In general, experts can call on prior experiences and can recognize emergent patterns for their analysis. They can engage complexity without being overwhelmed. They may have a sense of what steps to take to arrive at accurate outcomes. They may assess situations and focus on the proper “signals” or “indicators,” without being overwhelmed by the “noise” in the context. They may have evolved heuristics or rules-ofthumb to apply to the situation. They may have expectations of outcomes that are more accurate to the world than may be achieved by non-experts. They can troubleshoot with improved efficacy. They have some over-learned behaviors that enable automaticity in appropriate contexts. They may bring into play the different measures of different intelligences needed, such as visual intelligence, logico-mathematical intelligence, symbolic intelligence, and psychomotor skills. To be relevant, all experts have to have the ability to learn. Dealing with complexity requires the ability to engage “with materials incorporating an enormous number of interacting elements” (van Merriënboer & Sweller, June 2005, p. 156). Experts have conceptual models of reality that can inform their work (while non-experts in the domain often have mental models, which are incomplete or inaccurate or only partially formed). Long-term memory in people is important in dealing with complexity: Working memory has no known limitations when dealing with information retrieved from long-term memory (Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995; Sweller, 2003, 2004). In effect, long-term memory alters the characteristics of working memory. Long-term memory holds cognitive schemata that vary in their degree of complexity and automation…In this sense, schemata can act as a central executive, organizing information or knowledge that needs to be processed in working memory (van Merriënboer & Sweller, June 2005, pp. 148 - 149) Acquiring this complex knowledge requires attentional resources and investments of time. One authoring team observes: Structures with all items repeated in different orders in different parts of the structure…require attention for learning. Such structures may require hierarchic representation, the construction of which takes attention (Cohen, Ivry, & Keele, 1990, p. 17). Sequencing theory suggests the importance of purposeful setup of the learning. Some suggest the decomposing of complex tasks into part-tasks, teaching those parts, and then having learners practice the parts as a sequenced whole. Some overlearning may be needed to make parts of the sequence automatic. In general, sequences progress from the simple to the complex [“van Merriënboer recommends that case types within whole-task practice be sequenced from simple to more complex cases” (Wiley, June 2000, p. 71)]. There are other sequencing regimes based on other logics and learner needs.

INITIAL SETUP AND MAINTENANCE OF LARGESCALE SERIALIZED ONLINE LEARNING One way to think about serialized online learning design is to place two important dimensions on a 2x2 table. The two elements are the target learners and time. Serialization is about the creation of a series of learning contents that are somewhat interrelated and that meet the needs of the learners, with a high level of quality. The four quadrants in Figure 01 include meeting the needs of new learners in 52

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

the present, new learners in the future, returning or continuing learners in the present, and returning or continuing learners in the future. (This is a reading of the quadrants from the top-left cell, across to the right, then down to the left, and across to the right.) Ideally, the learning resources would be designed and developed once, tested for efficacy, and revised, and then versioned for all learners. Notice that over time, new learners become returning ones (per the down-pointing arrow), and continuing learners may become future learners, if they maintain the interest, and if the evolving learning resource continues to provide learner value. If the cognitive scaffolding is designed appropriately, novice learners and expert learners are each supported in their respective needs based on differentiated instruction. Figure 1. Large-scale serialized online learning: considering target learners and brief-to-extended time (in a 2x2 table)

There are multiple ways to approach serialized online learning. • •

One approach is to write out a plan, design the elements of the related learning, and develop the learning contents and test from there. This approach may be informed by learning theories and other sources. This is a classic top-down approach. Another approach is to go right to development, evolve the learning resources for a time, and then evaluating what was created to see what elements should be kept for the serialized online learning designs. Those may be documented in a project stylebook, and the stylebook may be used for the project. This is a classic bottom-up approach.

A core concept is that in the learning, there are constants which provide a sense of familiarity and safety and confidence. Then there are also variations, such as the learning contents, that add value to the learn-

53

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

ing and that update the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the learners. The combination should offer ways for learners to apply their cognition to the new learning and not waste attention and focus on extraneous cognitive loads (stemming from poor design, attentional distractors, and others). (Table 1) Table 1. Combining constants and variations in large-scale serialized online learning Constants • Overall purposes • General target learners • Domain of learning (including periphery) • Learning sequences • Look-and-feel • Interactivity • Sense of welcome to all learners

Variations • Informational contents • Spokespersons • Pedagogical designs • Technologies • Opt-in learning experiences

Essentially, considering serialized online learning is an add-on consideration to a typical instructional design sequence (Figure 2 and Table 2), which tends to be recursive (with designer/developers completing the work in a semi-linear way but moving backwards as needed as new information is captured and new observations are made) and cyclical in the serial context, with repetitions of the cycle to enable the creation of the learning resources. A lot of work is front-loaded, so that “throughlines” may be created for the learning, to maintain coherence, while enabling designer/developer improvisation. The openness of the considerations enable individuals and teams to meet needs as they arise, so even though there is initial planning, the idea is that the plans are living documents that evolve over time. The point is to avoid being overly scripted or overly regimented. Figure 2. The instructional design and development cycle

Discussion As noted earlier, the serialized online learning may be film series, podcast series, wikis, blogs, simulation series, and others. At core, designing and developing serialized online learning involves some combination of the following: • • • • •

54

building learning without a clear end point building learning to acquire complex skill sets building learning to enable the solving of ill-structured hard problems building learning to an audience of both novices and experts (over time) building online learning to a dynamic technological understructure

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

Table 2. Planning for the serialized online learning (step 2) as part of the instructional design and development cycle Steps of the Design and Development Sequence

Related Work Questions

1. Light Pre-Assessment of the Instructional Design Project

• What are the learning objectives? What are ways to achieve those learning objectives? • What domain topics will be addressed, and why? • Who are the target learners? Who are the novices, and who are the experts? What are their respective needs? • What technologies are available for the project? • What are the available resources? • What is the timeline for this work? • What are the legal requirements for this work? Policy requirements? Technical requirements? • Which are the funding entities, and what are their requirements?

2. Planning for Serialized Online Learning*

Content Authenticity • What are ways to ensure that the learning contents are authentic to the world? What are ways to ensure that the learner experience is authentic to the world? Learner Needs • What are ways to address the needs of novice learners? The needs of the in-between state learners? The needs of expert learners? • What are resources that may be made available to the novice learners? The in-between state learners? The expert ones? • What are ways to align the learning to the motives of the novice learners? The in-between state learners? The expert learners? • How can opt-in cognitive scaffolding be offered for less knowledgeable learners? How can more apt examples be provided for the novice learners? How can the expertise of the experts be drawn out in ways that are helpful to their learning? • How can new learners be accommodated in the serial learning? How can expert learners’ be accommodated in the serial learning (based on their prior experiences, their expectations, their patterning, and others)? • How can feedback loops be created to understand the respective learners’ usage of the learning resources and what they are getting out of it? • If a new direction is desired, how can these considerations of learner needs inform the changes? How can there be a balance of a sense of continuance while new objectives and contents and pedagogical methods are in play? Important Core Elements • What are the animating values and principles and objectives which guide the instructional design? How far reaching are these? Will these serve the project well into the near-term, mid-term, and far-term future? Throughlines • What sorts of “throughlines” should be designed and developed for a sense of continuity? A character or number of characters? A consistent narrator? An origin story? Designed sequences of learning? Templating of learning contents? Recurring symbols? Atmospherics? Work Documentation (for Onboarding, for Continuance) • What sorts of work documentation is required for easier handoffs to the designers/developers and the teams that collaborate around this work? (Reverse-engineering design standards from the completed learning resources is an imprecise process. It can be difficult to infer intentionality from the finished objects. Undocumented work can leave users guessing as to original intentions and guidelines. Usually, what is left to institutional memory goes unremembered and is lost.) Should there be project stylebooks? Defined project color themes and palettes? Logos and symbols? Other elements? Competitiveness • How can the learning resources maintain competitiveness in contest with the other extant learning resources? How can the serialized learning resources maintain competitiveness into the future? Future Proofing • Over time, how can the information or contents be protected for versioning and future-proofing? What are ways to transcode digital contents with the least lossiness (lost information)? How can designer/developers benefit from the ability to separate informational contents and how those contents are delivered (with on-the-fly re-packaging)? Project Management • What are ways to ensure that the project is resourced into the future?

continues on followign page

55

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

Table 2. Continued Steps of the Design and Development Sequence

Related Work Questions

3. Learning Content Development

• How should the learning contents be presented? • What are the most important interactive and other features necessary in the learning? • What technologies are most important? • What should the look and feel be?

4. Alpha and Beta Testing

• What sorts of in-house testing should be done to ensure functionality of the learning objects? Legality? Alignment with branding? (alpha testing) • What sorts of testing of the draft learning contents be done with focus groups of learners? What sort of feedback would be useful from these participants? (beta testing)

5. Revision

• What needs to be revised, redesigned, re-developed, after the alpha and beta testing?

6. Deployment

• How should the learning be set up on the online learning platform? How will the learning contents be delivered to the target audience(s)?

7. Learner and Learning Monitoring

• What aspects of learner monitoring are most important to track, and why? How will this information be used for revision of the learning resources? (How can learner privacy and learner identities be protected? How can personally identifiable information or “PII” be avoided in the data collection?) • What aspects of the learning monitoring are most important to track, and why? How will this information be used for revision of the learning resources?

8. Learning Content Updating

• When should the learning resources be updated, and how? What aspects of the learning are most time-sensitive for updating, and why? (If a work is “defunct,” should be it retired? Archived? Left alone?)

9. Repetition of Entire Cycle for Follow-on Contents

• Once a part of the serialized online learning has been designed and launched, the cycle repeats. In many cases, simultaneous efforts are used to design and develop and launch contents, with the necessary levels of testing and revision.

The resulting learning objects may be aggregated into designed learning sequences. They may be disaggregated and used by others as parts of other learning sequences. (This means that every disaggregateable piece has to be able to stand alone and provide informational and learning value individually, for learners taking on different tracks.) The learning contents may be used in unprincipled and even naïve applied ways. The usage may be in open-entry open-exit trainings. They may be parts of online courses. They may be harnessed by informal learning-based online communities. For those who inherit a set of trainings or course contents, they need to review the learning contents, the work documentation, and other aspects—and design to the relevant aspects of the materials. They have to ask, What are the critical elements of the learning that should be borne forward? What learning objectives are relevant to this time and to future learners? What learning activities will be relevant for learners today and into the future? Why? What style elements may be updated? What technologies need to be updated for relevance into the future? In other words, these designer/developers who inherit the work have to understand what to cherish from history, how to update the instructional designs into the future and what to make wholly new and what changes to bring about. The “emulation” may be relevant only to a point, and then there should be innovations and improvisations, riffing off a theme. The original online learning series may continue for a time, and then there may be spinoffs, semiderivative byproducts from the original. Those who design spinoffs have important considerations as well. They have more leeway to introduce innovations and different contents, but they have to have some overlap with the original, whether this is about content (the same learning albeit for a different age group of learners, for example), parallel learning or follow-on learning, style or other features. Spinoffs

56

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

are usually done to capitalize on the name recognition of the original contents and to benefit from the learner base of the original (to move them to new contents), and other practical reasons. Designers of spinoffs often have more freedom to innovate than those who merely inherit an assignment and have to “ghost” the work in the same vein as the originals. The work handoff, whether for continuing design and development or for spinoffs, will require professional knowledge and skills. This work examines large-scale serialized online learning as a separate class of online learning resources that requires more pre-planning and forethought to enable effective learning over time, for both new learners and continuing ones.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS To extend this initial work, researchers may explore their own large-scale serial learning projects and record instructional design and development strategies and test what works and what doesn’t, in casebased research. This would require either pilot-testing the learning contents and going live with them and collecting data from live learners (once initial alpha and beta testing have been completed). Based on their collected data, they may be able to observe types of instruction which are efficacious for some types of learning over others. They may be able to identify gaps in their design and development work. They may be able to explain methods for expanding their applied imagination in constructive ways to expand serialized online learning for optimal accurate knowledge retention, decision making, skill creation and development, ability creation and maintenance, and related knowledge, skills and abilities (“KSA”)-transfer. It would help also to know if there is optimal macro-scale sequencing for particular types of learning and practice. Another approach may involve ad hoc serialized learning, such as in non-formal (non-credit-based learning sequences) and informal (learning as a byproduct of experiences) in lifelong learning contexts. Are there some ad hoc sequences that make more sense than others? Are there longitudinal patterns that make sense for such learning? Are there times when particular learning resources are optimal? As yet, this approach of analyzing serialized designed learning and instruction is highly under-explored.

CONCLUSION One of the leading thinkers in the design of learning objects wrote, “We can only create what we can imagine” (Hodgins, 2002, p. 282). The ability to deploy the human imagination to solve problems in the real is critical, and understanding serialized online learning may enhance what instructional designers and developers see and imagine, and how they may strive to meet the needs of learners in all their diversities in this particular “use case.” This “serialized” framing provides an anticipatory depth, whether or not the learning is directed and closed-sourced or open-sourced, and whether or not the learning is formal academic learning (theory-heavy, designed for complexity and transfer) or applied trainings (practice and process-oriented, designed for application in work places).

57

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

With how much goes into digital content creation, IDs should not approach the work as “day trading” or as “one-offs” but consider the creation of long-term learning value and to actualize these plans where possible.

REFERENCES Cohen, A., Ivry, R. I., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(1), 17–30. Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. In The Instructional Use of Learning Objects (pp. 281–298). Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, and Association for Educational Communications & Technology. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), 48(4), 63 – 85. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. doi:10.100710648-007-9054-3 Ruge, H., Karcz, T., Mark, T., Martin, V., Zwosta, K., & Wolfensteller, U. (2018). On the efficiency of instruction-based rule encoding. Acta Psychologica, 184, 4–19. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.005 PMID:28427713 Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). The expertise reversal effect. In J. Sweller, P. Ayres, & S. Kalyuga’s (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory. Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. doi:10.1007/9781-4419-8126-4_12 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. doi:10.1207/ S15326985EP3801_2 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Stoyanov, S. (2008). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from an instructional design perspective. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape (pp. 69 – 90). Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8299-3_4 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005, June). Cognitive Load Theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. doi:10.100710648-005-3951-0 Wiley, D. A., II. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory (Doctoral dissertation). Brigham Young University. Woodbury, R., Mohiuddin, A., Cichy, M., & Mueller, V. (2017). Interactive design galleries: A general approach to interacting with design alternatives. Design Studies, 52, 40–72. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.05.001

58

 Some Basics to the Initial Setup and Maintenance of Serialized Online Learning

ADDITIONAL READING Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Atmospherics: Mood (such as from designed elements). Continuance: In existence over time, continuing, enduring. Lossiness: The irrecoverable giving up or forfeiture of information (often in a process). Serialized: Part of a series; regular installments (often in sequence). Style: Distinctive instantiation (of learning).

This research was previously published in Form, Function, and Style in Instructional Design; pages 53-67, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

59

60

Chapter 5

Impact of Online Learning in K-12:

Effectiveness, Challenges, and Limitations for Online Instruction Jerri Ward-Jackson University of West Alabama, USA Chien Yu Mississippi State University, USA

ABSTRACT Online learning capabilities in K-12 education have changed tremendously in the past years and are continually evolving in the traditional classrooms. The overall growth in the total number of high school students currently taking online distance learning courses as well as the importance of distance learning as a solution to educational challenges has increased the need to study more closely the factors that contribute to distance learning outcomes and success rates in K-12. Therefore, the challenge that emerges for educators, researchers, scholars, and advocates for students is to carefully and effectively join the growth and power of K-12 online learning for the benefit of the students involved. This chapter provides an overview of factors that contribute to learning outcomes and success rates for K-12 distance education. Some of the challenges, issues, and considerations affecting implementation of K-12 online education are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Distance learning is no longer a unique component that can be used to educate students; instead, it is becoming more of the mainstream for educating students throughout the world. Students are enrolling in online distance learning courses in record numbers (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The constant emergence of improved online learning technologies, the use of online means of a way for students to communicate DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch005

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

with their instructors and overall ability to obtain an education online, has allowed online learning to take the current education system to new and higher heights. Online education has also been seen as the fastest growing alternative to traditional public schools in K-12 education (Glass & Welner, 2011; LaPlante, 2012). Several virtual schools have appeared within our country in numerous states and have contributed to a tremendous amount of educational success in schools where there had once been very little success. There has been a constant increase in the total number of high school students enrolled in online courses and pursuing online education. Through online learning, numerous students can graduate from high school, where students may not have had the opportunity to graduate or excel due to certain restrictions on education. The future of educational pedagogy is projected to increasingly include classroom courses that are either web-enhanced or delivered solely online. Online education for grades K-12 has been additionally noted as a solution to a variety of educational concerns, including over populated classrooms, lack of highly qualified and certified teachers in local schools, shortage of needed courses, and the challenge of accommodating students who need to learn at a specific pace and in a different environment (Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009). School districts and numerous states have increasingly included this instructional model as a means of educating students, and the conventional face-to-face format of lecture is no longer the only method of providing education to students. The expansion of using technology and distance learning has thus contributed to the creation and endorsement of K-12 distance learning. Online learning demonstrates the potential to revolutionize K-12 education by allowing avenues to high-quality educational opportunities and providing instruction that is tailored to meet specific student needs. Various educational innovations, along with the desire to serve increasing numbers of students and meet their needs, providing students with opportunities that may have once not been available, have caused many K-12 schools to rethink and expand their learning and delivery methods. As the number of students using online education has increased, questions and concerns about high school online education as a method of learning and delivery have emerged also. The overall growth in the total number of high school students currently taking online distance learning courses, as well as the importance of distance learning as a solution to educational challenges has increased the need to study more closely the factors that contribute to distance learning outcomes and success rates in K-12. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to provide the readers with an overview of factors that contribute to learning outcomes and success rates for K-12 distance education. In addition to the benefits and impact of K-12 online education, the chapter discusses some of challenges, issues and considerations affecting implementation of K-12 online education. The content of chapter will provide insight for determining high school student success in online courses and using online learning as a mean of educating in grades K-12.

OVERVIEW OF DISTANCE EDUCATION IN K-12 K-12 online learning has become a particularly North American trend (Cavanugh Ferdig, Johnson, Lowes, Smith, & Blomeyer, 2006). Distance learning in grades K-12 has taken on many forms and is known by numerous titles such as online learning, virtual learning, e-learning, distance education, and virtual charter schools. Within the North American context, K-12 online learning programs are often described as supplemental or full-time (Watson, Gemin, Ryan & Wicks, 2009). Supplemental programs are those where a student is enrolled in a brick-and-mortar or physical school, and the school allows the 61

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

student to enroll in one or more online courses as a way to supplement their curricular offerings; fulltime programs are those where the student completes all of their education online (Barbour, 2011). In the U.S., “supplemental programs are often called virtual schools, whereas full-time programs are often called cyber schools” (Barbour, 2011, p. 2). Online education can be operated, in a variety of forms, by public school districts and other local education agencies, by state education agencies, by colleges and universities, as cyber charter schools, by regional agencies, by consortia of educational entities, and as nonprofit and for-profit organizations (Rice, 2009). The first online learning at the K-12 level can be traced to a private school in California – Laurel Springs School around 1991 (Barbour, 2010). Then, it was followed by supplemental, statewide virtual schools in Utah in 1994 (Clark, 2003) and Florida in 1996 (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). The Virtual High School Global Consortium (VHS), a supplemental program, was also created in 1996. The first full-time program in the United States began around 2000-01, and there has been significant K-12 online learning activity in 45 of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia, according to Watson et al. (2009). However, online learning in K-12 schools was evolving much differently than the way it had been developing in higher education. Picciano and Seaman (2009) indicated that K-12 school districts typically depended on a number of outside online learning providers, including postsecondary institutions, independent vendors and state virtual schools. In order to meet the interest in online learning on the part of their students, colleges and universities have invested significant resources in hardware, software, and faculty development to establish their own delivery support structures for offering online courses and in many cases full academic programs. But, in most K-12 cases, school administrators tended to contract with multiple online learning providers to serve a variety of specific instructional needs (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). Historically, supplemental virtual schooling was the predominant form of online schooling in K-12. However, in recent years this has been shifting to favor more full-time online and blended learning options (Watson, Murin, Vashow, Gemin, & Rapp, 2012). Therefore, the emergence of “blended” or “hybrid” approaches that combine online activities and face-to-face instruction (Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013) has become another important trend. Distance education has been seen as the new method of teaching and learning and has become popular for not only students and parents perspectives, but also by local and state legislation (Hassell & Terrell, 2004). The various program and courses that are offered tend to vary by state and provide a wide range of options for students. Numerous public school districts have decided to offer virtual opportunities to supplement education needs and reach additional students whom may be homeschooled. Several states such as Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, and Michigan even revamp the way that they prepare students for college. That is to require students to complete at least one online course prior to graduating from high school so they will be better prepared for higher education courses that are provided through distance learning (Barbour & Mulcahy, 2008). Florida Virtual School, for example, serves high school and middle school students through providing distance learning to students that are in either rural, low-performing, or chiefly minority districts that have little funding. However, Florida is not the only state that is using distance learning at the forefront of education. Alabama has also utilized a distance learning plan than that provides every student with an education that will allow students to be successful in the current economy (Maddox, 2006). The overall goal of the multi-phased program ACCESS Distance Learning (Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators, and Students Statewide), for example, is to reach students in rural districts by providing access to advanced courses and additional electives through a statewide initiative. ACCESS Distance Learning initiative, according to Clinton, Doron, Hoke, Johnson, and Pennock (2006), was funded by the Alabama Legislature in October 2005 as a mean to educate students throughout rural 62

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

areas within the state of Alabama. Former Alabama governor, Bob Riley, noted: “ACCESS will provide every Alabama student with the opportunity to take advanced level courses, varied electives, and hard to staff subjects such as foreign languages. By sharing resources through the use of modern technology, we will create greater educational opportunities for all Alabama students and a more competitive workforce for an expanding Alabama economy” (as cited in Clinton, Doron, Hoke, Johnson, & Pennock, 2006). Through various initiatives similar to ACCESS Distance Learning, K-12 students are now being allowed opportunities to enhance their overall education that at one point in time never existed. Online learning capabilities in K-12 education have changed tremendously in the past years and are continually evolving in the traditional classrooms. As the distance learning trend continues to grow, more and more high school students are now enrolling in online courses.

INTERNET AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 Over the years, using technology as a means of teaching and learning has provided countless educational benefits and innovations. According to Shelly, Cashman, Gunter, and Gunter (2004), “using technology in the classroom motivates students, encourages them to become problem solvers, and creates new avenues to explore information” (p. 11). Tucker (2007) noted that the use of the internet in education has been viewed as the single greatest technology responsible for reshaping the way in which students are currently learning in today’s society. The traditional boundaries of the classroom and learning horizons for students have continually been altered by the use of the internet for instructional support, student research, and the emergence of online learning. Research has discussed the view of educational technology as having an un-unified reform potential for K-12 education due to its transformational nature and its existence with the developing direction of society (Kerr, 1989; Tucker, 2007; Wicks, 2010). However, the majority of students in the 21st century do not think of the use of technology in their education as being separate from their daily lives (Wicks, 2010), and teachers increasingly welcome the technology in their lessons as a tool to enhance learning and more relevant to the new day learners. The use of technology in K-12 classrooms has contributed to the endorsement and creation of distance learning in classrooms other than higher education.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF DISTANCE LEARNING IN K-12 Distance learning in K-12 provides a large number of benefits to students and school districts across the United States. Some of the potential benefits of using distance learning in K-12 include but are not limited to the following: • • • • • • •

Higher levels of motivation Expanding traditional education access Convenience and flexibility for students Opportunities for students to receive high-quality education in underserved regions Improving student outcomes and skills More educational choice Administrative efficiency (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Berge & Clark, 2005; Wicks, 2010). 63

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

All of these benefits have influenced students and school districts in a positive manner. However, the best benefit of distance learning in K-12 school districts across the country is to provide students with course offerings that the local district may not be able to provide due to various reasons (Watson & Gemin, 2008). Many states are utilizing distance learning in large numbers, and the rural areas within these states have shown the highest number of student enrollments. Most rural districts throughout the United States suffer for the lack of highly qualified teachers in specific content areas such as foreign languages, math, and science. Besides lacking highly qualified teachers and a more diverse selection of course offerings, most rural districts also struggle with funding issues. Therefore, distance learning has allowed students within rural districts the same opportunity to succeed just like students in non-rural districts. In addition to providing students with the opportunity to take courses that were unavailable to their specific school district or region, distance learning has also begin to serve as a component to compliment students’ education in various high schools within the United States (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). Many students are now taking the opportunity to utilize distance learning courses to supplement courses taken as part of a regular instructional program within their traditional school. Due to the flexibility distance learning allows, a growing number of students are engaging entirely in online instruction over traditional classrooms all together (Clark, 2003). Roblyer (2006) discussed how distance education has been utilized for credit recovery and academic advancement, and how important this has become as college acceptance and scholarships become increasingly harder to obtain. It has helped students by allowing them to take additional courses for extra credit and advance placement courses. In addition to students, other benefits for administrators, teachers and parents have been reported also. As Huett et al. (2008) stated, Benefits for administrators include the option of ensuring course content is aligned to standards and providing resources to high-risk students. Teachers benefit by having potentially greater contact with students who are not normally communicative in a face-to-face classroom. Benefits for parents include being able to see assignments, resources, and readings available to their child. (p. 63) All of these benefits continue to explain and encourage the continued expansion of technology and distance learning in K-12.

EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE LEARNING IN K-12 K-12 distance learning is continually and rapidly expanding to states and charters that have served more than four million students over the past few years (Barbour, 2013). However, do our young students learn online as well as in traditional classrooms? How effective is it for online learning in K-12? Researchers have spent a considerable amount of time and effort comparing achievement rates between online distance education courses and their traditional counterparts to answer these questions. One of the earliest and most well-known analyses that were conducted by Russell reviewed 355 studies, which ultimately reported no significant difference in achievement between online and traditional courses, however, a wide variability in effect size (Russell, 1999). Another five-year case study involving 200,000 students reported that online learning in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador performed as well as classroom-based students (Barbour, 2009). Fernandez et al. (2016) found that students enrolled in virtual courses showed no significant grade difference in comparison to their parent-reported traditional 64

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

school grades. Smith, Clark, and Blomeyer (2005) discovered that online distance education courses in schools are at least equivalent with respect to performances of the traditional brick and mortar classes as well. They mentioned the use of the terms equivalent or better as such claims can only be made in relation to specific data, since many public school comparisons have primarily used No Child Left Behind standardized testing as the bar to measure online distance courses success. As distance learning continues to expand and take on a more important role in schools and school districts across the United States, it is becoming more inclusive, by providing an educational experience for many K-12 learners. Numerous students have even mentioned that they felt they learned more in online courses compared to traditional face-to-face courses, mainly because they had to compete required reading assignments, the courses were of higher quality and more difficult than face-to-face course, and they were required to spend more time interacting with the content (Morris, Finnegan, & Wu, 2005; Hannay & Newvine, 2006). A study by the U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, has concluded that, on average, students who took all or part of their classes online performed better than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction (as cited in Angiello, 2010). Barker and Wendel (2001) found that online distance learning students showed a greater improvement than their conventional school peers in critical thinking, computer use, learning independently, problemsolving and researching, decision-making, and overall time management. Evidence to date convincingly demonstrates that, when used appropriately, distance learning can improve how students learn, can improve what students learn, and can deliver high-quality learning opportunities to all children. (National Association of State Boards of Education, 2001, p. 4) Distance learning success in the K-12 arena has developed primarily because of the ability to use technology to create a learning environment that meets the needs and enhances the learning environment for students. This has allowed the transformation of the educational setting into one that is more oriented to customer service. Thus, many school districts are convinced that distance learning courses have the power to transform the traditional K-12 education system by providing the means of ensuring all students have access to a quality education, access to a personalized learning plan, and extended learning opportunities in a cost-effective manner. Although researchers disagree on how effective distance learning can be with K-12 students (Huett, Moller, Foshay, & Coleman, 2008), generally, the effectiveness of distance education has more to do with some other factors too, for example, who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished (Rice, 2006). Although much more research still needs to be conducted before drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of online education in K-12, people generally tend to believe that “ample research shows online learning and traditional education are equally effective, as long as online programs are set up properly, with strong teachers” (as cited in Cowan, 2009, p. 7).

Factors That Contribute to Distance Learning Outcomes and Success Rates As K-12 online distance learning continues to grow, literature has also placed the majority of emphasis on factors related to student success and overall student learning abilities (Tunison & Noonan, 2001; Thomas, 2002). There are several factors that have been said to contribute to distance learning outcomes and the overall student success rate in distance learning courses. Such factors that contribute to distance 65

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

learning outcomes and success rates discussed in literature may include the teachers’ involvement/interaction, the student views on distance learning, demographic characteristics, and individual characteristics. The online teacher is the first point of interaction for students taking distance learning courses. The teacher in distance learning courses set the overall environment and expectations in the same manner they do in traditional face-to-face courses. Cavanaugh (2001) noted that students who are enrolled in online courses with teachers who interact with students on a daily bases, either through feedback on assignments, discussion board postings, or other methods of communication, the students tend to demonstrate higher levels of success compared to students enrolled in online courses with little or no interaction between the teach and students. Therefore, it is extremely important that there is teacher and student interaction in distance learning courses in order for success rates to continue to soar. Students’ overall views on distance learning also play a significant role in the overall success of distance learning and student success rates. Students have stated that distance learning courses have allowed them numerous opportunities to excel in their academics from allowing them the opportunity of flexibility, the opportunity to take courses that their school does not offer, a higher quality of education compared to what is currently being provided in their school and the opportunity to graduate from high school early and even take advance placement courses (Morris, Finnegan, & Wu, 2005; Hannay & Newvine, 2006). With various success statements coming from students, more students are finding interest in taking distance learning courses and are taking advantage of all the opportunities that are consistently being presented through taking distance learning courses. Students have realized that distance learning allows them opportunities to continue to excel in their academics and go beyond the traditional method of learning. The more positive views and statements that are provided by students relating to their overall distance learning experiences that were successful the more additional students will continue to enroll and additional success stories will emerge. Demographic characteristics also tend to play a part in student success and are factors that contribute to student success in distance learning. Certain demographic characteristics have been examined to determine if they play a significant part in students’ success (Enoch & Soker, 2006). Research has been conducted to examine demographic variables such as gender, ethnicity, and previous computer experience. However, at this current time, there is no specific set of demographic characteristics that have been identified to predict students’ academic success in distance learning or a conclusive model has been created to apply in online learning practice (Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, & Pope, 2008). Over the past decade, several studies have reported that the students who were typically successful in online learning environments were those who had independent orientations towards learning, who were highly motivated by intrinsic sources, and who had strong time management, literacy, and technology skills (Cavanaugh, 2007). These characteristics are consistent with personal traits that are typically associated with adult learners. The problem with this focus is that adults learn differently from children and adolescents (Bright, 1989; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004). This supposition has led to the call for more research into the factors that account for K-12 student success in online learning.

K-12 DISTANCE LEARNING: CONCERNS, CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS While early distance learning programs primarily depended on the postal systems, today’s technological innovations and online developments have reshaped this instructional method and started a new trend at the focus of research distance learning in K-12. As distance education courses have been rapidly grow66

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

ing, many questions and concerns pertaining to the efficacy of K-12 distance education are consistently being addressed by school administration, parents, and students (Canvanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004; Dickson, 2005). The challenge that emerges for educators, researchers, scholars, and advocates for students is to carefully and effectively join the growth and power of K-12 online learning for the benefit of the students involved.

Student Readiness and Characteristics The first biggest concern, perhaps, is the students themselves. According to Huett et al. (2008), K-12 distance education learners could include: students who have social commitments, are being home-schooled, live in rural areas, are hospitalized, are homebound, who require flexible hours for employment, are incarcerated, who want to enrich their education, are traveling, have difficulty in regular classrooms, or are in need of courses not offered during the regular school day. (p. 64) Clearly, online K-12 education is serving diverse learners with varying learning needs. However, online learning is not the best option for every student (Cowan, 2009); distance learning potentially has some specific audience issues (Huett, Moller, Foshay, & Coleman, 2008). Rice (2006) concluded that certain student characteristics are particularly important within online environments. She also noted specifically that students’ success within an online environment seems to be linked to their level of independence and responsibility related to the completion of schoolwork and their affective abilities related to online interactions with teachers and other students. Other researchers (Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005) reported the personal and psychological characteristics of successful online learners include autonomy, meta-cognition, positive self-efficacy, motivation, and internal locus of control. Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) found that students from 5th, 8th, and 11th grades showed a high positive correlation between their use of self-regulatory strategies and their academic mathematical efficacy and verbal efficacy. Roblyer and Marshall (2002) identified several psychological factors necessary for academic success in K-12 online environments, including technological skills, self-discipline, time management skills, internal locus of control, self-esteem, responsibility, and achievement motivation. Motivated students who tend to possess the initiative and independence necessary to learn without a physical presence of a teacher tend to do better in online courses (Tucker, 2007). Students who are enrolled in online learning courses must possess self-motivation, demonstrate a high level of responsibility, and be an independent learner (Fjortoft, 1996; Morris, Finnegan, & Wu, 2005; Rice, 2006). Students who lack these qualities may tend to be less successful in online courses compared to students who possess these qualities. However, Cavanaugh et al. (2004) stated that the development of many of these characteristics is agedependent, and younger students require more supervision, simpler instructions, and a more extensive reinforcement system than older students. Therefore, teachers must be adept at helping children acquire the skills of autonomous learning, including self-regulation. While personality and learning characteristics may define what would make a good online learner, some researchers (Corry & Stella, 2012) also urge to have more research involving how to make online distance education work for learners who do not have the key characteristics to be successful online, such as intervention (Simpson, 2004) and continuous personal help (Barbour & Reeves, 2009; Watson & Gemin, 2008). The amount of independence given to 67

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

younger students, the use of synchronous versus asynchronous instruction, the characteristics required of a successful young distance learner, and the technology best used to deliver materials to younger learners are all areas that also need further research, according to Huett et al. (2008).

Retention and Dropout Rate The issue of retention is another important issue in distance learning programs. Research has consistently shown that online K-12 students drop out at unacceptably high rates (Barbour, Archambault, & DiPietro, 2013). Many studies revealed that some of factors influencing learners’ decisions to drop out or persist in online learning include: a) learner characteristics; b) external factors such as scheduling conflicts, family issues, financial problems and so on; and c) internal factors such as social integration, academic integration, technological issues, and lack of motivation were potential factors for learners to decide to drop out (Levy, 2007; Park & Choi, 2009). The majority of distant learning programs and virtual schools require students to take state and district assessments, making the program or school responsible for the students and their overall achievement. However, even with this type of accountability, retention rates tend to be higher than in traditional courses, which has been one of the biggest concerns among online learning educators and institutions (Levy, 2007; Patterson & McFadden, 2009). Frankola (2001) noted that the dropout rate for online courses was more than 20% higher than that for traditional face-to-face courses, and another study done by Patterson and McFadden (2009) also compared attrition of online and residential students and found that online students were significantly more likely to drop out compared with face-to-face students. Roblyer (2006) revealed that virtual programs dropout and failure rates for some locations were as high as 60%-70%, while other virtual programs have rates that exceed those of more traditional school programs. Clark, Lewis, Oyer, and Schreiber (2002) discovered that in Illinois Virtual High School their completion rate for the first year of operation was of fifty-three percent and eighty percent the year following. However, Florida Virtual School retention rates were analyzed by Bigbie and McCarroll (2000) and their study identified that between 25% and 50% of student dropped out of the online courses during 1999-2000. Darrow (2010) found that that over a two-year period, 2007-08 and 2008-09 the dropout percentage for students in California’s online schools was between 22% and 59%, while the dropout percentage for students in the traditional schools ranged from 0.5% to 4%. Additionally, in Colorado, studies found that half of the state’s online students left their online schools within a year, and these studies discovered that when these students returned to the traditional school they were further behind academically then when they started (Hasler-Waters, Barbour, & Menchaca, 2014). Obviously, more research has to be done to better understand how to keep online students in school (Hasler-Waters, Barbour, & Menchaca, 2014).

Access and Equity Issues Access to appropriate technology is required for participation in virtual schooling (Clark, 2001). Kleiner and Lewis (2003) reported that 99% of public schools in the United States had access to the internet and were using it on a daily basis. However, the percentage of students who have access to the Internet at home is much lower (Barbour & Reeves, 2009). According to DeBell and Chapman (2003), approximately 70% of White and Asian children had computers in the home, but this level decreases to approximately 33% for Black and Hispanic children. Less than a third of children from homes with an annual income of less than $20,000 had a computer. Students’ access capacities become a challenge for K-12 distance 68

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

education, especially for those low-income students who had less home access to the Internet, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Inequities in access to educational technology persist in schools as well (Clark, 2001). For example, Parsad and Jones (2005) reported “the ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access was higher in schools with the highest poverty concentration (percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) than in schools with the lowest poverty concentration” (p. 7), and “54 percent of schools with the highest poverty concentration had computers with Internet access available to students before school, compared with 82 percent and 80 percent of schools with the two lowest categories of poverty concentration” (Parsad & Jones, 2005, p. 8). Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, and Barron (2010) found evidence of significant differences between high- and low-SES schools and the number of technology tools that were used to communicate with families and the community. In addition, there were clear discrepancies between high- and low-SES schools, irrespective of school level (e.g., elementary, middle, high), in the types of media that the schools used to communicate, for example, Web sites were more common in high-SES schools than in low-SES schools. Accessibility to information is essential in the quality of education for today’s children (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). However, issues of equitable access to technology for K-12 learners at school and at home limit access to virtual schooling, and these inequities in technology access can have serious implications for those seeking to provide equal access to virtual school opportunities (Clark, 2001).

Teacher Preparation Program for Online Pedagogy As the number of students in online classrooms continues to expand, the need for prepared online teachers has become increasingly important as well. Research showed that many colleges of education are still lagging behind teacher preparation in virtual schooling environments (Ferdig, Cavanaugh, & Freidhoff, 2012). How to focus on teachers’ knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology as it pertains to teaching in an online learning environment has become central to the quality of K–12 online distance education, and thus how teacher education programs address the growing needs of these online educators becomes a challenging issue. Archambault and Crippen (2009) examined the demographic nature and experience of K-12 online teachers, and found vast majority of online teachers came from traditional classrooms. Data from this study also suggested that face-to-face teaching is a prerequisite for teaching online, and those who teach both online and face-to-face classes indicated their skills from online teaching enhance and improve their traditional classrooms. Although the majority of teacher candidates would go on to teach in traditional, face-to-face classrooms, they may possibly find themselves teaching an online class at some point in the future. Therefore, DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, and Preston (2008) proposed that online instructors need to learn skill sets similar to those practiced in face-to-face K-12 instruction, similar to those practiced in online post-secondary instruction, but unique to the K-12 online environment. Updating teacher education programs so that they can address not only pedagogical issues in traditional environments, but also aspects of online pedagogy, how classroom management changes in an online setting, and how best to integrate current technological tools to convey content and assess student understanding should be the goal of leading and innovative colleges of education (Archambault & Crippen, 2009).

69

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Teacher Training and Professional Development Due to the current proliferation of virtual schools, a growing number of teachers are facing the challenge of teaching online. Rice and Dawley (2007) found that fewer than 40% of online instructors had received any training prior to beginning to teach online, whereas Kennedy and Archambault (2012) found that only 1.3% of universities had any aspect of K–12 online learning in their teacher preparation program. Several research (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Kay, 2006) indicated that a majority of teacher education programs address teaching with technology in a single, isolated technology course. This lone technology course is already stretched wide to cover a multitude of technology-related topics as they pertain to quality teaching. It is unlikely that this type of course, or undergraduate programs as a whole, can address the needs of those who will teach in online environments. This puts a huge burden on the virtual schools themselves, which must then provide professional development to get teachers up to speed with the nuances of teaching in an online environment. The shift from a traditional classroom to a virtual setting requires sufficient numbers of new and experienced teachers who are motivated and prepared to engage in online instruction (Huerta, Rice, & Shafer, 2013). From enjoyment of flexible work schedules (Archambault & Crippen, 2009) to frustrations with students who will not fully engage with the material (Watson & Gemin, 2008), online distance education teachers confront many unique needs and challenges (Corry & Stella, 2012). Many needs and challenges are unique to online distance education, and some can be managed if teachers are given learning opportunities such as professional development classes and peer relationships with other teachers (Corry & Stella, 2012). Given these realities, the systematic examination of how to provide the K–12 online teachers with effective training, which emphasizes unique needs and challenges of teaching online and at a distance, is in high priority. Rice and Dawley (2009) stated professional development should occur prior to teaching online, and found that the majority of online teachers “did not receive training as part of their initial credentialing program” (p. 541). Therefore, governance at the state level must define new certification training and relevant teacher licensure requirements, education schools must incorporate teaching pedagogy in a virtual environment, and districts and schools must continually improve online teaching models through comprehensive professional development (Huerta, Rice, & Shafer, 2013).

Approval and Accreditation While offering online high school courses and virtual education, Berge and Clark (2005) urged the new demands for school improvement and educational equity brought about by the No Child Left Behind legislation. Issues of approval and accreditation tend to lean more toward the administrative and state education requirements being that online learning requires approval from the department of education within the states that are offering online learning as a means of educating students. State and federal government and local education agency policies and actions have considerable influence on the growth of virtual learning, and school districts play an important role in determining the success of virtual high school efforts (Clark, 2001). Accreditation and certification are key issues that mainly exist at the state level (Clark, 2001). Accreditation can ensure distance programs are as accountable as traditional programs through alignment with states’ curriculum standards and accreditation. Without both regional accreditation and state approval, virtual schools would have difficulty attracting students at the district level.

70

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Policies, Funding, and Support According to Rice (2006), online learning is often not understood by policymakers resulting in the application of policies developed for physical schools to online programs. Huerta et al. (2013) indicated that policymakers have to think through and be explicit about the specific goals they want to achieve by implementing and expanding virtual schools. Online K-12 learning requires funding and support from various governing agencies such as the local, state, and federal funding as well as being compliant with state statutory guidelines for establishing online courses. The cost that is associated with online learning courses may include creating or purchasing an online course management system such as Desire2Learn, course development, and professional development for teachers (Barbour, 2012). Huett et al. (2008) indicated that state governments typically establish virtual K-12 schools directly or provide funding to traditional schools to create online programs. Equivalent funding of online and face-to-face courses implied the instruction delivered is equally effective; therefore, an invalid comparison and assumption as rapid changes in the field of online learning may not result in high quality programs (Conceição & Drummond, 2005). Quality indicators used to measure the success of online programs are similar to those used with traditional K-12 programs including academic performance, retention, academic achievement, and satisfaction (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). Huerta, Rice, and Shafer (2013) suggested reconsidering and adjusting funding formulas for virtual schools to account for the actual costs associated with the delivery model. Given the potential of virtual schools to expand access beyond the traditional geographic boundaries associated with brick-and-mortar schools, it is critical that governance systems have to be restructured to address the challenges associated with extended attendance boundaries (Huerta, Rice, & Shafer, 2013).

Accountability Assessing the quality of online programs is a key concern (Cowan, 2009). Holding virtual schools to the same accountability requirements as brick-and-mortar schools can be seen as a high priority area (Rice, 2009). Virtual curricula must align with applicable state and district standards, but policymakers face the major challenge of identifying benchmarks for determining whether a particular virtual program meets both local and state level accountability demands (Huerta, Rice, & Shafer, 2013). As distance education is moving into the K-12 mainstream, it is not only attracting growing scrutiny from educators, policymakers, and researchers about its effectiveness, but also moving critics to support that the K-12 distance learning needs to take a close look at putting better accountability measures in place (Bushweller, 2012). According to the research of North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL), many states still lack sophisticated data on the long-term performance of students taking online courses; therefore, a mechanism to track online programs and students is an apparent first-level policy requirement that needs to be in place (as cited in Cowan, 2009). The study from Technology Counts (2012) that examined the growth of district-based programs and state legislative efforts to expand online education in addition to evaluating its effectiveness, reported that the critical accountability questions facing virtual education providers, particularly for-profit companies, and issues related to the financial sustainability of state-sponsored e-schools (as cited in Bushweller, 2012). In another Education Week survey, only 16 percent of administrators responded their districts had done comparisons to see how well students taking online courses perform compared with students taking face-to-face courses covering similar material (as cited in Bushweller, 2012). Apparently, it is 71

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

critical that states create the systems by which online and blended learning providers can demonstrate results and be held accountable. This appears to be the challenge ahead for online education providers; regardless they are for-profit companies, state-sponsored e-schools, virtual charters, or district-based online learning initiatives. They have to add value to teaching and learning by putting accountability measures in place that can help determine what is not working and take action to address those problems (Bushweller, 2012).

Evaluating Quality Online Instruction and Program Another challenge faced by many online distance educators is evaluation - the most important part of the distance education as a high-quality learning experience leading to successful outcomes. As demand increases for online distance education programs for K-12 learners, evaluation must be seen as a tool to support policy setting and decision-making (Means & Haertel, 2004). Evaluation in distance education is often wide ranging and considers all aspects of a program (Black, Ferdig, & DiPietro, 2008), that may include students, teachers, courses, curricula and effectiveness of online learning. Black et al. (2008) encouraged to develop assessments to evaluate all components of the distance education process, including teachers too. Many studies suggested various evaluative methods or tools for a more comprehensive view of the online education in K-12. For example, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Education released a guide to help schools evaluate K-12 online education programs (as cited in Cowan, 2009). Huerta el al. (2013) suggested using the iNACOL National Standards of Quality for Online Courses as an evaluative tool for assessing quality course material, since it can represent a good starting point for assessing internally developed and externally acquired course content. It is crucial to conduct rigorous evaluations of online learning in K-12 settings to ensure that it does what people hope it will do and help improve student learning.

CONCLUSION Distance learning has made a major impact in the traditional K-12 educational setting. For centuries in the United States, students’ learning opportunities have been developed and limited by factors beyond their control. For example, the location of where a student resides has had an impact on students attending the best schools, or socio-economic variables such as if students’ parents had enough income to place them in quality learning environments and provide them with access to quality instruction has also been a concern. But, the development of distance learning has begun to break down these barriers, since distance learning allows students to learn at their own pace in numerous ways that have been tailored to the students’ learning styles and overall general interest. As distance learning continues to develop and advance, it remains important to examine the need for more research into issues related to virtual schooling, the need for additional support to overcome barriers to student success, the need for better training of school personnel to assist the students, the need for more online assistance, and the need for formal communication channels between the virtual school and the brick-and-mortar school. Online K-12 education is here to stay and will continually evolve. Therefore, more and more research in K-12 online instruction will be required as the progression and contributions distance learning continues to make and provide in order to improve, inspire, and inform the students in the 21st century. 72

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2013. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Angiello, R. (2010). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 20, 18–20. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). K-12 Distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363–391. doi:10.1080/153 91523.2009.10782535 Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 1–3. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.759452 Barbour, M. K. (2009). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Distance Learning, 13(1), 5–25. Barbour, M. K. (2010). Researching K-12 online learning: What do we know and what should we examine? Distance Learning, 7(2), 7–12. Barbour, M. K. (2011). The promise and the reality: Exploring virtual schooling in rural jurisdictions. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 1–20. Barbour, M. K. (2012). Are virtual schools more cost-effective compared to traditional, brick-and mortar schools? Technology in schools: Debating issues in American public education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barbour, M. K. (2013). The landscape of K-12 online learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.; pp. 574–593). New York: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch36 Barbour, M. K., & Mulcahy, D. (2008). How are they doing? Examining student achievement in virtual schooling. Education in Rural Australia, 18(2), 63–74. Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009 Barker, K., & Wendel, T. (2001). e-Learning: Studying Canada’s virtual secondary schools. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Berge, Z., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York: Teachers College Press. Bigbie, C., & Mccarroll, W. (2000). The Florida high school evaluation 1999-2000 report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Black, E. W., Ferdig, R. E., & DiPietro, M. (2008). An overview of evaluative instrumentation for virtual high schools. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 24–45. doi:10.1080/08923640701713422 Bright, B. P. (1989). Epistemological vandalism: Psychology in the study of adult education. In B. P. Bright (Ed.), Theory and practice in the study of adult education: The epistemological debate (pp. 34–64). London, UK: Routledge.

73

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Bushweller, K. C. (2012). Spotlight turns toward virtual ed. accountability. Education Week, 31(25), 10–11. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/03/15/25execsum.h31.html Cavanaugh, C. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88. Cavanaugh, C. (2007). Effectiveness of K-12 online learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.; pp. 157–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/60711182 Cavanaugh, C., Ferdig, R., Johnson, S. D., Lowes, S., Smith, R., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2006). What works in K-12 online learning. Paper presented at the Virtual School Symposium, Denver, CO. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Academic Press. Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues. A study of virtual schools in the United States. Macomb, IL: WestED TA Consulting, Distance Learning Resource Network. Clark, T. (2003). Virtual and distance education in American schools. In M. G. M. W. G. Anderson (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 673–699). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Clark, T., Lewis, E., Oyer, E., & Schreiber, J. (2002). Illinois virtual high school evaluation, 2001-2002. Carbondale, IL: TA Consulting and Southern Illinois University. Clinton, J., Doron, S., Hoke, L., Johnson, S., & Pennock, C. (2006). Innovation with a southern accent: The 2006 report of the future of the south. Durham, NC: Southern Growth Policies Board. Conceição, S., & Drummond, S. (2005). Online learning in secondary education: A new frontier. Educational Considerations, 33(1), 31–37. doi:10.4148/0146-9282.1217 Corry, M., & Stella, J. (2012). Developing a framework for research in online K-12 distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(3), 133–151. Cowan, K. (2009). Learning across distance. Education Digest, 4–8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/openview/40905a924cf370840d02d7703c4c9d3f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25066 Darrow, R. (2010). A comparative study between online charter high schools and traditional high schools in California. Fresno, CA: California State University. DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet use by children and adolescents in 2001. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Dickson, W. P. (2005). Toward a deeper understanding of student performance in virtual high school courses: Using quantitative analyses and data visualization to inform decision making (Unpublished manuscript). College of Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI.

74

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10–35. Enoch, Y., & Soker, Z. (2006). Age, gender, ethnicity, and the digital divide: University students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learning, 21(2), 99–110. doi:10.1080/02680510600713045 Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., & Freidhoff, J. (2012, January). K-12 online and blended learning: Stories of exemplary practice. Paper presentation at the 2012 Florida Educational Technology Conference (FETC), Orlando, FL. Fernandez, H., Ferdig, R. E., Thompson, L. A., Schottke, K., & Black, E. W. (2016). Students with special health care needs in K-12 virtual schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 67–75. Fjortoft, N. F. (1996). Persistence in a distance learning program: A case in pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 49–59. doi:10.1080/08923649609526940 Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 52–61. Glass, G. V., & Welner, K. G. (2011). Online K-12 schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain private ventures in need of public regulation. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc. colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12-schooling/ Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 2(1), 1–11. Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303–314. Hasler-Waters, L., Barbour, M. K., & Menchaca, M. P. (2014). The nature of online charter schools: Evolution and emerging concerns. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 379–389. Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schoo1s be a vibrant part of meeting the choice provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual School Report. Retrieved from http://www.connectionsacademy .com/PDFsNirtualNews704.pdf Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES in Florida. Computers & Education, 55(1), 391–405. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.004 Huerta, L., Rice, J. K., & Shafer, S. R. (2013). Key policy issues in virtual schools: Finance and governance, instructional quality and teacher quality. In A. Molnar (Ed.), Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2013: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence (pp. 37–56). Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2013/ Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67. doi:10.100711528008-0199-9

75

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383–408. doi:10.108 0/15391523.2006.10782466 Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. M. (2012). Offering pre-service teachers field experiences in K–12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651 Kerr, S. T. (1989). Technology, teachers, and the search for school reform. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 5–17. doi:10.1007/BF02307717 Kleiner, A., & Lewis, L. (2003). Internet access in US public schools and classrooms 1994–2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. LaPlante, J. (2012). Expanding educational opportunities in Kansas through online learning. Wichita, KS: Kansas Policy Institute. Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185–204. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.004 Madddox, M. (2006). On the wave of the future. T.H.E. Journal, 33, 14–17. Means, B., & Haertel, G. (2004). A blueprint for a national research agenda to evaluate educational technology. In B. Means & G. Haertel (Eds.), Using Technology Evaluation to Enhance Student Learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–47. Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S. S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 221–231. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009 National Association of State Boards of Education. (2001). Any time, any pace, any path, any pace: Taking the lead on e-learning policy. The Report of the NASBE Study Group on e-Learning: The Future of Education. Park, J., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online Learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217. Parsad, B., & Jones, J. (2005). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2003 (NCES 2005-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2005/2005015.pdf Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Academic Press. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530104.pdf Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782468

76

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 distance education: A delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 163–177. Rice, K. L., & Dawley, L. (2007). Going virtual! The status of professional development for K–12 online teachers. Boise, ID: Boise State University. Retrieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/ goingvirtual1.pdf Rice, K. L., & Dawley, L. (2009). The status of professional development for K-12 online teachers: Insights and implications. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 523–545. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Virtual successful: Defeating the dropout problem through online school programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 31–36. doi:10.1177/003172170608800107 Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040 Roblyer, M. D., & Marshall, J. C. (2002). Predicting success of virtual high school students: Preliminary results from an educational success prediction instrument. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 35(2), 241–255. Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). Student success in online K-12 education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117–124. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, R. E., & Gunter, G. A. (2004). Technology and curriculum integration. In Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Boston, MA: Course Technology. Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning. Open Learning, 19(1), 79–96. doi:10.1080/0268051042000177863 Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on k-12 online learning. Naprville, IL: Learning Points Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Thomas, W. R. (2002). Funding web-based courses for K-12 students to meet state educational goals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/ pubs/PDF/Webbased Courses.pdf Tucker, B. (2007). Laboratories of reform: Virtual high schools and innovation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector Reports. Tunison, S., & Noonan, B. (2001). On-line learning: Secondary students’ first experience. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 495–514. doi:10.2307/1602179 Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashow, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Watson, J. F., & Gemin, B. (2008). Using online learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning.

77

 Impact of Online Learning in K-12

Watson, J. F., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Wicks, M. (2010). A national primer for K-12 online learning, Version 2. International Association for K-12 Online Learning, Vienna, VA. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cyber Schools: The school programs that the K-12 students can complete all of their education online. Distance Education: Any course that is delivered to students not in the physical presence of a teacher. Full-Time Programs: Often called cyber schools, are those where the K-12 students complete all of their education online. Online Courses: A form of distance education in which the instruction is delivered via the use of the internet and online. Supplemental Programs: Often called virtual schools, are those where a student is enrolled in a brick-and-mortar or physical school, and the school allows the student to enroll in one or more online courses as a way to supplement their curricular offerings. Virtual School: The school allows the students, enrolled in a brick-and-mortar or physical school, to enroll in one or more online courses as a way to supplement their curricular offerings.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional Development in Higher Education; pages 357-375, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

78

79

Chapter 6

Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings: Focus on Team Effectiveness Mette L. Baran Cardinal Stritch University, USA Janice E. Jones Cardinal Stritch University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter intends to answer the question, “What are some guidelines for working effectively in virtual teams?” To further advance existing literature, the authors utilized a qualitative phenomenological approach with a randomly-sampled group of seven students who had completed master’s-level education courses that were conducted in an online format at a private Midwestern University. Students were halfway through their course completion at the time of data collection. In addition, a random sample of one program administrator and four faculty members were interviewed. Specifically, students who enrolled in online Master’s in Education courses are required to work in study teams to complete a certain portion of the course work. Study teams can often be difficult to navigate in person and with the added dimension that a virtual experience brings to developing trusting, successful working relationships, different working guidelines are needed. Findings revealed that managerial and social aspects of online learning and teaching were critical for online students’ success.

INTRODUCTION “The single most important factor, the substrate, which will determine the success (or failure), of any organization in the 21st Century: TRUST.” – Warren Bennis

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch006

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Adult learners once considered a non-traditional population in higher education have established a firm normalcy. The research of Knowles (1980) proposes that adult learners are motivated by learning experiences that are directly applicable to their lives, tend to be self-directed, and want to feel that they have a definite sense of purpose in a learning experience. These foundational elements of adult learning are well-documented and understood by successful adult learning practitioners. The authors use Chao’s (2009) definition of an adult learner as someone who “is a self-directed person, 24 years of age and above whose engagement and readiness to learn is based on the immediate applicability to the development tasks of his/her social role incorporating his/her reservoir of experience” (p. 906). What is lesser known is how adult learners thrive in an online learning environment. As online learning expanded in higher education, much of the research emphasis focused on the undergraduate experience, as well as the experience of students who re typically not considered adult learners (students ranging in age from 18-22). Early research into the experiences of adult learners in online environment found less than promising results. Adult students tended to be less academically successful in online learning, were retained at a lower rate than their non-adult peers and found online learning to be a less attractive learning option. The authors investigate how these adult online students finding success? What strategies are instructors using to offer students the best chance at success in this learning environment? For the sake of this chapter, the term “adult learning environment” will reference any adult learning experience purposely designed to occur in the face-to-face classroom environment, a blended format with instructor providing instruction prior to the classroom experience (e.g. flipped teaching model), or a synchronous or asynchronous online format as frequently found in distance learning. The adult learning environment term seeks to encompass the number of learning modalities adults engage in today. The new normal in business and education today is using technology to aid colleagues and students communicating and working together collaborative in virtual teams to complete tasks. Over 80% of all businesses today utilize virtual collaboration as they compete in a fast-paced global marketplace. Virtual meeting and team collaboration thus become more evident and imperative. In 2006, more than half of all higher education organizations offer online courses (Hoffman, 2006). This landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. Allen and Seaman (2016) noted that as online learning has proliferated, so has its success among adult students. The 2015 Babson Survey of Online Learning reports a 3.9% increase in the number of distance education students, a slight increase over the 3.7% increase in 2014. In 2015, there were 5.8 million distance education students accounting for 28% of all enrolled students. Of this total, 2.85 million were taking all their coursework toward a degree at a distance; while 2.97 million were taking some, but not all their courses at a distance (p. 4). Indeed, the online format is one of the most popular formats for adult learners, ranking third in preference for students at private institutions. According the 2015 Noel-Levitz Adult Learner Marketing and Recruitment Practices Benchmarking Report Among private institutions with adult programs, online or blended formats are in place at over 60% percent of those institutions. Further, The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) reflects that 28% of all college students now take at least one distance education course, and that 14% of all higher education students took all their courses exclusively at a distance (Poulin & Straut, 2015). They further note that 28% of students enrolled in at least one of their courses via distance education in the fall of 2014. These reports show that distance education enrollments continue to grow, even in the face of declining overall higher education enrollments. Public institutions continue to enroll the largest portion of distance education students, with 72.7% of undergraduate and 38.7% of graduate-level distance students. While 80

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

all types of institutions offer online learning, “Public institutions represented nearly three quarters of all fall 2014 enrollments (72%) (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 8). Higher education institutions must become mindful of designing online degree programs that aid the communication and collaboration between students and assist in the virtual maneuver of the online learning experience as online learning allows for rich student interactions. They also need to teach students how to learn online (Pallof & Pratt, 2001). Furthermore, course designers need to pay attention to the importance of social constructivism in online learning. Learning is a social activity. Meaning is constructed through interaction and communications with others, so collaboration is needed to build knowledge in online learning communities. Students, faculty, and program administrators are grappling with learning teams in the online environment. As online course developers try to replicate the best practices of traditional classrooms, the asynchronous technology of the Internet has added great capability while also increasing the confusion that distance in space and time can add to the learning process. This chapter will address what is needed to create successful virtual teams. More importantly, this chapter will address this from the unique vantage points of the three constituents, that of: the student, administration, and faculty. Utilizing a qualitative research approach allows the voice of the participant to be heard; sharing stories of successes and struggles though in-depth interviews. Addressing this issue from the three stake holders added a richness and depth to the chapter and the resulting literature base. First the authors discuss the overview of the program where this research study was conducted. Detailed discussion of Professional Learning Theory and Communities of Practice in Higher Education, Online Learning Community, Adult Learning Theory, Effective Virtual Teams, Trust and Key Components of Trust, Achieving Trusting Relationships in Virtual Teams, Ethnocentrism, and The Role of the Instructor in Virtual Teams, then follow.

BACKGROUND Overview of Program The educational program where the study was conducted is a Master’s in Education Program (MEL). Students are appointed to teams based on various assignments. Each student will be assigned to a minimum of two teams per course and this is interchangeable from course to course. Students have no control over who their team members will be, and each assignment only lasts for a maximum of two weeks. This means that students need to be able to connect quickly and learn to collaborate and communicate in an efficient way in order to complete small group assignments. These typically consist of an assignment that requires a shared response for assessment by the instructor. Typically, these are case studies that require a common analysis and shared oral and/or written response. Teams of students work together and complete these projects using typical course management tools such as an electronic discussion forum and email messages or telephone conferencing. The learning environment is strictly online. Students use printed textbooks and each course has its own website. There is a full-time administrator of the online program as well as a web page coordinator. Instructors are either part-or full time, many teach the courses that they designed.

81

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Professional Learning Communities While Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) were first developed and researched in the K12 educational systems, the concept can be applied to ensure adults. The focus of PLCs on the three principles of learning, collaboration, and results (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2005) relate directly to the essential elements of adult learning as defined in by Malcom Knowles’ principles of andragogy, or adult learning theory: self-concept, adult learning experience, readiness, orientation, and motivation (Knowles, 1980). Just as classrooms of adult learners today need new ways of engaging students through effective instructional practices that activate learning, PLCs’ are designed to engage participants in the work that will lead to organizational successes. Teaching principles designed by instructors must be carefully planned and delivered in order to lead to successful learning by adults. Whatever the level of PLC dimensions in an organization, the use of PLCs in the adult learning environment is a system thinking approach towards teaching and learning that recognizes the interconnectedness of the experiences of individuals in groups and organizations and how this influences future experiences for participants. The PLC principles of learning, collaboration, and results fit well with not only what adult learners bring to the classroom but also what the adult learners can carry back to their organizations in terms of creating learning communities. Like organizations, adult learning environments that use PLCs must be places where all learners’ “commitment and capacity” must be present. This further assumes the change in the role of the instructor from the “grand strategist” to a facilitator of the learning process. This shift of the instructor’s role, as also described in other parts of this chapter in terms of establishing trust is part of a change process that has been influencing adult learning throughout the last part of the twentieth century and well into this century.

Learning Communities in Higher Education The theory of PLCs also connects to the work of thinkers such as Dewey, Thorndike, Bobbit, and Tyler. These theorists shaped the learning environments through the nineteenth and twentieth century and their work connect with Knowles’ principles of andragogy. For example, the experiential learning theory and behavioral learning theory of these thinkers exists in the tenants of PLCs, including the idea of a community of learners. These communities in the adult learning environment, are arguably appealing to the adult learning seeking new knowledge and skills based upon the principles espoused by Knowles of prior experience, problem solving, and motivation. The emergence of learning communities is indeed an interesting and recent pedagogical development in higher education. The researchers define learning communities as, “Professional educators working collectively and purposefully to create and sustain a culture of learning for all students and adults” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 12). Additionally, various strategies have been developed to foster learning communities in an online setting. The objectives of lude communicating effectively, strengthening social ties, collaborating in small teams, establishing social networks, and collaborating in knowledge construction (Chang, Chen & Li, 2006; Jones & Issroff, 2005; Wang & Poole, 2004; Yang, Wang, Shen, & Han, 2007). However, online behaviors and roles that are fundamental to the functioning of online learning communities, however, have seldom been compared (Yang et al., 2007). 82

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Online Learning Community Students often do not control their access to other members of an online class, as that is typically an instructor’s decision. However, when a course instructor chooses to organize class activities so online students can interact, then the Online learning communities (OLCs) are like traditional learning communities in many ways. Some of the greatest differences in communication (most often conducted via written word rather than via spoken words, the often-asynchronous nature of the collaboration, and access to the instructor. Hetland, Skogstad, Hetland, and Mikkelsen (2011) identify five central dimensions of a learning climate in their study of the relationship between leadership and learning in a work setting that are present in this organization to greater or lesser degree; the dimensions are “sufficient time to learn and perform, autonomy and responsibility, team style, opportunities to develop, and guidelines on how to do the job” (p. 15).

Motivating the Adult Learner (Adult Learning Theory) Educators teaching adult learners need to know the concepts of the adult learning theory and be able to incorporate them into their teaching style. Malcolm Knowles (1913-1997) was an American educator who theorized adult education. He brought the term andragogy into use as a term associated with adult education. According Malcolm Knowles, andragogy is the art and science of adult learning, thus andragogy refers to any form of adult learning. (Kearsley, 2010). The term is like pedagogy, which involved teaching children. In Greek, the terms mean man-leading in comparison to child-leading, respectively. The German educator, Alexander Kapp, is attributed to be the first to use the term, andragogy in 1833. Knowles (1984) gave adult learners 5 characteristics: 1. Self-Concept: As a person matures his self-concept moves from one of being a dependent personality toward one of being a self-directed human being 2. Experience: As a person matures, he accumulates a growing reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing resource for learning. 3. Readiness to Learn: As a person matures his readiness to learn becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks of his social roles. 4. Orientation to Learning: As a person matures his time perspective changes from one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly his orientation toward learning shifts from one of subject-centeredness to one of problem centeredness. 5. Motivation to Learn: As a person matures the motivation to learn is internal. (p. 12). Also, according to Knowles (1984) there are four principles that are applied to adult learning: 1. Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction. 2. Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for learning activities. 3. Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance to their job or personal life. 4. Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented. (Kearsley, 2010)

83

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Educators need to become facilitators of adult education, helping the adult learner to set and achieve goals and guide them in choosing the subjects and courses needed to fulfill these goals. They need to keep in mind that the adult learner needs to know why the course is important to their learning and life situation. The adult learner brings into the continuing educational arena a rich array of experiences that will affect the learning styles and assimilation of knowledge. Adult learners need to be able to apply the knowledge into their life situations. Knowles (1984) opened the doors of inquiry and the study of adult education focusing on five crucial assumptions about the adult learner: Self-direction: In its broadest meaning, ‘self-directed learning’ describes, according to Malcolm Knowles (1975) a process: … in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes (p. 18). Knowles (1975) puts forward three immediate reasons for self-directed learning. First, he argues that there is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things, and learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners). ‘They enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retain and make use of what they learn better and longer than do the reactive learners.’ (p. 14) A second immediate reason is that self-directed learning is more in tune with our natural processes of psychological development. ‘An essential aspect of maturing is developing the ability to take increasing responsibility for our own lives – to become increasingly self-directed’ (Knowles, 1975, p. 15). A third immediate reason is that many of the new developments in education put a heavy responsibility on the learners to take a good deal of initiative in their own learning. ‘Students entering into these programs without having learned the skills of self-directed inquiry will experience anxiety, frustration, and often failure, and so will their teachers (Knowles, 1975, p. 15). Knowles’ (1980) theory of andragogy is an attempt to develop a theory specifically for adult learning based on the theories of andragogy which is adult learning and pedagogy which is childhood learning. It is widely accepted that adults and children learn differently and have different instructional needs and requirements. Andragogy honors adults as self-directed learners who desire a climate of mutual respect and trust when they are under instruction. Facilitation of adult learning involves the opportunity for the learners to diagnose gaps in existing knowledge or skills and to identify opportunities to close these gaps. Adults appreciate the opportunity to define their own instructional goals that are defined by fully articulated performance criteria. This changes the role of the instructor from “being the expert with perhaps the sole or major responsibility for being the information source to that of facilitator, coach, or mentor – one who provides leadership and wisdom in guiding student learning” (Berge, 2008, p. 409). Andragogy, according to Conner (1997-2004) involves five assertions: 1) Letting learners know why something is important to learn, 2) showing learners how to direct themselves through information, 3) relating the topic to the learner’s experiences. In addition, 4) people will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn. 5) This requires helping overcome inhibitions, behaviors, and beliefs about learning (para. 12).

84

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Rachal (2002) urged that there is often a disconnect between the adult learners’ needs and teaching practice: Andragogy calls for learner control, measures of knowledge acquisition based upon performance standards, and the voluntary involvement of students in the learning activity. Most of these conditions do not exist in the university. One of the primary tenets of andragogy is that learning is pursued for its intrinsic value. Finally, andragogy calls for the measurement of satisfaction and for learner determined outcome measures. Neither of these conditions is readily found in higher education where faculty set the learning objectives and where satisfaction is not the primary determinant of future course offerings. (pp. 210-227) Thoms (2001) characterized adult learners as having set habits and strong taste, a great deal of pride, a rational framework (values, attitudes, etc.) by which they make decisions and have developed group behavior consistent with their needs and have a strong need to apply what is learned and apply it now. Chao’s (2009) description of learning is adopted as the operational definition for this paper: “learning as any process leading to a change in efficiency or use of conscious and unconscious cognitive processes that lead to a permanent capacity change not solely caused by biological maturation or ageing” Taking into consideration these characteristics and assumptions of the adult learners, the underpinnings of andragogy teaches us that the adult learners’ motivation to learn must be different from those of children. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect motivation which change during the different stages/needs in their lives, add to the complexity. Motivation to learn would differ based on their individual experience, aptitude, and attitude. This would include individual characteristics of the learner, the perceived value of the learning task, and how much experience the adult learner had with the topic. Dymock (2007) argues that additional motivational factors such as social relationships, external expectations, social welfare, professional advancement, escape/stimulation and cognitive interest dynamically changes based on one’s self direction, experience, readiness to learn and immediacy of application aside from which stages of life/needs they are in. Yak explains that the life stage/needs of an adult learner also determine his/her value system be it existence, relatedness, or growth needs. The life stage/needs also significant influence the adult learner’s decision to participate in learning as it affects one or even all the 3 dimensions of learning (cognition, emotion, or environment). The adult learners’ reason and purpose for learning creates the motivation to engage in learning therefore one must understand why and what is the reason and purpose for engaging in adult learning. Rachal (2002) examined andragogy as a means of educating adults: When it comes to adults, the foundation of higher education must assume that the adult learner has primary responsibility for their own motivation. This is not to suggest that the external environment cannot be facilitative, only that it does not encourage responsibility. Andragogy also calls for learner control, measures of knowledge acquisition based upon performance standards, and the voluntary involvement of students in the learning activity. Most of these conditions do not exist in the university. One of the primary tenets of andragogy is that learning is pursued for its intrinsic value. Finally, andragogy calls for the measurement of satisfaction and for learner determined outcome measures. Neither of these conditions is readily found in higher education where faculty set the learning objectives and where satisfaction is not the primary determinant of future course offerings. (pp. 210-227) Conner (1997-2004) argued that Andragogy is: 85

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

The art and science of helping adults learn. In the andragogical model there are five assertions: 1) Letting learners know why something is important to learn, 2) showing learners how to direct themselves through information, 3) relating the topic to the learner’s experiences. In addition, 4) people will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn. 5) This requires helping overcome inhibitions, behaviors, and beliefs about learning. (para. 12). Leaders are telling us that the future of work is that of collaboration. So, if we are to succeed in this collaborative, global economy where more and more of us are working in virtual teams, trust becomes ever more vital so that we can all win. And right now, the uncertainty around us is compounded by constant organizational change and a fragile and battered economy. Distrust leads to dysfunctional relationships slowing down every interaction with direct economic impact

Review of Research on Effective Virtual Teams Successful outcomes of virtual learning depend on a shared culture that facilitates the making of knowledge and the contributions of all team members. Frontier (2012) argues that students learn three ways; experience, be told, and watch. Experiential learning involves doing by learner either through direct or indirect experiences. Hearing and seeing are more passive but important methodologies to deliver instruction and training. All learning involves at least one of these techniques. Effective learning in most cases involves all three ways. Creating opportunities for all three ways of learning is critical to virtual learners’ success. Study teams can often be difficult to navigate in person and with the added dimension that a virtual experience brings to developing trusting, successful working relationships, different working guidelines are needed. Everyone on a virtual team must be a leader willing to drive their part of the process. Virtual teams don’t work very well if the team members can’t self- manage the process and their own time. It is important that those who design the learning team and procedures delegate enough authority so that virtual team members can proceed without having to need approval for every step. Goold, Augar, and Farmer (2006) found that, even though, on average, students enjoyed working in teams in a classroom setting, most were less enthusiastic with working in a group in an online environment. Yoon (2006) examined online student team behaviors in seven virtual teams, categorizing the behaviors into three domains - Work, Social, and Management. In reviewing student behaviors over time, Yoon found that most interactions in early weeks of a team project were aimed at social behaviors (42.6%), which he speculated “might indicate that virtual learning team members try hard to enhance the social presence in an online environment before focusing on work. Cooperation and motivation to participate are two crucial indices for distinguishing between the achievement of online groups (Guzdial & Turns, 2000; Lin et al., 2007). Ligoria (2001) proposed that when communities are organized into groups consisting of members with different abilities, the overall purpose of the community must be kept in mind along with a sense of collaboration. However, a virtual team can also face challenges and issues that must be addressed for a successful team operation (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007). Such an environment can create difficulties for effective communication and collaboration (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Thus, it has been suggested that virtual teams may have to make extra efforts in communication and collaboration for a successful operation. Lin et al. (2007) found that while over 50% of participants in the superior group habitually cooperated; few participants in the inferior group did so. They also indicated that participants in the superior group were more enthusiastic about sharing knowledge than those in the inferior group. Similarly, Ligoria 86

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

(2001) proposed that when communities are organized into groups consisting of members with different abilities, the overall purpose of the community must be kept in mind along with a sense of collaboration. According to Ligorio (2001), the collaborative dimension of knowledge building comprises the community of the team.

Trust Although some claim that working in virtual teams can produce additional challenges owing to the absence of social cues that can transfer interpersonal affections, including trust, research suggests that such absence does not necessarily hinder development of trust in virtual teams but may merely prolong the process of trust building (Walther,1996; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005). Learning is about developing a sense of trust (Weidman & Bishop, 2009). Trust is the primary building foundation of all successful relationships, both personal and business. No relationship can exist for even a short period of time if trust is not present. Hence, building trust among online learners is vital for their long-lasting, satisfying, rewarding, and successful relationships. In addition, relationships drive performance. Studies also suggest that trust can play the same important roles in the functioning of virtual teams as in traditional teams (Morris, Marshall, & Kelleyrainer, 2002; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005). A synthesis of existing research suggests that development of trust is associated with continuous interactions and communications and repeated interpersonal exchange (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006; Crossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004). As in traditional teams, social communications (greetings, exchanges of personal information) can play an important role in developing trust in virtual teams (Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005). Contemporary theory of ‘‘swift trust’’ (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999) posits that highly active, proactive, and enthusiastic actions can strengthen trust. As in traditional teams, social interactions are important for team effectiveness. In virtual team, trust is perhaps more critical than ever as trust development, generally believed to be a pre-requirement for team effectiveness, may be undermined based on the lack of human touch (Grossman & Lee-Kelley, 2004). Much research supports the positive effect of trust on team outcomes. For instance, trust can enhance collaboration among team members (Serva & Fuller, 2004). Kiffin-Petersen (2004) noted that trust influences team effectiveness related to problem solving, decision making and communication. Students need to build the emotional bridges of trust and relationships with each other (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007) to create a stronger, more effective learning community. For the purposes of this paper, trust is viewed as the honest and caring way faculty and students relate to each other to cultivate strong interpersonal relationships which leads to enhanced motivation towards learning. If trust can serve as a commitment and high performance how does it impact student learning and performance? We know that when trust thrives in organizations, the literature supports that good things happen. One can then expect the same to happen to students. They should become more motivated if they trust their instructions and hence accelerate their learning. Trust acts a as a catalyst for learning (Kahane, 2006). Just as trust is a fundamental necessity for organizational success can one expect the same positive outcomes in a classroom setting? Furthermore, when faculty and students trust each other, does it lead to more engagement and motivation? Stephen Covey notes that, “Financial success comes from success in the marketplace, and success in the marketplace comes from success in the workplace. The heart and soul of all of this is trust.” It appears that trust transcends all organizational contexts and leads to the same positive outcomes. 87

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Research on teacher -student relationships in secondary school settings support the notion that when trust flourish student learning outcomes are positively impacted (Byrk & Schneider, 2004; TschannenMoran, 2004). Trust is the bond that encourages social networks, which may lead to improved teacherstudent relationships and student outcomes (Dabney, 2008; Durnford, 2010). When teachers and student work together to set mutually agreeable goals, suggestions from student are actively sought, and students are part of a positive work group, then then the basis for enhanced motivation are met (Vecchio & Appelbaum, 1995). Trust is based on interpersonal dependence and involves an individual and group willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the party is benevolent, reliable, competent honest and open (Cummins & Bromiley, 1996; Hoy & Tshannen-Moran, 2003). The more interaction the parties have over time, the more their willingness to trust one another is based upon the other party’s actions and their perceptions of one another’s intentions, competence, and integrity (Bryk & Schneider, 2003).

Key Components of Trust In general terms, trusting relationships involve risk, reliability, vulnerability, and expectation (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Young, 1998). If there is nothing at stake, or if one party does not require anything of the other, trust is not an issue. In higher educational setting settings, however, risk and expectations abound. Faculty and students alike are constantly put in positions in which they are not only expected to perform certain duties but in which their well-being depends upon others fulfilling certain obligations, as well. As researchers Bryk and Schneider (2003) explain each party in a relationship maintains an understanding of his or her role’s obligations and holds some expectations about the obligations of the other parties. As with the connection between increased educator trust and student achievement, the relationship between trust and collaboration is not one of simple cause and effect. Instead, trust and collaboration are mutually reinforcing: the more parties work together, the greater opportunity they must get to know one another and build trust. At the same time, as Tschannen-Moran’s (2001) study indicates, the level of trust already present in the relationship influences parties’ willingness and ability to work together. A more precise definition of trust, drawn from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (1998) comprehensive review of the literature includes five key components commonly used to measure trustworthiness: • • • • •

88

Benevolence: Having confidence that another party has your best interests at heart and will protect your interests is a key ingredient of trust. Reliability: Reliability refers to the extent to which you can depend upon another party to come through for you, to act consistently, and to follow through. 3 Competence: Like reliability, competence has to do with belief in another party’s ability to perform the tasks required by his or her position. For example, if a principal means well but lacks necessary leadership skills, he or she is not likely to be trusted to do the job. Honesty: A person’s integrity, character, and authenticity are all dimensions of trust. The degree to which a person can be counted on to represent situations fairly makes a huge difference in whether he or she is trusted by others in the school community. Openness: Judgments about openness have to do with how freely another party shares information with others. Guarded communication, for instance, provokes distrust because people wonder

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

what is being withheld and why. Openness is crucial to the development of trust between supervisors and subordinates, particularly in times of increased vulnerability for staff.

Achieving Trusting Relationships in Virtual Teams In traditional working teams, team members rely on eye contact, body language and past performance to help develop trusting, working relationships. Goleman (1995) suggests that there are four clusters of important competencies that make up such Emotional Intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. To be successful in a virtual team, good self-managers take responsibility for their actions, seek high performance achievement and self-improvement. In addition, they strive to be conscientious, organized, and careful about their work, to be punctual, selfdisciplined, and helpful. Ground rules, boundaries, check in opportunities for progress and improvement and feedback are topics that will be covered by the authors in the literature review portion of the chapter. The qualitative research results will undoubtedly bring the perspective of the administration, the faculty, and the student to the forefront of this chapter on guidelines for working in virtual teams.

Ethnocentrism We live in an increasingly multicultural society and “ethnocentrism” is a commonly used word in circles where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern. The usual definition of the term is “thinking one’s own group’s ways are superior to others” or “judging other groups as inferior to one’s own”. “Ethnic” refers to cultural heritage, and “centrism” refers to the central starting point... so “ethnocentrism” refers to judging other groups from one’s own cultural point of view (Barger, 2008). Working collegially together in groups, then, may be difficult when members may be from highly diverse backgrounds. In addition, faculty members often expect students to work efficiently together in groups without providing added resources or assistance. This is challenging to achieve even in traditional classroom environments. Online students have a greater challenge in making sure that their team members work together proficiently, and course instructors may need to provide more assistance to their online students to make sure that teams work well together.

The Role of the Online Instructor Teaching presence is critical to facilitating relevant online learning that achieves defined outcomes. However, the traditional role as teacher is modified. Salmon, 2004, notes that the teacher becomes just one resource of many as the control of learning is shared with the student. The online teacher is expected to adopt a more facilitative approach in creating a learner-centered environment. Berge (2008)) breaks down the online instructor roles into four categories: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical. Some of these functions overlap or can be placed in more than one category and not all these need to be carried out by the same person. However, Berge points out that it is “the instructor’s job to make sure that all the roles are successful (p. 409). Paulsen (1995) divide the educational moderator’s role into three major responsibilities – organizational, social, and intellectual. Further substantiating research was done by Rossman (1999) in an empirical study which supports these classification systems. Through an analysis of over 3,000 student course evaluations from 154 university courses, Rossman found that 89

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

student comments and complaints clustered into three major groupings which correspond to the three categories of cognitive, social and teaching presence.

METHODOLOGY The present qualitative phenomenological study was conducted at a private institution of higher education in a Midwestern state in the United States. The specific program reviewed was a master’s in educational leadership program, currently in its first year of existence. Creswell (1998) suggested that the process of collecting data for a phenomenological study requires a small group of people. The focus is finding common shared experiences of graduate students working collaboratively together in virtual teams. The purpose of this research study is to add to the existing body of knowledge by examining best practices for organizing effective virtual learning teams and the organization of those teams as determined by students, faculty, and administrators. All students, n = 14, from the first program cohort were asked to participate in the study. The students were currently in the 6th course of the program or about halfway through. All students were part time students enrolling in one course at the time. In addition, one program administrator and 4 randomly selected faculty members were interviewed one-on-one. The following questions were asked to each student participant during in-depth interviews. The faculty and administrative members answered questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 only. Interview Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

How do you and fellow cohort members generally work together in teams? How important is developing trusting relationships with team members for the team’s success? How do you best develop trust among team members? What are the key variables in your opinion for achieving successful team outcomes in the virtual learning environment? 5. What guidelines, if any, does the team need to establish for successful learning outcomes? 6. How should teams be structured? 7. When building online learning communities, how can faculty and students help in designing an online learning community? This qualitative phenomenological research study discovered and explored the phenomena as lived and experienced by the participants design was used as a method to explore and/or describe a social human problem (Creswell, 1998). A phenomenological inquiry or qualitative research uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. The main aim of using this research method is discovering the meaning beliefs, experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of students, administrators, and faculty as part of being participants in this online learning community. In order to discover and gain better understanding of human experiences, in-depth un-structured open-ended interview questions are recommended (Creswell, 1998). In the process of data analysis, a qualitative research uses inductive data analysis process, and the final report is provided in a descriptive form, which incorporates expressive participants’ voices, beliefs, and perceptions in themes and text (Eisner, 1991). A qualitative method allows researchers to identify the structural meanings of experiences while at the same time uncovering the themes and contexts that account for the lived experience of the participants studied. 90

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

The sample included 14 cohort members who were current students halfway through their Master of Educational Leadership (MEL) studies. The participants were invited via email to be interviewed by the researchers. A total of 7 (50%) students expressed a willingness to participate in the study. The researchers arranged for a time and place to conduct the one-on-one interviews. In addition, one program administrator and 4 faculty members were interviewed. By utilizing this triangulation technique, the researchers were able to obtain information that shredded a detail portrait of the phenomenon studied. The open-ended, structured interviews were used as the primary strategy for data collection. Using open-ended questions allows individual variations to unfold. The interview guide was used, but there were no predetermined answers. In this case, semi-structured interviews allowed a researcher to probe and explore more information.

Findings Pertaining to Students The data were organized into the following themes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Challenges Impacting the Success of Online Working Teams Factors that impact the success of online teams The Role of Trust in Successful Online Teams Guidelines for Developing Successful Online Teams Structural Factors to consider for Successful Online Teams Factors to consider for Higher Educational Institutions for creating Successful Online Learning Communities Tables 1- 6 outline the data findings.

Findings Pertaining to the Administrator and Faculty The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with the program administrator and a total of 4 faculty members who regularly teach online courses. The data were organized into the following themes: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Key variables for achieving successful team outcomes in the virtual learning environment? Guidelines needed for successful learning outcomes? Structuring of effective online teams Stakeholder role in building effective online learning communities

Table 1. Challenges impacting the success of online working teams Categories and Theme • Scheduling • Finding time for the work • Changing team membership • Unfamiliarity

Quotes “Scheduling is difficult especially with kids, work, and time differences” “Team work is very difficult online” “It is difficult having groups that are always changing. I do not feel that I really know the other student in the cohort or their professional backgrounds” “A component lacking in this cohort in my opinion based on the fact that most members do not know one another”

91

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Table 2. Factors that impact the success of online teams Categories and Theme

• Organization & Time Management • Team Leadership • Accountability • Strong Communication • Trust • Humor

Quotes “We determine timelines and guidelines through brainstorming in a discussion board or through email” “Organization and communication. I believe have been key in successful team outcomes in the online programs” “Making sure you get your work done on time” “Typically, one person takes the lead, there is some collaboration, but one person does the majority of the work” “Be accountable, do what you say you are going to do and be respectful of people’s ideas and time” “Strong communication is important” “Team members stepped up and filled in if the need was there” “I believe that trust is built through open and honest, frequent communication” “Everyone has to do their part and be respectful and open to the point of view of everyone” “Fortunately, most team members are motivated, and everyone does their part to complete task” “One team member in particular I have grown to trust with asking questions, venting about our day, and being able to incorporate some humor!”

Table 3. The role of trust in successful online teams Categories and Theme

• Trusting relationships is Important

Quotes Related to “We depend on each other to learn and for grades. Trusting relationships are very important” “I feel that I can trust team members to complete work and do so successfully since we are working toward a common goal” “Trust is very important as we are “spending” a lot of time together in the program” “It is very important because personal information about us, our school and our district are shared”

Table 4. Guidelines for developing successful online teams Categories and Theme

• Respect • Timelines • Norms

Quotes “I feel that respect is a major factor. To respect everyone and his or her thoughts and ideas” “I really wish that there were more norms established about communication. Frequently, within group assignments I have no idea when the other members will be checking in and the communication is often disjointed. When I was in the first online cohort whenever group work was assigned my group established chat times to lay out individual tasks and a timeline. I think that this should be a norm for group work” “The team needs to set a timeline, communicate which responsibilities they will be taking on and then stick to the plan” “Respectful dialogue that allows us to honestly state what we are doing and gain insights from others”

Table 5. Structural factors to consider for successful online teams Categories and Theme

Quotes “I like the change in groups from activity to activity, so you get to work with all members”

• Interchangeable Teams • Self-organized Teams and Pre-Selected Teams

92

“Self- organized or pre- chosen has both been successful” “Teams should be structured either in a self-organized fashion or by considering people’s strengths. I have been on teams with people who do not participate at all and do not respond to the group and with people who do all the work before the team has a chance to collaborate. This does not lead to effective teamwork”

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Table 6. Factors to consider for higher educational institutions for creating successful online learning communities Categories and Theme

Quotes “Being flexible and understanding to other’s lives. Sometimes it is very challenging to balance school, online learning, and families” “Faculty has to be flexible. There are assignments due almost every day and work and life can get in the way” “Students can provide honest feedback about courses” “Both faculty and students have to be open and willing to try new things”

• Faculty Sympathetic to Student Work/Life Balances • Faculty Flexibility • Communication Norms • Flexibility with Alternative Communication Sources • Synchronized Sessions

“More norms on frequency of communication” “Team discussion boards have been the primary source of collaboration thus far, not the most effective for group work in my opinion. I like the idea of utilizing the Angel chat rooms, Skype, etc.” “The many portals of communication, resources, rubrics, calendars, etc. have been really helpful. There are many places that I can look for answers when I am confused. I think initiating team activities with a synchronous blackboard session would help the process. Also, a log or some way of showing who has done what (maybe a self-reflection) would help hold everyone accountable” “Encourage dialogue and reinforce promptness. There are times when personal issues arise that cause delays in responding and participating. It is essential that the other team members are made aware of when a team member is off line for a period. There were times early on where a few of our cohort members had difficulties and we were not aware. It became difficult for us to know if we should wait or continue the work without them” “It might be helpful to have blackboard sessions for teams to meet at the start of a project. That way, students could get the work organized and then finish the process through email and phone calls”

Table 7. Key variables for achieving successful team outcomes in the virtual learning environment? Categories and Theme

• Team Interaction • Utilizing Various Communication Tools • Frequent Communication

Quotes “The first step is to actually ensure that there will be some team interaction” “I have found requiring daily interactions with course material and student posting to one another for assignment completion is a key to success” “One of the most fruitful activities I have seen is to have them participate in discussion boards where there is a non-threatening question in which everyone can share their ideas. As more ideas are shared, they get to know each other’s personality via words” “The faculty member needs to act like a facilitator ensuring frequent communication between students as well as students and faculty member” “Explicit in assignment directions it is helpful to provide the number of times they are to post to one another and the purpose of the post”

Table 8. Guidelines needed for successful learning outcomes? Categories and Theme

• Norms

Quotes “The establishment of team norms is essential. At a minimum these norms might include confidentiality, respectful disagreement, and a commitment to contribute to the online discussions. The biggest threat to learning outcomes in the online environment is the possibility of someone being offended and checking out. Establishing the ground rules from the outset lessens this possibility” “Establishing group norms is essential for any type of work group be it face to face or online. Allowing the group members to share their preferences for when to meet, what to set for deadlines, decision making process, how to resolve conflicts, best format they work in (email, skype…) and to discuss/problem solve any potential barriers to successful completion of assignment/project”

93

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Table 9. Structuring of effective online teams Categories and Theme

• Peer Reviewed Assignments • Interchangeable Team Membership

Quotes “In one of my online courses there were several assignments that required pairs of students to do a peer review of a classmate’s work” “I intentionally change the pairs each time to give them a different teammate. They liked having interactions with different students, and as is natural found people they gravitated to after a while. At that point, they looked forward to the opportunity to work with their “favorite” classmates” “Changing groups membership throughout the course is another best practice so students get a sense of all their fellow course mates” “If the online cohort extends over several months, I believe it is critical to mix up groups and even strategically place people in groups so as to challenge them” “I believe there are a number of factors can fall in to the structuring of teams. If possible, at the start of a course do some type of survey to have students discover their work style and preference. True Colors is a great tool and can help the instructor determine how to organize teams, so people work with a variety of work styles and gain an understanding of group process. So, considering diversity, work preference and even location in case some may want to meet in person” “One assignment was to debate why staff development was necessary and why it is unnecessary. I placed the biggest advocate for staff development in the why it is unnecessary group to stretch her thinking. She did a great job in the debate and it opened her eyes to the blindspot in her leadership. So, instructor knowledge of student is key too”

Table 10. Stakeholder role in building effective online learning communities Categories and Theme

• Consistent Presence • Frequent Interactions between Stakeholders • Faculty Feedback

Quotes “Faculty and students’ biggest role are to be involved and have a consistent presence” “The more interaction the faculty member has with the students, and the students with each other, the stronger the learning community. If students do not interact with faculty, or with each other, they feel isolated and the learning community never materializes” “I have found the daily interactions around the required posts accentuate the depth and richness of the community. Initially the required posting tied to the rubric force the interactions but as time goes on people are truly engaging and creating an authentically responsive learning community” “Having instructor presence is key and having the instructor share stories and examples allows for greater sense of community. Feedback, feedback and feedback! The early in the course feedback is received and expected the better. I want my students to have a clear understanding that they are important to me and that their individual learning is equal to how they are helping others learn in the class”

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The decision to introduce online learning in Higher Education may seem to be a logical next step for many Higher Education institutions; however, there are many facets to consider when developing virtual programs. A larger set of conditions need to be considered. This study focused on the organization of virtual teams and some key guidelines that need to be present. As discussed, the four categories of skills – pedagogical, social, managerial and technical - of an online instructor were noted by Berge (2008) as being critical to ensure the successful learning outcomes for students. The findings of this research study aligned with these principles. The authors noted that students did not mention issues such as space and time distance, or even psychological distance that often arise in the discussion of online learning environments. Nor technical problems were brought forward as may have been expected. However, two areas that were mentioned was managerial (their time, organization, norms, and commitment) and social (communication and re-

94

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

lationship building). Similarly, the administration and faculty noted managerial (interchangeable team membership, peer reviewed assignments, and feedback) and social (online presence, communication, and stakeholder interactions) as important areas. This last finding was also noted in a research study by Misanchuk and Anderson (2001), who stressed the importance of interactions and suggest interactions could be encouraged at different levels, such as communication and cooperation levels. In addition, the element of trust is significant in virtual teams. All student participants noted this. According to one student: “It is very important because personal information about us, our school and our district is shared.” It is critical that course designers and faculty take this into consideration in ensuring that frequent student interactions and social activities are built into the course. The distributed nature of the participants makes for some challenges that otherwise may have been addressed face-to face. This may often be exaggerated if members of the team have not established a trust-based relationship. When individuals are separated, they are less likely to establish the one-to-one relationships upon which trust is often built (Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003). Therefore, assignments and the structural design of the programs need to be paid attention to. The online faculty teaching in the MEL programs currently incorporates a minimum of 3 synchronized sessions per course in order to allow for added social interactions. Pawar and Sharifi (1997) urged that, albeit geographically separated, the need for virtual teams to establish initial relationships is critical and that they require initial face-to-face meetings to develop a sense of ‘‘team’’ for their members. This theory is also supported by findings in the U.S. Department of Education meta-analysis study report released in September 2010. This meta-analysis of 50 studies, 43 of which were focused on adult learners rather than elementary or secondary students, found that “instruction combining online, and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction” (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010, p. 15). The establishment of clear guidelines for and directions as well as clear expectations for each team member is critical. One student urged, “Be accountable, do what you say you are going to do and be respectful of people’s ideas and time.” Course designers and faculty must be as clear as possible communicating assignment expectations and goals at each stage of the process. Just as with traditional classes, the online instructor must be clear about course requirements (Palloff & Pratt, 2001) and communicate high expectations (Coghlan, 2002).

CONCLUSION This study noted the many successes institutions of Higher Education are experiencing by offering more and more courses online. However, as stressed by the researchers, several non-technical guidelines must be considered in order to ensure that the promise of online learning communities does not turn into noneffective virtual instruction. The successful implementation of a virtual team requires an organization to address issues from a diverse set of influences. Findings from this study focused on the managerial and social nature of virtual learning and instruction. Students implied the importance of establishing trusting relationships and the establishment of clear guidelines for task completion and expectations from team members. Administrator and faculty participants noted the importance of building in social interactions through peer reviewed assignments, interchangeable team membership, online presence, and frequent feedback. Higher education institutions must demonstrate that they are reliable providers of good quality education regardless of the delivery model and they must respond to the increasing demand for

95

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

meaningful and relevant teaching. Students as well as employers and policy makers want to assure that education will prepare students for rewarding employment and for professional growth over a lifespan.

REFERENCES Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. ERIC Document. ERIC Number: ED572777. Barger, K. (2008, July). Ethnocentrism. Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm Berge, Z. (2008). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407–414. Byrk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2004). Trust in schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2006). Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education, 50(1), 235–247. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.003 Chao, R., Jr. (2009). Understanding the Adult Learners Motivation and Barriers to Learning. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1267765/ Chinowsky, P. S., & Rojas, E. M. (2003, July). Virtual Teams: Guide to Successful Implementation. Journal of Management Engineering, 19(3), 98–106. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:3(98) Coghlan, M. (2002, September). Facilitating online learning. Retrieved from http://users.chariot.net. au/~michaelc/olfc.html Conner, M. L. (1997-2004). Andragogy and Pedagogy. Ageless Learner. Retrieved from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html Creswell, W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crossman, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2004). Trust, commitment and team working: The paradox of virtual organizations. Global Networks, 4(4), 375–390. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2004.00099.x Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n15 Dabney, J. (2008). Show me that you care: the presence of relational trust between a principal and teachers in an urban school. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Eaker, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

96

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Durnford, V. (2010). An examination of teacher-student trust in middle school classrooms. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Dymock, D. (2007). Engaging Adult Learners. Canberra, Australia: Adult Learning Australia. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Frontier, T. (2012, June 15). Windows on intelligence. Presented at Summer Institute 2012 of Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goold, A., Augar, N., & Farmer, J. (2006). Virtual teams: Exploring the student experience. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 477–490. doi:10.28945/260 Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion though a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_3 Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: The evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107–119. doi:10.1002/jsc.714 Hetland, H., Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., & Mikkelsen, A. (2011). Leadership and learning climate in a work setting. European Psychologist, 16(3), 163–176. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000037 Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2010). Demystifying professional learning communities: School leadership at its best. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus T-Scale. In W. K. Hoy, & C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools (pp. 181–208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44(4), 395–408. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.004 Kiffin-Petersen, S. A. (2004). Trust: A neglected variable in team effectiveness research. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 10(1), 38–53. Knowles, M. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago, IL: Follet. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs. Cambridge, UK: Prentice Hall.

97

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Ligoria, M. B. (2001). Integrating communication formats: Synchronous versus asynchronous and textbased versus visual. Computers & Education, 37(2), 103–125. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00039-2 Lin, F., Lin, S., & Huang, T. (2007). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers’ professional virtual community. Computers & Education, 50(3), 742–756. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.009 Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2001). Building community in an online learning environment: Communication, cooperation and collaboration. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Murfreesboro, TN, Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved from http://kevinmcmanamon.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/building-community-in-an-online-learning-environment.pdf Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1251–1262. Morris, S. A., Marshall, T., & Kelleyrainer, R. (2002). Impact of user satisfaction and trust on virtual team members. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 2–30. doi:10.4018/irmj.2002040103 Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paulsen, M. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In A. Berge, & M. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the on-line classroom in distance education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Pawar, K. S., & Sharifi, S. (1997). Physical or virtual team collocation: Does it matter? International Journal of Production Economics, 52(3), 283–290. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(97)89241-9 Poulin, R., & Straut, T. (2016). WCET Distance Education Enrollment Report. Retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570525.pdf Rossman, M. (1999).. . Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www. aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue 2/Rossman.htm Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London, UK: Kogan Page. doi:10.4324/9780203465424 Serva, M., & Fuller, M. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28(1), 19–38. doi:10.1177/1052562903252648

98

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005493 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust Matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334–352. doi:10.1108/09578239810211518 Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 Wang, M. J., & Poole, M. (2004). Nurturing a dynamic online learning community among teens. International Journal of Learning, 9, 859–870. Weidman, R., & Bishop, M. (2009). Using the jigsaw model to facilitate cooperative learning in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 51-64, 89-91. Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computermediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16–33. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.001 Yang, F., Wang, M., Shen, R., & Han, P. (2007). Community-organizing agent: An artificial intelligent system for building learning communities among large numbers of learners. Computers & Education, 49(2), 131–147. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.019 Yoon, S. W. (2006). Two group development patterns of virtual learning teams: Linear progression and adaptive progression. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 297–312. Young, M. D. (1998, April). Importance of trust in increasing parental involvement and student achievement in Mexican American communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423587).

KEY WORDS AND DEFINITIONS Adult Learning Theory (Andragogy): A theory specifically for adult learning based on the theories of andragogy (which is adult learning) and pedagogy (which is childhood learning) (Knowles, 1980). Emotional Intelligence: Consist of four clusters of important competencies - self-awareness, selfmanagement, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 1995). Ethnocentrism: The usual definition of the term is “thinking one’s own group’s ways are superior to others” or “judging other groups as inferior to one’s own”. “Ethnic” refers to cultural heritage, and “centrism” refers to the central starting point... so “ethnocentrism” refers to judging other groups from one’s own cultural point of view (Barger, 2008). Learning: Students three ways; experience, be told, and watch. Experiential learning involves doing by learner either through direct or indirect experiences. (Frontier, 2012).

99

 Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Settings

Learning Climate: Consists of five central dimensions -“sufficient time to learn and perform, autonomy and responsibility, team style, opportunities to develop, and guidelines on how to do the job” (Hetland, Skogstad, Hetland, & Mikkelsen, 2011, p. 15). Learning Communities: “Professional educators working collectively and purposefully to create and sustain a culture of learning for all students and adults” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 12). Professional Learning Community: The focus of PLCs on the three principles of learning, collaboration, and results (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2005).

This research was previously published in Enriching Collaboration and Communication in Online Learning Communities; pages 137-158, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

100

101

Chapter 7

Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis:

The Case of Higher Education in Some Countries in Southern Africa Herbert Ntuli University of Cape Town, South Africa Edwin Muchapondwa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3400-7548 University of Cape Town, South Africa & Luleå University of Technology, Sweden Victor Ntuli National University of Lesotho, Lesotho Lina Mangwende University of South Africa, South Africa

ABSTRACT The impact of inequality and technology on access to online education has received tremendous attention within the past two decades from researchers across the globe. What remains under-researched is the knowledge of how shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic affect access to online education. The main objective of the study was to examine inequality in accessing online education in the context of a crisis in a developing region. A mixed-method approach was used to collect and analyze online survey data based on 393 undergraduate students from six countries in Southern Africa. Both observable and hidden inequality sources such as income and participation in household chores compromise the quality of online education. A shift from face-to-face teaching to online education is likely to result in learning difficulties and deterioration in the quality of education. Policies such as the provision of free data improve the learning experience by reducing inequality. Therefore, decision-makers should take into consideration inequality in designing policies and strategies during a crisis. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch007

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

1. INTRODUCTION The educational inequality gap was intensified in many developing countries across the globe by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a contingency plan to continue with the academic project, most universities in Southern Africa adopted online1 teaching and learning, which compromised educational quality and/ or standards. Education is a vital component of any system, be it social, economic, or political, since it provides the necessary knowledge base, through research, and supplies the labour force that is required to sustain it (Olssen and Peters, 2005). If the educational system is disrupted by a shock, such as a disease pandemic, then the system suffers in the short, medium, and long term. The impact of a shock on a system depends on its intensity, spread, and duration (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro, 2020) in addition to its positive and negative feedbacks to the system (Abdel-Sater, 2011). Although the system can adapt to shocks in the long term, it might not be able to respond adequately or cope with the crisis in the short to medium term because of some limitations (Hakovirta and Denuwara, 2020). The limitations are associated with the frequency of occurrence, acquired knowledge, and experience in dealing with different types of systemic shocks (Marivate and Combrink, 2020). The problem with disease pandemics such as COVID-19 is that they do not occur frequently enough for systems to learn and adapt. The COVID-19 pandemic forced universities across the globe to shut down operations and to adopt online education as a method of instruction, particularly for undergraduate studies that were traditionally taught face to face. Notably, undergraduate freshmen at most universities in Southern Africa did not complete their first face-to-face semester. This seriousness of this situation was compounded by the fact that some of these students had just started learning how to operate devices such as laptops. The sudden change of the mode of delivery for their courses has a differential impact on students in developing countries (Damoense, 2003) in particular because a significant proportion of the students do not have appropriate tools, such as computers, nor access to the internet. Although most students might have had access to mobile-based internet, reliance on cell phone connectivity for downloading educational material, reading and writing, and uploading assignments is inadequate (Azzi-Huck and Shmis, 2020). Furthermore, the high cost of accessing educational material on the internet was a major constraining factor for students who come from low-income families (Bester and Brand, 2013). In this case, inequality in terms of access to education was exacerbated by technology. Some Southern African universities tried to close the inequality gap by providing qualifying students with laptops and data, but this did not completely solve the problem for rural students, who still found it difficult to access the internet. Some data packages were only available at inconvenient times e.g. Night Express Data. In many cases, the data provided by universities expired without being fully utilised. Perceptions, attitudes, behavioural and cultural factors also came into play as a result of this sudden change in the teaching and learning environment. Students coming from disadvantaged communities found it challenging to learn without supervision; for instance, they were used to seeing an instructor in front of the classroom. The supervised tutorial system was also disrupted as student tutors also had their fair share of workload and connectivity challenges. Students who depended on each other to internalize difficult concepts jointly were logistically kept apart. Not only were students affected, but teachers also struggled to adapt and organize their teaching material for online delivery.2 The teaching of some courses is compromised through online education as instructors find it difficult to express themselves or explain difficult concepts without using body language to complement verbal expressions (Dzansi and

102

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Amedzo, 2014, Bester and Brand, 2013). Body language is usually also a useful tool to attract student attention during face-to-face delivery (Wuensch et al., 2006, Müller et al., 2013). Against the above background, the main objective of this chapter is to examine the educational implications of a switch to online teaching and learning during a pandemic, and the associated student experiences in the context of a developing region with rampant inequality. In doing so, the chapter contributes to the understanding of the nexus of technology, access, and inequality in online education. The chapter provides pragmatic evidence to decision makers at universities that allows them to interrogate their policies and strategies in order to deal with situations as they arise.

2. MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER According to the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 89% of learners in Sub Saharan Africa do not have computers at home, and 82% of these learners have no internet access (Aborode et al., 2020). This level of IT poverty shows potential educational inequality as online learning is the most usual way of accessing education in the current pandemic. The effects of inequalities in the provision of, and access to, education will outlast the crisis (Aborode et al., 2020). Based on experience from the previous Ebola pandemic lockdown, the more time students spent away from school, the less chance there was of their returning (Aborode et al., 2020). The problem of inequality has made it difficult to ensure that all students continue to access education (Jacob et al., 2020). To address this challenge, free education is being provided to learners at all levels through media such as radio and television. In some respects, this approach is more efficient than online education because many African countries cannot provide an inclusive and fully functioning e-education system. However, the downside of this approach is that communication is unidirectional and radio does not offer a diagrammatic view of lectures; as education is diverse and often needs to be interactive, some material will not be covered in a radio broadcast to the same extent as it would be with online education. The educational system in African countries is quite complicated, in that Africa’s history involves inequalities dating back to colonial times, more specifically in the apartheid era for South Africa. According to Jantjies (2020), the current COVID-19 crisis has caused a shift from traditional to online learning, and this has revealed an inequality in terms of access to internet services and therefore to online learning. Although the shift to online learning has provided education to all students across the globe, the reality is that access to online learning materials and tools like Zoom and chatroom, to mention but two, remains unequally distributed, with the majority of students not accessing the educational resources they need. Some teachers are also not able to cope with the technology, to the extent that they cannot even operate a computer. In this case, not only the students have been affected but also the teachers, since a larger number of schools in developing countries do not have the resources and the capability to assure smooth online services to all learners. One measure to deal with online educational inequalities in the current COVID-19 crisis is the implementation of strategic policies, such as making ICT a compulsory subject (Jantjies, 2020). For it to be effective, it should be implemented in the lower grades. This facilitates the dissemination of knowledge to more people so that, in a crisis, there are fewer setbacks on the educational system. However, more can be done, such as providing students with digital equipment like modems, routers, range extenders and computers. Another enabling policy is to add more indigenous languages to digital platforms so that a greater number of disadvantaged people in developing nations can have access to education. 103

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Other measures include the reduction of tariff prices on educational websites during times of crisis in order to reduce the inequality gap. According to Jantjies (2020), South Africa has one of the most expensive tariffs for online connection, and this increases the division between richer and poorer students. Internet connection must also be improved by service providers in rural settings so that students in these areas do not lose access during lessons. Jantjies (2020) also suggests collaborative action by students and lecturers in computer engineering fields to come up with ideas that promote ease of online access to education and the inclusion of marginalised students, which would help to close the online educational inequality gap. The COVID-19 crisis has caused a global shift to remote learning; however, Le Grange (2020) notes that little has been done to accommodate all learners in developing countries and that inequalities in education have become more pronounced than before the pandemic. In Southern Africa, the introduction of online learning during lockdown disadvantaged most universities and schools, since often neither instructors nor students were technologically competent, and some did not even have appropriate devices. Interesting to note is that the COVID-19 crisis ignited a permanent positive shift in education from face-to-face learning to online learning on a global scale. Although communication companies in most Southern African countries had cancelled tariffs on academic websites, the high level of inequality in the educational sector means that developing nations are likely to continue to lag globally if greater equality in the distribution of online educational resources is not achieved. Some universities in Southern Africa were already using online learning before the pandemic and provided the appropriate devices to their students. They were therefore better prepared for large-scale distance learning during the pandemic. In a study of low-income communities and the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on education, Mhlanga and Moloi (2020) highlighted challenges that students experienced during this pandemic, such as limited broadband connection, overcrowded households, more responsibilities at home, high noise levels, and difficulties adapting to the situation. Companies have connected Wi-fi in some schools, but the amount of data is limited, and the broadband is overcrowded. In this situation, many students live in large numbers, with some sharing rooms, and this has become a challenge, mainly because learners cannot find reliable private learning spaces to concentrate on their studies. As for their responsibilities, many tertiary students have siblings and older family members to take care of, and being at home means that they are expected to devote time and attention to household chores and taking care of loved ones that would otherwise have been spent studying. Generally, most family members are not used to online education and do not believe that learning is actually taking place. A general difficulty in adapting to change has also affected many who are used to the traditional way of learning, and although this can be dealt with over time, it exacerbates the problems of the educational system in a time of crisis.

3. METHODOLOGY This current study employed a mixed-methods approach. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were combined to collect and analyse data. The survey instrument included both closed and open-ended questions, in addition to the standard demographic questions on age, household income, household size, etc.

104

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Data and Sampling The study collected data from 502 undergraduate students from six universities (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, eSwatini, and Zimbabwe) in Southern Africa using online surveys, taking into consideration their academic status and ranging for representativeness. The researchers got permission from the university authorities to conduct the study and assistance with distributing the online survey through emails and mobile-based platforms such as WhatsApp.

Descriptive Statistics As part of the characterization of the sample, the researchers used descriptive statistics, such as the mean, standard deviation, differences in means and proportions, and chi-square measure of association where possible. The Gini index was computed to explore the degree of inequality in the sample of undergraduate students, based on student income, expenditure, and total household income.

Empirical Strategy The study used generalised least squares (GLS) regression and logistic model analysis techniques to model the determinants of access to online education and participation in online education respectively. The GLS techniques allows correction for heteroscedasticity by computing robust standard errors. The student’s socio-economic variables and household characteristics were controlled for in the model. The first dependent variable was access to online education, as measured by access to lectures, teaching materials, and other material found on the internet, the availability of internet at home, and the quality of internet connectivity. Questions relevant to each theme were asked and factor analysis was then used to come up with an index measuring access to online education. The second dependent variable was an index measuring changes in the quality of education as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also measures the impact of COVID-19 on educational quality using a crude qualitative-based index that is gaining popularity in social science research. Students were asked about the most significant change in their learning experience as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and online education. This method is commonly referred to as the most significant change (MSC) approach in the literature on participatory monitoring and evaluation (Davies and Dart, 2005, Serrat, 2017). The survey asked binary response questions (i.e., yes or no variable) based on several themes that were used to compute an index between 0 and 1, where 0 signifies no change and 1 meant that significant changes have occurred in the student’s learning experience. This variable was interpreted as a measure of educational quality. Binary variables measuring student choice between (i) synchronous and asynchronous (lectures and tutorials) and (ii) face-to-face and online education, were also used as dependent variables. The choice of delivery method for lectures and tutorials is essential for university education, and in particular for online education, and it turns out to be very important during a crisis such as the COVID pandemic, because face-to-face lectures become far less suitable in the education production function. However, it became imperative to ask the learners’ perception of different models of the education production systems. This allowed the researchers to answer critical policy questions. For example: what determined the choice between different modes of production or lecture delivery methods that students make? Is inequality a significant driver of these choices? If it is, then the policymakers should address inequality by providing appropriate technologies to students from low-income families. 105

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

The explanatory variables used in the regression analysis included the student’s socio-economic variables, such as age, gender, employment status, student income, household income, level of participation in household chores, type of technology used to access material by the student, e.g., smartphone, and laptop.

4. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Data presented in Table 1 show the great variability in student characteristics. The average age was 21.9 years, and 36.0% of the sampled students were males. The sample had 72.6% Black students, 13.1% White, 12.2% Coloured (an official term used non-pejoratively for people of mixed racial descent), and 5.3% Asian. The majority of the respondents came from South Africa (69.9%), followed by Lesotho (11.9%), Zimbabwe (11.0%), Botswana (4.7%), and Namibia (3.2%), while the fewest respondents came from eSwatini (1.3%). Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the students and households Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Household demographics Student age

502

21.923

4.381

Gender [0=Female, 1=Male]

502

0.360

0. 485

Black African

502

0.726

0.453

Coloured

502

0.122

0.319

Asian

502

0.053

0.204

White

502

0.131

0.323

Botswana

502

0.047

0.204

Lesotho

502

0.119

0.329

Namibia

502

0.032

0.182

South Africa

502

0.699

0.462

Swaziland

502

0.013

0.116

Zimbabwe

502

0.110

0.320

Race

Country

Home area [0=Rural, 1=Urban]

502

0.740

0.448

Enrolment status [0=Parttime, 1=Fulltime]

502

0.975

0.187

Student employment status [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.104

0.292

Household head employment status [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.650

0.483

Household own swimming pool [0=No, 1=Yes] Car ownership

502

0.162

0.365

Student [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.159

0.359

Household [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.553

0.500

Number of cars owned

502

1.911

1.677

Number of rooms for the primary household

502

4.451

2.524

Number of years at the institution

502

2.846

1.431

106

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

The data also show that 74.0% of the students came from urban areas, and that 97.5% were enrolled full-time, 10.4% were employed, and 15.9% owned a car. With regard to household characteristics, 65.0% of the students reported that their head of household was employed, while 16.2% of the households had a swimming pool and 55.3% of the households owned at least one car. The mean number of cars owned by a household was 1.9, while the mean number of rooms for the primary household was 4.5 per family. The mean number of years a student had been enrolled at an educational institution was 2.8 years. Table 2 presents student income (including total household income) and expenditures. The data show that the average income that a student received was R55 765, with a standard deviation of R125 699, from four different sources, namely, scholarship, employment, pocket money from parents, and other sources. Table 2. Student income sources and expenditure items in Rands (R) Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Income sources Other sources

358

2,635.91

13,904.93

Pocket money

346

4,663.40

13,253.86

Employment income

251

11,499.71

72,109.12

Value of scholarship

352

36,966.07

73,213.28

Total student income

502

55,765.10

125,699.40

Total household income

502

320,954.7

1,788,966.00

Rent

502

2250.98

7026.00

Food

502

1211.75

3732.99

Transport

502

469.72

955.66

Airtime

502

138.94

207.93

Mobile data

502

198.45

324.88

Internet

502

164.18

672.44

Entertainment

502

276.76

638.36

Other

502

299.19

712.36

Total

502

5009.96

9678.50

Expenditure items

Of these four income sources, most of the money received by the students came from scholarships (R36 966), followed by employment (R11 500), pocket money (R4 663) and other sources (R2 636) (Table 2). The standard deviations of these income sources were R73 213, R72 109, R13 254 and R13 905, respectively. The value of scholarships was three times that of the second-largest source (employment income) and more than five times tthe income of pocket money and other sources combined. The largest item of student expenditure was rent (R2251), while internet (R164) was the smallest. The expenditure on mobile data was also low (R198) (Table 2). A total of 12.0% of the students indicated that they did not engage in household chores before the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 3). During the pandemic, this figure fell to 1.6%, and the difference was statistically significant at 1%. The most common activities that students performed before and during the

107

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

COVID-19 pandemic were cooking (66.7% before the pandemic and 82.1% during it), washing dishes (68.3% before and 81.3% during), washing clothes (59.4% before and 69.3% during) and buying groceries (50.0% before and 61.4% during). Comparing the periods before and during the crisis, there was a significant increase in the number of students indicating that they participated in all other household chores except for crop cultivation, fetching firewood, and fetching water (Table 3). Table 3. Participation in household chores and studying behaviour before and during the crisis Variable

Obs.

Before Mean

Std. Dev.

During Mean

Std. Dev.

Diff

pr-test / t-test

None

502

0.120

0. 325

0. 016

0. 125

-0.104

0.0000***

Cooking

502

0. 667

0.472

0. 821

0. 384

0.154

0.0000***

Washing dishes

502

0. 683

0. 466

0. 813

0. 391

0.130

0.0000***

Washing clothes

502

0. 594

0. 492

0. 693

0. 461

0.099

0.0000***

Ironing clothes

502

0. 367

0. 482

0. 424

0. 495

0.057

0. 0306**

Cleaning floor

502

0. 552

0. 498

0. 691

0. 462

0.139

0.0000***

Childcare

502

0. 227

0. 419

0. 402

0. 490

0.175

0.0000***

Crop cultivation

502

0. 129

0. 336

0. 139

0. 347

0.010

0. 0.322

Livestock rearing

502

0. 072

0. 258

0. 100

0.300

0.028

0. 0.0572*

Feeding pets

502

0. 175

0. 381

0. 024

0. 153

-0.151

0.0000***

Washing cars

502

0. 133

0. 340

0. 193

0. 395

0.060

0.0052***

Gardening

502

0. 262

0. 441

0. 321

0. 467

0.059

0.0220**

Buying groceries

502

0. 506

0. 500

0. 614

0. 487

0.108

0.0003***

Fetching firewood

502

0. 084

0. 277

0. 098

0. 297

0.014

0.2208

Fetching water

502

0. 173

0.378

0. 201

0. 401

0.028

0.1287

Chore hours

502

3.427

5.113

7.051

44.488

3.624

0.0319**

Studying hours

502

7.277

11.398

5.614

4.310

-1.663

0.0002***

92.6% of respondents owned a cell phone or a tablet, while 80.1% owned a laptop (Table 4). With regard to access to online teaching materials, 90.6% of the surveyed students reported that they had access to online learning materials, and 87.8% indicated that they could download course materials. The statistics show that 57.6% of the students received free data during the crisis. A majority of students had access to the internet at home (74.7%). Using a scale from 1 to 5, the average reliability of the internet at home was 2.76, and the average internet bill was R854 per month. In countries where there was an interrupted supply of electricity, referred to as load shedding, the reported number of hours of load shedding was 3.87 hours per week. In general, Table 5 shows that a small number of students (17.5%) preferred online learning, while 51.3% of the students preferred synchronous as opposed to asynchronous lectures. Our results also revealed that most instructors offered both synchronous and asynchronous lectures (59.1%) or tutorials (47.9%). A total of 36.5% and 39.8%, respectively, offered asynchronous lectures or tutorials, while 24.4% and 13.2% offered synchronous lectures or tutorials, again respectively (Table 5).

108

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Table 4. Access to technology and learning material Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Own cell phone [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.926

0.271

Own laptop [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.801

0.407

Access online learning material [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.906

0.403

Able to download learning material [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.878

0.402

Received free mobile data [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.576

0.508

Access to the internet at home [0=No, 1=Yes]

502

0.747

0.445

No. of hours of load shedding [Hrs]

422

3.874

3.559

Reliable internet at home [1 - 5]

358

2.763

1.434

Household internet bill [Rand]

358

853.901

4459.882

Table 5. Production and preference for education delivery Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Preferred delivery mode [0= Face-to-face, 1=Online]

502

0.175

0.377

Preferred lecture [0=Asynchronous, 1=Synchronous]

502

0.513

0.528

Synchronous [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.244

0.33

Asynchronous [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.365

0.41

Both [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.591

0.50

Synchronous [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.132

0.30

Asynchronous [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.398

0.48

Both [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.479

0.45

Type lecture

Type of tutorial

Hours spend on lectures

Hours spend on tutorials.

Student online discussions

Platform

Synchronous [hrs]

368

6.930

11.02

Asynchronous [hrs]

368

14.863

17.057

Diff [hrs]

368

-8.241***

Synchronous [hrs]

322

6.043

8.931

Asynchronous [hrs]

322

7.785

9.002

Diff [hrs]

322

-1.764***

Able to conduct [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.699

0.48

Belong to online grp [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.655

0.557

WhatsApp [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.80.1

0.652

MS Teams [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.099

0.228

Zoom [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.030

0.013

Google Meet [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.011

0.019

Other [0=N 1=Y]

502

0.064

0.035

109

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

The number of hours spent on synchronous lectures was 6.9 and on tutorials 6.0, while students spent 14.8 hours on asynchronous lectures and 7.8 hours on tutorials. Of the surveyed students, 69.9% of them indicated that they could conduct online discussions, and 65.5% of them belonged to at least one online group. The most popular platform for group discussions was WhatsApp (80.1%), while 10.9% used other platforms such as MS Teams and Google Meet. When considering the most significant changes in the student’s learning experience resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in Table 6, 8.4% of the students reported that nothing had changed. Of those who did experience changes, most (63.7%) indicated that learning had become very difficult for them, alone at home, followed by 53.2% who reported a poor state of mental health, depression, or frustration. Some of the students (42.6%) claimed that household chores had significantly reduced their study time, while 32.8% reported that load shedding affected studies at home. A total of 31.4% indicated that they could not discuss important concepts or their assignments with colleagues, and 28.2% indicated that they had poor internet access at home. A smaller number of students reported that they could not interact with their course instructor (18.5%) and other constraints (12.0%) (Table 6). Table 6. Most significant changes observed by the student during the pandemic Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Nothing has changed

502

0.084

0.286

Learning has become very difficult alone at home

502

0.637

0.485

I do not have contact with the course instructor anymore

502

0.185

0.393

I cannot interact or discuss with my colleagues

502

0.314

0.464

I have poor access to the internet at home

502

0.282

0.450

Household chores have significantly reduced study time

502

0.426

0.726

Load shedding has dramatically affected studies at home

502

0.328

0.472

Poor mental health state, depression or frustration

502

0.532

0.501

Other

502

0.120

0.149

Table 7 depicts the computed indexes for access to online education, the technology that is used, and the inequality that is experienced. The scores of the index for access and technology were 89.3 and 90.5, respectively. The index for the most significant changes in the student’s educational experience was 33.51. The Gini coefficient for student income by home area was 0.564 and by race was 0.538. The Gini coefficient of student expenditure by area was 0.574, while the Gini coefficient of student expenditure by race was 0.524. When we consider total household income, the Gini coefficient rose to 0.786 when the measure was calculated over the home area or to 0.718 over race.

110

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Table 7. Access, technology and inequality index Variable

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Access index

502

89.301

0.255

Technology index

502

90.465

17.450

Most Significant Change (MSC) index

502

33.511

19.731

Gini index for student income by area

502

0.564

0.028

Gini index for student income by race

502

0.538

0.053

Gini index for student expenditure by area

502

0.574

0.015

Gini index for student expenditure by race

502

0.524

0.074

Gini index for household income by area

502

0.786

0.029

Gini index for household income by race

502

0.718

0.076

Regression Analysis In this section, a generalized least squares (GLS) regression analysis was used to model the determinants of students’ access to online education and their educational experiences during the pandemic. Both models were highly significant at 1%. Table 8 presents the determinants of access and changes in the educational experience. The determinants of access to online education were the student’s home area, race, number of years at the university, technology available, and free data from the university or network service providers (Table 8). Table 8. Determinants of access and changes in the educational experience Variables

Access index Coef.

Std. Err.

Access index

MSC index Coef.

Std. Err.

-0.0563

0.0709

Country [0=Other, 1=SA]

3.5136**

2.7943

-0.1224**

0.0505

Home area [0=Rural, 1=Urban]

0.1279***

0.0381

0.0300

3.4849

Student age

0.0047

0.0038

0.8160***

0.3235

Gender

-0.0407

0.0330

-0.1971

2.8571

Coloured

0.0568

0.0480

6.1006**

3.8988

Asians

0.0516

0.0624

-9.7467

5.6782

Race

0.0806*

0.0481

-6.3026

4.0736

Number of years at the university

Whites

-0.0215*

0.0111

-2.3263*

0.9892

Technology index

0.0110**

0.0010

-0.3709***

0.0877

Faculty

Commercials

0.0455

0.0493

-6.7353

4.3701

Health

-0.0100

0.0560

-1.9488

4.6049

Engineering

0.0204

0.0521

-0.4096

4.4673

Science

-0.0611

0.0340

-6.4938*

3.4492

continues on following page

111

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Table 8. Continued Access index

Variables

Coef.

MSC index

Std. Err.

Coef.

Std. Err.

Employment [0=PT, 1=FT]

-0.0082

0.0511

-4.0504

4.2912

Student income

1.0000**

1.9907

0.0336

0.0017

Total household income

2.8309

5.9809

5.8007

4.8507

Free data

0.0950***

0.0333

4.0072

2.8961

Household chores

0.0005

0.0006

0.1366**

0.0497

Cons

0.4610

0.1390

35.6737***

11.9295

Number of observations

438

438

Prob > F

0.0000

0.0000

R-squared

0.2119

0.2349

Adj. R-squared

0.1510

0.1705

The student’s home area and free data were both positive and significant at 1%, while technology was positive and significant at 5% in the first model for access. The variable for the race was positive and significant for White students at 10%, while technology and the number of years at the university were negative and significant at 1% and 10%, respectively in the MSC model (Table 8). Table 9 depicts the results on student preference for the type of lecture and mode of delivery based on the logit regressing models. Again, all the models were highly significant at 1%. The student’s home area, race (Asian and White), available technology, and employment were all positive and significant under both models at the 5% level, except for employment, which was significant at 1%. Student age and income were positive and significant under model 1 at the 5% level, while load shedding was negative and significant at the 5% level as well (Table 9). Table 9. Determinants of student preference for lecture-type and mode of delivery Preferred lecture [0=Async, 1=Sync]

Variables

Coef.

Std. Err.

Preferred delivery [0=F2F, 1=Online] Coef.

Std. Err.

Student age

0.0218***

0.0061

0.0481

0.0651

Gender

0.0110

0.0470

0.0501

0.3768

Home area [0=Rural, 1=Urban]

0.0358***

0.0512

0.0255***

0.0077

Coloured

0.1534

0.70722

0.4329

0.3524

Asians

0.2790 ***

0.1062

0.2572***

0.3840

Whites

0.1988***

0.0765

0.3077**

0.1850

Number of years at the university

0.0212

0.0164

0.9204

0.1561

Technology index

0.3523***

0.0784

0.0084***

0.0154

Enrolment status [0=PT, 1=FT]

0.0460

0.1491

0.0278

0.0316

Race

continues on following page

112

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Table 9. Continued Preferred lecture [0=Async, 1=Sync]

Variables

Coef.

Preferred delivery [0=F2F, 1=Online]

Std. Err.

Coef.

Std. Err.

Commercials

0.1644

0.1142

0.1293

0.2034

Health

-0.1602

0.1346

0.7873

0.1674

Engineering

0.2348

0.1217

0.0757

0.0187

Science

0.1028

0.1079

0.0532

0.0075

Employment status [0=PT, 1=FT]

-0.0482*

0.0869

0.4996*

0.2474

Load shedding

-0.0130 **

0.0064

0.8705

0.0848

Student income

0.4109**

0.0206

0.0521

0.1406

Total household income

0.2456

0.0577

0.5969

0.0807

Cons

0.1751

0.2513

0.0047**

0.0143

Faculty

Number of observations

424

424

LR chi2(16)

39.28

22.60

Prob > chi2

0.0003

0.0071

Pseudo R2

0.1126

0.0921

5. DISCUSSION The age of an average student in the sample was 21.9 years, indicating that the majority of the student respondents were in their second year of study. Results revealed that more female students responded to the survey than males. This could be explained by the fact that more female than male students are enrolled in most tertiary institutions in the Southern Africa regions (Teferra, 2014). The sample had more students of Black African origin than White and Asian students. Furthermore, the response rate was higher in South Africa than in other countries. This could be because South Africa provides better internet access for students than other countries in Southern Africa do. As expected, a higher proportion of students from urban areas responded to the survey, presumably because they had access to better internet services than students in rural areas. The disparities in the results between students in different countries and areas might itself indicate inequality in terms of access to internet and technology. Although the majority of the respondents were unemployed, very few were enrolled as part-time students. This was expected, as the study was dealing with undergraduate students enrolled in conventional institutions. Several studies carried out to evaluate inequality and access to online education during a crisis were conducted on students enrolled in conventional institutions (Torche, 2010, Dhawan, 2020, Adedoyin and Soykan, 2020, Rapanta et al., 2020). Dhawan (2020) and Torche (2010) observed that a significant proportion of students enrolled in conventional institutions were unemployed, as opposed to those from institutions offering distance education. A significant proportion of students in this study indicated that the household head or their guardian was employed and there were several cars at home. This suggested that an average student in the sample came from a working-class family. Furthermore, very few students in the sample owned a car. This was expected for undergraduate students as they had fewer employment opportunities and the value of their scholarships was inadequate for the purchase of

113

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

luxury goods. The mean number of rooms for the main household was 4.5, indicating that the sample consisted of an average student from a middle-class family. On average, undergraduate students got R55 765 per annum in total, which was barely enough to cover living expenses and textbooks after paying tuition fees at big institutions such as the University of Cape Town. The most significant source of income for most students was scholarships, which accounted for over half (66.3%) of the students’ total income. Scholarships are vital for reducing income inequality among students and, according to Ganem and Manasse (2011), the administration of financial assistance to tertiary students has been proven to contribute positively to student success. In a study of undergraduate students in Italy, Facchini et al. (2020) found that scholarships have a significant and equalizing effect on student income, and they help to level the playing field for students. Employment income was the second biggest source, contributing 20.6% of total student income, followed by pocket money from a student’s parents or guardian, which accounted for less than 10%. There was great variability in student income, as evidenced by the high values associated with the standard deviations, suggesting that there could be massive income inequality among students and across all income sources. Instead of equalizing, as was intended, scholarships were found to be a source of inequality. Venegas (2006) revealed that the types of scholarships that students from different background were getting could also give rise to financial inequalities. In the current study, the mean for total household income was consistent with an average working-class family. The standard deviation is very high, suggesting that total household income could be a significant source of inequality. The researchers found that student income was 17.4% of total household income, a significant proportion. With regard to what undergraduate students spent their money on, the highest expenditure item was rent, which accounted for 44.9% of the total expenditure, followed by food which accounted for a further 24.2%. Expenditure on internet, data and airtime was minimal, accounting for less than 10% of the total expenditure. This was a matter of concern, given that the internet is an essential tool for online learning. The low expenditure on internet could be attributed to the fact that most students get free internet at the university and at home when they are on holiday. Furthermore, most undergraduate students do not use the internet for research purposes, unlike postgraduate students. Jackson and Holzman (2020) found that expenditure on the internet by students in the US accounts for 15% and 60% of student income for undergraduate and postgraduate students, respectively. The standard deviations for the expenditure items, particularly rent, were also high, suggesting the possibility of inequality among undergraduate students. Household participation was one of the activities that have the potential to reveal hidden student inequalities across space and time. Students from affluent families are not expected to participate as much in household chores, as these households can afford the services of a domestic worker or a general hand. This is supported by Cheung (2014), who indicated that, in most cases, upper-class households employ domestic assistance to ease the pressure of household chores. Considering student participation in household chores before and during the COVID-19 crisis, the results illustrate that there was a significant drop in the number of students who reported doing nothing from before the crisis to during it (Table 3). Overall, the results suggest an increase in student participation in household chores during the crisis. The most common household activity was washing dishes, followed by cooking, washing clothes, general household cleaning, and buying groceries, in that order. For all household chores (before and during the COVID-19 pandemic), there was a general increase in student participation, except for feeding pets, which went down considerably in absolute terms. However, there is no evidence of a significant change in student participation in livestock keeping.

114

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

In those instances where an increase in student participation in household chores was observed, the most noticeable increases were in childcare, followed by cooking and general household cleaning. Taking care of children and the elderly at home is inevitable in the African culture, as this is considered to be an integral part and core of the family function, a reflection of respect to the elderly, in addition to a way of learning life skills (Bray, 2003). As shown in Table 3, the increase in student participation in household chores resulted in a decrease in study time of 1.7 hours. This significant drop in the number of hours invested in studying could have an impact on a student’s educational outcome. In general, the data seem to suggest that the increase in student participation in household chores is more pronounced in those activities that are less intensive, rather than in labor-intensive chores such as crop cultivation, livestock management, firewood collection, and fetching water. This seems to suggest that parents were aware of the need for their children to be able to devote time to studying during the crisis. Table 4 revealed that a considerable proportion of the undergraduate students who participated in the survey had access to technology for online learning, with 92.6% indicating that they owned either a smart cellphone, tablet or a laptop (80.1%). Although students can access teaching material online using cellphones, their ability to read and write on the device is more limited than on a laptop, and this could affect their performance in terms of completing essential assignments on time. This study concurs with Haider and Al-Salman (2020) who found that laptops are the best electronic tools for students, as they tend to be used mostly for specific tasks, compared to smartphones which are mostly used for leisure purposes. Again, there are some useful features found on laptops which cannot be found on smartphones, such as a proper keyboard, and these promote student success and productivity. The vast majority of students indicated that they were able to access online teaching material (90.6%) and to download the material (87.8%). This shows that about 10% and 12% of the students, respectively, faced challenges in terms of accessing and downloading teaching material. A significant proportion had access to the internet at home (74.7%). There was great variability in the household internet bill, suggesting that this could be a significant source of inequality in terms of access to good internet services. The results showed a mean score of 2.76 when respondents were asked to rate the reliability of the internet at home on a scale from 1 – 5. The score was slightly above average. Access to online lectures and the reliability of the internet were also affected by interrupted electrical supply as a result of load shedding. On average, the reported number of hours of load shedding per week was 3.87, which translated to approximately 0.77 hours per day for a typical five-day working week. This means that students could be losing almost an hour of learning time in a day due to blackouts, and if this happens during a live lecture, then the outcome could be disastrous. Students from disadvantaged communities usually experience more of the loss than those from relatively wealthy families, since the latter households are able to invest in electricity backup technology in the form of generators or solar energy (Rahut et al., 2018). This study showed that a considerable proportion of undergraduate students who participated in the survey received online lectures and tutorials in the form of synchronous and asynchronous lectures or tutorials, or a combination of both, during the crisis. Most of the instructors delivered both synchronous and asynchronous lectures, while the bulk of the tutorial was delivered as asynchronous tutorials. Using synchronous lectures and tutorials disadvantages students without internet access or with poor internet coverage in the rural areas (Chen et al., 2005). Asynchronous lectures and tutorials have an added advantage that students without adequate access to the internet can download teaching material at their own convenience (Chen et al., 2005, Skylar, 2009). For these reasons, using a combination of synchronous and asynchronous lectures or tutorials is advantageous to students, especially those without access to good internet services with the speed necessary to access and download material (Skylar, 2009). 115

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

On average, students spent more time on asynchronous lectures and tutorials, and the difference was statistically significant at 1%. The current study revealed that students spent the most time on asynchronous lectures, followed by synchronous lectures, then asynchronous tutorials, and lastly synchronous tutorials. The preference given to asynchronous lectures and tutorial demonstrates that instructors took into consideration the fact that some students had insufficient internet coverage. A significant proportion of students also demonstrated the ability to self-organize by establishing study groups and using online platforms, the most widely-used being WhatsApp (80.1% of study groups). Qualitative interviews with key informants and students revealed that WhatsApp is the most preferred platform in rural areas and countries such as Lesotho, eSwatini, Namibia, and Zimbabwe where internet coverage was weak. The capability of WhatsApp to deliver online lectures in developing countries where the internet is very slow and costly has not been explored adequately (Nyasulu and Dominic Chawinga, 2019, Pulist, 2019, Lubua, 2016). We also considered changes in the student’s learning experiences, which we take to be a signal or measure of a deterioration in educational quality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A small proportion of the students (8.4%) reported that they did not experience any changes in learning activities, implying that more than 90% actually faced some challenges in one way or another. The ones who experienced no change could be students who participate less in household chores and have good access to the internet at home. A significant proportion of students (63.7%) indicated that learning at home was difficult because the crisis had disrupted the usual face-to-face lectures and made universities to adopt online learning as a contingency plan to continue teaching. This came as a shock to both universities and students, who were not prepared and relied heavily on conventional teaching methods such as face-to-face lectures (Rapanta et al., 2020). As indicated by 53.2% of the students who responded to the survey, shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic not only affect learning activities, such as attending classes, reading, and writing assignments, they also affect the student’s mental health. Students feel frustrated and depressed when they do not get the help that they think they should be getting from both instructors and colleagues (Sahu, 2020). As a result, they struggled to grasp essential concepts. In certain circumstances, frustration and depression can result in students committing suicide because they feel neglected by a system that is supposed to help them achieve their educational goals (Chi et al., 2020, Husky et al., 2020). This situation was exacerbated by the workload that comes with online education, as the amount of academic work does not decrease, while at the same time household chores increased. The situation was made worse by load shedding and the difficulties that students from low-income families experienced trying to study in a noisy or overcrowded environment. An online educational system can result in an uneven distribution of the workload between students and course instructors, leading to increased pressure on the former (Zhang et al., 2020). This is exacerbated by a lack of experience in online educational system by both students and course instructors (Zhang et al., 2020). Table 7 shows the indexes for access to online education, technology, the most significant changes (MSC) in the student’s learning experiences, and inequality that were computed in the study. The indexes for access to online education and technology were in line with the previous finding that students were able to access online educational material and that there was a high level of ownership of technology. Although the learning experience worsened as the crisis progressed, the MSC index seems to suggest that the extent of deterioration does not cover all the dimensions that were measured for most students. The most important dimensions were difficulties in learning alone at home, increase in household chores,

116

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

the disruption caused by load shedding, inability to collaborate with other students and deterioration in mental health as a result of depression and frustration. The Gini indexes in Table 7 showed inequality in student income and expenditure, and the also total household income. The result showed that there was very high inequality in student income and expenditure when the Gini indexes are calculated over area and race. As expected, there was inequality in income and expenditure between students from rural and urban areas. Furthermore, race was also an essential source of student income and expenditure inequality. Both White and Asian students have better access to good scholarships and other funding sources, such as credit, to finance their education since they come from relatively wealthy families compared to most Black students. Some students could be advantaged in terms of scholarship opportunities through their school, by having better internet access and therefore better access to information on potential funding, and from having educated parents (Keswell, 2010). Inequality over area and race was even higher when we considered total household income. Previous studies have also shown high inequality, particularly in South Africa, between Black families and White or Asian communities (Van der Berg, Letseka and Maile, 2008). Although racial inequality has persisted for some time, inequality within Black communities is increasingly becoming more pronounced in developing countries, fueled by inequitable distribution of and access to resources, political affiliation, and corruption (Shimeles and Nabassaga, 2018, Bigsten, 2014). Evidence reveals that inequality among Black people in Africa could be higher than inequality across race (Nattrass and Seekings, 2001). This is a cause for concern for policymakers and development practitioners because of its potential to erode the gains associated with the reductions in racial inequality that have been achieved so far (Keswell, 2010). Children from wealthy Black families will have better access to good quality educational systems in first-world countries, and the gap is expected to widen as the rich get richer while the poor get poorer in a vicious poverty cycle (Bigsten, 2014). The regression analysis results in Table 8 showed that students at South African universities have better access to online learning than students from other countries. This is not surprising, as the infrastructure in South Africa is more developed, and students there have better access to the internet. Access to online education also improves as one moves from rural to urban areas as urban areas tend to have better internet infrastructure. White students have better access to online education, probably because of the advantage of better internet access, as these students usually come from relatively wealthy communities (Van der Berg, Letseka and Maile, 2008). Surprisingly, students who have spent more years at the university seemed to face challenges in terms of accessing learning material. This result was not immediately intuitive because the expectation was that these students would have more access to and experience with technology. One possible explanation was that these students, especially Black students, could be working or staying away from home, implying that they fend for themselves. Access to technology, student income, and free data provided by the university seemed to play a significant role in enhancing student access to online education. In this study, students in the pure sciences experienced fewer inconveniences than students from the arts and social science faculties. This could be explained by the fact that pure science students had more knowledge about different technologies and how to use them. As expected, students from South African institutions with better technology and more years at university experienced fewer inconveniences studying at home during the lockdown. On the other hand, Coloured students experienced more difficulty in learning at home than students of Black African origin. Furthermore, students who participated more in household chores during the lockdown also experienced more difficulty learning from home than those who participated less. 117

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Table 9 shows the determinants of student choice for the preferred type of lecture and the mode of delivery. The drivers of students’ preferences for lecture-type were age, home area, race, technology, employment status, load shedding, and student income, while the drivers of the preferred mode of delivery were home area, race, technology, and employment status. As expected, White and Asian students and students from urban areas and with better technology preferred both synchronous and online lectures (Van der Berg, Letseka and Maile, 2008, Oyedemi, 2012). Older students with more income preferred synchronous lectures, while students who experienced more load shedding and who were employed preferred asynchronous lectures.

6. SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There is a need for the provision more information and improved access to internet, especially before students come to university, ideally in high school. All undergraduate students must also have access to economically meaningful scholarships. Mandatory computer literacy classes should be introduced as a subject from primary schools onwards. Students should have to pass a practical examination in computer literacy as a prerequisite to entering university. Students coming to university should be familiar with basic computer literacy skills such as typing, online searching, and the use of online sharing platforms. The free data policy of the universities helped to reduce the inequality of student access to online education. This policy should be accompanied by other measures that seek to improve the supply of technology. For instance, students from disadvantaged communities should get free access to ICT equipment, such as laptops, when they join the university system as a matter of university policy. The cost of the laptop could be embedded in the fee structure in which wealthier students subsidies poorer students or as part of a deliberate government policy to reduce inequality.

7. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION The widespread use of social media platforms could be converted into a useful tool for online educational systems. Future research should consider mobile-based platforms, such as of WhatsApp, as potential learning interventions or delivery tools since they are cheaper to use, and most students have access to the necessary technology. Inequality within Black African communities has received very little attention in the educational literature and could potentially seriously affect access to online educational systems.

8. CONCLUSION It is indisputable that inequality in resources and technology has a bearing on access to online education. The question of how conventional educational production systems and access to online learning can adapt to shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic when there is inequality in the system remains underresearched. The main objective of the study was therefore to examine educational delivery systems in conventional institutions that traditionally relied on face-to-face teaching, and student experiences with online education in the context of a global crisis, particularly in some countries in a developing region where inequality is pervasive. 118

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

As expected, different sources of inequality are involved in compromising the quality of online education accessed by students from different backgrounds. This study demonstrated the high inequality that exists in terms of student income by home area and race. There was even higher inequality when total household income across residential area and race was considered, which was treated a proxy of the student’s background in this analysis. Other potential sources of hidden inequality include student participation in household chores, load shedding, and access to technology, all of which affect the quality of education received during a crisis and also for face-to-face delivery methods. A shift from face-toface teaching to online education is likely to introduce learning difficulties which might, in turn, result in the deterioration of the student’s mental health or capacity to deal with the crisis in the absence of supporting mechanisms. Policies such as the provision of free data are likely to improve the learning experience by reducing inequality. Therefore, decision makers are urged to take into consideration inequality, educational delivery methods, and access to technology in designing their future policies and strategies during a crisis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The researchers are grateful to students who took the time to participate in the online survey and also to the different universities that allowed us to have access to their students. They also acknowledge the contributions of many colleagues in different institutions for their valuable help as part of the peer review process, which allowed the researchers to refine their ideas from the development of the research instrument used during the online survey to the analysis and interpretation of results.

REFERENCES Abdel-Sater, K. A. (2011). Physiological Positive Feedback Mechanisms. American Journal of Biomedical Sciences, 3, 145–155. doi:10.5099/aj110200145 Aborode, A., Anifowoshe, O., Ayodele, T. I., Iretiayo, A. R., & David, O. O. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Preprints, 1, 1–26. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180 Azzi-Huck, K., & Shmis, T. (2020). Managing the impact of COVID-19 on education systems around the world: How countries are preparing, coping, and planning for recovery. World Bank. Available: https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/managing-impact-covid-19-education-systems-around-worldhow-countries-are-preparing Baldwin, R., & Weder Di Mauro, B. (2020). Economics in the Time of COVID-19. VoxEU CEPR Press. Bester, G., & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–15. doi:10.15700aje.v33n2a405 Bigsten, A. (2014). Dimensions of income inequality in Africa. WIDER Working Paper 2014/050, United Nations University.

119

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Bray, R. (2003). Who does the housework? An examination of South African children’s working roles. Social Dynamics, 29(2), 95–131. doi:10.1080/02533950308628677 Chen, N. S., Ko, H. C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194. doi:10.1080/14703290500062599 Cheung, A. K.-L. (2014). Hiring domestic help and family well-being in Hong Kong: A propensity score matching analysis. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 45(4), 475–495. doi:10.3138/jcfs.45.4.475 Chi, X., Becker, B., Yu, Q., Willeit, P., Jiao, C., Huang, L., Hossain, M. M., Grabovac, I., Yeung, A., Lin, J., Veronese, N., Wang, J., Zhou, X., Doig, S. R., Liu, X., Carvalho, A. F., Yang, L., Xiao, T., Zou, L., ... Solmi, M. (2020). Prevalence and Psychosocial Correlates of Mental Health Outcomes Among Chinese College Students During the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 803. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00803 PMID:32848958 Damoense, M. Y. (2003). Online learning: Implications for effective learning for higher education in South Africa. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 25–45. doi:10.14742/ajet.1689 Davies, R. & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘most significant change’(MSC) technique. A guide to its use. Academic Press. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018 Dzansi, D. Y., & Amedzo, K. (2014). Integrating ICT into rural South African schools: Possible solutions for challenges. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 341–348. doi:10.1080/0975 1122.2014.11890145 Facchini, M., Triventi, M., & Vergolini, L. (2020). Do grants improve the outcomes of university students in a challenging context? Evidence from a matching approach. Higher Education, 1–18. doi:10.100710734020-00586-3 Ganem, N. M., & Manasse, M. (2011). The relationship between scholarships and student success: An art and design case study. Education Research International, 2011, 743120. doi:10.1155/2011/743120 Haider, A. S., & Al-Salman, S. (2020). Dataset of Jordanian university students’ psychological health impacted by using e-learning tools during COVID-19. Data in Brief, 32, 106104. doi:10.1016/j. dib.2020.106104 PMID:32789158 Hakovirta, M., & Denuwara, N. (2020). How COVID-19 redefines the concept of sustainability. Sustainability, 12(9), 3727. doi:10.3390u12093727 Husky, M. M., Kovess-Masfety, V., & Swendsen, J. D. (2020). Stress and anxiety among university students in France during Covid-19 mandatory confinement. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 102, 152191. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2020.152191 PMID:32688023 Jackson, M., & Holzman, B. (2020). A century of educational inequality in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(32), 19108–19115. doi:10.1073/pnas.1907258117 PMID:32719143

120

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Jacob, O. N., Abigeal, I., & Lydia, A. E. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the higher institutions development in Nigeria. Electronic Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 126–135. Jantjies, M. (2020). How South Africa can address digital inequalities in e-learning. Available: https:// theconversation.com/how-south-africa-can-address-digital-inequalities-in-e-learning-137086 Keswell, M. (2010). Education and racial inequality in post-apartheid South Africa. In K. Newman & P. A. Attewell (Eds.), Growing Gaps: Educational Inequality around the World. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732180.003.0004 Le Grange, L. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and the prospects of education in South Africa. Prospects, 1–12. PMID:33100404 Letseka, M., & Maile, S. (2008). High university drop-out rates: A threat to South Africa’s future. Human Sciences Research Council Pretoria. Lubua, F. (2016). Exploring the Opportunities for Integrating New Digital Technologies in Tanzania’s Classrooms. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 14, 131–150. Marivate, V., & Combrink, H. M. (2020). Use of Available Data To Inform The COVID-19 Outbreak in South Africa: A Case Study. Data Science Journal, 19, 19. doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-019 Mhlanga, D., & Moloi, T. (2020). COVID-19 and the Digital Transformation of Education: What Are We Learning on 4IR in South Africa? Education Sciences, 10(7), 180. doi:10.3390/educsci10070180 Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., Mcneill, D., & Tessendorf, S. (2013). Body-languagecommunication. Walter de Gruyter. Nattrass, N., & Seekings, J. (2001). Two nations”? Race and economic inequality in South Africa today. Daedalus, 130, 45–70. Nyasulu, C., & Dominic Chawinga, W. (2019). Using the decomposed theory of planned behaviour to understand university students’ adoption of WhatsApp in learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 16(5), 413–429. doi:10.1177/2042753019835906 Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. doi:10.1080/02680930500108718 Oyedemi, T. D. (2012). Digital inequalities and implications for social inequalities: A study of Internet penetration amongst university students in South Africa. Telematics and Informatics, 29(3), 302–313. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.12.001 Pulist, S. K. (2019). Technology for Efficient Learner Support Services in Distance Education: Experiences from Developing Countries. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 14, 149–152. Rahut, D. B., Mottaleb, K. A., Ali, A., & Aryal, J. (2018). The use and determinants of solar energy by Sub-Saharan African households. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 37(8), 718–735. doi:1 0.1080/14786451.2017.1323897

121

 Inequality and Access to Online Education During a Global Crisis

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. doi:10.100742438-020-00155-y Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 12, e7541. PMID:32377489 Serrat, O. (2017). The most significant change technique. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_8 Shimeles, A., & Nabassaga, T. (2018). Why is inequality high in Africa? Journal of African Economies, 27(1), 108–126. doi:10.1093/jae/ejx035 Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18, 69–84. Teferra, D. (2014). Charting African higher education: Perspectives at a glance. International Journal of African Higher Education, 1(1), 9–21. doi:10.6017/ijahe.v1i1.5642 Torche, F. (2010). Economic crisis and inequality of educational opportunity in Latin America. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 85–110. doi:10.1177/0038040710367935 Van Der Berg, S. (2002). Education, poverty and inequality in South Africa. Citeseer. Venegas, K. M. (2006). Internet inequalities: Financial aid, the Internet, and low-income students. The American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1652–1669. doi:10.1177/0002764206289147 Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., & Tabrizi, M. (2006). Pedagogical characteristics of online and face-to-face classes. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, C. (2020). Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 Outbreak. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(3), 1–6. doi:10.3390/jrfm13030055

ENDNOTES 1 2



Also sometimes described as remote or virtual or physically distanced learning. Bester, G. & Brand, L. 2013. The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33, 1-15. observed that some teachers in African schools struggle with the use of technology to deliver online classes.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Inequities in Online Education During Global Crises; pages 340-361, copyright year 2021 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

122

Section 2

Development and Design Methodologies

124

Chapter 8

Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts Shalin Hai-Jew https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8863-0175 Kansas State University, USA

ABSTRACT Practice is a regular part of learning, and it is used for a variety of learning objectives and outcomes. There is very little in the academic research literature about how to design assigned and formal “practice(s)for-learning,” much less for an online learning context in higher education. This work explores the extant literature on practice design and proposes some initial approaches for defining practices-for-learning in online learning. This work provides a construct for highlighting the main levers of practices-for-learning (through interrelated paragraphs of mapping sentences). This work also asks some critical questions for the design of learning practice in online contexts.

INTRODUCTION Learning is defined as the acquiring of knowledge, skills, and abilities / attitudes, based on experiences, study, observation, and other efforts. It is conceptualized as being an inherent part of personhood and a necessary aspect for adaptivity and survival. For learning to occur, the human brain has to encode new information and make that available in the short-term as well as the long-term, and it has to be able to apply the former knowledge to new contents (McLaughlin & Coderre, 2015, p. 321). Learning has to enable “an enduring change in behaviour…” (Schuell, 1986, as cited in McLaughlin & Coderre, 2015, p. 321). New learning “produces a cascade of consequences that, to some extent, both modifies what we already know and influences future learning” (Seitz, 2017, p. R225). Some types of learning can be acquired with a one-off, but a lot of other types of learning require multiple exposures and experiences to attain. Practices enable the multiple exposures over time. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch008

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Practice exercises are commonplace in teaching and learning, in face-to-face (F2F), blended, and online learning. In early days, practices were drills, with the idea that repetitions would establish new ideas and skills in learners. As a traditional form of instruction, drills were also known as “mechanical practice” or “pattern practice” (Wong & VanPatten, Fall 2003, p. 403), such as to teach “form-only” aspects of language. Over time, practices have become more complex, and the research into their efficacy has become more nuanced. Yet, there is very little about how to design practices (how to engage “practice design”). What are practices-for-learning? What considerations should be input into the design of practices? What theories should inform the designs, and how should these elements align? What are some pragmatic approaches? This work aims explore the research literature to collect applicable knowledge to inform a reasoned approach to practice design. Here, “practice(s)-for-learning,” defined as “repeated exercises or activities or skills to acquire and maintain proficiency,” are understood as both general and specifically applied (in particular learning contexts) phenomena. Particularly, this work will explore pragmatic “practice design” approaches for practice-for-learning in online learning contexts.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the literature to contextualize practice(s)-for-learning begins with a light summary of adult learners, their understood preferences and motivations for learning, and heutagogical aspects. The practices-for-learning are understood to occur experientially and reflectively, evoking the 1984 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle, consisting of four steps: (1) concrete experience, (2) reflective observation, (3) abstract conceptualization, and (4) active experimentation. The power in engaging in particular practice and reflecting on that practice to advance the skills and the work. Experience is a core part of all learning (Andresen, Boud, & Cohen, 2000). Innovation itself is important in the experimentation phase especially (with a focus on improvements to prior practice and novelty). “Experiential learning” refers to human making of meaning from lived experiences, in embodied and disembodied (virtual) ways, and in serendipitous-to-designed experiences. Then, definitions of various forms of practices are described, along with learning practices. Finally, a novel approach is described for the designing of practices. Malcolm Knowles (1984) suggests that adult learners need to have a reason to learn something and that they build new learning on prior learning; they prefer to be engaged in the planning of their own instruction; they prefer problem-based focuses instead of engaging content; they learn better with internal (vs. external) motivations (Knowles, 1975; Knowles, 1984a; Knowles, 1984b). Heutagogy, the study of self-determined learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2000), describes learners who “are highly autonomous and self-determined” (Blaschke, 2012, p. 56). Heutagogy has re-popularized given the alignment of self-driven adult learners with the capabilities of Web 2.0, online learning, and technologies that enable learner-driven learning (Blaschke, 2012, p. 56). The technologies that enable learners to “interact with peers and mentors to frame issues, brainstorm, validate and share information, make decisions, and create management protocols” may create “the best environment for learning” in professional practice (Parboosingh, 2002, p. 230). Technology systems have been created for decades to enhance human learning and performance. Early technologies for language learning harnessed multimedia for pronunciation (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, p. 57). Technologies designed to train psychomotor capabilities also involve data capture of learner performances (speed of learning, performance consistency, and others) (Prasad, et al., 2002). 125

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

In some cases, technologies may mask or hide some of the required capabilities and result in the loss of “important cognitive skills” and result in an “inauthentic” learning experience (Wellington, 2004, as cited in Lai, 2018, p. 6). [Indeed, learning technologies for practice have come a long way from the “drill and practice” and flashcard systems of former periods, which enabled plenty of repetition but nothing in the way of “smart” technologies and adaptivity and customizations available today.] A heutagogical learning environment facilitates development of capable learners and emphasizes both the development of capable learners and emphasizes both the development of learner competencies as well as development of the learner’s capability and capacity to learn (Ashton & Newman, 2006; Bhoryrub, Hurley, Neilson, Ramsay, & Smith, 2010; Hase & Kenyon, 2000, as cited in Blaschke, 2012, p. 57). Adult humans may experience desires that are appetitive (based on core survival drives and basic needs) and volitional ones (based on desirable end states and goals) (Davis, 1984b, as cited in Leone, Perugini, & Ercolani, 2004, p. 1947). Adult learners tend to achieve more if they set goals and make plans on how to achieve those goals (Adjzen, 1988, 1991, as cited in Leone, Perugini, & Ercolani, 2004, p. 1945). Mind wandering takes learners off-task and harms the learning and the learner’s judgments of learning (Was, Hollis, & Dunlosky, 2019). A person’s personality (such as high ratings on narcissism) may create barriers to learning from failure (Liu, Li, Hao, & Zhang, 2019), which suggests that learners benefit from self-awareness of their personalities and controlling for particular aspects of personality. An instructional design task should consider human capabilities in the following sequences: human perception, cognition, learning, memory, decision-making, and action-taking (Hai-Jew, Nov. 9 – 10, 2016, Slide 5), to consider human sensory systems, brain-based sense-making, acquisition of knowledge, recall, selection from possible actions, and following through on courses of action (Hai-Jew, Nov. 9 – 10, 2016, Slide 15), in order to align designs to actual human capabilities. Others have conducted empirical research to best design multimedia objects for human learning based on cognitive science (Clark & Mayer, 2016).

About Practices According to the Oxford English dictionary, “practice” (2019) is defined as “the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories relating to it.” In the academic research, some disentangling of meanings and terminology may be relevant. “Practicebased learning” refers to authentic learning in work places (including through internships, preceptorships, and apprenticeships), with formal schooling as a partial representation of life (Dewey, 1944, 1916, p. 191). The general use of “practice” generally refers to customary procedures, whether in research or teaching or professional work. In terms of social practice, the word “practice” refers to customary approaches. Social practices are social constructs which have emerged over time and which reproduce “norms, values and knowledge (Foucault, 1973) and provide a sense or order to the social world (Bourdieu, 1972, as cited in Geiger, 2009, p. 133). In general, such practices are thought to be relativistic and socially created. In cooperative learning groups, students may be more persistent even in the face of hard problems (Duren & Cherrington, Feb. 1992, p. 82). Social supports may confer learner resilience. In a workplace, practice relates to how a profession is carried out. A common reference to work-based skillsets is the list “knowledge, skills, and abilities” and / or “attitudes,” represented by the acronym “KSAs.” KSAs are defined generally as “the attributes required to perform a job and are generally demonstrated through qualifying service, education, or training,” (“Knowledge, skills, and abilities,” Nov. 17, 126

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

2018), according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Praxis” is “accepted practice,” usually applied to teaching as in regular teaching methods. How work places are set up for learning will affect their roles as learning organizations and the possible innovations (Brown & Duguid, 1991). “Working, learning, and innovating are closely related forms of human activity” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, p. 40) and are sometimes combined in the literature in a “unified understanding” for competent practice (p. 55). “Practice-based innovation” enables organizations to adapt to the larger environment (Ellström, 2010, p. 27). Work-based learning involves surfacing both explicit and “tacit knowledge” into consciousness from the communities of practice in work contexts (Raelin, Nov. – Dec. 1997). [A “community of practice” refers to a group which is “formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor” (Wenger, June 2006, p. 1). By definition, their social interactions are regular ones.] Work places offer opportunities for “real-life practice” aligned with a field and also “practice learning” like apprenticeship in a trade or profession (Morley, Wilson, & McDermott, 2017, p. 169). In work context, practices may be seen in two ways: 1. practice as an ‘empirical object’: conceptual labels like practice standpoint, practice-based learning or work-based learning and research fields like strategy-as-practice or science-as-practice underline the existence of a specific empirical object. In this case, the practices (or the process within a practice) become the locus in which scholars study the activities of the practitioners; 2. practice as ‘a way of seeing’: conceptual labels like knowing-in-practice, practice lens, approach and perspective use, implicitly or explicitly, the metaphor of sight: practice as a way of seeing a context, and therefore an epistemology. In fact, many scholars adopt the sight metaphor as a lens for understanding the situatedness of practical reasoning and the contingent nature of organizational rationality. (Corradi, Gherardi, & Verzelloni, 2010, p. 268) Practice-based studies (from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s) include different senses of “practice”: as a standpoint, as “work-based learning and practice-based learning,” as “what people do,” as “knowing in practice,” as “practice-based perspective,” and “practice-based approaches” (Corradi, Gherardi, & Verzelloni, 2010, p. 269), with various evocations in each approach. Practice as an object and as a way of seeing are simultaneously compatible and sometimes complementary. Others even suggest that workbased practice be considered non-singular and as a “multiplicity of practice” based on the co-learners in “personal-social” engagement in the work context (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2010, p. 104, 113). The “theory of practice perspective” suggests that human practices are all socially situated (Schulz, 2005). Another work emphasized the importance of “sensible knowledge” and practicability in practice-based learning (Strati, 2007). One work points to the dynamism of practice-based teaching and learning, with teachers who may be learning issues on the fly as well at the time that they’re teaching and practicing in “the evolving workplace” (Clay, et al., Sept. 2013, p. 1215). “Practice-based research” refers to “an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice” (Candy, 2006, p. 1). The centrality of experiential learning in practice-based research suggests the importance of differentiating the various forms of experiential knowledge: “explicit, tacit and ineffable” (Biggs, 2004, p. 1). “Explicit” content is “expressed linguistically”; “tacit” content includes “an experiential component that cannot be efficiently expressed linguistically,” and “ineffable content “cannot be expressed linguistically” (Biggs, 2004, p. 1),

127

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

which has implications for research practices and the expression of such research findings in linguistic (and other) forms. In a learning context, (learning) practice is “repeated exercise in or performance of an activity or skill so as to acquire or maintain proficiency in it” and “a period of time spent” engaged in an activity or skill (“practice,” 2019). An older work describes practice as follows: The most common and simple type of assignment, (sic) this is given to help students master specific skills. Practice exercises should be limited to material presented in class. (Lee & Pruitt, Sept. 1979, p. 32) The authors suggest that practice assignments “require very little abstract thinking” (Lee & Pruitt, Sept. 1979, p. 32) and perhaps less required germane cognitive load. Home practice assignments are “designed to drill or reinforce skills and information covered in class” via “often brief” assignments (Lee & Pruitt, Sept. 1979, p. 32). A particular type of practice, for example, is a “drill” also known as “pattern practice” (which originated in the 1940s from “army language training programs), with learning acquired through “mechanical habit formation” from “extensive drilling” (Wong & VanPatten, Fall 2003, p. 404). Such practices enhance memorization and associative recall (Sardello & Kausler, 1967). In more common parlance, practice drills reinforce the neural pathways in the brain and support muscle memory; they strengthen the interaction effects between the various parts of the individual which are activated to achieve particular outcomes. [Over-learning is thought to help people achieve “automaticity,” or being able to perform without expending so much cognitive load or attention (Dougherty & Johnston, 1996). Drilling and frequent practice enable skills to “become automatic and unconscious” for linguistic competence (Gray & Klapper, 2009, p. 349)] A risk of drill is that learners may “’tune out’ their meaning and treat them as form-only exercises,” even those that are designed to be meaningful (Wong & VanPatten, Fall 2003, p. 417). Over the years, drills have become more complex, to enable deliberate practice for mastery learning. More variability in practice to enable differing focuses on different aspects of the learning “has been shown to enhance motor skill learning” (Chua, Dimapilis, Iwatsuki, Abdollahipour, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 2019, p. 307); the co-researchers found support for their hypothesis that “greater variability in practice (i.e., variable or random practice) would promote an external focus while reduced variability (i.e., constant or blocked practice) would facilitate an internal focus of attention).” (Chua, Dimapilis, Iwatsuki, Abdollahipour, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 2019, p. 309). Over-specialization in one area in a workplace may be detrimental to learning as compared to related (vs. unrelated) variation (Schilling, Vidal, Ployhart, & Marangoni, 2003, p. 39). One common setup for practice is what a research team calls “tell and practice (T&P),” described as a situation in which “teachers or texts first explain concepts and their formulaic expression, and then students practice on a set of well-designed problems” to “deliver accumulated knowledge” (Schwartz, Chase, Opprezzo, & Chin, 2011, p. 1). Alternates to the “tell and practice” approach involves “some form of guided discovery, including problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1976), project- and design-based activities (Barron et al., 1998), inquiry (Edelson, Grodin, & Pea, 1999), and modeling (Lesh & Doeer, 2003) and enable discovery learning and improved transfer by avoiding the didacticism early on (Schwartz, Chase, Opprezzo, & Chin, 2011, p. 1). More open-ended learning may enable learners to innovate with deeper learning and variant accurate understandings. One alternative T&P approach is called “inventing with contrasting cases” (ICC) and require learners to innovate their own solutions 128

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

to given problems (incurring a higher cognitive demand) and requiring learner explanations of their work—and resulted in improved learning and transfer (Schwartz, Chase, Opprezzo, & Chin, 2011, p. 2). The authors observe: “Ideally, the inventing task also recruits a confluence of productive psychological processes including explanation, analogy, and compare and contrast” (Schwartz, Chase, Opprezzo, & Chin, 2011, p. 3). The debriefing is also important for the learning, for accurate understandings. In a learning context, observable practice-based assignments are given to “elicit evidence of both the practice performance and also of the reflection on that performance” (Evans, 1997, p. 2). Both the abilities and awareness of important aspects of the learning are important (because some practiced skills may be done in an unthinking way). For practices-for-learning in higher education and adult learning, this seems to draw learner experiences from adult learning theory, experiential learning, learning by doing, authentic learning, applied learning, and social learning; this also seems to draw from empirical research from the learning and memory retrieval literature; finally, abductive logic and grounded empirical-based practice would play a role. This work will draw from an amalgam of theories and research. Practices-for-learning are common to train “skilled performance,” including “musical performance skills, all types of athletic skills, martial arts, dance, foreign language skills, playing games like chess or go, reading, drawing, etc.” (Mechner, 1995, p. 1). Within skilled performances, three categories have been identified: “repetitive performances” to perform similarly over time to professional standards, “interactive types of performance requiring “an ever-changing, and uncontrolled performance environment which most often includes the behavior of other individuals” (such as in competitions like “playing tennis or chess”), and “a third category, which includes reading, driving a vehicle, listening, simultaneous translation, taking dictation, or locomotion over uneven terrain” which involves “the processing of an environmentally imposed stream of information at a certain speed” (Mechner, 1995, pp. 2 - 3). How the practices are set up and spaced in time also affect their efficacy. For example, “spaced learning and practice sessions are more effective than ‘massed’ ones (Hovland, 1951), and “the largest amount of learning is achieved when only 20% to 40% of the session is devoted to practice’ and the rest to interspersed periods of other activities” (Graw, 1968; Schmidt, 1988, pp. 384 – 391, as cited in Mechner, 1995, pp. 85 – 86). These practices are clearly for higher-level skills in the human repertoire, involving mental processing and psychomotor skills. There are improvements to learning based on the degree (and types) of practice. Practice may enable both “intentional and incidental learning,” which can occur simultaneously (Kausler & Sardello, 1967, p. 285). Other research has found subliminal practice effects on human learning performance (Hayashi, 1965). Research has been conducted to see if test-based learning can improve people’s learning beyond verbal materials and to “the learning of novel, abstract visuospatial information,” with the finding that it can (Kang, 2010, p. 1009); further, “repeated retrieval from memory trumps repeated studying” (Kang, 2010, p. 1009). Some types of practices enhance human perception. For example, top-down executive controls of the human brain enable improved visual processing. Some basic practice to help adult learners engage their “high-level attentional mechanisms” has been found to enhance performance on visual tasks through perceptual learning (Ahissar & Hochstein, June 1993, p. 5718). Retrieval or memory recall has historically been seen as “distinct from learning” (McLaughlin & Coderre, 2015, p. 322). Retrieval-based learning is based on the idea that “retrieval is the key process for understanding learning” and that retrieval “is not a neutral assessment of the contents of one’s mind, but…itself contributes to learning” (Karpicke & Grimaldi, 2012, p. 402). The act of retrieval itself is 129

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

not neutral recollection of the past but consolidates learning and reconstructs knowledge (Karpicke & Roediger, Feb. 2008). Retrieval can be itself a beneficial learning practice. Karpicke and Blunt (Feb. 2011) write: Research on retrieval practice suggests a view of how the human mind works that differs from everyday intuition. Retrieval is not merely a read-out of the knowledge stored in one’s mind; the act of reconstructing knowledge itself enhances learning. This dynamic perspective on the human mind can pave the way for the design of new educational activities based on consideration of retrieval processes. (Karpicke & Blunt, Feb. 2011, p. 774) In one work, the researchers found that retrieval practice resulted in larger learning gains than the practice of “elaborative studying” (the building on of complexity to prior simpler teaching, such as through concept maps and schemas) (Karpicke & Blunt, Feb. 2011, p. 772). “Active retrieval” may be conducted in various ways, including “classroom quizzing and a computer-based learning program that guides students to practice retrieval” (Karpicke & Grimaldi, 2012, p. 401) while controlling for erroneous data recall which may “induce anti-learning” (McLaughlin & Coderre, 2015, p. 323) or negative learning. In earlier work, researchers have found that prior learning may “retard subsequent…learning” (Tulving, 1966, as cited in Wood & Clark, 1969, p. 187), a finding supported by additional research that finds that people “may be unwilling or unable to abandon their previously learned organization” (Wood & Clark, 1969, p. 188). A ”testing effect” has been observed that in that test-taking improves memory retention. Test-taking also offer opportunities for learners to “restudy” materials (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006, p. 249); testtaking enhances performance on delayed testing, after a period of time passage (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006, p. 249). “Test-enhanced learning” involves the taking of practice tests in order to strengthen learner recall and further encode the learning. “Distributed test-restudy practice” or “practice testing” (as a study technique) enhances the duration at which the learning is maintained (also termed “durability of learning”). (Rawson & Dunlosky, 2012, p. 422) These tests are low-stakes reviews and have high positive learning effects even with “small amounts of practice testing” (Rawson & Dunlosky, 2012, p. 432). Another suggests that practice testing “is one of the most well-established strategies for improving student learning” but is underused because “summative testing” is not seen in positive light (Rawson & Dunlosky, 2012, p. 419). There is some early work that combines educational assessment and testing-for-learning. One work suggests that multiple choice questions “that are simple in format (e.g., avoid use of complex item types), challenge students but allow them to succeed often, and target specific cognitive processes that correspond to learning objectives” benefit both endeavors (Butler, 2018, p. 323), based on the respective academic literatures. Memory retrieval practice may be limited, however. Research into whether retrieval practice enhanced inferential reasoning found that it improved “sentence memory but not the drawing of inferences from the same sentences” (Eglington & Kang, 2016, p. 1). Another research study found that the learning of simple motor skills did not show an improvement on more complex skills in terms of motor learning (Wulf & Shea, 2002). However, there are nuances to this as well. Based on the schema theory of learning, researchers posited that “varied training in motor learning should give rise to better transfer than specific training” but found that varied training only “played a very limited role in short-term motor learning” (Willey & Liu, 2018, p. 39). 130

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Practice(s)-for-learning are not thought to be applied continuously into the future. There is a point at which there is no longer benefit for learning or at which there are diminishing returns for the effort. In one study, once an item could be recalled from memory, the experiment showed “a striking absence of any benefit of repeated studying” (Karpicke & Roediger, Feb. 2008, p. 968). People have a strong capability of “learning by observing” others, through emulative or imitation learning. (At a macro level, this is termed “social learning.”) In terms of motor skills, while these can be learned observationally and via physical practice, research suggests that different cognitive and neural mechanisms are at play in each. They write: Our findings show that individual differences in working memory and fluid intelligence predict improvements in dissociable aspects of motor learning following physical practice, but not observational practice. Working memory predicts general learning gains from pre- to post-test that generalise (sic) to untrained sequences, whereas fluid intelligence predicts sequence-specific gains that are tied to trained sequences. However, neither working memory nor fluid intelligence predict training gains following observational learning. Therefore, these results suggest limits to the shared mechanism hypothesis of physical and observational learning. (Apšvalka, Cross, & Ramsey, 2019, p. 170) Earlier research suggests that observational learning (defined as “learning-by-not-doing but by observing”) may out-perform “learning-by-doing” (Merlo & Schotter, 2003, p. 116). In the academic research literature, “learning-by-doing” is about hands-on authentic learning. In the business literature, it suggests learning by trial-and-error, with the downsides of cost for such slower learning. “Observation guides” to help learners focus on particular aspects of a simulation were found to improve satisfaction with a simulation but not significantly improve “knowledge, self-confidence, or collaboration” in one study (Norman, 2018, p. 242). Deliberate practice may be prohibitively expensive to enable in fields like crisis resource management; here, “observer participants” engaging in watching a simulation and then experiencing a debriefing afterwards perform similarly to active participants (Lai, et al., 2016). Some types of electronic games and simulations enable learner experiential learning. Experiential instruction theory suggests changes to assumptions of learning—that learning has to be explicitly taught (and not inferred experientially), that learning has to be shown in “knowing” (and not behavior), that learning has to occur in isolation and in decontextualized ways (Ruben, Dec. 1999, p. 499). In digital format, games and simulations may be used for iterated practice, and on demand (in the time when the learner feels the need to practice). In one work, a game cycle enabled “user judgments, behavior, and feedback” in experiential gameplay (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, Dec. 2002, p. 441). “Addictive” gameplay can be an additional learning benefit because it is motivating for learners to engage (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, Dec. 2002, p. 451). Some learning practices engage hard problems, such as conceptualizing problems that are difficult predicates in some cases or which are purely imaginary in others. Perhaps learners are expected to codesign an object or resource as practice. Or they are asked to engage in inquiry-based learning, problembased learning, case-based learning, project-based learning, or others. Perhaps some practice challenges are open-ended and unbounded. Perhaps the practice challenges have real-world implications.

131

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Sociality in Practice Through Networked Learning Online Some practices require the presence and participation of others (consider plays, interactive games, team sports, mixed-team co-design, and others). Such collaborative work in online learning is sometimes termed “networked learning,” defined as the following: learning in which ICT is used to promote connections between one learner and other learners; between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources. (Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson & McConnell, 2004, as cited in Goodyear, 2005, p. 83) Some common practices here include “action learning,” a problem-solving approach which involves the bringing together of learning groups based around specific learning activities (“What is action learning?” 2019). Some assignments integrate the community-based processes for the co-emergence of learning (through “cognition, identities and environment”) based on socio-cognitive processes (Kiraly, 2005, pp. 1105 - 1106). Co-learning occurs fairly naturally based on human interactions in communities of practice (Lave, 1991). People practicing their social identities in the world often draw knowledge from a wide range of sources through apprenticeships and social interactions with others in everyday life (Lave, 1996, pp. 156 - 157).

DESIGNING ONLINE LEARNER PRACTICE FOR A RANGE OF KSA’s Practice is a regular part of learning, and it is used for a variety of learning objectives and outcomes. Many practices seem fairly incidental and perhaps in the realm of learner responsibility. There is very little in the academic research literature about how to design “practice(s) for learning,” much less for an online learning context in higher education. A large amount of practices-for-learning seem to be about rote memorization (for language learning, for formulas, for multiplication tables, for problem-solving and rule-learning using mathematical thinking, and others) and psychomotor skills (for dance, for various kinesthetic endeavors, physical exercises, martial arts, shooting, cosmetology, and others). Part of this research work involved the asking of the interrelated questions: Is there a simple way to generalize the describing of practice(s)-for-learning? Are there core elements in practices-for-learning? What are ways to vary the respective elements in order to improve the efficacy of the practices? Where can innovations occur in this space? Where is changeable (elastic) vs. unchangeable (inelastic)? To enable an easy-to-ascertain approach, a serious of interrelated mapping sentences were created to share a conceptualization of how this could work.

Practices-for-Learning in Summary Mapping Sentences A somewhat reductive but comprehensive sense of practices-for-learning follows here, in the form of paragraphs of mapping sentences about practice(s)-for-learning. Within the {} (curly brackets) are the variables that need to be defined in different ways. It is thought that most of these can be set up as categories or scales/gradations or sequences, depending on the content types. This paragraph reads as follows. The target learner for this learning practice involves those with {this level of topic experience} in the target field. 132

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

This practice(s)-for-learning is comprised of these {activities} in these {sequences} spaced out in these {frequencies} over this {time span} until the following {learning objectives} are attained, and these defined {learning outcomes} are achieved at a satisfactory{level} in an observable and measurable way, and to ultimately enable these {capabilities of the learners}, including defined knowledge, skills, and abilities/attitudes (KSAs), and these {internal understandings / states of mind of the learner(s)}. These practice(s)-for-learning require these {resources}. In terms of collaborations, this / these practice(s)-for-learning require(s) these {social setups} with the {shared social activities} and {collaborative activities}, involving these {learning activities}. This type of “practice(s)-for-learning” involves this type of {feedback} at these {points in the learning process} and {afterwards} and {prior}. This type of practice(s)-for-learning is generally {at this level of planning} and guided in these percentages in terms of {types of guidedness}. There is a particular {degree of serendipity} in the practice, which comes from these {sources}. The “deliverables” from this practice-for-learning include the following {observable objects}. In this sequence, learners have various {choices} and {paths} that they can take to satisfactorily achieve the practice(s). Learners also are {accountable} for their work to {others, including}. In the practice, the learner may experience various {modalities} and {multimodalities}. The human mechanisms involved in the learning include the following {mechanisms}. This paragraphs of mapping sentences capture some of the potential “mechanics” of practices-forlearning and a more comprehensive and less parsimonious way than may be desirable for a model. These dimensions, if quantifiable by intensity, say, on a scale of 1 to 10, can then be represented in a spider chart, with different intensities on the relevant dimensions. Such data visualizations assume a polar continuum, so a {level of topic experience} would be 0 – 10, and so on. In the curly brackets, representing the dimensions, there can be (1) pre-set options (close-ended), (2) wholly empty cells (for users to define), and / or (3) partially filled cells along with empty ones. An extended form of the paragraph of mapping sentences follows: The target learner for this learning practice involves those with {this level of topic experience} in the target field. None: Neophyte Beginning: Amateur, Novice, Dabbler Intermediate: Untrained Experience in Terms of Time Length / Level of Accomplishment Advanced: Professional Novice Advanced Beginner Competent Proficient Expert [from The Dreyfus Levels of Professional Development of Knowledge and Performance (Dreyfus, 1982, as cited in Ogrinc, Headrick, Mutha, Coleman, O’Donnell, & Miles, July 2003, p. 750)] This practice(s)-for-learning is comprised of these {activities}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ 133

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

 _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ in these {sequences}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ spaced out in these {frequencies}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ over this {time span}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ until the following {learning objectives}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ are attained, and these defined {learning outcomes}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ are achieved at a satisfactory threshold {level}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ in an observable and measurable way, and to ultimately enable these {capabilities of the learners(s)}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ 134

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

including defined knowledge, skills, and abilities / attitudes (KSAs), and these {internal understandings / states of mind of the learner(s)}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ These practice(s)-for-learning require these {resources}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ In terms of collaborations, this / these practice(s)-for-learning require these {social setups}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ with the {shared social activities}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and {collaborative activities}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ involving these {learning activities}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ This type of “practice(s)-for-learning” involves this type of {feedback}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________

135

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

at these {points in the learning process}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and {afterwards}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and {prior}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ This type of practice(s)-for-learning is generally {at this level of planning} Incidental Deliberate  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and guided in these percentages in terms of {types of guidedness}. Self-guided Technology-guided (including adaptive technologies) Human-led Group-led There is a particular {degree of serendipity}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ in the practice, which comes from these {sources}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________

136

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

The “deliverables” from this practice-for-learning include the following {observable objects}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ In this sequence, learners have various {choices}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and {paths}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ that they can take to satisfactorily achieve the practice(s). Learners also are {accountable}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ for their work to {others, including}. themselves the instructor(s) co-learners larger learning community others In the practice, the learner may experience various {modalities}  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ and {multimodalities}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________

137

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

The human mechanisms involved in the learning include the following {mechanisms}.  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________  _____________________________________________________________________________ •

• •

• •

Within this approach, learner experiential sequences may be extracted. Walk-throughs of the various learning experiences may be described. ◦◦ Learning gaps may be identified. ◦◦ Important junctures in the sequences may be identified. Guided directions that benefit the learners may also be studied. Analyses of learner journals or other feedback may be done to… ◦◦ …offer enriched supports and cognitive scaffolding. ◦◦ …provide learner motivations and encouragement. ◦◦ …design stimuli for increased learner interest. ◦◦ …meet learners in their respective “zones of proximal development”… ◦◦ …offer sufficient variability and challenge to maintain learner interest… Anticipated costs for the practices may be estimated. These definitions may place practices on a timeline, in order to understand the optimal lengths of time for the practices, before reaching a point of diminishing returns.

This extended form provides a sense of some of the complexity of practices-for-learning online, with ambitious types of learning transfer and complexity possible. These elements {} give a sense of what goes into practice designs, in part. Some of these elements speak to the design of the practices, and some speak to the learner perception and experience angle. A few refer to the social learning aspects. Some speak to the outcomes. To wit, Seitz asked, “’Practice makes perfect,’ but at what?” (2017)

Sidebar: Two Examples So how do the respective sequences look in practice? Scenario 1 offers a walk-through of a graduate course involving qualitative research and a qualitative data analytics software program. Scenario 2 tracks with a proprietary health-based site that requires learners to practice healthy habits in terms of diet and exercise. Scenario 1: In a graduate qualitative research course that is taught fully online, the target learners have a range of background experiences, from “competent” to “expert” on The Dreyfus Levels of Professional Development of Knowledge and Performance (Dreyfus, 1982). Some of the learners have practiced qualitative research in their respective work places, and others have conducted some basic research in their prior undergraduate and graduate studies. Their practice involves using a qualitative data analytics software tool to analyze a set of interview data that the class conducted in a course project. They are expected to begin with some exploratory data analytics activities to better understand their textual data. Then, they will slowly evolve codebooks to analyze the data, using both top-down coding methods and bottom-up coding methods. This project runs the length of the full semester. The practice is done on the learners’ own time in small groups, but this work is supported by in-class lectures, demonstrations, talks, readings, and other supports. Ultimately,

138

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

the learners should be able to use the software with some fluency, create a codebook, and defend their codebook for the particular topic. The practice will require licensure for the software, access to the qualitative text datasets, intercommunications technologies, and access to a variety of professional readings. There are online videos about the software that may be helpful to the work. The social setups involve small groups working on evolving competing codebooks based off the same qualitative dataset created by the individuals in the course. The social collaborations include the following work: planning, coordinating, role assignments, documenting, data analytics, research, writing, and other necessary tasks. Some of the work will be done by individuals and shared with the group, and some will be achieved within the group. The learning objectives include the following: • • • • • • • • • •

Recognize what needs cleaning in qualitative interview data Set up data correctly to enable a variety of explorations in qualitative data analytics software tool Choose appropriate data queries to run in a qualitative data analytics software tool Interpret data tables and data visualizations from the data queries Choose appropriate machine learning analytics in a qualitative data analytics software tool Interpret data tables and data visualizations from the machine learning Generate a codebook based on top-down coding Generate a codebook from bottom-up coding (based on the qualitative interview data) Explain the validity of a codebook Test a codebook for its strengths and weaknesses The learning outcomes include the following:

• • • • • • •

Clean qualitative data Import qualitative data into the qualitative data analytics software program Run data queries in a qualitative data analytics tool and extract meaning Run machine learning analytics over qualitative data and extract meaning Create a codebook based on top-down coding and bottom-up coding Present the codebook Study the codebook for its strengths and weaknesses

A basic level of achievement will require learners to attain some basic fluency in the uses of the qualitative data analytics software tool and to be able to set up and use a codebook in the qualitative research space. Optimally, learners will appreciate the affordances and constraints of the software in the qualitative research context. The learning groups will check in with the instructor weekly and attain feedback on their progress and have their questions answered in a customized way. Near the end of the semester, when the codebooks are presented to the class, the instructor and classmates will provide feedback to the teams. This type of practice is more continuing and object-based, with a cumulative deliverable of a codebook and a qualitative data software project file (or multiple ones). Teams will also have collected research, work notes, data tables, data visualizations, and other forms of documentation of their work. The serendipity in the practice will be high given the breadth of possible approaches to analyzing qualitative

139

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

interview data in both top-down and bottom-up ways. Final project deliverables are the codebook and other contents. The respective teams may progress in a variety of ways because qualitative data analysis is seldom or never lock-step. Learners are accountable for their learning to themselves, their teams, their classmates, and their instructor, among others. The modalities in this practice are multi-sensory, analog and digital, asynchronous and synchronous, and multimedial. The human mechanisms involved in the learning include the following: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (based on Bloom’s Taxonomy). [This example, while described as applied to graduate students, may apply to undergraduates. As researchers have noted, undergraduates engage in research even from their first year, and the learners are expected to “frame their own lines of inquiry, and inquiry experiences with an open-ended, knowledgebuilding orientation,” to advance their “intellectual and personal development” (Levy & Petrulis, Feb. 2012, p. 85).] Scenario 2: A proprietary health-based site is brought on by state governments to help their citizens live more healthful lives in order to lower the costs of health insurance for their citizens. The target learners have varying levels of experience, from “novice” to “expert,” so the entire possible range of knowledge about diet and exercise. The learners are mainly those in the West. The practices cover how to eat healthily, drink sufficient water, exercise regularly, attain sufficient sleep, and other behaviors, day-in and day-out. The app involves reminders, a digital food diary with built-in calorie counter, and other tools. The time span is continuous from the present into the future. The learning objectives include the following: •

Develop a sense of what a healthful lifestyle is like in terms of ◦◦ Diet ◦◦ Water consumption ◦◦ Exercise ◦◦ Sleep ◦◦ Emotional health, and others Describe what a healthy lifestyle looks like for themselves Attain awareness of one’s own health habits Acquire social support from others who are also trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

• • •

The learning outcomes include the following: • • • •

Attain and maintain a healthy weight (within the body mass index or “BMI”) Attain and maintain a healthy blood pressure. Attain and maintain a healthy blood sugar reading Attain and maintain a healthy amount of fats in the blood.

Ultimately, learners should be aware of some basics of healthful living and empowered to make their own decisions of what they will do with their lives. The practice(s)-for-learning require access to the Internet to access the videos, digital downloadables, assessments, and social messages. There are free annual blood tests as part of this health endeavor, with 140

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

the test results uploaded into the system. The social setups involve online communities of participants who may share messages and support. There are also “teams” that individuals can form to take on walking challenges, bicycling challenges, and other exercise challenges. There are not co-learning challenges in this scenario. Some automated feedback comes from quizzes that the learners take of the learning materials. There is also feedback from the site organizers to queries. Other social participants provide peer feedback. And, local health professionals can send private messages to their patients through this integrated platform / system. The lead-up study involves answering a quiz about basic health, and post-training, there are challenges and outreaches that continue for some weeks after the formal training. The practices are both incidental and deliberate, and with different levels of guidedness: 80% online learning, 10% human distance counseling, and 10% reminders via the application. Because of the structure of the learning, serendipity does play a large role given the high variance and diversity of the learners’ lives and situations. Learners create food diaries, in either analog or digital form. They can download forms to fill that provide self-awareness about various aspects of their health. Learners can change up their diets, their exercise plans, and other aspects of their lives in a variety of different paths. They can substitute in certain foods and remove others. They can change out some exercises for others. In terms of accountability for practice, the learners are mostly accountable to themselves although their action / inaction will affect their health metrics and checkup metrics. There are both analog and digital modalities that are part of this practice, with physical weight scales and tape measures that are part of the practice. Also, hand-held weights and other exercise tools are important. The human mechanisms involved include cognitive, emotional, and physiological systems. Note: These scenarios are macro-level ones. In the real, the actual practice designs would involve much more pedagogical design and thinking. These two examples were offered to give a sense of how the interrelated “paragraphs of mapping sentences” may be understood in terms of the respective variables. Based on the interrelated paragraphs of mapping sentences, a general flowchart of designing practice(s)for-learning may be understood. While there is a general direction, recursion is assumed given the nature of design. Others may change up their start points as long as the various parts of the designs are addressed. (Figure 01) Notice that there is a Step 11, which enables the analysis of the practices along a number of dimensions for revision. So-called grounded learning designs are based on explicitly connecting learning theory and research (and underlying implications) with the learning designs (Hannafin, Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1997, p. 101), instead of leaving designs unarticulated and influenced by conflicting theories. This approach is somewhat atheoretical, but bringing educational theory to the fore may be relevant. The practice designs would benefit from considering the cognitive load / cognitive demand for learners. Specifically, “situations with low processing demands benefit from practice conditions that increase the load and challenge the performer, whereas practice conditions that result in extremely high load should benefit from conditions that reduce the load to more manageable levels” (Wulf & Shea, 2002, p. 185). Practices also benefit from guidance, a kind of cognitive scaffolding to advance the learning for more systematic learning in open-ended learning environments (Segedy, Biswas, Blackstock, & Jenkins, 2013). Such “guided practice” may be instantiated in different and learner-adaptive ways.

141

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Figure 1. Recursive steps for practice(s)-for-learning design

142

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Practice(s)-for-learning in online learning So how are general learning experiences different online learning different than in formal higher education in face-to-face (F2F) or blended learning contexts? And how might these differences affect practice(s)-for-learning online? •

•

•

•

•

For many, the online learning may be more present and available 24/7, given the easy access to the learning from anywhere. The global aspects of many courses may mean that the learning is available and even active at any time (or smaller classes may be asynchronous, to enable people to access the course materials fairly). Perhaps the learning is more “canned” or pre-recorded. ◦◦ Practices-for-learning are likely to be fairly available 24/7 for learners, and so accommodate a variety of schedules. Depending on the instructors and course designers, the learning itself may be more demanding of learners because it is easier to add assignments and work in a “vacuum” than it is to add in a context of direct learners who are visibly struggling under the weight of the assigned work. ◦◦ Practices may be more necessary to learners to understand difficult concepts and to stay with potentially faster-paced online learning. ◦◦ The digital practices-for-learning may be more varied and diverse, given the affordances of scripting, random number generators, and code. Such practices may be generated ad infinitum in many cases and so can benefit learners with persistence. Another difference is that the instructor’s social presence may be less directly experienced online, even with the extant intercommunications tools of web conferencing videos, white boards, realtime interactive communications, digital photo albums, podcasting, wikis, weblogs, and other tools for social connectivity. ◦◦ Practices may rely less on the charisma of the instructors and rely more on other motivating factors (the engagement aspects of the practices-for-learning, the social aspects, the desire to impress co-learners, and so on). Another difference is that social presences differ for co-learners, even with the various technologies that enable collaborations. There may be less of a sense of the full personages of other colearners in a shared learning space online. Also, there may be fewer opportunities for people to engage informally, in the way they might in a F2F or blended learning context. Online, those who do not have obvious shared interests may choose not to engage. ◦◦ Practices-for-learning that require on collegial learning may rely in part on automated agentry. ◦◦ Or, the social practices-for-learning may require social supports outside of the learning management system (LMS) technologies, and maybe tapped into social media. Online learning systems enable some level of automation, for learner support and customization to learner needs. The adaptivity of online learning may be enhanced. ◦◦ Automated oversight over learner practice (in lieu of instructor oversight) may raise the amount of practice done. This automation may create a stronger sense of learner responsibility for the practices. ◦◦ Automated feedback may offer enriched practice cycles and a stronger sense of cognitive scaffolding and of adaptivity to particular learners. Learners who have gaps in their knowledge will have enriched feedback for that particular area but can bypass other supports in areas in which they are stronger.

143

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

•

Online learning enables some level of learner data capture in terms of their interactions, their performances, and other aspects. In a technology enabled sense, practices may be enhanced, with augmented reality, with reminder apps, with hyper-connected co-learners and professionals, social media, and others. ◦◦ Learners may acquire deeper feedback about their actual level of knowledge, skills, and abilities/attitudes (KSAs), informed by their performance and those of their near-peers (and others). ◦◦ The availability of learner data (limited) and the affordances of machine learning (data extractions) may enable richer insights from online learner practices and may enable insights about what sorts of practices enable higher performances, faster and more efficient learning, and other as-yet-uncaptured insights.

The implications of online learning on practices-for-learning may certainly be explored in more depth. The ideas here are initial ones only.

Sparse-Structure Practice Designs Online Some practice designs which would benefit from further exploration are those sparsely designed, to enable spontaneous individual and group learning, in ambient pseudo-random environments. These can be something seeded with a simple direction and without instructor oversight. I can be something like this: “Go to the virtual immersive foreign language environment, and make a friend in that language” (L2, L3, or other)…or interact with a stranger virtually via language for 10 minutes…or conduct an interview about an everyday topic…etc. The locale can offer a likelihood of encounter and potential learning success, but how that learning success is achieved will depend on chance factors, individual learner personality and wherewithal, and social group dynamics, among others. This is one which is mostly structured by the world and chance…and not in the control of the instructor.

DISCUSSION This work found that there have been efforts at examining practice(s)-for-learning in a few studies, with precise close-in analyses in particular experimental conditions. Different educational theories have implications on practices-for-learning. Some attributions of practices have been identified and instantiated in interrelated paragraphs of mapping sentences. These may aid in the design of practices-for-learning, the analyses of practices, and their sharing across different learning contexts (reusability). These identification of various attributes may also enable the identification of competitive advantages and ways to improve the respective practices-for-learning. Further advances may be made in research, such as the match between practice types and learning style preferences. Fundamental questions about practices-for-learning are still outstanding: 1. What sorts of practices-for-learning are optimal for particular learning objectives and outcomes? Why? 2. At what frequencies should the respective practices-for-learning be done? Why? 144

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

3. What sorts of feedback should be obtained before, during, and after the practices for the respective learners? Why? 4. At which point is continuing practice-for-learning not particularly beneficial? Why? 5. What sorts of practice-for-learning may be detrimental to future learning? What sorts of practicefor-learning may contribute to negative learning or misdirected learning? 6. How does practice-for-learning change in an online learning context vs. a face-to-face or blended learning context (based on theory? based on research? based on practice?)?

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Continuing learning is important for professional development (upskilling, mastery), personal development, and prevention of skills decay and forgetting. There are a variety of rich types of learning opportunities, and many of these include practices in various forms. Practices vary in the ambition of objectives and scope; they vary in the amounts of learner self-direction, learner sociality, technological dependency, innovation, cognitive scaffolding and feedback, adaptivity to learners, oversight, complexity, and student centeredness. The learning outcomes vary, depending on the domain field and the designed purposes of the practices. The time-length of the practices may also vary, both in terms of each session, and the overall sequence. Beyond the early work on the six focal questions surrounding practices-for-learning, a number of follow-on research approaches may apply.

Types of Practices-for-Learning • • •

What are various types of practices-for-learning? How may these be categorized comprehensively? Do particular learning domains tend to have particular types of practices-for-learning? If so, why? (And if not, why not?) Do some learning domains tend to use practices vs. others that do not use these as often? Are there substitutions for practices in learning domains? ◦◦ Are there some inter-domain and interdisciplinary overlaps and mixes?

Test(s)-for-Learning • •

What are some contemporary ways to harness test(s)-for-learning? What types of test contents are most efficacious for particular types of learning? Or from an opposite direction, how can one reverse-engineer the types of learning going on with particular tests? (To answer some of these questions, it would be necessary to know the domain field…the course…the learning context…the learners…and the respective test instruments and performance data, among other things.)

Designing Practices-for-Learning • •

What are some effective educational and other theories that can inform practices-for-learning, and why? How can these theories be aligned with the practices? 145

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Learner Feedback •

• •

What patterns of feedbacks are most helpful for learning? ◦◦ Are there ways to design cognitive scaffolding to enhance the learning work? ◦◦ At what times are various types of feedback most helpful, and why? ◦◦ What are some dynamic ways to create and deliver generative feedback based on learner needs (for customizations and learner adaptivity)? Where does the feedback come from? If in a social learning context, what is the role of other learners in providing peer feedback? Why?

Advancements in Learning • •

In the practice, what is the typical expected types of learner advancement? Is it like a step ladder with even advancement steps? Is it like a spiral with continuous movement upward and onward? Is advancement like punctuated equilibrium over time? Are there levels of practice that advance beyond design and therefore have to be informed by the world and by the learners (himself, herself, themselves, etc.)?

Levels of Intrinsic Cognitive Load •

• •

How can the intrinsic cognitive load (the inherent level of difficulty of a practice topic) of a learning topic be designed to? ◦◦ Are there particular types of practices-for-learning that are most effective to address low intrinsic load? Medium intrinsic load? High intrinsic load? How can the complexity of a learning topic be designed to? ◦◦ Are there particular types of practices-for-learning that are most effective to address low complexity? Medium complexity? High complexity? How does practice-for-learning advance along a sequence? What types of practices-for-learning advance along a sequence? Are the steps discrete or continuous, and why?

Efficacies of Types of Practices-for-Learning • • • • • •

146

What types of practice(s)-for-learning are effective for particular types of learning? Why? What types of practice(s)-for-learning are effective for particular learning contexts? Why? What types of practice(s)-for-learning are effective for particular types of learners (based on demographic slices)? What are age-appropriate types of practice(s)-for-learning, and why? Are there certain types of practice(s)-for-learning that are more effective for learning that needs to be retained in the short-term? The medium-term? The long-terms? (And how would each of these phases be defined?) What are some effective (and reproducible) research methods to understand learning efficacies with various types of practices? What are some types of practices-for-learning that are anti-learning and negative regarding learning? How can these be redesigned to be more effective?

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Learner Experiences • • • • •

From the individual learner or group learners’ perspectives, what encourages continuance with practice? Adherence to standards for practice? What encourages short-term, mid-term, and longterm commitment and discipline to particular practice? What discourages continuance? What discourages adherence to standards for practice? What discourages commitment to particular practice in the short-, mid-, and long-term? What does the learner see as salient during various phases of the practice? How is feedback perceived by the learner(s)? What do they see as useful? Not useful? How aware are learners of the acquisition of new learning during the practice? After the practice? What are subliminal learning? When is this differentiation between supraliminal and subliminal relevant in a learning context? (What overt and covert mental routines are occurring during the learning?)

The list above provides a start, but researcher can take this work in a range of directions. Also, this work dealt with formal learning in higher education, which is a small part of the overall learning for adults, which includes informal learning (learning as a byproduct of in-world activities) and nonformal learning (learning through non-credit structured courses) as well. Addressing practice design for non-adult learners can expand the possibilities of this work.

Non-Practiced-Based Learning? Another approach may be to study teaching-and-learning where practice is not thought to have a role in the learning, the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities (and attitudes). What do people teach in a one-off way without a sense of need for review, for redundant practice, for repetition, for refinement? Is it fair to assume that such teaching-and-learning is thought not to involve practice if practices go unassigned and / or opportunities to practice are not included in the work?

CONCLUSION Practice-for-learning is so ubiquitous that it has disappeared into the backdrop for many who work in teaching and learning. The academic literature on practice-for-learning is sparse even though there are some general descriptions and some case-based observations. The design of practice(s)-for-learning involve an understanding of many elements: the learning objectives, the learning outcomes, the practice sequence, the timings of the sequences, the contents of the learning, the oversight, the feedback, the learning deliverables, the required resources, the likely assessments, potential serendipity, and others. This tool assumes basic knowledge of human learning, some basic instructional design theories, domain or discipline content knowledge, target learner profiles, learning technologies, and methods for assessing learning, among others. This resource also assumes some general knowledge of grounded learning design or aligning theories and research with the respective designs. While particular learning practices may be more effective than others in particular cases and with target learners, this approach does enable some sense of standardizing of practice(s)-for-learning for the highest efficacies. This tool can be used for learners to explore what features work most effectively 147

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

for them, for self-learning and other contexts. Practice task types can be highly variant along with the designed learning sequences. This work has brought practice(s)-for-learning to the forefront and highlighted some aspects of designing such learning practices, to enable fresh attention and design thinking to be applied. This work also introduced interrelated paragraphs of mapping sentences as a format to focus on the constituent parts (or variables) that may be designed, developed, and deployed, for various practices-for-learning and that may enable a common language in the approach. These mapping sentences are a basic and nonthreatening approach to documenting practice design. These can be used in part to infer costs, at least in a back-of-the-napkin type of approach. It is wholly possible that there are other variables that may have been accidentally left off. The flexibility of the structure enables this to be treated in a modular way, with new additions, and with purposeful subtractions. Finally, practices-for-learning are often seen as tedious and menial; they are perceived as extraneous and potentially unnecessary, something to be skipped or ignored, in the same way that many skip assigned readings and merely “get by” by inferring proper responses on assignments and assessments. Often, learners are not aware of what they stand to gain by following through on the work. Bringing practices-for-learning to the forefront of teachers’ minds may have an additional salutary effect by being the focus of attention for learners as well. Improved practice designs may make the practices more appealing and supportive of learning (memory recall, reinforcement, expanded skills, enriched collaborations with learning peers, and other benefits).

REFERENCES Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1993, June). Attentional control of early perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90(12), 5718–5722. doi:10.1073/ pnas.90.12.5718 PMID:8516322 Andresen, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (2000). Experience-based learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed., pp. 225–239). Allen & Unwin. Apšvalka, D., Cross, E. S., & Ramsey, R. (2019). Fluid intelligence and working memory support dissociable aspects of learning by physical but not observational practice. Cognition, 190, 170–183. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.015 PMID:31100547 Biggs, M. R. (2004). Learning from experience: Approaches to the experiential component of practicebased research. In Forskning, Reflektion, Utveckling. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrädet. Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and selfdetermined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56–71. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076 Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991, February). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. doi:10.1287/ orsc.2.1.40

148

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Butler, A. C. (2018). Multiple-choice testing in education: Are the best practices for assessment also good for learning? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 323–331. doi:10.1016/j. jarmac.2018.07.002 Candy, L. (2006). Practice based research: A guide. CCS Report, 1, 1–19. Chua, L.-K., Dimapilis, M. K., Iwatsuki, T., Abdollahipour, R., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2019). Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning. Human Movement Science, 64, 307–319. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2019.02.015 PMID:30831389 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086 Clay, M. A. III, Sikon, A. L., Lypson, M. L., Gomez, A., Kennedy-Malone, L., Bussey-Jones, J., & Bowen, J. L. (2013, September). Teaching while learning while practicing: Reframing faculty development for the patient-centered medical home. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 1215–1219. doi:10.1097/ ACM.0b013e31829ecf89 PMID:23887006 Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., & Verzelloni, L. (2010). Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading? Management Learning, 41(3), 265–283. doi:10.1177/1350507609356938 Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2010). Learning through and about practice: A lifeworld perspective. In Learning through practice (pp. 104–119). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2_6 Davis, W. A. (1984). The two senses of desire. Philosophical Studies, 45(2), 181–195. doi:10.1007/ BF00372477 Dewey, J. (1944). 1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. The Free Press, Simon & Schuster Inc. Dougherty, K. M., & Johnston, J. M. (1996). Overlearning, fluency, and automaticity. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 289–292. doi:10.1007/BF03393171 PMID:22478265 Duren, P. E., & Cherrington, A. (1992, February). The effects of cooperative group work versus independent practice on the learning of some problem-solving strategies. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 80–83. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1992.tb12146.x Eglington, L. G., & Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Retrieval practice benefits deductive inference. Educational Psychology Review, 1–14. Ellström, P.-E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 27–40. doi:10.1108/13665621011012834 Evans, D. (1997). Reflective learning through practice-based assignments. In Proceedings of the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of York. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002, December). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607

149

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Geiger, D. (2009). Revisiting the concept of practice: Toward an argumentative understanding of practicing. Management Learning, 40(2), 129–144. doi:10.1177/1350507608101228 Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101. doi:10.14742/ajet.1344 Gray, C., & Klapper, J. (2009). Key aspects of teaching and learning in languages. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (2nd ed., pp. 344–365). Hai-Jew, S. (2016, Nov. 9 – 10). Designing Online Learning to Actual Human Capabilities. In the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), Midwest Regional Conference 2016. Slideshow. SlideShare. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/ ShalinHaiJew/designing-online-learning-to-actual-human-capabilities Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101 - 117. Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ulti-BASE In-Site. Hayashi, T. (1965). Subliminal practice effects in verbal learning. Psychonomic Science, 3(1-12), 453 – 454. Kang, S. H. K. (2010). Enhancing visuospatial learning: The benefit of retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1009–1017. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1009 PMID:21156865 Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011, February). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. doi:10.1126cience.1199327 PMID:21252317 Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401–418. doi:10.100710648-012-9202-2 Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2008, February). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. doi:10.1126cience.1152408 PMID:18276894 Kausler, D. H., & Sardello, R. J. (1967). Item recall in verbal-discrimination learning as related to pronunciation and degree of practice. Psychonomic Science, 7(8), 285–286. doi:10.3758/BF03328562 Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: journal des traducteurs/ Meta: Translators’. Journal, 50(4), 1098–1111. Knowledge, skills, and abilities. (2018, Nov. 17). Wikipedia. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge,_Skills,_and_Abilities Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning. Follet. Knowles, M. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd ed.). Gulf Publishing. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. Jossey-Bass.

150

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Lai, A., Haligua, A., Bould, M. D., Everett, T., Gale, M., Pigford, A.-A., & Boet, S. (2016). Learning crisis resource management: Practicing versus an observational role in a simulation training—a randomized controlled trial. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, 35(4), 275–281. doi:10.1016/j. accpm.2015.10.010 PMID:26987738 Lai, K. W. (2018). The Learner and the Learning Process: Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning. In Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 127–142). Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_8 Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 2, 63–82. doi:10.1037/10096-003 Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149–164. doi:10.120715327884mca0303_2 Lee, J. F. Jr, & Pruitt, K. W. (1979, September). Homework assignments: Classroom games or teaching tools? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 53(1), 31–35. doi: 10.1080/00098655.1979.9957112 Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (2004). Studying, practicing, and mastering: A test of the model of goal‐directed behavior (MGB) in the software learning domain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), 1945–1973. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02594.x Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012, February). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85–101. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.499166 Liu, Y., Li, Y., Hao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Narcissism and learning from entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(3), 496–512. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.003 McLaughlin, K., & Coderre, S. (2015). The potential and conditional benefits of retrieval practice on learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 321–324. doi:10.100710459014-9580-y PMID:25563205 Mechner, F. (1995). Learning and practicing skilled performance. The Mechner Foundation. Merlo, A., & Schotter, A. (2003). Learning by not doing: An experimental investigation of observational learning. Games and Economic Behavior, 42(1), 116–136. doi:10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00537-7 Morley, D. A., Wilson, K., & McDermott, J. (2017). Changing the practice learning landscape. Issues for Debate. Nurse Education in Practice, 27, 169–171. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2017.03.010 PMID:28416143 Norman, J. (2018). Differences in learning outcomes in simulation: The observer role. Nurse Education in Practice, 28, 242–247. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.025 PMID:29136607 Ogrinc, G., Headrick, L. A., Mutha, S., Coleman, M. T., O’Donnell, J., & Miles, P. V. (2003, July). A framework for teaching medical students and residents about practice-based learning and improvement, synthesized from a literature review. Academic Medicine, 78(7), 748–756. doi:10.1097/00001888200307000-00019 PMID:12857698

151

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Parboosingh, J. T. (2002). Physician communities of practice: Where learning and practice are inseparable. Theoretical Foundations. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22(4), 230–236. doi:10.1002/chp.1340220407 PMID:12613058 Practice. (2019). Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved July 10, 2019, from https://www.lexico.com/en/ definition/practice Prasad, S. M., Maniar, H. S., Soper, N. J., Damiano, R. J. Jr, & Klingensmith, M. E. (2002). The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills. American Journal of Surgery, 183(6), 702–707. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00871-1 PMID:12095605 Raelin, J. A. (1997, November – December). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8(6), 563–578. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.6.563 Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). When is practice testing most effective for improving the durability and efficiency of student learning? Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 419–435. doi:10.100710648012-9203-1 Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x PMID:16507066 Ruben, B. D. (1999, December). Simulations, games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498–505. doi:10.1177/104687819903000409 Sardello, R. J., & Kausler, D. H. (1967). Associative recall in verbal-discrimination learning as related to pronunciation and degree of practice. Psychonomic Science, 8(6), 253–254. doi:10.3758/BF03331647 Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E., & Marangoni, A. (2003). Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and the learning curve. Management Science, 49(1), 39–56. doi:10.1287/ mnsc.49.1.39.12750 Schulz, K. P. (2005). Learning in complex organizations as practicing and reflecting: A model development and application from a theory of practice perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 493–507. doi:10.1108/13665620510625363 Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775. doi:10.1037/a0025140 Segedy, J. R., Biswas, G., Blackstock, E. F., & Jenkins, A. (2013, July). Guided skill practice as an adaptive scaffolding strategy in open-ended learning environments. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 532-541). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_54 Seitz, A. R. (2017). Generalizable learning: Practice makes perfect—but at what? Current Biology, 27(6), R225–R227. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.064 PMID:28324739 Strati, A. (2007). Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning, 38(1), 61–77. doi:10.1177/1350507607073023

152

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57–71. doi:10.1017/S0261444800012970 Was, C. A., Hollis, R. B., & Dunlosky, J. (2019). Do students understand the detrimental effects of mind wandering during online learning. Computers & Education, 135, 113–122. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.020 Wenger, E. (2006, June). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Academic Press. What is action learning? (2019). World Institute for Action Learning. Retrieved July 13, 2019, from https://wial.org/action-learning/ Willey, C. R., & Liu, Z. (2018). Limited generalization with varied, as compared to specific, practice in short-term motor learning. Acta Psychologica, 182, 39–45. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.11.008 PMID:29132067 Wong, W., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403–423. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02123.x Wood, G., & Clark, D. (1969). Instructions, ordering, and previous practice in free-recall learning. Psychonomic Science, 14(4), 187–188. doi:10.3758/BF03332781 Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Theoretical and Review Articles. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 185–211. doi:10.3758/BF03196276 PMID:12120783

ADDITIONAL READING Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Elaborative Studying: The progression from simple to more complex learning, so that subsequent ideas fit into an understood context (as an example, concept mapping may be used to help bring together simpler ideas into a more complex form). Heutagogy: Autonomous or self-determined adult learning. Learning: The acquisition of knowledge and skills that can have long-term effects on the learner. Memory Retrieval: The recall or re-accessing of prior encoded memories from storage (short-term to long-term). Practice Testing: Taking a test as practice for the real assessment sometime in the future, going through a version of a test as a preparatory study tool.

153

 Designing Practice(s) for Learning in Online Learning Contexts

Practice-for-Learning: Exercises to acquire and maintain proficiency, putting ideas into action / practice for learning. Retrieval-Based Learning: Acquisition of knowledge through activities that require recalling and reconstructing prior knowledge (such as through testing in “test-enhanced learning,” such as through practice).

This research was previously published in Building and Maintaining Adult Learning Advantage; pages 21-53, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

154

155

Chapter 9

Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning Marla J. Lohmann https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2236-7140 Colorado Christian University, USA Kathleen A. Boothe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7667-4832 Southeastern Oklahoma State University, USA

ABSTRACT The asynchronous online discussion board is a vital means of engaging learners and providing high quality instruction for students. In the past, these discussion boards have been primarily text-based, but online faculty are increasingly implementing discussion formats to increase student engagement and learning. Evidence-based online discussions include (1) both whole-class and small group discussions, (2) debates, (3) sharing products, (4) video-based discussions, (5) word cloud-based discussions, (6) jigsaw discussions, and (7) student choice in response format. In this chapter, the authors provide an overview of the literature regarding asynchronous discussions, as well as personal experience and recommendations based on their combined eight years of online instruction.

INTRODUCTION With the increase in availability of online courses, it is imperative that instructors are designing high quality, rigorous courses to engage their students. One way to accomplish this is through the use of evidence-based discussion boards that use various formats. While many online courses utilize a text-based discussion board, there are other evidence-based discussion board activities (Clark, Strudler, & Grove, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch009

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

2015) to support both student learning and engagement in the online classroom. This chapter provides an overview of evidence-based asynchronous discussion formats, as well as practical examples of how the chapter authors have used these methods successfully in their own online courses.

BACKGROUND Asynchronous online learning is becoming an increasingly popular method for students to receive a university education. According to the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2018), almost 30% of college students take at least some coursework online and over 14% take all of their courses via a web-based format. The majority of fully online students work full time (Clinefelter & Aslanian, 2017), which may indicate a need for flexibility in education options. In addition to its popularity among nontraditional students, the use of online instruction allows students in rural areas to access college instruction (Fish & Gill, 2009). Online courses may involve either synchronous or asynchronous activities, or a combination of the two. Previous research indicates that students perceive their learning to be enhanced through synchronous instruction and interactions (Ward, Peters, & Shelley, 2010). However, for many nontraditional and rural students, the use of synchronous instruction can pose a challenge; for these students, learning outcomes may be achieved through the use of asynchronous online learning. In addition, these online discussion boards may help to increase students’ sense of community (Saade & Huang, 2009). For courses that do not include a real-time, synchronous component, the course discussion board is a vital means of engaging learners and providing high quality instruction for students. Asynchronous online discussion boards provide a means for a mediated discussion between students and faculty, but that discussion includes a time delay between responses (Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014). Online discussion boards provide students the opportunity to learn from one another, as well as to receive timely instruction and feedback from the course instructor (Cho & Tobias, 2016). Well-designed online discussion boards aid in creating a sense of community among students (Rovai, 2007) and increase student motivation and engagement (Al Jeraisy, Mohammad, & Fayyoumi, 2015). While increased activity on the course discussion board does not impact student achievement in the course, there is a correlation between failing the course and inactivity in course discussions (Davies & Graff, 2005). The literature indicates that high quality discussion boards impact student retention, grades, and interactions (Brown, 2012; Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014; Fetzner, 2013). Effective online coursework includes high quality course design, interaction between students, and instructor involvement and planning (Crawford-Ferre & Fiest, 2012). Online students often cite effective and frequent communication from, and interactions with, faculty as a critical factor in both their satisfaction and success in online coursework (Bailie, 2015). In the asynchronous online learning environment, the course discussion board provides the ideal opportunity for student-faculty interactions and communication. The literature indicates that the use of discussion boards in online courses may increase social interactions among students, thereby creating a sense of community (Andresen, 2009; Cho & Tobias, 2016; Swan & Shih, 2005).

156

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

EVIDENCE-BASED ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSION FORMATS As the use of online courses has increased over the past few decades, the research literature for effective online teaching is ever increasing. The current literature has identified a variety of evidence-based asynchronous online discussion formats, including (a) both whole-class and small group discussions, (b) debates, (c) sharing products, (d) video-based discussions, (e) word cloud-based discussions, (f) jigsaw discussions, and (g) student choice in response format.

Small Group vs. Large Group Discussions When designing discussion boards, faculty can choose to use either whole-class or small group discussions. For larger class sizes, the chapter authors recommend using small group discussion boards to ensure that all students have a voice and can follow the flow of the discussion. In large classes, whole class discussions may result in less critical thinking, repetitive comments, and the discussion being dominated by a few students (Hamann, Pollock, & Wilson, 2012). The use of small group discussions leads to higher student perceptions of social presence and group cohesion (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016); this is important as previous research has indicated that positive social interactions increase both student satisfaction and learning in online courses (Borup, West, & Graham, 2012; Mayer, 2005). In addition, student discussion posts are of higher quality with more critical thinking present in small group discussions versus whole class discussions (Qiu, Hewitt, & Brett, 2014). Akcaoglu and Lee (2016) recommend placing students into groups of three to five students per group in order to ensure there are enough students for quality discussion while still keeping the group small enough to ensure students feel comfortable sharing ideas with their classmates. Small group discussions can be designed in two ways: students only participate in their own small group or students are assigned to a group and primarily participate with that group, but have the ability to view other groups’ discussions and participate in them (Panko, 2002). Student learning may be enhanced if students are either allowed to choose their groups or are assigned to discussion groups based on interests or other commonalities (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016). The chapter authors recommend using a combination of both large group and small group discussions, based on the specific topic being discussed. When the discussion requires critical thinking and a deeper level of understanding of the discussion topic, smaller groups can enhance student learning. However, for “get to know me” discussions and when students are simply sharing, whole class discussions work well. Based on the experiences of the chapter authors, small group discussions can enhance student learning and aid in building relationships between students. In order to form these groups, the authors use the “group” feature in Blackboard or set up separate discussion threads for each group with the names of group members in the thread title. However, the authors have observed that small group discussions sometimes lead to limited ideas and discussion can be stalled when one or two group members are delayed in posting and responding. In order to ensure that small group discussions are effective, the authors recommend providing explicit participation guidelines (see Figure 1) to students.

157

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 1. Guidelines for small group discussions

Debates A second practice for designing engaging discussion boards is the use of class debates on controversial topics relevant to the course content. The use of debates can increase student collaboration as students work together to present their case. The use of collaborative learning technologies in asynchronous discussions may increase student grades and scores on post-tests (Wicks et al., 2015). In addition, the use of asynchronous debates provides English language learners and other students the opportunity to think through their arguments and verify grammar and spelling before participation in the debate (Blackmon, 2012). It should be noted, however, that other research indicates that asynchronous collaborative assignments may be ineffective and may not lead to the desired outcomes of enhanced learning (Peterson, Beymer, & Putnam, 2018), indicating that caution must be used when designing debates and other collaborative tasks for discussion board assignments. The chapter authors have found this format to be effective at both increasing student knowledge and student engagement. When designing a class debate, online faculty should create a clear prompt for the discussion (see Figure 2). Next, faculty must divide students into two groups, with opposing viewpoints. Alternatively, instructors may allow students to choose their side for the debate; however, when choice is offered, faculty should ensure that there are at least a few students on each side of the debate. At the beginning of the week, each student should present his/her opening arguments to support his/her stance on the topic, being sure to include evidence to support the viewpoint. After opening arguments are presented, students should respond to one another’s opening statement with rebuttal arguments. The debate continues going back and forth until the end of the week. To make the debate even more interesting, the course instructor can score each side using a classroom debate rubric; a variety of rubrics for this purpose can be found online.

158

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 2. Sample debate-based discussion prompt

Sharing Products A third strategy for designing engaging asynchronous online discussions is to ask students to create products and share these products with the class. Visual images and visual aids can enhance both student learning and student motivation (Jain & Billaiya, 2017; Shabiralyani, Hasan, Hamad, & Iqbal, 2015). This practice of sharing products on the course discussion board has proven to be effective in online visual arts courses (Miller & Smith, 2009) and increases both student and course instructor engagement (Mathew & Alidmat, 2013). In addition, the use of visual representations and products in the course discussion boards and other course materials can increase the accessibility of the course for English language learners (Macwan, 2015). The chapter authors suggest the use of images on discussion boards in all subject areas and have successfully used this strategy for education students. The chapter authors have done this a few different ways. Students can share photographs or the actual product of what they have created with their classmates. Another option is to create an audio/video presentation in which they show and discuss the product they created. The authors also recommend providing explicit instructions for the discussion, but giving students flexibility in designing their product in a manner of their choice. To ensure genuine and impactful learning, the chapter authors recommend using this discussion board strategy for the showcasing of products that students need to learn to create for success in their field. As special education professors, the chapter authors have used this discussion board format as a means for students to share visual schedules, lesson plans, classroom rules, and classroom designs. A sample prompt for a discussion where students share products they have created can be found in Figure 3. Furthermore, the chapter authors have used both Padlet and Trello successfully for this type of discussion. These online programs allow students to join a group and then respond in varying ways. Response methods include:

159

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

(a) writing directly in the thread, (b) uploading a document, picture, or video, (c) linking to a website or image, (d) drawing, and (e) recording audio from your computer. Students are then able to respond to each other using any of the same methods. Figure 3. Sample product-based discussion prompt

Video-Based Discussions In order to enhance student learning, online faculty can use asynchronous vide-based discussions. Videobased discussions increase student connections in the asynchronous classroom as students are able to see and hear one another (Swartzwelder, Murphy, & Murphy, 2019). The use of video-based discussion boards may enhance social presence and student engagement within the course. In one study, the researchers used both video-based discussions and traditional text-based discussions; students reported higher levels of social presence with the video-based discussions (Clark, Strudler, & Grove, 2015). In contrast, other research has found that students are less engaged with the discussion topic and reported lower positive social interactions with classmates when video-based discussions are used (Swartzwelder et al., 2019). It may be best practice to pair video-based discussions with text discussions in the same asynchronous discussion thread (Alarcon, Guzman, Merino, & Leyes, 2014). A percentage of online students are unprepared for the technology requirements of distance learning, including the use of videobased discussion (Lee, Hong, & Ling, 2001). With this in mind, faculty should begin all video-based discussion threads by providing an orientation for students regarding the technology needed to create a video and provide students with the opportunity to practice creating videos (Swartzwelder et al., 2019). The chapter authors have used asynchronous video-based discussions in their courses with success. Based on their experience, they recommend that instructors post a video before students; this video does not need to be related to the discussion topic, but could instead be a short lecture or a get-to-know me video. When instructors post videos and engage in nontraditional online discussion formats, their example may help students feel more comfortable. In addition to using YouTube or Vimeo videos, the chapter authors have successfully used Flipgrid and VoiceThread for video-based discussions with their online classes. The chapter authors recommend providing students with explicit instructions for creating and designing videos in the chosen program. These instructions should include a step-by-step guide for creating and posting videos, and if necessary, explicit instruction on how to use the video program. Finally,

160

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

to accommodate students with hearing loss and ensure that all students can access the discussion, the authors suggest requiring students to post both their video presentation and a transcript of the presentation in their initial discussion posts. A sample video-based discussion prompt can be found in Figure 4. Figure 4. Sample video-based discussion prompt

Word Cloud Discussions Another option for designing an engaging asynchronous discussions is to present students with a word cloud and ask them to discuss the text being presented. A word cloud is a visual image, using only words, that represents word frequency and importance through the size of the words in the image (Atenstaedt, 2012). The use of word clouds may increase critical thinking on the discussion topic, engagement in the discussion, and interactions between students (deNoyelles & Reyes-Foster, 2015; Joyner, 2012). In one study (deNoyelles & Reyes-Foster, 2015), discussion groups were presented with a word cloud that used the words from famous speeches and asked students to make predictions about the time period and author of the speech based on the frequency and size of words in the word cloud. At the end of the discussion, the course instructor told students who wrote the speech and explained its significance in history. The chapter authors recommend using word clouds for two purposes: to introduce new concepts as outlined by deNoyelles and Reyes-Foster (2015) and to review keywords from a learning unit. Because screen readers cannot read word clouds and their format can be hard for other students to discern, the authors recommend using word-cloud based discussions as options, but providing alternatives to ensure accessibility to the learning for all students. Figure 5 provides a sample word cloud discussion prompt.

161

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 5. Sample word cloud discussion prompt

Jigsaw Discussion Boards A sixth strategy for asynchronous online discussion boards is the use of jigsaw discussions. In jigsaw discussions, students divide the work of learning and present their own knowledge to one another (Amador & Mederer, 2013; Aronson & Patnoe, 2011). Jigsaw discussions can be an effective way to familiarize students with more content knowledge without increasing their workload as they teach one another based on their individual study (Amador & Mederer, 2013). Jigsaw discussions can be structured in a few different ways. Tibi (2018) suggests placing students into discussion groups and giving each student a different question to answer for the group, with the expectation that the other students will further the discussion based on the answers to the initial questions. Thirdly, the jigsaw method can be used for groups who are asked to create a product together, with each group member having a designated responsibility in the product creation; in this model, individual student success is dependent upon team cooperation and on one another (Amador & Mederer, 2013; Halimah & Sukmayadi, 2019). The use of the jigsaw discussion method may enhance student mastery of learning content (Halimah & Sukmayadi, 2019; Marquez, Llinas, & Macias, 2017). In addition, student communication skills are enhanced as students teach one another (Halimah & Sukmayadi, 2019). The chapter authors have used the jigsaw discussion method to have students teach one another, especially when the unit learning goals require many topics. They have found that the use of jigsaw discussions can reduce student workload as students do not need to read all of the articles when they can learn from one another. The chapter authors also recommend providing students with clear guidelines for the jigsaw discussion and asking students to provide their classmates with a one-page summary of what they present. Figure 6 provides a sample discussion prompt that utilizes the jigsaw format.

162

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 6. Sample jigsaw discussion prompt

Student Choice A final recommendation for designing engaging asynchronous discussion boards is including student choice. Student choice can be used in text-based discussions or in many of the formats presented in this chapter. There is a substantial amount of recent research regarding the impact of student choice in learning. The use of choice aligns with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principle of multiple means of action and expression. UDL is a framework for teaching and learning in which the curriculum is designed to anticipate the needs and preferences of all learners through the use of multiple means of engagement, multiple means of representation, and multiple means of action and expression (Meyer & Rose, 2005; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). While not specific to online discussions, previous research (Gradel & Edson, 2010; Tobin, 2014) has indicated that student choice enhances learning in college courses. The chapter authors have used student choice in discussion boards extensively and believe that it enhances student engagement in the discussion. In particular, the authors have used student choice in the format in which students respond to the discussion prompt. While students are often offered a choice of whether to present their answer via text, video, PowerPoint presentation, or audio file, they are still expected to answer the discussion prompt with a thorough and complete answer. Padlet and Trello are other great ways for students to answer discussion threads through choice. Figure 7 provides a sample discussion prompt that uses student choice and a sample rubric for evaluating student choice discussions can be found in Figure 8, where the chapter authors discuss grading criteria for asynchronous online discussion boards.

FACULTY ACTIONS THAT LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL DISCUSSION BOARDS While it is important to design effective discussion boards, doing so is not enough to ensure student learning and engagement. Online faculty must also use best practices in facilitating course discussions. The literature indicates that the following specific faculty actions may lead to higher levels of student success. These faculty actions include: (a) providing clear expectations for student participation, (b) providing clear grading criteria via rubrics, and (c) participating frequently in class discussions by using a variety of response formats. 163

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 7. Sample student choice discussion prompt

Provide Clear Expectations When designing discussion boards, faculty must provide structure and clearly outline expectations for student participation and faculty involvement in the discussion (Gronseth & Zhang, 2018; Tibi, 2018). Throughout the discussion, faculty must manage the discussion to support student learning (Cervatiuc, 2019). Online faculty should scaffold student learning and participation in online discussions (Nachowitz, 2018; Wozniak, 2007). The use of scaffolding for instruction is an evidence-based teaching practice (Holton & Clarke, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978) and is based on the idea that students can achieve at a higher level when they are provided supports to supplement their current knowledge and skills (Vygotsky, 1978). In order to scaffold student participation in online discussions, faculty can use a variety of strategies and should choose the technique that is most appropriate to student need and learning outcomes. Potential forms of scaffolding in asynchronous online discussions include (a) providing outlines, (b) teaching complex ideas in a simplified manner, (c) including step-by-step instructions for student expectations within the discussion prompts, (d) responding to student questions with answers from content experts, (e) asking challenging questions, and (f) including student reflection as a component of the discussion (Hsiao, Mikolaj, & Shih, 2017).

164

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

It is also important that instructors provide samples of high quality discussion posts (Chen, deNoyelles, Zydney, & Patton, 2017). The concept of providing examples of what is expected aligns with the evidence-based practice of modeling, which involves the teacher demonstrating what is expected while students observe that demonstration (Smith, 2016). The chapter authors recommend using sample discussion posts at the beginning of the course, but fading their use over time. In addition, it is recommended to provide students with several sample discussion posts. When providing samples, it is important to explain that students’ posts may look slightly different from the samples or they may look like a combination of a few different examples.

Provide Clear Grading Criteria In addition, students prefer clear grading criteria for their participation. This can be accomplished through the use of grading rubrics that include 3-5 levels of performance (Chowdhury, 2019). McKinney (2018) suggests that online degree programs should design discussion board rubrics that are consistent among all courses within the program and recommends the following rubric categories for evaluating student participation: (a) content, (b) frequency, (c) initial assignment posting, (d) follow-up postings, (e) references and support, and (f) clarity and mechanics. Each box within the rubric should clearly identify what students must do in order to receive a designated grade (Chowdhury, 2019; McKinney, 2018). The chapter authors highly recommend the use of rubrics for all online assignments, including course discussion boards. In their experience, students appreciate when the same, or very similar, rubric is used for all discussions within a course. Figure 8 provides an example of a rubric that can be used to assess student performance on choice-based discussions. You will notice that the focus is on student participation and mastery of the content, not on presentation format. In addition, you will note that simply meeting expectations can earn students an A on the assignment, but in order to earn an A+, students must go beyond the minimum expectations.

Participate Frequently Both students and online faculty agree that frequent instructor involvement in online discussion boards is critical for student learning (Bailie, 2015; Fedynich, Bradley, & Bradley, 2015; Gaytan, 2015; Gronseth & Zhang, 2018). It is important to note that faculty believe that instructors should not follow a prearranged or required schedule for their posts, but instead should respond to students and participate in the discussion as appropriate (Bailie, 2015). Instead of planning to respond to every third post on the discussion board or respond to each student at least one time each week, instructors should focus their participation on adding meaningful content and clarification for the students. In addition to being actively involved on the discussion board, students and faculty believe that course instructors should participate in online discussions in a timely manner (Bailie, 2015; Gayton, 2015) and expect instructor participation at least 2-3 days per week; it should be noted that neither students nor faculty expect instructors to post on the discussion board on a daily basis (Bailie, 2015) and that students prefer meaningful responses from instructors over frequent responses (Gayton, 2015). It is best practice for faculty interaction in course discussion boards to be limited in order to prevent the chance of taking over the discussion as faculty-led discussions lead to less student interaction than do student-led discussions (Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014).

165

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Figure 8. Sample asynchronous discussion rubric

According to Clarke and Bartholomew (2014), students prefer online faculty that use a variety of response types in course discussion boards. In order to best support students, online faculty must have a social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Fear & Erikson-Brown, 2014). In practical terms, this means that faculty need to use course discussions to (a) build relationships with students and between students, (b) ask questions that challenge student assumptions and lead to critical thinking, and (c) clarify areas of student misunderstanding.

166

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The current literature regarding asynchronous online discussion boards indicates that faculty need to think outside the box when designing discussions. In lieu of traditional text-based discussion boards, the chapter authors recommend the use of a variety of discussion board formats. Specifically, the chapter authors recommend the following types of discussion boards: (a) both whole-class and small group discussions, (b) debates, (c) sharing products, (d) video-based discussions, (e) word cloud-based discussions, (f) jigsaw discussions, and (g) student choice in response format. The chapter authors all recommend that instructors are fully involved and provide explicit instructions and grading criteria when using any type of discussion board in their online asynchronous courses. Finally, the authors recommend that online faculty conduct action research in their own courses to determine the most effective teaching practices for their student population and topic area.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The research regarding effective and engaging asynchronous online discussion boards is still in its infancy. Most of the existing research is small-scale action research conducted by university professors within their own classrooms; a large percentage of these studies were conducted in education courses. In addition, much of the current literature addresses student perceptions without data on outcomes. As we look towards the future, the chapter authors recommend large-scale replications of current studies and suggest that courses outside of the field of education are utilized in these studies. In addition, the chapter authors recommend that studies move away from surveying student perceptions and begin to look at student outcomes of various discussion formats, with a particular emphasis on student mastery of course learning objectives.

CONCLUSION This chapter provided an overview of evidence-based practices in asynchronous online discussions, as well as specific recommendations from the chapter authors regarding how to implement the specific practices. Specifically, the authors recommend that online faculty use the following asynchronous online discussion formats: (a) both whole-class and small group discussions, (b) debates, (c) sharing products, (d) video-based discussions, (e) word cloud-based discussions, (f) jigsaw discussions, and (g) student choice in response format. By using these evidence-based discussion formats, student engagement and learning will be enhanced in the asynchronous online classroom. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or notfor-profit sectors.

167

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

REFERENCES Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 1–17. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v17i3.2293 Al Jeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in education: The impact of discussion board on student performance and satisfaction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 247–258. Amador, J. A., & Mederer, H. (2013). Migrating successful student engagement strategies online: Opportunities and challenges using jigsaw groups and problem-based learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 9, 89–105. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method (3rd ed.). London, UK: Pinter & Martin. Atenstaedt, R. (2012). Word cloud analysis of the BJGP. The British Journal of General Practice, 62(596), 148. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X630142 PMID:22429422 Bailie, J. L. (2015). Online graduate instruction: What faculty consider reasonable in relation to what students expect. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 42–54. Blackmon, S. J. (2012). Outcomes of chat and discussion board use in online learning: A research synthesis. Journal of Educators Online, 9(2), 1. doi:10.9743/JEO.2012.2.4 Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous videos. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001 Brown, J. L. M. (2012). Online learning: A comparison of web-based and land-based courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 39–42. Cervatiuc, A. (2019). Successful design and management of asynchronous discussion forums in online higher education. In J. Keengwe & K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 101–118). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-82861.ch006 Chen, B., deNoyelles, A., Patton, K., & Zydney, J. (2017). Creating a community of inquiry in largeenrollment online courses: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols within online discussions. Online Learning, 21(1), 165–188. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.816 Cho, M.-H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342 Chowdhury, F. (2019). Application of rubrics in the classroom: A vital tool for improvement in assessment, feedback and learning. International Education Studies, 12(1), 61–68. doi:10.5539/ies.v12n1p61

168

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Clark, C., Strudler, N. B., & Grove, K. J. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video versus text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning Journal, 19(3). doi:10.24059/olj.v19i3.668 Clarke, L., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning, 18(3). doi:10.24059/olj.v18i3.414 Clinefelter, D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2017). Online college students 2017: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House, Inc. Crawford-Ferre, H. G., & Wiest, L. R. (2012). Effective online instruction in higher education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 11–14. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x deNoyelles, A., & Reyes-Foster, B. (2015). Using word clouds in online discussions to support critical thinking and engagement. Online Learning, 19(4). Fear, W., & Erikson-Brown, A. (2014). Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. Online Learning, 18(2). doi:10.24059/olj. v18i2.399 Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, K. (2015). Graduate students’ perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education, 27, 12. Fernandez Alarcon, V., Sumo Guzman, P., Castillo Merino, D., & Sallan Leyes, J. M. (2014). Online discussion forums with embedded streamed videos on distance courses. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 4(1), 25–38. Fetzner, M. (2013). What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13–27. Fish, W. W., & Gill, P. B. (2009). Perceptions of online instruction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), Article 6. Gaytan, J. (2015). Comparing faculty and student perceptions regarding factors that affect student retention in online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 56–66. doi:10.1080/089236 47.2015.994365 Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111–121. doi:10.2190/ET.38.2.d Gronseth, S., & Zhang, H. (2018). Advancing social presence, community, and cognition through online discussions. In M. Marmon (Ed.), Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning Environments (pp. 117–140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3229-3.ch006 Halimah, L., & Sukmayadi, V. (2019). The role of “jigsaw” method in enhancing Indonesian prospective teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and communication skills. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 289–304. doi:10.29333/iji.2019.12219a

169

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Hamann, K., Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, B. M. (2012). Assessing student perceptions of the benefits of discussions in small-group, large-class, and online learning contexts. College Teaching, 60(2), 65–75. doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.633407 Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143. doi:10.1080/00207390500285818 Hsiao, E., Mikolaj, P., & Shih, Y. (2017). A design case of scaffolding hybrid/online student-centered learning with multimedia. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 4. Jain, P., & Billaiya, R. (2017). Impact of visual teaching on school students. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering, 3(5), 178–181. Joyner, F. (2012). Increasing student interaction and the development of critical thinking in asynchronous threaded discussions. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 35–41. Lee, J., Hong, N. L., & Ling, N. L. (2001). An analysis of students’ preparation for the virtual learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3/4), 231–242. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00063-X Macwan, H. J. (2015). Using visual aids as authentic material in ESL classrooms. Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 3(1), 91–96. Marquez, L. M. T., Llinas, J. L., & Macias, F. S. (2017). Collaborative learning: Use of the jigsaw technique in mapping concepts of physics. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 75(1), 92-101. Mathew, N. G., & Alidmat, A. O. H. (2013). A study on the usefulness of audio-visual aids in EFL classroom: Implications for effective instruction. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 86–91. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p86 Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.014 McKinney, B. K. (2018). The impact of program-wide discussion board grading rubrics on students and faculty satisfaction. Online Learning, 22(2), 289–299. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1386 Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Miller, S., & Smith, L. (2009). Distance learning in the visual arts. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 5(3), 496–505. Nachowitz, M. (2018). Scaffolding progressive online discourse for literary knowledge building. Online Learning, 22(3), 133–156. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i3.1261

170

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Panko, M. (2002). Small group learning in online discussions: Staying in your own backyard or peering over the garden fence. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.8 810&rep=rep1&type=pdf Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7–25. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517 Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014). Influence of group configuration on online discourse writing. Computers & Education, 71, 289–302. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.010 Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001 Saade, G. R., & Huang, Q. (2009). Meaningful learning in discussion forums: Towards discourse analysis. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6(1), 87–99. doi:10.28945/1044 Shabiralyani, G., Hasan, K. S., Hamad, N., & Iqbal, N. (2015). Impact of visual aids in enhancing the learning process. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 226–233. Smith, K. (2016). Modeling behavior: A proactive intervention for teachers in the classroom. Retrieved from https://cehdvision2020.umn.edu/blog/modeling-behavior/ Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Swartzwelder, K., Murphy, J., & Murphy, G. (2019). The impact of text-based and video discussions on student engagement and interactivity in an online course. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1), 13. doi:10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.13 Tibi, M. H. (2018). Computer science students’ attitudes towards the use of structured and unstructured discussion forums in online courses. Online Learning, 22(1), 93–106. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.995 Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with Universal Design for Learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13–24. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of Education Statistics, 2016 (NCES 2017-094). Author. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 57–77. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.867 Wicks, D., Craft, B. B., Lee, D., Lumpe, A., Henrikson, R., Baliram, N., ... Wicks, K. (2015). An evaluation of low versus high collaboration in online learning. Online Learning, 19(4). doi:10.24059/olj.v19i4.552 Wozniak, H. (2007). Empowering learners to interact effectively in asynchronous discussion activities. In M. Bullen & D. Janes (Eds.), Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues (pp. 208–228). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-950-2.ch013

171

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

ADDITIONAL READING Cervatiuc, A. (2019). Successful design and management of asynchronous discussion forums in online higher education. In J. Keengwe & K. Kungu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 101–118). Hershey, PA: IGI Global; doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-82861.ch006 Fear, W., & Erikson-Brown, A. (2014). Good quality discussion is necessary but not sufficient in asynchronous tuition: A brief narrative review of the literature. Online Learning, 18(2). doi:10.24059/olj. v18i2.399 Gronseth, S., & Zhang, H. (2018). Advancing social presence, community, and cognition through online discussions. In M. Marmon (Ed.), Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning Environments (pp. 117–140). Hershey, PA: IGI Global; doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3229-3.ch006 Herman, J. H., & Nilson, L. B. (2018). Creating engaging discussions: Strategies for “avoiding crickets” in any size classroom and online. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing. Riggs, S. A., & Linder, K. E. (2016). Actively engaging students in asynchronous online classes (IDEA Paper 64). Manhattan, Kansas: The IDEA Center. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001 Scott, L., Temple, P., & Marshall, D. (2015). UDL in online college coursework: Insights of infusion and educator preparedness. Online Learning, 19(5). doi:10.24059/olj.v19i5.623

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Asynchronous Discussion: A form of online discussion in which students and faculty are not online at the same time, but instead post and respond to one another over the course of several days. Debate-Based Discussion: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students are divided (or self-select) into two groups and debate a controversial topic in their field of study. Jigsaw Discussions: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students are divided into discussion groups and teach one another. Product-Based Discussion: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students post a photograph of a product they have created, and classmates provide feedback on the product. Small Group Discussion: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students are divided into groups of 3-5 members to discuss the assigned discussion topic. Student Choice in Discussions: A Universal Design for Learning strategy that can be used in a variety of online discussion formats to allow students to choose the way in which they participate in the course discussion.

172

 Developing Asynchronous Online Discussion Boards to Increase Student Engagement and Learning

Video-Based Discussion: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students record videos of themselves answering the discussion prompt; students may respond to one another’s videos through either text or video. Word Cloud Discussion: A form of asynchronous online discussion in which students are presented with a visual text-based image as a prompt for the weekly discussion.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Developing Engaging Online Courses; pages 134-151, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

173

174

Chapter 10

Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do? Ursula Stickler The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Regine Hampel The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

ABSTRACT This article explores the theoretical foundations of qualitative research in online language learning. It will look at the distinction between offline and online language learning and discuss whether different ways of knowledge generation are appropriate for those different learning environments. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be examined and their fit with various learning theories evaluated. Fundamental theoretical differences between epistemologies supporting a realist ontology and those favouring relativist ontologies will be presented and set in the context of online language learning research. Finally, an argument will be presented that in a sociocultural framework, going beyond quantitative research approaches is necessary to adequately understand the experiences of learners and teachers who share a common interest in novel digital environments.

1. INTRODUCTION In this article we consider the potential of qualitative research in the context of exploring computermediated communication (CMC) in language learning. This article lays the theoretical foundations and argues for necessary changes in research practice as certain more traditional computer-assisted language learning (CALL) approaches are shown to be unsuitable. Many researchers in the field of language learning use qualitative methodologies, working from a sociocultural episteme. Applying these well-established approaches to computer-assisted language learning and teaching settings allows us to examine a range of areas, from trying to understand how learnDOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch010

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

ers develop a second language using digital environments as mediating tools to how they co-construct knowledge with others. However, we would also like to suggest that the processes that can be observed, described and analysed in online language learning settings (e.g. in relation to communication and interaction) are different from those in face-to-face language classrooms and that research into face-toface language learning and research into computer-mediated language learning are substantially different forms of knowledge generation. We therefore need to determine how they differ and why different methods of investigation are required. The different materiality of online environments compared to face-to-face classrooms means that learning happens in different ways. We will thus be looking at the distinctiveness of computer-mediated language learning online and claim three key differences to face-to-face language learning: Firstly, the physical and often temporal distance in online environments has implications on learners’ shared understanding and successful communication. Secondly, the online medium affects the modes used for communication and meaning-making. And thirdly, language learners today have access to different potential interactants through the new digital media. These key differences relate to the kind of learning potential that the different materialities afford in terms of time and space as well as in terms of modes of communication and interaction and in terms of interactants – materialities that have shaped (and continue to shape) the assumptions about learning and the practices in particular learning contexts. We will explore how this impacts on research and the ways of knowing enabled by researching online communication. In the following section we will start off by examining different ways of knowing and how they link to different philosophies and scientific paradigms. We will discuss the predominance of positivist approaches to computer-assisted learning in general and CALL in particular and outline our critique. In Section 3 we explore the foundations of research into CALL in terms of epistemology and ontology. In Section 4 we will extend the argument for going beyond quantitative methods to researching online language learning and in Section 5 we will link this to a sociocultural approach to language learning and teaching. In Section 6 we will focus on language learning in online environments where we will discuss the material differences between face-to-face and online language learning outlined in the paragraph above and the implications these have on learning. In Section 7 the focus shifts to examples of research into online language learning and teaching. We will examine what kind of information we need in order to make claims about meaning making online and how our understanding of online environments as learning spaces shapes the direction of research. We will critically evaluate whether a shift in understanding temporality necessitates a change in claims about causality and how this influences our understanding of learning, learners, and an online teaching culture. We conclude the article by summarizing what qualitative approaches to CALL research can offer.

2. QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO RESEARCHING ONLINE LEARNING Online activity provides the researcher with a plethora of data, recorded in ever-increasing detail. So it is tempting to choose quantitative approaches, collecting as much detailed information as possible and relying on at least partially automated data analysis and interpretation processes, using for example learning analytics. As Buckingham Shum and Fergusson (2012) explain, learning analytics goes back to business intelligence and data mining – methods that businesses started to use in the early 2000s “to understand internal organisational data, and external consumer behaviour” (Buckingham Shum & Fergusson, 2012, p. 3). Educational institutions soon recognized the potential of these methods for exploring 175

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

student behaviour, and learning analytics was developed, an approach that “involves the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of ‘big data’ related to learners and their contexts, with the intention of providing actionable intelligence that supports teaching and learning” (http://www.open.ac.uk/iet/ main/research-innovation/learning-analytics). From an empiricist or neo-empiricist epistemological perspective, it makes sense to trust in the increasing accuracy of measurement and at the same time build in safeguards against a contamination of data by observer bias (i.e. the observer’s choices about time, width, density and depth of data that create implicit interpretations) and observer influence (i.e. the observer’s presence that changes the observed). As Denzin (2009, p. 139) shows, the ‘evidence-quality-standards discourse’ has been gaining ascendency in 21st century research, with interpretive research being sidelined, and kudos as well as funding following what is generally deemed to be evidence-based research that makes use of methods such as randomized control trials or pre-test–post-test studies. An examination of the latest editions of six highly rated journals into language learning and technology (2 based in the US, 2 in Europe and 2 in Asia) shows that quantitative, experimental approaches are used more frequently than either qualitative or mixed methods (15/34). Out of the 34 articles seven studies use a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods; seven studies use qualitative methods; four either provide a synthesis of studies or analyse meta-studies; and one presents a literature review. However, we would like to ask the question if these quantitative approaches are appropriate in a world where simple causal links are being questioned more generally and in the discipline of education particularly where a key research focus is understanding human behaviour. In support of this argument we cite Denzin’s summary of Maxwell’s (2004a, 2004b) position, who contends the following: the model for what has been called scientifically based research] assumes a narrow, regularity view of causation, privileges a variable-oriented, as opposed to a process-oriented view of research; denies the possibility of observing causality in a single case; neglects the importance of context, meaning and process as essential components of causal and interpretive analysis; erroneously asserts that qualitative and quantitative research share the same logic of inference; presents a hierarchical ordering of methods for investigating causality, giving priority to experimental and other quantitative methods (Denzin, 2009, p. 145). Research into online language learning deserves a shift away from the model used in the natural sciences towards an exploration of the process of meaning-making in shared online spaces which demands careful scrutiny of the context. Some of the factors that impact on online learning are not yet established but are being experienced increasingly while online communicative tools are being shaped into learning and teaching spaces (Shi and Stickler, 2018; Kern, 2014).

3. ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEME: THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR RESEARCH Choosing one’s methods of enquiry is not simply a question of accuracy, convenience or skill; it has deeper and more far-reaching implications, linking our findings to our theoretical stance, our beliefs about the world and about truth. Our ontology, that is, what we believe the world is, and our epistemology, that is, how we think we can achieve knowledge or approach truth, are important elements of research (Twining, Heller, Nussbaum, & Tsai, 2017), whether we acknowledge them explicitly (see e.g. Braun & Clarke, 176

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

2006) or tacitly assume a particular stance, for example by following the requirements of evidence-based research, by claiming causality for our evidence chain or by assuming that certain rigorous methods will result in findings that are true. Before considering a number of methods and their suitability for qualitative approaches, we will therefore look more closely at the foundations of so-called evidence-based research, its underlying assumptions and associated learning theories, as well as at alternative approaches. We will also consider which avenues are worth pursuing in online language learning research. Whereas learning theorists have moved away from behaviourism based on training effects and positive vs. negative reinforcement, this theory still provides the best fit for studies using linear cause-and-effect explanation models. A randomized control trial, for example, assumes that the same effect can be achieved (i.e. caused) repeatedly under the same, strictly controlled circumstances by triggering the stimulus. In classic behaviourist theory (Todd & Morris, 1986), the intermediary processes are programmatically ignored; so, all considerations of participants become irrelevant. Experimental studies in a positivist and post-positivist paradigm using controlled trials tend to focus on one or two factors at a time to ensure comparability and replicability. Standardized instruments and procedures are used as arguments to claim reliability and generalizability of the findings, with researchers working on the assumption that cause-and-effect relations are linear. While these positivist and post-positivist methodologies are still applied to language research, they do not fit with a more complex sociocultural framework, nor do they address issues raised by language learning research based on sociocultural learning theory (e.g. Warschauer, 2005). A theory that grounds learning in complex interactions between external and internal factors, individual psychology, human interaction, societal constraints and historical and cultural institutions, to name but a few, is ill served by an episteme that assumes one-directional cause-and-effect structures or reduces the field of investigation to one or two factors at a time. Constraining such complex phenomena at the intersection of social, institutional and cognitive domains unnecessarily reduces the potential of research into online language learning and teaching. Our ideas of what counts as knowledge are inextricably linked to our beliefs about truth and the world around us, our ontology. In short, a realist ontology, for example, claims that there is one objective reality that can be investigated regardless of individual differences between researchers or historical influences on their institutions. Relativist ontologies cast doubt on the conceptualisation of truth as unified and indestructible, by pointing out differences in human experience influenced by culture, society, history, etc. that make us experience the world differently. Claiming one version of this perceived world as privileged over others is caused by power structures and hegemonial discourses of science and is not in itself a proof for a better understanding. Epistemologies, or our theories of how knowledge is generated or discovered, follow our ontologies. Positivist or post-positivist epistemologies are based on a realist ontology where the refinement of methods and their careful application seemingly unfettered by human influence can achieve an ever closer approximation to truth. Knowledge can be achieved when our (justified) beliefs about the world overlap with the truth. The notion of justification is introduced to distinguish between accidental truths, that is, beliefs that are not justified but randomly generated and just happen to coincide with something that is true, and truth. Based on the classic understanding of the Vienna Circle and expanded by Karl Popper in 1935 into The Logic of Scientific Inquiry (2002), the idea of the justification of beliefs has become the foundation of scientific research. Researchers start by positing a hypothesis (or belief) and reasons to believe it (justification); then they find a method to prove or disprove it (the test) by predicting future behaviour or events. Finally, the argument is presented to peers for scrutiny. This approximation 177

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

to knowledge works well in a realist ontology where the truth is objectively there and all we need to do is to find it by getting better and better at guessing it. There are historical reasons why scientific knowledge generation developed in a way that strictly opposed other forms of justification or claims to truth. By tightly defining methods of enquiry and only allowing certain types of justification (i.e. those that are objective, distinct from individuals, replicable, and generalizable) and argument (i.e. rational logic over rhetorical persuasion), science has set the rules of knowledge acquisition and has become a guarantor for truth and a bulwark against religious arbitrariness and arcane claims. However, this power struggle has led to new hegemonies – by fighting off rival views positivism has erected borders around acceptable forms of enquiry, excluding alternative epistemologies and creating a monolithic, self-perpetuating edifice of knowledge generation. Socioculturalism offers such an alternative epistemology. In this epistemology, the way we communicate is fundamental to knowledge generation: mediated by an environment that is socially, historically and culturally determined, we negotiate a shared understanding that is equivalent to knowledge and serves as agreed but unstable “truth” only until further thinking and interthinking in shared negotiations moves on our understanding (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). Knowledge is thus a process rather than a product, and truth is an unstable fiction, a stop-gap to facilitate communication. Whichever epistemology we choose will influence our methodology on the one hand and on the other will limit our perspective on the world, what we can see and say by choosing what we deem to be truth and how we can find out about it. It also delineates between what we call data and what we consider an unwelcome interference; similar to the distinction between “signal and noise” or “picture and wallpaper”, we choose where we place our attention and where we ignore messy data to strengthen our findings (Herring, 1999). Being clear, open and explicit about the theoretical stance taken in a research project right from the start is important as it limits the expectations about possible findings and outcomes. In choosing which paradigm to use for our research, we can follow Elliot and colleagues’ suggestion: “[u]ltimately, the value of any scientific method must be evaluated in the light of its ability to provide meaningful and useful answers to the questions that motivated the research in the first place” (Elliot et al., 1999, p. 216). However, more than just giving the right answers to the right questions, research also has an ethical dimension (Ortega, 2012), as is acknowledged by many guidelines on conducting research (see e.g. Creswell, 2009) – where to invest scarce resources, which questions to prioritise, and which answers to listen to are elements of setting up a project. It might well be a necessary part of conducting research to select research questions with ethical considerations (see e.g. Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2013). For language learning and teaching research, these ethical dimensions include considerations of identity, interculturality, and, as Kubanyiova (2008) points out, the necessarily relational nature of language research. Basing her argument on Allwright (2005), Kubanyiova explains that ethically sound research in language learning and teaching involves interaction and collaboration with the research participants. In researching online language learning, we thus prioritise questions of how learners can develop agency online, give voice to teachers and learners in online spaces, and counter-balance through our selection of contexts the hegemony of one language over others. Qualitative research can thus help us to establish a full and rich picture of language learning in novel online environments. We need to take into account the multimodal reality not only of the learners but also of their interlocutors, and gather information about the surrounding and support structures, virtual and physical, digital and analogue. We enquire after the subjective experience of online language learners, the meaning and relevance of the L2 (second language) in the existential context of the learners, their assumptions about learning, their 178

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

history of being taught, etc. To do so we need to go well beyond learning analytics and the binary data (e.g. clicks) afforded by online spaces.

4. GOING BEYOND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO RESEARCH IN ONLINE LANGUAGE LEARNING For language learning research in general and online learning in particular, a narrow positivist approach has limited value. As we have argued in the sections above, sociocultural approaches open up our perspective to investigating learning as socially situated and knowledge as jointly constructed. Negotiating joint understanding in online learning spaces is influenced by the specific environment and its affordances, and mediated by factors such as technology, second language, and teaching/learning culture. Rather than eliminating research bias, the sociocultural researcher acknowledges her or his presence and influence, and starts from the point of view that researching a particular knowledge construction is shaped by his or her interest. The questions asked by the researcher (the so-called observer bias, see Creswell, 2009) and their presence in the field (the observer influence) are not seen as hindrance in this perspective but as evidence of communication between participants in the field. This means, as stated above, that the theoretical lens applied to the study by the researcher needs to be acknowledged and reflected. The digital nature of CALL provides the researcher with an enormous amount and fine granularity of data. It is a rich field for study as the circumstances are permanently in flux due to changing environments and technological advances (Stickler, 2017). The major concern for empiricist CALL research is gathering enough reliable and controlled data to investigate learning. Meaning making online as such is not the focus; it is not part of the process that the researcher undertakes to create knowledge. However, data alone does not create knowledge, and empiricist CALL has yet to take up the challenge of contextualising communication and interaction in language learning and teaching and acknowledging fully that the online environment plays a mediating role for the agent, that is, the learner or teacher. We would like to provide one example from our own research using eyetracking to describe in more detail what moving from quantitative to qualitative methodologies actually means. Following eyetracking studies, the authors decided to investigate the teachers’ perspective in online language tutorials. Three teachers’ tutorials were recorded using eyetracking. The details of the teachers’ eye movements were played back to them in a gazeplot video which acted as stimulus for an in-depth interview. Whereas the original method of eyetracking fits with a positivist paradigm and realist ontology, the new mix of methods emphasise the agency of the research participants and fit with a sociocultural paradigm. By using data to highlight a learner’s or teacher’s attention focus through eyetracking, the researcher can assume a quasi-objective stance. However, by regarding the gazeplot videos that show participants’ gaze movements across the screen as a mere stimulus for a reflective interview, the researchers engage in a dialogue with participants, negotiating meaning of observed behaviours, attempting through empathy to understand the experience of online language learning and teaching, and – crucially – to accompany the participants on their own journey of reflection and re-focussing on their online engagement (Shi, Stickler, & Lloyd, 2017).

179

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

5. A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING As the example above shows, research examining online environments as language learning spaces can benefit from context awareness and sensitivity to influencing factors (e.g. regarding the affordances of the physical environment, see Gibson, 1979), and understanding the constant change in tools and communication (e.g. re choice of mode). By providing a more appropriate approach to understanding language learning and teaching in online environments (see Lamy & Hampel, 2007), sociocultural theory can help researchers investigate a range of phenomena in relation to language learning and teaching, from understanding how learners use the L2 alongside other resources as tools for mediation and thus for learning, to how the teacher can employ the zone of proximal development to stimulate development (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). With its strong focus on the concept of mediation, sociocultural theory is particularly useful when exploring learning in online environments. It takes account of the tools used and their context, and posits that learning does not take place in a vacuum but is always situated (Daniels, 2007; Lave, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991), and it allows for the shifting effects of yet-to-be-established conventions for online communication which is in permanent flux. It is thus also an ecological perspective (van Lier 1998), which understands learning as a “nonlinear, relational human activity, co-constructed between humans and their environment, contingent upon their position in space and history, and a site of struggle for the control of social power and cultural memory” (Kramsch, 2002, p. 5). The Douglas Fir Group (2016) – a group of eminent applied linguists who authored a programmatic article entitled “A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA [Second Language Acquisition] in a Multilingual World” – acknowledge the messiness of language (and language learning by extension) when they describe it in the following way: language inextricably involves cognition, emotions, consciousness, experience, embodiment, brain, self, human interaction, society, culture, mediation, instruction, and history in rich, complex, and dynamic ways. In addition, we have proposed that a new, rethought SLA begins with the social-local worlds of L2 learners and then poses the full range of relevant questions, from the neurobiological and cognitive micro levels to the macro levels of the sociocultural, educational, ideological, and socioemotional (p. 39). In their article, the group provide a useful framework of language learning and teaching that attempts to do justice to its multifaceted nature. This framework brings together social activity on the micro level, which is situated within and shaped by sociocultural institutions and communities on the meso level, which in turn are situated within and shaped by ideological structures on the macro level. The group then extricates the following10 fundamental themes from this framework (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, pp. 26-36): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 180

Language competencies are complex, dynamic, and holistic Language learning is semiotic learning Language learning is situated and attentionally and socially gated Language learning is multimodal, embodied, and mediated Variability and change are at the heart of language learning Literacy and instruction mediate language learning Language learning is identity work Agency and transformative power are means and goals for language learning

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

9. Ideologies permeate all levels 10. Emotion and affect matter at all levels The group’s work and their notion of the social-local worlds of L2 learners are informed by sociocultural theory, in particular by the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Wertsch (1991) – with the latter describing human mental functioning as ‘inherently situated in social, interactional, institutional and historical context’ (Wertsch, 1991, p. 86). As Lantolf, Thorne and Poehner (2015) point out, “SCT [Socio-Cultural Theory] argues that human mental functioning is fundamentally a mediated process that is organized by cultural artifacts, activities and concepts” (p. 207). The Douglas Fir Group (2016) acknowledge the crucial role of mediation in L2 learning which “cannot be ignored in any attempts at understanding language learning, regardless of theoretical predilections.” (p. 29). Learning – and thinking in general – needs symbolic tools such as language (Vygotsky, 1978) – or what Wertsch (1991) calls ‘technical tools’, which would include computers. Wertsch (2002) draws attention to the fact that any new cultural tool “introduces fundamental change, sometimes to such a degree that we can question whether the same form of action is involved at all” (p. 106).

6. LANGUAGE LEARNING IN ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS In the worlds that L2 learners inhabit today as described by The Douglas Fir Group, the new digital media play a crucial role. Learning and teaching no longer takes place solely in physical classrooms but in a variety of online and blended settings. Hampel (2014, p. 94) points to “the additional level of mediation that is introduced in digital environments, through tools such as mouse, keyboard, webcam, applications, icons, and emoticons. Thus, the body is being extended to include computer and software, and typing and using a mouse become all-important.” The mediating effect of online communication technologies means that the ways in which learners and teachers make meaning and create interthinking spaces is different compared to face-to-face environments. Many teachers as well as researchers continue to judge online learning on the basis of the affordances of face-to-face environments, rather than exploring the additional affordances that the new digital media offer and using them to best effect. Thus, online learning is seen by many as a limited and limiting endeavour, with computer-mediated communication lacking the depth of face-to-face interaction, offering reduced modalities and not allowing for certain non-verbal and paralinguistic features; it is seen as not immediate, creating cognitive as well as affective challenges. This is in contrast with a growing recognition that many online environments give language learners and teachers access to tools that afford multimodal communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) and transcend time and space, providing the learner with a mix of communication modes (see Hampel, 2014, for an overview of a number of online tools and what they can and cannot do when used in a formal learning setting). While physical classrooms have been established over centuries, resulting in very particular social practices both in terms of teaching and learning and in terms of the researching of teaching and learning, online environments are still relatively new and practices are developing as we write this. Online learning can be synchronous and/or asynchronous, it can be limited to one mode or it can happen in multiplicity of modes, with mobile tools and/or static devices, and it can form an integral part of structured courses supported by a teacher or be used by learners in an informal and self-directed way. Learners today have 181

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

access to a vast array of virtual sites with different degrees of multimodality that can be used for language learning. Technology has developed from relatively simple tools for written communication (such as instant messaging) to complex systems such as web-based platforms that provide resources, activities, interactive tools etc. and are used in educational settings (virtual learning environments (VLEs), or learning management systems (LMSs)) or messaging services such as WhatsApp, which offer a multiplicity of features to smartphone users (voice calls, one-to-one video calls; sending of texts, images, videos, documents, audio files, etc.). Whereas meeting the different requirements for teaching and learning languages online in a practical way has been gathering momentum over the past decade, the same cannot yet be said for research into these contexts. To support our argument that online language learning research needs different methods and tools to capture its essence, we would first like to illustrate the significant difference that the materiality of the online medium makes by focusing on three areas. Firstly, the physical presence crucial for creating inter-thinking opportunities cannot be taken for granted in an online space which is physically dispersed and temporally non-concurrent. Whereas faceto-face teachers rely on the shared space and multi-sensory input to create common understanding and facilitate interthinking (e.g. through gestures, smiles and other para- or extra-linguistic features such as gaze), online spaces lack many facets of the sensory alignment. This makes establishing intersubjectivity (the linking of subjective impressions in a group which helps creating common understanding) more challenging. For example, learners in online spaces cannot rely on almost-instantaneous feedback through nods and smiles from the teacher. Even if the online teacher provides such feedback consciously, the learner needs additional information to be certain that the gesture had been intended for her or him. The lack of a common shared space also means that deixis can be confusing or misleading. Considering that language teachers in particular routinely employ gesture, deixis, non-verbal feedback and encouragement, it seems obvious that research has to pay scrupulous attention to such details and differences. Satar (2015), for example, shows the importance of eye contact in synchronous online multimodal communication for facilitating the establishment of social presence. Eye contact is not always easy to achieve in videoconferencing environments because of the location of the camera (Kern, 2014; Satar, 2010). Establishing direct eye contact with the interlocutor would mean looking at the camera - which can be perceived as staring - and at the same time potentially missing cues on screen. Satar illustrated in her study how language learners used different non-verbal means (smiles, deixis, body orientation and synchrony) to create social presence. A study by Lee, Hampel, and Kukulska-Hulme (2019) illustrates how learners use the affordances of mobile technologies in informal learning settings to help develop intersubjectivity with their interlocutor by employing the in-built camera as a pointing device. And Shi, Stickler, and Lloyd (2017) point to the importance of artefacts to allow learners who communicate online to build relationships and create connections on an affective level – artefacts which in their study of primary learners in a telecollaborative setting included a teddy bear. Secondly, particular environments make available particular modes of communication. Kress (2000, p. 199) explains the impact of materiality on mode as follows: The deep logics of each mode are related to, or derived from, the materiality of the semiotic mode – sound, and temporality and sequence; visual images and simultaneity and spatiality; gesture, and temporality, sequence, and (three-dimensional) spatiality; and so on. The syntax of speech […] derives from a logic of sequence, and of its potentials.

182

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

When using instant messaging tools, Facebook or other social media today, written language and images (ranging from emoticons, pictures and photos to videos) are the dominant modes of communication (Androutsopoulos, 2007). Other online environments are more multimodal, either combining writing and speech, or, like videoconferencing, also including non-verbal communication modes. However, even though multimodal environments such as Skype may resemble face-to-face environments, the different materiality of the medium has an impact and users have to be aware of the affordances of the particular environment (e.g. in terms of the communication modes that are available or the mechanisms it offers to support learner interaction) as well as the device that they are using (e.g. in terms of the use of the camera, the size of the screen, the portability of the device). Also, affordances and conventions that learners are familiar with from face-to-face settings do not necessarily work in online classes – audio channels might have a delay, students’ attention might be focused on a different area of the screen, and reading text chat entries might take time. Hence, experienced online language teachers have to employ a complex mix of emoticons, text chat and spoken responses to convey a timely and comprehensive feedback (see Shi and Stickler, 2018). Learners and teachers have to develop new literacy practices that allow them to use the new digital tools effectively (see e.g. Chun, Kern & Smith, 2016; Elola & Oskoz, 2017) as well as critically (see e.g. Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Thirdly, the new digital media offer multiple opportunities for today’s language learners to encounter the language they are learning and to interact with speakers of that language. These opportunities can be found in the context of structured courses (e.g. in the form of a telecollaborative tandem experience with teacher support, see O’Dowd & Lewis (2016) for an overview of research in this area), in a semistructured manner offered by sharing platforms such as Livemocha (Lin, Warschauer, & Blake, 2016), or in a number of ways in which learners can engage with L2 speakers in an informal and self-directed way without any input of a teacher or mediator. Language learners today have increasing opportunities for informal learning outside of structured educational settings. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter (Lamy & Zourou, 2013), online gaming platforms such as World of Warcraft (Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009; Bytheway, 2015), virtual worlds, or other internet interest communities, for example around fanfiction (Sauro, 2017) allow for encounters ‘in the wild’ (Wagner, 2015). The new digital media provide various avenues into settings where language is used as a means to an end rather than just an end in itself. It allows learners to go beyond the pre-determined classroom space into a world where they can immerse themselves and where language is experienced as more than a set of abstract concepts and rules. Thus, mobile technologies enable learners to be more in control of their own learning (see e.g. Kukulska-Hulme, 2016; Lee, Hampel, & Kukulska-Hulme, 2019). And Pellerin (2014) shows that even young learners can create their own language learning experiences through interacting with mobile devices.

7. RESEARCHING ONLINE LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING As we have tried to show in the previous sections, the effect of digital environments on learning cannot be overestimated; it raises questions around the cultural, institutional and historical embeddedness of the tools used and how this impacts on the learning process. This poses a fresh challenge to our understanding of what language learning means and what it entails, therefore meriting discarding old expectations and trying out new methods to research online language learning and teaching. Knowing in detail what learners are doing in a computer-mediated environment and how their physical as well as 183

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

virtual surroundings impact on their learning experience necessitates different methods of observation and recording. This section will give some examples of successful changes in perspective, while at the same time providing theoretical context. Technological mediation impacts on researchers’ practices (Chun, Kern & Smith, 2016). Research is thus shaped by the perspective that is taken (e.g. recipient vs. sender), the technology that is used, and the environment that is considered. It is also influenced by the researchers choosing particular data sources and ignoring others. Thus, by shifting the focus to what learners actually do and experience while they are engaged in online learning, Fischer (2007) opens up new avenues by combining digital opportunities for data recording with an emic perspective. Smith (2008) directs our attention to the data missing from all too readily available online logs of language learners’ chat conversations, for example self-correction moves. Suzuki (2013) extends the research perspective by adding a video camera that follows the learner’s use of additional resources outside the digital environment. Shi, Stickler and Lloyd (2017) combine the perspective of quantitative eyetracking data with participants’ reflections stimulated by observing one’s own gaze focus in synchronous online language learning events (see Messmer, 2015). In terms of the data available today, on the one hand the researcher is faced with a wealth of digital information that can be collected in the context of online language learning and teaching – even without employing external data collection tools. In a VLE or LMS information is automatically recorded and can include every click the learners make, every correction they carry out in a wiki, the timing of every contribution by the teacher, etc. It can be multimodal, comprising written text, speech, and images. On the other hand, language learning (especially in the context of interaction for language learning purposes) has become less confined to the four walls of the classroom and moved into the ‘real’ world, ranging from organized telecollaboration activities with learners in different countries to learners using mobile devices to explore the physical world around them. For the researcher this means that it is more difficult to access information about the physical environment in which the learner is located, and about the affordances of the environment and the tool(s) used (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). The learner may be in an institutional space (e.g. classroom or computer lab at school/university), s/he may be at home or in a public place. It may be quiet or noisy, s/he may be in- or outside, with other people or alone. Unless the researcher is physically present with the learner (or the learner is video recorded, see Suzuki, 2013), other information is less readily available, including the hardware that is being used (which may be a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, or a mobile phone) as well as software. All of these have a potential impact on the learning. Some VLEs afford teachers more privileges than learners and thus a different interface; the researcher therefore needs to decide whether to follow the learner’s or the teacher’s perspective. The researcher also has no insight into what additional tools the participants may be using (e.g. Google Translate). In some contexts, such as in online tandem exchanges, the use of additional tools such as dictionaries or character recognition software can interrupt the flow of the conversation and even influence the dynamics between learners (see Stickler & Kan, 2012; Kan, Stickler, & Xu, 2013). Informal online language learning contexts outside the physical classroom pose even more new challenges to researchers, as up to now most education research routines were developed for online environments that were created more specifically for learning purposes (e.g. VLEs/LMSs such as Moodle or Blackboard). These challenges include physical access to the data as well as ethical issues around privacy. Additional challenges arise around the research focus and accompanying analytic tools. In traditional face-to-face language learning, interaction tends to take place through spoken language in a physical classroom. This has impacted on how research into interaction has developed, with a focus on spoken interaction and particular discourse functions (see e.g. Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Seedhouse, 1996) 184

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

and the use of for example conversation and discourse analysis (Lamy & Flewitt, 2011; O’Rourke, 2008; Smith, 2003). However, how do concepts that relate to spoken classroom structures such as the IRF (Initiation–Response–Feedback) model or negotiation of meaning translate to online interaction, which often takes place in the written mode or in mixed modes? What about the interplay between verbal and non-verbal language examined for example in conversation analysis – an interplay whose form very much depends on the setting in which it takes place? The difficulties of multimodal transcription and data analysis can exemplify the complexity of researching online communication: where turns are delineated and how the combination of different overlapping modes is presented and analysed is far from resolved and poses challenges to online researchers trying to adapt established methods (Berglund, 2009; Flewitt, Lancaster, Hampel & Hauck, 2014).

8. CONCLUSION To summarise, researching online language learning benefits from new and innovative approaches, not just from enhanced technological opportunities. It requires a conscious effort and re-direction of research energies to deal with the material differences that make online language learning unique (Hampel, 2003; Kern, 2014; Satar, 2015). Online communication is still a relatively new format for meaning-making and its underlying processes are thus challenging to research. Nevertheless, using a theoretical stance where we take communication as crucial for creating inter-thinking spaces (“to make communication work”), the differences between face-to-face and online communication have to become a focal point for investigations. Qualitative methods within a sociocultural framework are a promising start for observing, describing, and understanding online learning and teaching, seeing it as a process, as constant adaptation which is grounded in time, space and the body, which involves sensory input, emotional involvement, biological aspects, as well as changing and changeable socio-historical interpretations. To give just one example, an investigation of synchronicity in an online classroom will need to start with questioning very basic assumptions of SLA research. When a face-to-face teacher reacts to students’ utterances, the delay is negligible, and the teacher can check almost immediately whether the learners have understood. However, sensory input varies when moving from face-to-face to online communication thus requiring new ways of sharing or acknowledging. Research of online tutorials shows how frequent miscommunication and technical delays occur, often without the teacher being aware of the problem (Shi & Stickler, 2018). The negotiation of meaning between interlocutors is influenced by the affordances of the medium, mediated by technology, by language and cultural factors such as theories of learning, and also by implicit pedagogies. The researcher in online language learning spaces will need to keep an open mind when observing the process to take into account shifts and ambivalences, such as the lack of body synchrony and the change of non-verbal clues from auditory to visual. Finally, scrupulous investigation of online language teaching does not only advance our knowledge and benefit online teachers and learners, it can also strengthen our practice of face-to-face teaching. By shifting our perspective we can re-focus the attention of face-to-face classroom researchers to often neglected aspects such as the basis for establishing shared understanding, the need for explicit projection of social presence, and the careful consideration of contextual factors.

185

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

REFERENCES Androutsopoulos, J. (2007). Neue Medien - Neue Schriftlichkeit? Mitteilungen des deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 54(1), 72-97. Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children’s conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87–103. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.12.003 Berglund, T. Ö. (2009). Multimodal student interaction online: An ecological perspective. ReCALL, 21(2), 186–205. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000184 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Buckingham Shum, S., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social Learning Analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 3–26. Bytheway, J. (2015). A taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies used in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 508–527. doi:10.1558/cj.v32i3.26787 Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in Language Use, Language Teaching, and Language Learning. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 64–80. doi:10.1111/modl.12302 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307–332). New York: Cambridge University Press; doi:10.1017/CCOL0521831040.013 Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 139–160. doi:10.1177/1468794108098034 Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215–229. doi:10.1348/014466599162782 PMID:10532145 Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52–60. doi:10.1016/j. jslw.2017.04.002 Fischer, R. (2007). How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Students’ Behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409–442. doi:10.1080/09588220701746013 Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for language learning. ReCALL, 15(1), 21–36. doi:10.1017/S0958344003000314

186

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

Hampel, R. (2014). Making meaning online: computer-mediated communication for language learning. In A. Peti-Stantić & S. Mateusz-Milan (Eds.), Language as Information. Proceedings from the CALS Conference 2012 (pp. 89–106). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional Coherence in Cmc. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4), 0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x Kan, Q., Stickler, & Xu, (2013). Chinese-English eTandem Learning: the role of pre-project preparation and collaboration. 汉语国际传播研究 [Chinese Language Globalisation Studies], 2(5). Kern, R. (2014). Technology as pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340–357. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12065.x Kramsch, C. (2002). Introduction: “How can we tell the dancer from the dance? In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspective (pp. 1–30). London, New York: Continuum Books. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 179–200). London: Routledge. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold. Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking Research Ethics in Contemporary Applied Linguistics: The Tension Between Macroethical and Microethical Perspectives in Situated Research. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 503–518. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00784.x Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2016). Personalization of language learning through mobile technologies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lamy, M., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Springer. doi:10.1057/9780230592681 Lamy, M.-N., & Flewitt, R. (2011). Describing online conversations: insights from a multimodal approach. In C. Develotte, R. Kern, & M.-N. Lamy (Eds.), Décrire la Conversation en Ligne: Le Face à Face Distanciel (pp. 71–94). Lyon, France: ENS Éditions. Lamy, M.-N., & Zourou, K. (Eds.). (2013). Social Networking for Language Education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137023384 Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–226). New York: Routledge.

187

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

Lave, J. (1991). Situating Learning in Communities of Practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lee, H., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2019). Gesture in speaking tasks beyond the classroom: An exploration of the multimodal negotiation of meaning via Skype videoconferencing on mobile devices. System, 81, 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.12.013 vanLier, L. (1998). The Relationship Between Consciousness, Interaction and Language Learning. Language Awareness, 7(2-3), 128–145. doi:10.1080/09658419808667105 Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 124–147. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. London: Routledge. Maxwell, J. A. (2004a). Using Qualitative Methods for Causal Explanation. Field Methods, 16(3), 243–264. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266831 Maxwell, J. A. (2004b). Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 3–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002003 Messmer, R. (2015). Stimulated Recall as a Focused Approach to Action and Thought Processes of Teachers. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1). O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (Vol. 4). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315678931 O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227–251. doi:10.1080/09588220802090253 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Introduction: Toward a new research philosophy for addressing social justice issues: Critical dialectical pluralism 1.0. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 9–26. doi:10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.9 Ortega, L. (2012). Epistemological diversity and moral ends of research in instructed SLA. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 206–226. doi:10.1177/0267658311431373 Pellerin, M. (2014). Using Mobile Technologies with Young Language Learners to Support and Promote Oral Language Production. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 14–28. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2014100102 Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Inquiry. Abingdon-on-Thames. Routledge. (originally printed in 1959) Satar, H. M. (2010). Social presence in online multimodal communication: a framework to analyse online interactions between language learners [PhD Thesis]. The Open University, Milton Keynes. Satar, H. M. (2015). Sustaining multimodal language learner interactions online. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 480–507.

188

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

Sauro, S. (2017). Online Fan Practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34(2), 131–146. doi:10.1558/cj.33077 Seedhouse, P. (1996). Learning talk: a study of the interactional organisation of the L2 classroom from a CA institutional discourse perspective [PhD Thesis]. University of York. Shi, L., & Stickler, U. (2018). Interaction patterns in synchronous Chinese tutorials. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 6–23. doi:10.1080/17501229.2018.1418612 Shi, L., Stickler, U., & Lloyd, M. E. (2017). The Interplay between attention, experience and skills in online language teaching. Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education, 7(1), 205–238. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Toward an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, B. (2003). Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00177 Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85–103. Stickler, U. (2017). Qualitative and mixed methodology for online language teaching research. In K. Cergol Kovačević & S. L. Udier (Eds.) Applied Linguistic Research and Methodology. Proceedings from the CALS Conference 2015, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 37–54. Stickler, U., & Kan, Q. (2012). Curiosity and Respect: Intercultural aspects of a Chinese-English Tandem learning project. Presentation at IALIC conference, Durham, UK. Academic Press. Suzuki, S. (2013). Private turns: A student’s off-screen behaviors during synchronous online Japanese instruction. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 371–392. doi:10.11139/cj.30.3.371-392 The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World. Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47. doi:10.1111/modl.123010026-7902 Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Games. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x Todd, J. T., & Morris, E. K. (1986). The early research of John B. Watson: Before the behavioral revolution. The Behavior Analyst, 9(1), 71–88. doi:10.1007/BF03391931 PMID:22478649 Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1–A9. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for Language Learning in the Wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 75–102). Mouton de Gruyter; doi:10.1515/9783110378528-006

189

 Qualitative Research In Online Language Learning: What Can It Do?

Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G.M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A Sociocultural Approach to Socially Shared Cognition. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp 85–100). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10096-004 Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Computer Mediation, PBL, and Dialogicality [special issue]. Distance Education, 23(1), 105–108. doi:10.1080/01587910220124008

This research was previously published in the International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 9(3); pages 14-28, copyright year 2019 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global).

190

191

Chapter 11

Intentionality in Blended Learning Design:

Applying the Principles of Meaningful Learning, U-Learning, UDL, and CRT Natalie Nussli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2411-0023 University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland Kevin Oh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7764-5347 University of San Francisco, USA

ABSTRACT The purpose of this theoretical chapter is to develop a tool that helps educators develop digitally mediated learning (DML) episodes by systematically applying the principles of four paradigms, namely meaningful learning, ubiquitous learning (u-learning), universal design for learning (UDL), and culturally responsive teaching (CRT). The goal is to harness the affordances of each paradigm and combine them into an approach that systematically enhances and enriches DML. This chapter will be relevant for teachers in higher education wishing to complement their face-to-face teaching with carefully designed digitally mediated content capitalizing collaboration, interaction, personal relevance, and projects that can provide creativity-enhancing learning.

INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on the systematic design of digitally mediated learning (DML) episodes (Cramp, 2015) and the integration into a culturally responsive online learning environment in higher education. First, the authors will explore and discuss three design-based instructional models: (1) meaningful learning; (2) ubiquitous learning (known as u-learning); and (3) Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch011

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

systematic application of the key principles of these three models is expected to promote active and deep learning. Second, the authors will explore how and to what extent these models can be connected to the key principals of culturally responsive teaching (CRT) in an online learning environment. And third, the authors will present an integrated approach by means of a checklist that assists teachers in higher education in carefully planning their DML content and activities.

BACKGROUND Most educators who wish to blend their face-to-face teaching with digitally mediated learning (DML) will explore ways to emphasize the concepts of collaboration, personal relevance, reflection, and interaction (student-teacher-content) in an online learning environment. While many educators frequently integrate technology enhanced activities and assessment tasks into their teaching, their design process may not be systematically underpinned by instructional design principles. The authors of this chapter are in the process of transitioning into blended learning. They wish to maximize the effectiveness of their digitally mediated content, interactions, and activities by taking a design-based approach. One of the authors, whose students are graduate students pursuing a master’s degree in Special Education, teaches up to 40% of the course load via synchronous (real-time) webconferencing (Zoom), while the remaining 60% are offered face-to-face. The other author, whose students are undergraduates pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Primary Education, is in the process of developing asynchronous DML episodes that will replace approximately 30% of face-to-face class time. The remaining 70% will continue to be offered in a brick-and-mortar classroom. The authors were confronted with multiple questions: To which degree would they be able to create DML content and activities in order to adhere to the key principles of multiple design-based models? For example, which principles should they apply in order to create UDL-inspired courses? How could they avoid to simply transfer the existing curriculum to an online environment? Transferring an existing, pre-determined curriculum would limit the focus on design elements (Johnson et al., 2017) rather than on pedagogical innovations. Would they be able to recycle some of the existing content by making only minor modifications? Or would they need to develop all content from scratch? How could they develop course instruction and materials “to benefit people of all learning styles without adaptation or retrofitting?” (Eberle & Childress, 2006, p. 4). The authors have chosen three design-based instructional models that offer a way to achieve the systematic development of DML. For each model, recent research is reviewed and discussed. Subsequently, the authors will explore how the key principles of the three models can be connected to the key pillars of CRT. They will discuss how this process has informed the development of the DML episodes they designed for their own undergraduate and graduate students and the challenges they have experienced. Although ample research is available for each of these instructional design models, the authors were unable to identify recent research that unifies all models in one single framework. In the next section, the authors will discuss the key features of meaningful learning, provide examples from K-12 and higher education, and discuss the impact of e-tutor facilitation, interaction, and collaboration modes.

192

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Design Model 1: Meaningful Learning How learners perceive the meaningfulness of DML depends on multiple factors, such as learner satisfaction, learner support, sense of cohesion among peers, and the substance of peer and instructor feedback. Jonassen (1995) proposed that the planning of DML tasks should start with the question how the planned unit can be aligned with the tenets of meaningful learning. Meaningful learning has been closely associated with integrating content into a coherent mental structure and prior knowledge (Grabe & Grabe, 2007; Jonassen, 1995; Karppinen, 2005). After decades of research, the following multiple attributes of meaningful have been identified: active, authentic, constructive, and cooperative (Grabe & Grabe, 2007; Jonassen, 1995, Karppinen, 2005); intentional (Jonassen, 1995), guided emotionally (Karppinen, 2005), and integrated (Grabe & Grabe, 2007), as shown in FIGURE 1. Figure 1. Key Features of Meaningful Learning

193

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Definitions of the Most Commonly Used Dimensions Active, constructive, and intentional are critically important features that make learning tasks meaningful, while authentic and cooperative are additional dimensions and not among the distinguishing features (Jonassen et al., 2008). Each attribute can be summarized below: Active refers to tasks requiring interaction with the learning environment. Learners are dynamic and assume active roles in their learning (Huang, Chiu, Liu, & Chen, 2011). Active engagement tends to be associated with more effective and deeper learning (Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005). Investigating, manipulating variables, simulating, playing educational games, and visualizing are several examples (George & Sanders, 2017). Mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, cognitive effort, and attention are some of the most important factors involved when engaging with new ideas (Lim, Nonis, & Hedberg, 2006). Constructive requires learning tasks to build mutual understanding and to co-construct knowledge by incorporating new knowledge into existing schema (Ausubel, 1968; Piaget, 1954). Modelling, mind mapping, comparing, and contrasting, discussing, and negotiating are among a few examples (Jonassen et al., 2008). Intentional refers to tasks capitalizing learners’ willingness, motivation, and self-regulation to achieve a purpose (Jonassen et al., 2008). For example, in goal-directed learning, students use technology to “set goals, plan activities, monitor progress, and evaluate results” (Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n. d., p. 3). Authentic refers to tasks involving the investigation of real-life problems and projects situated in authentic environments (Huang et al., 2011). For example, teacher candidates in one of the authors’ classes conduct a classroom action research project at elementary school level and thus investigate a relevant issue situated in an authentic teaching environment, rather than being limited to theory. Authentic activities mediate knowledge transfer (George & Sanders, 2017; Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2014). Cooperative refers to tasks that help establish positive interdependence and emphasize social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). Cooperative environments encourage learners to engage in collaborative problem-solving. Integrated refers to learning projects that provide opportunities to explore, investigate, construct, and refine knowledge, for example, by means of project-based learning. Assessment, for example, should be integrated into a task or a project to increase meaningfulness for the learners. Separate and decontextualized testing should be avoided. In a similar vein, learning content and activities should be aligned with and integrated into learner’s lives, which ties back to the dimension of “authentic”. Interactive was suggested as an additional feature of meaningful learning (Huang & Chiu, 2015) when the learning environment is augmented by mobile technology. Interactive refers to “direct or indirect interactions with a real-world environment or real objects” (Huang & Chiu, 2015, p. 439). Guided emotionally refers to tasks that help convey a sense of emotional involvement. For example, learners work on projects that help establish a personal connection either to the subject matter or to the medium—such as video or any other multimedia tool (Karppinen, 2005)—to accomplish the task. Hung, Keppell, and Jong (2004) pursued the integration of design principles by combining the features of meaningful learning with project-based learning. In a camp for digital video production, students became the producers, camerapersons, presenters, and photographers (active engagement). The camp was in fact based on a voluntary non-credit bearing activity. The students who joined were highly motivated learners and considered the camp to be a part of their professional development (intentionality). 194

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Students changed, negotiated, and reflected on the parameters of the video production, drawing from their background knowledge in this field and connecting it to new knowledge (constructive). Students chose real-world issues as topics for the video productions (authentic). Social negotiation was a critical component throughout the whole project (cooperative). The dimensions of meaningful learning have been applied in multiple ways. For example, the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (n. d.) applied five dimensions of meaningful learning (i.e., active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal-directed) to describe levels of technology integration on a continuum ranging from entry, adoption, adaptation, and infusion to transformation level. This continuum allows educators to determine which dimensions of meaningful learning they wish to emphasize depending on the learning objectives and the needs of a specific learner population.

Promoting Meaningful Learning in DML “Meaningful learning can be promoted by the structural and organizational design of the online environment that motivates the student towards task completion” (Johnson et al., 2017, p. 36). The pedagogical value of online discussions forums, for example, hinges on the question how educators can ascertain that students’ online interactions demonstrate meaningful learning (Johnson et al., 2017). Interactive tasks and strategies that emphasize personalized and participatory learning within a social context, such as collaborative tasks, group work, and simulations, may result in meaningful and potentially deep learning (Biggs, 1999; Chatty, Jarke, & Specht, 2010). Johnson et al. (2017) emphasize the need for careful planning and design of online discussion forums. They explored design factors and found that student engagement, group structures, and organizational factors do, indeed, have an impact on undergraduate students’ deep learning. When designing and scaffolding online discussion forums, they suggest that instructors carefully construct questions, prompts and responses to students’ discussion posts to expand students’ understanding and thereby promote deeper learning. Their second recommendation is that instructors should “scaffold and probe during their facilitation to have students engage in analysis, synthesis and reflection” (Johnson et al., 2017, p. 49), share examples, and engage students in problem solving in order to promote critical thinking and help students make connections between theory and practice.

Meaningful Learning and Student-Teacher Partnerships Nel (2017) reinforces the connection between meaningful learning and Wlodkowski and Ginsberg’s (1995) motivational framework for CRT. Students find learning meaningful if they are interested and involved in the learning process (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 2010) and if they can grasp the intended benefits of a learning activity (Brophy, 2010). Nel not only emphasizes the need to enhance meaning in learning but also the involvement of students as partners in the learning process. In an action inquiry research, Nel (2017) underscores the value of student voice and the “design for partnership approach” (p. 1131) to create meaningful learning experiences for students in DML environments. Using a flipped classroom and blended learning approach, Nel prerecorded a series of short lecture videos and made them available via learning management system (LMS), intending to use face-to-face class time for more engaging and collaborative activities. In their feedback, Nel’s students requested to include more practical examples in the videos (i.e., increase personal relevance and authenticity), make the practical examples discussed in the videos available to students (i.e., enhance accessibility), provide short exercises 195

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

to complete after watching the videos (i.e., support self-regulated learning), create an online discussion group (i.e., capitalize interaction and collaboration), and “create more quizzes to motivate students to come to class prepared” (Ned, 2017, p. 1138). Nel (2017) emphasizes: (1) the importance of shifting from a teacher-centered to student-centered approach; (2) providing access to a structured online learning environment that offers various formats so as to best suit the individual student’s learning need; (3) the integration of portable devices in class to foster collaborative activities, maximize deep learning, and promote engagement; (4) project-based learning to provide opportunities for the sharing of experiences and to promote autonomous learning; and (5) providing feedback to students “in a format that best supports their learning improvement attempts” (p. 1140). Making the partnership process visible to students and involving students since “true collaborators and co-enquirers/knowledge creators/joint authors” (Fielding, 2011, p. 67) are some of the pedagogical values that Nel (2017) highlights in shared teaching practices.

Meaningful Collaborative Online Learning Three main themes that Robinson, Kilgore, and Warren (2017) identify as the core of meaningful collaborative online learning include the importance of online communication approaches, the challenges and supports for online collaborative learning, and online learner support. They point out that collaborative online learning requires additional considerations compared to face-to-face teaching, such as extra time and care needed to keep students engaged, providing human elements to an online class (especially, in asynchronous communication), and promoting opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations and learning from each other. Robinson et al. (2017) recommend (1) using instructor videos to introduce and wrap-up topics, (2) framing tools for collaborative learning with a pedagogical rationale, (3) implementing real-time meetings to improve communications, and (4) including peer evaluation tasks to support the effectiveness of group.

Challenges in Creating Meaningful Dialogues Cramp (2015) explores meaningful dialogue in DML environments for in-service teachers who had been enrolled in a distance learning module with no face-to-face sessions. The author described the process, the pitfalls, and the outcomes of transforming face-to-face research modules into digitally mediated modules. One of the objectives was to promote high-quality interactions and meaningful dialogues on an asynchronous written discussion forum, in the hope that these interactions would promote the participants’ engagement, their sense of a shared online community, and their learning outcomes. These discussions were directly tied to the formative and summative assignments. The discussion forum was closely followed and commented on by an e-tutor. During the first three weeks, the exchanges among a few students showed clear evidence of a shared online community, emotional engagement, and co-construction of understandings. The e-tutor posted occasional prompts to propel the discussion forward and to keep the participants focused on the assessment outcomes. However, as early as week four of the semester, even these few previously participating students seized to construct any meaningful dialogues, despite the e-tutor’s repeated and consistent attempts to rekindle the conversation.

196

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Cramp (2015) identified the following challenges. First, Cramp’s team was “unable to develop a sufficiently collaborative digital environment” (p. 12). Cramp suggests that bringing all participants together on a video conference platform might not only have mediated a sense of community but would also have increased accountability by preventing students from remaining anonymous and underachieving. Although the author observed “lurking” (Nonnecke & Preece, 2003) among the participants, it was still possible for some of these students to have successful outcomes despite their failure in engaging in meaningful dialogue with their peers, which also indicates that these participants did not see the value of engaging in a discussion forum. They were not held accountable for their failure to participate. Second, Cramp described that the team had underestimated the social and psychological preparedness that online students need to construct meaningful dialogue. Cramp recommends that online faculty prepare a series of activities that help nurture students’ confidence, open critical reflection, prepare students for online dialogue, and that a system be put in place to carefully monitor the participants’ completion of the discussion forum posts. Third, the team concluded that they should have given more weight to the issue of emotional engagement in online learning. Establishing netiquette (Hewson & Hughes, 2005) is the first step in ensuring that interactions are smooth, tone is appropriate, and the expression of emotional responses is clear. In conclusion, strategies to create meaningful dialogue should be given prime consideration when developing activities designed for digitally mediated environments.

Design Model 2: Ubiquitous Learning (U-Learning) U-learning is generally defined as anywhere and anytime learning with mobile access to content independent of one’s location (Hwang, Tsai, & Yang, 2008). It is an “emerging learning method” (Huang et al., 2011, p. 2291) that has been shown to help learners achieve meaningful learning (Jeng, Wu, Huang, Tan, & Yang, 2010). This definition has been expanded that u-learning is happening “not just anytime and anywhere, but perpetually and across contexts with and without external facilitation” (Milrad et al., 2013, p. 96). Teaching-learning experiences in u-learning are developed and delivered by “taking advantage of digital content, physical surroundings, mobile devices, pervasive components, and wireless communication” (Cárdenas-Robledo & Peña-Ayala, 2018, p. 1097). U-learning has been associated with enhanced peer interaction, scaffolding, and supported learning in authentic contexts, promoting self-regulated learning as well as personalized learning, increased learning effects, and enhanced learner motivation (Huang, Kuo, Lin, & Cheng, 2008; Hwang et al., 2008; Hwang, Chu, Lin, & Tsai, 2011; Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang, 2010; Peng, Chou, & Chang, 2008; Yang, 2006). The literature indicates that u-learning offers the potential to transform traditional education (CárdenasRobledo & Peña-Ayala, 2018), but there is still limited empirical evidence favoring u-learning settings in higher education (Pimmer, Mateescu, & Gröhbiel, 2016).

Typical Features U-learning shares several attributes with meaningful learning but offers additional attributes emphasizing personalized learning. The key features (Chen, Chang, Lin, & Liu, 2009; Hwang et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2011; Jen et al., 2010) are shown in FIGURE 2.

197

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Figure 2. Key Features of U-Learning

Hwang et al. (2008) provide an overview and examples of each of the ten features: Urgency of learning need means that a u-learning environment supports students in finding information to solve a problem (e.g., keyword searches, online problem diagnoses) (Huang et al., 2011; Hwang et al., 2008). Initiative of knowledge acquisition means that u-learning “provides information and shortens students’ request time” (Huang et al., 2011, p. 2293; Hwang et al., 2008). Context-awareness (Hwang et al., 2008) refers to u-learning environments that are capable of recognizing users’ statuses and locations in authentic environments (e.g., park, museum, biotope, observatory,

198

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

forest, etc.) to provide them with context-relevant information (e.g., GPS, sensors, bio-feedback). The “recreation of authentic immersive educational sceneries” is believed to be one of the key affordances of u-learning according to Cárdenas-Robledo and Peña-Ayala (2018). Adaptive learning (Hwang et al., 2008) refers to u-learning environments that can adjust and differentiate depending on the learner’s progress and individual needs. Situation of instructional activity (Chen & Li, 2010) refers to u-learning environments that ascertain the link between learning needs and real-life situations. Actively provides personalization (Chen & Li, 2010) refers to u-learning environments providing personalized support and feedback considering the students’ individual needs and questions in a specific context. Self-regulated learning (Chen & Chung, 2008) refers to u-learning environments that capitalize students’ learning autonomy by allowing and requiring them to actively control their own learning progress (e.g., online calendars, checklists and task lists embedded in LMS, self-assessment rubrics, student surveys, student evaluations, informal assessments). Constructivist learning (Chen & Chung, 2008) refers to u-learning that emphasizes the link between prior knowledge and new knowledge acquisition, framed by the principles of reflective practice. Interactivity of learning process (Peng et al., 2008) describes u-learning systems as providing a common platform for students, instructors, and e-tutors to interact (e.g., LMS, virtual worlds, chats, video conference systems, discussion forums). Learning community (Yang, 2006) refers to u-learning environments that support collaborative learning enriching encounters in virtual environments, which helps establish a sense of cohesion (e.g., experiential learning tasks or project-based tasks in 3D virtual environments using avatars and synchronous voice and text communication). Given the great diversity of u-learning features, Cárdenas-Robledo and Peña-Ayala (2018) created both a Taxonomy for U-Learning Approaches (TULA) and a Pattern for U-Learning Approaches (PULA) while analyzing 176 mobile learning approaches. The following key characteristics were applied: physical settings; learning sceneries; functionality; domain knowledge; learning paradigms; effects; academic level; devices; and technology. The physical settings (outdoor, indoor) emerged as an important feature because the recreation of authentic immersive educational sceneries was perceived as one of the key affordances of u-learning (Cárdenas-Robledo & Peña-Ayala, 2018). Social interaction also emerged as an important feature. These were divided into cooperative (Lee et al., 2016), collaborative (Chuang, 2017), and social (Ryu, Han, & Paik, 2015). Learners cooperate when they participate voluntarily to work with their peers to achieve a common goal. Learners collaborate when they are “engaged in sharing information, decision-making, and problem-solving” (Cárdenas-Robledo & Peña-Ayala, 2018, p. 1103). The social component is critical because the degree of a learner’s devotion to his or her learning community correlates with the learner’s willingness to keep learning (Chao, Lai, Chen, & Huang, 2014).

Challenges Some educators may initially find it challenging to provide a u-learning environment because their roles will change. Rather than being an instructor, they will be a coach, mentor, organizer, facilitator, feedback giver, assessor, and orchestrator. Educators need to learn how to promote learner autonomy,

199

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

which requires them to establish student-teacher partnerships where responsibilities, decision-making, problem-solving, and assessment processes are shared with students (Hung et al., 2004).

Design Model 3: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) UDL is a framework that was designed to maximize opportunities for equitable student success (Evmenova, 2018; Kumar & Wideman, 2014, Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL is an effort to promote flexibility in course design and delivery for the benefit of the students (Harris, 2006). This approach results in fewer students needing individually tailored accommodations (e.g., due to learning disabilities; mobility impairments; hearing, visual, speech, or language impairments) because the burden of adaptability can be shifted from the students to the learning environment (Dell, Dell, & Blackwell, 2015; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Eberle and Childress (2006) suggest that “planning ahead for all students’ needs rather than retrofitting the course to accommodate diverse needs can save time and frustration” (p. 20). In order to do so, educators need to know their students’ backgrounds, skills, interests, and needs. UDL aims at providing equitable access to learning (Eberle & Childress, 2006) rather than providing equal access to information. UDL offers a “blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches” (CAST Professional Learning, n. d., ¶1).

Key Features The distinguishing features of UDL include multiple representations of information, alternative means of expression, and varied options for engagement to maximize diverse learners’ access to learning (CAST, 2018; Eberle & Childress, 2006; Rose & Meyer, 2002), as shown in FIGURE 3. Providing multiple means and representations of information ensures that all learners can access learning content in the way that best accommodates their needs. Providing multiple means of action and expression guarantees that all students are given multiple and varied opportunities to demonstrate their learning. Varied opportunities for engagement ensure that all learners can participate in collaborative learning (Dell et al., 2015; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).

Promoting UDL in Digital Communication In their research of creating meaningful and deep learning using asynchronous online discussion forums with undergraduate students, Johnson et al. (2017) emphasized UDL features by focusing on providing multiple means of representation and engagement. First, they introduced students to Henri’s (1992) content analysis model for asynchronous computer-mediated communication encompassing five dimensions that take place in online learning environments: (1) the “participative” dimension (participating in the discussion forum); (2) the “social” dimension (interacting with other group members); (3) the “interactive” dimension (responding to peer posts and addressing specific items); (4) the “cognitive” dimension (asking additional questions and making inferences); and (5) the “metacognitive” dimension (engaging in critical self-reflection on content). Johnson et al. (2017) provided specific examples of each dimension so that students would have a clear idea what a discussion post might look like for each of the five dimensions. They then created a course tour video to ensure that students would know how to access the discussion areas and the learning environment (i.e., LMS). Further, they provided how-to resources 200

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Figure 3. Key Principles of UDL

so that students could create audio or video versions of their discussion postings, thus ensuring multiple means of representation and engagement. Johnson et al.’s (2017) findings indicated that students appreciated the inclusion of multiple forms of communication, such as audio, video, and graphics, to elicit comprehension and accommodate a variety of student learning needs. Students also valued how instructors emphasized the personalization factor by providing personal spaces in the discussion forum. The group structure in online discussions was found to be relevant to students’ learning because it enabled students to see what others were doing and to share resources and ideas. Student interaction also depended on organizational features, such as the number of discussion threads, weekly content themes, and guiding prompts. These organizational features not only mediated students’ understanding and expression, but also enhanced the instructors’ “flexibility and personalized pedagogy” (Johnson et al., 2017, p. 47). Dell et al. (2015) describe their efforts in implementing UDL-inspired attributes and materials in their online course in a technology-enhanced face-to-face course for first-year undergraduates, focusing on providing multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. They carefully considered the display and delivery of the course materials as well as collaboration, interaction, and communication modes. Students responded positively to the course design, highlighting that the introduction of UDL attributes resulted in “increased flexibility, social presence, reduced stress, and enhanced success” (Dell et al., 2015, p. 125), and more autonomy and control over personal choices how to best support their own learning processes. An LMS was used to extensively post learning materials in multiple, easily

201

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

accessible document formats and to offer opportunities for informal sharing on an asynchronous discussion board. For each topic, the instructor not only posted PowerPoint slides (both PowerPoint and PDF format), but also published detailed point-form outlines of the entire topic and lists of key concepts. In addition, they opened topic-specific discussion forums 48 hours prior to the relevant topic session. This measure helped reduce student anxiety because materials could be previewed; furthermore, the same blueprint was used for each class session. In their course design, Dell et al. (2015) followed the ten steps towards Universal Design of online classes developed by the University of Arkansas (n.d.). Examples of these steps include: simple and consistent navigation; teachers model netiquette; color used with care; graphics and visuals provided with verbal descriptions; transcripts for audio-only content; and captions and transcripts for video content with audio or any other multimedia content. The University of Arkansas (n. d.) provides specific details about each of the ten steps and offers practice suggestions related to common issues revolving around real-time chats, testing and quiz tools, best fonts for text, and how to make content portable for use on various devices. As Cinque (2013) pointed out, “One of the problems that often arises at the end of projects— particularly if these have been successful—is sustainability” (p. 222). Another challenge is teacher training. Teachers are “often not able to design learning activities to integrate new technologies” (Cinque, 2013, p. 222). In a similar vein, some higher education faculty members may be reluctant to change their teaching styles. Milrad et al. (2013) discuss multiple challenges. For example, educators need to provide a DML environment that has the capacity to “support individual learners in bridging their ongoing learning processes across context, as well as connecting multiple learners within the same learning community, but separated by time and (physical or digital) space” (p. 98). An even greater challenge according to Milrad et al. (2013) is the shift from “transmissionism to constructivism and socio-constructivism” (p. 98) in educators’ and learners’ minds.

SUMMARY: ALIGNING WITH CRT In this section, the authors will explore to what extent the principles of UDL, u-learning, and meaningful learning align with the principals of CRT with a specific focus on DML environments. The section starts with an introduction to a CRT model grounded in motivation.

Theoretical Framework: Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) Wlodkowski and Ginsberg’s (1995) Motivational Framework for CRT provides possible approaches to create a culturally responsive classroom. It is built on four pillars: (1) establish inclusion; (2) develop attitude; (3) enhance meaning; and (4) engender competence. According to Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995), establishing inclusion means “creating a learning atmosphere in which students and teachers feel respected by and connected to one another” (p. 3). Developing attitude involves creating a favorable disposition toward the learning experience through personal relevance and choice. Enhancing meaning requires educators to create challenging, thoughtful learning experiences that include student perspectives and values. Engendering competence can be accomplished by creating an understanding that students are effective in learning something they value. The key concepts of CRT (adopted from CASEL, 2013) are shown in FIGURE 4. 202

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Figure 4. Key Features of CRT

203

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Nussli, Guan, and Oh (2019) obtained ideas for CRT activities in DML from a literature review. They explored the following four areas: (1) multicultural group work; (2) online discussion facilitation; (3) reflective practice; and (4) affordances of three-dimensional (3D) virtual worlds. Table 1 displays these strategies (adopted from Nussli et al., 2019, p. 272, and expanded) and highlights the connections to CRT by using both the indicators from the Acknowledge Alliance and Collaborative for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (2013) and the four pillars of Wlodkowski and Ginsberg’s (1995) framework. Table 1. Strategies to Foster CRT in DML

Reflective Practice

Online Discussion Facilitation

Multi-cultural Group Work

Focus

204

CRT Indicators

Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (1995)

Strategy Description

References

Connection Self-Confidence Inclusiveness Perceptiveness

Establish inclusion Develop attitude

Self-Introduction: Posting, sharing, and responding to mini autobiographies.

Woodley et al. (2017)

Accountability Cooperation Diversity Inclusiveness Respectfulness

Establish inclusion Develop attitude Engender competence

Small-Group Activities: Project- or inquirybased activities with small groups of learners from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. Breakout rooms to split meetings when using video conference systems (e.g., Zoom or WebEx)

Kumi-Yeboah, Yuan, & Dogbey (2017)

Accountability Recognition Self-Confidence Empathy

Establish inclusion

Reflective Sessions: Follow up group tasks with reflection session on multicultural group work.

Siwatu (2011)

Adaptability Self-Motivation Encouragement Self-Confidence

Develop attitude Enhance meaning Engender competence

Course Co-Design: Empowering students to build their own learning experiences. Establish student-teacher partnership.

Bovill et al. (2011) Brubaker (2012) Woodley et al. (2017)

Establish inclusion

Binding Netiquette Agreement: Ground rules for students, facilitators, and e-tutors to ensure professional and respectful interaction in online spaces, such as, respect other people’s bandwidth, avoid posting meaningless information, offer multiple output options, and be aware of culturally different levels of requirements for privacy.

Berk (2011) Stavredes (2011)

Resourcefulness Self-Motivation

Develop attitude

Flexible Discussion Formats: Offer multiple means of representation. Students choose the formats and media that best accommodate their needs and interests.

Gunawardena (2014) Woodley et al. (2017)

Inclusiveness Encouragement Connection Accountability

Establish inclusion Develop attitude

Discussion Facilitation: Instructors or e-tutors take a neutral stance, actively moderate discussions, and ask probing questions to promote deeper reflection.

Akyol & Garrison (2012); Cashin (2011) Tan, Nabb, Aagard, & Kim (2010)

Self-Motivation Recognition Resourcefulness Adaptability

Develop attitude Enhance meaning Engender competence

Micro-Lesson: Students develop, demonstrate, and video-record a micro-lesson incorporating the principles of CRT. Peer and instructor feedback using multiple means of expression.

Siwatu (2011)

Connection Accountability Inclusiveness

Establish inclusion

Online Meetings: Synchronous online meetings offer opportunities to have real-time group or individual check-ins.

McDaniels, Pfund, & Barnicle (2016) Woodley et al. (2017)

Respectfulness Adaptability Diversity Inclusion

continues on following page

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Table 1. Continued

Affordances of 3D Virtual Worlds

Focus

CRT Indicators Collaboration Connection Inclusiveness Resourcefulness Adaptability Inclusion

Collaboration Connection Inclusiveness

Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (1995)

Strategy Description

References

Establish inclusion Develop attitude Enhance meaning Engender competence

Social Affordances: Collaborative tasks (e.g., project-based, inquiry, experiential, exploratory) that promote a sense of social presence and feelings of social inclusion in an online space.

Gadalla, Abosag, & Keeling (2016) Hostetter & Busch (2013); Lambert & Fisher (2013); Siriaraya & Ang (2012); Wei, Chen, & Kinshuk (2012)

Establish inclusion

Embodiment & Connectivity: Promoting a sense of physical closeness in online spaces by creating activities that emphasize the need for physical representation (e.g., avatars, objects for manipulation or building, different virtual places) in 3D online spaces.

Gadalla et al. (2016) Hew & Cheung (2010) Siriaraya & Ang (2012)

Connecting Design-Based Models with CRT in DML Research about how to transfer the principles of CRT to online learning environments has intensified over the past few years. Many educators, researchers, and instructional designers have begun to address the research gap regarding the best practices of online educators in this field. How can educators design DML systematically by incorporating the features of four paradigms to promote active and deep learning for all students? FIGURE 5 below summarizes the key characteristics of the four paradigms that have been introduced. The next step in this synthesis is to compare the four paradigms. Figure 5. An Overview of Four Paradigms to Inform Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

205

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

UDL and CRT: Shared Features and Combined Options Both UDL and CRT address student differences and consider how the barriers in traditional instructional approaches may be removed. This includes obstacles embedded in the class climate, modes of instruction, assessment types and formats, instructional resources, task and activity types, teachers’ expectations, teaching approaches, and student engagement (Kieran & Anderson, 2019). Eberle and Childress (2006) ascertained the link between UDL and CRT specifically for DML environments by applying UDL “as a means to address cultural diversity and access to online learning” (p. 3). The UDL paradigm’s goals are not limited to providing alternative delivery methods. UDL also underscores interaction, feedback, rapport, and cohesion in an online environment. Further, UDL is designed to counteract isolation, inhibitions, and barriers (Eberle & Childress, 2006). The Dynamic Instructional Design (DID) Model by Eberle and Childress (2006) includes six guiding steps to develop online instruction adhering to the principles of both UDL and CRT. Step 1 involves getting to know learners by using both formal and informal assessment (current knowledge, skills, dispositions, cognitive developmental stages, learning styles, as well as cultural and linguistic background) to inform the development of appropriate goals. Step 2 involves formulating clear learning objectives stating precisely what learners are expected to be able to do. Eberle and Childress (2006) highlight that “one advantage of clearly written performance objectives is that they will be understood, regardless of language and cultural background, leaving little room for misinterpretation” (p. 23). Step 3 involves a welcoming environment that supports learning and promotes positive student-teacher and peer interactions. Step 4 requires educators to purposefully select teaching methodologies and learning approaches to accommodate students’ learning needs. Step 5 involves a careful selection of the technologies and tools to best address students’ diverse cultures and language backgrounds. Step 6 is the most neglected step: making carefully constructed summative evaluations of the effectiveness of instruction; that is, measuring students’ success in achieving the predetermined learning objectives and implementing changes as needed. Similarly, Kieran and Anderson (2019) discuss frequently neglected aspects of CRT and establish explicit connections to CRT. For example, an explicit connection between CRT and the first UDL principle of multiple means of representation would be “drawing on primary resources from multiple perspectives” (p. 1211). A practical example from one of the authors’ research classes is having pre-service teachers in an undergraduate program read (or listen to) original research about children’s perspectives on cultural diversity (Hajisoteriou, Karousiuo, & Angelides, 2017; Smyth, 2013), parents’ perspectives on cultural diversity (Wong, 2015), and teachers’ perspectives on cultural diversity (Mellom, Straubhaar, Balderas, Ariail, & Portes, 2018). A specific CRT connection to the second UDL principle of multiple means of action and expression would be “honoring different methods of students’ sharing knowledge, such as storytelling, family histories and biographies, chronicles, and other narratives” (Howard & Navarro, cited in Kieran & Anderson, 2019, p. 1211). A practical example from one of the authors’ classes is having teacher candidates discuss their primary school pupils’ culturally different narrative styles and how these may affect their school success, especially regarding standardized testing. Finally, a specific CRT connection to the third UDL principle of multiple means of engagement is to “promote the use of cultural capital from within the community for mentoring and learning” (Yossi, 2005, cited in Kieran & Anderson, 2019, p. 1212). For example, pre-service teachers may be asked to discuss

206

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

culturally sensitive issues, such as how, to what extent, and why teachers from diverse-ethnocultural backgrounds represent an added value for the teaching profession (Akkari et al., 2018). One of the CRT standards that weave through all UDL principles is related to formative and summative assessment. Setting rigorous standards, communicating high expectations for all learners, and formulating clear learning objectives to inform students of the expected level of performance are explicitly connected to all three UDL principles. Multiple overlaps were also observed in a comparison of meaningful and u-learning, as described in the next section.

Meaningful Learning and U-Learning: Shared Features and Combined Options Huang and Chiu (2015) developed an evaluation model for context-aware mobile learning (CAML), framed by the key features of both meaningful learning and u-learning. In their analysis of three different mobile activities, they applied these combined features to make natural science learning activities on smartphones and laptops more meaningful to elementary school students. In the first activity, fourth graders were equipped with laptops (with internet) and carried out a natural science activity to explore aquatic plants. In the second activity, sixth graders in a botany course were provided with a smartphone (with GPS) and a mobile plant learning system. In the third activity, fifth graders also used smartphones (with RFID) to learn about the trees on campus. Table 2 (adopted from Huang & Chiu, 2015, p. 441) displays the five most commonly cited dimensions of meaningful learning and their correspondence to the criteria of CAML grounded in u-learning, including examples and ideas for practical implementation. Results reported by Huang and Chiu (2015) indicate that depending on the devices the students used (smartphone or laptop) and their system functions (e.g., GPS, camera, online guidebook, activity sheets, internet, and website), students rate the importance of the dimensions and criteria differently. For example, one activity might have emphasized virtual interaction, physical interaction, and personalized learning, whereas self-regulated learning or the need for spontaneous learning were both perceived as less important. These findings help educators fine-tune the integration of mobile devices, which is dependent upon on the dimensions of meaningful learning they would like to emphasize for a particular task or project.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An Integrated Approach The purpose of this chapter was to develop a tool that may assist educators in systematically framing their DML teaching by the key principles of four paradigms, namely meaningful learning, u-learning, UDL, and CRT. Priority was assigned to aspects that maximize accessibility, personal relevance, active learning, engagement, collaboration, co-construction of meaning, and academic achievement for all students involved in a DML environment. Numerous connections among the four paradigms emerged from the literature reviewed in this chapter, as shown in FIGURE 6. A checklist (see Appendix) provides a guiding tool for other educators who are in the process of developing or enhancing DML content and activities. It supports educators in evaluating their planned activities by making connections to CRT, UDL, u-learning, and meaningful learning. The checklist was created based on the key features obtained from the literature reviewed in this chapter.

207

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Table 2. Meaningful Learning Linked to CAML Criteria Correspondence to CAML Criteria

M-L1

Practical Examples

Spontaneous learning need Learning mobility

Use mobile learning systems, such as iLern (available in multiple languages for different subject matters, such as, mathematics, German, English, Italian, geography, etc.); mobile learning systems allow learners to learn in their own pace at the right level, to monitor their progress, to develop learner autonomy and thereby reduce teacher-dependency. Use mobile learning management systems (LMS), such as Moodle, Canvas, Blackboard, D2L, etc. Use online libraries of video lectures to provide input, including follow-up online quizzes (e.g., 5-minute TED-Ed lectures).

Constructive

Personalized learning Self-regulated learning

Use GPS to locate user’s position and provide relevant materials, depending on context (e.g., botanical gardens, cave, State Park, museum, etc.). Give different materials and tasks to maximize differentiation among learners and to promote personalization. Use databases to record learning backgrounds of each student (e.g., prior knowledge, learning styles). Implement use of tools and apps that assist learners in constructing, structuring, and sharing knowledge (e.g., Padlet, Seesaw). Support learners in monitoring their progress by using online testing platforms (e.g., Socrative) delivering immediate feedback.

Authentic

Situated instructional activity Context awareness

Engage learners in exploratory learning via augmented reality applications (e.g., Google Expeditions).

Collaborative learning Learning community

Project-based learning. Inquiry-based learning, collaborative inquiries. Increased use of the collaborative features on LMS (e.g., forums, chatting, voting, bulletin boards, etc.). Increased use of tools and apps promoting real-time communication (e.g., SpeakUp). Emphasize digital collaboration tools (e.g., Minecraft Education Edition) to mediate collaboration, promote higher-order thinking, construct learning artefacts, and knowledge acquisition across multiple subject matters.

Virtual interaction Physical interaction

Asynchronous discussions forums. Synchronous web conferences. Synchronous chat. 3D virtual worlds using avatars to represent physicality, navigation, and mobility (e.g., teacher candidates practicing classroom management in 3D virtual classrooms). Co-creating virtual objects. Incorporate augmented reality (AR) to mediate exploratory and experiential learning.

Active

Cooperative

Inter-active

1

Meaningful Learning

In the process of finalizing the checklist, the authors were faced with the challenges of having to switch to full online learning within one week. All face-to-face classes had to be replaced with remote learning due to a global pandemic. All educational institutions were shut down for several weeks or even for the entire semester (higher education). Understanding the key features of the three design-based models and the connections to CRT was of substantial help when preparing for online teaching. Having just explored the key affordances of the three design-based models and of the CRT framework, the authors were able to pay careful attention to the design of their DML curricula, although they were under considerable time pressure. The authors were determined to offer highly interactive synchronous class time in Zoom web-conferencing with maximal use of the break-out rooms (randomly assigned or

208

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

instructor-selected) for their teacher candidates to collaborate on projects, co-create learning artefacts (e.g., creating infographics on Venngage, create personalized “walls” on Padlet), critically explore themes from multiple perspectives, and provide substantive peer and tutor feedback. In parallel, asynchronous spaces without real-time interaction, such as individual blogs (Edublogs) or digital learning journals (e.g., Seesaw), were designed to provide room for in-depth reflection on their learning. Figure 6. Integration and Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Students were asked to co-design the course, which helped establish student-teacher partnerships. They were included in the development of new assignments and projects. The authors made it a point to always provide a rationale for all activities and assignments and to communicate high standards and clear learning objectives for each assignment so that students would have a concrete idea of the teachers’ expectations and know how to meet these expectations. Especially the “complex task of measuring learning outcomes” (Cinque, 2013, p. 222) in DML will require special attention. A combination of formative and summative self-, peer-, and tutor-assessment tools was developed and implemented. The authors provided models for each of the assignments. They also set up virtual office hours on Zoom (two days a week, one hour each) so that students could reach out to them “in person.” The authors soon realized the importance of immediate feedback. Student questions were answered on the same day, whenever possible. Before implementing a new technology tool, they asked themselves in which way it would support task fulfillment, if at all. With this in mind, the authors’ teaching will be guided by the UDL mantras of “catch them being smart” and “catch a teacher being organized” (McCoy & Arthur, 2017, pp. 3–4).

209

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS To allow for a more in-depth analysis of the synergies across the four paradigms, project-based learning may be an appealing teaching methodology that accommodates many features that were discussed in this chapter. For example, would group projects that require students to work on social justice issues provide more meaningful learning? How can educators provide teacher candidates with project assignments that allow them to make a difference in this world as future educators, even if it is only on a small scale? Hung et al. (2004) used digital video productions to create meaningful learning for teacher education students in Hong Kong. The participating students shared positive feedback on the meaningful activities. Similarly, projects that promote creativity-enhanced learning as well as self-reflecting activities in DML environments offer promising avenues for further investigation.

REFERENCES Acknowledge Alliance/Collaborative for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child. (2013). Based on social and emotional learning core competencies, collaborative for academic and social emotional learning and culturally responsive teaching. Retrieved from: https://www.seltedconsortium.com/selted-cultural-resilience--equity.html/ Akkari, A., Bauer, S., & Radhouane, M. (2017). Do teachers coming from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds represent an added value for the profession? Findings of a study conducted in French-speaking Switzerland. Educational Practice and Theory, 39(1), 69–89. doi:10.7459/ept/39.1.05 Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2012). Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research, and practice. IGI Global. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Berk, R. A. (2011). Top 12 be-attitudes of netiquette for academicians. Journal of Faculty Development, 25(3), 45–48. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. The International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690 Brophy, J. (201). Motivating students to learn. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Brubaker, N. (2012). Negotiating authority through jointly constructing the course curriculum. Teachers and Teaching, 18(2), 1–22. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.632273 Cárdenas-Robledo, L. A., & Peña-Ayala, A. (2018). Ubiquitous learning: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1097–1132. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.009 Cashin, W. E. (2011). Effective classroom discussion. The Idea Center.

210

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http:// udlguidelines. cast.org/ CAST Professional Learning. (n.d.). Until learning has no limits: Universal design for learning. Retrieved from: http://castprofessionallearning.org/about-udl/ Chao, H. C., Lai, C. F., Chen, S. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2014). A m-learning content recommendation service by exploiting mobile social interactions. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 221–229. doi:10.1109/TLT.2014.2323053 Chatty, M., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010). The 3P learning model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 74–85. Chuang, Y. T. (2017). MEMIS: A mobile-supported English-medium instruction system. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 640–656. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.007 Cinque, M. (2013). The “reflective student”: The use of mobile devices through seamless educational spaces and authentic learning scenarios. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 209–223). Routledge. Cramp, A. (2015). Meaningful dialogue in digitally mediated learning for in-service teacher development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.822417 Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., & Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations. The Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 166–192. Eberle, J., & Childress, M. (2006). Universal design for culturally diverse online learning. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges (pp. 239–254). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-59904-301-2.ch014 Evmenova, A. (2018). Preparing teachers to use universal design for learning to support diverse learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 147–171. Fielding, M. (2011). Patterns of partnership: Student voice, intergenerational learning, and democratic fellowship. In N. Mockler & J. Sachs (Eds.), Rethinking educational practice through reflexive inquiry: Essays in honor of Susan Groundwater-Smith (pp. 61–75). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0805-1_5 Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2019). Technology integration matrix. Tampa: University of South Florida, College for Education. Retrieved from https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/ Gadalla, E., Abosag, I., & Keeling, K. (2016). Second life as a research environment: Avatar-based focus groups (AFG). Qualitative Market Research, 19(1), 101–114. doi:10.1108/QMR-08-2015-0070 George, A., & Sanders, M. (2017). Evaluating the potential of teacher-designed technology-based tasks for meaningful learning: Identifying needs for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2871–2895. doi:10.100710639-017-9609-y Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. Houghton Mifflin Company.

211

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Globalization, culture, and online distance learning. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 75–107). Athabasca University Press. Hajisoteriou, C., Karousiou, C., & Angelides, P. (2017). Mapping cultural diversity through children’s voices: From confusion to clear understandings. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 330–349. doi:10.1002/berj.3266 Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 401–412). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32 Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x Hewson, L., & Hughes, C. (2005). Social processes and pedagogy in online learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 13, 99–125. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 77–86. Huang, Y., & Chiu, P. (2015). The effectiveness of a meaningful learning-based evaluation model for context-aware mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 437–447. doi:10.1111/ bjet.12147 Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The design and implementation of a meaningful learning-based evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2291–2302. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.023 Huang, Y. M., Kuo, Y. H., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2008). Toward interactive mobile synchronous learning with context-aware service. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1205–1226. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2007.11.009 Hung, V. H. K., Keppell, M., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2004). Learners as producers: Using project-based learning to enhance meaningful learning through digital video production. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 428–436). Perth, WA: ASCILITE. Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Yin, P. Z., & Chuang, K. H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 404–415. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.024 Hwang, Y., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. C. I. (2008). Criteria, strategies, and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 81–91. Jeng, Y. L., Wu, T. T., Huang, Z. M., Tan, Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). The add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies: A review study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 3–11.

212

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Johnson, C., Hill, L., Lock, J., Altowairiki, N., Ostrowski, C., Da Rosa dos Santos, L., & Liu, Y. (2017). Using design-based research to develop meaningful online discussions in undergraduate field experience courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 36–53. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v18i6.2901 Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60–63. Karppinen, P. (2005). Meaningful learning with digital and online videos: Theoretical perspectives. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Educational Journal, 13(3), 233–250. Kieran, L., & Anderson, C. (2019). Connecting universal design for learning with culturally responsive teaching. Education and Urban Society, 51(9), 1202–1216. doi:10.1177/0013124518785012 Kumar, K., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first-year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147. Kumi-Yeboah, A., Yuan, G., & Dogbey, J. (2017). Online collaborative learning activities: The perceptions of culturally diverse graduate students. Online Learning, 21(4), 5–28. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i4.1277 Lambert, J. L., & Fisher, J. L. (2013). Community of inquiry framework: Establishing community in an online course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 1–16. Lee, E., Pate, J. A., & Cozart, D. (2015). Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends, 59(4), 54–61. doi:10.100711528-015-0871-9 Lee, H., Parsons, D., Kwon, G., Kim, J., Petrova, K., Jeong, E., & Ryu, H. (2016). Cooperation begins: Encouraging critical thinking skills through cooperative reciprocity using a mobile learning game. Computer Education, 97, 97–115. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.006 Lim, C., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8535.2006.00531.x McCoy, K. M., & Mathur, S. R. (2017). Differentiation in the digital-based classroom: A universal design approach for inclusive settings in middle schools. Journal of Education & Development, 1(1), 1–11. doi:10.20849/jed.v1i1.219 McDaniels, M., Pfund, C., & Barnicle, K. (2016). Creating dynamic learning communities in synchronous online courses: One approach from the center for the integration of research, teaching and learning. Online Learning Journal, 20(1), 1–20. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i1.518 Mellom, P. J., Straubhaar, R., Balderas, C., Ariail, M., & Portes, P. R. (2018). They come with nothing: How professional development in a culturally responsive pedagogy shapes teacher attitudes towards Latino/ English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.013 Milrad, M., Wong, L. H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G. J., Looi, C. K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next generation technology enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 95–108). Routledge.

213

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Nel, L. (2017). Students as collaborators in creating meaningful learning experiences in technologyenhanced classrooms: An engaged scholarship approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1131–1142. doi:10.1111/bjet.12549 Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. 92003). Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In From Usenet to Cobwebs’: Interaction with social information spaces. Springer. Peng, H., Chou, C., & Chang, C. Y. (2008). From virtual environments to physical environments: Exploring interactivity in ubiquitous-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 54–66. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic books. doi:10.1037/11168000 Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., & Gröhbiel, U. (2016). Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education setting: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 490–501. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.057 Robinson, H. A., Kilgore, W., & Warren, S. J. (2017). Care, communication, learner support: Designing meaningful online collaborative learning. Online Learning, 21(4), 29–51. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i4.1240 Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ryu, S., Han, Y., & Paik, S. H. (2015). Understanding co-development of conceptual and epistemic understanding through modeling practices with mobile internet. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 330–355. doi:10.100710956-014-9545-1 Siriaraya, P., & Ang, C. S. (2012). Age differences in the perception of social presence in the use of 3D virtual world for social interaction. Interacting with Computers, 24(4), 280–291. doi:10.1016/j. intcom.2012.03.003 Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming experiences: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 360–369. doi:10.1080/0 0220671.2010.487081 Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 1–15. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x Smyth, H. (2013). Somali students’ perceptions of a New Zealand primary school. Kiraranga, 14(1), 39–45. Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student success. Jossey-Bass. Tan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in a digital learning research methods class: Examining student learning, engagement, and affective outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 19–34. University of Arkansas. (n.d.). Ten steps towards universal design of online classes. Retrieved from https://ualr.edu/disability/online-education/

214

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Wei, C. W., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk, S. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529–545. doi:10.100711423-012-9234-9 Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching. Jossey-Bass. Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2010). Teaching intensive and accelerated courses: Instruction that motivates learning. Jossey-Bass. Wong, K. K. J. (2015). Implementing parent engagement policy in an increasingly culturally diverse community of new immigrants: How new is “new”? Canadian Journal of Education, 38(3), 1–30. Woodley, X., Hernandez, C., Parra, J., & Negash, B. (2017). Celebrating difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching online. TechTrends, 61(5), 470–478. doi:10.100711528-017-0207-z Yang, J. H. (2006). Context-aware ubiquitous learning environments for peer-to-peer collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 188–201.

ADDITIONAL READING Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153–170. doi:10.1080/14 75939X.2015.1058853 Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin. Heitner, K., & Jennings, M. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching knowledge and practices of online faculty. Online Learning, 20(4). Advance online publication. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i4.1043 Hsiao, Y. J. (2015). The culturally responsive teacher preparedness scale: An exploratory study. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 241–250. doi:10.19030/cier.v8i4.9432 Hu, M., Arnesen, K., Barbour, M. K., & Leary, H. (2019). A newcomer’s lens: A look at K-12 online and digital learning. Journal of Online Learning Research, 5(2), 123–144. Huang, Y. M., Huang, Y. M., Liu, C. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Applying social tagging to manage cognitive load in a Web 2.0 self-learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 273–289. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.555839 Huang, Y. M., Liang, T. H., Su, Y. N., & Chen, N. S. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703–722. doi:10.100711423-012-9237-6 Kärki, T., Keinänen, H., Tuominen, A., Hoikkala, M., Matikainen, E., & Maijala, H. (2018). Meaningful learning with mobile devices: Pre-service class teachers’ experiences of mobile learning in the outdoors. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(2), 251–263. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2018.1430061

215

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Kleinsasser, R., & Hong, C. (2017). Graduate students’ antecedents to meaningful and constructive discussions: Developing potential collaborative online interactions. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(2), 84–98. doi:10.100741686-017-0009-x Morong, G., & DesBiens, D. (2016). Culturally responsive online design: Learning at intercultural intersections. Intercultural Education, 27(5), 474–492. doi:10.1080/14675986.2016.1240901 Phirangee, K. (2016). Students’ perceptions of learner-learner interactions that weaken a sense of community in an online learning environment. Online Learning, 20(4), 13–33. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i4.1053 Priniski, S., Hecht, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2018). Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11–29. doi:10.1080/002 20973.2017.1380589 PMID:30344338 Tan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in a digital learning research methods class: Examining student learning, engagement, and affective outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 19–34. Tracii, R., Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2019). Feedback modes matter: Comparing student perceptions of digital and non-digital feedback modes in higher education: Feedback modes matter. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1507–1523. doi:10.1111/bjet.12749 Wang, C. M. (2011). Instructional design for cross-cultural online collaboration: Grouping strategies and assignment design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 243–258. doi:10.14742/ ajet.968 Woodley, X., Mucundanyi, G., & Lockard, M. (2017). Designing counter-narratives: Constructing culturally responsive curriculum online. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 7(1), 43–56. doi:10.4018/IJOPCD.2017010104 Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–23. doi:10.100710798-017-9429-9

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Asynchronous: No real-time interaction (e.g., discussion forums, blogs). Blended Learning: A pedagogically sound combination of e-learning and face-to-face learning sessions that require learners’ physical presence. Culturally Responsive Teaching: This emphasizes equitable opportunities for academic achievement for all learners from all cultures. Embodiment: The sense of physical presence that one experiences in a three-dimensional virtual world or virtual reality environments is enhanced by the visual representation of the user as an avatar: the sense of physical embodiment in a virtual space has been associated with an enhanced sense of social presence.

216

 Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

Meaningful Learning: Learning content and activities that emphasize personal relevance in authentic contexts. Social Presence: Immersed in a digitally mediated environment together with a group of individuals and experiencing a sense of cohesion and community. Synchronous: Real-time interaction (e.g., chats, videoconferences, calls). U-Learning: Ubiquitous learning. Mobile learning that emphasizes access to learning anywhere and anytime. UDL: Universal design for learning. A design approach that emphasizes students’ choices regarding modes of representation, engagement, action, and expression.

This research was previously published in Optimizing Higher Education Learning Through Activities and Assessments; pages 204-231, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

217

Intentionality in Blended Learning Design

APPENDIX A Checklist for Enhancing DML Content and Activities Table 3.­­ To what extent does this activity…. 1. Help learners conduct learning on their own? 2. Help learners plan, monitor, and assess their own learning process? 3. Allow learners to play active roles? 4. Require learners to engage in peer discussions? 5. Encourage learners to share their experiences and pre-knowledge with peers? 6. Require learners to observe, produce or manipulate authentic learning objects? 7. Allow learners to learn in a real-world environment or context? 8. Support learners through authentic resources? 9. Help learners connect new ideas to their background knowledge, particularly with a view toward their cultural and linguistic backgrounds? 10. Support learners to learn efficiently in this particular learning environment? 11. Demonstrate to learners how to identify the elements that need to be learned? 12. Prompt learners to find information to solve a problem? 13. Provide needed information to learners in multiple formats and showing multiple perspectives? 14. Provide learners with context-relevant information depending on learners’ statuses and locations in authentic environments? 15. Provide learners with differentiated and adjusted information depending on their progress and individual needs? 16. Show learners the connection between learning needs and real-life situations? 17. Mediate rich encounters among learners and instructors and help establish a sense of community? 18. Help make students and teachers feel respected by and connected to one another? 19. Capitalize personal relevance and choice to help learners create a positive attitude toward the learning experience? 20. Challenge learners, prompt thoughtful learning experiences, and include student perspectives and values? 21. Allow learners to demonstrate they are good at learning something they value? 22. Match the learners’ current knowledge, skills, dispositions, cognitive developmental stage, learning styles, cultural, and linguistic background? (knowing the learner) 23. Offer learning objectives specifying what learners are expected to be able to do? 24. Contribute to creating positive student-teacher and peer interactions? 25. Reflect on and address students’ diverse cultures and language backgrounds? 26. Allow measuring learners’ success in achieving the learning objectives? 27. Contribute to summative and/or formative assessment? 28. Allow students to choose which form and format they prefer in terms of communication, expression, and engagement? 29. Empower students to build their own learning experiences? 30. Help establish student-teacher partnership? 31. Engage learners in analysis, synthesis, and reflection? 32. Help learns monitor their own progress and self-assess their learning?

218

3 Good

2 Partially

1 Not at all

219

Chapter 12

Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students Samual Amponsah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4303-4863 University of Ghana, Ghana Samual Kofi Badu-Nyarko University of Ghana, Ghana Godfred Alfred Nii Sai Obodai University of South Africa, South Africa Prince Anane University of Ghana, Ghana

ABSTRACT The University of Ghana adopted the use of the Sakai Learning Management System to create an online environment for its DE students. Based on which, this study sought to examine the support provided for online students of the University of Ghana. The study further sought to determine the association between selected demographic characteristics and student satisfaction with online pre-admission processes, usage of online learning tools, and online social environment. In total, 126 questionnaires were completed and analyzed to generate frequencies, percentages, Anova, and chi-square values. It was established that weak online learning social environment does not encourage tutors and students’ interactions, which led to a generally average use of online learning support tools. This implies that academic and administrative support were practically far away from the student, which is detrimental to the development of self-directed learning. The researchers recommended training for support staff, tutors, and students to create an effective online support for online distance students. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch012

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

INTRODUCTION The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal four (SDG4) highlights the need to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of lifelong learning for all citizens of the world by the year 2030. This has necessitated rethinking and adoption of more flexible and innovative programmes to cater for inclusivity at higher education institutions worldwide. In this light, Van Wyk (2018) has indicated that global trends in higher education settings have moved towards a more inclusive and blended approach due to the availability and usage of more digital pedagogies that support and at the same time accelerate student learning. To accomplish the vision of inclusivity and lifelong learning, distance education (DE) providers have expanded their learning environment from a limited geographical location to several other locations termed satellite campuses or learning centres (Agbanu, Sonyo & Ahiase, 2018). The creation of the DE learning centres have helped to increase access to education and training by freeing learners from time and place constraints as well as providing flexible learning opportunities for them. The advent of technology has further widened the learning environment by adding digital space to the limited geographical space beyond what the traditional brick and mortar institutions could provide. As noted by Kamau (2012), DE has shifted from its reliance on print media and marginal student support to the use of learning tools to provide distance learners with the needed support. Similarly, Arko-Achemfuor (2017) remarked that the incessant demand for higher education has inadvertently initiated the start and spread of DE, making it an established and essential aspect of conventional education in both developing and developed countries. The SDG4 re-echoes the fact that more people are entering or returning to school to sharpen their skills and knowledge, which calls for technological and other support systems that allow distance instructors and learners to keep in touch with each other whether they operate in a synchronous or asynchronous mode. The tertiary sector of Ghana’s education system is broadly categorised into public and private tertiary institutions. Both categories admit students into the distance learning programmes albeit in different models. The public universities use the dual model and are heavily dependent on the print media while the private institutions are mostly dependent on the ICT. The mission of Ghana’s distance education programme is to make quality education at all levels more accessible and relevant to meet the learning needs of Ghanaians so as to enhance their performance and improve the quality of their lives (Government of Ghana, 2002).It also seeks to provide an alternative approach to the traditional models and ensure judicious use of physical and human resources (Government of Ghana, 2002). Though the advent of technology has immensely contributed to innovations in learning almost on daily basis, Salih (2004) asserts that student support systems such as electronic communication technologies (ICT) are capable of easing the journey of learners as they embark on learning. Salih, however, notes that the resources at an institution’s disposal and its capacity largely determine the extent and quality of the support services it can offer. Likewise, Sekyi (2013) alludes to this by indicating that student support services differ with respect to institutions and are thus influenced by fiscal strength, student preferences and administrative setup. Salih (2004), therefore, categorizes these capacities and resources into academic capacity and administrative functions. The Academic capacity covers services such as tutorials and guidance and counselling while administrative functions include record keeping, provision of information, enrolment, admission, registration and study material delivery. Two other aspects earlier established by Ellström, Ekholm and Ellström (2008) are the structural environment, which comprises

220

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

the learning opportunities offered and the subjective aspect which is basically how students understand, experience and assess the structural aspects of the learning environment. In considering the key features of learning environments, Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) make mention of psychosocial and virtual environments while also bringing into the fore the learning environment that focuses on issues bothering on behaviour management, classroom rules and discipline, motivation of students, teaching methods and the setup of classroom tools. Earlier, Brown (2005) had established that the 21st-century learning environment has transcended the physical space and place because the environment can be virtual, online or even remote. Essentially, Brown is of the view that learning environment, in the current scheme of things, should comprise support systems that ensure people learn best while individual differences among distance learners are taken care of. He, therefore, defines learning environment as the ‘structures, tools, and communities that inspire students and educators to attain the knowledge and skills the 21st-century demands of us all’ (p. 3). The import of Brown’s definition is that student support has departed from the traditionally known face to face or physical support to incorporate those provided in virtual spaces. In line with that, this current research is interested in exploring the kinds of support provided for UGDE online environment.

ICT-Based Teaching and Learning at the University of Ghana Efforts to re-engineer the University and bring ICT-based learning began in December 2010. The University Council approved the UG ICT Policy and in March 2012 the Policies and Procedures on Technology-Mediated Courses and Programmes in E-Learning were given its blessings by the Business and Executive Committee (ICT Deployment Committee Report, 2014). The sanctioning of the two documents provided a backbone for ICT teaching, learning and research at a university that carries a mission statement that reads ‘We shall create an enabling environment that makes the University of Ghana increasingly relevant to national and global development through cutting-edge research as well as high-quality teaching and learning’ (UG, 2014). It is captured in the ICT Deployment Committee Report (2014) that successful implementation of elearning in the DE programme is capable of reversing the situation where a chunk of qualified applicants are not being absorbed by the university due to limited space and resources. Based on the grounds of repositioning the university to be a world-class institution, the Chinese Phase I project that commenced in 2009 was leveraged to Phase II, in 2010, with the purpose of providing the basic infrastructure needed to support ICT-based teaching and learning. Eventually, this was scaled up with the installation of modern ICT facilities at eight out of the ten learning centres (Awiah, 2015) of the university. The foundation was, therefore, laid to deploy a Learning Management System (LMS) as a new way of providing teaching and learning. Nonetheless, there was the need to forestall or minimize setbacks that the new system might encounter. For this reason, the Sakai LMS was piloted between 2010 and 2013 by the university. After satisfactory evaluation reports and based on the satisfaction derived from its usage by universities across the globe such as University of South Africa (UNISA), Cambridge, Oxford, Yale and Michigan Institute of Technology (MIT), it was eventually adopted by the University of Ghana. In 2014 the UG ICT project was finally inaugurated which saw the provision of three thousand 9.7inch Internet-enabled android tablets for the UGDE students. The tablets were preloaded with all teaching and learning materials. Awiah (2015) is of the view that the provision of the tablets was intended to move paper-based teaching materials to an e-learning platform. Discussions emanating from this section positions UG ahead of other public universities in Ghana providing DE, especially with regards 221

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

to the technological environment created for the delivery of teaching and learning. A typical instance is the conversion of all traditional or printed modules into interactive ones (video recording sessions and power notes) which started in 2015 and is expected to end by the close of 2018. From all indications, a lot has been done to leverage the use of technology in delivering teaching and learning at the UGDE programme. What remains to be examined is the support students are offered in this environment which must be built within the constraints of support needed to promote self-directed learning among students. Based on these, the idea that the effectiveness of student support services is contingent on how well it is tailored to suit the socio-cultural needs of students becomes eminent. This study will, thus, seek to explain how online learning environment supports open and distance learners in pursuit of their academic programmes at the University of Ghana. Emanating from the general aim of this study, the main research question that follows is: To what extent is the online environment supporting distance education students at the University of Ghana? The following hypothesis were also tested in this study. H0: Sex will have no significant effect on student satisfaction with the UGDE pre-admission process H0: Age will have no significant effect on student satisfaction with UGDE pre-admission process H0: Sex and age interaction will have no significant effect on student satisfaction with UGDE preadmission process.

SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS Online learning is a field of education that focuses on the pedagogy and andragogy, technology, and instructional systems that aim at delivering education to students who are not physically “on site” (Alsaadat, 2009). Additionally, the United States Department of Agriculture (2013) asserted that online learning creates and provides access to learning when the source of information and the learners are separated by time and distance or both. In other words, online learning is the process of creating an educational experience of equal qualitative value for the learner to best suit their needs outside the classroom. Rather than attending courses in person, instructors and students may communicate at times of their own choosing by exchanging electronic media, or through technology that allows them to communicate in real time and through other online means. Online learning, therefore, refers to all the components by which tutors and learners participate effectively in online interactions of various ways including online learning using different technologies. This, therefore, involves the use of web-based platforms for the digital aspects of course of study involving the use of online resources, activities and regular interactions that exist within selected course structures with varied means of educational assessments to promote student learning. In order for online learning to be widely adopted and ensure active learning, it becomes imperative for both instructors and students to rethink and assume new roles (Zhu, Valcke & Schellenes, 2010). In corroborating this assertion, Hoskins (2011) indicates that online courses would be successful if instructors and students change their roles in the learning environment and develop expectations that coincide with the tectonics of blended, traditional and online courses. As the roles of the two key parties change to suit the online environment, the instructors’ roles often become more complex and time-consuming, while that of the students become more flexible and independent. The change of roles is a sharp break from the traditional brick and mortar environment where teachers dictate the pace and students are to comply irrespective of their other roles outside the learning environment. This is indicative that the 222

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

online environment is capable of supporting students to become self-directed learners as students’ roles change and become more flexible. Expatiating on the roles in an online learning environment, Paier (2007) identified Administrators, Tutors and Students with each of the three going with corresponding responsibilities. He, thus, noted that the administrator is responsible for the technical aspects of the system and also ensures the system works as expected while at the same time creating tutors for courses. The tutor, on the other hand, is assigned or selects courses from what has been provided in the system. Paier adds that tutors in good systems have a wide management spectrum where they have control over which students can access or log on to the course material. The students were identified as consumers of the content made available to them. Examining the three roles identified by Paier (2007), it is clear that multiple roles are consistent with what administrators and instructors are expected to play in the online environment. He limits the role of the learner as though they are still operating in a typical teacher-centred environment where the student remains a repository of knowledge. Consequently, solace can be found in his definition for student support systems as the interaction and communication students have with the tutor of a course and the support the students can get from the possibilities which are offered. By inference, students’ participation in the interactions gives them the muscle to work beyond mere recipients of knowledge. Though questions have been raised with regard to whether online students benefit from instruction as much as their counterparts in the traditional classroom, it is in response to this that support systems in the online learning environment must be available so that courses of study will allow students to fit school into their busy work schedules and be more self-reliant as they use virtual tools to keep track of their progress in a timely manner. To support students in this way, there is a need for a clear and concise written communication and the development of students’ skills to collaborate with peers and instructors in the online environment. To this end, Koh and Hill (2009) have noted that studying at a distance [online environment] can be effective when the methods and technologies used are appropriate, when there is interaction among students and when there is timely feedback from teachers. In creating a supportive environment for online learners, Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) have asserted that learners’ characteristics, of particular interest their learning styles, should be considered in order to ensure effective learning among them. They further pointed out that taking the learning styles into consideration when designing the learning environment increases students’ motivation, brings fairness to the learning process and also enables students to learn at their own pace. Ozerem and Akkoyunlu’s (2015) main interest was on the power of a supportive online environment in creating self-directed learners. Bejerano (2008) earlier called attention to the situation where too much is expected of online learners who may be unfamiliar with online learning and may end up failing in their endeavour. To avert this situation, it becomes imperative to promote self-directed learning in a conducive learning environment for learners. One major role of student support systems is to assist students to reach expected standards and increase the kind of support offered to them. That notwithstanding, Badu-Nyarko (2010) notes that several students fail willy-nilly as a result of their inability to face the distance learning realities, while others drop out or are pushed out by the institution. Similarly, Simpson (2015) indicates that in the United Kingdom the graduation rate is very low among DE students when they are compared with their full-time counterparts. Among the factors accounting for the low graduation of DE students are their inability to juggle between study and other responsibilities, financial constraints and most of them being older than the usual age for school. A more recent study by Paniagua and Simpson (2018) establishes that the trend

223

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

has become worrying for institutions providing online learning worldwide and the reasons accruing to that are not different from what has been established earlier. Given the above situation, Arko-Achemfuor (2017) assessed the student support systems offered by UNISA’s Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and grouped the gaps found under four themes which are transactional distance/presence, conflict/tension, students’ experiences of distance education delivery and staff development. Transactional distance/presence was explained as the degree to which learners perceive a DE organisation and its various components, colleague learners and significant others are available and connected to the learners. Conflict/tension situation is when there is a disparity among parties on resources, approaches and issues. Under the students’ experiences of distance education delivery, it was revealed that factors such as feedback and conducive environments result in students’ learning experiences. Lastly, staff development looked at situations where the staffs are unwilling or unable to prominently assist students because they are not well informed as to how to go about offering support. Though Arko-Achemfuor (2017) established that UNISA had done a lot in terms of expanding student enrollment and flexibility, he noted that they still needed to find a way of negating issues with the four areas identified as gaps. It is in order to close such gaps in the online environment that researchers such as Gyamfi and Gyasi (2015) have advocated for optimization of the use of available facilities and constant information flow in the environment. Similarly, Sarmah and Das (2010) have called for the creation of a friendly environment among students, faculty and administration while providing counselling and helping learners engage in metacognition. According to De Oliviera, Nakayama and Cunha (2015), e - learning is both cause and result of significant changes in the definition of education concept, as well as changes in the understanding of how it should be organized and managed. With the advent of e-learning, educational institutions (traditional and conventional) administrators started to deal with diverse activities which requires the expansion of new ways of doing things. To this effect, Ritchie (2010) espoused that e-learning consist of all components and processes that operate when distance learning and teaching occurs. It includes learning, teaching, communication, creation and management (Belloni, 2001; Peters, 2003). According to Moore and Kearsley (2007) e-learning is a planned learning process that occurs in general, in a different place other than a regular school, and as a result, it requires special techniques of course design, special forms of instruction, special methods of communication through electronic and other technologies, as well as essential organizational and administrative arrangements. Meanwhile, educational institution increase demand for information technology which play key role in the management of e-learning institutions, led to the development of Learning Management System (LMS). Unwin, Kleesen, Hollow, Williams, Oloo, Alwala and Muianga (2010) defined LMS as a “software application or web-based technology that is used to plan, deliver or access a particular learning process (pg. 6). Countinho (2009) further explained that LMS seek to automate the administration of the courses, to record users, to record courses, to record information about the learning process and to provide reports to the course administration. According to Lonn and Teasley (2009) Learning Management Systems are web-based systems that enable teachers and students to share materials, to submit and return assignments and to communicate online. Meanwhile Almrashdeh et al. (2011) point out that an LMS is software used to plan, implement and evaluate a specific learning process. In LMS, mediation involves both the acquisition of competences and communication skills of all teachers and students, and a greater concern to create interaction moments and practical application possibilities of collaborative work, with that learning process happening in a participatory manner. For that, the teacher relies on communication devices, such as chat rooms, forums, blogs, video blogs (Rosini, 2013). 224

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

To this effect, online learning implies significant changes in the culture and structure of the institutions that decide to adopt it. Even though there are gaps in literature in relations to e-learning or online learning such as expositions by Bach, Domingues and Walter (2013) and Zawacki-Richter, Bäcker and Sebastian Vogt (2009), the authors in this regard, states emphatically that there is a need for studies into learning environment for supporting undergraduate online distance education students of which IT and LMS play integral roles. It is therefore necessary to consider that an LMS must seek to get the best advances in technology available today, for reasons of efficiency and for enabling the maximum degree of interactivity and communication among users. Learning and collaborative work have become fundamental and technological advances should lead to the achievement of high interaction levels. In a nutshell, the provision of support for students in the online learning environment cannot be overemphasized as it holds the keys to cushioning students against all the stresses that may impede their learning. The next section explores how Malcolm Knowles’ self-directed learning serves as a theoretical grounding for this paper.

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING Self-directed learning from Malcolm Knowles’ (1975) perspective encompasses a process in which individuals operate in a four-stage process, which includes taking the initiative to diagnose learning needs without the help of others, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources and evaluating learning outcomes. Salih (2004) and Dzakiria (2005) have underscored the need for DE students to engage in self-directed learning in line with Knowles’ argument that adult learners (including DE online learners) are expected to be goal-oriented, self-directed and independent. Further, Knowles (1984) grounded the development of the self-directed learning method on certain principles to establish it as an alternative to the traditional/pedagogical methods of teaching and learning. He also called for the need to consider the adult learners’ experience, their self-concept and readiness to learn when one seeks to promote self-directed learning among these learners. In a similar vein, Brown (2001) argued that learners may remain only passive if they are not given genuine choices with regards to what, when and how to learn. In effect, not considering the assertions of Knowles and Brown are significant ways of stifling self-directed learning, especially in the online environment. The importance of the self-directed learning method has passed the test of time so it is not surprising researchers such as Kurt (2017) and Hwang, Chen, Lin and Sung (2018) have all subscribed to the assertion that the concept has the goal of helping students to develop their capacity for self-direction. The researchers argue that the method is capable of supporting transformational learning among learners and also promote emancipatory learning and social action. In the online environment, this can best be achieved when gaps such as transactional distance, conflict and students’ negative experiences (ArkoAchemfour, 2017) are effectively dealt with for students to succeed in their learning. In sum, the self-directed learning method is deemed appropriate to ground an investigation into the support systems provided for online UGDE students. This is reinforced by Van Wyk’s (2018) assertion that self-directed learning puts students at the centre of the learning process and places the responsibility for learning on their shoulders. In effect, the choices given to students as indicated by Brown (2001) offer the opportunity to operate within time, place, space and pace to learn while effectively combining studies with social roles.

225

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

METHODOLOGY The study adopted a web-based survey design using a cross-sectional descriptive approach. Aside from the design’s ability to collect and analyze data from a large representation of the population (BaduNyarko, 2013) at one point in time, it also does not require the collection of additional data from the same sample should there be new developments with regard to the phenomena under study. This study is descriptive in nature because there is a paucity of work in the area of the online learning environment for DE students in the Ghanaian context. In addition, the web-based design offered the leverage to send the data collection instrument to target population for those interested to volunteer and respond. The target population for this study comprised the current level 300 students (n=1200) and level 400 students (n=1056) (College of Education Academic Office, 2018) by virtue of their long stay on the programme, their transition from the traditional face-to-face midway through the programme and their vast experiences with the use of technology in their studies. Sampling of participants was through the stratified random sampling method. Badu-Nyarko (2013) noted that stratified random sampling is used when the researcher wants to highlight a specific subgroup within the population. Based on this, the researchers employed stratified random sampling to observe existing relationships between level 300 and 400 distance education students. In total, 126 respondents participated in the study. Data was gathered through a filled-up electronic survey instrument created with google form. The instrument of this research was an online support service questionnaire with 38 items in four sections. Section A sought information on respondent’s biographical data, Section B looked at pre-admission processes, Section C on the physical/technological environment and Section D on the social environment. In section A, respondents had options to select from, in Section B there was a three-point Likert scale for respondents to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the pre-admission process. In section C, there was a three-point Likert scale to test respondents’ frequency of use of the available support services and in Section D, respondents rated variables in the social environment on a three-point Likert scale. In all, the survey instrument comprised 33 closed-ended items and five open-ended questions. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure internal consistency (Reliability) of the instrument. This is based on the fact that Cronbach’s alpha is the most widely used when there are multiple Likert questions in a survey that form a scale. The results showed a high level of internal consistency with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.834. The data collection instrument was valid based on the significant value obtained by the sig. (2-tailed) of 0.000 < 0.05. Based on the count value obtained rxy 0.001 > r table product moment 0.312. Additionally, the instrument was pilot tested using the level 300 students on the programme and their responses helped in finalising the instrument before the final data collection. The finalized instrument was then developed using google form and the links created was sent to the students’ group WhatsApp page as well as their individual WhatsApp addresses after the researchers had met them during their tutorial sections in July 2018 to seek their permission to participate in this study and also to share with them the purpose of the study and their rights as participants and also assured them of confidentiality of the information they provided. Final data collection was in September 2018. To encourage the participants to respond to the questionnaire, short reminders were sent to their group and individual platforms almost on a daily basis which resulted in a return of 126 questionnaires at the end of September. The data which trickled in as descriptive data in excel was exported to SPSS version 22 software to pave the way for inferential statistics which are presented in the next session.

226

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

RESULTS Demographic Characteristics of Respondents According to the analysed results, 53.5% of the respondents were males while 46.8% were females. Also, majority of the respondents were within the ages of 21 – 30 years (54.8%), followed by respondents less than 20 years (38.1%). Only 9% were within the ages of 31 – 40 years. As part of the demographic characteristics, 38.9% were single, 26.2% married while 17.5% were single with dependents and married with dependents respectively. Additionally, half of the respondents were unemployed while the remaining half were either employees of government/ private (32.5%) and self-employed (15.9%). Furthermore, 73.8% gained admission with West Africa Secondary School Certificate Examination while 18.3% gained admission into the University of Ghana Distance Education with Diploma Certificates. Only 7.9% of the participants gained admission through mature entrance examination (25 years and above in accordance to the UG policy). Beside this, 42.9% of the participants were Bachelor of Arts students with 25.4% studying BSc. Nursing while 21.4% were Business Administration students. Only 10.3% were studying Information Technology. Alongside this, 50.8% were level 300 students while 49.2% were in their final year. Table 1. Student satisfaction with online pre-admission processes Tests of between-subjects effects Dependent Variable: Satisfaction Source

Type III Sum of Squares

df

Corrected Model

24.134a

6

Intercept

637.711

1

@1Sex

8.830

1

@2Age

3.704

Mean Square

F

Sig.

4.022

9.582

.000

637.711

1519.082

.000

8.830

21.033

.000

2

1.852

4.411

.013

11.005

.000

@1Sex * @2Age

9.240

2

4.620

Error

261.116

622

.420

Total

4219.000

629

Corrected Total

285.250

628

a. R Squared = .085 (Adjusted R Squared = .076)

In continuation, the study sought to find out if selected demographic characteristics (sex and age) determines students’ satisfaction with online pre-admission processes. The result is shown in table 1. The analysed results in Table 1 indicates that the independent variables (sex, age) and their interaction (sex and age) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable (student satisfaction with the UGDE pre-admission process) (p < .0005). Based on this, the study rejects the null hypothesis. It concluded that sex and age have implications for student satisfaction with the online UGDE preadmission process.

227

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Usage of Online Learning Tools The use of online learning tools is supposed to help the distance students learn effectively online. The participants were therefore asked to indicate the frequency of usage of stated online tools on a three-point Likert scale. The results of the analysed result are depicted in Table 2. Table 2. Usage of online learning tools Frequently f (%)

Somewhat f (%)

Not at All f (%)

Mean

SD

Video conferencing

-

Teleconferencing

-

64 (50.8)

62(49.2)

2.49

.502

41 (32.5)

85 (67.5)

2.67

.470

Use of chatrooms

32 (25.4)

81 (64.3)

13 (10.3)

1.91

.537

8 (6.3)

32 (25.4)

86 (68.3)

2.13

.490

Interacting with colleagues online

29 (23.0)

83 (65.9)

14 (11.1)

1.84

.446

Accessing assignments online

40 (31.7)

82 (65.1)

4 (3.2)

2.04

.512

Submission of assignments online

51 (40.5)

67 (53.2)

8 (6.3)

1.67

.643

Taking interim assessments online

57 (45.2)

57 (45.2)

12 (9.5)

1.67

.651

Taking final examinations online

25 (19.8)

42 (33.3)

63 (50.0)

2.34

.792

Accessing e-library resources

20 (15.9)

42 (33.3)

64 (50.8)

2.36

.721

Overall mean of the online learning tools

26 (20.7)

59 (4.7)

41 (3.3)

2.1

.567

Items

Use of email with tutors

It became evident from the analyzed results that the students averagely used the online tools. The data points to the level of ambivalence on the part of the students. For although these tools exist online in their LMS, they hardly used them. Perhaps, the learners lack the requisite skills in online learning. It could also be due to the inadequate or ineffective support services. Thus, apart from taking their assessment online (Mean = 1.67, SD = .651) and submission of assignments online (Mean =1.67, SD = .643) and use of chartrooms (Mean = 1.91 and SD = .537). The rest showed a poor level of usage. In fact, teleconferencing and video conferences showed limited usage. Also, the study determined the chi-square values using some selected demographic characteristics (sex, age, programme of study and academic level) in relation to usage of online learning tools. The results are depicted in Table 3. As seen from Table 3, in terms of sex it was established that both sexes were unanimous that video conferencing, teleconferencing, assessing assignment online and submission of same as well as taking exams were associative and statistically significant. However, in terms of age, there was no significant difference related to video conferencing, use of emails with tutors. Similarly, programmes of study were not statistically significant so far as teleconferencing and use of chatroom and submission of assignments online are concerned. Of significant importance was levels of students in association with online learning tools. Three variables namely; use of emails with tutors, interacting with colleagues online and assessing assignments online were statistically not significant.

228

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Table 3. Chi-square analysis on usae of online learning tools Online Learning Tools

Sex

Age

Prog. of Study

Level

Video conferencing

.004

.243

.008

.005

Teleconferencing

.000

.007

.410

.001

Use of chatrooms

.126

.000

.060

.013

Use of email with tutors

.396

.527

.000

.321

Interacting with colleagues online

.110

.028

.006

.888

Accessing assignments online

.039

.000

.006

.564

Submission of assignments online

.000

.000

.106

.044

Taking interim assessments online

.323

.000

.002

.000

Taking examinations online

.005

.000

.005

.001

Accessing e-library resources

.051

.000

.003

.004

*Probability level at 0.05 significance

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT The provision of social environment for online learning is critical towards a successful learning outcome for online distance education students. Social environment holds the keys to suppressing students against all the stresses that may hinder their learning. Student support for online learning had been varied considering the social environment in which they worked or learn. The study, therefore, sought to find out the online learning social environment available for distance education students. The results are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Online learning social environment Items

High

Moderate

Low

Mean

SD

Interactions with tutors

-

106 (84.1)

20 (15.9)

2.15

Interactions with students

51 (40.5)

49 (38.9)

26 (20.6)

1.91

.359 .790

Interactions with staff

-

30 (23.8)

96 (76.2)

2.81

.394

Availability of tutors’ email addresses

26 (20.6)

38 (30.2)

62 (49.2)

2.29

.780

Availability of staffs’ email addresses

7 (5.6)

20 (15.9)

99 (78.6)

2.78

.488

Availability of colleagues’ email addresses

14 (11.1)

61 (48.4)

51 (40.5)

2.33

.691

Availability of contact numbers for support

19 (15.1)

41 (32.5)

66 (52.4)

2.36

.732

Availability of counselling services

8 (6.3)

23 (18.3)

95 (75.4)

2.68

.589

Overall mean of the online learning social environment

16 (0.10)

46 (2.9)

64 (4.09)

2.41

.603

229

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Evidence from Table 4 shows that students’ interactions with colleagues was average (Mean = 1.91, SD = .790) while that of tutors and staff was weak (Mean = 2.15, SD = .359) and (Mean = 2.81 and SD = 3.94). Similarly, the use of emails to support students learning showed that this was hardly used for both tutors (Mean = 2.29, SD = .788) and staff (Mean =2.78, SD = .488). In fact, emails were hardly provided to colleagues for interactions. On counselling services available to students, this was hardly provided. Thus, the mean for the use of social environment to support students’ learning was found to be poor (Mean = 2.41, SD = .603). Additionally, a computed chi-square analysis was used to determine the relationship between sex, age, programme of study and student level in association with factors in the online social environment. The results are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Chi-square analysis of online learning social environment Online Learning Social Environment Interactions with tutors

Sex

Age

Prog. of Study

Level

.165

.000

.173

.320

Interactions with students

.001

.016

.590

.357

Interactions with staff

.475

.308

.232

.229

Availability of tutors’ email addresses

.163

.001

.199

.112

Availability of staffs’ email addresses

.437

.023

.000

.000

Availability of colleagues’ email addresses

.355

.968

.160

.464

Availability of contact numbers for support

.760

.521

.080

.178

Availability of counselling services

.705

.102

.016

.033

*Probability level at 0.05 significance

The analysed result as depicted in Table 5, showed a significant relationship in terms of sex and interactions with the students while for age and online social environment, interaction with tutors, interaction with students, availability of tutors and staff email addresses were found to be significant. With regards to programme of study and online learning social environment, availability of staff emails addresses and availability of counselling service were found to be significant. The results further postulate a statistically significant association between student level and availability of staffs’ email addresses as well as the availability of counselling services within the online learning social environment.

DISCUSSION The issue of learner characteristics has received wide attention in distance education research. Learners’ characteristics include their cognitive and affective attributes, such as ability, content delivery preference, experience, motivation, age, gender, among others. Previous research has investigated such characteristics as gender, age, choice of programmes, occupation, family characteristics, learning styles, attitudes, personality, locus of control, and motivation (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). Academic success in distance education is impacted by a combination of personal, environmental, and social factors (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). Factors such as age and gender are some characteristics that predict

230

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

the performance of distance learners in the online learning environment. In line with this study, it came to light that the independent variables (sex, age) and their interaction (sex and age) have a statistically significant effect on the dependent variable (student online satisfaction with the UGDE pre-admission process) (p < .0005). A similar research, conducted by Filiz (2010) on the effects of learner characteristics on satisfaction in distance education indicated a positive correlation between gender (male and female) and the student could be helped in their online learning considering the circumstance and challenges in an online learning environment with the online social environment. In furtherance, Yukselturk & Bulut (2007) research on 350 distance education student’s findings showed that age has implications for learners’ satisfaction. Inferences from this study also showed both older students and younger students are satisfied with online pre-admission requirements. Also, both male and female students showed satisfaction with the online pre-admission process. Even though the UGDE has a youthful population, students slightly used video conferencing, teleconferencing, chatrooms and email with tutors. There were also fewer activities online in terms of interactions with colleagues, accessing assignments, submission of assignments, taking interim assessments, taking final examinations and accessing e-library resources provided by the institution. This could be due to the use of face-to-face tutorials as a compliment to online teaching and learning. From all indication, the launching of the Sakai Learning Management System as a new way of providing teaching and learning was a novel idea. However, most students are not conversant with its usage as espoused by UGDE students. In creating a supportive environment for online learners, Ozerem and Akkoyunlu (2015) have asserted that learners’ characteristics must serve a basis. Additionally, Bejerano (2008) earlier called attention to the situation where too much is expected of online learners who may be unfamiliar with online education and may end up failing in their learning. As established by the analysed results variations with learner characteristics and the use of items listed in Table 2 proved otherwise. It is imperative to note that in order for online learning to be widely adopted and ensure self-directed learning, both instructors and students need to rethink and assume new roles (Hoskins, 2011; Zhu, Valcke & Schellenes, 2010). Paier (2007) examined the roles and responsibilities of administrators, tutors and students in an online environment (explained under Support Systems in the Online Learning Environment section). Incidentally, these roles did not show up in the data analysed for this study. This is indicative that tools have been made available in the UGDE online environment but they have not been leveraged to serve its purpose of providing support for the online learners. In that light, it can be established that the absence of an effective online learning environment did not encourage self-directed learning which is key to success for online learners. Knowles (1984) argued that the principles on which self-directed learning is anchored positions it as an alternative to traditional pedagogies. In agreement, Brown (2001) established that if learners are not given the option to choose what, when and how to study, they are only relegated to passive learning. In effect, any attempt by providers of online learning to bypass the assertions of Knowles and Brown are significant ways of stifling self-directed learning, especially in the online environment. However, it is evident from this study that students are not given the choices and their characteristics are not considered by the institution in charge of distance education in Ghana. This has led to the average use of online learning tools as well as a poor social online learning environment. In sum, it can be concluded that the UGDE has a poor social environment as interactions with tutors, interactions with students, interactions with staff, availability of tutors’ email addresses, availability of staffs’ email addresses, availability of colleagues’ email addresses, availability of contact numbers for support and availability of counselling services was generally low. This, in effect, portrays that usage 231

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

of online learning tools which are supposed to be the support systems for these students are also moderately used.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This study examined the learning environment for supporting undergraduate online distance education students in the University of Ghana. In conclusion, the findings of this study revealed that some learner characteristics (i.e sex and age) related to learner satisfaction with the UGDE pre-admission process. The study also showed that UGDE learners moderately used online learning tools. Also, the interaction between learners, tutors and administrative staff was weak. This implies that administrative support, tutor support and e-libraries (referencing) were poorly provided to support student learning. Thus, academic support and administrative support were virtually absent online for the students. This depicts a poor online social learning environment in distance education. Even though the results of the study may not be generalized to the entire population of students taking online distance courses, understanding these relationships may provide insights for distance course instructors and designers, which would increase their understanding of their students. The study, therefore, recommends effective online support for DE students since it has become a major component of DE system in Ghanaian universities and universities elsewhere. The study also calls for asynchronous learning by the use of Web 2.0 Technologies and increase orientations so students can really benefit from effective online learning social environment. In short, the effectiveness for online learning environment towards student support should involve measures of quality and depth of interactional relationship based on attention, mutual interest, support, reduced stress, shared identity and interpersonal comfort. In this direction, individual performance and team success give rise to collective synergies that further enables learners to exceed their personal potential and abilities. Therefore, a structured support must be created to facilitate learning and communication.

REFERENCES Agbanu, P. G., Sonyo, E., & Ahiase, G. (2008). Examining factors influencing students’ satisfaction in distance education in Ghana: A study of the Institute for Educational Development and Extension, University of Education, Winneba. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-learning, 6(1), 33–44. Almrashdeh, I. A., Sahari, N., Zin, N. A. M., & Alsmadi, M. (2011). Distance learning management system requirements from student’s perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 24(1), 17–27. Alsaadat, K. (2009). Methods in distance learning. Paper presented at International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Madrid, Spain. Arko-Achemfuor, A. (2017). Student support gaps in an open distance learning context. Issues in Educational Research, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier27/arko-achemfuor.pdf Awiah, D. M. (2015). University of Ghana inaugurates ICT project. Retrieved from https://www.graphic. com.gh/news/general-news/university-of-ghana-inaugurates-ict-project.html

232

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Bach, T. M., Domingues, M. J. C. S., & Walter, S. A. (2013). Information technologies and communication in teaching: A bibliometric and sociometric study of 1997-2011. Evaluation, 18(2), 393–416. Badu-Nyarko, S. K. (2010). Isolation and control in distance education: The case of the Ghanaian student. Instructional Technology, 13. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_10/Mar_10.pdf Badu-Nyarko, S. K. (2013). Basic research methods in social science (Revised Ed.). Accra: Woeli Publishers. Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57(3), 408–414. doi:10.1080/03634520801993697 Belloni, M. L. (2001). Distance education. Campinas: Autores Associados. Brown, A. (2001). Bulletin: Self-directed learning at work. Warwick: Institute of Employment Research. Brown, J. S. (2005). New learning environments for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/screencasts/JohnSeelyBrown@TWT_CU.pdf Coutinho, L. (2009). Online apprenticeship per course structure. Distance Education Online Journal., 43(2), 310–324. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications. de Oliveira, P. C., Cunha, C. J. C. A., & Nakayama, M. K. (2015). Learning Management Systems (LMS) and e-learning management: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 13(2). doi:10.4301/S1807-177520160002000001 Dzakiria, H. (2005). The role of learning support in open & distance learning: learners’ experiences and perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2). Retrieved from http://dergipark. ulakbim.gov.tr/tojde/article/download/5000102879/5000095974 Ellström, E., Ekholm, B., & Ellström, P. E. (2008). Two types of learning environment: Enabling and constraining a study of care work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(2), 84–97. doi:10.1108/13665620810852250 Filiz, A. (2010). The effects of learner characteristics on satisfaction in distance education (Unpublished MA Thesis). Ohio State University. Government of Ghana. (2002). Meeting the Challenges of Education in the Twenty First Century. Report of the President’s Committee on Review of Education Reforms in Ghana. Accra: Government of Ghana. Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 355–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gyamfi, S. A., & Gyaase, P. O. (2015). Students’ perception of blended learning environment: A case study of the University of Education, Winneba, Kumasi-Campus, Ghana. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(1), 80–100.

233

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, growth, and evolution. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 57–60. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.546267 Hwang, G., Chen, M. A., Lin, M., & Sung, H. (2018). Effects of integrating a concept mapping-based summarization strategy into flipped learning on students’ learning performances in reading comprehension. In Proceedings of International Conference on Technology in Education (vol. 843, pp. 212-222). Hong Kong: Caritas Institute of Higher. Kamaruddin, R., Zainal, N. R., Aminuddin, Z. M., & Jusoff, K. (2009). The quality of learning environment and academic performance from a student’s perception. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(4), 171–175. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v4n4p171 Kamau, J. W. (2012). The effectiveness of learner support services to distance learners in a primary education diploma: A case study in Botswana (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Pretoria. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follet Publishing Company. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of groupwork in an online Course: Benefits and challenges. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 62–92. Kurt, G. (2017). Implementing the flipped classroom in teacher education: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 211–221. Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of learning management systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686–694. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008 Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education – A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Murali, M. K. (1996). Distance education theory and practice. New Delhi: Open Learning. Ozerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning environments designed according to learning styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 61(61), 61–80. doi:10.14689/ejer.2015.61.4 Paier, M. (2007). Student support services in distance learning systems. Vienna University of Technology. Paniagua, A. S. E., & Simpson, O. (2018). Developing Student Support for Open and Distance Learning: The EMPOWER Project. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1): 1–10. doi:10.5334/jime.470 Peters, O. (2003). Distance education in transition: trends and challenges. Unisinos, Sao Leopoldo Report of the Committee for the Deployment of ICT in University of Ghana Academic Processes. Submitted to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (ASA). University of Ghana.

234

 Learning Environment for Supporting Undergraduate Online Distance Education Students

Ritchie, A. (2010). The library’s role and challenges in implementing an e-learning strategy: A case study from northern Australia. Health Libraries Group Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28(1), 41–49. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00923.x PMID:21314893 Rosini, A. M. (2013). New information technologies and distance education. Sao Paulo: Cengage Learning. Salih, U. S. U. N. (2004). Learner support services in distance education system: A case study of Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(4). Retrieved: http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde16/ articles/s_usun.htm Sarmah, B., & Das, K. (2010). Learner Support Services in Open and Distance Learning: Issues and Evidences from the State of Assam. Retrieved: http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2080 Sekyi, E. D. (2013). Appraisal of student support services in distance education at University of Cape Coast (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cape Coast. Simpson, O. (2015). Student support services for success in open and distance learning. EMCA EdTech Notes. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Learning as building information: Basics of constructivist learning theory. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä. UG. (2014). Mission statement. Retrieved 24 August 2018 from https://www.ug.edu.gh/about/overview Unwin, T., Kleesen, B., Hollow, D., Williams, J. B., Oloo, L. M., Alwala, J., & Muianga, X. (2010). Digital learning management systems in Africa: Myth and realities. Open Learning, 25(1), 5–23. doi:10.1080/02680510903482033 Van Wyk, M. M. (2018). Economics student teachers’ views on the usefulness of a flipped classroom pedagogical approach for an open distance eLearning environment. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(4), 255–265. doi:10.1108/IJILT-07-2017-0068 Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71–83. Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods, and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 21–50. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.741 Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 147–165. doi:10.1080/02619761003631849

This research was previously published in Student Support Toward Self-Directed Learning in Open and Distributed Environments; pages 78-102, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

235

236

Chapter 13

Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching Michelle Dennis https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8449-9192 Adler University, USA

ABSTRACT Unforeseen events, such as the global pandemic COVID-19, have the potential to necessitate abrupt closures of the physical campuses of higher education institutions. In these situations, emergency remote teaching procedures may be implemented to enable the continuation of courses and reduce the magnitude of disruptions to the learning process for students and faculty members. In this chapter, the author will evaluate best practices for the design of emergency remote teaching, faculty preparation, and student support. Further, the author will explore effective communication strategies for the delivery of information regarding procedural changes to students and faculty.

Events such as the global pandemic COVID-19, which are unforeseen in nature and necessitate the rapid closure of the physical campuses of institutions of higher education, highlight the importance of the efficient implementation of best practices for the design and delivery of emergency remote teaching experiences (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Procedures for the implementation of emergency remote teaching are similar to those required for the implementation of online education in terms of content, but not in terms of time frame and resource needs. In the case of the former, little time is available and resources are typically less robust, except in cases where contingency planning has been prioritized. In the case of the latter, adequate resources and time support the effective preparation of online courses through intentional and collaborative design, the training of faculty members to facilitate the courses, and the integration of student supports into the online education experience. This chapter presents three key factors which have been widely explored in the literature in terms of their impact on the success of emergency remote teaching (Martin, Ritzhaupt et al., 2019; Outlaw & Rice, 2015): Design, faculty preparation, and student support. In terms of design, engagement plays an important role in the student experience and can be impacted in many ways throughout the design DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch013

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

process. The presentation of course content is a second area of focus within the design pillar, and many strategies for the presentation of content may impact the student experience during periods of emergency remote teaching. A final aspect of design, the assessment of learning, is also a key area in which best practices may be employed to improve the design of emergency remote teaching experiences. The second key factor, faculty preparation, can be categorized into four main areas: Expectation setting, training and development, mentorship, and evaluation. As in the case of design, application of best practices for faculty preparation can support a smooth transition and a positive student experience. The third factor, student support, also impacts the student experience during times of transition. Resource and adjustment needs of students and considerations for meeting these needs through the implementation of best practices for outreach and community building are explored. The chapter closes with an analysis of considerations for the implementation of effective communication protocols to ensure understanding across campus communities, thereby impacting the ease with which students, faculty, and administrators adjust to abrupt changes in structure as they pertain to course delivery modality.

EMERGENCY REMOTE TEACHING VS. ONLINE EDUCATION There are multiple key distinctions that must be made between emergency remote teaching and online education (Zimmerman, 2020). The later has been established as a very effective strategy for instruction at the primary (Journell, 2015), secondary (Kumi-Yeboah, 2015), and post-secondary (Eom & Ashill, 2016) levels. Further, online education is structured based on best practices for course design, facilitation, assessment, and faculty interaction, and, as such, requires a significant amount of preparation prior to course delivery. This time investment allows for the accurate alignment of course- and program-level objectives to resources, activities, and assessments. Further, this investment of time allows for the adequate training of faculty members and the planned provision of student supports. Emergency remote teaching, on the other hand, involves rapid modality changes, which allow content that was formulated for presentation in the face-to-face format to be delivered through virtual means (Hodges et al., 2020). Institutions that have adopted emergency remote teaching procedures in response to the global pandemic vary widely in terms of the resources they have been able to dedicate to this change in modality. Further, institutions of higher education differ greatly in terms of the infrastructure that is available to support these changes. Irrespective of resources and infrastructure, there are key best practices that can support the effective delivery of emergency remote teaching, which pertain to design, faculty preparation, student support, and communication.

DESIGN Course design, arguably, has the potential to make or break the educational experience, in that poorly designed online courses often create more frustration than learning. The effective design of online courses involves the assignment of a subject matter expert and an instructional designer and is a rigorous and extended process that requires collaboration, discussion, and revision. Throughout the process of online course design, factors such as engagement, alignment, instructional level, and workload are considered, and the optimal result is a well-organized and engaging presentation of content, including aligned resources, activities, and assessments, which represent an instructional level that is consistent 237

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

with the program through which the course will be offered (Baldwin et al., 2018). As referenced above, emergency remote teaching differs significantly from online education in important ways, but many of the best practices for online course design may be applied to the design of emergency remote teaching (Hodges et al., 2020; Rahim, 2020). One best practice for the design of online courses is to include an instructional designer (Outlaw & Rice, 2015; Stevens, 2013). The collaboration achieved by this strategy allows for a comprehensive review and evaluation of the content, as well as its presentation. Additionally, collaborative course design contributes to improved course quality (Chao et al., 2010). Further, instructional designers may advise subject matter experts regarding technology tools (Bennett et al., 2015), the use of which represents an additional best practice. The inclusion of technology tools is a best practice for online course design because it promotes student engagement with content. Additionally, it can increase student-student engagement and student-faculty engagement by providing platforms for communication. A third best practice for online course design is the use of evaluation models to assess online course structure (Baldwin et al., 2018). Models may be developed within institutions or by outside organizations. These models provide a framework which may be used to assess various facets of online courses, such as alignment, resource relevance, workload, and active learning. A fourth best practice for online course design is to incorporate active learning elements (Koohang et al., 2016), which is associated with positive student perceptions (Fayer, 2014).

Engagement Abrupt changes to the format of one’s regular schedule are not easy to avoid during emergency situations. With respect to college coursework, a change in format should not be equated with a change in content (Mohmmed et al., 2020). In other words, the planned content outlined in the syllabus of the formerly face-to-face course should be preserved as much as possible. This supports a reduction in the stress associated with adjusting to multiple changes simultaneously. Content presented in the face-to-face format may be preserved through the creative application of practices that facilitate student engagement (Toquero, 2020a). One such practice is the use of multimedia. Faculty who are accustomed to delivering lectures face to face may have notes to accompany their lectures but typing and sharing notes may not be the best way to engage students remotely. Recording a video of a lecture, on the other hand, may serve to engage students in a more effective way. This represents an efficient strategy for connecting with students in ways similar to those used in the physical classroom. A related strategy is hosting virtual lectures via Web conferencing software, which is a common practice in emergency remote instruction. When employing this method, there are several key considerations pertaining to effective facilitation. Perceptions of quality in the virtual delivery of courses vary and are impacted by prior exposure to online content (Hixon et al., 2016), but most individuals who have attended live lectures can tell that the length of the lecture and the degree to which activities are incorporated both directly impact engagement. This phenomenon is magnified when it is applied to remote lectures, during which engagement is impacted not only by lecture length and activities, but also by environmental factors outside of the control of the faculty member, such as television sets and family members. Lectures that run for fewer than 60 minutes and include activities for students tend to be perceived as engaging to most students, and yet one hour per week does not provide adequate time to address all content. In online instruction, the discussion board replaces (or, in some cases, complements) the lecture, for the aforementioned reasons as well as others, and this strategy can easily be incorporated into emergency remote teaching situations. 238

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Employing the use of the discussion board offers many benefits, key among which is the ability to deliver content in an asynchronous manner (Affouneh et al., 2020). When utilizing this format, students and faculty are not required to dissect content simultaneously. Rather, students can review resources and prompts and post their responses when it is convenient for them to do so. Faculty can then facilitate the discussion board by reviewing responses, posing questions, providing examples, and proposing connections as appropriate. Students can also interact with one another in this manner by posting peer responses. Although a formal weekly discussion board is integrated into online courses during the design phase, faculty tasked with facilitating emergency remote teaching can easily incorporate key questions from readings or lectures and post them to the discussion board, asking students to reply, and demonstrating their dedication to the learning experience by responding promptly and with intentionality to all students. When providing prompts, it is of the utmost importance to ensure the prompts provided are aligned to the resources students are asked to view prior to responding.

Presentation of Course Content Resources may be in the form of textbook readings, journal articles or lectures. In all cases, the instructor must create prompts that align to resources. In cases where this is not done, multiple questions from students are likely to result. Further, in cases where students do not pose questions, they may interpret the prompts in very different ways, resulting in a discussion that is not at all consistent with the original aims of the course. While this phenomenon may certainly exist in face-to-face courses, it is magnified in the virtual classroom, as the instructor is not constantly present and available to direct the discussion towards the intended aims. It is useful for faculty members engaged in emergency remote teaching who plan to use the discussion board to create a table of alignments. The objectives for each week of the course can be added as columns within the table and then aligned to weekly activities, weekly resources, discussion board questions or prompts, and assessments. Viewing this content in tabular form may help faculty to identify strategies for improving alignment, so that the resulting presentation of content flows in a manner that is clear to students. A related suggestion for improving clarity pertains to the accessibility of information. Students have varying preferences with respect to the presentation of content. Some students learn best when content is presented visually, and others are auditory learners. In the face-to-face classroom, it is relatively easy to incorporate a diverse presentation of content. For instance, lectures are usually provided in the spoken language, but are accompanied by the projection of slides onto a white board. In emergency remote teaching, it is important to consider student preferences when translating one’s face-to-face lecture into the virtual space. The use of closed captioning is an excellent way to increase the accessibility of content and is also often required to stay in compliance with policies outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (McKeown & McKeown, 2019). Platforms such as Amara and YouTube provide faculty members with the ability to add captioning to their lectures, but, in cases where this is not possible, simple changes can make a world of difference for students. One strategy is to post slides or notes alongside a recorded lecture. This will help to address students’ learning preferences and provide a more engaging presentation of content. A related idea is to record videos of lectures using the recording feature within PowerPoint. This ensures that content on each slide is accompanied with verbal analysis by the instructor.

239

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Assessment of Learning When implementing assessments in emergency remote teaching, it is important to follow best practice guidelines. Rahim (2020) outlined nine criteria for the delivery of assessments in the online space in situations where formal online course design has not been employed due to emergency conditions. The first guideline pertains to the evaluation of requisites for the implementation of online assessment procedures. Will students need materials in order to complete the assessments, and, if so, do they have access to these materials? Second, the alignment between assessments and learning objectives must be clear. It is of the utmost importance to adequately align objectives to any graded aspect of a course, so that student performance clearly represents an understanding of course content. The third criterion references the importance of addressing the diversity of the situations of all students. In other words, the unique position in which each student has been placed, due to the emergency situation(s) that precipitated the change in course modality, must be factored into any assessment plan. Additionally, criterion four outlines the importance of establishing an effective balance of formative and summative assessments. While formative assessment may be utilized to gauge the effectiveness of the presentation of content prior to the end of each module, thereby informing the need for potential changes, a summative assessment is administered at the end of the module, providing a summary of student learning. The next criterion Rahim outlined references the use of online assessment to stimulate student learning. Students often learn a great deal during periods of assessment, and there are multiple opportunities to structure activities towards this end when delivering content through virtual means. For instance, students may be asked to conduct outside research to provide a solution to a problem. Alternately, students may be asked to complete a simulation and then reflect on the impact of the activity. These examples relate to the next two criteria: format and scheduling/timing. In a face-to-face course, assessments may be conducted via an exam. This can also be done online, but requires that the faculty member enters the exam questions into the learning management system. Once entered, determinations regarding the length of time that is adequate must be made. Further, it is possible to proctor exams to reduce the odds that academic dishonesty will impact results, but arrangements such as this typically take a significant amount of time, and, as such, are typically not made in emergency remote teaching situations. Instructors may decide to allow the use of resources on exams and set timers to deter students from looking up answers. In either case, communication, the next criterion, is key. Faculty must clearly communicate with students regarding assessment procedures to alleviate unnecessary fears and promote fairness through transparency. Following the assessment, high-quality feedback, criterion eight of nine, is of the utmost importance. Particularly in cases where assessments will require writing, faculty must provide feedback that is relevant, helpful, and targeted to the work of individual students. Providing general feedback is not helpful, and students often perceive it as far less meaningful. The final criterion Rahim outlined references the importance of addressing threats to the validity of the assessment. This requires a thoughtful appraisal of the factors that may impact the performance of each student, which do not directly relate to his/her understanding of the course material. In emergency remote teaching, there are many threats to assessment validity, including but not limited to poorly formulated assessment procedures, inadequate student understanding of expectations, academic dishonesty, technology failures, and poor alignment between assessments and course content. Due to the significant amount of time that is required to accurately select, align, and implement online assessment procedures, some institutions have adopted alternate strategies for assessment in situations involving emergency remote teaching. 240

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

One such strategy involves the use of pass/fail assessment (Stanger, 2020). In pass/fail assessment, the use of grades is omitted to address potential validity concerns that may be associated with the rapid design and implementation of assessment tools in a modality in which they were not intended to be delivered. Some institutions have also permitted students to opt for a pass/fail final grade in situations involving emergency remote teaching. This helps to provide additional options to students and faculty alike during conditions that do not offer optimal levels of flexibility.

FACULTY PREPARATION One important best practice for online teaching which is well documented in the literature is presence (Bailey & Card, 2009; Baran et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2019). Presence can be demonstrated through the use of welcome messages, personalized multimedia (Mandernach, 2009), responsiveness to student emails, and scheduling office hours at regular intervals. A second best practice involves demonstrating support and engagement through the use of a variety of activities (Erbaggio et al., 2012; Martin, Ritzhaupt e al., 2019). An additional best practice for online teaching involves expectation setting and use of effective assessment methods (Baldwin & Trespalacios, 2017; Cundell & Sheepy, 2018; Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006). Faculty must clearly communicate to students what will be expected of them during an online course. A related best practice, feedback (Alderman et al., 2012) is of the utmost importance when teaching online, as feedback provides students with direction. These best practices should be communicated to faculty as part of the process of preparing them to engage in the process of emergency remote teaching. Best practices for the preparation of faculty to facilitate online courses involve the clear presentation of expectations (Edwards et al., 2011) combined with practice opportunities and supports, including the delivery of regular professional development opportunities (Baran & Curreia, 2014; Coswatte Mohr & Shelton, 2017; Frankel et al., 2020). Further, the provision of regular feedback to highlight strengths and areas of opportunity is integral to the preparation of effective facilitators of online courses. As in the case of online course design, emergency remote teaching situations offer administrators the opportunity to apply best practices for training faculty in multiple ways.

Expectation Setting Institutions that are forced to close their physical campuses and move to emergency remote teaching must ensure that all faculty understand their new roles. Expectations must be set in an intentional manner and reinforced on a regular basis. Before expectations are shared, they must be identified, which requires administrators to quickly adapt to novel circumstances, assess limitations and opportunities, and create best-case scenarios and steps for their implementation. The process of setting expectations for faculty who are engaged in emergency remote teaching is inherently challenging, as an important goal for higher education is superior learning experiences for all students. In cases where obstacles to this goal are present, it can be challenging to quickly assess opportunities to preserve the student experience while adhering to changes in policy that follow emergency closures of physical structures. Institutions that employ individuals with knowledge regarding best practices for online education may consider their organizations to be at an advantage in these situations, as they will likely find it easier to set expectations for faculty engaged in remote teaching. Despite this presumed advantage, it is important to recognize 241

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

that the delivery of online education differs significantly from emergency remote teaching, and, as such, expectations for each endeavor must be unique and clearly aligned to the intended outcome. One effective first step when working to develop expectations is to consider the intended outcomes (Dennis, Halbert et al., 2020). Intended outcomes of emergency remote teaching include, but are not limited to, the effective transition to a virtual modality, presentation of course content in a manner that is accessible and understandable, engagement of students, assessment of student learning outcomes, and calculation of grades. If the aforementioned intended outcomes are taken as integral outcomes that must occur, then faculty actions can be outlined in a manner that supports these outcomes. For instance, an effective transition can be nurtured through the clear and frequent delivery of announcements, which is a best practice which impacts student perceptions of course quality (Brown et al., 2018). This requires that faculty craft and post announcements and then respond promptly to student questions pertaining to the announcements. Three key expectations can be taken from this analysis: The expectation that faculty will draft announcements, the expectation that faculty will post these announcements on a regular basis, and the expectation that faculty will respond to student questions in a prompt manner. Asking faculty to engage in specific steps, such as those the author has outlined above, may greatly improve the understanding of expectations among faculty, irrespective of the familiarity they may have with online instruction. After expectations have been set, it is important to communicate these expectations to faculty. It is useful to communicate expectations through multiple modalities. First, sharing expectations in writing is of the utmost importance. Written instructions can be referred back to if or when questions arise. Written expectations should be organized in a manner that is easy to follow to decrease the odds that instructions will be missed. For instance, expectations pertaining to the management of administrative aspects of a class can be grouped together, such that faculty can review this group of tasks together and easily refer back in situations where questions regarding administrative management present themselves. Although the administrative management of online courses is certainly important, particularly in cases where the institution is forced to make rapid adjustments, additional categories should be delineated in expectation documents. One such category may be termed discussion board management. Within this category, best practices pertaining to the facilitation of the discussion board could be shared. For instance, one expectation might be to add prompts that are aligned to the resources for the week. A second expectation might be to respond to the post of each student or to respond to the post of every third student, depending on the size and level of the course. Outlining expectations pertaining to effective management of the discussion board in clear terms serves to provide faculty with the direction they need, particularly in cases where experience teaching online is minimal. A second, related category, may be termed course resource management and could refer to the preparation and sharing of readings and lectures. A clear expectation pertaining to this category might reference the importance of checking each link that is posted to ensure that readings are easily accessible to students. Broken links to required readings serve to create easily avoidable stress for students and faculty alike, but faculty teaching face-to-face courses typically do not consider this, as it generally does not apply. As such, providing this clear direction improves the ease with which faculty may facilitate emergency remote teaching. An additional category of expectations might be termed feedback and grading. In emergency remote teaching, the provision of substantial and prompt feedback can serve to keep students engaged and ensure that student learning outcomes are met during tumultuous times. Providing faculty who are new to this area with direction referencing the level of detail that is expected in feedback and the desired turnaround time for feedback and grading may help significantly, by setting expectations and reduc242

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

ing the amount of time that faculty must spend figuring out the most advantageous ways to apply best practices. Additional parameters may certainly be included, but avoiding information overload is also a best practice when aiming to quickly set clear and achievable expectations for faculty who are new to emergency remote teaching. The presentation of key best practices and expectations in a clear and well-categorized manner is a helpful way to prepare faculty to move into the virtual space abruptly. Communication, however, must not be limited to written direction. In cases where faculty are presented with written direction that pertains to activities to which they are not accustomed, content is often lost due to differences in interpretation. One strategy for preventing the loss of information and ensuring accurate understanding among large groups of faculty is to schedule a virtual meeting utilizing web conferencing software. Key benefits of this strategy are that it provides time for community building in the online space and models best practices for online meeting facilitation for faculty. In addition to these benefits, virtual meetings allow for the explanation of written guidelines. Faculty can also ask questions in real time and benefit from the questions posed by their peers. Further, this strategy helps to demonstrate the dedication of the department to the faculty experience. Setting clear expectations has a tremendous impact on the ability of faculty members to effectively engage in emergency remote teaching, but it is not sufficient. Resources are also needed, in order to adequately equip faculty members with the tools they will need to inspire learning in the remote realm.

Training and Development There are many tool kits available that can be used to provide faculty who are accustomed to teaching in the face-to-face format with the resources they need to effectively facilitate emergency remote educational experiences (Toquero, & Talidong, 2020; Whalen, 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). These kits categorize key strategies for engaging with students online (Whittle et al., 2020) and present best practices for assessment and instructions for utilizing technology to facilitate the learning process, but instructions alone do not suffice. Virtual training delivered in real time is necessary, particularly when demonstrating the use of technology tools to faculty who will be asked to employ those tools in the online classroom. This training allows faculty to practice key skills and explore the subtle nuances of each technology tool they will be asked to use. In cases where this step is missed, faculty often experience challenges, which make it very difficult for them to be effective in the online space. The provision of adequate resources and training in their use, even when combined, serve to prepare faculty only minimally. Regular professional development is needed to reinforce newly acquired skills. Professional development can help faculty to gain comfort utilizing technology tools and can also help to support and nurture the adoption of key best practices for engaging with students online (Gay, 2016). Key topics of interest include, but are not limited to, Socratic questioning on the discussion board, providing helpful feedback, mentoring students in academic honesty, facilitating difficult dialogues, and supporting students during times of crisis. One challenge that is often associated with professional development planning initiatives is workload. It is important to develop opportunities that are delivered with a regular cadence, but it is also important to get that cadence right, so that development opportunities are perceived as helpful, rather than as a chore. Strategies for increasing faculty interest in professional development include delivering sessions on applicable topics, delivering sessions on multiple topics, allowing faculty to make their own selections, and involving faculty in the training delivery process. 243

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

While these best practices for the delivery of professional development may be applied in most online instructional situations (Coswatte Mohr & Shelton, 2017), emergency remote teaching is characterized by the need to abruptly adjust one’s teaching modality, and resources for adequate training often do not exist, let alone resources for regular professional development. In cases where these resources do exist, faculty often do not have the bandwidth to fully engage in the associated activities, given the changes that have been made to their roles. As such, professional development offerings for faculty engaged in emergency remote teaching must be flexible and extremely relevant, in order to encourage participation. Sharing links to self-paced courses that focus on relevant topics is one way to support faculty engaged in emergency remote teaching without adding to their workload in a significant manner. The assignment of a mentor is another key strategy that helps to provide the necessary ongoing support that faculty new to remote instruction need.

Mentorship The assignment of mentors is a helpful way to provide regular support to faculty who are tasked with learning and applying new strategies quickly (Baran & Correia, 2017). Faculty mentors are optimally selected from among the current group of faculty but can be recruited from outside institutions as well. Administrators may also serve as mentors in cases where they possess an appropriate level of experience in online course facilitation. One key to the successful implementation of a mentoring program is expectation setting. In cases where a formal plan for mentoring is developed and implemented, more positive outcomes and less confusion among faculty are likely to be reported. An additional consideration for the assignment of mentors pertains to workload. Many institutions employ at least some faculty members who teach online courses on a regular basis. In emergency situations, which require rapid modality changes and necessitate the assignment of mentors, this group of faculty is likely to be asked to step in. In cases where selected faculty are asked to engage in additional activities to support the effective operations of the department, adjustments to workload are often necessary. Despite the need for workload adjustments, resources are often not available to support these changes. In these cases, temporary additional compensation may be offered if financially feasible. In cases where institutional finances are not sufficient, many faculty members gain a great deal of satisfaction from the opportunity to mentor others, particularly in cases where expectations are clearly outlined by administration and recognition is delivered on a regular basis.

Evaluation Procedures for faculty evaluation at brick-and-mortar institutions vary widely and may be accomplished through a combination of student end-of-term feedback surveys and classroom observations. Formal online education typically includes comprehensive faculty evaluation procedures that involve a regular review of the online classroom for each faculty member (Benton, 2018). It is certainly important to exercise some degree of flexibility when evaluating faculty members during emergency situations, in which they often lack the training, resources, and supports to serve in their role in a prepared manner (Green, 2020). There are several best practices for the evaluation of online faculty that may be applied in situations involving emergency remote teaching, which serve to benefit the faculty, the students, and the institution.

244

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

One best practice pertains to the provision of regular feedback to faculty members. The administration should provide faculty with the opportunity to check in on a regular basis. During check-ins, strengths and areas of opportunity may be explored, with an emphasis on the ways in which the faculty member has demonstrated their skills to the benefit of the students and can continue to do so. Evaluation during emergency situations should never be punitive in nature, but, rather, should present opportunities for greater engagement with students and provide faculty members with the opportunity to share questions or concerns they may have regarding resources shared by the department.

STUDENT SUPPORT Effective student support is one of the best predictors of student retention (Bailey & Brown, 2016), and it is also particularly important during periods of organizational adjustment, such as that which resulted from the global pandemic. There are a multitude of issues that students may face when the modality of their program shifts suddenly. Student support services are a necessary prerequisite for student success and can be applied to address resources and adjustment (Knudson, 2020; Petillion & McNeil, 2020; Rahiem, 2020).

Resource Needs First, in terms of resources, students vary widely with respect to their comfort with technology, and this may significantly impact their ability to adjust to emergency remote teaching situations. Ensuring that students have the resources they need to access and use technology effectively is key to the facilitation of an effective remote learning experience. Key considerations for assessing student resource needs must start with the identification of available and accessible resources. Students may not always have access to technology tools. Students are not generally required to purchase computers to attend brickand-mortar institutions, though they certainly are required to obtain this equipment as a prerequisite to enrolling in an online program. In addition to ensuring access, training must be provided to ensure that all students have the necessary understanding to make use of the technology tools that are required for their courses. Even students with optimal resources who are proficient in online course technology often need extra support while navigating course modality changes during pandemic conditions (Van Heuvelen et al., 2020).

Adjustment Needs There are many adjustment-related challenges that may be faced by students whose educational experience has been abruptly shifted to the remote format (Toquero, 2020b). While some of these challenges may be mediated by support gained from faculty (Gares et al., 2020), formal institutional supports are also necessary. One challenge pertains to health. Institutions of higher education must provide clear guidance regarding their policy on illness and participation in emergency remote education. A second challenge pertains to outside events that may impact the ability of a student to engage in remote instruction (Green et al., 2020; Jeffery & Bauer, 2020). Students with children, for instance, may be placed into the position of teacher, if the school district attended by said children has also closed its physical doors. To address students concerns, the implementation of best practices for online student 245

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

support, including regular outreach, clear communications regarding resources, community building opportunities, and individual advising sessions may be implemented through virtual means. In terms of resources, institutions of higher education often have multiple resources that are available to students on campus. Further, the large majority of colleges that deliver most of their courses on campus provide their online students with the same campus-based services that are available to students enrolled in face-to-face courses. In cases where emergency situations require the closure of physical campuses, institutions that lack formal online resources must quickly adapt to support the needs of students. In cases where online services were previously available, these services must be expanded. In the case of the former, the rapid development of online student services poses significant challenges. Step one involves providing the staff with the equipment and programs they need to complete their daily tasks. In many cases, access to sensitive information, such as student data, is only available while on a physical campus or while connected to a virtual private network. In order to access a virtual private network, staff must have access to computers that support the necessary applications. Without this access, operations of the university essentially cease, as no processing can be completed. The establishment of temporary virtual student services involves sufficient considerations to warrant its own chapter, but the assumption will be made here that such services have been operationalized and allow for student outreach and the delivery of resources.

Outreach First, in terms of outreach, emergency situations often necessitate demonstrations of care, and higher education is no exception. Students who are provided with outreach from the institutions they attend during times of crisis tend to experience higher levels of engagement, higher levels of satisfaction, and improved retention rates (Bailey & Brown, 2016). Many online student services departments schedule their outreach at predetermined times each term, such as several weeks ahead of a term, one week prior to the add/drop period of the campus, one week ahead of the end of each term, and the date on which the end-of-term feedback survey will open. In addition to these scheduled messages, online student services teams engage in outreach on an individual basis in cases where certain parameters are met. For example, students may receive outreach when they file for graduation, if their grades drop or if their attendance is below the level that is expected. Best practices for student outreach will likely not be supported by the current student services resources of a campus (Jeffery & Bauer, 2020). As such, adjustments must be made to provide all students with at least minimal outreach, thereby contributing to continued engagement. Email messages can be sent to students utilizing mail merge, for instance, to ensure that at least some communication is received on a regular basis. Another key strategy for supporting students is sharing resources. During times of crisis, many students could greatly benefit from community resources, and yet many are unsure how to go about obtaining these resources. Student services teams should ensure that all students are aware of available community resources during emergency situations. For instance, the global pandemic has led to the loss of employment for many, and the consequent need for resources in the form of food and/or shelter. Sharing community resources pertaining to these needs with students contributes to the success of the student and demonstrates institutional support. Students who feel supported by the institutions they attend are far more likely to successfully complete their degrees. In addition to outreach efforts and sharing resources, student services during emergency situations should involve community building. 246

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Community Building Virtual engagement opportunities serve to bring together students and faculty who are geographically distributed, connecting them through the pursuit of a shared goal. Student services teams often organize cocurricular activities on campuses to bring together groups of students, thereby contributing to engagement. In the case of emergency remote teaching, virtual engagement is a key strategy for building and nurturing communities of students. One strategy for remote engagement in emergency situations is listening sessions. Listening sessions can be scheduled online utilizing Web conferencing software. These sessions tend to be less formally scripted and are generally intended to provide a forum for discussion. Listening sessions are typically held in the aftermath of significantly traumatic events to allow students and faculty to share their reflections in a safe space. When scheduling a listening session, it is important for the organizers to come ready to hear what is shared without judgment. Further, it is important to prepare resources, which can be shared with any attendees who may benefit from additional discussion or support following the conversation. Another strategy is to schedule virtual celebrations. Holidays present an opportunity to schedule virtual celebrations, and engagement can easily be built into remote parties with music, readings, games, and networking time. Additionally, events such as the end of a term can be celebrated. Finally, students can be asked to come together to share feedback on their experience in a program. If this strategy is utilized, it is important to follow up with students to ensure they feel heard. Further, it is important to develop a response that takes into account the feedback shared and that proposes strategies for addressing any noted deficiencies. A final strategy for providing student support involves remote advising sessions. Advising can easily be moved into the virtual format in cases where adequate resources are available. In cases where the number of students is too great for current advisors to support, course-embedded advising can be built into online courses (Dennis, Fornero et al., 2020). Course-embedded advising allows faculty members assigned to teach select courses to meet individually with each student in their course to discuss predetermined prompts. The individual discussion of the prompts replaces one assignment, thereby equalizing the workload for both students and faculty members. Clear and direct alignment of the course-embedded advising session prompts to weekly and course level objectives is key to the ability of the session to serve as an assessment point for student learning outcomes. Although emergency remote teaching will likely not support the formal adoption of this particular strategy, given the time required for adequate implementation, variations could be utilized by faculty who hope to provide individual advising during times of crisis. However, it is important to note that all aspects of the emergency remote teaching experience are best supported by effective communication.

COMMUNICATION Direct and comprehensive communication that is easily accessible helps to support abrupt procedural changes for students and faculty alike (Schlesselman, 2020). First, in terms of direct communication, institutions of higher education must aim for transparency, even in cases where unknown decisions exist. It is important to share with the campus community that information is being evaluated and provide an estimated date by which a decision will be determined. Additionally, where possible, the solicitation of feedback from the campus community is optimal, as it empowers staff and faculty to share their views 247

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

and often contributes to more balanced decisions. Messages must be accessible to benefit the campus community. The degree to which a communication may be deemed accessible depends on multiple factors. To address this fact, many institutions make use of multiple communication channels to share announcements with relevance to the campus community, such as text message, voicemail, and email. Further, emergency communications are often shared via news media to ensure all affected parties are informed promptly.

Faculty Faculty may employ the use of virtual office hours to communicate with their students during periods of emergency remote teaching. This provides students with scheduled times during which they may connect with their faculty members. Scheduling time for virtual office hours should not replace availability to meet with students by appointment, as the hours selected by the faculty members may not be consistent with the needs of the students. In addition to scheduled office hours, faculty members should post announcements on a regular basis. Posting announcements via the learning management system is a best practice and preferable to the use of email alone. When announcements are posted, students can easily refer back to the message, while emails may easily be deleted from student inboxes. Faculty should start each course with an announcement notifying students that the course has been moved to the remote format and outlining the specific changes that will take place. Further, faculty should state the response time that students can expect from them. Faculty should ensure their messages are consistent with institutional announcements. Announcements should also be posted at the start of each week, summarizing the content that will be covered, highlighting the resources and activities, and reviewing any assessments that will be administered. In addition to announcements, faculty should ensure they respond to student emails promptly. Prompt faculty responses facilitate effective communication and are a key characteristic of any successful online course. In the case of emergency remote teaching, responding promptly is arguably even more important. Students may have significant questions, the answers to which will allow them to complete their weekly work. This is not to say that faculty must be constantly available to their students. It is important to set boundaries when teaching online, lest one’s home and work life begin to merge to the detriment of the individual. As referenced earlier, faculty should set the expectation for response time via an announcement. If a 24-hour or 48-hour response time is stated, then students will know what to expect and will be less likely to expect immediate responses. Parameters for student communication should also be addressed in emergency remote teaching situations.

Students Students who are engaged in face-to-face courses understand well the importance of showing up during scheduled class times. Attendance is quite easily assessed through this format, as the individual is either present or absent. In formal online courses, faculty measure attendance in specific terms, which are outlined in institutional policies. For instance, if a student views a resource, but does not post a reply to the discussion board or submit an assignment, he/she may not be considered present. If, on the other hand, a student does not review one of the resources or complete the weekly discussion, but does complete the weekly assignment, then he/she may be considered present during that particular week. Participation is typically defined as meaningful interaction with course activities in the virtual realm. In emergency 248

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

remote teaching, it is important for institutions and faculty to set parameters regarding attendance so as to prepare students to fully participate. If no parameters are set, it will be impossible for faculty and administration to engage in outreach in cases where students are not participating.

CONCLUSION In sum, the global pandemic COVID-19 required institutions of higher education to rapidly adjust to course delivery in a remote modality with few resources to support necessary changes. Despite the challenges which are often associated with emergency remote teaching, best practices for online course design, faculty training, and student support may be effectively implemented through careful planning and the use of innovative strategy. The adoption of these best practices serves to improve the educational experience for students, faculty, and administrators alike, and allows for the continuation of courses and the reduction of disruptions to the learning process. Effective communication strategies must be implemented throughout the process of emergency remote teaching to ensure cohesion and nurture community within the organization.

REFERENCES Affouneh, S., Salha, S., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 1–3. doi:10.30476/ijvlms.2020.86120.1033 Alderman, L., Towers, S., & Bannah, S. (2012). Student feedback systems in higher education: A focused literature review and environmental scan. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), 261–280. doi:10.1080/1 3538322.2012.730714 Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152–155. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002 Bailey, T. L., & Brown, A. (2016). Online student services: Current practices and recommendations for implementation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(4), 450–462. doi:10.1177/0047239515616956 Baldwin, S., Ching, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. doi:10.100711528-017-0215-z Baldwin, S. J., & Trespalacios, J. (2017). Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education. Online Learning, 21(2), 104–121. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i2.913 Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 95–101. doi:10.100711528-014-0791-0 Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2017). What motivates exemplary online teachers? A multiple case study. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–17). Springer. doi:10.1007/9783-319-17727-4_33-2 249

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher education: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–41. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning design: Implications derived from an investigation of university teachers’ design practices. Computers & Education, 81, 211–220. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.016 Benton, S. L. (2018). IDEA Paper #69: Best practices in the evaluation of teaching. The IDEA Center. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Olcott, D. Jr, Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V. Jr, Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ... Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3878572 Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coronavirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–4. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083 Brown, V. S., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions of quality across four course development modules. Online Learning, 22(2), 173–195. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1213 Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–121. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912 Coswatte Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–140. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273 Cundell, A., & Sheepy, E. (2018). Student perceptions of the most effective and engaging online learning activities in a blended graduate seminar. Online Learning, 22(3), 87–102. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i3.1467 Dennis, M., Fornero, S., Snelling, J., Thom, S., & Surles, J. (2020). Evaluating student perceptions of a course-embedded faculty advising model. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 15(6), 10–21. doi:10.33423/jsis.v15i6.3592 Dennis, M., Halbert, J., DiMatteo-Gibson, D., Agada, C., & Fornero, C. (2020). Implementation of a faculty evaluation model. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17(5), 30–37. doi:10.33423/ jlae.v17i5 Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance Education, 32(1), 101–118. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565499 Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(3), 185–215. doi:10.1111/dsji.12097 Erbaggio, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H. (2012). Enhancing student engagement through online authentic materials. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 42(2), 27–51. doi:10.17161/ iallt.v42i2.8511

250

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Fayer, L. (2014). A multi-case study of student perceptions of online course design elements and success. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 13. doi:10.20429/ ijsotl.2014.080113 Frankel, A. S., Friedman, L., Mansell, J., & Ibrahim, J. K. (2020). Steps towards success: Faculty training to support online student learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 34(2), 23–32. Gares, S. L., Kariuki, J. K., & Rempel, B. P. (2020). Community matters: Student-instructor relationships foster student motivation and engagement in an emergency remote teaching environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3332–3335. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00635 Gay, G. H. (2016). An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course delivery. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 199–220. doi:10.100712528-016-9115-z Green, J. (2020). How not to evaluate teaching during a pandemic. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ how-not-to-evaluate-teaching-during-a-pandemic/ Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: Supporting teachers and students coping with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(6), 1–17. doi:10.100742438-020-00185-6 Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). The impact of previous online course experience on students’ perceptions of quality. Online Learning, 20(1), 25–40. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i1.565 Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-differencebetween-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning Jeffery, K. A., & Bauer, C. F. (2020). Students’ responses to emergency remote online teaching reveal critical factors for all teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2472–2485. doi:10.1021/acs. jchemed.0c00736 Journell, W. (2015). Practical guidelines for creating online courses in K-12 education. In T. L. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 86–107). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch005 Knudson, D. (2020). A tale of two instructional experiences: Student engagement in active learning and emergency remote learning of biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 1–11. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14763141.2020.1810306 PMID:32924795 Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., Klein, D., & Nord, J. H. (2016). The importance of active learning elements in the design of online courses. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 4(2), 17–28. doi:10.36965/OJAKM.2016.4(2)17-28 Kumar, S., Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Elements of award-winning courses. Online Learning, 23(4), 160–180. doi:10.24059/olj. v23i4.2077

251

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2015). Learning theory and online learning in K-12 education: Instructional models and implications. In T. L. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 126–146). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch007 Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98. doi:10.100710755-006-9010-z Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Effect of instructor-personalized multimedia in the online classroom. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–19. doi:10.19173/irrodl. v10i3.606 Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184–205. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329 Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001 McKeown, C., & McKeown, J. (2019). Accessibility in online courses: Understanding the deaf learner. TechTrends, 63(5), 506–513. doi:10.100711528-019-00385-3 Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching during Coronavirus pandemic: The current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 5(3), 1–11. doi:10.100741062-020-00326-7 Outlaw, V., & Rice, M. (2015). Best practices: Implementing an online course development & delivery model. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(3), 1–10. Petillion, R. K., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486–2493. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00733 Rahiem, M. D. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 1–26. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1 Rahim, A. F. A. (2020). Guidelines for online assessment in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education in Medicine Journal, 12(2), 59–68. doi:10.21315/eimj2020.12.2.6 Schlesselman, L. S. (2020). Perspective from a teaching and learning center during emergency remote teaching. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(8), 1–2. doi:10.5688/ajpe8142 PMID:32934391 Stanger, A. (2020). Make all courses pass/fail now. https://www.chronicle.com/article/make-all-coursespass-fail-now/ Stevens, K. B. (2013). Contributing factors to a successful online course development process. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(1), 2–11. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.758554 Toquero, C. M. (2020a). Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15(15), 162–172. doi:10.46661/ijeri.5113

252

 Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching

Toquero, C. M. (2020b). Emergency remote teaching amid COVID-19: The turning point. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 185–188. https://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/450 Toquero, C. M., & Talidong, K. J. (2020). Webinar technology: Developing teacher training programs for emergency remote teaching amid COVID-19. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(3), 200–203. doi:10.30476/IJVLMS.2020.86889.1044 Van Heuvelen, K. M., Daub, G. W., & Van Ryswyk, H. (2020). Emergency remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic reshapes collaborative learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2884–2888. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00691 Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199. Whittle, C., Tiwari, S., Yan, S., & Williams, J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching environment: A conceptual framework for responsive online teaching in crises. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5-6), 311–319. doi:10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0099 Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies, and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641 Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the great online learning experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-experiment/

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Best Practice: A best practice is a set of procedures that represents the accepted or correct strategy for accomplishing an aim. Discussion Board: A virtual sharing forum to which instructors post questions and students post responses. Emergency Remote Teaching: Nonpermanent rapid adjustments to the mode of course delivery in response to situations which are catastrophic in nature. Engagement: Expressed interest, attention, enthusiasm, and commitment to an institution, task or activity. Learning Management System: A virtual domain which facilitates the management of course delivery. Listening Session: A strategy for collecting feedback which includes a group and is led by a facilitator. Mentorship: Advice and support which is shared by an individual who holds experience in the subject matter on which the mentoring is being provided. Multi-Media: Varied means for communication and presentation. Online Education: Facilitation of a class which was designed for delivery through a completely online modality. Online education involves extensive planning over a period of months.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Emerging Pedagogies for the Future of Education; pages 82-100, copyright year 2021 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

253

254

Chapter 14

From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective SelfRegulated Online Learning Yoshiko Goda Kumamoto University, Japan Masanori Yamada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6493-8554 Kyushu University, Japan Takeshi Matsuda Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan

Hiroshi Kato The Open University of Japan, Japan Yutaka Saito Fuji Electric Co., Ltd., Japan Hiroyuki Miyagawa Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan

ABSTRACT This chapter applies data mining and learning analytics, along with self-regulated learning (SRL) theories, to examine possible interventions aimed at supporting students’ success with online learning. The chapter introduces two learning support systems and the results of related research. These two systems are used as sample cases to describe the relationships among SRL, learning support, learning processes, and learning effects. Case 1 is an early warning system that uses an SRL questionnaire completed before actual learning to determine which students are likely to drop out. Case 2 focuses on student planning and the implementation phases of the SRL cycle. This system supports students’ own planning and learning, creating distributed learning and reducing procrastination without human intervention. A comparison of the two cases implies that a combination of an early warning system and system constraints that require planning before actual learning can reduce the need for human learning support and decrease academic procrastination, resulting in increased distributed learning.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch014

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

INTRODUCTION This chapter examines how to provide more effective learning support as well as how to foster students’ self-regulated learning using learning technology, particularly learning analytics, by presenting two case studies related to the development of two learning support systems. While online learning has become common in higher education, it faces serious challenges, including high dropout rates, procrastination, and the cost of learning supports. Learning technology, including learning analytics and expanded learning support systems using artificial intelligence, are expected to improve the quality of online learning experiences. In this chapter, self-regulated learning (SRL), which is generally identified as necessary for successful online learning, is used as a core theory to address related issues, improve learning support, and introduce possible solutions. The targeted fields are both full and hybrid online learning courses offered by accredited universities. Non-credit MOOCs (massive open online courses) are beyond the scope of the current research. The authors have been researching SRL and learning support in the online learning setting for more than 15 years. Students need SRL skills to be successful in online learning and thereby reduce dropout rates in online courses. Therefore, this chapter will discuss possible learning supports for higher education online courses; the proposed supports are based on the theoretical framework of SRL and were developed using learning analytics and data mining techniques. Research has shown that data science has the potential to predict students’ achievements. The results of SRL studies and data science were used to develop support systems for online learning. Each system was examined in a case study, and adaptive learning supports, including the best way to fade out such supports, were considered. The relationship between the application of learning technology and learning supports will be illustrated via the two case studies. In both case studies, a support system for online learning was designed and developed. This chapter is divided into six sections, the first of which presents the introduction; section 2 introduces related literature and previous research, while section 3 describes the research methods applied for the two case studies described here. Section 4 compares the two approaches to online learning support and their effects on students’ learning. Section 5 discusses the findings of the case studies and addresses the implications of this study for future practice and research. The last section identifies how gaps in the literature have been addressed, thereby demonstrating an important contribution of this study.

BACKGROUND This section will review previous related literature, after which a summary of the chapter and its scope will be provided. The section includes literature on SRL, online learning behaviors (including academic procrastination), learning supports for online learning, and learning support systems that implement learning predictions and visualizations of the learning process.

SRL in Online Learning Online learning offers students more flexibility than traditional classrooms with regard to time and place. That said, it also requires students to have better SRL skills than those exercised in traditional face-toface learning environments (Goda et al., 2013; Lynch & Dembo, 2004; Michinov, Brunot, Bohec, Juhel, & Delaval, 2011). SRL involves strategically planning, monitoring, and regulating one’s cognition, 255

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

behavior, and motivation (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011). Research on SRL in online learning is increasing, and toward this end different perspectives on SRL have been examined. For instance, Usta (2011) reported that a negative attitude toward the use of information and communication technology (ICT) has a positive relationship with goal setting, time management, help-seeking, and self-regulation. Later, Yamada et al. (2016) suggested that self-regulation, internal values, and procrastination are fundamental elements for enhancing students’ awareness of time management in online learning. These findings are consistent with previous research on face-to-face learning environments (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Co-regulated learning (CoRL) is another skill considered in studies of online learning. CoRL is defined as “emergent interaction mediating regulatory work. Regulatory expertise is distributed amongst people and activity systems” (Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2011, p. 67). The SRL and CoRL theories are applicable to both individual and collaborative tasks. Hadwin and Oshige (2011) have also discussed the pedagogical mechanisms of these theories: modeling, feedback, and instrumental supports from more capable students are necessary for SRL, and the distribution of expertise that influences SRL (including situational affordances and constraints) is necessary for CoRL.

Learning Analytics and SRL Advances in technology and data science have led to an increase in research on learning analytics and SRL. Applying data mining techniques to 17,934 server logs, Hung and Zhang (2005) found that most learning activities were passive, involving just reading or accessing course materials, even though collaborations were strongly emphasized during classes. Yamada et al. (2017) examined the relationship between SRL and other factors, including learning performance, using learning logs from a ubiquitous environment. They used psychometric data on SRL as well as log data, such as slide pages that learners read with marks and annotations recorded during students’ learning. Yamada et al. (2016) proposed a model that shows the relationships among SRL, active procrastination, and other learning behaviors.

Learning Support Systems Based on SRL Since 2000, the number of learning support systems applying SRL or related theories and concepts has increased rapidly. For example, Hadwin and Winne (2001) introduced CoNoteS2, which encourages students to understand and manage tasks according to the planning and monitoring phases of the SRL academic learning cycle. This cycle has three phases: forethought (planning), performance or volitional control (monitoring), and self-reflection (Shunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Azevedo, Johnson, Chauncey, and Burkett (2010) and Trevors, Duffy, and Azevedo (2014) developed Meta-Tutor, which allows students to tag learning materials on a time-series basis when learning to activate their metacognition. Current learning support systems are being enriched by the addition of recoded learning logs and related activities, and this trend has accelerated research on learning analytics and SRL as well.

Learning Types and Effective Learning Many studies have found that students in higher education postpone actions necessary for them to reach their goals—that is, they procrastinate. As many as 70% (Goda et al., 2015; Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, & Ferrari, 2004) or even 95% of students have reported procrastinating (Ellis & Knaus, 1997). Procrastination poses problems for learning (e.g., Tan et al., 2008) in both face-to-face and online learning settings 256

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

(Klingsieck, Fries, Horz, & Hofer, 2012). Active procrastination is the strategic postponing of learning activities to increase one’s concentration and performance due to enhanced time pressure (Chu & Choi, 2005; Strunk, Cho, Steele, & Bridges, 2013), although many studies have found academic procrastination to be problematic. Goda et al. (2015) identified seven online learning styles: (1) procrastinators, (2) habitual learners, (3) random learners, (4) diminished-drive learners, (5) early birds, (6) chevrons, and (7) catch-up learners. They reported that habitual learners scored significantly higher than procrastinators on a standardized language test. Habitual learners distribute learning tasks throughout the learning period; procrastinators concentrate tasks at the end of the learning period. However, the distribution of learning tasks is important. Decreasing dropout rates by encouraging distributed rather than procrastinatory learning will increase the effectiveness of online learning.

Human Learning Support and Workload One solution to the challenges of online learning is human learning support. A person who provides such support may be called a mentor, e-mentor, tutor, learning advisor, coach, etc. Much research has indicated the effectiveness of human learning support for successful online learning; however, there are also some issues with human support. One of these is the workload of the human supporter. According to Matsuda and Harada (2007), the more careful, in-depth, and individualized the support, the higher the students’ completion rates and learning satisfaction. However, this also increases the workload of each mentor. This high workload may result in fewer students being assigned to each mentor, or it may require mentors to work longer hours. There is also a danger that students will become dependent on their mentors, which may consequently hinder their SRL.

Statement of the Problem Currently, research on SRL with learning analytics is rapidly increasing, and most of this research has used students’ learning logs recorded on the Learning Support System (LMS) and e-Portfolio. Similar to previous research, the access logs from the LMS were utilized for the case studies discussed in this chapter in order to observe and analyze the students’ learning behavior. Likewise, systems and applications have been developed to support improved SRL, but, from the perspective of learning support, little research has been conducted on the design features of systems developed for improving student SRL in an organized manner. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how to provide more effective learning support as well as how to foster students’ SRL using learning technologies. The main features of this chapter are (1) learning support as focused on improvements to student SRL, (2) human and computeraided interventions as learning support, and (3) a consideration of intervention provisions and fading out. This chapter should be helpful for educators, researchers, and systems engineers to design systems and activities that support students’ online SRL.

257

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR SUCCESSFUL ONLINE LEARNING Learning Support Types and Systems to Foster SRL The two systems presented in this study are summarized and compared in Table 1. The systems are similar in some ways, as both focus on the planning phase of the SRL academic cycle. However, Case 1 used an early warning system, while Case 2 required students to plan before learning. Another significant difference is that Case 1 sought to improve interventions by human mentors by implementing learning supports based on students’ learning traits as determined by the pre-questionnaire, whereas Case 2 used system interventions to fade or phase out human support. This section describes the design, development, and effects of the two interventions. Table 1. Summary of case 1 and case 2 systems System

Design & Development

Case 1

Case 2

System Name

Mentoring Support System (MSS)

Self-Regulator (SR)

Purpose of System

Reduce mentors’ workloads to help them focus on students in most need of support

Reduce human intervention and help students improve their SRL skills

Adaptive Technology and Strategies

Early identification of possible dropouts

Force students to plan their learning

Learning Support Type

Adaptive learning support

Reduce human intervention, system support

Target of Learning Support

Reduce mentors’ workloads and dropouts

Reduce human intervention; increase SRL skills

Effects of System

Reduce mentors’ workloads and dropouts

Reduce human intervention; increase SRL skills; increase distributed learning

Remaining Issues

Remaining high ratio of procrastinators

Still relies on system function; how to help students acquire real SRL skills

Evaluation

Case 1: Adaptive Learning Support with Early Warning System to Identify Potential Dropouts The first learning support system is an early warning system to determine which students are more likely to drop out. It uses an SRL questionnaire, which is completed before any learning takes place. The questionnaire consists of 40 items that measure four factors affecting SRL (Goda et al., 2009): (1) affection, (2) cognition, (3) help-seeking, and (4) independence. These four factors were matched to predicted course completion rates based on a matrix that combined the factors with the completion rates; this matrix was created using data mined from previous online courses (Saito et al., 2012). This system helps human learning supporters (mentors) identify students who might need more, or less, support.

258

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Design and Development of the Mentoring Support System (MSS) The main objective of the MSS is to reduce the workload of human learning supporters. This system includes a portal, a social networking system (SNS), and a learning management system (LMS). OpenPne (http://www.openpne.jp) was used to develop the SNS, and Attain 3 (https://satt.jp/product/attain3/ index.htm) was used as the LMS. The MSS uses four functions to support mentors; these functions are described in Table 2. Table 2. System functions of the mentoring support system (MSS) Functions

Description

(1) Classification and Display of Learner Types

Early warning system to show each student’s possible learner type; students are categorized into three types (skillful, neutral, and novice SRLers) using an emoticon based on their SRL questionnaire results

(2) Course Information; Input and Display of Mentoring Guidelines

Creation of mentoring guidelines based on course information and the sharing of these guidelines with multiple mentors for a given course

(3) Automatic Creation of Mentoring Action Plan

Creation and sharing of mentoring action plans, along with the schedule of detailed mentor actions

(4) Customization and Individual Messaging

Easily customized individual messages for adaptive learning support

Function (1) defines learner types (see Figure 1). This was achieved by calculating the scores for the four factors based on the questionnaire results (Goda et al., 2009). The scores were divided into three levels: upper, middle, and lower. There are 81 possible combinations of the three levels of four factors (3*3*3*3). These combinations indicate the likelihood, based on previous research, that a student will drop out of the course (Goda et al., 2010). Function (1) converts possible completion rates into standard values; students with scores of SD ≥ +2 (15.87%) were categorized as skillful self-regulated learners (SRLers), while students with scores of SD ≤ -2 (15.87%) were categorized as novice SRLers. Students with other score patterns were categorized as neutral SRLers. A skillful SRLer is a student who could implement SRL without e-mentor support. A novice SRLer is one who needs careful, appropriate support from a mentor, while a neutral SRLer is neither a skillful nor a novice SRLer. Functions (2) and (3) define how students should be supported by multiple mentors. Function (2) includes course information relevant to learning support strategies, including the duration of the course, periods of access to learning materials, learning periods, task information, etc. The mentoring guidelines include basic information related to the course and mentors, mentoring goals, main mentoring activities, mentors’ attitudes, mentoring criteria, and events that could trigger dropouts (dropout-triggering events or DTEs). According to Matsuda and Harada (2007), DTEs indicate the appropriate timing of mentoring tasks to reduce dropouts. DTEs can include reports, tests, and quizzes; the first graded task is especially likely to become a DTE. Mentors must carefully watch for the appearance of DTEs. In the mentoring guidelines, the following information on DTEs could be included: (1) What are possible DTEs? (2) How serious is the DTE? (3) What problems might DTEs cause? (4) What strategies and solutions could be utilized? There could be multiple ways to prevent dropouts based on a single DTE; this function allows mentors to input these options easily and to display them at a glance.

259

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Function (3) is interlocked with Function (2); it automatically creates an action plan based on the information in the mentoring guidelines. As mentioned in the description of Function (1), three levels of severity are used to gauge the risk of dropouts. The action plan should include possible learning support strategies for the three learning types (skillful, neutral, and novice SRLers). This can then lead to a plan for adaptive learning support. Function (4) enables mentors to send customized messages to all students of each learning type as well as to individuals; it also lets them easily refer to other functions. Figure 1. List of log-in IDs, names, completion of questionnaires, and learner types in function (1)

Figure 2 presents the screenshots of Functions (3) and (4). A mentor checked the targeted student’s learner type and the mentoring action plan to decide what to do for the week before sending a message with Function (3). The mentor could choose one of the typical support messages from the prior set templates and modify the message according to the student’s learning type and possible needs.

260

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Figure 2. Customization and sending of individual messages in function (4), with reference to the mentoring action plan in function (3)

Evaluation of the Mentoring Support System (MSS) The MSS was evaluated based on Saito et al. (2012). This section outlines the methodology used in the present study, including participants, course descriptions, mentoring methods, and results. The case study was a quasi-experiment study with a convenience sample.

Participants and Course Descriptions In Saito et al. (2012), two sections of the course “Introduction to Online Communication,” a general education course for freshmen at a national university, were selected. One was the control group and one was the treatment group. The classes employed flipped learning using e-learning materials for pre-learning, and both classes were taught by the same instructor with the same materials. The control group met on Tuesdays and included 36 students; the treatment group met on Thursdays and included 47 students. The only difference between the classes was the system that the mentors used before and during course mentoring. The full functions of the MSS were used for the treatment group, and only Functions (1) and (4) were used to send individual messages in the control group. In the control group, mentoring guidelines and an action plan were developed with Microsoft Word and Excel, and email was

261

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

used for communication among mentors. There were three units of e-learning material or other digital content, and all materials were made available at the end of the class the week before the targeted class began. The students could access the material 10 minutes before the targeted class began.

Mentoring A lead mentor and a staff mentor were assigned to each class. The lead mentor created the mentoring guidelines and action plan and was responsible for managing course mentoring. The staff mentor used the MSS to provide learning support according to the mentoring guidelines and action plan.

Results The system was evaluated and the two classes compared for (1) reducing mentor workload and (2) learning outcomes. Preparation of mentoring. The lead mentor of the treatment group spent about 4 hours and 10 minutes creating the mentoring guidelines and action plan using MSS Functions (2) and (3). The lead mentor of the control group spent about 5 hours and 30 minutes creating the guidelines and action plan. In the post-experiment interview, the lead mentor of the treatment group indicated that greater familiarity with the system would shorten this preparation time further. Moreover, automated creation of the action plan in Function (3) required detailed input about DTEs. This helped the lead mentor of the control group; the lead mentor of the treatment group had fewer questions about differences between the action plan and the traditional plan. Actual mentoring. In this section, the number of messages sent to students during the semester was used to measure mentor workload. According to the action plan, an average of about five messages should have been sent to each student, regardless of their support needs. However, in both classes, employing learner types drastically reduced the number of sent messages (by about 54% in the control group and about 49% in the treatment group). The mentors indicated that the use of an early warning based on learner types reduced their workloads. Table 3 shows the number of messages sent to each learner type in both classes. More messages were sent to novice SRLers than to other learner types, indicating that the mentors adapted their mentoring activities according to learner types. Table 3. Number of messages sent to each learner type in both classes Class Tuesday (Control Group)

Thursday (Treatment Group)

262

n

No. of Sent Messages per Student

Skillful

Learner Type

2

0.00

Neutral

26

1.15

Novice

8

5.00

Skillful

5

0.00

Neutral

34

1.82

Novice

8

4.00

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Completion rate of e-learning materials and access log. In order to minimize the demerits to students caused by the experiment, the mentoring guidelines and action plans for both classes were created based on the same policies; the MSS functions used were the only difference. In both classes, the main goal of mentoring was to reduce dropout rates. Table 4 shows the number of students who completed the elearning materials and the average completion rate for the three units of materials. Both classes averaged more than 90% completion rates. Satisfaction was measured with a question assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, “Are you satisfied with the learning support by the mentor?,” in the researcher-developed post questionnaire provided at the end of the semester. Scores of 5 were used for the two-tailed t-test with the preset alpha of .05. There was also no significant difference in student satisfaction with learning support (M(Tue.) = 4.13, M(Thu.) = 4.26, t(67) = .62, n.s.). Figure 3 shows the timing of learning of units 1 and 3 for both classes. Since the learning duration was one week for each set of materials, the chart of learning timing indicates that more than one-half of the students completed the learning materials one or two days before or on the due date, and there were many procrastinators in both classes. Table 4. Completion rates for three e-learning materials and the average for the two classes Class

e-Learning Materials

Day of Week

N

#1

#2

#3

Average

Tuesday (Control Group)

36

34

35

36

35 (97.2%)

Thursday (Treatment Group)

47

42

46

44

44 (93.6%)

Figure 3. Timing of unit 1 and 3 learning for both classes

263

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Case 2: Fading Out Human Learning Support: Effects of Planning on Learning Behavior The system developed in the second case study focuses on students’ planning and on the implementation phases of the SRL academic learning cycle—that is, on helping students plan and learn on their own to support distributed learning and reduce procrastination without human intervention. This system fades out human support, shifting students from external regulation to self-regulation. This method is supported by previous research (Goda et al., 2018; Matsuda, Yamada, Goda, Kato, & Miyagawa, 2017; Yamada et al., 2017) on the effectiveness of the self-regulator (SR) system. Successful online learning requires good time management skills (Goda et al., 2009). SR encourages students to improve their time management skills.

Design and Development of the Self-Regulated Learning Support System The second case study used a learning support system, “Self-Regulator (SR),” to help students plan their learning with the scheduling function. SR is a system embedded in the LMS to support students’ regulation of their own online learning. SR added three main functions to the normal LMS: (1) planning each learning unit, (2) planning the learning schedule and comparing it to the actual learning schedule, and (3) dashboard. With Function (1), the course instructor could set a learning period for each group of learning materials and also a planning period. Students could use this function to plan dates and times for learning the target material (see Figure 4). Figure 4. E-learning completion timing for materials 1 and 3 for two classes Source: Yamada et al. (2017)

264

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

The planned schedule would appear under the targeted learning material in the list of materials. This would then connect to the selected LMS, such as Moodle (Figure 5). This function helps students realize that planning should take place before implementation. Moreover, since this function is individually adaptable, students could study the learning materials on their own planned date and time. In other words, the students could set their own deadlines for the assignments. Figure 5. E-learning completion timing for materials 1 and 3 for two classes Source: Yamada et al. (2017)

However, an awareness of the distinction between planning and implementation is not enough to ensure successful online learning; how students plan their learning is also important. In order to help students plan their own learning to meet personal goals and allow time for activities unrelated to the class, the Function (3) dashboard was designed (see Figure 6) and developed based on the SRL and CoRL theories (Hadwin et al., 2011). These theories suggest that modeling, feedback, and instrumental supports from a greater number of skilled people are necessary to improve students’ SRL. Therefore, the students could view their classmates’ learning plans and actual learning and compare their own progress; this supports self-reflection and metacognition about their own learning.

Evaluation of Self-Regulator (SR) To evaluate the SR system, the effect of a student’s awareness of the distinction between planning and implementation on learning behavior was examined. Two different methods for using Function (1) of SR—two ways to set a planning period—were compared. The effect of these methods on learning distri-

265

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Figure 6. Design image of the student dashboard for self-regulator (SR) Source: Goda et al. (2018)

bution and on the visualization of students’ learning processes was also compared. In Condition A, the planning period had the same duration as the student’s access to the learning material, and the planning period and learning period overlapped precisely. In Condition B, the planning period was shorter than the learning period so that students could not input their learning plan right before starting the learning period; this forced them to separate planning from learning. The methodology of the case study, including the participants and course descriptions, is described below, followed by the results. The case study employed a quasi-experimental study with a convenience sample. The criteria used to select the classes for data collection were as followed: (1) the same instructor was teaching and (2) e-learning material was developed by the instructor with a combination of slides and narration, and the duration of each unit was less than 15 minutes.

Participants and Course Descriptions Two courses with different conditions of SR use were observed and compared. An intensive course consisting of three days of blended e-learning and face-to-face activities at a public university was selected for Condition A. The course was mandatory for freshmen in 2016. Another blended course that was mandatory for a teacher’s certificate at a national university in 2017 was selected for Condition B. The two courses were taught by the same instructor. The course materials were different, but the course designs were similar, and the e-learning materials were developed by the instructor. The e-learning materials were used for flipped learning, and the students were expected to study them before the classes began. Table 5 summarizes the participant numbers and course descriptions for both conditions. In Condition A, 27 students participated in the research. They used SR for planning and learning. They were expected to

266

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

learn 10 units of e-learning materials over 26 days before the in-person class began. The planning period and learning period were both set from January 18 to February 12, 2017. In Condition B, 24 students participated. This course had three sets of e-learning materials: I, II, and III. For each set, the planning period was separated from the learning period. These date ranges may pose an issue for the internal validity of the research, i.e., the history threat to internal validity. The learning period of Condition A was at the end of the fall semester in Japan, when most courses require final assignments and/or exams. On the other hand, the learning period of Condition B was a whole semester. To consider the effects of the date ranges on internal validity, the dates were reported in Table 5 as well. Table 5. Course descriptions for two conditions n

No. of Learning Material Units

A: Planning and learning periods overlap

27

10

B: Planning period separate from learning period

24

Condition

Planning Period

Learning Period

1/18/2017 to 2/12/2017 (26 days)

6

I: 5/2/2017 to 5/8/2017

5/2/2017 to 5/23/2017 (22 days)

6

II: 5/23/2017 to 6/5/2017

5/23/2017 to 6/20/2017 (29 days)

4

III: 5/23/2017 to 6/5/2017

5/23/2017 to 7/18/2017 (57 days)

Results To examine the effect of awareness of the distinction between planning and learning on students’ learning, students’ learning processes under both conditions were observed. Figure 7 shows the number of content units learned per day and the cumulative amount of learned content under Condition A; Figure 8 shows the same information for Condition B. Under Condition A, the planning period and the learning period overlapped. This created a situation similar to typical online courses, most of which only have a deadline for all the material in the course, as opposed to a deadline for each section of the material. In such a case, as shown in Figure 7, most students completed the learning materials right before the end of the planning and learning period, February 12. Several materials were learned after the due date on February 13. The median of the cumulative learned content was February 9, just three days before the deadline, although the students had 26 days to learn the material. This suggests that many of the students were procrastinators. Under Condition B, the planning period was separated from the learning period. The planning period ended before the middle of the learning period for all three sets of learning materials. For Set I, the chart for “Number of Content Units Learned per Day” shows a wide distribution during the learning period. The line shows the planning deadline, and the dotted line on May 12 shows the median of learning material completion. This is almost the middle of the learning period, indicating that learning occurred throughout the learning period and was not concentrated at the end. This tendency is seen in Set II and Set III as well. Although the planning period deadline was not evenly assigned for all sets, the median for task completion was located near the middle for all three sets. This suggests that separating the planning period from the learning period in SR effectively distributes students’ learning, regardless of variability in the planning period.

267

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Figure 7. Number of content units learned per day and cumulative learned content under condition A Note. Dotted line: median; circle: weekends and holidays; rectangle: face-to-face class

Figure 8. Number of content units learned per day and cumulative learned content of the three sets of learning materials under condition b

Note. Solid line: deadline for planning period; dotted line: median; circle: weekends and holidays; rectangle: face-to-face class.

COMPARISON OF THE TWO LEARNING SUPPORT APPROACHES This section discusses factors that should be considered when designing online courses and learning supports based on the findings described in the previous section. The first case study demonstrates the ability of the MSS (Mentoring Support System, See Table 1) with an early warning to reduce mentor workload. These findings indicate the possible applications of the early warning function based on SRL to adaptive learning support that meets students’ individual needs. Adaptive learning support also helps human supporters (mentors) control their workloads according to students’ relative needs for individual support. The early warning system uses a questionnaire to identify students who are more likely to drop out before learning begins. This case study demonstrates the use of learning analytics and SRL to provide early warnings of the need for learning support and to encourage successful online learning. The

268

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

mentoring of both groups followed the same guidelines and action plans taken to reduce the dropout rate; it worked well, having the highest completion rates in both groups. This implies that dropout rates were reduced due to the carefully designed support plans. In the treatment group, less support was provided, but the mentoring might have been more efficient—the same completion rates were observed but with less support. The study focused on reducing the number of dropouts as well as the workload of human supporters. However, with this system, most students seemed to access the learning materials right before the deadline for assignments, indicating academic procrastination, which is not effective learning behavior. Therefore, there are still some issues with this system, although the learning process was outside the research scope of Case 1. The second case study focused on encouraging effective learning behavior, especially early and distributed learning instead of procrastination. Previous studies have pointed out the importance of planning for successful online learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008). The results of this case study imply that an awareness of planning as an activity separate from learning may encourage distributed learning and reduce procrastination. Such an awareness can be built into the function of an online support system. This method also reduced the need for human support, allowing it to be decreased. When the planning and learning periods overlapped, students tended to use the planning function right before learning began. They seemed to use the planning function as a key to access the learning materials rather than to truly plan their learning. This is because SR Function (1) forced students to take responsibility for and ownership of their own learning by setting their own deadlines for assignments. Most procrastinators may be unable to plan their learning appropriately; this case study reaffirmed the importance of intentional planning to SRL. Both cases used learning analytics—data-driven approaches to learning supports. Case 1 used prediction models based on previous data about the four factors scored by the SRL questionnaire and about the completion rates of online courses. Case 2 used visualizations of learning processes to capture educational issues before system design for learning support and to examine the effects of the support system on students’ learning behaviors. The planning phase of the SRL academic learning cycle was implemented in this system. The difference between the two case studies is the purpose of the implemented learning supports. Case 1 focused on human workload and dropout reduction, while Case 2 examined learning behaviors and the learning process.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The early warning function could help identify which students need additional support and which need less help to engage in successful online learning. Identifying and categorizing learner types are critical to adaptive learning support. Case 1 suggests that adaptive learning support can increase the efficiency of human support and ensure effective mentoring with fewer manpower hours. From our design and development of the adaptive learning supports, we found that, like instructional design, adaptive learning support can be designed by working backward from the goals. The steps for applying the early warning system to adaptive learning support are as follows. (1) The current issues and problems are determined. (2) The goals or focus of the adaptive learning support are considered. (3) The strategies to achieve the goals are designed based on hypotheses developed through an analysis of accumulated data. (4) The strategies are implemented and evaluated. For example, in Case 1, the prob269

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

lem to be addressed was the heavy workload of the mentors, and the goal of the learning support was to reduce dropout rates. Then, to bridge the gap between the problem and goal, early warnings, as well as other functions, were added to the MSS and embedded in the LMS. Finally, the system was evaluated to determine whether it could fill the gap. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the functions to reduce mentor workload. However, it appears that most students were procrastinators, which reduced the ability of the system to improve learning outcomes. Nevertheless, student learning processes were not one of the research interests for this case study. The goal of the system and/or research determines which data should be used and how the data should be analyzed. Excluding overall satisfaction, the students’ detailed reactions to the learning process were not measured. There is a possibility that receiving adaptive mentoring messages that were based on the pre-questionnaire responses may have affected students’ reactions to and perceptions of the messages. This possibility should be considered in future research. Learning technology holds promise as a learning support, as it can be used to identify various educational issues and needs and to hypothesize and evaluate the effects of potential interventions and strategies. The issues may seem complicated and difficult, but the application of learning analytics may simplify them and serve to identify systematic relationships and tendencies. Possible strategies and solutions can also be created using learning analytics and learning technology, and these solutions can then be tested. This is mainly in the field of data-driven science (Kelling et al., 2009). As Goda (2018) suggested, a balance between data-driven and knowledge-driven (Kitchin, 2014) approaches is necessary to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and attractiveness of learning. This book chapter discusses the relationships among SRL, learning technology, and learning support, incorporating data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches. When learning technology is expected to reinforce learning support, data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches could be integrated to develop quality interventions and solutions. A data-driven approach could be used to revisit the theories developed in a knowledge-driven approach. For example, the algorithm combining the four factors of SRL and online course completion rates showed that higher scores on the SRL factors do not necessarily correlate with higher completion rates (Goda et al., 2010). Students with higher scores may choose to drop a course that they feel is unnecessary. Previous studies have highlighted the negative effects of procrastination, but more recent research has also identified the intentional use of procrastination with positive effects (Chu & Choi, 2005), now referred to as “active procrastination.” Active procrastination is viewed as involving accurate metacognition and use of time pressure for better and more efficient performance, although procrastinating is traditionally considered to be problematic behavior for academic success. A balance between data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches can lead to new advances in educational and learning research. In Case 2, human intervention was minimized, and the system function was used to control learners’ behavior. Here, system intervention could be considered as a way to phase out human learning supports. As human beings adapt to new tools and systems, the applications of these tools and systems can expand, changing how humans live and think. The convenience of new systems and tools may change how we learn. In the future, the skills needed to control and improve new technology should be cultivated to avoid excessive dependence on technological tools and systems. Both case studies used convenience sampling, which could minimize the generalizability of the research findings. However, the problems and issues observed for e-learning in higher education do not differ much among distinct settings and countries. Procrastination and lack of SRL are viewed as problems in most countries. Considering such a commonality, even convenience sampling was used here, the research findings may be applicable to typical problems, such as procrastination, in higher education concerning students’ learning behavior. To test this hypothesis, further research is required. 270

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

CONCLUSION This chapter provides an overview of the relationships among SRL, learning support, learning processes, and learning outcomes using two case studies. The cases took different approaches to learning support; Case 1 used adaptive learning support with an early warning system, whereas Case 2 applied system interventions to highlight the planning phase of the SRL academic learning cycle. When theory and learning technology are used to design learning support systems and interventions, data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches should be implemented, and methods that fit the goals of the learning support should be developed carefully. Ideally, students should eventually be able to learn effectively and independently without learning supports; therefore, phasing out these supports should also be included in the plan.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, grant numbers JP15H02935, JP17K18659, JP18K18657, JP19H01716, and JP19K12273.

REFERENCES Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_11 Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3), 245–264. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-264 PMID:15959999 Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination: Or how to think and act rationally in spite of life’s inevitable hassles. Institute for Rational Living. Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Yamada, M., Kato, H., Saito, Y., & Miyagawa, H. (2018). Design of a learning dashboard in “self-regulator” to support planning for distributed online learning. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 159–161). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Yamada, M., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2009). Ingenious attempts to develop self-regulated learning strategies with e-learning: Focusing on time-management skill and learning habit. Proceedings of E-Learn, 2009, 1265–1274. Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Kato, H., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., & Miyagawa, H. (2010). Preliminary development of learner support prediction model for e-learning based on self-regulated learning factors. Proceedings of ICERI, 2010, 1960–1967.

271

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Matsuda, T., Kato, H., Saito, Y., & Miyagawa, H. (2013). Effects of help seeking target types on completion rate and satisfaction in e-Learning. Proceedings of INTED, 2013, 1399–1403. Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2015). Procrastination and other learning behavioral types in e-learning and their relationship with learning outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.001 Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially share regulation of learning. In D. H. Shunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Taylor & Francis. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264. Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2), 313–334. doi:10.1076/edre.7.2.313.3868 Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2008). Revealing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 426–437. Kelling, S., Hochachka, W., Fink, D., Rideald, M., Caruana, R., ... Hooker, G. (2009). Data-intensive science: A new paradigm for biodiversity studies. Bioscience, 59(7), 613–620. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.12 Kitchin, R. (2014, April–June). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2053951714528481 Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance university setting. Distance Education, 33(3), 295–310. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723165 Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–16. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.189 Matsuda, T., & Harada, M. (2007). eラーニングのためのメンタリング [Mentoring for e-learning]. Tokyo: Tokyo Denki University Press. Matsuda, T., Yamada, M., Goda, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2017). Development of “self-regulator” that promotes learners to establish planning habit and its formative evaluation. Japan Journal of Education Technology, 137–140. Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Bohec, O. L., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243–252. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2010.07.025 Saito, Y., Matsuda, T., Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2012). 自己調整学習サイ クルに注目したeメンタ負担軽減システムの開発と評価 [Development and evaluation of an ementors’ workload reduction system based on learners’ self-regulation]. Japan Society of Educational Technology, 36(1), 9–20.

272

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C., Pychyl, T. A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2004). Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings. American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10808-000 Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. The Guilford Press. Strunk, K. K., Cho, Y., Steele, M. R., & Bridges, S. L. (2013). Development and validation of a 2 × 2 model of time-related academic behavior: Procrastination and timely engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.007 Tan, C. X., Ang, R. P., Klassen, R. M., Yeo, L. S., Wong, I. Y. F., Huan, V. S., & Chong, W. H. (2008). Correlation of academic procrastination and students’ grade goals. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 27(2), 135–144. doi:10.100712144-008-9028-8 Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: Interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on notetaking and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 507–528. doi:10.100711423-014-9343-8 Usta, E. (2011). The examination of online self-regulated learning skills in web-based learning environments in terms of different variables. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 276–286. Yamada, M., Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2016). How does self-regulated learning relate to active procrastination and other learning behaviors? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 326–343. doi:10.100712528-016-9118-9 Yamada, M., Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2017). Self-Regulator: Preliminary research of the effects of supporting time management on learning behaviors. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2017), 370–372. 10.1109/ICALT.2017.85 Yamada, M., Shimada, A., Okubo, F., Oi, M., Kojima, K., & Ogata, H. (2017). Learning analytics of the relationships among self-regulated learning, learning behaviors, and learning performance. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 13. doi:10.118641039-017-0053-9 PMID:30595718 Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 1–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ADDITIONAL READING Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3), 245–264. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-264 PMID:15959999

273

 From Adaptive Learning Support to Fading Out Support for Effective Self-Regulated Online Learning

Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2015). Procrastination and other learning behavioral types in e-learning and their relationship with learning outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.001 Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate (North Miami Beach, Fla.), 5(3). Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C., Pychyl, T. A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2004). Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings. American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10808-000 Strunk, K. K., Cho, Y., Steele, M. R., & Bridges, S. L. (2013). Development and validation of a 2 × 2 model of time-related academic behavior: Procrastination and timely engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.007 Usta, E. (2011). The examination of online self-regulated learning skills in web-based learning environments in terms of different variables. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 276–286. Yamada, M., Goda, Y., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., Kato, H., & Miyagawa, H. (2016). How does self-regulated learning relate to active procrastination and other learning behaviors? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 326–343. doi:10.100712528-016-9118-9 Yamada, M., Shimada, A., Okubo, F., Oi, M., Kojima, K., & Ogata, H. (2017). Learning analytics of the relationships among self-regulated learning, learning behaviors, and learning performance. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 13. doi:10.118641039-017-0053-9 PMID:30595718

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Academic Procrastination: Postponing learning behavior until shortly before the deadline of tasks and assignments. Active Procrastination: Intentionally postponing learning behavior for a specific purpose. Adaptive Learning Support: An intervention to improve student learning that accommodates individual needs. Distributed Learning: Learning is spread throughout the learning period. E-Mentor: An online supporter of a student’s online learning. Fading Out Learning Support: Decreasing the degree of intervention in student learning. Self-Regulated Learning: Learning while managing one’s own cognitive, metacognitive, and affectional resources, behavior, and environment.

This research was previously published in Early Warning Systems and Targeted Interventions for Student Success in Online Courses; pages 218-238, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

274

275

Chapter 15

Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods Jamie Mahoney https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4354-2339 Murray State University, USA Carol A. Hall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9557-6787 University of Phoenix, USA

ABSTRACT Teaching and learning in the online environment are challenging. Students and instructors must employ technological tools and strategies to be successful. Merely having a computer and software does not equate to being technologically literate in the 21st century world of work. Learning how to incorporate virtual reality games, webcams, video conferencing, and brainstorming platforms such as Padlet, Bubbl. us, Zoom, Twitter, Instagram, interactive whiteboards, chat rooms, YouTube, and screencasting videos is encouraged. Polleverywhere, Socrative, and Flubaroo are a few assessments to investigate interest by examining the world of synchronous and asynchronous learning environments. The digital natives of today’s classrooms are the future employees of tomorrow’s real-life world of work; therefore, organizations must take control of the situation and prepare workers to meet future job demands. The question of how to do so effectively will be answered in this chapter.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch015

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

INTRODUCTION The classroom environment for students in the 21st century differs from classroom environments in the 20th century. Some students now attend all or part of their classes online. The instructor need not stand before a group of students to lecture, disseminate questions for homework, and dismiss the students. In a virtual environment, students and teachers use technology to transfer teaching and learning (Hall, 2012).

BACKGROUND In 2017, one third of the students in colleges and universities reported taking a class online, and 15.4% of students were enrolled entirely online (Lederman, 2018). During the 2014-15 school year, 2.7 million K-12 students were estimated to have been enrolled in digital learning (Herold, 2017). Some states require students to enroll in at least one online class to earn their high school diploma. The question is how might schools, colleges, and universities maximize teaching and learning so all students reach their potential? The pedagogy of online learning versus face-to-face learning is and continues to be a concern for many K-12 and post-secondary educators, particularly student academic preparedness, maturity level, and study skill acquisition (Hall, 2012). Online teachers must redefine their teaching and learning roles and switch from a disseminator of knowledge to facilitator of learning (Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2008) shared the following: Given the expanding interest and demand for online learning, coupled with the results of studies showing that higher levels of learning are not easily achieved in online courses, there is an imperative to advance our understanding of how to facilitate effective online learning activities (p. 121). In the online environment, the responsibility for learning and success shifts from the teacher to the student. Teachers are facilitators and guides (Berge, 2009; Salmon, 2004; Smith, 2005). Teachers are supporters, resource teachers, and guides who supply students with the tools needed to be successful. Teachers must prepare well-planned syllabi and produce clear instructor policies consisting of rules and expectations. The online students must carefully read and synthesize syllabi and policies. “Reading the documents several times, highlighting pertinent information such as assignment due dates, and examining assignment criteria and rubrics are most important” (Hall, 2012, p.2). If a student is unclear of teacher expectations, the student must seek clarification from the instructor. A syllabus quiz provided by Flubaroo or by Google Forms is one formal assessment instructors can use to determine student understandings of course information explicitly outlined in the syllabus during the beginning of a course. Of importance for students is to note is that online instructors are bound by institutional policies they must follow, which may lessen the flexibility for things such as late assignments and personal emergencies. According to Berge (2009) successful institutions and school systems that embark on establishing online teaching and learning environments encourage and support teamwork. A sense of community can be fostered by encouraging students to work in teams or groups to engage, discuss, and complete projects (Hall, 2012). Through team assignments, students learn how to lead and learn how to follow. The online classroom is one more teaching and learning environment available to help foster learning. Information literacy is a skill required to acquire knowledge. Information literacy is the ability to search for and locate information, to evaluate and comprehend the information when located, and, most 276

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

importantly, to use and apply the information to daily living and working experiences. Bruce (2002) described information literacy as “the personal empowerment learners engage in when independently pursuing lifelong learning” (p. 2). As a learner increases in their ability to apply information, the more power the learner has in making life decisions, and the sooner the learner transitions from knowledge acquirer to the scholar who can apply the knowledge learned to daily life experiences. Learners must, however, judge the information located and received and consider whether the information is appropriate for their current usage. A goal of every teacher should be to “transform dependent learners into independent, self-directed, lifelong learners” (Bruce, 2002). Teachers have a responsibility to our 21st century communities to educate students about the “Seven Ways of Seeing and Experiencing Information: 1) Informational technology for retrieval and communication, 2) Informational sources, 3) Information processes, 4) Information control, 5) Knowledge construction, 6) Knowledge extension, and 7) Wisdom” (Bruce, 2002). Educational exposure to these seven areas allows students to make better decisions dependent upon information gathered when they have a problem in their daily lives.

KEY DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE The two key types of differences between teaching online and teaching face-to-face are pedagogical and operational. Pedagogical procedures in online classrooms are usually asynchronous procedures to include discussions and various means of assessing student learning. The in-person synchronous learning lectures paper and pencil assessments are typically employed. Operationally, online classes are in session 24 hours a day. Face-to-face classes occur in specific geographic locations at regularly scheduled times. Students who attend online classes versus face-to-face classrooms also appear to differ. Online attendees are working adults who live anywhere in the world, whereas in-person students live close to the campus they wish to attend. Instructors who teach online serve as facilitators of learning to assist students by guiding them in their acquisition of knowledge. Most in-person instructors appear to lecture and attempt to transfer their own knowledge to students.

BEST PRACTICES IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT Best practices to foster student learning in the online environment continue to evolve. Instructors need to be present in the online classroom daily and make their presence known by asking questions requiring critical thinking, providing answers to students’ questions, and clarifying misconceptions in students’ learning. Instructors should call students by name, share experiences, provide appropriate feedback on assignments, set clear learning objectives, be supportive of students, and vary types of assignments. Instructors should construct and publish rubrics for assignments. Introducing various forms of media into the classroom can make learning exciting and fun. Jacobs (2010) reported best practices in teaching technology methods and tools for students to think critically in the online environment are to “develop literacies for students to participate through blogs, wikis, podcasts, video productions on sites such as YouTube, e-mail, text messaging, and shared online photostreams” (p. 82). Outdated learning tools are no longer appropriate for teaching practices to meet the student’s needs of the 21st century. As technology improves, teaching practices must change to in277

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

clude these technology tools as best teaching practices and meet students’ needs for higher order and critical thinking. Teaching and learning classroom environments have changed and will continue to change to adapt to the needs of students. Many students choose to attend online classrooms because of the flexibility options provided in meeting work, family, and school responsibilities. Synchronous and asynchronous learning environments through web-enhanced learning options are the choices most students prefer when taking active roles in educational learning experiences (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2017).

INSTRUCTIONAL EXPECTTIONS Online instructor expectations should include the following items to set the mood for the course and help the online student understand course requirements: (a) a welcome note; (b) pre-course announcement with email, phone, and time availabilities; (c) participation requirements and point values to be earned; (d) late assignment policy, and (e) grading policies and expectations (Rios et al., 2018). The online student needs to know the instructor is available and willing to offer assistance when the student is confused and needs clarification. So many times, the online student feels alone. According to Rios et al. (2018), the online student needs to acquire “the social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence” (p. 160) representative of a collaborative learning environment to feel successful.

ESTABLIHING AN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Ferriter (2010) provided the link to the website www.classroom20.com as a reference for teachers interested in implementing a digital classroom and discussion zone for sharing technology tools for lessons and instruction. Other tools available for use are Skype (a synchronous tool), Screencast-O-Matic (a narrations and writing tool), and Voicethread (an asynchronous tool). Each of these devices can be used in the classroom to assist students in learning using multiple modalities. Mobile learning is considered a “24/7 informal, spontaneous, and self-directed experience occurring throughout the day” (Evans, 2015, p. 12) providing the flexibility for all participants in various classroom types. Online learning cohorts engage in texting, gaming, website research and review specifically seeking to gain knowledge or learn new skills (Evans, 2015). An equal mixture of males and females populate these cohorts of active learners rather than passive learners where creating and sharing is more important than just reading about the information (Evans, 2015). Technology and digital learning are an expectation for the experience. Learning is a social experience in which the technology tools are being used to collaborate and network with diverse populations around the world (Gast, 2018/19). Mobile devices no longer require students to be restrained to the desk or geographic locations. Students and teachers can now travel outside the traditional classroom setting to teach and learn, therefore, expanding knowledge and skills (Evans, 2015). Mobile devices include but are not limited to cell phones; more often mobile devices include smartphones, digital readers, tablets, and laptops. The digital tools facilitate learning projects, assignments, assessments, online videos, social networking, and self-directed academic research projects (Evans, 2015). Incorporating videos, photos, sounds, and text into animated movies or slideshows provides students opportunities to demonstrate knowledge rather than respond to simple multiple-choice assessments. 278

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

Preparing to teach in the 21st century requires teachers to become comfortable with an array of hardware and software tools such as “interactive whiteboards, webcams, laptops, digital cameras, iPods, web simulations, flip cameras, WebQuests, Wordle, Moodle, Twitter, Blogs, Video Conferencing, electronic field trips and e-interviews” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 24). Professional development is needed to ensure all teachers are capable of incorporating these tools into their teaching repertoire. Curriculum needs to be updated to take advantage of pedagogical, assessment, and mindset changes.

Technology Teaching with technology is not specifically about learning to use the technology tools per se. “Learning to dig deeper, doing more research, pitching ideas to the team, coming to a consensus, outlining how to best convey the point for attention, making connections with experts in the field, writing, editing, revising, and engaging the audience” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 124) is the purpose of the learning project not learning how to use the technology. Using the technology to make the project is merely the vehicle to motivate and engage the students to complete the project. The same project could be done by writing a paper and orally presenting it. However, this does not prepare students for the future world of work. Digital natives, students in the online classroom, know how to complete these technology-based activities: “upload, download, text, instant message, communicate in social networking sites, blog, post online videos, participate in virtual reality games, operate video cameras” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 134). The online class needs to accentuate and change to meet these skills with a replacement of updated assignments and assessments. The online classroom should incorporate the modern media created literacy curriculum.

STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT ONLINE LEARNING Online students have multiple options available to take coursework; therefore, choosing the right school requires synchronous and asynchronous learning environments to have these components available for successful movement from a traditional classroom environment to a virtual school. Components needed include course design elements for the online class with individual and group activities, enhanced written or video lectures, clearly defined expectations aligned with syllabi objectives, and assignment product varieties (Rios, Elliott, & Mandernach, 2018). Instructor communication about course procedures, expectations, and instructor contact preferences allow students to plan appropriately for the course (Rios et al., 2018).

Meeting Students’ Needs Preparing to teach in the digital age requires teachers and school systems to revisit the standard ways of working in the classrooms to meet the needs of all students. Teachers in future classrooms must adapt techniques to deliver instruction. Some of the methods available for teachers are podcasts, webinars, collaborative sessions, self-paced tutorials, webcasts, workshops, learning modules, on-demand resources, study skill resources, and motivational videos. Jacobs (2010) reviewed the need for overhauling current outdated curriculum practices to transform educational needs in the areas of content, assessment, program structures, technology, media literacy, globalization, sustainability, and habits of the mind for students of the 21st century. Schools need to become learning organizations to match the times in which 279

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

students live. Picciano & Seaman (2010) also build a case for traditional high schools to offer more online choices for students.

ADA ACCOMMODATIONS Students with disabilities in the online classroom environment require accommodations such as closed captioning (CC) be provided for videos such as YouTube or Screencasts. These closed captioning textbased options are equivalencies of the content presented within the videos. Select the closed caption option using the advanced Google search option. Once you include the CC option, a transcript of the video will need to be created and provided. The transcript can easily be created and provided by the instructor if necessary, for students who are deaf or hard of hearing require a copy. Word documents need to have accommodations with alternative text provided as well. Students with visual difficulties will need graphics described using the alt.text feature submitted. Word documents can be read aloud for students with visual impairments, but the graphics will be overlooked unless the alt text feature is provided to explain what the graphic is and why it is important to the document. PowerPoint presentations require descriptive transcripts of all text and graphic content to be provided for students with disabilities. Instructors should create a handout of the presentation in Word format with notes to explain the information presented within the presentation. All educational images, graphics, infographics, and non-educational graphics should be able to be enlarged without any distortion for those students with visual impairments. Alternative text descriptions should be provided explaining the graphics.

SYNCHRONOUS LEARNING TOOLS Computer aided delivery (CAD) models of online instruction have improved over the years. Video conferencing and virtual meetings (Zoom, WebConnect, GoToMeeting, and Blackboard Collaborate) are synchronous tools enabling classes to communicate as if in brick and mortar classrooms. Webcams with Internet connections offer video conferencing capabilities such as WebConnect, Zoom, Elluminate or GoToMeeting for classrooms to have the synchronous face to face meeting options. Researchers Lowenthal, Snelson, & Dunlap (2017) discussed the importance of synchronous design interventions and planning to include specific options for student success within the implementation process. Students reported video feedback, video tutorials, and online webchats brought a sense of community, and shared getting answers to questions in a quick manner provided from the instructor were the most helpful for a synchronous online classroom. Yamagata-Lynch (2014) reviewed ground rules for the synchronous online learning environment. Ground rules are important to assist all students in using time efficiently and effectively during the time spent speaking, listening, and discussing the topics pertaining to the lesson of the hour(s) for the timeframe. Off topic discussions waste precious learning opportunities and distract from the purpose of the meeting. Having and using the appropriate hardware and software tools keeps everyone focused and ready to tackle the goals and objectives in a timely manner for the activities, assignments, breakout rooms, and learning targets preventing any troubleshooting and frustration for missing any important missed conversations. Proactive preparation makes coursework smoother and more productive for everyone involved. 280

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

COLLABORATION A social presence is achieved through collaborative chat room activities and group assignments through the sharing of skills and ideas (Gast, 2018/19). Cognitive presence (CP) of shared experiences and ideas is perfect for the online classrooms as the process of CP in the online synchronous environment allows everyone the same opportunity to reply and provide feedback to peers in an interactive and engaging method (Gast, 2018/19). Teaching presence in the online classroom is facilitated through individualized and personalized comments for each student within the classroom (Gast, 2018/19). Research conducted by Yamagata-Lynch (2014) demonstrated students in the online classroom built a better relationship with the instructor when video conferencing methods were used, and class discussions were held in a synchronous manner. Facilitated synchronous instructional opportunities provided the learner with intentional focus, expert guided informational discussions, purposeful participation, and increased completion rates (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Synchronous video-conference learning enlists student accountability and involvement within the online classroom environment. Many new asynchronous online learners develop a sense of ownership from learning to navigate the digital classroom, navigate and complete the web-related assignments, and communicating and collaborating with the instructor through the course tools. The roles and responsibilities in the asynchronous classroom are time and geographically flexible to meet the needs of the working adult (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). The structure of the course is provided by the instructor and followed by the student. Online classroom digital device tasks include skills such as the ability to document work through photos or videos then submitting through email attachments. Another task for using digital devices within the classroom includes researching information, crowdsourcing, capturing interviews, and creating digital projects (Tucker, 2015). Devices should help to engage students’ creativity, curiosity, and activate interests encouraging communication and collaboration with others (Tucker, 2015). One such collaboration tool students to be used is Padlet (www.padlet.com) allowing students to post and interact in real time.

VIDEO CONFERENCING TOOLS Technology tools cross both the synchronous and asynchronous classroom environments and many tools often provide the same features and benefits. Personal preferences or institutional products generally decide which products instructors use in classroom instructional practices (see Table 1).

Blackboard Collaborate Blackboard Collaborate is a synchronous learning management tool used in communication and collaboration allowing everyone to see and speak together from various locations (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). Gone are the days where everyone has to travel to the same location to have a meeting therefore cutting costs and eliminating the time factor of waiting for everyone to get to the same location. Technology has improved our abilities to communicate and collaborate. Bary and Rees (2006) insisted, “Learning with/from others is linked to activity: it is achieved while doing something else with two or more people together” (p. 76).

281

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

Table 1. Technology tools: Synchronous/asynchronous categorization Technology Tool

Synchronous/ Asynchronous

Features/Benefits

Zoom

Synchronous Recording can be shared and sent for asynchronous learning later.

Peer breakout rooms Interactive whiteboard feature Screensharing Recording (to be shared later) Real time interactive Face-to-face discussions

Blackboard Collaborate

Both

Peer breakout rooms

GoToMeeting

Synchronous

Screensharing Real time interactive Face to face discussions Paid subscription

ScreenCastify

Both

Recording and playback tool Recording of lesson Playback of lesson

ScreenCastOmatic

Both

Recording and playback tool Recording of lesson Playback of lesson

Skype

Synchronous

Collaboration tool Communication

Interactive Whiteboards

Synchronous

Visual Graphic Video clips interactive

VoiceThread

Both

Communicate Collaborate via internet integrated into any LMS such as Blackboard, Moodle, Canvas

PowerPoint/ Prezi

Both

Presentation tools used in both environments.

Padlet

Both

Collaborative Mapping tool Digital media projects

Bubbl.us

Both

Free online mapping tool Collaborative Digital media projects

Khan Academy

Both

Video presentation learning tools Test prep

Flubaroo

Asynchronous

Formative assessment creations

Rubistar

Asynchronous

Rubric makers

Kahoot

Synchronous

Formative assessment

GoSoapBox

Synchronous

Formative assessment

Elluminate (Aka Blackboard Collaborate) Elluminate provides webinars using both video and audio formats for learners. Schools and businesses rent out virtual rooms or spaces for web conferencing. Elluminate incorporates Voice over IP, teleconferencing, public and private chat, quizzing, chatting, emoticons, whiteboard, application sharing, and file transfer. This application was primarily used for educational purposes but has evolved to a new version, Blackboard Collaborate and Blackboard Ultra.

282

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

GoToMeeting GoToMeeting is an online meeting space for pay (although not the only tool pay-per-use). This paid option provides a secure online meeting space to connect people anywhere and anytime through the Internet. People can get more done saving time and travel costs with a secure log in and one shared link provided by GoToMeeting. All devices work interconnectedly and communication is seamless. Using GoToMeeting allows participants to share screens while presenting PowerPoint, Word or any other documents. Participants are also able to discuss the information shared on the screens. Special software is not required to use GoToMeeting; only the use of the paid subscription and the online link provide by the subscriber.

Skype (Skype in the Classroom, A Microsoft Product) Skype (www.skype.com) is a synchronous collaborative tool used to connect people from various geographical locations at the same time. Jacobs (2010) discussed Skype used for a collaboration team establishing and maintaining a working relationship via the Internet with classrooms around the world. Students can also connect with experts in multiple fields from around the world to conduct e-interviews while researching topics. This type of person to person interview provides a better connection than trying to write the author or person and wait for a response through traditional postal mail or even email. Any miscommunication can be corrected right on the spot.

Zoom Zoom is another tool used to video conference allowing the option to teach, discuss, share computer screens, use interactive whiteboards, break into smaller groups in separate rooms for small group activities and discussions and record for those not able to attend. Students can attend from any geographical location with an Internet connection and video capability. Phones, tablets, and computers of any type can be used to participate in Zoom video conferences. Phones provide a drawback when such activities as collaboration with Google Docs or Google Slides are used for assignments as it is difficult to use a phone and complete a document or slide at the same time. Participants and the instructor have the option of a free or premium version of using Zoom (Wang, Quek, & Hu, 2017). Zoom offers several options for instructors and participants to use including an interactive chat box if students didn’t want to verbally respond to the instructor’s questions and comments. Instructor’s must remember to be interactive and engaging using Zoom or participants will decide to turn off the video option and in effect “virtually leave” the classroom discussions (Wang, Quek, & Hu, 2017).

Miscellaneous Tools Other tools used by some students and instructors within both the asynchronous and the synchronous environment are instructional assessments, assignments, and products, which include blogs, video clips, journals, discussions, podcasts, Microsoft PowerPoints, Prezi, wikis, augmented reality, screen casting, gamification, webinars, and live chats. Digital storytelling incorporates using digital image production and creatively telling the story using technology. Bookcreator is one of those online websites offering students the technology options to digitally create and tell stories in multiple formats. This differentiated 283

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

assignment tool provides accessories for students with difficulties the ability to write, create, and tell a story not traditionally available through paper and pencil.

Interactive Whiteboards Interactive whiteboards such as one at miro.com is a useful tool available to project to the synchronous class environment. Using an interactive whiteboard that connects users online, enables all participants to write, publish, and generate ideas for the learning topic at the same time during the class meeting. “Interactive whiteboards, which are large electronic touch screens, make the computer directly interactive for students” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 201). “Using interactive whiteboards in the face-to-face classroom was associated with a 16-point gain in student achievement” (Marzano, 2009, p. 80). Interactive whiteboards use graphics and visuals to represent information including video clips. Students needing these tools in order to learn the information over reading textual content will interact and engage in the lessons better (Marzano, 2009). These findings support research conducted primarily in K-12 classrooms in a f-t-f classroom.

Blogs Blogs, otherwise known as web logs, are online community chat forums in which people share information and ideas about specific topics, ask and answer questions, and provide solutions for problems. Synchronous learning using blogs as an informal and casual forum for sharing ideas creates a community of learners choosing to share to gain knowledge rather than having to share to earn a grade. Rodesiler (2017) reviewed blogging as a reflective practice, collaborative inquiry, and a position of professional identity development in an online environment. Blogging activities and assignments in both the synchronous and asynchronous classrooms focus on these purposes of writing “express and reflect; inform and explain; evaluate and judge; inquire and explore; analyze and interpret; and take a stand/ propose a solution” (Rodesiler, 2017, p. 352). Using these purposes in blogging for writing activities or assignments gives the student a different perspective and audience to write for and communicate with therefore creating and using higher order thinking skills.

Videos Video tools, useful in both asynchronous and synchronous environments, enhance the learning activities in both a visual and auditory format. One of the first steps many students take when unclear about how to do or accomplish a task is to search for a video demonstrating what to do on YouTube. Video clips provide the student with a visual learning opportunity to clarify and help students comprehend an assignment or task in the online classroom. Likewise, allowing students to create a video demonstrating steps needed to complete a task or explaining a concept using such tools as Screencast-O-Matic or Screencastify provide the same presentation mode as being in class in person.

Screencast-O-Matic Screencast-O-Matic is a website tool. With Screencast-O-Matic, teachers are able to video and publish information with sound and sight capabilities. With Screencast-O-Matic, teachers can record screenshots 284

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

and share the screenshots with students, colleagues, and others for various purposes. Using a few clicks, a screen can be recorded and uploaded. Options include a free basic version, deluxe, or pro versions. Screencast-O-Matic provides instructors with video tools to share videos with students for more in-class discussions. Screencast-O-Matic allows an instructor to record and send a video or have two-way conversation with a specific student. Want to capture your lessons in an electronic and video format- Screencast-OMatic is the tool for the instructor to use and send to students. Students can submit assignments using Screencast-O-Matic to be graded on the instructor’s time rather than taking up valuable instructional class time.

Screencastify Screencastify is a light screen recorder designed especially for Chrome and Chromebooks. This webenabled tool records anything on the desktop, can record an application, and by using the browser can record whatever the webcam is viewing. Using the webcam option allows the participant to personalize the video and narrate with own voice. Recording can be completed offline without an Internet connection until needed to upload to Google Drive or YouTube.

Voicethread Voicethread allows participants to communicate, collaborate and connect via the Internet with any type of device. Participants do not have to install any software as this is a cloud application. Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox are the only web browsers working with Voicethread. Over 50 different types of media can be created and shared in Voicethread. Commenting can be completed using voice, text, or audio uploads. Users create, comment, and share by uploading and discussing documents, slides, presentations, audio files, videos. Integrating Voicethread into learning management systems (LMS) includes Blackboard, Canvas, Desire2Learn and Moodle.

PRESENTATION TOOLS Presentations include tools such as Microsoft PowerPoint or Prezi allow limited information to be included on each slide and require a person to discuss the slides adding more information to provide clarification. One way to prevent the need for synchronous learning is to add audio files to these presentations thus allowing the reviewer to hear the person presenting the presentation speak throughout each slide. This allows for ADA accommodations to be provided for persons with disabilities to use these tools when applicable. PowerPoint has become an overused and monotonous form of technology used within any classroom environment. Prezi is more engaging and interactive than PowerPoint. People who are not designers can use the pre-made templates to produce a professional presentation without starting from scratch. Easily customizable with charts and graphics, Prezi lends itself to students without high technology experience. With Prezi, there is no time lapse between oral presentation and visual presentation of information.

285

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

COLLABORATION TOOLS Padlet Padlet is an online, collaborative mapping tool allowing the options of creating a wall, canvas, stream, grid, shelf or backchannel (Tucker, 2015). All of these communication and collaboration spaces exist in real time providing contributors options to create and build digital media projects from multiple locations at the same time. Templates or start from blank can be chosen thus students have preferences depending upon the requirements for the look and style of the assignment. Use of Padlet is an easiest way to create and collaboratively work in the classroom and at home. Padlet serves as a virtual piece of paper on which a blank screen is used to place whatever information is desired. Students are then able to edit using videos on the screen collaboratively with images and documents to create a beautiful finished product.

Bubbl.us Another online collaboration website allowing students to brainstorm and create a mind map is bubbl.us. Bubbl.us, a free brainstorming website, allows users to create and use technology tools visually to mind map topics. This site is easy to use. Disabled students can see connections between the parent bubbles and student bubbles. Text can be added, and colors changed, which features students find helpful in assisting them acquire organizational skills and understanding the aspects of mind mapping and brainstorming topics. Using this tool to help students plan for writing will help students see the connections to the structure of the writing process.

Scavenger Hunts Scavenger hunts are engaging methods to get students collectively working on an assignment all the while having fun in completing and engaging activity and learning at the same time. Instagram is a digital tool rarely used in for academic activities or assignments. An Instagram scavenger hunt planned by the teacher to be completed based upon any topic of the content area. For example, plan a scavenger hunt where students find and post pictures and tag you (your hashtag identification for your Instagram) about Australia and Australian-related memorabilia to help everyone learn about Australia (Tucker, 2015).

Twitter Twitter has become a tool being used in writing and communicating for the real world for right now. The limited character count assists students in learning to be concise and precise with the statements or comments about topics. Twitter is a global communication tool far reaching to address cultural issues faced by everyone. Tweets are publicly posted but can be restricted by users to their own followers. Posts made by twitter users can be followed, liked and retweeted. Users can post group messages together by using the hashtag (#). Trending topics provide people across the country information to understand what is happening and keep current. Global communication tools and social networking such as twitter allow learners to discuss and engage in solving problems.

286

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING TOOLS Asynchronous learning methods include online discussion boards, self-study, videos on demand, flipped classroom formats, self-paced learning tutorials, learner dictated information, motivation and flexibility, and non-geography locked, and unbiased, cohorts. Time and geographic location flexibility are just two of the reasons students choose the asynchronous online classroom. The working adult with family responsibilities can have the best of both worlds: being able to work full-time and raise a family while going to school after everyone has gone to sleep and not have to leave the comfort of home. This choice is the option of the new high tech 21st century adult. The option to complete a self-paced degree using online discussion boards rather drive to a campus each week, sit through lectures, drive back home and complete other assignments is one of the flexibility of options provided for students in multiple geographical locations further away from college and university campuses (Gast, 2018/19). Asynchronous learning is student-directed learning in which students make choices for which activities to complete out of a selection of required options, in the limited timeframe of choice, and grading based solely on chosen responses rather than on the physical characteristics of the student. Students are motivated to begin and complete the assignments in a timely manner. Asynchronous text-based learning allows students to read, re-read, take notes, and research independent of other students at their own pace without feeling pressured to keep the same schedule as the rest of the students in the class. Flexible scheduling is one of the benefits of asynchronous learning for the working adult. Learning Collaboratively and Globally has been a project for Kristen Paino of New York City. Paino and her colleagues (2015) wanted students to be engaged not passive learners of geography; therefore, the creation of Global Book Series featuring collaborative interactive multimedia books from around the globe. Children take an active role to learn and connect with other students from around the world through iPads equipped with these Global Books. Using the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, and reinvention) model and reproducing old practices with new high technology digital tools gives students an interactive and engaging learning experience either synchronously or asynchronously. Asynchronous learners expressed the desire for instructors to provide contact information, post regular announcements about assignments, expectations, provide explicit details about participation requirements, grading rubrics and specific feedback on improving performance (Rios, Elliott, & Mandernach, 2018). Online students expressed concerns regarding the online presences of instructors. The online instructor needs to actively participate in the discussions with the students. Discussions need to be personalized and reflect real-life experiences related to the specific comments made by the student (Rios et.al, 2018). Students in an online, asynchronous environment are used to instructors adapting, creating, modifying, and personalizing assignments (Rios et al., 2018). The online classroom contains culturally and geographically diverse populations of students who expect varying learning opportunities for assorted life and work experiences. To make the assignments meaningful and purposeful for students, instructors must be willing to adapt or modify the assignments to meet the needs of the students. The use of appropriate software will take the learner from their current functioning level and progressively move them along at a successful pace. Each level of mastery can be achieved in a reasonably short amount of time with appropriate guided support provided at each step. Each student is competing with their own abilities and not competing against their peers or against the computer; as with the current Xbox and PlayStation computerized games students engage in at home. Many technology programs contain some of the same aspects and characteristics needed to enhance self-directed learning (Maehl, 2000; Russell, 2006; & Lawler & King, 2000): These programs are interactive, motivational, and autonomous; 287

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

therefore, the programs provide opportunities for review with immediate feedback for students, as well as, foster retention. Alternative assignments such as creating digital stories or movies requiring extensive time recordings and videos can use iMovie (for Macs), Movavi (for Windows), or iMotionHD (Ipad app). These options help to create digital movies for students to tell stories using stop motion pictures adding music, text, and sounds just like a regular movie maker. Student creativity and collaboration can be demonstrated using this alternative to writing (Tucker, 2015).

Student Presentation Tools PowerPoint is only one of the various presentation tools used by students in the online classroom. Other student tools include Prezi, Google Slides, PowToons, Wide, Sparkle, Adobe Spark, and Thing link. Visual presentations are the first mode of learning to which students resort and search for when posed with an assignment. When students do not know about a topic, what do they do? Google it! When asked to present on a topic, students prefer not to write about it but to provide some type of video or other type of presentation. PowToon is a creative and engaging way to captivate the audience. Instructors can create or find videos already made with PowToon. The animation keeps the audience interested while explaining the topics. Another animation tool to use is Wideo. A video scribe such as Sparkol is similar to Wideo and PowToon. Videoscribe empowers students to create their own learning materials in a style that works best for them. Finally, Thinglink creates unique learning experiences with interactive images, videos and media. Thinglink interacts with Virtual Reality headsets.

Khan Academy Video presentation tools such as Khan Academy are used for teaching and learning such difficult content subjects as advanced math topics in the areas of Algebra, trigonometry, statistics and probability, and calculus. Other content areas Khan Academy provides videos completed by instructors for learners to watch as many times as necessary include physics, chemistry, macroeconomics, government, civics, history, and Test Prep (Chorianopoulos, 2018). Video lectures provide an intimate feeling for learners as if the instructor is teaching specifically to the learner watching the video. This type of visual and auditory demonstration is more individualized and personalized for the asynchronous online classroom. The learner can watch, rewind, review, stop, take notes, watch again, without interfering with any other student in the class.

MOOC’s Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC’s), “the contemporary online platforms employing two styles of video instructional tools: speaker-centric and board-centric” (Chorianopoulos, 2018, p. 297). Speakercentric video instruction maintains a human example present throughout the demonstration. Board-centric video instruction would be most appropriate for math or science related courses where information would need to be presented in a written format as well as a verbal format. The asynchronous learning environment such as MOOC’s require video lectures to accommodate all learning styles of students. Not all students can simply read the textbook and comprehend to apply the knowledge further. Chorianopolos (2018) described video lectures for MOOCs provided at such organizations as MIT and TEDed. Video 288

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

lectures supplanted by assessment quizzes give learners a purpose to maintain focus during the viewing of the lecture and thereafter demonstrate knowledge learned from the material (Chorianopolos, 2018). Phan (2018) reported characteristics about asynchronous MOOC’s pertinent to student success and engagement in the course. These characteristics are presentation skills, strong content, managerial skills, personalization, feedback and fostering learner-centered interaction. Presentation skills include “videos with clearly articulated commentary, warm, friendly tones, and appropriate bodily gestures” (Phan, 2018, p. 98). Presentation without the use of videos also includes documents and graphics. Instructors should be sure all textual material is able to be accessed and read by students. Instructors need to know their content and be able to answer questions and provide relevant resources to students regarding helpful information about content. The asynchronous online classroom environment arrangement needs an instructor have organized managerial skills. Students need to be able to locate all class materials in a timely manner in order to be successful and not frustrated. Instructors in the asynchronous environment form relationships with students by providing personalized, relevant and helpful feedback so students can make appropriate changes to assignments in a timely manner. Finally fostering a learner-centered environment requires the instructor to respond to student questions with appropriate answers, respond to students’ discussion posts with personalized interactions, identifying each student as an active individual in the class and recognizing each student’s unique talents. Teachers in the asynchronous classroom should treat each student as if he or she is in the same type of traditional face to face classroom without the constraints of walls and schedules.

Gliffy Gliffy is an online visual communication and collaboration tool allowing for creations of flowcharts and diagrams. This program is very versatile for any content. Charts such as Venn diagrams for comparing and contrasting can be made and shared among students. Floor plans can be created using Gliffy. Organizational charts, mind maps, SWOT analysis, and network diagrams can be created and shared using the Gliffy website tools.

Piktochart and Smore Creating newsletters, handouts, flyers, and reports for professional meetings, groups, and assignments requires more than a simple Word document. Piktochart and Smore provide graphics, templates, and sharing. Students can use Piktochart and Smore to collaborate in a professional manner.

FORMATIVE SYNCHRONOUS ASSESSMENT TOOLS Active and engaging learning needs to be assessed to guide instructional changes. Digital tools to assist teachers with these assessments include but are not limited to “Socrative (www.socrative.com), Poll Everywhere (www.polleverywhere.com), or Google Forms (www.google.com/forms/about) to create surveys, quizzes, or exit tickets” (Daccord & Reich, 2015, p. 23). Kahoot is a free website tool available for teachers to use as a review or assessment tool when preparing students for a test. Oftentimes, students perceive Kahoot as a game rather than as an assessment tool. 289

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

Teachers possess the ability to create a quiz, a discussion, or a survey. When asking questions, Kahoot is limited to the use of 95 characters, whereas answers to questions are limited to 60 characters. Students may respond to questions using iPhones, android phones, or computers. Kahoot is a competitive gamebased assessment tool used in a synchronous learning environment in which the faster students respond to the questions the more points are earned.

GoSoapBox GoSoapBox is another digital tool for formative assessment and interaction with your students. This synchronous assessment tool provides the opportunity for students to alert the teacher with the confusion barometer. Teachers can use this tool asynchronously before class begins to generate questions students are interested in asking and answering for discussion points. Polling, discussions and quizzes are part of the options with GoSoapBox. Teachers can export and analyze student assessment results in order to make instructional changes.

ASYNCHRONOUS FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT TOOLS Flubaroo The use of Google Forms and Flubaroo are used in an asynchronous learning environment. These formative assessment tools can be made and sent to the students to be completed at any time. Flubaroo (www. flubaroo.com) is a free online webtool allowing teachers to quickly grade multiple choice and fill in the blank quizzes. The computer will automatically average the scores per question and provide teachers with information regarding low-scoring questions to review with those students needing additional instruction. Flubaroo will also provide teachers with a distribution graph and allow individualized feedback to be sent to students. Another option provided by Flubaroo is to email each student a grade and the answer key.

Simulation Exercises “Simulation exercises are useful in assessing students’ knowledge of interactions among multiple variables in a complex system” (Tucker, 2009, p. 51). Assessments using simulations provide instructors information regarding how students problem solve, think, approaches, reflections, steps taken in completing a project, and processing time. This data is important for driving instruction, reviewing lessons, grouping students, interventions and providing feedback. Simulations can be completed multiple times for students to gain mastery as well. “Technology-enhanced environments and virtual worlds are necessary for students to practice and gain feedback in real-life environments” (Tucker, 2009, p. 52).

Rubistar Creating rubrics for the assignments and assessments can be a daunting task. Students need to know exactly how their work will be graded and what points count for which expectations of the assignment. Rubistar provides templates and guidance for creating high quality and exemplary grading rubrics match-

290

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

ing the requirements, expectations, goals, and objectives of the criteria established for each assessment or assignment students will be graded against.

CONCLUSION Students today want instant access to learning in the online classroom environment. Life is chaotic. Family responsibilities, work responsibilities, and too few class offerings in locations close to home restrict students from attending old and traditional face-to-face classes in brick and mortar settings. Schools must adapt to meet the demands of the students in the ever-changing highly technological world of work. Synchronous and asynchronous classes are the types of classes students request to continue educational learning and program considerations. Traveling with a laptop and a WIFI connection provides students with learning opportunities from anywhere anytime. This is the new mantra of the 21st century student. Educational institutions must concede to their wishes. Students in the online classroom made the choice to attend the non-traditional environment for multiple reasons and therefore have different classroom expectations. Technology helps classroom facilitators provide differentiated instructional strategies and appropriate activities to meet non-traditional students’ specialized needs. Providing the online students with options of choice to demonstrate their knowledge assists in the learning process for the teacher. Academic success of every student in the synchronous and asynchronous online classroom depends upon the preparedness of the instructor. Teachers using technological tools such as Khan Academy, Twitter, Flubaroo, Screencast-O-Matic, Padlet, Bubbl.us, Kahoot, and Zoom can assist these online students in understanding the various instructional programs taught in the asynchronous or synchronous environments.

REFERENCES Bary, R., & Rees, M. (2006, March). Is (self-directed) learning the key sill for tomorrow’s engineers? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 73–81. doi:10.1080/03043790500429021 Berge, Z. (2009). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407–415. Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Digital technologies for promoting student voice and co-creating learning experience in an academic course. Instructional Science, 46(2), 315–336. doi:10.100711251017-9436-y Bruce, C. (2002, July). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In P. Danaher (Ed.). Lifelong Learning: Whose responsibility and what is your contribution? Proceedings of the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference (pp. 8-19). Australia: Yeppoon, Queensland. Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). A taxonomy of asynchronous instructional video styles. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 294–311. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2920 Daccord, T., & Reich, J. (2015). How to transform teaching with tablets. Educational Leadership, 72(8), 18–23.

291

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

Evans, J. (2015). A vision for more mobile learning: More verbs, fewer nouns. Educational Leadership, 72(8), 10–16. Ferriter, W. M. (2010, May). Preparing to teach digitally. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 88–89. Gast, N. (2018/19). Introducing live group meetings in an online class: Tips and techniques. Internet Learning Journal, 7(1), 49–64. Hall, C. (2012). Teaching and learning in a virtual environment. The Journal of Education, Community, and Values, 12(1). Herold, B. (2017, June 23). Online classes for K-12 students: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/online-classes/index.html Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21 Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Kreber, C., & Kanuka, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online classroom. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 109–131. Lawler, P. A., & King, K. P. (2000). Refocusing faculty development: The view from an adult learning perspective. Proceedings from AERC 2000: Adult Education Research Conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada: New Prairie Press. Retrieved from https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https:// www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2187&context=aerc Lederman, D. (2017). Inside digital learning: Online education ascends. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/new-data-online-enrollmentsgrow-and-share-overall-enrollment Lowenthal, P. R., Dunlap, J. C., & Snelson, C. (2017). Live synchronous web meetings in asynchronous online courses: Reconceptualizing office hours. Online Learning., 21(4), 177–194. doi:10.24059/olj. v21i4.1285 Maehl, W. H. (2000). Lifelong learning at its best. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80–81. NACOL, North American Council for Online Learning. (2010, October). National standards for quality online teaching (ver. 2). Vienna, VA: International Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_TeachingStandardsv2.pdf Paino, K. (2015). Learning Collaboratively and Globally, New York City. Retrieved from: https://bookcreator.com/2015/01/expand-students-horizons-global-collaboration/ Phan, T. (2018). Instructional strategies that respond to global learners’ needs in massive open online courses. Online Learning, 22(2), 95–118. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1160 Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class connections: High school reform and the role of online learning. Retrieved from http://www.babson.edu/Academics/Documents/babson-survey-research-group/ class-connections.pdf

292

 Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods

Rios, T., Elliott, M., & Mandernach, B. J. (2018). Efficient instructional strategies for maximizing online student satisfaction. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), 158–166. doi:10.9743/jeo.2018.15.3.7 Rodesiler, L. (2017). Sustained blogging about teaching: Instructional methods that support online participation as professional development. TechTrends, 61(4), 349–354. doi:10.100711528-017-0164-6 Russell, S. S. (2006). An overview of adult learning processes. Urologic Nursing, 26(5), 349–353. PMID:17078322 Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London, England: Routledge Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203465424 Smith, T. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(2), 1–18. doi:10.9743/JEO.2005.2.2 Tucker, B. (2009). The next generation of testing. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 48–53. Tucker, C. (2015). 5 tips for managing mobile devices. Educational Leadership, 72(8), 25–29. Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 99–118. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3034 Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2008). Teaching philosophy: Moving from face-to-face to online classrooms. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 34(1), 63–69. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 189–212. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1778

This research was previously published in Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods; pages 52-76, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

293

294

Chapter 16

Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments Using Universal Design for Learning Jennifer Lock University of Calgary, Canada

Amy Burns University of Calgary, Canada

Carol Johnson University of Melbourne, Australia

Laurie Hill St. Mary’s University, Canada

Noha Altowairiki University of Calgary, Canada

Christopher P. Ostrowski University of Calgary, Canada

ABSTRACT A current trend in practicum or field experience programs is online and blended learning approaches being implemented alongside traditional classroom experiences. Principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) should be integrated in the design of these online environments in order to better support learning needs of all students. Instructors must also have confidence and competence in designing and facilitating learning within technology-enabled environments. This chapter reports on research conducted using design-based research to support instructor capacity development within field experience in a Bachelor of Education program. Three strategies are identified and discussed to enhance instructor’s capacity: scaffolded support, modeling UDL practice in the online environment, and coaching to foster developing capacity using UDL. The chapter concludes by reporting on a new study that emerged as a result of this work, along with recommendations for practice.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch016

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

INTRODUCTION Professional programs in higher education are continuing to implement online environments in support of learning (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016; Brown & Green, 2010). One of the concerns with this trend is how instructors are being assisted in developing their understanding and skills to design and facilitate online environments that effectively support learning for all students (Lock & Johnson, 2015). One recommendation in designing online environments is to support instructors with a practical, working knowledge of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Instructors are encouraged to incorporate the three UDL principles when creating courses: multiple means of representation, multiple means of engagement, and multiple means of action and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). The challenge becomes identifying how to apply UDL principles into practice in technology-enhanced environments in support of blended and/or online learning. This chapter focuses on how a design-based research (DBR) team worked within a field experience (i.e., practicum) course context in a Bachelor of Education program at a Western Canadian university. A requirement of the field experience program is for both students and instructors to use an online learning management system (LMS) in support of the course learning tasks. Integrating the LMS in the course is one matter; the other is providing the necessary support for instructors to meaningfully integrate the online environment into their field experience courses. A common issue is the range of experience and competence instructors have in online learning design as this affects how they create and use the environment to support students in their practicum. Adding to this is the need to provide instructors with instructional design support in using and modeling UDL principles to meet the goals of field experience. Workshops and how-to resources are limited in their degree and nature of support for instructors. Additional strategies such as having an online community of practice (i.e., a place for instructors to share ideas and grow their own skills), access to a master course shell (i.e., environment) template that instructors can customize, and one-to-one technology coaching can play a critical role in instructors’ development. The educational development opportunities provided to field experience instructors were guided by the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and supported instructors in creating cohesion across pedagogy, technology, and content. The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, to contextualize the work by identifying trends in online and blended learning for practicum or field experience including the challenges of developing instructor capacity to design and facilitate learning in such technology-enabled environments. Second, to report on the research conducted using DBR to support instructor capacity development that also included the creation of various strategic supports. Third, based on the literature and research findings, three strategies are identified to enhance instructor’s capacity: 1) scaffolded support; 2) modeling UDL practice in the online environment; and 3) coaching to foster developing capacity using UDL. The chapter ends with the reporting on a new study that emerged as a result of this work and with recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND Blended and Online Learning Online and blended learning approaches are becoming commonplace as contemporary educational paradigms (Wilcox & Lock, 2014). Online learning has attracted attention as an increasingly “viable 295

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

alternative to some forms of face-to-face learning” (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014, p. 18). The evolution of technological tools such as synchronous and asynchronous communication enables students to interact with content, instructors, and peers to support learning and personal development. According to Allen and Seaman (2013), online learning is defined as having at least 80 percent of instruction and content online. An increasing number of higher education institutions are incorporating online learning courses and programs to offer more flexible and accessible learning experiences (Johnson et al., 2014). For instance, 5.8 million students enrolled in at least one online course in the fall semester of 2014 in the United States (Allen et al., 2016). It has been determined that “online learning environments can offer different affordances than physical campuses, including opportunities for increased collaboration while equipping students with stronger digital skills” (Johnson et al., 2014, p. 10). Online learning environments should be more than a content repository. Adequate consideration is needed in the design and facilitation of online learning. Such a technology-enabled environment should be engaging and interactive (Bonk, 2009; Palloff & Pratt, 2007). As in face-to-face environments, online instructional strategies should strive to “motivate learners, facilitate deep processing, build the whole person, cater to individual differences, promote meaningful learning, encourage interaction, provide relevant feedback, facilitate contextual learning, and provide support during the learning process” (Ally, 2008, p. 18). Blended learning is considered to be the “thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 5). Moreover, it “describes learning activities that involve a systematic combination of co-present interaction and technologically-mediated interaction between students, teachers and learning resources” (Bliuc, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2007, p. 234). Blended learning has 30 to 80 percent of its instruction and content delivered online (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In courses that are predominantly face-to-face, the goal of blended learning is to extend learner engagement beyond face-to-face interactions (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Similarly, in predominantly online courses, blended learning can enhance students’ experiences through face-to-face contact. Field experience or practicum courses engage in a unique learning component in which students spend their time observing and applying what they learned from coursework within real-world classrooms; blended learning can supplement these experiences. In the study reported in this chapter, students engaged in a practicum (e.g., in Kindergarten-grade 12 schools) during the day, and then used the online environments to engage with their field experience instructor, other students, and course content during evenings and weekends. As what is sometimes an isolated or siloed profession, teachers, including student teachers or pre-service teachers, can benefit from opportunities to reflect, learn from, and discuss their teaching experiences with colleagues as part of their professional development (Keengwe & Kang, 2013). Blended environments are strategically used to support professional learning communities that unite “the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teachers in a school or across schools to promote shared learning and improvement. A strong professional learning community is a social process for turning information into knowledge” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 170).

Technology-Enabled Learning Environments Supporting Practicum Field experience or practicum is a foundational element in teacher education that fosters students to link theory and practice. Darling-Hammond (2006) argued that there are three key elements that support a robust teacher education program with regard to practicum: 1) “tight coherence and integration among 296

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

courses and between coursework and clinical work in schools” (p. 300); 2) “extensive and intensely supervised clinical work integrated with course work using pedagogies that link theory and practice” (p. 300); and “closer, proactive relationships with schools that serve diverse learners effectively and develop and model good teaching” (p. 300). Field experience instructors, along with partner teachers (i.e., classroom teachers that supervise practicum students in their classroom), work in a mentoring and coaching capacity to support student learning in practicum. A challenge with face-to-face practicum programs in teacher education is the limited time that instructors have with students to engage in discussions either individually or in groups during instructional hours (da Rosa dos Santos, Seidel, & Lock, 2013). An option to counter this is to support the practicum using a blended or online approach that allows for interaction beyond classroom time. However, transitioning from the traditional face-to-face practicum course to an online or blended approach may be challenging to implement as it requires a shift in thinking for instructors and students. Wilcox and Lock (2017), from their study of student perceptions of an online practicum experience, claimed that it “requires a shift in understanding of what makes a rich practicum learning experience in an online environment supported through synchronous and asynchronous communication tools” (p. 206). They argued that a critical element of this mind-shift is “to foster greater engagement in learning” (Wilcox & Lock, 2017, p. 205). They recommended that instructors provide added training and scaffolding, and nurture a safe environment where students can take risks in exploring ideas, ask questions, and reflect on their own learning throughout practicum. The instructor needs to “help students build confidence using the online practicum experience for their own professional growth and development” (Wilcox & Lock, 2017, p. 205). In addition to the intentional and purposeful design of the online environment, instructors need to support students in working well in this new online learning space. Various synchronous or asynchronous communication technologies may be selected to support the online component of practicum. The online component may occur using a learning management system (LMS) that may provide students with an array of tools (e.g., discussion forum, private communication such as e-mail, e-portfolio). Jackson and Jones (2017) studied the use of blogging and microblogging in support of virtual field experience. They found that online learning components fostered community and established a “professional support system similar to those that face-to-face teacher candidates experience, with the added benefit of even more possible perspectives” (Jackson & Jones, 2017, p. 654). By using a blog, students were given “the unique opportunity to connect to a knowledge base beyond what they might have experienced in a closed LMS practicum” (Jackson & Jones, 2017, p. 654). This experience emphasized that teaching should not be a solitary or an isolated practice; technology (e.g., email, online community environments) can be used to ask for help, to explore ideas, and allow users to feel supported by other colleagues (Jackson & Jones, 2017). Technology thus moves the learning beyond the local, physical location. da Rosa dos Santos et al. (2013) noted that, with the transition to a blended-learning approach for practicum, many instructors may be working in an online environment for the first time. They found that instructors: … were learning to use the technology to navigate a new and unfamiliar pedagogical environment at the same time they were busy with the complex work of navigating relationships with multiple stakeholders (partner teachers, administrators, preservice teachers, etc.). Some field instructors found the new expectation to be overwhelming. (da Rosa dos Santos et al., 2013, p. 1330)

297

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Instructors who have limited or no experience designing and/or facilitating learning in the online environment should have access appropriate supports and resources to build their skillset. The educational development provided to instructors should help them develop confidence and competence with the technology, and provide guidance on how to design and facilitate learning in a blended and/or online environment for practicum experiences.

Educational Development for Online and Blended Environments Educational development units in higher education provide opportunities for instructors to enhance their teaching--this may also include how to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practice. Workshops, seminars, and small group initiatives are commonly offered to help instructors develop their ability to teach with technology (Shattuck, Dubins, & Zilberman, 2011). Two criticisms identified by Garrison and Vaughan (2008) in relation to this style of workshop is that they tend to be skill-based and teach instructors “how to use a specific technique or software application” (p. 5) as opposed to exploring the pedagogical aspects of online learning. The other issue is that one-off workshop initiatives “do not create opportunities for sustained critical reflection and discourse about one’s teaching practice” (p. 50). Slavit, Sawyer, and Curley (2003) argued that educational development “must be an ongoing activity, as ‘shot-gun’ approaches often do little to promote real change” (p. 35). One such approach for sustained conversation proposed by Garrison and Vaughan (2008) is a blended faculty community of inquiry (CoI): This type CoI program attempts to model effective blended course practices and provides faculty with a hands-on blended learning experience through a series of face-to-face, online, and independent activities. The ongoing face-to-face sessions allow personal relationships and a sense of community to develop that fosters the sharing of ideas and experiences among participants. The online component of the blended design creates an opportunity to extend and sustain this type of discourse and community. (p. 52) Workshops and seminar educational development initiatives “do not create opportunities for sustained critical reflection and discourse about one’s teaching practice” (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008, p. 50); other approaches to faculty skill development in online teaching and learning should therefore be considered. Despite the known limitations of one-off training sessions, institutions often face logistical and administrative challenges in offering longer-term educational development opportunities. Many of the field experience instructors in this study were hired on single-term or sessional appointments, with some contracts being finalized only two to three weeks (or less) before classes began. This means that said instructors are expected to learn, adopt, and successfully implement online or blended learning environments with minimal advanced training time—often voluntary on the part of the instructor as contractual work does not tend to dictate training—and continue learning while the course is underway. Instructors should ideally have extended, mandatory training periods within the environments they are expected to use and experience online or blended learning for themselves (Dabner, Davis, & Zaka, 2012; Lane, 2013; Shattuck & Anderson, 2013). Unfortunately, tensions between logistics, administrative processes, time, resources, and institutional priorities have led to a range of approaches to supporting online instruction. As Allen and Seaman (2011) point out, “There is no single approach being taken by institutions in providing training for their teaching faculty. Most institutions use a combination of mentoring and training options” (p. 6).

298

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

As Lane (2013) discussed, contemporary learning theories support more social constructivist and scaffolded approaches to learning over procedural or tools-first methods. That is, learners need to actively take part in their learning and form their own experiences of what they are learning. Educational development is no different; a social constructivist and scaffolded approach should be taken to develop skills in online learning for instructors and students. In Lane’s research, participants earned a certificate by completing a 24-week program for online teaching; this program emphasized learning both the tools and multiple pedagogical approaches within an online environment. The participants reported gaining confidence in designing pedagogically-informed learning experiences rather than only proficiency in a set of tools. In addition, Shattuck and Anderson (2013) studied a similar nine-week training course and found that effective training should prepare instructors to adapt to diverse situations and be comfortable in (re)designing environments based on contextual needs. In other words, instructors need educational development that supports the ‘know-how’ and ‘know-why’ (Bereiter, 2014).

Theoretical Frameworks Two theoretical frameworks can be used to provide the foundation for developing field experience instructors’ capacity to design and facilitate learning in both blended and online environment: UDL and TPACK. First, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides the foundation for the design of the online environment and the nature of the learning tasks. Second, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model is focused on the meaningful integration of three knowledge areas in support of effective technology integration.

Universal Design for Learning UDL is “a research-based set of principles to guide the design of learning environments that are accessible and effective for all” (CAST, 2017a). UDL consists of three principles that are grounded on neuroscience research focused on how the human brain learns as using the “affective, recognition, and strategic networks,” and educational research on “optimal techniques for building engagement, knowledge, and skills” (Meyer, et al., 2014, p. 88). The first principle, the affective network or the “why” of learning, sparks the engagement of learners in the learning process by motivating and prioritizing what learners do and learn (Meyer et al., 2014). Learners’ motivation and engagement is influenced by various factors such as “neurology, culture, personal relevance, subjectivity, and background knowledge” (CAST, 2013a, para.1); learners need multiple ways to engage with content. The second principle, the recognition network or the “what” of learning, is how learners sense and perceive information and then “transform it into usable knowledge” (Meyer et al., 2014, p. 54). As learners differ in how they perceive and recognize information due to abilities, learning disabilities, language proficiency, cultural differences, and learning strategies, providing multiple methods of content representation is essential (CAST, 2013b). The third principle, the strategic network or the “how” of learning, is responsible for planning and performing tasks, organizing ideas, articulating thoughts, and demonstrating knowledge (Meyer et al., 2014). Learners should have an array of ways and opportunities to engage with learning and express what they learn. As such, the combination of neuroscience and educational research resulted in three main principles that formed the UDL framework: 1) providing multiple means of engagement; 2) providing multiple means of representation; and 3) providing multiple means of action and expression (Meyer et al., 2014).

299

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Hickey (2013) asserted, “UDL is rooted ontologically in diversity as a fundamental premise” (p. 17) and rejects the idea of one-size-fits-all for teaching and learning. Learner diversity is a valuable source for enriching learning experiences, and a learning environment that supports and nurtures such diversity is required. UDL provides a blueprint for educators to design inclusive and accessible learning environments for all students without reducing the quality of learning (Hickey, 2013). UDL implementation, according to CAST (2014), “is a process of change that tends to occur in a recursive, continuously improving cycle of learning and progressing” (Para.1). The process occurs through five phases: 1. Explore: Building a clear understanding of UDL, and considering UDL as a decision-making framework; 2. Prepare: Creating strategic vision and action plans with regard to UDL implementation, building a learning environment that is flexible, and having access to resources and offering ongoing support; 3. Integrate: Applying UDL in instructional practices along with decision making and fostering collaboration to support UDL integration; 4. Scale: Promoting capacity building, expanding effective practices, assessing the process, and identifying gaps and needs; and 5. Optimize: Fostering system-wide UDL culture (CAST, 2014). Each phase manifests differently based on local contexts and can take considerable time, people, and resources to implement. Individual instructors often find it is a gradual process that begins with revitalizing individual units or topics over multiple iterations of a course until UDL can be fully implemented (CAST, 2014).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model The TPACK model represents the fundamental knowledge instructors need to have to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Specifically: TPACK emphasizes the connections among technologies, curriculum content, and specific pedagogical approaches, demonstrating how teachers’ understandings of technology, pedagogy, and content can interact with one another to produce effective discipline-based teaching with educational technologies. (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009, p. 396) The TPACK model is represented by three overlapping or intersecting circles that represent a specific knowledge area: 1) Technological Knowledge (TK), 2) Pedagogical knowledge (PK), and 3) Content Knowledge (CK). The overlapping areas of these include Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPC), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) – this forms Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Understanding the relationship between and among these areas of knowledge is critical for effective integration of technology. Table 1 provides a brief description of each TPACK knowledge areas.

300

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Table 1. TPACK model elements (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) Component

Definition

TK

Knowledge of technological tools and resources to facilitate teaching and learning.

PC

Knowledge of teaching and learning theory, method, and practice.

CK

Knowledge of subject matter or discipline content that is to be taught.

TPK

“Knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings, and conversely, knowing how teaching might change as the result of using particular technologies” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.1028).

TCK

“Knowledge about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028).

PCK

“…represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1021).

TPACK

“…the basis of good teaching with technology and requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.1029).

Thoughtful integration of technology requires developing “a complex, situated form of knowledge” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1017). Harris et al. (2009) explained: Understanding that introducing new educational technologies into the learning process changes more than the tools used – and that this has deep implications for the nature of content-area learning, as well as the pedagogical approaches among which teachers can select - is an important and often overlooked aspect of many technology integration approaches used to date. (p. 395) Benson and Ward (2013) found that educational development opportunities for technology integration often focus on developing technological skills “without discussion about content or pedagogical issues that intertwine with technology” (p. 169). In addition, acquiring TK separately has an impact on an instructor’s ability “to see the complex application of that technology in a pedagogically and contextually sound manner” (Benson & Ward, 2013, p. 170). In other words, having a high level of TK does not imply that an instructor can effectively integrate technology into their teaching approach to promote student learning. Instead, TK “is most effective when embedded in content instruction, rather than mastering specific tools in a vacuum” (Jaipal, Figg, & Burson, 2012, p. 4711). TPACK based educational development opportunities assist instructors to gain sufficient knowledge “to be able to teach WITH the technology rather than just be able to use the technology” (Jaipal et al., 2012, p. 4714). Instructors are given the lived experience of the intersection of the three knowledge areas by using the TPACK model in designing and facilitating a variety of educational development opportunities. As such, TPACK is a means to effectively develop instructor capacity in using the online learning environment in a meaningful way that promotes student learning. The study reported in this chapter used the TPACK model in the educational development opportunities offered to instructors.

301

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER Context of the Study In 2011, the Bachelor of Education program at this Canadian university was re-designed and shifted field experience courses into cohort-based student groups. This shift involved replacing face-to-face university meetings with mandatory use of the online environment for learning support during the day, evenings, and weekends. Course instructors continued in-person school visits and observations of students. Students are required to complete four field experience courses, with each increasing in length (two to eight weeks), as part of their B.Ed. program. To better enrich students’ learning experiences in the online components of the Field Experience, a teaching and learning grant was received for a two-year design-based research (DBR) methodology (McKenney & Reeves, 2012). The goal of the study was to purposely design online field experience course shells based on UDL principles that fostered student participation, community, collaboration, and critical reflection for their blended course context. An additional goal was to foster greater facilitation by field experience instructors so that students could engage in meaningful discussions in relation to professional practice when using online learning environments.

Research Design A design-based research (DBR) methodology was chosen for this study in order to integrate UDL principles through a research-informed context when designing and redesigning the online field experience course areas. The DBR approach (Reeves, 2006) involves a four-part process: 1) analyzing the problem, 2) developing a solution, 3) testing and refining the solution, and 4) reflecting on the implementation of design principles. The study utilized a three-phase iterative design process that involved assessing the problem in practice, implementing an online course design that addressed the identified issues, and using data to inform iterations to achieve a final re-design of the online course environment in a LMS. Phase one involved a two-step process that began with the research team’s development of a common understanding of UDL, and how UDL could be applied in the context of their study. A gap analysis, wherein data collected from key stakeholders (e.g., administrators, instructors, students) identified the strengths and weaknesses of the current design and how to enhance the design to be more engaging and accessible, followed. Suggestions from this analysis included having good visual organization of materials in the course shell, designing authentic online activities connected to school placement experiences, and offering ongoing support for the instructors. This data informed the design of the first iteration of the online course shell for this study. Phase two involved using the first iteration of data collection results to develop the four field experience semester course shell templates alongside an instructor support shell. From this data, decisions around the template were made; introductory videos for communication and information purposes, presentation style and format for general course information, and student how-to resources were included in the shells. In addition to the design of the online environment, expansion and enhancements of educational development was offered to instructors that included weekly synchronous sessions, online conversation in the discussion forum, and technological and pedagogical coaching. Data was gathered on the effectiveness of the re-designed course shells and the outcomes of support resources with the implementation. This

302

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

data helped to inform the redesign or refinement of the course shells for students as well as the nature of educational development activities for the instructors. Phase three occurred during the second year wherein data from phase two informed the refinement of the course shells and educational development for instructors. A key change that occurred was the expanded use of support for multimedia (e.g., how to use and create videos) for both the instructors and students in the online environment. This phase concluded with another round of data collection to inform the final refinement of the course shells. A key component of the study focused on educational development, such as workshop series and training opportunities, for instructors. A blended learning approach was used to provide educational development opportunities for instructors. The use of a learning management system (LMS) was a program expectation for field experience instructors; it was both the place for students to engage in community of learning with their fellow classmates while in their local practicum area (i.e., bridging physical distance), and the space for reflection where students shared thoughts on their learning. Given the need for instructors to be familiar with the LMS, individual coaching sessions and weekly 30-minute asynchronous sessions (i.e., “Tech Tuesday” tutorial sessions) were offered as learning support mechanisms for building instructor capacity. Research team members offered voluntary, one-on-one, hour long technology coaching sessions for instructors to support their use of the online environment. During these sessions, instructors learned how to best utilize the learning management system, explored best practices for online teaching, and how to incorporate UDL principles. Further technology resources such as videos, how-to handouts, and an online discussion community area were made available an instructor-only LMS course shell. This shell modeled UDL principles and provided instructors with opportunities to explore an online course area through the lens of a student as they had student-level access. The inclusion of educational development activities for instructors was a foundational support for moving the overall course shell design forward in a research-informed manner that supported all participants. The study was approved by the institutional ethics review board and all participation was voluntary and consensual. Field experience instructors who consented to participate in the study (n=16) taught across the four field experience courses, and may have taught the course once or twice during the two-year study. Data was collected through 30 to 40 minute interviews that were conducted after the conclusion of the teaching semester. Each interview used a standard set of interview questions focused on the design of the online environment, opportunities and challenges of instruction, and future recommendations. First and second cycles of coding and analysis of instructor interview data occurred using Saldaña’s (2013) two-stage process for qualitative research. First, codes were assigned by using key phrases from interview questions and then, second, using in vivo coding process words or phrases that were recorded as codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). Repetition of words or phrases led to the development of patterns (Miles et al., 2013) through this process of analysis. The data was hand-coded by one team member; other members of the research team subsequently reviewed and discussed the coded data.

Discussion of the Findings Evidence informed practices were used to support the educational development of the instructors. Data from the study guided the next steps in terms of instructional strategies and supports. Three key themes emerged from the data that demonstrate how the enhancement of instructor capacity to design and facilitate learning using UDL was impacted: 1) scaffolded support for instructor capacity development; 2) modeling UDL practice in the online environment; and 3) coaching to foster developing capacity using UDL. 303

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Scaffolded Support One of the goals of the redesign process was to provide instructors and students with purposeful and flexible environments that were adaptable to the contextual needs of each field experience course. Instructors could bypass the lengthy time and effort required to build course environments from scratch by accessing a consistently designed template for all course sections. Creating a UDL based environment, however, would be challenging given that many of the instructors were sessional appointments; the timeframe between hiring and the start of classes was very short. The design team strategically reduced the need for instructors to have strong knowledge of technology and tools (e.g., Technology Knowledge or TK). The team that felt logistical considerations and the benefits of a consistent environment across course sections outweighed what instructors may have learned in designing their own course shell. This was also augmented by targeted training for how and why the environments were designed along with ongoing technology support to meet the needs and interests of instructors as they arose before and during field experience courses. Instructors appreciated the convenience of accessing and using pre-built environments. This allowed them to focus on developing their capacity for using the environments effectively. The design, the resources provided, and personalized coaching guided instructors on how to use environments and integrate UDL into their practice. One interviewed instructor expressed their appreciation for the design of the online learning environment. She noted, as a new instructor, that the organization of the course content was helpful and was reassured that she was approaching the course in a manner similar to her colleagues. She explained, “As first time instructor for [a field course], having the course shell laid out so I knew exactly what all instructors were doing, that we were all doing the same thing, the same kind of assessing…that is so important.” Additionally, another new instructor found the environment allowed him to reflect upon his practice and consider ways to use the technology. He explained: Everybody has access to the same stuff because, as a new instructor, I could’ve been far out in left field without any idea of what was expected. This [course shell] perfectly scaffolded everything that was expected of me and of the students. By having access to the template, how-to materials, and technology coaching, instructors could take agency in their capacity development and utilize resources relevant to their needs. Instructors, in doing so, could begin to develop and integrate their technology knowledge (TK), content knowledge (CK), and pedagogical knowledge (PC) at their own pace while knowing support was always available. Instructors also appreciated the benefit of having common content available online. One instructor expressed the benefit she saw by saying, “just to have everybody have the same access to the same stuff because the students do talk and they want to be all treated fairly.” Instructors had access to a curated library of online support documents to support their work; resources such as links to websites, how-to videos, and downloadable documents were available on demand. Designers should curate content as a large volume of resources may be overwhelming or difficult to sift through. One instructor commented on the number of resources available in previous iterations of the course shell design by reporting, “I think we’ve got to be more selective rather than just put everything that might be useful in.” This was mitigated in following design iterations by presenting tailored resources to instructors; as the hope was to encourage instructors to explore resources and develop their capacity, documents were selected for their relevancy and ease of exploration. An instructor noted after the revised course shell iteration that: 304

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

They had all the tools necessary and for me to search and to find them and put them in...that part alone would have taken a lot of hours. Everything was quality. There was no fluff. That’s the part I liked about it. An area in which instructors could connect with students, respond to questions, and generally communicate was desired. It should be noted that a further complication existed in the fact that students often used online mediums outside of the LMS to connect with each other. To combat this, a “course café” was a design feature introduced to provide support and community-building opportunities for instructors and students. The course café provided an open means of inquiry and communication for both instructors and students. For example, one instructor noted that publicly asked and answered questions: “…in the course café...I was able to respond to those [questions] for anyone to see.” The course café also allowed for instructors, as one reported, to go “back and forth just for support” with each other in the instructor-only shell. While the course café proved to be generally supportive, instructor engagement in the café affected positive outcomes. An instructor expressed that the usefulness of the course café depended on how active students and instructors were in using it and sharing their ideas with others in the online environment. He admitted that even he did not always share his ideas, stating that, “it would’ve been nice on my part if I captured that and put that in [to the instructor shell].” Another challenge in meeting the needs of instructors and supporting their capacity development was that not all instructors felt that they had time to fully explore the online environment. One instructor admitted that, “...I haven’t really explored it [the course shell] and all its potential.” In spite of these challenges, instructors generally agreed that the design of the online environment positively complimented their work with students. One instructor summed up the value of the online environment by stating that, “All the things we did in the D2L shell supported the face-to-face stuff that we did [with the students].”

Modeling UDL Practice The research team purposefully integrated the universal design for learning framework into the design of the online learning environment. The UDL principles of multiple means of engagement, representation and expression were embedded in the online learning environment to remove potential barriers for students and to scaffold their learning. In addition to creating resources to support instructors’ use of the online environments, the research team created parallel resources for students on how they could use the online environments in multiple ways based on UDL. For example, resources were provided on how to create videos or audio recordings for use in discussion forums instead of solely relying on text for communication. The flexibility of the online design allowed instructors to shape their online course shells to their teaching styles and students’ learning goals. One instructor commented that, “the beauty of the shell is that I can add the pieces that I want.” In adapting the course shell to fit their own needs, instructors modeled a responsive pedagogy for their students that reflected UDL principles. For example, one instructor created various pathways for their students’ learning: “I ... created a checklist, a spreadsheet and I posted all kinds of things like that...different ways for people to access the information, depending on what kind of learner or visualizer they were.” Another instructor expressed that she created videos to engage her students in reflection. She stated, “I do the video. It’s...maybe 4 or 5 minutes, here’s something to think about, and then here are the questions.” These instructors introduced a flexible curricula into their planning that was aimed at meeting the needs of their students. 305

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Instructors could easily integrate UDL into their practice by creating and providing to them an array of resources and pre-built features in the environments (e.g., checklists). They, in turn, could more readily explore features that they may not have been aware of or were otherwise onerous to set up. The template helped instructors to see the possibilities of the environments and helped to expedite integration between technology, pedagogy, and content—the three knowledge areas of TPACK. The requirement for having students actively participate in a digital community was purposeful. It was a strategy that aimed to increase student reflection and community capacity as students were not physically present together in one room—an aspect of learning that is seen in the traditional field experience model. For example, one instructor identified that the “richness of the discussions” were the most apparent difference from the traditional field experience model. They noted, “Compared to where we were even five years ago as far as how we use the discussion board to the richness I’m seeing now…I’m not getting two or three sentences, I’m getting paragraphs of reflection.” Additionally, another instructor stated, “[the students] have done an excellent job...the quality of those threads are outstanding. They’ve gone beyond my expectations. I’m very happy with the types of discussions that are happening.” The design of the online learning environment created new ways of teaching for the field experience instructors. For example, the opportunity to go back and refer to written posts by students allowed pedagogical connections to be highlighted. One instructor described this learning experience: “the items [posts] are still there now, we can refer to them. We did actually this morning in class, we looked at particular assessment strategies that were posted on D2L and they were able to collate them in small groups.” Another instructor used the online environment as a virtual office. She stated, “We can meet online. I can see them face-to-face on video. If you’re just a couple of people online...we can just meet at home and still have that face-to-face conversation and seeing somebody instead of just through email. It adds that personal piece to it.”

Coaching to Foster Capacity The experiences and expertise of instructors involved in teaching in the online field experience course environment were varied. There was a knowledge gap for many of them with regards to accessing and making use of the online resources and tools that are part of the course shell design. The research team recognized coaching to foster capacity among instructors would be an essential aspect of the project. As a result, “Tech Tuesdays” were created as a synchronous tool for instructors. In these 30-minute sessions, instructors were invited to learn about technology tools used within the online course area and to have their technology questions answered. Unfortunately, no instructors participated in these synchronous meetings. Tech Tuesday sessions, however, they were recorded and available for instructors to view at any time. Another strategy used in supporting instructors was one-to-one coaching by members of the research team. These coaching sessions were personalized—that is, they were purposeful and practical, weaving together technology and coaching. In the first design iteration of the online learning environment, several instructors felt “intimidated” and “constrained” by the pre-made course design. The one-to-one coaching sessions were useful in supporting instructors in understanding the potential of the online learning environment. One instructor described her experience with the one-to-one coaching session this way: “Sometimes, just that face-to-face, having someone show you or go through it is helpful as well.” Another instructor noted that she asked the technology team member, “Can you just show me what’s here? Just take me through it. I think it was helpful […].” 306

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

The organization of the online environment was viewed as a positive feature by other instructors that supported their interaction with students. In the second iteration of the online learning environment design, instructors linked the pedagogical potential of the online course design to engagement with their students: “I read all of their postings, and then I usually tried to respond to every person. It wasn’t a lengthy response, but I would usually try to respond to every person.” Another instructor explained the helpful organization of the discussion board and the manner in which she adjusted the discussion framework in order to meet the needs of her student cohort. She stated: They [the students] were not going beyond to other groups and, each week, I changed up the groups according to what I knew about them, their grade assignment, so that [I didn’t] ask some of the grade one teachers to be talking to grade nine teachers when it’s about assessment. It’s not going to be that beneficial for them. Based on individual needs, instructors choose to attend group coaching workshops to learn features of the online learning environment. The workshops provided in-depth tutoring on how to link course content (CK) and outcomes (PC) to the online learning environment (TK). Some instructors also chose to participate in online café conversations—this allowed the research team to connect with instructors to offer further technological support. The café conversations also gave instructors an opportunity to connect with other instructors and ask questions, share solutions, and develop a sense of community. An additional tool created to develop instructor capacity was the instructor shell. It was developed as a means for instructors to explore the variety of tools available on the LMS. The instructor shell mirrored the student online shell. It gave instructors a platform to experiment and investigate the possibilities in the online environment with their peers and not with students. The instructor shell allowed instructors to grow comfortable using the environment and offered resources to engage in the online environment in a meaningful way that would promote their students’ learning. The proficiency the instructors developed contributed to a sense of achievement and their professional development. One instructor described the benefit of the LMS this way by saying, “I certainly used it a lot more this year than last year...I think I was able to reach more students on a more regular basis that last year too.” The coaching was focused on developing the capacity of the instructors. This was accomplished by developing their confidence in engaging in the online environment. The research team emphasized the meaningful linking of technology to pedagogy while taking up the specific content related to student field experiences.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As more programs are beginning to integrate online and blended environments to support practicums, careful consideration needs to be given to how principles of UDL can and should be woven into the design. Attention should also be paid to the need to provide responsive supports for instructors to enhance their professional capacity in how they engage in the design and facilitation with UDL principles in customizing these online learning environments for practicum. The following are three recommendations of strategies for strategic support in enhancing instructor capacity for online and blending learning environments using UDL.

307

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

First, as found the in the study, scaffolded support may require an array of strategies and techniques to be available to meet the individual learning needs of instructors. Educational developers need to offer various types of supports (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-small groups, or one-to-large group) and the supports need to be agile so to meet the needs of the instructor when needed. It may be a matter of coupling together a series of supports for an instructor. For example, an instructor new to online or blended learning environments may need to have a templated course shell and one-to-one support in developing confidence in using the various tools of the LMS in support of the UDL principles. By working with a coach or educational developer, the instructor will learn more strategies and ways to enhancing the implementation of UDL principles. Yet, another instructor who is more experienced with the online or blended environment may want to work with colleagues, educational developers and/or coaches to explore additional ways to enhance multiple means of representation, engagement, and actions and expression (Meyer et al., 2014). Through guided scaffolding, instructors will be able to move their practice forward in support of robust learning for their students. Second, modeling evidence-informed practice for instructors provides them with examples and images of what UDL can look like in online and blended learning environments. Modeling practices in terms of the design, the facilitation, and the experience is just not about offering a way to do the work—it also provides an opportunity for discussion. Educational developers and/or coaches can use these moments to engage instructors in discussing the why and how of the integration of UDL. Within these critical discussion moments based on modeling, reflective practice can occur, which can then lead to thoughtful next steps in terms of implementation. Third, an effective strategy of supporting capacity development of instructors for online and blended learning environments may be through coaching. Coaching is “job-embedded learning” (Kise, 2006, p. 27) within the course context and in the moment of where the instructor needs help in terms of designing, developing and/or facilitating learning experience. Coaching needs to be “developmental and differentiated” (Zepeda, 2012, p. 144). Further to this: Coaching can build will, skill, knowledge, and capacity because it can go where no other professional development has gone before: into the intellect, behaviors, practices, beliefs, values, and feelings of an educator. Coaching creates a relationship in which a client feels cared for and is therefore able to access and implement new knowledge. (Aguilar, 2013, p. 8) For coaches to be effective, they need to have pedagogical, technological and content knowledge to be able to determine how to support, as well as to guide each instructor through their work. Coaches need to be using evidence-informed practice. This requires them to be familiar with current and relevant literature and to be able to apply theory to practice when working with instructors.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Following the implementation of the online field experience course environments, it became clear that field experience instructors were more comfortable with the learning platform and more apt to see this environment as a viable learning space. This presented an opportunity to continue developing capacity among field experience instructors and to address potential gaps in their professional learning using the

308

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

online environment. As a result, a new research initiative has been developed and is being implemented. This new study is discussed in the following sections.

Context Field experience instructors are tasked with the mentorship, supervision and evaluation of pre-service teachers in their field-based practica. The vast majority of these field experience instructors teach on a part-time basis as sessional instructors. This results in two primary challenges. First, all field experience instructors instruct pre-service teachers in the schools, taking them away from the university campus for extensive periods of time. This is particularly problematic for sessional instructors, as they rarely spend time at the university campus and do not, therefore, have easy access to on campus educational development opportunities offered for faculty during business hours. Second, sessional field experience instructors tend to be isolated from one another due to the nature of the position. This results in a lack of collaborative and collegial discussion outside of those formal meetings facilitated by a director of field experience.

Study To address the issues noted above, a new study is currently underway that allows field experience instructors to access online educational development modules designed to fulfill two aims. First, the online modules are designed to enhance the mentorship skills and teaching practice of field experience instructors with the aim of increased student satisfaction and engagement. Second, they act as support systems for field instructors in advancing their work with students. To this end, three educational development modules have been implemented with six more to be made available this academic year. Each of these modules is available for instructors to access at their convenience, ensuring any place, any pace opportunities. The modules are scaffolded in nature and interactive, ensuring all participants have the opportunity to actively engage with the materials. The first three modules deal with logistical field experience concerns while the second set of three modules are pedagogically oriented and the final set are theoretically oriented including further study of UDL. In all cases, the modules employ various signature pedagogies with an emphasis on case-based learning. Using a DBR approach, data has been collected from ten field experience instructors of various levels of experience on the implementation of the first three online development modules. Data collection consisted of analytics collected by the online platform including completion rates. Each participant was also asked to complete an anonymous survey based on their experience with each module. Finally, each participant was interviewed to get their feedback on those elements of the modules that were strong and that which required review. A summary of the findings found two primary themes. First, the initial three modules were of particular importance to new instructors, supporting the need for more theoretical topics as the modules progress so as to engage experienced instructors also. Second, there was agreement that the convenience and engagement of an online environment was important to the participants, allowing them to access opportunities for educational development in a manner fitting their position and teaching assignment. Final implementation of modules four through six occurred in September 2017 with modules seven through nine slated for completion in January 2018. In both successive implementation phases, data collection will continue and necessary improvements will be noted. This will be completed with the aim of 309

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

ensuring the best possible experiences for both student or pre-service teachers and the field experience instructors charged with the learning of future teachers.

CONCLUSION With the growing interest in using online and blended learning environments for practicum in professional programs, attention needs to be given to supporting instructors in developing their knowledge and skills in designing, developing, and facilitating learning in these technology-enabled learning environments. Further, supporting online and blended learning that is grounded on the three principles of universal design for learning can also be challenging. Instructors need to understand the philosophical underpinnings of UDL and then be open to integrating it into the online environment. Traditional education development practices such as workshops and job-aids only go so far in helping instructors. Additional strategies such as having an online community of practice, scaffolded supports, creation of a master shell that can be customized by each instructor, modeling of practice, and one-to-one coaching to support the individual learning needs of instructors may play a critical role in their personal and professional development. Creating responsive supports for instructors within their course context helps them in developing their confidence and competence in integrating UDL in online environments. This leads to enhanced instructor capacity. As instructors become more proficient in designing and facilitating learning using the principles of UDL online, they will be in a position to coach and mentor their students in more meaningful and purposeful ways.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT First, we acknowledge the University of Calgary Teaching grant that funded the two-year project. Second, we would like to acknowledge the other members of our research team, Luciano da Rosa dos Santos and Yang (Flora) Liu.

REFERENCES Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States (Rep.). Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey. com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

310

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Ally, M. (2008). Foundation of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. Bédard, D., Clement, M., & Taylor, K. L. (2010). Validation of a conceptual framework: The meaning and scope of educational development. In A. Saroyan & M. Frenay (Eds.), Building Teaching Capacity in Higher Education: A Comprehensive International Model (pp. 168–187). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Benson, S. N. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with technology: Using tpack to understand teaching expertise in online higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 153–172. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.c Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.812533 Bliuc, A.-M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001 Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brown, A., & Green, T. (2010). Issue and trends in instructional technology: Growth and maturation of web-based tools in a challenging climate; Social networks gain educators’ attention. In M. Orey, S. Jones, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. New York, NY: Springer. CAST. (2014). What is UDL implementation process. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/planningtemplates/districtresources da Rosa dos Santos, L., Seidel, J., & Lock, J. (2013). Integrating an LMS into Field Experience: An Insightful Experiment. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1927-1931). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Dabner, N., Davis, N., & Zaka, P. (2012). Authentic project-based design of professional development for teachers studying online and blended teaching. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 12(1), 71–114. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-12/issue-1-12/current-practice/ authentic-project-based-design-of-professional-development-for-teachers-studying-online-and-blendedteaching Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

311

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536 Hickey, E. (2013). Dismantling barriers via multiple representations on grade nine provincial achievement tests in mathematics and social studies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. NR96742) Jackson, B., & Jones, W. M. (2017). Blogging and Microblogging for Community Building in a Virtual Field Experience. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 649-655). Austin, TX: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Jaipal, K., Figg, C., & Burson, J. (2012). Using TPACK-in-Practice to Design Technology Professional Learning Opportunities for Teachers. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4710-4717). Austin, TX: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/ media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf Keengwe, J., & Kang, J. (2013). A review of empirical research on blended learning in teacher education programs. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3), 479–493. doi:10.100710639-011-9182-8 Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Lane, L. (2013). An open, online class to prepare faculty to teach online. The Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 8–19. doi:10.9743/JEO.2013.1.1 Lock, J., & Johnson, C. (2015). Assessing online collaboration: Triangulating the components. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(4), 61–70. Lock, J., & Johnson, C. (2017). Learning from transitioning to new technology that supports online and blended learning: A case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(1), 49–64. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAS. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

312

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & H. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. London: Routledge. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2010). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shattuck, J., & Anderson, T. (2013). Using a design-based research study to identify principles for training instructors to teach online. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5), 186–210. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1626 Shattuck, J., Dubins, B., & Zilberman, D. (2011). Marylandonline’s inter-institutional project to train higher education adjunct faculty to teach online. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 40. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.933 Slavit, D., Sawyer, R., & Curley, J. (2003). Filling your PLATE: A professional development model for teaching with technology. TechTrends, 47(4), 35–38. doi:10.1007/BF02763510 Wilcox, G., & Lock, J. (2017). Student Perceptions of Online Practicum: A Case Study. International Journal on E-Learning, 16(2), 195–208. Zenger, J., & Uehlein, C. (2001). Why blended learning will win: The lion and the lamb lie down together. Training & Development, 55(8), 55–60. Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Professional development: What works (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Blended Learning: Blended learning is part of the spectrum of the overarching context of e-Learning. Courses taught in a blended learning format have between 30 to 79% of its content taught in the online environment (Zenger & Uehlein, 2001). Coaching: Coaching, for increasing technology teaching capacity, has the instructor working with an expert (i.e., coach) in which they engage in ongoing discussion, questioning and reflection in relation to guiding the design and facilitation of the online environment (Lock & Johnson, 2017). Educational Development: Educational development is described as being “broader than faculty development, in that it encompassed instructional, curriculum, organizational, and some aspects of faculty development. In another sense, the term was narrower in that it focused on the teaching domain, as opposed to all aspects of academic career development” (Bédard, Clement, & Taylor, 2010, p. 177). Field Experience: Pre-service teachers take part in practicum opportunities to gain teaching and learning insights while observing a K-12 classroom environment during a Bachelor of Education program. Field experience opportunities range from classroom observation to student-as-teacher experiences. Field Experience can also be termed as student practicum.

313

 Enhancing Instructor Capacity Through the Redesign of Online Practicum Course Environments

Online Learning: Allen and Seaman (2011) described online learning when content is delivered online 80% or more. “A course where most or all of the content is delivered online. Typically have no face-to-face meetings” (p. 7). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): UDL is an instructional approach that supports the accommodation of diverse learner needs by addressing three principles for learning. It provides multiple means of: representation, action and expression, and engagement (Rose & Meyer, 2010).

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Blended Learning Pedagogies and Professional Development in Higher Education; pages 1-20, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

314

315

Chapter 17

Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL Ruby L. Owiny https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3236-4533 Trinity International University, USA Elizabeth Hartmann Lasell University, USA

ABSTRACT Any course must be goal-focused and consider the needs of all learners. However, online courses require instructors to be proactive in planning for learning. Recruiting and sustaining engagement in an online course must be carefully considered and planned for during all learning modules or units. This chapter addresses how to keep students engaged by considering their affect, the general way students feel toward their learning. Affect impacts motivation, which in turn can impact how a student persists in a course. The Universal Design for Learning principle of engagement addresses the affect through three guidelines. These guidelines are explained in this chapter with potential barriers to student learning and motivation explained as well. Furthermore, possible solutions are provided to give readers examples of ways in which they might reduce or remove barriers to engagement in their online courses.

INTRODUCTION Online enrollment in the fall of 2016 accounted for 31.7% of undergraduate and post baccalaureate students; this statistic up from 29.8% in 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2018) and is only expected to increase (Venable, 2019). Thus, instructors must address the unique opportunities and challenges inherent in designing and teaching online courses. Anyone who has taught an online course knows that the nature of such courses requires an approach to curriculum design and instruction that differs from traditional face-to-face courses. While both face-to-face and DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch017

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

online courses must be goal focused and empathetic to student needs, instructors in online courses must also be proactive in planning for the online learning environment. Although meaningful student engagement is a worthy goal of all courses, in an online environment, instructors must carefully consider how to recruit and sustain engagement in learning through synchronous and asynchronous online learning experiences. This chapter will explore how to meaningfully engage students from diverse backgrounds in online courses through the lens of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principle of providing students with multiple means of engagement. UDL is a framework based on the premise that traditional curriculum inherently creates barriers to learning for all students (Gordon, Meyer, & Rose, 2016). A key idea in the UDL framework is that variability in how students emotionally engage with curriculum is a strength to be leveraged in course design and instruction. To leverage student engagement and emotions, instructors and curriculum designers need to consider the variability in how their students learn (i.e., culture, background knowledge, personal learning preferences, etc.) and how online environments can create barriers and opportunities for engagement (Coy, Marino, & Serianni, 2014). It is important for instructors of both undergraduate and graduate online courses to consider the needs of today’s student. Many undergraduate students are juggling greater responsibilities than students of yesteryear. The stereotypical college student who lives in a dormitory and whose sole responsibility is to be a student rarely exists (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Survey research conducted by Best Colleges identified changing demographics as a finding among respondents, including a variety of online students being from international contexts, from outside the state from which the institution is located, and from farther distances from campus than in the past (Tobin & Behling, 2018). In addition, Best Colleges identified a wider range of diversity among students enrolled in online courses compared to traditional courses. This includes students with disabilities, students from lower income families, students for whom English is not their first language, and from minority groups traditionally not represented (Venable, 2018). These changing demographics in higher education requires that instructors reconsider curricula and how teachers design meaningful learning opportunities to effectively engage all students. UDL provides a grounded approach for instructors taking on this opportunity. This chapter will provide an informative and practical description of how course instructors and designers can implement UDL with specific strategies for how to provide multiple means of engagement that make learners 1) interested in learning, 2) focused and persistent even when it gets tough, and 3) self-motivated and reflective in their learning (CAST, 2018). The UDL principle of multiple means of engagement allows instructors and designers to better understand how students’ busy lives of balancing work, family, studies, and extracurricular activities can affect learning.

Universal Design for Learning and Engagement in Online Learning Learners affect, or their general sense of feeling, is important to their motivation to learn. Student affect is an important source of variance, as students’ feelings about learning differ because of their neurology, culture, personal experiences, background knowledge, and skills (CAST, 2018). For example, some learners may generally feel excited and internally motivated to learn in online environments because they appraise their own background knowledge of using learning management software as strong or have developed skills useful in online educational settings. In contrast, other students with limited background knowledge or skills in online learning environments may negatively appraise online courses and consequently, their affect toward learning is more hesitant or weary. Likewise, we can anticipate that an individual student’s affect varies over time, and his or her interest and motivation is constantly in flux 316

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

as a result of how he or she interacts in an online environment. For example, imagine a student who began an online course with a positive affect and was very motivated to learn but then due to external issues at work or home appraises her online learning in a more negative manner and is less motivated to complete work on time. Although the student began the course with a positive appraisal and motivation to learn, her affect for her learning changed over time as a result of factors external to her, such as the course instruction. There are two contributions that the UDL framework makes to understanding how student affect and engagement relate to online learning. First, the UDL framework approaches the analysis of student affect from the viewpoint that student factors are not separate from the environmental factors and thus, the focus of student affect is best placed on the interaction between the student and their learning environment (CAST, 2018). For example, consider a conscientious student who, toward the end of the term in an online course stops submitting her work and no longer responds to the instructors. One response to this student might be to consider the student or internal factors related to affect: perhaps the student became disinterested in the course, or she is distracted and unable to self-motivate. Another approach is to consider the environment or factors external to the student’s affect: perhaps the end-of-course assignments became too difficult and offered little context or peer support for her to understand. The UDL framework avoids both of these extremes, an overly student-focused view or environmentally-focused view of affect for a more balanced one that blends both. In the example of this once conscientious but now non-responsive student, implementation of UDL encourages the online instructor to consider the interaction of the factors specific to the student affect (e.g., their own motivation, engagement, selfreflection) and their online learning environment (e.g., barriers they experience in the course related to course design, materials, instruction and assessment). For example, the instructor of this student should equally consider how there is a mismatch between the individual student’s affect and the online learning environment. The second contribution that the UDL framework makes to understanding student affect and engagement is that the variability or individual differences of learners is not a barrier to overcome but rather an opportunity that allows for a richer and more authentic learning experience for all students (CAST, 2018). A traditional view of learners, especially in the context of higher education, is to consider their affect or emotions as something that needs to be controlled for before learning occurs (Posey, 2018). Likewise, instructors may feel that learner affect will create distractions from learning and the best students are those who are emotionally controlled or neutral in their affect. Research on the neuroscience of learning and emotion suggests the opposite. Learners’ affect, in all its variation and fluctuation, is important to learning and must be carefully considered and leveraged (Barrett, 2017). The UDL framework provides a proactive approach for instructors who want to understand how learners vary in their affect and plan their online instruction accordingly. For example, an instructor who understands that student affect in the course readings will change over time, will avoid assigning only text chapters as homework and, instead, provide different options for media (such as text genres, podcasts, videos, recorded keynotes) in the course content. In doing this, the instructor understands that these options for homework will appeal to different students in the course and also provide more variation for individual students who are expected to change how they feel about engaging in homework throughout the semester. To contrast this UDL approach, an instructor with a more traditional view may assume that most of the students should be capable of reading text chapters and will persist in doing so throughout the semester, even if their engagement or interest changes. This approach is not only built on faulty logic that what works

317

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

for the average student will work for most, but it also is likely to cause challenges, at some point, for all the students in the online course. But how do instructors use UDL in their online courses to leverage emotion? Designing online learning environments that are responsive or, more ideally, proactive to the individual variance of learner’s affect is both important but also complicated given just how much learner variability exists. We can expect learners to differ in what kinds of affect they bring into their online learning experiences and equally expect their affect to change over time. This presents both an opportunity and challenge to the designer and instructor of online courses: how do you meet the individual needs of your learners when their affect is so different and ever changing? The UDL framework principle, provides multiple means of engagement, provides a systematic way to view learner’s affective states that is useful for all course design, but especially in online environments where we can expect students to come from diverse backgrounds with various experiences and skills in using technology to learn. The UDL framework approaches this challenge not by encouraging designers to assess and meet individual needs, but rather to focus their attention on three aspects of affect variance that are the most important to learning and motivation. Put another way, the UDL framework empowers online instructors to see learner variability of affect as something to expect, anticipate, and leverage to make a more positive and motivating learning experience. To do this, instructors can use UDL to engage in a process that helps them to consider learner variability not as a challenge to overcome, but rather provide learners with an opportunity to: • • •

spark excitement and curiosity through providing options for student interests; tackle challenges with focus and determination through providing options for student effort and persistence; and harness the power of emotions and motivation through providing options for student self-regulation (CAST, 2018).

In this chapter, each of these three ways to respond to variance in learner affect will be described in detail, followed by suggestions for instructors and designers to address both the common barriers to affect in online learning environments and research-based suggestions for effective online learning. The structure of each section is purposeful in that it focuses on the interaction of the learner variable and the online learning environment, and in doing so, models how UDL implementation is a process that is less about fixing the learner or being responsive to every individual student’s ever-changing affect and rather is about systematically and proactively addressing student engagement through curriculum design and innovation in online environments.

RECRUITING INTEREST IN ONLINE LEARNING Instructors in higher education are united in their understanding that student interests and engagement are important to learning. Online learning environments that are proactively designed to consider variation in student interest will spark excitement and curiosity in online learning for both the students and instructors (CAST, 2018). For example, consider an online course with the goal of teaching introductory chemistry concepts. Some students will enter the course with a deep interest and perhaps even past experiences in chemistry that lead them to think both positively of the course and approach learning with energy and excitement. Other students may not have an interest in chemistry but be motivated by a 318

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

goal to one day get into a prestigious medical school. Other students may worry about the online course and approach it with dread because of a past experience with chemistry in high school or a perceived appraisal of their own abilities to learn chemistry. Other students may have little motivation and interest because they are taking the course solely because it meets a science requirement for their program and the online course was the only course they could register for that semester. An effective online course in chemistry will provide clear options for all these learners and their variability in interest both at the beginning and throughout the course. An important first step is to consider persistent and often systemic barriers to learning in online higher education courses related to student interest (CAST, 2018). Barriers to recruiting interest are as varied as the learners themselves, however, three specific ones addressed through the principle of engagement include: students who have little to no opportunity for choice or inputting their voice into a course, who do not understand the relevance of the content area to their lives or understand why they must take a particular course, and those who may feel unsafe, possibly fearful of what their peers or instructor may say to them, or who may be distracted in a course due to outside variables.

How to Spark Excitement and Curiosity through Recruiting Interest of Learners Instructors have several options to overcome these barriers in their course design and implementation. The following suggestions are just a few possibilities for addressing barriers to recruiting interest. First, to address individual choice and autonomy, it is important to consider course assignments and how students access course content. While it is important to align assignments with established objectives for the course or program (Boothe, Lohmann, Donnell, & Hall, 2018; Davies, Schelly, & Spooner, 2013), it is also important to allow for student choice. Within course assignments, consider ways for students to have choice in how they demonstrate mastery of the learning objective (Tobin, 2014). A carefully chosen verb for course objectives will allow for students to have options. For example, instead of: “Students will write a persuasive essay,” if written composition is not the main point of the assignment but developing an argument and supporting it with evidence is the main point, then consider revising the objective. For example, an alternative, “students will present a persuasive argument”, will allow for choice in how the argument is presented. Kennete and Wilson (2019) surveyed students in a General Arts and Science certificate program on their perceptions of UDL implementation in their courses. Most students reported appreciation for having access to rubrics for major assignments. A scoring guide or rubric provides the basic expectations for establishing the argument and supporting it with valid evidence and details, however, the manner in which the student presents that argument can be in the form of a written essay, a video, a brochure, or even a cartoon. In the first author’s Methods for Teaching Learners with Disabilities course, students consistently comment that they enjoy the ability to be creative and demonstrate their learning through their strengths from a choice assignment that comes in a tic-tac-toe format. Students choose three tasks in a row to create a tic-tac-toe. Each of the tasks vary to allow students to choose the three that are most interesting to them. Further, allowing students choices in how they access course materials (Scott & Temple, 2017) provides students with the opportunity to feel a sense of independence and ownership in accessing the course content in a manner that makes the most sense to the individual. For example, a module may include several ways to access the content such as an article, a chapter from the textbook, a podcast lecture, and a video demonstration of the concept (Kumar & Wideman, 2014). The article and chapter may be provided both in text format and as an audio file. Digital text could also be easily enlarged. Students could be given the choice to review two of the provided formats to access 319

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

the content or the type of information provided in various modules could vary. In one module, reading from the textbook and watching a video may be how students access the content. In another module, they read an article and listen to a podcast. In yet another, they may have a choice from three or four different types of content. Some students prefer to have a hard copy of materials on which to take notes, highlight, etc., thus they could print the article or the chapter. Students who prefer to maximize their time and access course content during their commute to work may be thrilled to listen to a podcast or watch the video demonstration (assuming they aren’t driving!). Kumar and Wideman (2014) report student perceptions of UDL implementation in a health sciences course. Ninety-seven percent of survey respondents reported that having access to a variety of course materials (e.g., study guides, PowerPoint slides, and text descriptions of images) helped them to better understand the content. One student provided an example that it was helpful to have the text descriptions of images for cells to fully understand the parts to lead to understanding of the functions (Kumar & Wideman, 2014). To address relevance, value, and authenticity, instructors would do well to answer the “why” of learning from the start of the course and remind students throughout the course. Why is taking this chemistry course important for a non-science major? Why is this particular online public speaking course relevant to a communications major? Human beings are wired to want to know why; knowing the reason helps us to understand why we are doing what we are doing (Novak, 2016). For a non-science major, understanding how chemistry impacts daily life from cooking and baking to the medicines one takes, can help a student develop interest and motivation to persist in learning. Answering the “why” in learning can be accomplished through real-life examples (Schelly, Davies, & Spooner, 2011), including a range of examples and content from cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender groups along with age ranges allows students to “see” themselves in the content. Assignments that allow students to solve relevant problems provide them with a deeper understanding of the relevancy of the content and applicability to their lives. For example, in a chemistry course, students could solve equations relating to medication to reduce the symptoms of sickle cell anemia, a condition prominent among African Americans. In a public speaking course, students could learn principles of public speaking in preparation for contacting their legislators about issues of concern in their communities or to approach their supervisor about a pay raise or promotion. In the second author’s online education course, guest speakers are invited into discussion boards to provide their everyday experience of the course content to discuss why the course content is important in the field and help to make connections between theoretical aspects of pedagogy and practice. Finally, to minimize threats and distractions, instructors must recognize that students may have had negative experiences with previous instructors, course content, peers, grades, etc. To help students overcome their fears, instructors should immediately provide students with an introduction to themselves. Lohmann, Boothe, Hathcote, and Turpin (2018) found that students appreciated the personal communication received from their course instructor through phone calls and the personal way the instructor interacted with students on the course learning management system. A simple method for helping students to not only connect with the instructor, developing “instructor presence” (Novak, 2016), but also with each other, is to provide a brief video introduction to include information about the instructor’s professional background and personal information they are willing to share, such as their favorite vacation spot or a bit about their family. In turn, this serves as a model for students to do the same (Yalon-Chamovitz, Linder-Katz, & Avidan-Ziv, 2019). Further, carefully choose materials to be accessible (Dell, Dell, & Blackwell, 2015) for learner availability wherever they may be when it is time for them to study. For example, combine auditory and visual content such as with a video to allow for viewing in a crowded auditorium or an athletic field as students may be attending events in support of their children. They 320

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

may wish to grab a few minutes of learning while they await the beginning of the program, concert, or game. Students could put earbuds in and watch the video and better understand the concepts with the combination of sensory input, auditory and visual. Provide closed captioning to allow students to watch the video on mute in the case of a student who needs to watch the video while children are napping or on the loud and crowded subway during the morning commute. Further, a transcript could be helpful for those in areas with limited bandwidth, such as in rural areas. Recruiting interest emphasizes those options that instructors can implement in their courses to not only initially gain student interest, but to help students remain interested in the course. Multiple methods of providing a range of choices, novel experiences, and authentic tasks can provide students with what they need to maintain interest for the duration of a course (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). It is equally important to remember that not all options will be novel or authentic for each student, but when multiple options are available, engagement is stimulated and maintained (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). These barriers with suggested solutions are summarized in Table 1. To further assist readers to increase opportunities to recruit interest while reducing barriers, the following questions are provided for self-reflection: • • • • • •

Are students provided with opportunities for choice? Do they have choices in the final product of an assignment, how they access course content, or in how they engage in online discussion boards? Do course materials provide for options? Do students access content only one way? Can they read, listen, or watch to learn content? Is there a variety of activities in which students independently gain knowledge and for learning through interaction and collaboration? Is the purpose of the course clearly articulated? The purpose of each module or unit of study? Is the purpose of individual assignments clear? Are students engaged through real-life examples across an array of diverse groups? Is there a personable introduction to the instructor to allow students to get to know him or her? Do students have an opportunity to get to know each other at the beginning of the course?

Table 1. Barriers to engagement Checkpoint

Barrier

Possible Solution

Supported Literature

Guideline: Recruiting Interest Optimize individual choice and autonomy

Students feel they have no choice or voice in the course

Assignment Choices Content Options

Tobin (2014) Scott & Temple (2017)

Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity

Students do not understand the relevance to their lives or how the course fits into their overall program

Honor student diversity Provide real-world experiences

Davies, Schelly, & Spooner (2013) Schelly, Davies, & Spooner (2011)

Students feel unsafe or distracted in the course

Build connections between instructor and students Develop “Instructor Presence” Carefully choose course materials to be accessible

Yalon-Chamovitz, LinderKatz & Avidan-Ziv (2019) Novak 2016 Dell, Dell, & Blackwell (2015)

Possible Solution

Supported Research

Minimize threats and distractions

Guideline: Sustaining Effort and Persistence Checkpoint

Barrier

continues on following page

321

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

Table 1. Continued Checkpoint

Barrier

Possible Solution

Supported Literature

Vaguely written goals Students forget or don’t fully understand the goals

Clearly written goals State goal/s for each lesson, activity, and assignment

Scanlon, Schreffler, James, Vasquez, & Chini (2018) Tobin & Behling (2018)

Vary demands and resources to optimize challenge

A one size fits all approach

Provide multiple pathways for demonstrating mastery of objectives Provide varying materials to build background knowledge or to allow a student to go deeper in the content

Scott & Temple (2017) Rao, Edelen-Smith, & Wailehua (2014) Boothe, Lohmann, Donnell, & Hall (2018)

Foster collaboration and community

Students feel disconnected from classmates

Provide opportunities for collaboration and for interactions

Lohmann, Boothe, Hathcote, & Turpin (2018)

Vague feedback

Concrete feedback for students to understand what they need to do to improve Provide differentiated feedback

Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele & Andries (2017) Scanlon, Schreffler, James, Vasquez, & Chini (2018)

Barrier

Possible Solution

Supported Research

Promote expectations and beliefs that optimize motivation

Large formative assignments that kill motivation and belief student can succeed

Provide formative feedback on smaller assignments that offer specific process-based feedback on progress

Posey, Deci and Ryan, (2008)

Facilitate personal coping skills and strategies

No discussion of emotion or affect and its importance to the learning No opportunity to learn about and build metacognitive skills in a course that is overloaded with content

Explicitly teach self-regulation and make it part of course goals, especially in applied areas Use the tools that are part of the “real world or field and discuss their affordances and constraints

Cleary & Zimmerman (2012) Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey (2012) Vie 2018

Develop self-assessment and reflection

Lack of models of what selfassessment looks like and that it is important

Use questioning and specific facilitation of discourse to model reflection

Novak 2016 Hsiao, Mikolaj, & Shih, 2017

Heighten salience of goals and objectives

Increase master-oriented feedback Guideline: Self-Regulation Checkpoint

EFFORT AND PERSISTENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING Although consideration of student engagement is important, equally critical is instructors’ consideration of what causes students to disengage or persist in learning, especially when it gets challenging. Online learning environments that consider students’ affect variance will help both students and instructors to tackle intellectual and skill-based problems of practice with focus and determination (CAST, 2018). For example, consider a course that has the primary goal of helping students to develop knowledge in a particular kind of skill, such as how to effectively collaborate with co-workers in a business setting. Some students may come to this online course with a clear understanding of why collaboration is important because of a field-based internship they recently completed, while others will question the need for such a course because collaboration is something they have not yet experienced the benefits of. This is something that they will not encounter until they are in their first job. Some students will be excited

322

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

by the prospect of working collaboratively with peers during the semester because they are energized by group work and it is, in fact, one of the main reasons they wanted to major in business. Other students may already be worried about what they will do when not all the members of their group participate and if they will need to do more work than is fair like they experienced in the previous semester. Other students might approach this course with interest but worry how the online format will truly allow collaboration to occur given that they perceive face-to-face interaction to be the best way to work with colleagues. An instructor of this course on collaboration needs to consider how options can be embedded into the online curriculum that will ensure equal access and progress for all learners. Similar to providing options for recruiting interest, an important first step is to first identify and remove barriers to online learning in higher education that are commonly experienced by students when they engage in learning that requires sustained attention and effort in developing collaborative skills (CAST, 2018). Creating quality, measurable instructional goals and objectives is a key to student success, however minimal time is spent on training faculty in higher education about this vital component of instruction (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Wiggins and McTighe (2005) provide instructors with helpful information on what they call “backward design” which means starting with the end goal and developing assessments with clear goals and objectives to allow learners to meet the expectation. The final stage is planning for the instruction. This often feels “backward” to instructors because it feels unnatural to begin with the end in mind. However, knowing the destination, and the way to get there, is vital to student learning and engagement in the course. When well written goals and objectives, coupled with alignment between class sessions, assignments, and assessments, are clearly communicated to students, they are more likely to persist in their learning and better able to make connections between current content and previously learned concepts (Scanlon, Schreffler, James, Vasquez, & Chini, 2018; Tobin & Behling, 2018). Another barrier that often creates challenges for students is a “one size fits all” approach to instruction. Armstrong (2012) explains neurodiversity as the recognition that there is tremendous, yet beautiful variation among humans. These differences are not necessarily liabilities but can be leveraged to allow learners to experience an even richer learning environment. While similarities between learners certainly exist, there are many ways in which variability exists and instructors can leverage that variability, or that neurodiversity, to the benefit of their students (Armstrong, 2012; Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). When assignments are designed with this variability in mind, students are motivated to engage and persist in learning, even when learning gets challenging.

HOW TO OPTIMIZE STUDENT EFFORT AND PERSISTENCE At first, planning for variability in effort and persistence may sound daunting to an instructor. He or she may wonder, “Must I plan for every single type of variation in a student’s effort?” Fortunately, the answer is a resounding “No!” One does not need to plan all instruction for every type of variability that exists. What an instructor should do instead is to consider the goal of the lesson (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014), plan for alternative content and materials (e.g., various ways to learn and access the content; Boothe, Lohmann, Donnell, & Hall, 2018), and provide multiple ways for students to demonstrate knowledge (Rao, Edelen-Smith, & Wailehua, 2014; Tobin & Behling, 2018). Planning for variability can take the form of providing alternative content such as voiceover PowerPoints, online text allowing for text-tospeech options, or videos with closed captioning (Boothe, Lohmann, Donnell, & Hall, 2018).

323

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

Further planning for variability can be addressed in assessments. Instructors can optimize challenges and vary the demands for students through provision of multiple pathways to demonstrate their knowledge (Scott & Temple, 2017). Rather than students completing a traditional unit exam as the only method for evaluating their learning, they should be provided with multiple different ways to demonstrate their knowledge. For example, they could take smaller, lower stakes, weekly quizzes with feedback on their performance to provide affirmation of their learning while also providing corrective feedback on misperceptions (Rao, Edelen-Smith, & Wailehua, 2014). This type of approach can lead to a higher level of expert learning and a positive affect toward the course. Many learning management systems allow for feedback on questions in quizzes. Therefore, the instructor could input the correct response or where to find the correct response in the course materials as feedback for students to know how to correct their misunderstandings or general lack of knowledge on certain concepts. Focused formative feedback reduces the time it might take for an instructor to provide individual feedback on each assignment. Providing feedback in an online quiz, coupled with feedback on other assignments that is personalized to the learner, can help the student to be empowered to continue putting forth effort in the course. In addition, long-term projects could have checkpoints throughout the semester by which students get instructor feedback, which is not graded, but allows students to get formative feedback to develop a quality final project (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Alternatively, some checkpoints might include gaining feedback from a peer or being provided with a checklist to reflect on their work and decide where corrections may need to be made or where they could enhance their work. These multiple methods of scaffolding learning while getting valuable feedback helps students to maintain motivation as the demands vary from easier to more difficult. Students can get a break from highly rigorous assessments while being challenged with more rigor throughout the course. Nearly 92% of students at Durham College reported satisfaction with instructors providing clear feedback and motivating students to do their best work (Kennette & Wilson, 2019). Another barrier that students may encounter with online courses is the feeling of isolation and disconnect from peers. Emerging research has found that peer-to-peer connectedness, or students’ perception of the communication and support by peers in online learning environments has been shown to increase classroom participation and positively impact student cognition and self-regulation (MacLeod, Yang, & Shui, 2019). It is important for instructors to develop courses that foster collaboration and community (CAST, 2018). Instructors can provide a “Parking Lot” forum in the course learning management system in which students can post content unrelated to the class, such as questions about recipes for making a quick dinner on a busy school night or how peers balance a full-time job and taking courses. In addition, providing discussion board prompts and assignments which require students to periodically work together allows for students to get to know one another and promote both interdependence and independence in completing tasks (Gradel & Edson, 2010; Lohmann, Boothe, Hathcote, & Turpin, 2018). Students in a health sciences course reported that they appreciated the interaction they had with peers, some appreciated that others would ask questions and other students would answer (Kumar & Wideman, 2014). This allowed students to learn, not only from the course instructor, but from each other, as well. Finally, providing clear and specific feedback that is timely and frequent aids in student achievement and ability to persist (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; O’Neill & Maguire, 2019). Concrete feedback with an emphasis on progress toward achievement of learning goals (Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele & Andries, 2017), such as what is provided through informal, formative feedback (e.g., questions & answers in class, digital quizzes such as with KahootTM) allows students to know which concepts they are already solid in knowing while also learning which areas they should work on for improvement. Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, Verstichele and Andries (2017) found that that students often have difficulties understanding 324

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

general feedback, for example, one student stated, “I have difficulties understanding feedback; during the internship, my mentor provided me with really vague feedback. I need them to refer to concrete behaviour, and then I can adjust. (p.1641) Providing personalized or differentiated feedback allows students to have misconceptions pointed out with time to correct those mistakes prior to a summative assessment (Scanlon, Schreffler, James, Vasquez, & Chini, 2018). This process of providing students with feedback on their growth toward the goal can motivate students to believe they can master the goals and objectives (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Quality feedback is a component to achievement of learning goals and objectives (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) and a key element for students to address learning challenges before they become too frustrated to persist in their learning (Robinson & Meyer, 2012). The following questions, in addition to a summary of barriers and solutions in Table 1, are useful in considering what barriers to address in student effort and persistence in online course design and instruction: • • • • • •

Are my course goals and objectives measurable? Are they clearly written? Do I provide content in multiple ways? Do I allow for students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways? Are adequate opportunities for collaboration included in the course? Is feedback specific insofar as students know what they are doing well and areas where they could still improve? Is my feedback timely in that students can correct misperceptions prior to a summative assessment? Or is it too late for students to make any adjustments in their learning?

SELF-REGULATION IN ONLINE LEARNING One last consideration in this discussion of student engagement in online learning is how to explicitly support and teach the kinds of skills and knowledge that will help learners to evaluate and regulate their own affect in online learning environments. Online learning environments that are proactively designed to harness the power of student and instructor emotions and motivation will not only be successful in teaching knowledge and skills, but also in teaching the affect or dispositions that will lead to learners who are purposeful and self-directed in their learning long after the course or experience is over (CAST, 2018). Research in lower education has shown that instruction that integrates or explicitly teaches social and emotional understanding and skills, the kind required for positive student self-regulation, has led to improved emotional competencies and improved academic performance (Brackett, Rivers, Reyes, & Salovey, 2012; Payton et al., 2008). This research challenges traditional notions of student emotion in the classroom as something the teacher controls and instead supports an approach where instructors consider how emotion leverages student cognition (Barrett, 2017). Self-regulation is the blending of student will and skill to learn in a manner that involves strategic thinking and metacognition (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). For example, consider an online course for students completing their end-of program thesis. Some students will enter the course with a strong understanding of their needs and their responsibility to set their own smaller goals around course deliverables to ensure that their thesis is complete prior to the date they would like to graduate, while others may struggle to understand that this course requires more ownership of their learning. Some students will be able to rebound or regulate their emotions in a healthy way that allows them to improve an early draft of their thesis with feedback that was overly critical and discouraging. Some students will be able to reflect 325

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

on past thesis papers they have written and bring their reflections of their successes and anticipated areas of need to this online course while others may struggle to see how past thesis writing is connected to what they are doing this semester. Unlike the other approaches discussed in this chapter, this section is perhaps one that instructors in online courses in higher education may not have fully considered because it goes beyond the teaching of specific disciplinary content or skills (such as, chemistry, public speaking, or collaboration). The UDL guideline of self-regulation is focused on providing options so that learners can modulate their own affect or, in other words, self-regulate their own learning. The removal of barriers to supporting the explicit self-regulation of learners is important, as is the infusion of options that allow students to build skills and dispositions that lead to healthy self-regulation (CAST, 2018). Despite research findings that teachers and psychologists perceive student self-regulation to be highly valuable to student performance and professional activities, they do not frequently engage in instruction or assessment of self-regulation (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). Perhaps the largest barrier to student self-regulation in online learning is the lack of student opportunities to develop self-regulatory knowledge and skill. For example, instructors may not provide ongoing feedback throughout the semester that allows them to stay motivated, build self-reflection skills, and build self-efficacy or the belief that they can be successful in the course. The research also suggests that another barrier to self-regulation is when instructors in graduate programs do not feel that they are equipped to effectively respond to students who are finding it difficult to self-regulate their learning (Cleary, 2009) or feel that this is outside of their purview as an instructor of an online course.

HOW TO OPTIMIZE FOR STUDENT SELF-REGULATION For the course designer or instructor who is looking to support student self-reflection in online learning environments, one solution, as with effort and persistence, is to provide or prioritize formative feedback on assignments that are process-based (Deci & Ryan, 2008). For example, instead of relying on a few high-stakes summative assignments, opt for giving students smaller more frequent assignments that can build skills, knowledge and affect incrementally over time. Also ensure that formative assignments provide clear ways for students to build knowledge, skills, and affect that ensure success in summative assignments (Posey, 2018). For example, provide opportunities for the students to receive feedback on these assignments that is specific to what they have accomplished (or what they have done well) and what they should focus on or think about in future assignments. Another way to support self-regulation is to explicitly teach self-regulation by making it part of course goals, especially in applied areas (Brackett, 2012; Cleary & Zimmerman, 2012). Instructors can do this through modeling their own thinking in the online discussion boards or as they record lectures. For example, instructors can make their thinking clear to students by talking out loud as real-world issues are presented and affordances and constraints are honestly considered (Vie, 2018). If students are discussing a challenging problem of practice, the instructor can model their self-regulation by writing out their own thought and reflection process. They might say things like, “If I were thinking through how to approach this difficult situation, the first thing I would do is….” This modeling provides a way for students to begin to organize their new learning with their background knowledge to form new ideas which are better connected and richer or deeper than before the course.

326

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

One last solution for instructors is to leverage the power of specific and focused questioning in online learning as one way to model what self-reflection looks like and communicate to the students that making their reflection matters to you (Hsiao, Mikolaj, & Shih, 2017) as much as conceptual knowledge. For example, instructors can ask in an online discussion forum for students to consider new how they might approach common problems and specifically ask students to make their thinking and feelings about situations visible in their response (Novak, 2016). For example, an instructor can ask students to follow-up on concise conceptual answers given in discussion forums or assignments by asking, “How did you get to this answer? I look forward to hearing more about your thought process and how you came to this answer.” Another useful prompt to encourage self-reflection is, “Your answer is clear and I can tell you learned a lot through this assignment. Could you tell me more about how you might think through problems like this in the future? How had this course or assignment helped you to approach these kinds of problems? In each of these assignments, the instructor is pushing the students to make not only their answers public, but the thinking and reflection behind their work. Table 1 provides a summary of barriers with potential solutions to self-regulation. The following questions are also useful in considering what barriers to address student self-regulation in online course design and instruction: • • • • • •

What kind of ongoing feedback do I provide students throughout the semester and does this feedback clearly identify what students need to do to improve on future assignments? How do the assignments and feedback provided online give students the sense that I am committed to supporting changes in learning and skill development throughout their semester? How do I model my own self-reflection and self-regulation in the course, especially when discussing emotional aspects of the course content or work? How do I make my own self-reflection more visible to the students, especially to those students who may be inclined to think that I always know what to do or that I am always perfectly regulated in my work? How do I optimize online, facilitated discussions in my online course to provide a concrete model of how one can use questions to foster student reflection on what they are learning? How do I provide students with options to reflect on their learning throughout the semester and think about how their learning and skill development related to the course extends beyond the term or semester?

CONCLUSION The affective network of the brain is stimulated and motivated, made ready for learning, when instructors prepare instruction to develop students’ interest in the topic, provide a purpose for learning, and identify various means by which students are motivated to learn (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Considering neurodiversity and the variability which exists among students with the strengths, talents, and expertise they bring to the classroom along with the weaknesses and dislikes, instructors will better engage their students in learning by addressing the affect. By understanding that students’ motivation to learn will wax and wane throughout the course of a term, instructors can help students maintain interest by providing a safe learning environment which allows for choice and provides relevant, authentic instruction. Furthermore, careful planning of goals and objectives with course assignments and instruction centered around those goals and objectives will result in students better understanding the relevancy of the topic 327

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

while also keeping the purpose of the course at the forefront of their minds. The barriers and potential solutions presented in this chapter provide opportunities for instructors to optimize learner engagement in online courses which can ultimately translate to increased achievement and great student satisfaction (Tobin & Behling, 2018).

REFERENCES Armstrong, T. (2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Strength-based strategies to help students with special needs succeed in school and life. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The new science of the mind and brain. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Boothe, K. A., Lohmann, M. J., Donnell, K. A., & Hall, D. D. (2018). Applying the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) in the college classroom. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(3), 1–13. Brackett, M. A., Bailey, C. S., Hoffmann, J. D., & Simmons, D. N. (2019). RULER: A Theory-Driven, Systemic Approach to Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning. Educational Psychologist, 1–18. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org Cleary, T. J. (2009). School-based motivation and self- regulation assessments: An examination of school psychologist beliefs and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25(1), 71–94. doi:10.1080/15377900802484190 Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 237–257). doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11 Coy, K., Marino, M. T., & Serianni, B. (2014). Using universal design for learning in synchronous online instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 63–74. doi:10.1177/016264341402900105 Davies, P. L., Schelly, C. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning intervention in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(3), 195–220. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. doi:10.1037/a0012801 Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., & Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations. The Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 166–192. Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2016). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

328

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111–121. doi:10.2190/ET.38.2.d Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andriew, C. (2017). Higher education students with disabilities speaking out: Perceived barriers and opportunities of the universal design for learning framework. Disability & Society, 32(10), 1627–1649. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1365695 Hsiao, E., Mikolaj, P., & Shih, Y. (2017). A design case of scaffolding hybrid/online student-centered learning with multimedia. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 1–9. Kennette, L. N., & Wilson, N. A. (2019). Universal design for learning (UDL): Student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 1(2). Kumar, K. L., & Wideman, M. (2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147. Lohmann, M. J., Boothe, K. A., Hathcote, A. R., & Turpin, A. (2018). Engaging graduate students in the online learning environment: A universal design for learning (UDL) approach to teacher preparation. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 20(2), 2–23. doi:10.4148/2470-6353.1264 MacLeod, J., Yang, H., & Shi, H. (2019). Student-to-student connectedness in higher education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(2), 426–448. doi:10.100712528019-09214-1 Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Novak, K. (2016). UDL Now! Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. O’Neill, G., & Maguire, T. (2019). Developing assessment and feedback approaches to empower and engage students: A sectoral approach in Ireland. In S. Bracken & K. Novak (Eds.), Transforming higher education through universal design for learning (pp. 277-293). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The Positive Impact of Social and Emotional Learning for Kindergarten to Eighth-Grade Students: Findings from Three Scientific Reviews. Technical Report. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (NJ1). Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505370.pdf Posey, A. (2018). Engage the Brain: How to Design for Learning that Taps Into the Power of Emotion. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Rao, K., Edelen-Smith, P., & Wailehua, C. (2014). Universal design for online courses: Applying principles to pedagogy. Open Learning, 30(1), 35–52. doi:10.1080/02680513.2014.991300 Robinson, K. H., & Meyer, A. (2012). Doing history the universal design for learning way. In T. E. Hall., A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications (pp. 90-105). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

329

 Designing and Teaching for Student Engagement in Online Courses Through UDL

Scanlon, E., Schreffler, J., James, W., Vasquez, E., & Chini, J. J. (2018). Postsecondary physics curricula and universal design for learning: Planning for diverse learners. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 1–19. doi:10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020101 Scott, L., & Temple, P. (2017). A conceptual framework for building UDL in a special education distance education course. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 1–12. Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with universal design for learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13–24. Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2016 and Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. Author. Venable, M. (2019). 2019 online education trends report. Best Colleges. Retrieved from: https://res. cloudinary.com/highereducation/image/upload/v1556050834/BestColleges.com/edutrends/2019-OnlineTrends-in-Education-Report-BestColleges.pdf Vie, S. (2018). Effective social media use in online writing classes through universal design for learning (UDL) principles. Computers and Composition, 49, 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.005 Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Yalon-Chamovitz, S., Linder-Katz, N., & Avidan-Ziv, O. (2019). Cognitive accessibility: Stretching the boundaries of UDL in higher education. In S. Bracken & K. Novak (Eds.), Transforming higher education through universal design for learning (pp. 218-227). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Developing Engaging Online Courses; pages 314-329, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

330

331

Chapter 18

Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory Begüm Saçak https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-7882 Erikson Institute, USA Natalia Kavun Ohio University, USA

ABSTRACT In this chapter, Harasim’s online collaborative learning theory (OCL) will be addressed as it explains how collaborative learning takes place in online environments via the use of online collaborative tools. Preliminary studies on using FlipGrid and VoiceThread, discussion tools which incorporate dynamic media such as audio and video, will be explained in the context of how such collaborative media tools can foster student engagement and collaboration. Implications of using these online tools and how they contribute to collaborative learning practices will be discussed in the context of OCL theory.

INTRODUCTION Student interaction and engagement play a key role in face-to-face classes, and previous literature has shown that engaging classes result in positive learning experiences (Furlong & Christenson, 2008). Interactions in online learning environments are successful to the extent which they could mimic real-life learner interaction by fostering conversations relevant to the content (Hew, 2012). Learners’ interaction with their peers and instructors have become increasingly common as educators advocate for social learning practices in 21st-century classrooms. Discussions, interaction with peers, and meaningful DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch018

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

exchange with the social community can foster learning and engagement (Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978). Educators strive to create engaging online learning environments in which students will be able to exchange ideas with one another (Hew, 2012). Collaborative learning practices are the products of such efforts, and collaborative learning promotes the exposure to diverse viewpoints of other learners, which, in return, help students form their own unique conceptual frameworks as opposed to acquiring information from a textbook or a static source of information (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). In most online classes, such interaction and collaboration take place asynchronously — not in real time when an actual conversation is taking place (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). Asynchronous communication is used as an effective tool for critical thinking and reflection (Green & Green, 2018; Zhang et al., 2007). The nature of asynchronous communication is usually text-based and almost all asynchronous discussions require typing (Girasoli & Hannafin, 2008). However, asynchronous interaction has its own shortcomings such as increased difficulty for students who are less proficient in writing (Bowe, 2002), cognitive load when the students type and participate simultaneously in a discussion (Arend, 2009), and potential misunderstandings due to lack of verbal cues and gestures (Hew & Hara, 2009). Text-based discussions also have less motivational appeal to students in comparison to face-to-face discussions (Angelino et al., 2007). As a result, alternative media such as interactive multimedia have become more popular for their potential affordances (Koricich, 2013). Audio (Akasha, 2011; Bruvand & Byrd, 2011; Hew, 2012) and video (Green & Green, 2018) as alternative forms of media can be incorporated into online asynchronous interactions in online or blended classes. In this book chapter, Harasim (2012)’s online collaborative learning Theory (OCL) will be explained as OCL serves as a theoretical foundation on how collaborative learning takes place in online environments via the use of online collaborative tools. A discussion around the use of Flipgrid and VoiceThread (discussion tools which incorporate dynamic media such as audio and video) in recent literature for instructional purposes in online and offline settings will reveal how the existing practices relate to OCL; specifically, how the use of these tools allow students to collaborate with each other from a pedagogical perspective. These two specific technology tools were chosen to be discussed in this chapter given the increasing adoption of these tools by online instructors (Hurlbut & Dunlap, 2019; Young, 2017).

BACKGROUND Collaborative learning is based on the idea that knowledge is constructed socially. Social constructivist theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) serves as the foundation for collaborative learning. Lev Vygotsky believed that social interaction is essential for the student’s learning process along with a personal critical thinking process (Hmelo-Silver, Chinn, Chain, & O’Donnell, 2013; Powell & Kalina, 2009). According to the social constructivist theory of learning, individual subjects are not separate from their society, but instead, an individual and the society he/she belongs to are inherently interconnected. Social interaction enables learners to pick up and learn new ideas and concepts with the help of more knowledgeable peers or adults (Woo & Reeves, 2007). Woo and Reeves (2007), originally cited in Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), put a specific emphasis on the authentic nature of social interactions in which such learning takes place. In order for learning to occur, it is important that a learner is situated in a situation that is relevant to real-life experiences and which takes place in an environment similar to an applied setting.

332

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

In particular, if students work together with other people including peers, experts, and seniors while solving an authentic task, this approach highlights the emphasis social constructivists’ place on the construction of knowledge through mediation and negotiation within a learning community. It also highlights the process of working closely with an expert who provides a model and gradually socializes the student into the culture of the profession or field (Woo & Reeves, 2007, p. 20). Collaborative learning has long been known as an effective, pedagogical approach; however, the introduction of new and online technologies of learning provided new opportunities for student collaboration and collaborative work (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Roberts, 2004; Stephenson, 2018; Wang et al., 2017). The new technologies further complicated the nature of collaborative activities and how they should be designed to create effective learning experiences. Based on the definition of socially constructed learning as such, the idea that a person’s learning may be enhanced through his/her interaction with others, technology-supported online collaborative learning can offer new possibilities of working together and learning from others.

Online Collaborative Learning Theory (OCL) In the current Knowledge Era, the growth of the Internet and the learning technologies has accelerated the speed of knowledge creation today. Though the existing theories such as collaborative learning and social constructivist theory of learning are still relevant, new theories of learning are needed to explain the new era of learning through technology. In this regard, online collaborative learning as a continuum of collaborative and constructivist theories of learning adds on knowledge-building practices in the 21st-century educational practices. Online Collaborative Learning Theory (OCL) is proposed here as a new theory of learning that focuses on collaborative learning, knowledge building and Internet use as means to reshape formal, nonformal and informal education for the Knowledge Age. OCL responds to 21st century Knowledge Age requirements and provides a theoretical framework to guide the transformations in instructional design. (Harasim, 2012, p. 81) “Online collaborative learning pedagogy”, “online technology tools that facilitate collaboration” and “online collaborative learning environments”, are central to the online collaborative learning theory and constitute the three main components of the theory. 1. Online Collaborative Learning Pedagogy: The online collaborative learning pedagogy is mainly about learning through meaningful collaboration and conceptual change, in other words, learning processes that occur as a result of collaborative activities. Harasim (2012, p. 96) divided the collaboration process into four main stages: a. Idea Generating b. Idea Organizing c. Intellectual Convergence d. Final Position

333

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

In the Idea Generating phase, learners share their own opinions by generating ideas and brainstorming about a subject. This is the stage where learners present their ideas on a predetermined topic or subject. In the Idea Organizing phase, students interact with one another; they are exposed to new ideas of their peers. “Learners begin to organize, analyze, and filter the range of ideas by agreeing or disagreeing with some of the ideas presented, elaborating, expanding, or rejecting others” (Harasim, 2012, p. 96). In comparison to phase one, in this phase of the online collaboration, learners’ perspective of how the topic can be approached from many different viewpoints is expanded due to the diverse input from other peers and the instructor. In the third phase, Intellectual Convergence, learners come to a position on a topic or resolution to the knowledge of a problem. After exchanging ideas on a topic, in this stage, learners reach a consensus or solidify their position, which can be presented as a report, final paper, group presentation, or summary. The Final Position phase refers to a conceptual change that happens in learners’ minds as a result of the interaction and input in the previous stages of collaboration. 2. Online Technology Tools: The online technology tools that enable such knowledge exchange is also an important part of OCL Theory. Online learning tools are “web tools that can facilitate or enable particular tasks in a learning activity” (Harasim, 2012, p. 98). These tools can range from web tools to education-specific tools. These tools provide means for communication— in other words, they enable the pedagogical practices of collaborative learning in online environments in diverse ways. Collaborative learning can be facilitated in many ways, and it is contingent upon the technology tool the instructor uses and the pedagogy that the instructor wants to build the learning experiences around. 3. Online Learning Environments: Online learning environments refer to “web-based software that is designed to host or house learning activities” (Harasim, 2012, p. 98). These environments are not just channels for transmitting information, but in these environments, participants negotiate the meaning and engage in conversations with each other (Harasim, 2012). Some common environments are group-discussion boards and computer conferencing systems. These environments facilitate place-independent, time-independent (as well as synchronous), Internet-mediated, many-to-many (as well as one-on-one) and text-based (with multimedia) discourse (Harasim, 2012). In such environments, factors such as place and time are not limiting, but rather learners have more opportunities to participate in any time and in any place that they prefer. The other factors that characterize these environments are the extent to which these environments facilitate group conversations as well as one-on-one interaction, and communication can take place with text and some elements of multimedia. In OCL Theory, the term collaborative serves a very important purpose. Collaboration is highlighted not only because it enhances the learning outcomes, but also “reduces the potential for learner isolation that can occur in a learning environment” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 8). Through learning together and learning from each other, students have the chance to extend their initial knowledge about a subject and receive constructive feedback from others (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). Going back to the continuum of learning theories, it is possible to see that collaboration and social interaction are not novel ideas, but they were rooted in fundamental learning theories such as in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development Theory (1978). Similarly, online tools should not only be viewed as products of some novel or complex technology but rather, these tools are used to re-enact and mimic the-face-to-face interaction and learning practices in the absence of synchronous communication between instructors and students. 334

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

OCL Theory: Affordances of VoiceThread and Flipgrid as Potential Collaboration Tools Flipgrid and VoiceThread are two technology tools, which are commonly used in learning settings to either supplement classroom learning or foster interaction in asynchronous distant communication. These specific tools allow users to create interaction through using multimedia though there are other technology tools can also be used for similar purposes (i.e. Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Sway, Monosnap, Vocaroo, Screen-o-Matic, voice board feature in Blackboard). Within the scope of this chapter, only Flipgrid and VoiceThread are discussed in detail as asynchronous collaboration tools. “Flipgrid is a video discussion platform designed to allow students to quickly engage in recorded conversations that include video and audio” (Green & Green, 2018, p. 128). The instructor usually has an account for Flipgrid and students can access the discussion platform through a unique hashtag or link (McClure & McAndrews, 2016). “Requirements for creating a grid topic include a title, video response time (ranging from a minimum of 15 seconds to a maximum of 5 minutes), topic description (question or prompt), and a date” (Dettinger, 2018, p. 212). Instructors first create a grid, which can be considered as an equivalent of a discussion forum for a specific class. The grid houses topics for the discussions created for the course (Green & Green, 2018). Within each grid, it is possible to create a number of topics for discussions. Figure 1. A screenshot from Flipgrid’s grids menu (educator view)

One of the reasons Flipgrid can be an alternative tool to text-based discussions is that through Flipgrid, it is easier and more natural to share thoughts or ideas through videos as young people can feel more comfortable sharing audio and video formats of a discussion instead of a written one (Iona, 2017). Another tool found to promote engagement and community learning, particularly in online education, is VoiceThread (Kirby & Hulan, 2016; Stamps & Opton, 2019). Though VoiceThread is not primarily intended to be an educational tool, it is mostly used by educators (Berman, Holsing, Meyer, Stubbs, & Winck, 2009; Borup, West, & Graham, 2012). VoiceThread is an interactive communication tool that allows voice, video, and text commenting (Rad, 2007). It is similar to Flipgrid as it also allows video commenting, but the tool has a different interface. To use VoiceThread, a user needs to upload a file

335

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

(i.e. image, video, PowerPoint presentation, PDFs) and then creates a video or audio narration, which are combined with the uploaded files (Borup et al., 2012). Users can also comment on others’ videos by using text, audio, or video (Borup et al., 2012). Figure 2. A screenshot from VoiceThread’s discussion panel

The uses Flipgrid and VoiceThread for educational purposes can align with online collaborative learning theory. Online collaborative learning theory is based on three main pillars which together support learning collaboratively in online environments: online collaborative learning pedagogy, online technology tools, and online learning environments. Flipgrid and VoiceThread’s affordances as potential educational collaboration tools can be explained through OCL theory. Figure 3. Affordances of Flipgrid and VoiceThread as online collaboration tools

1. Pedagogical Affordances: One of the problems in online or asynchronous learning practices is that good learning requires more than a shift from one medium to another but instead, sound pedagogical practices should be the foundation of online learning practices (Reeves, Herrington,

336

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

& Oliver, 2004). While instructors try to adopt new technology and use it in instructional settings, pedagogical considerations are rarely given the much-needed attention. Herrington, Oliver, and Reeves (2003)’s description of the pedagogy of online collaborative activities include but not limited to examining a task from different perspectives, collaboration between students, and opportunities for students to reflect on students’ beliefs and values on subject of the study. Similarly, Harasim (2012)’s theory of online collaboration includes stages of collaboration such as idea-generating, idea-organizing, intellectual convergence and final position on a subject. Collaboration doesn’t constitute of sharing ideas but also critical thinking and feedback on others’ ideas and collaboration and more importantly, collaboration results in a change in one’s world view (final position), either one’s ideas are expanded or changed as a result of the intellectual convergence between the peers. Technology tools such as Flipgrid and VoiceThread can be incorporated into pedagogical activities to the extent that the use of these tools is combined with pedagogical considerations posed by OCL theory. The questions concerning the pedagogical aspect of the theory can be summarized as below: a. Do learners brainstorm and create ideas or perspectives on a certain topic and share them with peers/instructors? (Idea-generating) b. Are learners exposed to others’ ideas on the topic? Do they have an opportunity to elaborate on, expand, or reject others’ ideas within the context of collaborative learning? (Idea-organizing) c. Do learners come to a consensus or have a solid idea as a result of the input of ideas from other peers? How do they come to such conclusions? (Intellectual convergence) d. Does real learning or conceptual change happen as a result of a collaborative activity? (Final position) The pedagogical affordances are closely aligned with the technical affordances these tools – specifically, the audiovisual interaction opportunities between peers and how these affordances are incorporated into collaborative activities in thoughtful ways to achieve learning objectives. 2. Affordances as a Technology Tool: The particular affordances of Flipgrid and VoiceThread stem from the opportunities for various audiovisual interactions between peers and instructors. The main reason behind the popularity of such tools is that the online learning conversation is being shaped around how to create student-student or student-teacher interactions that include a “human element”, the equivalent of which often refers to communication involving audio and video elements. The inclusion of audio and video can help students recognize each other not only as some distant users of technology but as “humans” or “real people”. In communications involving the use of audio and video, online students can record their voice or video messages for exchanging ideas (Ching & Hsu, 2015). In the past, audio/video messages for interaction and discussions were not widely used in classes including online classes (Ching & Hsu, 2015; Palloff & Pratt, 2007). However, audio and video interaction are becoming more popular in recent years for a variety of reasons such as communicating through text in online classes might not be a viable option all the time as misunderstandings can happen in the absence of face-to-face interactions (Hew & Hara, 2007). In addition, the use of interactive video can create opportunities for active learning (Baker, 2016; Jones-Roberts, 2018). However, one of the most important reasons behind the need for audiovisual (multimedia) interaction is ensuring that learners experience feelings of “social presence”. Social presence is the idea that students can express themselves socially and emotionally in learning en337

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

vironments (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Holbeck & Hartman, 2018). In the absence of social presence, learners might have feelings of being lost and isolated (Clark, Strudler, & Grove, 2015; Palloff & Pratt, 2007). Immediacy, which is “the psychological distance that a communicator puts between themselves and the object of their communication” (Richardson & Swan, 2003, p. 69) and intimacy is referred as the level of intimacy expressed by verbal and non-verbal behavior (Rettie, 2003). According to Rettie (2003), immediacy and intimacy behaviors are related since immediacy behaviors (such as smiling, eye contact) are used to create intimacy and the resulting intimacy contributes to social presence. Lowenthal (2009) suggested that medium with a high degree of presence is regarded as sociable, warm, and personal (i.e. videos) in comparison to a medium with a low degree of presence (i.e. one form of media such as audio only). The particular technological features of these tools can contribute positively to the creation of social presence. Flipgrid fosters interactions which cannot be achieved in a written form of discussion or collaboration activity (Holbeck & Hartman, 2018). VoiceThread also allows users to interact in a way that is similar to face-to-face interactions. “Online collaboration using VoiceThread enables learners to see and hear their collaborators and helps make the collaboration process more engaging by emulating face-to-face interaction” (Ching & Hsu, 2013, p. 300). Such specific affordances could be effective in collaborative asynchronous learning activities. 3. Affordances as a Virtual Environment: A virtual environment allows for interaction between peers within a networked platform. Reeves et al. (2004) originally in Weigel (2002) suggested that virtual spaces also known as “knowledge rooms” should be constructed which would serve as meeting hubs for learners to engage in deep learning. Both Flipgrid and VoiceThread are potential collaboration tools. However, the use of these tools and how they meet the pedagogical objectives are determined by the practices in the field. In this case, online collaborative learning theory could theoretically explain how collaboration takes place and how technology facilitates such learning practices; however, the real-life practices should be reviewed carefully to understand how these tools are being used and the pedagogical outcomes. There is a huge gap between the theoretical ideal and the practical realization of these innovative approaches [authentic collaborative learning approaches], and effective models, principles, and guidelines are needed by faculty members, instructional designers, and academic administrators who are prepared to challenge the dominant teaching practices in higher education today (Reeves et al., 2004, p. 58) In the next section of this chapter, recent applications of these tools in collaborative learning activities will be discussed in the context of online collaborative learning theory.

CURRENT APPLICATIONS OF FLIPGRID AND VOICETHREAD Flipgrid and VoiceThread are common technology tools which are used for asynchronous discussion or interaction between members of a learning community. The practice of using Flipgrid and VoiceThread is recent, so there is not an extensive body of studies which investigated these tools as a potential collaboration tool in online classes or learning environments. Some preliminary studies investigated how Flipgrid can be used to engage students in asynchronous interactions (Bartlett, 2018; Hall, 2015, Johnson & Skarpol, 2018; Stoszkowski, 2018). It should be noted that not all studies used Flipgrid in online courses such as Stoszkowski (2018) and Johnson and 338

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Skarpol (2015). However, the results of all these studies required the use of Flipgrid for some sort of collaborative activity. The results of a study conducted by Stoszkowski (2018) with thirty final-year undergraduate sports coaching students demonstrated that using Flipgrid has certain advantages in asynchronous collaborative interactions between students. In this study, the participants replied to an initial theme that was posted in grids, and they also replied to each other’s posts. The specific advantages reported were the inclusion of all students in content-relevant discussions, students’ preference of watching others speak instead of reading long discussion texts, and easy access to grids by using a simple link. Using Flipgrid can be helpful as the tool can potentially prevent students from feelings of isolation as students also realize there are other students like them who try to connect with others in an online class (Bartlett, 2018). Bartlett (2018)’s study focused on the effects of incorporating interactive video discussion forums into educational settings. She surveyed students to gather student perceptions on Flipgrid and how it affects student connectedness to a class and found that 92 percent of students (n=24) reported increased connectedness to the course, peers, instructors, and the program. In addition, it was found that students are more mindful of what they say in discussions because they are now talking to faces and not names on the screen (Bartlett, 2018). Using Flipgrid in collaborative discussions could increase student interest and attention to peers’ contributions. Hall (2015) used Flipgrid in her undergraduate AgriBusiness Law course with sixty students. Hall (2015) created three assignments that required the use of Flipgrid. The first assignment included student introductions through video, and the second assignment required students to create a video that explains a property rights conflict identified through research. In the third assignment, students were required to review those videos and pose a series of questions about those videos in a written format. One of the findings of this study showed that students found it hard to make three-minute videos for the second assignment (as there is a time limit for videos made through Flipgrid). When students were responding to others’ videos with writing, they viewed an average of fifteen videos for this assignment, which showed students’ interest and the level of engagement. However, it was reported that students’ interest had a social nature rather than academic interest (Hall, 2015). Flipgrid can also be used in educational activities that involve the use of non-traditional subjects such as visual arts (Johnson & Skarpol, 2018). Though not in an online classroom setting, Johnson and Skarpol (2018) investigated the effects of Flipgrid in student engagement and communication among secondary school art students. In their study, Johnson and Skarpol (2018) created an online assignment which required each student to create one video along with the requirement of responding to three classmates’ videos. In their own video, students first introduced their artwork and then they analyzed and critiqued their friends’ work by using “tell, ask, and give” feedback protocol. “They commented on what they liked about the piece of artwork, asked a question about the artwork, and gave a suggestion on how the student might improve their artwork” (Johnson & Skarpol, 2018, p. 16). During the post-test, 68% of the students indicated that using Flipgrid increased their communication with others, and 76% of the students indicated that they would like to continue using Flipgrid in the future. One of the findings of the study shows that previously shy students had more confidence in sharing their ideas with others through the video posts. Students also had to share high-quality communication when replying to their classmates by replying back and forth in order to have a meaningful digital conversation. Students indicated enjoying receiving honest feedback and at the same time, they appreciated the opportunity of giving others

339

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

honest feedback. In addition, having the opportunity of providing video feedback enabled students to redo it when the recording did not meet their expectations, so they could improve their final feedback. Preliminary studies on VoiceThread also demonstrate how the tool is being used for educational activities. Some studies investigated how using audio and video interaction through VoiceThread affected social presence and the creation of a virtual community. Borup et al. (2012) investigated how different instructors used asynchronous video on their courses and how this experience affected the perception of social presence in the course. The researchers selected three predominantly online sections of courses for their study and did a cross-case analysis of the selected online classes. One of the instructors involved in the research used VoiceThread for student presentations followed by his own VoiceThread presentations every week. The other instructor created a VoiceThread discussion explanation to orient students to assignments, to facilitate small group peer interaction, and to provide students with personalized feedback on completed projects. For this case, “the students were organized into small groups of 6-8 and received participation points for posting a video response to their group’s private VoiceThread” (Borup et al., 2012, p. 17). The results of the case analysis revealed that having video communication with the instructor had a positive impact according to the students. The students also indicated video communication improved their understanding of the content as the instructor explained important points through video. The students’ comments also showed that they developed an emotional connection to their instructor as the connection was similar to face-to-face interaction. The students also reported that communicating through video with peers felt more natural than text and improved the sense of the social presence of participants within these courses. In her 2017 study, Delmas investigated how VoiceThread can be used to create a community for learners. An online Class Climate survey was administered to graduate students (n=39) to survey them on their experience with VoiceThread and how the collaborative tool contributed to an overall sense of community and connectedness between online learners. Survey results indicated that VoiceThread played a positive role in improving students’ relationships with their classmates. One of the advantages of VoiceThread is that it allows recording and listening to audio files. Most students prefer audio interaction over text interaction. The students also reported getting to know their classmates better through sharing information in audio-visual interactions, though some students also reported that nothing can replace face-to-face interaction (Delmas, 2017). Seery (2017) carried out research on using video discussions via VoiceThread. In this research, an activity was designed where students will talk about a hobby, an interest, or an area that they want to develop about themselves via sharing an image. Students initially have to share this activity with the instructor and with their classmates. Then, students had to comment on these VoiceThread posts. Though students were initially hesitant about creating an audio-visual discussion, the discussions helped the class to form closer bonds. The only issue was in the feedback portion of the study. When students were asked to give feedback to peers or make a suggestion for improvement, they were reluctant to do so. According to Seery (2017), the overall discomfort does not necessarily indicate a negative consequence but rather, it demonstrates that students are crossing a threshold as a part of their learning process since students are not used to having video discussions. VoiceThread can also be used for audio discussions. Todd and Mulholland (2016), in a project where they combined visual arts with language education, asked language learners to comment on visual art images of different kinds. Through this activity, students would reflect their opinions about art, and they also would use the target language (English) in authentic contexts. Students chose a work of art and talk about it during an oral activity by using VoiceThread. Other students also provided commentary about 340

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

chosen artworks. The results of the study indicated that students were eager to listen to their peers’ opinions about the artwork and learned new vocabulary as a result of this activity. Students particularly liked the discussion because of its unique nature (i.e. inclusion of audio commenting) compared to other activities.

Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory The preliminary studies on Flipgrid and VoiceThread demonstrate that these tools are promising for online interaction and collaboration though studies on more applications of collaborative activities are needed to be able to better define how such tools can be used in online collaborative activities. As mentioned in the previous sections, the OCL Theory has three main components: “online collaborative learning pedagogy”, “online collaborative learning tools”, and “online collaborative learning environments”. Online Collaborative Learning Theory, in this respect, provides a theoretical framework from three essential perspectives: the pedagogy level, the online technologies, and the environment that the learning takes place. These components of the theory altogether explain how students can be encouraged and supported together to create new knowledge in new online learning environments (Harasim, 2012). Considering four stages of online collaborative learning pedagogy - idea-generating, idea-organizing, intellectual convergence, and final position put forward by Harasim (2012), the recent studies on these new collaborative tools can demonstrate how the collaborative pedagogy is applied in practice. Despite the fact that the recent studies evidently engage students in idea-generating (Bartlett, 2018; Borup et al., 2012; Seery, 2017; Stoskowski, 2018; Hall, 2015; Johnson & Skarpol, 2018; Todd & Mulholland, 2016) and idea-organizing phases (Bartlett, 2018; Seery, 2017; Stoskowski, 2018; Hall, 2015; Johnson & Skarpol, 2018; Todd & Mulholland, 2016) in collaborative work between students relevant to the learning content, there is still little evidence on how such audio and video discussions lead to meaningful learning and asynchronous collaborative conversations. In these recent studies, the educational activities initially require students to post their ideas or reflection of a certain topic (idea-generating phase). Students are then required to comment on or view others’ posts (idea-organizing). The initial studies, however, are not quite clear on how these tools can be useful in further stages of collaborative development such as intellectual convergence, where learners solidify their position (ideas on content) and present their findings. More importantly, it is unclear if real learning or conceptual change occurs as a result of these interactions (the final position). In fact, in their book, Hew and Cheung (2012) stated that no studies were conducted on how discussions incorporating dynamic media such as audio and video affect students’ performance outcome such as knowledge construction. Since 2012, there have been more studies on these new online collaborative tools and their potential use in learning activities though there is still need for more studies demonstrating how these tools can be useful in engaging learners in a collaborative learning experience, especially in the area of online learning, from a pedagogical perspective. In addition to online learning pedagogy, when taken into account the effectiveness of Flipgrid and VoiceThread as Web tools for online learning, these tools can be useful and improve online education because of their affordances in supporting certain educational activities. In order to decide whether a Web tool can be used effectively in learning online, it is important to understand how these tools can play a role in knowledge building and multiple representations of the educational content (Harasim, 1993, 2012). Using these tools in online interactions can meet the demands of online learners in areas where text-based interactions fall short (Delmas, 2017) such as helping less active students participate 341

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

more actively in such discussions (Johnson & Skarpol, 2018; Stoszkowski, 2018) as also supported with previous literature (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011; Lerner & Johns, 2009), paying more attention to the quality and reviewing of discussions because of the “human element” that comes with audio and/or visual input (Bartlett, 2018; Johnson & Skarpol, 2018), and the social interest of students towards seeing and listening to others (Hall, 2015; Todd & Mullholland, 2016). The main advantages of these tools, however, stem from the use of dynamic media, which improves the social presence of online learners. The tools can provide learners with a shared space where they can exchange audio and video interactions. Both Flipgrid and VoiceThread offer online learning environments, also referred to as “lived learning environments” suitable to host a variety of collaborative learning activities. Lived learning environments online resemble a physical learning environment such as cafes, classrooms etc. where students can get together to collaborate and negotiate the meaning through collaboration and conversation (Allen & Otto, 1996; Harasim, 2012). Harasim (2012) asserted that the conversations that take place in online environments are primarily text-based even though multimedia tools such as audio, video, and animation may be incorporated. Using multimedia as the central means of interaction can enhance and enrich communication in areas where written text might fail to do so. Moore (1993), as cited in Borup et al. (2012), suggested that instructors can decrease students’ sense of distance by manipulating the communications of media. The appropriate choice of learning tools by instructors and their potential application can make an impact on the learning experience of students. One of the advantages of audio and video in interactions over text-based communication is that audio and video communication can increase the feelings of social presence further in an online learning environment (Borup et al., 2012). As first defined by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976), social presence refers to “the degree of salience (i.e. quality of state of being there) between two communicators using a communication medium” (Lowenthal, 2010, p. 129). In online learning environments, it could be challenging to ensure learners feel the social presence of others as the communication lacks authentic human connection, and social interactions are key to increase the social presence (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). However, additional elements such as watching videos and hearing audio-recordings of other online participants can help students connect to others socially. Some of the studies addressed in this chapter such as Stoszkowski (2018) and Hall (2015) found that the social element of the audio/video interactions appears to be an important one. In Stoszkowski (2018)’s research, the students were eager to watch others speak instead of reading their posts. In Hall (2015), students showed a high level of interest in listening to their peers. In Delmas (2017), the survey on the use of VoiceThread revealed students felt a sense of overall connectedness to the class and a sense of community was created. In Todd and Mulholland (2016), students particularly liked the audio commenting, which was something new to the students. Overall, the results of the studies demonstrate that having audio and video components in online interactions contribute positively to create a sense of social presence. As Bartlett (2018)’s study on Flipgrid demonstrated —the findings of which are also supported by previous literature such as Clark, Strudler, and Grove (2015) and Palloff and Pratt (2007)—, feelings of isolation can be reduced greatly through the use of audio and video elements in online asynchronous interactions. Regarding other participants not only as online users but as real people who engage in communicative exchange help learners see online interaction from a different perspective (Bartlett, 2018).

342

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The use of audiovisual interaction tools such as Flipgrid and VoiceThread for asynchronous learning and communication is still a new practice though preliminary studies on the effectiveness of these tools have shown promising results. The current studies examined mainly the student perceptions on these tools in regard to whether they increase the sense of social presence. One other trend in recent research points to the effects of interaction through multimedia on students. In this chapter, the recent practices have been discussed from the lens of online collaborative learning theory (Harasim, 2012). Practices of using Flipgrid and VoiceThread demonstrate that even though Flipgrid and VoiceThread are promising technology tools and environments, more research is needed to understand how these tools can be used in collaborative learning environments from a pedagogical point of view. Pedagogically, these tools have been used for idea-generating and idea-organizing purposes, but it is not clear if real learning occurs as a result of collaboration through these tools. Though learners experience initial stages of collaboration such as sharing ideas and commenting on others’ ideas, it is unclear how these tools play a role in meaningful knowledge construction through collaboration. Future systematic literature reviews on the use of these collaborative tools and other studies investigating the learning outcomes of collaborative activities facilitated by Flipgrid and VoiceThread can shed light on how these tools can improve learning through collaboration.

CONCLUSION New collaboration tools such as Flipgrid and VoiceThread are becoming more popular as the conversation on education is shifting towards improving the quality of learning through asynchronous interactions. Traditionally carried out by text, discussions can now incorporate “human” elements with the advances of Web technologies that allow audio and video. The incorporation of audio and video becomes more important in online learning environments as they can enhance a sense of community and presence. An online community enriches students’ learning experiences as well as providing students with a safe learning environment where they can share and discuss content, which ultimately leads to meaningful learning (Pacansky-Brock, 2010). Flipgrid and VoiceThread can also facilitate collaborative activities which usually take place via asynchronous means. In the context of online collaborative learning theory, these tools can support meaningful interaction and create a suitable environment for learning. However, future studies will demonstrate the usefulness of these tools from a pedagogical perspective.

REFERENCES Allen, B. S., & Otto, R. G. (1996). Media as lived environments: The ecological principles of educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 199–225). New York, NY: Macmillan.

343

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1–14. doi:10.9743/JEO.2007.2.1 Baker, A. (2016). Active Learning with interactive videos: Creating student-guided learning materials. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 10(3–4), 79–87. doi:10.1080/15332 90X.2016.1206776 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061 Bartlett, M. (2018). Using Flipgrid to increase students’ connectedness in an online class. eLearn, 9(12). doi:10.1145/3302261.3236703 Berman, D., Holsing, C., Meyer, M., Stubbs, C., & Winck, K. (2009, June 8). 7 things you need to know about VoiceThread: A white paper from teaching and learning with technology. Retrieved from https:// library.educause.edu/resources/2009/6/7-things-you-should-know-about-voicethread Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social interaction through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032 Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37. doi:10.1177/004005991104300403 Ching, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2015). Online graduate students’ preferences of discussion modality: Does gender matter? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 11(1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks. boisestate.edu/edtech_facpubs/114/ Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 5(3), 298–314. Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. textbased discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48–69. doi:10.24059/ olj.v19i3.510 Delmas, P. M. (2017). Using VoiceThread to create community in online learning. TechTrends, 61(6), 595–602. doi:10.100711528-017-0195-z Dettinger, M. (2018). Flipgrid. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 51(2), 212–215. Retrieved from https://search. proquest.com/docview/2151123971?accountid=81567 Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: A relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 365–368. doi:10.1002/pits.20302 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/ S1096-7516(00)00016-6

344

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Girasoli, A. J., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). Using asynchronous AV communication tools to increase academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1676–1682. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.005 Green, T., & Green, J. (2018). Flipgrid: Adding voice and video to online discussions. TechTrends, 62(1), 128–130. doi:10.100711528-017-0241-x Hall, P. K. (2015). Using a video response tool for course assignments. NACTA Journal, 59(4), 355–356. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1763786680?accountid=81567 Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119–130. doi:10.1080/1049482930030202 Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203846933 Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2370-6 Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595. doi:10.100711423-0079049-2 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (Ed.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203837290 Holbeck, R., & Hartman, J. (2018). Efficient strategies for maximizing online student satisfaction: Applying technologies to increase cognitive presence, social Presence, and teaching Presence. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3). doi:10.9743/jeo.2018.15.3.6 Hurlbut, A., & Dunlap, K. (2019). Tools for Seamless Teaching in Online and Hybrid Contexts. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 460-465). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 22, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207681/ Iona, J. (2017). Flipgrid. School Librarian, 65(4), 211–212. Retrieved from: Retrieved from https:// search.proquest.com/docview/2151123971?accountid=81567 Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654 Johnson, M., & Skarphol, M. (2018). The effects of digital portfolios and Flipgrid on student engagement and communication in a connected learning secondary visual arts classroom (Action research project). St. Catherine University. Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/270

345

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Jones-Roberts, C. (2018). Using video discussion boards to increase student engagement. In Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Center for Distributed Learning. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from https://topr.online.ucf.edu/using-video-discussion-boards-toincrease-student-engagement/ Kirby, E. G., & Hulan, N. (2016). Student perceptions of self and community within an online environment: The use of VoiceThread to foster community. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 5(1), 87–99. doi:10.14434/jotlt.v5n1.19411 Koricich, A. (2013). Technology review: Multimedia discussions through VoiceThread. Community College Enterprise, 19(1), 76–80. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1416739059?pqorigsite=gscholar Lerner, J., & Johns, B. (2009). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Social presence. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, & ... (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed.; pp. 1900–1906). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/9781-60566-198-8.ch280 McClure, C., & McAndrews, L. (2016). Going native to reach the digital natives: New technologies for the classroom. International Textile and Apparel Association (ITAA) Annual Conference Proceedings, 135. Retrieved from: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1618&context=itaa_proceedings Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–28). New York, NY: Routledge. Pacansky-Brock, M. (2010). VoiceThread: Enhanced community, increased social presence and improved digital learning. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/ voicethread-enhanced-community-increased-social-presence-and-improved-visual-lea Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online. Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250. Rad, S. (2007, March 23). Voicethread launches group audio blogging. Retrieved from http://venturebeat. com/2007/03/23/voicethread-launches-group-audio-blogging/ Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53–65. doi:10.1007/BF02504718

346

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence. Paper presented at the 6th International Presence Workshop, Aalborg, Denmark. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-174-2 Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.; pp. 397–431). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Seery, M. (2017). VoiceThread: Enabling Peer Feedback in First Year Computer Engineering. In Technology-Enabled Feedback Approaches for First-Year: Y1 Feedback Case Studies in Practice: Y1Feedback. Retrieved from http://y1feedback.ie/voicethread-enabling-peer-feedback-in-first-yearcomputer-engineering/ Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. (National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment). University Park, PA: Syracuse University. Stamps, A., & Opton, L. L. (2019). Utilizing VoiceThread Technology to Foster Community Learning in the Virtual Classroom. The Journal of Nursing Education, 58(3), 185–185. doi:10.3928/0148483420190221-12 PMID:30835809 Stephenson, J. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching & learning online: New pedagogies for new technologies. New York, NY: Routledge. Stoszkowski, J. R. (2018). Using Flipgrid to develop social learning. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(2). doi:10.21100/compass.v11i2.786 Street, B. V. (2013). Multimodality and new literacy studies: Exploring complementarity. In M. Böck & N. Pachler (Eds.), Multimodality and social semiotics: Communication, meaning making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress (pp. 99–106). New York, NY: Routledge. Todd, A., & Mulholland, B. (2016, April). Blending ESL and the visual arts through VoiceThread. Project presented in TESOL Conference Electronic Village Special Events, Baltimore, MD. Wang, S.-M., Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2017). Analyzing the knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of blog-based instructional activities using four frequent interactive strategies (problem solving, peer assessment, role playing and peer tutoring): A preliminary study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 301–323. doi:10.100711423-016-9471-4 Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

347

 Rethinking Flipgrid and VoiceThread in the Context of Online Collaborative Learning Theory

Young, J. (2017, March 17). For online class discussions, instructors move from text to video. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-03-17-for-online-class-discussions-instructors-move-fromtext-to-video Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9-and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145. doi:10.100711423-006-9019-0

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Fostering Student Engagement With Instructional Technology in Higher Education; pages 211-228, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

348

349

Chapter 19

Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment: Engaging Students as Teams Aydin Şihmantepe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3781-1806 Piri Reis University, Turkey Murat Selçuk Solmaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8528-2865 Piri Reis University, Turkey Cihat Aşan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3674-6616 Piri Reis University, Turkey

ABSTRACT Online education has been an option until the first half of the year 2020. After the outbreak of COVID-19, online learning has gradually become a must for education. In this period, institutions have had to transform and adopt not only their teaching approach and content, but also their technology. Maritime education and training inevitably has followed the same pattern. As English is the operational language of the sea, teaching maritime English has had its share from this transformation. This study focuses on improving maritime students’ job-related communication skills in an online environment with online role-playing. The study firstly reviews general requirements and setbacks involved in online teaching and language requirements at sea. The focus of the study is on online oral communication role-playing to perform ship-based external communication. The study concludes by pinpointing minimum requirements for conducting such training, lessons learned from the sessions, as well as knowledge and experience achieved by the students.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch019

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

INTRODUCTION This study introduces a practical method for improving the profession-oriented language skills of maritime students in the online medium by making use of actual trials. The method, through example of the online role-playing communication session, attempts to propose a convenient way for instructors of Maritime English for adapting their in-class communication sessions to the online environment. Language teaching has been one of the areas offering online learning to respective target groups over the past decades. Looking from this perspective, online language learning/teaching has been a matter of preference both for learners and institutions. However, starting from March 2020 when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic of international concern (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020), online teaching has gradually become the only option for most of the education institutions and learners. This unexpected and fast-growing condition compelled higher education institutions to shut down their campuses, transform their teaching systems, improve and upgrade their digital online platforms and naturally rush their instructors to cope with the on-going transformation. Students, on the other hand, who have been left with no other choice but to enroll in the distance programs, have experienced their own difficulties. They have had to overcome difficulties such as lack of familiarity with the distance education system, obtaining necessary computer-based equipment and peripherals as well as providing and maintaining continuous online access. Like the others, maritime training and education institutes and maritime students have followed the same course of action. Their knowledge and profession-based theoretical courses have posed fewer difficulties. However practical simulator trainings as well as skill-acquiring courses have required more efforts for seamless continuation of the education. As seafaring involves both international and multinational interaction, maritime students are required to acquire sufficient communication skills in English at minimum standards set by IMO (International Maritime Organization). The main target of Maritime English courses is set to enable future seafarers to achieve those standards and skills. This chapter focuses on improving oral communication skills of maritime students in an online environment by engaging them in a life-like scenario. The research question of the study is: How communication skills of maritime students can be improved by online role-playing sessions? The study firstly visits Maritime English as ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course and discusses different aspects of ESP courses. After explaining the specifics, importance, and regulatory aspects of Maritime English, the study progresses with examining the online teaching environment. Following quality assurance requirements of the online teaching medium, the final part gives details of actual online communication sessions conducted by engaging students as teams in each scenario. This study, to keep the intended focus, refrains from sinking deeply into theoretical approaches to and discussions on online teaching. It merely reviews what needs to be provided to achieve the goal in the online environment with the existing digital media in hand. The main concern of the study is to suggest a practical method for improving profession-oriented language skills in the online medium. The method suggested within the study is the explanation of actual online role-playing sessions realized in the second half of the year 2020. The sessions seek collaborative engagement (Redmond et al., 2018) of students as they were assigned to prepare the communication scenarios from beginning to end and to perform the role-playing part in the online classes in teams of two. The findings presented in the conclusion section are obtained from those consecutive sessions and the recommendations were derived from the lessons learned during the conduct of sessions.

350

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

BACKGROUND Maritime English as ESP English for specific purposes (ESP), as an ever-growing and expanding area of language teaching accompanied by descriptors like needs-based, pragmatic, efficient, cost-effective as well as functional (Belcher, 2006). The reason why the learner wants to learn the language forms the base of ESP. From this perspective, ESP should not be regarded as the product of language learning but as an approach to language teaching in a specific area and for a discernable reason (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). ESP can broadly be defined as designing and teaching the English language to members of a specific group of learners who pursue the same goal in learning the language (Woodrow, 2018). Likewise, Richards and Schmidt (2010) define ESP with the view that it is based on needs by emphasizing “specific needs of a particular group of learners”. However, defining ESP only through a group of learners here may bring up a disagreement since there are other actors with their expectancies. Agreement on the issue is possible by involving all important actors of the field. A democratic approach may be attained by expanding the definition of needs to combine groups other than the students, such as stakeholders of the area that ESP targets (Brown, 2016). Genre-based approach to ESP proposes that learners while directing their attention to the discourse of their target area also develop certain communicative practices and typical forms of communication like the ones who are already members of the community by communicating with one another (Basturkmen, 2006). The genre approach takes on discourse of different communities either in oral or written forms and uses them in an appropriate environment where they will be valuable as required (Belcher, 2004). This approach puts forward that usage of language and task completion, in linguistic sense, are more closely associated with the environment in which they take place. Hyland (2007) emphasizes ESP being considered as a “study of communication” and the need for “collaborative pedagogies” when listing five factors for ESP teaching task and material design. Having introductory information about the learners as to their learning pattern, previous learning experiences, cultural background, as well as their motivation, also contributes to the approach to be chosen (Flowerdew, 2013). Having said that in any ESP course there is a variety of stakeholders with expectancies, when Maritime English teaching is concerned, all those seem to converge. The approach that different perceptions and wants of stakeholders may differ from those of actual requirements of the target areas (Woodrow, 2018) diminishes in Maritime English. This is because of the fact that, while IMO as the international regulating body of all maritime aspects sets the minimum standards for language at sea, stakeholders of the maritime industry together with maritime education and training institutions do their best to achieve and even exceed those standards. All the involved parties here have the same goal: to ensure safe communication at sea. It should also be noted that evaluation is an important pillar of ESP (Anthony, 2018). From students’ perspective, having a higher language level than the required regulatory minimum, not only will enable them to achieve officers’ certificates and ensure safe communication at sea but also help them find better jobs as seafarers. Following part reviews the specifics of Maritime English as an operational language at sea and international legal regulations that are expected to be met by maritime institutions. Seafaring as the first international profession in the history of mankind continues to be one of the most prevalent occupations as over 80% of global trade is transported seaborne (UNCTAD, 2017). While transportation by sea increases, it brings along the possibility of accidents at sea which may result in 351

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

human-life and economic losses as well as pollution of the marine environment. One of the major factors in incidents and accidents at sea is communication failure or inefficient communication (Ziarati, 2006; MARS, 2020). IMO sets standards, regulations, and rules to meet the needs of the maritime domain as the international regulatory body. Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW 2010 as amended) is the prime international maritime convention setting the standards for seafarers. STCW Code Table A/II lists the standards for watchkeeping deck officers where it sets a standard for English language competency for working onboard a vessel. Hence English is the operational common language at sea. For seafarers, having a good command of the language is vital since seafaring involves both multinational and multi-cultural environments. Owing to specific needs of the profession, language training for seafarers finds its way into the perspective of English for specific purposes to acquire specialized contexts. Hence Maritime English can be simply defined as an umbrella term referencing special terms and phrases of the English language that are utilized by seafarers both at sea and port operations in the shipping industry. Although the Maritime English umbrella covers also; English for maritime commerce, English for maritime law, English for marine engineering (Bocanegra-Valle, 2013), this study will focus on English for navigation, more precisely maritime communications. Another approach to Maritime English suggests that it uses English as a lingua franca, due to its usage as a means of communication within the business (Nickerson, 2005). Maritime English Standard for deck officers presented in STCW code is briefly: “ to communicate with other ships, coast stations, and VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) centers and to perform the officer’s duty also with a multilingual crew, including the ability to use and understand IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (IMO SMCP)” (STCW). The IMO adopted the SMCP in 2001 and this was accompanied by Maritime English Model Course 3.17 to serve as a guide for Maritime Education and Training (MET) institutions (Modal Course 3.17). The modal course aims to help learners to improve their communicative skills in English to attain the level required by STCW Code. The amended modal course proposes a more communicative approach so that trainees will be able to understand and use English in a variety of situations at sea. The modal course has two core sections, namely General Maritime English (GME) and Specialized Maritime English (SME). GME core section is designed for trainees with elementary and lower intermediate levels and deals with general English, aiming to teach the language for the language’s sake. SME core part on the other hand deals specifically with maritime aspects of the language (Jiang et al., 2015). The amended model course 3.17 also adds oral and listening parts to each task since most seafarers perceive that their operation on the job requires listening and oral communication (Wang, 2015), especially on the VHF radio. Under the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as revised 1995 and amended in 2010, the ability to use and understand the IMO SMCP is required for the certification of officers in charge of navigational watch of ships 500 gross tonnage and more. Its inclusion in STCW makes it a mandatory part of the MET curriculum in all the current ratifying states that represent 99% of the World’s commercial fleet. As navigational and safety communications, from ship to shore and vice versa, from ship to ship, and the onboard ship must be precise, simple, and unambiguous to avoid confusion and error, there is a need to standardize the language used. This is of importance considering the increasing number of internationally trading vessels with crews speaking many different languages, since problems of communication may cause misunderstandings leading to dangers to the vessel, the people onboard, and the environment (IMO SMCP). The SMCP book has two main parts; External Communication and On-board Communication Phrases from the application point of view. Further, it is divided into Part A and Part B referring to its status within STCW. 352

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Part A covers phrases applicable in external communications to be used and understood under STCW Code as explained above. This part involves essential phrases concerning ship handling and the safety of navigation. Part B presents on-board standard safety-related phrases and can also be used for Maritime English education. (IMO SMCP) As the seafaring part of the maritime business involves a variety of operations at sea, besides regulatory rules, the safety of navigation mostly depends on ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore interactions in the open sea, straits, and canals and port approaches. When these interactions are in play, VHF radio communication becomes critical for safety. Pilot embarkation, docking, mooring, anchoring, and cargo handling are other operations that effective communication that plays a substantial role in safety (Şıhmantepe et al., 2019). Ambiguity and confusion in communication whether between the ship’s crew members and between the ships, are the primary causes of accidents at sea. It is self-evident that all the crew members who are conducting the operations at sea should acquire the necessary language and communication skills for specific duties and operations. Those skills should focus mostly on English language listening and speaking skills for operational purposes (Trenkner & Cole, 2008). Before proceeding with Maritime English training, especially the oral communication part, the difficulties in the seafaring profession should be pinpointed. Seafaring above all is a multinational, multi-cultural occupation. When cultural differences come into play, associated difficulties also become evident. This is firstly due to the composition of a ship crew. People coming from different backgrounds, social life and cultures form the crew of a ship. As the crew remains on board for a certain period, probably for months, working environment becomes also the living environment after duty hours. In order to work in a harmonized and smooth manner, all crew members must pay respect to cultural differences and accompanying language and communication differences during life on board. This aspect needs to be included in the communication training of seafarers. Besides onboard difficulties, whether the crew is multinational or not, communication is always multinational as far as external communication is concerned. The bridge team when on duty is required to understand the incoming VHF radio messages and respond accordingly in a clear and understandable manner. Another contributing difficulty is the variety of accents of the people while communicating ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore. Efficient communication comprises actual spoken words, tone of voice, and body language altogether to be fully efficient (Mehrabian, 1981). However, in a ship bridge external communication scenario, the main communication elements are mostly spoken words, partly the tone plays some role however there is no contribution of body language. This is briefly referred to as “voice through the VHF” difficulty (Şıhmantepe et al., 2011) which means no facial features, just a very small portion of tone due to radio interference and no body language. This difficulty must also be taken into consideration for oral communication training. Students should be advised and taught to use simple and clear statements when performing external communication on the bridge. This approach coincides with the very aim of IMO SMCP as it intends to “assist in the greater safety of navigation and of the conduct of the ship, to standardize the language used in communication for navigation at sea, in port approaches, waterways and harbors, and onboard vessels with multilingual crews, and to assist MET institutions” in meeting those objectives (IMO SMCP). After teaching the basic maritime terminology, a great part of Maritime English oral communication training, as mentioned above, involves listening comprehension and speaking skills. Obviously, this can be achieved with students having a certain level of English language knowledge. Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Independent User-B1 level of language proficiency for trainees may be used as a minimum level to start the courses (Orbe & Lansang, 2019). Hence, the Maritime English oral communication training may start only after trainees have gained a reasonable level of the English 353

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

language as well as terms and special context concerning the profession itself. For example, knowledge of basic ship terminology, navigation, bridge watchkeeping, usage of navigational charts, and like is to be completed before the trainees may indulge themselves in a two-way communication practice. Twoway communication here refers to internal onboard communication and external, ship to ship and ship to shore communication. While the training approach may be locally oriented, considering the needs and prerequisites of students, the outcome of the trainings should meet the needs of global requirements for achieving internationally unified attributes to trainees (Noble, 2015). This approach supports the main view of IMO: “… English shall be used on the bridge as the working language for bridge-to-bridge and bridge-to-shore safety communications as well as for communications on board between the pilot and bridge watchkeeping personnel … the wide use of the English language for international navigational communications and the need to assist maritime training institutions to meet the objectives of safe operations of ships and enhanced navigational safety through, inter alia, the standardization of language and terminology used” (IMO SMCP). Many researchers, as well as instructors of Maritime English suggest that role-playing and simulatorbased communication training contributes more to acquiring and enhancing the oral communication skill of trainees. Gunasekera (2008), for instance, recommends that there is an increasing emphasis on experiential learning (learning based on experience) such as role-play, dramas, simulations, games, case studies, projects, presentations, work experience, and discovery learning, all allowing the learner to actively involve. Role-Playing is also highly valued by students since they can apply their Maritime English knowledge (especially SMCP) in a meaningful and creative way and allow them to become actively involved in the teaching-learning process (Yihsiang, 2008). One other method suggests the use of navigation and bridge simulators to enhance students’ oral communication skills in a life-like environment (Şıhmantepe et al., 2011). Simulators can be set for a variety of ship operations and incorporated communication schemes; this way students’ attention shifts from language itself to using language to complete tasks. This in return helps students to enhance their both listening comprehension and oral expression (Chen et al., 2019).

Online Learning Environment and Quality Assurance Online education relates to computer-mediated instruction which facilitates synchronous and asynchronous teaching/learning through internet access. In synchronous mode, it utilizes interactive instruction in online classrooms (Cook & Davie, 2005). At global scale e-education apparently continues to increase world-wide and it seems to stay that way soon. However, it is hard to find one-fit comprehensive model to satisfy needs of different countries and regions of the world. Best possible approach may be mixing local culture, resources and infrastructure into equation to attain the goal for optimum success of e-education (Palvia et al., 2018). From the students’ part, online education necessitates the management of time and learning environment for asynchronous learning which in turn requires self-effort. However, instructors should facilitate this effort by presenting the learning content and related tasks to be easily manageable by the students. Thus, course designers and instructors should consider optimal use of an online learning environment to assure student satisfaction (Choi, 2016). Likewise, from the instructors’ part, a considerable effort seems also necessary for coping with the online teaching system before they can teach online courses. Some institutions require the teachers even to accredit themselves on the modern technologies and planned online teaching content in advance of actual lessons (Samuel, 2016). To this end, some institutions 354

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

conducted face-to-face workshops to provide online teaching know-how while others organized online seminars (Chen et al., 2017). Looking from the faculty side, Friedman et al. (2014) in their research on faculty perspectives, found that pedagogy and technology-related modules were the most important topics for faculty. They also point out that professional development programs for online teaching and learning are found to be necessary for faculty. Though some researchers argue that the rise of online courses and enrolments in higher education is too soon to celebrate (Lee, 2017), today’s reality leaves no other option but online education in a pandemic environment. Hence minimum requirements for online courses as well as obstacles that must be eliminated must be briefly noted. This is because students who matriculated as on-campus students have become online followers of the distance learning process and the courses intended to be delivered in class, quickly have been transformed into an online fashion. The first issue with online education is the lack of an agreed-upon measure of quality. Delivering courses varies from the off-line, drop-and-go method to well-structured online real-time classes. Internet infrastructure, data costs, financial costs, and sometimes even regulations have a direct effect on the way online education is delivered. Instructors’ adaptation and students’ lack of self-motivation are other obstacles for online education (Amemado, 2020). Quality assurance in online education still is another interest for researchers. The entire teaching and administrative power of a university may be considered as a starting point for determining how well the online teaching is conducted. When combined with technological assets the learners have and their satisfaction after the courses they take, the next step can be achieved in terms of quality assurance of online lessons. Assessing the quality of online education programs requires different criteria than those of traditional ones (Marciniak, 2018). The criteria may include quality of structure, all resources including human, organization, and equipment as well as openness to enhancement and results obtained. Having a variety of resources, keeping the content up-todate and closely relevant to the objectives of the learners should be able to ensure learners’ satisfaction (McClary, 2013). Recent research on quality issues covers areas like usage of technology, approaches to courses themselves, programs, institutional capabilities, and even regional differences (Britto et al., 2013). A similar approach can be traced in governmental bodies as well. Quality assurance of online learning discussion paper presented by Australian Department of Education suggests that confidence in online components should “… address student mobility, employability and labor demands within economies. Additionally, students need to be satisfied that their investment in online education will be recognized” (APEC, 2017). The same study also states that interactive teaching and learning, course design and content, assessment tasks and authenticity, student experience and learning environment as well as qualifications and formal credentials are the main quality concerns. However, rubrics, as assessment tools for online education may need further developments supported by empirical studies to ensure their validity and reliability (Lee et al., 2020). Institutions may require different criteria for assessing online courses. In their research on quality assurance in online education Chua & Lam (2007) suggest that the quality assurance process needs to be established in five areas “namely, content authoring, courseware development, adjunct faculty recruitment, pedagogy, and delivery”. For designing successful and quality online courses it is necessary to involve actual course instructors together with online education managerial and support staff which in return will form a common culture that aims quality design (Keller, 2018). Delivery of online courses above all requires having a necessary hardware and software (Vlachopoulos, 2020). Moreover, user-friendly design and enough technological support must be ensured throughout the online courses (Drumford & Miller, 2018). This calls for a well-organized, easy to use teaching 355

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

platform. Online education, by promoting computer-mediated communication, also changes the learnerinstructor-course content interaction styles. This fact requires students to have enough hardware in order to benefit fully from the online environment which otherwise may present be less than optimal benefit if the learners’ equipment does not support the technology involved. (Finch & Jacobs, 2012). Three main areas of consideration for effective online delivery of courses can briefly be stated as technology, teacher characteristics, and student profile. The form and level of interaction between the student and the instructor are no less important. This calls for a change in the role of the teacher to shift from instructor to motivator in order to help students discover the way they learn better (Vollery, 2000). Adding to this fact, learner-instructor interaction and learner-content interaction contribute significantly to student satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2013). Research by Bettinger and Loeb (2017) indicates that students (especially with lower prior GPAs) perform considerably worse in online courses than face-to-face conducted ones. They suggest that this result should not encourage a negative conclusion that online courses should be impeded. They, on the contrary, emphasize that the results indicate that courses should be improved for the group mentioned so that they are engaged even better than in-person courses of traditional fashion. Here it should be noted that online education cannot meet the requirements of maritime education and training due to requirements of international regulatory body IMO. In maritime education and training, by regulation, parts of training require a variety of environments where hands-on practical training and face-to-face interaction are essential. For example, bridge/navigation and cargo simulators, special communication equipment training, survival at sea, firefighting, and first-aid training require students to interact with equipment and instructor in person. Likewise, it is not possible to have onboard sea training in an online environment which is one of the prerequisites for graduation and receiving professional certification. After the online teaching environment is secured, the second issue involves the instructors who are rushed into online teaching without any previous experience with online teaching medium. The instructors as the actual content delivering persons should have a good understanding of the digital platform in hand and must be able to make the best use of the features available. A survey by Kim (2006) indicates that pedagogical issues play a great role in designing online courses. Results of the survey show that problem-based learning; case learning and collaboration need to be pursued for the quality of online education. Higher education institutes should consider training and supporting their instructors on these methods and approaches as online learning is growing constantly. Adding to previous research, some current studies during the COVID-19 pandemic indicate that the teaching platform plays a considerable role in student satisfaction and allure. Again, they propose that means of two-way interaction with the instructor provided by the platform also increase student satisfaction (Chen et al., 2020). Assuming these are provided, one other obstacle is continuous internet access, especially for students. Struggling to participate in digital learning in an interactive session may substantially reduce the perseverance and will of the students thus lowering the overall quality of online education. This issue again is a matter of geography, infrastructure, and income level of the regions the students are participating from. Students who live in rural areas have bigger problems than the ones living in big cities. Hardware that students use to access the online courses also plays an important role. Students who use smartphones may miss some of the course content as some of the online content is not suitable for smartphones (Adnan & Anwar, 2020). As online teaching has become a necessary tool for institutions, transforming and adapting the teaching content and formats in line with learners’ needs helps to leverage the learning process of the 356

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

students. Therefore, the way information is delivered needs to be not only well-tailored but also impactful and relevant to the audience. Pros and cons of online education seem to intermingle when qualities of service, individual financial power, and individual traits of students are concerned. When the quality of the online platform provided by the institution is not of the desired quality, no matter how enthusiastic and hard-working the group of attendees is, the outcome will most probably be under average. Likewise, the flexibility of the online system, in other words, accessibility of time and place may be considered as a good feature of the online learning environment by allowing students to access the learning material at the time of their choosing. However, for students having difficulty with consistent internet access, especially in synchronous sessions, online system may work against students. In terms of affordability the same dilemma stands. While online education eliminates certain burdens like commuting and expenses like accommodation and meals, it may bring extra costs like the acquisition of digital hardware, internet connection, and costs like enrollment tuitions. Staying hours in front of a screen or distractions of social media and other online content may also be additional challenges to manage. Hence instructors of online classes should arrange their courses in an engaging and interactive format and give students enough break times to refresh. Instructors should also not only adapt themselves to the digital environment but also alter their preconceptions to accommodate the idea of teaching the students they have never met in person before. The number of students attending an online course in the same session may also pose setbacks for practice-based skill-improving courses.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study mainly aims to propose a practical method for improving profession-oriented language skills of maritime students in the online medium by making use of actual trials. Hence it attempts to suggest guidelines for subject matter instructors for adopting their in-class communication sessions to the online environment. From this perspective, it follows a combined qualitative and experimental approach to reach sound understanding of matter. “How communication skills of maritime students can be improved by online role-playing sessions?” is formulated as the research question. In order to keep the right track of the aim, firstly requirements of Maritime English as ESP and communication need of maritime students together with specifics and quality requirements of online teaching method for efficient performance are examined through existing literature. Collecting, collating, and subsequently comparing the gathered information on the topics mentioned, guide the work to organize the next phase of the study - the conduct. The next stage involves producing a list of minimum requirements for conducting trial sessions to make sure students have the basic assets for participating. One important input comes from institutional restrictions such as the duration of classes and the number of students allocated in one session. On this ground, students are organized in teams of two (as required by real-life environment) in classes not exceeding a total of thirty persons as required by the institution. However, the experimental part does not involve measuring variables such as the number of correctly used words/phrases, time, and speed of communication. However, a holistic approach is used to observe and note qualities of students’ attitudes and performances as to self-confidence, meticulousness, fluency, pronunciation as well as their improvement on command of standard communication phrases and terminology. All the observations are cross-checked with the inputs that students provide after the completion of sessions. Lastly, the findings are evaluated to reach sound outcomes and tangible recommendations for future efforts.

357

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

CONDUCT OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION SESSIONS This trial adopts a genre-based approach as it involves learners who focus their attention on discourse in the maritime seagoing community. To ensure successful and seamless conduct of synchronous online communication sessions, minimum requirements for trial sessions are limited to: • • • • •

Well-designed and student-centered lesson plans, A user-friendly digital teaching platform, Teachers with latest possible updates on online teaching and the teaching platform, Students with necessary hardware and continuous internet access, Reasonable number of students for interactive online lessons.

Traditional classroom teaching can be transferred or adapted or even enhanced in online classrooms. In search of best available practices, there seems to be no single most effective approach in terms of method. This study while suggesting a method for improving oral communication skills involved in Maritime English online teaching also presumes that above requirements are fulfilled. The proposed method has already been used during the COVID-19 pandemic as everybody had to stay home and education continued as distance learning by making use of online learning systems. The online role-playing method mostly involves ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship verbal communication parts of IMO SMCP as required by the STCW convention. As stated by the students, compared to the traditional in-class role-playing method, online engagement of students on teams not only improved their communication skills but also contributed to their team working abilities. Since the training environment represented the actual shipboard communication scheme i.e. not being able to see the counterpart and not always precise voice exchange, students expressed that they have benefited more from the online system. The study will firstly present and further elaborate on in-class and simulator-based communication training and then will present the online interaction method to substitute them as much effective as possible using an online learning platform.

Rationale Maritime English courses are designed to help students achieve communicative proficiency in English to reach the level specified in the STCW Code to ensure safe navigation at sea. Therefore, the courses are deemed to follow a communicative approach to ensure that seafarers can understand and use English in a range of situations at sea (Jiang et al., 2015). SMCP book already lists standard communication phrases and relevant possible responses not only for routine operations but also for emergency situations at sea. However, trying to learn the phrases from the book by reading and later trying to remember them does not seem to meet the target of the communicative approach. It should be ensured that students can use these phrases at the moments required by the navigational scenario, and they should adopt the situationcommunication pattern relationship as much as possible by appropriating them. Therefore, engaging students in communication scenarios by active participation can help achieving the goal.

358

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Prerequisites Without enough core maritime vocabulary students cannot communicate as required. The trials followed the approach that a specific-purpose language bases itself on a basic core of the general language (Vesela, 2012, p.11; Bloor & Bloor, 1986). The maritime students participated in the trials had one year of English preparation course and one semester of Maritime English terminology background. However, as Sarré & Whyte, (2017) put forward, pedagogy of ESP is realized in form of practice-oriented teaching where it was supported by the knowledge base already acquired. Likewise, ESP requires usage of language to accomplish tasks in area of concern by integrating appropriate aspect of field-specific background knowledge” (Douglas, 2013). As Maritime English follows English for specific purposes (ESP) perspective, contextualization plays an important role in setting the learning ground. This of course requires students to have pre-existing language levels and some professional knowledge on the seafaring business. As for language skills, having a CEFR B1 level is sufficient for them to conduct and actively participate in an online oral communication session. From a professional point, in order for the students to understand and merge into the navigation scenario in hand, they should have a good understanding of the basics of navigation, usage of navigational charts, ship types and indicators, shore-based authorities, and also rules for safe navigation at sea. Basic Maritime English terminology should also be already covered. This junior-level practice can be seen as a preliminary to enhanced scenario-based simulator training which demands more prerequisites like certain sea training time and experience together with advanced courses like ship handling, electronic navigation, etc.

Conduct This section covers the actual synchronous conduct of the online classes to include the training setup, the expected outcomes, student responsibilities, and online execution of the oral communication scenario. The students who participated in the classes comprised of second semester freshman year cadets including four exchange students, all with almost no sea experience. For reasons explained above, for each two-class hour session, the students were divided into groups of 30 and 15 teams of two were formed in each group to perform in their allocated time slots. The main target of the online communication training sessions was to make the students understand VHF radio communication procedures and use standard phrases in routine and emergency cases. Aimed outcomes of the sessions were to: • • • •

make the students learn by doing, build self-confidence by performing, overcome the voice from VHF syndrome, consolidate their existing knowledge by preparing the scenario.

Until the actual communication sessions, students went through refresher and reinforcement training. Table1 shows the brief breakdown of freshman year topics covered before communication sessions. Without enough maritime vocabulary and know-how on VHF radio communication procedures, students would not be able to communicate as required. For this reason, on top of the knowledge they had already gained in the previous semester -referred to as previous knowledge in the table- students were provided with refresher information, necessary terms, phrases, and communication procedures to ensure their full performance during the communication practice sessions. 359

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Table 1. Pre-communication session topic breakdown Freshman year pre-communication session considerations

Previous knowledge

Basic terminology

√

Ship types and type indicators

√

Distances at sea

√

Course and speed

√

Basic measurements of ship: LOA, Breadth, Gross tonnage, deadweight etc. and reporting

√

Reporting condition of ship: List, trim, fore, aft, mean and maximum drafts- freeboard-air draft

√

Refresher

SMCP input

Additional information

√

√ √

√

VTS ship to shore communication phrases

√

Reporting current position

√

Reporting course and speed

√

Reporting voyage particulars last port of call-next port of call destination

√

Reporting possible deficiencies on board

√

Indicating intention

√

Steering related terminology and standard orders

√

Distress communication (MAYDAY -PANPAN - SECURITE)

√

General VHF radio communication procedures

√

Self-identifying parameters (flag, call sign, IMO number, MMSI number etc.) and reporting.

√

A key full formula and real-life shortcuts of VHF radio communication procedure are provided for students to avoid any mishaps during the online communication sessions: Step 1 - Switch to designated VHF channel Step 2 - Call the other station / identify yourself / say the message /say Over. Step 3 - Continue communication as required and finish with “Out” in the end. Example: Bonifacio Traffic / This is Motor Vessel Bluebird / How do you read me / Over. Of course, switching designated channel is not a part of oral communication skills, therefore, remained as mere professional information, yet it could not be realized in an online session over a digital teaching platform. Examples of real-life shortcuts used by seafarers were also provided to prepare students with a variety of different practices. This helped students to realize that profession-specific VHF radio communication may differ from everyday regular communication. Table 2 and Table 3 display how the wording and grammatical structure of a regular communication statement may be reshaped by users in the profession to provide faster processing. This basic introduction allowed students to understand, for area-specific communication, how standard phrases can be used to convey the main message without constructing full grammatical sentences. However, students were advised to use the first lines of the above examples and that the third lines are 360

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Table 2. Ship-to-shore example Call the station

Identify yourself

Say your message

Say over

Bonifacio

Traffic

This is

Motor Vessel

Bluebird

I am

approaching from East

Over

Bonifacio

Traffic

This is

Motor vessel

Bluebird

I am

Approaching from East

Over

Bonifacio

Traffic

This is

Motor vessel

Bluebird

I am

Approaching from East

Over

Table 3. Shore-to-ship example Call the station

Identify yourself

Say your message

Say over

Motor Vessel

Bluebird

This is

Bonifacio

Traffic

What is

Your flag state? Your call sign? Your destination?

Over

Motor vessel

Bluebird

This is

Bonifacio

Traffic

What is

Flag state? Call sign? Destination?

Over

Motor vessel

Bluebird

This is

Bonifacio

Traffic

What is

Flag state, call sign and destination?

Over

the bare minimum for safety in sea-going communication. After completing the refresher, procedure, and standard phrase review, the next step was to assign tasks of communication in a given area to include routine or emergency communication scenarios. They were given the freedom to choose what type of communication they would perform provided that the scenario was sound and correct phrases are used. Strait of Bonifacio, between Sardinia and Corsica, was chosen as the area to perform communication scenario since most of the students were familiar with the Mediterranean Sea. They were required to study not only the area but also the rules and regulations pertaining to transiting through the strait. This way they also had a better understanding of how well they had digested the previous professional knowledge for preparing a communication scenario. They could choose any situation in the area provided that the positions, courses, and speeds of their ships are reasonable; ships being eastbound or westbound were again left to their preference. They were asked to plot the momentary situation of ships on a chart and display it by sharing their screen during the actual communication training so that other students as well as the instructor would be able to follow their scenario. Team members shared the roles as shore station and the ship crew and switched the roles to allow each member to play the role of the ship part. Sharing the screen and communicating at the same time allowed the rest of the students while following the role-play, to contemplate on how they would play the same scenario thus triggering a naïve competition environment. This contributed to the individual learning process and helped improve the quality of subsequent sessions. During the scenario preparation phase, the students also had to find useful information by browsing online resources and shared their findings during the online session before they started with the communication practice. They were also asked to explain how they shared the roles of shore station and ship as well as the relevant sections of the SMCP book that they intended to use as a reference for standard phrases. This way all the students who attended the session had repeated chances to review the

361

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

relevant parts of the SMCP book and checked their own works one more time for possible errors in the subsequent session. Teams were required to display the momentary plot they prepared as to the ship’s position, course, and speed as well as other ship and voyage particulars to be exchanged during the communication practice. They were not expected to plot precise positions on navigational charts as this was a concern of navigation courses. However, the plot they sketched was expected to match the situation at hand and present enough details for others to follow the course of communication. The plot the students prepared indicates that at the moment of communication with shore station here Bonifaico Traffic- the ship M/V George (an imaginary ship) with call sign TANGO CHARLIE FOXTROT ROMEO – FIVE was in position; Latitude 41 degrees, 21 minutes, 51 seconds North and Longitude 009 degrees, 22 minutes 51.5 seconds East. The ship was approaching the Bonifacio Traffic responsibility area from East with a westbound course. The present course of the ship was 240 degrees and the speed was 13.4 knots. Other information presented included: Last port of call: Palermo/Italy Destination: Barcelona/Spain Cargo: Steel Rolls Max. draft: 8.9 m No list, even keel 16 crew members In the online session, student 1 played the role of the ship crew (M/V George) while student 2 played the role of shore station (Bonifacio Traffic). Students used their computers to simulate VHF radio and turned off their cameras. A brief section of the phrases exchanged by the students is presented below: Ship : Bonifacio traffic, this is M/V George How do you read me? Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio Traffic I read you good. From what direction are you approaching? Over Ship : Bonifacio traffic, this is M/V George, I am approaching from East. Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio traffic, what is your call sign and flag state? Over Ship : Bonifacio Traffic, this is M/V George, my flag state is Turkey and My call sign is Tango Charlie Foxtrot Romeo –Five. Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio traffic, what is your position? Over Ship : Bonifacio Traffic, this is M/V George, my position is 4-1 degrees, 2-1 minutes, 5-1 seconds North and 0-0-9 degrees, 2-2 minutes 5-1 decimal 5 seconds East. Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio traffic, last port of call and destination. Over Ship : Bonifacio Traffic, this is M/V George, last port of call Palermo/Italy and destination Barcelona/ Spain. Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio traffic, do you carry any dangerous good? Over Ship : Bonifacio Traffic, this is M/V George, no, I do not carry any dangerous goods. Over Shore : M/V George, this is Bonifacio traffic, do you have any deficiencies / restrictions? Over Ship : Bonifacio Traffic, this is M/V George, no, I have no deficiencies / restrictions. Over

362

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Within the above exchange of information between the shore station and ship, the instructor by playing the roles of each part asked questions included in the relevant parts of the SMCP book to ensure that the students have full control of their scenario and other phrases required. The online setup used during the profession-specific communication sessions involved team members participating from different locations where they lived. They started their communication scenario by presenting a brief overview of their scenario with relevant information taught during the preparatory sessions. The team carried out the whole communication scenario they prepared as the internet connection was reasonably good. While the team performed their part, all the other students monitored the whole course of voice communication with the scenario snapshot shared on everybody’s screens. As the communication scenario proceeded, in order to avoid a premeditated dialogue-like communication, the instructor interfered in the communication routine by playing the role of either side to make sure students can cope with unexpected inputs at intervals. As the students felt more comfortable with their own performances, the focus shifted more on correct pronunciation and intonation. In this setup, while a team of two performed their bit of communication scenario the others monitored the whole flow. In order to sustain the attention of inactive students, the instructor asked them questions related to details of the scenario or the errors they pinpointed in the communication, if any, after each team completed their performances. Depending on the responses, the active group had good clues indicating how well they performed. The online nature of sessions brought about two important benefits. Firstly, it made sure that students were able to cope with a voice from the VHF difficulty. Because the online medium required students to communicate with a person without being able to see the body language and facial expressions of the speaker and deprived them of the chance to read the lips when in doubt- this actually is the case on board ship. Secondly, they had all the opportunities to compare their own performance and scenario with that of others to place themselves in the right position and have the motivation to catch up with the others if necessary. Repetition is an important element for language learning. The way online sessions were conducted offered additional benefits in terms of repetition. Because in a group of 30 students, 15 separate teams of two were formed and this gave students a chance to monitor 14 variety of scenario conduct until they had the floor to perform their own part. Exchange students presented an undeniable contribution to accent issues if not substantial. This is because understanding the incoming VHF message with an unfamiliar accent is a real-life problem as the international aspect of the profession dictates. As expressed by the students and witnessed by the instructor, as to building self-confidence, the more they monitored and realized that they could understand the message traffic, the more they were motivated to perform their part. And when performing their part, realizing that the message is well understood by the others fulfilled the self-confidence-building task. Having a variety of standard communication phrases handy in a book to convey the intended message surely helped building self-confidence. After each two-hour session students were provided with feedback to improve the quality of subsequent sessions and their performances which proved to be very useful.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The findings of this study strongly indicate that improving job-related communication skills of juniorlevel maritime students can be accomplished in an online teaching environment. The outcomes of the sessions revealed that working as teams and individually performing communication tasks helped them improve not only their language skills but also their self-confidence. However, the study had limitations 363

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

in terms of multinationality. As maritime environment dictates multinational operation at sea, performing similar sessions with multinational participation can contribute to making training more realistic. Besides making sessions multinational, depending on the features of teaching platform, similar sessions can be performed for senior level students to involve performing communication tasks while ship handling which makes both more complicated and even more realistic.

CONCLUSION English for specific purposes can be taught either face-to-face or by using distance learning assets such as online teaching platforms. As online education becomes widespread or when the conditions like COVID-19 pandemic deprives both institutions and students of on-campus education, online methods remain to be a worthy option available. This chapter suggests a handy method for achieving the best possible outcomes from practical communication sessions in an online teaching environment for freshman year students. Here it should be pointed out that the profile of students may vary in accordance with the different curriculum the maritime education and training institutions possess. As good command of Maritime English is essential for seafarers, SMCP training becomes a must for maritime students as a profession-specific area. The study presumes that the institution offers a user-friendly learning platform and the students possess the necessary online tools and consistent internet access to ensure full participation. The suggested method prioritizes engaging students in online verbal communication sessions firstly by asking them to prepare a target-oriented communication scenario by using their background knowledge as well as additional information provided. Learning by doing principle forms the second pillar of engaging students. Another important element of the engagement process is making the students perform the whole communication scheme simulating the VHF radio with the online assets they have. The achievement is directly associated with real-life practices in terms of a communication environment where the exchange of information does not take place face-to-face. Accomplishing the whole task successfully enhances self-confidence, encourages and motivates students for better performance. As to the limitations of the proposed method, the number of students and the variety of nationalities may pose difficulties. For the best possible outcome, this method requires that the number of students is limited to an acceptable amount depending on the length of online class hours. Having participants from different nationalities do contribute a great deal, by giving students the opportunity to experience different accents incoming from their speakers like real-life onboard bridge environment. One other important requirement is that the instructors using the online method should have need-based, well-thought lesson plans and a good understanding of the online platform in hand. Naturally, there were some artificialities in the sampled training scenario and communication practice session and will most probably continue to be. It is important to acknowledge that there are other practices to meet the requirements of communication skill improving needs. However, the aim of this study is set to make the best use of existing capabilities and assets. Hence, the online training sessions exemplified in this section seem to fit in a meaningful place within its own teaching system and curriculum with space for further development. As to maritime education and training, pure online education seems to not suffice. This is because, by regulation, maritime training involves a variety of teaching grounds like simulators, onboard sea training, and hands-on physical training such as survival at sea, firefighting, or first-aid. Blended (hybrid or mixed) learning which involves a combination of online activities and face-to-face learning will be most probable way to carry on. 364

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Further efforts may be directed towards performing multinational scenario-based online communication sessions with the participation of institutes and students from different countries. This will enable students to interact with students having the same aim from different backgrounds and cultures as well as to minimize accent-related difficulties. Moreover, the international sessions will make the training a step closer to real-life practices as seafaring is already an international profession involving a multinational, multilingual, and multicultural workforce.

REFERENCES Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 2020261309. doi:10.33902/JPSP.2020261309 Amemado, D. (2020). COVID-19: An Unexpected and Unusual Driver to Online Education. The Global Picture-International Higher Education, 102. Anthony, L. (2018). Introducing English for Specific Purposes. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351031189 APEC. (2017). Asia - Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC Quality Assurance of Online Learning – Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/quality-assurance-online-learningtoolkit_0.pdf?v=1575861567 Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Routledge. Belcher, D. D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for Specific Purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1017/S026719050400008X Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for Specific Purposes: Teaching to Perceived Needs and Imagined Futures in Worlds of Work, Study, and Everyday Life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133. doi:10.2307/40264514 Bettinger, E., & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education (Vol. 2). Evidence Speaks Reports. Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1986). Language for Specific Purpose: Practise and Theory (occasional paper no. 19). Trinity College. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED280285.pdf Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2013). Maritime English. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0746 Britto, M., Ford, C., & Wise, J. M. (2013). Three Institutions, three approaches, one goal: Addressing quality assurance in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(4), 4. doi:10.24059/ olj.v17i4.402 Brown, D. B. (2016). Introducing Needs Analysis and English for Specific Purposes. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315671390 Chen, J., Ran, X. Liu, D., Ying, S. (2019). Maritime English Teaching with Marine Simulator. IMEC31 Proceedings, 13-130.

365

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Chen, K., Lowenthal, P. R., Bauer, C., Heaps, A., & Nielsen, C. (2017). Moving beyond smile sheets: A case study on the evaluation and iterative improvement of an online faculty development program. Online Learning, 21(1), 85–111. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.810 Chen, T., Peng, L., Yin, X., Rong, J., Yang, J., & Cong, G. (2020). Analysis of User Satisfaction with Online Education Platforms in China during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Health Care, 2020(8), 200. doi:10.3390/healthcare8030200 PMID:32645911 Choi, B. (2016, Spring). How people learn in an asynchronous online learning environment: The relationships between graduate students’ learning strategies and learning satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42(1). doi:10.21432/T24K7R Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2007). Quality assurance in online education: The Universitas 21 Global approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 133–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00652.x Cook, K. C., & Davie, K. G. (Eds.). (2017). Online Education: Global Questions. In Local Answers. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company. doi:10.1177/0021943606295782 Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio-Med. Retrieved from: https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/actabiomedica/article/view/9397 Douglas, D. (2013). ESP and assessment. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfi (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 367–381). Springer John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Drumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 2018(30), 452–465. doi:10.100712528-018-9179-z Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. (2012). Online Education: Best practices to promote learning. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56th Annual Meeting, 547. Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfi (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 325–345). Springer John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Friedman, V. S., Terantino, J., Randall, C. K., Aust, P. J., & Powell, T. (2014). Refining Advanced Professional Development for Online Teaching and Course Building: An Evaluation from the Faculty Perspective. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 6(3 & 4). http://www.iariajournals. org/life_sciences/ Gunasekera, S. (2008). Training of Teacher Trainers. IMEC20 Proceedings, 26-41. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). ESP: Approach not product. In English for Specific Purposes (pp. 16-20). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511733031.006 Hyland, K. (2007). English for Specific Purposes. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education (Vol. 15). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_28 IMO SMCP. (2002). IMO Standard Communication Phrases. IMO.

366

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Jiang, Z., Zhao, C., & Wang, Y. (2015). The review of Maritime English Course Syllabus in DMU- A proactive way to the revised Maritime English Modal Course. IMEC 27 Proceedings, 91-102. Keller, C. A. (2018). Using a Collaborative Design Model for Developing Quality Online Courses. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Kim, K. J. (2006). The Future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says…. Educause Quarterly, 4. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B., & Schroder, K. (2013). A Predictive Study of Student Satisfaction in Online Education Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338 Lee, J. E., Recker, M., & Yuan, M. (2020). The validity and instructional value of a rubric for evaluating online course quality: An empirical study. Online Learning, 24(1), 245–263. doi:10.24059/olj.v24i1.1949 Lee, K. (2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A historical review. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.001 Marciniak, R. (2018). Quality Assurance for Online Higher Education Programmes: Design and Validation of an Integrative Assessment Model Applicable to Spanish Universities. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2). MARS. (2020). Mars Reports. Retrieved from https://www.nautinst.org/resource-library/mars/marsreports.html McClary, J. (2013, Summer). Factors in High Quality Distance Learning Courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(2). Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Wadsworth. Model Course 3.17. (2015). IMO Modal Course 3.17. IMO. Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 367–380. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.001 Noble, A. (2015). The IMO SMCP 15 years on: current perceptions and realistic recommendations. IMEC27 Proceedings, 127-145. Orbe, M. C., & Lansang, J. R. (2019). Developing a Can-Do Self-Evaluation List for Listening Skills. IMEC31 Proceedings, 138-147. Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online Education: Worldwide Status, Challenges, Trends, and Implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262 Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

367

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman. Samuel, A. (2016). Online faculty development: What works? Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, 227. Sarré, C. & Whyte, S. (2017). New developments in ESP teaching and learning research. Researchpublishing.net Şıhmantepe, A., Bal Beşikçi, E., Özsever, E. (2019). Efficiency of SMCP for Safe Navigation. Young Scientist, 7(2). Şıhmantepe, A., Sernikli, S., & Ziarati, R. (2011). Building Maritime English by Event Simulation, In proceeding of IMEC23. Constanta Maritime University. STCW. (2010). STCW including 2010 Manila amendments: STCW Convention and STCW Code. IMO. Trenkner, P., & Cole, C. (2008). Developing Training and Watchkeeping Standards The Maritime English Competence Yardstick in the Revised STCW Context. IMEC20 Proceedings, 1-25. UNCTAD. (2017). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2017. Retrieved from https:// unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2017_en.pdf Vesela, K. (2012). Teaching ESP in New Environments. ASPA. Vlachopoulos, D. (2020). COVID-19: Threat or opportunity for online education? Higher Learning Research Communication, 10(1), 16–19. doi:10.18870/hlrc.v10i1.1179 Vollery, T. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223. Wang, X., (2015). Turning “Salted” into “Needed”: the New Model Course 3.17. IMEC 27 Proceedings, 232-240. Woodrow, L. (2018). Introducing Course Design in English for Specific Purposes. Routledge. Yihsiang, K. (2008). What an English Teacher Can Do to Improve Deck Cadets’ Maritime English Communication Ability- A Case Study. IMEC20 Proceedings, 91-108. Ziarati, R. (2006). Safety at sea – applying parent analysis. In Proceedings of World Maritime Technology Conference (WMTC06). Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS IMO SMCP: The Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) is a set of key phrases in the English language to standardize the language used in communication for navigation at sea, in portapproaches, in waterways, harbors and on-board vessels with multilingual crews developed by the IMO. Maritime English: Maritime English is an umbrella term which refers to the English language used by seafarers both at sea and in port and by individuals working in the shipping and shipbuilding industry.

368

 Improving Maritime English Oral Communication Skills in an Online Environment

Online Education: Online education refers to the method of content dissemination and rapid learning through the application of information technology and Internet technology. Transformation from classical systems to digital systems in a way that all functions of a business can be carried out on digital media. Role-Playing: Role playing is any speaking activity by acting out of the part of a particular person or character. VHF Radio: Marine VHF radio is a two-way radio system used for bidirectional voice communication for ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication.

This research was previously published in Trends and Developments for the Future of Language Education in Higher Education; pages 272-292, copyright year 2021 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

369

370

Chapter 20

Continuity and Developments in Terms of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments Marius Boboc https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7408-6316 Cleveland State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter provides updated background information related to K-12 online education, ranging from definitions to benefits and challenges, based on an earlier version of the document. Comparative analyses of the virtual learning landscape reveal the increasingly complex parameters by which it could be evaluated, including the range of programs, service provider types, approaches to blended learning, kinds of instruction delivery, as well as levels of interaction within cyberspace. A theoretical framework introduced in the previous version of the chapter continues to identify academic programs/curricula, student support services, and virtual program/school administration as categories that connect the relevant literature review to recommendations for future research intended to inform policy-setting efforts aimed at supporting the further development of high-quality K-12 online environments.

INTRODUCTION Online learning in the world of K–12 education has grown substantially over a rather short period of time. For instance, virtual schools have gained public interest and recognition since the first one was established in 1996. A decade later, Michigan became the first state to require that each student should have exposure to e-learning prior to graduation from high school (DiPietro, Ferdig, Black, & Preston, 2008). By 2013, 24 states and Washington, DC had blended schools, while entirely online, multi-district DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch020

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

schools in 30 states served more than 310,000 students. At the same time, more private/independent schools included supplemental online and hybrid classes (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). During the 2013–2014 school year, state virtual schools enrolled 740,000 students (Archambault & Kennedy, 2017). According to a detailed analysis of the evolution of K–12 online participation for the 2014–2015 academic year, approximately 2.7 million students signed up for supplemental instruction programs, representing 4.6 million individual online course enrollments (Gemin, Pape, Vashaw, & Watson, 2015). For the same school year, there were 275,000 students enrolled in cyber charter schools, supported by 3.3 million individual course enrollments. Though more difficult to quantify, hybrid school enrollment was included in Ambient Insights’s (2014) estimation of students participating in K–12 online and blended learning in the United States. As of the 2015–2016 academic year, around 5 million students, roughly 10% of the K–12 students in the U.S. took at least one Web-based class (Besnoy, 2017). Over the course of last century, high school and college retention and graduation rates have increased gradually, in spite of occasional fluctuations. As societal needs change, schools have to keep up the pace of innovation, especially in terms of computer technology. There is increasing pressure on K–12 education to reform teaching and learning in ways that accommodate the development of 21st century skills required for high school and college graduates to be competitive in a global workforce market. Decision makers and stakeholders in education are taking into account the current achievement gap demonstrated by American students, reduced funding opportunities, the digital divide impacting students across the country, and an expected teacher shortage. Under these circumstances, online education has become a viable set of models for instruction delivery. While the field is still refining its operational terms (e-learning, virtual schooling, digital instruction, etc.), its potential as “disruptive innovation” (Horn, 2010, p. 19) should be backed up by evidence-based research on the actual use of technology in the classroom along a continuum of types of instructional settings ranging from traditional, face-to-face to hybrid/blended to entirely Web-based. While there is increased legislative support for virtual learning, policy-setting structures need data designed to indicate the need for support in terms of curricula, staffing, administration, infrastructure, accountability requirements, professional development, et cetera. While the current research on the effectiveness of e-learning is still insufficient, there are indications that it promotes greater access to equitable, high quality, cost-efficient learning opportunities to students that may not otherwise benefit from a wider range of formal education options. The computer technologies used in virtual settings have also evolved to become more student-centered and interactive, while supporting teachers in structuring their courses better. As the needs, interests, and characteristics of students change over time, online education is expected to play an important role in providing specialized services that are at least on par with traditional, face-to-face schools. At the same time, the shift in learner profile accommodated by e-learning implies enhanced reflection and autonomy, as students assume more responsibility in instructional sequences they are engaged in. At the same time, the roles online teachers play change accordingly, as they become more facilitating as designers, motivators, and trouble-shooters in virtual learning settings. As the field of online learning continues its formative stage, there are several drawbacks that have been referenced by several research reports and policy briefs. On the one hand, the initial cost of setting up a high-quality virtual environment, coupled with the requirements of scaling up to meet a wide range of student needs, led to the redefining/restructuring of some initiatives. As various models of elearning have been proposed, the need for structure and guiding standards emerged. Efforts were made to investigate how the effectiveness of traditional, face-to-face instruction could translate into equally effective online delivery systems. The quality of curricula and their associated pedagogies, as well as 371

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

the level of support for teachers, students, and parents coupled with the multi-faceted administration of hybrid/blended courses, programs, or schools, developed into topics of conversation about e-learning that are dealt with in this chapter. Continuing the line of inquiry into what constitutes high-quality online education is intended to have significant implications for future policy-setting efforts. The chapter proposes a framework within which the perceived benefits and challenges of e-learning come together to inform how institutional technology plans connect the local context, in terms of academic programs, student support services, and administration, with state, national, and global levels where online students can prove the quality of their education.

BACKGROUND The correlation between educational opportunities for all students and their academic achievement supports the national economic development. The American economy’s unprecedented growth in the 20th century is in part due to increasing numbers of students being able to complete cycles of formal education, especially secondary and postsecondary (Goldin & Katz, 2008). An in-depth analysis of these trends indicate consistently high enrollment and graduation rates from high school and college, primarily for the first half of the 20th century. There are several reasons for which the second half of last century demonstrated a fluctuation of these rates, particularly after 1970. The aforementioned two researchers take into account the quality of high school curricula and pedagogy as a subset of these factors, with a direct impact on the preparedness for college and career based on a four-year graduation model. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2016), a record high of about 3,568,000 students were expected to graduate high school at the end of the 2016–2017 school year, compared to 3,376,000 students expected to graduate high school at the end of the 2012–2013 academic year. The statistics show an increase in four-year high school graduation rates, from 78.2% in 2013–2014 to about 83% in 2014–2015. Between 1990 and 2015, the dropout rate declined from 12.1% to 5.9% for Ages 16–24. Though a downward trend in the dropout rates for African American and Hispanic students is also observed, they were still more at risk of poor academic performance compared to Caucasian students. Consequently, there have been attempts to deal with the increasing problem of students at risk of dropping out of school, at both the secondary and higher education levels. Among them, there are a few that are worth mentioning, such as early college programs, differentiated instruction, school day extension, and credit recovery (Picciano & Seaman, 2010). The field of education is moving from an “industrial-age paradigm . . . to a learner-centered, information-age paradigm” (Reigeluth, Carr-Chellman, Beabout, & Watson, 2009, p. 131). The roles teachers and students play in the process of instruction have changed by placing them within a gradually less hierarchical structure. Along the same lines, students and teachers have become co-creators of knowledge. The artifacts of this teacher-mediated/facilitated learning process ground the acquisition of knowledge and the development of skills in the realities students actually face, thus rendering learning relevant to their individual lives. Computer technology applications to classroom practice have led to the production of increasingly complex digital media artifacts that are part of a larger range inclusive of legislative, architectural, recreational, and personal products (Garner, 2013). Given the fast-paced world of computer technology and its increasing effect on schooling, we have witnessed a variety of attempts to reform teaching and learning. These initiatives have impacted all aspects of education, ranging from curriculum to assessment to pedagogy. Whether the impetus is internal or 372

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

external to schools and education professionals, the ensuing discourse has prompted all stakeholders to take a closer look at how schooling as a system is set up and how efficient it is. Part of these conversations focus on the delivery of instruction, spurred by recent innovations in computer technologies with direct applications to classroom settings. A 2017 National Education Association Research Brief indicates that over the course of 13 years, from 1999 to 2012, the number of computers in buildings with educational purposes grew by 71% (Lara, Pelika, & Coons, 2017). Moreover, for one year alone (2015), there was a 6.4% increase in instructional technology expenditures compared to the previous year (Brown & Green, 2017). One reason why computer technology in education continues gaining support and funding from various stakeholders is enhanced student participation and performance, which could lead to a narrowing of the equity achievement gap, in part, by increasingly effective teaching and productivity in the classroom (Lara, Pelika, & Coons, 2017). The sense of urgency in aligning education with effective uses of technology is underscored by a policy brief issued in 2011 by the Alliance for Excellent Education (All4Ed). According to it, there are three factors that should be taken into account in setting policies at various decision-making levels that would govern the implementation of digital learning. The apparent gap between educational attainment of American students and demands of the global labor market is compounded by the emerging inability to fund educational initiatives, coupled with an expected teacher shortage from 2015 onward (All4Ed, 2011). The same organization outlines technology as a driver for change in America’s classrooms by enhancing learning and the roles teachers play in a way that focuses on students, not devices, by seamlessly blending teaching and technology (Waldman, 2018). All these challenges require urgent measures from the federal level all the way to that of individual school districts and school buildings, aimed at meeting requirements of continued attempts to reform education. Under these circumstances, digital learning is expected to play a pivotal role in terms of increasing teacher effectiveness, providing all students with equitable access to education, documenting the progress made by each student as a way to narrow the achievement gap, as well as enabling students to make informed choices about colleges and/or careers.

DEFINING ONLINE EDUCATION There have been several words and phrases used to delineate the semantic realm of online education proposed by a variety of stakeholders, such as researchers, practitioners, as well as organizations, both federal/national and non-profit. Each definition relies on several characteristics of the field that attempt to be in synchronicity with the latest developments in computer technology, as identified by several researchers (Carnevale, 2001; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; Saba, 2005). The range of identifiers includes distance education, distance learning, e-learning, Web-based education/instruction, digital learning, virtual learning, and online education. Some of these defining terms are considered synonymous or interchangeable (Watson et al., 2013). Using technology to enhance student learning is considered digital learning, inclusive of a “wide spectrum of tools and practice,” based on a document released by All4Ed as part of its Digital Learning Series (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012, p. 1). According to a document called Digital Learning Now!, online instruction focuses on computer technology mediating student learning by providing “some element of control over time, place, path and/or pace” (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2011, p. 5). While underlying the teaching and learning process with its reliance on the Internet, online instruction is an evolution of earlier iterations of distance learning 373

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

(Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). Under these circumstances, online learning represents the convergence of technology, content delivered digitally, and specific pedagogical tools and strategies. Depending on the extent to which computer technology is used to support instruction, the terms used also include blended or hybrid learning (Watson, 2008; Wicks, 2010). A more comprehensive definition of online education is used by the National Education Association (n.d.-a, n.d.-b) by making reference to the curriculum, the location differential between students and teachers, the a/synchronous nature of communication, the increased teacher presence accommodated by the virtual environment (as opposed to the physical learning setting of traditional classrooms), and a learning platform or course management system that allows for monitoring of teacher as well as student performance.

THE LANDSCAPE OF ONLINE EDUCATION Today’s students are more accustomed to computer technology than any previous generation in the history of humankind. Playing, communicating, learning, and socializing using various software applications have in common greater levels of interactivity. Consequently, school curricula have changed recently to accommodate, to varying degrees, student demands for relevant, engaging content featuring dynamic exchanges of information that require resources that are not merely text-based (Bailey, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2012). The potential for increased interactivity and enhanced affordable learning opportunities for all students supports the designation of online learning as “disruptive innovation” (Horn, 2010, p. 19). The national picture of computer and Internet use in the United States reveals that, while the rate by which Americans can use such technology and its associated applications in daily life has grown substantially, there is a continuous digital gap for disadvantaged populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013, 2018). Nationwide, in 2016, 89% of the U.S. population had a computer in their respective households, representing an increase from a little more than two thirds in 2011, close to 61% in 2004, and less than 10% in 1984. In tandem, household Internet use grew from 18% in 1997 to over 71% in 2011 and then to 81% five years later. Related to the digital gap mentioned earlier, while gaining more access to the Internet in 2016 compared to 2011, most of non-Hispanic Caucasian and Asian households reported having access to the Internet (83.9% and 90.3%, respectively, representing an increase of around 7.7% for both groups in relation to 2011 numbers), compared to lower rates for Hispanic homes (77.3%, featuring an increase of more than 20% over 2011 levels) and African American homes (72.6%, representing a gain of close to 16% compared to 2011). In terms of distribution of census data by age, household members aged 35 to 44 continue to lead in Internet access (89.2% in 2016, an increase of a little more than seven percentage points over 2011 levels), compared to close to 70% in 2016 for households where people over 65 live. At the same time, highly educated individuals consistently report using the Internet at higher rates than any other group categorized by level of education achieved. Concurrently, high income earners reported having access to the Internet in much greater numbers than people making less than $25,000 a year—96.5% compared to 58.8% in 2016, representing an increase of around 10 percentage points for both groups over 2011 data. Given the expanded use of computer technology applications in all aspects of daily life, the field of education is gradually demonstrating a greater awareness of the impact such technologies have on teaching and learning. To that effect, data from a 2012 poll conducted by Project Tomorrow (2013) shows an increase of 7% in school administrators’ responses to a question emphasizing the importance of technology use to student success (moving up from 43% in 2008 to 50% in 2012). By the same token, 374

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

parents demonstrate an upward evolution in terms of their perception of the same issue, increasing their rating of technology use in the classroom as “extremely important” from 49% in 2008 to 56% four years later. At the same time, there is variation within the range of actual use of computer technology applications to classroom instruction. As an illustration, 2009 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012) show that while 97% of teachers had access to a computer in their respective classroom, only 72% of them (64% of teachers at the high school level) used computers in their teaching. Focusing on particular applications students had an opportunity to engage in, only 13% of teachers said they had used technology to design and develop products, 17% of them gave computer access to students to engage in demonstrations and simulations, while 42% of teachers provided students with the necessary technology to put together multimedia presentations. Digital school district surveys administered in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 academic years identify a core of top-ranking priorities of interest to public school administrators, teachers, parents, and students, as follows: (a) personalized learning, (b) digital content and curriculum, (c) professional development/ skills training, (d) mobility, and (e) upgrading classroom technologies/networking infrastructure (Center for Digital Education, 2018b). The more recent of the two surveys indicates that 96% of participating school districts provide software or digital curriculum to classrooms as a way to promote personalized learning strategies. Close behind at 94%, districts also provide computing devices to meet the personalized learning requirements. Regarding the second aforementioned priority, respondents answered the question “what percentage of your district’s classrooms regularly use digital content” as 76%–100% in the following frequencies: 36% of Grades pre-K–3, 54% of Grades 4–5, 57% of Grades 6–8, and 53% of Grades 9–12 (Center for Digital Education, 2018b, p. 11). This shows that digital content is becoming widespread in classrooms, although less so in the early elementary years. In tandem with the various ways in which online education is defined, its practical applications demonstrate a spectrum ranging from home study (or what is traditionally known as distance or correspondence education) to instruction mediated by computer technology either partially or entirely (Rice, 2006). One example of the latter category is represented by virtual high schools. By May 2009, there were 28 states that had state-wide virtual high schools, 25 of which had local school districts monitoring diploma-granting processes (Bush, 2009). Of particular interest is the set of purposes such virtual secondary programs serve. To that effect, 24 state programs focused on core curricula, while seven other programs dealt with supplemental or enrichment instruction. There were an additional 24 programs that offered advanced placement (AP) opportunities to students in their respective states. By the 2014–2015 academic year, there were 33 states with full-time virtual schools and 16 states with blended schools. During the same time period, there were 220 virtual charter schools and 234 virtual district schools operating full-time. In terms of curricular foci, the core and supplemental/enrichment functions were maintained (Gulosino & Miron, 2017). For example, credit recovery continues to be a strategy used to reduce drop-out rates in public schools. To that end, during the 2014–2015 academic year, 89% of high schools in the United States offered at least one credit recovery course, while about 15% of high school students took at least one such class (Noble, Pelika, & Coons, 2017). Computer-based instructional technologies have become more prevalent in K–12 settings in recent years (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007). Consequently, learning has been rendered more fluid and mobile, influenced by the omnipresence of computer technology applications (Barreto & Orey, 2013). As an illustration, according to a 2017–2018 survey (Center for Digital Education, 2018b), K–12 school districts reported including the following in training and professional development: use of video (98% of responding school districts), digital curriculum and other resources (96%), employing technology to 375

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

support personalized learning (90%), offering fully Web-based or hybrid courses (77%), and providing teacher/administrative data dashboards (73%). As “distance learning is becoming mainstream across the country” (Patton, 2005, para. 4), teaching and learning in virtual environments has reached an important evolutionary phase. An analysis of recent literature on ways in which students engage in technology-mediated learning shows the centrality of virtual resources (such as museum Web sites), tutoring, labs, and participation in Web-based asynchronous discussions (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; National Association of Independent Schools [NAIS], 2010). Table 1 outlines the dimensions of online education along several important characteristics, as identified by Wicks (2010). The percentages associated with the various forms of instruction delivery included in the table below are referenced by Archambault and Crippen (2009), as well as by Allen and Seaman (2010). It should be noted that face-to-face instruction, equivalent to 0% of online components, is not listed. The learning experience typology is proposed by Means et al. (2010, p. 5). Table 1. Dimensions of online education; adapted from Varounek (2006) and Wicks (2010) Range of programs Focus of programs

Individual/select courses Core curriculum

Entire program

Supplemental/enrichment curriculum

Credit recovery/Remedial curriculum

Geographic magnitude levels of program offerings

Single district

Multiple districts

State-wide

Multiple states

National

World-wide

Provider type

District

Magnet

Contract

Charter

Private

Home environment

Location

School

Synchronicity Governance

Home

Other

Asynchronous Local board

Consortium

Synchronous Regional authority

University

State

Vendor

Instruction delivery

Fully online (over 80percent)

Blended/hybrid (30 to 79percent)

Web-facilitated (1 to 29percent)

Instruction level

Elementary school

Middle school

High school

Learning experience

Expository

Active

Interactive

Level of teacher-student interaction

Low

Average

High

Level of student-student interaction

Low

Average

High

Level of student-learning platform interaction

Low

Average

High

Recent policy briefs identify features of online learning intended to form a framework supportive of various funding options. In this light, being increasingly accessible to a wide range of users, virtual environments provide engaging learning opportunities to a greater number of students who vary in terms of their academic and demographic backgrounds. The social dimension of online instruction, when structured and supported appropriately, should lead to personalized learning that is rigorous academically and transformative in terms of the outcomes, while mediated by highly skilled instructors (Watson & Gemin, 2008).

376

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Recent trends in K–12 education relate directly to e-learning. As more multimedia platforms support learning, there is an associated reduction in text-based instructional resources being used in the classroom, thus leading to enhanced engagement and interactivity. The latter attributes of online learning are ensured by the integration of virtual classroom components, such as online resources, synchronous chat sessions, wikis, blogs, podcasts, and videos (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007). Bailey, Patrick, Schneider, and Vander Ark (2015) comment on one benefit students receive from more online course or program offerings: having flexibility in demonstrating their competency. This can be achieved either by accessing individualized/personalized curricula delivered entirely online or in a blended/hybrid manner. Though the latter has been slow to develop in the world of K–12 education, is it likely to “emerge as the predominant model of the future” (Watson, 2008, p. 3) by increasing equitable student access to learning opportunities while leading to effective (re)configurations/combinations of the best features of face-to-face and online instruction. In terms of approaches to blended/hybrid learning, Staker and Horn (2012) propose four models, as follows: 1. Rotation model relies on a fixed schedule or a teacher’s availability, with several options: a. Station-rotation that alternates among teacher-directed instruction, group work stations, and online instruction segments, for all students in a given class. b. Lab-rotation enhances teacher-directed instruction by allowing student to extend learning in a computer lab. c. Flipped-classroom includes teacher-facilitated practice sessions in the traditional classroom setting, while the actual instruction takes place online after school. d. Individual-rotation emphasizes customization of instructional sequences, in no specific order, one of which is Web-based. 2. Flex model implies online delivery of curricula and instruction, based on which students follow a customizable sequence of pedagogical strategies, such as supplemental instruction, collaborative work, and enrichment activities. 3. Self-blend model includes online courses, ranging from a single course to several courses, that students enroll in as a way of supplementing their traditional, classroom-based curriculum. In this case, students receive instruction from the same teachers, both online and on campus. 4. Enriched-virtual model derives from the entirely online/virtual schools by providing students with opportunities for “on site/campus” learning within each class. As the infrastructure is increasingly able to accommodate the growing number of online courses and programs, schools have reached a point where we are witnessing a shift to ensuring indicators of effectiveness assurance (McKnight, 2004). In other words, we are moving from quantity to quality (Liu & Johnson, 2004) that should align with student-centered online pedagogy. Curricula are analyzed in terms of how they provide students with solid knowledge bases and associated skills, as well as with cross-disciplinary 21st century skills (Johnson, 2009). E-learning represents a flexible platform allowing students access to rich learning opportunities (Hayden, McNamara, & Kane, 2009) designed to support the co-construction of knowledge while expressing “their online identities” (Kazmer, 2004, p. 6). The effective processes of designing, implementing, and evaluating online education rely on a variety of factors that contribute to the development of meaningful interactions in the virtual world. Three factors are quite prominent when it comes to the effective implementation of online education: interaction with 377

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

content, with instructors, and with peers (Swan, 2002; Wanstreet, 2006). Keeping them in balance leads to the creation of a sustainable and engaging learning community in the virtual environment. At the same time, K–12 institutions should be cognizant of the needs of online teachers. There is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates that supporting these instructional practitioners in the online environment includes professional development, training, as well as technical and administrative assistance (McKnight, 2004). Consequently, online instructional design should blend effective pedagogical practices with a thorough understanding of the specifics of virtual learning environments and how students interact best within them. Given the recent rise in the profile of online education, there are several research and/or policy groups that have pointed out the need to investigate the effectiveness of teaching and learning in virtual environments. As higher education institutions have also witnessed increasing interest in courses and programs delivered online, either entirely or in a hybrid manner, there have been several research studies dealing with the effectiveness of e-learning. Considering the increasing relevance of virtual and augmented reality as well as simulation as digital disruptions, colleges and universities would benefit from keeping pace with the evolution of the workforce for talent development purposes (Center for Digital Education, 2018a). Such enhanced focus on curriculum and pedagogy would have to rely on evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness assisted by technology. By contrast, there are only a few rigorous studies focused on K–12 online education; therefore, findings should be considered trends rather than comprehensive models for future practice (Barbour, 2010; Cavanaugh, Gillan, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004; Journell, 2012; Means et al., 2010; Patrick & Powell, 2009; Rice, 2006). This body of research investigates student characteristics and achievement, as well as ways in which to determine student achievement in virtual learning settings (Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Given the fact that online programs seem to vary to a great extent in terms of quality (Morgan, 2015), there is a direct implication of this paucity of research data on the ability of the states to issue policies intended to provide guidance to the processes of implementing digital learning in K–12 classrooms (Watson & Gemin, 2009b). Nonetheless, there are a few studies that point out some of the problems faced by online K–12 learners, such as content comprehension, especially if there is discontinuity in students’ attendance; technical issues (Barbour, Siko, Sumara, & Simuel-Everage, 2012); and communication, particularly when collaborating with peers in the virtual environment. These issues can all lead to developing a negative attitude toward e-learning (Edwards & Rule, 2013). Additionally, off-task behavior increases under asynchronous learning circumstances, where there may be little sense of community (Barbour, McLaren, & Zhang, 2012). On the positive side, middle school students expressed interest in having access to technologically-rich, creativity-centered learning experiences preparing them for life outside of school (Lee & Spires, 2009). The existing research, coupled with new lines of scholarly inquiries should inform the recommendations included in this chapter, as they are intended to inform initiatives aimed at developing policy and standards guiding effective K–12 online education. A comparative analysis of the use of technology in K–12 educational settings in 2015 reveals consistency in terms of trends focused on the need for greater access to and use of mobile devices, along with the increasing use of digital content and curriculum both in traditional, face-to-face and Web-based classes/programs, coupled with the exponential growth of online instruction (Brown & Green, 2017). Equally important, in spite of recent pressures on K–12 school budgets around the country, it is expected that costs associated with instructional technology will grow around 8% a year through 2018, to an estimated total of $19 billion (Nagal, 2014).

378

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

BENEFITS OF ONLINE EDUCATION Online education in the United States is in the process of refining ways to use Web-based platforms, configure instruction, and support learner success. While virtual schooling has grown at an impressive pace recently, coupled with investment in infrastructure, more evidence is needed to identify effective practices that could be scaled up, with a particular emphasis on maximizing student achievement and preparation for college and career in the 21st century. Some of the reasons behind the impetus promoting online education have been mentioned by a variety of stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners, as well as policy/decision makers and advisors. As an illustration, Bailey et al. (2015), as well as Barbour (2010, 2013) underline the greater access to equitable, high quality, more cost-efficient learning opportunities that are designed to meet individual learning preferences, given particular contextual factors (e.g., geographic location). By providing several curricular choices, students benefit from engaging in relevant learning connected to the knowledge bases and skill sets required in today’s workplaces. New developments in terms of learning platforms or management systems include updates and teacher-friendly features that enhance the assessment processes used to determine student progress both formatively and summatively, thus reinforcing competence-based instruction. The same team of researchers connects their findings to the profile of the next generation learner, as outlined in a recent report released by EDUCAUSE (2018). The parameters of this next generation learner profile are personalization, flexibility, interactivity, relevance, self-pacing, self-assessment, and collaboration, with emphasis placed on intellectual challenge, stimulation, and engagement (Calkins & Vogt, 2013; Edwards, 2013). A later analysis outlines the architectures needed to develop and sustain next generation digital learning environments, based on “a confederation of IT [information technology] systems,” standards that ensure fluid exchanges of data/information, personalization (as opposed to centrality), and a cloud-like space for users (Brown, Dehoney, & Millichap, 2015, p. 3). These circumstances emphasize the importance of data from the U.S. Department of Education and the National Training and Simulation Association (as cited in Federal Communications Commission, 2012), according to which students need 30% to 80% less time to master a learning objective under technology-based circumstances. Several recent research studies reveal that student performance in blended/hybrid or entirely virtual courses is, on average, comparable to or better than that in traditional, face-to-face classes (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Means et al., 2010). When technology implementation is properly managed, there are financial benefits, as well as improved student learning (Federal Communications Commission, 2012). The more interactive the online exchanges of information, the more engaged students are with the content of their courses, supported by increased levels of motivation (Barbour & Reeves, 2009), and also echoed by parents’ perception of the same topic (Sorensen, 2012). The heightened degree of involvement with course content also translates into more time on task spent by students in virtual learning environments compared to face-to-face equivalents. Online instruction relies on greater reflection and learner control of the ways in which they interact with the content, peers, and instructors (Patrick & Powell, 2009). In-depth analyses of factors leading to effective online instruction highlight enhanced learner autonomy and responsibility (Cavanaugh et al., 2004). While e-learning could be more time consuming than face-to-face instruction, when structured and monitored effectively, it could lead to increased awareness of self-efficacy and self-concept, thus impacting positively the internal locus of control (Rotter, 1989, as cited in Cavanaugh et al., 2004). For online instruction to be effective, the professional skills needed rely on congruence among pedagogy, technology, and content (Russell, 2004 & Savery, 2005, as cited in DiPietro et al., 2008). That complex skill set implies a fundamental shift in the roles 379

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

undertaken by teachers in traditional, face-to-face classroom environments. In addition to being able to balance one’s knowledge of the academic discipline(s) with that of the full range of characteristics of the student population, effective online teachers have to be well versed in various computer technology applications, as well as how their use impacts class dynamics and the content area pedagogy (Ferdig, 2006). Consequently, effective online teachers have become designers, facilitators (Barbour, 2013), mediators of virtual exchanges of information, technical trouble-shooters, motivators, and participatory researchers documenting practices that could contribute to the further development of the field. A holistic representation of the pedagogical skills online teachers use to maximize student learning focuses on the integration of instructional planning, the full range of assessment strategies, frequent opportunities for communication and collaboration, and student-centered instructional strategies that rely on relevant and engaging resources (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012).

CHALLENGES OF ONLINE EDUCATION Accessibility and the ability to reach a greater variety of students in different locations, some of which could not be integrated into a formal educational process before, represent salient reasons for the recent promotion of online education (Nord, 2011) supportive of a pliable learning environment (Greener, 2010). At the same time, there is still a need for quantitative and qualitative studies focused on the effectiveness of K–12 online education (DiPietro et al., 2008; Rice, 2006), as most past research studies dealt with adult learners in college and university settings. Previous work conducted in K–12 virtual environments emphasized student characteristics and performance (Archambault & Crippen, 2009), time spent teaching online, content management, and student-derived issues related to motivation, interaction, and evaluation (Archambault, 2010). Other research has focused on lack of familiarity with instructional technology, which directly impacts the rate at which distance education can evolve (Patton, 2005), as well as the need to develop a pedagogy that accommodates the particular features defining distance education that brings together technology, content, and instructional strategies (DiPietro et al., 2008). Researchers lament that there are no standards guiding the formal preparation of online teachers, either as a program for pre-service teachers or professional development series for in-service teachers. At the same time, increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of online education in the 21st century by various federal and professional organizations at the national level. For instance, the National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010) urges practitioners and decision makers in the field of education to create “engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experiences for all learners that mirror students’ daily lives and the reality of their futures” (p. x) by taking into account the constant access to multimedia content via a wide range of technologies students have. One of the recommendations put forth by the Federal Communications Commission (2010) in its National Broadband Plan prompts K–12 accrediting agencies and teacher certification organizations to “allow students to take more courses for credit online and to permit more online instruction across state lines” (p. 226), which would address a critical issue facing American education in the 21st century—the fact that students are not well prepared to compete in a global economy (All4Ed, 2011). A second iteration of the National Broadband Plan (Fox & Jones, 2016) notes the shift in learning models from use of traditional textbooks to personalized learning that is multimodal and not bound by time and space. Consequently, policy makers and school leaders are prompted to take into account the following as a way to advance personalized learning in the 21st century: (a) enhance infrastructure by way of meeting capacity targets to 380

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

promote student-centered instruction and (b) increase equity of access for all students using instructional tools and strategies outside of school by leveraging state resources (Fox & Jones, 2016). Keeping in mind the rapid growth of online education in the United States, some of the obstacles faced by both decision makers/administrators and practitioners have to do with the high initial cost of virtual schools, equitable access for all students who want to pursue the online or hybrid format, as well as accreditation and accountability requirements (Barbour, 2010). Additionally, there are issues pertaining to student characteristics that may help or hinder achievement in the online environment, such as a sense of isolation, inequitable interaction opportunities stemming from different levels of social skills, differences in readiness and motivational profiles for virtual learning (Cavanaugh et al., 2004), and study habits and organizational skills (Picciano & Seaman, 2010). The range of challenges also features a focus on teachers when it comes to their knowledge and experience with online instruction, classroom management in virtual environments, administrative and technical support systems (Archambault & Crippen, 2009), and professional development/training needs (Picciano & Seaman, 2009). The analysis of how these issues could impact the future of e-learning has to be coupled with input from teachers related to their awareness of what the areas of improvement are in the generic field of educational technology. In this light, a recent project involving over 100,000 teachers from more than 8,000 schools and 2,400 school districts across the country, conducted by a national education non-profit organization, reveals that the primary technology issue identified by teachers is the fact that students do not have adequate access to computers. Moreover, this challenge increased in terms of impact on teachers from 31% of respondents in 2008 to 55% of them identifying it four years later. A similar increase of 24% is found in relation to the participating teachers’ need for professional development on how to effectively use computer technology applications in the classroom. One additional finding with important implications for district policymaking is flexibility and autonomy/support in the selection of types of technology teachers can make. To that effect, 28% of teachers identified this item as an obstacle based on the 2012 survey, which was an increase from 19% in 2008 (Project Tomorrow, 2013). One other challenge faced while attempting to expand the distribution of online learning relates to higher student attrition compared to face-to-face classes (Archambault and Kennedy, 2017; Freidhoff, 2015). Notably, effectiveness in online learning environments may be impacted by individual student factors, including each student’s locus of control, ability to manage time and tasks, and awareness of personal learning preferences (Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009; Lowes & Lin, 2015). Palloff and Pratt (2007) indicate that the heavy reliance on text-based instructional materials, coupled with other communication-focused dynamics could contribute to an increased sense of isolation and lack of motivation that online learners tend to experience. Other issues relate to Web-based teaching and learning emphasize funding, quality assurance, and students’ ability to navigate the virtual environment effectively while attempting to master both content area(s) and digital skills needed to be successful as an online learner (Archambault & Kennedy, 2017). Finally, though not in an exhaustive manner, a deeper understanding of student learning and psychological specifics that favor Web-based instruction, coupled with increased levels of research and development in education (Chatterji, 2017) could identify how to operationalize the design of next generation digital learning environments. Moving American schools forward into the 21st century implies meeting increasing accountability requirements and dealing with diminished financial resources, while providing students with relevant learning opportunities designed to prepare them for college and career in an ever-changing world. Welleducated high school and college graduates need well-prepared teachers, regardlesss of the instruction delivery format. When it comes to online teachers, providing them with appropriate professional develop381

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

ment will ensure their improved ability to deal with the noted issues of time management, both in terms of instructional planning and actual content delivery; participation in curriculum development intended to promote student learning; and awareness of the interplay among student characteristics, technology, and pedagogy in virtual spaces (Archambault, 2010). As online education is intended to support the continued efforts to improve schools in the United States, the guiding principles for the evaluation of effectiveness include excellence, efficiency, equity, and choice (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007), all of which have their respective place in the planning, implementation, and assessment of e-learning.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS In spite of the recent substantial growth of online education, the field of study and practice is still in its “nascent stages and significant growth is yet to come” (Picciano & Seaman, 2009, p. 22). Future developments should take into account the variety of factors impacting e-learning, ranging from societal changes, technological advances, and educational policies intended to promote further economic development. Recent research has shown that well-designed virtual learning is on par with high-quality face-to-face instruction (Cavanaugh et al., 2004). Consequently, a clear focus on systematic planning for online learning, coupled with research-based implementation and evaluation would be required to ensure a sustainable and effective evolution into the 21st century. The International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL) proposes an outline of principles supporting the design of quality virtual instruction (Watson & Gemin, 2009a), as follows: • • • •

• •

Stemming from the premise that e-learning has the potential to provide students with high-quality curricula and pedagogy, stakeholders should be informed of its characteristics and expectations for improved learning (Cavanaugh et al., 2004); All students should have equitable access to a wide range of online learning opportunities, ranging from single courses to entire programs, in entirely virtual or hybrid formats, dealing with remedial, regular, or supplemental content; Funding formulae, as one of the most important policy issues, should be based on well-informed expectations for sustainable growth of online education in a manner that keeps up with demand; Accountability (inclusive of teacher licensure) and accreditation requirements should be clearly communicated by using well-defined institutional structures and processes, while engaging all stakeholders in a dynamic, responsive decision-making process focused on oversight, continuous improvement, and compliance with existing quality assurance standards; Online teachers should be engaged and supported as expert practitioners in professional learning communities that investigate pedagogical principles as they apply to a variety of types of e-learning, leading to the development of a research-informed body of literature of effective practice; and Professional development opportunities for online teachers should extend their lines of inquiry into the effectiveness of their instructional practice, while empowering them to become instructional leaders in their schools or school districts based on their e-learning expertise (Watson & Gemin, 2009a).

Under these circumstances, this chapter reiterates a framework (Figure 1) intended to structure a planning process that starts with the outline of the educational system at a macro level represented by 382

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

societal needs, national policies, standards, and sets of expectations set against global marketplace requirements for the 21st century. An intermediate level focuses on local and/or regional factors that influence the particular ways in which macro-level policies, mandates, as well as recommendations/guidelines apply. A micro level zooms in on the intricate nature of an educational setting supported by a dynamic technology plan that promotes online education. By outlining the various factors defining macro- and intermediate-level contexts supporting particular school cultures, strategic plans are of utmost importance as they identify the parameters needed for various schools to implement online learning environments effectively. While these considerations represent the foundation for such technology plans, their core is centered on how the following components of K–12 online education work in tandem. Based on this three-pronged foundation, online curricula come to life by means of teaching, learning, and assessment, all of which rely on a range of professional guidelines and standards when it comes to academic content. As far as the specifics of online pedagogy are concerned, particular emphasis is placed on the ways in which previous professional references provide examples of effective practice bringing together cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence in virtual learning environments. Figure 1. Investigating challenges, opportunities, and trends in quality K–12 online environments

383

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

1. Academic programs or curricula delivered to students via virtual environments, with a particular focus on the interplay among knowledge bases, skill sets, and dispositions, all of which are intended to provide online students with opportunities to develop and apply 21st century skills. This component entails several items, as follows: a. Clear goals and outcomes that encompass the balanced academic, social, and emotional development of students, to which appropriate staffing levels could be determined (Bailey, Schneider, & Vander Ark, 2013). These goals and outcomes anchor subsequent analyses and decisions made about curricula, instructional design, range of educational technology applications, assessment strategies and tools, program evaluation, as well as reporting structures and procedures (Watson & Gemin, 2009a). Additionally, the implementation of academic programs in virtual learning environments needs to ensure online equity to all students, based on which they can perform at expected levels of engagement (Rose & Blomeyer, 2007). b. High-quality curricula and associated pedagogy fully accommodating of the characteristics of virtual instruction as well as the range of online learner needs (NAIS, 2010). Curricula should align with appropriate standards, be strongly correlated with positive student learning outcomes (Bailey et al., 2015), and involve teachers in frequent collaborative analyses of content. At the same time, curricula should present students with appropriate learning opportunities designed to promote the development of knowledge bases, skill sets, and positive dispositions within as well as across academic disciplines, leading to full participation in society as a viable and productive member (Cavanaugh et al., 2004). In today’s world, digital skills and the navigation skills required to access digital content and curriculum change the roles students, parents, and teachers have as they attempt to prepare for rapid and frequent workforce changes. Students, as digital natives, necessitate mentorship from parents and teachers so they can reach peak performance. Identifying barriers and capitalizing on facilitating factors (both practices and derived policy) could contribute to the sustainability of a flexible model for education in a digital world (Grand-Clement, Devaux, Belanger, & Manville, 2017). Differentiated pedagogy relevant to e-learning configurations featured by today’s schools should be grounded in research-based literature focused on the spectrum of student needs and interests, as well as the specific ways in which education technology can meet those needs and develop those interests (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007). Concurrently, student participation and engagement mediated by teachers and curricula in a safe learner-centered setting (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004) should result in increased student retention and readiness for college and/or career. This particular aspect of virtual instruction is essential to any initiatives attempting to balance learner characteristics, appropriate support systems, and affective learning, as a way to increase interaction, socialization patterns, structures/networks (Patrick & Powell, 2009; Watson & Gemin, 2008), while avoiding the sense of isolation reported by some students in online settings (Rice, 2006), echoed by parents’ perspectives on the same issue (Sorensen, 2012). Also related to ensuring effective e-learning, institutional strategic planning and decision making should look into hiring practices to bring in the best qualified teachers, supporting instructors to collaborate, while holding them accountable for effective curriculum implementation and positive student learning outcomes, as well as empowering and rewarding them as they drive the continuous improvement process (Public Impact, 2013). To this effect, a Gallup poll involving 1,025 adults across the United States conducted in October 2013 shows that online education appears to be considered the “same or better” than traditional, face-to-face 384

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

instruction in terms of providing a wide range of individualized/personalized curricular options that are worth the financial investment because students can experience success in the virtual format of their courses or programs (Lederman, 2013). 2. Student support services, directly correlated with academic programs, are vital in the process of implementing curricula effectively along the same lines mentioned earlier: knowledge bases, skill sets, and dispositions. Depending on the scope, reach, and focus of a given e-learning course or program, student support should address an entire spectrum of issues, such as enrollment and orientation, technical requirements, curriculum specifics (ranging from the written to the assessed curricula), tutoring services availability, as well as counselling and mentoring (Watson & Gemin, 2009a). Further analysis of the inclusive/accessible academic, social, and personal support systems (Calkins & Vogt, 2013) made available to online learners must connect to the continuum of needs and interests students demonstrate as they acquire knowledge and develop skills, along with associated positive dispositions. In other words, there has to be a match between the availability of resources both at the school and school district level and the full range of services required by students. Equally important in the strategic planning process is the focus on at-risk learners in virtual environments. Recent research has shown that a multi-faceted approach works well under these circumstances, necessitating the formation of a cadre of trained practitioners (teachers, counselors, tutors, etc.), individualizing interventions to accommodate student needs, and identifying instructional strategies proven to promote student success (Archambault et al., 2010). Further investigation is needed to determine the degree to which virtual instruction addresses the specific needs of special education students (Vasquez & Straub, 2012). 3. Administration of online education relates to infrastructure, the design, implementation, and evaluation of curricula delivered via asynchronous and synchronous applications of technology, as well as on various processes, procedures, and performance expectations both for online teachers and students, all of which should inform the construction of a focused professional development program aimed at continuous improvement. Aligning the school technology plan with that of the school district and/or the state leads to a smoother process by which to market the online instructional sequence (be it single courses or entire programs, hybrid or all-online), recruit teachers and support personnel staff, seek funding, select learning platforms/management systems, and establish quality control procedures and indicators for content, teaching, technology, and routine organizational operations (Bailey et al., 2013). Policies guiding virtual instruction should be constantly revisited by connecting them to national, state, and local levels of decision making that consider available e-learning offerings and levels of demand (Southern Regional Education Board, 2006). Concurrently, effective online schooling requires coordination and leadership (Cavanaugh et al., 2004) that take into account the full range of the decision-making process, from understanding the profile of next generation learners, planning for instruction, involving stakeholders, and identifying all necessary resources to ensure high-quality instruction (Edwards, 2013). Given the fast-paced world of technology, virtual school oversight should engage in productive negotiations about infrastructure sustainability and the necessary, scalable digital conversions (Project Tomorrow, 2013). Equally important is support for teaching staff in the form of professional development programs. Recent research shows that such support is rated as very important when it comes to dealing with the significant differences between teaching in traditional, face-to-face classrooms and virtual learning settings (Watson & Gemin, 2009a). In addition to the focal points on effective ways to communicate online, there is heightened interest in learning more about adapting/adopting new technologies designed to individualize in385

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

struction (Project Tomorrow, 2013), classroom and time management skills, Internet privacy and safety, developing curricula for virtual delivery, netiquette, special needs students (NAIS, 2010), psychology of online learners, tools used to design virtual curricula, assessment of online learning and behavior, as well as instructional design principles used for e-learning (Dawley, Rice, & Hinck, 2010). Given the preference for fully online facilitated professional development, where gaining a sense of ownership and autonomy are important attributes of a community of practice (Hur & Hara, 2007), national and regional organizations propose guidelines that recommend a formal contextspecific plan by which to set up structures and strategies designed to transition online teachers from their pre-service stage to assuming leadership roles in their respective schools and districts (Davis & Rose, 2007). The organizing categories used by the Southern Regional Education Board (2009a) focus on academic preparation, content knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to the use of instructional technology, and online teaching and learning methods. Though there is insufficient state policy recommendations as well as research on the impact of mentoring for online teachers on their instructional performance and the learning outcomes of their students, there are several examples of mentoring programs in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee that encourage reflective practice and collaborative professional development within a learning community developed on shared expertise and interest areas (Wortmann et al., 2008). Recommendations for decision makers and practitioners in the field of online education revolve around the emerging challenges, opportunities and trends that support quality delivery of instruction in virtual learning environments, as supported by the aforementioned framework. There is a growing body of evidence related to the national online education landscape that includes state-level policies guiding program offerings, funding options, enrollment benchmarks, public–private partnerships, and teacher accountability requirements. A report issued by the Center for Digital Education (2009) identifies the top 25 states in the United States based on their legislation governing e-learning, as follows (in ranking order): Florida, South Carolina, New Mexico, Hawaii, Michigan, Louisiana, Idaho, Minnesota, Oregon, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Iowa, West Virginia, Virginia, New Hampshire, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Utah, Alabama, and Illinois. Florida is also a national leader in terms of the number of online students served—over 124,000 in the 2008–2009 school year. Twentyfour states had online programs developed by legislation or a state-level agency, therefore being labelled “state-led.” Nine of these states used the same funding formula in place for traditional schools. Colorado and New Hampshire had state-wide online programs available to students throughout their respective state either via school districts of charter schools. Twenty-nine states had full-time and charter virtual schools funded in a variety of ways, one of which is the same formula used for traditional charter schools (Center for Digital Education, 2009). A more recent report identifies the increasing availability of digital content, human capacity, network infrastructure, data management and privacy, and innovative funding strategies as indicative of digital leadership. Under these circumstances, several states are noted as having moved further along in their efforts to support digital learning, as follows: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Utah (Acree & Fox, 2015). The following examples of virtual learning models present some of the different ways in which states deal with challenges facing the further development of online schools, such as funding, accountability and accreditation requirements, virtual pedagogy, infrastructure sustainability, and quality assurance structures and procedures (Southern Regional Education Board, 2018; State Educational Technology Directors Association, 2008): 386

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

•

•

• • •

• •

Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators, and Students Statewide (http://accessdl.state. al.us): A statewide, school-based program available free of charge to students in Grades 9–12. The curriculum includes AP, dual credit, electives, remedial, enrichment, and core classes delivered via a Web-based system or interactive video-conferencing, along with some face-to-face components. Arizona Connections Academy (https://www.connectionsacademy.com/arizona-online-school): A full-time virtual charter school for any K–12 students across the state who are provided the necessary curricular materials (hard copies as well as Web-based), a computer, a printer, and a subsidy for Internet service. Georgia Virtual School (http://gavirtualschool.org): A program that has been “supplementing public, private, and home school course offerings since 2005,” in addition to a tuition-based summer school program. Idaho Digital Learning Academy (https://www.idahodigitallearning.org): A virtual school for traditional, home schooled, at-risk, and gifted students in Grades 7–12 across the state. Florida Virtual School (https://flvs.net): The first statewide Web-based public high school in the country, it has developed into a virtual school that offers middle and high school students across the state as well as outside Florida. Students who take AP courses offered by this online school consistently outperform their peers at traditional schools (Southern Regional Education Board, 2009b; see also Davis, 2012). Louisiana Course Choice (https://lacourses.net): In partnership with public colleges and universities, this program provides individualized curricula tailored to the needs of secondary school students. VirtualSC (https://virtualsc.org): A licensed and rebranded use of the Florida Virtual School platform that offers distance/online/virtual learning opportunities both as high school credit and recovery/remedial content for students in South Carolina.

Additional examples of virtual schools include Florida’s Broward Virtual School (https://www.bved. net), which offers free virtual courses as full- or part-time enrollment (Fuller, 2017), and Odyssey Charter Schools (http://odysseyk12.org), a tuition-free public hybrid school open to K–12 students in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas), featuring a blend of on-site and virtual learning opportunities, similar to Chicago Virtual Charter School for Grades K–9 (https://www.cvcschool.org; see also Watson, 2008). Policy makers and practitioners in the field of e-learning could also base their analyses on findings generated by a study involving 16 teachers from Michigan Virtual School (https://michiganvirtual.org), one of the largest non-profit, state-supported online schools in the country. The findings underline evidence-based practices based on coding along three categories: general characteristics, classroom management strategies, and pedagogical strategies. Effective participating Michigan Virtual School teachers demonstrated the following general characteristics: supportive of student learning; knowledgeable and experienced in terms of basic uses of technology, while interested in investigating the potential of emerging technologies; aware of the time demands of teaching online; aware of students’ learning preferences; able to establish a teaching presence in the virtual environment, designed to motivate student learning; able to demonstrate organizational skills; well-versed in using assessment data to evaluate the quality of curricula, teaching, and student learning; highly knowledgeable in terms of the content area(s) they represent; able to monitor and modify the instructional pace of a class based on evidence of student engagement and learning; and committed to the mission virtual schools serve. As classroom 387

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

managers, these virtual teachers seemed to use a variety of strategies to deal with student misbehavior by being aware of a wide range of triggers, including personal crises. Finally, the online instructors participating in the study demonstrated their ability to use different appropriate assessment strategies to develop a highly interactive, well-structured, safe learning environment accommodating of students’ interests, needs, and motivation levels. As learning is social, the virtual setting has to be organized in a student-centered manner that engages students in meaningful interactions supporting a community of learners in a technology-rich environment (DiPietro et al., 2008). The findings mentioned earlier align with the standards for quality online teaching put forth by iNACOL. These standards focus on the knowledge bases and skill sets needed in virtual learning environments, coupled with a deep understanding of content areas one teaches, in a flexible manner that engages students in a setting that uses a variety of appropriate interactive technologies. Through constant, clear communication and frequent feedback, online teachers create a classroom space that takes into account student characteristics designed to facilitate learning. Each virtual instructor is also a member of a larger community, be it their respective school or a community of practice, where they observe standards that guide the profession (iNACOL, 2011). A more recent report on the state of online and face-to-face education from 2008 to 2015 reveals the need to define what that type of instruction should mean, inclusive of goals and outcomes, identify barriers to effective implementation, and provide professional development in a school climate/culture that capitalizes on continuous improvement (Powell et al., 2015). Moreover, such recommendations correlate with standards for quality online programs promulgated by the same organization. In this case, the emphasis is on institutional mission, purpose and commitment, governance and leadership structures, planning processes, staffing, financial plans, and quality assurance in terms of equity and access, as well as integrity and accountability. Additional standards emphasize instructional processes related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, while others deal with support services for stakeholders (staff, students, and parents), as well as evaluation plans leading to continuous improvement for the entire institution (Pape, Wicks, & iNACOL Quality Standards for Online Programs Committee, 2009).

FUTURE RESEARCH Given the substantial increase in the demand for and offerings of online education in the United States over the past decade, several models of instruction emerged, some of which evolved over time, while others continued to establish themselves as originally conceived, leading to greater state-level legislative support. One fundamental issue facing virtual schooling is that of equitable access to learning opportunities for all students, leading to growth and development, which, in turn, equates with preparedness for college and career. Scaling up successful models of e-learning needs to be supported by adequate infrastructure, high-quality technologies, and efficacious curricula, teaching, and assessment practices (perceived as “disruptive innovation” by Horn, 2010, p. 19). Current economic circumstances bring to the fore the additional issues of the attainment gap, diminishing funding sources, and an expected shortage of highly qualified teachers, all of which should be taken into account by stakeholders involved in decision making. As noted earlier, data-driven policy setting would benefit from evidence-based practices that could be adapted or adopted across the country. Consequently, future research agendas should be developed along these lines:

388

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

•

• •

• • •

• •

The intersection among content knowledge, technology, pedagogy (Archambault & Crippen, 2009), and assessment in virtual learning environments, as they differ in significant ways from traditional, face-to-face classrooms. A subsequent focal point could be devoted to different instructional models and what makes each of them effective (Picciano & Seaman, 2009), as well as the transfer of teaching skills pertaining to the same four components mentioned above from one setting to the other. Competencies to teach online effectively require preparation both by way of college curriculum (Williams & Casale, 2015) and continued professional development aimed at providing context-specific ways to differentiate instruction, especially when it comes to working with students representing a full range of abilities and interests (Smith, Basham, Rice, & Carter, 2016). The goals, outcomes, and expectations of online education (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007), leading to more frequent updates to the general public and policy-setting structures, which would result in a better understanding of various facets of support for virtual schooling. The correlation between curriculum and instruction, on the one hand, and student learning outcomes, on the other hand, with particular emphases on increasing equitable access for all students irrespective of their needs (Bailey et al., 2015) and increased interactivity and engagement (Cavanaugh & Blomeyer, 2007), leading to improved learning (Barbour, 2010), as well as higher retention and graduation rates. The specifics of online assessment practices that promote self-concept, self-efficacy, and self-assessment. Online pedagogies that lead to the transfer of knowledge and skills across disciplines in highly interactive virtual learning environments. The needs of online teachers as they transition into their professional role and as they acquire specific knowledge and experience in virtual settings. Concurrently, support is needed to ensure that online educators prompt students to take increasing ownership of their work by interactivity, virtual “presence,” and engagement (Center for Digital Education, 2018c), while relying on research-based knowledge of the psychology of online learners. The various ways in which current professional standards of practice in online schools accommodate the interplay among academic programs, student support services, and administration. The impact of emerging technologies (such as cloud-based computing; Stein, Ware, Laboy, & Schaffer, 2013) on virtual schooling, with a particular emphasis on sustaining the associated highquality curricula and pedagogy.

In this chapter we outlined background information related to K–12 online education by presenting various definitions, benefits, and challenges. The evolution of virtual learning has led to the current complex landscape that reveals a multitude of trends and models of e-learning. The existing body of research on the effectiveness of K–12 online instruction indicates the continued need for further study. However, there is emerging evidence pertaining to the fact that virtual learning promotes greater access to equitable, high quality, cost-efficient learning opportunities to students that may not otherwise benefit from a wider range of traditional education options. Under these circumstances, proper planning and policy-making should take into account the drawbacks referenced by several research reports and policy briefs, such as the initial cost of setting up a high-quality virtual environment and the requirements of scaling up to meet the needs of a wide range of students. As various models of e-learning have been proposed, the need for some structure and guiding standards has emerged. Efforts were pursued to 389

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

investigate the degree to which the effectiveness of traditional, face-to-face instruction could translate into equally effective online delivery systems. Therefore, the proposed theoretical framework identifies academic programs/curricula, student support services, and virtual program/school administration as categories that connect the relevant literature review to recommendations for future research intended to inform policymaking efforts aimed at supporting the further development of high-quality K–12 online environments. It should also be noted that creating and monitoring/supporting stronger technologyenhanced correlations between K–12 education and higher education would streamline the paths students have as they pursue their chosen career. In this light, allowing high school students to experience high-touch instructional technologies (Web-based or face-to-face) could be informed by the most recent survey of the types of educational resources identified by EDUCAUSE (2018) as notable development in the field, as follows: (a) mixed reality (31.4% of respondents), (b) makerspaces (28.6%), (c) adaptive learning technology (16.2%), (d) analytics technologies (15.2%), (e) artificial intelligence (4.8%), and (f) robotics (3.8%). In conclusion, this chapter dealt with indicators of curriculum quality and its associated pedagogy, support systems for teachers, students, and parents, as well as the multi-faceted administration of hybrid/ blended courses, programs, and schools.

REFERENCES Acree, L., & Fox, C. (2015). State digital learning exemplars: Highlights from states leading change through policies and funding. Raleigh, NC: Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010, January). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from Babson Survey Research Group website: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/ reports/learning-on-demand.pdf Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011, July). Digital learning and technology: Federal policy recommendations to seize the opportunity—and promising practices that inspire them. Retrieved from https:// all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/DigitalLearning.pdf Ambient Insights. (2014, March). The 2013–2018 North American digital English language learning market. Monroe, WA: Author. Archambault, L. (2010). Identifying and addressing teaching challenges in K–12 online environments. Distance Learning, 7(2), 13–17. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). K–12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the U.S. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363–391. doi:10.1080/15391523.20 09.10782535 Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Brown, R., Cavanaugh, C., Coffey, M, Foures-Aalbu, D., . . . ZygourisCoe, V. (2010, April). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning. Archambault, L., & Kennedy, K. (2017). Making the choice to go online: Exploring virtual schooling as an option for K–12 students. In R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp. 384–402). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119082361.ch27 390

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Bailey, J., Patrick, S., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2015, August). Online learning: Myths, reality & promise. Retrieved from Digital Learning Now website: http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/07/Online-Learning-Myths-FINAL.pdf Bailey, J., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2012). Funding the shift to digital learning: Three strategies for funding sustainable high-access environments. Retrieved from EDUCAUSE Library website: https:// library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2012/8/csd6186-pdf.pdf Bailey, J., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2013). Navigating the digital shift: Implementation strategies for blended and online learning. Retrieved from Digital Learning Now website: http://digitallearningnow. com/site/uploads/2014/05/DLN-ebook-PDF.pdf Barbour, M. K. (2010). Researching K–12 online learning: What do we know and what should we examine? Distance Learning, 7, 6–12. Barbour, M. K. (2013). The landscape of K–12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed.; pp. 574–593). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch36 Barbour, M. K. (2017). K–12 online learning and school choice: Growth and expansion in the absence of evidence. In R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp. 421–440). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119082361.ch29 Barbour, M. K., McLaren, A., & Zhang, L. (2012). It’s not that tough: Students speak about their online learning experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13, 226–241. Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52(2), 402–416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009 Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Sumara, J., & Simuel-Everage, K. (2012). Narratives from the online frontier: A K–12 student’s experience in an online learning environment. Qualitative Report, 17(10), 1–19. Barreto, D., & Orey, M. (2013). Trends and issues in learning, design, and technology. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 3–5). Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4430-5_1 Besnoy, K. D. (2017, May 3). Online learning for K–12 students is not a trend or a fad. So how does it affect gifted students? Retrieved from Thomas B. Fordham Institute website: https://edexcellence.net/articles/online-learning-for-k%E2%80%9312-students-is-not-a-trend-or-a-fad-so-how-does-it-affect-gifted Borup, J., & Kennedy, K. (2017). The case for K–12 online learning. In R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of school choice (pp. 403–420). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119082361.ch28 Brown, A., & Green, T. (2017). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Increased use of mobile technologies and digital content to provide untethered access to training and learning opportunities. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 15–26)., Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45001-8_2

391

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). The next generation digital learning environment: A report on research. Retrieved from EDUCAUSE Library website: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/ files/library/2015/4/eli3035-pdf.pdf Bush, M. (2009, May). ECS state notes: Virtual high schools. Retrieved from Education Commission of the States website: https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/78/50/7850.pdf Calkins, A., & Vogt, K. (2013, April). Next generation learning: The pathway to possibility. Retrieved from EDUCAUSE Library website: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2013/4/ngw1301pdf.pdf Carnevale, D. (2001). It’s education online. It’s someplace you aren’t. What’s it called? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(18), A33. Cavanaugh, C. S., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K–12 online learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–22. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.607 Cavanaugh, C. S., & Blomeyer, R. L. (Eds.). (2007). What works in K–12 online learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Cavanaugh, C. S., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004, October). The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Center for Digital Education. (2009). Online learning policy survey: A survey of the states. Retrieved from http://media.convergemag.com/documents/CDE09_REPORT_OnlineLearning_Short_V.pdf Center for Digital Education. (2018a). Future-ready learning: Outfitting students for workforce readiness. Retrieved from http://www.govtech.com/education/papers/Future-Ready-Learning-Outfitting-Studentsfor-Workforce-Readiness-103209.html Center for Digital Education. (2018b). K–12 school district priorities: This year, it’s all about personalized learning. Retrieved from http://www.govtech.com/education/papers/2018-K-12-School-DistrictPriorities-Is-Yours-on-the-List-103201.html Center for Digital Education. (2018c, July 2). Rethinking teaching: How K–12 and higher education leaders can facilitate collaborative learning with technology. Retrieved from http://www.govtech. com/education/k-12/Rethinking-Teaching-How-K-12-and-Higher-Education-Leaders-Can-FacilitateCollaborative-Learning-with-Technology.html Chatterji, A. (2017, June). Innovation and American K–12 education (Working Paper No. 23531). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23531 Conrad, R.-M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, M. (2012, August 29). New laws, programs expand K–12 online-learning options. Education Week, 32(2), S3–S5.

392

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007, November). Professional development for virtual schooling and online learning. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/02/NACOL_Professional-development-for-virtual-schooling.pdf Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010, November). Going virtual! 2010: The status of professional development and unique needs of K–12 online teachers. Retrieved from Boise State University Educational Technology website: http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual3.pdf DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K–12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 10–35. EDUCAUSE. (2018). Vanguard projects: Expanding teaching and learning horizons. Louisville, CO: Author. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/7/vanguard-projects-expanding-teachingand-learning-horizons Edwards, C., & Rule, A. (2013). Attitudes of middle school students: Learning online compared to face to face. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32, 49–66. Edwards, D. (2013, June). RETHINK: Planning and designing for K–12 next generation learning. Retrieved from Next Generation Learning Challenges website: https://www.nextgenlearning.org/resources/ rethink-planning-and-designing-for-k-12-next-generation-learning Federal Communications Commission. (2010, March 17). Connecting America: The national broadband plan. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/general/national-broadband-plan Federal Communications Commission. (2012, February 1). Digital textbook playbook. Retrieved from https://transition.fcc.gov/files/Digital_Textbook_Playbook.pdf Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00559.x Foundation for Excellence in Education. (2011). Digital learning now! Tallahassee, FL: Author. Fox, C., & Jones, R. (2016, September). The Broadband Imperative II: Equitable access for learning. Retrieved from State Educational Technology Directors Association website: https://www.setda.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SETDA-Broadband-ImperativeII-Full-Document-Sept-8-2016.pdf Freidhoff, J. R. (2015). Michigan’s K–12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2013–14. Retrieved from Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute website: http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/er_2014.pdf Fuller, A. (2017). Broward Virtual School: Preparing students for success. Distance Learning, 14(2), 35–40. Garner, G. (2013). Trends and issues: The consumption and sustainability of digital media in the modern global economy. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 45–54). Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4430-5_4

393

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Gemin, B., Pape, L., Vashaw, L., & Watson, J. (2015). Keeping pace with K–12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice (12th ed.). Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grand-Clement, S., Devaux, A., Belanger, J., & Manville, C. (2017). Digital learning: Education and skills in the digital age. Retrieved from RAND Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/pubs/ conf_proceedings/CF369.html Greener, S. L. (2010). Plasticity: The online learning environment’s potential to support varied learning styles and approaches. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 254–262. doi:10.1108/10650741011073798 Gulosino, C., & Miron, G. (2017). Growth and performance of fully online and blended K–12 public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(124), 1–38. doi:10.14507/epaa.25.2859 Hagins, K. Z. (2017). EMTY Introduction. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 3–14). Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45001-8_1 Hayden, K. L., McNamara, K., & Kane, D. (2009). Assessing effective strategies and design in online learning. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron, & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2660–2667). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Horn, M. B. (2010). K–12 online education is increasingly hybrid learning. Distance Learning, 7(2), 18–20. Hur, J. W., & Hara, N. (2007). Factors cultivating sustainable online communities for K–12 teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 245–268. doi:10.2190/37H87GU7-5704-K470 International Association for K–12 Online Learning. (2011, October). National standards for quality online teaching: Version 2. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/nationalstandards-for-quality-online-teaching-v2.pdf Johnson, P. (2009). The 21st century skills movement. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 11. Journell, W. (2012). Walk, don’t run—to online learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(7), 46–50. doi:10.1177/003172171209300711 Kazmer, M. (2004, January). Online identity: Implications for course design. Online Classroom, 2004(1), 6–7. Lara, J., Pelika, S., & Coons, A. (2017). Status of online learning programs in K–12: Implications for teachers (NBI Publication No. 135-2017). Retrieved from National Education Association website: https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Online%20Learning%20Programs%20Research%20Brief%20NBI%20 135%202017.pdf Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605. doi:10.3102/00346543076004567

394

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Lederman, D. (2013, October 15). Americans’ view of online courses. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/15/american-adults-see-online-courses-least-equivalentmost-ways Lee, J., & Spires, H. (2009). What students think about technology and academic engagement in school: Implications for middle grades teaching and learning. AACE Journal, 17, 61–81. Liu, L., & Johnson, L. (2004). Static and dynamic design in online course development. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2946–2951). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Lowes, S., & Lin, P. (2015). Learning to learn online: Using locus of control to help students become successful online learners. Journal of Online Learning Research, 1, 17–48. McKnight, R. (2004). Virtual necessities: Assessing online course design. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 5–10. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010, September). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf Morgan, H. (2015). Online instruction and virtual schools for middle and high school students: Twentyfirst-century fads or progressive teaching methods for today’s pupils? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(2), 72–76. doi:10.1080/00098655.2015.1007909 Nagal, D. (2014, June 11). Spending on instructional tech to reach $19 billion within 5 years. THE Journal. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/06/11/spending-on-instructional-tech-toreach-19-billion-within-5-years.aspx National Association of Independent Schools. (2010, April). K–12 online learning: A literature review. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/articles/documents/k-12-online2010finalv1.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics: 2016. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/ National Education Association. (n.d.a). Guide to online high school courses. Retrieved from http:// www.nea.org/assets/docs/onlinecourses.pdf National Education Association. (n.d.b). Guide to teaching online courses. Retrieved from http://www. nea.org/assets/docs/onlineteachguide.pdf Noble, K., Pelika, S., & Coons, A. (2017). Online credit recovery programs (NBI Publication No. 2-2017). Retrieved from National Education Association website: https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Online%20 Credit%20Recovery%20Programs.%20Research%20Brief.%20NBI%202%202017.pdf Nord, D. (2011). Online learning programs: Evaluation’s challenging future. New Directions for Evaluation, 2011(131), 129–134. doi:10.1002/ev.390

395

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pape, L., Wicks, M., & iNACOL Quality Standards for Online Programs Committee. (2009, October). National standards for quality online programs. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/02/national-standards-for-quality-online-programs.pdf Patrick, S., & Powell, A. (2009, June). A summary of research on the effectiveness of K–12 online learning. Retrieved from International Association for K–12 Online Learning website: https://www.inacol. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL_summary-of-research-on-the-effectiveness-of.pdf Patton, C. (2005, May 1). Faster, cheaper, better. District Administration. Retrieved from https://www. districtadministration.com/article/faster-cheaper-better Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009, January). K–12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. Retrieved from Babson Survey Research Group website: https:// www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/k-12-online-learning-2008.pdf Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2010, August). Class connections: High school reform and the role of online learning. Retrieved from Babson Survey Research Group website: https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/class-connections.pdf Powell, A., Watson, J., Staley, P., Patrick, S., Horn, M., Fetzer, L., . . . Verma, S. (2015, July). Blending learning: The evolution of online and face-to-face education from 2008–2015. Retrieved from International Association for K–12 Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/iNACOL_Blended-Learning-The-Evolution-of-Online-And-Face-to-Face-Education-from-2008-2015.pdf Project Tomorrow. (2013, April). From chalkboards to tablets: The digital conversion of the K–12 classroom. Retrieved from https://tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12EducatorsandParents.pdf Public Impact. (2013). A better blend: A vision for boosting student outcomes with digital learning. Retrieved from http://opportunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A_Better_Blend_A_Vision_for_Boosting_Student_Outcomes_with_Digital_Learning-Public_Impact.pdf Reigeluth, C. M., Carr-Chellman, A. A., Beabout, B., & Watson, W. (2009). Creating shared visions of the future for K–12 education: A systemic transformation process for a learner-centered paradigm. In L. Moller, J. B. Huett, & D. M. Harvey (Eds.), Learning and instructional technologies for the 21st century (pp. 131–150). Academic Press. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_8 Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782468 Rose, R. M., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2007, November). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL_AccessEquity_2007.pdf Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance Education, 26(2), 255–272. doi:10.1080/01587910500168892

396

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Schwartzbeck, T. D., & Wolf, M. A. (2012, June). The digital learning imperative: How technology and teaching meet today’s education challenges. Retrieved from Alliance for Excellent Education website: https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DigitalLearningImperative.pdf Smith, S. J., Basham, J., Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A. Jr. (2016). Preparing special educators for the K–12 online learning environment: A survey of teacher educators. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 170–178. doi:10.1177/0162643416660834 Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013, December). Digest of education statistics 2012 (NCES Publication No. 2014-015). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014015.pdf Sorensen, C. (2012). Learning online at the K–12 level: A parent/guardian perspective. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39, 297–307. Southern Regional Education Board. (2006, August). Standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/06t02_standards_online_teaching.pdf Southern Regional Education Board. (2009a, March). Guidelines for professional development of online teachers. Atlanta, GA: Author. Southern Regional Education Board. (2009b, November). Overcoming doubts about online learning. Atlanta, GA: Author. Southern Regional Education Board. (2018). Online teaching & learning: State virtual schools. Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/online-teaching-learning Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012, May). Classifying K–12 blended learning. Retrieved from Christensen Institute website: https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12blended-learning.pdf State Educational Technology Directors Association. (2008, November). Learning virtually: Expanding opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.setda.org/master/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/LearningVirtually_-Expanding-Opportunities.pdf Stein, S., Ware, J., Laboy, J., & Schaffer, H. E. (2013). Improving K–12 pedagogy via a Cloud designed for education. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 235–241. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.009 Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49. doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016 U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, May). Computer and Internet use in the United States: Population characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, August). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

397

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Vasquez, E. III, & Straub, C. (2012). Online instruction for K–12 special education: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 31–40. doi:10.1177/016264341202700303 Waldman, C. (2018, March 6). 3 important takeaways from Digital Learning Day 2018. Retrieved from Alliance for Excellent Education website: https://all4ed.org/3-important-takeaways-from-digitallearning-day-2018/ Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online environments: A review of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 399–411. Watson, J. (2008, April). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/02/NACOL_PP-BlendedLearning-lr.pdf Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2008, September). Socialization in online programs. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ NACOL_PP_Socialization.pdf Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2009a, April). Management and operations of online programs. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNACOL_promising-practices-in-online-learning-management-and-operations.pdf Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2009b, July). Funding and policy frameworks for online learning. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/funding-and-policy-frameworks-for-online-learning.pdf Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K–12 online and blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice (10th ed.). Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group. Wicks, M. (2010, October). A national primer on K–12 online learning: Version 2. Retrieved from International Association for K–12 Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iNCL_NationalPrimerv22010-web1.pdf Williams, N. V., & Casale, M. J. (2015). The preparation of teacher candidates for K–12 online learning environments: A case study. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(2), 142–151. Wortmann, K., Cavanaugh, C., Kennedy, K., Beldarrain, Y., Letourneau, T., & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2008, October). Online teacher support programs: Mentoring and coaching models. Retrieved from North American Council for Online Learning website: https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ NACOL_OnlineTeacherSupportPrograms_2008.pdf

ADDITIONAL READING Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competencybased teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. doi:10.1080/01587910903236536

398

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2015). Privatizing educational choice: Consequences for parents, schools, and public policy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315632575 Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9, 407–414. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: What works for pre-service teachers? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357–376. doi:10.2190/EC.40.3.f Garrett Dickers, A. (2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching: Implications for virtual school teacher practice and professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139–156. doi:10.1080/02773813.2015.1038439 Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203838761 Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K–12 teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279–303. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782532 Jahnke, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the impact of online discussion forum participation on learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 27–34. doi:10.5204/jld.v3i2.48 Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K–12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200. doi:10.1177/0022487111433651 Kim, P., Kim, F. H., & Karimi, A. (2012). Public online charter school students: Choices, perceptions, and traits. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 521–545. doi:10.3102/0002831212443078 Klein, J. D., Spector, M., Grabowki, B. L., & de la Teja, I. (2000). Instructor competencies: Standards for face-to-face, online and blended settings. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Molnar, A., Huerta, L., Shafer, S. R., Barbour, M. K., Miron, G., & Gulosino, C. (2015). Virtual schools in the U.S. 2015: Politics, performance, policy, and research evidence. Retrieved from National Education Policy Center website: https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/rb-virt-2015-all.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2012, May). The condition of education (NCES Publication No. 2012-045). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2013). Preparing teachers, building capacity: A response to K–12 online initiatives. In R. McBride, & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2013: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 886–894). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

399

 Continuity and Developments of Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends in Quality K-12 Online Environments

Norton, P., & Smith, R. D. (2007). Preparing virtual teachers: Who is on the other end? In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 456–463). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Pazhouh, R., Lake, R., & Miller, L. (2015, October). The policy framework for online charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for Reinventing Public Education. Rauh, W. J. (2011). The utility of online choice options: Do purely online schools increase the value to students? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(34), 1–18. doi:10.14507/epaa.v19n34.2011 Smith, J. J., & Dobson, E. (2011). Beyond the book: Using Web 2.0 tools to develop 21st century literacies. Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 28(4), 316–327. doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.620939 Smith, R. D. (2009). Virtual voices: Online teachers’ perceptions of online teaching standards. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17, 547–571. Vanourek, G. (2006). A primer on virtual charter schools: Mapping the electronic frontier. Chicago, IL: National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447–488. doi:10.3102/00028312041002447

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 21st Century Skills: Application of knowledge related to core academic subjects, life and career, learning and innovation, as well as information, media, and technology. Asynchronous: Occurring at various times. Blended/Hybrid Instruction: A combination of face-to-face, synchronous and virtual, web-based, synchronous, or asynchronous teaching. Curriculum: Course of study. Instructional Technology: Design, development, use, management, and evaluation of the process of learning mediated by technology applications. Online Education: Teaching and learning mediated by computer-based technology that features differences in how learners can have control over time, place, medium or pace of instruction. Synchronous: Occurring at the same time.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Emerging Practices and Methods for K-12 Online and Blended Learning; pages 1-32, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

400

401

Chapter 21

Andragogy and Online Discussions:

The Design and Facilitation of Effective Online Discussion for Adult Learners Earl William Brieger Gannon University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter considers the functions of online discussion and concludes that discussion alone does not guarantee deep and lasting learning. Discussion should be rooted in a sound andragogical design practice to promote meaningful learning. Online discussion requires effective instructional design to enable adult learners to be engaged and to achieve learning outcome. The chapter explores discussion board design linked with adult learning traits and preferences as well as practical strategies to assist instructors and moderators as they facilitate instruction.

INTRODUCTION Online discussion is commonly used as a means to promote student understanding of a topic and to facilitate social engagement among students or between students and instructor. Group discussion activities have long served as a standard learning strategy for online instruction. Research indicates the discussion activity to be a valuable approach to promote student and faculty engagement (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Sher, 2009; Lai & Savage, 2013; Selhorst, Bao, Williams, & Klein, 2017). Many researchers support the idea that discussion in online learning enhances student learning and facilitates social engagement (An, Shin, & Lim, 2009; Hew & Cheung, 2013; Hrastinski, 2008). Synchronous discussions are convenient for students, particularly adult learners with professional and family commitments. Online discussion has the potential to enhance student collaboration (Hew & Cheung, 2013) and help students meet learning outcomes (Palmer, Holt, & Bray, 2008). The asynchronous online discussion environment offers students a flexible option to participate in online learning regardless of DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch021

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

geographical location (Hew & Cheung, 2013). Most relevant to the online adult student, online discussion offers the potential for collaborative knowledge-building process learning where each student becomes reflective, thinks critically, and understands concepts better than if she or he were studying alone (Hew & Cheung, 2013). Contrasted with informal online synchronous “chat” sessions, an asynchronous discussion board provides a written transcript of the conversation by which the discussion potentially becomes an additional text in the course (Hlinak, 2014). However, the effects of online group discussion on student learning have rarely been investigated. Very little empirical research has been done through experimental design (Oh & Kim, 2016). The literature regarding asynchronous online discussion also indicates common pitfalls, including learners’ limited participation in online discussions (Hew, Cheung, & Ng, 2010; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006) and lack of depth in thinking and reflection (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). While online discussion activities can serve as a strategy for reinforcing cognitive material and promoting a deeper understanding of course content, discussion boards have the potential to lack rich and dynamic dialogue and instead “serve as a field of obligatory discourse, hasty postings, and repetitive content” (Mooney, Southard, & Burton, 2014). Factors such as group dynamics (Mabrito, 2006), content (McLoughlin & Mynard, 2009), and instructor skill (Bliss & Lawrence, 2009) have the potential to positively or negatively influence student attitudes and overall success in discussion board activities. While some debate exists about the overall effectiveness of discussion boards as pedagogical tools (Pao-Nan, 2012), threaded discussions have been a ubiquitous strategy for asynchronous online student social interaction (Mandernach, Gonzales, & Garrett, 2006; Pao-Nan, 2012). The use of online discussion alone does not guarantee deep and lasting learning (Darabi & Jin, 2013). Significant learning online requires effective and appropriate design for students to be cognitively engaged and reach the learning outcomes. Rotgans and Schmidt (2011) describe cognitive engagement as the extent to which students are willing and able to take on the learning task at hand. Adult learners’ cognitive engagement is important for success in online learning (Oh & Kim, 2016). Lai and Savage (2013) found that the greatest level of student engagement took place when faculty used the learning management tool as a means to share their interests. In their best form, discussions provide a venue for teaching in an online setting that can be engaging, educational, and inclusive of all students (Selhorst et al., 2017). In this chapter I explore the history of online discussion as part of the evolution of online learning. I also explore what has been found in the literature regarding the types of student interaction; adult learner motivation; the potential role of online discussion in adult learning; the Community of Inquiry framework; specific andragogical approaches for quality online discussions online media-based discussions; rationale for utilizing critical reflection; adult learner autonomy; and best practices for online discussion facilitation. A critical approach to the current theories and relevant examples of sound pedagogical practices are included.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND The Evolution of Online Discussion Many instructional theories place an emphasis on the learning itself (Kiely, Sandman, & Truluck, 2004). No single learning theory or instructional model provides the complete blueprint for designing the most effective instruction for adult learners or establishing informative learning context and learner 402

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

understanding (Arghode, Brieger, & McLean, 2017; Merriam, 2001). However, it is important to take learning theory into consideration when designing online discussion activity for adults. In search of the effects of distance education on learning outcomes, Michael Moore (1973) developed Transactional Distance Theory. This theory does not describe the physical distance between the instructor and student as much as it describes the psychological and communication distance, which roots the theory more in social science (Saba, 2005). In Moore’s (1973) theory, the dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy domains moderate the extent of transactional distance. Moore (1973) defined transactional distance as the psychological and communicative space between the instructor and the learner. Moore’s (1973) Transactional Distance Theory was the first pedagogical theory to result from analysis of the learning process happening at a distance. Moore (2013) explained that, as learning structure increases, dialogue decreases and the capacity for individualization (autonomy) decreases, which results in increased transactional distance (Figure 1). According to Moore (2013), the introduction of Transactional Distance Theory proved distance education was distinctly different from face-to-face instruction and had its own pedagogical characteristics. While Moore’s theory is invaluable in the field of distance education and online learning, the dialogue dimension within Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory is particularly relevant to this chapter and any discussion regarding online discussion activities. I will frame the bulk of this chapter and the relevant case studies at the conclusion within the ideology of creating practical, useful dialogue for adult learners. Figure 1. Relation of course structure and instructor-student dialog in transactional distance. Adapted from Saba, F. (2013). Building the future: A theoretical perspective. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed.), New York, NY: Routledge.

403

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Types of Online Student Interaction The first wave of early online instruction to evolve after the emergence of the World Wide Web often utilized static Web pages coupled with the use of e-mail for asynchronous communication or chat sessions to facilitate synchronous dialogue. A common philosophical approach was to replicate the classroom by converting traditional face-to-face instruction to online delivery and to establish the same type of instructor-centered experience. Unfortunately, these early forms of online instruction lacked real pedagogical design and substantial evidence of the main pillars of instruction. Fortunately, current design practices and learning technologies have filled the pedagogical void and deserve consideration. Instructional designers and subject matter experts need to consider the various dimensions of the online learning context and student interaction that will impact the design of discussion activities (Dennen, 2013). The types of online student interaction that can potentially take place include learner-teacher, learner-learner, and learner-content (Moore, 1989). In light of this, instructional designers and subject matter experts should consider the desired course learning outcomes, types of intended student interaction and related outcomes, and how the temporal dimension of asynchronous vs. synchronous instruction will work together (Dennen, 2013). The approach of considering the instructional situation and type of student has strong merit and can increase the quality of design. Learner-content interaction provides an autonomous aspect of learning for the student (Moore, 1989). This aspect of introducing more control works well for design intended for adults. However, designing to support student-student interaction is also important. A popular approach for adult students, especially for those enrolled in graduate programs, is asynchronous instruction. As opposed to meeting synchronously at scheduled times, utilizing this temporal format offers flexibility for students who manage both a career and family life. Asynchronous courses of this type tend to be designed in weekly modules (Dennen, 2013). As compared to other formats, weeklong discussion activities across multiple threads of discussion offer the potential for deep, meaningful posts, but some messages may not garner a peer response (Dennen, 2013). In the adult learner setting, it is valuable to create well-designed asynchronous discussion activities coupled with appropriate facilitation strategies to increase full dialogue of responses discussed later in this chapter. There can be great value in taking the time to consider how the type of student taking the course relates to the type of student interaction. Online programs may have adult learner enrollments that include full-time students switching careers or an employer cohort created through an institutional relationship or agreement. These types of learning situations create opportunity and potential for more instructorcentered synchronous communication in the forms of short lecture, orientation, virtual office hours, tutoring, or student presentations. A cohort of adult learners with a common employer or professional organization may benefit from meeting in the same room where the instructor joins remotely though Web conferencing software. The opposite can be true of online graduate learning situations. Part-time online graduate students who balance work and family schedules will likely benefit more and meet the learning outcomes if student-instructor and student-student interaction is designed to be an asynchronous dialogue. An asynchronous approach to course design offers the type of flexibility preferred by the online graduate market.

404

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Motivation and Discussion Participation Historically, pedagogy has been the leading method of instruction where the instructor is the center of the instruction. Malcolm Knowles’s early work with adult learning developed the new conceptual framework of andragogy to describe adult learning preferences and teaching adults to learn. Knowles (1980) argued that andragogy should be considered learner-focused and pedagogy should be thought of as teacher-directed, and that these two concepts act as the basis for a continuum that both adults and children share. In andragogical situations, the instructional climate is ideally relaxed and trusting; the adult learners should be prepared by the instructor, with the mechanisms for learning planned by the learners themselves for increased autonomy (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015). Learning in adulthood is usually voluntary but can also be required for professional development, which can present challenges regarding motivation. Online instruction for adults should create an experience that will motivate them to participate by connecting with individual needs and utilitarian content to solve a real-world problem (Knowles et al., 2015). Some concern has developed in higher education about the overreliance of discussion boards, specifically evidence supporting the claim that discussion board activity alone does not guarantee deep and lasting learning (Darabi & Jin, 2013). Selhorst, Bao, Williams, and Klein (2017) hypothesized that decreasing the frequency of weekly online discussions for adult learners from twice per week to once per week would result in increased GPA, decreased withdraw rates, decreased fail rates, and increased progression. The authors compared online courses that required two postings per week to courses requiring only one post per week at an online institution of higher learning. In experimental courses, pedagogical design was revised with additional readings and increased emphasis on the remaining discussion activity in terms of length, rigor, and assessment. Findings revealed reducing weekly activity to one discussion resulted in no significant difference in average GPA across the groups and that students’ fail rate and progression also remained relatively unchanged. The authors did report a trending decrease in the withdraw rate across all courses upon the shift from two discussions to one, indicating a student preference for one larger discussion activity. In other words, the researchers felt the data suggested there is a limit to the amount of discussion that is preferred by the adult learner (Selhorst et al., 2017). While the concept of overreliance on discussion boards should be noted, the function of well-designed discussion boards in student learning far outweighs the concerns. Accordingly, instructors and program designers should take an andragogical approach also rooted in cognitivism and humanism and design for learner motivation. It is useful to promote adult learner intrinsic motivation by designing discussion activities around content appropriate for and relevant to both the weekly module and the larger instructional context. An example is a design that ties professional current events and weekly learning objectives to what is happening in the student’s local situation as a teacher, accountant, nurse, manager, therapist, human resources professional, or attorney. This approach has the potential to elicit the best academic performance from the adult learners.

The Community of Inquiry Model Hall (2016) explained that the benefit of online discussions compared to discussions in the classroom is that classroom conversations can be controlled by the dominant few, while online carries the potential for all students to have an equal voice. In an online setting, all students are afforded an opportunity take time to reflect before contributing to the dialogue. A common challenge for online learning is that the 405

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

online student can feel isolated (Gillett-Swan, 2017; O’ Shea et al., 2015; Kresse & Watland, 2016). This phenomenon creates a larger need for engagement from a psychological and communal standpoint for the adult learner. The domain of instructor presence to aid in adult student engagement can be viewed as a continuum in that engaging instructor presence strategies are not mutually exclusive in the online classroom. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) summarized three dimensions of instructor presence as part of their larger Community of Inquiry model for effective online course design: instructional management, building understanding, and direction instruction. Specifically, instructional management describes the cognitive structure of course content and organization. Indicators include designing appropriate methods of assessment that link to the course learning outcomes, establishing time parameters, and utilizing the instructional medium. Building adult learner understanding is something all online teachers should do through intervention and timely feedback. It is a process of creating an effective group consciousness to share meaning. Direct instruction can and should be provided through online media lectures, video, synchronous sessions, course resources, and textbook materials. Instructor presence can be established through frequent and predictable communication, consistent feedback on student performance, and by providing critical discourse (Garrison et al., 2000). Online courses can and should be designed with adult student engagement in mind. Lohr and Haley (2018) conducted qualitative research connecting the Community of Inquiry model with the utilization of biographical prompts for adult graduate education students to build community in the online setting. Participating students in an online education course were prompted to recall features of their childhood homes as part of a memory identification activity to understand how cognitive memory works. Findings from the study revealed the window prompt activity generated active reflective experience that promoted a sense of community through teaching, cognitive, and social presence (Lohr & Haley, 2018). The researchers explained the window prompt activity created additional student questions, observations, and general dialogue “rich with reflections” aligned with the teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence (Lohr & Haley, 2018, p. 14). This study exemplified the use of a community-based model to promote reflection on prior experiences in a group discussion setting to generate deep and engaging learning. Direct online instructor involvement early in the course also aided in building learner confidence in the online classroom, the absence of which can often be a barrier for adult students accustomed to instructor-centered learning experiences (Lohr & Haley, 2018). The Community of Inquiry framework has received considerable attention in higher education. At the time of this publication, the supporting research (Garrison et al., 2000) has garnered over 5,000 citations in twenty years since its publication. The attention is well- warranted. The Community of Inquiry framework fits well with andragogical learning and is worthy of utilization. The Community of Inquiry framework calls for instruction that prepares learners and is engaging, motivating, flexible for student autonomy, reflective, social, and relevant. The overlap of the three separate elements of social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in the framework is relevant to this discussion and has great value in creating online discussion activities for adults--both in the physical classroom and online. Specifically, online discussions for adults should link to weekly content and be constructed to promote purposeful critical discourse and reflection through social interaction. This approach has strong potential for the adult learners to create personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding across the group.

406

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Andragogical Approaches to Online Discussions Adult learners do not fully participate in online discussions for several reasons. Adult students are less likely to participate fully when they do not see the purpose of the discussion, do not understand what to contribute, do not receive responses to their postings, do not understand the discussion structure of the online forum, or do not understand the grading criteria (Hew et al., 2010). Therefore, an online discussion that clearly communicates its purpose, the expectations set for the students, and the activity’s alignment to the course learning outcomes can especially benefit adult learners. The implementation of an instructor’s vision is equally important and must be actively and attentively furthered for the duration of the course.

Appreciative Andragogy With relevance to online learning, Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett (2007) posited that critical reflection for adult learners coincides well with online learning as “critical reflection does not just involve adults thinking and reflecting during practice, but it refers to reflecting back on prior learning experiences under specific conditions” (p. 44). Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett’s (2007) qualitative multi-case study on critical reflection investigated two online courses that utilized Brookfield’s (1995) anonymous Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ) to focus students’ attention on significant experiences from their pasts. Results determined that critical reflection was an effective tool in facilitating meaningful learning online for adults. Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett (2007) mentioned that “when students are allowed to provide those reflections, they provide evidence of group development and a feeling of ownership in the class” (p. 51). A case study by Phelan (2012) confirmed Glowacki-Dudka and Barnett’s (2007) experience that Brookfield’s (1995) CIQ instrument can be an effective strategy for developing online instruction using andragogy. Referring to the CIQ tool, Phelan (2012) stressed, “an ongoing conversation between students and lecturer about course structure and functioning may facilitate students’ capacity to conceptualize and value learning as an interactive, social activity” (p. 42). The rationale for utilizing critical reflection in discussion board activities is valuable and appropriate. Adult students bring a host of previous experiences that can serve as fodder for meaningful reflectionbased activities. Consider the background of registered nurses enrolled in a palliative care course where many of the learning objectives are rooted in the affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1973) and include reflection activities related to beliefs, attitudes, and appreciation for working with patients living with a serious or terminal illness. In a similar manner, consider working school teachers enrolled in a graduate education course related to classroom discipline. These adult students will possess and reflect on a wide breadth of previous knowledge and experience in order to create connections with the course content and, as a result, new meanings.

Media-Based Discussion In theory, educators should not utilize technology tools for technology’s sake and risk diluting adult learning situations. However, current cloud-based solutions utilizing media have the potential to make it easy and effective for adult students to leave voice messages as part of discussion activities. Prior studies report the perceived usefulness of audio as a discussion channel, especially through its tendency to create liveliness in encouraging participation (Ching & Hsu, 2013; Hew & Cheung, 2013). The capability of adding audio to collaborative learning activities to solve authentic problems can enable adult learners 407

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

to form a community of inquiry. A variety of available Web 2.0 technologies with integrated mobile apps, including VoiceThread and Wimba Voice, makes it possible to post audio to discussion board activities. Research shows strong positive student perceptions of VoiceThread, a cloud-based platform that facilitates recorded voice communication that can be integrated with discussion activities, for the ability to add in-depth, information-rich audio files to asynchronous group activities while creating the potential for deeper relationships (Augustsson, 2010; Chan & Pallapu, 2012; Kidd, 2013; McCormack, 2010). While some students feel the structure of audio threads is more convenient for posting, general student feedback from research indicated audio threads carry the potential to communicate emotion and personality, and thus seem more effective than text-based discussions at conveying meaning accurately (Ching & Hsu, 2013). In fully online courses where there is no face-to-face interaction, audio threads feel more authentic, comments can be easier to interpret, and communication can be personal (Ching & Hsu, 2013). Instructional designers and subject matter experts should consider linking streaming media creation, using either short videos or audio files, to asynchronous group activities. Using the Community of Inquiry framework as a theoretical guide, Delmas (2017) explored the role of VoiceThread with adult learners. The adult students participating in the study indicated VoiceThread positively contributed to the creation of online community (Delmas, 2017). The adult learners reported feeling more united with their classmates due to the tool’s ability to add voice recordings to online activities, as well as create a closer connection to their instructor due to the audio’s tendency to “humanize, or make the instructor seem real” (Delmas, 2017). The use of video can also be utilized as a discussion channel. Sites such as Flipgrid can be used to allow students to quickly engage in recorded video comments (Green & Green, 2018). The research of Oh and Kim (2016) explored the use of scaffolded, audio-based argumentation activities and how adult learner discourse was characterized and perceived. The audio-based debate activities were designed based on the Scaffolded Online Dialogic Argumentation (SODA) framework created by the authors. This three-phase approach of SODA includes an initial argumentation generation followed by argumentative interaction and then interaction. Utilizing audio-based discussion, students posted media files of their arguments using the five types of scaffolds provided: conceptual, procedural, strategic, meta-cognitive, and social. To aid in reviewing and responding to peers’ questions, arguments, and counterarguments, the scaffolding approach included question prompts and a checklist to guide learners in thinking about and formulating their arguments. Results indicated students used sound arguments in their postings, employing valid evidence and the use of real examples. Students reported positive learning experiences, strong preferences for using media-based discussion, increased cognitive effort, and acknowledgment of the benefits of scaffolding in their discussions (Oh & Kim, 2016). All of the media solutions discussed here have andragogical value to promote deeper learning and student motivation. Posting a quickly-recorded media file can potentially be easier for adult students than typing their responses. However, media solutions are not without their course facilitation pitfalls. It is necessary for instructional designers and instructors to provide appropriate student support and orientation when utilizing technology outside the online course shell so that students do not waste valuable time learning about the tool itself instead of focusing on the course work. Any technology tool used in an online course should support the learning objectives or competencies and promote learner engagement. Finally, special consideration should be made regarding the protection of student data and privacy outside the learning management system.

408

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

The Role of Online Discussion The research of Cho and Tobias (2016) sought to examine the role of online discussion in student learning experiences. The authors argued past research on the use of discussion boards were based on correlation analysis without control and experimental groups (Cho & Tobias, 2016). The researchers conducted a comparative study examining the role of online discussion in student learning in the context of the Community of Inquiry model. One instructor taught the same online course for three consecutive semesters, varying the degree of discussion from no discussion at all to weekly discussions including instructor participation, while providing the same level of feedback through e-mail and keeping grades up-to-date within the week (Cho & Tobias, 2016). While findings showed no significant differences among conditions in cognitive presence, there was a significant difference in overall social presence. Teaching presence and cognitive presence were not significantly different across the three courses. However, the authors admit these results need more replication in different instructional contexts to establish more conclusive implications for online discussion related to the Community of Inquiry model. To be clear, the findings from this study may not apply to graduate situations with adult enrollments who may be looking for a socialized aspect to their learning. Educators are still encouraged to incorporate discussions throughout their graduate instruction. However, this research does provide a marker indicating that it is possible to integrate too much discussion, which may not always be better for the adult learner. Philosophies vary regarding the level of instructor engagement in discussion boards. An, Shin, and Lim (2009) argued that instructor facilitation can influence how students interact and participate in online discussion activities. Specifically, when instructors required students to post responses to each other coupled with intentional instructor non-participation, student-to-student interaction increased and the students relied on the comments and feedback of each other instead of defaulting to the instructor (An et al., 2009). However, the findings of Nandi, Hamilton, and Harland (2012) showed students highly valued instructor interaction for periodic feedback, appreciated the instructor keeping students on track, and confirmed the concept of student-facilitated discussions as not always effective. It is recommended that the instructor participate in the discussion. Nonparticipation on the part of the instructor creates a lack of instructor presence. It is important for instructors to participate in weekly discussions to teach, guide, and support the learning process. Student- instructor interaction is one of the most critical factors of online student satisfaction (Nandi, Hamilton, & Harland, 2012). Instructors are encouraged to participate in a way that can be predictable for the students, increasing the socialization aspect of their learning process. Weekly discussions are an opportunity to insert instructor-centered features into the learning. By providing strong social presence on a weekly basis, instructors can integrate their own past experiences, determine the level of understanding, and provide useful feedback. Yet, the level of instructor interaction is necessary to consider. Instructors and designers are encouraged to consider the context of the instructional situation and the level of instructor engagement. Dennen (2005) stated that different discussions require different approaches. Some instructional situations will call for discussions requiring frequent direction and feedback while others may only call for minimal instructor involvement.

Design of Online Discussion In an attempt to better define the pedagogical value of discussion boards and promote meaningful interaction, Mooney, Southard, and Burton (2014) conducted a qualitative study in which the researchers created an innovative group discussion activity they termed the “suspense model,” utilized in two undergraduate 409

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

hybrid online courses to promote student-centered learning and to increase the quality and quantity of student postings. Students subsequently participated in two separate asynchronous discussion exercises during the course of the semester. In the suspense model, students were randomly divided into groups and advised to check back for additional information relevant to the assignment. At key times, the instructor released necessary information to each group to complete the assignment. In the same courses, the researchers also included a second discussion board activity whereby students were provided with the problem and supporting material at the outset of the exercise. Results indicated that students more promptly and thoroughly engaged in the discussion board utilizing the suspense model, and students generally favored the exercise over the traditional approach (Mooney et al., 2014). Different approaches to facilitating discussion can help to avoid student cognitive overload. Busy working adult learners can often feel overwhelmed with the amount of student work, which includes reading all the discussion activity and making the required responses to their peers. Deeper learning is dependent upon student participation. Stearns (2017) tested a new discussion design to encourage online students to read all the discussion posts. Stearns (2017) stressed the value of thematic analysis assignment (TAA), requesting students to read all the weekly posts and find three themes occurring throughout the responses. Students were then to name and describe the themes, and present two examples (direct quotes) from fellow students. This approach can take the place of meeting the minimum of two response posts. Results indicated students recommended this strategy in the future. The use of this learning tool encouraged students via a constructivist process to think critically. Integrating an approach that forces the students to check back for further details on an assignment can be a useful approach to increase adult student motivation. A caveat to adopting a design that requires students to check back for more details is that the designer will need to factor in the other work occurring in the module. Another consideration surrounds the creation of additional discussion assignment details, which needs to be accomplished in a way that promotes motivation and engagement and does not distract the student.

Varied Design and Adult Epistemology Instructors and subject matter experts should vary the discussion design for each module to avoid cognitive overload issues when designing for the adult learner. Such a varied approach can aid the cognitive aspect of learning so that the adult learner can more easily differentiate each learning experience as it relates to the learning objectives. Failure to adopt a varied approach can leave the students open to cognitive dissonance or fatigue across the weeks as design features start to look similar. Educators should consider adult pedagogical epistemology when designing discussion activities. When students come to online courses with the epistemic view that instructors are the transmitters of knowledge and students are passive recipients, the instructor is faced with the challenge of moving learners to a position of co-constructed knowledge creation (Smith, 2010). Course design should emphasize student reflection and discourse to shepherd students to a more self-directed orientation (Coulson & Harvey, 2013). Adult learners prefer to understand why a particular learning object or activity is being used (Arghode et al., 2017). Subject matter experts and instructional designers should consider utilizing an explanation of the different philosophy as part of the discussion instructions or a short orientation media clip. It is important for educators to explain the rationale behind a particular discussion activity so that the adult learner can link the activity to the learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy may be consulted in order to determine and articulate the purpose of an appropriate graduate-level activity. 410

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Authentic Assessment Discussion activities can serve the purpose of authentic assessment. Adult learners prefer assessment and student activity to be connected to the real world. The student activities can be situations where the students assume a role that reflects something they are likely to encounter in reality or their places of work (Huang, 2002). Huang (2002) emphasized that when designing effective social constructivist pedagogy for online adult learners, key strategies that align with andragogy include interactive, collaborative learning activities and authentic learning that connects with real-world scenarios. The importance of authentic assessment in andragogical situations cannot be overstated. Utilizing real-world scenarios connected to authentic assessment is related to considering the context of the learning situation. Fink (2003) presented the Integrated Course Design model and explained the basic components of integrated design for significant learning are learning goals, teaching and learning activities, feedback and assessment, and the situational factors of learning. Context describes the surrounding aspects of the learning and the characteristics of the learner (Fink, 2003). Adult learner characteristics are an important consideration when designing discussions for adult learners. Coupling these unique learner characteristics with authentic assessment has the potential to further engage the learner. Assessment is authentic when it is rooted in real-world scenarios (Wiggins, 1998). To create authentic assessment, activities should employ realistic elements, require a decision, replicate or simulate a context for adults in professional or personal life, and assess the student learning (Fink, 2003; Wiggins, 1998). Therefore, educators should take care to include aspects of authentic assessment in discussion design. Online discussion design should include real-world scenarios in which the adult learner can apply and synthesize varied solutions or approaches. Arghode, Brieger, and McLean (2017) explained that the constructivist approach is effective for the adult online learner. Compared to pedagogical settings where students may share a similar starting point in their learning, adult students bring a different set of experiences and needs to an instructional setting. The authors explain that many institutions in higher education have adopted constructivist instructional strategies, often employing open-ended questions that require online students to engage in collaborative discussion (Arghode et al., 2017). These types of activities are certainly collaborative and have the potential to represent authentic assessment (Arghode et al.,2017). Online adult learners can introduce new dynamics for which online instructors need to remain flexible. Taking a constructivist approach can introduce new viewpoints from peers during online weekly discussions, increase learner confidence, and utilize peers for technology support (Ruey, 2010). In a case study research (Ruey, 2010), constructivistbased instructional design helped adult online learners in two ways: instructional activities requiring collaboration and interaction encouraged adult students to support one another, and constructivist-based online instruction assisted adult learners to develop a sense of becoming more self-directed in their learning and broadening the role of the student.

DISCUSSION The effectiveness of online discussion board activities for adult learners is contingent on design as well as facilitation. Well-designed online discussion activities linked with aligned participation rubrics and well-crafted instructions have the potential to create meaningful and relevant learning experiences in

411

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

which adults will be motivated to participate. Online discussions can serve different purposes and be created for low-stakes activities, content engagement, research, exploration, or investigation. Online discussion activities for adults are most effective when the design is rooted in andragogical best practices and aligned to specific learning objectives. Adult learners are typically practical, partial to information that can be immediately applicable to their real-world situations or professions, and generally prefer practical knowledge that will improve their skills, help facilitate their work, and boost their confidence. Therefore, instructional designers and subject matter experts should design online discussion activities that utilize real-world scenarios, problems, cases, or ethical dilemmas. One example is to utilize a case study of an ethical situation or phenomenon typically experienced in a particular profession; such an activity should connect with topics covered in the module and require the learners to provide solutions. Adults have lived longer and accomplished more than younger students. As a result, adult students have the tendency to link their past experiences to anything new and validate new concepts based on prior learning. Online discussion activities are best when they encourage the learner to reflect and share, which also carries the potential to create a community of learners. Adult learners often have high expectations. They prefer to be taught about things that will be useful to their work and expect experiences to have immediate results. It is beneficial to create online discussions that will maximize their advantages, meet their individual needs, provide a sense of autonomy, and address learning challenges. The solutions and recommendations that appear in the succeeding sections are quality strategies to promote learner engagement and meaningful learning and are intended to foster aspects of facilitation that are of an andragogical orientation. Specifically, the examples are meant to call the adult learner to do more than answer a simple question or predictable problem. The examples are designed in a manner that can be linked to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Such an approach is highly effective because the students are participating in an online discussion that is well-aligned to the learning outcomes and not being utilized simply for technology’s sake. The solutions are congruent with the philosophy of engagement through quality discussion activities. This type of design approach has the potential to bring about deep and impactful learning. Engaging activities can also promote the growth of the online student community. However, it is important for educators and training designers to vary the design of student-to-instructor and student-to-student interaction across the duration of the course. Finally, when taking into account any solution or approach for the design of a discussion, instructional designers and subject matter experts should think about the larger context. Important questions to consider include: What purpose does the discussion serve? Which learning outcome aligns to the discussion? Does the prompt foster dialogue and encourage the students to think? Including the answers to these questions within the student instructions can provide additional clarity and purpose.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Instructions and Expectations Thorough instructions have the potential to further reduce confusion and cognitive distractions for the adult learner. Instructions should include general information that explains if and how the activity is graded. Adult learners have the potential to be less open-minded; maturity and profound life experiences usually lead to rigidity, which can work against learning. As a result, it is important to provide the rationale behind the discussion activity and how new concepts and learning can be linked to already 412

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

established concepts, promoting the need to explore. Instructors should be clear about their intended role in the online discussion activities (Simon, 2018). Setting expectations as part of the instructions helps students to understand how often to anticipate the instructor’s guidance or general presence in the course (Simon, 2018). Online discussion activities for adults should have specific and clear expectations. Expectations for content and participation should be stated at the outset so adult students will know what to anticipate as well as understand how to structure the content of their messages. These aspects of the discussion expectations are best stated through the use of well-constructed instructions and an aligned grading rubric. The instructions should communicate minimum and maximum lengths for the postings, general formatting expectations such as APA or MLA guidelines, and to how many peers the student should respond. Applying a value of a grade to the adult learners’ participation can help provide motivation to participate. The instructions should include proper communication techniques such as the necessity for students to remain thoughtful and professional and to avoid harsh or aggressive language. There are many openly available “Netiquette” student communication statements online that institutions can use as models for articulating expectations. Adult learners are typically juggling everything that comes with having a family as well as their professions. This circumstance can create challenges for adults to prioritize their own learning while accommodating busy schedules. It is beneficial to limit confusion and cognitive stress by retaining a common format the learner can predict across each module. It is best practice for designers and instructors to utilize the same initial post deadline as well as the same peer response deadline across the modules. An initial response deadline of the middle of the module duration provides the adult learning time to conceptualize the activity instructions, grading criteria, and purpose and to work the activity into his or her activities outside the course. For consistency, it is useful to provide full instructions for each module that contains a discussion activity, even when the activity follows the same posting and response deadlines found throughout the course. Module discussion activities should be varied across the course to provide variety for adult students. Adopting nearly identical approach formats across the modules could lead to unnecessary and undesirable confusion or cognitive overload if module activities have the same format across the online course. Some learning management systems offer a “post first” feature that requires students to submit their initial post before having access to those that have been posted prior to their own. This useful feature has the potential to limit the phenomenon of “coasting,” or simply paraphrasing earlier posts, and instead force students to think critically.

Facilitation of Discussion Improved facilitation of online discussion includes providing effective and timely feedback within the scope and duration of the graded activity. Feedback on high quality online discussions for adult learners includes acknowledging the student post, building on the strengths of the content of the posts, and offering ideas for the future or a follow-up question. In adult learning situations, students should be discouraged from taking over the discussion and instead encouraged to leave adequate space or speaking time for the other students. The first two weeks of an online course are especially critical, as students are acclimating to the course and developing study behaviors during this period (Simon, 2018). Therefore, it is beneficial for the instructor to provide detailed feedback during the time of transition (Simon, 2018).

413

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Critical Reflection The online discussion is an opportunity for critical reflection for the adult learner. In contrast to synchronous discussions, which lend themselves to quick and conversation-like responses, asynchronous discussions provide the opportunity for deeper reflection connected with past experiences. Online discussion activities can take the form of a group reflection (Glowacki-Dudka & Barnett, 2007), which can then be connected to authentic student activity. This approach can often include discussion activities where students connect past experiences to create a new outlook or to identify a solution to a problem. Examples include debating a common issue often encountered in a school district; challenges related to instituting a new business plan; ethical issues involving multiple points of view; or starting a project charter for institutional change. The pedagogical model used by Sinclair (2009) followed the Smyth (1989) framework of reflection, utilizing four forms of action when responding to group discussion activity: describe, inform, confront and reconstruct. Participants in this research indicated that the use of critical reflection and positive, yet challenging, instructor feedback promoted deeper learning of the self as compared to just the discussion and material (Arghode et al., 2017).

Socratic Method The Socratic Method is a useful tool to illicit adult learners’ best academic performance of thinking critically as part of a discussion activity. It is a useful strategy to actively engage learners in the learning process (Jarvis, 2004). By using well-structured, probing questions linked with appropriate grading rubrics that require student response, students have the opportunity to dive deeper into their learning. The student responses allow the students to play the role of Socrates to each other (Hlinak, 2014). The Socratic strategy allows adult students to take ownership of their learning through authentic questions and to leverage student questions as more significant learning experiences that develop critical thinking. The Socratic format also sidesteps the potential intimidation students report experiencing in face-to-face Socratic questioning (Hlinak, 2014). Instructors can play “devil’s advocate” by asking probing questions, using contradictions and counterexamples. During facilitation, instructors can provide instructor presence by keeping the conversation on topic and challenging students to apply their learning to novel situations, practical scenarios, and prior learning. It is important for the facilitator to ask questions that guide the student dialogue and set the direction of the discussion. Some learning management systems offer the ability for the instructor to “pin” his or her post to the top of the forum. This visual cue can be an effective way to summarize the weekly discussion activity or to provide prominence to the instructor’s message if the dialogue veers away from the intended topic.

Managing Online Discussions in Large Classes Discussion boards can be applied to large class sizes as well. Research from Yang (2008) showed that the combination of the Socratic questioning format performed by teaching or grading assistants working with small groups of students proved to be effective. Grading assistants engaging with students across the six categories of Socratic questioning prompts in online discussions can have the potential to promote critical thinking responses (Yang, 2008). Teaching assistants working in small groups of 13-15 students can use responses that break down into categories of: questions based on perspective,

414

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

questions of clarification, questions that probe assumptions or implications, and questions that probe reason or evidence (Yang, 2008). Another solution for large scale discussion participation is utilizing the ability for students to rate the participation of one other. This type of structure is a strategy to encourage deeper, meaningful, and non-trivial dialogue (Sager & Chen, 2013). Specifically, student discussion activities can be structured in a way so that the student earns a set number of points for each discussion thread. In addition, students can earn more points for rating a peer’s posting. Online instructors and subject matter experts can utilize what is known as protocol for online discussions. Protocols define very specifically just who participates in what way and how often. One example is known as a “fishbowl” activity in which one student has to exhibit a certain type of behavior or skill for feedback or critique from the rest of the class. Examples of a “fishbowl” activity could be counseling scenarios, problem scenarios, or situations where students can act out particular roles for the rest of the group to provide feedback. Another example of protocols involves asking each student to submit at least one thought-provoking question based on the weekly reading to which all other students are to respond. Another example is the use of the Tuning protocol (McDonald, Zydney, Dichter, & McDonald, 2012). The goal of this protocol is for one student to improve a relevant work based on input from the class. Specifically, one student presents a certain type of written work, and the rest of the class provides relevant feedback (McDonald et al., 2012). The Tuning protocol dictates that all participants have a role, which increases their participation, and that all participants have the potential for different roles, which can be helpful when working with adult learners.

Adult Learner Autonomy Connecting Moore’s (1973) Transactional Distance theory with adult learning practices can be useful when designing discussion activity. According to Moore’s theory, as course structure increases, the capacity for individualization or autonomy decreases. Online instructors and subject matter experts can introduce choice when creating discussion activities for adults as well as test for the appropriate balance between design and freedom of choice. The aspect of choice has the potential for increased control and self-direction for adults. Examples include adult students intentionally choosing a particular perspective, character, or stance when responding to the group in a way that they may not normally do. Classroom discussion activities for adult learners can be adapted for the online format. Tell-helpcheck is a classroom activity similar to think-pair-share. In this format, the adult learner is given the opportunity to review and confirm their understanding during the learning process in front of their peers (Karge, Phillips, & Jessee, 2011). According to the authors, students are assigned to one of two groups. The instructor poses a question to group one. Once the question has been answered, group two is given the opportunity to add information or edit the existing information. Once both team members have given input, they check the text to determine accuracy of each group (Karge et al., 2011). Problem-Based Learning (PBL) presents opportunities to link many of the approaches already discussed in order to actively engage adult students to solve complex, authentic problems. Working through the community of inquiry, adult students can collectively work to reach a problem resolution (Karge et al., 2011). Examples include cases, ethical problems, political problems, and common problems in the field. Problem-Based Learning can often be an opportunity for the instructor to facilitate the phases of the process rather than to direct students to any one solution to the problem. This aspect of ProblemBased Learning makes this approach conducive to online instruction for adults. 415

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

General Best Practices It can be helpful for the first discussion activity in an online course with adult students to be low-stakes in terms of assessment (Simon, 2018). Instructors and course designers should design an initial discussion activity that allows the students to adjust to the process. This approach can also help students to understand how the discussion board works in the platform they are using (Simon, 2018). Instructors are also encouraged to provide an informal, ungraded discussion “water cooler” or “student café” area where students may discuss course- or program-related topics and further promote a sense of community. The approaches discussed in this chapter can also be utilized in the hybrid setting or a design that approaches the “flipped classroom” model where the discovery phase of learning is shifted outside of class for student-centered learning. Carefully mapping out in-class activities as they relate to out-of-class activities can engage all learners, including adults, to make progress on a new topic so that when they meet face-to-face in the classroom, they are prepared and motivated for class activities (Fink, 2003).

FUTURE RESEARCH The use of media-based discussion boards has potential for effective andragogical design. The mediabased discussion has gained popularity and warrants more research to deepen our understanding of how the dynamics of recording audio may or may not fit with adult learner preferences. Future studies that explore student perceptions as well as academic effectiveness of media-based discussion can help promote a model for instructional designers and subject matter experts to utilize and increase the efficacy of their designs. The design of online instruction would be stronger if we understood more about the frequency of discussion boards and student rigor across the duration of the course. Further research needs to be done comparing student academic performance and satisfaction in online course modules that have minimal discussions to student academic performance and satisfaction in course modules that utilize two or more weekly discussions. More should be done to identify a particular design template related to particular fields of study that designers and instructors could easily integrate into new program design. Design templates or frameworks tested for student success could be implemented on a large scale that would save institutions design time. Additional research needs to be done to replicate the comparative research study of Cho and Tobias (2016) in different types of online courses in an effort to examine the role of online discussion in student learning experiences. Specifically, more investigation is necessary to better understand the aspects of online cognitive presence as opposed to social presence and its relation to academic performance. Increased interest in the online modality for graduate programs calls for future research on the elements that promote adult learner motivation the most. Design strategies to increase adult learner motivation would benefit higher education as well as the corporate training world. Understanding which of the adult learner elements discussed in this chapter carry the most impact would inform more effective design frameworks. Such research should identify and investigate how and to what extent relevant experiences, socialization, autonomy, and reflection create significant learning experiences-- independently or acting together.

416

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

CONCLUSION The function of online discussion does not guarantee deep and lasting learning (Darabi & Jin, 2013). For meaningful, significant learning to take place, the frequency with which the adult learner engages with the online discussion, as well as the nature of the interaction and discourse, matter (Oh & Kim, 2016). Online learning requires effective and appropriate design for students to be cognitively engaged and to reach the learning outcomes. Therefore, for adult learners, online discussions are best used as an LMS tool for designed learning activity that includes group dialogue and reflection as a coordinated process between students as well as student-to-instructor. Online instruction for the adult learner should offer minimum structure and maximum autonomy (Arghode et al., 2017). Online self-directed learning activities for adults should not be designed as isolated activities independent from the rest of the module contents. Rather, the activity should connect to the larger module design while the instructor serves as a facilitator and content expert within the community of online learners. Ideally, the design involves authentic, relevant phenomena and links to authentic assessment so that adult learners are more likely to be engaged while having a sense of control in setting the direction of their learning.

REFERENCES An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 749–760. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015 Arghode, V., Brieger, E., & McLean, G. (2017). Adult learning theories: Implications for online instruction. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(7), 93–609. doi:10.1108/EJTD-02-2017-0014 Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.005 Bliss, C. A., & Lawrence, B. (2009). From posts to patterns: A metric to characterize discussion board activity in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 15–32. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chan, M., & Pallapu, P. (2012). An exploratory study on the use of VoiceThread in a business policy course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 8(3). Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 5(3), 298–314. Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2015). Online graduate students’ preferences of discussion modality: Does gender matter? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 11(1), 31–41. Cho, M., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342

417

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Coulson, D., & Harvey, M. (2013). Scaffolding student reflection for experience-based learning: A framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(4), 401–413. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.752726 Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21–36. doi:10.1080/015 87919.2013.770429 Delmas, P. (2017). Using VoiceThread to create community in online learning. TechTrends, 61(6), 595–602. doi:10.100711528-017-0195-z Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. doi:10.1080/01587910500081376 Dennen, V. P. (2013). Activity design and instruction in online learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed., pp. 282–298). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738. ch18 Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.120715389286ajde1903_2 Gillett-Swan, J. K. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30. doi:10.5204/jld.v9i3.293 Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Barnett, N. (2007). Connecting critical reflection and group development in online adult education classrooms. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 43–52. Green, T., & Green, J. (2018). Flipgrid: Adding voice and video to online discussions. TechTrends, 62(1), 128–130. doi:10.100711528-017-0241-x Hall, S. W. (2016). Online learning: Discussion board tips. Nursing Made Incredibly Easy, January/ February, 8-9. Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39(3), 303–319. doi:10.100711251-010-9129-2 Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: Two case studies. Instructional Science, 41(2), 365–380. doi:10.100711251-012-9232-7 Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606. doi:10.100711251-008-9087-0

418

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Hlinak, M. (2014). The socratic method 2.0. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 31(1), 1–20. doi:10.1111/ jlse.12007 Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755–1765. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005 Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00236 Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: theory and practice (3rd ed.). London, UK: Falmer Press. doi:10.4324/9780203561560 Johnson, B. A. (2014). Transformation of online teaching practices through implementation of appreciative inquiry. Online Learning, 18(3), 1–21. doi:10.24059/olj.v18i3.428 Karge, B. D., Phillips, K. M., Jessee, T., & McCabe, M. (2011). Effective Strategies for Engaging Adult Learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(12), 53–56. doi:10.19030/tlc.v8i12.6621 Kidd, J. (2013). Evaluating VoiceThread for online content delivery and student interaction: Effects on classroom community. In R. McBride, & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2158–2162). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Kiely, R., Sandmann, L. R., & Truluck, J. (2004). Adult learning theory and the pursuit of adult degrees. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 103(103), 17–30. doi:10.1002/ace.145 Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New York, NY: Cambridge Books. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co. Kresse, W., & Watland, K. (2016). Thinking outside of the box office: Using movies to build shared experiences and student engagement in online or hybrid learning. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 59–64. Lai, A., & Savage, P. (2013). Learning management systems and principles of good teaching: Instructor and student perspectives. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–21. doi:10.21432/ T24S39 Lohr, K. D., & Haley, K. J. (2018). Using biographical prompts to build community in an online graduate course: An adult learning perspective. Adult Learning, 29(1), 11–19. doi:10.1177/1045159517735597 Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93–107. doi:10.120715389286ajde2002_4 Mandernach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. (2006). An examination of online instructor presence via threaded discussion participation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 2(4).

419

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

McCormack, V. (2010). Increasing teacher candidate responses through the application of VoiceThread. The International Journal of the Arts in Society, 3(11), 160–165. McDonald, J. P., Zydney, J. M., Dichter, A., & McDonald, B. (2012). Going online with protocols: New tools for teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 147–160. doi:10.1080/14703290902843778 Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–13. doi:10.1002/ace.3 Mooney, M., Southard, S., & Burton, C. H. (2014). Shifting from obligatory discourse to rich dialogue: Promoting student interaction in asynchronous threaded discussion postings. Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, 17(1). Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661–679. doi:10.2307/1980599 Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659 Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed., pp. 66–85). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738.ch5 Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30. doi:10.1080/01587919.20 12.667957 O’ Shea, S., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2015). I ‘feel’ like I am at university even though I am online. Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1), 41–58. Oh, E. G., & Kim, H. S. (2016). Understanding cognitive engagement in online discussion: Use of a scaffolded, audio-based argumentation activity. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 28–48. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2456 Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858 Pao-Nan, C. (2012). Teaching strategies in online discussion boards: A framework in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 2(2), 25–30. Phelan, L. (2012). Interrogating students’ perceptions of their online learning experiences with Brookfield’s critical incident questionnaire. Distance Education, 33(1), 31–44. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.667958 Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 465–479. doi:10.100710459-0119272-9 PMID:21243425

420

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706–720. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Saba, F. (2005, January). Critical Issues in Distance Education: A report from the United States. Distance Education, 26(2), 255–272. doi:10.1080/01587910500168892 Sager, J. L., & Chen, F. (2013). Integrating a web-based discussion forum and student peer feedback into a high-enrollment IT class: Expectations and outcomes. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 25–35. Selhorst, A. L., Bao, M., Williams, L., & Klein, E. (2017). The effect of online discussion board frequency on student performance in adult learners. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20(4). Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student–student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120. Simon, E. (2018, November 21). 10 tips for effective online discussions. Retrieved from URL: https:// er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/11/10-tips-for-effective-online-discussions Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-Learning: Making the invisible visible. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197–212. Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 2–9. doi:10.1177/002248718904000202 Stearns, S. A. (2017). Student responsible learning: Getting students to read online discussions. College Teaching, 65(2), 69–78. doi:10.1080/87567555.2016.1244654 Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093 Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yang, Y. T. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: Asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 241–264. doi:10.100711423-007-9054-5

ADDITIONAL READING Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

421

 Andragogy and Online Discussions

Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203803738

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Asynchronous Learning: Distance education instruction that students can complete within the student’s schedule and for which there is no coordinated meeting time. Distance Education: For the purposes of this chapter, distance education is education that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor. Distance education supports regular and substantive interaction between students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously. Technologies used for distance education include the World Wide Web, broadcasts, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, satellite, or wireless communication. This study will focus primarily on the most common instructional format found in 2019: asynchronous Web instruction. Asynchronous Web instruction is often referred to as online learning, online education, eLearning, or online distance education. Distance Education Course: A course in which 80% or more of the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education. Campus requirements such as orientation, testing, and capstone experiences do not exclude a course from being classified as distance education. Distance Education Program: A program for which 100% of the required coursework for program completion is facilitated via distance education courses. This definition includes both degree and certificate granting programs. Face-to-Face Learning: Traditional instruction where students and the instructor are located in the classroom. Hybrid Course: A course in which 30% to 80% of the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education with a face-to-face required component. Instructional Design: A systematic process that is employed to design and develop education and training in a consistent and reliable fashion to ensure each pillar of instruction is represented in order to promote learner success in meeting the learning objectives. Subject Matter Expert: An expert in a particular field or discipline that has been engaged by the academic department to design online instruction. This individual is often, but not exclusively a faculty member.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Adult Learning in Higher Education; pages 288-311, copyright year 2020 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

422

Andragogy and Online Discussions

APPENDIX: APPLICATION ACTIVITIES Discussion One The chapter discusses the practice of utilizing common, ethical problems or real-world scenarios for the adult learners to discuss and establish a solution. What are some common real-world problems that occur in your related field or profession? Discussion Two The chapter discusses the practice of utilizing the SODA argumentative model. What are some topics adults may be dealing with in a professional development situation where the SODA approach would prove a useful strategy to further engage adult participants? Case Study One: Online principal and superintendent certificate You are an instructional designer for an institution in higher education that offers a principal and superintendent certificate online. You recently began designing one of the last courses that falls in the curriculum: the School Facilities and Budget course. Knowing adult learners prefer real-world scenarios, how would you design an authentic, high-stakes cumulative assessment rooted in the course topic? How could such an assessment be linked to weekly discussion activity? What types of group discussion techniques would offer the most potential for deep, significant learning? Case Study Two: MBA: Employee Relations and Labor Law A successful human resources manager at a Honda facility in the Midwestern United States has been asked to design and develop an online “employee relations and labor law” course as part of an online MBA program for a local state institution in higher education. This course is a survey of labor law issues designed to give the MBA student a fundamental, practical, working knowledge of the impact of various federal, state, and local laws on the workplace. The course has a focus on union avoidance, certification and decertification, elections, collective bargaining, arbitrations, and other elements of employee relations. The overarching goal of this course is that the adult students will be able to define the multiple legal issues faced by managers in the modern workplace, including basic legal terminology. The students will be able to describe employment relationships and labor unions. Students will be able to define and apply case law and collective bargaining laws affecting contemporary concerns such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, wrongful termination and reduction-in-force, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The subject matter expert wants to design weekly discussion activities around these outcomes that culminate in a final, graded discussion activity based on a real-world union negotiation process. What are some group discussion techniques that would provide the adult learners the opportunity to experience the union negotiation process? How would you include aspects like critical reflection, decision-making, or critical thinking? Would you include media solutions? Case Study 3: Sales and Business Training A local business regionally recognized for its quality tools has recently contracted an instructional design team to design and develop online training for new sales schema as well as new business goals. The challenge is that there are different populations of employees across the organization, and some

423

Andragogy and Online Discussions

long-time employees feel the online training is ineffective and does not compare to the boring training already provided in human resources. What are some group discussion techniques that would provide the adult learners the opportunity to demonstrate their learning while providing an opportunity for rich, engaging conversation? Case Study 4: Online Fresh Water Ecology A successful director of a regional science center in the Great Lakes-Niagara region has been asked to design and develop an online “Fresh Water Ecology” course as part of an online program for a local state institution in higher education. The subject matter expert wants to design weekly discussion activities around what the students are able to find in their own local freshwater ways in their communities. What discussion design approaches that include media posting could the subject matter expert employ? How could these activities be facilitated in a way that would include student-student engagement for quality student interactions as well as reflection?

424

425

Chapter 22

The Same but Different:

Reframing Contemporary Online Education in Higher Education Towards Quality and Integrity Maria Northcote Avondale College of Higher Education, Australia

ABSTRACT The field of online learning, like many other technological innovations, has not burgeoned without controversy. Despite the debates about the role and value of online learning, it has continued to grow in many sectors, especially in higher education. Alongside the growth of online learning, discussions about its benefits and limitations have also flourished, and many studies have investigated the quality and integrity of online courses. This chapter offers an investigation of some of the history of online learning, concluding with a collection of practical recommendations and suggestions for future research directions to guide institutions embarking on online learning programs.

INTRODUCTION Discussions around the topic of online education in higher education often feature strong views by those who design, teach or learn in online courses. While some are supportive of e-learning, espousing its benefits and affordances, others are not so positive. Such views may be dependent on the designers’, teachers’ or students’ experiences in the online learning environment. An unenjoyable online experience can result in the formation of intense negative opinions about online learning. In contrast, positive online learning or teaching experiences can create loyal advocates of online education. In addition to students’ and teachers’ online experiences, many researchers and educators have explored the impact of online learning environments on the quality of students’ learning. Whatever the overall balance of views expressed and the results of research studies about the value of online learning, it appears to be here to stay, along with its varied and associated emerging online pedagogies. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch022

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The Same but Different

This chapter is written from two perspectives: one that acknowledges the benefits and limitations of online education; and the other in relation to the practice of converting on-campus courses to online courses, and vice versa. This chapter recognizes that online education in the higher education sector offers many benefits for both teachers and students but that an awareness of the limitations and challenges of online education is essential to maintain the quality and integrity of courses offered in the online realm. Also, at the basis of this chapter is an assumption that the design of online courses should not necessarily be limited to the conversion of a similar on-campus or face-to-face course; instead, the quality of an online course is often greater when it is designed according to a fit-for-purpose approach, that is, for a specific audience and expressly for the online learning context. While the early days of online learning appear to have been characterized by discussions, frequently dichotomous in nature, about the benefits and dangers of facilitating learning in an online context (Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005), and lengthy debates about how to define terms such as online, blended, hybrid, integrated, interactive and distance learning (Leh, 2002; Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003; Rumble, 2006), current explorations of online education have entered a new era. Recent conversations about online learning and teaching have addressed a more comprehensive range of issues such as equity of access (Rose, Kennedy, & Plants, 2014), course preparation times (Kenny & Fluck, 2014), the quality of learning (Gómez-Rey, Barbera, & Fernández-Navarro, 2016; Smidt, Li, Bunk, Kochem, & McAndrew, 2017), the integrity of student assessment submissions (Lee-Post & Hapke, 2017) and the use of social media for learning (Mbati, 2013; Wang, Niiya, Mark, Reich, & Warschauer, 2015) and teaching (Murray & Ward, 2017). In these contexts, teaching is often equated with the facilitation of learning. This chapter aims to: • • •

Summarize past developments in online learning; Analyze research about the quality and integrity of online learning; and Offer practical recommendations and suggestions for future research to guide educators engaged in the process of designing, teaching and researching online courses in higher education.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER After examining some of the history associated with the growth of online learning in university contexts, including some problems associated with online education, the chapter offers pedagogical advice, practical recommendations and possible directions for future research to online course administrators, course designers and online teachers for consideration when moving into or continuing their work in online education. Beginning with a review of some of the common themes that appeared in the early days of online learning research, this chapter sets the current scene of online education by acknowledging the work of some of the pioneering researchers and educators in the field of e-learning. Some of this literature reports on educators’ early attempts to “convert” on-campus, face-to-face courses to online learning formats. Also present in the early e-learning literature were the see-sawing considerations about the value and limitations of online education, and comparisons between face-to-face and online learning. With this background of the early days of online learning acknowledged, the chapter then explores a selection of the more recent developments in online learning that have led to some sector-wide realizations about the preparation and facilitation of online courses. Such considerations are often closely associated with issues of quality and integrity set within institutional bounds. 426

 The Same but Different

The chapter has been written with an audience in mind that may comprise course designers, administrators and teachers. Those responsible for the professional learning of online course designers and online teachers may also find this chapter of interest in terms of identifying points of focus for professional development activities and resources. For educators engaged in the research and scholarship of online education, future research directions are identified. Along with an underlying realization that online learning is different from face-to-face learning, these future directions offer a lead into the next era of online education.

BACKGROUND: ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES In order to identify a set of research-informed recommendations for future online course designers and facilitators and to determine some directions for future research into online education, the past few decades in the development of online education are now reviewed, especially in relation to the limitations and potential benefits of online education and the value, or otherwise, of conversion as a method of course design.

Early and Recent Themes in Online Education The last twenty to thirty years in the higher education sector have been characterized by a steady growth in the availability of online courses. When online learning began to flourish in universities in the late 1990s and 2000s, many authors suggested guidelines for course designers and teachers of online courses and much of their advice was focused on the value of high quality online communication and the development of Communities of Practice (Ellis & Phelps, 1999; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). The value of online communities and interaction between learners and teachers was espoused by researchers such as Palloff and Pratt (1999), Carr-Chellman and Duchastel (2001), Harasim (2000) and Weiss (2000). Soon after, the value of authentic learning and teaching practices was advocated as an effective approach to ensure the content of online courses and the experience of the online learner was as meaningful and relevant as possible (Banas & York, 2014; Bennett, Harper, & Hedberg, 2001; Herrington, Oliver, Herrington, & Sparrow, 2000; Herrington, Oliver, & Reeves, 2003; Kearney & Schuck, 2006). In later years, the importance of teacher and learner presence was endorsed (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Dringus, Snydera, & Terrella, 2010; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Richardson & Swan, 2003) along with an emphasis on humanizing online education (Andrew, 2012; Seng & Tan, 2003; Weiss, 2000). Even issues associated with the personality of teachers and learners in online learning contexts were explored (Anderson-Wilk, 2010; Chen & Caropreso, 2004; Kanuka & Nocente, 2003) together with the role of feelings and emotions in online education (Becker, Goetz, Morger, & Ranellucci, 2014; Cleveland-Innes & Ally, 2006; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014; Peterson, Brown, & Jun, 2015).

Terms Used to Describe Online Education While various types of online learning platforms and models developed globally across many higher education institutions, the definitions of such approaches also multiplied and, subsequently, were scrutinized. Harasim (2000) described courses with varying states of online presence by using such terms as 427

 The Same but Different

adjunct mode, mixed mode or totally online mode. Some of the terms that were used and coined in other literature typically acknowledged the realm of online technologies including terms such as computermediated distance education (Palloff & Pratt, 1999), web-based courses (Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2001), web-based environments and virtual courses (Harasim, 2000), e-classes (Gerson, 2000), online instruction (Herrington et al., 2000) and the virtual classroom (White & Weight, 2000). Also present in the early literature were descriptions of online learning contexts in terms that echoed on-campus teaching, such as the online classroom or the electronic classroom (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). In later years, the definition of whether a course was considered to be delivered or facilitated through a blended, hybrid or integrated approach appeared less dominant in the literature. The preoccupation with defining a course as being delivered or facilitated through a blended, hybrid or integrated approach somewhat receded in the literature. Instead of focusing on the delivery mode itself, the affordances offered by each mode came into focus (Glogowska, Young, Lockyer, & Moule, 2011), as well as the quality and integrity of online learning contexts.

Converting Existing Courses to Online Learning Contexts In the early days of online learning, there was much discussion about transferring or converting traditional on-campus or printed distance courses to the online mode (for example, White, 2000). This conversion conversation was often associated with or followed by debates about the value versus the flaws inherent in a course offered online. The terms and phrases used to describe online learning predictably recognized the transition that many online educators experienced from teaching in on-campus contexts to teaching online (Perreault, Waldman, Alexander, & Zhao, 2002). From these transitional teaching experiences of academic staff emerged many views about the conversion of on-campus courses to online contexts. Rather than developing platforms specifically for the relatively new online learning realm, educators experimented with repurposing existing on-campus courses and adapting them to online modes. There was much talk about “making the transition to online teachers or learning facilitators” (Ellis & Phelps, 1999, p. 71), “conversion from traditional distance education to online courses” (Davis, 2001, p. 1), making “the conversion from the traditional classroom to cyberspace” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, p. 87) and “moving from face-to-face to online” (Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2006, p. 871). In today’s world of online learning in higher education contexts, there is greater recognition of the unique affordances of online learning contexts (Arasaratnam-Smith & Northcote, 2017; Baran, 2018), especially those associated with quick and global communication opportunities, access to expert voices and personalization of learning tools. This area of online literature has not been and is not straightforward in its message. Just as some researchers adopted the view that the seed of development of online courses often lay within the bounds of their on-campus forerunners, others were more of the opinion that online courses required their own pedagogical approach to guide and inform both their design as well as their facilitation (Cutler, 2004; Herrington et al., 2000). While the practice of converting on-campus courses to online learning environments continued and even became the accepted norm in some institutions, other researchers were advocating a revised view of e-learning – one that acknowledged the unique nature of virtual learning contexts (O’Reilly, 2000; Stevens-Long & Crowell, 2002; Van Duzer, 2002). As a result, debates continued about the limitations and benefits of adopting a conversion approach to modifying traditional courses to the new mode. In her article, Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning, Harasim suggested, back in 2000, that the move to online learning represented a “paradigm shift” (p. 41) in favor 428

 The Same but Different

of “principle-based design” (p. 52). Very soon after, in 2001, Carr-Chellman and Duchastel reported on the dangers of adopting an approach that simply reformatted on-campus courses for online conditions: … the web is simply being used as a medium for the delivery of instruction created within another framework. Such transposition from one medium to another may have some value in reaching certain outreach goals, but it also runs serious risks of diluting the original instruction and possibly rendering it ineffective” and “… there are many unfortunate instances on the web where such transposition leads to a stilted use of this medium for instructional purposes (p. 145)

Emergence of Online Education Guidelines After a decade or so of growth in online courses, however, researchers and educators began to investigate the nuances of online learning which, to an extent, replaced discussions that were largely limited to comparisons of online versus traditional forms of education. Since the inception of online learning, the nature of online course design has matured and become more refined over the years, incorporating a recognition of many of the distinct affordances of ICTs (Interactive Communication Technologies) that have been shown to enhance the interactive nature of learning for both students (Crampton & Ragusa, 2015; Keppell, Suddaby, & Hard, 2011) and teachers in professional development contexts (Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2013; Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Subsequently, many sets of guidelines and recommendations have been developed to guide course designers in their planning and development of online courses (for example, Dole & Bloom, 2009; for example, Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples, & Tickner, 2001; Salmon, 2013; Siragusa, 2006; Van Duzer, 2002). The earlier researchers in online education also acknowledged that online education required a specific form of pedagogy: one that was suited to cyberspace and virtual learning contexts, and one that utilized the affordances of hyperlinked resources, anytime-anywhere learning strategies and new communication tools (Brown & Mbati, 2015; Edmonds & Smith, 2017). Around the same time, Herrington and her colleagues published a paper, almost two decades ago now, titled Towards a new tradition of online instruction: Using situated learning theory to design web-based units (Herrington et al., 2000). This article became a milestone in the history of online learning design, suggesting that the advent of online learning in universities represented a movement in which “traditional instruction has not only sustained its existence in educational institutions but more recently relocated to the World Wide Web” (Herrington et al., 2000, p. 1). In their work, Herrington et al., described “traditional online instruction” as emerging from the practices of “traditional instruction” which was teacher-centred, compartmentalized by discipline and content-focused. Instead of perpetuating the teacher-led and content-centric design of traditional learning, authentic learning situations and examples were recommended, to which assessment tasks were meaningfully linked. Teachers were encouraged to be coaches and facilitators rather than content deliverers. Online learning contexts and technologies were seen to be offering students more opportunities to engage in active and interactive learning practices, beyond simply the learning of content. In this way, Herrington and her colleagues not only cast doubt on an earlier perspective about online learning being a modern cousin of on-campus learning, but they also furthered a pedagogical conversation about the principles behind online education practices and asked questions about the central nature of learning – not only in online contexts but in general across the higher education context. In their article, Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment, Herrington and Standen (2000), 429

 The Same but Different

provided an example of how a learning program was transformed from an instructivist pedagogy to a constructivist approach which incorporated authentic learning activities and assessment, collaboration, and the exploration of multiple perspectives, especially through the use of a range of expert voices. While some researchers still debate the worth or otherwise of online learning over on-campus learning, or vice versa, many current debates have ventured into the quality and integrity in online education; including discussions about the pedagogy of e-learning and the quality of student learning, rather than fixating simply on the feasibility of online education or the evaluation of one delivery mode against another. In general, some contemporary literature about online learning reports “that no significant difference exists in aggregate student learning outcomes between online and face-to-face instruction” (Fendler, Ruff, & Shrikhande, 2018, p. 39).

Call for Humanization of the Online Learning Environment Despite the enthusiasm about how the affordances of online learning and teaching technologies have the potential to facilitate high quality learning, pedagogical discussions about the theoretical underpinnings of online learning environments and practices have frequently been peppered with calls for greater humanity, communication and interaction to promote a high quality learning experience for students (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Gunawardena, 1995). This movement began in the late 1990s and early 2000s, during which time some authors began reporting on the humanity, or lack of it, evident in online learning contexts (Seng & Tan, 2003). Weiss (2000) reported on the “loss of personal contact” (p. 47) that was evident in the online classroom. O’Reilly (2000) suggested, in relation to the increase in technology-related courses, “there is a need to find greater humanity in the course development process” (p. 255) and especially recommended that the course design process was a stage of course development in which educational developers could bring “spirit and soul” (p. 255) to online education. Similarly, As the title of Keough’s (2005) paper states, Relationships not technology are the keys to online learning.

Focus on the Student Perspective and Teacher Quality In addition to highlighting the value of humanizing and personalizing the online learning context, the role of students and teachers also came under scrutiny. As time progressed, some educators acknowledged the importance of considering the student’s point of view in online learning contexts. Brace-Govan and Clulow (2000) claimed: “There is a good deal of literature which addresses the issues of teaching online but there is little material which examines the concerns students might have about learning online” (p. 118). Consequently, the students’ perspective in online learning became paramount in many researchers’ work with quality in online learning incorporating views from the students’ perspective (Sit, Chung, Chow, & Wong, 2005; Young & Norgard, 2006). As well as emphasizing the importance of acknowledging the student perspective in online learning, the teacher’s role did not escape attention. Similar to the messages of Hattie (2003, 2009) in regards to the importance of teacher quality, increasing the knowledge and efficacy of online educators later became the focus of much research (Kennedy, 2015; Lehman & Conceicao, 2010; Northcote, Seddon, & Brown, 2011; Robinia & Anderson, 2010; Ward & Kushner Benson, 2010). Articles and books were soon published with titles such as Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching online (Shepherd, Alpert, & Koeller, 2007), Becoming an online teacher (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004), Teaching online: A practical

430

 The Same but Different

guide (Ko & Rossen, 2004), Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning (Easton, 2003), and Competences for online teaching: A special report (Goodyear et al., 2001).

Moving From Desktop to Mobile Technologies In past decades, desktop and laptop computers were often considered the hardware-of-choice by many learners and consumers in online and blended learning contexts. In more recent years, both higher education students and academic staff in universities report a greater preference for mobile devices, including cell phones and tablets, when accessing their online courseware (Cochrane, Cook, Aiello, Christie, Sinfield, Steagall, & Aguayo, 2017; Cochrane & Withell, 2013; Edmonds & Smith, 2017; MacCallum & Verhaart, 2014). The use of mobile devices has enabled a higher level of personalization in online learning (Brown & Mbati, 2015) and they also transformed some of the activities of academic staff (MacCallum & Verhaart, 2014). Reasons for this trend may be due to the increased flexibility offered by such devices, alongside increased public availability of Wi-Fi access and decreased costs of both the devices themselves and the networks to which they connect. This trend has continued with Viberg and Grönlund (2017) recently describing the integration of mobile technology into society and students’ lives as “pervasive” (p. 357). Adams Becker, Cummins, David, Freeman, Hall Giesinger and Ananthanarayanan (2017) suggest that mobile learning devices and strategies have the potential to improve student equity by opening up access to higher education to students from a range of backgrounds. Furthermore, the growing popularity of social media and the manner in which it has been integrated into the personal and professional lives of teaching staff and their students has resulted in interactive communication technologies becoming more familiar to those engaged in higher education (Mbati, 2013; Murray & Ward, 2017; Qi & Chau, 2016; Schrader, 2015; Wang et al., 2015). The potential of social media to enhance collaborative learning techniques was noted (Tay & Allen, 2011). Similar to the use of mobile technologies, it “has become commonplace in higher education for instructors to use social technologies to motivate and challenge their students and to support learning objectives” (Waycott, Thompson, Sheard, & Clerehan, 2017, p. 12). Thus, the incorporation of a wider variety of media and mobile devices into online education within university structures is becoming more the norm than the exception.

Increased Access to Authentic Learning Contexts Online learning is becoming increasingly place-independent, as learners and teachers recognize the advantages offered by mobile learning (Nguyen, 2015). Not only are learners becoming less confined by their geographical location, the ubiquitous nature and affordability of mobile devices extend the location of learners to places beyond the small screens of their devices. The previous expectation that e-learning occurred while the learner was tethered to a keyboard, mouse and screen is loosening. Instead, handheld internet-connected devices place learners within authentic learning environments that are more meaningful, up-to-date and relevant than their online classrooms (Brown & Mbati, 2015; Edmonds & Smith, 2017). Real life locations are becoming their classrooms as students are no longer dependent on accessing second hand accounts or simulations of authentic environments but their mobile devices are providing them with the opportunities to learn and live within authentic settings. Students are afforded opportunities that enable them to be situated within more authentic learning contexts that are suited to their learning needs and modern lifestyles (Amiel & Herrington, 2012; Banas & York, 2014; Herrington, 431

 The Same but Different

Reeves, & Oliver, 2010). While some of their learning activities may take place online, others may occur within a workplace context or may involve a combination of online and face-to-face activities. As such, when e-learning incorporates mobile devices, learners can be situated quickly and more meaningfully within authentic learning environments (Aguayo, Cochrane, & Narayan, 2017).

Barriers Still Exist Although the flexibility offered by online learning contexts and mobile technologies increase access for a greater number of students, equity of student access and student engagement is still an issue debated at many levels (Jones & Long, 2013; Rose et al., 2014). In more recent years, MOOCs have been hailed by some as a step forward in enabling greater access for students from varied backgrounds: “With the advent of Massive Open Online Courses (or MOOCs), it is theoretically possible for anyone with an Internet connection to access course materials from elite universities—a possibility that some commentators have hailed as a democratization of education (Jaggars, 2014). However, in the recent NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition (Adams Becker et al., 2017), the issue of inequity of access of online resources still remains a barrier to some students accessing higher education. Although the idea that online learning programs increase the opportunities for some students who may not have previously been able to access higher education, “Barriers to equity persist as broadband remains unevenly distributed” (Adams Becker et al., 2017, p. 30). Lee (2017) encourages educators not to forget that “increasing the accessibility of university education is a complex and multidimensional social issue, one which requires serious, and continuing, scholarly discussions” (p. 21).

Workload Issues In addition to an awareness of the ongoing issue of student access to online courses, problems associated with the length of time required and the level of complexity involved in designing and creating an online course continue to cause concern from a teacher or a course designer’s perspective. The preparation required to develop an online course have been reported as being more involved than the time and complexity associated with teaching in traditional, on-campus courses. Back in 2006, Tomei estimated that “online teaching demanded a minimum of 14% more time than traditional instruction” (p. 531) and noted that the workload of online teachers fluctuated more across a semester period than the more stable workload of teaching in traditional, on-campus courses. Furthermore, Wiesenberg and Stacey (2006) and, more recently Kenny and Fluck (2014), also reported on the time and workload challenges associated with teaching online for academic teaching staff in universities. Many issues associated with online teaching and online course design, as outlined above, have influenced the practices, expectations and experiences of teachers and students who operate in online learning environments. These issues incorporate both positive and negative aspects of designing and teaching online courses, and learning in online courses, and they affect teachers, students and their institutions. From this previous literature about the growth of online learning, a sample of which has been cited above, a collection of pedagogical guidelines and practical recommendations are now offered in an attempt to guide the work of both course designers and facilitators of online courses within higher education contexts.

432

 The Same but Different

GENERAL GUIDELINES AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS A collection of general pedagogical guidelines and practical recommendations, with examples, have been extracted from the previous literature about online learning in higher education contexts. These suggestions for future course designers and teachers are particularly focused on fit-for-purpose design, rather than the conversion of existing courses to online contexts. The affordances and limitations of online learning are also considered.

Consideration of the Affordances and Limitations of Online Education Clearly, online learning contexts embody both opportunities and risks for teachers and students alike. For course designers and online teachers, the pros and cons of online learning contexts cannot be ignored. Issues of workload, activity and assessment design, and the provision of appropriate communication tools must be considered when online courses are being prepared. These issues have implications for the professional development of academic teaching staff who require initial and ongoing support in how to effectively create and facilitate online learning environments for their students. However, the difficulties that may be faced by students should not be overlooked. Advising students about how to approach and solve potential barriers to their learning in online contexts may assist students in their resilience to addressing challenges associated with their online learning. Practically, the following suggestions are offered to ensure that the benefits and disadvantages of online education are acknowledged within university learning contexts: • •

The long-term strategic plans of higher education institutions should include specific strategies and resources to assist in the development of course design and course facilitation (teaching) skills of academic teaching staff. Course designers and teachers should incorporate advice and revision points throughout their courses to support students through the more difficult sections of a course.

Utilize Authentic Learning Environments Online and Offline In their book, Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers, Dziuban, Picciano, Graham and Moskal (2015) emphasize the opening up of new frontiers in which to conduct research which “no longer shackles one to the time and place constraints of a physical classroom” (p. 3). In a similar way, learning in the online environment can also utilize such flexibility as a benefit for learners enrolled in online courses. For example, marine biology students learning about the physical impact of wave strength on seaside environments are no longer restricted to having such phenomena described by their lecturers in on-campus university lecture theatres. Nor are they restricted, in online courses, to viewing videos and graphics depicting such weather impacts on physical environments. The benefits of “integrating location-based mobile learning games in higher education courses to enhance educational experiences” (Edmonds & Smith, 2017) are now recognized. As such, a high quality online learning program can provide learning experiences that both incorporate and go beyond the boundaries of a screen. The following practical recommendations are offered to ensure online courses incorporate authentic learning contexts, activities and resources for students to access:

433

 The Same but Different

•

•

Online learning programs can incorporate activities during which students physically visit locations relevant to their learning, such as the shores of beaches and other coastal environments to observe, record and analyze these natural phenomena in situ, albeit while toting their mobile devices to assist in their observations, recordings and analysis. Course designers are encouraged to construct authentic tasks that incorporate mobile or online technologies with activities that take place at physical locations. The combination of online and physical locations has the potential to increase authenticity of student learning experiences or “authentic simulated experiences” (Rosenbaum, Klopfer, & Perry, 2007, p. 31). For example, Rosenbaum et al. (2007) investigated the use of a game played on a physical university campus using mobile technologies by medical students, to learn how to contain a disease outbreak.

Fit-For-Purpose Design: To Convert or Not to Convert? The process of converting an existing course to an online mode of delivery has been shown to be fraught with difficulties, including the phenomenon in which online learning programs are constituted of bulk uploads of content-heavy materials. As Harasim (2000) cautioned almost two decades ago: “Instructional models where faculty ‘present’ or publish information on the Web are less engaging and result in higher drop-out rates” (p. 53). Although the early days of online education saw many educators in higher education contexts using traditional on-campus courses as the foundational basis of their online programs (Davis, 2001), many modern educators advocate the use of blended learning (a combination based on the integration of online and face-to-face methods) in an approach that is based on pedagogical need before a choice of delivery methods. Instead of forcing a choice between delivery methods of facilitating a university learning program, educators are coming to realize the benefit of making instructional design choices based upon learning-centered and learner-centered issues such as disciplinary context, learners’ needs and the nature of learning outcomes. In this way, online learning is seen less as a poor cousin to traditional learning programs and more as a course type of its own, with its own unique values and advantages. In recent years, publications that aim to guide online teachers and online course designers have tended to focus on “a practical approach informed by theory” (Vai & Sosulski, 2015). Discussions about learning and learners appear to be expanding, beyond more limited concerns of whether or not to design a course that is either online or face-to-face and beyond discussions about which technology or which Learning Management System (LMS) to use, instead focusing on the value of considering the “practical implications for designing and facilitating discussions that foster online learning communities” (Ouyang & Scharber, 2017). While the actual technology being utilized is still under scrutiny, the reason for its use is coming to the fore of educators’ minds and practices. In summary, courses that are facilitated in online or blended modes should be designed for these contexts, rather than being conversions of on-campus courses that were not necessarily designed for use with extensive online teaching and learning technologies. To ensure that online learning programs are designed to suit their purpose and learning intentions, the following practical suggestions are recommended at the course design phase (that is, before teaching takes place):

434

 The Same but Different

•

• •

Biggs’ (2014) model of constructive alignment is offered as a course design approach that ensures the course’s learning outcomes drive the selection of appropriate teaching methods and resources (including online technologies, where appropriate). This approach assists in focusing the course design on the course’s learning outcomes rather than being overly preoccupied with delivery modes. For example, in their design of professional development courses, Mirriahi, Alonzo, McIntyre, Kligyte and Fox (2015) purposely designed materials that especially integrated learning and teaching technologies while working towards “improving the digital literacy of teaching staff and enhancing effective online and blended learning opportunities for students” (p. 4). If conversion of an existing course that has been taught in a traditional on-campus format is opted for, instead of designing a course from the very beginning, close scrutiny should be exercised to ensure the learning intentions of the course match the newly created online mode. Instead of designing a course that is fully online or fully on-campus, educators are encouraged to consider creating courses that utilize the affordances of both modes of study. This practice has the potential to ensure that the design and/or selection of appropriate learning activities and resources are based upon the intentions of the course overall rather than the convenience of its delivery.

Interaction and Communication The role of interaction, a common theme evident in online learning literature, has still not been fully operationalized across university learning contexts. Throughout the history of online learning, much has been made of the value of discussion activities that promote active learning and engaging tasks. Faculty staff engaged in online learning and teaching continue to be concerned about effective communication in online courses (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017). For many years, online courses that have neglected the human side of interactive learning have been criticized for being overly text-based (Kear, Chetwynd, & Jefferis, 2014), lacking in engagement (Hun Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2007) and devoid of personalized dimensions (Dole & Bloom, 2009; Dringus et al., 2010). This concern is sometimes even more concentrated when class sizes are large (Chen, deNoyelles, Patton, & Zydney, 2017). Nevertheless, the quality of student learning can be enhanced through the use of activities that engage students in discussions of their online learning materials and bring them together as a community (Glogowska et al., 2011). In fact, McInnerney and Roberts (2004) suggest that “the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful online learning environment for many students” (p. 73) may be related to whether or not students can express themselves within a community. In addition to promoting a feeling of belonging and community, the introduction of communication-focused and interactive learning activities has also been linked to a higher quality of learning. Deep learning has been associated with learning activities and resources that emphasize meaningful interactions and communication between learners (Dunlap, Sobel, & Sands, 2007). In recent years, researchers have reported that “it has become commonplace in higher education for instructors to use social technologies to motivate and challenge their students” (Waycott et al., 2017, p. 12) and that “discussion design and facilitation have critical influences on online learning community development” (Ouyang & Scharber, 2017, p. 34). Although much progress has been made, indicating that more interaction and communication has become standard in some current online learning programs, the use of information and communication technologies has not yet been fully realized.

435

 The Same but Different

The following practical recommendations are suggested for educators who wish to enhance interaction and communication with their online students: •

•

•

•

•

Even in courses that are largely facilitated in on-campus locations, online communication can be used to benefit student learning. For example, the use of mobile video conversations were used to supplement the performance of physical tasks to improve informal workplace learning (Pejoska-Laajola, Reponen, Virnes, & Leinonen, 2017). Integrating interactive and communication technologies that engage learners is a useful addition to courses that are facilitated on-campus or online. Do not allow the provision of content to overshadow learner engagement and motivation. To assist students with understanding content, course designers and teachers are encouraged to incorporate social media, discussion technologies and interactive tasks (Waycott et al., 2017) that engage learners and develop a sense of community online (Ouyang & Scharber, 2017, p. 34). Provide opportunities for students to express themselves in ways that are visible to other students. Interactions that are meaningful, not tokenistic, should be encouraged between learners and their online teachers. For example, facilitating an online forum which enables learners to provide formative feedback about assessment tasks drafts, with appropriate assessment criteria as guidance, can be both a community-building and instructional experience for students. Higher education institutions need to provide professional development support programs that assist academic teaching staff to develop skills in the design and facilitation of online courses in general, and specifically in the design and facilitation of online discussions and interactions, as suggested by Baran, Correia and Thompson (2011). Such programs may involve novice online teachers auditing the online discussions of their more experienced colleagues. Lastly, allow pedagogical principles to drive the choice of interactive technologies, as Baran et al. suggest: “integrating technology into pedagogical inquiry” (2011, p. 421).

The above general pedagogical guidelines and suggested practical recommendations for online course design and facilitation have been drawn from recent and past educational literature on the development of online learning environments during the past few decades. Because this pool of literature is vast, two parameters were outlined, earlier in this chapter, to contextualize and define the scope of this chapter. As such, the guidelines and recommendations outlined above have particularly focused on a consideration of the benefits and limitations of online education as well as consideration of the practice that characterized the early days of online education, that of converting on-campus courses to online courses.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Emerging from the above analyses of recent and past trends in online education and research, and the subsequently identified guidelines and recommendations for practice, a number of areas have also been revealed as possible future research directions. Now that the pedagogical principles of online learning in university contexts have been debated, trialed and tested over a number of decades, it is recommended that online learning should not be seen as unusual, less than or as an add-on to more traditional university teaching approaches (such as face-toface, on-campus courses). Harasim’s advice from way back in 2000 is still relevant here: “Online learn436

 The Same but Different

ing is no longer peripheral or supplementary; it has become an integral part of mainstream society” (p. 59). While this has become the case even moreso since Harasim wrote it almost 20 years ago, the online education environment has still not been fully recognized as a unique learning format by some educators. The following research suggestions may assist in contributing to the future research of online learning as a phenomenon that deserves its own unique nomenclature, theoretical foundations and protocols.

Engage Students in Research About Online Learning While much research about online teaching and online learning has been conducted by educational researchers and educators, more student voice needs to be incorporated into research about online education (McGettigan, 2016). Not only will this direction in research ensure that the greatest stakeholders of online education are given a voice to contribute to future developments in online learning environments and methods, many students in the modern world are experts in technology and hold valuable knowledge and experience in using a range of teaching and learning technologies. The involvement of students in research about online education may promote a more participatory approach to researching online teaching and learning. It may also increase our general understanding of online learning by exploring multiple perspectives of its outcomes, a need that was recently acknowledged by Wingo et al. (2017).

Interaction and Communication in Online Courses Even the early research in e-learning signaled the importance of online interaction and the dangers associated with the lack of it (Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001; Picciano, 2002). Just as the early days of online learning were peppered with warnings about the over-use of instruction that was too focused on the delivery of content rather than the facilitation of learning (Herrington & Standen, 2000; Weiss, 2000), our future in online learning should also acknowledge the philosophy of learning on which the course is based and acknowledge the value of interaction and communication. To extend the work conducted by Jaggars and Xu (2016), more research is required that identifies the link, or otherwise, between the quality of online interactions and the quality of student learning.

Online Course Preparation Activities and Workload Implications for Faculty Further investigations are required into the extent of time, effort and resources that are required to develop online courses. While some discussion and research has taken place about how quickly or how long online courses take to design and create (Kenny & Fluck, 2014; Tomei, 2006; Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2006), additional investigations are required to produce evidence about the time taken and resources required to design effective online programs. The lack of such evidence may, in part, be dependent on the fact that many online programs are derived from an earlier version of a face-to-face course and, as such, are not developed fully as an online course from their commencement. Future investigations into faculty workload may also benefit from a consideration of varied disciplinary contexts as well as a recognition of the variation in faculty staff’s experience in online learning contexts.

437

 The Same but Different

An Area of Research to Treat with Circumspection The early era of online learning was characterized by discussions that plotted the advantages and disadvantages of online courses against on-campus courses and, in some cases, featured comparisons of one LMS against another LMS. These discussions often considered how various course platforms influenced student completion rates. However, much of the research reported was difficult to compare and analyze because each study was contextualized by various factors that existed within the institution in which it was located. For example, while there has been some research reported about low numbers of students completing online courses, other research has reported the opposite. Just a few years ago, Shea and Bidjerano (2014) completed a national study in the US in which they investigated whether college students who were enrolled in distance mode graduated from their degree courses at a lower rate than their oncampus counterparts. Surprisingly, they reported that: “Contrary to expectations, the study found that controlling for relevant background characteristics, students who take some of their early courses online or at a distance have a significantly better chance of attaining a community college credential than do their classroom only counterparts” (p. 103). On the other hand, a study of MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) completion rates found that less than 10% of the students who enroll in these courses actually complete them (Jordan, 2014). In these two types of courses, comparison is meaningless because the types of courses are so different. Although studies have found one mode above another may be of more benefit to students (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010), pitting one mode against another is now seen as less useful than the analysis of the affordances of varied modes of study, based on the content being taught and the audience to whom it is taught. Researchers rightly pose questions surrounding the value of comparing course completion rates between institutions, between disciplines and between various types of online learning programs because there are so many variables associated with each type of program. Comparisons of online versus oncampus modes of study are often unreliable as analyses approaches because the manner in which one institution defines an online course may be quite different from the definition given to a similarly named course in another institution. Furthermore, the use of online learning and teaching technologies is now commonplace in many courses that are referred to as being on-campus modes of study. Researchers and educators are cautioned against comparing student enrolment and completion rates between different modes of study without serious analysis and allowance for the contextual factors involved in each case. Instead, course design efforts would be more fruitful if devoted to the analysis of student audiences, disciplinary distinctiveness, institutional areas of focus and the unique skills and competencies of their academic teaching staff.

Pedagogy Before Technology While this chapter has considered recent trends and directions in the realm of online and blended learning, the vast legacy represented by past educators’ work in distance education should not be overlooked. While much of this work occurred in the 1960s through to the 1980s, before online learning began its trajectory in higher education, some of its principles remain relevant to the modern online learner. Thus, the final direction suggested for future research is the further exploration of suitable principles and pedagogical frameworks that will guide the effective design and development of high quality online and blended learning programs in higher education contexts. The student’s learning rather than the transfer of content from teacher to student should be our aim as educators. The idea of refocusing on learning 438

 The Same but Different

rather than content in online educational contexts is one that has been gradually gaining traction over the years. For example, Baran et al. (2011) suggest that “online educational environments have the potential for enabling the exploration and discovery of new pedagogical approaches … Attempts should be made to engage teachers in learner-centered teaching approaches” (p. 436). Just as Herrington and her colleagues were comprehensively guided by the relevant principles of situated cognition on their work in authentic learning principles and practices (Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Herrington, Oliver, & Herrington, 2007; Herrington et al., 2003; Herrington et al., 2010), so too future online educators are recommended to set their course design and teaching practices in suitable theoretical bases. By focusing on the theoretically sound principles that guide the creation of online learning contexts, rather than being distracted by an over-emphasis on the practicalities of course design, many experienced educators and researchers believe that such strong theoretical foundations will, in turn, result in a higher quality of online teaching and learning practices. Lastly, while this chapter has not intended to argue whether online learning is better or worse than traditional, on-campus learning, it does purport that further research is required to establish the benefits and limitations of online learning, as Nguyen (2015) suggests: Overall, there is strong evidence to suggest that online learning is at least as effective as the traditional format, but the evidence is, by no means, conclusive. Online learning is a story that is still being written, and how it progresses will likely depend on those present. (p. 316)

CONCLUSION In consideration of the last few decades that have seen some educators and students champion online education, while others have recoiled in pedagogical horror, many strong opinions have emerged, some of which are based on evidence and some that are not. While discussions in the early days of online learning were typically polarized in nature, representing definite and extreme views, some recent scholarly debate has ventured further into deeper issues associated with the quality and integrity of learning. How to best engage students to develop their critical thinking skills, how to support online educators to become facilitators of high quality learning and how to develop learning contexts that mirror authentic situations are concerns occupying the minds and screens of modern educators and students alike. As a consequence, the methods used to develop online courses are no longer limited to the practices associated with converting on-campus courses. While one common theme that has materialized from recent literature about online education is a recognition of the unique affordances of the online learning context, another theme has receded somewhat into the distance; that is, the ‘old chestnut’ discussion that, in the past, has focused on the to-and-fro debate about whether online learning is better or worse than face-to-face learning. This chapter proposes that such discussions may not be that important once the realization is reached that online education is not a cyber version of face-to-face education. It’s not the same, it’s different.

439

 The Same but Different

REFERENCES Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., David, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Corsortium. Aguayo, C., Cochrane, T., & Narayan, V. (2017). Key themes in mobile learning: Prospects for learnergenerated learning through AR and VR. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6). doi:10.14742/ajet.3671 Amiel, T., & Herrington, J. (2012). Authentic tasks online: Two experiences. In Informed design of educational technologies in higher education: Enhanced learning and teaching (pp. 152–165). Information Science Reference. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Anderson-Wilk, M. (2010). E-teaching personality is good for e-learning. Electronic Papyrus. Andrew, M. (2012). Humanizing e-lecturers and engaging online writing students via dialogic video. In ASCILITE 2002 Conference proceedings: Future challenges, sustainable futures. Wellington, New Zealand: ASCILITE. Arasaratnam-Smith, L., & Northcote, M. (2017). Community in online higher education: Challenges and opportunities. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 188-198. Banas, J. R., & York, C. S. (2014). Authentic learning exercises as a means to influence preservice teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy and intentions to integrate technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 728–746. doi:10.14742/ajet.362 Baran, E. (2018). Professional development for online and mobile learning: Promoting teachers’ pedagogical inquiry. In Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 463-478). Springer. Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293 Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., & Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers’ emotions and instructional behavior for their students’ emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15–26. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.002 Bennett, S., Harper, B., & Hedberg, J. (2001). Designing real-life cases to support authentic design activities. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 73-81). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, University of Melbourne. Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248. doi:10.1 080/09523980410001680842

440

 The Same but Different

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1(1), 5–22. Brace-Govan, J., & Clulow, V. (2000). Varying expectations of online students and the implications for teachers: Findings from a journal study. Distance Education, 21(1), 118–135. doi:10.1080/0158791000210108 Brown, T. H., & Mbati, L. S. (2015). Mobile learning: Moving past the myths and embracing the opportunities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 115–135. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2071 Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2001). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00154 Chen, B., deNoyelles, A., Patton, K., & Zydney, J. (2017). Creating a Community of Inquiry in largeenrollment online courses: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols within online discussions. Online Learning, 21(1), 165–188. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.816 Chen, S. J., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2), 1–17. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Ally, M. (2006). Learning to feel: Education, affective outcomes and the use of online teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Cleveland_Ally.htm Cochrane, T., Cook, S., Aiello, S., Christie, D., Sinfield, D., Steagall, M., & Aguayo, C. (2017). A DBR framework for designing mobile virtual reality learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6). doi:10.14742/ajet.3613 Cochrane, T., & Withell, A. (2013). Do 21st Century students dream of electric sheep? A mobile social media framework for creative pedagogies. In H. Carter, M. Gosper, & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams. Proceedings ASCILITE 2013 Sydney (pp. 151-161). Macquarie University, Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Crampton, A., & Ragusa, A. T. (2015). Exploring the role of technology in fostering sense of belonging in students studying by distance. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education and Training. Cutler, A. (2004). Pedagogy and online learning: An interview with Ron Oliver. Retrieved from http:// community.flexiblelearning.net.au/TeachingTrainingLearners/content/article_5545.htm Davis, A. (2001). Athabasca University: Conversion from traditional distance education to online courses, programs and services. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2), 1–16. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v1i2.19 Dole, S., & Bloom, L. (2009). Online course design: A case study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030111 Dringus, L. P., Snydera, M. M., & Terrella, S. R. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing teaching presence: Using mini audio presentations in online forums. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 75–77. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.001

441

 The Same but Different

Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions. TechTrends, 51(4), 20–31. doi:10.100711528-007-0052-6 Dziuban, C. D., Picciano, A. G., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2015). Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315814605 Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87–105. doi:10.1080/03634520302470 Edmonds, R., & Smith, S. (2017). From playing to designing: Enhancing educational experiences with location-based mobile learning games. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6). doi:10.14742/ajet.3583 Ellis, A., & Phelps, R. (1999). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative team-based action learning model. In J. Winn (Ed.), Responding to diversity: The 16th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (pp. 71-82). Brisbane: ASCILITE. Fendler, R. J., Ruff, C., & Shrikhande, M. M. (2018). No significant difference - Unless you are a jumper. Online Learning, 22(1), 39–60. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.887 Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed.; pp. 352–355). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071 Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.120715389286ajde1903_2 Gerson, S. M. (2000). E-CLASS: Creating a guide to online course development for distance learning faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(4), 1–13. Glogowska, M., Young, P., Lockyer, L., & Moule, P. (2011). How ‘blended’ is blended learning? Students’ perceptions of issues around the integration of online and face-to-face learning in a continuing professional development (CPD) health care context. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 887–891. doi:10.1016/j. nedt.2011.02.003 PMID:21388722 Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). Measuring teachers and learners’ perceptions of the quality of their online learning experience. Distance Education, 37(2), 146–163. doi:10.10 80/01587919.2016.1184396 Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. doi:10.1007/ BF02504508

442

 The Same but Different

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166. Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. (2014). ‘I don’t think I could, you know, just teach without any emotion’: Exploring the nature and origin of university teachers’ emotions. Research Papers in Education, 29(2), 240–262. doi:10.1080/02671522.2012.754929 Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41–61. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4 Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? University of Auckland: Australian Council for Educational Research. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge. Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computermediated communication on inservice teacher development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 285–308. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments Journal. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. doi:10.1007/BF02319856 Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Herrington, T. (2007). Authentic learning on the web: Guidelines for course design. Faculty of Education Papers: University of Wollongong. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-325-8.ch003 Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Herrington, T., & Sparrow, H. (2000). Towards a new tradition of online instruction: Using situated learning theory to design web-based units. ASCLITE 2000, 1-13. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge. Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195–205. Hun Lim, D., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42. Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Democratization of education for whom? Online learning and educational equity. Diversity and Democracy, 17(1). Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014 Jones, S. J., & Long, V. M. (2013). Learning equity between online and on-site mathematics courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 9(1), 1. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651

443

 The Same but Different

Kanuka, H., & Nocente, N. (2003). Exploring the effects of personality type on perceived satisfaction with web-based learning in continuing professional development. Distance Education, 24(2), 227–244. doi:10.1080/0158791032000127491 Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. The Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 22, 1–15. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189–208. doi:10.14742/ajet.1298 Kennedy, J. (2015). Using TPCK as a scaffold to self-assess the novice online teaching experience. Distance Education, 36(1), 148–154. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019964 Kenny, J. D., & Fluck, A. E. (2014). The effectiveness of academic workload models in an institution: A staff perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 585–602. doi:10.10 80/1360080X.2014.957889 Keough, M. (2005). Relationships not technology are the keys to online learning. Paper presented at the 17th Biennial Conference of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Charles Sturt University, Adelaide, South Australia. Keppell, M., Suddaby, G., & Hard, N. (2011). Good practice report: Technology-enhanced learning and teaching. Retrieved from Sydney, Australia: http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-good-practice-reporttechnology-enhanced-learning-and-teaching-2011 Kim, K.-J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2005.09.005 Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lee, K. (2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A historical review. The Internet and Higher Education, 33(April), 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.001 Lee-Post, A., & Hapke, H. (2017). Online learning integrity approaches: Current practices and future solutions. Online Learning, 21(1), 135–145. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.843 Leh, A. S. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Educational Media International, 39(1), 31–38. doi:10.1080/09523980210131204 Lehman, R. M., & Conceicao, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to “be there” for distance learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (Eds.). (2013). Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices, and tools. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. doi:10.4324/9780203745052 MacCallum, K., & Verhaart, M. (2014). Adoption of mobile devices by academic staff: The reality. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S. K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ASCILITE Dunedin 2014 (pp. 659-662). Dunedin, New Zealand: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE).

444

 The Same but Different

Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417–430. doi:10.1080/1539152 3.2007.10782490 Mbati, L. (2013). Online social media applications for constructivism and observational learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1579 McGettigan, T. (2016). Virtually educated: Student perspectives on the distance learning experience. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2), 53–70. McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73–81. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf Mirriahi, N., Alonzo, D., McIntyre, S., Kligyte, G., & Fox, B. (2015). Blended learning innovations: Leadership and change in one Australian institution. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 11(1), 4–16. Murray, K., & Ward, K. (2017). Attitudes to social media use as a platform for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) within occupational therapy. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–15. do i:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1378313 Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319. Northcote, M., Seddon, J., & Brown, P. (2011). Benchmark yourself: Self-reflecting about online teaching. In G. Williams, Peta Statham, N. Brown, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings ASCILITE Hobart 2011 (pp. 904-908). Hobart, Tasmania: ASCILITE (Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education). O’Reilly, M. (2000). Reinvigorating educational design for an online world. In R. Sims, M. O’Reilly, & S. Sawkins (Eds.), Learning to choose: Choosing to Learn: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ASCILITE Conference (pp. 255-264). Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233. Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2017). The influences of an experienced instructor’s discussion design and facilitation on an online learning community development: A social network analysis study. The Internet and Higher Education, 35(October), 34–47. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.07.002 Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pejoska-Laajola, J., Reponen, S., Virnes, M., & Leinonen, T. (2017). Mobile augmented communication for remote collaboration in a physical work context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6). doi:10.14742/ajet.3622

445

 The Same but Different

Perreault, H., Waldman, L., Alexander, M., & Zhao, J. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance-learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 313–318. doi:10.1080/08832320209599681 Peterson, E. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Jun, M. C. (2015). Achievement emotions in higher education: A diary study exploring emotions across an assessment event. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 82–96. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.05.002 Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Qi, C., & Chau, P. Y. (2016). An empirical study of the effect of enterprise social media usage on organizational learning. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Robinia, K. A., & Anderson, M. L. (2010). Online teaching efficacy of nursing faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(3), 168–175. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.02.006 PMID:20488426 Rose, R., Kennedy, K., & Plants, R. (2014). Addressing Equity and Access in Online Learning and More. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 424-426). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., & Perry, J. (2007). On location learning: Authentic applied science with networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 31–45. doi:10.100710956-006-9036-0 Rumble, G. (2006). ‘Open learning’, ‘distance learning’, and the misuse of language. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 4(2), 28-36. doi:10.1080/0268051890040206 Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(144), 23–35. doi:10.1002/tl.20160 Seng, L. C. S., & Tan, D. T. H. (2003). Humanizing e-learning. Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference on CYBERWORLDS, Singapore. 10.1109/CYBER.2003.1253484 Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, 103–111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009 Shepherd, C., Alpert, M., & Koeller, M. (2007). Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching online. The International Journal of Social Sciences (Islamabad), 1, 426–432. Siragusa, L. (2006). Quality eLearning: An instructional design model for online learning in higher education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia.

446

 The Same but Different

Sit, J. W. H., Chung, J. W. Y., Chow, M. C. M., & Wong, T. K. S. (2005). Experiences of online learning: Students’ perspective. Nurse Education Today, 25(2), 140–147. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2004.11.004 PMID:15701540 Smidt, E., Li, R., Bunk, J., Kochem, T., & McAndrew, A. (2017). The meaning of quality in an online course to administrators, faculty, and students. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(1), 65–86. Stevens-Long, J., & Crowell, C. (2002). The design and delivery of interactive online graduate education. In K. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning: Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp. 151–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tay, E., & Allen, M. (2011). Designing social media into university learning: Technology of collaboration or collaboration for technology? Educational Media International, 48(3), 151–163. doi:10.1080/0 9523987.2011.607319 Tomei, L. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541. Vai, M., & Sosulski, K. (2015). Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315770901 Van Duzer, J. (2002). Instruction design tips for online learning. Retrieved from http://www.csuchico. edu/tlp/resources/rubric/instructionalDesignTips.pdf Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2017). Understanding students’ learning practices: Challenges for design and integration of mobile technology into distance education. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 357–377. doi:10.1080/17439884.2016.1088869 Wang, Y., Niiya, M., Mark, G., Reich, S., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Coming of age (digitally): An ecological view of social media use among college students In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 571-582). Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM. 10.1145/2675133.2675271 Ward, C. L., & Kushner Benson, S. N. (2010). Developing new schemas for online teaching and learning: TPACK. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 482–490. Waycott, J., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., & Clerehan, R. (2017). A virtual panopticon in the community of practice: Students’ experiences of being visible on social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 35(October), 12–20. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.07.001 Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 84(Winter), 47–51. White, C. (2000). Collaborative online course development: Converting correspondence courses to the web. Educational Technology, 40(6), 58–60. White, K. W., & Weight, B. H. (2000). The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies and techniques for the virtual classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

447

 The Same but Different

Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2006). Moving from face-to-face to online classrooms: The reflective university teacher. In L. Markauskaite (Ed.), Who’s learning? Whose technology? The 23rd annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 871-879). Sydney: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.761 Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 107–115. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.001

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Course Design: In the context of higher education online courses and within the constraints of this chapter, the term “course design” is interpreted as being the way in which a course is planned and created, in terms of intended learning outcomes, topic, content, structure and sequence. The manner in which the learning activities and assessment tasks are structured is also an element of course design, as is the approach taken to engage students in the use of selected resources. Humanization of Online Education: The process of humanizing online course design and online learning experiences of students by enhancing the online presence of both students and instructors and by developing instructors’ soft skills associated with communication and interpersonal interaction. MOOC (Massive Open Online Course): A course of study offered free-of-charge via an online learning platform that usually accommodates large numbers (i.e., thousands) of student enrolments. Online Learning Program.: A degree or course that is offered through an educational institution in which students typically access course materials and complete learning activities through online learning and teaching technologies.

This research was previously published in Ensuring Quality and Integrity in Online Learning Programs; pages 1-32, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

448

449

Chapter 23

Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context:

The Case of Adult EFL Learners in China Naiyi Xie Fincham University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA Guofang Li University of British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT This chapter reported on the construction and development of the metacognitive knowledge (MCK) about web-based distance language learning of two adult English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in China. Drawing upon theories and research in metacognition, self-regulated second/foreign language learning, and distance language learning, the authors investigated adult Chinese EFL learners’ knowledge about themselves as online distance language learners, the nature and demands of online distance English learning, and how to best approach their learning in this program. They identified changes in these learners’ MCK over the 16 week semester and discussed how a number of contextual factors, including the pre-determined learning structure, teacher-led instructional sessions, and peer interaction opportunities, were significant in shaping and influencing learners’ adjustments and revisions of their MCK about online distance language learning. Findings from this study have important implications for the design and implementation of web-based distance language programs for adult learners.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch023

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

INTRODUCTION With the rapid development and integration of new media and digital technologies in second/foreign language (L2) education, technology now constitutes an important role in the ecology of learning (Lai, 2013). Not only has traditional L2 learning context been supplemented with increasing online/distance learning components, but there has also been growing demand for and availability of web-based distance education (Kostina, 2011). These technology-mediated learning environments are conducive to language learning by combining various tools with specific curricular aspects and allowing learners to choose the tools and activities that suit their learning styles and objectives (Stickler & Hampel, 2010). However, it is argued that the effectiveness of these learning environments can only be achieved if students deploy necessary metacognitive and self-regulatory processes (Azevedo, 2005). One prerequisite to effective self-regulated learning is to have an appropriate metacognitive knowledge (MCK) base – knowledge about themselves as learners, the learning task, and appropriate strategies, upon which students draw as they monitor and manage their learning (Flavell, 1979). Wenden (1998) is one of the first L2 researchers to apply Flavell’s framework of MCK to language learning, and she stressed that MCK was a “neglected variable” that warranted close attention from L2 researchers and practitioners (Wenden, 2001). Since then, there has been a growing body of literature that reveal the crucial role of MCK in language learning (e.g., Cotterall & Murray, 2009; Goh, 1997; He, 2011; Kasper, 1997; Ruan, 2005; Victori, 1999; L. J. Zhang, 2010). As Chamot and O’Malley (1994) suggest: metacognition . . . may be the major factor in determining the effectiveness of individuals’ attempts to learn another language and . . . explicit metacognitive knowledge about task characteristics and appropriate strategies for task solution is a major determiner of language learning effectiveness. (p. 372) The key role of L2 learners’ MCK in guiding and informing their language learning is even more salient in the distance learning context. In recent decades, China has been fast expanding its distance language programs, as increasing numbers of mature students are keen to pursue continuing education to upgrade their skills (China Central Radio and TV University [CCRTVU], 2010). Meanwhile, China’s distance language programs have been undergoing reforms toward a more student-centered approach, where learners are granted more control and autonomy during the learning process to pursue personal goals regarding their English proficiency (Zhao, Chen, & Panda, 2014). However, studies show that many Chinese distance English learners have difficulty effectively adapting to and managing their distance language learning, especially at the initial phase (Chen, 2003; Hong & Jung, 2011; Jiang, Wei, & En, 2003). In particular, researchers identified low level of autonomy among novice Chinese distance language learners, citing that overall, they “could not apply their self-regulated abilities skillfully and especially lacked strategies of metacognitive monitoring”, and “they were not used to rethinking or evaluating the rationality of their planning” (Zhao, et al., 2014, p. 951). Many argue that the age-old classroom-based and teacher-dependent learning culture in China has cast significant impact on students’ lack of readiness for self-regulated learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Xiao & Hurd, 2007; Zhao, et al., 2014). However, others are critical about the extent to which traditional Chinese heritage culture impacts Chinese students’ learning attitudes and behavior, arguing that situational factors within the immediate institutional context can better explain the differences and similarities in learners’ attitudes and skills of self-directed language learning (e.g., Gan, 2009). Further, there is also evidence that as Chinese learners gain more experience with distance learning, they are able to develop new knowledge and skills of how to learn 450

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

effectively in this mode through improved self-monitoring and utilizing feedback from multiple sources within the learning context (e.g., X. Zhang & Cui, 2010). These findings warrant further investigation into Chinese distance learners’ MCK and its growth during online English learning, which will inform the design and implementation of web-based distance language programs. This case study examined the construction and development of adult Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ MCK about language learning in the web-based distance learning context in China over a 16-week long semester. Specifically, it aimed to address the following questions: 1. What metacognitive knowledge about web-based distance language learning do adult Chinese EFL learners have at the beginning of the semester? 2. How does adult Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge about web-based distance language learning change over time? 3. What are the contextual factors that affect the changes in adult Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge about web-based distance language learning? First, we discuss research in MCK as it relates to self-regulated language learning and distance language learning. Then we describe the focal participants and the web-based distance language program in this study. Following a description of the research methodology, and the process of data collection and analysis, the results yielded from the two individual cases will be presented and discussed. The paper concludes by discussing the findings in relation to current literature and their implications for program design and implementation, online EFL pedagogy, and learner support in the context of web-based distance language program.

BACKGROUND MCK and Self-Regulated Language Learning Review of the existing literature about metacognition reveals diversity in the description, experiments, and measurement of the concept of metacognition, yet practically all the literature on this subject refers to the pioneering work of Flavell. He introduced metacognition as the knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena and defined metacognition as consisting of both a component of knowledge (MCK), and that of experiences and regulation (Flavell, 1979). MCK refers to one’s “knowledge or beliefs about what factors or variables act and interact in what ways to affect the course and outcome of cognitive enterprises” (1979, p. 907). In Flavell’s original model of MCK, he distinguishes three sub-components of MCK, namely knowledge of person, task, and strategy. Person knowledge, also referred to as self-knowledge (Pintrich, 2002), entails individuals’ understanding of the cognitive, affective, and motivational factors that facilitate or inhibit learning. In the context of L2 learning, it includes knowledge of one’s strengths and weaknesses in certain knowledge or skill areas, language learning needs, motivations, and awareness of different emotions arising during the learning process (Wenden, 1998; White, 1999b). Task knowledge refers to one’s awareness of “the nature of a cognitive enterprise, and the implications it has for the best management of this cognitive activity and how successfully its goal is likely to be achieved” (Flavell, 1979, p. 907). It encompasses one’s understanding of a certain cognitive task in terms of its goal, purpose, and demands upon one’s 451

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

knowledge base and skills. Specifically, White (1999b) proposed that in addition to knowledge about particular language learning tasks, distance learners’ MCK also comprised of their understandings of the demands of the distance learning context. Strategy knowledge refers to one’s understandings of “what strategies are likely to be effective in achieving what subgoals and goals in what sorts of cognitive undertakings” (Flavell, 1979, p. 909), and it consists of knowledge about metacognitive, cognitive, as well as social and affective strategies (Schraw, 1998). MCK plays an important role in L2 learning. Literature across various language learning settings, task types, and skills areas has noted that MCK distinguishes expert learners from ineffective ones (e.g., Benson & Lor, 1999; Horwitz, 1988, 1999; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Wen & Johnson, 1997; D. Zhang & Goh, 2006; L. J. Zhang, 2010; Y. Zhang, 2010). Of particular significance is MCK’s influence on metacognitive regulation of learning, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluating, as learners need to be aware of and understand the cognitive processes before they can expect to successfully regulate their learning activities (Garrison, 2003; Pintrich, 2002; Schraw, 1998). In fact, MCK is considered one prerequisite to self-regulation of learning by providing the knowledge base for effective planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Zimmerman, 2002), and enabling learners to “become active participants in their own performance rather than passive recipients of instruction” (Wenden, 1998, p. 520). In this process, the MCK learners have acquired about their strengths and limitations (i.e. person knowledge) can influence their choice of learning objectives and goals, which will then act as the criteria they use for evaluating and monitoring the learning outcomes and process (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 1995, 2000). In the meantime, learners need to use their existing knowledge about specific tasks, strategies, and their abilities to select and activate cognitive actions to achieve their goals and increase learning (Griffin, Wiley, & Salas, 2013). Further, MCK is noted to be necessary to the monitoring process, as it constitutes learners’ internal feedback, i.e. ongoing self-assessment, which reveals how well learning is proceeding or can be expected to proceed (Butler & Winne, 1995; Rivers, 2001; Wenden, 1998). Moreover, MCK may also suggest the reason for the problems revealed and serve as the basis that guides learners’ decision making during the phase of evaluation, such as how they should respond to the emerging internal feedback and plan for the next steps (Butler & Winne, 1995; Victori, 1999).

MCK and Distance Language Learning (DLL) MCK’s critical role in self-regulated language learning is corroborated in studies of distance language learners, who usually face higher demands for self-management and metacognitive regulation due to very limited teacher mediation. A series of studies conducted by researchers from the Open University of UK (e.g., Hauck, 2005; Hauck & Hurd, 2005; Hurd, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008) have shown that the demands and opportunities of the DLL context make it necessary for students to reevaluate their roles and responsibilities as language learners and the need for self-regulation requires them to develop and deploy a comparatively higher degree of MCK than students in traditional face-to-face settings. White (1995, 1997, 1999a, 1999b) also found that distance language learners tended to make wider and greater use of metacognitive strategies than did students learning in traditional face-to-face settings. Hauck (2005) further stresses that the need for distance language learners to understand and manage themselves and their learning should apply equally to language learners in online self-directed learning spaces, highlighting the importance of learner’s knowledge of the affordances and constraints of the technology-enriched learning environment. This is supported by research into learner readiness for hybrid or fully online language courses (e.g., Goertler, Bollen, & Gaff, 2012; Smith, 2005; Winke 452

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

& Goertler, 2008), which cautions that students may lack the expertise in using specialized tools that are often necessary for computer-assisted language learning, and this could affect their preparedness in participating in a language course delivered fully or mostly online. While originally MCK was considered as stable mental representations, and studies on learners’ metacognitive development primarily focused on individual construction (Goh & Taib, 2006), recent studies on metacognition has revealed growing attention to the social and contextual influences on metacognitive development (Backer, Keer, & Valcke, 2012; Cotterall & Murray, 2009; Efklides, 2009; Pilling-Cormick & Garrison, 2007). Studies on learner development in DLL context indicate that learners are able to achieve greater metacognitive awareness as they become more experienced with this learning mode in areas such as their preferred ways of learning and how to better proceed within a DLL context through matching learning needs with available resources (e.g., White, 2003; Xiao, 2014). In this dynamic process, initially learners draw on their existing knowledge base when they first enter the distance learning context to make sense of the new content and context of learning (White, 2005). As learners are influenced in new ways by the distance learning context by interacting with elements in the learning context, they extend and develop their knowledge about themselves as distance language learners, such as their preferred ways of learning and how to proceed within the specific learning context, i.e. their MCK about distance language learning; and they also develop the ability to better match learning needs with resources within the learning context and skills of self-management in establishing a personalized language learning environment within the parameters of their own work and home environments (White, 1999a). In light of the influence of the specific learning context on how distance language learners approach their distance learning, systematic examination into the interplay between learners’ MCK development and the learning context is needed.

THE STUDY Context The study was conducted in an online EFL program for adult learners offered by CF Online1, part of a leading national university specialized in foreign language education, headquartered in Beijing, China. As a typical material-centered DLL program with pre-packaged curriculum, this program consists of two phases of study: a general learning phase with the emphasis on English language proficiency for the first two years of the study, followed by a specialized learning phase to cater for students’ personal needs. The present study focuses on the first semester of students’ first year of study, during which students are expected to complete two mandatory courses – “English in Daily Life” and “English at Leisure” – over 16 weeks. All the curriculum, syllabus, supplementary learning materials and activities, communication and interaction channels, and learner support are managed by the institution’s online learning platform, CF Online. Meanwhile, students are provided with printed course books and audio materials (CDs) as offline learning materials. For the most part, students are expected to engage in self-directed learning supported by the web-based learning platform. Six online tutoring sessions taught by the course instructor are offered throughout the semester via VOB, the school’s synchronous web-conferencing system, which is embedded in the online learning platform. Students can join on a voluntary basis. Additionally, students living in cities where the institution has set up physical learning centers may also 453

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

choose to attend a face-to-face (FTF) class offered on each weekend, during which the course instructor will highlight and explain important content in each unit and arrange paired or grouped practices. Prerecorded instructional videos in which another instructor teaches the same unit to a group of students in a face-to-face classroom are also available on the learning platform for students to watch. Apart from 6 preset deadlines for assignments and self-quizzes, and the final exams for both mandatory courses that are administered on a physical campus, students are on their own as to when and how to study each unit, attend online synchronous instruction sessions, and participate in communications and interactions with peers and tutors. For the two mandatory English courses, the final score for each course consists of students’ performance in three areas: two assignments, eight online self-quizzes, and final exam, which takes 70% of the total score.

Participants Six participants were originally recruited among those of the Fall 2013 cohort enrolled at the Beijing study center. To ensure a diverse case profile, the students were selected according to the following criteria: (1) they gave their informed consent; (2) there should be students of high and low perceived self-efficacy for online learning (based on the Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) survey results (Hung, Chou, Chen, & Own, 2010); (3) there should be students of different proficiency levels in English (based on registration information); (4) there should be both female and male students and in different age groups (based on registration information). However, focusing on all participants was beyond the scope of what was possible here, given the thick description obtained from data collection. We thus selected Cai and Lan as the focal participants, in that they were the most contrasting in terms of learner profiles and the trajectories of their MCK development over the semester. Cai was a 25 years old male from Beijing, working as a customer service specialist in an insurance company. He enrolled in the program with a low proficiency level in English, but high self-assessment in his readiness for online learning, especially regarding computer/Internet literacy, online communication, and motivation for learning online. Prior to this program, he had studied English for about 15 years. All his previous English learning was in traditional classroom settings characterized by teacher-fronted learning, which he described as, “in general, the teacher would be in the front of the classroom talking, and me sitting there listening”. The focuses, as Cai recalled, were mostly on the acquisition of basic linguistic knowledge by rote learning, including “memorizing vocabulary, reading the textbook, doing grammar exercises in the workbook”. Cai was a first-time distance learner, who believed that the flexibility and convenience of this learning mode could help him fulfill both work and life responsibilities. Lan was a 59 years old female from Beijing, working as a Mandarin Chinese instructor based in Seoul, Korea. She enrolled in this program with higher proficiency in English than Cai, but lower selfassessment in online learning readiness, especially regarding time management, dealing with distractions, and control over the learning process. She had had a long English learning history that dated back to the early 1980s, yet most of it was, in her own words, “nonsystematic and periodic” self-initiated and self-directed learning, such as professional development trainings and short-term language programs. In addition, she also had a 2-month overseas working experience in the US as an interpreter for a Chinese engineering company in the late 1980s, and her current job required the use of English as the working language. She also had no previous experience in distance learning and had to study fully online without access to a physical learning center and the FTF class, since her workplace was outside China.

454

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

The study also involved Ms. Snow3, who was the instructor of the two mandatory courses, teaching both the FTF and online sessions. Ms. Snow provided assistance during participant recruitment and contextual information during the data collection process.

Data Collection Surveys Two types of surveys were used in the study to establish the basic profile of the participants. First, initial evaluation of potential participants’ self-efficacy belief in their readiness for self-directed online learning was measured by the Online Learning Readiness Scale (OLRS) (Hung, et al., 2010). Second, a Language Learning Background and Technology Use Survey was used to collect information on participants’ previous experience with language learning, online or distance learning, and use of technologies for language learning (Ushida, 2005; Winke & Goertler, 2008).

Individual Interviews Three semi-structured open-ended individual interviews were conducted in Chinese with each participant on week 6, 12, and 17 respectively via videoconferencing and were audio-recorded. The aim of the initial interview was to understand the participants’ entering state of learners’ MCK about distance language learning. The purpose of the 2nd and 3rd interview was to probe into learners’ knowledge in the three dimensions as they gained more experiences in this program over the semester.

Other Data Sources Other data sources included 5 assignments (Guide to Success assignment, two for writing and two for speaking), grades and feedback, unit-based self-quiz submission and scores, Discussion Forum posts, final exams scores, and the chat logs shown on the public screen during the online sessions. Moreover, Ms. Snow’s evaluation of the focal participants’ work and overall progress during the semester, as well as the PowerPoint used during VOB and FTF sessions were also collected. Finally, a variety of programrelated documentation was also collected, which included program introduction, orientation materials and student manual (i.e. Guide To Success), assignments instructions and grading criteria, final exam instruction and sample tests, and announcements and posts on the online learning platform and the school’s social network account.

Data Analysis Analysis of the qualitative data from the interviews was an ongoing process involving both individual cases and cross-case analysis. It followed a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2003) with the assistance of qualitative data analysis software (NVivo® 10). The original interview transcripts in Chinese were entered into NVivo® 10 for analysis, and only the quotes cited in the research report were translated into English. The overall process followed three concurrent flows of activity: data documentation and reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification (Robson, 1993). The analysis of interview data started as soon as the first interview with the first participant was completed. The three MCK 455

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

components (knowledge about oneself or person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge) proposed by Flavell (1979) were used as the initial coding scheme. Subsequent codes were further developed for each of these three dimensions (e.g., “Self-assessment” and “Personality” under “Person Knowledge”). To capture any MCK development, text segments were compared and analyzed under the same categories and subcategories within each case to search for changes, including new, modified, refined, and contrasting expressions. Finally, relevant contextual factors were identified through systematically and chronologically reexamining the text segments where changes were identified and were cross-checked with other data sources including students’ artifacts, interviews with course instructor, and course documents.

FINDINGS In this section, we present findings of the two focal participants, Cai and Lan. Each case describes the participant’s MCK about web-based distance language learning at the beginning of the semester and how it changed over the semester in relation to the three sub-processes of self-regulated learning, namely planning, monitoring, and evaluating.

Cai: Maintaining the FTF Learning Approach in the Online Context Cai’s MCK at the Beginning of the Semester At the beginning of the semester, Cai demonstrated high enthusiasm for English learning yet very low self-efficacy in himself as an English learner. He evaluated his current proficiency levels as “quite low in all aspects”. Among the four skill areas, he thought that his listening comprehension “might be” relatively better since he liked to watch “meiju” (American TV Dramas). And writing was the worst of all, because he had had “very limited vocabulary, lots of grammar mistakes, and very little writing practice”. His other motivation was career oriented, though only in a quite vague sense. As he explained, “Although my current job does not require any use of English, I believe that with strong English ability, I will be able to have a better job with higher pay in the future”. Without any previous experience with online distance learning or self-directed language learning, Cai’s expectations and understandings of the online language program were largely based on his experience with traditional classroom learning, which was characterized by teacher-directed instructions and testoriented rote learning activities. He believed that the key to successful online learning was to “keep up with the teacher’s agenda for the weekend FTF session”, and the purpose of this self-study was to prepare for the weekend class by “going through the new words and the texts”. The decision of following the teacher’s FTF class as his primary goal was also related to Cai’s view of the teacher’s role in the online distance learning process. In our first interview, he stressed that the teacher’s role was authoritative and dominant. His reliance on the teacher-directed learning style and feedback from the teacher also led to his concern that “the FTF instruction was too short, only once a week”, and that “online learning was less effective than classroom learning”. In his view, the advantage of online language learning included the flexibility in term of when and where to study. Accordingly, his initial study plan reflected his choices over learning materials and activities based on where the study took place. In his own words, 456

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

During the weekdays while I am staying in the rental apartment without Internet access, I would study the textbook and listen to the course MP3 files on my cell phone; when I am back at home where I have easy access to the Internet, I would watch the instructional videos online. And I will attend the FTF class on the weekend. (Interview-1/Week-6) Other than such arrangements, his initial study plan did not show much of self-management and self-monitoring, other than his belief that learning with other students could help manage his learning and address some negative emotions he might experience, Working with others through our QQ group, we could do assignments together, like the one we just did for “Guide to Success”; we could also motivate each other, such as through asking about each other’s progress and striving to catch up. If you were just learning on your own, you might feel lonely from time to time, having someone to talk to could definitely make you feel better. (Interview-1/Week-6)

Changes in Cai’s MCK Over the Semester One of the most significant changes in Cai’s MCK during the first semester was his re-conceptualization of what this online distance language program meant to him and how to better manage his online English learning accordingly. Such revelation was largely the result of the difficulties he experienced in adapting to this new mode of learning and meeting his original study goals. At midterm, Cai found himself struggling to adjust to “the lack of external supervision and regulation” in this program. He realized that his lack of self-discipline and the absence of “strict, intensive deadlines in this online program” had resulted in serious procrastination in his study and acknowledged that he had failed to keep up with the FTF class agenda as he originally planned. According to the official schedule, by then the FTF class had already finished all the 8 units in the first course “English in Daily Life”. However, in his self-study, Cai had just completed the self-quizzes of Unit 1 and 2; for the rest of the units he could “hardly manage to finish looking up all the new words and locate the key points in the texts just to get ready for the FTF classes”. Not only was he behind the FTF class schedule, he also found “the instruction too fast to follow” and himself performing poorly in the teacher-directed learning activities especially the dictation exercise. He attributed this to his own ineffective learning approach, namely, not being able to utilize the study time productively, and concluded that he needed to “evenly distribute time and effort and set up specific goals”, instead of “trying to finish everything all at once right before the deadline or the exam”. As he explained in the following extract: There is a timeline for every unit, indicating when to do the exercise and self-quiz. I didn’t really take it seriously at that time, as this is just the first semester… I didn’t know about this before. In the future, I should follow that timeline strictly. Rushing to finish everything toward the end won’t work. I need to have periodic goals, specifying what needs to be done within a given time frame; otherwise, it’s hard to build a solid foundation. I should divide the learning materials, making sure I spend time to study every day. If I wait to do everything till the end, the consequences are that I won’t learn much, I will be too tired, and nothing will get done. (Interview-2/Week-12)

457

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

For Cai, the second half of the semester was mainly about finishing all the required self-quizzes, preparing for the final exams, and taking the final exams. During this process, Cai gradually narrowed down the focuses of his self-study to only what would be assessed in the exams. Most significantly, his experience of taking the final exams was a critical moment that led to his conclusion that this online program was “essentially test-oriented”. In his own words, I think this online program fits me better, as it has exercises that are particularly relevant to the test we have to take; so, if I do enough exercises, I can get myself used to this test-taking feeling. (Interview-2/ Week-12) Accordingly, to make learning more effective and rewarding, Cai thought he needed to engage himself in a “test-prep” learning mode, which then changed his goal-setting and approaches to learning tasks. As he elaborated in the 3rd interview, “when starting the program, I only had a dream without knowing which specific direction I should go”. Now he came to view his original goals in his English learning as “not being very realistic” considering his current learning progress. In our last interview, Cai determined that his new goals in this program consisted of passing several “achievement tests”, including, keeping up with the teacher’s pace and pass all the courses exams, passing College English Test III (CET-3) in the next semester, giving BBC English Intermediate test a try in the 2nd year, and then deciding on the specialty course in the 3rd year”. (Interview-3/Week-17) With such re-conceptualization and the newly set goals, he now felt “more comfortable” with online distance learning. Accordingly, his views toward how to learn effectively were anchored by the consideration of “how to do better in the exams”. For example, his unsuccessful experience with the final’s listening test made him realized the “flaws” in his previous approach to listening tasks. During the exam, he noticed that these listening tasks were very different from those he knew before, as the current tasks required him not just to understand the general meaning, but also fill in the missing words based on what he had heard. This led to the conclusion that his previous approaches to listening activities over the semester were “inefficient”, and he should do them in the same way as those in the exam, namely “filling in the blanks”: For listening…I used to just play the whole thing without any focus or purpose; this was too inefficient. It should be like what the teacher did for us: first time, we write down the whole content in what we have heard; then we cut out the keywords and try to spell them out when we listen to it again. This should be an effective way, since that’s how the listening test is designed. (Interview-3/Week-17) Furthermore, in order to “ensure positive learning outcomes”, Cai believed that he should “avoid making futile efforts” and his attention should be directed to “what’s in the textbook” only: So, one may wonder in puzzlement: with all the efforts, why am I still not learning anything? This is because you are studying something else, not what the teacher is teaching. Those BBC news, and English movies, they are OK, but they shouldn’t be your main focus; you should be mainly working on things like ‘family members’, ‘how to address them’…. You should avoid studying things that are not mentioned in the class. (Interview-3/Week-17) 458

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Although Cai’s study group did not arrange any more group activities after the required one during the orientation, Cai recalled that he had benefited from interacting with his classmates online and during FEF class, and learned about how others approached their online learning, used various learning resources, and maintained their motivation. At the end of the semester, he came to realize that he did not have to rely on the FTF class solely to learn, and started to see how the other components of the course other could work together to make his learning more effective: ...because what’s taught in the FTF class can also be found online. … Therefore, if I really couldn’t make the FTF class, I can also watch the instructional videos first, grasp the key points, and then study the textbook and do the exercises. In this way, I can also improve my listening. At the same time, if I have any questions, I can ask on the discussion forum or contact the teacher. Also, as I came to know many of my classmates in the first semester, I can also ask them to learn about what happens in the FTF class. (Interview-3/Week-17)

Lan: From Slow Start to Effective Adaptation Lan’s MCK at the Beginning of the Semester Lan started this program as an experienced and mindful English learner with a clear self-assessment of her current proficiency level, learning styles, and how she wanted to proceed with English learning. This probably could be explained by her long self-directed English learning history and her profession as a foreign language instructor. Although she had been learning English since the early 1980s, Lan commented that her learning was “never systematic”, “lacking in appropriate procedure and guidance” and had “skipped lots of the basics”. As a result, in Lan’s view, her previous learning experience was “full of frustration” and her “overall proficiency in English was still very low … with a very weak foundation”. Despite all these frustrations, Lan stressed that one’s “interests and self-confidence in learning English were the most crucial for successful English learning” and cited her all-time desire to be able to communicate in English fluently. She believed that “learning another language does not only mean to acquire the linguistic knowledge, but also to “broaden one’s horizon and enrich one’s life”. Another motivation for Lan to continue improving her English was related to her professional needs. As she was a Mandarin Chinese teacher in a school based in Korea where English was their working language, she felt that “strong English ability could be very helpful in enhancing the teaching of Chinese” and could also help her “better communicate with the students as well as colleagues”. At the beginning of the semester, Lan demonstrated sophisticated knowledge about the nature of language learning process and conditions for successful language learning. When talking about the demands of language learning, Lan emphasized that “language learning was a gradual, progressive process with no shortcuts”, and “it could only be done step-by-step by devoting plenty of time and efforts”. She underscored the importance of setting “clear and specific” study goals. Specifically, her learning goals were aligned with the syllabus, namely “to complete one unit per week as they were arranged in the book”, which was based on her belief that the syllabus was the best guidance on how to proceed with the course since it was “designed by experienced professionals”. Furthermore, Lan noted that just having a study plan was not enough to achieve the goals; more importantly, one had to “strive to carry out this plan strictly”. However, her biggest concern was that her time and energy for study was very limited since the responsibilities of work and life would take up most 459

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

of her day. To utilize the limited time effectively and efficiently, she talked about her time management plan, which consisted of fixed periods and flexible periods: Right now, my plan is to spend 2 to 2.5 hours studying every evening during the weekday…particularly, 2 hours in every Wednesday night would be dedicated to school’s VOB and 2 hours every Saturday night to our study group. However, I know I can’t always have the 2 hours during weekdays, so I will make up whatever I have missed on Sundays, since it’s the only day that I can have a big block of time to myself. (Interview-1/Week-6) Moreover, Lan thought that, in online English learning, it was essential to “fully take on the role of an online language learner” by “maintaining a learning state of mind” and “truly taking ownership of the materials”. She then explained a series of steps she would take to master the material. First, she wanted to “get very familiar with the content of each unit”. Since it took hours for her to commute to and back from work, Lan downloaded all the course MP3 files to her phone and tried listen to them repetitively during her commute, so that she “could know well about what tasks, activities, and conversations were in the unit”. Then she would watch the instructional video for that unit, during which she would “follow the teacher’s instruction closely since “the teacher had provided detailed explanations on all the important language points”. Afterwards, she would “print out the unit’s key points and words from the internet and try to memorize them”. In the meantime, Lan also talked about what strategies would be effective for her situation, i.e. limited time for study. For example, based on her understanding of the course demands, she talked about herself experimenting some self-created methods that could “serve multiple learning purposes at one time”: For “English in Daily Life”, the focuses are on listening and speaking, and reading and writing are supplementary… I usually take a short passage and write it down while listening to its recording. During this process, I could see if I have mastered the new words or sentences, and the same time practicing listening and writing. I think in this way I can improve faster. Like now, for those words I’ve already known, I can write them down as soon as I hear them. (Interview-1/Week-6) Moreover, Lan was aware that this type of exercise could also be used as means to monitor her learning progress, particularly in revealing potential problems if she was not able to complete the task. Another self-monitoring strategy Lan was aware of was to monitor learning through interactions with other students during school’s VOB sessions: This is another reason why I think VOB is great – the interaction. If you are studying only on your own, like trying to memorize some text or doing self-talk, the feeling is never like a real conversation. But during VOB, when I can really talk with another student, I would have the opportunities to discover my weaknesses. (Interview-1/Week-6) Moreover, Lan was the only participant who scheduled regular group study activities. Collectively they planned to have a 2-hour group work on every Saturday evening through VOB. Among other benefits of collective study, Lan specifically emphasized how the study group could be “an excellent supervisor”:

460

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Your interaction with other group members is a good monitoring tool for you to tell whether you have learned the unit well. …Like right now we are learning about “daily routine”, our group activities will be around this topic, too, such as the dictation exercise we did with the teacher in class. So, if you have no problem doing these exercises, it means that you have accomplished the learning task (for this unit); otherwise, you would know what still needs more work or effort to get fixed. (Interview-1/Week-6) As also reflected in the extracts above, Lan at various points during the first interview brought up the essential role of social interaction in successful language learning. To Lan, in online language learning, the peers the tutors, and the teachers, are all “indispensable”, and they had different roles to play in facilitating her learning. The teacher, especially, was “irreplaceable” in that they would offer support when needed, and provide guidance on how and what to study: First, they [the teachers] make you feel that you have someone to count on; when I have questions, I know there is a teacher I could turn to. I don’t have to be worried. Second, the teacher provides guidance, pointing to the direction toward which you should be working. Otherwise, you could easily get lost since there is so much to learn in English. (Interview-1/Week-6) Despite all these plans and strategies, Lan’s initial study were set back by difficulties in navigating online learning platform. She spent quite some time trying to figure out the “mechanics of online learning”. At the time of our first interview, Lan recalled the confusions and uncertainties she had experienced when she first entered this learning mode and acknowledged that she “had not entered the zone of online learning until just now”: After I enrolled in the program, I was feeling kind of…clueless about what I was supposed to do. After I logged into the system, I was just clicking on things randomly, not knowing how to use the VOB or Discussion Forum. Then I sought help from my colleagues and contacted the tutors and finally got the VOB installed. And my colleagues also helped me download all the MP3 files to my phone. Later I got to study the “Guide to Success” and finished that assignment…But at the beginning, I really had no idea about any of these. (Interview-1/Week-6) After “trying to figure out what all this was about” and learning about all the components in this program, Lan was quickly convinced that learning English online could “just like” learning in a real classroom by watching the instructional videos and participating in the VOB sessions, as reflected in the following excerpts: The instructional video is quite straightforward. I could watch how the real class went – the teacher grouping the students into different teams, the students eagerly speaking up in English – as if I was in the classroom with them, too. I believe this can really help improving my English… Another good resource is the VOB. It makes you feel like you are in a real class, because you can interact with other classmates. Although we can’t see each other in person, it could still shorten the distance between us. Like last time, the teacher directly called my name, telling me what I did wrong; just like in the real class. (Interview-1/Week-6)

461

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Changes in Lan’s MCK Over the Semester For Lan, the first semester was a process of making significant changes to her original study plan through re-prioritizing study goals and routines, and simplifying and re-organizing learning materials, in addition to continuous self-evaluation informed by feedback from multiple sources. Not long after the semester started, Lan found herself facing a dilemma: on the one hand, she was eager to “follow the textbook step-by-step and learn as much as possible”, on the other hand, she felt “overwhelmed by the large amount of information, tasks, and activities covered in each unit”, and “not knowing what to do with all those tasks in each unit”. At the same time, she found it very difficult to keep up with the school’s agenda, namely to finish studying one unit per week and submit the self-quiz weekly. In the face of these difficulties, Lan recalled how she managed to optimize her learning approach. The first change was concerned with adjusting her learning pace. After reading through the student manual for the second time, Lan discovered that the timeline on the weekly submission of unit self-quiz was only recommendations rather than mandatory. She was then quite relieved and decided to revise her study plan according to her own schedule, rather than “rushing to meet the weekly deadlines”. The second change was to re-prioritize learning focuses and materials. As Lan increasingly felt that “there were too much to study yet too little time to cover them all”, she started using the self-quizzes as means to inform her of what the most important content was in each unit. She thus decided that mastering all the dialogues, tasks and the corresponding exercises in the self-quizzes should be her top priority when studying each unit, and she would “go over the tasks repeatedly” until she was sure that she had understood them and got all the exercises right. Likewise, she came to view the teacher’s instructional videos as a “pointer” to direct her attention and efforts. In this way, she believed that she could at least got the most important content covered: Before, my approach was like a step-by-step style, one unit after another, following my original plan. Now……I know it’s not possible to cover all the detail in each unit, nor could I finish watching all the instructional videos. But what I MUST know beforehand are the main points and themes in each unit. For instance, for Unit 7 and 6 in “English at Leisure”, I already knew what they were talking about. …And I MUST get myself familiar with the key language points in each unit. My study used to be too meticulous, wanting to cover everything without any differentiation or specific focus; well it might work in other situations, for now it took up too much time, which I don’t have. That’s why I needed to adjust based on my current situation, which was, in short, to start with the most important and avoid unfocused efforts. (Interview-2/Week-12) Furthermore, Lan discovered that the interactive courseware worked better for her than the textbooks books in guiding her self-study, because the courseware had a “cartoon figure who guided the learning process through animations like reading out, highlighting, and explaining”, which, even though the content and activities remained the same as those in the textbook, provided a more interactive and lively learning experience that she preferred. As Lan explained: Another source I found interesting is… like every time I opened a unit, a cartoon figure would jump out and start talking things like what the learning objectives are, and he would also guide you through the activities, and explain to you the correct answers to the exercise questions. I think the whole process is very helpful; I didn’t know about it until later. …It [the courseware] actually has the same content 462

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

and arrangements as the textbook; it’s just that in here the content turns into audio, while you need to read by yourself if using the textbook. I think the animated way works better, it makes learning easier. (Interview-3/Week-17) Her continued engagement with her study group and participation in the teacher-led VOB sessions throughout the semester reinforced her belief that they were the most important sources to inform her self-monitoring and self-evaluation during the learning process. For example, Lan explained that improvements in her oral skills, especially pronunciation and intonation, were facilitated by guidance from the teacher during the VOB session and help from her peers during study group activities. As she recalled, what she had done previously was just “listening to the recordings and imitating whatever she had heard with little knowledge about any of those rules such as liaison”. After the VOB session dedicated to the speaking assignment, she “took the second read-aloud assignment as an opportunity to try out the newly learned rules”, and found they really worked. In the meantime, her study group peers also contributed to her progress in speaking by providing “constructive feedback” during group study activities. Looking back upon the overall learning experience in the first semester, Lan’s self-evaluation was “just OK”, as “the first half of the semester was mainly about adapting to the new learning mode”, and in the second half when she finally figured out how to study there was already not enough time left for her to “carry out the full plan”. Accordingly, she concluded that the key to learning English through an online distance program was to “deploy effective time management and learning strategies on a daily basis”. And she believed that she still needed to get better at managing time and using effective learning methods that best fit herself, and more importantly, “to keep adjusting the learning methods as the course requirements and learning situations changed”: …your learning methods…should be adjusted according to the stage or content of learning; they shouldn’t be fixed permanently. It’s not like that once you decide on the methods you will follow it all the way through. … You need to make changes while you are studying, otherwise, you may not be able to adapt well to what you are learning. (Interview-3/Week-17)

DISCUSSION Our study set out to investigate the construction of adult Chinese EFL learners’ MCK about web-based distance language learning when they first started learning English online. When starting their online distance language learning, Cai and Lan demonstrated considerable variations in their motivations, self-assessments of themselves as distance EFL learners (person knowledge), their understanding of the demands and affordances of online distance English learning (task knowledge), and what they believed to be effective learning approaches and strategies (strategy knowledge). These differences were reflected in their own learning goals, study plans, and approaches to online English learning. One striking difference was their perception of the learner’s role in the learning process. While Cai expected the teacher to be leading the learning process and himself to just follow the teacher’s agenda, Lan believed that she herself should be the one planning and directing the learning process, with the teacher providing guidance along the way. Stressing the importance of “taking on the role of a distance learner”, Lan also started the semester with a detailed plan regarding time management, learning activities and monitoring her learning progress, whereas Cai only had a vague plan of how he would manage his time and effort in 463

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

preparing for the weekend FTF class and showed little awareness in self-monitoring. These differences in their MCK might be attributed to the nature of their previous English learning experience, as MCK is an abstract representation of a learner’s experience (Gabillon, 2002; Wenden, 1998). Before this, Cai had studied English only in the traditional test-oriented context with a predominant focus on forms and tightly controlled by the teacher, which could explain his initial interpretation of online English learning as a teacher-led process supplemented by self-study (Pan & Block, 2011; L. J. Zhang, 2010). Lan, on the other hand, had been a self-directed EFL learner for the most part of her English learning journey, which appeared to have better prepared her in meeting the demands and requirements of this new mode of learning. The second research question sought to understand how adult Chinese EFL learners’ MCK about web-based distance language learning changed over the semester. Our findings show that both learners developed new understandings of themselves as distance learners, the nature and demands of web-based distance learning, and how to better manage their learning in the CF online program. First, both learners became aware of problems or weaknesses in their English or how they approached certain tasks, such as writing and speaking. This new knowledge further informed their adjustment and refinement of study goals in this program. Second, both learners developed new understandings about how to better manage their online English learning and approach specific learning tasks. In general, more references were made to improving the overall planning and management of the learning process than dealing with specific learning tasks and processes. Along with these changes also came some new knowledge of how to utilize different learning materials to make self-study more efficient. This observed trend toward wider and increased metacognitive awareness regarding planning and self-management is consistent with previously studies of distance language learners and self-instructed language learners (Bown, 2009; Hauck, 2005; Rivers, 2001; White, 1999a). However, their MCK development followed distinctively different paths. Overall, changes came much later for Cai than those did for Lan. For Cai, his MCK development was more like a process of “metacognitive awakening (Cotterall & Murray, 2009). Although he gradually realized what he needed to do to address the unique demands and requirements of web-based distance language learning and how learning could be better managed; yet, the extent of such changes was too limited to result in any substantial change in his actual learning behaviors in this semester. For Lan, who started with a more solid MCK base at the beginning of the semester, she adapted to the new learning mode much faster in that changes observed in her MCK and resultant actions happened mostly in the first few weeks of the semester. By midterm, Lan already reported that she had simplified and re-prioritized her study goals and plans. Also significant was Cai’s reinforced belief that the program was essentially a “test-oriented” learning model, in which goal-setting, planning, and evaluating should be anchored by taking and passing the scheduled exams, and that he should be fully engaging in the “test-prep” mode. This adjustment in perception was Cai’s way of handling the unavoidable confusion and uncertainty entailed in distance language learning in terms of what constitute their own learning experience (White, 2003). For novice online distance language learners who do not have any previous experience in self-directed language learning characterized with very limited guidance from the teacher, it is easily to feel overwhelmed or lost when facing all the learning materials at their disposal, which would have been selected or filtered by the teacher for the students in classroom-based learning (White, 2009). At times like this, it appeared that Cai readily fell back on to the situations he had more experience familiar with, an attempt to simplify the current learning progress and make it better focused, even though he acknowledged initially that the abundance of learning resources was an asset of online English learning. 464

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Our third research question was to identify the contextual factors that affected the changes in adult Chinese EFL learners’ MCK about web-based distance language learning. We examined several contextual factors that had played a role in the development of learners’ MCK in different ways. First is the pre-packaged curriculum and learning path prescribed by the program, which was reinforced by linear arrangements of FTF learning sessions directed by the teacher that were aligned with the predetermined course content and mandatory dates for assignment submission and final exams. Although it was up to students themselves to decide whether they wanted to attend these sessions or follow the suggested timeline, it did influence learners’ perceptions toward how they should proceed with their language learning. On the positive side, although such pre-determined, rigid learning structure could not grant much control to the learners, for those who had no autonomous learning experience but traditional classroom-based teacher-directed learning, such prescribed learning path appeared to be exactly what they needed to guide and regulate their learning, at least in the initial, transitioning phase of the program. Cai’s realization that he had failed to keep up with FTF class agenda led him to consider what had caused this undesirable outcome and what he should have done to avoid it. He then concluded that he needed to distribute his time and efforts evenly and set specific, periodic goals based on the school-set agenda. As White (2003) points out, it is particularly challenging for online language learners to maintain motivation without the structuring effect of FTF classes; therefore, this prescribed learning plan could help them gauge their progress and guide them to the next step of learning. This was corroborated in the course instructor’s comments, “one of the main purposes to have these assignments was to help students regulate their efforts and form some type of learning habit”. However, there were also constraints of a rigidly structured program in providing online language learners the opportunities to exercise their autonomy in planning and monitoring their learning. As a result, they would not tap into the opportunities to pace their learning and develop skills of selecting materials and activities according to their own background and needs. Moreover, not only could solely following the “authority route” could render learners overlooking their own learning needs and preferences, but it may also lead to confusion and anxiety if learners viewed it as the only way to measure their learning gains. Other influential component within the curriculum was the form of assessments, especially the unit-based online self-quizzes. Particularly, unit-based self-quiz emerged as an important mediator that helped direct attention, regulate efforts, inform content selection, and to a lesser degree, provide feedback used in self-monitoring and self-evaluating learning progress. The final exams, while still considered important by the learners in assessing learning outcomes and informing goal-setting, showed limited effects in web-based DLL during the long stretch of the semester. Second is the pedagogical practice of the course instructor. Throughout the semester, the teacher’s instruction in both VOB and FTF classes was considered as the primary source from which they gained knowledge about how to approach specific learning tasks, their learning progress, and useful learning strategies. Lan, who was only able to attend the online sessions and watch pre-recorded instructional videos, paid close attention to the teacher’s explicit instruction regarding specific tasks, strategies, and additional learning resources. Overall, the assignment tutorials delivered through VOB directed students’ attention to specific learning tasks and helped clearing their emerging confusions and questions during task completion. The teacher-led FTF tutorials also served as external monitor and evaluator of students’ learning progress. Since the FTF class was designed based on the premise that students came to the class well prepared, the instructor arranged and engaged students in tasks and activities that required them to use the key language points in the unit, with the assumption that students had already got themselves familiar with the unit content. The feeling that the teacher’s instruction in FTF class was too fast to fol465

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

low thus led to Cai’s re-evaluation of the effectiveness of self-study and motivated him to look for ways that could make it more effective. Furthermore, the availability of peer interaction within study group or the whole cohort contributed to learners’ metacognitive development. For example, having participated in regular study group activities throughout the semester, Lan regarded this collective learning experience highly beneficial in achieving and maintaining productivity in online distance learning. It further reinforced her view of the essential role played by her peers and led her to plan on arranging more learning and social activities in the future. For Cai, the benefits of peer interaction were mainly related to promoting and sustaining the sense of belonging to a community, as he recalled events where he felt more motivated and positive by talking to students who were more fluent in online learning skills.

IMPLICATION AND CONCLUSION Results from this study indicate that designers of distance language courses should not assume that students enrolled in distance language program are automatically adequate self-regulated learners because they are now granted with the freedom to manage their own learning. Especially in a typical test-oriented teacher-centered EFL learning context like China, learners’ MCK about language learning in a selfdirected context could be much under-developed. To help these learners adapt effectively to this mode of learning, course designers need to strike a balance between maintaining the structure of the course materials and integrating pedagogical capacities for critical reflection and conscious decision-making to promote self-regulated learning. It would be helpful if explicit suggestions are built into the course materials throughout as to when and how to do self-reflection. Further, the multiple purposes served by the unit-based self-quizzes implies the importance of designing effective self-assessment tools based on subgoals or segmented learning content. Another important component for course design and implementation is learner training. Findings from this study indicate that both initial and online training are necessary for novice online distance language learners. While a generic student manual may cover the basic logistics of the online distance language course, a more flexible and adaptive initial training also seems necessary given learners’ varied readiness for online language learning. To provide effective and targeted training, a comprehensive learner profile through learner background survey is crucial for the distance language program, which should cover a number of key aspects including their previous experience with and readiness for distance or self-directed learning, features of their personal learning environments, and language-learning-specific technology literacy. Moreover, such diagnostic survey should also be made available for the students to reflect upon, which can serve as a record for their current MCK base and help them better understand themselves and their learning and training needs. The marked differences found in learner’s MCK in this study and the consequently varied rates of adaptation and adjustments pose unique challenges for online language instructor and tutors. First, as some students may not have a clear sense of what learning strategies may benefit them the most in the distance context, thus, at least in a transitional phase like the first semester of the DLL program, teachers and tutors may not expect that students would be able to manipulate the flexibility in such program without adequate guidance. Sharing and modeling of strategy use among instructors and students - not only for specific language tasks but also for self-management of learning - can help create a collaborative atmosphere as well as provide learners with opportunities to acquire alternative learning approaches 466

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

or methods that fit better this mode of language learning (Murday, 2004). Furthermore, some students may need extra assistance and guidance to benefit from peer interaction and group study in the online environment. Designing activities or providing guidance that can help learners develop communicative ability through peer interaction in web-based distance language learning seems especially urgent (Hampel & Arcos, 2013). Building on results from this study, future research can continue investigating the development of language learners’ MCK in web-based learning contexts with a fuller account of their learning experience over a longer period. More data regarding learners’ actual use of different components of the online course and records of their course performance can be included to triangulate and verify the changes in MCK. In addition, interventions may be developed and tested to establish methods that help those students who struggle to adapt to online distance language learning. Interventions may be introduced in learner training or preparation at the beginning, or in forms of targeted strategy instruction during the learning process, protocols for assistance seeking and provision, or alternative activities for students who have severe difficulties with the course requirements or who have progressed beyond the basic requirements. The effectiveness of these interventions should be established to allow best-practice recommendations for future adoption.

REFERENCES Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197. doi:10.120715326985ep4004_1 Backer, L. D., Keer, H. V., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40(3), 559–588. doi:10.100711251-011-9190-5 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27(4), 459–472. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00045-7 Bown, J. (2009). Self-Regulatory Strategies and Agency in Self-Instructed Language Learning: A Situated View. Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570–583. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00965.x Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). Language learner and learning strategies. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 371–392). London: Academic Press. Chen, X. (2003). Learners’ adaptability to web-based learning [Wangluo xuexi shiyingxing diaocha]. Distance Education in China, 2003(11), 36-40. China Central Radio and TV University (CCRTVU). (2010). Statistical Bulletin on the Status of the CRTVUs in 2010. Retrieved July 3rd, 2014, from http://en.crtvu.edu.cn/index.php/about/annual-report/2010

467

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In E. H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cotterall, S., & Murray, G. (2009). Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System, 37(1), 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.08.003 Efklides, A. (2009). The new look in metacognition: from individual to social, from cognitive to affective. In B. C. Larson (Ed.), Metacognition: New research developments. New York: Nova Science. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Gabillon, Z. (2002). L2 Learner’s Beliefs: An Overview. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(2), 233–260. Gan, Z. (2009). “Asian learners” re-examined: An empirical study of language learning attitudes, strategies and motivation among mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(1), 41–58. doi:10.1080/01434630802307890 Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Goertler, S., Bollen, M., & Gaff, J. Jr. (2012). Students’ Readiness for and Attitudes Toward Hybrid FL Instruction. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 297–320. doi:10.11139/cj.29.2.297-320 Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361–369. doi:10.1093/elt/51.4.361 Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl002 Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. R. (2013). Supporting Effective Self-Regulated Learning: The Critical Role of Monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_2 Hampel, R., & Arcos, B. (2013). Interacting at a distance: A critical review of the role of ICT in developing the learner–context interface in a university language programme. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 158–178. doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.776051 Hauck, M. (2005). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 65–86). Lawrence Erlbaum. Hauck, M., & Hurd, S. (2005). Exploring the link between language anxiety and learner self-management in open language learning contexts. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 2005(2). He, L. (2011). Metacognition in EFL Pronunciation Learning among Chinese Tertiary Learners. Applied Language Learning, 21(1&2), 1–27. Hong, S., & Jung, I. (2011). The distance learner competencies: A three-phased empirical approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 21–42. doi:10.100711423-010-9164-3

468

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04190.x Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557–576. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00050-0 Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H., & Own, Z.-Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2010.05.004 Hurd, S. (2000). Distance language learners and learner support: beliefs, difficulties and use of strategies. Links and Letters 7: Autonomy in Language Learning, 7, 61-80. Hurd, S. (2002). Taking account of individual learner differences in the planning and delivery of language courses for open, distance and independent learning. Paper presented at the Setting the Agenda: Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies in Higher Education conference, University of Manchester. Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: evolution and change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853597770-003 Hurd, S. (2006a). Individual learner differences and distance language learning: An overview. RTVU ELT Express, 12(4), 1–26. Hurd, S. (2006b). Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance language learner: Learner perceptions of personality, motivation, roles, and approaches. Distance Education, 27(3), 303–329. doi:10.1080/01587910600940406 Hurd, S. (2008). Second language learning at a distance: Metacognition, affect, learning strategies and learner support in relation to the development of autonomy. Volume 1: Introduction to the published work. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/21280/1/PhD-VolumeOne-FINAL-19Aug2008.pdf Jiang, C., Wei, Z., & En, S. (2003). Barriers to e-Learning: Literature Review and Analysis. Distance Education in China, 2003(11), 32-35. Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume3/ej09/ej09a1/ Kostina, M. V. (2011). Exploration of student perceptions of autonomy, student-instructor dialogue and satisfaction in a web-based distance Russian language classroom: A mixed methods study (PhD Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. (UMI Number: 3461175) Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/lai.pdf Murday, K. (2004). Individual differences and student adaptation to online language learning (PhD Doctoal Dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI Number: 3131517)

469

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global langage” in China: An investigation into learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391–402. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.07.011 Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001016 Pilling-Cormick, J., & Garrison, D. R. (2007). Self-Directed and Self-Regulated Learning: Conceptual Links. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 33(2), 13–33. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. doi:10.120715430421tip4104_3 Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279–290. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00109 Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Ruan, Z. (2005). A metacognitive perspective on the growth of self-regulated EFL student writers. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 175-202. Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning. 1999, 27, 473-492. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1/2), 113–125. doi:10.1023/A:1003044231033 Smith, P. J. (2005). Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–12. doi:10.1080/0144341042000294868 Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2010). CyberDeutsch: Language Production and User Preferences in a Moodle Virtual Learning Environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 47–73. doi:10.11139/cj.28.1.49-73 Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Retrieved March 20th, 2013, from http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/Inductive2003.pdf Ushida, E. (2005). The Role of Studentsʼ Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning in Online Language Courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 49–78. doi:10.1558/cj.v23i1.49-78 Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537–555. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00049-4 Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 Learner Variables and English Achievement: A Study of Tertiarylevel English Majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 27–48. doi:10.1093/applin/18.1.27 Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.515

470

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Wenden, A. L. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44–64). Harlow, UK: Longman. White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: Research findings. System, 23(2), 207–221. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(95)00009-9 White, C. (1997). Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning. Distance Education, 18(1), 178–196. doi:10.1080/0158791970180112 White, C. (1999a). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self- instructed language learners. System, 27(4), 443–457. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00044-5 White, C. (1999b). The Metacognitive Knowledge of Distance Learners. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 14(3), 37-46. White, C. (2003). Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511667312 White, C. (2005). Toward a learner-based theory of distance language learning: The concept of the learner-context interface. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance Education And Languages: Evolution And Change (pp. 55–71). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853597770-006 White, C. (2009). Towards a learner-based theory of distance language learning: The concept of learnercontext interface. In P. Hubbard (Ed.), Computer Assisted Language Learning: Critical Concepts in Lingusitics. Volume IV: Present Trends and Future Directions in CALL (pp. 97-112). London: Routledge. Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). Did We Forget Someone? Students’ Computer Access and Literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482–509. doi:10.1558/cj.v25i3.482-509 Xiao, J. (2014). Learner agency in language learning: The story of a distance learner of EFL in China. Distance Education, 35(1), 4–17. doi:10.1080/01587919.2014.891429 Xiao, J., & Hurd, S. (2007). Language Learning Strategies in Distance English Learning: A Study of Learners at Shantou Radio and Television University, China. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(2), 141–164. Zhang, D., & Goh, C. (2006). Strategy Knowledge and Perceived Strategy Use: Singaporean Students’ Awareness of Listening and Speaking Strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 199–219. doi:10.2167/ la342.0 Zhang, L. J. (2010). A Dynamic Metacognitive Systems Account of Chinese University Students’ Knowledge About EFL Reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–353. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.223352 Zhang, X., & Cui, G. (2010). Learning beliefs of distance foreign language learners in China: A survey study. System, 28(1), 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.003 Zhang, Y. (2010). Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English Writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 14. Retrieved from http://lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v14_02.pdf Zhao, H., Chen, L., & Panda, S. (2014). Self-regulated learning ability of Chinese distance learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 941–958. doi:10.1111/bjet.12118

471

 Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning in a Web-Based Distance Learning Context

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217–221. doi:10.120715326985ep3004_8 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 PMID:10620383 Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi:10.120715430421tip4102_2

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Metacognition: The awareness and understanding of one’s own cognition and the processes used to plan, monitor, and evaluate one’s own thinking, learning, and performance. Metacognitive Knowledge: One’s awareness and understanding about what and how various factors act and interact to affect one’s own learning and thinking. Online Language Pedagogy: The methods and practices of teaching a foreign language in an online learning environment. Person Knowledge: In the context of learning a second or foreign language, it refers to language learners’ awareness and understanding about their strengths and weaknesses in certain knowledge or skill areas, language learning needs, motivations, and awareness of emotions arising during the learning process and their influences. Self-Directed Learner: An individual who takes the initiative and the responsibility for what occurs through selecting, managing, and assessing one’s own learning activities. Strategy Knowledge: In the context of learning a second or foreign language, it refers to language learners’ understanding of what and how certain strategies can be used to achieve the task goals, and the effectiveness of these strategies. Task Knowledge: In the context of learning a second or foreign language, it refers to language learners’ understanding of a specific language task or the overall language learning process, including its goal(s), purposes and demands in terms of knowledge, skills, and contextual factors. Web-Based Distance Language Learning: An online instructional delivery system that enables independent and interactive language learning through the means of multimodal materials for self-study, formative and summative assessments, and synchronous and asynchronous communications with instructors and peers supported by online learning technologies.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher Education; pages 311-334, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

472

473

Chapter 24

Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program:

A Case Study in a College of Education Sean J. C. Lancaster Grand Valley State University, USA Andrew Topper Grand Valley State University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter presents a case study analysis of a graduate program that moved from initial design to effective implementation of student-centered online instruction. The authors describe their experiences designing, implementing, and evaluating an online M.Ed. degree program in a college of education—the first fully online degree program at a large, Midwestern, regional institution of higher learning. The design and approval process took almost four years, including both internal and external approvals. Initially implemented in 2011, the authors gathered three years of follow-up data about the program and evaluated its success using a variety of factors, including course- and program-level data. Program design, development, implementation, and evaluation are all addressed in this case study.

INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a case study of an online, student-centered, graduate program that evolved from an idea, to a design, to implementation, finally undergoing an extensive evaluation. Drawing on their development of the first fully online degree program at a large, Midwestern, regional institution of higher learning, the authors describe their experiences designing, implementing, and evaluating an online M.Ed. degree program in educational technology (EDT) offered through the university’s college of education (COE). DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch024

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

The design and approval process took almost four years and included both internal and external approvals. In the years immediately following initial program implementation in 2011, the authors gathered three years of data to evaluate the success of the program and its courses. The data utilized included professional journals kept during the design process, notes from college and university curriculum meetings, and notes from meetings at university faculty governance meetings. Additionally, student surveys, course evaluations, and notes from stakeholders (e.g., the provost, faculty governance members, and personnel in the Continuing Education office) helped provide context for the work done by program faculty. Program improvements resulting from the review and evaluation process are ongoing. To date, implementing this program has resulted in increases in online courses and program admissions, which have helped offset a reduction in on-campus enrollments within the college.

BACKGROUND The COE and this specific program are part of a regional, public institution of higher education in the Midwestern United States. Approximately 25,000 students are enrolled at the university, of which 3,100 are graduate students. The COE has 3240 students overall, with 908 graduate students. Prior to the development of this online degree, almost all of the students who enrolled in the program resided in the local region. Most students in the M.Ed. degree in EDT are full-time educators, primarily teaching in K-12 settings. Roughly 92% of the students enrolled in both the hybrid and online graduate programs are White, non-Hispanic, with 65% female and 35% male. Leading up to development of this online graduate program in EDT, the COE faculty started teaching hybrid courses in 2004 and online courses starting in 2006. There was clear evidence at the time of the need to offer the entire program online, with anticipated changes in state funding for education graduate degrees and national competition for graduate students. Having successfully developed, implemented, and evaluated hybrid and online graduate courses, faculty saw a fully online degree as a natural extension to the existing hybrid program. The goals of the COE’s M.Ed. degree in educational technology are to: prepare educators at all levels to integrate technology into their teaching and learning, advocate for effective use of technology, manage technology resources, work in local or national educational institutions, and explore the benefits of technology for instruction and assessment ... prepare educators and leaders to enhance the potential of their students and colleagues, as well as evaluate social and ethical implications of educational policies, practices, and programs. The program is built around the following student-centered themes or influences, both internal and external: • • • • • • 474

Changing nature of teaching, learning, and the role of technology Organizational theories of educational technology adoption Integration of technology in support of instruction, learning, and assessment Research evidence applied to classroom practice Advocating for and coaching colleagues in educational technology Professional development communities in education

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

The M.Ed. program is accredited by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and aligned with the ISTE*Teachers and ISTE*Coaches standards and benchmarks. The COE has implemented a digital, web-based student assessment system for accreditation monitoring, which is supplemented using follow-up student surveys, course evaluations, and other measures of course and program quality. The graduate EDT program consists of 33 credits across 11 classes: six credits in educational foundations common across all master’s-level programs, 21 educational technology credits, a three-credit elective, and a three-credit capstone project or thesis.

PROGRAM DESIGN The program design process occurred over many years. Being the first fully online program at the public university required multiple levels of approval and intensive collaboration to ensure a high-quality program and buy-in from various colleagues and administrators. The authors relied on research and took a comprehensive approach toward online teaching and learning. For example, Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) organized their meta-analysis of online teaching and learning research around four topic areas: • • • •

Learners’ Characteristics: Social interactions online and understanding learner goals, needs, and motivations in taking an online course; student demographics Learners’ Outcomes: Cognitive and affective, including student satisfaction and perceptions of online learning Course Environment: Culture, structural assistance, success factors, online interactions (e.g., asynchronous online discussions), and evaluation/assessment Institutional/Administrative Factors: Policies, supports, and enrollments

Each of the above were considered and addressed by the authors when building the program. Learner characteristics were researched in collaboration with institutional marketing and student surveys. Learner cognitive outcomes were driven largely by accreditation and specialty program area requirements, although affective outcomes like student satisfaction were also important to the authors. Course environments became a primary focus for program development, creating opportunities for a student-centered program. Institutional and administrative constraints were prominent given that this was the first fully online program at the university. (Note: most universities have online programs now, so this will be given minimal attention in the chapter; emphasis is on ongoing administrative restraints rather than the initial restraints that took years to tackle.) Most of the authors’ efforts went toward creating student-centered course environments across the program. Because faculty started teaching hybrid and online graduate courses at the university in the mid-2000s, by 2006-2007 they had collected evidence of the perceived quality of these offerings from students. Early research by faculty explored learning outcomes as shown by participation in asynchronous online discussions (Topper, 2005a), perceived online and hybrid course quality (Topper, 2005b; Topper, 2007), and the creation of an online community (Topper & Lancaster, 2011; Topper & Myers, 2007; Topper & Subramony, 2009), as well as program evaluations (Topper & Lancaster, 2014). Research suggests faculty who adopt and use hybrid and online tools for instruction face a variety of challenges, including pressure, time learning to use available technology, changing roles, changes in pedagogical practices and complexity of instruction (Ocak, 2011). Brown (2016) argues that faculty 475

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning impact their choices for pedagogical tools in hybrid and online settings. Faculty who adopt and use digital and web-based instruction may change their approach, based on their perceptions of the purpose of the course, with those who are already using student-centered instruction more likely to be successful than faculty who hold teacher-centered beliefs. This intersection between faculty beliefs about their role, as well as students’ role, undoubtedly impacts the resulting instruction and overall course quality. The overall program design evolved from research pertaining to online teaching and learning. For example, Thompson and Heng-Yu (2006) provided evidence showing that students who worked more collaboratively produced higher-quality products and were more satisfied with their education. Similarly, students who failed to communicate with peers and instructors faced barriers toward online learning. The authors also relied heavily on research regarding student-centered approaches to teaching and used evidence-based research pertaining to learning as the basis for building a student-centered online program. For example, research pertaining to students’ satisfaction with online learning (e.g., see Lyons & Evans, 2013) and perceived learning (e.g., Costley & Lange, 2016) was useful. Course development included research conducted by the authors in the areas of online or hybrid/blended instruction. This led to Hart (2012), who identified factors that contribute to student persistence, including satisfaction with online learning, a sense of belonging or community, motivation, peer and faculty support, time management, and increased communication with instructors. These factors identified by Hart helped shape the program’s student-centered philosophy; students were at the heart of the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of this online program, and they continue to inform and improve offerings. The design of the program relied on student-centered research by Wohlfarth et al. (2008) centered on key approaches to instruction that were, in part, based on having, “classroom activities focused less on prepared lectures and more on student-driven questions and discussion about the reading” (p. 69). Research suggested that conceptions of student learning online should begin with a focus on quality participation in activities, media, materials, and interactions, including content, peers, and instructors. Evidence strongly suggested that the quality of interactions student have in online or hybrid settings was the most significant factor in their overall satisfaction and learning (e.g., Thompson and Heng-Yu, 2006). The authors’ approach to teaching embraced this approach and they explored new ways to improve the quality of interactions with students, including facilitating online discussions, offering synchronous chat sessions, and encouraging students to take ownership of their learning. These various findings about the importance of a student-centered approach in online program design had much in common with the spirit of what Vygotsky (1978) explained about learning occurring through social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor’s role is to model behaviors and/or provide instructions for the novice in a manner that Vygotsky noted as being cooperative or collaborative dialogue. Ultimately, a student-centered approach to online class discussions and other activities requires students to do precisely this — to be co-constructors of knowledge. Hrastinski (2008) offered a definition of online learner participation as “a process of learning by taking part and maintaining relations with others. It is a complex process comprising doing, communicating, thinking, feeling and belonging, which occurs both online and offline” (p. 1761).

476

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT The process and products required for implementation of an online program required collaboration with a variety of internal and external stakeholders. Drawing on salient research regarding online course and program implementation, the authors developed a program proposal requiring review by a variety of university committees, including the provost and president and an accrediting agency. The resulting implementation and formal evaluation plan identified principles of effective online instruction using virtual or web-based learning environments. The authors created a proposal and a final plan, and then worked with the Provost Office on an external accreditation request for approval of the university’s first online degree. This process, which took over three years, required approval from university faculty governance committees as well as the institution’s accrediting agency: the North Central Association/Higher Learning Commission (NCA/HLC). Table 1 shows the timeline for review and approval of the online M.Ed. degree in EDT. Table 1. Timeline of online M.Ed. in EDT program development Dates

Action Taken

June-August 2007

Continuing Education develops and gathers data from a survey of 1,500 university graduates living outside the local area; collects 100 random responses and shares results

September 2007

Prospectus for online M.Ed. degree in EDT submitted for college and university curricular review

November 2007

College of Education Faculty Council accepts the recommendations of the COE Curriculum and Standards Committee, approving the prospectus for the degree to be offered online

April 2008

Graduate Council recommends to University Academic Senate development of policy for evaluating online degree proposals

June 2008

Chair of University Academic Senate sends request to provost for formation of a task force to explore/develop policy related to approving graduate online degrees

March 2009

Online Graduate Programs Policy task force produces final report with recommendations for review of online graduate degrees

April 2009

University Academic Senate accepts recommendations of Online Graduate Programs Policy task force

August 2009

Final plan for online degree submitted for college and university approval

November 2009

University Curriculum Committee approves final plan for online degree

December 2009

Graduate Curriculum Committee recommends final plan for online degree to Graduate Council

January 2010

Faculty Salary & Budget Committee approves final plan for online degree

March 2010

Graduate Council approves final plan for online degree

April 2010

University Academic Senate approves final plan for online degree

July 2010

University Board of Trustees approves first fully online degree

December 2010

NCA/HLC approves request to offer first online degree

March 2011

First students apply to online M.Ed. degree program in EDT

A first step in program development was having the Continuing Education division survey university graduates outside the local area to determine their interest in online graduate degree programs. Respondents were asked how likely they were to enroll in EDT graduate courses and the M.Ed. program in the next five years:

477

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

• • • •

45% were very likely to enroll in the EDT program. 31% were much more likely to enroll in the EDT program IF offered online. 51% were somewhat more likely to enroll in the EDT program IF offered online. 90% expressed a preference for online graduate degree programs.

Source: The Morrow Group (2007), in collaboration with Continuing Education & COE This evidence was critical to developing a proposal that demonstrated a specific need or opportunity for expanding an existing on-campus graduate program by adding a fully online option, and this information was included in the program prospectus and final plan. When the proposal for this program was sent to the university’s Graduate Curriculum Committee, they requested guidance from the provost on how to proceed. This led to formation of a university task force charged with reviewing current research on online programs and courses and developing a policy for the entire institution. This resulted in a 16-month delay (between November 2007 and March 2009) before action was taken to review the proposal at the graduate level. The online graduate program was approved by faculty governance in April 2010 and the university board of trustees in July 2010. A request for university accreditation to offer distance or online programs was developed in collaboration with the Provost Office and presented at a site visit by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) in December 2010. This proposal addressed institutional priorities, resources, and the impact of the online program on the organization. Sections included how the proposed program aligned with the university’s strategic plan, the college and university missions, expected outcomes, a needs analysis for the proposed program, how the institution planned to address challenges in offering online programs, the credentials and expertise of faculty, administrative structures in place to support the program and its students, a budget and timeline for implementation, and an evaluation plan. An external review for the program occurred on campus in December 2010 and was approved in early 2011. Applications for the online program were submitted before the spring/summer term of 2011, with students enrolling that semester.

Program Philosophy and Framework While the authors worked with administrators and external agencies, the nuances of program development were also occurring. The actual course structure and curricular development required existing program faculty to take on a variety of roles, including becoming designers, instructors, directors, and educators within the university setting. As mentioned previously, developing a program with an emphasis on student-centered learning required the authors to examine how this could be enacted in online environments. Social presence emerged as being extremely important in creating online classes. Much has been written about social presence in general, but it has also emerged as important in online environments, as shown in recent work by Akcaoglu and Lee (2016), Costley (2016), and Queiros and de Villiers (2016) – see Lowenthal, 2009, for an early history. For an underlying positive sense of social presence, students need to feel like they belong and that they have a voice and feel valued. Sung and Mayer (2012) identified five (5) facets of social presence in online educational experiences as being most important: social respect, social sharing, open mind, social identity, and intimacy. Faculty drew on early experiences and research looking for ways to ensure 478

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

development of these aspects of social presence included adding synchronous chat sessions, inviting background and experiences via introductory postings in the discussion board, as well as encouraging students to maintain an open mind in all activities and interactions. In a successful online program, students are viewed as having valuable information to contribute in each class. Thus, the authors sought to develop courses that provided timely feedback, allowed for interaction with instructors, created avenues for peer contact, and offered opportunities for collaborative learning activities. Jeffcoate’s (2010) research also pushed the authors to value real-life experiences that students brought to classes and their need to understand how course material was applicable to their professional setting. The authors recognized that students brought real-life teaching and employment experiences that could validate or challenge curricula being taught in a way that would help all students learn, so they made effort to bridge the gap from students’ practice to the research being studied. However, the authors also wanted to personalize the experience for students. Some actions that supported social presence proved to be simple; instructors could make a concerted effort to use students’ names in various forms of communication. Another key part of social presence is encouraging students to use posts in asynchronous online discussions and synchronous chat sessions. Some researchers have argued that using video, audio, or synchronous communication may provide students with a virtual space for developing social presence (Moody & Wieland, 2010; Roberson & Klotz, 2001), which, in turn, may provide online students with “subjectivity” (Kehrwald, 2010). Chat has emerged as a synchronous communication tool that can increase interaction (Hines & Pearl, 2004; Roberson & Klotz, 2001; Topper & Subramony, 2011), supporting the development of social relationships and a sense of culture (Im & Lee, 2003/2004) and providing students with a sense of community (Schwier & Balbar, 2002). The authors used this information as they explored research-based practices for engaging students in online discussions. For example, Mandernach, Dailey-Hebert, and Donnelli-Sallee (2007) reported on the importance of asynchronous threaded-discussions in promoting critical thinking in online courses, and they explored the frequency and time investment of online instructors. In exploring the appropriate use of discussion boards for the new program, the authors found that such boards tended to be used principally for cognitive development, with some evidence of critical thinking in the discussions; synchronous chat was used primarily for social and emotional development, with evidence of empathy in chat sessions. The authors also relied on experience with face-to-face instruction, hybrid classes, and additional research, and concluded that instructors in online classes should actively participate in online discussions for better educational outcomes. Wise, Chang, Duffy, and del Valle (2004) produced early research on instructor presence when they found a direct link between this presence and student satisfaction. A positive class discussion clearly required instructors in the online program to be engaged along with students to produce a satisfactory online discussion experience. In their research regarding the nuances of online class discussions, the authors found the work of Brown and Munger (2010), who adopted Burbules’ (1993) four dialogue genres as a framework for examining asynchronous online discussions. The authors relied on this for their examination of online class discussions. These genres include: •

Conversation: sharing perspectives and experiences through stories that build on one another and provide connections, both implicit and explicit, to develop a collective understanding within the discourse which is cooperative, tolerant and respectful

479

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

• • •

Inquiry: asking and answering questions or resolving problems, offering possible solutions, and questioning assumptions, with respect and tolerance for alternative perspectives, while maintaining a skeptical orientation; considering multiple views toward convergence or agreement Debate: taking on a critical orientation, showing skepticism, and reconciling differences through compromise, making an argument based on evidence; clarifying and strengthening alternative points of view Instruction: guiding questions, research, and from a position (role) of authority or leadership as an expert, adopting a skeptical stance toward underlying assumptions; guiding discussions toward consensus

Building on previous work in this area, the authors applied this framework as a method to identify and evaluate student learning through participation in asynchronous online discussions. Williams, Jaramillo, and Pesko (2015) provided another lens through which to analyze asynchronous online discussions using discourse analysis; this was also beneficial in program evaluation and improvement. Gilbert and Dabbagh (2005) defined “meaningful discourse” as the ability of students to demonstrate specific critical thinking skills, which can be demonstrated by relating course content to prior knowledge and experience; interpreting content through analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of other students’ perspectives; and making inferences. The process of meaningful discourse consists of collaboration and social negotiation, where students articulate their knowledge by explaining and reflecting on it within a professional context. From the beginning, the program faculty were expected to approach classroom discussions in this manner in efforts to promote student-centered instruction. These evidence-based approaches to online discussions reflected an effort to stretch student thinking, improve depth of thinking, and determine how to assess learning taking place when students became co-constructors of knowledge. The practice of conducting online class discussions became prevalent in online classes long before the research provided guidance for how best to facilitate online discussions to ensure effective student learning. Since implementation, group sizes have been kept small (e.g., 10 students or fewer) to ensure that lively discussions can take place and that students’ ideas and contributions are not lost in a flurry of posts. Class discussions were a core component of the courses in the online program from the beginning. However, the effort and attention directed toward class discussions were also applied to other teaching approaches. Most program initiatives and actions were made with a goal of developing a more studentcentered focus to practice across the entire program. This effort included generating student-centered common assessments for courses, which led to recommendations for instructional techniques to program faculty that grew from evidence-based approaches. Common assessments were originally developed for accreditation needs, and every section of each course used the common assessments regardless of the instructor, making program evaluation easier when writing accreditation reports. A challenge in developing and implementing this program and its courses was meeting the changing standards and benchmarks for teachers and coaches from national associations — in this case, the ISTE – while maintaining student-centered instruction. As expectations and competencies for educators have changed, course content and common assessments have also had to change to meet these standards and benchmarks. The master’s in EDT program received national recognition from ISTE in 2016.

480

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Students Currently, most students in both the hybrid and the fully online master’s degrees in EDT are full-time educators, with about two-thirds aged 25-34 years (Table 2). Overall, 66% are female. Some students work in the business community as staff trainers related to technology (e.g., at a regional hospital). With a diverse student population, the common assessments had to be developed in a manner that allowed for a variety of professional uses while also meeting the program’s objectives. Program faculty continue to seek a balance between student-centered solutions and program requirements when conflicts arise. Table 2. Graduate program student demographic information Age 25-34

Age 35-44

Age 45-54

Age 55+

Hybrid

62%

20%

17%

1%

Online

67%

15%

2%

0%

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the new online graduate EDT program occurred simultaneously at the university, program, and instructor level.

University Level The university had responsibility for ensuring the appropriate infrastructure was in place to allow students in the online program to experience all the opportunities that traditional on-campus students have available. These opportunities include online library resources and services, online financial aid assistance, online tutoring resources, online enrollment, and many other student services, including an overall online learning management system (LMS). The university library subscribes to approximately 15 online educational databases, including ERIC and Education Research Complete for all students to access. But this is particularly important for students who live at a distance and enroll in online education programs. The online databases allow students to find scholarly and non-scholarly literature, including journals, newspapers, magazines, books, and other media resources like videos. When resources being sought are not available, the library provides services to help locate and provide resources via email to students through an interlibrary loan process. The library also provides services unique to students in online programs. For example, the library will mail any books in the library to students’ homes for a regular loan period. The library will also create a virtual E-Reserves so that instructors can easily share readings and media with students in online classes. Finally, the library provides liaison librarians for students along with instant chat links and many online tutorials for using library resources. The university ensured that all of these resources were in place prior to approving the first online program

481

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

The university recognized the need to make learning resources available to students in online programs. Students who need help with writing and/or speaking can access these resources online. The university also provides statistical and data analysis (e.g., assistance with SPSS, SAS, Stata, and R). A writing center at the university provides online students with support for services from editing to formatting and using email and other technologies. The Information Technology (IT) unit at the university also needed to assure that their resources were fully functional for students in online classes and programs. A HelpDesk is always available, which is convenient when students are participating in online classes while living in Southeast Asia or other time zones far from the university. The HelpDesk can provide technical support for online learning issues (e.g., using the LMS), but also helps with many other supplementary technology issues like enrollment questions, email settings, or the use of any university-provided online resources. In addition, the university needed to ensure that students entering the online program could access a course catalog and course schedule online through a system called Banner. Students can enroll in courses using this system and pay all applicable fees. The system allows students to request overrides when courses are full or when prerequisites are not met. These are all enrollment tools that students who are not in online programs use as well. Also, Blackboard was already being used as the university-supported LMS, and this has continued to be the case for the online program. These various online resources and services are all targeted at providing a student-centered experience for students in online programs. The university put infrastructure in place for this first fully online program while also attending to and considering future online programs, courses, and faculty teaching these courses. The institution recognized that online courses and programs were putting pressure on a curricular process that did not include the faculty expertise needed to evaluate online teaching and learning. Thus, a new faculty curricular committee — the online education council — was established to review and approve hybrid and online offerings. The university also instituted required professional development for faculty teaching hybrid or online courses. Following implementation of this first online program, faculty were required to attend university-provided workshops or modules focused on teaching online or had to demonstrate prior competencies in teaching online before being approved to teach online or hybrid courses. The university statement below clarifies the purpose of the workshops: Online and Hybrid teaching workshops facilitate best practices and consistency of online and hybrid offerings across the university, including offering support and guidance in instructional strategies to foster interaction, to convey concepts, and to assess student learning. Another university-level result of implementing this online program was to incorporate growth in hybrid and online courses into the university’s strategic plan. Two objectives in the latest university plan identify specific goals for increased online or hybrid offerings: 30% of undergraduate courses offered and 30% of graduate courses offered by 2021. This shift in focus is in direct contrast to the barriers experienced when gaining approval for the first online program.

Program Level A policy in the COE required faculty to offer office hours each week. Even prior to having an online program, the Internet had gained enough popularity that many students simply emailed questions to advisors rather than scheduling an office appointment. In-person advising appointments dropped across 482

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

the college as the Internet became increasingly acceptable. As the new online program gained approval, the program faculty submitted a petition and were granted approval to offer virtual office hours to better accommodate the needs of students living at a distance. Now, the faculty still submit official office hours to the college, but they use collaborative resources to meet with students virtually (e.g., video chat resources or Blackboard Collaborate) and do so at times more convenient to the students. Changes took place in the program regarding how students were tracked and monitored as well. For example, the program coordinator uses an online spreadsheet as an electronic database of students who have been accepted into the program, whether they have taken a course already or not. The spreadsheet contains contact information and is color coded to show levels of activity (accepted but never enrolled, actively taking courses, etc.). Prior to each semester, the program coordinator sends out emails to students depending on their status. One email goes to students who are active in the program to let them know the details of the courses that are going to be offered in the upcoming semester, information about how to enroll, tips or advice to encourage enrollment, and contact information for program faculty (e.g., advisors). This is a sample email: If you are interested in enrolling in graduate courses next term or Winter 2018, follow the steps below. Contact one of us if you have any questions about the courses offered, electives, or the online/hybrid M.Ed. degree program in Educational Technology. 1. You can view the schedule of graduate courses online in Banner (http://mybanner.????.edu). Students can enroll in courses for next term – Fall 2015 and Winter 2016 – by selecting the Educational Technology program. We encourage students to enroll early, because online courses will fill up quickly. 2. Online graduate Educational Technology (EDT 6xx) courses, indicated in Banner as “Online,” require a permit to enroll. Students can request a permit or override within Banner; see attached document (PDF) for details. Three online Educational Technology courses are available next term: EDT 621.02 Topics in Educational Technology, which requires completion of 12 or more credits to enroll; EDT 629.01 Online Instructional Design/Development; and EDT 635 Instructional Systems Design. 3. Online foundation courses offered next term include EDF 660.04 Educational Inquiry and Evaluation, EDF 671.01 Educational Policy and Practice (already full), and EDF 672.02 Social/Cultural Foundations of Education (already full). Hybrid sections of EDF courses are also available next term. Elective courses should be approved by an advisor before enrolling to ensure that they will qualify for graduate credit at our university. 4. Students may also enroll in graduate courses for the Winter 2018 term and are not required to pay until just before the term starts. Four Educational Technology courses are offered in the Winter 2016 term: EDT 619 Curricular Integration of Ed Technology, EDT 620 Evaluating & Applying Instructional Media, EDT 626 Assessment/Evaluation with Educational Technology, and EDT 634 Planning/Managing Educational Technology. 5. For students required to complete a field experience for the graduate certificate or the M.Ed. degree, EDT 684 and 685 are available each term, but require submission of an application online at: http:// www.????.edu/coe/grad/med-capstones-how-to-apply-34.htm. Students planning to complete their capstone during the Winter 2018 term can apply online using the URL above.

483

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

6. Information about our online M.Ed. degree in Educational Technology is available on our website: http://www.????.edu/grad/edtech/course-information-online-program-15.htm. Students are encouraged to review this information, as well as the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document available online at http://www.????.edu/grad/edtech/faqs-for-online-only-program-17.htm, if they have any questions. 7. Questions about financial aid (FA) should be directed to the FA department at (XXX) XXX-XXXX or online at: http://www.????.edu/financialaid/ This email concludes with a list of the program faculty and their contact information. Also, attached to the email are directions for students to request a permit for online courses. Students who are not enrolled in the online program need to request an override to be permitted into fully online classes. Students who are part of the online program do not need a permit override to enroll in online classes. Typically, program faculty give students in the online program time to secure a seat prior to opening the course up for students in the hybrid program or in outside programs. A similar email is sent to all students who have applied to the program but have not yet enrolled in any classes. This email encourages students to meet with an advisor virtually and/or to enroll in upcoming classes, with directions for accomplishing these tasks. Program faculty find this personal contact leads to more advising appointments and higher enrollment in online classes. When the program began, faculty also established a virtual program advising portal on the university’s website. It provides contact information, course and program information, links to university resources (including a virtual graduate student orientation), and technology support. A frequently asked questions (FAQ) webpage addresses common questions about courses and the program. Advisor information is also supplied, along with a photograph, and instructions for scheduling appointments. Subsequent online graduate programs have modified this website to serve their specific students’ needs.

Instructor Level Faculty gained a welcome concession when the university allowed the online program classes to be capped at 15 students. Most hybrid courses are capped at 20 or more students, so 15 students provided faculty with opportunities to be more engaged and to spend more time per student. Faculty had argued that a more student-centered approach takes more time than many other approaches to teaching. Creating assignments to meet students’ professional needs while also meeting course standards is difficult when students come from many industries, and it can also result in a variety of submissions that require grading to be more detail oriented. Faculty work to respond to every student when they submit assignments as recommended by Sung and Mayer (2012) when they note that individualized and personal feedback helps establish social presence in online classes. These could be blog entries, learning labs, article reflections, papers, projects, or a variety of other options. This student-centered approach requires attending to students’ academic contributions in a timely manner while helping them grow by encouraging more thoughtful consideration and valuable feedback. Feedback substance and length tends to be correlated with the value of the assignment and the effort students put into it. As effort by students expands, so does the feedback provided. This is not unlike feedback provided in traditionally taught student-centered courses.

484

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

As mentioned previously, class discussions are extremely important in this online program and these discussions occur in many formats. Some instructors use the university-supplied LMS while others use open source solutions (e.g., Moodle, phpBB). Regardless of the format used, instructors maintain a deep commitment to being engaged with students during discussions and eliciting student thinking through discussions via Gilbert and Dabbagh’s (2005) meaningful discourse. The program faculty place a great emphasis on attending to students’ learning. Faculty are also committed to personally identifying students during discussions as recommended by Sung and Mayer (2012) within their five facets of social presence. This effort is assisted by keeping a running tally of when students are addressed by name, for example. Instructors might also address groups of students (Lancaster & Lancaster, 2016). For example, an instructor might enter a discussion after three or four student posts and begin as follows, “I am recognizing a theme emerge when reading through the posts by Laura, James, and Trish that ...“ This saves the time needed to respond individually to students, but still names students and demonstrates that their contributions are valued. Sung and Mayer’s (2012) facets of social presence also provide the recommendation that online instructors, “need to express respect for learner’s efforts in teaching and learning activities” (p. 1745). Instructors in the program make every effort to recognize that student contributions take time and expect to have their contributions in class be valued. Instructors also participate in class discussions in a manner that models respect for each student while also ensuring any students who fail to demonstrate respect for another student are privately addressed with corrective feedback. During program implementation, one faculty member introduced literature by Bedi (2008) that described instructor contributions and student satisfaction using a taxonomy proposed by Blignaut and Trollip (2003, as cited in Bedi, 2008) that was not unlike Burbules’ (1993) four dialogue genres. The idea was to use it as a framework to develop and analyze online discussions by program faculty. Bedi (2008) provides a case study analysis of four different instructors, looking at how they participated in class discussions and how students responded. The findings indicate that a high level of faculty posting is, “always desirable for high student satisfaction” (p. 11); six- to 10- line postings and even longer “Profoundly Insightful” faculty postings take more time, but are “imperative to showcase the academic mettle of the professor” (p. 11). One of the recommendations by Bedi is that these Profoundly Insightful postings might have a longer shelf life. Bedi recommends, “faculty may like to reuse such ‘knowledge objects’ into subsequent sections facilitated by them.” Program faculty discussed these findings at length in the context of the earlier program development research and implemented class discussions in a way that stayed true to the research and provided a more student-centered class discussion. Reusing postings that take great effort can be introduced easily, with the instructor writing, “I just had a substantive discussion in Group B that I want to share here. Imani was asking about X and here is my reply ...“ Over time, these more substantive and insightful postings that take much effort have been receiving more attention across multiple groups of students — the entire class, in fact. When faculty recognize an insightful post that should be used across semesters, the instruction that students receive (e.g., perhaps a podcast) might be modified to add the material prior to the discussion. This earlier introduction helps elevate the discussion and future classes benefit that much more. Finally, Sung and Mayer (2012) provided guidance for increasing a learner’s sense of social presence by recognizing that learners bring “strategies and knowledge” (p. 1745) to distance education courses, but that future research is necessary. Abdelmalak and Trespalacios (2013) provided student-centered guidance for instructors to shift the power balance in the class from the instructor to the students. For 485

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

example, an instructor might provide students with options for how take responsibility in class. Multiple instructors in the program used these research studies to create a list of course topics and had each student sign up for a topic of their choosing. Students become responsible for content in the selected week. For example, in one class each student worked with the instructor to build content for a future week when the topic was assigned. This gave students agency over the instruction and over the direction that a topic was covered while the instructor could ensure course objectives are still being addressed and the instructor can provide quality assurances. The authors learned that this approach takes less work initially, but more work from an instructor each week. However, the shift provides students with a sense of ownership and responsibility in the weekly lessons and content that Abdelmalak and Trespalacios (2013) note can motivate students to achieve higher quality work.

PROGRAM EVALUATION As with other graduate degree programs, faculty in the COE engage in ongoing program evaluation, and the proposed fully online degree program included the same elements as the existing COE M.Ed. programs: student course evaluations, as well as common course assessments to evaluate student learning and overall program quality. NCATE, the program’s accrediting agency at the time, required data collection and analysis to ensure that program and course objectives were being realized for all students in each program. This data collection effort continues under the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), the COE’s new accrediting agency. Evaluation of the proposed online degree paralleled an ongoing evaluation of the existing program, with a few differences that were instituted to ensure a more comprehensive analysis, including: • • • •

Use a technology self-assessment and supplement it with items related to success in online environments (i.e., test of online learning success [TOOLS]). Schedule regular (at least yearly) chat sessions or video conferences to meet online with students to review their progress toward program completion (e.g., Sung and Mayer’s (2012) facet related to understanding the learners’ identity). Use these same tools — chat and/or video conferencing — to prepare students for completion of their capstone experience. Develop an online advising website for students that provides access to all support materials, etc.

Together with existing program and course assessments, this helped to ensure the continued quality of the graduate program as it shifted into the online market where much more competition existed. The following goals were identified for the proposed online degree: • • • • • 486

Determine if enrollment goal were met (2011-2015 45 students/year). Review Google analytics to determine which online efforts were most effective. Analyze self-assessment results to determine whether any students had misunderstandings about what the program entails. Talk with individuals who helped students apply and enroll about their impressions of the program. Tweak messages and tactics as necessary.

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Ongoing evaluation now includes detailed, evidence-based measures of the online graduate program’s success by drawing on a variety of data, allowing for expansion of student-centered courses and the program, and offering a model for success within and outside the institution. Ensuring and maintaining a quality program requires continuous program evaluation and revision (e.g., see Topper & Lancaster, 2016). The authors received institutional review board (IRB) approval to analyze the program, and a convenience sample was drawn from students enrolled in courses during the Spring/Summer 2011 through Winter 2014 terms, nine terms in total. Both the hybrid and online courses used synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication tools in BlackBoard, along with other web-based tools and digital media. These were involved in the evaluation process.

Evaluating Courses The core principle of the program evaluation was a concerted effort to determine whether efforts to be student-centered were actually perceived as student-centered, and to ensure that students were learning and gaining value from the program. Data were collected using a variety of methods. Authors relied on student course evaluations; surveys; and an examination of enrollment patterns, time to graduation, retention rates, and similar data points. Student course evaluations (SCE) had many items that addressed student-centered topics, including: “I developed skills or learned information and concepts that I can apply to my professional life;” “The coursework allowed me to think critically, problem solve, and inquire more deeply into facts, concepts, and issues related to the course objectives;” “Assessments helped me think more deeply about the facts, issues, and concepts related to the course;” “The course provided enough opportunities for me to demonstrate what I had learned.” SCE response rates were identified in the research as possibly significantly lower than those in traditional course formats, and the program experienced some drops in both hybrid and online rates. But these were mixed and not enough to raise serious concerns about the validity of the SCE results (Table 3). Table 3. Response rates for EDT courses by year Year

Other

Hybrid

Online

2011-12

70%

70%

73%

2012-13

70%

57%

65%

2013-14

96%

76%

62%

Every item contained a mean score using a 5-point Likert-scale between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree. The authors applied a statistical process called Kruskal–Wallis — a nonparametric alternative to one-way ANOVA — which was used to compare the course formats based on the adjusted mean responses for this data set. After comparing 10 SCE items reflecting instructional quality, individually and in groups, there were no statistically significant differences based on course format (i.e., online versus hybrid/traditional delivery). Differences were not expected, nor were they necessary for a successful evaluation.

487

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

A survey of students helped to compare the traditional courses (e.g., face to face and hybrid offerings) to the online course format (no face to face sessions). This was another avenue for students to provide targeted feedback directly about the program beyond more generic student course evaluations used across the university (Table 4). Table 4. Selected survey items related to course quality Survey Item

N

P

V

The academic advising I receive is satisfactory

30

6.34

.10

.46

The amount of coursework required seems appropriate

29

4.32

.12

.39

Course offerings are sufficiently flexible to meet my needs

29

.65

.72

.15

Faculty in my program are accessible to students

30

2.08

.35

.26

Faculty use a variety of effective instructional practices

30

3.27

.35

.33

The survey of students included other items for program completers that were related to studentcentered topics including: “Courses in the Ed Tech program seem relevant for positions in the ed tech field (e.g., teaching and or technology support);” and “I received honest and useful feedback on my class performance.” Results revealed that students responded very positively, with all responses ranging between Agree and Strongly Agree. The online program was perceived to be similar on each of these items when compared to the traditional program as well, and there were no significant differences between the programs. Again, a successful evaluation did not require differences. Students in both programs rated course offerings as “sufficiently flexibility to meet their needs,” with online students reflecting a higher percentage who responded with a “neutral” rating: 23% vs. 12% for hybrid students. Online program students preferred online courses (offerings with no face-to-face class sessions); students in the hybrid program rated hybrid highest, followed by fully online courses. A five-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5) was used for most items on the student survey. The data revealed that the two groups had no statistically significant differences on any of the Likert-type scale course items surveyed (Table 5). Table 5. Selected survey items related to program quality: “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” Hybrid

Online

The program supported my professional goals

Survey Item

95%

85%

Courses in the program seemed relevant for positions in the educational technology field

89%

85%

I feel well prepared to work in the educational technology teaching or related fields

88%

85%

I have been prepared adequately to use available technologies in my work

88%

85%

The program fostered a sense of academic and intellectual curiosity

94%

100%

The program was worthwhile

95%

85%

Two items provided additional data about the experiences of students taking courses in the two programs:

488

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Have you recommended the program to colleagues? • •

Hybrid: 57% Have / 38% Will Online: 77% Have / 39% Will Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience?

• •

Hybrid: 83% Extremely OR Moderately Satisfied Online: 86% Extremely OR Moderately Satisfied

Program Retention Program faculty calculated program retention rates by dividing the number of students who were still active, or had graduated, by total program enrollment (Table 6). Table 6. Program retention rates (2011-2014) Enrolled

Dropped

Inactive

Graduated

Retention Rate

Hybrid

104

2

25

8

77/104 | 74%

Online

70

2

10

4

58/70 | 83%

Total

174

4

35

12

135/174 | 78%

As with the other program-level data analyzed, retention rates appeared to be high for both programs, with a slightly higher rate (83%) for the online program. As with other program-level data, retention rates were comparable across both master’s programs.

Time to Graduation Another aspect of the authors’ overall program evaluation was the average time students took to graduate or complete the program. Overall, time to graduation in both programs generally declined during the past few years (Table 7). Table 7. Time to graduation in years Graduation Year

< 3 Years

3 – 7 Years

> 7 Years

2012-13

47%

33%

20%

2013-14

62%

15%

23%

2014-15

54%

31%

15%

2015-16

56%

51%

13%

2016-17

43%

43%

14%

489

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Table 8 shows average times to graduate, in semesters or terms, for students in the online program compared with students in the hybrid program. Small sample sizes limited the generalizations possible from this analysis. Table 8. Student average time to graduation (TTG) in terms: Online vs. hybrid Online N

TTG

Hybrid N

TTG

2013-14

5

8.2

8

12.8

2014-15

4

7.8

10

13.2

2015-16

4

7.3

12

11.6

2016-17

4

10

10

11.4

Summary After comparing student course evaluation data for items that measured instructional quality, individually and in groups, there were no statistically significant differences based on course format. Likewise, student survey data suggested no statistically significant differences across course formats. Survey data also suggested that students’ experiences in the online program were similar to those of students in the hybrid program, with some subtle differences observed. Other program data, including time to program completion and retention rates, provided more evidence of the comparability of the master’s degrees. These findings were important in making the case to faculty across the college and university who were skeptical of online programs. The online program appeared to be equivalent to the traditional program, and it appeared to exceed the traditional program in some respects as well. Looking back on development, implementation and evaluation of the online graduate program, faculty members continue to identify and implement changes in teaching, assessment and course design elements working towards improved student-centered learning. Mistakes made along the way have helped improve the courses and program, with scholarly literature providing additional ideas for maintaining high overall quality. The ultimate success of this program will be continued enrollment and satisfaction demonstrated by graduates in the future in an increasingly competitive higher education marketplace. Accreditation efforts also continue to ensure sustained quality of the program.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The authors plan to continue their research evaluating students’ experiences in the online courses and program, using what they learn to improve these experiences while exploring alternatives that show promise. They continue to share their experiences and research with colleagues inside and outside the college, including at university-sponsored technology symposia, summer teaching institutes, and professional learning communities. Additional survey data are being collected, including students’ experiences following graduation as well as what draws new students to the program. The authors also plan to broaden their work to include other graduate programs and faculty within the COE, most recently with the Reading and TESOL pro-

490

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

grams. The college continues to lead the way at the university in the development and implementation of online courses and programs, and faculty have been asked to share their experiences, knowledge, and research as the university moves toward more online offerings. Following up on the use of asynchronous online discussions, faculty are examining evidence of student learning in threads, using the Burbules (1993) typology, and tracking changes in student artifacts over time and courses in the program. Findings from these efforts will inform future programmatic and course changes, but will also be added to the overall scholarly knowledge base. The faculty continue to examine social presence in the online program and their courses using alternative formats for development of this critical element of student success.

CONCLUSION The experiences described in this case study can provide ideas, insights, and evidence-based practices that other faculty in higher education can adopt and use in their online course and program development and implementation practices to better ensure a student-centered program. While institutional administrators, faculty, and students at each university are different, there are examples of student-centered online learning and assessment practices available for adoption and success. Continued research in the areas articulated in this chapter can provide a starting point for others in improving the experiences of students in online courses and programs, now and in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Beyond Words, Inc., in the editing and preparation of this manuscript. The authors maintained control over the direction and content of this article during its development. Although Beyond Words, Inc., supplied professional editing services, this does not indicate its endorsement of, agreement with, or responsibility for the content of the article.

REFERENCES Abdelmalak, M., & Trespalacios, J. (2013). Using a Learner-Centered Approach to Develop an Educational Technology Course. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 324–332. Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing Social Presence in Online Learning through Small Group Discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3), 1–17. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v17i3.2293 Bedi, K. (2008). Best Practices of Faculty in Facilitating Online Asynchronous Discussions for Higher Student Satisfaction. U21Global Working Paper Series, No. 005, 1-13.

491

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001 Brown, R., & Munger, K. (2010). Learning together in cyberspace: Collaborative dialogue in a virtual network of educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(4), 541–571. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Costley, J. (2016). The Effects of Instructor Control on Critical Thinking and Social Presence: Variations within Three Online Asynchronous Learning Environments. Journal of Educators Online, 13(1), 109–171. doi:10.9743/JEO.2016.1.3 Costley, J., & Lange, C. (2016). The effects of instructor control of online learning environments on satisfaction and perceived learning. Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 14(3), 169–180. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x Hart, C. (2012). Factors Associated with Student Persistence in an Online Program of Study. Distance Education Report, 16(11), 4–8. Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing Interaction in Web-Based Instruction: Using Synchronous Chats and Asynchronous Discussions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 33–36. doi:10.1177/875687050402300206 Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755–1765. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005 Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2003–2004). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155–170. doi:10.1080/15391523.20 03.10782410 Jeffcoate, J. (2010). How postgraduate students engage with online course material and activities. italics. Innovations In Teaching & Learning In Information & Computer Sciences, 9(1), 42–51. doi:10.11120/ ital.2010.09010042 Kehrwald, B. (2010). Being online: Social presence as subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 3950. doi:10.1080/14748460903557688 Lancaster, S., & Lancaster, P. (2016). Online Learning: Students’ Perception, Satisfaction, and Comfort. Global Learn 2016 of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Dublin, Ireland: AACE. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Social presence. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed.). Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch280 Lyons, T., & Evans, M. M. (2013). Blended Learning to Increase student satisfaction: An exploratory study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(1), 43–53. doi:10.1080/10875301.2013.800626

492

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Mandernach, B. B., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Donnelli-Salle, E. (2007). Frequency and time investment of instructors’ participation in threaded discussions in the online classroom. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1). Moody, R. A., & Wieland, R. L. (2010). Using Videoconferencing to Establish and Maintain a Social Presence in Online Learning Environments. Educational Considerations, 37(2). doi:10.4148/0146-9282.1152 Morrow Group (2007). Proposed COE Online Degree Programs: Educational Technology & Differentiated Instruction. Presentation on April 4, 2007. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689–699. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011 Queiros, D. R., & de Villiers, M. R. (2016). Online Learning in a South African Higher Education Institution: Determining the Right Connections for the Student. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(5), 165–184. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2552 Roberson, T. J., & Klotz, J. (2001). Chat: The Missing Link in On-Line Instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Little Rock, AR. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED460160) Schwier, R. A., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2), 21–30. doi:10.21432/T20K64 Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–1747. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.014 Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–125. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093 The Higher Learning Commission. (2003). Institutional accreditation: An overview. The Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association. Available online at: http://www.ncahlc.org/ download/2003Overview.pdf Thompson, L., & Heng-Yu, K. (2006). A case study of online collaborative learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 361–375. Topper, A. (2005a). Facilitating student interactions through discursive moves: An instructor’s experience teaching online graduate courses in educational technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 55–67. Topper, A. (2005b). Evaluating the quality of online graduate educational technology courses: What can student course evaluations and participation tell us about our instruction? In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2005 (pp. 1227-1231). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

493

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Topper, A. (2007). Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and face-toface graduate education courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 681–691. doi:10.1080/02602930601117233 Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. J. C. (2011). Creating community online college courses: Social presence in online learning. Paper presented at the Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching, Traverse City, MI. Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. J. C. (2014). Online program evaluation report: M.Ed. degrees in educational technology. Internal university report. Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. J. C. (2016). Online graduate educational technology program: An illuminative evaluation. Journal of Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.002 Topper, A., & Myers, D. (2007). Using online tools to build learning communities. Panel session (C) at the MVU Online Learning Experiences Symposium, East Lansing, MI. Topper, A., & Subramony, D. (2009). Engaging students through online dialogue: Experiences with synchronous and asynchronous tools. Paper presented at the Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching, Traverse City, MI. Topper, A., & Subramony, D. (2011). Supporting students’ affective development using synchronous communication tools. Paper presented at the Global Technology, Innovation, Media and Education (TIME) Conference. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, S. S., Jaramillo, A., & Pesko, J. C. (2015). Improving depth of thinking in online discussion boards. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 16(3), 45–66. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271. doi:10.2190/V0LB-1M37-RNR8-Y2U1 Wohlfarth, D., Sheras, D., Bennett, J. L., Simon, B., Pimentel, J. H., & Gabel, L. E. (2008). Student Perceptions of Learner-Centered Teaching. Insight: A Journal Of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 67-74.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Accreditation: The process where educational institutions are external evaluated to ensure quality is being met by the institution. Accrediting Agency: Responsible for ensuring that higher education courses and programs meet specified criteria for excellent and high levels of student satisfaction. Asynchronous Online Discussions: Text-based discussions that occur without the need for all participants to be present at the same time. Faculty: Individuals hired by the institution as tenured or tenure-track, affiliate, or adjunct responsible for developing and teaching courses.

494

 Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program

Hybrid Class: When participants have some face to face sessions and some fully online sessions (e.g., typically, between 15% and 99% online). Instructor Presence: Occurs when students perceive an instructor to be involved in the online teaching and learning process. Online Class: When a class is 100% online with no traditional, face-to-face sessions. Online Program: Includes a series of required or optional online courses that taken together represent a program of completion with no traditional, face-to-face requirements. Social Presence: When students feel like they belong in an online class and that their contributions are valued. Student-Centered: When a class is developed and taught in a way that values the students enrolled and allows students to help steer and control their own learning.

This research was previously published in Student-Centered Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education; pages 157184, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

495

496

Chapter 25

Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning:

Faculty Development Options for Distance Learning Instructors Nicole Luongo Saint Peter’s University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter explores various faculty development digital teaching and learning options that higher education institutions can offer distance learning instructors. The chapter explains specific methods of providing professional development opportunities for these educators. Some of these options are connected to promotion and tenure, acquisition of new technology, and personal satisfaction. Recently developed technological rewards such as digital badges and credentials are discussed in this chapter. The author explains how nationally recognized professional development programs can enhance professional development programs by offering new options to faculty. The author recommends that higher education institutions modify their current processes for offering professional development options for faculty who design and develop distance learning courses. The chapter suggests that faculty members need specific digital teaching and learning professional development training options when designing and teaching distance learning courses.

INTRODUCTION Enrollment in distance learning courses and programs is on the rise. “No matter how much we think that there might be something slowing it down, it hasn’t happened,” (Seaman, as cited in Friedman, 2018, para. 3). It is estimated that approximately six percent of all undergraduate and graduate students are currently enrolled in at least one distance education course (Radicioni, 2018). Allen and Seaman (2017) reported that 83% of distance learning students are studying at the undergraduate level. Most likely, this number will continue to grow, requiring colleges and universities to amplify their online offerings. In DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch025

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

order to develop these courses and programs, higher education institutions will need to provide instructors with enticing faculty development opportunities. This chapter presents various faculty development options that can act as key factors in developing effective and engaging pedagogy, increasing motivation, expanding learning opportunities, and disseminating skills in higher education. As is cited in a recent report by the Babson Survey Research Group, “distance education enrollments increased for the fourteenth straight year, growing faster than they have for the past several years” (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018, p. 3). Julia E. Seaman, the Director of the Babson Research Group, stated, “The growth of distance enrollments has been relentless. They have gone up when the economy was expanding when the economy was shrinking, when overall enrollments were growing, and now when overall enrollments are shrinking,” (as cited in Radicioni, 2018, para. 3). In order to offer firstrate higher education online programs or courses, faculty development in digital teaching and learning needs to be a key factor. This chapter explores various faculty development options offered to distance education instructors to promote digital teaching and learning in today’s higher education institutions. Moreover, the chapter examines the basic issues surrounding the development and teaching of distance learning courses as well as the importance of faculty development in digital teaching and learning. The chapter delivers helpful suggestions for faculty who teach in higher education institutions that offer distance learning programs and courses. Finally, the chapter suggests critical areas for future research in this area of study.

BACKGROUND Distance learning, otherwise known as distance education or online learning, is defined as an institutionbased form of education where students are physically separated from professors, and interactive telecommunication systems connect learners and resources (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2014). The National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) defines a distance education course as “a course in which the instructional content is delivered exclusively via distance education. Requirements for coming to campus for orientation, testing, or academic support services do not exclude a course from being classified as distance education” (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016, p. 3). For the purposes of this paper, distance education is defined as a form of education “that uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (Seaman & Allen, 2017, p. 6). There are four main characteristics that distinguish distance learning from traditional face-to-face instruction (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2014). Primarily, distance learning is carried out through an institution; it is not a self-study or non-academic learning activity. Students who succeed in distance learning courses are awarded college or university credit. Second, geographic separation is inherent in distance learning; students and professors are located in different areas. Third, interactive telecommunications connect the learning group with each other and with the instructor. Most often, electronic communications such as electronic mail or web-based tools are used, but traditional forms of communication such as the postal system may also play a role. Finally, distance learning establishes an official learning community, which is composed of students and a professor.

497

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

As a result of the distance learning initiative, many faculty members are now designing and teaching online or hybrid courses (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2014). In fact, the changing role of core faculty in online instruction is an indication of the mainstreaming of distance learning in higher education. As the demand for high-quality distance learning courses increases, institutions of higher education will want to attract and retain faculty to develop and teach these courses (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Research shows that successful distance learning initiatives start with the faculty (Cook, Ley, Crawford, & Warner, 2009). In order to assist faculty in developing and teaching online courses, higher institutions may want to offer specific professional development opportunities that focus on online teaching pedagogy and course management (Keengwe & Kidd, 2010). Therefore, in order to develop and maintain high-quality distance learning courses and programs, full-time faculty need to be engaged and willing to learn how to design distance learning courses and competently teach them online. Although many newer faculty may accept distance education as a valid and legitimate way of teaching and learning, there are some veteran faculty members who are still uncomfortable teaching in distance learning programs for a variety of important reasons. Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut (2016) assert, “Even after a decade of substantial growth in the number of schools with distance offerings and the number of students taking these courses, the level of skepticism among faculty has remained very high. Only a small portion of all academic leaders report that their faculty ‘accept the value and legitimacy of online education.’ The trend over the past several years has been one of little change from year to year. The continuing failure of online education has been the inability to convince its most important audience – higher education faculty members – of its worth” (p. 26). Since many seasoned faculty learned in brick and mortar classrooms, they believe they should teach in a similar traditional classroom environment. Also, many faculty are asked to teach online with little notice from their administration, and practically no training (Schmidt, Hodge, & Tschida, 2013). Understandably, faculty who attempt to teach online or hybrid courses without proper training can be discouraged and disillusioned. Furthermore, students in these classes suffer when the online courses are offered with inadequate preparation. The instructors would benefit from strong distance learning faculty development programs and opportunities. Online or hybrid course development, as well as revision and implementation, requires substantial time commitment and typically affect faculty workloads in teaching, research, and service (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, & Raffo, 2017; Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017). In the first few semesters of establishing a distance learning course, it is essential that the faculty member is given the time to review and revise the course. These revisions are critical for the success of the faculty member as well as students in the course.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION This chapter explores faculty development options that can promote the effective use of digital teaching and learning tools when designing and teaching distance courses in higher education institutions. Research indicates that there are certain factors that motivate faculty to design and teach distance learning courses (Collay, 2018; Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, & Raffo, 2017; Keengwe & Kidd, 2010; O’Quinn & Corry, 2004). The chapter discusses how higher education institutions can motivate faculty members and influence faculty participation to promote digital teaching and learning. It presents various faculty development initiatives that are currently being used to engage and attract distance learning faculty.

498

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

As the need for distance education programs and courses continues to grow, it is increasingly important for higher education institutions to “support faculty in ways that are appropriate to their needs, and to create professional development programs that are tailored to the needs of online faculty members with the goal of influencing the faculty’s effectiveness” (Williams, Layne, & Ice, as cited in Mohr & Shelton, 2017, p. 134). Simpson (2010) claims, “Without adequate and valued rewards for this increasingly important dimension of faculty work, institutions may have little chance of recruiting and retaining highly capable faculty who are willing to teach at a distance” (p. 2). Professional development programs that are geared towards today’s digital teaching and learning world can assist distance education faculty by identifying and meeting their immediate and future needs.

Compensation Compensation paid directly to faculty in addition to the base salary is a common form of institutional incentive to design and teach distance learning courses (Wolcott & Haderlie, 1996). Herman (2013) explains that financial remuneration can come in the form of stipends, honorariums, or any financial payment that is not part of the faculty member’s regular salary. Faculty compensation is an important option in faculty development since it is a motivational factor (Schifter, as cited in Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Although financial compensation is the most common form of motivator, it is not necessarily the highest rated one. Additional money is not necessarily aligned with the incentives that many faculty members report as important. Herman (2013) suggests that higher education administrators should consult with faculty members regarding what incentives they would find motivating or valuable for developing or teaching a distance learning course. Herman found “that the most frequently offered incentives, such as financial, are not always aligned with incentives that most faculty members have reported as important. This suggests that, when selecting incentives for faculty members, institutions may be able to improve the efficacy of, or satisfaction with, the incentives by communicating with faculty members regarding what incentives they would find motivating or valuable for developing an online course, teaching online, or participating in faculty development programs for online instructors” (p. 409).

Course Release Time Course release time is another motivator for faculty to design and teach distance learning courses (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, & Raffo, 2017). Most faculty are concerned about time commitments (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009; Singh & Hardaker, 2014) and indicate that distance learning design and implementation take more time and effort than the traditional face-to-face design and delivery (Hopewell, 2012). Course releases provide faculty with much needed time by reducing their workloads, releasing them from committee work, and relieving them of other service obligations (Herman, 2013). Additionally, this extra time can provide them with the motivation to participate in faculty development activities that will promote digital teaching and learning.

Tenure and Promotion Rewards Tenure and promotion are the traditional rewards for faculty who participate in professional development (O’Quinn & Corry, 2004). Tenure-track faculty are more likely to develop and teach distance learning 499

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

courses if the effort is rewarded by being counted towards tenure (Andersen, as cited in Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Herman (2013) explains that recognition in tenure and promotion constitutes any institutional policy or practice that provides additional benefits for faculty members during the tenure or promotion process because of their participation in designing or teaching an online course or participating in a faculty development program. Yet at many institutions, there is no set policy regarding tenure, promotion, or course evaluations in connection to online teaching and course development. Faculty often express concern over participating in time-consuming online course development activities that draw resources away from furthering their careers. Moreover, many distance learning instructors are unsure about how their online teaching will be evaluated, particularly in promotion and tenure processes (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017). In addition, teaching at a distance may actually present a possible risk for tenure-track faculty, because the demands can adversely affect research and service agendas and have negative consequences on tenure and promotion (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, & Raffo, 2017). An additional liability in devoting extra time to distance learning is the impact on other academic and professional responsibilities such as publishing and required service to the college or university (Hopewell, 2012). Hopewell explains that choosing to teach a distance learning course is a risk or reward decision, where the reward is not always guaranteed. Further, Kelly (2012) claims that the “key question in determining whether there is a need for policy change is whether teaching online is more time consuming than teaching face-to-face” (p. 13). Because if it is more time consuming, distance learning faculty have every right to worry about how the additional work involved could affect other responsibilities. Philip DiSalvio, director of SetonWorldWide, Seton Hall University’s online campus asks, “Does teaching online reduce your productivity in those areas that will give you tenure or that will give you more compensation or a promotion?... Most folks find that [teaching online] is more work, and so it comes to be seen as a perceived threat to productivity in research and service, and this has implications for compensation, promotion, and tenure” (Kelly, p. 13). As higher education institutions face the demand to develop more distance learning programs and courses, the potential impact this choice may have on faculty members’ careers must be weighed. “Acknowledging the role that online instruction might play in the future is one step in developing a response to the workload, promotion, and tenure issues. The institution needs to have appropriate policies in place, but because of differences among departments an institution-wide policy cannot be the final word on how to address these issues” (Kelly, 2012, p. 13). All non-tenured and junior faculty members must carefully consider the potential risks and rewards inherent in teaching online. In sum, expecting faculty to embrace distance learning endeavors that are not positively linked to promotion and tenure can only discourage faculty participation.

Nationally-Recognized Distance Learning Awards and Presentations In recent years, professional online learning organizations have started presenting awards to faculty for designing and teaching distance learning courses. The Online Learning Consortium (2018b) recognizes outstanding work in the field of distance learning through an annual awards process. Some of these awards include (a) leadership awards in online education, (b) awards for excellence in faculty development for online teaching, (c) excellence and innovation awards in online teaching, and (d) incorporation into an online learning journal documenting outstanding research achievement awards in online education. Quality Matters (QM) is another nationally recognized organization that offers certain rewards for higher education faculty members who “demonstrate a commitment to ensuring high course quality and 500

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

using different but valuable approaches to improving learner outcomes” (Quality Matters, 2018d, para. 1). For example, the “Outstanding Impact by an Individual in Higher Education” award is presented to an individual implementing QM and making significant contributions to learners’ online experience through instructional design, faculty professional development or related initiatives. These awards are highly recognized in the world of online learning; hence, dedicated distance learning faculty strive to receive one of these coveted accolades. Besides receiving tangible awards, other motivating factors for faculty include the recognition of being asked to present at national and state distance learning conferences, produce a publication in a peer-reviewed and recognized journal or book, and associate themselves with national and international distance learning programs (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, and Raffo, 2017; Wolcott & Betts, 1999). These rewards are critical to motivating faculty and supporting the importance of distance learning in the overall higher education community.

Technological Rewards Some institutions of higher education internally reward distance learning educators with various forms of technology, such as new laptops, tablets, cell phones, software, or the benefit of upgraded or additional loaned university equipment (Herman, 2013; Parker, 2003). These added perks can motivate educators who may not have had access to or interest in these technologies before. For example, a professor who is asked to teach from a distance during a leave from school may be inclined to use new technologies when provided with a laptop computer as a reward. Another possible motivational opportunity would be providing a professor with a tablet or smartphone with the onus of using it to teach a fully online course. Furthermore, if the institute of higher education provides the technology, faculty may be motivated to attend professional development training and learn how to use newer, innovative technologies. The provision of technology as an incentive, when coupled with research time, grants an opportunity for exploration of innovative distance learning methodologies using technology.

Intellectual Challenge Rewards Many faculty who have been teaching the same courses in the same format for many years yearn for intellectual challenge (Wolcott & Betts, 1999). The opportunity to redesign existing courses or teach new courses in a distance learning environment offers a disinterested professor the potential to explore a new pedagogical approach (Baran, Correia, & Thompson, 2011; Zhen, Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008). The online classroom poses various intellectual challenges for faculty members. In fact, many faculty agree to design and teach distance learning courses as a personal challenge to improve their pedagogy as well as develop competence in using a new delivery method. Others are stimulated by learning how to infuse technological techniques into their previous static, traditional courses. Distance learning can motivate faculty who are interested in using educational technology to improve their teaching and integrate telecommunications systems into their teaching. Wolcott and Betts (1999) assert that faculty members who were most likely to be recruited to teach distance learning courses characterized themselves or were characterized by their peers as “early adopters,” “early innovators,” “risk-takers,” or “adventurous.” An institution may choose to keep these adventurous faculty members engaged and promote further exploration in the field of distance learning. “While

501

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

incentives and motivation to teach online may be critical to luring faculty members into teaching online, their satisfaction with this new mode of teaching keeps them at it” (Meyer, 2012, p. 39).

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In order to be successful in today’s digital teaching and learning environment, faculty need to be provided with various professional development options. The following solutions and recommendations can assist in dealing with the issues presented in this chapter. Many faculty members often teach as they were taught, and many distance education instructors did not take distance education courses as students. This leaves them without a model for online teaching, meaning, many of these instructors will require direct online instruction and support (Schmidt, Tschida, & Hodge, as cited in Mohr & Shelton, 2017). Additionally, these faculty need to be kept aware of the changes rapidly occurring in online higher education programs and courses (Reilly, Vandenhouten, Gallagher-Lepak, & Ralston-Berg, 2012). For example, distance learning educators would benefit from additional training in creating accessible online courses and programs (Bastedo & Swenson, 2014). By providing professional development options to faculty, higher education institutions can promote teaching productivity and personal satisfaction. Raffo, Fisher, and Raffo (2015) claim that by cultivating strategic habits while designing and teaching distance learning courses, faculty can find a balance and satisfaction in their work that will better serve them in their professional lives. Above all, students in these online programs and courses will benefit.

On-Ground Distance Learning Training Many higher education institutions offer a combination of formal and informal on-ground training for distance learning instructors (Dimeo, 2017; Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). This training can come in the form of face-to-face workshops or meetings. These options are critical for motivating faculty members as well as cultivating and maintaining effective distance learning offerings. Additionally, higher education institutions must “consider individual differences among faculty, recognizing that motivation is not the same for everyone and that it changes over time as faculty members progress in their careers” (Wolcott & Betts, 1999, p. 48). All levels of distance learning instructors can benefit from professional development training options. Since the world of higher education is changing, flexible approaches to teaching and learning are critical for improving success in higher education (Wynants & Dennis, 2018). Higher education institutions can provide appropriate faculty development and instructional development training programs to increase opportunities for success in distance learning teaching (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Mohr and Shelton (2017) found that “the online faculty professional development topics considered essential were divided into four categories to structure the learning opportunities: faculty roles, online classroom design, learning processes, and legal issues” (p. 132). Professional development opportunities that are optimized to ensure that all distance learning faculty members are trained to use the appropriate technologies can help ease faculty fears (Merillat & Scheibmeier, 2016). Although it is important to train new distance learning educators, it is just as important to provide a similar opportunity for veteran distance educators. All faculty should stay current and update their skills in order to stay motivated in this field of teaching and remain cognizant of new technologies and requirements.

502

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Varied professional development trainings can be critical in assisting new and veteran distance learning educators to engage in the process of connecting content, technology, and pedagogical methods (Baran, Correa, & Thompson, 2011; Elliott, Rhoades, Jackson, & Mandernach, 2015; Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009; Reilly, Vandenhouten, Gallagher-Lepak, & Ralston-Berg, 2012; Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2014; Zhen, Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008). Higher education institutions can provide workshops and training programs that meet the needs of all faculty members. Some faculty may need more technology-focused instruction, while others may need to be trained on the pedagogy of distance learning. In order to meet these specific needs, faculty can be contacted to provide input into what topics they desire, as well as what days and times would work for them before scheduling training or workshops. Mohr (2016) suggested creating professional development strategies that are individualized. “Faculty members have indicated that they prefer personalized attention through one-on-one training” (Grover, Walters, & Turner, as cited in Mohr, p. 31).

Online Training Opportunities In addition to offering face-to-face training and support, institutions can provide online training opportunities (Elliott, Rhoades, Jackson, & Mandernach, 2015). Some institutions provide self-paced online courses and modules. Since distance education faculty have additional needs and may face unique challenges, online professional development initiatives can be utilized to address their needs and desires. The authors claim, “Professional development for online faculty needs to reflect their diverse backgrounds, experience, and expertise. By emulating the environments and technologies online faculty will use, faculty have the opportunity to explore and model their online classroom environments to meet standards and best practices” (p. 174). An additional byproduct of delivering online professional development to distance educators is that exemplars of distance education best practices can be modeled and observed in an online format. Arizona State University (ASU) provides an example of a successful online training program. ASU offers an online master class that allows instructors to experience what it is like to be an online student (Dimeo, 2017). Marc Van Horn, ASU’s chief online learning officer and assistant vice president for ASU EdPlus, claims, “It’s a real eye-opening experience… They have to participate in discussion boards, take quizzes and submit a paper, all online” (as cited in Dimeo, para. 8). ASU also offers a fully online workshop four times per year in which a total of 400 instructors view on-demand tutorials and 30-minute live webcasts. The Online Education Initiative (OEI) Course Design Academy (Online Education Initiative, 2018; Online Network of Educators, 2018b) is another successful professional development program. The OEI Course Design Academy is an online professional development program offered to California Community College faculty teaching online courses at one of the OEI consortium colleges. The OEI Course Design Academy participants receive helpful feedback and course design recommendations, support from a Canvas Course Design Specialist (CCDS), and hands-on assistance from accessibility specialists. All participants are awarded digital badges as they complete each course and align it with the required OEI Course Design Rubric. The OEI partners with Online Network of Educators (@ONE) to provide their faculty with various professional development certificate programs. In order to prepare these courses, instructors can sign up for the OEI Course Design Academy and take courses through @ONE. In a recent blog posting, a new distance learning instructor by the name of Frank (2018) explains, “I took this course as if my life 503

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

depended on it. At about week 7 of the course, I submitted my online course for a peer review, which was the first step in getting my course in the Course Exchange” (para. 6). The @ONE certificate program participants complete coursework facilitated by experts from across the state covering content presentation, interaction, assessment, and accessibility. Furthermore, the Online Network of Educators (2018a) explains that all OEI participants can choose to complete a 12-week course, Online Education Standards and Practices (OESP), or customize a program that meets the individual instructor’s needs. Digital Badges are offered to participants who complete each course or workshop, with a culminating Online Course Design Certificate awarded after completion of the Design Capstone Course.

On-Campus, In-House Certification Programs Another option is offering on-campus digital teaching and learning certification programs. Lane (as cited in Gregory & Martindale, 2017) proposed an open online “Program for Online Teaching Certificate Class” in which online teachers could learn how to use various Web 2.0 tools. The certificate course included how tools such as blogs and social media could be used to develop professional identities while increasing their ability to create a more student-centric learning environment. If the faculty development certification program is offered by the institution, support for faculty should be a component of the school’s plan for ongoing development and should also provide program and discipline-specific support (Marek, as cited in Gregory & Martindale, 2017). Additionally, higher education institutions may need to modify their current professional development models to make way for today’s digital teaching and learning movement. There may be a shift from face-to-face, in-person workshops to online training modules and webinars in order to meet the needs of distance learning faculty members.

External Professional Development Options Although many colleges and universities have developed ample in-house training programs for distance learning instructors, some institutions may not be able to meet all faculty needs. Hence, it may be advantageous to explore both fee-based and free professional development opportunities external to the institution (Gregory & Martindale, 2017). “The Online Learning Consortium (OLC) is a collaborative community of higher education leaders and innovators, dedicated to advancing quality digital teaching and learning experiences designed to reach and engage the modern learner – anyone, anywhere, anytime” (Online Learning Consortium, 2018a, para. 1). The OLC is a fee-based program that promotes innovation and quality by providing educators with best-practice publications, quality benchmarking, leading-edge instruction, communitydriven conferences, practitioner-based and empirical research, and expert guidance. It is one of the leading professional online learning societies devoted to advancing quality distance learning education. Some of the OLC’s professional development options include certificate and mastery series programs, face-to-face and online workshops, and webinars (Online Learning Consortium, 2018c). In addition to the OLC, there are other nationally-certified professional development programs that offer distance learning certifications and workshops. Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally-recognized organization that focuses on the development of distance learning courses. QM uses a peer review process involving faculty, instructional designers, and other staff in a cooperative effort to continuously improve online instruction (Quality Matters, 2018a). There are various QM professional development options for 504

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

higher education faculty (Quality Matters, 2018e). These workshops and certification programs aim to train and empower faculty, provide guidance for improving the quality of courses, and certify the quality of online and blended courses. The QM Teaching Online Certificate (Quality Matters, 2018e) allows faculty to demonstrate their knowledge mastery of online teaching. In order to receive the certificate, instructors are required to complete seven workshops that align with QM’s “Online Instructor Skill Set.” This skill set includes institutional context, technologies, instructional design, pedagogy, assessment, and social presence. QM asserts that the workshops provide both current and potential online instructors with the experience of learning online from the student’s perspective. Quality Matters suggests that individuals who earn the Teaching Online Certificate can share this certificate with current and potential employers since it is backed by evidence of their learning, knowledge, and mastery. Higher education institutions can be confident in the quality of the Teaching Online Certificate since it is offered by a reputable organization. Another useful professional development option is the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education. This network is dedicated to enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. “POD provides its members with personal and academic relationships that are essential for professional growth. Central to POD’s philosophy is lifelong, holistic, personal, and professional learning, growth, and change for the higher education community” (Professional and Organizational Development Network, 2019a, para. 1). POD provides support and services through publications, conferences, consulting and networking. Additionally, POD advocates for the value of educational development. There are certain POD Special Interest Groups (SIGs) that focus on the significance of digital teaching and learning in professional development (Professional and Organizational Development Network, 2019b). The primary goal of the Teaching with Technology (TwT) SIG is to support faculty development when integrating digital teaching and learning tools into courses. This SIG provides digital teaching and learning resources on trends, issues, effective strategies, and new developments. EDUCAUSE is another group that offers professional development options for online educators and course developers. EDUCAUSE is a fee-based organization that assists individuals who lead, manage and apply information technology in higher education institutions (EDUCAUSE, 2019a). EDUCAUSE resources include professional development activities; print and electronic publications; advocacy opportunities; teaching and learning initiatives; data, research, and analytics; special interest communities; awards; and online information services. The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) is a professional community committed to advancing learning through information technology innovation (EDUCAUSE, 2019b). The ELI offers various professional development options, such as an annual face-to-face meeting, online professional development courses, online focus sessions, and monthly webinars. Individuals who are interested in digital teaching and learning leadership roles may wish to explore the EDUCAUSE Learning Technology Leadership Program (EDUCAUSE, 2019c). The Learning Technology Leadership (LTL) Institute is a digital teaching and learning leadership immersion experience, where participants learn strategic skills that will assist in promoting digital teaching and learning at their institutions.

Online Program Management (OPM) Providers Some higher education institutions partner with online program management (OPM) providers, which outsource the development and design of online courses and programs to help universities and colleges use digital teaching and learning materials (Pelletier, 2018; Springer 2016). Certain OPMs offer various professional development options to faculty who design or teach online courses. Often, an OPM pro505

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

vider offers training and support to faculty, provides technical expertise and collaborates with faculty to convert on-campus courses to the online environment (Levine, as cited in Springer). Hence, instructors may be required to work with individuals from these OPMs to develop digital teaching and learning materials (Pelletier, 2018).

Digital Badges and Credentials Siemens, Gašević, and Dawson (2015) describe digital badges as competency-based assessments that draw inspiration from the Boy Scout or Girl Scout badge system and the way that online games keep track of achievements. The Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (2018) defines, “A digital badge is a validated indicator of accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest that can be earned in many learning environments” (para. 1). By gaining these digital badges, instructors can gain points or earn milestones as distance education instructors. Badges can use a digital image to represent certain distance education skill-related experiences. These badges could be designed by a higher education institution or via a consortium of several higher education institutions. “For example, attendance at a professional development workshop may come with a digital badge to designate the skills learned, the provider, the place, and other relevant information to anyone who is interested in the bearer’s expertise. In this way, digital badges incorporate features of competency-based models, but within a technological framework that standardizes assessment” (Siemens, Gašević, & Dawson, p. 150). Carey (2012) explains that the digital badge system is more than a simple work portfolio, but rather, it is a way to structure the process of education itself. Distance learning educators can use a badging system to customize digital teaching and learning goals within a structured professional development framework. The system will allow these instructors to receive feedback about their progress toward achieving their individualized goals while tailoring the way badges and the metadata within them are displayed to the outside world. The implementation and acceptance of these badges suggest that they have the flexibility required of a 21st-century credential. As was previously mentioned in this chapter, the OEI and @ONE also use badges to recognize “the rigorous and rewarding professional development faculty complete as they work with other faculty, instructional designers, and accessibility specialists to enhance and strengthen their courses” (Online Network of Educators, 2018b, para. 4). The badges are awarded to participants as they align their online courses with each section of the OEI Course Design Rubric. The sections include content presentation, interaction, assessment, and accessibility. “Digital badges are a powerful new tool for identifying and validating the rich array of people’s skills, knowledge, accomplishments, and competencies. Digital badges inspire new pathways to learning and connect learners to opportunities, resources, and one another” (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory, 2018, para. 2). Quality Matters (2018b) offers what they call “QM Digital Credentials” that represent mastery of identified competencies. In today’s digital world, it is important to differentiate amongst online teaching candidates and their knowledge, skills, and abilities in ways that a certificate alone may not communicate. Distance learning instructors can receive a QM Digital Credential upon successful completion of each workshop that is tied to evidence that supports their mastery of each teaching competency. In order to earn this credential, the participant must accomplish and prove that he or she can adequately demonstrate requisite competencies. Furthermore, the QM Digital Credentials are visible and may be shared on social media sites like LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. When an instructor earns all seven QM Digital Credentials, he or she is eligible for the aforementioned Teaching Online Certificate. 506

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Faculty Sharing Options Professional development training options such as the ones offered by the OLC and QM can foster an environment where faculty feel supported and respected. After successful completion of this training, faculty may want to share their findings with their colleagues. “Faculty tend to listen to other faculty rather than us. Professors can share what’s worked,” says Edward Bailey, online media production lead in professional education at Georgia Institute of Technology (as cited in Dimeo, 2017, para. 18). If faculty are involved in an ongoing process that offers them positive professional development opportunities, they may choose to share their knowledge with peers at their home institutions (Elliott, Rhoades, Jackson, & Mandernach, 2015). Some of the most effective discussions take place when faculty come together to share challenges and best practices (Dimeo, 2017). Faculty reflection and discussion can take place at scheduled workshops or informally in department meetings and other campus events. In fact, asking professors to share their experiences is a common best practice at many colleges and universities. ASU has its online instructors present at an annual showcase, and the Georgia Institute of Technology offers a new-instructor orientation course that runs three to four times per year and invites faculty members who are the “rock stars of online” (Dimeo, para. 17) to provide advice to their colleagues.

Course and Digital Media Development Assistance Simonson, Smaldino, and Zvacek (2014) explain that the careful design of distance education courses takes place before instruction begins. The design process for a distance learning course is quite different than the design of a traditional course. The instructors need time to plan, find, and develop digital media to include in these courses. In order to meet national higher education accreditation standards, many of these distance learning educators require direct assistance in course development and design (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). The developmental assistance may include the overall instructional design of a course, the development of instructional media, and the implementation of other materials to be used in the course. Dimeo (2017) asserts that instructional designers play a key role in training faculty members. Ideally, every online instructor should be assigned to work with an instructional designer. Additionally, many faculty do not have the technical expertise to include or create effective instructional media such as videos and screencasts (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Ideally, faculty focus on content delivery, the course design, and pedagogy rather than technical issues. Faculty may require direct technical assistance as they incorporate effective online resources. Technical issues affect not only the time required to develop a course, but also discourage faculty from attempting to design a distance learning course. Therefore, institutions may invest in instructional media developers and learning technology specialists. Research has shown that faculty benefit from learning various tips and strategies for building accessible distance learning courses (Bastedo & Swenson, 2014). Workshops including how to create accessible online course materials, which follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 guidelines, are effective. The guidelines cover “a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content more accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including accommodations for blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; but will not address every user need 507

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

for people with these disabilities. These guidelines address the accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices. Following these guidelines will also often make Web content more usable to users in general” (Accessibility Guidelines Working Group, 2018, para. 1). Specific options helpful to instructors include creating accessible HTML pages, Microsoft Word documents and PDF documents to use in their courses. Faculty also benefit from learning how to create and add accessible media such as narrated PowerPoint presentations, transcriptions added to PowerPoint notes, and captioning using accessible screencast software.

Mentor Programs Higher education institutions may choose to develop and utilize mentor programs for all distance learning educators (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009; Mohr, 2016). A program can be developed that allows veteran distance educators to serve as mentors and provide guidance and support on various distance learning design and teaching issues. Mentoring can include a process where a more experienced faculty or committee observes and assists a newer faculty member in migrating a course from face-to-face to an online format. It can also include a time period where the mentor works with and supports the mentee during the initial running of the distance learning course. The chief objective of a mentoring program is to make sure the new course format meets certain accreditation and national standards. An additional benefit is that the presence of a mentoring program can be a sign of the higher education institution’s commitment to professional development (Mandernach, Donnelli, Dailey, & Schulte, 2005). Mentoring gives new distance learning faculty a place where they can go for help and ask questions without judgment or the perception of ignorance (Collay, 2018; Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). The veterans in the mentoring program would have gone through the same process, so they are able to help and support these new educators. Furthermore, the veteran distance learning faculty often view mentoring as a way to help their colleagues and give back to their institution. This collaboration can motivate and help retain both new and veteran faculty members. Mohr (2016) agrees that the mentoring process is beneficial to both parties as the new distance learning instructor learns strategies from their mentor while the mentors are able to reflect upon their experiences. Additionally, mentoring can be associated with “improved job satisfaction, increased commitment, reduced turnover, greater productivity, and a favorable department ethos” (Law et al., as cited in Mohr, p. 34).

Faculty Learning Communities or Communities of Practice Higher education institutions can set up support programs for faculty during the process of designing and teaching distance learning courses (Baran, Correia, & Thompson, 2011; Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). These programs can develop a sense of community with distance learning faculty who need to feel valued and respected. “Faculty learning communities, also referred to as communities of practice, provide an active, connected approach with the potential to enhance and expand professional growth opportunities. A community of practice (COP) is defined as a group of people who share an interest in a domain of human endeavor and engage in a process of collective learning that creates bonds between them” (Reilly, Vandenhouten, Gallagher-Lepak, & Ralston-Berg, 2012, p. 102). Developing a community of practice around online course design and development needs to be provided and supported (Baran, Correia, & Thompson, 2011; Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009; Reilly, Vandenhouten, Gallagher-Lepak, & Ralston-Berg, 2012). Lock (2006) explains that networked 508

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

technologies can provide access to various online learning environments that can be accessed anytime, just-in-time, and anywhere that affords new possibilities and new options for individuals involved in distance learning. This support program can be developed using Internet-based tools, including community discussion boards, blogs, newsletters as well as social media sites such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Wynants and Dennis (2018) suggest that using an online context for professional development, higher education faculty members will benefit because of the flexibility, convenience, and cognitive reflection it affords. A community can include administrators, instructional technology staff, and instructional designers who can engage in a dialogue about solving problems and making decisions regarding the design and teaching processes of distance learning courses. This type of community allows faculty to collaborate, communicate, and share experiences and innovative techniques while developing high-quality distance learning courses.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Future research directions on faculty development options in distance learning include further examination of new faculty development initiatives; review of current faculty development programs offered by organizations such as the OLC, QM, the POD Network, and EDUCAUSE; and an analysis of faculty development programs offered in terms of how they match with certain higher education institutions. Other future directions involve surveying faculty who have transitioned from teaching traditional, face-toface courses to teaching distance learning courses. Additionally, there is a need for comparative analyses of the professional development needs of current distance learning faculty members with faculty in the process of transitioning to online teaching. These future studies and reflections will provide a deeper analysis of the research conducted by Collay (2018) and Mandernach, Donnelli, Dailey, and Schulte (2005), and will prove extremely beneficial in identifying best practices for training faculty in the field of distance education.

CONCLUSION Higher education institutions can benefit from enhanced faculty development options for digital teaching and learning. Laura Howe, the Vice President of Global Media and Communities at Pearson, states, “It is encouraging to see the upward trend in distance learning enrollments continue as students take advantage of flexible, high-quality education opportunities that position them for lifelong success” (as cited in Radicioni, 2018, para. 5). In essence, distance education is an enhancement to a higher education institution’s mission since it provides outreach, increases student access and offers flexibility for both faculty and students (Simpson, 2010). This chapter presented various faculty development options for distance learning instructors to enhance their digital teaching and learning methods. As has been discussed, there is a distinct need to provide adequate support and effective training for all faculty who teach, or want to teach, online. Institutions of higher education have the responsibility to focus on the motivators that go into developing and maintaining high-quality distance learning courses and programs. Offering adequate faculty development options can help faculty design and teach high-quality distance learning courses and programs. When optimal professional development options and support measures are available for faculty, as well as resources 509

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

to connect with peers and share experiences and innovations, faculty can be successful. Positive faculty participation in distance learning courses and programs can help digital teaching and learning initiatives grow and flourish. Above all, when faculty are supported and feel that their expertise is valued in order to effectively design and teach high-quality distance learning courses, the faculty, the students and the institution of higher education benefit.

REFERENCES Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved January 17, 2019, from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#background-on-wcag-2 Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/ onlinereportcard.pdf Bailey, E. (2016). Comparative study of perceived barriers to faculty participation in distance education at a four-year university (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Accession No. 10307473) Baran, E., Correia, A., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293 Bastedo, K., & Swenson, N. (2014). Accessibility in online courses: Trends, tips & tools. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/Accessibility-Online-Courses-TrendsTipsTools. pdf Betts, K. S. (2014). Factors influencing faculty participation & retention in online & blended education. Online Journal of Distance Education Administrators, 17(1). Retrieved January 10. 2019, from https:// www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring171/betts171.html Brinthaupt, T. M., Fisher, L. S., Gardner, J. G., & Raffo, D. M. (2017). Developing technology-centric best teaching practices for higher education. In Handbook of Research on Technology-Centric Strategies for Higher Education Administration (pp. 159–174). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2548-6.ch010 Carey, K. (2012, April 8). A future full of badges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Future-Full-of-Badges/131455/ Collay, M. (2018). Transformative learning and teaching: How experienced faculty learned to teach in the online environment. Journal of Transformative Learning, 4(2), 21–42. Cook, R. G., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149–163. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8535.2008.00845.x 510

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Dimeo, J. (2017, October 11). Teaching teachers to teach online, Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2017/10/11/how-colleges-train-instructorsteach-online-courses EDUCAUSE. (2019a). About EDUCAUSE. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www.educause. edu/about EDUCAUSE. (2019b). EDUCAUSE learning initiative. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www. educause.edu/eli EDUCAUSE. (2019c). Learning technology leadership institute. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://events.educause.edu/educause-institute/learning-technology-leadership-institute Elliott, M., Rhoades, N., Jackson, C. M., & Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Professional development: Designing initiatives to meet the needs of online faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), n1. doi:10.9743/ JEO.2015.1.2 Frank, K. (2018, August 21). From reluctant to ready: The power of support for new online teachers [Blog post]. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/reluctant-readysupport-new-online-teachers Friedman, J. (2018). Study: More students are enrolling in online courses. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www.usnews.com/higher-education/online-education/articles/2018-01-11/study-morestudents-are-enrolling-in-online-courses Green, T., Alejandro, J., & Brown, A. H. (2009). The retention of experienced faculty in online distance education programs: Understanding factors that impact their involvement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–8. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.683 Gregory, R., & Martindale, T. (2016). Faculty development for online instruction in higher education. The Annual Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 213-223. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings16/2016i/16_08.pdf Herman, J. H. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional development. Innovative Higher Education, 38(5), 397–410. doi:10.100710755-012-9248-6 Hopewell, T. M. (2012). Risks associated with the choice to teach online. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(4). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter154/ hopewell154.html Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory. (2018). Digital badges. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from https://www.hastac.org/initiatives/digital-badges Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 533–541. Kelly, R. (2012). Workload, promotion, and tenure implications of teaching online. Faculty Development in Distance Education: Issues, Trends and Tips, 13-15. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://www. facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FacultyDev-in-DistanceEd1.pdf

511

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678. Mandernach, B., Donnelli, E., Dailey, A., & Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3). Retrieved June 13, 2018, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall83/ mandernach83.htm Merillat, L., & Scheibmeier, M. (2016). Developing a quality improvement process to optimize faculty success. Online Learning, 20(3), 159–172. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i3.977 Meyer, K. A. (2012). The influence of online teaching on faculty productivity. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 37–52. doi:10.100710755-011-9183-y Mohr, S. (2016). Best practices for online faculty professional development in higher education teaching and learning centers: A delphi study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Central. (Order No. 10250343) Mohr, S. C., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–140. O’Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2004). Should distance education constitute different rewards for faculty? Distance Learning, 1(4), 13. Online Education Initiative. (2018). About the OEI. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://cvc.edu/ about-the-oei/ Online Learning Consortium. (2018a). About the Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/olc-2/ Online Learning Consortium. (2018b). OLC awards for excellence in online teaching and learning. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/olc-awards/olc-awardsexcellence-online-teaching-learning/ Online Learning Consortium. (2018c). OLC institute for professional development. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/learn/olc-institute-professional-development/ Online Network of Educators. (2018a). Certificate programs. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https:// onlinenetworkofeducators.org/course-design-academy/ Online Network of Educators. (2018b). Course design academy. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://onlinenetworkofeducators.org/course-design-academy/ Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 257–268. doi:10.100710755-009-9111-6 Parker, A. (2003). Motivation and incentives for distance faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), 1–6.

512

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Pelletier, S. G. (2018). The evolution of online program management. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://unbound.upcea.edu/leadership-strategy/continuing-education/the-evolution-of-online-programmanagement/ Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network. (2019a). About us. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://podnetwork.org/about-us/ Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network. (2019b). Special interest groups. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://podnetwork.org/about-us/pod-governance/special-interest-groups-sigs/ Quality Matters. (2018a). About Quality Matters. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/about Quality Matters. (2018b). Digital credentials. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qm-membership/faqs/digital-credentials Quality Matters. (2018c). Professional development. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www. qualitymatters.org/professional-development Quality Matters. (2018d). QM awards. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www.qualitymatters. org/events/qm-awards Quality Matters. (2018e). Teaching online certificate. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://www. qualitymatters.org/professional-development/toc Radicioni, B. (2018). Distance education up, overall enrollments down. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.babson.edu/news-events/babson-news/Pages/2018-babson-survey-research-grouptracking-distance-education-report.aspx Raffo, D. M., Fisher, L. S., & Raffo, D. M. (2015). Balancing online teaching activities: Strategies for optimizing efficiency and effectiveness. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(1). Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 383–407. doi:10.100710639-012-9222-z Reilly, J. R., Vandenhouten, C., Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Ralston-Berg, P. (2012). Faculty development for e-learning: A multi-campus community of practice approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 99–110. Schmidt, S. W., Hodge, E. M., & Tschida, C. M. (2013). How university faculty members developed their online teaching skills. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3), 131. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

513

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Simpson, C. M. (2010). Examining the relationship between institutional mission and faculty reward for teaching via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1), 1–13. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.840.5&rep=rep1&type=pdf Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning. Education + Training, 56(2), 105–121. doi:10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123 Springer, S. (2016). Partnering with an online program management provider to implement an online MBA program: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10168273) Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.761 Wolcott, L., & Betts, K. (1999). What’s in it for me? Incentives for faculty participation in distance education. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue De L’Éducation À Distance, 14(2), 34-49. Wolcott, L. L., & Haderlie, S. (1996). Institutional support for distance teaching: A study of reward practices. Distance Education, 2(3), 2–5. Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2018). Professional development in an online context: Opportunities and challenges from the voices of college faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). doi:10.9743/JEO2018.15.1.2 Zhen, Y., Garthwait, A., & Pratt, P. (2008). Factors affecting faculty members’ decision to teach or not to teach online in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(3). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall113/zhen113.html

ADDITIONAL READING Amirault, R. J. (2012). Distance learning in the 21st century university: Key issues for leaders and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(4), 253–265. Batts, D., Pagliari, L., Mallett, W., & McFadden, C. (2010). Training for faculty who teach online. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 21–31. Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. (2001). Obstacle faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in institutions of higher education: Survey results. TechTrends, 45(4), 40–45. doi:10.1007/ BF02784824 Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/01587910902845949 Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4), 333-338, 399. Chen, B., Voorhees, D., & Rein, D. W. (2006). Improving professional development for teaching online. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2(1), 303–308.

514

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Cole, J. E., & Kritzer, J. B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36–40. doi:10.1177/875687050902800406 Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 11(2), 210–232. Gosselin, K. P., Northcote, M. T., Reynaud, D., Kilgour, P. W., Anderson, M., & Boddey, C. (2016). Development of an evidence-based professional learning program informed by online teachers’ selfefficacy and threshold concepts. Online Learning Journal, 20(3), 178–194. Keller, C. M. (2018). Reframing rigor: Implications for institutional practice and policy. New Directions for Higher Education, 181(181), 89–96. doi:10.1002/he.20273 Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching / MERLOT, 8(1), 1–12. Matherson, L., & Windle, T. M. (2017). What do teachers want from their professional development? Four emerging themes. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(3), 28–32. Singh, R. N., & Hurley, D. (2017). The effectiveness of teaching and learning process in online education as perceived by university faculty and instructional technology professionals. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 6(1), 65–75. doi:10.14434/jotlt.v6.n1.19528

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Community of Practice (COP): A group of individuals who share a common interest and interact in a way that promotes the interest. In higher education, these COPs can be referred to as faculty learning communities. Digital Badge: An online symbol that indicates that an individual has completed certain requirements. Can be earned in various teaching and learning environments. Distance Learning or Distance Education: An Institution-based form of education where students are physically separated from professors, and interactive telecommunication systems connect learners and resources. These courses can include online or hybrid/blended formats. Face-to-Face Course: A traditional higher education course that occurs with the learner and the instructor physically located in the same place at the same time. Faculty Development: The process of providing support and training to faculty members to help them improve their work performance. Hybrid Course: A higher education course in which part of the instruction occurs when the learner and the instructor are physically located in the same place at the same time, but a part of the instruction occurs when the learner and the instructor are not physically located in the same place at the same time. Online Course: A higher education course in which instruction occurs when the learner and the instructor are not physically located in the same place at the same time.

515

 Promoting Digital Teaching and Learning

Rewards and Incentives: Outcomes that are given to employees by supervisors or directors. Extrinsic rewards include extra vacation days, fringe benefits, additional financial compensation, new technology acquisition, bonuses, promotions, and institutional recognition awards. Intrinsic rewards include personal and professional growth, career advancement, personal challenge and satisfaction for a job well done. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1: How to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities. Accessibility involves a wide range of disabilities, including visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and neurological disabilities.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Faculty Development for Digital Teaching and Learning; pages 56-76, copyright year 2019 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

516

517

Chapter 26

Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration Deborah G. Wooldridge Bowling Green State University, USA Sandra Poirier Middle Tennessee State University, USA Julia M. Matuga Bowling Green State University, USA

ABSTRACT Higher education institutions must innovate and develop new modes of learning, both formal and informal, that meet the demands of the knowledge-driven economy. There is a growing demand for education and a push for non-traditional ways of delivering knowledge and learning. This chapter begins by identifying the technological changes that are affecting all societies and how these changes will specifically impact postsecondary education. The topic of course delivery is viewed as a cultural issue that permeates processes from the design of an online course to the evaluation of an online course. This chapter will examine and review key components of and tools for designing high impact online courses that support student learning and provide suggestions for faculty teaching online courses to assist in creating high-quality online courses that support teaching and, consequently, facilitate opportunities for student learning.

INTRODUCTION Higher education institutions are moving away from the traditional education systems alone. Levy (2013) found that institutions are proving more broad-based delivery of programs through technology. Higher education is reinventing itself so that it can serve the world’s growing and changing needs. Higher education institutions must innovate and develop new modes of learning, both formal and informal, that DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch026

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

meet the demands of the knowledge-driven economy. There is a growing demand for education and a push for non-traditional ways of delivering knowledge and learning. This chapter begins by identifying the technological changes that are affecting all societies and how these changes will specifically influence postsecondary education. Viewing course delivery as a cultural issue that permeates processes from the design of an online course to its evaluation is essential. This chapter examines and reviews key components of, and tools for; designing high impact online courses that support student learning. It also provides suggestions for faculty teaching online courses to assist in creating high quality online courses that support teaching and, consequently, facilitates opportunities for student learning. Exploring suggestions for conducting course evaluation and a feedback loop for continual improvement of online learning and teaching ensues.

BACKGROUND Technology, broadly defined, has been transforming human life in one way or another for thousands of years (Jerald, 2009). However, beginning in the 1990s, technological change has come at an exponentially faster rate due to factors such as increased competition in a global economy, automation, workplace change and policies increasing personal responsibility. As the world’s labor markets evolve in the digital economy, we cannot predict what specific jobs will exist in the future. However, what is clear is the shift from print to digital is a profound transition in how human beings learn (Marginson, 2016; Pearson Learning, 2014). According to UNESCO (2017), there are more than 207 million students enrolled in higher education worldwide. UNESCO also reported that the percentage of college age students (ages 19-23) has increased from 19% to 34% between the years 2000 and 2014. Craig (2014) projected that the demand for on-line learning will increase by 2025, and that higher education must plan for this growth. The advent of the personal computer, the Internet and the electronic delivery of information have transformed the world from a manufacturing, physically based economy to an electronic, knowledgebased economy. Whereas the resources of the physically based economy are coal, oil and steel, resources of the new, knowledge-based economy are brainpower and the ability to acquire, deliver and process information effectively. Craig (2015), in his book titled College Disrupted: The Great Unbundling of College Education argues that technology may bring more changes to teaching and learning than college leaders have anticipated. Online learning will center the instruction around students rather than the classroom, tailoring education to the needs and abilities of individual learners, and making life-long learning a practical reality for all (Balanko, 2002). The global economic crisis and especially youth unemployment have prompted the urgency to develop educational systems aligned with the needs of the society it serves. Statistics from the United Nations indicate that one-half of the global population is currently under the age of 25 years. The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012) examined this young population from its 33 member nations and concluded that 39 million or one in four 16-29 year olds were neither employed nor enrolled in some type of education or training program. Those countries that invest in a 21st century education benefit immediately by transforming an outdated system to a more sustainable approach. Educators worldwide must develop challenging and relevant learning environments to prepare the future workforce. Using digital education to connect students anywhere at any time to educators touts as a viable option especially where access to post-secondary education is limited (Hosie & Schibeci, 2005). The Internet will democratize knowledge, increasing access, lowering 518

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

the cost and improving the quality. (Moe, 2000). There should be no doubt that online learning is vital to all disciplines involved in 21st century education (Ternus, et al, 2007). By 2020, there will be 55 million job openings in the United States. Sixty-five percent will require some postsecondary education (Pearson Education, 2014). Our current system will fail to produce those skilled workers, falling short by 5 million postsecondary credentials (Pearson Education, 2014). Craig (2015) indicated in his book that the future of post-secondary education online degree programs would focus on customizing course offerings. A one-size-fits-all approach is no longer viable for students. Packaged courses and degrees need to be transformed to smaller units, i.e., modules and micro-degrees, allowing students more flexibility in their program of study. A module is a set of independent units used to construct an online course. An experiment at Massachusetts Institute of Technology is being conducted where students will develop an online course from parts they have assembled themselves online (Craig, 2015). This approach would allow students to retake any module where they possibly struggled and not require them to retake the entire course. Another approach is a micro-degree, which offers online courses in high demand content areas in the job market. Generally, the online courses, which are an outgrowth of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) delivery, are shorter and allow the student to work at their own pace. Certificates provide verification of completion of the program. It may first be helpful to highlight three myths and misconceptions about online teaching and learning. These myths/misconceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators and influence any discussion about the quality of online course delivery are (White, n.d.): 1. Online teaching and learning are ‘worse’ (or ‘better’) for meeting student-learning outcomes than face-to-face courses. 2. Online teaching and learning are easier and more convenient for students and faculty than face-toface courses. 3. Online teaching and learning are less interactive for both student and faculty than face-to-face courses. All of these statements based upon the premise that there are no special affordances or constraints of the environment, either online or face-to-face, when it comes to teaching or learning means we are comparing apples to apples. It has been argued elsewhere that this is not the case, that there are many fundamental differences that the educational environment both affords or constraints (Anderson, 2004; Matuga, 2001, 2005 & 2007) and that establishing a dichotomist relationship does not adequately reflect the complexity of teaching or learning within either environment. In essence, learning and teaching within online environments is fundamentally different then learning and teaching in face-to-face environments. One is not comparing apples to apples, but more like apples to oranges (Matuga, Wooldridge, & Poirier, 2011). A useful concept to use as a framework, one that more adequately reflects the complexity of online teaching and learning, would be to view both through the lens of a cultural system. There are many definitions of culture and descriptions of what constitute a cultural system. LeVine (1984), for example, defined culture as “a shared organization of ideas that includes the intellectual, moral, and aesthetic standards prevalent in a community and the meanings of communicative actions” (p. 67). Others have claimed that these organizations of ideas and meanings derived from actions are not static and that culture as systems that may be more complicated and organic collections of cognitive functions, practices, and 519

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

meaning (D’Andrade, 2001; Giddens, 1984; Kitayama, 2002). Online teaching and learning viewed as cultural systems; understandings and meanings socially shared within online environments (Courtney, 2001; Mehlinger & Powers, 2002). There are also cultural practices and customs within these environments linked, in various ways, to the values and beliefs of larger cultural systems, like face-to-face educational environments (Courtney, 2001; LeVine, 1984). A more traditional view of cultural systems, for example, is based upon the idea that they contain within them, nested systems that are interdependent to the functioning of the system as a whole (White, 1975). This view holds that technological (or physical subsystem), social, and psychological factors guide a multitude of functions and influence the behaviors of individuals that are participating in cultural communities (Kitayama, 2002; White, 1975). For example, Kitayama (2002) stated that “each person’s psychological processes and structures are organized though the active effort to coordinate his or her behaviors with the pertinent cultural systems of practices and public meanings” (p. 92). While this is may be viewed as a valid proposition, this view does imply that there are somewhat distinct sub-systems that guide or organize psychological processes and practices. It may be quite common to reduce discussions regarding online teaching and learning to cultural sub-systems, like technological ones, for example, because the impact of technology is more explicit within online teaching and learning environments. This position is arguable in light of contemporary pedagogical theory, however, which holds that psychological and social factors need exploration in conjunction with technological ones. Perhaps one of the most critical characteristics of a cultural system is that it supports the development and transmission of meaning and understanding within and between participants. Rosaldo (1984) argued, “we must appreciate the ways in which such understandings grow, not from an “inner” essence relatively independent of the social world, but from experience in a world of meanings, images, and social bonds, in which all persons are inevitable involved” (p. 139). In the case of meaning making and understanding within online teaching and learning environments, the importance of viewing the psychological in conjunction with social and technological dimensions of cultural systems is implied. These are important points that frame the conversation of designing high impact online courses, providing suggestions for faculty teaching online courses, describing critical administrative support of faculty, and conducting course evaluation and feedback loops for continual improvement of online learning and teaching.

DESIGNING HIGH IMPACT ONLINE COURSES Viewing online teaching and learning as a cultural system provides a framework to describe and understand ‘high impact’ online courses. Within education, ‘high impact’ refers to educational experiences that are meaningful, require student action and participation, and that contribute to the life-long learning of the student (Kuh, 2008). It is important to note that the examples illustrating high impact practices within online courses in this chapter do not represent an exhaustive or comprehensive list, but serve as important points of reference for discussion within this chapter. Two such high impact practices that assist in the design of online courses are pedagogical alignment and meaning making.

Pedagogical Alignment Pedagogical alignment, also called systematic instructional design (Gagne, Briggs, & Wagner, 1992), entails aligning instructional variables to provide the fundamental framework for online cultural systems, 520

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

conveying meanings to community participants, and defining cultural activity. Instructional design is currently in the midst of a paradigm shift towards a more situated view of design activity within cultural systems (Anderson, 2004; Derry & Lesgold, 1996). When designing high impact online courses, pedagogical alignment involves the optimum use of a wide array of instructional features including, but not limited to, instructional goals, instructional strategies, and assessment measures and evaluation practices that support teaching and learning (Matuga, 2005). The issue of pedagogical alignment in an online course is an important one, for several reasons. While in a face-to-face environment instructional design and alignment may occur in conjunction with the other during instruction, alignment in an online course, in contrast, completes a priori. In fact, a clear, comprehensive, and logical course structure may be one of the primary factors students use to judge if an online course is an effective one. Online course alignment further complicated by the affordances and constraints stemming from technology and the social and psychological composition of community participants. Each instructional variable influences the affordances and constraints that encourage technological, social, and psychological subsystems. For example, discussions regarding effective online course alignment must also incorporate pedagogical and technological expertise of students and teachers in the design process (Son, 2019; Kebritchi, Lipshuetz, & Santiague, 2017; Chang, Kurcz, El-Bishouty, & Graf, 2015). There may be several methods with which to assess whether or not pedagogical alignment was effective, more often than not, discussions regarding the effectiveness of online activities reduced to formal, summative assessment practices such as tests, quizzes, projects, or portfolios. Pedagogical decisions regarding the selection of formal, summative assessments within online courses are important, especially when designing instructional strategies (see Duffy & Cunningham, 2001). However, it is equally important to plan for the manner in which formative assessments and other evaluative information utilized to inform other educational practices within the online environment. Teacher and student self-reflection, as a formative, informal assessment to inform learning is a potentially powerful tool for evaluating pedagogical effectiveness. Another tool to assess pedagogical alignment is peer evaluation of the course itself. There may be many mechanisms and tools that faculty and administration can use that carry out the peer evaluation of online courses. One is a tiered method at the local level asking more experienced faculty or if available, online instructional designers within the institution to review and constructively evaluate the pedagogical alignment of a particular course. Another method is to have the course formally evaluated by peers through organizations such as Quality Matters. Quality Matters is a peer review system of online courses utilizing a rubric that examines pedagogical alignment. While there are costs involved in the later, the former would take some due diligence on the part of the faculty members involved but would one-step towards assuring quality in online course design.

Meaning Making Cultural meaning making is a complex activity tied to the cultural systems creating and sharing meaning. One concept that is interesting to explore and is of particular importance to the development of quality online courses is the concept of inter-subjectivity. Inter-subjectivity is a term associated with Vygotskian theory of cognitive development and refers to the shared cultural understanding between two people (Rogoff, 1990; Rosaldo, 1999; Wertsch, 1985). If there is no shared understanding between

521

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

two people, for example a teacher and a student, then attempts to communicate, create meaning, and establish understanding are somewhat fruitless endeavors. If the teacher is unable to understand the misconceptions, questions, or understanding of his or her students, then that teacher cannot address the student needs, hampering learning. It is in this manner that the constraints of an online environment may present challenges to establishment of inter-subjectivity (Anderson, 2004). There is the suggestion that, like culture, some meanings may be more explicit due to the “pragmatics of social life and their history for a given society” but not all meanings may be “reduced to its explicit or implicit dimensions” (Le Vine, 1984, p. 77). Social referencing (i.e., gesture, gaze, and other nonverbal communication cues) which is critical for establishing inter-subjectivity (Rogoff, 1990) in a face-to-face environment is not impossible to establish in an online environment It does, however, take a more concentrated effort in high impact online courses. The culture of online teaching and learning may share similar characteristics with traditional, faceto-face teaching and learning and there may be new territory for future investigations. The critical investigation of how teachers and learners understand, navigate, and utilize the culture of online learning environments to become competent participants is critical to the future of designing high impact courses. As Gardner (1984) stated, “the human being, who, starting from a state of total ignorance about his or her particular culture, must within a decade or two acquire sufficient competence so that he or she can carry out productive work and interact effectively with other individuals to achieve valued ends” (p. 261). The enculturation of teachers and students within online teaching and learning environments requires learning how to use psychological tools within similar, yet dramatically different cultural systems, systems that have different environmental affordances and constraints.

Co-Regulation Navigating online teaching and learning, or becoming an efficient online teacher and/or online learner, requires that individuals adequately use processes, strategies, and responses to plan and monitor his or her participation in pedagogical activity (Zimmerman, 2001, 1994). This concept, known as self-regulation, reflects those processes that occur at an individual level that play an important role in student academic achievement (Zimmerman, 1994). In many cases, online students are ill-prepared for online courses or drop out of online courses due to their inability to regulate (i.e., plan or monitor) their own learning. Ironically, this relates to the convenience myths/misconceptions of online teaching and learning—a teacher or student need not go to a bricks-and-mortar classroom at a prescribed time, one can learn anytime and any location. In reality, it is very difficult for some students to be self-regulated enough to complete a course online. McCaslin and Hickey (2001) proposed, however, that co-regulation is a more appropriate concept when discussing regulation of the teaching and learning process within socio-cultural contexts from a Vygotskian perspective (Courtney, 2001). In reference to this position, Zimmerman (1986) states that “self-regulation is not an idiosyncratic product of the child’s own discovery experiences; but rather, it is a culturally transmitted method for optimizing and controlling learning events” (p. 311). The processes of regulating teaching and learning does not fall simply on the isolated individual, but is shared between and among students and teachers. In this sense, the self-regulatory functions of the student are influenced by others within the socio-cultural environment (i.e., peers and the teacher), just as others’ self-regulatory functions are influenced by that individual student.

522

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Another aspect of co-regulated learning is monitoring strategies. Self-monitoring strategies refer “to students efforts to observe themselves as they evaluate information about specific personal processes or actions that affect their learning and achievement in school” (Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995, p. 14). Students who have effective self-monitoring strategies are able to evaluate their own progress towards an established goal, making appropriate strategy changes as they proceed to regulate their learning effectively (Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). The ability to monitor one’s own learning processes are also dependent upon a wide array of technical, social, and psychological variables (Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). Let us briefly discuss self-monitoring of the writing process as an example. Writing the “old way,” before word processing was rudimentary and primitive. An individual first had to prepare quite thoroughly before writing, often generating a detailed outline and/or completing a rough draft in long hand, before moving to type the paper on a typewriter. There was a certain diligence required on the part of the individual making a mistake because it could necessitate starting the entire process all over (unless your professor did not mind a lot of liquid paper). The process described was necessary because there were constraints associated with the technological tool used to write (i.e., typewriters…an electric one if you were lucky). The process, itself also served as a self-regulatory strategy that monitored the writing process. The invention and utilization of word processors has altered the procedural script of writing used by students and, essentially, made obsolete a monitoring strategy used for writing.

Rituals of Participation One of the ways in which individuals navigate technological, social, and psychological systems are what Courtney (2001) called “rituals of participation” (p. 236). These rituals for participation encompass the norms and behaviour for participating in cultural activities. Learning how to do school, or mastering implicit and explicit academic and social knowledge needed to be successful in school, is an important ritual of participation required for effective teaching and learning (Westby, 1997). This issue is critically important due to the alarming drop rates from online courses by students (Diaz, 2002). Two popular explanations of why online students fail to complete online courses seem to be individual (demographic and/or learning style) or performance (low) differences (Diaz, 2002). However, researchers have suggested that the issue of student preparedness for online classes may be more complicated and include a variety of factors including student, situational, and educational factors (Gibson, 1998).

Suggestions for Faculty Teaching Online Courses There may be cross-cultural interference between how students conceptualize ‘doing school’ within faceto-face environments and how this concept is challenged and, by necessity, altered within online teaching and learning environments. For example, one affordance within online environments is the ability, on the part of the faculty, to ‘hear’ what every student thinks about a particular subject by requiring all students to post on a discussion board, for example. This, of course, requires that each student contribute to the conversation in a concrete and physical way that reflects what was read, in this there is simply a lot of individual accountability and challenges what a student may view of ‘doing school’. Many students, it could be argued, have learned what it means to do school by either engaging in discussion or gaining enough inference from what others are discussing in class to participate adequately, or simply keep quiet during discussion. 523

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

There may be several strategies to help online students assimilate to ‘doing school’ online. Perhaps the most utilized strategy is to give student a pre-assessment evaluating certain skills needed to be a successful online student. Many universities now utilize some sort of instrument that asks students a variety of questions about their learning habits to find a goodness of fit. For example, the University of Georgia uses the Readiness for Education at a Distance Indicator (READI @ http://goml.readi.info/) which is a self-assessment in which the student evaluates him- or herself on a variety of indicators like: life factors, personal attributes, learning styles, reading rate and recall, technical competency, technical knowledge, and typing speed and accuracy. There may be other ways to address the issue of student readiness within online courses, including scaffolding student learning at the beginning of the class and providing assistance by establishing regular activities and other strategies mentioned in this chapter. Another potential powerful strategy is assigning student-student pairs or each student to a small group and requiring they participate in activities in which they form a bond or rely upon each other to complete course tasks. For example, you may ask groups to define expectations about group standards of behaviour or something a little more fun like identifying a group name, wiki, or mascot. All of these activities are socially binding acts that may help students from dropping out if they feel they have more connections and support for learning in online environments. There are three primary suggestions for faculty when teaching high quality online courses. First, it is important for faculty to be explicit about how to ‘do school’ online and ways to assist in the co-regulation of student learning in your course. One promising practice in online courses is to keep the patterns of behavior or interactions similar throughout the duration of the course. For example, always ‘open’ online course discussions on Mondays and students expected to have their points posted by Friday. Second, faculty should plan for activities to help students identify and address the ways in which there may be differences in how to do school in their online course. Strategies to incorporate must include assisting students in critical or creative thinking, sharing ideas, exploring personal ethos, assessing, receiving feedback, and reflecting (Eison, 2010). Faculty must provide opportunities for on-line learning to engage in deep learning, application of knowledge and immediate feedback. Through ensuring students are engaged in such strategies, students can make gains in problem-solving skills (Cooper, 2015). Faculty should plan the courses around personalized learning which takes into account the • • •

Different characteristics of learning, Context in which the learning takes place, and Types of technologies and emerging technologies available to the learners (Chang, et al., 2015, Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005).

When planning a course, faculty should use flexible instructional methods and a learning pace to address individual student needs. Faculty should also assist students in how they plan to work their online course requirement into their calendar referring to as an ‘orienting activity’ (Olgren, 1998). Third, faculty should provide guidelines for activities and assessments that address both issues, rituals of participation and co-regulation, to help scaffold these skills throughout the duration of the course. Scaffolding simply means that the faculty member should provide a lot of assistance with these activities at the beginning of the course and as the course progresses; the faculty member slowly withdraws that help as the student gains confidence and masters course material. There are many resources, books and websites, to assist faculty when teaching high quality online courses (Lohle, 2019; Cooper, 2015; Nedungadi, & Raman, 2012; Eison, 2010; Ko & Rossen, 2001; 524

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Koszalka & Ganesan, 2004). There is also assistance to help faculty effectively utilize discussion boards, online tools, blogs, wikis, open-source programs, iPads, iPods, the iGoogle suite, cell phones, etc. within their online courses. Returning to the framework of viewing online courses as cultural systems, two inter-related important considerations outlined for faculty teaching high quality online courses: rituals of participation and co-regulation.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OF FACULTY Quality online course delivery is contingent upon administrative support of faculty. Additionally, “administrators need to understand their faculty population if they are to support faculty participation in [online teaching and learning]” (Schifter, 2004, p. 25). However, according to Jorge Gaytan (2009) while all valued online teaching and learning there was little agreement among deans, vice presidents for academic affairs, and administrators of distance learning at campuses regarding the organizational structures supporting online teaching and learning. It could be that online teaching and learning, as a field traditionally focused upon the pedagogy of teaching and learning that takes place within online learning environments and contributes to institutional culture. Two important factors that face administrative support of faculty and delivering quality online courses and programs are adequate support for planning and faculty workload.

Adequate Support for Planning Osika (2006) warns many administrative issues within and across institutions need addressing, thus providing support for online students and faculty beyond the borders of the virtual learning environment. The issue of adequate faculty support, however, is perhaps the most examined administrative issue in distance learning literature (Ko & Rossen, 2001). Levy (2003) outlined critical factors for administrators to take into account when planning for online courses and/or programs; she proposed that planning be systematic and strategic. Levy (2003) stated that “the challenge to colleges in the 21st century is not to decide why they should have an online distance learning program, but to decide how to design and implement such a program” (p. 3). Effective and innovative leadership plays an important role in the development and delivery of online course and programs (Latchem & Hanna, 2001). Beaudoin (2003) states that “any focused consideration of the dimension of leadership and its impact on the growth and apparent success of distance education at literally hundreds of institutions worldwide” has been largely absent from the literature (p. 3). There appear to be some disconnect, however, between the roles that faculty and administrators play in the development of quality online courses and programs and this disconnect is reflected recent studies on the topic. One of the first steps for administrators to support online students, faculty, and programs would be to understand the demands on online faculty when designing and planning for online courses and programs. Administrators should clarify, in discussions with their faculty, any misconceptions about developing and offering a high-quality online course/program. For example, Gaytan (2009) found that there was a disconnect between administrators’ rhetoric and practice and that there was still, on the part of administrators, “an emphasis is on cost savings, remaining competitive, and delivery of information as opposed to instructional quality” (p. 69).

525

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Howell, Williams, and Lindsay (2003) stated that there is a need to pose difficult questions about online programs, but a need to address those questions “from an informed perspective” (p. 1). As Gaytan (2009) found, there were many instances in which administrators and faculty differed in important ways when discussing online teaching and learning. For example, “while online education coordinators and faculty [in his study] were thinking about the ways to improve the quality of online education, academic administrators had other priorities such as being able to remain competitive” (Gaytan, 2009, p. 69). This illustrates a common assumption, on the part of institutional administrators, that online courses will address the need to service more students for the same costs, often by increasing the number of students within online courses (Concieção & Baldor, 2009). As stated in the beginning of the chapter, both administrators and faculty hold myths and misconceptions about online teaching and learning. Assumptions, myths, and misconceptions need examining and discussion by administrators and faculty members within the context and characteristics (i.e., pedagogical alignment) of a particular course or program. This is a critical first step during the design and planning stage of online courses and programs. Administrative support of faculty for high quality online courses is needed, however, to extend beyond support to encompass adequate planning (Osika, 2006).

Faculty Workload One issue that has received some attention in the online teaching and learning literature has been that of faculty workload. Lehmann and Chamberlin (2009), for example, illustrate the number and variety of hats that online faculty wear when teaching a high quality online course: (1) teacher, (2) facilitator, (3) instructional technologist, (4) course designer, (5) writer, editor, and proofreader, (6) counselor and mediator, and (7) advisor and registrar. Wearing more hats, however, may not necessarily result in increased compensation for the online faculty member. For example, in Schifter’s (2004) research surveying administrators about online teaching and learning issues, both found that there was little consistency with faculty compensation. Additionally, faculty may not be prepared to wear many of those hats and professional development, mentoring programs, or providing other models to those faculties may be critical (Blythe, 2001). Debates ensure around complications and added workload for faculty teaching online. Some researchers have found as the number of students increase in an online course workload due to more student-teacher interactions and/or more individual assessment feedback, particularly if using a pedagogical alignment for the course that is more student-centered increases (Matuga, 2005). Other researchers, however, have found that placing additional students within an online course may not increase faculty workload substantially, especially if the online faculty member has previous online teaching experience or the course’s pedagogical alignment is more teacher-centered and does not require a lot of student-teacher interaction and student monitoring (Anderson & Avery, 2008; DiBiase & Rademacher, 2005; Matuga, 2005). It is very important, however, to realize that many of the studies investigating faculty workload were comparison studies with face-to-face faculty. As stated in the introduction of this chapter, this is a flawed premise, as we are not comparing apples-to-apples therefore, investigating faculty workload from a comparison perspective may not adequately reflect what an online faculty does. Just as it may be more accurate to examine online teaching and learning as a cultural system, it may be necessary to redefine the roles, responsibilities of online faculty members. The supposition that treating online faculty members differently at educational institutions, and this may be a threat to academic quality, has been a recurring theme in the research literature (Concieção & Baldor, 2009). Schifter (2004) 526

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

found that faculty workload for those teaching online courses were not to consistent within and across institutions (Schifter, 2004). This has given rise to a trend at educational institutions of hiring online adjunct faculty to teach online courses (Puzziferro & Shelton, 2009). On the one hand, while this group of faculty may have highly specialized skills to teach online, there may still be a perceived threat to the online quality of courses and programs. Regardless, the rise of the online adjunct faculty illustrates the need for an examination of knowledge and skills required to be an effective online faculty member and support from administration for quality online course delivery. It also necessitates the transformation of how we assess and evaluate effective online faculty, especially if we look at online learning environments as complex, cultural systems. A cornerstone of support for online faculty from an administrative perspective should include support for the systematic assessment and evaluation of online courses with an eye toward continual improvement.

Continual Improvement The last issue explored in this chapter, which of continual improvement, encompasses the various aspects for all the topics features highlighted in this chapter: pedagogical alignment, meaning making, rituals of participation, co-regulation, administrative support for faculty planning courses/programs, and faculty workload. The relationships between and among these different factors illuminate themselves to be reciprocal in nature through the process of continual improvement. It is in this sense that online teaching and learning contributes to the notion of cultural systems discussed at the beginning of the chapter. Continual improvement is the act of reflecting on the effectiveness of pedagogical alignment within the context of the constraints and affordances of the online teaching and learning environment. Perhaps the most important component for continual improvement, for example, is pedagogical alignment, which, as stated earlier, requires that instructional variables like student learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessment and evaluation practices, supporting student success and learning, and selecting with care during the planning process (Matuga, 2005). Pedagogical alignment provides a blueprint for continual improvement. However, continual improvement also mandates the re-visitation of pedagogical alignment during and after the course with the goal of perfecting the course with an eye towards assuring quality. Sims and Jones (2002) proposed a three-phased model for continuous improvement in online classes that emphasizes the importance of pedagogical alignment and instructional design. They proposed that there be a “Pre-Delivery” phase in which the focus is on the functionality of the newly designed course be peer evaluated. This could be by utilizing some of the peer-evaluation methods mentioned in this chapter. The second phase is that of an initial delivery, or enhancement stage, and the last stage is an ongoing delivery or course maintenance phase in which the course is modified based upon feedback from students and peers. This approach emphasizes a team approach to course design, evaluation, and redesign. Within socio-cultural literature is creating ‘communities of practice’. Sims and Jones (2002) outline that building shared understanding, establishing rituals of participation, and maintaining communication are all critical components of their continuous improvement model. Continuous improvement is by its definition, a dynamic process that examines those shared ideas of what is quality online teaching and learning and is essential for assuring quality.

527

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS As a review of the online teaching and learning research by Tallen-Runnels and colleagues (2006) illustrated, online teaching and learning can be and has been a field typically organized by following four categories: course environment, learners’ outcomes, learners’ characteristics, and institutional and administrative factors. There are two issues when designing online courses, the first is the quality of teaching tool and the second is the quality of learning. In this chapter, we have presented a foundation for viewing some of these topics through the lens of cultural systems (Ternus et al, 2002). Three common myths/misconceptions regarding online teaching and learning presented at the beginning of this chapter, helped frame the discussion. One last myth or misconception not highlighted in this paper is that online teaching and learning is less expensive than face-to-face teaching. Divorcing this myth from the comparison (apples to apples) metaphor, is a topic that was touched upon when the subject of administrative support of faculty but not fully explored. Colleges and universities face pressure in developing online courses and programs, in essence, to meet economic shortfalls. However, as Levy (2003) state “the challenge to colleges in the 21st century is not to decide why they should have an online distance learning program, but to decide how to design and implement such a program” (p. 3). The subject or relationship between how much a course/program cost and quality of learning within that course/program remains a very complex and difficult topic to frame within the topic of assuring quality. The issue of assuring quality in online courses and programs is a multifaceted one that requires we look at the online teaching and learning environment through a fundamentally different lens—of it as a complex, cultural system with unique affordances and constraints.

CONCLUSION While an exhaustive list is not presented, this chapter highlighted important factors that influence the design of high impact online courses, offered suggestions for faculty who are teaching online classes that ensure quality, impact administrative support of online faculty, and offer a potential model for continual improvement. All of these factors are aligned with the central premise of this chapter that assuring quality in online course delivery is a complicated communal activity focusing on the alignment of sound instructional features, meaning-making, working together with students to develop new ways ‘to do school’ online, recognition of faculty work, and continual improvement. By providing quality on-line delivery, we are assuring access to learning for all (McCowan, 2016).

REFERENCES Anderson, K. M., & Avery, M. D. (2008). Faculty teaching time: A comparison of web-based and faceto-face graduate nursing courses. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5(1), 1–12. doi:10.2202/1548-923X.1539 PMID:18241197 Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 33–60). Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/index.html

528

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Balanko, S. L. (2002). Review and Resources: Online Education Implementation and Evaluation. University of Washington Office of Educational Assessment, OEA Report 02-11. Retrieved from ttps:// www.washington.edu/assessment/files/2015/01/OEAReport0211.pdf Beaudoin, M. F. (2003). Distance education leadership for the new century. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(2). Blythe, S. (2001). Designing online courses: User-centered practices. Computers and Composition, 18(4), 329–346. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(01)00066-4 Carlson, S. (2012, Feb.). The Future of Colleges May Lie, Literally in Students’ Hands. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5. Chang, T. W., Kurcz, J., El-Bishouty, M. M., & Graf, S. (2015). Roadmap for adaptive and personalized learning. In Ubiquitous Learning Environments and Technologies (pp. 1-12). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Conceição, S. C. O., & Baldor, M. J. (2009). Faculty workload for online instruction: Individual barriers and institutional challenges. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, Chicago, IL. Cooper, K. (2015). Breaking the Mold. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 32(7), 16–17. Cooper, K. (2015). Breaking the mold. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 32(7), 16–17. Courtney, S. (2001). Technology and culture of teaching and learning. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlberg (Eds.), To Improve the Academy (Vol. 19, pp. 232–249). Anker Publishing. doi:10.1002/j.2334-4822.2001. tb00534.x Craig, R. (2015). College Disrupted The Great Unbundling of Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan Press. D’Andrade, R. (2001). A cognitivist’s view of the unit debate in cultural anthropology. Cross-Cultural Research, 35(2), 242–257. doi:10.1177/106939710103500208 Derry, S., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Toward a situated social practice model for instructional design. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 787–806). Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Diaz, D. P. (2002). Online drop rates revisited. The Technology Source Archives. University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/ DiBiase, D., & Rademacher, H. (2005). Scaling up: Faculty workload, class size, and student satisfaction in a distance-learning course on Geographic Information Sciences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 139–158. doi:10.1080/03098260500030520 Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). Erlbaum.

529

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Eison, J. (2010). Using active learning instructional strategies to create excitement and enhance learning. Retrieved on September 24, 2015 from http://www.cte.cornell.edu/documents/ presentations/ Eisen-Handout.pdf Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wagner, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. Harcourt Brace Publishers. Gardner, H. (1984). The development of competence in culturally defined domains: A preliminary framework. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essay on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 257–275). Cambridge University Press. Gaytan, J. (2009). Analyzing online education through the lens of institutional theory and practice: The need for research-based and –validated frameworks for planning, designing, delivering, and assessing online instruction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(2), 62–75. Gibson, C. C. (1998). The distance learner’s academic self-concept. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 65–76). Atwood. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press. Hosie, P., & Schibeci, R. (2005). Checklist and context-0bound evaluations of online learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 881–895. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00513.x Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Jerald, C. D. (2009). Defining a 21st Century Education. Center for Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.cfsd16.org/public/_century/pdf/Defininga21stCenturyEducation Jerald_2009.pdf Kebritchi, M., Lipshuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 4–29. Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 89–96. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.89 PMID:11843550 Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Houghton Mifflin. Koh, C. (2015). Understanding and facilitating learning for the net generation and twenty-first-century learners through motivation, leadership and curriculum design. In C. Koh (Ed.), Motivation, Leadership And Currivulum Design: Engaging The Net Generation and 21st Century Learners (pp. 1–10). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-230-2_1 Koszalka, T. A., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243–256. doi:10.1080/0158791042000262111 Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

530

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Latchem, C., & Hanna, D. E. (2001). Leadership in open and flexible learning. In C. Latchem & D. E. Hanna (Eds.), Leadership for 21st Century Learning: Global Perspectives from Educational Innovators (pp. 53–62). Kogan Page Limited. Lehmann, K., & Chamberlin, L. (2009). Making the move to eLearning: Putting your course online. Rowman & Littlefield. LeVine, R. A. (1984). Properties of culture: Ethnographic view. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essay on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 67–87). Cambridge University Press. Levy, D. C. (2013). The decline of private higher education. Higher Education Policy, 26(1), 25–42. doi:10.1057/hep.2012.26 Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1). Lohle, M. (2019). How online teaching made me a better instructor on campus. FDLA Journal, 4, Article 5. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fdla-journal/vol4/iss1/5 Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434. doi:10.100710734-016-0016-x Matuga, J., Wooldridge, D. G., & Poirier, S. (2011). Assuring Quality in Online Course Delivery. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 2(1), 36–49. doi:10.4018/javet.2011010104 Matuga, J. M. (2001). Electronic pedagogical practice: The art and science of teaching and learning on-line. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 77–84. Matuga, J. M. (2005). The role of assessment and evaluation in context: Pedagogical alignment in online courses. In D. D. Williams, S. L. Howell, & M. Hricko (Eds.), Online Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation (pp. 316–330). Information Science Publishing. Matuga, J. M. (2007). Self-regulation and online learning: Theoretical issues and practical challenges to support life-long learning. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Online Education for Lifelong Learning (pp. 146–168). Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-319-7.ch007 McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227–252). Erlbaum. McCowan, T. (2016). Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 46(4), 645–665. doi:10.1080/03057925.2015.1043237 Mehlinger, H. D., & Powers, S. M. (2002). Technology and teacher education: A guide for educators and policymakers. Houghton Mifflin Company. Moe, M. T., & Blodget, H. (2000). The knowledge web: Part 1. People power: Fuel for the new economy. Merrill Lynch.

531

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: Integrating e-learning and m-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659–678. doi:10.100711423012-9250-9 Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.16). Educause. Olgren, C. H. (1998). Improving learning outcomes: The effects of learning strategies and motivation. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 77–95). Atwood Publishing. Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives: A Strategic Approach to Skills Policies. OECD Publishing. http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-AssetManagement/oecd/education/betterskills-better-jobs-better-lives_9789264177338-en#page4 Osika, E. (2006). The concentric support model: A model for planning and evaluation of distance learning programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(3). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ ojdla/fall93/osika93.htm Pearson Education. (2014). The Shift to Digital Learning: Key Indicators of Success. Retrieved from https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/ShiftToDigitalInfographic.pdf Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2009). Supporting online faculty – Revisiting the seven principles (A few years later). Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3). https://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdla/fall123/puzziferro123.html Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology on self and feeling. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essay on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 137–157). Cambridge University Press. Schifter, C. (2004). Faculty participation in distance education programs: Practices and plans. In D. Monolescu, C. C. Schifter, & L. Greenwood (Eds.), The distance education evolution: Issues and case studies (pp. 22–39). Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-120-9.ch002 Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptualizing instructional design for online learning. ASCILITE 2002, Auckland, New Zealand. Son, B. K. (2019), Integrated e-learning paradigm in the twenty-first century: Management education. In D. Sampson. J. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaias, & S. Sergis (Eds.), Learning technologies for transforming large-scale teaching, learning, and assessment. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Publishing Company. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093 Ternus, M. P., Palmer, K. L., & Faulk, D. R. (2007). Benchmarking quality in online teaching and learning: A rubric for course construction and evaluation. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(2), 51–67.

532

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

UNESCO. (2017). Policy Paper 30: Six ways to ensure higher education leaves no one behind. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002478/247862E.pdf Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press. Westby, C. (1997). There’s more to passing than knowing the answers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(3), 274–286. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2803.274 White, L. A. (1975). The concept of cultural systems: A key to understanding tribes and nations. Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/whit93238 White, R. (n.d.). Four myths about online learning. Retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/2720 Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 3–20). LEA. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–38). Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An Invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self- regulated learning (pp. 13–27). Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.37219956305

ADDITIONAL READING Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, (March), 3–7. Helms, S. A. (2014). Blended/hybrid courses: A review of the literature and recommendations for instructional designers and educators. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6), 804–810. doi:10.1080/ 10494820.2012.745420 Kuh, G. D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring Quality & Taking High-Impact Practices to Scale. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global standards for enhancing quality in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(2), 1–10. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons.

533

 Online Learning and Quality Practice With Administrative Support and Collaboration

Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2017). Change levers for unifying top-down and bottom-up approaches to the adoption and diffusion of e-learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 736–748. doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1289508 Son, B. K. (2017). Integrated collaborative E-learning for the global management education in the 21st century. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaías (Eds.), Proceedings of CELDA 2017: 14th International Conference Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 311–314). Vilamoura, Portugal: IADIS. Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D. G., & Isaias, P. (2016). Competencies in teaching, learning and educational leadership in the digital age. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30295-9

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Assuring Quality: Online course delivery focusing on the alignment of sound instructional features, meaning-making, working together with students to develop new ways ‘to do school’ online, recognition of faculty work, and continual improvement. Continual Improvement: The act of reflecting on the effectiveness of pedagogical alignment within the context of the constraints and affordances of the online teaching and learning environment. Continuous Improvement: A dynamic process that examines those shared ideas of what is quality online teaching and learning and is essential for assuring quality. Cultural Systems: Within online environments refers to understandings and meanings socially shared. Evaluation: Examining the content, processes, impact and outcomes of on-line courses in order improve the course quality. High Impact Practices: Educational experiences that are meaningful and require student action and participation, and that contribute to the life-long learning of the student. On-Line Teaching and Learning: Faculty-delivered instruction via the Internet or distance learning. Self-Regulation: Those processes that occur at an individual level that play an important role in student academic achievement.

This research was previously published in the Handbook of Research on Modern Educational Technologies, Applications, and Management; pages 837-854, copyright year 2021 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

534

535

Chapter 27

Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers Jennie Larry Johnson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7884-7127 University of North Texas, USA Adil Akhtar Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6853-9198 University of North Texas, USA

ABSTRACT America’s teachers are burning out. The emergence of teacher-centered online professional learning communities (PLCs) is a relatively new phenomenon with unestablished boundaries. The questions to be answered are: (1) What are the opportunities, issues, and challenges associated with online PLCs for K-12 teachers? (2) What are generalizable models for designing, implementing, and managing online PLCs for K-12 teachers? An exhaustive review gathered, organized, evaluated, coded, analyzed, and synthesized 45 relevant studies, dissertations, articles, and reports that examined online teacher PLCs. The goal was to identify and highlight conflicts, contradictory ideas among findings. The intent was to bridge gaps between theories and principles to create a common framework and generalizable models. This study was relevant because it sought to identify opportunities, issues, and challenges associated with online teacher PLCs and successful evidence-based micro-level, meso-level, and macro-level replicable practices for broader generalization.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-6684-7540-9.ch027

Copyright © 2023, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

INTRODUCTION What would America be without qualified K-12 teachers? While this question might sound rhetorical, Garcia and Weiss (2019) warn education administrators, policymakers, and parents should turn an increased focus toward a coming perfect storm. America’s teachers are burning out from teacher shortages, stressful working conditions, and a perceived lack of support. After examing a stratified sampling of 60,000 teachers that responded to the 2017-2018 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), Garcia & Weiss found 48.7 percent of respondents expressed some levels of dissatisfaction with being a teacher, 27.4 percent admitted thoughts they would leave the teaching profession at some point, and a disturbing 57.5 percent felt they would not return to teaching if they went back to college at some point. The primary reasons cited were teachers felt they lacked influence over what they teach (71.3 percent) and the instructional materials they use (74.5 percent). Garcia & Weiss attributed these factors to why America faced a 100,000-teacher shortage during the 2017-2018 school year and described the phenomenon as a recognized but poorly understood national crisis (Garcia & Weiss, 2019a). In subsequent studies, the researchers mapped the strong correlations between on-the-job training and professional development and teacher job satisfaction. Garcia & Weiss recommends improvements in the types and usefulness of the professional supports offered to teachers. They found such efforts should include efforts to help them stay abreast of advances in research on effective teaching practices, strategies for facing challenges, and advocacy (Garcia & Weiss, 2019b). One particularly promising and emerging trend is the increasing number of online teacher professional learning communities (PLCs). PLCs are usually teams of teachers engaged through social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn) in e-learning communities where they share and learn from each other (Beach, 2012). However, the rapid growth and prevalence of online teacher-focused PLCs beg the questions: Is the excitement about PLCs as an alternative to traditional teacher professional development approaches justified? What types of PLC peer-directed and self-regulated learning practices work best? Which PLCs are designed to accommodate particular learning styles and learning needs? What types of learning tools are available to PLCs participants that might not otherwise be available? Are investments in administrative-supported PLCs socially and economically smart (Fabio & Antonietti, 2012)? A plethora of empirical studies have found online PLCs help teachers share teaching tips and techniques, promote collaborative and social learning, and provide guidance emotional support for teachers within a virtual community of peers (Ahmad et al., 2013; Ahmad & Tasir, 2013;Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Darmadi, 2018; Dascalu et al., 2015; Lo, 2012; McManus, 2000; Ozyurt & Ozyurt, 2014; Scheiter, 2009; Švarcová & Jelínková, 2016; Taub et al., 2014; Truong, 2016; Wells, 2011). Research also points toward the potential of PLCs to create a paradigm shift in professional development approaches for K-12 teachers and the value of collaborative problem-solving with like-minded peers (Chappuis, Chappuis, & Stiggins, 2009; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005). Teachers themselves have claimed benefits from engaged learning within collaborative e-learning environments that enabled them to share resources and knowledge with other K-12 teachers (Anwauddin, 2015; Ballenger, 2001). Nevertheless, critics have claimed the evidence is inclusive that online PLCs actually improve K-12 teachers’ learning experiences compared to traditional professional learning approaches. Others claim online PLCs approaches are too simple and that the benefits of participation are not shared equally among all participants (Akbulut & Cardak, 2012; Gerjets, 2009; Hamid, 2015). Researchers have also noted that online PLC administration is often sloppy and disorganized with little learning taking place among its members (Lang & Fitzgerald,

536

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

2005, Verborgh & Dumontier, 2018). Other studies have identified the need to review the literature to shed additional light on this rapidly growing phenomenon (Webster & Watson, 2002). Implications are the literature should be synthesized to identify generalizable models and theoretical frameworks. Such efforts should also seek to determine if gaps exist within the body of knowledge related to how to effectively implement and manage teacher-focused and managed online PLCs (Webster & Watson, 2002). Yet, it has been suggested that any efforts toward adult distance learner should incorporate an understanding about how and why adults learn (Dwye & Walsh, 2019). Inferences are that heutagogy, a form of self-determined lifelong learning, should be considered for teacher-focused online PLCs because of its associated continuum from andragogy or adult education (Blaschke, 2012). Heutagogy is described as distinctive because of the increased emphasis on self-directed, self-directed, and self-regulated autonomous adult learning (Blaschke, 2012; Buckley, 2019). Similar to Mezirow’s (1997) disorienting dilemma decoding, transformative learning theory, heutagogy stresses the importance of learner maturity through critical reflections that document adjustments in self-perception, beliefs, and lifestyles. In educational research, it has been accepted that increased knowledge and understanding of life experiences (Merzirow, 1997) enrich and deepen the learning experiences of adults. Research has shown heutagogy-influenced teaching and e-learning environments progressively develop learners’ competencies, capabilities, and competencies through self-assessments usually under the direction of peer coaches (Ashton & Newman, 2006, Bhoryrub et al., 2010; Kamenetz, 2010). Research has attributed the strength of self-directed elearning environments to the promotion of emancipatory learning through collaborative social action (Carr et al., 2013; Garden & Garden-Ross, 2018). Research shows heutagogy is most useful for adult education when learning occurs within environments that offer continuous self-reflection, collaborative learning spaces that help decode prior knowledge, peer-driven constructive feedback, competency applications and demonstrations, positive role-modeling, and emotional support (Baker, 2006; Blaschke, 2012; Persaud, 2016; Stiglitz & Greenwald, 2014). Over the last decade, both teachers and school administrators have been bombarded with books and programs that promote heutagogy-influenced PLCs as an attractive option for K-12 teacher professional learning (Hargreaves, 2007; Talbert, 2010). The challenge is that most of the literature was written by practitioners or university researchers—not the teachers themselves (McLaughlin, 2001). By comparison, a new and emerging trend is the advent of the teacher-driven, teacher-centered, and teacher-created online PLC society. The opportunity is that collaborative online personalized learning communities (PLCs) appear to be the best platform for creating such real-time and interactive peer-driven e-learning environments (Blaschke, 2018; Narayan, Herrington, & Cochrane, 2019). The purpose of this study was to employ Cooper’s Taxonomy for literature reviews gather, analyze, and synthesize existing research concerning online teacher professional learning communities. The goal was to summarize the findings, identify ambiguities or conflicts in the literature, and outline areas for further research.

BACKGROUND: THE STRUCTURE OF AN INTEGRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW This study sought to answer two questions: (1) What are the opportunities, issues, and challenges associated with online PLCs for K-12 teachers? (2) What are the generalizable models for designing, implementing, and managing online PLCs for K-12 teachers??

537

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature was used to focus attention on this fast-growing phenomenon; synthesize literature from prior studies of the topic; provide perspectives from the literature regarding the generalizability of successful models using a structured approach to ensure diversity of findings; organize the literature by attributes; and disseminate findings for future research (Sipe & Stalling, 1996). The researchers took a neutral perspective while conducting the study, evaluating, coding and categorizing the works by research method, participant effect size, and theoretical underpinning. The intended audience is scholars, administrators, and policymakers tasked with evaluating online, adult education, and professional learning community frameworks. Cooper’s taxonomy methodology was used because the approach is commonly accepted conducting social science and behavioral literature reviews (Cooper, 2017) An exhaustive coverage of literature, with selective criteria of focus on American K-12 teachers, was used to gathered, reviewed, and analyzed for both large-scale and small-scale quantitative and qualitative studies. Seminal and theoretical literature was gathered and examined to establish conceptual frameworks and boundaries. An economic report was gathered and analyzed to assess the ramifications influencing the phenomena from the administrative and budgetary perspectives (See Figure 1). Google was used to access a University of North Texas EBSCOHost account. Six unique keyword phrase searchers for English studies were conducted November 5 through November 10, 2018. Keyword phrases searched were: personalized learning communities; e-learning in America; teacher e-learning, online teacher communities; teacher online professional learning, and teacher e-learning. Table 1 identifies the 550 works identified by phrase.

Table 1. ERIC database keyword search terms and results Search Terms

Results

S1: Personalized learning communities

29

S2: e-Learning in America

8

S3: Teacher e-learning

3

S4: Online teacher communities

145

S5: Teacher online professional learning

240

S6: Teacher e-learning

125

Total Keyword Search Results

550

The University of North Texas EBSCOHost account was used to search for and find four seminar study searchers by title and author during separate searches. Based on the thorough search and exhaustive keyword searches, 145 English works published and unpublished in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, conference papers, proceedings, dissertations, theses, and working papers written between 1980 and 2018. Abstracts were screened for operational characteristics, independent and dependent variables, participant eligibility criteria, research design methods, study timeframes, and stated geographical restrictions. Forty-one works were selected for coding and systematic review, and 104 were excluded. Table 2 provides the number of works excluded because the literature as duplications, being off-topic, or not focused on American teachers.

538

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

Figure 1.

The inclusion of theoretical seminal studies and theoretical works was necessary because the classic works were of central importance to the topic and provided the conceptual framework for this study and literature syntheses. Seminal studies and theoretical works are of central importance to the topic were exempted from the exclusion criteria based on their accepted validity within the scholarly community and indicated by scholarly their number of citations. A study limitation was that ERIC works not accessible through the University of North Texas’ EBSCOHost were also excluded, which included three book titles.

539

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

Table 2. Literature exclusions by reason E1: Duplicates

6

E2: Off-topic

33

E3: Not USA teacher exclusive

54

E4: Unavailable at time of the search

11

Total Literature Exclusions

104

The principal investigator, a University of North Texas doctoral student with a master’s degree in Learning Technologies, gathered and selected the 41 different studies, theoretical works, and economic report. The student was qualified to make the selections based on her knowledge and experience related to the topic. Microsoft Office 2016 Access was used to organize literature by title, authors, year of publication, participant population, sample size, primary findings, and limitations. A co-investigator agreed with the literature selections (See Figure 2.). Figure 2.

Relevant data samples were extracted and synthesized to create statements by weight and quality and were combined into a summative account. Narratives were written to describe the syntheses; and tables were included to display study designs, variables, outcomes, and context.

540

 Generalizable Models for Online Professional Learning Communities for America’s K-12 Teachers

Both published and unpublished literature was coded, weighted, and assigned one of seven values by the principal investigator. A rating level scale (L) was created to rank literature from “L1” to “L7” based on determined evaluated relevance and significance. The highest rating of “L1” was coded to literature reviews and meta-analysis based on evaluated reliability and methodology. Large-scale quantitative studies (n=>35) were rated “L2” and small-scale studies (n35) being rated “L4” and small-scale studies (n35 sample size)

7

L3: Quantitative small studies (n=35 sample size)

4

L5: Qualitative small studies (n= 0.05) which means that the data can be ascertained to be entirely homogeneous and normally distributed.

811

 Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome

To test any differences between the application of concept maps as formative assessment and MCQs as a formative assessment on student engagement, a comparison of the mean of each score from both groups was carried out followed by the MANOVA test to answer the second research question by determining the significance of the differences between all types of engagement. Meanwhile, the learning outcomes, both before and after treatments of each group, performed an Independent sample test (t-test) at the pretest and posttest scores. Furthermore, to answer whether there is an influence of the pretest score on the posttest score, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) test was performed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Concept Map Influence on Student Engagement The results of the Engagement Scale questionnaire from respondents were categorized as behavioral, emotional, and cognitive in both groups. The summary of the results for each engagement category is shown in Table 2. It shows that the experimental group obtained a general average engagement (M = 73.45 SD = 6.600), higher than the control group that has M = 68.86 and SD = 7.387. Likewise, all types of engagements indicated that experimental group obtained a higher level of engagements: behavioral engagement score (M = 19.25, SD = 2.385), emotional engagement score (M = 24.00, SD = 3.057), cognitive engagement score (M = 30.21, SD = 3.483), and the level of engagement of the control group with behavioral engagement score (M = 18.21, SD = 2.740), emotional engagement score (M = 22.25, SD = 2.367), cognitive engagement score (M = 28.39, SD = 3.542). These results answer research question 1 that there is a difference in influence between the use of concept map as a formative assessment compared to the application of MCQs as a formative assessment towards behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and all engagement. However, to ensure that concept maps significantly influences behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and all engagement, additional MANOVA test was performed to distinguish the results obtained from the experimental and the control classes. The MANOVA results are depicted in Table 3. Table 3 shows significant differences in almost all sub-variables of Student Engagement between both groups with >95% of confidence level. The emotional engagement has a significance value of 0.010 (p < 0.05) and cognitive engagement has a significance value of 0.029 (p < 0.05) and overall SE has a significance value of 0.005 (p < 0.01). However, a lower value of 0.083 (p > 0.05) was found for the behavioral engagement. It suggests insignificant differences between both groups on behavioral engagement. The results of this analysis also answer the second research question in proving the significant of concept maps construction on formative assessment for all tested engagement types. Similar findings were reported by Wang et al. (2017) who states that web-based collaborative concept mapping encourages interactions effectively. Likewise, Al-Dmour et al. (2017) concluded the positive effect of concept maps in enhancing motivation and improving students’ attitude. In their research, concept maps were not used as teaching but used as tools to help students in the learning process. Wang et al. (2018) also reported of positive effect of concept maps in improving intrinsic motivation, knowledge and complex problem-solving skill. In the context of Student Engagement, Sun & Rueda (2012) argue that students’ interest in learning and self-regulation are significantly correlated with all types of engagement. That is, the increased interest of students in the learning process and the high motivation that is triggered by the use of concept maps as formative assessment will significantly influence student engagement in an online learning environ812

 Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome

ment. It is reinforced with evidence previous researched found appreciable differences between the two groups in virtual learning on the three engagement types and on learning outcomes (Topu & Goktas, 2019). The findings indicate that behavioral engagement is not found to be significant. Presumably, it is caused by an LMS platform designed which allows MCQs assessment to affect student engagement even though it is smaller from the concept maps assessment tool. Therefore, students can actively participate in learning. Although its significance is not obvious, the mean of behavioral engagement of the experimental group has a higher score in formative assessment than the control group for each chapter. Table 2. Student engagement score on behavioral, emotional, cognitive and all engagements Group

BE

N

Mean

EE SD

Mean

CE SD

All Engagement

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Experimental

53

19.25

2.385

24.00

3.057

30.21

3.483

73.45

6.600

Control

28

18.21

2.740

22.25

2.367

28.39

3.542

68.86

7.387

Table 3. MANOVA testing results of Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive and all engagements Engagement

Df

F

p

Behavioral Engagement

1

3.086

.083

Emotional Engagement

1

6.956

.010*

Cognitive Engagement

1

4.917

.029*

All Engagement

1

8.177

.005**

*p < .05, **p < .01

Concept Maps Influence on Learning Outcomes The pretest results for the experimental group were M = 34.30 and SD = 12.554, while the pretest results of the control group were M = 33.79, and SD = 10.796 (Table 4). To ascertain those differences, inferential statistical tests were conducted via t-test for the pretest score summarized in Table 5. The results found the value of p or (Sig. [2-tailed]) was higher than the standard alpha level (α = 0.05). This indicates insignificant difference in the initial ability test before the concept maps treatment. Table 4. Pretest and posttest scores Group

Pretest

N

Mean

Posttest SD

Mean

SD

Experimental

53

34.30

12.554

61.43

15.973

Control

28

33.79

10.796

51.54

17.811

813

 Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome

Table 5. Independent t-test of Pretest score F Equal variances assumed

Sig

3.315

T

.072

Equal variances not assumed

df

Sig(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

.184

79

.854

.516

.193

62.733

.847

.516

Table 6. Independent t-test of Posttest score F Equal variances assumed

.504

Sig .480

Equal variances not assumed

T

df

Sig(2-tailed)

Mean Difference

2.549

79

.013

9.898

2.464

50.121

.017

9.898

Table 7. ANCOVA results of pretest and posttest Source

SS

MS

df

F

Pretest

1524.545

1524.545

1

5.856

Group

1726.280

1726.280

1

6.631

Error

20307.438

260.352

78

Total

296227.000

p .012*

81

*p < .05

The posttest scores of the experiment group were M = 61.43 and SD = 15.973, while the posttest scores for the control group were M = 51.54 and SD = 17.811. Based on these data, there were differences in posttest results and the SD values for the control group were lower than the experimental. These results answer research question 3 that there is a difference in influence between the use of concept maps as formative assessment compared to the use of MCQs as formative assessment towards learning outcomes. To determine the extent to which the differences in posttest results as well as to test hypotheses, inferential statistical analysis was performed. Hypothesis testing using the t-test was performed to distinguish the discrepancy of the posttest mean scores in formative evaluation. Two qualifications were used to answer the problem statement 4. If tcv (t-critical value) is higher than tobs (t-observed), there is no significant learning outcome effect of concept maps assignment as a formative assessment, vice versa. Sample test (t-test) results summary in Table 6 suggest appreciable degree of observed significance (Sig. [2-tailed]), which is lower than the standard alpha level (0.013 1.668 while also answering the formulation of problem 4. In conclusion, the data suggest significant effect of concept maps assignment as a method for formative assessment on the learning outcomes. These results answer research question 4 on how far the effects of concept maps use as formative assessment compared to the use of MCQs as

814

 Effect of Online-Based Concept Map on Student Engagement and Learning Outcome

formative assessment toward learning outcomes. In short, concept maps as formative assessment can enhance learning achievements. The pretest score summary in Table 4 shows higher value for the experimental than the control groups. Therefore, the effect of pretest on the posttest score were statistically assessed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) as summarized in Table 7. ANCOVA helped to determine whether there were significant differences between both groups on the posttest score. In the ANCOVA test, the posttest score was set as dependent, while the pretest score as a covariate, as suggested elsewhere (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2016). This analysis was conducted to control the results of the pretest, to ensure whether there is an influence of pretest (initial ability) on the posttest score. Results show that the number of significant difference value between both groups was p = 0.012. From this result, since p