MARK ADAMS
Director of Training
Facultytraining.net
United States of America
Web: www.facultytraining.net
Email: madams@facultytraining.net
GARRY HALL
Supervisor, Library and Independent Study Centre
Dubai Women’s College
United Arab Emirates
Email: garry.hall@hct.ac.ae
Through presentation of this paper, we will share insights into achieving teaching and learning excellence using the WebCT learning management system in a “blended” (online/classroom) approach with Faculty, through examples of best practices and hard-won “lessons learned”. The end result was a highly successful blended e-learning initiative at Dubai Women’s College (DWC) in 2003-2004.
The case study illustrates challenges solved by the implementation of a rigorous Faculty training program. Results examine and analyze student performance in a blended-online course with ESL students (Applied Research Skills). The course developed was the first at DWC to use the framework presented in the Faculty training program. Topics covered include support required by Faculty, supervisors, staff, and students in adopting a blended-online approach. Also included is an institutional strategy facilitating continual improvement and quality assurance in blended e-learning courses.
Following an extensive search in May of 2003, DWC contracted facultytraining.net, a global training and professional development company (based in Oregon) to design and deliver, a blended-online instructor training on WebCT, to the more than 100 of its Faculty. The 12-week course was delivered in a series of classes with10-15 participants, by an experienced team of senior DWC Faculty and Supervisors who had completed the “Master” level trained by the course developer. Feedback saw the design and content amended, facilitating a final product deemed most appropriate for Faculty. The Faculty cohort was an embodiment of instructors in business, health sciences, education, computer science, and English, representing a variety of countries and a wide range of technical competencies. Inclusive within this group were some with extensive online teaching and learning experience, as well as some novices. Our task therefore, was to offer training that bridged the gap between the different levels of expertise, while providing a solid foundation for further professional development, likely to be delivered through a blended online mode.
The initial specifications required a custom solution to provide Faculty with the theoretical underpinning and practical skills necessary for an end product within a WebCT environment. Training was to emphasize the techniques involved in the use of the software. A framework was developed providing an integrated approach, combined pedagogy and instructional design with the technical skills necessary to use WebCT, resulting in an actual deliverable. Utilizing principles of good training for online practitioners (Ko & Rossen, 2001), the duration of the training was sufficient for Faculty to experience the challenges and strengths of this mode of learning. A vital feature of the training was that it be “hands-on”, individualized for participants to produce their own course sites composed of their own blended-online course materials. Three simultaneous goals were identified:
The resultant training operated on several levels, some assignments involved class interaction via the WebCT class site, others required small team assignments in participants’ course sites. The training was designed to impart structural guidelines with examples of the optimal blending of online and classroom approaches, these being contextualised within in Islamic culture, where attendance at school is often mandatory for the adult women students. At the time, access to networked online resources outside the College could not be guaranteed. This restriction required that adequate time was available for completion of online or Internet related assignments for those unable to access materials externally.
Heavy faculty workloads were considered in devising the training schedule i.e. the proposed 6 week model had to be adjusted to reduce the estimated time on task, enabling completion in 3- 4 hours per week (on average). The course was deliverable over 12 weeks, commencing in Week 5 of Semester. Assignments were spread over each 2 week seminar, allowing flexibility in assignment completion dates, while retaining the motivating effect of specifying due dates. Scheduling proved highly effective, as evidenced by a completion rate of nearly 90%, with the caveat that many Faculty reported finding the pace “demanding” and “somewhat stressful” especially when combined with periods of overload in regular teaching demands. One technique found to partially mitigate this stress, was to hold true to the “blended” approach by including at least one (and often two) scheduled in-class meetings (including lunch as an added incentive!). Meetings proved popular, allowing opportunities to voice concerns, address problems, share successes, and offer completed work. Though physically located in close proximity, many participants reported that the scheduled lunch meeting was the first time they had engaged with some colleagues in more than “a passing nod in the hallway.” These brief in-person sessions seemed to encourage personal connections, opening opportunities for cooperation and collegiality through team assignments offering the invigoration of discussing the assignments.
Other important factors to the difficult and widespread issue of “too much work-too little time”, were the policies of the course combined with the supportive and encouraging presence of the facilitators. In terms of policies, we found that establishing a clear set of obligations with realistic minimum participation guidelines, including time on task estimates, seemed to reduce anxiety levels. This structure produced better time management through planning; additionally this ensured consistent criteria for providing feedback and evaluation (see Exhibit 1 below).
The
evaluation scheme in this professional development course utilizes
self-assessment to supplied criteria, with instructor feedback. Each week you
will be asked to complete a self-assessment based on completing the assignments
in the weekly agenda; feedback will be provided. The totals from your
self-assessment along with feedback will form the basis for certification.
Those passing the course will be issued a certificate of completion in online
instructor training. There are 1000 possible points; the Passing Certification
grade is 800 points or above.
The training course utilizes self-assessment to the supplied criteria, recommended (Bransford et al, 2000) as a key skill in promoting meta-cognitive abilities enhancing life-long learning. Self-assessment was thought to be especially appropriate for a cohort of instructors, for whom assessment, was an essential competency. Through examples displaying both qualitative and quantitative criteria, the overall value of self-assessment was further optimized. The self-assessment structure ensured each seminar was continually examined for opportunities that would improve interactions and contribute to team success (in this case—the training class). For some instructors, the notion of self-assessment had little benefit, as, one Faculty member commented, “I would prefer to have you grade my work—you are supposed to be the expert.” Such a reaction was not surprising, given the traditional educational relationships and evaluation methods most of us have experienced, thus echoing many students’ voices when self-assessment is introduced. We have found that often (but not always), this reaction changes with the reality of the experience, where well-designed self-assessment becomes an essential part of most learning events. Posting the self-assessment score permitted the facilitators to give each participant personal feedback. The feedback could take the guise of a question, answer ,or comment on the self-assessment, including words of encouragement and other indications of sincere interest in the participant’s success. Encouragement and facilitator interest have proven to be very powerful aids in participant achievement.
Seminar One Building a Learning Community Creating “flow state”
experiences; building learning communities for students and educators; primary
elements of blended-online courses: interactivity, collaboration, and
just-in-time learning; getting started using Web-CT from a student perspective
Seminar Two Frameworks of Blended-Online Course
Design Assembling existing course materials; identifying
meta-intentions; analyzing & selecting online model choices; selecting
“appropriate media”; applying the latest learning research
Seminar Three Online Instructional Design “Unpacking”
essential topics; setting course goals and student performance objectives
(SPOs); optimizing benefits of online peer feedback; designing online team
projects; integrating on-site and online methodologies
Seminar Four Assessment, Evaluation, and Instructor
Orientation Selecting and creating valid and reliable
assessment methods tied to SPOs; developing appropriate grading schemes;
modifying online syllabus; starting to establish your own WebCT course site
from an instructor perspective
Seminar Five Blended-Online Learning Activities Creating
first agenda; identifying and selecting activities for optimum learning
benefit; using discussion, library, and web research assignments; posting your
course draft syllabus & first week’s agenda
Seminar Six Blended-Online Course Management Conducting
“time-on-task” analysis to avoid “burn-out;” file management and safeguards;
privacy & managing online problems; copyright issues; creating schedule of
completion for your own course; identifying additional resources and policies
of DWC; wrap-up of the regular Blended-Online Instructor Training
Assigning learning partners to each participant produced an interview text, from which a biography was written and posted on the discussion board. Teams of 4 participants (two pairs of learning partners) were created to tackle increasingly complex assignments as the seminars progressed, ultimately engaging all participants with the individuals’ respective WebCT sites. These carefully designed events and assignments often met with resistance from Faculty who were not inclined proactively towards teamwork. However, the nature of the task design meant that teams would accomplish the tasks much more efficiently and effectively than working alone. We addressed this by introducing additional ‘points’ for the “Team Peer Assessment”, thereby offering substantial incentive for leadership or teamwork, as defined by broad, but substantial criteria. (See exhibit 3 below).
Some examples of leadership:
Arranged and initiated meetings; provided ideas on team structure, delegation
of tasks, and optimal effectiveness; persistent but respectful in encouragement
and solicitation of other team members’ participation; proactive source of
strategies to address team challenges; arbitrated disputes; identified
alternatives; moved team and project forward; applied time and project
management
Some examples of teamwork:
proactive in offering and accepting tutoring from others; met with team members
in person or online or made efforts to contribute asynchronously; completed
assigned tasks with speed and excellence; worked to achieve consensus; shared
results; accepted tasks with enthusiasm; volunteered to tackle especially
challenging tasks
Points
were awarded by each team member for each team member, with the
total awarded for each team member, averaged. Only final marks were
communicated to the individual. The results illustrated that this approach was
only moderately successful. Factors mitigating against improved leadership and
teamwork included:
However,
the facilitators of the course concluded that the approach had been important
in introducing participants to an incentives-based, criterion referenced peer
assignment. Hopefully, this would serve to encourage Faculty in developing
similar team assignments within their student course design.
Teachable Moments
During
Semester 2, whilst three training courses were underway simultaneously, we
experienced what is graciously called, in retrospect, a “teachable moment.” A
critical point in the course occurred when each participant was given a new
WebCT course site, for which very specific tutorials and instructions have been
prepared to facilitate the site’s development.
In this case and unbeknown to the facilitators, a fully expanded WebCT
template was substituted for the minimal template previously provided for new
sites. This new template had every feature enabled, with some already
containing sample materials from other courses. While arguably interesting as
example, this template bore no relation whatsoever to the written
instructions and 30 multimedia tutorials painstakingly created to provide a
relatively painless introduction to the “designer” tools offered in WebCT. Our
experience dictated the best place to start as simply, having the instructors
add tools slowly over time, supported by step-by-step instructions . Multimedia
tutorials were available to assist participants in accomplishing the necessary
tasks. By the time the error was discovered, the more engaged participants had
heroically tried to reconcile the new template with the tutorials and
assignments, spending hours of mostly futile diligence. Having enjoyed a
well-constructed and logical course to that point, they assumed it must be
‘something they were doing wrong’.
Following
intense consultation, the facilitators posted an extremely contrite apology
which included an approach that would see the problem rectified New course sites, based on the minimal
template, gave them the option of starting afresh with the tutorials in
agreement with their view on the screen; alternatively, they could continue to
modify the ‘fully expanded’ template. The decision was made to extend the
completion date of the course by a week, thus offering additional recovery time
for participants (who had been incredibly dedicated in spite of the added
workload). The course was structured, to run between Weeks 5 and Week 17
providing the scope for altered deadlines, as proved necessary. Such a disaster could bring many a training
course to a grinding halt. The professionalism of the Faculty and trainers at
DWC ultimately concluded that the course completed with ‘almost universal’,
good cheer. The lesson learned: strive
for, but do not expect, perfection in this lifetime! You need to be flexible,
honest and adaptable. Again, the situation encountered here reinforced the
importance of course managers modeling ‘ideal’ facilitator behaviors when
unexpected problems arise.
Quality Assurance
DWC now has over sixty Faculty who have completed the training, each with courses converted or undergoing conversion to the blended online model. Negotiations are underway to ensure that the remaining College staff will complete this training by the end of the 2004 – 2005 academic year. Having this institutional commitment will provide great opportunities for research to further validate and refine this blended-online approach.
Conclusions
The
documented case study, we hope, has provided useful insights into a successful
blended e-learning initiative implementation using the WebCT learning
management system. Experience has seen us conclude the following:
Development of a system wide performance support system
(PSS) would likely assist instructors with blended course development. Based in
WebCT, a PSS course site could utilize a “just-in-time” philosophy, providing
tutorials in written and/or multimedia format, supplemented by forums moderated
by e-Learning support staff. For example, the course described included 30
multimedia tutorials of 2-3 minute’s duration; these were designed to
demonstrate sequentially a variety of WebCT processes. Such performance support
tools could be supplemented with step-by-step instructions for tasks frequently
undertaken, including orientations for staff, faculty, and others within the
organization who would benefit from a blended learning approach.
Finally, E-learning training initiatives should explicitly
seek to improve the professional lives of faculty and staff. Blended e-learning can only be judged
successful if, following an evaluation of job satisfaction, feedback is
positive. Training and performance support are two important factors in
managing this change process.
[To
return to the website this document came from click here— http://www.facultytraining.net/home.html ]
Bibliography
Ko, Susan & Rossen, Steve (2001) Teaching Online: A Practical Guide Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Bransford, John, et al (2000) How People Learn Washington DC: National Academy Press
Hall, Garry (2004) Use of blended learning environments in developing digital library skills of ESL students (unpublished)
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1997) Finding Flow New York: Basic Books
McKeachie, Wilbert et al (1999) Teaching Tips Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Orr, David (1994) Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect Covelo, California: Island Press
Falchikov, Nancy (2001) Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education London: Routledge Falmer
Wenger, Etienne et al (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice Harvard Business School Press
Gross, Ronald (1991) Peak Learning New York: Tarcher Putnam
McGBeath, Ron (1992) Instructing and Evaluating in Higher Education New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications
Havelock, Ron & Zlotolow, Steve (1995) The Change Agent’s Guide New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications