Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching 1617616052, 9781617616051

Citation preview

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD

PEDAGOGICAL MODELS THE DISCIPLINE OF ONLINE TEACHING

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the Series tab.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the E-book tab.

COMPUTER SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND APPLICATIONS Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the Series tab.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website under the E-book tab.

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD

PEDAGOGICAL MODELS THE DISCIPLINE OF ONLINE TEACHING

MICHAEL F. SHAUGHNESSY AND

SUSAN FULGHAM EDITORS

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright ©2011 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Pedagogical models the discipline of online teaching / editors, Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN:  (eBook) 1. Web-based instruction. 2. Internet in education. 3. Computer-assisted instruction. 4. Distance education. I. Shaughnessy, Michael F. II. Fulgham, Susan. LB1044.87.P42 2010 378.1'7344678--dc22 2010034039

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Introduction

xiii

Chapter 1

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life Tisha Bender

Chapter 2

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

19

On-Line Pedagogy: Illuminating the Tension Between Technology and Imagination Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick

33

Chapter 3

1

Chapter 4

The Role of Motivation in Teacher Education Classes Mary Jane Miller

43

Chapter 5

Instructional Design for Online Courses Michael Simonton

51

Chapter 6

Not Your Typical Bling-Bling: The Best Accessory for Distance Learning is High Quality Pedagogy Mary Jane Miller

Chapter 7

Pedagogy of Online Instruction Zane Berge

Chapter 8

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity, or 150 Design Strategies for Inclusion Katy Campbell

Chapter 9

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations Susan Fulgham

Chapter 10

Applying Pedagogy During Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

75 87

97 141

153

vi Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Index

Contents Interplay Instructional Strategy: Engaging Learners with Interactive Entertainment Conventions Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

183

The Future of Distance Education: A Research and Development Agenda Farhad Saba

213 223

PREFACE Chapter 1 - An old Chinese proverb states, ―Teachers open the door; you enter by yourself.‖ In other words, the teacher holds the shining silver key to a large, heavy door, which, when opened, shows the pathway to knowledge. However, in today‘s increasingly sophisticated technological society, there is a change; the introduction, if you will, of something akin to a remote door opener, still operated, it is true, by the teacher, but without the teacher‘s physical presence as she guides the students through that doorway. This is what online education is about; there is no teacher physically present with a silver key in hand, but instead it is a teacher who is not seen, with classmates who are also physically remote, who are in the process of discovering knowledge, yet work collaboratively within this virtual room whose door has been virtually swung open. Working remotely and communicating electronically is not so new to the current generation of undergraduates, who have grown up into a brand new era of increasingly sophisticated media, and think little of talking to each other via Instant Messenger, playing online video games with others from around the world, downloading materials from the Web, and so on. It might feel a little newer to some of the increasing numbers of older online students, but for many of them, online education provides a glorious opportunity to multitask so as to combine job and family responsibilities with learning. And not only this, but in this time of soaring gas prices, many students might appreciate being able to continue their education without leaving home. So the older online students see the flexibility and convenience of online education as potentially advantageous, and the younger undergraduates see it as using a technology that many are already familiar with in some form or other. In fact, I will make the case that it is not only familiarity that these younger undergraduates feel with electronic communication, but more importantly, I believe these communication technologies are also often associated with pleasure. After all, what student does not generally enjoy IM-ing his friends, or playing online video games? Therefore I believe that there is a strong association between using electronic communication and enjoyment, and this could clearly be seen as an advantage in using some of these technologies for accessing education electronically. This can be illustrated by Duke University‘s Digital Initiative, an increasingly popular program which lends students iPods for the term (or they can buy them at only $99.00) for any course in which the faculty member designs some digital content. Lombardi, assistant vice president of academic services and technology support, states that one professor gave as an assignment, that students should do an audio podcast instead of a written paper, and found that the work was vastly superior both because there were more drafts, and also because there was much

viii

Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham

more ready collaboration and peer review on the part of the students (Lederman, 2006). Granted that in this example, the authors are talking about iPods and not online education, but I think the implications are the same. Young students seem to increasingly like using communication technologies, and this seems to indicate that whereas the medium is not the message, and there is not quite a marriage between the two, that the medium does go a long way in potentially affecting the enjoyment and receptivity that the students feel towards their learning of the essential message. Naturally, enjoyment alone of using technology is insufficient in creating an effective online course in which all students are engaged in their learning. Furthermore, there might be some students who do not enjoy learning remotely, as they might have some initial difficulties in using or becoming comfortable with the asynchronous electronic communication used in online classes, although hopefully an initial student orientation, along with increased usage, will go a long way towards helping the student to feel comfortable so as to be able to focus on the content of the course itself. And it is the access to the content of the course itself, the pedagogical methods to best unlock the means to learning this content - in other words the skill of the online teacher to best fascinate, engage and stimulate the students - that this chapter will be about. Chapter 2 - The current paper discusses a pedagogical model, leveraging the benefits and affordances of offline, experiential learning, with online, computer-mediated discussions. The course, entitled ―Multicultural Perspectives on Technology‖ was designed around these principles. Students engaged in weekly online seminars and discussions, completed out-ofclass activities, and a semester-long service-learning project in order to grapple with abstract concepts related to education, culture, and technology. The model is presented, along with the details of its application in the course, and student evaluations. Chapter 3 - Every great leap in technology begins with a leap in imagination. Someone, driven by need, passion, or profit, connects the sum of their knowledge and experience to ask ―what if…?‖ The history of science and art is filled with wonderful stories of connections made by individuals who see beyond what exists and into the realm of what is possible. Our lives are enriched by the miracles produced by inventive minds that seek to understand, and to articulate that understanding in an act of creation; be it a drawing, a spacecraft or a microchip. Imagination and creativity are fundamental to invention, to learning and to living a full life; but what is to become of imagination in the next generation? As on-line educators, riding the explosion of new technologies that carry us into the 21st century, the authors are inundated with the stories of technological inevitability told by the ‗techno enthusiasts‘. They are stories of salvation founded in a belief that every problem has a technological fix. The monster is clearly identified as antiquated practices and their soporific offspring. They address the problems of contemporary schools and offer clearly defined solutions; technological solutions. If boredom and apathy are barriers to learning, then there is a way to engage the ―digital native‖ Let them learn on-line. It is efficient and cost effective. Dismiss the cautionary tales. It is old thinking and will be left behind. Embrace the latest high tech offerings and be a well equipped player in the global arena. This narrative has found wide acceptance, as salvation stories often do. It has become the dominant discourse, the way things are, the inevitable future but what else is there? Outside of the chronicles of technological inevitability, what other stories are popping up from the margins to articulate their ‗matters of concern?‘ What points of view might instructional designers consider to inform the shape and content of their educational

Preface

ix

products? McLuhan states ―…the partial and specialized character of the viewpoint, however noble, will not serve at all in the electric age‖ however, if the goal is not ―to serve‖ but ―to see‖ then what can be learned from a ―vigorous engagement with partial perspectives?‗ How can these perspectives find voice in an on-line environment? This paper will step outside of the technical-rational discourse that traditionally frames technology issues to consult the critics, the connoisseurs and the artists. It will focus on the tension between imagination and on-line pedagogy. It will seek to contribute to a pluralistic dialogue in the field. Chapter 4 - Distance education is at the forefront of innovative programs in universities and colleges around the world. It offers educational opportunities that have never before been available. In spite of all the millions of dollars invested in new technologies and curriculum designs, many programs are still struggling with the success rate of their online students. Much research has been done and many factors have been identified that contribute to successful online learning. One of the most important of these is student motivation. This paper discusses intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in an educational environment, then describes characteristics that have been identified as common to highly motivated students who are most likely to succeed as distance learners. The paper goes on to describe efforts to determine if students in the School of Education at the University of Guam report possessing these characteristics and further what specific motivators encourage them to do well in their courses. Chapter 5 - Just like other kinds of teaching, teaching at a distance requires planning and organizing. However, teaching at a distance, whether synchronous or asynchronous, requires that greater emphasis be placed on the initial planning phase. Instructional design should consider all aspects of the instructional environment, following a well-organized procedure that provides guidance to even the novice distance instructor. (See, for example, Figure 6–1.) The instructional environment should be viewed as a system, a relationship among and between all the components of that system—the instructor, the learners, the material, and the technology. Especially when planning for distance education, the instructor must make decisions that will affect all aspects of the system (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This chapter presents background information about an organized and systematic way to go about planning instruction. Central to this chapter‘s organization is the Unit-Module-Topic Model for course design (UMT Model). This model is based on best practices in course design and delivery, which will also be presented. This design process allows the instructor to consider elements such as the content, the nature of the learner, the process by which the learning will take place (methodology), and the means for assessing the learning experience. By following through with this process, the instructor will find that teaching at a distance is an exciting and dynamic experience, one that will be welcomed by both the instructor and the learners. Chapter 6 - In today‘s modern world the emphasis is increasingly on computerization of processes and services. Tertiary education has jumped onto the technology bandwagon with an irreversible leap. The use of technology in education, particularly online learning, has added dramatically to the availability of educational opportunities to students who may otherwise find it impossible to pursue a university degree. Even in public schools and traditional face-to-face classes at the college level, technology is a powerful tool that can enhance student understanding, engage learners in active participation, and add immeasurably to the range of simulations, experiments, and activities an instructor can provide. On the other

x

Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham

hand, we must ensure that the technology itself is not allowed to segue into a position of such prominence that it becomes the real goal rather than communication of content matter. There is no technological innovation, elaborate program or fabulous graphic that can replace sound pedagogy and high quality instruction if the goal remains positive learning outcomes and academic achievement. This paper makes the point that greater learner success may result from research and course improvements that focus on strong pedagogy rather than glittering technological bling-bling. Chapter 7 - Online learning is not about technology, although a lot of technical help is often needed. Neither is online learning about computers, hardware, nor learning management systems; although all these are necessary for online learning. Regardless of whether a course is delivered in-person or online; whether it uses videoconferencing or is delivered by postal mail correspondence, the goals of the instruction should not change. Student learning should be what guides decisions about instruction, regardless of the delivery system. Additionally, the particular delivery system used for instruction is not nearly as critical as many other factors in the design and development of the course. Choosing the appropriate teaching methods and strategies related to such factors as reinforcement, feedback, evaluation, and motivation usually have a much larger effect size than does the delivery system for most students under most conditions. Some adjustments may be required to the materials and activities used online to overcome limitations and use beneficial characteristics of the technology, but that should not change the course objectives. Firdyiwek stated ―the pedagogy of online instruction is based on the effective use of electronic learning environments for the development of cognitive skills through access to information, interactivity with tools, and communication‖. Many factors determine the success or failure of online students. These factors include student characteristics, mentoring, teacher/student interaction, policies, funding, student support, technology, curriculum, access, equity, staff development, and administration. This chapter reviews some of the underlying philosophical aspects and design elements that are common in online learning. Chapter 8 - This chapter begins with a story and ends in a challenge to teachers and trainers, instructional designers, Web designers and writers to be critical of their own cultural values and assumptions about the learning environments they create and the learning communities that they include. Chapter 9 - In the last ten years, online education has significantly grown in the educational market, particularly in higher education. The anytime, anyplace web-based learning environment appeals to a number of non-traditional students, who choose this method of education in obtaining academic credits towards a degree or for personal reasons, such as updating job skills. Faculty or instructors recognize their roles in delivering instruction and look for effective ways to teach or improve the learning environment. One technique used to improve learning in an online course is to include multimedia. Clark and Feldon define multimedia as the ―capacity of computers to provide real-time representations of nearly all existing media and sensory modes of instruction‖ and instructional media as ―any vehicle for presenting or delivering instruction‖. Mayer and Sims refer to multimedia learning as learning that occurs when information is delivered through two or more modalities, such as verbal and visual. For this discussion, multimedia will be viewed as any instructional media presentation involving audio and visual graphics, such as PowerPoint, interactive simulations, video, or animation. The purpose of this chapter is to

Preface

xi

assist instructors in choosing appropriate media through principles learned by research and practice, so they may in turn, create effective learning environments. Chapter 10 - Instructional [computer] games have reemerged as an important outgrowth of the entertaining video game industry. Entertaining video games are being repurposed for use in schools and universities across the country, and the number of games designed specifically to facilitate training and education in conventional, hybrid and totally online courses is also on the rise. The problem is, like many rapidly growing industries, advances in video game technology are far outpacing research on its design and effectiveness. Relatively little is understood about how to apply what we know about teaching and learning to optimize game-based learning. For the most part, educators know little about game development and entertaining game developers may know little about education and instructional design. As a result, faculty may not realize the potential of play, game, and story to create engaging and memorable learning experiences, and game developers may fail to apply basic pedagogical principles that are vital for optimizing learning. This chapter is written primarily for educators, instructional designers and distance education (DE) professionals (hereby referred to collectively as educators) interested in designing instructional games to facilitate learning in totally online and hybrid learning environments. It is also written for game developers, to illustrate how fundamental instructional design (ID) tasks may facilitate instructional game development (GD) and underscore the importance of working with educators during the GD process. The authors goals are to (a) increase educators‘ knowledge of GD and their capacity to communicate and collaborate with game developers, and (b) stimulate dialog among educators and GD professionals to build stronger bridges between, and bring the seemingly disparate worlds of ID and GD closer together. Initially, five levels of application and key components of interactive entertainment are delineated to help educators determine the scope and purpose of instructional games and to set a context for the posited methods. Then, a basic GD process is characterized, including discussions of how educators can apply their knowledge of the subject matter, educational context, and pedagogy during the process to optimize game-based learning. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of key concepts and issues. Chapter 11 - Advances in telecommunication technologies and the continued need for training, education and professional development have resulted in a proliferation of e-learning opportunities (e.g., elearners.com, corporatetraining.com, ecollege.com, connectionsacademy. com, phoenix.com). The problem is that many e-learning programs continue to mimic traditional correspondence mail models of distance education, relying heavily on selfinstructional text or lecture-based materials that often fail to engage learners and promote meaningful interactions among participants and the subject matter. The creation of modern elearning programs requires research and the development of new instructional strategies that realize the potential of telecommunication technologies to facilitate collaborative and independent learning. This chapter posits an innovative instructional strategy that incorporates powerful conventions of interactive entertainment to engage and motivate learners in totally online, hybrid, and conventional learning environments. The strategy consists of six key instructional events that apply three core conventions of interactive entertainment (i.e., story, play and game) to structure compelling learning experiences. The events may be applied in an

xii

Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham

instructional unit or lesson, or they may be structured to create an experience arc throughout a course to arouse high levels of emotional investment. The chapter is divided into five main parts. Part I discusses the role of entertainment in educational settings. Part II delineates the three core conventions of interactive entertainment. Part III describes the interplay instructional strategy, noting the interrelationships between the six instructional events and key elements. Part IV illustrates the structuring of events within a course to enhance learner engagement and motivation. Finally, Part V presents a short summary of key concepts and conclusions. Chapter 12 - Emergence of post-industrial technologies such as digital media has offered a plethora of affordances to educators. Many of these potentials, however, are co-opted in educational organizations, which have an industrial structure to perpetuate systems and practices that will be inadequate to prepare students for the work environment of the future. Recent events in a variety of situations ranging from managing global security to responding to large scale disasters and epidemics, to polarization of the domestic political climate and cultural tensions, have shown that solutions that were effective in the past are no longer providing the desired results. Bold new visions are needed to respond to the requirements of the future society. The current educational system needs to make radical changes in its administrative and pedagogical structures to deal with such requirements. Contemporary distance education theory offers a platform for developing a dynamic instructional design model and flexible organizational structures for the educational systems of the future. It suggests radically different instructional design models and organizational structures that will prove necessary in educating the workforce of the future. The fast-paced work environment of the 21st century requires that individuals be able to adjust to new conditions as they materialize. The next generation of workers must not only be proficient in standard competencies, but must also have developed decision-making and critical thinking skills. In this chapter, Dynamic Instructional Design (DID), will be described, and it will be demonstrated that if it is implemented in flexible educational organizations it provides the potential for students to engage in education that is directly responsive to their individual prior learning as well as their learning preferences. It is hypothesized here that such a system of teaching and learning will have the following effects: Decrease in the cost of education for learners and their families Increase rates of course and program completion by students who drop out of the education system or otherwise fail to complete their degree requirements Decrease in time-to-degree among students who for a variety of reasons (including unavailability of required courses) cannot complete their degree at least in four years.

INTRODUCTION In this era of expanding technology innovations, online learning opportunities are evident in both private and public educational institutions. Educators are presenting content digitally to students with a number of applications provided by their institutions. However, despite the commonalities of institutions using a learning management system or having an instructional designer on campus, many instructors still remain grounded in the pedagogy that they use in the traditional classroom. Furthermore, driven by the institution to produce online companions to the traditional campus course offerings, instructors can often be too busy learning the technical aspects than spending time on content or exploring and learning how to teach via the ―internet.‖ The mystery of what effective instruction should look like when a course is taught online with the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies can sometimes appear to be a moving target. Thus, a multifaceted look at online instruction from a variety of authors may assist instructors who teach online or will teach online in the future. (As fast as online education is growing, if you teach in higher education, you will at least know an instructor who has taught online if you are not currently teaching through this medium.) What does online instruction look like? Instructional designers generally will follow a system design approach when designing for the online environment. At times, the learning managment system will define what elements an instructor will use in a course. Institutions may offer a template for presenting instruction for online instruction. Instructors may follow a system approach and recommendations defined by the institution‘s blueprint for online instruction or they may present instruction in a mode that matches their teaching style. Berge finds an instructor‘s philosophy of education is their pedagogy; if a course is heavy on content deliver, the instructor favors a behaviorist approach or if communication is high, the instructor favors a constructivist approach. Campbell also recognizes our tendency to design from ―content-centric‖ as ―we design for ourselves, representing our own experiences and values.‖ The goal, however, is to design for the student. The audience for an online course reaches beyond the traditional campus location. Enrollment is not always local but can be extended to fit a global market, not to mention the influx rise in international students to the institution. Therefore, culture diversity is an important consideration. Katy Campbell who has been designing online environments for a substantial amount of years would also advise use to design for diversity and equity. Campbell reminds educators that designing for differences will allow the course to meet the needs of many users. If a course is designed to meet accessibility standards, a bonus lies in the fact that the course will offer content to fit different learning styles. Miller addresses the fact that distance education courses tend to have a higher withdrawal or drop-out rate than the traditional classroom. Ineffective teaching methods in the online

xiv

Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham

course naturally incur higher withdrawal rates, but student motivation and time management (or the lack of these two elements) also plays a part in course completion. Successful students share common characteristics. Motivation in institutions with a higher variety of cultures may involve other factors, such as the University of Guam, where motivators included concerns of parents or spouse, a desire to be the best, or monetary gain through a raise or new job. Hlynka and Broderick envision an online course that moves beyond system instruction. A course based on what we know from learning theory and one that meet essential technical conditions however can become a mediocre ―online‖ course, unless we strive use ―imagination‖ into making it something better. Hlynka and Broderick warn against the concept of attempting to match the online course exactly to traditional education; ―we need to realize that the concept of ―equivalent experience‖ is not a goal to be strived for.‖ (Miller might argue the point of equivalent experience, in that implementing ―principles of good practice‖ for traditional classroom settings should be repeated in the online classroom.) The need for change is echoed by Bender‘s question: ―Can a course be both enjoyable and effective?‖ Bender would have educators look closely at the incoming generation, a generation that is used to using technology for communication and information. Therefore, the online course should engaged student learning through discussions, media, and social personalization. Fulgham encourages faculty and instructors to use video, podcasts, and simulations for learning. Stapleton and Hirumi perhaps have bridged the ―imagination‖ through presenting content in their ―Interplay‖ model. Blending systematic instructional design with the idiosyncratic, intuitive and novel elements of ―gaming entertainment,‖ a meaningful tool for instruction can be found that engages the learner. Identifying the ―Power of Story,‖ elements of ―Play,‖ and ―Game‖ components, an instructional strategy called ―Interplay‖ presents an open-ended environment for learning. The model also addresses the problem of failure; an element that dissuades learners from participation. By allowing failure to be ―fun‖ or non-threatening, the opportunity to learn becomes available. This approach relies heavily on collaboration; social connectivity in working together to solve a problem. The building of a course using this methodology would take more time than using a traditional ―read the book, take the test‖ approach but the rewards are high for both the learner and instructor. Saba would remind educators that to incorporate new modes of instructional design, the current learning management systems must change. Instructional presentation of content and communications appeared to be stigmatized by the learning management system and instructor customization is limited. If instruction is to be matched to different learner profiles, and learner schedules, then change is required. (The very reason many for-profit distance learning organizations, like Phoenix Online, are successful, is the fact that their courses fit the individual learner‘s schedule.) This change would not only involve designing learning environments that meet the balance between a learner‘s need for autonomy and instructor‘s need for structure, but change in how the educational system as a whole is regulated. Susan Fulgham and Michael F. Shaughnessy The editors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Angela Aguirre and Kimberly Elam in proof reading the final drafts. Final responsibility rests with the editors.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

ENGAGING THE STUDENT: LEARNING FOR LIFE Tisha Bender An old Chinese proverb states, ―Teachers open the door; you enter by yourself.‖ In other words, the teacher holds the shining silver key to a large, heavy door, which, when opened, shows the pathway to knowledge. However, in today‘s increasingly sophisticated technological society, there is a change; the introduction, if you will, of something akin to a remote door opener, still operated, it is true, by the teacher, but without the teacher‘s physical presence as she guides the students through that doorway. This is what online education is about; there is no teacher physically present with a silver key in hand, but instead it is a teacher who is not seen, with classmates who are also physically remote, who are in the process of discovering knowledge, yet work collaboratively within this virtual room whose door has been virtually swung open. Working remotely and communicating electronically is not so new to the current generation of undergraduates, who have grown up into a brand new era of increasingly sophisticated media, and think little of talking to each other via Instant Messenger, playing online video games with others from around the world, downloading materials from the Web, and so on. It might feel a little newer to some of the increasing numbers of older online students, but for many of them, online education provides a glorious opportunity to multitask so as to combine job and family responsibilities with learning. And not only this, but in this time of soaring gas prices, many students might appreciate being able to continue their education without leaving home. So the older online students see the flexibility and convenience of online education as potentially advantageous, and the younger undergraduates see it as using a technology that many are already familiar with in some form or other. In fact, I will make the case that it is not only familiarity that these younger undergraduates feel with electronic communication, but more importantly, I believe these communication technologies are also often associated with pleasure. After all, what student does not generally enjoy IM-ing his friends, or playing online video games? Therefore I believe that there is a strong association between using electronic communication and enjoyment, and this could clearly be seen as an advantage in using some of these technologies for accessing education electronically. This can be illustrated by Duke University‘s Digital Initiative, an increasingly popular program which lends students iPods for the term (or they can buy them at only $99.00) for any course in

2

Tisha Bender

which the faculty member designs some digital content. Lombardi, assistant vice president of academic services and technology support, states that one professor gave as an assignment, that students should do an audio podcast instead of a written paper, and found that the work was vastly superior both because there were more drafts, and also because there was much more ready collaboration and peer review on the part of the students (Lederman, 2006). Granted that in this example, the authors are talking about iPods and not online education, but I think the implications are the same. Young students seem to increasingly like using communication technologies, and this seems to indicate that whereas the medium is not the message, and there is not quite a marriage between the two, that the medium does go a long way in potentially affecting the enjoyment and receptivity that the students feel towards their learning of the essential message. Naturally, enjoyment alone of using technology is insufficient in creating an effective online course in which all students are engaged in their learning. Furthermore, there might be some students who do not enjoy learning remotely, as they might have some initial difficulties in using or becoming comfortable with the asynchronous electronic communication used in online classes, although hopefully an initial student orientation, along with increased usage, will go a long way towards helping the student to feel comfortable so as to be able to focus on the content of the course itself. And it is the access to the content of the course itself, the pedagogical methods to best unlock the means to learning this content - in other words the skill of the online teacher to best fascinate, engage and stimulate the students - that this chapter will be about.

TEACHING AT A DISTANCE If we refer again to the Chinese proverb, ―Teachers open the door; you enter by yourself,‖ what becomes apparent, after focusing on the door opening as discussed above, is the second part of the statement that ―You enter by yourself.‖ This seems to imply that it is crucial for each student to take responsibility for his or her learning. But the teacher can go a long way towards fostering that feeling of responsibility, by genuinely engaging the students and encouraging them to want to walk through the door and along the pathway to knowledge. After all, what awaits the students on the other side of the unlocked door could be perceived of as a sparkling treasure trove, or a veritable dungeon, depending on the teacher‘s ability to help the students to discern the true gems of knowledge. When taught effectively, the online class ―…carries an aura of excitement.‖ The topics are engaging, comments build upon each other, and everyone participates‖ (Eastmond, 1992). Learning is a social process, as often there is a social construction of meaning. In the online class, though, gone is the familiar place on campus where students and the teacher meet each other with a regular rhythm of attendance. But does this mean that the establishment of a feeling of belonging, something so crucial for learning to occur, has also been banished? Can there, in other words, still be a community of learners, despite the fact that the students are often widely dispersed geographically, and are therefore working remotely from each other? Is it possible, therefore, to dispute the seeming oxymoron of ‗distance learning‘, so that knowledge can be meaningfully acquired? Can minds meaningfully meet in a virtual rather than an actual sense? Plato and Descartes, two philosophers who lived many centuries before the advent of the

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

3

Internet and the possibilities of electronic communication, had believed in dualism; implying that the mind is independent of the body and could successfully transcend time and space. Might they, then, have approved whole-heartedly of the potential of the online, virtual world? However, as we know, there are many skeptics of online education, who argue that it is necessary to be physically present to acquire information, but if this is so, how can we learn from a book, or from a film, or even from a telephone conversation? Similarly, some skeptics say that a class needs to be face-to-face, as so much information is conveyed by body language and tone of voice, but have they considered the large lecture hall, in which it is impossible to read body language of so many students, let alone even know all of their names? I very much believe that true learning can indeed take place in the online class when a student is engaged. Michael G. Moore (1984) put it well when he states, ―There is now a distance between learner and teacher which is not merely geographic, but educational and psychological as well. It is a distance in the relationship of the two partners in the educational enterprise. It is a transactional distance.‖ In other words, the transactional distance is the extent to which the teacher manages to successfully engage the students in their learning. If a teacher does not teach in an engaging manner, then there would be a vast transactional distance, whether the class is held online, or right under the teacher‘s nose. In contrast, a teacher, whether on campus or online, can minimize the transactional distance if the class is meaningful and relevant, and has the right degree of challenge and encouragement for students to take individual responsibility for their learning. In other words, then, geographic, physical distance pales in importance in comparison with transactional distance. Ultimately when a student demonstrates commitment, it is to learning and the pursuit of new ideas, rather than commitment to a physical location. But if learning is indeed a social process, can this truly occur online? Wegerif (1998) strongly believes it can, based on his interviews of twenty-one online students at the Open University. He found that the difference between a successful student and one who was not was that the successful one was highly motivated and participated fully in all discussions, whereas the unsuccessful one did not participate often, and therefore not only felt overwhelmed that the discussion continued without her, but also she had feelings of an outsider uncomfortably looking in. But true collaboration is vital to successful learning, as it means that students understand questions, develop arguments, and share meanings and conclusions amongst their community of learners (National Research Council, 2001). Seen in this light, knowledge is developed through working with others. All this implies that the online teacher‘s role is a crucial one. It is up to the teacher, after all, to set the right tone for the class, and encourage full participation from all the students. But how is this achieved? How can the transactional distance be minimized, so that teaching is personalized and social, rather than remote? McKeachie, writing in 1978 about a very different sort of classroom, identified six crucial roles for a successful teacher, all of which are directly relevant to effective online teaching as well. They include being a good facilitator by encouraging a lot of discussion through empathy and careful listening; by showing expertise in such a way as to stimulate rather than overwhelm students; by maintaining authority in the class over issues such as suitable conduct and deadlines of submissions; by being a socializing agent with connections to the broader academic community; by being an ego ideal who shows commitment not only to the subject being taught but also to the

4

Tisha Bender

students; and by being compassionate and understanding of student needs (McKeachie, 1978). This demonstrates how education is a two-way process of communication, in which the teacher can get to know each individual student and customize the teaching methods to suit particular needs and interests. When students perceive that their teacher is doing this, they are much more likely to be involved. Naturally, though, there is a great diversity of learning styles amongst students. Howard Gardner saw that these ―multiple intelligences‖ range from being linguistic-verbal, to logical-mathematical, to visual-spatial, to bodily-kinesthetic, to musical-rhythmic, to interpersonal, to intrapersonal, and later added existential, spiritual, and naturalistic (Gardner, 2000). These learning traits stem, I believe, not only from innate personality traits, but are also influenced, in large part, by social trends. Living as we are in an age of television, video games and movies, I believe many people are now encouraged to be visual-spatial learners, and although writing on the Internet is in a constant state of flux, I postulate that some visual-spatial learners might learn better off a computer screen than in a traditional classroom, as they might remember where one response was in relation to another. Additionally, many people, especially the younger generation, frequently Instant Message each other, and I would think this would encourage interpersonal learning traits, which would be very advantageous in the collaborative, discussion-based online class. As well as these multiple intelligences, there might also be different learning styles based on gender and race. Women, for example, might be a little more hesitant about the technology than men (Blum, 1999), and older women might already be shouldering the majority of the family responsibilities so that online education, though convenient, might imply that, ―…technology hasn‘t freed more of women‘s time; [it has] only created a third shift in the home‖ (Kramarae, 2001). As for race, some academics felt that online education was beneficial as it obliterated racial differences and possibilities of prejudice, especially since in the very early days of online education, classes were on the DOS operating system which did not support photos. However, a person‘s race very much affects personal attributes, and these should not be literally whitewashed. As Packer states, ―…complex intellectual, artistic, political, and philosophical positions accrue around race‖ (2002). In other words, race will also play an important role in learning styles. But before the arrival of the students at the start of the semester, it is important for the teacher to construct the online class in such a way that student engagement is encouraged. The ways to optimally design the course will be explored in the next section.

Course Design One important recommendation when first designing the course is to let students know your expectations, especially in terms of how often they should participate in the online discussions, and also how often you, the teacher, will participate too. My recommendation is that you and the students should participate a minimum of three to five times per week, spread throughout the week. It‘s important to add this particular clause, so as to avoid a student saying he did participate three times that week, but it was all on Friday, which would not do at all. I also recommend that you encourage students to respond in the Discussion Forums of the class and to keep e-mail to a minimum (except for personal issues) as this will

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

5

generate camaraderie, and promote efficiency as well as effectiveness, as your answer to one student question might be helpful information to all in the class. I would also recommend that, as much as your subject matter allows, you design minilectures rather than one long lecture, as excessive screens of text could seem very dense and hard to absorb. Mini-lectures could also usefully launch into discussion points, and you could continue to provide more information throughout the discussion, rather than having it all as a lecture. Some professors might worry about having mini-lectures as they might feel that they are sacrificing information, but I argue that it is not losing information but merely repackaging it into a form which generates as much discussion as possible. I see the Discussion Forums as the life-force and energy of the class, and it is best to aim to stimulate as much discussion as possible, because, after all, if a student is not participating in discussion, that student has no presence in the class, and can not be demonstrating engagement, even if he is reading everything. Just as you might do in a campus class, it is nice to start the semester with personal introductions, so that everyone has an opportunity to become acquainted with those in their class. For this purpose, you could construct a ―Virtual Lounge‘ as an informal Discussion Forum which the students can first drop into when they log into your course. I would recommend that you allow a few days at the start of the semester for these personal introductions to occur before you start to introduce course content. Not only does it make students feel more comfortable about who is reading their comments rather than sending them out to the ―great unknown‖ of cyberspace, but it also gives new students a chance to become a little more familiar with the necessary technology and layout of the class. Online personal introductions are often much richer and more informative than those that the students say in a face-to-face setting because on campus these introductions are given sequentially, so students at the end (or the beginning) might be at a disadvantage (Cummings, 1998). Furthermore, some students might feel quite shy, especially at the start of a class held on campus, and might be so busy rehearsing what they are going to say, or feel so nervous awaiting their turn, that they do not listen carefully to the introduction of others. These constraints do not exist online. Furthermore, there is a perfect and permanent written record of everyone‘s introductions, and this can provide a useful reference point later in the semester, which might be useful not only to the students, but also to the teacher as it might even help customize learning activities and assignments. Some online professors like to phone their students at the start of the semester, to help the student to feel that they are a real person rather than just a name on a screen, and this can be very helpful. Also extremely helpful is the way discussion is designed in the Virtual Lounge, as the first form of contact. Ideally you, as the teacher, want to design a discussion topic that is so intriguing and enticing that no students want to miss out on it. This is especially important as a class that starts with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm generally continues that way, whereas a class that is off to a slow start is harder to spark later on. There are many exciting ways in which you can design the Virtual Lounge so as to draw students in and break the ice:

6

Tisha Bender

ASK THE STUDENTS TO DISCUSS RELEVANT EXPERIENCES If you are teaching a literature class, for example, it might be interesting to ask the students to discuss what novels they particularly enjoy, or if teaching a writing class it would be a good idea to ask students what they have already written. You might also ask the students to ―free associate‖ and write anything that comes to mind based on your course name (TEDI, 2002).

COMPLETING A SENTENCE It can be fun if you start a sentence, possibly related to the subject of your course, and ask the students to complete it. For example, in a course I taught on Work/Life Balance, I wrote, ―I was riding on the subway today on the way to work, and I…‖ and found that the students were often very creative, imaginative, and often amusing, and also that it gave them means of interacting with each other, with comments such as ―You didn‘t!‖ or ―I saw that, too!‖ In another course I taught, I wrote that I wanted the students to complete the sentence, ―Today I just received a letter from my good friend, Julie, in Australia, and she said that whenever she thinks of me, she thinks…‖ and asked them to provide three main personality traits that Julie would think about when she thought of them. In both cases of completing the sentence, I went first to pave the way and help the students to obtain some idea as to what is expected. In general, this exercise of completing a sentence can help the students and teacher to get to know each other in a more original, playful way.

STUDENTS INTERVIEW AND INTRODUCE EACH OTHER The students can use e-mail to interview each other, but it might be a better idea, especially as you want students to become familiar with interacting within the course, to set up small group areas within your class in which students can only see the responses of their group members and not any other groups. Once the students have interviewed each other, they can then go into the Virtual Lounge visible to the whole class and introduce the other student. This can be an advantageous way to start the class as it immediately encourages interaction between the students.

WRITE A COLLABORATIVE STORY In a class I teach on Fantasy, I start the class by composing the first paragraph of a fantasy tale, and ask each student to add another paragraph to the story as soon as he or she logs on. So for example I wrote, ―Isabella‖ (which I consider an archetypal name occupying a place in fantasy) ―was riding her silver steed through the forest when she fell to the ground and the steed cantered away. Isabella did not know what to do, but then she discovered on the ground beside her, a large silver key. Looking up, she saw a little cottage in front of her that she had not noticed before, and walked up to the front door and knocked several times, but no

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

7

one answered. She then tried the key in the lock and it fitted. Slowly turning the key, she opened the door and saw…‖ The cumulative paragraphs added by the students have frequently made for an amazing story, with all sorts of original and unexpected twists and turns. After each student‘s paragraph, I ask them to write a short introduction as to who they are, and students seem eager to participate as it is within the context of a fun activity.

ASKING STUDENTS TO WRITE SHORT DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT THEMSELVES Jack Cummings asks his online students to write a short description about themselves using eight nouns of their own choosing. He posted first and wrote some delightful information about how he has been a cyclist since the age of five, and that his first bike was much too large for him that he needed to step on an upturned bucket to mount it. Students followed his example with enthusiastic and often amusing responses of their own (Cummings 1998). I think the reason the students were drawn in was first because Cummings provided a hook as something they could relate to, and I frequently do this, too, by talking about the naughty exploits of my dog. Talking about pets often creates a lead for others to jump into discussion with tales of goldfish, tarantulas, lizards, and other amazing creatures. Also another reason for the success of Cummings‘ approach is that he is creating a very visual scene, which takes students‘ minds away from the deficits in sensory stimuli of the online class, and into a realm in which possibilities are endless. I often like to deliberately ask students to visualize a particular place, such as imagining we are sitting together in a circle in a comfortable room, as this generates the possibilities of true collaboration. One way in which I encouraged students to write about themselves in an online class about International Children‘s Literature, was that I asked them to write about a particular travel experience that they had when they were young. I started off by telling them about the horrendous mistake I made when visiting my French penpal when I was sixteen and telling her mother ―je fais le regime‖ (I am on a diet) as I was showing off the scant French expressions that I knew, and this was in no way intended to be taken literally. But literally was how her mother interpreted it, and regretfully I spent a fortnight in one of the culinary centers of France being given only a few meager slices of ham a day. This generated some wonderful student stories in response, including the one in which the student said, ―It was the beginning of the hurricane season…and all I remember of the last half of our stay was sitting on the toilet wondering if porcelain could conduct electricity. My mother yelled at me for spending over $10.00 on a long distance phone call just to ask her that.‖ These and other fun ways can go a long way towards enticing the students into the online class and engaging them. But that alone is insufficient. It is important to establish the right tone when communicating with these students and this will be the subject of the next section.

Establishing the Right Tone Now that the students are all responding in the online class through their personal introductions in the Virtual Lounge, it is vital to maintain that initial momentum and retain

8

Tisha Bender

the students‘ interest and engagement. One crucial thing is for the teacher to respond frequently to each student, especially at the beginning of the semester, and to acknowledge that student by name. Since there is no such thing as eye contact or smiles in an online class, a ready response including mentioning the name of the student, can go a long way in making the students feel that you are taking a personal interest in each one of them, and including them all in the group. It is also extremely beneficial for the teacher to set a warm, enthusiastic tone, so that students feel encouraged when checking back to see if anyone has responded to their comment. Your tone is important as it can either distance you from your students, or it can bring you all into a tighter circle. Also your tone serves as a role model, and it is interesting how much many students mimic it. Therefore I recommend that you use a conversational style in combination with a rigorous academic approach, as this conversational style will compensate for any feelings of remoteness, and will make the online class an exciting forum in which real people are conversing about mutually fascinating ideas. Note that even though students are writing their responses, the writing style is more akin to ―talking‖ than to composing an essay. In other words, to encourage interactive discussion, tell the students that the online discussion forums should have the feel of a seminar in which there are plentiful opportunities for students to bounce intelligent, informative ideas off each other within an intellectually stimulating conversation. One effective way in which I saw an instructor not only convey enthusiasm to her class, but also let students know about her expectations, was through the story of The Three Bricklayers, found at www.wow4u.com/3bricks/. Basically the story goes that when asked what he is doing the first bricklayer says he is laying bricks, the second replies that he is building a wall, and the third that he is building a cathedral! It would be wonderful if all students feel encouraged to not just do the bare minimum, but that they are so engaged with the course that they feel inspired to build a cathedral. Also in terms of expectations of discussion, I think it might be a very effective idea to discuss rules of civility with the students. Many of us have witnessed rude behaviour in the campus class, including lateness or leaving early, napping, speaking rudely to others, reading a newspaper or other non class related materials, talking to others or on a cell phone, or even using the cell phone for text messaging. While we might not witness many of these behaviours in the online class, there might still be lateness, or the possibility of a student being rude in tone or topic. Blankespoor (1996) tells his students at the start of a semester that his class is akin to a family, and that therefore everyone should treat others with sensitivity and politeness. In my online classes, I state that I love students to feel free to air different opinions even if they counter the prevailing thoughts, so long as they provide substantial evidence for their viewpoint, as this creates the potential for well considered multiple perspectives and well-rounded discussion. My view is that often the soundest learning is brought about through passionate argument. However, any contributions to discussion should always be done in a respectful manner, with an acceptance that there can be differences of interpretation. This is essential not only in the online class, but also ultimately in the pluralistic world in which there are often rigorous challenges and exchanges of ideas (Baldwin, 2000). This points to the need for guidelines for civility, which either the teacher can establish before the class begins, or can be done in collaboration with the students themselves, as often, if they participate in this sort of decision making, they might be more likely to adhere to the rules.

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

9

Having discussed the importance of establishing the right tone, we will now look at how to sustain active engagement and participation throughout the duration of the class.

How to Stimulate Sustained Engagement and Participation in Online Discussion My premise is that the best learning is accomplished through dialogue. Dialogue comes from the root dia, which means ―between‖ and logos, meaning ―word‖ (Vella, 1997). This implies that the most effective education is that which occurs through the words that flow between teacher and students, and between students themselves. In some respects, it can be claimed that there is an even richer potential for true dialogue online than in the face-to-face setting, as it is a democratic system unencumbered by stereotypical distractions such as a person‘s age, race, gender, clothing, accent of speech, or even weight or hairstyle, thus freeing the participants to focus on the interests and intellects of the others in the class. Furthermore, it is asynchronous, so people can respond when they are at their best, even if this is at 3:00 am, and they neither disturb nor interrupt, but instead have plenty of time for their ideas to ferment, deepen and become enriched. Thus a really exciting idea can be grabbed while it is still fresh and inspirational, which is better than having to wait until the next scheduled time for a class to meet on campus. It is a good idea to count participation in discussion as a significant percentage of the final grade, not only as this is an inducement for students to join in, but also because you, as a teacher, can really get to know the personality, caliber, intelligence and insights of each student, and customize the class accordingly. Also, when it comes to grading written assignments of students, generally it is easier to be able to recognize the work of a student who has participated a lot during class discussions and this will eliminate surprises or any doubt as to whether the student did the work. However, when grading participation, it is important to grade for quality rather than quantity of responses. Also, if participation is a significant amount of the final grade, it is a good idea for teachers to let students know how they are doing in this regard at intervals throughout the semester, although this must be well timed so as not to stifle further discussion. What works best in the online class is to employ the Socratic method. After all, how else can we know our students unless they respond to discussion questions, and how can we know that our mini-lectures have been read and understood unless we hear students‘ reactions to them? Purely lecturing, in which the implicit assumption is that the students are empty vessels which need to be filled with knowledge, is an inappropriate teaching style in the online setting. Much more can be gained from a highly interactive environment in which students can exert some control over their learning and can co-construct meaning within a collaborative framework. Mention has already been made as to how the online discussion forums should replicate a seminar on campus. Another way of thinking of this is to consider a circle of learning. Even though you, the teacher, are also within the circle, thus eliminating the feeling of hierarchy, you still have the prerogative to guide and facilitate the discussion, and introduce new material, much as a parent would do within the family circle (Dewey, 1938). And new information that is introduced should be seen as meaningful and relevant to students, so that they can relate it to experiences and prior knowledge, and in this way they are more likely to become engaged with the discussion. This engagement, in turn, promotes deeper learning to take place. Some students, while relating knowledge with experience, might be tempted to start writing too much anecdotal material, but it should be remembered that as long as

10

Tisha Bender

personal disclosure is accompanied by critical thinking and direct application to the materials being learned, this is acceptable. Sometimes, in fact, it can be extremely beneficial for students, especially those in a skills based class such as social work, to discuss some of their work experiences with their classmates. I do not think it is necessary for the teacher to respond to each student comment individually as if playing several games of ping-pong, one with each student; instead the teacher can weave together the responses, pointing out similarities and differences, and then asking more questions to take the discussion to a more profound level. If, incidentally, the teacher feels that something a student said was incorrect, it would be better to first point out the strengths of that student‘s argument and then beg to differ on the rest with ample explanation, rather than to quickly disagree, as written comments can sometimes seem harsher than intended, since they are devoid of tone of voice or facial expression. What I have found, and this has been corroborated by my colleagues, is that students who might be quiet in a class held on campus, often find their voice online. I think there might be several reasons to account for this, all relating in different ways to the fact that the online discussion forum might be more egalitarian as many constraints are lifted. In the first place, there are no spatial constraints, by which I mean that sometimes campus classrooms are awkward shapes and it might be hard for the teacher to maintain eye contact with all students so as to make them all feel included. And even if there is no awkwardness of shape or layout of furniture, it might still happen that the class on campus is dominated by a few students who respond most frequently and who therefore are the natural object of the teacher‘s most frequent line of vision. Secondly, temporal constraints are also lifted which might help the less assertive student on campus who might not have found the opportunity to respond in the finite time period of a campus class. Whereas these quieter students might allow others to interrupt them, talk more loudly, or monopolize the discussion on campus, this can not occur online since the class is continuously available, and each student can respond without interruption. Often, too, this removal of time constraints helps students to provide richer, more reflective responses than might be possible on campus. And since the online class is available throughout the week, rather than meeting at discrete intervals as on campus, there is no need for reminders and transitions, as information is freely and constantly flowing. In the third place, cultural constraints are also lifted. For example, in some Asian countries it is the norm for the students to be very quiet and demure and avoid eye contact with the teacher. Asian students who are studying in the US might find it hard to break with these traditions in the campus class, whereas the online format is much more liberating. However, despite a warm and encouraging tone, enticing introductory activities, and freedom from spatial, temporal and cultural constraints, some students might still not fully engage in the online class. It is to overcoming the lack of participation that we now turn.

Suggestions for Overcoming Lack of Participation Since, as it has been indicated, collaborative discussion is vital for the shared social construction of meaning, it is of great importance to engage all class members in discussion. Below are some suggestions as to how this can be accomplished: Ask the Right Questions Asking the right questions is crucial in stimulating a good discussion (Berge and Muilenburg, 2002). Questions should be of a high level, so as to promote the right conditions

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

11

for constructive thinking, which creates knowledge based on experience and prior learning. The most effective types of questions to achieve these ends would be those that are controversial, interesting and challenging, as these promote thought and ideas. Conversely, avoid asking questions that are too vague, especially at the beginning of the class where trust has not yet been established. Therefore questions such as ―Who wants to start us off?‖ or ―Are there any questions?‖ might be met by a lack of student response. Also avoid questions that generate a ―yes‖ or ―no‖ answer, or that have just one correct answer, such as ―When was the Battle of Waterloo?‖ Instead, given certain information, ask students to make connections, predictions, and explanations of causes. When answering questions, encourage the students to make their answers short and succinct – one screen seems ample - rather than long and essay-like. If they have a lot to say, ask the students to break this up into a series of responses. Shorter, more frequent responses (just like shorter, more frequent mini-lectures) are more likely to provoke response, rebuttal and stimulating dialogue than an excessively long response which many students might gloss over and not read in full. As Wegerif (1998) states, long responses generate knowledge by accumulation, rather than argumentation, but it is argumentation that promotes engagement and deeper, more satisfying learning. With this kind of argumentation, there can be an exciting conversational development. In other words, there might be some students who do not address your original questions, but who pick up on where the conversation is going and add more thoughts. At this point it might be beneficial for the teacher to ―give up the chalk‖ (Patenaude, 1999) and let the students thrash out the issues. Then when the teacher judges that it would be advantageous to wrap together the important themes, or ask new questions which naturally arise from the conversation, she can reenter the forum, or certain students can be designated as ―discussion leaders‘ and can do the same task. Salmon quotes from Rowntree who, writing in The British Journal of Educational Technology in 1995 states, ―What [students] learn, of course, is not so much product (e.g. information) as process – in particular, the creative, cognitive process of offering up ideas, having them criticized or expanded on, and getting the chance to reshape them (or abandon them) in the light of peer discussion. The learning becomes not merely active, but also interactive‖ (quoted in Salmon, 2000). If some students still remain quiet, it would be best to contact them privately by phone or e-mail, and try to encourage them to respond. Encouragement works better than nagging, and much better still than calling on someone in class. But Fisher asks how much a teacher should encourage a quiet student to participate, as she wonders whether it will enhance learning, or whether it might cause psychological harm (Fisher, 2001). Conversely,whereas a student who tries to monopolize the discussion has a different impact online than on campus as there is not the problem of running out of time, it can still annoy the other students and cause them to retreat or not read all the responses. In this case again it would be advantageous if the teacher privately contacted that student, as well as lessening the amount of attention that the teacher gives the student in class.

Try to Avoid Possible Misinterpretation We need to be as mindful as possible as to how our words might be misinterpreted, coming, as they are, on a computer screen devoid of tone of voice or body language. Therefore if critiquing student work, it is best to point out the positives first and then to give some tactful suggestions for improvement. Likewise, if the class is a workshop in which

12

Tisha Bender

students give each other feedback, it would be helpful to tell students to follow the same guidelines. In this way, the critique can be perceived as helpful and constructive, rather than demeaning, which would, if the latter were to be true, greatly hamper that student‘s selfesteem and continued engagement in the class. Similarly humor, though often terrific at uniting a class and relaxing the atmosphere, should be used carefully in the online class so as to avoid misinterpretation. This does not mean, though, that it can not be used at all, as instructors who are fun, energetic and creative have tremendous potential to energize, motivate and engage students. Just as there can be amusing books, so too can humor be used effectively in online classes. It can help ease students over stressful situations, and can help them not feel overwhelmed by reading numerous responses. But it is best to get to know the students before using humor, so as to know their sensitivities as well as their personalities, since just because something seemed funny in a previous semester does not guarantee that it will be perceived of as funny by a different group of students. Ultimately, it is best to just be yourself, but before submitting a humorous response, pause a moment to see the possible ways in which it might be interpreted.

Try to Show that you are Listening and that you Care It might seem hard to convey that you are listening in a silent online class in which the only sounds are those in our imagination. Also listening involves more than hearing, as it is often accompanied by a nod or smile or some other act of encouragement. However, the teacher should attempt to set up the online class so that it is a safe place, meaning that it is both safe from abuse or ridicule, as well as safe to fully participate in all learning activities and discussion. Many online students, whether because of not being directly face-to-face with others, or because of the asynchronous mode of communication, reveal more intimate personal course related experiences than they might do on campus, and it is highly beneficial if the teacher is attentive and compassionate, responds frequently, and in general creates a supportive, benevolent atmosphere with lots of affirmation. Once trust has been established, many students might indeed feel grateful that the online class is constantly available throughout the semester, rather than having to wait for the scheduled time for a campus class, as they can contribute responses whenever they would like to. Never was this more apparent to me than on 9/11, when New York based students and I in an online writing course that started a mere few days after the attack, found comfort in online conversations with each other and the sharing of thoughts, fears and nightmares. I should also add that never have I seen better writing than in that particular class, demonstrating the validity of Vella and Fardouly‘s points that learning is not just cognitive but also affective (Vella, 1997; Fardouly, 2001). On rare occasions, discussions might become heated,and unpleasant remarks might be made – this is called ―flaming‖ - despite having mutually agreed upon rules of civility in the online class. How can you, as teacher, show that you care about the students involved in this situation? What is the best way of handling the dispute? Yes, the students are engaged, but not in the positive way you might have hoped for. My recommendation would first be to privately contact the students involved, and try to offer some comfort as well as constructive help. Additionally I would not recommend deleting the offending response as if it had never happened, as this seems dishonest, as it is falsifying the history of the discussion. After all, many might have already read it. Also, if a rude comment were made in a campus class, it

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

13

would not have been possible to pretend that this had not occurred. Therefore, instead of deletion, I would recommend that the remark is honestly and thoroughly explored. It might even constitute an ideal ―teaching moment‖ (Ehrmann, 2002), and one in which students learn at a very profound level, if it is properly handled. And by proper handling, I would recommend that you remind students to thrash out the issues at an intellectual and not emotional level. It might be wise to lock the discussion forum temporarily so that things can cool down and students can think more rationally, and then reopen it at a later time to resolve the issues, with students not only posting their views, but also giving reasons as to why they think this way. This helps students not only to be articulate, but also to develop skills of metacognition, in which they are thinking about their own thinking.

If a Student is Late in Responding The virtual time of the asynchronous class is more fluid and elastic than is the steady forward march of the ticking clock of ―real time,‖ but even so students should be discussing the same issues within roughly the same time frame so as to be able to meaningfully interact with each other, as will probably have been mentioned in the rules of civility. However, what should be done with a student who joins in on a discussion topic long after the conversation has ended? That student might claim to be engaged, but if it is not at the right time and not with the rest of the students and teacher in the class, it has significantly less value. In a campus class it would not even be possible to gather together the conversation of a missed class, but online there is a permanent record so the late student might feel less disadvantaged. However, I would recommend that late students are told that this behaviour is not acceptable. In the first place, the student might just be copying remarks of others and not adding anything original. Furthermore, the late student pulls the discussion backwards when there should be forward momentum, and just represents more work for you, the teacher. The late student might also annoy other students in the class who did the work on time and did not have the luxury of extensions. I think the best option as to what to do with the problem of the late student is to tell the student to join in with current discussions, but that it is now too late to join in with earlier discussion topics. If participation in discussion counts significantly towards the final grade, this will penalize the late student, but this seems to be the logical consequence of the late behaviour. This might seem too punitive to the student who is genuinely so busy with other responsibilities besides the online class, but if this is the case, this just might not be the best time to take the class. I have seen exceptionally busy students be the first to respond, and to do so thoughtfully and well, so if there is motivation, much can be accomplished.

SOME INNOVATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES Having a variety of learning activities throughout the semester in addition to online discussion, is beneficial as it sparks new interest and also caters to students with different learning styles. Thus engagement is likely to be sustained in a class in which there are a variety of exciting activities. What follows is a sample of some innovative learning activities.

14

Tisha Bender

Group Work Group work can be especially helpful in large classes, or where there are case studies or other collaborative projects on which to work. It might also be useful in Role Playing (see below). I would suggest that the group does not exceed four to five students, and ideally you, the teacher, should decide who is in each group so as to expedite the process. But how should groups be formed? Alphabetically? Randomly? Grouped together so as to include students of differing abilities? I think the optimal way might actually be to put students of similar caliber together, and if there is a presentation to be made to the rest of the class, the group of students who generally score highest could go first, both to set a role model, and also to give other students longer to prepare. Whereas students can only see the contributions of their group members, you, the teacher, have global access. I think this is something you should mention to the students. The ability of the teacher to see the group discussion is very useful, as it can indicate how much students are each contributing to the preparations of the group work. Also if the group has problems or is not participating very fully, then the instructor could be available to answer questions.

Role Playing Whereas Role Playing can work quite well on campus, it seems especially suited to the online environment, as students report that their imaginations can soar and also that they do not experience stage fright. Students can work together in groups if they are simulating a particular situation, historical event, or case study, and can do their preparations in their group area, which I call the ―Backstage Rehearsal Area‖, and then come to the main class Discussion Board to present their work. Also, in some instances, students can prepare individually, as in when I assign students roles as characters from a work of literature that we are studying. In this case I create a separate Discussion Forum for each character and tell the students, when it is time for ―Virtual Curtains Up‖, to go into their Forum and briefly say, in the voice of the character who they are playing, what they did and why. Then students, maintaining their role and ―voice‖, visit each other‘s Forums and interact with each other, thus retelling the story. Students have frequently told me, in the case of using Role Playing for literary analysis, that they have come to comprehend the book much more deeply by being immersed in it as one of the characters, and students who have used Role Playing to work through particular situations (for example, cases of unethical behavior in the workplace) have felt that they were working through many of the issues they might indeed have experienced, but were doing so in a fun, safe way, and in a way which helped them more truly understand the full implications of a situation. For a more comprehensive discussion of Online Role Playing, see ―Role Playing in Online Education: A Teaching Tool to Enhance Student Engagement and Sustained Learning‖ (Bender, 2005).

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

15

Holding a Debate Cummings (1998) has done some interesting work on online debates. What he does is to divide students into pairs, with one student being for a particular motion of a subtopic, and the other student being against it. He had as many subtopics as there were student dyads. He then opened one Discussion Forum for all students defending the validity of their subtopic, and another Forum for all students who were criticizing it. When everyone had posted, defenders of their motion were allowed to enter the Forum of the critics and make rebuttal statements, and similarly, the critics of the motion entered the defenders‘ Forum and made rebuttal statements. Finally, all the students had to reflect upon all the position and rebuttal statements on all the subtopics, and write an analytical paper in which they would take a position on the whole topic.

Online Guest Lecturers Just as in a campus class, a guest lecturer introduces the intrigue of a new voice and possibly a different perspective, so students ―sit up and take notice.‖ Since we are meeting online, the guest can literally be from anywhere in the world. This online guest could either make a one time only visit, using the Synchronous, ―Real Time Chat‖ tools of the class, which, to make the optimal use of this, students would have had to do reading of the guest‘s work in advance, and be prepared with some questions. Alternatively, and what might be preferable, is if the online guest can inhabit your class for a period of a week, and would log on about five times during that time to converse asynchronously with students.

VIRTUAL FIELD TRIPS AND OTHER WEB RESEARCH Some consider that the virtual field trip is the next best thing to being there. All it entails is that you provide students with the link to Web sites of particular interest and relevance to your course materials. For example, art teachers might like to send their students to the Louvre or the Met, and teachers of literature might like their students to make a virtual tour of an author‘s hometown. Since students are already on the Internet in your online class, providing a link to any useful Website is a wonderful and easy opportunity for students to widen and deepen their learning. Students could even be asked to find good Websites of their own that are relevant to the class, and they could evaluate the usefulness of the sites that others have discovered.

PORTFOLIOS In the case of a writing course, or any class that is set up to function as a workshop in which students critique each other‘s work, a useful design is to create a Portfolio for each student. This could be done by creating a Discussion Forum for each student, into which the

16

Tisha Bender

student posts his or her assignments. Others in the class can read these assignments, and provide their feedback within the Portfolio of the work to which they are responding. There are many ways, therefore, of trying to promote student engagement in the online class. In my view the essential ingredients in creating an atmosphere that is rigorous, fruitful, challenging, exciting, informative and which opens the door to profound and inspirational learning, is to combine both experience and enjoyment with education in the ways suggested in this chapter.

REFERENCES Baldwin, R., (2000). “Academic Civility Begins in the Classroom.” The Professional & Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Towards the Best in the Academy. http://www.cte.umd.edu/ Bender, T., (2005). “Role Playing in Online Education: A Teaching Tool to Enhance Student Engagement and Sustained Learning.” Innovate: Journal of Online Education. April/May 2005. 1:4 Berge, Z. and L. Muilenburg, (2002). March 4. “A Framework for Designing Questions for Online Learning.” Berger Collins Associates. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/ muilenburg.html Blankespoor, H. (1996). “Classroom Atmosphere: A Personal Inventory.” In Inspiring Teaching: Carnegie Professors of the Year Speak, ed. J.K. Roth. Williston, VT: Anker Publishing Co. Blum, K.D. (1999). “Gender Differences in Asynchronous Learning in Higher Education: Learning Styles, Participation Barriers and Communication Patterns.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (1 May) http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/ Vol3_issue1/blum.htm Cummings, J.A. (1998). “Promoting Student Interactive in the Virtual College Classroom.” http://www.ihets.org/progserv/education/distance/faculty_papers/1998/indiana2.html Dewey, J. [1938] (1963). Education and Experience. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Eastmond, D. (1992). “Effective Facilitation of Computer Conferencing.” Continuing Higher Education Review 56, pp. 15-20 Ehrmann, S.C. (2002). “Improving the Outcome of Higher Edcucation.” Educause (Jan./Feb.) Fardouly, N. (2001). Principles of Instructional Design and Adult Learning, How Students Learn. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/ learning/instructionaldesign/studentslearn.htm# Fisher, B.M. (2001). No Angel in the Classroom: Teaching through Feminist Discourse. Lantham,Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century, New York: Basic Books Publishers. Kramarae, C. (2001). The Third Shift: Women Learning Online. Washington D.C.: American Association of University Women (AAUW), Educational Foundation Research. http://www.aauw.org/2000/3rdshift.html Lederman, D. (2006). “A Smart Change.” The Chronicle Online: Duke Student Newspaper

Engaging the Student: Learning for Life

17

McKeachie, W.J. (1978). “Six Roles of Teachers.” Chapter 6 in Teaching Tips, A Guide for the Beginning College Teacher, 7th ed. Lexington, Mass.: Heath and Company, pp. 68-82 Moore, M.G. (1984). “The Individual Adult Learner.” In Adult Learning and Education, ed. M. Tight. London: Croom Helm, p. 155 National Research Council, (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press Packer, S. (2002). “The Colorblind Cyberclass: Myth and Fact.” In Race in the College Class, ed. M. Reddy and B. Tusmith, New Brunswick, N.J. Rutgers University Press Patenaude, M. (1999). “Keeping them Awake, or How I Learned to Relinquish the Spotlight.” CCV Handbook for Basic Writing Instructors. Salmon, G. (2002). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan Page Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI). (2002). March. “Tertiary Toolbox: Dealing with Teaching Anxiety.” The University of Queensland, Australia. http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/teaching/TertiaryToolbox/TeachingAnxiety.html Vella, J. (1997). Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Wegerif, R. (1998). “The Social Dimension of Asynchronous Learning Networks.” The Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks 2 (1, March). http://www.aln.org/alnweb/ journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

A PEDAGOGICAL MODEL FOR ABSTRACT CONCEPTS: BLENDING DISCOURSE AND EXPERIENCE Tel Amiel and Michael Orey ABSTRACT The current paper discusses a pedagogical model, leveraging the benefits and affordances of offline, experiential learning, with online, computer-mediated discussions. The course, entitled ―Multicultural Perspectives on Technology‖ was designed around these principles. Students engaged in weekly online seminars and discussions, completed out-of-class activities, and a semester-long service-learning project in order to grapple with abstract concepts related to education, culture, and technology. The model is presented, along with the details of its application in the course, and student evaluations.

INTRODUCTION The face of education has changed worldwide. Of the many developments in education, two of the most vital forces are those of emerging educational technologies and the recognition of the multiple cultures in the classroom (e.g., Sleeter & Tettegah, 2002). As technology breaks the boundaries of the classroom, reaching out to different communities, the school will become increasingly heterogeneous. Technology and diversity are cyclical currents. As technology increases outreach through distance education, the school will encompass a more varied population of students. An increasingly diverse student base then requires the sensible use of technologies. Teachers must be prepared to thrive in such an environment by leveraging these two forces towards enhancing the educational experiences of students. Doing so is a complex task for teachers accustomed to replicating traditional teaching methods in ever-changing classrooms. An online course entitled ―Multicultural Perspectives on Technology‖ grew out of the need to embrace and reflect on these changes. This course was first taught during a

20

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

program conducted through a bi-national consortium formed by four universities, two in Brazil and two the United States1. Undergraduate students from both countries traveled abroad for one semester (or longer) to conduct international service-learning projects (see, for example Kiely, 2005) within the public school system in the host country. Students worked on independent projects, which followed the principles of multicultural education and made sensible use of educational technologies. The course was designed around the need to grapple with abstract concepts such as education and technology. In order to foster a learning environment in which these concepts could be learned, a unique pedagogical model for online instruction was devised. We begin with an introduction to some pressing issues in online instruction, which the model is meant to address, followed by the theoretical foundations that have guided the inception of this model. Finally, the course is described as an application of this model, followed by evaluation data.

CURRENT CONCERNS IN ONLINE EDUCATION Extending Teaching Methods Online instruction has not only borrowed traditional methods of teaching, but also carried forth the principles on which traditional classroom instruction has been based. Online learning has strongly carried the conventional expository method of teaching. Many of the pitfalls of online instruction can be attributed to the faulty assumption that online courses can be taught following the same principles as face-to-face instruction (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004). Simply transferring content and form from one mode of teaching to the other has generated online courses where students learn ―from‖ media as opposed to learning ―with‖ them (Reeves, 1998). While learning ―from‖ is not inherently negative, this paradigm has had a tendency to produce courses that copy traditional methods of instruction and presentation to online media. Darby (2001) defines the first generation of e-learning as one that replicates a conventional course with instructors transferring their materials online and using direct instruction. There are a variety of technologies that can help faculty follow this path very easily. Creating web-available versions of documents, presentations, and other media used in a traditional course is the simplest example. Using a Course Management System (CMS) like WebCT or Blackboard facilitates the implementation of this generation of learning. Slightly more sophisticated tools such as Impatica, allow faculty to easily record and stream narrated PowerPoint presentations. However, this generation of online learning is very much a transfer from the traditional classroom, and has the teacher as its primary focus. Darby's (2001) second generation of e-learning involves a team approach, with a focus on design and meeting pre-defined goals. A key difference between first and second generation of online learning is the movement from "teaching" to "mentoring" as the key instructional 1

This project is sponsored in part by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) in Brazil

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

21

approach. Another key issue for this generation is the scalability of the course. That is, because the team-designed components are self-contained instructional modules often called computer-based training or web-based training, many more students could take these courses than the first generation instructor produced "reading" materials. While this generation is a bit more student-centered, the model of learning tends to be very much an objectivistic model where the content is to be acquired through interaction directly with the computer. We part ways with Darby (2001) at this point because we believe he is focused on instrumental learning. Mezirow (1991) draws a distinction between instrumental and communicative learning, following Habermas. We contend that much of what we learn cannot be learned by learning ―from‖ media, demanding instead dialogue and discussion. As Mezirow (1991) explains: "Education designed to facilitate instrumental learning is the most familiar kind, a fact that reflects American convictions concerning the power of the methods of problem solving codified by the natural sciences. Indeed, many people think that this kind of education (and learning) is the only kind. The typical program generated by this orientation defines educational objectives in terms of specific behaviors that are to be acquired in order to accomplish a certain task, as determined previously by a process of "task analysis." Determination of the difference between present performance level and that required by the task constitutes a "needs assessment." (p. 213).

We often use instrumental learning approaches to teach what actually falls within the communicative domain, but this usually results in inadequate learning. When direct instruction is used in a communicative domain often formal definitions are provided and students are asked to remember these definitions rather than understand the concepts. Much of what we learn is represented by concepts such as technology or education, which are abstract and highly contextual. Students must grapple with such concepts, understanding their history, context, and application, instead of simply relying on authority-given definitions. In this mode, peers and mentors can support each other in sharing perspectives on the abstract concepts, and coming to understand what they can/cannot, should/should not mean. This type of learning requires knowledge of competing perspectives and context, which could be acquired through reading, videos, or other media. But abstract concepts cannot be treated as skills, procedures, or techniques. While the learning ―from‖ approach can be applied to instrumental learning, and is prevalent in online environments, it cannot foster the type of learning needed in the communicative domain.

Limited Authenticity and Engagement The emphasis on learning ―from‖ media in online classrooms has led to unidirectional content transfer with limited student engagement. Traditional teaching often emphasizes passive students and fictitious content and scenarios. In many online courses students read, watch, and listen to a variety of media, but do without an emphasis on applying what is learned in authentic contexts. Learning concepts, especially abstract concepts, is greatly dependent on context and experience (Gagné, 1984; Mezirow, 2000; Schank, 1990; Smith & Medin, 1981). Emerging inquiry-based models such as those of project-based learning (Han

22

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

& Bhattacharya, 2001) emphasize context, and focus on student activity and interaction. Providing authentic contexts for engagement in online environments can be quite complicated, especially when dealing with ill-defined problems. As Petraglia (1998) contends: ―With few exceptions, discussions of authenticity in educational technology avoid the issue of knowledge domain. With even fewer exceptions, the archetypal examples of authentic learning are well-structured problems to which correct answers are possible and empirically verifiable‖ (p. 62).

There is, therefore, an inherent limit to the authenticity of mediated tasks such as those presented in the online environment. Still, much work has been done to leverage the potential of online environments in order to create more authentic environments paying particular attention to context and audience (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004). The authors contend that it is necessary to leverage the unique affordances of online learning environments in order to reach their full potential. Among their suggestions is enhancing the authenticity of tasks and assessment in online courses. Herrington, Oliver, and Reeves (2003) identify ten elements of authentic tasks, which include: real world relevance, examining the task from multiple perspectives using a variety of resources, providing opportunities for collaboration, and creating products valuable in their own right. We believe that understanding within the communicative domain requires authentic contexts for application. An often-unexplored alternative to promoting authentic tasks and assessment is to expand the boundaries of the online classroom by providing students with offline experiential learning (for a review, see Malinen, 2000). One possibility is to engage students in servicelearning projects with authentic clients and tasks in their local area (in this case allowing local schools to benefit from the work of the students). The service-learning experience can be defined in cooperation with the student, provides tangible outcomes, and assessment can easily be negotiated with the service-learning partner (Densmore, 2000; O'Grady, 2000). Simply having an offline experiential activity does not guarantee the authenticity of the project. Defining the authenticity of the engagement is essential, in accordance with the student, course, and client goals and interests. Table 1. Domain for Conceptual Learning. Procedural

Dialogical

Concept

Concrete

Abstract

Problem

Well-structured

Ill-structured

Domain

Instrumental

Communicative

Technology

Learning ―from‖

Learning ―with‖

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

23

We contend therefore that in order to engage students in complex, authentic tasks in online environments, a shift in four levels must occur (see, Table 1). As a first step, designers would need to determine if the concepts being learned are abstract, rather than concrete. The process of learning the meaning of education is quite different than learning a definition for the concept of chair (Smith & Medin, 1981). Abstract concepts depend on exploring multiple propositions and ultimately rest on consensual validation. These concepts are, therefore complex, ill-structured problems without steps to be followed toward a single set of solutions. These types of transactions can only be accomplished within the domain of communicative learning. Finally, we must recognize that communicative learning necessarily implies dialogue, discussion, reflection, which can be fostered in the virtual classroom (for a review, Sherry, 2000). Online learning environments emerging from the learning ―from‖ approach are not adequate to support this type of engagement. We must therefore align this type of learning with ―cognitive tools‖ in a learning ―with‖ approach (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). In our case, these cognitive tools are those facilitating communication, but there are a full range of tools that can be employed in aiding understanding.

MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY The exchange program described above prompted the development of a course that would blend a learning approach in the communicative domain that leverages the benefits of online discursive technologies and the authenticity of offline experiential learning. The course entitled ―Multicultural Perspectives on Technology‖ was designed as a seminar, meeting synchronously once weekly. The data reported here come from two iterations of the course. It was first offered during the aforementioned exchange program to twenty-five undergraduate students located at four different locations in Brazil and the USA. One instructor, proficient in Portuguese and English, conducted the course, taught primarily in English. The second iteration of the course was adapted and offered to a group of practicing teachers and school library media specialists at the master‘s level at one university in the USA, following the same weekly seminar format. Each week students discussed the fundamental elements informing educational technology and multicultural education. These three essential concepts were technology, education, and culture to which all other concepts were related in class discussions (see Figure 1). The course began with a discussion on the politics of education that included: critical education (Rochester, 2003; Shor, 1993), schooling (Gatto, 2003), multicultural education (Noel, 2000; Sleeter & Grant, 1994). It went on to discuss the socio-cultural aspects of technology. Weekly discussions included the philosophy of technology (Winner, 2003) and the digital divide (Warschauer, 2002). Finally, students examined some of the most salient aspects of culture, focusing on their relationship with the concepts of education and technology. These included: gender, ethnicity, race, disability, nationality, language, and others (for example, Banks, 2000; Delpit, 1988). The investigation of these topics was meant to provide students with complex, interacting, and systemic view of education and technology, mediated by socio-cultural factors.

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

25

Figure 2. Activities and conceptual re-construction.

Shorter activities examined particularly complex topics discussed in the course. For example, in order to examine the influence of socio-economic status (SES) on education and technology, undergraduate students visited a private and a public school in their host country, and took notes on human and physical resources. They briefly interviewed students, and questioned teachers and administrators. During the weekly meeting, students discussed the potential impact of SES on lesson planning and design. They then discussed how their investigation would affect their semester-long projects. Every week, students were encouraged to consider how the discussions on the three pillars would impact their own technology integration projects. Moreover, the course functioned as a meeting point. Students engaged in group work, and used class time to discuss their projects and the concepts covered in class. In order to achieve these objectives a number of pedagogical techniques and technological tools were used. Feedback provided by the students in both courses is presented in order to evaluate how well these activities and tools facilitate their understanding of the concepts and aided in the completion of their projects.

DATA COLLECTION The data presented here are primarily the result of a course evaluation of student attitudes towards the activities and tools used through the course (see Table 2). The evaluation was conducted using a web-based form. Students were given anonymous logins, and were asked a series of questions which allowed for a response on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Each question was written in both English and Portuguese for the undergraduate course and in English only for the graduate course. Immediately after each question, a textbox included an open-ended follow up question that requested an explanation or comments for the score given. Responding to the questionnaire was not

26

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

mandatory and students could leave any answers blank. Data was also compiled from student‘s participation in the synchronous class, asynchronous discussions in WebCT, and from their Wiki project pages. Kirkpatrick (1994) defines 4 levels of evaluation. The first level is usually referred to as the "smiley face" level. At this level students are asked if they liked the class or instructor or materials. The second level of evaluation attempts to determine the extent to which learners learned the content. This is very much like assessment in that it attempts to assess the students learning. It can be done via tests or other student produced artifacts. Though it is like assessment, it differs in that the goal of the assessment is to evaluate the instruction, not the individual learner. The third level attempts to determine the extent to which learners make use of the newly acquired knowledge, skills or concepts in their work or other real world setting. The final level focuses on whether the instruction impacts the learner in their work. The course evaluation data we present here attempts to evaluate the course at levels one and three. Project final reports were used to assess learning (level two), but these data do not pertain particularly to the course so we do not report this data here. The course evaluation asked what the students thought of the course and materials, but it also asked them the extent to which they could make use of the content of the class in their real world projects or the real classrooms.

COURSE DESCRIPTION The backbone of the course was the HorizonWimba virtual classroom (http://www.horizonwimba.com/). In its most simple use, the system allows for synchronous audio and text communication, and a PowerPoint presentation to be viewed by all participants (Figure 3). The PowerPoint presentation area can also function as a whiteboard to be shared by all that have permission from the instructor to use it. Finally, the system allows for small group discussion in breakout rooms. These rooms have the same tools and functions available in the main classroom, but are meant to include a smaller number of students. Class presentations were intended to be short, emphasizing a small number of points to foster discussion. Articles for the week were referenced, though the objective of the presentations was not to provide a summary of the readings. Students made use of the breakout rooms to engage in small-group discussion. This was in accordance to the principles of the course, attempting to promote dialogue, a pillar in educating for diversity in a democratic society (Preskill, 1997). Students dedicated thirty minutes to one-hour of class time a week in small-group discussions. Groups changed during every class meeting, as an attempt to socialize and integrate the larger group. Student were also introduced to protocols for small group interaction, intended to provide some structure and organization to the discussions. Though protocols for discussions are commonly used in asynchronous courses, there is little discussion of their use in synchronous, collaborative spaces (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005; Moore & Marra, 2005).

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

27

Figure 3. The synchronous classroom environment.

Protocols are a set of guidelines that generally regulate the scope of discussion and the role of each participant. During this course, a simple protocol was used to introduce students to this technique. The protocol established one mediator and one note-taker. After a specific task or question was given, students were sent to their breakout groups and were asked to follow the steps presented on Table 3. Table 3. Sample online discussion protocol. Time

Objective

Two minutes

Whole group grapples with the question and agree on its meaning and scope

Two minutes each

Each student presents his or her point of view on the topic

Two minutes

Mediator provides a summary to the discussion

Two minutes each

Each student has an opportunity to respond

Two minutes

Mediator provides a summary to the discussion

28

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

The results from the undergraduate evaluation of the course indicate that the instructorled lectures in the main classroom were particularly useful in understanding the concepts discussed in class (Q1: M = 7.7) but did not have such a strong impact in the success of their in-school, service-learning projects (Q2: M = 6.1). The major criticism was an overload of information on a weekly basis that could not be applied clearly to their in-school projects. Students indicated that though the information was very useful, they would have better benefited from more practical connections between the material and their application in the field. A similar pattern can be seen in the graduate student feedback (Q1: M = 8.4, Q2: M = 7.9). As one student indicated: ―I needed help connecting the specific ideas of writers to my in-school project‖. Undergraduate students had reservations about their online group work/discussion, with substantial variation in responses (Q3: M = 5.7, Q4: M = 5.5). Though the instructor attempted to organize the students and focus their discussions to course concepts, many times the breakout room discussions veered into discussions on the school projects. Students generally indicated a lack of focus on the discussion, even after the instructor presented protocols: ―'breakout discussion[s] were hard to deal with because they were so poorly structured. Although efforts [were] made to have a clearly designated leader and talking points, it ended up being a lot of chit chat and waiting for someone to take charge‖. All graduate students reported very positively on the breakout rooms (Q3: M = 7.9). As one student indicated: ―I liked the breakout rooms. One thing I have taken from this class is not only our students are all individuals, but our colleagues have to be considered that way as well…So talking in the breakout rooms helped me to hear other peoples (sic) point of view, which were often quite different from my own.‖ A few mentioned the use of protocols explicitly: ―'I loved the breakout discussions, especially the last one where everyone had a specific role.‖ Like the undergraduate students, there was also indication of a looser connection between the breakout group discussions and their projects (Q4: M = 6.7). Still, some found that the discussions assisted with their projects: ―Many people gave me interesting ideas for adding to my project in the breakout discussions. I wish we had spent a little time sharing our activity reports in breakout rooms as well‖. Others saw no connection between the breakout groups and their project: ―We did not discuss our in-school projects in small group many times. I can only recall one time‖. Open-ended responses clearly indicated a higher level of appreciation of group discussions by the graduate student group. Undergraduate students strongly indicated that the course changed their perspective on culture (Q5: M = 8.1). Comments indicated that engaging in class with students from other nationalities strongly helped modify their perspective on their own culture: ―I think it was fantastic to see my own culture from another angle and see other people having impressions about it as I am having about theirs‖ (author‘s translation). Graduate student comments indicate change in their interpretation of culture (Q5: M = 8.3), but also education (Q5: M = 7.9), and technology (Q5: M = 7.9), the last two of which was not asked in the undergraduate student questionnaire. One student indicated that ―culture is much much more complicated than I had thought. While I thought I was pretty aware of things, I know now that I had radically oversimplified the role of culture in people's lives as well as how it can and should influence educational practice.‖ Another student related this change to the issue of diversity: ―This class made me more aware of assumptions I make about minority students and minority cultures‖. Undergraduate students who traveled abroad and graduate students who remained within their country reported similar scores on the transformation of their conception of

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

29

culture. While traveling abroad can be a powerful change agent in understanding culture, there is rich cultural diversity locally. This understanding can surface as the student becomes aware that culture is not in itself equal to nationality (American culture) or race (Black culture), but is a combination of a number of socially-constructed, abstract concepts. While studying abroad might provide pervasive and powerful cultural experiences, local experiences might be able to provide similar conceptual change, at least for the short term. An asynchronous discussion forum was provided via WebCT for students to post their assignments and ask question. During the undergraduate course, students were at times asked to reply to postings made by other students, to provide feedback or engage in discussion. This practice proved to be quite artificial at times, as students felt required to post substantive comments even when they did not feel they had anything to say. This requirement was later dropped from the course, and was not implemented during the second iteration with graduate students. No specific requirements or guidelines were offered to graduate students. As a comparison, the students engaged in the undergraduate course posted 403 messages (N = 23, M = 16.1, s2 = 4.79) and collectively read 6160 postings (N = 23, M = 246, s2 = 176.5). The students in the graduate course posted 391 messages (N = 12, M = 32.6, s2 = 35.79), and collectively read 3947 messages (N = 12, M = 328.9, s2 = 185.91). These data are presented to indicate quantity of engagement, not the quality or content of the messages. The point to be made is that graduate students engaged in substantial use of the forums, posting nearly twice as many messages per student even though no requirements were made. Messages included resource sharing, debating ideas from class and projects, and providing each other with feedback on assignments. This aligns with previous findings related to their engagement in discussing and sharing ideas in the synchronous breakout rooms.

OFFLINE ENGAGEMENT Out-of class activities were meant to provide students with contextual understanding of the often abstract concepts discussed in class. Students in the undergraduate course indicated that the short out-of-class activities were very useful in understanding the concepts discussed in class (Q8: M = 7.5), but less useful in assisting with their school-based projects (Q9: M = 6.5). This aligns with previous results, demonstrating that students did not always see a connection between the class and school project. Student comments strongly indicated that these short activities (lasting one or two weeks) were done too quickly for the scope and complexity of the topics under discussion. Feedback suggests that some activities were more useful to the projects than others. For example, examining the concept of religion and its relation to the cultural diversity had a stronger impact on learning the concept of religion than on modifying student projects. While a number of students described a disconnect between the short activity and their projects as a failure, most achieved the basic premise of the activity: connecting with, and understanding the complexities of cultural diversity in a student population. Comments included: ―the activities helped me analyze what types of people the students I worked with were‖ and ―the researches (sic) we made about the school and the interviews with the teachers helped us to understand the school we were working with a little bit more, as well as the students we were working with.‖

30

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

Graduate students indicated an overwhelming support for the out-of-class activities (Q8: M = 8.6). One comment supported the contextual objective for these activities: ―The activities allowed me to put a face on what we were talking about in class‖. Another student indicated that ―The activities were very, very valuable--maybe the best part of the class--although the activities alone would not have been enough… Reading about other students' experiences was almost as valuable as the experiences I had‖. Students were asked to post their activity reports in the bulletin boards. While students were not required to read or provide feedback to others, many chose to do so in the graduate course. The connection to the semester-long project was unclear for many and once again more heterogeneous among the respondents (Q9: M = 7.7). One student reported that the activities did not ―…apply so much to our project, except for a couple of them. I still think they were very valuable.‖ Undergraduate students generally found the articles in class interesting and informative, with one particular student (an outlier) who found the articles ―the worst part of class‖ (Q10: M = 7.6). Most students indicated that the articles filled their purpose, as they ―helped [me] gain an understanding of the ideas involved in our week to week topics‖. Still, undergraduate students found that the articles, which were journal-based and academic in nature, to be difficult to read. Comments included: ―they were all interesting with the exception to a few really dry readings‖ and ―yes, the articles helped, but the problem was the level of complexity of some of them‖ (author‘s translation). Many graduate students were more critical of some readings as dated, wishing for more current readings (Q10: M = 7.4). The course included some articles written in the mid-80‘s and mid-90‘s, and student clearly disapproved of them as being dated, which sparked discussion in class. While appreciating the articles, students also pointed to the complexity of some of the journal-based or philosophical pieces. As one student indicated: ―The articles were also very helpful. Wow, they were also very challenging. I especially liked the weeks where more than one viewpoint was presented. It made for heated discussion, and in the end deeper understanding.‖

CONCLUSION The model presented here provides a blended learning approach to learning in the communicative domain. It leverages the benefits of online discursive technologies and the authenticity of offline experiential learning. This implementation of the model, coupled with a semester-long project, allowed for constant evaluation of concepts in situ. As instructors of this class, we felt satisfied that we were able to achieve our goals of conceptual understanding in the three broad areas of education, technology and culture. Further, the students felt that they not only learned these ideas, but were able to make use of these broad concepts in their work or projects in the schools. Similar experiences with teaching courses involving multicultural education as content and process online have also demonstrated success (e.g., Limburg & Clark, 2006). Others who are trying to create online courses that are in the communicative domain, with ill-structured problems and complex conceptual knowledge, may benefit from designing the course to require for the articulation of their understanding of the concepts, permit open discussion of each others ideas, and provide a service learning experience with real world situations in which to make use of the ideas being learned.

A Pedagogical Model for Abstract Concepts: Blending Discourse and Experience

31

REFERENCES Banks, J. A. (2000). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (7th ed.). Boston, M.A.: Allyn and Bacon. Darby, J. (2001) Why should a university like Oxford become an on-line educator? From Digital developments in higher education: Theory and Practice Taylor Graham Publishing, London UK. Pp169-177. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Densmore, K. (2000). Service learning and multicultural education. In C. R. O'Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 49-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Gagné, R. M. (1984). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Gatto, J. T. (2003). Against school. Harper's Magazine, September, 33-38. 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. Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project-based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ LearningbyDesign.htm. 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. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 693-719). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5-22. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Limburg, F., & Clark, C. (2006). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Teaching multicultural education online. Multicultural Education, 13(3), 49-55. Malinen, A. (2000). Towards the essence of adult experiential learning. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Merizow and Associates (Ed.), Learning as transformation. San Francisco, CA: JoseyBass. Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191212. Noel, J. (2000). Developing multicultural educators. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

32

Tel Amiel and Michael Orey

O'Grady, C. (2000). Integrating service learning and multicultural education: An overview. In C. R. O'Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates Orey, M. (2002). Definition of blended learning. Retrieved February 27, 2006, from http://www.arches.uga.edu/~mikeorey/blendedLearning/ Orey, M., Koenecke, L., & Crozier, J. (2003). Learning communities via the Internet à la Epic Learning: You can lead the horses to water, but you cannot get them to drink. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 260-269. Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 53-65. Preskill, S. (1997). Discussion, schooling, and the struggle for democracy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 25(3), 316-345. Reeves, T. C. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.athensacademy.org/instruct/media_tech/reeves0.html Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational technology research and development, 52(4), 53-63. Rochester, J. M. (2003). Critical demagogues. Education Next, Fall, 77-82. Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Sherry, L. (2000). The nature and purpose of online discourse: A synthesis of current research as related to the WEB project. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(1), 19-51. Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire‟s critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A Critical encounter. London: Routledge. Sleeter, C., & Tettegah, S. (2002). Technology as a tool in multicultural teaching. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 3-9. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1994). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7). Winner, L. (2003). Social constructivism: Upon opening the black box and finding it empty. In R. C. Sharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: The technological condition (pp. 233-243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

ON-LINE PEDAGOGY: ILLUMINATING THE TENSION BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND IMAGINATION Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick ―Although our voyage is to be outward, it is also to be inward, to see the sources of all great acts, which are not out there but in here, in us all, where the Muses dwell.‖ (p.233) Joseph Campbell , The Moon Walk- the Outward Journey

Every great leap in technology begins with a leap in imagination. Someone, driven by need, passion, or profit, connects the sum of their knowledge and experience to ask ―what if…?‖ The history of science and art is filled with wonderful stories of connections made by individuals who see beyond what exists and into the realm of what is possible. Our lives are enriched by the miracles produced by inventive minds that seek to understand, and to articulate that understanding in an act of creation; be it a drawing, a spacecraft or a microchip. Imagination and creativity are fundamental to invention, to learning and to living a full life; but what is to become of imagination in the next generation? As on-line educators, riding the explosion of new technologies that carry us into the 21st century, we are inundated with the stories of technological inevitability told by the ‗techno enthusiasts‘. (Cuban cited in Ferneding, p. 6) They are stories of salvation founded in a belief that every problem has a technological fix. The monster is clearly identified as antiquated practices and their soporific offspring. They address the problems of contemporary schools and offer clearly defined solutions; technological solutions. If boredom and apathy are barriers to learning, then there is a way to engage the ―digital native‖(Prensky, 2001) Let them learn on-line. It is efficient and cost effective. Dismiss the cautionary tales. It is old thinking and will be left behind. Embrace the latest high tech offerings and be a well equipped player in the global arena. This narrative has found wide acceptance, as salvation stories often do. (Harraway,1997, pp.43-45) It has become the dominant discourse, the way things are, the inevitable future but what else is there? Outside of the chronicles of technological inevitability, what other stories are popping up from the margins to articulate their ‗matters of concern?‘ (Latour, 2004, p. 231) What points of view might instructional designers consider to inform the shape and content of their educational products? McLuhan states ―…the partial

34

Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick

and specialized character of the viewpoint, however noble, will not serve at all in the electric age‖(1964, p. 20) however, if the goal is not ―to serve‖ but ―to see‖ (Conrad, 1914/1967, p. 59) then what can be learned from a ―vigorous engagement with partial perspectives?‗(Bartsch, Di Palma and Sells, 2001.p 134) How can these perspectives find voice in an on-line environment? This paper will step outside of the technical-rational discourse that traditionally frames technology issues to consult the critics, the connoisseurs and the artists. It will focus on the tension between imagination and on-line pedagogy. It will seek to contribute to a pluralistic dialogue in the field.

IMAGINATION IN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES: PUSHING THE LIMITS Imagination is clearly an important component of technological innovation but how is it being shaped and nurtured by our on-line pedagogical processes? The human mind is intensely creative and technologies arise by a process of continuity /discontinuity, the need for novelty, and appropriate selection. The evolution of technology, according to Basalla (1988) can be considered by examining the characteristics of diversity and necessity. The evolution metaphor gives life to the consideration of our machines and conceptually connects them to the organic world. As the evolution of our machines telescopes, their rapid infusion can be measured in the quarterly spreadsheets of their corporate suppliers. With each dazzling innovation that captures our attention, we are equally conscious of its planned obsolescence. We know something new is always just around the corner. Appetites are continuously whetted for more, faster and better as we prepare our progeny for survival in the new world order; an economic and social environment that values bottom line above all else. These innovations are ―the material manifestations of the various ways men and women have chosen to pursue existence.‖ (Basalla, p.14) yet, as educators, we must now question the consciousness that drives this choice. Necessity was once considered the mother of invention yet today what is considered necessary seems removed from questions of survival and indeed is often counter intuitive to questions of survival. Our oceans are dying, our air is toxic and our children are being initiated into a cult of efficiency that considers human suffering the cost of doing business. Who or what is defining necessity today? Who or what is shaping our collective imagination? ―We wake to digital alarms, drink from pre-programmed latte makers and reach into refrigerators for genetically modified sustenance. It is clear that we can no longer see out technologies outside ourselves. They are the way we think, the way we learn and the way we interact with the world. They are us….willing, eager organic matter fused with the ethos of the mechanoid.‖ (Broderick, 2004 p.2)

If they are us then, we have to ask who are we and what are we becoming? ―We humans have apparently lost out to the monster, but nevertheless rush eagerly ahead creating new devices. Like Shiva in Hindu iconography…technology is both creator and destroyer, an agent of future promise and of culture's destruction (1992:495).‖ (Pfaffenberger cited in Locke 1995)

On-Line Pedagogy: Illuminating the Tension between Technology and Imagination

35

The diversity of technological innovations, Basalla (1988) suggests, reflects our goals in life and vary from culture to culture yet communication technology has had a decidedly homogenizing impact on culture. As Borneo Bushman tune in to Baywatch and distance learning is exported to remote regions, the goals of life are becoming increasingly entwined with the goals of international commerce. New markets are continuously being sought as an enterprise culture promotes man and nature as a resource to be harvested. Is on-line pedagogy to be another brightly packaged commodity that valorizes technological values or is there a potential to be more? Certainly, much energy has gone toward developing the technological tricks but what about the substance? Can the pedagogy of on-line learning be taken to a place of imaginative engagement that cultivates open-ended thinking and allows for difference? If not, why not? In the history of media, individuals have always tried to push the latest medium to its limits. Norman McLaren in the 1940s showed how film could be abstract, in his experiments such as Fiddle de Dee (1947) and Begone Dull Care (1949). Indeed he made sure that audiences realized that his films were made without any camera at all, but by painting directly onto raw 35mm film stock, frame by frame. John Grierson in Britain, then later in Canada, pioneered the concept of documentary as the creative treatment of reality. His Drifters (1929) and Night Mail (1936) looked for new ways to tell stories on film. Dviga Vertov, in a very young USSR, simply took a movie camera to three cities to see what the camera could see. His Man with a Movie Camera (1929) found stories on the streets in a cinema-verite style. Pushing the limits of the movie camera, he produced a postmodern montage, long before the postmodern was diagnosed as a ‗condition‘. These pioneers in early media pushed the edges of imagination. In like manner, online pedagogy has its own possibilities, its own power. Our investigations must be given the space to explore its fullest expression. The problem is that educational technology and by extension, online teaching, due to its very systematic nature may be locking out just such an opportunity for imagination to take root. Given a linear model, one is compelled to ask where is the box labeled imagination? The tension between on-line pedagogy and imagination begins almost immediately when the impulse arises to create an operational definition of imagination. No definition can confine the expanse of mental images that come in to being as individuals engage with their lived experience. Attempts at definition leave the words hanging dead, inert victims of the languages inability to capture the mystery of life‘s essential spark. Imagination ceases ‗to be‘ if confined to the bell jar yet what defies definition is a most valued human attribute. We know it when we see it. The question that presents itself is where have we seen it in the design of on-line pedagogy? Perhaps the field is too young and, in the rush to be part of the action, questions about the nature and scope of on-line pedagogy have been sacrificed to forward motion. It has been suggested that the development of innovative on-line pedagogy has been eclipsed in the rush to acquire the infrastructure ‗leaving fundamental pedagogical issues to a mere afterthought.‖ (Smith, 1995a; Kerr, 1996 cited in Ferneding, p. 3) What fundamental pedagogical issues intersect with consideration of imagination? Why would these issues be of interest to pedagogues invested in on-line instruction? Why is imagination needed in on-line courses? What will it accomplish? How might it affect the quality of the on-line educational experience? There are many questions to be considered as we consciously invite multiple ways of knowing into the conversation

36

Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick

Belland (1991) calls for a ―connoisseurship‖ in the field. Building on the curriculum work of Elliot Eisner, he suggests that a connoisseur ―possesses increased sensitivities to perceptual discrimination, concept development and concept hierarchies.‖ (p.31). Educational technology needs to consciously cultivate these sensitivities to inform the future of on-line pedagogy. Perceptual discrimination considers the senses as a source of data. What can be seen, heard, touched, felt? This ‗sense data‘ reflects the embodied experience of the on-line pedagogical process and puts the individual and the teacher/student relationship at the centre of the equation. Instead of thinking exclusively in models of standardized outcomes, we begin to see the potential contribution that a spectrum of modes of meaning making could contribute. Concept development and issues of hierarchy require a deep understanding of the nuance of the political, social and economic interests that shape curricula and colour the images that surround it. The connoisseur must be ready to tackle the big questions in relation to praxis and to make visible the multi-levels of awareness that transcend the operation of the machine. How is this connoisseurship to be attained? Belland cites Rorty in observing that ―it is only as one is able to get inside an experience in all its richness and complexity…can she/he engage in criticism which yields new knowledge‖ This endeavor, ―puts trust in a thinking person rather than a procedure‖ (p.8) and suggests that there is more to be considered than can be objectively observed. This calls for new ways of thinking and suggests a more holistic, connected approach to pedagogical issues. Educational technology prides itself in following a systematic model of instruction. There are many variants, most of which can be distilled into a define – develop – evaluate paradigm. First one defines the problem, second a solution is developed, and third an evaluation determines whether it works. In a similar vein, Roblyer (2006) states that there are three factors that create an ―enlightened approach to effective technology integration strategies‖ (page 36). It is not too far removed to alter those lines to read ―there are three factors that create an enlightened approach to the development of online education courses.” These are identified as ―learning theory bases, a planning model, and ―essential conditions.‖ Learning theory bases provides a theoretic basis as to how learning will occur; a planning model is some version of the define / develop / evaluate paradigm, while ―essential conditions‖ are technical considerations, which Roblyer has taken from the National Educational Standards from the International Society for Technology in Education. These include such ―essential conditions‖ as ―co-ordinate school and district planning‖, ―be sure to have trained personnel‖, ―develop or state appropriate legal, ethical and equity policies‖, etc. In other words, these are technical issues. There is no room for imagination here. The question is, if this is what makes an enlightened approach where is the imagination in these models and strategies?

WHY DO WE WANT IMAGINATION IN ONLINE COURSES? There are a number of reasons. Imagination is essential, because without it, we risk the danger that the ‗online‘ approach may merely transfer mediocre ‗on-site‘ courses to mediocre ‗on-line‘ courses. This echoes the concern of the field. ―This situation could lead to ―change without difference,‖ where new technologies can unwittingly be used simply to further entrench the least desirable elements of the existing educational system. It may also be argued that the potential for computers and networked

On-Line Pedagogy: Illuminating the Tension between Technology and Imagination

37

system technologies to facilitate positive changes in educational practices may not be exploited or fully understood if technology adoption is simply driven by a transmission or delivery system framework.‖ (Ferneding, p. 62)

We need to realize that the concept of ―equivalent experience‖ (when we transfer from one medium to another) is not a goal to be strived for. The experience is not the same, nor is it equivalent. There is a difference between a speech and a written paper; between a novel and its filmed rendition, between a live concert and a symphonic score. The on-line experience is unique; it is different from the social experience of an on site interaction. What is needed is consideration of methods that facilitate imagination in an online environment and engage learners as more than consumers of educational product. Why? Perhaps the discussion begins by asking a fundamental pedagogical question. What are we educating toward? When Dewey and Bode told us we were educating for democracy, we had a sense of what that meant. We could support it, rail against it, and if we were really interested, participate in it. The majority ruled and our civic and educational structures were designed to support the majority. Are these still the ideals that we are educating for? How will on-line pedagogy play its part in educating toward these ideals if it does not facilitate the engagement of learner imagination? Imagination ―…fosters creative thinking and that creativity is the foundation of democracy. Without resourceful and flexible citizens to enable non-aggressive solutions to social crises, and to consider debates from several points of view, democracy is unthinkable.‖ (Sommer, 2006)

Therefore ―. ...the pedagogies we devise ought to provoke a heightened sense of agency in those we teach, empower them to pursue freedom and perhaps transform to some degree their lived world.‖ (Greene p. 48) Greene goes on to suggest that at the heart of democracy is a thinking individual who can make connections…environment to lifestyle…self to other….heart to mind. What is the pedagogy that allows for connections? As designers of educational technologies, we have to ask, what are we educating for? How can the pedagogy of on-line learning assert its place in the palate of educational possibilities? Are we capable of accommodating a connected curriculum or are we limited to effective information dispensing? How can that information be given context? How can we avoid the ―distortions of context free communication.‖ (Habarmas 1971 p,164 cited in Greene, p.46) Imagination allows us to deal with the realities of our lives in resourceful ways. We see it abounding in communities that invent alternative solutions to social issues. (Cabaldero, 2004). We see it in schools that explore different structures and relationships. (Litkey, 2004) We see it in individuals, world wide, who are accepting responsibility and articulating out loud their ‗matters of concern‘(Latour, 2004), many of whom currently inhabit the margins of academic discourse.

MCLUHAN’S FOUR LAWS In the 1980s, Marshall McLuhan posed four ―laws of media‖. Like so much of McLuhan‘s work, these laws have laid quietly at rest, seldom used by scholars or practitioners. Yet they provide a fourfold way of looking at any medium.

38

Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick      

Now I a four fold vision see and a four fold vision is given to me.‘ Tis four fold to my supreme delight and three fold in soft Beulah‘s lights And two fold, always. May God keep us from single vision and Newton‘s sleep. William Blake

Both the poet and the critic draw our attention to the necessity of multiple points of view. McLuhan invites us to focus on a kind of strategic analysis. He asks us to examine a medium and state what is enhanced, obsolesced retrieved and reversed. It is an exercise that illuminates the possibilities and the pitfalls. Online pedagogy enhances the extension of courses beyond the narrow confines; it breaks the bounds; it reaches beyond the local campus. Online pedagogy (dangerously) may make the physical university obsolete. IF (and it is a big if) the online course can replace the onsite course, then why do we need to meet at all. We need to remind ourselves what the onsite course offers. Cardinal Newman's traditional definition of a university is that it is a sense of place. It MUST be, says Newman, a physical space. What if he is right? Third, online pedagogy retrieves the large anonymous class. We have been making progress towards small class size, one-on-one engagement but the online course cancels individuality and participants become merely a shadow of their real selves. The teacher/student relationship ( if there is one) is established through textual interaction. Four, when pushed to the extremes, where will online education lead us? What will it "reverse" into? A text-based behaviorist model which leads individuals as sheep. In contrast, is there a positive take to online pedagogy? Perhaps it enhances accessibility, obsolesces a narrow choice of courses, allowing the student real freedom, retrieves the private scholar, and when pushed to the extreme reverses into a world of quality education available at the touch of a keyboard. It releases the student and teacher from time and place. Which image is the correct one? Or do we need to move through positions of either/or to ask what images are ignored or marginalized? ―McLuhan created the image of a global village joined by threads of new technology in such a way that humankind would be one in confronting the scourges of poverty, hunger, disease and homelessness. However it was assumed that the values of the village would prevail, intimacy with one‘s neighbours, a caring for all those disadvantaged who were part of the extended community, a sense of common ownership of those things that create a community. Instead, we have the value system of a global casino.‖ (Pitman , p.247)

So far, on-line pedagogy has evolved in the teaching of the technology but remains positively simian, in any form of ethical evolution. The questions just aren‘t asked loud enough. Perhaps it is the mindset of the designers that perpetuates the silence? Rose (2005)

On-Line Pedagogy: Illuminating the Tension between Technology and Imagination

39

observed that the tendency is to dismiss abstract considerations in favor of operational concerns. ―These are noble principles of learning but are unsatisfying to the instructional design community that seeks replicable methodology.‖ Jonassen ,1995 cited Rose, 2005 . p. 6

Does replicable methodology have to mean replicable outcome? Consideration of the language that shapes perception is very revealing. The etymology of the word ―method‖ for example takes us to an early Greek understanding. It is derived from ‗meta-hodos,‘ which means ‗after a traveling‘. This means the learner can tell you were they have been, after they have been there and implies individual investment. What pedagogical procedures would accommodate this understanding of method? Indeed the very concept of pedagogy offers multiple interpretations for on-line educators to consider. Berry,(2000) offers Van Manen(1991) and Lusted (1992) to suggest that pedagogy is ―the transformation of the consciousness that takes place in the intersection of three agencies-the teacher, the learner and the knowledge they produce.‖(p.3) She goes on to suggest that ―pedagogy refuses to instrumentalize these relations, diminish their interactivity or value one over the other. It furthermore denies the teacher as neutral transmitter, the student as passive, and knowledge as immutable material to impart. Instead the concept of pedagogy focuses attention on the conditions and means through which knowledge is produced.‖(p.114)

How might we create space for the learner to find a place? On-line pedagogy, to date, has developed its power to instruct. It can deliver information, measure the accuracy of response promptly and with precision but ‗instruction‘ suggests a one way street. If the quality of response that is demanded of the learner stops at the right answer, there is no room left for active meaning making so its value is diminished. The learner is not encouraged to move beyond ‗fact‘ and little comment is made about the cultural constructs that create fact. The flow of generated ideas is weighted in one direction, from expert to learner. ―How might we ―break away from the tradition of communication that assigns power to the creators of instructional messages and denies it to the learner.‖ (Yeaman 1994 cited in Rose, 2005, p. 5) We need to consider other stories than the ones of uniformity and standardization. As perhaps the first generation to be conscious of the next step of our evolution, we struggle to understand the profound implications of the technologies at our disposal. It is only by delving head first into the maelstrom of multiple, trans-disciplinary discourses that another, and potentially fruit full vantage point can be realized. We must consider ―what kind of learning will allow for a changeable, fluid knowledge that requires constant review by different social groups with varying views as to what knowledge is pertinent to their world?‖ (Taylor & Swartz, 1991, p. 62) These kinds of questions will wake on-line pedagogy from a ‗technological somnambulism‘ and point in a direction that connects with the human project.

NOT A CONCLUSION, BUT A POSSIBILITY What ideas have been proposed in this chapter? Is there a model or a strategy that can be clearly espoused? Is there a way to ―sprinkle imagination‖ into or onto online courses to make

40

Denis Hlynca and Pauline Broderick

them more palatable? Clearly the answer in each case is NO. However, the first tentative guiding steps, however uncertain, are worth considering: First, without imagination, online pedagogy will quickly degenerate into the mundane. Second, merely putting a course online will not improve its effectiveness. Third, online pedagogy has its own possibilities, its own power, its own uniqueness and must find its full expression. Fourth: We need an online pedagogy that encourages imagination; an imagination that pushes the medium to its limits to open space for learner engagement, to accommodate, the diverse and the unique. There are two concepts of media and medium. The traditional concept sees media as a technical way to transfer a message as accurately as possible from sender to receiver, but a more astute definition sees the medium as changing the content itself. That is what Marshall McLuhan meant when he said that the ‗medium is the message‘. James Burke expressed the same idea in his book The Axemaker‟s Gift: This book is about the people who gave us the world in exchange for our minds. The gifts we accepted from them gave us the power to change the way we lived, but doing so also changed the way we thought, This Faustian bargain was sealed more than a million years ago, but... the bargain didn't turn out to be quite what either party might have expected. We call those with whom we made the bargain "axemakers". But they made more than axes. They made everything., They make what we love and what we hate, they make our hopes and dreams. They made all of this because they make the tools that change our surroundings. (page x)

We, as online educators, are the next line of axemakers. Our position in the history of pedagogy is potentially awesome. We are not merely placing courses online. We could be changing the very nature of academia. Are we ready?

REFERENCES Bartsch,I, DiPalma,C.,& Sells,L. (2001). Witnessing the postmodern jeremiad: (Mis)understanding Donna Haraways method of inquiry [38 pages}. In Configuration, 9, 127-164. The John Hopkins University Press and the Society for Literature and Science. Retrieved August 30, 2003 from imv.au.dk/cyborg/cyborg_society/bratsch.pdf Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Belland, J. (1991). Developing connoisseurship in educational technology. In D. Hlynka & J. Belland (Eds.) Paradigms regained; The uses of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. (pp.23-35) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational technology Publications Berry, K. (2000). Acting against the grain. Dramatic arts and cultural studies. New York: Palmer Press.

On-Line Pedagogy: Illuminating the Tension between Technology and Imagination

41

Broderick, P. (2004) ,Seeking the soul of the cyborg: Educational technology as passion:play. An arts-based educational research experiment. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Manitoba. Burke, J. (1995). The Axemaker‟s Gift. New York, NY: Penguin/Putnam Caballero, M.C.(2004) Harvard gazette archives. Retrieved Nov. 05 www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/ 2004/03.11/01-mockus.html. Campbell, J. (1990) Myths to live by. New York,NY: Penguin Putnam Inc. Conrad, J. (1914/1967), The nigger of the Narcissus in Great short works of Joseph Conrad. NY: Harper and Row. Ferneding, K.A. (2003). Questioning technology, electronic technologies and educational reform. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco.CA: Jossey-Bass Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_witness@second_millenium.femaleman_meets_oncomouse New York, NY : Routledge. Litkey, D. & Grabelle, S. (2004) The big picture. Education is everyone‘s business. VA:ASCD. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 30. 225-248 Locke, M. (1995).Cultural Responses to the Taming of Nature in Eubois Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 5. 3-4 Retrieved May ‘06 http://www.csu.edu.au/learning/ eubios/EJ51D.html McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media. The extensions of man. Toronto, ON: MIT press. Pitman, W. (1998). Learning the arts in an age of uncertainty. Toronto, ON: Ontario Arts Education Council. Prensky, M.(2001). Digital natives, Digital immigrants in On the Horizons , NCB University Press.(9) 5. retrieved Nov.05 from www.marcprensky.com/writing/ prensky%20Digital% 20Natives5Digital %Immigrants. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (Fourth Edition). Pearson: Upper Saddle River: New Jersey. Rose, E. (2005) Cultural Studies in Instructional Design: Building a Bridge to Practice. Educational Technology. XLV(2), 5-9. Taylor, W., and Swartz, J. (1991). Whose Knowlege? In Hlynka, D. and Belland, J. (Eds.) Paradigms Regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic and postmodern criticism as modes of Inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. pp51- 62.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

THE ROLE OF MOTIVATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSES Mary Jane Miller Distance education is at the forefront of innovative programs in universities and colleges around the world. It offers educational opportunities that have never before been available. In spite of all the millions of dollars invested in new technologies and curriculum designs, many programs are still struggling with the success rate of their online students. Much research has been done and many factors have been identified that contribute to successful online learning. One of the most important of these is student motivation. This paper discusses intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in an educational environment, then describes characteristics that have been identified as common to highly motivated students who are most likely to succeed as distance learners. The paper goes on to describe efforts to determine if students in the School of Education at the University of Guam report possessing these characteristics and further what specific motivators encourage them to do well in their courses.

INTRODUCTION Computerized Distance Education seems to be the reigning ingénue in the royal court of American academia today. It is young and fresh and shows great potential for the future. But, like any ingénue, it must be watched over, guided, and nurtured if it is to flower into the stellar creation it could be. As the popularity and acceptance of distance learning increases there is great hope and high expectation that it will produce an ideal academic marriage of pedagogy and technology that will be enduring, fiscally sound, and produce superior learning outcomes. The future of distance education, however, will stand upon the accomplishments of distance programs today. In evaluating the success of distance education programs there are a number of factors that must be considered. Two primary concerns are economic viability and the degree of learner success (Regalbuto, 1998). Economic viability tends to be an administrative concern more than an instructive one, and is often out of the hands of faculty

44

Mary Jane Miller

entirely. Learner success, however, has many elements that are directly addressable by a conscientious instructor. Of the many characteristics that affect a student‘s success in online courses, perhaps the most prominent factor is student motivation. Motivation plays an important role in the educational success of all students, but in the academic career of a distance learner, it is critical.

MOTIVATION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS Motivation is a very powerful tool in the hands of a skilled instructor and a dedicated student. It is that intangible quality, a core resource that drives a student to accomplish the things that must be done (Agile, 2005). Motivation is often thought of as a drive from within that energizes and directs one to behave in a certain way (Eggen and Kauchak, 2000). Motivators are those factors that stimulate our inner drive and lead us to behave as we do (Ames, 1992). In an academic environment, motivators are those things an instructor routinely does to encourage students to perform well, to meet deadlines, and to excel in their studies. Burden and Byrd describe motivation as processes that influence a student to choose one behavior over another, that give direction and purpose to student behavior, and which encourage desirable behaviors to continue. They suggest that motivation is potentially such an integral aspect of student success that it should be carefully planned for and built into all lessons (2003) whether traditional or online. Sustaining high levels of student motivation is central to the success of any distance learning program. Many studies show that student motivation is critical for all learning and that motivated students are more highly receptive to curricular content, more satisfied with their learning experience, and more likely to complete courses than those who are not (Chyung, 2001; Ehrman, 1997; Galusha, 1997; Lee, 2000). In other words, a desire to learn has a lot do with who can or will learn difficult content and researchers have found a significant correlation between motivation and achievement (Vallerand, Porter, and Guay, 1997). In its report, Learners for Life – Student Approaches to Learning, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development states that students worldwide who have strong motivation and a belief in their own abilities take better control of their own learning and therefore tend to perform better in school (2003). Even the most effectively designed distance program will fail if students are not motivated as unmotivated students tend to simply drop out of their courses (Kruse, 2006; Vallerand, Porter, and Guay, 1997). When students are highly motivated, the entire learning experience becomes a positive occasion which can be built upon and reinforced to encourage students to reach for the next higher level of learning; success building upon success (Rehmke-Ribary, 2004). Agile believes that success builds motivation (Agile, 2005). Something of an upward spiral is created where positive feelings resulting from success build greater motivation, which, in turn, mobilizes action for more success

The Role of Motivation in Teacher Education Classes

45

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION The concept of motivation has been studied and analyzed from many perspectives for at least a century (Weiner, 1992). With the advent of online courses and entire schools of education dedicated to distance education, efforts to understand the role of motivation in student learning are receiving greater attention. In general, theorists have differentiated between two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic (Learntc.com, 2002). Extrinsic motivators are external factors that may influence a student to do well, but do not rise from within the individual‘s inner desire to do and achieve. Extrinsic motivators generally include those things a learner does to receive an external reward for doing a good job, and would include such things as awards, bonuses, praise from friends, family or coworkers, certificates, raise in pay, a new job or promotion, public recognition, inclusion on the Dean‘s List or sometimes removal of the promise of punishment or adverse action if expectations are not met (Eggen and Kauchak, 2000). The value of extrinsic motivation is perceived by some researchers as short lived and of limited value (Crotty, 2003). In a distance setting, external motivators would include all the positive elements associated with success in a traditional classroom, the only difference may be in the mode of delivery. Intrinsic means coming from within or something innate. Intrinsic motivators are those things within a person that make him want to do well, to be the best, and to strive for excellence even if there is no public recognition or external reward (Lumsden, 1994). Intrinsic motivators would include such things as pleasure derived from accomplishment, an internal drive to be the best, satisfaction gained from understanding a concept just for the sake of knowing, or even suppressing an excessive fear of failure. Learning, both searching for answers and finding them, is highly motivating in itself. Intrinsic motivators are the most successful reinforcers because they teach on their own (Rehmke-Ribary, 2004). Intrinsically motivated students have a great likelihood of succeeding in an online course of study. Research has shown that successful distance students are highly motivated and accept responsibility for their own learning. This is exhibited in several personal characteristics that include an ability to work independently, to devote the required time and effort to assignments and projects, to actively participate in the learning process, a willingness to initiate communication with instructor and peers, and an ability to adapt and persevere (Likata, 2002; University of Wisconsin, 2006).

MOTIVATION SURVEYS AT UNIVERSITY OF GUAM Instructional strategies a professor uses, tasks that students are asked to complete, and how the instructor interacts with students, both online and in person, all influence students‘ motivation to learn. Burden and Byrd describe several motivational factors that, if incorporated into instruction, will give the students the best opportunity for engaging intrinsic motivation. These factors include capturing student interest in the subject matter, highlighting the relevance to the student of what is being taught, using a variety of instructional strategies, planning for active student participation, and employing lessons designed to promote student success (2003). With proper attention to the pedagogy and delivery method of online courses,

46

Mary Jane Miller

these factors lend themselves well to distance learning and can play a major role in student success rates. The University of Guam (UOG), particularly the School of Education, is making diligent efforts to establish a viable distance learning program. While still in its earliest stages, the course development, piloting, evaluation, and efforts to improve are ongoing. But the question remains as to whether the students possess the skills needed to undertake distance learning, and in particular, if there is a high regard among UOG students for the characteristics of highly motivated students that research has shown are important for successful completion of online classes. Students in the School of Education at the University of Guam were asked to complete surveys assessing personal motivation as well as to rate motivators that encourage them to do well in school. Ninety two surveys were administered to students in undergraduate courses and of these 85 were fully complete and used to calculate results. The items in the survey of personal motivation characteristics were aligned with the factors that research has shown are those possessed by successful distance education students. The results of the survey show that a majority of students rate themselves as quite high in the factors that contribute to student success in distance education, but a significant percentage give themselves ratings which would indicate potential difficulties if they were to embark on a distance program of study. Table 1 shows results of the survey of personal motivation characteristics. For all items except #9 (I volunteer to speak in class.), the total of the ―always‖ and ―frequently‖ columns was greater than 50%. The total of the ―rarely‖ and ―never‖ columns only exceeds 20% twice. Twenty eight percent say they rarely or never speak in class and 22% report difficulty devoting their study time exclusively to academics. Although many students said that they do not volunteer to speak in class, they rated themselves very high in tolerance for alternative points of view and the ability to learn from discussion and opinions of others. Respondents also indicated that they were very willing to seek help from instructors and other students if there is a question or concern. It should be noted that some of the students are from isolated Pacific islands where questioning an older adult or authority, even in class, is considered as challenging and disrespectful. These students may actually be more willing to ask questions and participate in discussions in a virtual classroom than they would be face to face. The weakest reported area was in getting work done when students are under pressure and feeling overwhelmed, or carrying a heavy course load. This is certainly a concern in traditional classes, and it would be no less important in online classes. At the same time 72% of the students reported that they always know when assignments are due and turn them in on time and an additional 20% responded frequently to the same item. It would appear from this survey that a large number, but not all, education majors at University of Guam possess, or report that they possess, motivation characteristics that are essential for distance education students to succeed. It would be an interesting follow-up to this survey to have instructors fill out an identical form regarding the same students and compare the outcomes. On the second survey students were asked to rate individual motivators that affect their desire to do well in school. This is important to know during the initiation stages of any new program, particularly one that requires the financial investment of a viable distance education program. The design of successful distance learning courses incorporates factors that motivate

47

The Role of Motivation in Teacher Education Classes

students and encourage them to do well in class. An identification of these motivators would be very beneficial during the design phase of online courses. Table 1. Survey of Personal Motivation Characteristics of University of Guam Students in the School of Education. 3 Some times Percent 8

2 Rarely

1 Never

Percent 53

4 Frequently Percent 37

Percent 2

Percent 0

72

20

8

0

0

22

39

22

11

6

11

49

29

8

3

29 22

53 29

15 27

3 13

0 9

50

24

14

6

6

45

33

18

2

2

13 25 80 60

28 53 15 27

31 17 5 11

17 2 0 2

11 3 0 0

31 39 22 31

39 39 52 39

17 16 20 27

11 6 6 3

2 0 0 0

18

35

33

9

5

81

11

8

0

0

22

39

27

6

6

82

15

3

0

0

5 Always Works Independently 1. I can work alone and do a good job 2. I know when assignments are due and complete them on time 3. I study ahead of time for tests rather than the at the last minute 4. I look up additional information to complete assignments even when not specifically instructed to do so Time and effort on studies 5. I set aside time for study each day 6. I use my study time for academic activities only 7. I spend 3 or more hours per week outside of class time working on projects and assignments for each class I am taking 8. I put great effort into all assignments and projects Active participation 9. I volunteer to speak in class 10. I work well with groups and learning teams 11. I am tolerant of alternative points of view 12. I can learn from the discussion and opinions of others Initiates communication 13. When I have a question I will ask in class 14. If I have a concern or question I talk to the instructor 15. I communicate with classmates outside of class time 16. I make new friends in almost every class Able to adapt and persevere 17. If I find myself overwhelmed with work, somehow I still get everything done on time 18. I am able to adapt if instruction varies from the syllabus 19. I can carry a heavy course load and still do well 20. I am able to adapt to a variety of teaching and learning styles

Students, themselves, offered suggestions to be included on the list of potential motivators during development of the survey form. All suggestions from students were incorporated into the final form and were used in the survey of students. The following items were included on the list of potential motivators: parental or spousal concern; to be the best; money or rewards (better job); to please myself; satisfaction from achievement; opinion of friends; learning was fun; praise from teacher; subject was challenging, extracurricular activities, teacher was interesting, subject was interesting, praise from parents, spouse or partner; and awards and certificates.

48

Mary Jane Miller

Students in the School of Education were asked to rank each motivator on a scale of 1 to 5 indicating the effectiveness of that motivator to encourage them to do well in school. The mean score for each motivator was computed to determine its rank in the list. From highest rating to lowest, table 2 shows the rank of motivators according to results of the student surveys. Table 2 Motivators Indicated by University of Guam Students That Encourage Success in school. R A N K 1

Parental/spouse concern

R A N K 1

Parental/spouse concern

R A N K 1

2

To please myself

2

To please myself

2

3 4

Teacher was interesting Subject was interesting

2 3

Learning was fun Subject was interesting

3 4

4

To be the best

4

Teacher was interesting

5

5

Praise from parents, partner or spouse

5

6

Awards and certificates

5

7

6 7

Awards and certificates

8

To be the best

8

9

Learning was fun Money or rewards (better job) Satisfaction from achievement Praise from teachers

Satisfaction from achievement Praise from parents, partner or spouse Praise from teachers

9

10

Subject was challenging

10

11 12

Extracurricular activities Opinions of friends

11 12

Subject was challenging Money or rewards (better job) Extracurricular activities Opinion of friends

8 9

Average of All Students

Average of Females

Average of Males To be the best Money or rewards (better job) Parental/spouse concern Awards and certificates Praise from parents. Partner or spouse

5

Teacher was interesting

6

To please myself

7

Subject was interesting

7

Praise from teachers

9

Satisfaction from achievement Subject was challenging

10

Extracurricular activities

10 11

Learning was fun Opinion of friends

It should be noted that the survey of motivators asked students to identify factors that encouraged them to do well in their coursework. It did not ask for reasons why they were seeking a university degree in the first place. The highest ranking motivational factor for all students and for female students was parental or spousal concern. The highest ranking factor for males was the desire to be the best. This is an interesting difference between the genders, and may be partially a result of cultural traditions somewhat prevalent on Guam that expect the males to be very ―macho‖ (the best) while encouraging girls to be polite and respectful with responsibility for their own children and for ultimate care of parents as well. Females preferred to please themselves with knowledge and high grades, ranking it in second place, while males said they like to work for money or rewards. All students reported that the opinions of their friends had little to do with their motivation to do well in school. While many studies on peer pressure may not completely support this contention, it is certainly possible this could be correct. However, it also seems plausible that the students either did not recognize the role of, nor presence of, concern for the opinions of their friends. It is also possible that students were reluctant to admit influence from friends.

The Role of Motivation in Teacher Education Classes

49

Although a case can be made that the top motivators for both males and females were intrinsic, it appears, from this survey, that males may have been somewhat more readily motivated by extrinsic factors than were females.

CONCLUSION This study gives some insight into the personal motivation of students at the University of Guam and their preparedness to undertake and succeed in distance learning courses. Survey response indicates that UOG students possess many of the characteristics of highly motivated students who are able to accept responsibility and work independently with little direction, acquire the content knowledge, and successfully complete a course of study. Students indicate strength in initiating contact with instructors and other students and with being aware of due dates and turning in assignments on time. The weakest areas reported were in areas that would affect the ability to successfully juggling responsibilities of home, work and school and to persevere under pressure. In addition, students identified factors that motivate them to succeed in their coursework. Identification of student motivators is important at the outset of a distance education program so that they can be incorporated into the basic lesson design and used as a tool to encourage student responsibility, persistence, achievement, and ultimately to promote student success. Students at University of Guam appear to be influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. And, of course, some factors that are intrinsic to one student may be extrinsic to another. Survey respondents reported that the concern of parents or spouse and a desire to be the best are significant motivators. They also indicate that money or rewards such as a new job or promotion are highly motivating as well as the desire to learn just because it pleases them to know things. Research has shown that student motivation is one of the most critical factors in determining student success and student satisfaction with their educational experience. Yet, the story of distance education on Guam is yet to be written. It is a work in progress and there are high hopes that it will have a happy ending.

REFERENCES Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Agile, Ke O, (2005). Motivation, Your Core Resource. Up Motivation, Retrieved May 20, 2006 at www.upmotivtion.com/dnewsletters/MotivationYourCoreR. Burden, P. & Byrd, D. (2003). Methods of effective teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Chyung, S. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 15(3), 36-49. Crotty, J. (2002). Student Motivation. Seizing the Days: Engaging All Learners, A short Course in Learner Motivation. Area Education Agency 7, Cedar Falls, IA.

50

Mary Jane Miller

Eggen, P., and Kauchak, D. (2000). Education Psychology. Boston: Pearson Higher Education. Ehrman, S. (1997). Asking the Right Question: What Does Research Tell Us about Technology and Higher Learning? Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.learner.org/edtech/rscheval/rightquestion.html. Galusha, J. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 5(3-4), 6-14. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1997/n4/galusha.html. Gunter, M., T. Estes, J. Schwab. (1999). Instruction: A Models Approach. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA. Kruse, K. (undated). The Magic of Learner Motivation: The ARCS Model. Retrieved on May 21, 2006 from http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_5.htm. Learntc.com. (2002). Sample Motivators. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from www.learntc.com/tools//LifeManagement/MasteringMotivation/sampleMotivators.cfm. Lee, C. (2000). Student Motivation in the Online Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences. 37(4), 367-375. Licata, D. (2000). Characteristics of Successful Distance Learners. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://dl.ccc.cccd.edu/faculty/dlicata/chem185/gcdistlrnr.htm. Lumsden, L. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ERIK Digest No. 92, ED370200. Eugene, OR. OCED. (2001) Learners for Life – Student Approaches to Learning. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Document 51.0.2340 Ragalbuto, J. (1998). Opening Remarks, TID faculty seminar retreat, September 21, 1998. Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/tid/meetings/090898/jrr-intro.html. Rehmke-Ribary, E. (2004). Capturing Children‟s Natural Intrinsic Motivation in the Classroom. Thesis project. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ. Teachernet.gov. (2003). Motivation in the Classroom. Retrieved August 5, 2005 from www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/library/motivation University of Wisconsin. Characteristics of Successful Distance Learners. Retrieved on May 8, 2006 from http://academic.son.wisc.edu/cnp_orient/index.html. Vallerand, R. (1997). Porter, M. and Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Social Psychology. 72, 1161-1176. Weiner, B. (1992). Human Motivation (2nd Ed.). New York: Springer Verlag.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN FOR ONLINE COURSES Michael Simonton* Instructional Technology and Distance Education Nova Southeastern University, Florida, USA

WHY PLAN FOR TEACHING AT A DISTANCE? Just like other kinds of teaching, teaching at a distance requires planning and organizing. However, teaching at a distance, whether synchronous or asynchronous, requires that greater emphasis be placed on the initial planning phase. Instructional design should consider all aspects of the instructional environment, following a well-organized procedure that provides guidance to even the novice distance instructor. (See, for example, Figure 6–1.) The instructional environment should be viewed as a system, a relationship among and between all the components of that system—the instructor, the learners, the material, and the technology. Especially when planning for distance education, the instructor must make decisions that will affect all aspects of the system (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This chapter presents background information about an organized and systematic way to go about planning instruction. Central to this chapter‘s organization is the Unit-Module-Topic Model for course design (UMT Model). This model is based on best practices in course design and delivery, which will also be presented. This design process allows the instructor to consider elements such as the content, the nature of the learner, the process by which the learning will take place (methodology), and the means for assessing the learning experience. By following through with this process, the instructor will find that teaching at a distance is an exciting and dynamic experience, one that will be welcomed by both the instructor and the learners.

*

Correspondence address: Michael Simonton, Program Professor ,Instructional Technology and Distance Education, Nova Southeastern University, 1750 NE 167th St., North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 www nova.edu/~simsmich, 800-986-3223 x8563 or 954-262-8563.

52

Michael Simonton

PRINCIPLES OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN SYSTEMS Systematic Process The process of systematic planning for instruction is the outcome of many years of research (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). An analysis of the application of this process indicates that when instruction is designed within a system, learning occurs. The process of instructional design is a field of study. Instructional design is considered the intellectual technique of the professional who is responsible for appropriate application of technology to the teaching and learning process. In other words, instructional design is to the instructional technologist as the rule of law is to the lawyer, the prescription of medicine is to the medical doctor, and the scientific method is to the chemist—a way of thinking and solving problems (Thompson, Hargrave, & Simonson, 1996). A critical part of the process is to consider the components of a successful learning system (Dick & Carey, 1996). These components are the learners, the content, the method and materials, and the environment, including the technology. The interaction of these components creates the type of learning experience necessary for student learning. The components must interact both efficiently and effectively to produce quality learning experiences. There should be a balance among the components—none can take on a higher position than the others. The attempt to keep the components equally balanced while maintaining their interaction effect is essential to planning quality instruction. Simply stated, a series of activities alone cannot lead to learning; it is only with the careful planning for their balance and interface that learning is the result. Another critical part of the process is evaluation. For successful learning to take place, it is vital to determine what works and what needs to be improved. Evaluation leads to revision of instruction, and revision of instruction helps secure the final outcome of helping students learn (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 2002). Because of an emphasis on planning and revising, well-designed instruction is repeatable. This means that the instruction can be applied again in another class. For example, instruction designed for a televised, multisite class can be used again with a new group of students at different sites. Because it is ―reusable,‖ the considerable initial effort is well worth the time and energy.

PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION AT A DISTANCE The process of planning and organizing for a distance education course is multifaceted and must occur well in advance of the scheduled instruction. To eliminate trial-and-error preparation, distance learning faculty should: Keep in mind that courses previously taught in traditional classrooms may need to be retooled. The focus of the instruction shifts to visual presentations, engaged learners, and careful timing of presentations of information. In revising traditional classroom materials, consider ways to illustrate key concepts, or topics, using tables, figures, and other visual representations.

Instructional Design for Online Courses

53

Plan activities that encourage interactivity at all the sites. It is a common pitfall to focus on only one site during the process of managing the class and operating technology. Planning for interactivity reduces this problem and helps learners. Not only does the instructor have to plan for interaction, but students may require training to participate actively in these types of activities. Plan activities that allow for student group work. This helps construct a supportive social environment. For example, the instructor could present case studies related to theories and concepts covered in the course, and then groups of students, perhaps in different sites, could discuss case study questions and reach consensus on a solution to the problem. Be prepared in the event that technical problems occur. If the equipment fails, it is important for students to have projects and assignments independent of the instructor and alternative means of communication (e.g., fax, phone, e-mail). Discussing with students ahead of time alternative plans in case there is a technological problem will eliminate confusion and loss of productive class time when a problem occurs (Herring & Smaldino, 1997). In addition to considerations related to planning for instruction, there is also a need to examine issues associated with the separation of instructor and some or all of the students. Time constraints for class delivery, lack of eye contact, visualization of the materials, and planning for interaction require a reconsideration of classroom dynamics. Often instructors use visual cues, such as student facial expressions, within the traditional classroom and conversations with students after class to decide quickly to adjust the instructional approach for a course. These cues give instructors insights that help them personalize the instruction for the students and ensure a quality learning experience for all. In an online course, it is more difficult to acquire visual clues about students. Even when using desktop conferencing technologies, the visual component provides limited information to the instructor. Students who incorporate emoticons into their writing do not help the instructor get a better view of the student within the nonvisual online environment. Teaching at a distance eliminates many of these cues. Alternative approaches to ongoing evaluation of instruction must be incorporated. If instructors ignore this area of preparation, planning to teach as they always have, they will feel frustrated. Likewise, students may feel alienated and will begin to tune out the instructor. The instructional development process must be based on the unique characteristics and needs of students, meshed with the teaching style of the instructor and the course goals and content. Interaction must be maximized, the visual potential of the medium must be explored, and time constraints must be addressed.

ISSUES TO ADDRESS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Who are the Learners? There are several reasons for bringing students together in a distance learning setting. Students can be pooled into classes of sufficient size to create a critical mass (Dede, 1990). Students can aggregate for advanced courses in subjects that might not otherwise be available

54

Michael Simonton

on-site. Distance education can be an important approach to responding to the growing pluralism of learners‘ backgrounds, characteristics, or unusual learning needs that may require or benefit from specialized instruction. Taking the time to learn about the learners in the class yields a more productive learning environment. Knowledge of general learner characteristics can inform the instructor of the nature of the students at origination and distance sites. This knowledge can aid the distance education instructor in overcoming the separation of instructor and students. Along with the general information about the learners, an instructor needs to know the number of students in the class. Knowing how many students there are at each site and the number of sites involved in a face-to-face class can influence the level of interactivity. For example, in an Internet-based class (e.g., on the Web) with a large number of participants, it is likely that some students will fail to interact in discussions. Thus, an instructor needs to know how many students are enrolled, how many sites there are, and what technologies are available to them to plan effectively for interactive learning. Also, it is essential to know the nature of the audience. Are students from an urban area? A rural area? What is their age range, grade range, and educational background? All this can have a marked impact on the levels of interaction among students. The instructor may have to plan more carefully for the types and levels of interaction to ensure a quality learning experience for all members of the class

Analyze the General Abilities of the Class Analysis of the cognitive abilities of the class allows the instructor to observe how students relate to the content of the lesson. Such issues as clearly defining the prerequisite knowledge or skills for the specific learning experience are important to ensure a successful learning experience. The students‘ prior experience with similar types of cognitive tasks is important. Further, learning styles have once again become an important area of consideration. With the introduction of Gardner‘s multiple intelligences has come the resurgence of an examination of learning styles (Gardner, 1993). How students approach learning is as important as how well they can function in the classroom. So knowing more about how students interact with information is important in creating a valuable learning environment. An instructor can determine students‘ general knowledge and ability in a number of ways. Pretests and portfolio reviews can provide information about learners‘ abilities. Because students are coming to the class from a variety of backgrounds and learning experiences, they may be under prepared for the content intended for a particular course, and thus will be frustrated and even unsuccessful in the learning experience. Or, conversely, they may already be familiar with the content and will be bored and uninterested in participating in the class. By knowing more about students, the instructor can develop supporting materials to individualize instruction. Varying the presentation of materials to match different learning styles (e.g., animation, text, verbal descriptions, visual messages) can also ensure the greatest potential for reaching all learners. The instructor can present complex cognitive content in ways that give learners various tags for understanding the fundamental concepts, and thereby reach a wider range of

Instructional Design for Online Courses

55

individuals. People can remember complex material better if chunks of information are grouped into spatially related locations. Placing similar ideas in a logical sequence can aid retrieval of information at a later date.

Analyze Potential for Learner Interactivity Students who are less social may find the distance education environment more comfortable for them. Students may become more expressive because of the perception of privacy and the informative nature of mediated communication. They may perceive the increased and varied interactivity and immediate feedback as a positive input to their interface with the learning experience. Additionally, students can benefit from a wider range of cognitive, linguistic, cultural, and affective styles they would not encounter in a self-contained classroom. The emphasis should not be on the inherent efficiency of the distance learning, but on the values and services offered to students through their exposure to others (Herring & Smaldino, 1997). Relationships can be fostered, values can be expanded, and shared purposes or goals can be developed. Distance learning experiences can serve as windows to the world by providing extended learning experiences. When special efforts are made, distance education actually can enhance learning experiences, expand horizons, and facilitate group collaboration (Dede, 1990). Students can have more direct experiences with the information (e.g., close-up viewing of an experiment is possible). Time for reflection is possible before responding to the prompts presented, and the ability to work with peers or experts enhances the potential for learning.

Understand Learner Characteristics To be effective, it is necessary to understand the learners in the target audience. Willis (1994) suggested the following questions be asked prior to development of distance learning environments: What are students‘ ages, cultural backgrounds, interests, and educational levels? What is the level of familiarity of the students with the instructional methods and technological delivery systems under consideration? How will the students apply the knowledge gained in the course, and how is this course sequenced with other courses? Can the class be categorized into several broad subgroups, each with different characteristics? These questions are not easy ones to answer. An instructor should attempt to find the answers prior to the first class meeting. Asking a few well-chosen questions of individual students will help the instructor understand their needs, backgrounds, and expectations. Additionally, students will feel they are important to the instructor. It may also be beneficial to discuss the learners with the remote-site facilitator. That person may be a valuable resource

56

Michael Simonton

to the instructor by providing information about students prior to the instruction or by observing students at work. In an online environment, it is often more difficult for the instructor to get information about students, thus it is essential that the instructor plan a way of inviting students to share information about themselves. Be careful to respect their right to privacy, while trying to learn as much as you can about them.

Help Learners Understand the Context of the Learning Experience Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001) refer to three types of content: Orienting Context, Instructional Context, and Transfer Context. They suggest that the learners need to grasp the intent of the instructor when participating in various types of learning experiences. When the learners have an understanding of the reasons why they are participating in a particular type of instructional activity, they are better able to use that experience to expedite their own learning. Each of these contexts serves a particular purpose for the learner. The Orienting Context refers to the students‘ reasons for being in a course. These reasons vary among the students. For example, a student may be participating in a course for credits toward a pay raise. Or, a student may wish to change positions within a company, which is dependent on completing the particular study area. Instructional Context addresses the learning environment. Scheduling a course to meet at a certain time and location or specifying specific dates for completion of assignments also impact the manner in which the student interacts with the class. Knowing how convenient it is for students to access the resources or to rearrange their own personal and work schedules is important when planning instruction. The third context, Transfer Context, refers to the way in which the knowledge will be used by students. It is critical when planning that the instructor considers what information is important so the students will apply it to work or school applications. Students will value that information they perceive as useful. Knowing the students and their interests or needs will help the instructor plan useful learning experiences to ensure transfer of learning.

Goals and Objectives for Instruction The challenge of education is to match the content of the subject to the needs of the learners. Broadly stated goals are a helpful starting place for the instructor. The instructor must decide what is appropriate for a group of students and for the individuals within that group. Each instructor constantly must face the challenge of adapting instruction to the student who is expected to learn it. Although content is important, instructors must remember their focus is on the students. This is critical when establishing goals for any course. The traditional approach for writing objectives is also effective for distance education courses. Specifically, objectives should state the conditions under which learning should occur, the performance expected of the learner, and the standard to which the performance will be matched. One way to write objectives is as follows:

Instructional Design for Online Courses

57

Given: the conditions under which learning occurs the learner will: meet some predetermined level of performance according to: a minimum standard The objectives of a particular lesson may not necessarily change simply because an instructor teaches at a distance. Good instructional goals should form the basis for instruction, regardless of the medium used. Instructional goals and objectives always should be shared with the students, helping both the origination and remote-site students to focus on the parameters of the instruction. This information may be included in course outlines, presentation handouts, or materials presented at the beginning of the course.

What Teaching Strategies and Media should be used? Students can provide insight into the design of the learning experience. They can give feedback in lesson design and instruction delivery. Using a simple feedback form, students can describe or indicate in some other way their expectations and perceptions of the class structure and the delivery mode. The instructor can examine the information from both origination and remote-site students to determine if the mode of presentation was effective for both types of locations. Evaluating these responses, the instructor can gain an understanding of how the learners perceived the class experience. An instructor‘s personal philosophy will influence the approach to teaching at a distance. An individual‘s philosophical belief will affect selection of goals and curricular emphases, and influence how that individual views himself or herself as a classroom instructor. The instructor is viewed as the facilitator of learning by guiding, rather than directing, the students, thus modeling a student-centered approach.

Media Selection Several models are often used in selecting media (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001). The common theme among these models is the learning context, which is the content, the intended outcome, and the nature of the students. Practical considerations such as available resources for creating media and the technologies for delivery of instruction also play a hand in the selection process. Mainly, though, the goals and objectives will influence the selection of media. McAlpine and Weston (1994) have come up with a set of criteria for selecting media, whether they are commercial media or media developed specifically for a particular course. The first criterion is to match the medium to the curriculum or content. Other criteria include the accuracy of information, motivational quality, engagement quality, technical quality, and unbiased nature of material. These should be considered in selecting media in order to match student needs to the strategies employed. Media that are ―off the shelf‖ are often considered sufficient for a quality learning experience in the traditional classroom (Heinich et al., 2002). However, in a distance learning environment, the ―ready-made‖ materials may need to be adapted or modified to accommodate the technologies involved. Some materials may need to be enlarged or

58

Michael Simonton

enhanced to be seen by students at a distance. With others, the format may need to be changed to allow access. Because of the nature of distance learning and the separation of the instructor from the students, it is essential that the instructor begin to think visually. Too often, instructors do not place enough emphasis on designing and using quality visual materials. Taking the time to develop good visual media will enhance the quality of the learning experience (Heinich et al., 2002).

Visualizing Information Visuals provide a concrete reference point for students, especially when they are engaged in a nontelevised learning experience. Even if the visuals are lists of concepts and ideas, they can help students. Visuals also help learners by simplifying information. Diagrams and charts often can make it easier to understand complex ideas. A visual that breaks down a complex idea into its components can show relationships that might be otherwise confusing to students. Also, visuals that serve as mnemonics can assist student understanding. Visuals help students in their study as well. They can use the visuals to prepare for tests and other means of assessing their learning. There are two other very important issues to be raised. First is that of copyright. No matter what technologies are incorporated in the distance environment, the instructor needs to respect the copyright restrictions that might apply. For example, in a televised class, the instructor may not be able to use a video without first obtaining permission to display it to the class. In a Web-based class, the instructor may have to have permission to post a journal article. An instructor needs to be responsible in obtaining copyright permissions where appropriate. The second issue is that of access. The instructor cannot assume that all students at a distance have equal access to resources. Students may not have the technologies available. Also, students may not have the facilities at hand. The instructor needs to be certain that all students have similar learning experiences, including access to the materials. For example, if the instructor wishes students to use certain books or journals for outside reading, it is important to check with local libraries to be sure these materials are available.

What is the Learning Environment? Educators are familiar with classroom settings. They are comfortable with using the space available to enable learning to take place. It is when the classroom shifts into a distance learning setting that the environment often becomes a challenge to the instructor. Several important elements must be addressed within the distance learning environment.

Technology The type of setting, be it place- or time-shifted, will influence planning decisions. Environments that are place-shifted are those that are synchronous but are not in the same location (e.g., a live video-based distance class). Those that are time-shifted are

Instructional Design for Online Courses

59

asynchronous, where students access the class at different times. Assessing the use of technology in a distant setting is essential. In any distance learning environment, the technology becomes the element of most concern for the instructor. The instructor must become familiar with the hardware and the nuances of the technology to use them effectively. The instructor needs to balance concern for the operation of the equipment with effective teaching. Once the technology becomes transparent in the educational setting, the instructor can reflect on the lesson quality, the outcomes, and the plans for subsequent lessons. Several issues are associated with technology when teaching in a distance learning mode. First is the basic operation of the equipment. In a televised distance learning setting, switching between sites is usually a simple procedure, but it does require time to acquire the finesse to operate the switching buttons smoothly. Second, using additional cameras in the classroom can create some concern for the instructor. The overhead camera needs to be focused and materials lined up to ensure that learners in all sites can see the material. Third, the instructor should always consider what the student should be viewing during the lesson. Is it better to see the instructor, the visuals, or other students. In an Internet-based learning environment, the instructor needs to be concerned with the layout of the courseware and the types of resources available to the students at the distant sites. The instructor needs to be certain the material is designed in a way that is intuitive for the various types of learners who may be interacting with it. The instructor also needs to be concerned about student access to the appropriate hardware and software to be successful in connecting to the courseware. Further, the instructor needs to be concerned that the students can complete the tasks expected of them. Finally, the instructor needs to be certain that the students understand the terminology being used. It is essential the instructor be prepared with alternatives for each lesson in case of system problems. What will the students do during the lesson time if the technology is not operating properly—or at all? Preplanned contingencies should continue the learning process even though the technology is malfunctioning. Alternative lessons must always be ready, but it is hoped, never needed. Students need to be prepared to know what to do with those materials. The materials must be designed to be used without instructor intervention.

Planning to Teach on the World Wide Web Much of what has been suggested in the planning process is not specific to a particular type of distance technology or delivery mode. Rather, the instructional design process is relatively open to any instructional setting. But, when planning to teach on the Web, an instructor needs to address some essential considerations. One very important issue is that the instructor is ―ready‖ for the course to begin. It is frustrating for students who begin an online course only to find that all the materials are not prepared or not accessible at the time they need them. It would be an advantage for the instructor planning an online course the first time to consider working 3–5 months in advance of the beginning date. This will ensure that the materials will be planned and prepared in a timely fashion. Another important issue when teaching online is that of establishing the communications framework. All too often, instructors of online courses ―complain‖ that students expect them to be available all the time. If you do not intend to check your course materials daily, indicate that with the initial materials that are distributed. Tell students they can expect a response within a day or that

60

Michael Simonton

you intend to be online checking the course specific days of the week. That way both students and faculty will not be frustrated by the interrupted communications process. Instructors have found that to ensure quality and promptness with online coursework, it is necessary for the students to know exactly when assignments are due. A calendar or time line is very important. Providing students with rubrics or guides for how to complete assignments well is also very important. The more information students have about completing assignments, the fewer problems the students and instructor will experience during the course.

BEST PRACTICES IN COURSE DESIGN FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION One key to effective distance education is correct instructional design, a systematic process that applies research-based principles to educational practice. If the design is effective, instruction will also be effective. This article presents a review of what we know about ―best practices in distance education,‖ and proposes an easy to apply approach to guide those who are designing classes.

Effective Distance Education- A Synopsis of what we know (Schlosser and Simonson, 2004) Distance education has been practiced for more than 150 years, passing through three phases: first, correspondence study, with its use of print-based instructional and communication media; second, the rise of the distance teaching universities and the use of analog mass media; and third, the widespread integration of distance education elements into most forms of education, and characterized by the use of digital instructional and communication technologies. Peters (2002) has suggested that ―the swift, unforeseen, unexpected and unbelievable achievements of information and communication technologies‖ will require ―the design of new formats of learning and teaching and [will cause] powerful and far-reaching structural changes of the learning-teaching process‖ (p. 20). Peters‘ views are well-accepted, but there is also consensus that the most fruitful way of identifying elements of quality instruction may be to re-examine ―first principles‖ of distance education and mediated instruction. Perhaps the first of the ―first principles‖ is the recognition that distance education is a system, and that the creation of successful courses—and the program of which they are a part—requires a ―systems‖ approach. Hirumi (2000) identified a number of systems approaches but noted a concept common to all: that ―a system is a set of interrelated components that work together to achieve a common purpose‖ (p. 90). He described a system that involved the efforts of faculty, staff, administrators, and students, and consisted of eight key components: curriculum, instruction, management and logistics, academic services, strategic alignment, professional development, research and development, and program evaluation. Bates (in Foley, 2003) proposed 12 ―golden rules‖ for the use of technology in education. These ―rules‖ offer guidance in the broader areas of designing and developing distance education:

Instructional Design for Online Courses

61

1) Good teaching matters. Quality design of learning activities is important for all delivery methods. 2) Each medium has its own aesthetic. Therefore professional design is important. 3) Education technologies are flexible. They have their own unique characteristics but successful teaching can be achieved with any technology. 4) There is no ―super-technology.‖ Each has its strengths and weaknesses; therefore they need to be combined (an integrated mix). 5) Make all four media available to teachers and learners. Print, audio, television, and computers. 6) Balance variety with economy. Using many technologies makes design more complex and expensive; therefore limit the range of technologies in a given circumstance. 7) Interaction is essential. 8) Student numbers are critical. The choice of a medium will depend greatly on the number of learners reached over the life of a course. 9) New technologies are not necessarily better than old ones. 10) Teachers need training to use technology effectively. 11) Teamwork is essential. No one person has all the skills to develop and deliver a distance-learning course, therefore, subject matter experts, instructional designers, and media specialists are essential on every team. 12) Technology is not the issue. How and what we want the learners to learn is the issue and technology is a tool. (p. 833) A number of these ―rules‖ are overlapping. Three of them (1, 2, and 11) address course and program design. Any examination of ―first principles‖ should first examine instructional design. While it has been noted that instructors, even those new to distance education, can learn to adapt courses and create materials for online delivery (Ko & Rossen, 2003), and the author-editor model has long been an element of correspondence study programs, ―what is strikingly missing in these arrangements, usually, is an instructional designer and many good features of the instructional design approach‖ (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 104). The teambased approach to distance education course development is generally regarded as more likely to result in high-quality materials, experiences and, hence, more satisfactory teaching and learning experiences (Hirumi, 2000). Bates‘ triumvirate of subject matter expert, instructional designer, and media specialist is the standard core of the course design team, which may be expanded—one source (Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000) has suggested as many as eight members— based upon the particular needs of the program and the media employed. No one approach to course design is ideal; as Moore & Kearsley (1996) noted, the course team approach results in ―materials [that] are usually much more complete and effective. Furthermore, [it] tends to emphasize the use of multiple media in a course‖ but is ―very labor-intensive and therefore expensive, and it involves a lengthy development period‖ (p. 106). Of the two approaches, ―the author-editor approach is the only one that makes economic sense if courses have very small enrollments or short lifetimes, while the course team approach is justified for courses with large enrollments and long-term use‖ (p. 107). That the course-team approach to course design and development is time-consuming is illustrated by a model developed by Hirumi and colleagues at the University of Houston-

62

Michael Simonton

Clear Lake (UH-CL). That elaborate approach, which received considerable recognition in the field, required 18 months for course design, development, piloting, and revision. Foley (2003) has noted ―there are general principles of good design that can be applied to all distance learning activities‖ (p. 831) but noted the following influences: the target audience of the activity the content of subject matter to be delivered and the outcomes or objectives desired (p. 831) Other considerations having ―profound effects on the design of the learning activities‖ (p. 831) include: the cost effectiveness of the system, the opportunity costs of alternative systems and methods, the availability of technology to the provider and to the learners, the geographical location of the learners, and the comfort level of the learners with any technology that is used (p. 834) Foley notes that these factors apply equally well when designing instruction for any give audience, from children to adults. When designing the World Bank‘s Global Development Learning Network, ―results of more than 30 years of research on adult learning were applied to the distance learning programs‖ (p. 832). The criteria included: 1) They are based on clearly established learning needs and built around succinct statements of outcome. 2) They are based on a variety of teaching and learning strategies and methods that are activity based.... 3) Effective distance learning materials are experiential...they address the learner‘s life experience.... 4) Quality distance learning programs are participatory in that they emphasize the involvement of the learner in all facets of program development and delivery 5) Successful distance learning programs are interactive and allow frequent opportunities for participants to engage in a dialogue with subject matter experts and other learners. 6) Learner support systems are an integral part of any successful distance-learning program. (p. 832) The Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education (IPSE) (2000) proposed ―Guiding Principles for Faculty in Distance Learning:‖ Distance learning courses will be carefully planned to meet the needs of students within unique learning contexts and environments. Distance learning programs are most effective when they include careful planning and consistency among courses.

Instructional Design for Online Courses

63

It is important for faculty who are engaged in the delivery of distance learning courses to take advantage of appropriate professional developmental experiences. Distance learning courses will be periodically reviewed and evaluated to ensure quality, consistency with the curriculum, currency, and advancement of the student learning outcomes. Faculty will work to ensure that incentives and rewards for distance learning course development and delivery are clearly defined and understood. An assessment plan is adapted or developed in order to achieve effectiveness, continuity and sustainability of the assessment process. Course outcome assessment activities are integrated components of the assessment plan. Learning activities are organized around demonstrable learning outcomes embedded in course components including; course delivery mode, pedagogy, content, organization, and evaluation. Content developed for distance learning courses will comply with copyright law. Faculty members involved in content development will be aware of their institution's policies with regard to content ownership. The medium/media chosen to deliver courses and/or programs will be pedagogically effectual, accessible to students, receptive to different learning styles, and sensitive to the time and place limitations of the students. The institution provides appropriate support services to distance students that are equivalent to services provided for its on-campus students. The institution provides its students at a distance with accessible library and other learning resources appropriate to the courses or programs delivered via technology. It develops systems to support them in accessing and using these library and other learning resources effectively. It is important to provide the appropriate developmental experiences for faculty who are engaged in the delivery of distance learning experiences. The institution implements policies and processes by which the instructional effectiveness of each distance-learning course is evaluated periodically. Timely and reliable technical support is vital to the success of any distancelearning program. It is recommended that a system of faculty incentives and rewards be developed cooperatively by the faculty and the administration, which encourages effort and recognizes achievement associated with the development and delivery of distance learning courses. The institution will communicate copyright and intellectual property policies to all faculty and staff working on distance learning course development and delivery. The institution complies with state policies and maintains regional accreditation standards in regard to distance learning programs. (www.ihets.org/learntech/principles_guidelines.pdf) Commonalities between these principles and those suggested by other authors and organizations may be readily perceived. For instance, careful planning and the need for

64

Michael Simonton

teacher training are cited by Bates (in Foley, 2003), and the emphasis on the unique needs of students in a variety of contexts is mentioned by Foley (2003). The IPSE principles make an important contribution by highlighting need for consideration of copyright law and policies, intellectual property ownership, faculty incentives, and state policies and accreditation standards. Because education (including distance education) is a system, each of its elements interacts with other elements, making difficult the isolation of elements. Interaction (its type, quantity, quality, timing, etc.) for instance, cannot be separated from instructional philosophy, choice of media, and other factors. Whatever media are selected to facilitate instructor-student and student-student interaction, it should be recognized that these forms of mediated discussion should not completely replace the face-to-face element in courses. As Peters (1998) noted, those who believe that new, digital media will ―supply the interactivity and communication lacking in distance education...cherish a hope here that will prove to be serious self-delusion‖ (p. 155). Peters‘ comments on the topic [in the context of videoconferencing, a relatively rich ―high bandwidth‖ form of communication], trenchant and incisive, are worth quoting at length: Communication mediated through technical media remains mediated communication and cannot replace an actual discussion, an actual argument, the discourse of a group gathered at a particular location. Mediated communication and actual communication stand in relationship to one another like a penciled sketch and an oil painting of the same subject. What takes place in a discussion between two or more people can only be transmitted in part electronically. ... A virtual university that does without face-to-face events by referring to the possibility of videoconferencing can only ever remain a surrogate university. ... There is no doubt that to a certain extent [videoconferencing] will improve the structure of communication in distance education – but it cannot ever take the place of personal communication in distance education. (p. 155)

Peters‘ views on virtual communication have not been significantly modified with time. More recently (2002), he has noted that the losses inherent in mediated communications are serious: They reduce, surround, parcel out, spoil or destroy experiences gained at school or university. For this reason, it may be concluded, learning in virtual space will never be able to replace completely teaching in real spaces.‖ (p. 104).

The effective use of a variety of media to facilitate communication, combined with critical quantities of well-structured face-to-face instruction and learning, have characterized many distance-delivered programs. They are two key elements of the NSU/ITDE Model of Distance Education, what has been called ―the best of both worlds‖ (Schlosser & Burmeister, 1999). As important as is the appropriate selection and use of technologies of instruction and communication, Moore (1998) has noted that these technologies are not critical elements in shaping students‘ satisfaction with their distance courses. Rather, satisfaction is determined by ―the attention they receive from the teachers and from the system they work in to meet their needs...‖ (p. 4). Those needs, ―what all distant learners want, and deserve‖ include:

Instructional Design for Online Courses

65

content that they feel is relevant to their needs clear directions for what they should do at every stage of the course as much control of the pace of learning as possible a means of drawing attention to individual concerns a way of testing their progress and getting feedback from their instructors materials that are useful, active, and interesting (p. 4) At the same time, it should be noted that frustration with the use of complex, inadequate, malfunctioning equipment, as well as perceptions of emotional distance engendered by the use of distance education technologies, have negatively affected students‘ attitudes toward— and, in some cases, achievement in—distance education. Bates‘ seventh ―golden rule,‖ that ―interaction is essential,‖ is well-accepted by the field, and is a central element in most definitions of distance education (see, for instance, Keegan, 1996, and Schlosser & Simonson, 2003). Keegan (1996) noted that distance education must offer ―the provision of two-way communication so that the student may benefit from or even initiate dialogue‖ (p. 44). Initial provisions for interaction were primarily for studentinstructor interactions but with the availability of expanded communication technologies in the 1990s came an increasing emphasis on additional forms of interaction. Three forms of interaction are widely recognized by the field: student-content, student-instructor, and student-student. It is this third form of communication, reflecting, in part, andragogical and constructivist perspectives, that has increased dramatically with the rise of online education. Concurrent with the expansion of online education and the diffusion of new communication technologies, there arose the mistaken belief that, if interaction is important, ―the more interaction there is in a distance education class, the better‖ (Simonson, 2000, p. 278). As Simonson (2000) has noted, early research in the field had ―demonstrated clearly that the provision for interaction was critical‖ (p. 278), but later research indicated as clearly that ―interaction is not a magic potion that miraculously improves distance learning‖ (278). Indeed, ―the forcing of interaction can be as strong a detriment to effective learning [as is] its absence‖ (p. 278). When quantifying and qualifying student-teacher and student-student interaction, perceptions may be less than reliable. In a study comparing distance students‘ perceptions of interaction (as compared with observations of their interaction), Sorensen and Baylen (2000) noted that students accurately noted that: across-site interaction was very low, that within-site interaction was very high, that interaction changes with instructor location, that remote site students participate less, and that group activities increase interactions. However, students perceived that less interaction occurred over time (when, in fact, interaction increased), and that technology inhibits interaction (when, more accurately, it seems to create different patterns of interaction (p. 56). Although Sorensen and Baylen examined interaction in the context of an interactive television course, their findings have implications for other distance education modalities. The researchers concluded that a sense of community formed among students at the distant sites, but interaction increased when the instructor was present at a given distant site. Having instructors rotate among sites encourages interaction. Interaction was hampered when students were unable to see or hear their distant classmates. Allowing constant displays of distant students would likely increase interaction. Maintaining distant students‘ attention

66

Michael Simonton

―appears to be a more difficult task than perhaps in the traditional class‖ (p. 56). Sorensen and Baylen noted that ―varying activities and including hands-on exercises and small and large group discussions were instructional methods appreciated by the students‖ (p. 56). Students in the Sorensen and Baylen study expressed satisfaction with the ―distance learning experience,‖ but suggested that the course include ―at least one opportunity for students to meet face-toface‖ (p. 57). Distance-teaching institutions (and their students) have a wide variety of instructional and communication media from which to choose. These two categories (instructional and communication) may be, to some extent, addressed separately, but they are often one and the same. Bates‘ fourth ―golden rule,‖ that there is no ―super-technology,‖ is well accepted and understood by experienced instructional technologists and distance educators, but often less so by those new to the field (and many, many of today‘s practitioners fall into this latter category). For this reason, it is important to invoke the findings of Clark explained in an earlier chapter (1983), who noted, two decades ago, that ―media do not influence learning under any conditions‖ (p. 446). If, as Clark (citing hundreds of studies and decades of research) maintains, the application of any particular medium will neither improve student achievement nor increase the speed of learning, what criteria might a distance-teaching institution apply in the selection of media for the delivery of instruction and the facilitation of communication? Cost (to both the institution as well as to the student) is an obvious criterion. Less obvious, perhaps, are the culture of the institution and expectations of students (or potential students). At a very practical level, Ko and Rossen (2003) suggested that, prior to selecting media and instruction for online education, the institution‘s resources be assessed and the following questions asked: What‘s already in place (what, if any courses are being offered online; who is teaching them, etc.)? What kind of hardware and operating system does your institution support? What kind of network has your institution set up? What kind of computer support does your institution provide? (p. 19) As Ko and Rossen noted, ―the tools an institution uses and the support it offers very much influence the choices [the instructor will] need to make‖ (p. 18). Other guidelines for selection of media for synchronous communication, in the context of one ―best practice‖ in distance education—collaborative, problem-based student work groups—have been offered by Foreman (2003). Foreman notes the usefulness of a wide variety of synchronous technologies: chat, telephone conference, Web conferencing and application sharing, voice-over-IP, virtual classrooms, and videoconferencing. Of the technologies at either end of the spectrum—chat and videoconferencing—―neither works especially well as a tool for collaborative teamwork‖ (para. 5) because chat is slow and awkward, and because videoconferencing is expensive, is frequently of low technical quality, and often fails to capture many of the visual cues so helpful for communication. Telephone conferencing, however, ―is highly effective for organizing small-team distance learning experiences‖ (para. 6), as it ―provides immediacy, a high rate of information exchange, and complex multi-person interaction facilitated by a familiar audio cueing

Instructional Design for Online Courses

67

system.‖ Foreman recognizes that telephone conferencing can be expensive, but counters that significant savings may be realized through inexpensive three-way calling options—which, ―despite its name, four or more people can use...at once‖ (para. 7)—available through most telecom providers. Commercially-provided Web conferencing, combining telephone and Web technologies, overcomes the limitations of voice-only technologies through the provision of ―application sharing,‖ but its telephone component is costly. Voice-over-IP is a promising technology but, at its current level, is ―intrusive and clumsy‖ because of sometimes-lengthy lag time and overall low fidelity (para. 15). Virtual classrooms focus on synchronous teacher-student and student-student interaction through application-sharing and voice-over-IP. Virtual classrooms have been available for several years, but only recently (as with Elluminate‘s ―V-Class‖ product) has usability advanced to a level considered acceptable by many. Foreman suggests that this final category is most promising, as it can: ...create inexpensive cyberspaces where geo-distributed students can perform their learning work through the preferred medium for intense communication—talk. Their talk will focus on shared screen objects...that facilitate the dialogue.... Under the best circumstances, the students will divide the work, perform it separately, and then gather online to share their findings and integrate them into a deliverable product that can be assessed by the instructor. This is the decentered classroom taken to a logical extreme by an emerging technology. (para. 21)

Adams and Freeman (2003) have noted the benefits of the virtual classroom, noting that the interactions within them ―in addition to allowing for the exchange of information, provide participants with a shared feeling of presence or immediacy that reinforces their membership in the community.‖ In the end, all of the above criteria are considered and, frequently, a pragmatic approach is adopted. As Bates recommends in his fourth ―golden rule,‖ ―each [medium] has its strengths and weaknesses, therefore they need to be combined (an integrated mix)‖ (Foley, p. 843). The literature abounds with guidelines for distance education and identified ―best practices‖ of distance education. Sometimes these are based on careful research but are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the products of practitioners relating practices that have proven successful for that author. Still, some common threads have emerged. Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, and Duffy (2001) offered seven lessons for online instruction: 1) Instructors should provide clear guidelines for interaction with students 2) Well-designed discussion assignments facilitate meaningful cooperation among students. 3) Students should present course projects. 4) Instructors need to provide two types of feedback: information feedback and acknowledgment feedback. 5) Online courses need deadlines. 6) Challenging tasks, sample cases, and praise for quality work communicate high expectations.

68

Michael Simonton 7) Allowing students to choose project topics incorporates diverse views into online courses. (http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show+article&id=839)

In his eighth ―golden rule,‖ Bates notes that ―student numbers are critical.‖ While this observation is made in the context of cost and media selection, student numbers are, indeed, critical in at least two other respects: class and working- (or discussion-) group size. Distance education has been embraced, in some quarters, as an opportunity to reduce costs by increasing class sizes. The literature clearly indicates that there are practical limits beyond which the quality of instruction and learning are compromised. As Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) noted, ―demand for interaction defines the size of face-to-face classrooms and the nature of the interactions within those classrooms; the demand for interaction has a similar effect upon online classrooms‖ (p. 26). Palloff and Pratt (2003) suggest that experienced online educators can ―handle‖ 20 to 25 students in an online course, while ―instructors who are new to the medium, or instructors teaching a course for the first time, should really teach no more than fifteen students‖ (p. 118). Chat sessions should be smaller, with perhaps 10 to 12 students (Palloff & Pratt, 2003), and work/discussion groups might have four or five members (Foreman, 2003; Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka, & ConceicaoRunlee, 2000). On a larger scale, institutions of higher education should understand that distance education is not the ―cash cow‖ that some have mistakenly suggested (Berg, 2001). Indeed, the development and support of distance education courses and programs is normally more expensive than similar traditional courses and programs. When exceptions are occasionally noted, it is usually found that a difference in scale could explain the savings, as in the University of California-Davis study that found that preparing and offering a large (430 students) general education course at a distance than the cost of the same course delivered traditionally (Sloan-C, 2002). A second exception is the instance of the very large distanceteaching universities, such as the British Open University, where large enrollments and a long ―product cycle‖ reduce the unit cost per student to about half that common among traditional graduate programs (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Care should be taken when schools search the field for suitable models. As Garon (2002) has noted ―...academic attempts at providing universities online have been marketing failures and academic distractions. New York University, Temple University, and other famous universities have closed their virtual doors‖ and ―highly touted start-ups such as Columbia University‘s Fathom.com and Western Governors University... [have] dramatically downsized the attempts to provide online degrees...‖ (para. 2). Garon cites two successful forprofit institutions—the University of Phoenix and DeVry University, while noting that their success may be because, given their model for instruction, they ―are much closer to large, national community colleges than traditional four-year colleges, but the model serves their community of adult learners well‖ (para. 6). Schools, then, should clearly identify the type of students they wish to attract, the needs of those students, and the type of university they aspire to be. Distance education is a broad field with a long history. It is important to remember that, the views of some authors notwithstanding, there is no one ―right‖ way to conduct distance education. At the same time, it would be foolish to ignore the insights and recommendations of longtime practitioners of distance education, as well as those whose field is the study of distance education. Distance education has experienced a marked expansion and, to a certain

Instructional Design for Online Courses

69

extent, reinvention in the past few years (coinciding with the rise of the Web and entrepreneurial forces in education). However, it should be borne in mind that online education is not the sum of distance education, that the field existed long before the Web, and that enduring principles of education did not become obsolete with the development of new, electronic technologies.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISTANCE DELIVERED INSTRUCTION – THE UNIT-MODULE-TOPIC MODEL These recommendations are based on the current literature of the field of distance education, some cited above. These recommended guidelines are intended to provide ways to organize courses and be guiding principles that will make courses with equal numbers of semester credits equivalent in terms of comprehensiveness of content coverage, even if these courses are offered in different programs, cover different topics, and are delivered using different media. A. Organizational Guidelines In traditional university courses, the 50-minute class session in the building block for courses. Usually, 15 classes were offered for each semester credit. Distance delivered courses often do not have class sessions. It is proposed that the topic be the fundamental building block for instruction. Topics are organized into modules that are further organized into units that are roughly equivalent to a semester credit traditionally offered using 15, 50-minute class sessions. When courses are planned, the designer might want to use the Unit, Module, and Topic Approach or Model (U – M – T Approach), as explained next: Unit/Module/Topic Guideline: Each semester credit = 1 Unit Each Unit = 3–5 Modules Each Module = 3–5 Topics Each Topic = 1 Learning Outcome A typical 3-credit course has 3 units, 12 Modules, 48 topics, and 48 learning outcomes Working definitions of Unit, Module, and Topic are: Unit – A unit is a significant body of knowledge that represents a major subdivision of a course‘s content. Often, one unit of a course would represent four or five weeks of instruction, and would be equivalent to a semester credit. For example, a unit in an educational statistics course might be Descriptive Statistics. Module – A module is a major subdivision of a unit. A module is a distinct and discreet component of a unit. Generally, a unit such as Descriptive Statistics might be divided into 3–5 major components, such as Statistical Assumptions, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of

70

Michael Simonton Variation, and the Normal Curve. Modules generally are the basis for several class sessions and are covered in about a week of instruction and study. Topic – A topic is an important supporting idea that explains, clarifies, or supports a module. A topic would be a lesson or an assignment. Topics in a module on Central Tendency might be Median, Mode, and Mean.

These three terms can be used in a variety of ways. Of importance is the idea that topics form modules and modules form units, and units are the main sub-divisions of courses. B. Assessment Guidelines: Assessment is defined as the determination and measurement of learning. Ultimately, assessment is used for grading. Assessment is directly related to learning outcomes. Normally there is at least one learning outcome for each topic. 1 major assignment per unit 1 minor assignment/2-3 modules A typical 3-credit course has the following assessment strategy: 1 examination 1 10- page paper 1 project 3 quizzes 3 small assignments (short paper, article review, activity report) graded threaded discussions, emails, and chats Learning Outcome – A learning outcome is observable and measurable. Learning outcomes are a consequence of teaching and learning—of instruction and study. Often, learning outcomes are written with three components: conditions under which learning is facilitated (instruction), observable and measurable actions or products, and a minimum standard of expectations. Usually, there is at least one learning outcome for each course topic. For example, a learning outcome for a topic dealing with the median might be: After studying the text, pages 51–53, reviewing the PowerPoint with audio presentation on measures of central tendency, and participating in synchronous chats, the Child and Youth Studies student will satisfactorily complete the objective test dealing with measures of central tendency at the 90% level. C. Content Guidelines Traditionally, instructors have offered content by making presentations during face-toface instruction. Additionally, readings in textbooks and handouts are required of students.

Instructional Design for Online Courses

71

In distance teaching situations, readings in texts, handouts, and information on the Internet are often used to deliver content. For high quality courses, there should be an emphasis on the use of various forms of visual media to offer instructional content. Videos, visual presentations with accompanying audio, and other graphical representations of important topics are important to the well designed course. A variety of delivery systems for content should be considered, including the use of compact disks, electronic files posted to Web sites, and streaming. Content is organized for students into topics. Topics are combined into modules of similar topics and modules are used to form units. Modules might have 3-5 topics presented in the following ways: readings in the text or other written materials videos supplied on CD, DVD, or streamed audio recordings of speeches or presentations supplied on a CD, as an email attachment, or streamed recorded presentations using PowerPoint with prerecorded audio synchronous chats with content experts

D. Instruction/Teaching Guidelines The pace of instruction for learners is a critical concern to the distance educator. Because many distance education students are employed full-time, it is important to offer instruction in a way that complements their other responsibilities. These guidelines relate to the pace of instruction and the need for continuing interaction between instructors and students.

72

Michael Simonton 1 module per week Instructor email to students each week 1 synchronous chat per week 2-3 threaded discussion questions per topic, or 6-10 questions per week Instructor comments on discussions as part of threaded discussion board Progress reports (grades) submitted to students every two weeks

These course design guidelines are based on the literature of distance education and are derived from the task force‘s analysis, review, and discussion of quality courses delivered at a distance. The simplicity of the Carnegie Unit has made it the standard for course design, primarily because it was easy to apply. The Carnegie Unit requires 750 minutes of class time for each semester credit, which translates into 15, 50 minute class sessions. A three credit college course would meet three times a week for 15 weeks, according to most interpretations of the Carnegie Unit. It is easy to count class sessions in order to determine if a course ―measures up.‖ Distance Education, with few if any face-to-face sessions, does not have such an easily applied standard. The Unit, Module, and Topic approach is being applied in courses and seems to be quickly and accurately applied while establishing a standard of quality. Try it out in your courses and write an article for Distance Learning.

SUMMARY It is essential that the instructor take the time to plan and organize the learning experience when engaged in teaching at a distance. The instructional design process provides the framework for planning. Instruction must be at a standard that is acceptable in all venues. The students should be engaged, and the instructor should be satisfied. Planning makes the difference in a successful learning environment.

REFERENCES Adams, E., & Freeman, C. (2003). Selecting tools for online communities: Suggestions for learning technologists. The Technology Source. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show+article&id=994. Berg, G. A. (2001, April-June). Distance learning best practices debate. WebNet Journal. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459Dede, C. (1990, Spring). The evolution of distance learning: Technology-mediated interactive learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 247–264. Dick, W., Carey L. & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction, 5th. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Instructional Design for Online Courses

73

Foley, M. (2003). The Global Development Learning Network: A World Bank initiative in distance learning for development. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Foreman, J. (2003, July/August). Distance learning and synchronous interaction. The Technology Source. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show +article&id=1042. Garon, J. (2002, August). A new future for distance education. Interface Tech News. Available online at http://www.interfacenow.com/syndicatepro/displayarticle.asp? ArticleID=180 Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B-R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001, March/April). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source. Available online at: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp? show+article&id=839. Hanna, D. E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147 practical tips for teaching online groups: Essentials for Web-based education. Madison, WI: Atwood. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Educational media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Herring, M., & Smaldino, S. (1997). Planning for interactive distance education: A handbook. Washington, DC: AECT Publications. Hirumi, A. (2000). Chronicling the challenges of web-basing a degree program: A systems perspective. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(2), pp. 89-108. Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education. (2000). Guiding Principles for Faculty in Distance Learning. Available online at www.ihets.org/learntech/principles_guidelines.pdf Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2003). Teaching online: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Liggett, R. (1998). A prescription for telemedicine. Telemedicine Today, October, 2. Maeroff, G. I. (2003). A classroom of one. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Macfarlane, C., & Smaldino, S. (1997). The electronic classroom at a distance. In R. Rittenhouse & D. Spillers (Eds.), Modernizing the curriculum: The electronic classroom. Springfield, MO: Charles Thomas Publishers. McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 19–30. Moore, M. G. (1998). Introduction. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, WI: Atwood Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Company. Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2001). Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education: Pedagogical analyses and interpretations in an international perspective. London: Kogan Page. Peters, O. (2002). Distance education in transition: New trends and challenges. Bibliotheksund Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg.

74

Michael Simonton

Schlosser, C., & Anderson, M. (1994). Distance education: Review of the literature. Ames, IA: Research Institute for Studies in Education. Schlosser, C., & Burmeister, M. (1999). The best of both worlds. Tech Trends, 43(5), 45–48. Schlosser, C. & Simonson, M. (2004). Distance learning: A magazine for leaders, 1(4), 3534. Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. (2003). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sloan-C. (2002). Practice: Comparing the cost-effectiveness of online versus traditional classroom cost per student pass rates. Available online at http://www.aln.org/effective/details5.asp?CE_ID=21 Sorensen, C., & Baylen, D. (2000). Perception versus reality: Views of interaction in distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(1), 45-58 Thompson, A., Hargrave, C., & Simonson, M. (1996). Educational technology: Review of the research (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Willis, B. (1994). Distance education: Strategies and tools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michael Simonson is a program professor at Nova Southeastern University in the Instructional Technology and Distance Education program. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in Instructional Systems in 1975. He works with schools and corporations to assist them to integrate instructional technology and distance education into teaching and training. He has authored four major textbooks dealing with distance education, instructional technology, instructional computing, and instructional media. He has over 100 scholarly publications, and in excess of 200 professional presentations dealing with distance education and instructional technology. Simonson has considerable experience working with domestic and international businesses and industries, especially on projects related to instructional technology and distance education. He is editor of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Distance Learning Magazine, and Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the Annual Conventions of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. He has won the award for most outstanding research in the field of distance education presented by the United States Distance Learning Association. Most recently he has been an external evaluator for Iowa‘s Star Schools project and South Dakota‘s Connecting the Schools and Digital Dakota Network projects.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

NOT YOUR TYPICAL BLING-BLING: THE BEST ACCESSORY FOR DISTANCE LEARNING IS HIGH QUALITY PEDAGOGY Mary Jane Miller In today‘s modern world the emphasis is increasingly on computerization of processes and services. Tertiary education has jumped onto the technology bandwagon with an irreversible leap. The use of technology in education, particularly online learning, has added dramatically to the availability of educational opportunities to students who may otherwise find it impossible to pursue a university degree. Even in public schools and traditional faceto-face classes at the college level, technology is a powerful tool that can enhance student understanding, engage learners in active participation, and add immeasurably to the range of simulations, experiments, and activities an instructor can provide. On the other hand, we must ensure that the technology itself is not allowed to segue into a position of such prominence that it becomes the real goal rather than communication of content matter. There is no technological innovation, elaborate program or fabulous graphic that can replace sound pedagogy and high quality instruction if the goal remains positive learning outcomes and academic achievement. This paper makes the point that greater learner success may result from research and course improvements that focus on strong pedagogy rather than glittering technological bling-bling.

INTRODUCTION Throughout the history of mankind we have celebrated moments of genius when that mysterious, intellectual spark creates a new technology that propels our civilization a giant step forward. Today, we are no less affected by the marvels of computerization than our Renaissance ancestors were by the Gutenberg Press and our forefathers at the end of the Victorian Age were by motorized travel. Almost every profession in existence today has been restructured or altered in some way to adapt to and promote the use of technological advances, but there is no profession wherein

76

Mary Jane Miller

the mastery of innovative technologies is more compelling than in the field of education. Although the transition to and reliance upon computerization is not without casualties, and some instructors may find sophisticated technology less than user friendly, educators, particularly those in higher education, must have a knowledge of and a degree of acceptance of new generation technologies. Conscientious instructors in every subject area plan course content to include appropriate technological innovations that apply to their field of study. In his book, Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte compares the state of many of today‘s educational facilities to those of a hundred years ago. His observation is that if a medical doctor from the previous century suddenly found himself in a modern day hospital he would likely be amazed at the technological marvels and would recognize very little. A college professor, however, who was suddenly transplanted from a classroom of the last century into a classroom of today would likely find very little different. Teaching methods, curriculum, desks, and classroom, all would be quite familiar (1995). Even in the most modern universities, until very recently, most teaching has occurred in a regular classroom with an instructor in front, chalkboards or whiteboards for sharing important concepts, textbooks, frequent written exams, and rows of students with heads bowed, taking notes from lectures (Ruth, 1997). Modern technologies are changing all this and revolutionizing educational methodology at an amazing pace and the possibilities introduced by distance education, online learning and technological innovations are enormous.

BACKGROUND Distance learning offers a great boon to students who, for any reason, find it difficult to seek higher education via the traditional four-year university experience. It is ideal for students with disabilities who may find mobility a problem, and for parents on a budget who have difficulty finding and paying for babysitters. Online learning also presents a solution to transportation problems, and the high cost of parking and operating a vehicle. It offers flexible times to access course content that permit many students with full time jobs to pursue additional education. Online courses are accessible to anyone meeting the criteria for enrollment, and distance education holds the promise of higher education for many students who otherwise would have no chance of attaining further professional training or a university degree. In addition, the cost of a college education is soaring, threatening the ability of many average income people to meet the costs of tuition, books, and fees. This makes today‘s college market very competitive between institutions of higher learning. Universities and colleges want to draw the highest quality students that the academic rigor, the reputations and the demographics of their campuses can attract. Everyone wants to lure the best and the brightest. However, there is still the need to fill student chairs with many tuition-paying bodies: utility bills have to be paid, salaries must be met, and important programs and research must receive financial support. All the internal workings of a large institution rely on sustained or increasing student enrollments to provide the funds to function. Therefore, educational technologies that attract new students, that promote the retention of existing students and those that are able to assist in the delivery of quality educational products at

Not your Typical Bling-Bling

77

reduced costs are certainly at the forefront of administrative sanction (Carnevale, 2000, McClintock, 1992). Given the level of its importance as well as the amount of discourse, research and funding that technology on college campuses has received over the past two decades it is no surprise that institutions of higher education are on the leading edge of technological advances. Colleges and universities around the nation have great hopes regarding automated classrooms and distance education and their ability to attract an increasingly diverse population into its virtual domain. So far, those hopes seem to be well justified (McClintock, 1992). A growing numbers of students require a type of educational flexibility that traditional modes of instruction are unable to provide; universities cannot offer unlimited courses at all hours of the day and night at an affordable price. John O‘Donoghue, Deputy Director of The Delta Institute, believes that virtual universities have the potential to dominate the future of higher education. He states: This type of university is already upon us. In the United Kingdom the Open University has demonstrated the way with its distance learning techniques…International universities will offer courses with high ‗brand‘ recognition, and may even be based on franchising via the internet superhighway of one or more of the great education brands, perhaps an ‗Ivy League‘ university or a consortium of universities (2000, p.2).

According to O‘Donoghue and his colleagues, the only way traditional universities can survive in such a competitive environment is to match the global education networks and the sophistication of the virtual universities (2000). The bottom line seems to be that despite large monetary investments required to start up distance learning programs, distance education is less expensive to provide than traditional, full time education.

FRAGILE ACADEMIC SUCCESS However, in the frenzy to be the university with the most ―bells, whistles, and expensive toys,‖ current research is showing that technological opportunities alone are not providing the academic successes that are desired. Feenberg cautions that increasing technology in the classrooms runs the risk of allowing technology to drive the pedagogy rather than pedagogy driving the technology (1998). Even as the popularity, importance and economic potential of distance education grows, the picture is not all rosy. As with all innovative processes, there are difficulties that must be faced and overcome if students are to learn and programs are to succeed. Galusha writes that distance education is already a fact of life for many community colleges and most universities (1997). Universities are offering an increasing number of online courses, and as course selection increases, so does student enrollment (Sikora & Carroll, 2002). However, educators are finding a significantly higher drop-out rate among distance learners than among traditional, campus based students (Pierrakeas, 2004; Scalese, 2001; Simpson, 2004; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). Although additional research is needed, the evidence so far supports higher withdrawal rates among online students (Chyung, 2001; Frew & Webber, 1995; Grayson, 1997; Nelson, 1999).

78

Mary Jane Miller

In her 2000 paper Carr states, ―No national statistics exist yet about how many students complete distance programs or courses, but anecdotal evidence and studies by individual institutions suggest that course–completion and program-completion rates are generally lower in distance-education courses than in their face-to-face counterparts‖ (p.1). Understanding and surmounting the problems students face with distance learning is essential if we are to achieve positive student outcomes and sustained, successful distance education programs. Numerous reasons are cited for the greater lack of student success among distance learners. There are almost as many reasons for dropping out of distance courses as there are students who do so, but Carr believes that the explanations usually fall into two categories: 1) the same issues that would cause students to drop out of a traditional course, and 2) distance education students tend to have more obligations and simply must drop out more frequently (2000). Galusha (1997) notes six areas that frequently become barriers to student success in a distance learning environment: students are more likely to suffer from insecurities about learning the perception of lack of feedback or contact with the teacher lack of support and services such as providing tutors and advisors feelings of alienation and isolation special needs of students undertaking online classes for the first time lack of student training in essential technical skills

PEDAGOGY OR TECHNOLOGICAL BLING-BLING? The challenge, then, becomes how best to address the needs of distance learners, improve student satisfaction and academic achievement, and promote higher success rates overall while keeping within a budget. A solution may come more in the form of a critical look into course design and pedagogy rather than into technology and lesson delivery methods. ―Thus far, few educators, evaluators, and researchers have paid much attention to educational strategies for using technologies. Too often they‘ve been victims of ‗rapture of the technologies‘,‖ states Ehrman (1995, p.7). He further suggests that curriculum should focus on the knowledge, skills, and wisdom that students will need after graduation. ―The medium is not the message,‖ seems to be a clear theme in distance education research. All the benefits that are often attributed to the use of computers can be better explained by the teaching methods they supported (Regalbuto, 1997). The American Distance Education Consortium has determined that ―the principles that lend themselves to quality face-to-face learning environments are often similar to those found in web-based environments‖ (ADEC, 1999, p.20). Good distance teaching practices are fundamentally the same as good teaching practices in traditional classrooms. Factors which influence high levels of student success may be quite universal across different environments and populations (Wilkes & Barnum, 1991). Researching and addressing pedagogical strategies rather than an immediate move to purchase more technology or expensive add-ons may improve both financial and academic efficacy. A number of authors have written that, through concerted effort and attention, there are ways to extract the essence of good teaching that has been learned from traditional classrooms

Not your Typical Bling-Bling

79

and apply this to virtual classrooms. Penn State has developed a set of online teaching guidelines that reads, in part: The shared mantra of the faculty and staff during the development of this document was that "good teaching is good teaching!" The techniques and artistry of the craft may change depending on the constraints of time and place, but the desired student goals, a marked and measurable change in behavior, were clearly the same. An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles and Practices for the Design and Development of Distance Education, is less about distance education and more about what makes for an effective educational experience, regardless of where or when it is delivered. (Ragan, 1998, p.1)

Chickering and Gamson (1998) have outlined seven basic principles to help guide students, faculty and administrators in providing high quality education in both face-to-face and online environments. These principles are grounded in research on good teaching and learning practices in universities and colleges. The authors have further applied these principles to computer mediated instruction. The seven principles have been well-received and are considered by some to be of hallmark importance (Ragalbuto, 1999). The principles of good practice in undergraduate education developed by Chickering and Gamson (1998) include: 1) Encourage contact between students and faculty: Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of class is an important aspect of student motivation and involvement. Knowledge that faculty are interested and concerned helps students weather difficult times and to persevere. Acquaintance with faculty members often enhances students‘ intellectual commitment and encourages them to think about their own values and plans. 2) Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students: Learning is enhanced when it involves a team effort. High quality learning is collaborative and social, rather than competitive and isolated. Working with others increases student involvement in learning. Sharing personal ideas and responding to the thoughts of others improves thinking and deepens understanding. 3) Encourage active learning: Students must be involved in their learning in order to succeed. They are much less likely to excel by means of simply reading a text or sitting at a desk and taking notes while the teacher, live or virtual, imparts wisdom and knowledge. Students must reflect on what they are learning, discuss it thoughtfully with others, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. They must construct their own understanding. 4) Give prompt feedback: Research shows that an awareness of what one knows and doesn‘t know by means of frequent and prompt feedback helps to focus learning. Initially, students usually need help in assessing their existing knowledge. Evaluation is a critical element of good teaching in any setting, and it is important for students to receive numerous opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and understanding and to receive meaningful feedback on their performance. 5) Emphasize time on task: Learning requires an investment of time and effort. The ability to use one‘s time well is critical for both students and professionals.

80

Mary Jane Miller Dedicating realistic amounts of instructional time addressing specific content material results in greater learning for students and effective teaching for faculty. 6) Communicate high expectations: Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instructors who consistently expect higher quality work from their students usually get it. Teachers should always have high expectations of themselves and of their students, but they must also provide the students with all the information, tools and assistance necessary for them to accomplish what is required. 7) Respect diverse talents and ways of learning: It is important that instructors remember that students may bring highly different experiences, abilities, talents and styles to any learning environment. A variety of opportunities must be presented that allows students to demonstrate their skill and understanding and to learn in ways that work for them.

Each principle can stand alone, but when instructors use all seven the effects are multiplied. These principles embed six powerful forces that significantly impact education: activity, high expectations, cooperation, interaction, diversity, and responsibility (Chickering and Gamson, 1998). They also address all the issues earlier described from Galusha as barriers to student success in distance education. Regalbuto sums up the essence of good teaching as instructors‘ concerns that their students become educated (1999). In a traditional or an online line environment, effective teachers pay careful attention to how well students are mastering content material and are attentive to both teaching and learning.

RECOMMENDATION: MERGE THE PEDAGOGY WITH THE TECHNOLOGY The seven principles of good teaching practice may be a challenge to employ when applied to distance learning, but the benefits can be significant. There has been relatively little written about the integration of pedagogy and technology and even less about training instructors who facilitate the distance courses (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Communication technologies that increase student access to faculty are essential. Keegan (1986) believes that removing the distance between student and teacher in online classes adds a vital link between the two, and Simpson (2004) attributes many benefits to proactive contact. In fact, research shows that learners are more motivated to do well and complete courses when there is frequent contact with the instructor Coldeway, 1980). According to research, sufficient, quality communication appears to be a key factor in the success of an online program. High quality teaching and greater student success requires a smaller student to faculty ratio (Regalbuto, 1998). Greater communication permits sharing of useful resources and allows for joint problem solving. E-mail, computer conferencing, and the World Wide Web have increased opportunities for students and faculty to converse and exchange work much more speedily than before and for many students they have substantially improved total studentfaculty interactions and communication (Chickering and Gamson,1998). The value of technologies that increase purposeful communication among students is equal to, or perhaps even greater than that of communication between instructor and student.

Not your Typical Bling-Bling

81

Lack of personal contact has been a criticism of distance learning (McGivney, 2004). All students want to be part of a group, part of a larger school community. A clear advantage of email and other communication technologies is that they open up communication among classmates even when they are not physically together. This aids in preventing the feelings of alienation and isolation reported by some distance learners (Galusha, 1997). Online tutoring has been offered by Castles (2004) as an option to in increase student interactions. Study groups, cooperative and collaborative learning, group problem solving, and discussion of assignments can all be successful online teaching tools through careful use of communication technology. Cooperative learning helps students feel successful in any academic setting (Featherstone, 1986). Learning teams may never meet face to face, but team interactions that build working relationships and encourage collegial associations have a positive affect on overall student outcomes. This kind of collaborative learning would be all but impossible in distance education classes without effective communication technology (Chickering and Gamson, 1998). For successful teaching and learning to occur in any environment, traditional or virtual, students must be actively engaged and involved with their learning (Dewey, 1997). Dewey maintains that students do not absorb knowledge like a sponge soaks up water, but that students must be engaged both socially and cognitively. A proven method for students to be actively involved is through cooperative learning teams. In cooperative learning teams every student, regardless of ability or experience, makes important contributions and each experiences success (Featherstone, 1986). There is an enormous range of technologies that promote active learning among students. Chickering and Gamson (1998) describe three primary categories: resources and tools for learning by doing, time-delayed exchange of information, and real-time conversations. Online learning is also supported by many traditional technologies such as research libraries, laboratories, art or music studios, VCR, DVD and even phone, fax, and copy machines. Now, newer technologies can enrich and expand these media with complex simulations, e-laboratories, interactive websites and more. Prompt and meaningful feedback to students can be greatly enhanced by the use of technology. Distance education students, like their traditional counterparts, greatly value timely feedback from instructors, especially regarding evaluation of assignments (Egan, 1991). In fact, lack of immediate feedback from instructors has been perceived by some students as a significant drawback of distance learning (Carr, 2000). It is important for students to receive prompt feedback particularly in distance education where there is a lack of casual contact (Wood, 1996). Some methods of providing feedback are obvious and some more subtle. Email is an effective and easy means of providing person-to-person feedback. Technology also plays a growing role in recording and analyzing personal and professional performances; for example, video can an effective way to help a teacher critique his or her own performance which can be posted and viewed by an instructor or group members. Computers can provide comprehensive storage and easy access to electronic portfolios so instructors and students can assess the extent to which later work demonstrates gains in knowledge, skill and competence (Chickering and Gamson, 1998). Many technologies are available which can significantly improve learner time on task. Online tutoring may once again help to fill the need. Knapper finds that distance learners are more likely to suffer from insecurities (1988), so a means of supporting and tutoring online learners may be time invested that benefits more than one dimension of the distance students‘ needs. Seeking supplemental tutoring to gain assistance with course assignments or general

82

Mary Jane Miller

prerequisite improves and enhances student interactions (McCracken, 2004), but it also contributes to time on task. Modern, interactive technology, simulations, and e-laboratories can be used to lure students into working on course projects more diligently. Technology also can increase time on task by making studying more efficient. Students make better use of their time when they can readily gain access to important resources online. Computers can record student participation and interaction in required activities and research projects and can even help document time spent on task (Chickering and Gamson, 1998). New technologies can convey high expectations clearly and efficiently. Many students find a consistent expectation of high quality work to be very motivating. Students who are highly motivated tend to work harder and to succeed. Instructors who impart a desire for excellence among their students do not have to be loud and effusive, they may be just a concerned teacher at the other end of a well phrased email communication (Regalbuto, 1997). Raffini believes that the nature of the expectations hold for students exerts a profound influence on learner outcomes (1993). Real-life problems of significant consequence, differing perspectives, or those requiring thoughtful analysis of complex data can offer demanding learning challenges that require students not only to gain information but to hone their skills of analysis, synthesis, application, and evaluation. Students often feel challenged to try for excellence if they know their finished work will be ―published‖ on the World Wide Web (Chickering and Gamson, 1998). Two types of technology that can help promote high expectations are text based computer mediated communication (CMC) which would be useful for seminar courses and graphics-based, interactive material for classes usually taught in lecture mode Technological resources can address different modes of learning among students in clever and engaging ways. Researchers suggest that it is important to understand the various ways students learn when designing and implementing delivery systems in distance education (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). Understanding that students whose learning style is field-independent, or more self-structures and intrinsically motivated tend to be more successful in distance courses (Raven, Cano, Garton, and Shellhamer, 1993) means that the specific needs of field-dependent learners should receive particular pedagogical attention. Powerful visual images, expressive, well-organized print, and vibrant audio; a variety of direct, vicarious, and virtual experiences; tasks that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation; and activities that have dynamic applications for real-life situations can add nearly unlimited dimensions to academic content using modern technologies. These technologies can encourage self-reflection and self-evaluation as well as promote collaboration and group problem solving. New technologies can help students learn in ways they find most effective and broaden their range of experiences and modes of learning. Computerization can give structure to students who need it while leaving assignments more open-ended for those who do not (Chickering and Gamson,1998). In addition, some students will have a natural affinity for working with computers and a variety of technology, while others will feel awkward and uncomfortable with this learning mode and insecure in their ability to succeed. Media that provides an introduction and pre-course orientation that communicates realistic expectations and the demands of distance learning have been found to be very valuable and popular among distance education students (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2001).

Not your Typical Bling-Bling

83

CONCLUSION Modern technology is phenomenal in its complexity, ingenuity, and ability to entrance students, instructors, and administrators with the wonders of its capability. The lure of the wondrous technology, however, can become so compelling that there is a danger of becoming enamored with the tools of instruction at the expense of the content of learning. In the scramble to attract the most, the best, and the brightest students onto their rosters many universities have jumped onto the distance education bandwagon, but greater consideration may need to be given to where the wagon is going and what road it will take to get there. There has been a tendency to acquire more, better, newer, stronger, easier, faster, ―prettier, shinier, flashier…‖ technology – technological bling-bling – in an effort to address problems encountered with online learning. Technological innovations are not only brilliant and useful, but are also a welcome fact of life. However, it seems that they are not the ultimate answer to positive learner outcomes. Student satisfaction and successful completion of courses of study are not as high as community colleges and universities would like them to be. Administrators and faculty on campuses across the nation are looking for ways to bolster enrollments and improve success rates in their distance education programs. A great deal of research has been done in recent years on the effectiveness of distance learning, and one of the most important findings has been that many of the difficulties that students routinely experience in an online environment can best be dealt with by stressing high quality pedagogical practices. It may be that for many of these universities the answer to greater student success lies in a closer examination of instructional design and high quality instructional rather than in additional investments in technology. The principles of good teaching that work so well in a traditional classroom can be applied to a virtual classroom very effectively. Clearly, sound pedagogy and powerful technology go hand in hand to provide an outstanding educational experience for distance education students.

REFERENCES ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Learning and Teaching. (1999). American Distance Education Consortium 1999 Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.adec.edu/ admin/papers/ distance-teaching_principles.html. Bonc, C., Cummings, J. Hara, N., Fischler, R. and Lee, S. (1999). A Ten Level Web Integration Continuum for Higher Education: New Resources, Partners, Courses, and Markets. Retrieved May 9, 2006 from www.php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/paper/ edmdia99.html. Brady, M.J. (1997). Designing for Learning: All You Ever Wanted to Know Before You Knew You Needed to Know. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://www.designingforlearning.info/ services/writing/interact.htm#Variety. Carnevale, D. (2000). Online instructor takes steps to reduce dropout rate. The Chronicle of Higher Education. January 28, p. A48. Retrieved April 22, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/infotech

84

Mary Jane Miller

Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 11, p. A39. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/infotech. Castles, J. (2004). Persistence and the adult learner. Active Learning in Higher Education. 5(2), 166-179. Chickering, A., and Gamson, Z. (1997). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. American Association for Higher Education. Retrieved May 6, 2006 from www.aahe.org/technology/ehrmann.html. Chyung, S. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 15(3), 36-49. Coldeway, D., MacRury, K., and Spencer, R. (1986). Distance education from the learner‟s perspective: The results of individual learner tracking at Athabasca University, Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University. Dewey, J. (1997) Democracy and Education (Original work published in 1916). New York: Free Press. Egan, M., Sebastian, J., and Welch, M. (1991, March). Effective television teaching: Perceptions of those who count most…distance learners. Proceedings of the Rural Education Symposium: Nashville, TN. Ehrman, S. (1997). Asking the Right Question: What Does Research Tell Us about Technology and Higher Learning? Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.learner.org/edtech/ rscheval/rightquestion.html. Featherstone, H. (1986). Cooperative Learning, Harvard Education Letter. September p. 4 – 6. Feenberg, A. (1999). Distance Learning: Promise or Threat? Crosstalk. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from www.rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/TELE3.htm. Frew, E. and Weber, K. (1995). Towards a higher retention rate among distance learners. Open Learning. 10(2), 58-61. Galusha, J. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 5(3-4), 6-14. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1997/n4/galusha.html. Grayson, J. (1997). Institutional failure or student choice? The retention of adult students in Atkinson College. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education. 11(2), 7-30. Knapper, C. (1988). Lifelong Learning and Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 67-72. Keegan, D., (1980). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croom Helm. McClintock, R. (1992). Power and Pedagogy: Transforming Education through Information Technology. Retrieved May 7, 2006 from www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/Projects/ digitexts/mcclintock/title_print.html. McCracken, H. (2004). Extending virtual access: Promoting engagement and retention through1integrated support systems. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(1). Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/ spring71/mccracken71.html. McGivney, V. (2004). Understanding persistence in adult learning. Open Learning, 19(1), 33-46. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. Online version retrieved May 6, 2006 from http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/bdcont.htm.

Not your Typical Bling-Bling

85

Nelson, L. (1999). Increasing retention of adult learners in telecourses through incorporation of learning-centered instructional strategies and the use of multiple modalities for content delivery and interaction. Unpublished doctoral practicum report, Nova Southeastern University. ERIC No. ED438 469. O‘Donoghue, J., Caswell, S., Singh, G. Technology in Education – A study into the effects of information technology in education. Retrieved on May 8, 2006 from http://auc.uow.edu.au/conf/conf00/papers/AUC2000_ODonoghue.pdf#search='John%20O%E 2%80%99Donoghue%20The%20Delta%20Institute'. Pierrakeas, C., Xenos, M., Panagiotakopoulos, C. and Vergidis, D. (2004). A comparative study of dropout rates and causes for two different distance education courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved May 3, 2006 from www.irrodl.org/content/v%.2/pierrakeas-research.html. Raffini. J. (1993). Winners Withoug Losers: Structures and Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation to Learn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ragalbuto, J. (1998). Opening Remarks, TID faculty seminar retreat, September 21, 1998. Retrieved May 5, 2006 from www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/tid/meetings/090898/jrr-intro.html. Ragan, L. (1998). Good Teaching is Good Teaching: An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington, DC: DEOSWNEW, Vol. 8, No. 12. Raven, M., Cano, J., Garton, B., and Shallmer, V. (1993). A Comparison of learning styles, teaching styles, and personality styles of preservice Montana and Ohio agricultural teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education. 31(1). 40-50. Ruth, S. (September-October,1997), Getting Real about Technology: The medium is NOT the Message. EDCOM Review. 32(5). Scalese, E.R. (2001). What can a college distance education program do to increase persistence and decrease attrition? Journal of Instruction Delivery System, 15(3), 16-20. Sikora, A. and Carroll, C. (2002). A profile of participation in distance education: 1999-2000. Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Publication # NCES 2003154. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003154.pdf Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning, 19(1), 79-95. Wilkes, C., and Burnahm, B. (1991). Adult learner motivations and electronics distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 43-50. Witkin,H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D., and Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and fieldindependent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Education Research. 47(1), 1-64. Wojociechowski, A. and Palmer, L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2). Retrieved April 24, 2006 from www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ ojdla/summer82/wojciechowski82.htm. Wood, H. (1996) Designing Study Materials for Distance Students. Retrieved May 3, 2006 from www.cau.edu.au/division/oli/oli-rd/occpap17/design.htm.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

PEDAGOGY OF ONLINE INSTRUCTION Zane Berge UMBC, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore MD 21045, USA Online learning is not about technology, although a lot of technical help is often needed. Neither is online learning about computers, hardware, nor learning management systems; although all these are necessary for online learning. Regardless of whether a course is delivered in-person or online; whether it uses videoconferencing or is delivered by postal mail correspondence, the goals of the instruction should not change. Student learning should be what guides decisions about instruction, regardless of the delivery system. Additionally, the particular delivery system used for instruction is not nearly as critical as many other factors in the design and development of the course. Choosing the appropriate teaching methods and strategies related to such factors as reinforcement, feedback, evaluation, and motivation usually have a much larger effect size than does the delivery system for most students under most conditions. Some adjustments may be required to the materials and activities used online to overcome limitations and use beneficial characteristics of the technology (Berge, 2000; Case, Bauder, & Simmons 2001), but that should not change the course objectives. Firdyiwek (1999) stated ―the pedagogy of online instruction is based on the effective use of electronic learning environments for the development of cognitive skills through access to information, interactivity with tools, and communication‖ (p. 29). Many factors determine the success or failure of online students. These factors include student characteristics, mentoring, teacher/student interaction, policies, funding, student support, technology, curriculum, access, equity, staff development, and administration (Davidson 2005). This chapter reviews some of the underlying philosophical aspects and design elements that are common in online learning.

COMPLEXITY Education is complex. Education at a distance is no less complex than any other form of formal education. In fact, distance education is probably more complex, because of the

88

Zane Berge

additional layer of technology, and the loss of immediate, non-verbal cues and feedback that are present during in-person classes (Berge 2004). The pedagogy element is somewhat more complex. In many ways there is ‗nothing new under the sun‘ regarding learning; there are just fashions and recycling in clothing, ideas, approaches and understandings about how to teach. It has been argued that tutoring online is not a new paradigm; there are skills and tips and good practice, but fundamentally, a good teacher is a good teacher in any medium (Mason 1991). However, just as grandmother‘s clothes never quite come back into fashion, educational ideas are also helix-like: when they circle back around, they are subtly different – recognisable but differently combined or formulated (Mason 2002).

And so it is with online learning. Elements that comprise online learning may not be new, but are combined in new ways that, together, create a learning environment with new characteristics. While not an exhaustive list, even a cursory look by the author identified more than a dozen major disciplinary areas that the distance educator must be skilled in to be successful: Adult Learning Theories Educational Technology Faculty Development Faculty Incentive and Reward Structure Instructional Systems Development Instructional Technology Knowledge Management Learning Organization Legal Department Organizational Development Program Management Psychology Student Support (Registration, Financial Aid, Library) Strategic Planning Technical Training This list indicates the necessity for a expert team-based approach to the development of online learning (Driscoll, 2002). Distance education is a rich, complex system that leads an instructor to a particular philosophy and style of teaching.

PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION AND STYLE OF INSTRUCTION McManus (1996) defines pedagogy as ―the deliberate organization and presentation of information with the end goal of promoting specific learning‖ (p. 5). Pedagogy is dictated by the educational philosophy of the instructor (Case, Bauder, & Simmons 2001).

Pedagogy of Online Instruction

89

Practitioners of e-learning who emphasise the communicative nature of e-learning draw on constructivist and social practice theories of learning, often very overtly aiming to transform the role of the instructor to that of a facilitator of knowledge construction, and to create a social environment in which learners learn from each other online. Practitioners who emphasise the content delivery side of e-learning very often have a behaviourist or cognitive conception of learning, whether consciously or not. They focus on the development of clearly presented content, facilities for testing the learner and multimedia materials for increasing learner motivation. Access to training, reduced costs and speed and retention of learning are the attractions of e-learning for them (Mason 2002).

In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, a behaviorist approach was the dominant paradigm in computer-based instruction, especially obvious in the development of programmed instruction. Clearly, the last two decades of the 20th century saw a shift toward a learnercentered, constructivist approach to education. At the same time, emerging electronic communication technologies and computer systems have allowed online learning to play an increasingly important role in formal education systems. Still, it is not distance education that causes educators to adopt a constructivist epistemology. Online learning technologies favor the use of constructivist epistemology as the most appropriate design framework for distance and online learning (Berge 2004). It is important to remember that teaching and learning is not all-or-nothing regarding this philosophical paradigms. For instance, regardless of whether online or in-person, students should be told explicitly what the learning outcomes are for the course of study, so that they can set realistic expectations and can mindfully direct their own learning towards those outcomes. Learners should be provided with feedback so they can monitor their progress and take corrective action as needed. These implications for learning have their origins in the behaviorist school. Yet, many educators would say that students learn more than that which is immediately observable, so there has been a shift to more cognitive philosophical approaches to teaching. Implications of this philosophical orientation include varying the learning activities so that students with different learning preferences are supported. Additionally, learners should be motivated in their learning, with activities that the student perceives as relevant. Authentic situations that simulate or match real-life problems or tasks should be used when possible, with student ―take-aways‖ that are immediately usable in their own situations. More recently, constructivism has been given serious consideration in the design and development of student learning experiences. Constructivists see learners as being active rather than passive, and knowledge is discovered and interpreted by the individual learner, rather than given to them by someone else. A key concept of constructivism concerns the role of the instructor as a facilitator of learning rather than provider, interpreter, and gatekeeper of all subject matter (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Some of the implications of this philosophy include giving learners control of the learning process. That is, facilitating by the instructor should be a form of guided discovery where learners make decisions about how to learn, when to learn, and to a large degree, what to learn.

Pedagogy of Online Instruction

91

GUIDELINES FOR ONLINE LEARNING Following are ten areas that online course instructors should take into consideration when planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating their online courses.

Creating an Critical Community of Inquiry One of the emphases designers and instructors of online learning need to be consistently striving for is to make explicit their expectations and goals of the course. Part of managing learning and motivating the learner is actively promoting an environment that is full of trust, convenience, access, and some fun for both students and instructor. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2004) stated a major challenge to online educators, is the creation of a critical community of inquiry—the hallmark of higher education—within a virtual text-based environment. A community of inquiry is an extremely valuable, if not essential, context for higher-order learning. Such a community involves (re)constructing experience and knowledge through the critical analysis of subject matter, questioning, and the challenging of assumptions (Dewey 1959; Lipman 1991). This is consistent with the premise that an educational learning experience is both collaborative and reflective (p. 1-2). There must be a conscious recognition that learning is a life-long process and that a major goal is for the instructor to join the students as learners. Managing a learning environment that supports and helps create a community of learners is one of the most important roles for the instructor (Berge, in press).

Active, Appropriate Practice Active practice of the learning goals is a key ingredient for effective online instruction. Active learning involves putting students in situations which compel them to read, speak, listen, think deeply, write and apply their burgeoning knowledge to solving problems and completing authentic projects. This is accomplished through varying activities, novelty, and the sharing of experience. This sharing can come from the instructor, but as importantly, from the experiences of peers, too. Emphasis is on transferring skills, knowledge and attitudes to the learning or work environment. The prerequisite knowledge of class participants is sometimes important for appropriate practice. When that is the case, it is essential that it is incorporated in the design of the instruction.

Experiential Learning While experiential learning can mean a person learning ―own their own,‖ here we are referring to experiential learning through programs and activities structured by others. Neill (2005) explains that an ―experiential educator's role is to organize and facilitate direct experiences of phenomenon under the assumption that this will lead to genuine (meaningful and long-lasting) learning. This often also requires preparatory and reflective exercises.‖

92

Zane Berge

Generally, the predominant method for teaching to active learning online is through case studies, simulation, and especially problem-based learning (Savery & Duffy, 1996). Often an apprenticeship approach is implicit, with the evaluation keyed on matching real world problems/applications.

Guided Learning Guided learning provides much of the structure in a course. Online instruction often emphasizes discovery learning much more than expository teaching. As a way of helping to organize the content, online teachers generally highlight or summarize essential content as students discuss the topics. But it is unusual for an instructor to emphasize detailed, structured content for all or even most of the activities in the online classroom. Teachers model critical inquiry or a process that can be used, such as showing students how a more experienced person thinks through solving a type of problem, rather than demonstrating the particular conclusion held by the instructor. While this is the norm, there are exceptions that involve specific skills or technical knowledge. Being able to guide learning through asking the right questions is viewed as much more important than being able to give students the right answer.

Feedback A key to facilitating learning is through individual and group feedback as needed. While often impractical due to time constraints, individual feedback is preferred, especially by students, as it allows them to correct their own performance. Feedback to students from the instructor and many times through peer critique, is one of the most effective elements in learning. Feedback to the instructor about the course, methods, and barriers that students encounter is also essential.

Collaboration Many educators holding a constructivist philosophy also focus on the fact that much learning is a social activity. Hence discussion constitutes a prominent part of online learning in their classrooms, promoting diversity of thinking, sharing of experiences by all learners, and the multiple interpretations possible through online discussion. Various permutations of peer learning permeate the online classroom as instructors design activities for the social construction of knowledge. Northrup (2001) reminds us that the nature of online learning is learning anytime and anywhere, which sets the stage for student isolation during learning. To overcome this sense of isolation and for other reasons, teamwork, collaboration, or some type of group work is often assigned. Part of teamwork is interpersonal relationship building, which is necessary, but insufficient, to accomplish learning in groups. The main reason for team assignments is to accomplish part or all of the learning goals, and replicate authentic working conditions.

Pedagogy of Online Instruction

93

Interpersonal Communication But the value of peer or social interaction goes beyond teamwork, relationship building, and goal achievement. Social constructivists, drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978, 1986), theorize that a great deal of learning takes place in a social context, and is spurred by interactions with other people. Vygotsky's findings suggested learning environments should involve guided interaction, permitting novices to reflect on inconsistency and to change their conceptions through speech and communication (Boudourides, 1998), as well as through intelligent action (Piaget, 1952). When students have the opportunity to interact with one another and their instructors about the course content, they have the opportunity to build within themselves, and to communicate with others, a shared meaning—that is to "make sense" of what they are learning. Much of learning inevitably takes place within a social context, and the process includes a mutual construction of understanding (Bruner, 1971). Interpersonal interaction offers the opportunity for the student to gain the motivational support of fellow students and instructors, to develop critical judgment, participate in problem-solving, and often has the potential for other incidental learning (Chacon, 1992). Guided discussion is a primary method of teaching online. Such dialog puts the emphasis on flexibility, drawing out responses, discussing problems, depth of conversation, sharing and supporting learners.

Learner Centered/Student Responsibility The model espoused by online instructors is that of information-rich learning. They valued providing support so that students can move at their own pace, time, and in their own ways. As the control of learning shifts from teacher to learner, and as the value placed on the student's time becomes more important, individualized learning becomes critical. Students often wish to set their own pace, time, and place where learning will occur, and can use the seemingly infinite resources and learning materials available through the Internet, along with those resources provided by the instructor and the institution sponsoring the course. This allows the learners to make their own choices among the many learning paths that may be available to them (Lansdell, 2001) that match the learning goals of the course. These are some of the key reasons the use of elearning is increasing exponentially at post-secondary level of education. Learners need time and opportunity to reflect so that they can internalize information (Ally, 2004; Berge, 2002). Active reflection is described as learning by reflection upon experience. Learning from intrapersonal interaction or reflection, can also be based, vicariously, on someone else‘s experience, with both instances leading to a valuable learning process (Neil & Yoong, 2001). One of the characteristics of online learning is that it can include asynchronous communication features that allow students more time for reflection.

94

Zane Berge

Self-Motivated Learning Meaningfulness as perceived by students is the focus here, rather than something the instructor can or should try "selling" to the students. One way to promote meaningfulness is to provide an environment where students have an expanded audience for their writing and discussions. Traditionally, the instructor has been the only person to read what a student writes. Having activities that expand this to include other learners often provides incentive to students to better their efforts and products. Generally, it is a good practice to allow participants to set their own topics for papers or to allow as much flexibility as possible within the guidelines of the course (i.e., expressing a preference for learner control). The design of the instruction and learning environment should value authenticity (i.e., matching the instruction with real-life problems/applications), too, as a method of motivating the learner.

Consistent Instructional Elements While flexibility is valued, clearly so is alignment among key components: learning goals/expectations, learning activities, and the evaluation/feedback in the course (see Figure 1). Additionally, the design must include the design and management of appropriate instructional methods, content, and environment to promote quality learning.

CONCLUSIONS Regardless of the underlying theory, in the design of an online course the instructor makes pedagogical decisions and the instructor or a subject-matter expert makes content decisions. Still, the student must remain the focal point of instruction (Case, Bauder, & Simmons 2001). Instructors need to know who their students are, what their students expect, and what learning environment their students need and want to learn best. The importance of interpersonal interaction in learning is well accepted (Fulford & Zhang, 1993), although some distance educators still advocate an "independent learner" model. Even while independent learners are cognitively processing course content in a learning situation divorced from peer interaction, they do not live in isolation, but in the contexts of home and work. The ideal situation is for independent learners to take what they are learning and apply it, making it meaningful in the context of actions and interactions within their own lives as they seek personal satisfaction, credentials and advancement on their life path (Berge, 1996). When students have the opportunity to interact with one another and their instructors, they can analyze, synthesize and evaluate course content and use their new learning to construct a shared meaning, making sense of what they are learning in the context of their own community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Pedagogy of Online Instruction

95

REFERENCES Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In Anderson, T.A. & Elloumi, F. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University, p. 331. Retrieved May 20, 2006 from http://dlat.utsa.edu/ID2/TPOL_chp01.pdf. Berge, Z.L. (1996). Where interaction intersects time. MC Journal: The Journal of Academic Media Librarianship, 4(1), Summer 69-83. Retrieved June 4, 2006 from http://wings.buffalo.edu/publications/mcjrnl/v4n1/berge.html. Berge, Z.L. (1998). Guiding principles in web-based instructional design. Educational Media International. 35(2), 72-76. Berge, Z.L. (2000). Designing online and in-person education and training: The same difference? In L. Mealy and B. Loller (Eds.) E-Learning: Expanding the training classroom through technology. A collection of articles by the pioneers of e-learning. Austin, TX: IHRIM Book published by Rector Duncan & Associates, Inc. pp.: 71-80. Berge, Z.L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 3(2): 181-190. Berge, Z.L. (2004). Complexity and confusion in distance education. Distance Learning. 1(2): 1-6. Boudourides, M.A. (1998). Constructivism and education: A shopper's guide. Contributed paper at the International conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. Samos, Greece. July 3-6. Retrieved June 4, 2006 from http://www.math.upatras.gr/~mboudour/ articles/constr.html. Boyer, N.R. (2004). Who‘s in charge? A system of scaffolds that encourages online learners to take control. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Chicago, IL, USA: October 20-23. Retrieved May 20, 2006 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/ 0000000b/80/2b/c9/23.pdf. Bruner, J. S. (1971). The relevance of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Case, D., Bauder, D.K., & Simmons, T.J. (2001, May). Decision making in the development of web-based instruction. Ed at a Distance, 15(5). Retrieved May 117, 2006 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY01_Issue/article04.html. Chacon, F. (1992, February). A taxonomy of computer media in distance education. Open Learning. 12-27. Davidson, J.W. (2005, April). The necessary components of a staff development program to prepare teachers to teach secondary online classes: A Delphi study. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved September 28, 2005 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04222005-075111/unrestricted/davidjoh1 .pdf. Driscoll, M. (2002). Web-based training: Creating e-learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In Dewey on education. (Ed.) J. Dewey, 19–32. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. (Original work published 1897.) Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational

96

Zane Berge

communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Firdyiwek, Y. (1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy? Educational Technology, 39 (1), 29-34. Fulford, C. P. Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 7(3): 8-21. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education. 15, (1), 3-21. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/ CogPres_Final.pdf. Lansdell, L. (2001). Distance learning environment. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://www.ltlinc.com/LTL/newsletters/jan01/oln_article.htm. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mason, R. (1991). Moderating Educational Computer Conferencing. emoderators.com, 1 (19) Retrieved June 4, 2006 from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html). Mason, R. (2002). Review of e-learning for education and training. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference. University of Sheffield. March 25-28. Retrieve May 17, 2006 from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/ past/nlc2002/ proceedings/symp/02.htm#02a. Neil, T. & Yoong, P. (2001). Managing beyond the comfort zone. An exploratory study of IS project managers. Journal of Information Systems Education, 12(2): 73-80. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://www.jise.appstate.edu/12/073.pdf. Neill, J. (2005, January 31). What is experiential learning? Retrieved online June 4, 2006 from http://www.wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialLearningWhatIs.html. Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2): 31-39. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press. Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments. Engelwood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, pp. 135-148. Retrieved May 20, 2006 from http://www3.uakron.edu/edfound/people/savery/papers/sav-duff.html. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. M. Cole et al. 9Ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin (Translator and editor). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published in Russian in 1934.)

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

DESIGNING ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS FOR DIVERSITY AND EQUITY, OR 150 DESIGN STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSION Katy Campbell How aware and concerned are distance educators, instructional designers, and educational technologists about critical pedagogy, critical multiculturalism, and the powerful political nature of technological systems and their cultural practices? (Carter, 2000, p. 28 )

This chapter begins with a story and ends in a challenge to teachers and trainers, instructional designers, Web designers and writers to be critical of their own cultural values and assumptions about the learning environments they create and the learning communities that they include.

A DESIGN JOURNEY My mother was an English teacher. I often came home from school in the afternoon to find a house full of raucous female English teachers sharing stories of teaching, trading ideas and lesson plans; planning to subvert a rigid curriculum that was almost completely irrelevant to the kinds of learners they were committed to. She challenged the principal, the school system, the provincial Ministry, and the community for the authority to throw out the gradelevel literary anthologies of the day and substitute popular adolescent literature, including the scandalous Mad Magazine with which she taught satire. Her students‘ scores on the provincial examinations confounded the administration that expected them to fail, as they always had. The counter-culture Mad Magazine as a culturally-appropriate curriculum – who knew? I began my own professional journey as a French teacher in a Canadian province that was both home to a respectable Francophone population and hostile to its presence. For me, teaching Canadian French was a project of political activism. Like many instructional designers, I ―backed into‖ field by chance and was acculturated to the assertion that behavior is predictable, and that educational design can occur in isolation from the social and cultural

98

Katy Campbell

contexts in which learning will take place (Campbell, Schwier & Kenny, 2005; Koper, 2000). As a result the language and products of design – learning resources and activities— have reflected objective, rational, instrumental, and empirical approaches to designing learning environments. The assumption that educational technologies and environments are neutral and democratic, and that knowledge can be presented in templates or optimal blueprints, is a kind of social engineering approach to design. Not that I was consciously subversive, but I was never particularly comfortable with a model that seemed so abstract and detached from the learners. Where was the Mad Magazine model of design? In 1995 I became a distance educator in a northern rural community. My college was trying to attract Aboriginal learners, most of who lived in remote communities only accessible by air when the ground was soft and by ice road when it was frozen. I was tasked with visiting and enticing them with the programs we already offered, to be delivered by videoconference. These communities had to send their adolescent children 1000 miles away from their homes to a large urban centre to attend school beyond Grade 8. By the second visit it was apparent that videoconferencing was inaccessible and that its instructor-centered model was a culturally inappropriate choice for communities in which story circles were a valued mode of learning. Assuming the curriculum could be designed to support the needs and values of Aboriginal learners, how was it to be offered? For example, childcare was a significant barrier for the women in these communities, whose learning in some cases was ―sabotaged‖ by their families uneasy with the implications to their traditional ways. Not unusual for women learning at a distance, sabotage often took the form of a refusal of families to assume responsibilities that would ―free up‖ learning time. Recently, this reality has been named the ―Third Shift‖ (Kramarae, 2001). In my own research I have looked at this challenge from the perspective of female faculty teaching with technology, a direction provoked by conflict with my own family over whether facilitating an online discussion on our kitchen computer in the evening was ―real teaching‖--the fourth shift (Campbell, 2001,Schwier, Campbell & Kenny, 2004)? My Faculty offers a course-based professional masters designed on a cohort model, in which mature students learn online over two years, book-ended by an intensive, three-week spring institute. Reflecting our institution‘s goal of world citizenship, this program has worked hard to attract international students. Yet, some instructors design courses in which the learning cultures of these students are often challenged in class discussions based on debate and challenge. Further, our increasing trend towards synchronous technologies that subvert the freedom of time and place of distance learning (Paulsen, 1992) exclude those whose high-speed access is inconsistent and those whose level of English fluency prevents their full participation in the form and pace of the discussion. Tying these stories together is the concern that as administrators, teachers, and designers, we quite unconsciously create learning materials and environments that are based on an understanding of the learning process that is culturally-based (Thomas, Mitchell, & Joseph, 2002). As McLoughlin (2000) warns, Culture pervades learning, and in designing instructional environments there needs to be serious debate about issues concerning the social and cultural dimensions of task design, communication channels and the structuring of information to meet the needs of culturally diverse learners. Educational computing, or the use of technology to mediate learning, is imbued with cultural values and assumptions. Research has shown that computer-based

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

99

collaborative work can transform classroom cultures, the roles of teachers and students, and the expectations of learners (p. 296). In other words, as members of a dominant culture we tend to design learning experiences that reflect our own experiences and values – we design for ourselves. In so doing, we exclude many members of the learning community. Why should we care about that? And, how can we become more critically aware of our practices and design online learning experiences that support and value diversity? In this chapter I will attempt to convince my readers that we have no choice but to care, offering a framework for inclusion, i.e. user-centered design (UCD). This framework provides guidelines for design, delivery and assessment decisions. These guidelines are organized through a cultural model perspective, which is described in the next section. We will look at accessibility, equity, and intercultural and gender issues first by relevant research and then by instructional design implications. My goal is that you will develop a critical awareness of the issues related to inclusive design as a first step to understanding how to improve access and enhance the learning experience for all students.

WHY WE SHOULD CARE Learning Communities in Tertiary Education Tertiary education is experiencing a dramatic demographic shift. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2000) just 16% of American college students fit the traditional profile of 18-23 years old, participating full-time, and living on campus. Older adults and part-time students, as well as those whose first language is not English, comprise a significant portion of post-secondary courses. The majority of learners (60-70%) over age 25 are women (Donaldson, Graham, Martindill and Bradley, 2000; Kramarae, 2001). The overall number of international students enrolled in colleges and universities in the U.S. increases every year – in 2003/2004 to a reported 572,509 (Institute of International Education). At the same time as the number of blended and distance courses in higher education continues to increase concomitantly the number of international learners in these courses is on the rise (Bulu & Bulu, 2006). The requirement of a global knowledge economy for lifewide learning is reflected in the number of professional, older learners as well. For example, according to AARP more than 40 million adults over 50 years of age are online in the US. The Center for the Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School reports that of this number 86% are from age 46-55; 75% from age 56-65; and 41% are age 66 or over (Weinschenck, 2006). Finally, 750 million people worldwide have a disability: In the United States alone, one in five people have some kind of disability and one in ten has a severe disability. Perceptual as well as cognitive impairments (e.g. memory loss) will increase as the population ages. In response, an increasing number of post-secondary institutions are developing guidelines for accessibility in both F2F and web-based courses (c.f. University of Western Australia, 1999). The expectation that post-secondary learners predominantly reflect the ―dominant culture‖ in North America—young, healthy Caucasian adults, from families whose first

100

Katy Campbell

language is English, in full-time attendance at a residential institution--is obviously problematic, yet we continue to design learning resources, activities and environments for this demographic. In doing so we not only exclude diverse learning communities, but we leave ourselves open to legal, as well as moral challenges.

Educating for World Citizenship In the view of Hofstede & Hofstede (2005) ―culture is learned and not innate. It derives from one‘s social environment rather than from one‘s genes‖ (p. 4). Hooker (2004) describes culture as reciprocity between humans and their social and physical environments. Powell (1997) provides a comprehensive definition of culture that includes values, aesthetic standards, patterns of thinking and speaking, expectations for behavior, and other ―rules for living‖ in a particular community. These definitions share a common understanding of culture that provides the framework for this chapter: Belonging to numerous groups at the same time, we carry several layers of mental programming that corresponds with different layers, or levels, of cultures. These levels operate at the national; regional and /or ethnic and /or linguistic affiliation; gender; generation; social class; and organizational, departmental and corporate levels. In this chapter a cultural community can be a nation, social class, religion, or race; a language group, age group, gender group, or group based on sexual orientation; a physical community, for example an urban neighborhood; a professional association, special-interests group, or community (e.g. the disabled), workplace, or a university (among others!). In the introduction, I identified at least four: boys with learning and social challenges, children learning a second language in a politically-charged political context, Aboriginal adult women living in geographically isolated communities, and a multicultural multiage graduate cohort of professionals learning at a distance. Within each of those cultural groups many more cultures interacted--gender, language, minority culture, geography, sociocultural context, age and professional experience, for example in the graduate program. Because of its reach, online learning has the potential to include more cultural diversity among learners than a face-toface (F2F) environment (Taylor, 2005). Integrating technology in learning ―can make education creative and engaging, as well as serve as a tool to ensure empowerment, democracy, and social justice in a global society‖ (Hanson & Carlson, 2005, p. 2). In an increasingly diverse global knowledge economy, educating for world citizenship takes on a critical importance and demands an inclusive framework for learning design.

User-Centred Design: A Framework for Inclusion Designing for diversity involves ―accommodating (learners) with different skills, knowledge, age, gender, disabilities, disabling conditions…literacy, culture, income, and so forth‖ (Shneiderman, 2000, p. 89). ―User-centered design‖ is a framework for designing for diversity in online learning environments. User-centered design is concerned with cognitive, sociocultural, political, and technological factors involved in defining the tasks and goals that drive the design and development of information products and processes. For example, an online environment may

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

101

contain a course site within a learning management system; a readings package; learning objects; an asynchronous discussion area; opportunities to interact synchronously, and so on. Or, online learning activities may be just one component of a blended learning design. But in each case, the instructor or designer should be concerned with the usefulness, usability, desirability, legibility, learnability, accessibility and meaningfulness of the resource. There are a number of social, educational, economic, ethical, and legal dimensions related to the design of learning environments, including accessibility. In software and interface development, UCD is also a philosophy that requires the inclusion of the users throughout the entire design process, known as a ―participatory design‖ strategy. The active involvement of the user in the design process involves trying to obtain a clear understanding of exact task requirements, involving an iterative design and evaluation process and utilizing a multidisciplinary and multicultural approach, even to the extent that a ―target‖ learner becomes part of the core design team (Miah, 2004). Focusing on potential users right from the beginning, and checking at each step of the way that they found the final design useful and accessible is cost-effective and more likely to meet the users‘ needs (i.e. learning-centered design). In education, as in industry, we have tended to design from a ―content-centric‖ or ―designer-centric‖ standpoint. Universal instructional design, or the universal design of instruction (UID or UDI) is a design approach that has emphasized the idea of accessibility for disabled learners, but has more recently broadened to include issues of diversity. In the dominant culture approach, we have designed for the ―average user,‖ whoever that is. In contrast UID operates from critical standpoint theory – designing for the needs of the most marginalized group will result in increased awareness of design practices that exclude others (c.f. Harding, 1993). For example, if we design for users with visual impairments, we have also addressed the needs of users with low vision, such as older adults. Captions for audio benefit deaf users and at the same time increase the efficiency of indexing and searching for audio content on Web sites (Lynch & Horton, 2002). Similarly, if we design for users whose first language is not English, we may support users with reading challenges. If we design a range of options for learning activities, we will address cultural differences, as well as learning style differences.

CULTURAL ISSUES IN LEARNING AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN The International Association of Universities (IAU) emphasizes the ―particular importance‖ of universities providing the most equitable access to higher education, identifying the following target groups underrepresented in our classrooms: lowersocioeconomic status; minority groups including learners from alternative countries of origin, language, ethnic group or religion to the majority; the disabled; adult, mature or second chance entrants; gender; rural or isolated students; and indigenous groups (Thomas, 2006). While discussed in separate sections below, these groups collectively describe those for who quality of access is captured in the term ―digital divide.‖

102

Katy Campbell

Issues of Inequality of Access Citing exponential growth in Internet access from 16 million users in 1995 to a predicted 1 billion users in 2005, Fuduka-Parr (2001) lists three ways in which information and communications technologies ―breaks barriers‖ to human development, 1) breaking barriers to knowledge; 2) breaking barriers to participation; and 3) breaking barriers to economic opportunity. However, an access gap still exists within rich countries like Canada, the United States, and Australia as well as in developing countries like Niger and Thailand. For example, the Aboriginal birthrate is about 1.5 times that of the rest of Canada, but only 8% of this population over age 25 holds a university degree (Holmes, 2006). The appropriate use of learning technology could improve access to educational opportunities for these communities. ―Digital divide‖ is a term that has been used to describe inequality of access to digital information due to connectivity, but is evolving to describe inequality of access because of sociocultural conditions leading to exclusion (emphasis is mine). Shade (2002) employs the metaphor of community constituting a network of social relationships in which ―digital citizenship is a prerequisite for participation and engagement in society‖ (p. 2). In this view social inclusion is defined as the ―process by which efforts are made to ensure that everyone, regardless of their experiences and circumstances, can achieve their potential in life…. an inclusive society is also characterized by a striving for reduced inequality, a balance between individuals‘ rights and duties and increased social cohesion‖ (Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion, 2002, in Chou, 2005, p. 181).

From this perspective, we are concerned with issues of place, gender, health, and ―content, language, education, literacy, or community and social resources‖ (Warschauer, 2002). For example, in 2004 the United Nations reported that worldwide 1.4% with low incomes were online vs. 7.0% with middle incomes (Fuduka-Parr, 20041). In Australia, the "Use of the Internet by Households" survey by the Australia Bureau of Statistics (2000) showed that while over half the Australian population had a computer at home, a little over a third had the Internet connected. Many of the unconnected computers were in rural Australia (Arch, 2002). In the U.S. Fallows (2005) reports that men are more likely than women to have high-speed connections at home and that while younger women and African American outpace their male peers in access, older women still ―lag dramatically‖ (p. vi). While on-campus learners may have good access to networked computers through labs and wireless learning spaces, given the changing demographics in North American tertiary classrooms institutional access does not substitute for access to home computers with Internet connectivity (Andrews, Jannasch-Pennell & DiGangi, 2005).

Implications for Planning and Design A comprehensive model that addresses the digital divide in higher education from an inclusion framework focuses on the following resources (Fulton & Sibley, 2003, in Chou, 2005, p. 181-2):

1

Figures have been rounded up.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

103

 access to up-to-date hardware, software, and connectivity;  access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources effectively;  access to systems sustained by leaders with vision and support for change through technology; and  access to meaningful, high-quality, and culturally responsive content along with the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge base represented in online content.  Access issues related to cultural diversity and gender are discussed in more detail below. From 2002-2004 a Faculty of Arts in Canada worked with a Japanese University to offer a cross-cultural course for seniors. The original, blended design called for two pre-class online discussions among the Japanese and Canadian students and their professors. Readings were posted in the Web site to guide the discussions. The first planned discussion was disappointing; there was very little interaction from the Japanese side. The designers hadn‘t realized that the cost of telecommunications in Japan was so high that few Japanese professors or students had high-speed access at home and that their participation was limited to the access to computer labs open during business hours only. The course was redesigned so that the interactions became synchronous and were planned to take place during scheduled class-time for the Japanese students, allowing the technical arrangements for a videoconference to be made in advance. Asynchronous discussions were voluntary and mostly conducted by email. Because of the difference in time zones the Canadian students had to participate out of their scheduled class time, but the professor encouraged participation by negotiating individual learning contracts with each student, in which the session equated with an in-class activity.

Accessibility issues for the Disabled The nature of disability is diverse, including mobility-related, perceptual, emotional and mental, cognitive, and health-related disabilities. We must also consider temporary (e.g. sustained from an accident) as well as chronic (e.g. neurological) injuries and illness. Commonly used disability terminology varies from country to country and between different disability communities in the same country. Individual abilities can vary over time, people can be multiply disabled, and have combinations of varying levels of severity. Disabilities tend to increase with age and range from visual impairment (perceptual) to memory loss (cognitive). Age is not in itself a disability, although for purposes of accessibility the usability literature often deals with the two categories together (c.f. Jacob Nielsen‘s ―Useit.com‖). For legal purposes ―disability‖ includes those with visual and hearing impairments, mobility challenges, mental illness such as schizophrenia, or learning disability such as dyslexia. ―Falling through the Net‖ (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000) states that only 21.6% of disabled people are online compared to 42.1% of non-disabled people. Many countries mandate that disabled users have equal access to Internet resources. Related international initiatives include the guidelines issued by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and legal requirements such as the

104

Katy Campbell

amendments to Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Groups like the National Disabled Student Union, ―a…student organization dedicated to social justice for all…(whose) mission is to mobilize and organize students with disabilities throughout the nation‖ was founded in 2001 in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the liability of the University of Alabama in an accessibility case. While most public institutions in North America have developed an accessible physical environment, issues of web access were the basis of complaints against San Jose State University, California State University Long Beach, the California Community Colleges and California State University at Los Angeles. Clark (2001) notes that the California Community Colleges' August 1999 ―Access Guidelines for Distance Education‖ were the result of pressure from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which had found "little attention . . . being given to ensure that these distance learning programs are accessible to students with disabilities, especially students with visual impairments" (n.d.). Clark (2001) recommends ranking the ―disability friendliness‖ of institutions. For example, at Michigan Virtual University (MVU), a private, not-for-profit organization established in 1998 by Michigan Governor John Engler and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a set of ―Standards for Quality Online Courses‖ has been developed to guide faculty and designers in four areas: instructional design, technology, usability, and accessibility. The accessibility standards are designed to evaluate whether a course meets ―Priority 1‖ accessibility as defined by W3C in the ―Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.‖ All courses at MVU are rated either "E" for Everyone or "L" for Limited, according to their compliance with these standards. Significantly, the authors of ―Michigan Virtual University: A Promising Practice in Developing Standards for Online Courses‖ (2002/06) note that ―these standards constitute a promising practice not solely because accessibility was included in the mix but also because accessibility is a characteristic that is used here to define quality of instruction…. an up-front consideration in developing a quality online course, rather than a separate issue to be addressed later by someone other than the course designer‖ (emphasis is mine). The phrase ―curb cuts‖ captures the idea that as innovations intended for the physically disabled have provided mobility access benefits to all people, including parents wheeling baby strollers and seniors with shopping carts, Web content designed for learners with disabilities benefits many non-disabled users and often all users (University of Washington, 2002/06). For example, support for speech output not only benefits the visually impaired, but also users whose ―eyes are busy with other tasks; while captions for audio not only benefit deaf users, but also increase the efficiency of indexing and searching for audio content on Web sites.‖ Sarah Horton (2001) advocates for ―practical accessibility,‖ observing that a defining principle of the Web is access to information for all, regardless of physical or technological readiness. In practical terms, Web interface design is intricately tied to accessibility design. Horton begins from the premise that the visually-impaired, including those who are colorblind or who have low-vision (e.g. seniors), are the most likely learners to be affected by Web design, and that designing learning resources for this group will address the concerns of those with cognitive and learning disabilities as well. For example, users with cognitive or learning disabilities also use screen reader software; having the text read aloud while reading along visually greatly enhances their ability to understand the materials. ―Telling the same story

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

105

different ways,‖ for example having audio descriptions, as well as text, available for screen images, will also support diverse learning styles and needs.

Figure 1. Curb Cuts.

Lynch and Horton (2002), among others, propose a simple guideline for faculty and designers of digital resources: if you provide information in any medium besides plain text, you should always provide an alternate version. In fact any resource--audio, video or text-can and should be provided in an alternate format. Learners, including the disabled, access the Web using a growing variety of tools that include synchronous and asynchronous technologies that are becoming more customizable. By recognizing this human and technological diversity and by developing web content that complies with accessibility standards we can be confident that online activities are accessible to the broadest possible audience. This approach, known as the ―Universal Design of Instruction‖ (UDI, or UID) bridges concerns for web access and digital divide issues.

Implications: Accessible Design is Good Design The (1999) ―Access Guidelines for Distance Education‖ mentioned above exemplifies educational ideal of access of opportunity to all as well as Horton‘s (2001) ―practical accessibility.‖ Starting from the tenet that distance education ensures that students can learn ―anytime, anywhere‖, the comprehensive report decreed that all distance education resources

106

Katy Campbell

be designed to provide the same level of learning experience for students with or without disabilities. As a result, all resources and materials are to be designed and delivered so that a wide range of platforms and media including the audio, video and text components of courses or communication delivered via satellite; educational cable television and telephone; compressed video, the Internet or any form of electronic transmission; all components of Web sites from text to video; electronic chat rooms and e-mail; and instructional software including DVD and print are accessible. The report also promised that where Web sites that were required for course completion were not controlled by the CCC, steps would be taken to ensure that the sites were accessible, or an alternative was available. Accessibility is about accommodating characteristics a person cannot change, including age, by providing options. While it is tempting to stereotype older adults as unmotivated, or resistant Internet users, the research does not bear this out. For example, at Athabasca University (Canada‘s ―distance university‖) in 2004-2005, 2/3 of the students were women, the average age was 29, and 66% were over age 25. A proportion of these learners will or are experiencing age-related visual impairments. However, studies show that while assistive and adaptive technologies offer a solution to these challenges, online environments can often be designed effectively to meet accessibility standards at the outset (c.f. Leonard, Jacko, & Pizzimenti, 2005). More work has been done on accessibility guidelines than any other issue presented in this chapter. A selection of Web resources is included in the References. A general overview is provided in Table 1. Thirteen Ways to Improve Accessibility. Following UID principles, each guideline also improves access for older users, users without high-speed access, and users of mobile devices; and will address diverse learner characteristics.

Three Final Points When evaluating content and design for accessibility, remember that Web authoring tools should be included (e.g. Blackboard™). Second, it is an irony that removing one barrier to access and learning can create another, a situation that may occur with a multiple disabilities scenario. For example, text-based resources such as discussion groups, bulletin boards, and email are generally accessible to students and instructors with disabilities; text-based synchronous ―chats," are not. A student with a learning disability or a mobility impairment that makes it difficult to input text quickly might not be able to keep up with the pace of the conversation. Also, the accessibility of a chat room to individuals who are blind and using screen reader technology depends on how the chat room was developed. Finally, consider that barriers for the disabled learner may also be barriers with intercultural groups (e.g. use of color). The WAI (2005) has developed a number of excellent scenarios that illustrate these principles. For example, Ms. Martinez, who is deaf, is taking several distance learning courses in physics. Her institution has developed an extensive collection of audio lectures. For classroom-based lectures the university provided interpreters; however for Web-based instruction they initially did not realize that accessibility was an issue. Ms Martinez pointed out that the University was clearly covered by a policy requiring accessibility of online instructional material; the University had the lectures transcribed and made this

Table 1. Thirteen Ways to Improve Accessibility. Guideline

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Provide alternatives to visual content for the visually impaired, as well as those without broadband access. Disabled graphics benefits anyone who doesn't have immediate access to graphics, for example those using handheld devices.

Investigate voice web and web portal systems, which provide text-to-speech web access via telephone or car, for example, Audiopoint™ or Internet Speech™. Avoid use of color to convey essential information, which ensures that the information is accessible to those who can't reliably discriminate between colors.

Use high-contrast foreground/background colors to enhance readability.

Barriers for disabled users Web pages with absolute font sizes that do not change (enlarge or reduce) easily; Web pages that, because of inconsistent layout, are difficult to navigate when enlarged, due to loss of surrounding context; Text presented as images, which prevents wrapping to the next line when enlarged; Images that do not have alternative text or complex images (e.g., graphs or charts) that are not adequately described; Video that is not described in text or audio; Tables that do not make sense when read serially (in a cell-by-cell or "linearized" mode); Forms that cannot be tabbed through in a logical sequence or that are poorly labeled; and Browsers and authoring tools that lack keyboard support for all commands or that do not use standard applications. Lack of captions or transcripts of audio on the Web, including webcasts; Lack of content-related images in pages full of text, which can slow comprehension for people whose first language may be a sign language; Lack of clear and simple language; and Requirements for voice input on Web sites. Color that is used as a unique marker to emphasize text on a Web site; Text that inadequately contrasts with background color or patterns; and Browsers that do not support user override of authors' style sheets; Web pages, or images on Web pages, that have poor contrast, and Whose contrast cannot be easily changed through user override of author style sheets.

Benefit to non-disabled users

Solutions

For text-based browsers; For slow connect speeds; Conserves memory in handheld devices; For those who have turned off image display, and For users with cognitive or learning disabilities.

ALT tags; Audio alternatives such as narration or ―audio notes‖; and Check page designs on typically sized display screens (800 x 600 pixels) to be sure that all major navigation and content areas fit well within the horizontal area of the screen

For noisy environments; For computers not equipped with sound; and Permits indexing and archiving for search capability. For monochrome monitors; For handheld computers with green screens; and For users of voice web services.

To reduce eyestrain; and To enhance readability.

Captions to multimedia; Offer separate versions of online video with open access features that can't be turned off; and Control the QuickTime™, RealAudio™ or Windows Media™ player, through a screen reader and keyboard commands. To emphasize text — for example, in headers or key phrases within text — so that it won't be overlooked, use bold formatting as well as color.

Scalable text.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 1. (Continued).

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Use cascading style sheets (CSS) rather than HTML tables to control layout of web pages. This results in pages that are more usable for screen reader users Use relative rather than absolute units for example, percentages instead of pixels (i.e. graphics), for low screen resolution. Clarify natural language usage by specifying whether the language of your content is English, Spanish, or some other language. Avoid flashing animations because animations that flash at frequencies between 2 and 55 hertz.

Provide a clear, simple design, including a consistent and intuitive navigational mechanism.

See above.

Allows content to be displayed more appropriately on smaller screens and on emerging web-enabled devices such as wireless phones; and For applying personalized formatting to Web documents. Works independently of resolution settings.

Pages are more usable for screen readers. Set presentation properties using style sheets. Design tables that make sense when linearized (e.g. group related content). Design content to scale reliably; and Use the tag to control the typography — type size, margins and indents.

Screen readers that cannot interpret text

Allows search engines to more accurately index content by language.

Supporting screen readers use the appropriate language engine automatically.

Use of visual or audio frequencies that can trigger seizures.

Flashing animations may annoy or distract users without seizure disorders.

Flash™ is not accessible at this time. Always provide an option to skip or turn off animation.

Distracting visual or audio elements that cannot easily be turned off; Lack of clear and consistent organization of Web sites; Use of unnecessarily complex language on Web sites; Lack of graphics on Web sites; Distracting visual or audio elements that cannot easily be turned off; and Web pages with absolute font sizes that do not enlarge easily.

Reduces cognitive strain in interpreting interfaces; and Enhances learnability.

Follow usability guidelines.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 1 (Continued)

Provide options for input for speech, motor and mobility impairments, for example, for learners with repetitive stress injuries.

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Use synchronous technologies with caution.

Verify Web pages during development and for the first pilot implementation.

Time-limited response options on Web pages Browsers and authoring tools that do not support keyboard alternatives for mouse Learners have different input capabilities and commands; devices,(e.g. those who have poor keyboarding Forms that cannot be tabbed through in a skills). logical order; and Web sites that require voice-based interaction and have no alternative input mode. Synchronous technologies (e.g. Elluminate™) have pedagogical advantages, for example, community-building. Use of these tools is time-dependent; participants in different time zones, whose work schedules are inflexible, etc are disadvantaged. Synchronous audio chats disadvantage participants with hearing, cognitive and language impairments. Higher-speed access is recommended, which excludes participants without. Synchronous text-based chats disadvantage those with visual, mobility, cognitive and language impairments. Inaccessible pages exclude anyone with a challenge.

Accessible pages provide alternatives to meet diverse learner characteristics.

Use software such as Watchfire WebXACT (http://webxact.watchfire.com/).

Based on AccessIT: National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, University of Washington 2002-06; Alexander (2002); Arch (2002); Clark, (2001); Horton (2001); Lynch & Horton (2002); WAI (2005).

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

110

Katy Campbell

information available through their Web site along with audio versions of the lectures. For an introductory multimedia piece, the university used a SMIL-based multimedia format that enabled synchronized captioning of audio and a description of the video content. This made it easier to index audio resources, which assisted all learners. The professor also set up a chat area on the Web site for the exchange of ideas and for peer coaching. She quickly found that the Web-based chat format, and the opportunity to provide Web-based text comments on classmates' work helped her complete her assignments within the deadlines.

Issues for Intercultural Learning Communities Cultural implications for learning design become critical as F2F, online, and blended learning communities grow increasingly diverse. Going beyond issues of (mere) access, considerations include the development of content, learning activities, delivery methods, and learning assessments that are culturally, cognitively, socially and pedagogically appropriate (Williams, Boone, & Kingsley 2004). Although the visual and verbal cues are not evident, online learners are also aware of cultural differences related to language, ethnicity, race, gender, and age (Hanson & Carlson, 2005). As a cultural artifact language in particular presents challenges for international learners. Language represents values and worldviews; culturally specific vocabulary such as metaphors and idioms, concepts, and linguistic characteristics are major obstacles that occur in intercultural communication (Ku and Lohr, 2003; Wilson, 2001). However, because F2F environments are time and place dependent, they also present challenges for international students who find it difficult to socialize, and build the community and access to intellectual and emotional connections that underlie profound interaction (Ziegahn, 2001). Online settings tend to be more structured and, because they are not dependent on ―timed‖ oral interaction, international students may be better able to understand the perspectives and arguments of others and experience fewer limitations to their expression, since they have time to think, write and rewrite, and share activities. International participants can face problems of trust in F2F because of the spontaneous, less structured, and fast-paced oral communication typical of these settings. Thirty ―checks‖ for evaluating language use in intercultural settings (below) will help you think critically about language use in either blended or online environments.

Thirty Checks for Evaluating Texts acknowledge your own culture be polite don‘t assume tacit knowledge use explicit language avoid local expressions avoid idioms use internationally known references avoid relative expressions

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

111

spell out currency formats state dates clearly with words and numbers make time zone known include both international and American units of measure use international telephone number formats pick universal symbols avoid political statements of any kind write in international English use simple (vs. complex) sentences and shorter words be direct : use active, not passive voice use words everyone can understand; avoid: slang faddish or made up words gendered language multi-word verbs (e.g. ‗tolerate‘ instead of ‗put up with‖) spell out abbreviations and acronyms use high-quality, proper spellings (e.g. ‗through‘ vs. ‗thru‘) use just one modifier before the word it modifies use fewer pronouns use ‗alerting words‘ such as ‗first, second, third‘ reduce words (try to cut back by 50%) give clear directions in short, active sentences replace multi-syllabic words with shorter words guard against pop cultural references use literary references sparingly use humor carefully

Cultural Models A number of researchers have proposed cultural models to represent an understanding of learners‘ values and how they contextualize their actions in the world. Cultural models include the ―formal‖ organization of experience such as roles and responsibilities and the ―informal,‖ such as emotions associated with learning and work (Kuniavsky, 2003). Similarly, del Galdo (1996) frames these models as ―subjective‖ or ―objective.‖ Subjective culture includes authority, colors, gestures, individuality, learning styles, prejudices, gender and age roles, sense of time, sounds, symbols, and taboos (del Galdo, 1996). For example, in one culture it might be acceptable to show a disembodied body part making a gesture (e.g. a pointing finger) while it is taboo in another. Or, the use of color can be problematic—for example, white signals purity in many Western communities but signals mourning in Southeast Asia. To be sensitive to subjective culture is to avoid the use of slang, jargon, idioms, religion, race, sex, politics, stereotypes, humanized animals, humor, visual images that depend on cultural knowledge (e.g. metaphors) or references to body parts.

112

Katy Campbell

Objective culture includes addresses, numbers, currency, time, calendars, dates, phone numbers, and units of measurement (del Galdo, 1996). To be sensitive to objective culture designers should be very explicit about the way that these symbols are represented. For example, in the U.S. dates are ―mm/dd/yy,‖ while in many Commonwealth countries dates are written as ―dd/mm/yy‖ respectively. Thus, the date 06/05/05 can be interpreted as June 5th, 2005 or May 6th, 2005. Measurements follow the metric system in most of the world while they are represented in British imperial in the U.S. This is an important distinction in a chemistry or physics course. In cultural models we have a lens through which to consider how factors such as a student and teacher‘s views of power distribution or perspectives on individualism vs. collectivism (c.f. Hofstede, 1980, 1997, 2005), ideation of gender, and communication styles (c.f. Hall, 1990) can impact learning (Bagwell, 2001).

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions In an influential study sponsored by IBM, Geert Hofstede proposed that societies differ along separate continua, which characterize five differing basic social patterns of any culture. This model, as have many other cultural models, has been criticized for ignoring differences within cultures and for viewing the individual as a passive recipient of culture (c.f. McSweeney, 2002). Nevertheless an extensive body of literature has been published that attempts to operationalize these continua, particularly in the human-computer interface design (HCI) and communications fields. Hofstede‘s five dimensions include power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation (see Table 2. Hofstede‟s Cultural Dimensions). As an example of how this model might be used to understand and guide design for web content, Dormann and Chisalita (2002) explored the extent to which value orientations were expressed through the visual design of websites from ―masculine‖ and‖ feminine‖ countries. In masculine cultures, social gender roles are clearly distinct; in feminine cultures, social gender roles overlap. Femininity-masculinity is instantiated in several cultural values. For example, masculine cultures promote cultural values such as ambition and competition, while feminine cultures promote values such as good relationships and quality of life. The study examined university websites to gather knowledge about ―value instantiations and their representations in web design so that future designers interested in designing for collateralization or cultural representation‖ could refer to empirical principles. They found that the most striking difference between masculine and feminine countries resided in the utilization of pictorial representations--there were important semantic differences within image types. For example, in the feminine countries representations of people engaged in different activities were more numerous, while in masculine countries different buildings were more numerous. The Italian web site Study dela Basilicata (http://www.unibas.it), which contained buildings and three columns consisting mostly of links, was typical of a masculine country. The Danish site for the Roskilde university centre (http://www.ruc.dk) represented a visual site typical for feminine countries. Relationships, conversations, and images of people were at the centre of the site.

Table 2. Hofstede’s Five Dimensions of Culture.

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Dimension Power Distance

Continuum Low

The extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within a culture.

At work: subordinates and supervisors are closer together and more interchangeable; flatter hierarchies; and less difference in salaries and status. At home: Parents and children view themselves more as equals. At school: Equality is expected and generally desired.

MAS

Masculine

Masculinity and femininity refer to gender roles, not physical characteristics.

Assertiveness, competition, and toughness; traditional role distinctions are strongly maintained; and masculine work goals include earnings, recognition, advancement, and challenge.

Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism implies loose ties; everyone is expected to look after one's self or immediate family but no one else. Collectivism implies that people are integrated from birth into strong, cohesive groups that protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Individualistic At work: value personal time, freedom, challenge; and extrinsic motivation such as material rewards. At home and school: value honesty/truth, talking things out; and use guilt to achieve behavioral goals, and maintaining selfrespect. In society: place individual social-economic interests over the group; maintain strong rights to privacy; nurture strong private opinions; restrain the power of the state in the economy; emphasize the political power of voters and freedom of the press; and ideologies of: self-actualization, self-realization, selfgovernment, and freedom.

High At work: centralized political power exhibit tall hierarchies; boss as ―benevolent dictator‖; and large differences in salary and status. At home: Parents teach obedience, and expect respect. At school: Teachers possess wisdom; are automatically esteemed; and Inequality is expected and even desired. Feminine orientation to home and children, people, and concern with both quality of life and material success; tendency to collapse the distinctions and overlap gender roles; and feminine work goals include good relations with supervisors, peers, and subordinates. Collectivist At work: value training, physical conditions, skills; and mastery is intrinsic reward. At home and school: value harmony more than honesty/truth; use shame to achieve behavioral goals; and importance of face. In society: collective social-economic interests over the individual; may invade private life and regulate opinions; favor laws and rights for groups over individuals and dominate the press and economy; and ideologies of: harmony, consensus, and equality.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 2. (Continued). Uncertainty Avoidance

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

People vary in the extent that they feel anxiety about uncertain or unknown matters, as opposed to the more universal feeling of fear caused by known or understood threats. Cultures vary in their avoidance of uncertainty, creating different rituals and having different values regarding formality, punctuality, legal-religious-social requirements, and tolerance for ambiguity.

Orientation Orientation seemed to play an important role in Asian countries that had been influenced by Confucian philosophy over many thousands of years and are oriented to virtuous behavior and a stable society. Western countries are oriented to belief and the search for truth.

High Wellness: high rates of suicide, alcoholism, and accidental deaths; and high numbers of prisoners per capita. At work: more formal rules; longer career commitments; and focus on tactical operations rather than strategy. At school: Teachers are expected to be experts who know the answers and may speak in cryptic language that excludes novices. Social expressiveness. People: seem active and emotional, shun ambiguous situations; and expect structure in organizations, institutions, and relationships to help make events clearly interpretable and predictable. Difference: viewed as a threat and equated with what is dangerous. Long Term family is the prototype of all social organizations; authority relations: older over younger and men over women; not treating others as one would not like to be treated
 trying to acquire skills and education; working hard; and frugality, patience, and perseverance

Low Wellness: higher caffeine consumption, lower calorie intake, higher heart-disease death rates; and more chronic psychosis per capita. At work: Informality; and more focus on long-range strategic matters than day-today operations At school: Teachers may not know all the answers (or there may be more than one correct answer), run more open-ended classes, and are expected to speak in plain language. Less social expressiveness. People: behave quietly without showing aggression or strong emotions; and seem easy-going, even relaxed. Difference: viewed as simply curious, or perhaps ridiculous. Short Term equal relationships; individualism; treating others as you would like to be treated; and fulfillment through creativity and self-actualization.

Based on Marcus and Gould, 2001; Sabin & Aherene, 2002; Tylee, year?

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

115

Hall and Context Edward Hall‘s (1990) model describes cultural differences through time, space, information flow and action chains. In this chapter we will explore contextuality, described by Hall as ―high-context‖ or ―low-context.‖ Context is the degree to which meaning comes from the environmental settings in which words are exchanged. High context cultures have experienced stable traditions and history so that age, education, family background and such things that confer status do not change rapidly. Accordingly, the individual carries a tradition of information and understanding within oneself, so a minimum amount of verbal interaction is required. In fact, very little information is explicitly transmitted as part of the message but is carried in the environmental context. High-context cultures may become impatient, or withdraw their participation when low-context people insist on giving them information they do not need. Silence can have profound meaning. High context cultures tend to handle conflict subtly and believe that learning has intrinsic value. High- context cultures include Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, African-Americans, and Native-Americans. In contrast low-context cultures are less homogeneous without a pool of shared common experiences, so verbal interaction requires detailed background information. Since little content is embedded in the context or in the participants, the message contains most of the meaning. Consequently communication tends to be direct and explicit with everything needing to be verbalized; low-context learners expect messages to be detailed, clear-cut and to the point. They ask direct questions that may seem adversarial online, and suspect that high-context learners are ―holding information back‖. Learning has to have a point. Lowcontext cultures include Canada and the U.S. Consider the implications of an online discussion in which individuals from grouporiented high-context cultures (e.g. Chinese, Latin American, Middle Eastern), who are more comfortable with nonverbal, indirect communications in which meaning is implied, and in which the instructor is the expert and not to be questioned or challenged, are expected to interact effectively with low-context cultures (e.g. American, German, Australian, Scandinavian), who are individualistic, direct, egalitarian, and expect participants to ―say what they mean‖ (Main, 2002). Citing Ross-Gordon and Brown-Haywood (2000) Kramarae (2001) warns us that… ‖What is not said and by whom depends upon not just what kinds of repressive mechanisms are used but also upon cultural ideas of appropriate conversational behavior and upon the coping strategies students use when experiencing sexism and racism. For example, studies of African American adult students indicate that one of the coping responses to obstacles in classes (such as attending discussions that ignore relevant social and cultural experiences) is silence‖ (p. 43).

A Survey of Related Research The following list is a very brief and selective survey of the findings of several studies of intercultural issues in online learning. While not representative of all of the cultural issues in the design of Web-based learning, these studies underline the sociopolitical and sociocultural implications for online learning communities.

116

Katy Campbell  In a study of tertiary institutions in Lebanon, Abouchedid & Eid (2004) identify three types of limitation to widespread involvement in e-learning in the Arab world: financial, pedagogical, and attitudinal. At the financial level, for example, high telephone usage tariffs in many parts of the Arab world constitute a significant portion of the overall Internet access charges, limiting the its use as an e-learning tool. The lack of Arabic content and relevant applications also limits the access to the Internet to those who know limited English or French. Further, many Arab educators are concerned about access to sensitive political content, which has restricted access to state-sanctioned ISP, which limits competition and maintains high connectivity charges.  Li and Edmonds (2005) conducted a study of high-risk adults learning mathematics using CAI. ―At-risk learners‖ include those with some type of learning barrier, such as learning disabilities, low literacy rates, language barriers, and/or life struggles. In particular, these students often fail academic courses factored by family socioeconomic conditions, family instability or tragedy, or having a sibling who drops out of school. Issues identified included confusion when using Web-based CAI activities, navigation problems, struggle with the level of reading with online content, pre- and post-test intimidation, and possible boredom with material. In addition, at-risk learners may need to be taught basic computer skills to avoid confounding technological with pedagogical difficulties, requiring additional resources.  In one online course, Wolfe (1998) found that white females‘ participation increased online over F2F environments, while the Hispanic females‘ participation dropped, as did the white males, who ―liked‖ CMC less than any of the other groups.  In a review of the instructional design and HCI literature, Young (2008) found that the present methods of integrating culture in design serve a limited scope of what culture can be in the design process. She concluded that integrating culture in the design of ICTs serves a broad scope, design has not caught up with technology, and that a deliberate design process is required to create for diverse audiences.  Members of certain Native American groups (e.g. Apache) tend to be silent in social situations when the role expectations or the social status of the participants is unclear. To participate in online conversations with ―strangers‖ or with whom they do not have a defined social relationship may be asking them to commit gross social acts (Baldwin, 1995).  Thatcher (2004) conducted a study on media-culture relationship whereby he explored how orality, writing, e-mail and hypertext related to three intercultural values (individualism-collectivism, universal-particular and high context-low context) with Ecuadorian students. Thatcher‘s research showed that the two communication styles (i.e. high and low context) encouraged different rhetorical patterns. High context cultures seemed to prefer orality while low context cultures preferred writing.  In Australia, Fischer (1995) found that Indigenous learners preferred learning environments containing a range of multi-media technologies to traditional Anglo-Saxon methods of learning, speculating that the Indigenous mode of

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

117

learning and communication is more adaptable to understanding a range of signals and mediums than traditional text-based methods of learning can provide (in Clemens, 2002). Clemens‘ (2002) research in the Warlpiri community in Australia further supports the natural pre-disposition of Indigenous peoples to embrace a range of media simultaneously, a potential advantage when they approach a media-rich online environment.  Morse (2003) explored the differences between low-context and high-context participants in a multicultural, online graduate seminar. For instance, while low context participants perceived as an advantage their ability to reflect on the contributions of others, high context participants more highly valued the ability to think about their own contribution to the computer mediated discussion. Morse speculated that ―low context participants may be outwardly oriented (what do others think?), while their high context counterparts may be more inwardly oriented (loss of ‗face‘)‖ (p.47).  Gunawardena and her colleagues (2001) compared perceptions of online group processes and development between Mexican and American college participants. They found that the groups differed significantly in perceptions of language, power distance, gender differences, collectivist vs. individualistic tendencies, conflict, social presence, time frame and technical skills.  Rogers. Graham and Mayes‘ (2007) study of twelve instructional designers working with cross-cultural learning resources presented questions regarding the level of awareness designers have about potential cultural differences that exist among international learners. They categorized the major differences into four areas: general cultural and social expectations, teaching and learning expectations, differences in the use of language and symbols, and technological infrastructure and familiarity. The authors describe systemic barriers to practitioners‘ abilities to be responsive to cultural differences: an over focus on content development, a relative lack of evaluation in real-world practice, and organizational structures that define instructional designers‘ roles.

Implications: Designing for Equity through Cultural Models Intercultural research highlights the learning design issues designers and faculty should take into account when developing online learning environments, but pulling together such a range of disparate findings over the past decade is a complex undertaking, and one must be careful not to succumb to an essentialist approach. Having said that, the research has tended to categorize cultural differences by cultural models and the most typical category is Western vs. Oriental culture, where the values associated with Western cultural are (Hofstede‘s) individualism and (Hall‘s) low-context while values ascribed to Oriental culture are (Hofstede‘s) collectivism and (Hall‘s) high-context (Park & Jun, 2005; Triandis, 1989; 1990). The individualism/collectivism dimension and the high and low-context communication values and expectations have combined to inform the development of human-computer interface research and practice, and more recently learning design approaches. Marcus and Gould (2001) and others (c.f. del Galdo, 1996; Sabin & Aherene, 2002) have defined design

Table 3. Cross-Cultural Dimensions: Fifteen Design Considerations

Subjective Culture

Learning Interaction

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Learning Design Issues

Cultural Dimension High context communication

Individualistic academic culture

Collectivist academic culture

competition; equality; informality; and pragmatism and reasoning style

personal networks; relationships; formality; and respect

the listener is already contextualized; extensive background information unnecessary

Relationship to instructor

expects equality; questioning and critique is encouraged; and teachers may not know the answer.

respect for wisdom; intellectual authority; reluctance to challenge; and teacher is the expert.

respect for elders and social status; and active participation valued.

Source of knowledge

knowledge is socially constructed and contextualized; and many possible answers or solutions.

knowledge is specific and externally defined; and can be acquired through diligent effort.

contextualized

Learner‘s role

self-directed and self-motivated

social participation and membership in community

preserving continuity with land, history and people; and look inwardly at selfbehavior to achieve a socially acceptable level of excellence.

Low context communication the listener knows very little; extensive background necessary social status not as important and can be elastic depending on context; and value for independence. should be made apparent individual effort; exploratory competence; and individuals competing on an individual basis against a standard that may grow or change rapidly over time.

“Multiple Culture” model of design

Design online courses to provide support from the instructor, a high degree of structure for those that need it, offer appropriate strategies to assist international students (e.g. peer coaching), give resources and support for their language problems, and assist their participation. Acknowledge multiple cultural realities or zones of development (Henderson, 1993); design learning resources that allow variability and flexibility while enabling students to learn through interaction with materials respect diversity.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 3. (Continued).

Working with others

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Rhetorical style

Meaningful exchanges

must be convinced; and concerned that individual effort is recognized. controversial argumentative speech; informality; tolerance and encouragement for extreme claims or assertions; free-―wheelingness‖; and oneupsmanship acceptable

explicit communication; and individual experience is accepted as evidence.

online settings may encourage friendship and bonding; and the team effort and achievement are paramount. reduced controversy; agreement and attenuation; subdued discussion; formality; and courtesy and concern for ―face‖

implicit communication; and historicity and group experience are valued.

group bonds and harmony; regret not being able to meet others in the group.

competition is supported

silences; and indirect queries.

Voice; and blunt questions.

language may be vague, as the environment within which communication takes place clarifies the specific meaning of language.

language must be specific and well defined, to provide the contextual definition in which to interpret the communication.

To encourage more process learning and a more facilitative role for instructor may reflect a Western cultural bias and disadvantage learners from collectivist and/or lowcontext cultures. Be cautious when designing for a high-degree of interaction based on argument or debate. Collectivist learning cultures may be uncomfortable with a highdegree of instructor-student collaboration (i.e. equality).

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 3. (Continued).

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Preferred assessment

motivation is based on personal achievement; extra effort is individually valued; and negotiated goals are possible.

individual effort is underplayed in favor of group achievement; adjust effort to predetermined performance outcome; and taking the externally determined standard as a given.

definitive information specific to from of assessment.

alternative form of assessment acceptable.

Include a range of activities for both individuals and small groups. Establish explicit guidelines for online relationships (e.g. communication protocols); define team roles. Some learning cultures value orality, which is difficult to achieve in text-based environments. Investigate the possibility of narrated texts or ―audio presentations.‖ Include worked examples with explicit steps in process.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 3. (Continued).

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Provide advance organizers or guiding questions, and examples of transfer in different contexts, with readings for learners who may struggle with cultural nuance or language levels. How will: learning emphasize individual or collegial work? the content and activities be critical of the status quo and unconventional or conservative? different cultural values be handled sensitively? you balance didactic and inquiry-based approaches the mix of e-texts support learning styles and characteristics? assessments be handled?

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 3. (Continued).

Authority

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Information Design

Objective Culture

Ideas and concepts

Security and Privacy

individuals are most important. emphasis on change: and what is new and unique willingness to provide personal information; and individuals have right to free access; privileged information if individual benefits; and individuals can be identified.

products are shown by themselves or with groups of people.

Defined in-groups and outgroups

flexible in-groups and out-groups

tradition and history.

loosely structured.

highly structured.

protection of personal data differentiating the individual from the group; and if not available to all, then not available to any.

guidelines and rules are Implicit

direct guidelines

Images of role models and their relationships

youth and action are valued.

experience, age and wisdom are valued.

strong people bonds; and reserved reactions.

fragile people bonds; and reactions on the surface.

Language

truth: links to evidence and policy; and extreme statements tolerated.

relationships: links to narratives; and official position respected.

implicit and internalized messages.

explicit and plainly coded messages.

Evaluate for cultural appropriateness the interface in the LMS or in sites that are included as resources. For example, ask several learners from different cultures to assess the materials for: how interactive the environment should be. what motivational aspects to include. the relative weights of group vs. individual opinion. the tolerance level for ambiguity. the focus on tradition vs. new ideas. gender or political issues that may be controversial and need to be handled well.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 3. (Continued). Depth of information

in personal control.

required information.

non-verbal coding.

verbalized details.

Navigation

exploration and personal control; and links may lead learner away from ―home‖.

designed to prevent from losing place.

mental models and help systems might focus on understanding underlying concepts rather than narrow tasks.

focus on reducing errors.

Multimedia elements (and icons)

high use of graphics, sound and animation showing action, competition, and mastery.

use of visual aesthetics, poetic language; and appeal to social values and harmony in environment.

metaphors and symbolism; and images carry meaning.

explicit message; and text.

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Based on Clemens, 2002; Main, 2002; Marcus & Gould, 2001; McLoughlin, 2000; Morse, 2003; Tylee, year?

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

124

Katy Campbell

heuristics that acknowledge and value cultural differences: In this section I have attempted to synthesize and integrate these research findings to present some strategies that can be used in the design of equitable e-learning environments regardless of the composition of the users. These strategies are grouped by learning activity (e.g. asynchronous discussions) and by the information design (e.g. navigation icons), and organized by subjective culture ideas (models); and by objective culture aspects.

Final Words In this section I introduced the idea of the cultural model as a framework with which to understand the impact that cultural issues may have on the design of inclusive and effective elearning environments. Application of a cultural model requires an appreciation of the many ways in which culture can influence learning through values, language, communication styles, cognitive styles, attitudes, and so on. McLoughlin (2000) provides faculty and designers with the following set of initial questions to guide the development of learning resources:  What kind of learning environment is most familiar to the students?  How does the cultural background of these students influence their use and view of time?  How do students conceive the role of the teacher?  What kind of relationship do students want with a teacher?  What kinds of assessment tasks are fair and unbiased?  What rewards and forms of feedback are most motivating and beneficial for these students?  Is the locus of control congruent with these students‘ own sense of personal control?  What cognitive styles characterize the target group? An American and a Malaysian university partnered to develop an economics course to be delivered at a distance. The participants were employees of the same company. The designers were very careful to include culturally appropriate images of professionals at work—women were not in senior managerial roles with workgroups containing males, although all-female groups were shown with female leaders. Second, the class discussions were structured to be facilitated by a senior manager in the company who presented explicit expectations of online discourse, including the inclusion of evidence and the ways in which participants could disagree with a posting. However, the facilitator did not respond to direct questions about his own stance.

Gender-Related Issues Much of the earlier research on technology-related gender differences identified lower levels of computer literacy, self-efficacy, and achievement; and access to technology and high-speed connections. As access in the Western world, at least, seems to be equalizing, it seems possible to examine the gender differences that persist when these barriers are removed

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

125

(c.f. Gunn, McSporran, Macleod & French, 2003). The picture that emerges shows females online as frequently as males, but engaged in different activities and for different reasons (Fallows, 2005; Sherman and others, 2000). For example, in the media when women are shown using computers it is usually for routine tasks while men are shown doing more dynamic things like game playing (White & Kinnick, 2000). Gender differences based on age and experience, home and work life, as well as culture, continue to influence the design of technology-enhanced learning environments. In the view of culture that frames this chapter, sociopolitical and sociocultural factors interact in complex ways to affect women‘s experiences, in particular in online discussions (Campbell, 2000; Campbell, & Gramlich, 2002). In the earlier days of computer-mediated communication (CMC) many believed that because of the flexible access and lack of non-verbal cues CMC would ultimately lead to a more equitable learning environment. While research is inconclusive, it seems that gender and cultural differences persist in online forums (c.f. Yates, 2001) Analysis of dialogue in CMC consistently reveals gender differences in styles of online participation and contribution to discussions. Generally speaking, women talk less, contribute less frequently, do not receive positive feedback to their contributions, attenuate more and assert less, challenge participants who don‘t follow rules of online etiquette, and do not appeal to the same sources of evidence. They may disagree with others as much as males do, but will use more agreement terms and drop out of the conversation if their ideas are challenged over several rounds (Smith, McLoughlin & Osborne, 1997; Wolfe, 2000). In their postings women are more likely than men to be interactive by referring to the postings of others, but men‘s messages are longer and more frequent (Barrett and Lally, 1999). In research spanning a dozen years Susan Herring (1994, 2000, 2001) has found that in mixedgender conversations women seemed to participate more actively when an individual (teacher/facilitator) maintained order and group focus, even when the facilitator was male, concluding that women succeed in online discussions when the structured environment is free from threats and disruptions and civility is explicitly maintained. Gunn and her colleagues (2003) concur that a critical issue of participation may be the levels and types of support provided for learners, for example inclusion of opportunities for self-assessment and the provision of a range of support options that are available without being requested. A study conducted in New South Wales examined equity issues focusing on adult rural women's experiences in online learning (Meyers, Bennett & Lysaght, 2004). The female students identified a range of male negative behaviors to which they responded by: ignoring the behaviors, posting responses in attempts to curb the behaviors, and withdrawal from further participation in a topic. These findings suggest that success in online discourse relates more to the learning environment and potential for supporting gender-based linguistic styles than inherent verbal ability (Graddy, 2004). Graddy (2004) describes online learning as fundamentally a social process that is predisposed to patterns of off-line interaction. If, as he found in his study of gender interactions in an online economics course, female conversation signals low social presence there is an impact on the knowledge formation capabilities of the group as a whole. Conditions under which women undertake online learning also affect their participation and success. I referred earlier to the ―third shift,‖ where women who are learning online are performing 70-80% of childcare at the same time (Williams, 2000). These women may have Internet access at home equal to that of their male peers, but may tend to see the computer as

126

Katy Campbell

a family resource for which they have lower priority than their male partners or their children. In one study 49% percent of the female students, and no male students, reported they did not have priority access to the computer in the home (Gunn and others, 2003). Another study found that men in online courses tended to study between 4-8 pm, while women studied later, presumably after their other child-related obligations were fulfilled (Richardson and French, 2000). Barriers to participation fall into institutional, dispositonal (e.g. self-efficacy) and situational (Meyers, Bennett & Lysaght, 2003). For example, Barraket, Payne, Scott and Cameron (2000) also found that older students and women are less likely to have technological training, lack a personal network to assist them with technical support and are more likely to lack confidence in accessing existing services and facilities to gain that support.

Implications for Equitable Online Learning Communication in online environments involves a complex interaction of social, cultural and individual factors, including gender. The exploration of gender issues in e-learning should also consider factors such as age, culture, economic background, and ethnicity (Li, 2005). Computer supported learning is still predominantly designed to present didactic rather than constructive approaches (Gunn and others, 2003); the latter are more promising in terms of flexible and equitable learning. In terms of ―standpoint‖ a woman-friendly approach may describe a model for systems design for diverse user communities (Shade, 2002, p. 85). Accordingly the checklist below reflects strategies that promote equity and respect for diversity through a gender-appropriate lens (Barrakett and others, 2000; Dwight, 2004; Herring, 2001; Graddy, 2004; Kramarae, 2001).

Fifteen Inclusive Strategies to Promote Gender Equity Understand the learner: 1) 2) 3) 4)

What is their level of general computer competence? Are they able to gain access to efficient computer equipment? Are they experienced in ICTs such as email, chat rooms or bulletin boards? How flexible is their time?

Develop a collaborative community: 5) Provide opportunities that humanize the environment and develop online socialization. For example, encourage learners to develop collaborative networks for group work 6) In a mix of individual and collaborative activities, decide how the online collaboration will relate to assessment. For example, how you are going to determine that participants have contributed equally? 7) Pose problems that explore social issues and multiple viewpoints.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

127

Moderate online discussion: 8) Set explicit rules of engagement, for example, develop a ―netiquette rubric‖ to assess appropriate discourse. 9) Value and respect personal experience as well as empirical evidence. 10) Model responses that are evidence-based, interactive, and attenuative. 11) Provide opportunities for guest experts to participate in debates, forums or virtual field trips. Design and evaluate content for: 12) Gender-neutral language and iconography; 13) Sports (e.g. ―step up to the plate‖) or ―aggressive‖ (e.g. ―kill the discussion‖) metaphors; 14) Images that represent individuals in non-traditional roles or activities; and 15) Assumptions about gendered behavior (e.g. only males like gaming). A graduate course in nursing theory was redesigned from a F2F seminar to an online discussion-based model. The average age of the learners was 42 and they were all women. Most were working full-time in a clinic or hospital and were from urban and rural areas across the country. One participant lived in Chile. The course developers worked closely with a team of faculty and representative learners who had experienced the F2F version of the course to create a needs assessment exploring computer experience, access to technology, family situation, level of technical support available, workplace context and attitude and experience towards online learning. The survey revealed a low level of experience and expectations for technical support, moderate anxiety about learning online and alone, and varying levels of access. The course was designed so that learners could ―attend‖ a pre-course online workshop with low-risk, non-assessed activities that introduced them to the technology, the design, and specific learning strategies, and included collaborative events for relationship building. Photos were posted in the course site. Each participant was assigned a ―buddy‖ to contact with technical questions. Three voluntary teleconferences were scheduled; the learners determined the content. The usual 13-week semester was extended to 17 weeks to increase flexibility. The curriculum was designed to be inquiry-based so that authentic problems of nursing practice in each institution represented provided the core content.

READABILITY Making sense of the, sometimes conflicting, research--putting it all together in guidelines for design—seems a daunting task. In each section I have used the user-centered design philosophy to present design heuristics and tools to assist teachers and designers to develop learning solutions that meet ―inclusiveness requirements‖ for three main categories of diversity: disabilities (including age-related issues), culture, and gender. In this last section, I provide a brief overview of good information design to enhance the overall ―readability‖ of your web pages (c.f. Campbell, 2004).

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 4. Fifty Ways to Enhance Readability.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Guidelines Enhance scanning by providing clear links, headings, short phrases and sentences, and short paragraphs. Use many, carefully selected headings, with names that conceptually relate to the information or functions they describe. Increase the number of headings. Use a variety of forms and levels of headings (style, font size, etc.) to convey information hierarchies. Write simple, straightforward headings that contain information about the content. When appropriate, increase the font size Use familiar fonts, sans serif if possible. Use fonts consistently Use style elements carefully, and only to carry meaning (clues to the nature of the content). Don‘t use underlining for emphasis. Use bright color to attract the eye. Use vertical and horizontal whitespace to enhance readability Use about the half the screen width for the text area. One chunk answers one question about one subject for one purpose. Each topic contains only one-third to one-fifth of a paper page Separate chunks by a double-space Use headings, sidebars, and key words in the margin to enhance learner control and to provide additional context. Reduce text to a maximum of 50% of the word count of the printed version To counter the loss of context, repeat contextual information in each place it is needed and provide links to related information. Aim for a readability level no higher than Grade 10 for post-secondary audiences; Grade 8 for general audiences. Archive long, complex academic or technical papers. Limit page length. Documents that should flow in sequence should be provided offline or by giving readers the option of a ―print-friendly‖ version. A link back to the ―homepage‖ should appear on each screen. In a long, scrolling text document, provide a ‗back to top‖ link at various points. Use ―locator clues‖ for example, a graphic header on each page. Layer information (about three layers is recommended) through links to supplementary pages so that readers can choose whether to elaborate on a topic. But, avoid excessive linking as this is visually distracting and disrupts narrative flow. Check regularly that that all of the links work properly and that the content they supply remains relevant. Provide overviews or summary screens. Replace complex sentences with shorter, simple sentence structures. Sentences should be no longer than 20 words; paragraphs no longer than five sentences Use the active voice wherever possible. Change from the third person to the first person where appropriate. Convert serialized lists to bulleted lists.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

Table 4. (Continued). 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

ce Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

43

44

45 46 47 48 49 50

Place important information at the top of the page, or "above the fold" (in the first screen of information), to ease scanning. Most navigation pages should not scroll. If reading speed is important and response time is reasonably fast, use links, or paging, rather than scrolling. Provide balance for visual and verbal elements so that they are equally distributed vertically and horizontally. Break complex visuals into smaller, simpler visuals (chunking). Avoid excessive detail. Present an image in close proximity to related text. For most computing tasks the threshold of frustration is about ten seconds. Horton (2001) advises that industry observers expect that it will be at least another three-five years before Web designers can count on most home users having access to high-speed Web connections. Be conservative with Web graphics and large files (e.g. audio). Redundancy is essential. The visual should not present a different concept from the text. Audio should support other texts. Always design animation for user control. The interface exists to enable user interaction: Identify learners‘ goals and design interface to provide the means to achieve them. Images, audio, animation and video all come with significant overhead for the user, e.g. downloading files, installing plug-ins, enduring delays, etc. Make sure the media on your web site is relevant: Moving images may detract attention from main content. Use e-texts only if they help communicate a message (or improve access). Send media to the user only in response to an explicit request. You don‘t always know ‗what you‘re getting into‘ when you load a site. You have a bit more leeway if you are designing for students in a course because they must wait for media to excel in course (as long as it is relevant). Include high-bandwidth pages on a secondary page that users can access when and if needed. Provide information about your media so users can make informed decisions. Through previews and descriptions, summaries; thumbnails. Provide different views for different types of users. Leave control in the hands of the user Interaction with media should always be user-driven. Don‘t include prescribed playback. Design the interface to be transparent. Metaphors should make intuitive sense to the user. Use clear, consistent icons and graphic identity schemes for navigation.

haughnessy, Michael F.. Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching, edited by Susan Fulgham, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http //ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utar-ebooks/detail.action?doc D=3018693. reated from utar-ebooks on 2020-12-03 19:50 23.

130

Katy Campbell

Assuming that you intend to ―publish‖ learning materials online, the textual materials you have developed for your F2F courses may not be as effective on the Web. Reading on the Web requires different skills and strategies—the environment is very different—and the learner tends to scan text online, looking for relevant information, print pages that contain items they need, and read offline. Rather than reading a text in sequence (e.g. page one two, three…) readers tend to develop their own semantic paths by following links. Your first task is to determine how you will design the learning environment. For example, you might provide all texts offline (e.g. a set of readings), or through PDF files that you expect to be downloaded, and use an asynchronous discussion for the learning interactions. On the other hand, you may design a case-based course in which all the materials including texts, multimedia, learning activities, and asynchronous and synchronous discussions are online. In any event, you need to write for the medium as well as for the learner. You will find a number of excellent style guides on the Web; several are provided in the references at the end of the chapter. For example, the University of Dartmouth‘s guide for faculty provides broad guidelines for enhancing readability. A consistent interface and style are an advantage of learning course management systems (LCMS), for example Blackboard™. Table 4. Fifty Ways to Enhance Readability presents a set of heuristics that are typical of most web style guides:

Final Thoughts Most of the strategies in Table 4 inform the original design of learning materials and environments. However, many of us will also evaluate existing learning resources for responsiveness to intercultural concerns. As we have seen with the accessibility guidelines, designing/evaluating for cultural appropriateness enhances access and learnability for many other learners at the same time with attention to varied learning styles, engagement and inclusion of diverse and divergent perspectives, and active and participatory teaching and learning. Gorski (1999) provides a checklist for the evaluation of multicultural principles as actualized (or not actualized) in educational sites, adapted below.

Twenty-Seven Tips for Evaluating Sites for Multicultural Principles Is the site's content relevant to the learning outcomes? Is the Web medium an appropriate delivery format? Are the mission and the scope of the site clearly indicated and relevant?
 Are graphic images culturally appropriate and relevant? If humor is used (e.g. cartoons) is the meaning transparent? Must the learner possess tacit ―dominant culture‖ knowledge to understand the meaning of text or images? Is the content timely and updated to reflect current global issues? Is the site author or designer clearly indicated? Does the author or designer have disciplinary authority and status?

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

131

Is the site or site author affiliated with an identified and respected educational organization? Does the site include a statement about the author or sponsoring organization that helps identify potential bias? Is the site authored or sponsored by some person or organization with a known position regarding the content? Does the site include forums for users to discuss its content and present divergent perspectives? Does the site contain obvious content errors or omissions? If information on the site is time-sensitive, is it routinely updated to incorporate new and follow-up information?
 Does the site provide or invite diverse perspectives, or does it rely a tightly defined single view for understanding its topic? Are sources within the site clearly cited? Has the site been evaluated by an external agency for accessibility? Is the author or sponsoring organization accessible to answer questions via email or online form?
 Is the site organization consistent and coherent? Is information design evidence-based and supportive of different learning needs? Does the site use a variety of media and styles to effectively engage students with varying learning styles? Does the site encourage interaction between author and user or among users?
 Does the site encourage participation among users through intercultural interactive or collaborative opportunities?
 Does the site invite critical examination or divergent perspectives through interactive forums or online evaluation instruments? Does the site provide voice to other perspectives through links or other connections? Is the site free of material that may be oppressive to one or more groups of learners?

OUR RESPONSIBILITY At the beginning of the chapter I shared personal experiences of exclusion that have shaped my design journey over thirty years. As I write this I am sitting on my deck at my lake cabin, which is adjacent to an Aboriginal reserve less than sixty miles from my home in a large Western Canadian city, in one of the most-wired provinces in Canada. The SuperNet™ links every school, hospital, library and government office to a high-speed provincial network. The cables run along the road behind my cabin, less than 50 yards from where I sit. Yet I do not currently have Internet access and can not expect the situation to improve for three-five years. The Digital Divide includes both local users: Aboriginal learners living in

132

Katy Campbell

challenging communities and me, a representative of the ―dominant culture.‖ It reminds me to be very careful about my cultural assumptions. Designing inclusive learning materials is not easy; it requires soul-searching, self-knowledge and the courage to challenge your values and biases. This chapter has presented evidence-based strategies for the design of inclusive learning environments. An underlying assumption is that our tertiary classrooms more and more reflect the intercultural nature of our societies. Moreover, at the societal level economies evolve to meet the demands of a global knowledge society and Western nations face a demographic crisis and a growing shortage of skilled workers. Those already in the workforce may have to return to tertiary education from time to time throughout their lives, immigrants will be required to update their credentials, and new workers expect to join learning organizations. At the same time, educating for world citizenship means opening institutional ―borders‖ to new learning communities, internationalizing the curriculum, and enhancing flexibility. In ―The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Expanding Access to Higher Education‖ Gourley, Wilson and Clark (2006) write that ―return to campusbased study will be impossible for the substantial majority‖ and, since the learning opportunities will have to delivered to alternative settings, ―ICTs have the capacities…to be integrated with the other demands of adult life‖ (p. 7). Access to educational opportunities, formal or non-formal, can be restricted by a number of factors including social and financial disadvantage, disability, age, gender, language, location and sociopolitical factors. Learning technology holds promise as an ―integral element in the fight against social exclusion‖ (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 3). By exploring the issues and leveraging your institutional ―agency‖ I encourage you to enlist in this good fight.

REFERENCES Abouchedid, K., & Eid. G.M. (2004). E-learning challenges in the Arab world: revelations from a case study profile. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 15-27. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 650051491). Andrews, S.S., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & DiGangi, S.A. (2005, October). The Digital Divide: Focused research results on peer mentoring, scalability and occupational self-efficacy in a home-based technology integration program. Proceedings of the 28th annual Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL. 32-44. Arch, A. (2002, July). Dispelling the myths - Web accessibility is for all. Paper presented at the 8th annual AusWeb Australian World Wide Web Conference, Queensland, AU. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ arch/paper.html Bagwell, (2001). Cultural factors influencing online interaction and group dynamics. Distance Education, 22(1), 181. Baldwin, G.D. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and American Indian education. In Z.L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 1. Overview and perspectives (pp 113-136). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Publishers.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

133

Barraket, J., Payne, A., Scott, G., & Cameron, L. (2000, May). Equity and the use of communications technology in Higher Education: A UTS case study. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Barrett, E. & Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(1), 48-60. Black, R. and others (1999). Distance education: Access guidelines for students with disabilities (August 1999). The High Tech Center Training Unit in Collaboration with the Distance Education Accessibility Workgroup, Office of the Chancellor, California Community Colleges. 71 pages. Bulu, S.T. & Bulu, S. (2005, October). Sense of community in the multicultural online learning environment. In M. Simonson & M. Crawford (Eds.). Proceedings of the 28th annual Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL, 7789. Carter, V.K. (2000). Virtual shades of pale: Educational technologies and the electronic “other.” In N.M. Rodriguez and L.E. Villaverde (Eds.), Dismantling white privilege: Pedagogy, politics and whiteness (pp. 25-400). New York: Peter Lang. Chou, C.C. (2005, October). Computer conferencing for technology integration and digital equity. In M. Simonson & M. Crawford (Eds.). Proceedings of the 28th annual Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL. P 181-184. Clark, J. (2001). Accessibility on the Mac. TidBITS Article Series: Accessibility on the Mac. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbser=1189 Clemens, L. (2002, July). Billabong: Indigenous considerations in website design. Paper presented at the 8th annual AusWeb Australian World Wide Web Conference, Queensland, AU. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/ papers/refereed/clemens/index.html Commission of the European Communities (2001, September). e-Inclusion: The Information Society's potential for social inclusion in Europe. Commission Staff Working Paper (Sec 2001-1428). Retrieved June 4, 2006 from.. del Galdo, E.M. (1996). Culture and design. In E.M. del Galdo & J. Nielsen, (Eds.). (1996). International user interfaces (pp. 74-87). New York, NY: Wiley Computer Publishing. Donaldson, J. F., Graham, S. W. Martindill, W. & Bradley, S. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: How do they define their experiences and their success? Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48(2), 2-11. Dormann, C., & Chisalita, C. (2002, September). Cultural values in web site design. Paper presented for the 11th European conference on cognitive ergonomics ECCEII Catania, Italy. Dwight, J. (2004). „I‟m Just Shy‟: using structured computer-mediated communication to disrupt masculine discursive norms. E–Learning, 1(1), 95-104. Fallows, D. (2005, December). How women and men use the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, D.C. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/8/press_release.asp. See also http://www.pewinternet. org/topics.asp?page=2&c=2 Fischer, R.A. (1995). Protohistoric roots of the network self: On wired aborigines and the emancipation from alphabetic imperialism. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/folklore/

134

Katy Campbell

Fukuda-Parr, S. and others (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making new technologies work for human development. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Fukuda-Parr, S. and others (2004). Human Development Report 2004: Cultural liberty in today‟s diverse world. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Fulton, K., & Sibley, R. (2003). Barriers to equity. In G. Solomon, N. J. Allen & P. Resta (Eds.), Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education (pp. 14-24). Boston: Pearson Educational Group. Gorski, P. (1999). The multiculturality of the world wide web. Multicultural Perspectives, 1(3), 44-46. Gourley, B., Wilson, P., & Clark, P. (2006, May). The role of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTS) in expanding access to higher education. IAU Horizons: World Higher Education News, 12(2), 7. Graddy, D. B. (2004). Gender and online discourse in the principles of economics. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4). 3-14. Gunawardena, C, Nolla, P., Wilson, P., Lopez, J., Ramirez-Angel, N. & Megchun-Alpizar, R. (2001). A cross-cultural study of group processes and development in online conferences. Distance Education, 22(1), 85-110. Gunn, C, McSporran, M., Macleod, H., & French, S. (2003). Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 14-30. Hall, E. & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Hanson, K. & Carlson, B. (2005, June). Effective access: Teachers‟ use of digital resources in STEM teaching. Gender, Diversities, and Technology Institute, Education Development Center, Inc. Grant DUE 6022648. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is "strong objectivity"? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.). Feminist Epistemologies (pp. 49-82). London: Routledge. Herring, S. (1994). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Library Association, Miami, Florida. Herring, S. (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line. The Information Society, 15, 151-167. Herring, S. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. The CPSR Newsletter 18(1): 1–12. Herring, S. (2001). Gender and power in online communications. CSI Working Paper (#WP01-05). Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture‟s consequence: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Culture and organizations: software of the mind. NY: McGraw Hill. Holmes, D. (2006). Canadian universities address aboriginal education. IAU Horizons: World Higher Education News, 12(2), 8.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

135

Institute of International Education (2005, November). Joint survey on international student enrolments on U.S. campuses this Fall. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.iie.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Pressroom/PressReleases/Joint_Survey_on_ International_Student_Enrollments_on_U_S__Campuses_This_Fall.htm Hooker, J. (2004). Working across cultures. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Horton, S. (2002). Web teaching guide. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.webteachingguide.com/ Koper, R. (2000). From change to renewal: Educational technology foundations to electronic learning environments. Inaugural address of the Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands. Kramarae, C. (2001). The third shift: Women learning online. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Academic Women Educational Foundation. Ku, H. & Lohr, L. L. (2003). A case study of Chinese students‟ attitudes toward their first online learning experience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 95-102. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: A practitioner‟s guide to user research. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Leonard, V.K, Jacko, J.A., & Pizzimenti, J.J. (2005, October). An exploratory investigation of handheld computer interaction for older adults with visual impairments. Paper in the Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Baltimore, MD. Li, Q. (2005). Gender and CMC: A review on conflict and harassment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 382-406. Li, Q., & Edmonds, K.A. (2005). Mathematics and At-Risk Adult Learners: Would Technology Help? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 143-166. Lynch, P, & Horton, S. (2004) Web style guide, 2nd edition. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.webstyleguide.com/interface/user-centered.html Marcus, A., & Gould, E. (2007). Cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design: What? So what? Now what? Emeryville, CA: Aaron Marcus and Associates (AM+A). Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.amada.com/resources/hfweb2000/ hfweb00.marcus.html Main, L. (2002). Building Websites for a multilingual audience. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. McLoughlin, C. (1999, June) Culture on-line: Development of a culturally supportive web environment for indigenous Australian students. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Seattle, Washington, 293298. McLoughlin, C. (2000, April). Indigenous learners on-line: A model for flexible learning in an innovative Web-based environment. Paper presented at the Australian Indigenous Education Conference, Fremantle, Australia. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede‟s „Model of National Cultural Differences and Consequences”: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89118. Meyers, W., Bennett, S. & Lysaght, P. (2003). Gender equity issues in e-learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Network Universities and e-Learning. 8-9 May 2003. Valencia. Spain. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.hsh.no/menu/

136

Katy Campbell

Meyers, W., Bennett, S. & Lysaght, P. (2004, December). Asynchronous communication: Strategies for equitable e-learning. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 655-662). Perth, AU. August 28, 2008 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/perth04/procs/meyers.html Miah, MD S-J., (2004, June). Accessibility improvement of multicultural educational web interface by using the User-Centred Design (UCD) Approach. In , (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Informing Science and IT Education Joint Conference, Santa Rosa, CA: The Informing Science Institute. Michigan Virtual University (2002). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved June 4, 2006 from http://standards.mivu.org/ Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37-55. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of Education Statistics, 2000, Table 248. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Park, C., & Jun, J.K. (2002, July). A cross-cultural comparison of online buying intention: Effects of Internet usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness. Paper presented at the 8th annual AusWeb Australian World Wide Web Conference, Queensland, AU. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/park/paper.html Powell, G. (1997). On being a culturally sensitive instructional designer and educator. Educational Technology, 37(2), 6-14. Richardson, H. and French, S. (2000). Education online: What's in it for women? In E. Balka & R. Smith (Eds.). Women, work and computerization: Charting a course to the future. Vancouver, BC: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R., & Mayes, C.T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction crossculturally. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 197-217. Ross-Gordon, J., & Brown-Haywood, F. (2000). Keys to college success as seen through the eyes of African American adult students." Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48(3),14-23. Sabin, C. & Ahern, T. (2002). Instructional design and culturally diverse learners. Paper presented at the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference IEEE November 6 9, 2002, Boston, MA. Shade, L.R. (2002). Gender community in the social construction of the Internet. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Sherman, RC, End, C, Kraan, E, Cole, A, Campbell, J, Birchmeir, Z, & Klausner, J. (2000). The Internet gender gap among college students: Forgotten but not gone? Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 3(5), 885-894. Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability: Pushing human-computer interaction research to empower every citizen. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 85-91. Smith, C., McLoughlin, M., & Osborne, K. (1997). Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 2(4), 1-11. Taylor, B.C. (2005, August). Virtual kaleidoscopes: Socio-cultural implications for distance learning. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Madison, WI.

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

137

Thatcher, B. (2004). Rhetorics and communication media across cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 305-320. Thomas, L. (2006, May). Widening participation in higher education. IAU Horizons: World Higher Education News, 12(2), 3-4, 10. Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2), 40-40. U.S. Department of Commerce (2000, October). Falling through the Net: A report on Americans‟ access to technology tools. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/Falling.htm#61 Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96 (3), 506-520. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium of Motivation Lincoln: Nebraska University Press. Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/index.html Weinschenk, S. (2006, January). Selling older users short. Human Factors International User Interface Design Update Newsletter, Retrieved September 2, 2008 from http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/jan06.asp White, C. & Kinnick, K.N. (2000). One click forward and two clicks back: Portrayal of women using computers in television commercials. Women‘s Studies in Communication, 23(3), 392-412. Williams, D. L., Boone, R. &. Kingsley, K. V. (2004). Teacher beliefs about educational software: A Delphi Study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36 (3): 213– 229. Wilson, M. S. (2001). Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64. Wolfe, J. (2000). Gender, ethnicity and classroom discourse: Communication patterns of Hispanic and white students in networked classrooms. Written Communication, 17, 491519. Yates, S. (2001). Gender, language and CMC for education. Learning and Instruction, 11, 21-34. Young, P.A. (2008). Integrating Culture in the Design of ICTs. Review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 6-17. Ziegahn, L. (2001). 'Talk' about culture online: The potential for transformation. Distance Education, 22(1), 144-150.

A FEW USEFUL SITES Cultural Models Hofstede‟s Dimensions of Culture Scales. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http:// spectrum.troy.edu/~vorism/hofstede.htm Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.geerthofstede.com/

138

Katy Campbell

Geert Hofstede‟s Cultural Values Dimension. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www2.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/Hofstede.html Intercultural Research: The Current State of KNowledge. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://stephan.dahl.at/ research/online-publications/intercultural-research/

Accessibility American Association for Retired Persons (AARP). Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.aarp.org/ Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.w3.org AccessIT: National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, (2002/06). How does accessible web design benefit all web users? (Article 197). University of Washington. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.washington.edu/ accessit/articles?197 Audiopoint. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.audiopoint.net/ Distance Education: Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. California Community Colleges. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.htctu.net/publications/ guidelines/distance_ed/disted.htm Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning universal design, universal access. Retrieved August 29, 2008 on the World Wide Web at: http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=17776 CAST: Center for Applied Special Technology. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.cast.org/ How People with Disabilities Use the Web. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/Overview.html InternetSpeech. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.internetspeech.com/. LIFT – an automated checking program for compliance with Section 508. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.usablenet.com/lift_dw/lift_dw.html National Disabled Students Union. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.disabledstudents.org/ Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.section508.gov/ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved June 4, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/ TR/WCAG10/

Good Design AccessIT: National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, (2002/06). Michigan Virtual University: A Promising Practice in Developing Standards for Online Courses, Article 215. University of Washington. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?215 Color Matters – The Brain. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.colormatters.com/ culturematters.html

Designing Online Environments for Diversity and Equity …

139

Color Symbolism Chart by Culture. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://webdesign.about.com/od/color/a/bl_colorculture.htm Shaikh, A.D., Chaparro, B.S., Nelson, W.T., & Joshi, A. (2005). Metaphors and Website Design: A Cross-Cultural Case Study of the Tide.com Stain Detective Usability News, (7)1. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/ 71/ using_metaphors.asp Standards for Quality Online Courses, (n.d.). Michigan Virtual University (MVU). Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://standards.mivu.org/standards/ University of Dartmouth, (n.d.). Guide for Faculty. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from https://www.dartmouth.edu/~webteach/articles/text.html www.usability.gov – a site with links to resources about accessibility, guidelines for good Web design, guidelines for writing for the web Useit.com Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.useit.com

Equity and Diversity Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development, (1999). Achieving diversity and inclusivity in teaching and learning at the University of Western Australia. University of Western Australia: Centre for Staff Development. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion. (2002). Social inclusion. Retrieved August 29, 2008 http://www.cesi.org.uk/_newsite2002/social_inclusion/inclusion.htm Digital Divide Solutions. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from: http://www.asu.edu/ DigitalDivideSolutions/. Waddell, C. (1999). Electronic curbcuts: Universal access for everyone. Retrieved August 29, 2008 from http://www.cisp.org/imp/december_99/12_99waddell.htm United States Department of Education. (2003a, October 29). Press release. US Dept. of Education. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/ 2003/10/10292003a.html

SHORT BIOGRAPHY Katy Campbell, Ph.D. In 1994, Katy Campbell received her Ph.D. in Instructional Studies from the University of Alberta. Her doctoral research involved a narrative study of a collaborative instructional design process as socially transformative practice. Currently Dean in the Faculty of Extension (University of Alberta), Dr. Campbell has been an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at the State University of New York College at Geneseo, a distance education developer at Keewatin Community College (Manitoba, Canada), and the Research Director of Academic Technologies for Learning at the University of Alberta. Katy‘s research interests include gender/technology interactions and resulting design issues, faculty transformative practice through collaborative instructional design, psychosocial issues of faculty teaching with technology, inclusive design practices, and the

140

Katy Campbell

lives and practice of instructional designers. A recent study explored the role of the instructional designer as an agent of social change in Higher Education. She has published and presented at professional meetings in Europe, Asia, North America, and in the Pacific Rim. She published Effective writing for e-learning environments in 2004. Katy has served in numerous professional and academic associations, including as the colead of the Learning Design Working Group that developed eLearning specifications through IMS Global Learning Consortium. She serves on the editorial boards of several academic journals and is a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Edmonton Region Immigrant Employment Council. In her free time, Katy plays with her two dogs and one cat, sews, cooks, and renovates a lake cabin with her husband, Rick. They have two children, Courtney and Scott.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 9

EFFECTIVE LEARNING WITH VIDEO, AUDIO AND SIMULATIONS Susan Fulgham West Texas A & M University, Texas, USA

INTRODUCTION In the last ten years, online education has significantly grown in the educational market, particularly in higher education (Maguire, 2005). The anytime, anyplace web-based learning environment appeals to a number of non-traditional students, who choose this method of education in obtaining academic credits towards a degree or for personal reasons, such as updating job skills. Faculty or instructors recognize their roles in delivering instruction and look for effective ways to teach or improve the learning environment. One technique used to improve learning in an online course is to include multimedia. Clark and Feldon define multimedia as the ―capacity of computers to provide real-time representations of nearly all existing media and sensory modes of instruction‖ and instructional media as ―any vehicle for presenting or delivering instruction‖ (2005, p.98). Mayer and Sims (1994) refer to multimedia learning as learning that occurs when information is delivered through two or more modalities, such as verbal and visual. For this discussion, multimedia will be viewed as any instructional media presentation involving audio and visual graphics, such as PowerPoint, interactive simulations, video, or animation. The purpose of this chapter is to assist instructors in choosing appropriate media through principles learned by research and practice, so they may in turn, create effective learning environments.

THE VALUE OF MEDIA Multimedia is a component that can enhance the online learning process through simulations, animation, video, audio, and pictorial content. When used appropriately, multimedia helps students learn better (Mayer, 2001).

142

Susan Fulgham

Multimedia products are increasingly being introduced in online courses through publishers as a package deal when adopting a textbook. Publishers may offer audio, video CD ROMs and interactive websites to meet the needs of instructors who need content for online courses. DeVerneil and Berge (2000) noted that instructors have a tendency to use existing software and hardware that is already in place or readily available at an institution. Further, Cobb (1997) by argument to Clark‘s position on learning with media, states that if there isn‘t a clear difference in whether the instructional method is through a book, audio recording or other media, then cost and efficiency dominate the decision on what media is selected. Therefore it is implied that instructors may resort to using the CD ROM that is packaged with their textbook over exploring what is available on the World Wide Web and learning object repositories, like Merlot (http://www.merlot.org), or whether they will take the necessary time to judge whether the packaged media is pedagogically sound. In a traditional classroom, the instructor who uses packaged publisher media can make up for any instructional flaws through immediate feedback; in an online environment, the instructor is left filling in gaps, expending time and effort through asynchronous text that must be written and then read (Hirumi, 2005). The traditional view of the lecture component can be described as a dynamic element that has the potential to engage students in maintaining attention and motivating learning. This lecture element is often not included in packaged publisher materials that are distributed for online learning. (The reason for the exclusion of the traditional lecture format may be related to the development of learner-centered environments over instructor- facilitated.) But if the lecture component needs to be added, especially for adding clarity to ambiguous subject information in a course, who should create it? Since the instructor is the content expert, or decision maker in selecting concepts and topics for text and audio commentary, the instructor should be the natural choice for delivering lecture type material to the students of their course (Laaser & Gerke, 2001). Instructors also know their audience and what types of demonstrations and examples communicate effectively in explaining conceptual ideas. Delivery of the lecture can be through various means but instructors tend to contribute the lecture format through written text instead of using media. The reasons for not using media vary. Faculty can have fears of creating a multimedia product with video or audio, or a combination of the two, with text and graphics because they feel the product may replace them (Maguire, 2005) and may be unwilling to give the time required to create the product. Faculty may not have the media skills to develop a usable product. (However, the ability to create media is rapidly changing with the arrival of easier media creation tools, such as Tech Smith‘s Camtasia Studio.) Furthermore, the willingness or buy-in for using video ―tend to break along generational lines with younger professors more willing to use video than their older counterparts‖ (Miller, p. 39, 2007-2008). Is using media necessary to instruction? Clark addressed the issue of media versus live instruction, and stated that the instructional method is more a determining factor than the media used (2005). Clark also remarked that multimedia can provide examples for the novice student, which can influence learning. On the other hand, Cobb cautions that media may not always be ―equivalent‖ as one type of media may have a better learning effect with different learners, or different knowledge based students, specifically in efficiency (1997). He points out that the tie between the presentation format and cognitive process which can have an effect on learning.

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations

143

Cobb wasn‘t the only one to document how instructional design can affect learning. Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer also completed a number of empirical studies based on cognitive theory (2002). Clark and Mayer found positive results demonstrating that media, words with graphics, help students learn better and engage in active learning. Clark and Mayer (2002, p. 3-4) recommended the following principles for online learning: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Multimedia Principle: Use words and graphics rather than words alone Contiguity Principle: Place corresponding words and graphics near each other Modality Principle: Present words as audio narration rather than on screen text Redundancy Principle: Presenting words in both text and audio narration can hurt learning 5) Coherence Principle: Adding interesting material can hurt learning 6) Personalization Principle: Use conversational style While Clark and Mayer‘s principles are well-known among instructional designers, in many institutions, the instructor is charge of building their online course and may not be familiar with such principles. Thus, instructors who are responsible for creating material for their courses will need to understand how mixing the formats for audio, graphics and text can either (1) influence learning (2) motivate the learner or (3) cause failure (Clark, 2005). These facets of multimedia are important because of the limitations of memory; overwhelming the learner through inappropriately designed lessons can cause failure to learn. Therefore, careful application of research to practice can reduce learning difficulties with complex content. Unfortunately, practice does not always follow research principles.

INSTRUCTIONAL USAGE OF VIDEO AND AUDIO Video The 2008 Horizon Report described video as a key emerging technology for ―mainstream use for teaching, learning, or creative applications‖ (Johnson, Levine, & Smith, p.3). Once thought of as an expensive option to add to an online course, the availability of uploading and distributing video on the Internet has become easy and less time intrusive than one would have imagined several years ago. One has only to type in ―video‖ with a subject as keywords in any search engine and immediate returns from YouTube, Google Video, and other online video hosts will list available links to video online. Instructors can create and upload video either at their own university streaming media server, or to a third party vendor, such as iTunesU (http://www.apple.com/education/itunesu). And it isn‘t just instructors who are making instructional videos, but students are finding video as a creative expression device for relaying their learning of subject matter. In fact, at Educause Connect, Jeff VanDrimmelen quickly relayed five different ways to use video in education: recording class presentations, student video projects, instructional videos, video blogs, and using preexisting available online video.

144

Susan Fulgham

With the readily availability of video established, where should one begin to use video effectively? DeVerneil and Berge recommend using short video lectures on key concept points with accompanying websites over continuous video streamed lectures of traditional instruction (2000). Using streaming video or podcasting may fare well for learners with prior knowledge of the subject area, or for review, but as a successful teaching tool for learning, the success rates are not promising due to the remoteness of the instructor. DeVerneil and Berge favor an application approach, where students write critiques, debate and discuss via video conferencing tools, and work with simulations. Instruction presented in this format can be considered a constructivist way of teaching over the behaviorist, rote memorization form of teaching. Chen and Paul report that multimedia clips are most effective for learning when the "appropriate level of segmentation of information was provided by the system" (p. 388). Video research in teacher education shows promise in the research studies of Moreno and Ortegano-Layne (2008). Moreno and Ortegano-Layne found a positive effect with using video and animation over text narratives. They surmised that the increased learning with video may have occurred because the learner may not have the temporal or visual information to visualize the text narrative. Moreno and Ortegano-Layne also noted higher affective ratings; increased learning and motivation scores. In a concluding statement, the researchers state that despite the availability of video for classroom use, ―the exemplar formats that seem to be the most effective are the least used in the teaching practice‖ (p.462). To take a deeper look at how video is being used in distributed environments, one could look at a 2008 survey administered to faculty at Michigan State University (Heeter, 2008). The study reflected three types of video being used in higher education: 57% use external videos types (excerpts from broadcast TV, online media clips from sources such as YouTube, or excerpts from various other video sources), 48% use instructor-narrated media, and only 10% use live video. Social Sciences and Education tend to use video in instruction compared to the other reported colleges of ARTS and Letters and Agriculture and Natural Resources. The barriers to using video from the respondents included lack of time, lack of technical knowledge, lack of access to hardware and software, and lack of availability of support staff. The leading video formats were QuickTime, Flash, and Windows Media Player. Interesting, the survey also found faculty to be frequent users of online video. The Michigan State University survey faculty respondents noted the benefits of using video in making connections to the real world, heightened student interest, better student learning, engagement, and attention (Heeter, 2008). Difficulties reported were the ability to find suitable videos and copyright issues.

Audio Audio use in online education has been used in a variety of modes. A rapidly growing segment of online education is involved in the production of digital audio recording files called ―podcasts‖ while another segment of audio use concerns the paring of audio with multimedia. Each type of use of audio in education has its own ―rules‖ of best practice. A podcast is a digital recording designed for internet delivery, often in mp3 or mp4 format (Copley, 2007). Roy and Roy (2007) find podcasts to be similar to radio recordings, in that; they are designed to help the learner ―know‖ about a topic. The popularity of podcasting in education stems from the ease of use in the portability factor of downloading the audio file

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations

145

to either play on personal computer or a portable media player, such as an Apple iPod, which can be listened to at any time of day (Copley, 2007). Podcasts are inexpensive to create, with the necessary materials being a good microphone and a computer with recording and audio editing software (Roy & Roy, 2007). The created audio file will then be uploaded to a place on the internet, where it can be either streamed or downloaded. The instructional usage of podcasts varies. According to Griffey, podcasts offer a one-tomany instruction either as preliminary information or classroom lecture with one of the benefits the option to replay for review, which can assist second language learners (2007). In fact, Copley states the most common use of podcasting reported by students was for review, with the podcast being more helpful than handouts and more often played on a personal computer than a portable media player. Podcasts are also used to share interviews with experts and guest speakers (Roy & Roy, 2007). Roy and Roy advise faculty to not create podcasts that teach ‗how to‘ do something or for group sessions. For using audio in multimedia, research offers guidance in how to use audio to fit different learning situations. Koumi (2003) conducted a literature search on the research findings of adding audio to multimedia and found conflicting research findings that were related to time constraints and prior knowledge. When efficiency matters, the instructional design needs to match graphics, text and audio to create the best learning conditions. He comments that experienced learners tend to learn better without audio because it slows them down, inducing poorer learning conditions. Koumi‘s literature review on modality reflects the findings of Kalyuga, Richard.Mayer, John Sweller and others. Dual coding is the main theory behind much of the research with multimedia. Dual coding presupposes that audio and visual inputs are in different channels of working memory and can be processed simultaneously, reducing cognitive load (Mayer, 2001). The modality effect, as defined by Mayer, is when ―people learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when words explaining concurrent animations or graphics are presented as speech rather than as onscreen text‖ (2002, p. 93). Koumi uses Mayer‘s multimedia principles but also added Kalyuga (2000) findings from a number of studies and added these additional ―principles‖. 1) Audio with diagrams does better than diagrams alone with novices only, 2) audio improves learning only when redundant text is absent, however, 3) audio with graphics is better than text with graphics due to spilt attention effect. (The split attention effect refers to when the learner must divide his/her attention to text and the diagram or graphic.) While it should be noted that other research has found at times different results, the complexity of the task seems to be a contributing factor for the difference. The less complex the task, the less likely instructional design will influence the result.

INTERACTIVE MEDIA: SIMULATIONS Simulation use in educational settings has a long history. Military, business, and education use simulations to teach or reinforce learning of concepts and procedures.

146

Susan Fulgham

Simulations can be computer based, participant based or physically based with an object (i.e. mannequin). Medical fields or the sciences use simulations as a ―safe‖ experimental method of practicing real-world techniques without the danger of error causing harm. Education uses simulations as experimental exercises to improve problem solving in cases of a social or physical reality (Gredler, 2004). Brown (2004) promotes simulations to build student interactivity and collaboration in learning how to solve authentic, ill-structured problems. But despite how noble the purpose of using simulations, researchers have reservations about how simulations improve the retention of knowledge, transfer of knowledge to other disciplines or situations, or serve as a method of teaching problem solving abilities to students (Lunce, 2004;Gredler, 2004;Mills, 2002). These issues regarding student‘s ability in using simulations to teach problem solving and transfer have perplexed academic institutions on the value of using simulations in instructional teaching. Simulations are not cheap to design and build for experimental studies and application of skills in a real-world scenario. The research has reflected simulations as a motivator in learning, but several studies have shown no significant differences in using simulations over other teaching methods (Lunce, 2004). The question of why simulations are not as productive as we perceive them to be, might be found within the conditions that are combined with simulation use, and the classification of simulations from games and exercises that use simulated materials as learning objects. Simulations are commonly used in medical training and instruction because they offer a hands-on approach. Applying medical skills in events where human lives are at risk can be optimally practiced and performed using simulations. It has been questioned whether the expense of technology in creating simulators for the medical profession is the most favorable route for instruction, particularly if other teaching methods produce the same results. Morgan, Cleave-Hogg, Mcliroy, and Devitt (2002) administered an experimental learning study with students in their final year of medical school where delivered content was either simulatorbased (mannequin) or video-based. The repeated-measures, mixed-model analysis of variance using the pretest and posttests showed no significance by the teaching modality when all three scenarios are compared together. The researcher‘s acknowledge the limitations of the study by noting the possibility of transfer but not much emphasis was on the amount of control the facilitators had contributed in scaffolding or the subject‘s prior knowledge level. Although the previous study reflects a physical simulator, concerns have been raised about computer simulations impacting student outcomes favorably over other methods (Gredler, 2004). For instance, Bill (1997) cited Firth‘s 1972 study involving engineering students as empirical evidence for supporting simulation use to increase knowledge retention of subject matter. But Mills finds the lack of empirical and theoretical studies leaves room for debate on their effectiveness, particularly in the learning of statistical concepts (2002). Again, the pro and cons of the value of simulation use is debated, so effort needs to be directed at what conditions are combined to produce increases in learning with simulations, and in their absence, does learning decline. The problem of applying the principles of learning to allow knowledge to be retained and the transfer of learning to new domains is an old but reoccurring problem in education. John Bransford, and colleagues Brown and Cocking, (1999) emphasized the importance of transfer to new situations as evidence of effective learning. Students can not transfer what they do not understand, thus rote learning or memorization of facts may not lead to understanding but merely commits to memory recall of material. Simulations were developed to assist learners

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations

147

to apply what they learned from textbooks and lecture to models that depicted real world scenarios. The conflicting research concerning simulations has left researchers searching to find where understanding of concepts occurs and if certain conditions are used before, during, and/or after the simulation. If teaching understanding is the goal of learning, then changes must be made to the learning cycle using simulations for this to occur. The questions then become, what are the conditions that allow for understanding and transfer to occur during learning, and what is needed to support learning within a simulation?

A SIMULATION PORTRAIT Defining a simulation is part of the equation of separating the research into classifiable sections that reflect true simulations against games or learning objects (simulated materials) designed to assist in defined problem-based exercises. Didactic questioning teaching methods may use a simulation model but are not true simulations. Computer based models that are used to solve predefined problems are not simulations. Simulations are ―open-ended, evolving situations‖ where the participant‘s actions and reactions are reflected within the simulation (Gredler, 2004, p.571). The research on simulations must be disentangled, to avoid guesswork on conditions that do or do not apply to increase learning with simulations. Characteristics of simulations, according to Gredler, include: ―(a) an adequate model of the complex real-world situation with which the student interacts (referred to as fidelity or validity), (b) a defined role for each participant, with responsibilities and constraints, (c) a date-rich environment that permits students to execute a range of strategies, from targeted to ―shotgun‖ decision making, and (d) feedback for participant actions in the form of changes in the problem or situation‖ (p. 571). Gredler suggests flight simulations for pilots and astronauts are training models of high-fidelity simulations, where fidelity is a reproduction of reality. Simulations are built within a setting where the student must use cognitive and metacognitive abilities to solve a given problem-based scenario or case study (Gredler, 2004). The simulation must allow manipulation of variables coordinating with feedback so students may evaluate changes to the system, environment or setting. Gredler separates simulations into two categories, experiential or symbolic. Experiential simulations are pilot and astronaut simulations where the student is an active part of the simulation. In symbolic simulations, students manipulate variables and then watch the changes that occur within the dynamic representation. The key is the feedback from the simulation must mimic ―real life.‖

COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP One of the main effects of placing students within a simulation is the identification of the ability of the student to problem solve (Gredler, 2004). The term ―cognitive apprenticeship‖ relates to participation in authentic learning experiences to develop cognitive and metacognitive skills (Dennen, 2004). Cognitive apprenticeship varies in methodology as modeling, coaching, and scaffolding are all representations of the term. The main goal is to

148

Susan Fulgham

provide a bridge for learning from the learner‘s initial knowledge base to a place where the learner is successful in accomplishing or understanding a task or goal. The conceptual guidelines of supportive scaffolding have roots in Vygotsky‘s zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky suggests that learning activities should be a step above the learner‘s prior knowledge level but within the learner‘s capabilities to ―step up‖ to the next level of knowledge. Social interaction is part of the process in enabling the learner to cognitively climb the ladder of knowledge through interaction with an individual who ―shows the way.‖ The interaction can consist of ―hints, models, analogies, and demonstrations‖ (Dennen, 2004, p.815). Scaffolding can be presented a number of ways. Dennen states that scaffolding involves not only ZPD but intersubjectivity and fading (2004). Gredler suggests that scaffolding through ―hints‖ in a program may make assessment of learning difficult due to students reverting to guessing the answer rather than thinking through the activity to develop a solution. In the Morgan et al. study, students were randomly assigned to a group and a facilitator, either an instructor or anesthesia resident, was present in both teaching (video or simulator) modalities. The facilitator‘s purpose was to guide the student‘s through the scenario using discussion techniques. Feedback can be interpreted as an appropriate scaffolding device. Suggestions from a study conducted by Peterson (2000) on the types of problem solving skills included pairing low ability students with mentors to optimize chances of the lower students developing strategies of compensation. Mills (2002) also found a study where positive gains were recorded with simulations with lower ability students.

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE EFFECTS Research has shown that placing students in a ―discovery learning‖ situation imposes a high cognitive load on the student and impedes learning (Gredler, 2004). On the other hand, if the learner has a great amount of prior knowledge in the domain, a less structured design has benefited the learner (Clark, 2005). How does the organization of information work against learning? Novices appear to need an instructional design that will allow the content to appear in a manner that will not overwhelm the limited working memory resources. Experienced learners are slowed down with unnecessary information or find the information presented as interference against existing schemas, thus resulting in a decrease in performance (Clark, 2005). Designing a learning environment that fits both the novice and expert will be a customization of multimedia in future design projects. Prior knowledge and research skills, according to Gredler (2004), are important to optimize learning when working with symbolic simulations. If students develop random and ineffective strategies, misconceptions can develop. Another point of contention in involving students in simulation without prior knowledge is the event of overloading working memory with too much information at once. Gredler notes that metaknowledge, or development of a mental model, is part of the process in helping students to discern important occurrences within a simulation so they can proceed with developing solutions (2000). Simulations show promise of being most effective when offer students a realistic environment to test hypotheses and applications of their knowledge.

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations

149

CONCLUSIONS FOR THE FUTURE New research centering on how people learn and what is needed to support learning will provide educational institutions effective learning practices. Instructional change in how we teach is inevitable because academic settings can no longer afford to be rooted in ineffective behaviorist patterns of teaching in a world where students will be required to think and problem solve in their respective areas of work. Under the new pedagogical system of teaching, understanding and the ability to transfer knowledge to different scenarios to solve real-life problems is paramount in importance over learning, or regurgitating, facts without making the connection to a world beyond the classroom walls. Multimedia can be a part of effective teaching in the online classroom. Cognitive research has established records and studies to support how learning occurs (Clark & Mayer, 2003; Brandsford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). The combination of technology and what we know about learning can possibly open new doors of reaching online learners in a digital world; however the lens should be focused on effective teaching methods that provide a situation where students can learn better. While Chen and Paul (2003) suggest adaptive systems in the future may be the solution in personalizing learning, it is faculty who incorporate new technologies who will lead the way in innovation of the future online classroom. New technologies, such as simulation-based virtual settings, reflect changes in instructional delivery. Research in multimedia has shown positive findings when good teaching is assisted with appropriate multimedia, thus faculty should be encouraged and supported in using a variety of media in the distance learning environment.

REFERENCES Bill, D.T. (1997). Popular theory supporting the use of computer simulation for experiential learning. Centurion Systems, Inc. Retrieved September 7, 2005, from www.centurionsys.com/rtcl57.html Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council. Retrieved September 17, 2005, from http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ ch1.html Brown, K. (2004, September). Technology: Building Interaction. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(5), 36-38. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Chen, S. & Paul, R. (2003). Editorial: Individual differences in web-based instruction-an overview. British Journal of Educational Technology, pp. 385-392. Retrieved November 16, 2008, doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00336 Clark, R.E. & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97-116). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2002). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pheiffer.

150

Susan Fulgham

Cobb, T. (1997). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 21-35. Copley, J. (2007). Audio and Video Podcasts of Lectures for Campus-Based Students: Production and Evaluation of Student Use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 387. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ777064) Retrieved August 31, 2008, from ERIC database. Dennen, V. P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (2004) Eds. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications andTechnology: A Project of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology. (pp.813-838) Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DeVerneil, M. & Berge, Z. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications Gibbons, H. & Wentworth, G. (2001). Andrological and pedagogical training differences for online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(3), 1-5. Gredler, ME (2004). Games and simulations and the relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (2004) Eds. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications andTechnology: A Project of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology. (pp. 813-828) Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 2nd edition. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.aect-members.org/m/research_handbook/ Chapters/21.pdf Griffey, J. (2007, June 15). Podcast 1 2 3. Library Journal, 132(11), 32. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ786547) Retrieved August 31, 2008, from ERIC database. Heeter, C. (2008). Spring 2008 Faculty survey on video for online learning. Virtual University Design and Technology. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from the Virtual University Design and Technology website: http://vudat.msu.edu/fileadmin/ usser_upload/vudat/angel_survey/spring08FacultySurvey.pdf

Hirumi, A. (2005). In search of quality: An analysis of educational guidelines and industry specifications. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 309–330. Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2008). 2008 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium, 2008. Jonassen, D. H. (2004) Eds. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: A Project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (pp. 813-828) Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc; 2nd edition. Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://aectmembers.org/m/research_handbook/Chapters/31.pdf. Kalyuga, S. (2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial for learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 161-172. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org/ajet/ajet16/kalyuga.html. Koumi, K. (2003). Synergy between audio commentary and visuals in multimedia packages. Journal of Educational Media, 28(1), Laaser, W. & Gerke, M. (2001). Multimedia on control theory - design and evaluation. Journal of Educational Media, 26(2), 105-116.

Effective Learning with Video, Audio, and Simulations

151

Lo, J. & Shu, P. (2005). Identification of learning styles online by observing learner's behavior through a neural network. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 43-55. Lunce, L.M. (2004). Computer simulations in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_04/article02.htm Maguire, L. (2005). Literature review - Faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,8(1), Mayer, R. E., 2001. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mayer, R.E. & Sims, V.K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401. Miller, R. (2007, December, 2008, January). STREAMING VIDEO goes to College. Streaming Media, 4(6), 34-41. Retrieved August 31, 2008, from Business Source Complete database. Mills, J. D. (2002).Using computer simulation methods to teach statistics: A review of the literature. Journal of Statistics Education, 10 (1), Retrieved September 19, 2005, from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n1/mills.html. Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008, August). Do classroom exemplars promote the application of principles in teacher education? A comparison of videos, animations, and narratives. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(4), 449-465. Retrieved August 31, 2008, doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9027-0 Morgan, P.J., Cleave-Hogg, D., Mcliroy, J. & Devitt, J.H. (2002). Simulation Technology: A comparison of experimental and visual learning for undergraduate medical students. Anesthesiology, 96(1), 1-2. Peterson, D.B. (2000). Clinical problem solving in micro-case management: Computerassisted instruction for information-gathering strategies in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bullentin,43(2),84-96. Roy, A., & Roy, P. (2007, November 1). Intersection of Training and Podcasting in Adult Education. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(3), 479. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ797575) Retrieved August 31, 2008, from ERIC database. Sanchez, I. & Gunawardena, C. (1998). Understanding and supporting the culturally diverse distance learner. In Gibson's, Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Attwood Publishing: Madison, Wisconsin. VanDrimmelen, J. (2007). Five ways you could use video in education. Blog at Educause Connect. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.edutechie.com/2007/01/fiveways-you-could-use-video-in-education/.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 10

APPLYING PEDAGOGY DURING GAME DEVELOPMENT TO OPTIMIZE GAME-BASED LEARNING Atsusi Hirumi1 and Christopher Stapleton2 1

Associate Professor and Co-Chair of Instructional Technology at the University of Central Florida, USA 2 Founding Director of Media Convergence Laboratory, University of Central Florida, USA

Instructional [computer] games have reemerged as an important outgrowth of the entertaining video game industry. Entertaining video games are being repurposed for use in schools and universities across the country, and the number of games designed specifically to facilitate training and education in conventional, hybrid and totally online courses is also on the rise. The problem is, like many rapidly growing industries, advances in video game technology are far outpacing research on its design and effectiveness. Relatively little is understood about how to apply what we know about teaching and learning to optimize gamebased learning. For the most part, educators know little about game development and entertaining game developers may know little about education and instructional design. As a result, faculty may not realize the potential of play, game, and story to create engaging and memorable learning experiences, and game developers may fail to apply basic pedagogical principles that are vital for optimizing learning. This chapter is written primarily for educators, instructional designers and distance education (DE) professionals (hereby referred to collectively as educators) interested in designing instructional games to facilitate learning in totally online and hybrid learning environments. It is also written for game developers, to illustrate how fundamental instructional design (ID) tasks may facilitate instructional game development (GD) and underscore the importance of working with educators during the GD process. Our goals are to (a) increase educators‘ knowledge of GD and their capacity to communicate and collaborate with game developers, and (b) stimulate dialog among educators and GD professionals to

154

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

build stronger bridges between, and bring the seemingly disparate worlds of ID and GD closer together. Initially, five levels of application and key components of interactive entertainment are delineated to help educators determine the scope and purpose of instructional games and to set a context for the posited methods. Then, a basic GD process is characterized, including discussions of how educators can apply their knowledge of the subject matter, educational context, and pedagogy during the process to optimize game-based learning. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of key concepts and issues.

LEVELS OF APPLICATION Instructional games may be applied at five levels to facilitate learning (a) Level I–Event, (b) Level II–Lesson, (c) Level III–Unit, (d) Level IV–Course, and (e) Level V–Program. Table 1 depicts several ways a course may be divided into instructional units, lessons and events to help distinguish the levels. Table 1. A course divided into units, lessons and events. Unit/Lesson 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

Unit 4

Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event … Event N

Lesson 2.1 Event 1 Event 2 Event… Event N Lesson 2.2 Event 1 Event 2 Event… Event N

Lesson 3.1 Event 1 Event 2 Lesson 3.2 Event 3 Event 4 Event… Event N

Event 1 Event 2 Lesson 4.1 Event 3 Event 4 Lesson 4.2 Event 3 Event 4 Event 5

Unit N Lesson N.1 Event 1 Event… Event N Lesson N.2 Event 1 Event… Event N Lesson N.3 Event 1 Event… Event N

Column 1 depicts a unit or lesson that consists of one complete set of instructional events (also referred to as an instructional strategy). Column 2 illustrates how a unit may be divided into two lessons with each lesson consisting of its own complete set of instructional events. Column 3 shows how two lessons may address varying instructional events associated with an instructional strategy contained in a unit. Column 4 depicts a unit consisting of two lessons with key events presented before and after the lessons. Column 5 illustrates that a unit may consist of 3 or more lessons that are designed in varying ways as depicted in, but not limited to columns 1-4. The relationship between instructional events, lessons, units and courses illustrates how instructional games may be applied within the context of training and education. Application of a grounded instructional strategy (discussed in further detail later in the chapter) illustrates one method for determining the level of application that also enables educators to define the specific instructional purpose(s) for a game. For example, let‘s say an

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 155 educator decides to apply the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E instructional model (BSCS, 2006) to design an instructional unit as depicted in Table 2. At the event level, a game may be designed to facilitate one specific instructional event within an instructional unit or lesson. A relatively simple game, for example, may be designed to facilitate recall of factual content or to promote active involvement and discussion (Dempsey, Lucassen, Haynes, & Casey, 1996; Blake and Goodman, 1999). When applied as an instructional event, additional events and activities must often occur before and/or after the game to optimize learning. In our example, a game may be designed specifically to evaluate learners‘ acquisition of, and ability to apply designated skills and knowledge. The educator must then plan additional events prior to the use of the game, either online or face-to-face in hybrid learning environments, to engage learners, and to enable learners to explore the content, as well as explain and elaborate their findings. Table 2. Description of events associated with the BSCS 5E instructional model. The instructor assesses the learners‘ prior knowledge and helps them become engaged in a new concept by reading a vignette, posing questions, doing a Engage demonstration that has a non-intuitive result (a discrepant event), showing a video clip, or conducting some other short activity that promotes curiosity and elicits prior knowledge. Learners work in collaborative teams to complete activities that help them use Explore prior knowledge to generate ideas, explore questions and possibilities, and design and conduct a preliminary inquiry. Learners should have an opportunity to explain their current understanding of the main concept. They may explain their understanding of the concept by making presentations, sharing ideas with one another, reviewing current Explain scientific explanations and comparing these to their own understandings, and/or listening to an explanation from the teacher that guides them toward a more in-depth understanding. Learners elaborate their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. They may revisit an earlier activity, project, or idea and build on it, Elaborate or conduct an activity that requires an application of the concept. The focus in this stage is on adding breadth and depth to current understanding. The evaluation phase helps both learners and instructors assess how well the learners understand the concept and whether they have met the learning Evaluate outcomes. There should be opportunities for self assessment as well as formal assessment. Reprinted with permission from BSCS Center for Professional Development, Copyright 2006

At the lesson level, a game may address two or more events contained in an instructional unit. For instance, a game may present learners with a scenario to engage their interest and ask them to explore related concepts through a series of readings and activities. Again, additional events, such as learner assessments and feedback, may have to occur before and/or after the game to facilitate learning. At the unit level, a game incorporates all of the events and activities necessary to achieve a specified set of goals and objectives associated with an instructional lesson or unit. In the BCSC example, that means the game will be designed to engage learners, facilitate exploration, solicit explanations and elaborations, and evaluate

156

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

learning. At the course level, one game is played throughout an entire course, tying together all the units, lessons and events associated with the course. It is conceivable that a game may be designed at a fifth, program level, transcending all courses associated with a certificate, degree or training program, but the likelihood of such occurrences is remote. The distinctions are important because the process and resources necessary to apply pedagogy (defined here as the science of teaching and learning, including both youth and adult learning), and design and develop an instructional game may differ significantly depending on the level of application. For instance, the process used to create a jeopardy game as an instructional event to evaluate learners‘ ability to recall verbal information may be relatively simple, involving the use of a free and easy to use jeopardy game shell and the preparation of questions and answers that are congruent with specified objectives. In comparison, the process necessary to create an original game for an entire instructional unit or course may be much more complex. Developers1 may have to write an original story, craft playful interactions, establish rules governing game play, and if a game engine is used to facilitate development, apply advanced programming skills, as well as generate graphics and animations. Although the concepts, process, and related resources discussed in the chapter may be applied to the development of Level I (event) and II (lesson) games, they are more commensurate with Level III (unit) and IV (course) games.

FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT Each phase of the GD process offers developers an opportunity to enhance the learning experience. Educators are neither expected to participate in, nor contribute to, all aspects of game development. Rather, the challenge lies in determining when and how educators can apply their knowledge of pedagogy and the instructional situation to optimize game-based learning. Stapleton and Hughes (2006) posit a framework that helps illustrate how the results of fundamental ID tasks may be used to facilitate the design and development of instructional games. The framework identifies three key components of interactive entertainment, each further delineated by three interrelated elements that must all work together to create engaging and memorial experiences that satisfy the audiences‘ expectations. The components and elements elucidate key questions, noted in Table 3, that educators may help answer in increasing detail to relate the educational purpose to the entertainment value as the team progresses through the GD process. By applying pedagogy and knowledge of the subject matter, learners, and instructional context to answer the questions, developers flesh out the core game design and reconcile game and learning goals so that the entertainment supports the learning and the learning enhances the entertainment. The more the learning content and objectives are interwoven into the entertainment elements, the more the game will reinforce the learning objectives. The framework, along with its basic components, elements, and questions, will be referred to

1

General term used throughout the remainder of the chapter to refer to professionals who may participate in game development effort, including, but not limited educators, instructional designers, storywriters, artists, animators, programmers, and producers.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 157 throughout the chapter to discuss how educators may contribute to the design and development of an instructional game. Table 3. Three basic components and related elements of interactive entertainment. Components Story WHY should I care, from player‘s point of view? Game HOW do things work (procedural or mechanics)? Play WHAT am I doing (Participatory)?

Elements Characters – WHO is it about & who am I in that experience? Events – WHAT & WHEN do things happen to motivate me or propel action? Settings – WHERE am I and what does it matter (Context)? Goals – WHAT for (Aspirations related to Why)? Rules – WHY not (Limitations and restriction to play, strategy, etc.)? Tools – With WHAT devices (special effects, instruments, etc.)? Cause – IF I...(stimulus)? Effect – THEN the game... (response)? Consequences – THEN, I will... (consequences)?

APPLYING PEDAGOGY DURING THE GAME DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Game developers divide the entertaining game development process into several phases (e.g., Novak, 2005; Bates, 2004; Wikipedia, 2005). Although the specific tools, tasks and techniques used during each phase may vary by game and by organization, the overall process remains basically the same, including (a) concept development, (b) pre-production, (c) production, and (d) post-production. Knowledge of the GD process will help educators communicate and collaborate with game developers. It also helps identify when and what educators can do to apply their knowledge pedagogy and the subject matter. The following is a brief summary of what game developers typically do, along with a more detailed discussion of what educators can do during each phase to facilitate game development and optimize game-based learning.

The Concept Development Phase The concept development phase begins when a game is first conceived and ends when a decision is made to fund or otherwise support the development of the game and initiate additional planning. The goals are to determine what the game is about and convey key ideas to potential supports in a clear, concise written form. Initially, developers compare and contrast benchmarks games and related instructional programs (if they exist) to formulate and brainstorm ideas. They also may create crude paper prototypes and stage live improvisations of alternative game concepts, allowing them to flesh out mediocre ideas, expose core misconceptions and assumptions, and spark discovery of truly original ideas. Focus groups may then be used to verify audience‘s expectations and validate the entertainment value and flow of selected ideas before a game proposal and concept document are finalized. In general, a concept document includes short descriptions of:

158

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton The Premise or High Concept (describing the basic idea or ―hook‖ that will make the game exciting and sets it apart from other games), Player Motivation (e.g., the game‘s victor condition), Game Play (what the player will do while playing the game), Story (main events, characters, and settings), Target Audience/Market, Game Genre, Target Platform and Hardware Requirements, Competitive Analysis, and Game Goals.

A brief game proposal (also referred to as a ―pitch document‖) addresses the same topics as the concept document but in an abbreviated form, and is used during meetings, along with a ―promotype‖ (a promotional demonstration of a key portion of the best scenes), to pitch or sell the game to potential supporters. If given the green light (and funding) to continue planning, developers enter the Design or Pre-Production Phase. Educators can play a key role in, and help game developers formulate ideas, create a ―promotype,‖ and prepare persuasive pitch and concept documents by delineating and clearly communicating (a) targeted learning goals and related skills and knowledge, (b) key learner characteristics, (c) important contextual factors, and (d) a desired instructional approach.

DEFINE LEARNING GOALS AND SUBORDINATE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE To formulate preliminary ideas, developers must have a good understanding of what learners are expected to know and be able to do as a result of the game. Specifically, knowledge of targeted learning goal(s), and the subordinate skills and knowledge necessary to achieve the goal(s), will help developers begin to answer the questions, ―Why should I care?‖ and ―What for?‖ as posed in Table 3. A list of targeted skills and knowledge is also necessary to identify, compare and contrast, and find correlations between successful and unsuccessful benchmarks of similar games and instruction. Professional organizations and accrediting agencies may list skills and knowledge to be addressed by the instruction. Relevant learning goals and objectives may have also been listed in existing course syllabi. In such cases, educators may review the list and select skills and knowledge to be addressed by the game, keeping in mind the availability of resources, level of application, and the scope of the proposed initiative. In other situations, a list of goals, skills and knowledge may not exist. Educators may need to complete a goal, task, subordinate skills, subject matter or other forms of analyses (c.f., Jonassen, Tessmer, & Hannum, 1999) to identify relevant skills and knowledge, necessary to achieve the specified learning goal(s). The analysis should also identify required entry behaviors (pre-requisite skills and knowledge learners must have to successfully initiate and complete the game). Knowledge of the target learning goals, and the subordinate skills and knowledge necessary to achieve the goal help answer several of the questions posed in Table 3 at the

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 159 highest and simplest level. Furthermore, to support game development, potential educational sponsors may want to know the specific skills and knowledge that are to be addressed by the game to ensure its relevance and to see how the game may fit with the larger curriculum. Thus, developers should communicate learning goal(s) along with the entertainment goal(s) within the concept document.

CHARACTERIZE LEARNERS Game developers recognize that the more you know about your customer, the more products you can sell them. In developing Walt Disney Imagineer‘s Ten Commandments, Sklar (n.d.) established the first two commandments of interactive entertainment as ―know your audience‖ and ―walk in your guests shoes.‖ To formulate game ideas that match what‘s in the audience‘s mind, game developers analyze key psychographic (e.g., values, attitudes, lifestyles) and demographic (e.g., gender, age, generation) variables of the target market through available research and market critiques. Learner analysis is the equivalent practice within ID. Learner analysis reveals key characteristics of the target audience including: (a) entry behaviors, (b) prior knowledge of topic, (c) attitudes toward content and delivery system, (d) academic motivation, (e) educational and ability levels, (f) learning preferences, (g) attitudes toward the organization giving the instruction, and (h) group demographics (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005). During concept development, the integration of learner and target market analyses is posited to further delineate key learner characteristics and clarify learner expectations. One of the keys to entertainment is to ―satisfy expectations.‖ An analysis of learners‘ attitudes toward the delivery system, content and organization reveals learner expectations that may then be used to hook the audience by creating empathetic and archetypal game characters with similar hopes, dreams and fears of the target audience. Knowledge of learners‘ general academic motivation and educational abilities may also help developers create challenges that are neither too tedious, nor too frustrating. A critical aspect of game design is to provide challenges that are hard enough to be demanding, but not annoying, while easy enough to be interesting, but not boring. Since the line between frustration and boredom may differ with every user, data on learners‘ academic motivation and educational abilities may be particularly useful for designing game challenges, as well as creating the algorithms necessary to monitor the behavior of the user to adapt the level of difficulty during game play. An analysis of key learner characteristics establishes the target audience‘s needs and wants, helping developers define the expectations that the game will need to set-up and satisfy. If educators have sufficient knowledge of the target learner population to accurately portray key learner characteristics and help game developers address key game issues as discussed above, then they should document and communicate their knowledge of learners to game developers at the beginning of the concept development phase. If educators do not have adequate knowledge of the targeted learners, they should then consider conducting a learner analysis before or at the onset of concept development to help developers formulate game ideas that will address learners‘ needs, interests and expectations. Learner analysis results should also be integrated with the description of the target market within the concept

160

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

document to demonstrate and help convince potential backers that the team has sufficient knowledge of the target learner population to develop a successful instructional game.

CHARACTERIZE LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE CONTEXT. During concept development, knowledge of both the learning context (where learners are expected to acquire targeted skills and knowledge) and performance context (where learners apply newly acquired skills and knowledge) can also help developers answer key questions related to play, game and story, noted in Table 3. Knowledge of the physical, social and psychological aspects of the performance context is essential for developers to generate appropriate mock ups of the game world, and provides valuable clues on how to excite players with key character interactions and game play. Facts about the physical conditions under which learners are expected to demonstrate targeted skills and knowledge, including the availability, use and nature of facilities, equipment and other resources, are vital for game developers to create appropriate settings within the game. Awareness of the social dialogs that form in regards to targeted learning and performance outcomes is also useful for designing player and non-player characters interactions, particularly if the game is to simulate workplace relationships. Psychological conditions, such as the degree and nature of stress typically felt as learners perform related job tasks may also provide rich enhancements to increase immersion. Knowledge of the learning context is also necessary to define basic technical requirements reported in concept documents. In many educational situations, the learning environment may differ from the performance setting where newly acquired skills and knowledge are to be applied. For example, the learning environment for a totally online course may consist of networked computer with access to a learning management system and the instructional game. In comparison, a hybrid learning environment may include a networked computer, as well as periodic face-to-face meetings at school. Knowledge of key variables, such as the configuration and connectivity of computers used at home and school, can help define hardware requirements for the concept document and to ensure the game will work with available equipment and resources. If educators do not have extensive knowledge of the performance or learning setting, they should consider completing a context analysis, as prescribed by ID professionals, such as Dick, Carey, and Carey (2005). The analysis provides vital information about the performance setting, such as (a) managerial/supervisory support, (b) physical aspects of the site, (b) social aspects of the site, and (d) relevance of skills to workplace. The analysis also reveals important information about the learning context, including, but not limited to the (a) number and nature of sites, (b) compatibility with instructional needs, (c) compatibility with learner needs, and (d) feasibility for simulating the workplace. Information about the context should be conveyed early in the concept development phase to help game developers answer the key questions related to story, game and play (noted in Table 3) at the simplest level. Context analysis results should also documented within the concept document to help garner support for game development.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 161

SELECT BASIC INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH Fundamentally, instructional games differ from entertaining games in that they are designed intentionally to facilitate achievement of specified learning goals and objectives. We argue that the application of pedagogy is necessary to facilitate achievement and optimize game-based learning. During concept development, the selection of a basic instructional approach provides valuable insights into how content information is to be presented to learners and the nature of interactions that are designed to facilitate game-based learning. Communication of the instructional approach may also help garner support for continued design and development. Will the game be based on behavioral, cognitive information processing, or constructivist learning principles? Should it apply a specific instructional strategy, model or theory, such as Case-Based Reasoning (Aamodt & Plaza, 1994), Learning by Doing (Schank, Berman & Macpherson, 1999), or Problem-Based Learning (Barrows, 1985)? The selection, and later application, of a basic instructional approach is critical for determining the nature of the learning environment and guiding the overall design and sequencing of critical learning interactions and game play that ultimately affects the manner in which learners achieve specified learning outcomes. For example, if a behavioral learning approach is selected for a game, the ―story‖ may present learners with key facts, concepts and/or principles and the ―game play‖ may ask learners to respond to discriminative stimuli, such as a question. Based on learners‘ responses, the game will then present learners with contingent stimuli that serve to either reinforce or discourage similar responses. Many drill and practice games, popular in the 1980s and 90s were based on behavioral learning principles. In contrast, if a constructivist approach is selected, the ―story‖ may present learners with a scenario or problem and the ―game play‖ may require learners to utilize various tools to access content information, derive meaning, and construct their own knowledge of how to work their way through the scenario and/or solve the problem. Moreover, if a social constructivist approach is selected, then a multiplayer game may be conceived that emphasizes the use of tools for player-player interactions designed to facilitate the social construction of knowledge. Although details on how the game will apply key principles, tools and events associated with a particular instructional approach are addressed during pre-production, the selection of a basic instructional approach is critical in defining the broader interactions of the learning experience and informing high-level interactive entertainment design. By basing the early entertainment development on pedagogy, any subsequent artistic choices will most always enhance, rather than obstruct achievement of the learning objectives. The selection of an instructional approach requires developers to consider the nature of the desired learning outcomes, his or her personal beliefs about teaching and learning, as well as the values of potential supporters and adopters. The nature of the desired learning outcomes should drive the design process. For example, to facilitate recall of verbal information, or to train people on a relatively simple procedure, a direct instructional approach based on behavioral learning principles (e.g., Joyce, Weil, & Showers, 1992) or information processing theories of learning (e.g., Gagne, 1977) may be more appropriate than constructivist or learner-centered methods. In contrast, if the desired learning outcome requires higher-order thinking, where there may be more than one correct answer or more

162

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

than one method for deriving the correct answer, then constructivist (e.g., Jonassen, 1999; Wilson, 1995) or related experiential (e.g., Kolb, 1985; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005), case-based (e.g., Leake, 2000; Aamodt & Plaza, 1994), or problem-based approaches (e.g., Barrows, 1985; Savery & Duffy, 1995) to teaching and learning may be favored. In selecting an appropriate instructional approach, it is also important to take in account the educational philosophy and epistemological beliefs of developers‘ as well as potential adopters‘ and supporters. If the developers believe that people derive meaning and construct knowledge through social interactions, then the selection of constructivist, learner-centered, and cooperative instructional approaches may support his or her beliefs. In contrast, if developers believe people learn by processing information through sensory, short-term, and long-term memory, than an instructional approach based on information processing theories of learning may resonate with his or her educational philosophy (e.g., Gagne, 1977). If the developers are pragmatist and believe that meaning is constructed by individuals based on their interpretation and understanding of reality, s/he may prefer an eclectic approach, selecting from a range of behaviorist to constructivist instructional methods depending on the situation. The educational values and beliefs of potential supporters and adopters should also be considered. If the pedagogical foundations of a game is not congruent with the beliefs and values of instructors, administrators, managers, or other potential supports and stakeholders, then the chances of the game being approved for development, or adopted for use, are relatively slim. Furthermore, if developers are working with an instructor and/or subject matter expert to create an instructional game, then it may be important to discuss and, if necessary, reconcile any differences in philosophy prior to initiating selecting or applying a basic instructional approach. Selecting an appropriate instructional approach is neither simple, nor straight-forward. Much depends on the desired learning goals and objectives, but concerns for the fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning also mediate the selection process. Whatever theory or approach is selected, related principles, events and interactions provide a rich resource for inspiring game developer, if presented in the terms they understand (e.g., concrete verbs, events, exchanges, rather than theoretical propositions). Game developers, in this early phase of conception, are looking for these types of sources to challenge the imagination and spark creative correlations between entertainment and education. A basic instructional approach should also be communicated in the concept document to garner backing for the game initiative. Providing a short description of the pedagogical foundations may help convince potential supporters, particularly those with a strong educational background and/or investment, to back development. Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2002) also believe that instructional games should be based on a pedagogical model to help ensure players are able to apply what s/he learned to real world contexts. A game is a tool not a magic box; game developers can ensure learning takes place only if it is well designed based on a solid pedagogical foundation. Whatever theory or approach is selected, game developers should clearly communicate and assure potential supporters that the instructional game will be based on a solid pedagogical foundation. The subsequent application of alterative instructional approaches is discussed further under Pre-Production.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 163

PRE-PRODUCTION PHASE After receiving support for the game concept, developers enter the planning or preproduction phase. It is during the pre-production phase that developers flesh out the details. What is the specific nature of the characters, events and settings that players will interact with during the game? How will they be presented to players? What rules and tools will govern and facilitate achievement of game goals? Analog prototypes may be created to help developers answer these, and other basic design questions and to ensure the game play mechanics are correct and the game is fun and compelling with no distractions resulting from visual style and programming features that are secondary to a game‘s foundation. Detailed game design and a technical design document are also prepared, along with art bible and a production plan, outlined below. Although the organization and contents of game design documents differ by author, organization and game genre, they represent an extension of the concept document and typically include, but are not limited, a project overview and detail descriptions of: Story (characters, settings, and events) Game play (rules, tools and goals) User Controls User Interface Artificial Intelligence Game Levels Art, Audio and Technical Features Production Details Risk Analysis Development Budget The Art Bible establishes the look and feel of the game and provides a reference for other art. It helps ensure consistency in style throughout the game and typically consists of: A set of visuals (ranging from pencil sketches to digitized images that capture final look of the game); and A visual reference library that reflects the direction the art should take over time. The Technical Design Document is based on the GDD and is typically written by the game‘s technical lead or director and includes a description of: The game engine, including comparisons with other engines on the market; How game will transition from concept to software; Who will be involved in the development of the game engine, including what tasks each person will perform, and how long it will take to perform each task; and What core tools needed to build the game; including hardware and software that must be purchased.

164

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

The pre-production phase typically ends with the development of a tangible, digital prototype that represents, ―…a working piece of software that captures on screen the essence of what makes the game special, what sets it apart form the rest, and what will make it successful‖ (Novak, 2005, p. 332). As Bates (2004) suggests, the prototype, ―...can be the single greatest influence on whether the project goes forward. Publishers [and other funding agents] like to be able to look at a screen and ‗get it‘ right away. If they can‘t see the vision within a minute or two, they‘re unlikely to fund the rest of the project‖ (p. 211). Where the promotional focus of the ―promotype,‖ created during concept development, may improvise solutions, it may also result in more questions than answers to feed key objectives of the design process. The ―prototype,‖ generated during pre-production, actually solves key problems with chosen tools to validate assumptions and provide a more detailed preview of the game than the ―promotype.‖ To help developers create related design documents and answer the questions related to play, game and story, depicted in Table 3, in greater detail, educators should consider (a) generating, clustering and sequencing objectives, (b) delineating learner assessment methods, and (c) applying grounded instructional strategies and events. Educators should also consider conducting several formative evaluations to validate design and improve the prototype before it is presented to sponsors and other key stakeholders to demonstrate the developers‘ capacity to achieve specified goals, and garner continued support for production.

GENERATE, CLUSTER, AND SEQUENCE OBJECTIVES During the Design Phase, learning objectives should be generated, clustered and sequenced to help developers establish game levels, and define the overall story and game structure. Most (larger) games are broken up into levels or worlds. Levels divide a game into sections, organize progression, and enhance game play (Novak, 2005). A player usually needs to meet specific goals or perform specific tasks to advance to the next level. Often, levels may be similar but more difficult as a player progresses through the game. According to Novak, developers should consider game objectives, flow, duration, availability, relationships and difficulty when designing levels; in much the same way educators organize a course or training program into instructional units and lessons. Without clearly defined objectives, players may randomly move, shoot, solve-problems or collect things to progress through the game. To help players focus their efforts, game developers communicate game objectives by creating a cut-scene or a short tutorial at the beginning of a level, or players may complete relatively simply tasks that illustrate the basic objectives of a game. Whatever method is used to communicate objectives, game developers believe that players should be informed of where they stand in relation to the overall game. Educators and instructional designers hold similar beliefs, recognizing the importance of focusing learners‘ efforts, and informing them of where they stand in relation to the overall course and learning goal(s). The specification of objectives may also be particularly important for instructional games. The ability to engage learners through fun and entertainment is one of the primary reasons why instructional games are being developed across settings. One concern facing potential game adopters is that learners may be distracted or may loose sight of desired learning outcomes. Concrete learning objectives may be presented to learners in the

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 165 same fashion, and time, game objectives are presented to players. This may help learners keep their focus of targeted learning outcomes. In terms of flow, game developers may want players to stay in a particular area until they have accomplished certain objectives, or prevent players from returning to particular areas once they have completed specified objectives. The time, or duration, spent at each level may depend on the nature of the player. Novak (2005) refers to a ―universal rule‖ that suggests that a player should be able to complete at least one game level in a single session. For younger and/or novice gamers, one level may be designed to take 15 minutes; for older and/or advanced gamers, two hours of continuous concentration on a level may be acceptable. Educators also take into account flow, time, and the nature of learners when defining the scope and sequence of instructional units and lessons. Availability refers to both the total number of levels included in a game, as well as the accessibility of levels within a game at any given time. The number and accessibility of levels depend on the nature of defined game goals and objectives. Each level should address one game goal or a logical set of objectives. In general, games should allow players to access as many levels as possible to maximize flexibility and address individual needs and interests, but accessibility must also be restricted to avoid confusion. Similar issues and concerns regarding availability must be addressed as educators and instructional designers work with game developers to cluster and sequence learning objectives and define game levels. The relationship between levels must also be considered in terms of scenes, episodes or events within the larger story played out during the game. In some games, levels are defined based on story structure, where each level may be self-contained, with its own subplot, set of events and conclusion. For example, a strategy game may consist of a series of quests, campaigns or missions that need to be completed to finish the game. In other (puzzle) games, levels may be defined by increasing degrees of difficulty. The clustering and sequencing of learning objectives helps game developers define a suitable story structure and an overall experience arc for players as they progress through the game.

Figure 1. The similarities between the organization of a game and instruction.

166

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

Figure 1 compares the structure of a course or training program, that may be divided into units, lessons and events, with the a game, that may be organized into levels, scenes, and events, to form an overall experience arc (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 11). The experience arc is designed to increase investment and emotional engagement and provide the overall satisfaction of achieving the ultimate goal, whether for entertainment or learning. The rewards and pay-offs need to propel the motivation of the player forward through the experience arc. The developers need to build up to the intended intensity by ramping up the risks and balancing the difficulty level between frustration and boredom so to offer appropriate challenges and game play. As developers to define game levels, they must consider how the clustering and sequencing of instructional and game serves the creative intent of the game as articulated by the experience arc. The learning goal should be interrelated with the overall game goal. Each unit should correspond to the emotional waypoints of each game level. Each lesson should integrate their instructional events with interactive exchanges of each scene of the game. The degree of difficulty is also an important consideration when defining game levels. As a player progresses through levels, the degree of difficulty may remain constant, increase linearly, or follow an s-curve, with the degree of difficulty remaining relatively flat at the beginning and end, but increasing exponentially during the middle. Novak (2005) also suggests that to challenge expert players, developers can build more difficult versions of each level that are accessible separately, or developers can build different degrees of challenge within each level. As educators and instructional designers cluster and sequence objectives, and work with game developers to define game levels, they must also consider the difficulty of specified objectives. Should the game present learners with objectives that increase in difficulty, remain constant or follow an s-curve over time? Should developers create additional levels and/or provide access to varying degrees of learning challenges with each level? As noted under concept development, objectives may be derived from standards published by professional organizations, accrediting agencies or existing instructional materials. If objectives do not exist, educators may apply alternative analysis techniques to identify skills and knowledge necessary to achieve a specified learning goal, and the skills and knowledge may then be used to prepare objectives. At the onset of pre-production, educators should cluster and sequence objectives, and may use a simple course scope and sequence table, as depicted in Table 4, to communicate the organization of objectives to developers. Table 4. Template I for Basic Course Scope & Sequence Chart.

Unit 1 Terminal Objective 1.0 Enabling Objective 1.1 Enabling Objective 1.2 Enabling Objective 1.3 Enabling Objective 1.N

Course [Learning or Performance] Goal Statement: Unit 2 Unit 3

Unit 4

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 167 Educators may then work with game developers to finalize the clustering and sequencing of objectives and to define game levels, by taking into consider both game and instructional flow, duration, availability, relationships and difficulty. Educators should then use the objectives to delineate learner assessment methods that are congruent with the specified objectives.

DELINEATE LEARNER ASSESSMENT METHODS Accurately assessing what players learned from an instructional game may be one of the greatest challenges facing game developers. It requires knowledge of what, when, where and how to assess learners‘ skills, knowledge, attitudes and abilities. The specification of measurable learning objectives delineates what needs to be assessed. Concrete entertainment goals and objectives (e.g., enhancing learner engagement, creating suspense, evoking emotion, promoting players‘ continuing motivation to return to similar goal directed behaviors) also help determine what needs to be assessed. The challenge lies in determining when, where and how to assess achievement of specified goals and objectives. The fundamental ID tasks of determining learner assessment methods and aligning assessment with specified objectives provide further insights into assessment for game-based learning. Learner assessments may be completed before, during and after instruction. Before instruction, entry-level tests may be used to determine if learners have pre-requisite skills and knowledge and pre-tests may be given to determine if learners already have the skills and knowledge addressed by the instruction. During instruction, practice-tests may be used to help learners develop skills, acquire knowledge, and monitor their progress toward specified objectives. After instruction, post-tests measure learners‘ achievement of specified objectives. In an instructional game, assessments may be given: (a) before learners begin to play the game to determine if they have pre-requisite skills and knowledge necessary to successfully play and complete the game; (b) at the beginning of one or more game levels to determine if learners have the some skills and knowledge addressed by the game level and adapt learners progress through the level accordingly; (c) during or at the end of one or more game level to practice applying skills and knowledge and monitor learners progress toward specified objectives, or (d) after learners have completed the game to assess learner achievement of specified objectives. To decide when to best assess learners‘ skills and knowledge, game developers must determine the importance, feasibility and cost of assessing whether learners: (a) have prerequisite skills and knowledge; (b) have the skills and knowledge to be addressed by the instructional game; (c) need practice or help monitoring their acquisition and/or progress toward specified learning outcomes as they play the game; and (d) have acquired, can apply, and/or transfer targeted skills and knowledge to move up game levels or after completing the game. Answers to these questions may be derived from learner and context analyses (discussed earlier) and as developers generate an instructional strategy and integrate the strategy with the story and game play (as discussed in proceeding sections of the chapter). Determining when to assess learners‘ skills and knowledge also requires knowledge of where and how learners are to be assessed.

168

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

Fundamentally, game developers must decide where assessments are to take place, either within the game or outside of the game, which leads directly to the next assessment question; how to assess learners. If learner assessments are to be integrated within the game, game developers must have the skills and resources to formulate the algorithms (if/then statements) and create the artificial intelligence (AI) necessary to program the game to respond properly to learner input. Assessment algorithms and AI may be relatively simple and programmed within a game if developers choose to use conventional criterion referenced testing methods (e.g., multiplechoice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank) or product and performance checklists to assess learners when there is one correct answer, one correct method for deriving the answer, or one set of readily observable/recordable behaviors that demonstrate targeted skills and knowledge. However, if learner assessments require the application of a set of heuristics and some level of subjectivity to measure problem-solving and the use of higher order thinking skills within ill-structured domains, the algorithms and AI may be too complex for the team to formulate and apply, and the assessment may have to occur outside of the game with experts assessing the achievement of related objectives by examining learner generated work samples. Because the descriptors tend to be too imprecise for a computer to match specified criteria to students‘ behavior (Leddo, 1996), ―performance assessment using scoring rubrics…that describe different levels of proficiency is considered unsuitable for computer games…‖ (Mitchell & Savill-Smith, p. 50). During pre-production, game developers should determine learner assessment methods immediately after defining, organizing and classifying learning objectives to help ensure alignment between objectives and assessments. Too often, assessments are defined in isolation, with little to no consideration of the objectives. As a result, learners are often left wondering about the origins of specific test items or assessment criteria. To determine appropriate learner assessment methods, ensure assessment items and criteria are aligned to specified objectives, and communicate assessment methods to developers, educators may choose to complete a learner assessment alignment, as depicted in Table 5. In Table 5, column one lists essential skills and knowledge as identified by a goal, subordinate skills or other forms of analysis (as discussed during concept development). Column two represents the corresponding objective statement. Column three classifies the objective according to a learning taxonomy (in the example, Gagne‘s taxonomy of learning outcomes) to guide selection of an appropriate assessment method. Column four notes when the assessment should take place (pre, practice or post), and the prescribed assessment format (e.g., conventional multiple choice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank; product or performance checklists; or assessment rubrics). Column five specifies the assessment criteria or item that should be used to measure achievement of the specified objectives. Educators can use the table to ensure alignment between assessments and objectives by making sure the behavior required to successfully meet the assessment criteria or complete the assessment item is congruent with the behavior specified in the corresponding objective. The table also communicates when and how assessments may be used to facilitate and measure achievement of specified objectives. Game developers, in turn, may use the information to determine if the team has the capacity to develop the algorithms and AI necessary to apply the assessment items or criteria, or if assessments may have to occur outside of the game environment. If developers choose to integrate assessments within the game, the challenge again lies in the creative ability of developers to reconcile differences in

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 169 entertainment and education, in this case, by making failure fun and creating assessment that are engaging, valid and reliability. Table 5. Sample learner assessment alignment table. Skill

Self-assess prior knowledge

Identify benefits

Objective 1.0 Given a systematic design process, assess your prior skills, knowledge, interests and experiences relative to course topics and tools. 1.1 Given an instructional situation, you will be able to identify benefits associated with applying systematic design tools and techniques.

Domain

Cognitive Strategy

Verbal Information

Method

Item/Criteria

Post-Test: Portfolio Assessment Rubric

Proficient Performance Criteria: Includes job title and teaching/training experiences. Assesses prior knowledge of training and instruction. Describes expectations and desired outcomes. Communicates information in concise manner with few errors. Posted to correct location by specified deadline.

PracticeTest: Conventional Multiple Choice

One of the primary benefits associated with systematic design is that it: (a) does not take too much time or resources. (b) is dynamic and helps adjust for learners‘ needs as they change during the instructional process. (c) ensures the alignment of test items with instructional objectives and strategies. (d) focuses on technology-based instruction. (e) all of the above.

The assessment of learner performance provides the opportunity to deliver the culminating pay-off for both the game and instruction design. When the learner is in the height of immersion, making decisions, taking risk, and instigating action, they are forming memorable experiences and more likely to remember the lessons learned. If differences in education and entertainment are not resolved, resulting assessment will compete and dilute the intension of both by distraction or disassociation. For instance, let‘s say we were using a first-person-shooter game genre to teach grammar. For the level assessing the use of homonyms, a multiple choice activity was the appropriate and recommended assessment method, but if learners had to stop play to use a drop down menu to decide which homonym to use, it would break the flow (emotional and physical momentum), be anti-climatic and kill both the game objective and instructional appeal. However, time, accuracy and selection are integral to both multiple-choice and shoot-don‘t-shoot scenarios. The developers‘ desire and job is to make choosing fun by applying a play primitive that is popular and proven. In this case, a first-person-shooter genre provides the type of game mechanics that is congruent with the recommended assessment method. The theme can then adapt to the learner‘s demographics to determine whether you use a machine gun to shoot the colonel (or kernel) or

170

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

a magical wand to select a 24 karat (or carrot) treasure. Both the correct and incorrect answer can have entertaining and relevant consequences. When the learning objectives are integral to the game objectives, the assessments can become the culminating experience where performance determines scoring and rank that provides extra powers and resources to take on to the next level. However, the assessment must be designed as creatively as the game play where making mistakes are as memorable as succeeding. Making losing fun provides not only the incentive to try again, but you form distinct memories of what not to do. The common mistake is to make the assessment an after thought or making it merely a dressed up multiple-choice question.

APPLY GROUNDED STRATEGIES AND EVENTS Story and instruction may both be viewed as the deliberate arrangement of events. Story events, however, are written primarily to entertain and engage the audience. In comparison, instructional events are designed principally to facilitate learning and the achievement of specified learning objectives. We posit that grounded instructional strategies and events should be integrated with story events to optimize game-based learning. During preproduction, developers reconcile similarities and differences in instructional and story events to design meaningful interactions that facilitate learning in a fun and engaging manner. Stories evoke emotional investment in game play. It answers the question, ―why should I care?‖ The author develops characters that the audience can identify with to invite them into the action, and once empathic to the characters‘ plight, the audience goes wherever they are lead. Story events become consequence generators that drive future action and the setting provides the context of the action to reveal meaning. Once the story hooks the audience emotionally, the author elicits active participation by designing meaningful interactions between story events and key play primitives to help players achieve game goals. Storytelling for interactive entertainment, such as in computer games, differ significantly from stories written for linear media, such as films, plays, and books. However, the story structure itself can transcend different media and applied to both. The difference is that one accommodates the audience‘s participation and choices to increase emotional engagement while the other does not. Most interactive entertainment experiences follow a three-act structure with a beginning, middle and end. Act 1 is written to capture the audiences‘ attention with a compelling premise. The audience is often placed in an ―ordinary world‖ of the protagonist to familiarize them with the lay of the land and to develop empathy for the main character, when suddenly an inciting incident turns the character‘s world upside down and propels the story forward. Act 2 advances the plot, providing the main character/player with escalating conflicts and a core dilemma from where they will have to take on escalating risks and challenges or choices that evolve the character. Act 3 provides a climax where the protagonist is able to confront the antagonist to resolve the dilemma initially confronted in Act 1. This series of events provide an exhilarating emotional catharsis as the story comes to either a resolution or evolution that concludes with a happy or tragic ending. Interactive games also need to follow an emotional story arc to satisfy the audience‘s expectation. The difference from a linear story is that the audience has agency as the player

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 171 and the experience arc is ―specified by rules and not events‖ (Crawford, 2003). Instead of a linear plot, it becomes a dynamic ―metaplot‖ where the player participates in the unfolding sequence of problems and obstacles that develop characters and forwards with story. Instead of linear plot points placed by the author, the influence of the audience gains meaning through interactions with the game to compel and not disrupt the story or game flow. In both interactive games and stories, the challenge lies with the author to create a journey that reaches the same emotional waypoints as a linear plot, but the audience is allowed to reach them in their own way (Stapleton & Hughes, 2003). To create engaging, interactive story events that are designed intentionally to facilitate learning, educators identify instructional events, associated with the instructional approach or strategy selected during concept development, and work with game developers during preproduction to integrate the strategy with sound game design structure by exploiting similarities and resolving differences in story and instruction. Table 6. Primary events associated with grounded instructional strategies. Adaptive Instructional Design (Schwartz, Lin, Brophy & Bransford, 1992)

Collaborative Problem-Solving (Nelson, 1999)

Learning by Doing (Schank, Berman & Macpherson, 1999)

1. Look Ahead & Reflect Back 2. Present Initial Challenge 3. Generate Ideas 4. Present Multiple Perspectives 5. Research and Revise 6. Test Your Mettle 7. Go Public 8.Progressive Deepening 9.Reflection and Decision Assessment 5E Instructional Model (BSCS, 2006)

1. Build Readiness 2. Form and Norm Groups 3. Determine Preliminary Problem 4. Define and Assign Roles 5. Engage in Problem-Solving 6. Finalize Solution 7. Synthesize and Reflect 8. Assess Products and Processes 9. Provide Closure

1. Define Goals 2. Set Mission 3. Present Cover Story 4. Establish Roles 5. Operate Scenarios 6. Provide Resources 7. Provide Feedback

Problem-Based Learning (Barrows, 1985)

Case-Based Reasoning (Aamodt & Plaza, 1994)

1. Engage 2. Explore 3. Explain 4. Elaborate 5. Evaluate Experiential Learning (Pfeiffer & Jones, 1975)

1. Start New Class 2. Start a New Problem 3. Problem Follow-Up 4. Performance Presentation(s) 5. After Conclusion of Problem Simulation Model (Joyce, Weil, & Showers, 1992)

1. Present New Case/Problem 2. Retrieve Similar Cases 3. Reuse Information 4. Revise Proposed Solution 5. Retain Useful Experiences Constructivist Learning (Jonassen, 1999)

1. Experience 2. Publish 3. Process 4. Internalize 5. Generalize 6. Apply

1. Orientation 2. Participant Training 3. Simulation Operations 4. Participant Debriefing 5. Appraise and redesign the simulation

1. Select Problem 2. Provide Related Cases 3. Provide Information 4. Provide Cognitive Tools 5. Provide Conversation Tools 6. Provide Social Support

Hannifin, Hannifin, Land and Oliver (1997) define ―grounded design‖ as ―…the systematic implementation of processes and procedures that are rooted in established theory and research in human learning‖ (p. 102). A grounded approach uses research and theory to make design decisions and optimize learning. It neither subscribes too, nor advocates any

172

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

particular epistemology, but rather promotes alignment between theory and practice (Hirumi, 2002). Table 6 outlines events associated with alternative instructional strategies "grounded" in learning and instructional research and theory. During pre-production, an instructional strategy may be applied at the game or scene level to guide the design and sequencing of key events that occur throughout the game‘s story structure. For example, at the game level, the seven events associated with the Learning by Doing instructional theory (Schank, Berman & Macpherson, 1999), matched the archetypal action game framework that is being used to guide how the story is being written for an instructional game, currently titled Trainien2. Application of the seven event helps provide the bases for dramatic build up for the story all within context of the game. 1) Define Goals: The story and game structure is defined by establishing clear and compelling goals. For Trainien, the instructional goal was defined as, ―Given alternative training and educational situations, instructional designers will work effectively with game developers to systematically analyze, design, and test instructional games.‖ The game goal was specified as, ―Kick butt so the player can either fulfill his/her dream to work for the game company, run the education division, and hang out with cool creatures while playing with holodeck, or get home.‖ These goals were then embedded within a structured game premise presented to players as a mission. 2) Set Mission: In our case the protagonist (aka. player or learner) is abducted by alien game developers. His or her mission is to navigate through the alien world and either return home or remain, to work for the game developers, but s/he can only do so after assimilating the game development process, understanding the alternative roles and goals of game developers, and applying pedagogy during the instructional game development process. The mission is made less overwhelming by breaking it down into levels and scenarios. Each level of Trainien sets up smaller tasks to successfully achieve the final mission and ultimate learning goal by exploring each facet of the game development process with a wide variety of options and tools. 3) Present Cover Story: The emotional investment and interactivity that enhances game play often happens in the backstory. This event can allow us not only to embellish the story, but also establish appropriate choices and levels of difficulty within the set-up of the game to make the experience relevant. For example, the selection of rank, tools and resources during the presentation of the cover story provides players with the ability to make the game experience their own. In Trainien, the player is placed in their desired professional position (as an instructional designer) where they will need to learn from experience or ―trial by fire.‖ By placing the player in a popular fictional alien theme, real professional situations can be rendered with humor and drama to reduce the student‘s fear of failing and create a memorable experience. This encourages players to be

2

Trainien is being designed to augment a graduate level course on instructional game design. The basic idea is to provide a game that mimics the game development process. The game is not meant to replace the course; rather, to enhance the course experience with relevant examples of course topics and issues embedded within the game play while modeling effective game design.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 173

4)

5)

6)

7)

proactive in an unfamiliar work environment and feel comfortable with learning from their mistakes. Establish Roles: Point of View is a critical element for dramatic writing and mission rehearsal. The ability to not only select our own roles, but establish relationships with others help establish the collaborative nature of the game play and lesson objective. In Trainien, we are helping learners develop their own skills and knowledge relative to instructional game design, so the first person point of view is more appropriate than an objective 3rd person point of view. The extreme characterization of the other characters is to gain the appreciation for the diversity and dramatics of working on a creative game development team. These roles reflect both the professional discipline and the archetypal characters (protagonist, antagonist, etc.). This not only contributes to a good story but also provides strategic options for achieving the learning objectives. Operate Scenario: Entertainment is about meeting expectations and games are about making failure fun (to motivate learners to get up and try again) and this allowed us to take full advantage of what is core to the strategy and the game. In Trainien, we designed scenarios for each game level so that mistakes are the most attractive option. However in creative endeavors, there is never just one right answer. The operation of the game is to make a series of strategic choices, culminating in drastically different end results that illustrate inter-relationship between choices. For example, game level zero (Game Tester‘s Hell) enables learners to distinguish game genres. In the scenario, the player enters a back area where drones are brought in to test games of various genres. The player watches and is tasked with capturing games of certain genres while avoiding detection. Hybrid games and trick genres are aimed at throwing off the player. After collecting what s/he feels are the correct games, the player returns for an inquisition (assessment) to see if s/he is worthy to live. If the player does not succeed, s/he will die a horrible and creative death. If the player is successful, s/he will earn a medallion to activate the next level. Provide Resources: Besides clear goals, cool tools can help make the game successful. This includes the virtual resources available that not only help with the incentive of the game, but become a persistent way to monitor progress, provide feedback and foster critical thinking. A key resource is access to intelligence or knowledge. In Trainien, an InterPlay Digital Assistant (iPDA) will enable players to gain and store clues, as well as communicate with mentors (e.g., the instructor or game characters, as well as real and fictional classmates) for coaching and advice. The more they use the cues or advice, the more we understand the player‘s familiarity of the subject. If they don‘t use the cues or advice and still perform poorly, that tells us about the player‘s attitude or behavior. Provide Feedback: The procedural process of the interaction provides the constant tracking of choices and monitoring of performance. However, in games it is more about how you deliver the feedback than how you measure. The three recommended feedback types provide a variety of interactive mechanisms to deliver it from consequence (making failure fun and immediate), coaching (a hero‘s mentor providing just in time advice), and domain experts (role-playing

174

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton opportunities to explore the domain). Trainien utilizes all three options for feedback and is able to monitor the player‘s preference by the choices they make. This helps adapt the game to the learner‘s needs and interests.

The same Learning by Doing instructional strategy, as well as alternative grounded strategies, may also be applied at the scene level within the overall story structure. For example, the five events associated with the BSCS 5E model (BSCS, 2006; Bybee, 2002) are being integrated with the scenario operation of one game level within Trainien. In the scenario, the player needs to emulate the operations of the character creation workshop of the alien ship. The player is confronted with a mission to engage their interest or lose their life. To achieve the objective, players must explore and survey the infrastructure of game development. As the player interacts with obstacles, challenges and other characters, they need to explain what they know in action and in words to keep their cover and progress through the level (building drama). When appropriate, they will begin to elaborate on their own game creation recruiting the characters they have met or tools they used to be evaluated by the Supreme Commander where they will succeed or perish. The application of grounded instructional strategies, however, does not fully utilize what we know about teaching and learning to optimize game-based learning. Similar to applying a grounded strategy within a game level (or instructional unit), it is believed that the selection and integration of grounded instructional events may help to further optimize game-based learning. Research suggests that different external conditions, or events, should be used to promote different types of learning (c.f., Gagné, 1977). Table 7 lists specific instructional events, compiled by Smith and Ragan (2005), that have been found to facilitate the learning of verbal information, concepts, rules, problem solving, cognitive strategies, attitudes and psychomotor skills. As game developers detail the story (related to questions), they should consider the terminal, instructional objectives for each unit or game level, and consider integrating one or more grounded events that have been found to facilitate the achievement of the particular type of objective. For example, the terminal objective for one level in Trainien is to distinguish key player and learner characteristics. To facilitate such concept learning, players will be presented with imagery (pictures that depict key attributes of people who are considered part of Generation X, Generation Y, the Net Generation, and the Millennial Generation) as the progress through the level and related story and game play. As developers complete game design documents and develop a tangible prototype, it is critical for educators to verify that grounded instructional strategies and events are embedded within the artistic story and game play. A description of the instructional strategy may be too cumbersome to include in the design document verbatim; however it is fine to have references to the instructional strategy in the addendum. The key is to assimilate the strategies and events within the story and game play detailed in the game design document, so they can not be ignored as a working prototype is developed to verify game design.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 175 Table 7. Grounded Instructional Events that Facilitate Achievement of Various Learning Outcomes. Learning Outcome

Verbal Information Names, labels, facts or a collection of propositions.

Concepts A set of objects, symbols or events grouped together on the basis of shared characteristics which can be referenced by a particular name or symbol. Rules Relational rules or principals and procedural rules or procedures.

Problem Solving Combine learned principles, procedures, verbal information and cognitive strategies in a unique way within a domain to solve original problems

Grounded Event Associational Techniques Mnemonics Devices (e.g., ―FACE‖ for ―Every Good Boy Does Fine‖). Metaphoric Devices (e.g., ―white cells attack infections like soldiers attack enemy‖). Instructor or learner generated images (e.g., pictures, graphs, tables and maps). Rehearsal (e.g., Drill & Practice). Organizational Techniques Clustering and chunking into categories (e.g., periodic table). Expository and narrative structures (e.g., chronologies, cause and effect relationships, problem solutions, comparisons and contrasts). Graphic and advanced organizers (e.g., concept tree linking new to prior knowledge). Elaboration Techniques Write meaningful sentences (e.g., sentences using elements of periodic table). Devise rule (e.g., describe why elements are organized in rows and columns). Inquiry Approach (e.g., exploratory or discovery learning that typically begins with a presentation of examples and non-examples of a concept. Expository Approach (begins with an explanation of a concept and its key attributes). Attribute Isolation (points out the critical attributes of a concept). Concept Trees (hierarchical, graphic representations of a specified concept that illustrate the concept relationship to subordinate and superordinate concepts). Analogies (supplied by instructor or generated by learners) Mnemonics (when verbal information is important to concept learning or for helping learners remember the key attributes of a concept Imagery (a mental image of concrete concepts, such as pictures, graphs, tables and maps presented by the instruction or generated by learners). Learn to determine if the procedure is required. Learn to list the steps in a procedure. Learn to complete the steps in a procedure. Learn to elaborate sequence, starting with simple epitome of rule and elaborating to more complex versions of same rule. Learn to check appropriateness of completed procedure. Presentation of the Problem (case studies, simulations, limiting the number of rules– principles and procedures–that must be used, presenting explicit representations of necessary rules as cues, providing solutions to parts of the problem, limiting the amount of extraneous information). Problem Space (Review directions and identify relevant information about goal state; Delineate and analyze relationship between current and goal states; Discern patterns; Define what is known and unknown about the problem and determine what information must be acquired to solve the problem; Break down the problem into intermediate states or subgoals). Appropriate Principles (guided questions–generative approach–or direct statements– supplantive approach–on how to select and apply appropriate principles and procedures to move from the given state, through intermediate states, to the goal state. Practice (Present multiple representations of the problem; Recommend techniques for limiting alternative approaches to problem resolution; Provide clues about the general form of the solution; Recommend search strategies for acquiring relevant information; Outline generic approaches for problem resolution such as hypothesis testing and working backwards; Establish criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of alternative solutions).

176

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton Table 7. (Continued).

Cognitive Strategies Internally organized skills whose function is to regulate and monitor the utilization of concepts and rules

Attitudes Choice behaviors that make certain classes of action more or less probable

Psychomotor Skills Coordinated muscular movements that may be difficult to distinguish from intellectual skills

Discovery and Guided Discovery (involves more direct instruction than discovery, helping learners ascertain particular strategies through the application of questioning strategies. Observation (observe a model demonstrating the use of the strategy by paired, cooperative learners, expert demonstration; and symbolic visual or textual representation by fictional character Guided Participation (Instructor works with learners to determine characteristics of learning task, identify strategies to facilitate the task, and determine effective methods for employing the strategy Direct Instruction (Identify utility of the strategy; Provide overview of steps and their relation to overall strategy; Demonstrate or model the strategy; Illustrate examples and non-examples of strategy use; Practice application of the strategy across gradually more difficult situations; Provide corrective feedback; Encourage and guide transfer of strategy to separate but appropriate context). Demonstrate desired behaviors representative of target attitude by a respected role. Practice desired behavior associated with the desired attitude is another powerful tool in attitude formation and change (e.g., role playing and group discussions) Provide reinforcement for the desired behavior (a stimulus that increases the probability of the preceding behavior reoccurring. Communicate persuasive messages from highly credible sources Create dissonance (persuading learner to perform an important behavior that is counter–dissonant–to the person own attitude, attitude change may result. Massed versus Spaced Practice (massed practice engages learners in one or a few intensive periods of practice. Spaced practice exposes learners to short practice sessions distributed over time. Whole versus Parts Practice (whole practice is advisable if the task is simple, not meaningful in parts, made up of simultaneous performed parts and has highly dependent parts, and if the learner is able to remember long sequences, has long attention spans and is highly skilled). Progressive parts practice (if learners may have difficulties putting the parts together into a meaningful and well executed whole). Backwards chaining (where learners are exposed to and practice the last step and work their way to the first step.

BEGIN FORMATIVE EVALUATIONS Educators frequently implement initial drafts of instructional materials. In such instances, problems often occur and either the instructor is blamed for poor teaching or learners are blamed for their lack of attention or insufficient studying, when, in fact, the instructional materials were not well designed. To address this issue, Cronbach (1975) coined the term, ―formative evaluations‖ to describe the collection and evaluation of data during development to improve instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Dick, Carey and Carey (2005) describe four types of formative evaluations, including expert reviews, one-to-one evaluations, small group evaluations and field tests. Expert reviews and one-to-one formative evaluations are encouraged before the tangible prototype is demonstrated to sponsors and other key stakeholders.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 177 Expert reviews include formative evaluations by subject matter experts as well as media, learning and human factors specialists. Subject matter experts (SMEs) comment on the currency, accuracy and adequacy of the information provided within the instruction. Learning specialists review the objectives, instructional strategy and assessment methods. Media specialists are particularly important when developing audio, video, graphics and animations. Human factors experts examine the usability of the interface and navigation schemes. The purposes of one-to-one evaluations are to identify and remove the most obvious errors in the instruction and to obtain initial reactions to the content from learners. During this stage, designers work directly with the person evaluating the materials. Direct interactions distinguish this phase of formative evaluation from others. Observation forms, interview questions, attitudes surveys and achievement tests are frequently used to gather data during this phase. Before achievement tests are used to evaluate student learning, they should also be formatively evaluated to help ensure validity and reliability. Participants for the one-to-one evaluations typically include one learner who is above average in ability, one who is average, and one who is below average. The instruction is revised after each evaluation and designers may choose to conduct additional one-to-one evaluations if necessary. The primary criteria and decisions to be made during one-to-one evaluations include: (a) clarity (is the message, or what is being presented, clear to individual learners?), (b) impact (what is the impact of the instruction on individual learner‘s attitudes and achievement of the objectives and goals?), and (c) feasibility (how feasible is the instruction given the available time, facility and material resources?)‖ (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2005). One-to-one formative evaluations methods should be integrating with the testing of the prototype. As the digital prototype is tested to ensure the game is fun and compelling, developers should also interact directly with the testers to evaluate clarity, impact and feasibility. Obvious errors should be removed and feedback from the testers should be incorporated, and the prototype revised after each evaluation. The degree to which a selected instructional approach is successfully integrated with preliminary game design during concept development will affect the level of assimilation of instruction strategies and events within the design phase. The problem with many instructional game development processes is that pedagogy is not addressed until the preproduction phase and learning becomes superficial or secondary to the entertainment or vice versa. Constant reviews and documentation such as notes, suggested refinements, redline corrections, and punch-lists, along with expert reviews and one-to-one formative evaluations are tools for educators to insure proper application and integration of pedagogy within the game during pre-production, before the game goes into production.

PRODUCTION PHASE After the prototype is approved, game developers enter the longest phase—production. During production, Alpha and Beta versions of the game are developed and tested before a final ―Gold‖ version is delivered to the manufacturer for duplication, sales and marketing. For the Alpha version, the game is playable from start to finish, but there may be few gaps and the art assets may not be final, but the engine and user interface are both complete.

178

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

Each module is tested at least once and a bug database is created. Production of the Beta version focuses on fixing bugs and the integration of all assets. The objectives are to complete testing (including use on all supported platforms), bug fixing and performance tuning. Game elements, such as the code, content, path navigation, user interface, art, and audio, must be complete to pass the Beta testing. Once the game has passed Beta testing, it is considered Gold. Senior management has reviewed the product and the bug database and agrees that the product is ready for manufacturing. Master game discs have been thoroughly tested and the game is packaged for release into the marketplace. Game developers are use to testing prototypes, during pre-production, and various versions of games during production. However, such tests tend to focus on ease of use, documenting and fixing programming bugs, and ensuring the game is (still) fun to play. Additional formative evaluations are posited an integral part of production to eliminate remaining problems with, and enhance the pedagogical effectiveness of an instructional game.

COMPLETE FORMATIVE EVALUATIONS To complete the formative evaluation process initiated during pre-production, additional evaluations are posited during production to assess the instructional clarity, feasibility and impact, and improve the pedagogical effectiveness, efficiency and appeal of instructional games. Specially, small group evaluations are recommended for the Alpha version of the game, and field tests are recommended for the Beta versions of the game. The purposes of small group evaluation are to determine the effectiveness of changes made following the one-to-one evaluation, to identify any remaining learning problems, and to determine if learners can use the instruction with little to no interaction with designers. The basic procedure used for small group evaluations differ from the one-to-one evaluations in that after a giving a preliminary overview, designers administer the instruction in an environment that closely resembles its intended setting. Designers intervene only if equipment fails, or if for some reason, learners get stuck and cannot continue. Small group evaluations are posited for the Alpha version of instructional games, when at least one game path is playable from beginning to end and the user interface is complete, but there may be a few gaps in the game play and the art assets may not be final. Each module of the Alpha version is typically tested at least once and a bug database and testing plan are created, including performance results. With the integration of small group formative evaluation methods, pretests may be used to measure learners‘ prerequisite skills and posttests may measure achievement of specified instructional objectives. Attitude questionnaires and follow-up interviews are also conducted, and the feasibility of the instruction is evaluated by estimating the time required by learners to complete the instruction. This final stage of the formative evaluation is where designers attempt to apply the instructional materials in a learning environment that mimics its intended setting. The purpose of this stage is to decide if the alterations in the instruction made after the small group evaluation were effective and if the instruction can be used under targeted conditions. To answer these questions, all materials should be ready for use as intended. If an instructor is involved in executing the instruction, designers should not play this role.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 179 Field trials are recommended for the Beta version of instructional games. The Beta version focuses on fixing bugs and the integration of all assets. With the integration of field trials with beta tests, the primary purposes at this stage of production are to complete testing, fix all bugs, fine tune performance, and ensure the game may be used in its intended setting. The game is basically complete, except for revisions made based on input gained from the trials. The procedures and instruments used during field trials should be very similar to that used for the small group evaluations. Instruments measure learners‘ attitudes and performance, and observations and interviews with learners and instructors are also valuable. The primary change is in the role of the developer. If the developer is not the instructor, the developer should only observe the process. The use of data gathered from field trials of the Beta version, along with final fixes to bugs in the code, results in the production of the Gold version of the game that is then released reproduction and packaging.

CONCLUSION This chapter is written to help educators communicate and collaborate with game developers. It provides an overview of the game development process, and identifies common tasks completed, and deliverables generated during the process. It also discusses how, when and where educators can apply their knowledge of the subject matter, instructional situation and pedagogy during the process to optimize game-based learning, focusing on answering questions related to the three key components of interactive entertainment (i.e., story, game, and play) and their related elements. As much of the discussion suggests, effective game design is based on the ability of developers to exploit similarities and reconcile differences in entertainment and education. In other words, successful game design depends, to a large extent, on the ability of team members to integrate and synthesize the results of instructional design and game design tasks in a creative, yet logical and systematic manner. Fabricatore (cited by Mitchell & SavillSmith, 2004, p. 50) refers to this alternative design approach as ‗edugaming,‘ where there is, ―…no unnatural barrier separating learning from gaming‖ (Fabricatore, 2000, p. 14). There are some who argue that instructional designers would ―kill the fun‖ in instructional games, inferring the application of fundamental instructional design tasks has little to no value in game design. To some extent, we would agree. If left solely to instructional designers, with little to no knowledge of interactive entertainment and game design, resulting products may not utilize the potential of games to engage learners and make learning fun. However, we hope this chapter also illustrates the value of working with educators and instructional designers during the design and development of instructional games. We believe that sustained dialog and combined efforts of content experts and professionals in game design, simulation and modeling, software engineering, and instructional design, will lead to the development of motivating and pedagogically sound instructional games that utilize the potential of emerging technologies to optimize game based learning.

180

Atsusi Hirumi and Christopher Stapleton

REFERENCES Aamodt, A. & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and Systems Approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39-59. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from http://www.laicbr.org/theindex.html. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to Design a Problem Based Curriculum for the Preclinical Years. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Bates, B. (2004). Game Design (2nd Ed.). Boston: MA: Thomson Course Technology, PTR. Blake, J., & Goodman, J. (1999). Computer-based learning: Games as an instructional strategy. The Association of Black Nursing Faculty Journal, 10(2), 43-46. Bybee, R. W. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.). Learning Science and the Science of Learning (pp. 25-36). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. BSCS (2006). Learning theory and the BSCS 5E instructional model. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from http://www.bscs.org/library/Learning_Theory_and_the_BSCS_5E_Instructional_Model.p df. Crawford, C. (2003). The Art of Interactive Design. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press, Inc. Cronbach, I. J. (1975). Course improvement through evaluation. Reprinted in Payne, D. A., & McMorris, R. F. (Eds.), Education and Psychological Measurement. Morristown, NH: General Learning Press, 243-256. Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B. A., Haynes, L. L., & Casey, M. S. (1996). Instructional applications of computer games. New York, NY: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reprodcution Service No. ED 394 500). Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th edition), New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential of Computer Games. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.itu.dk/people/sen/ egenfeldt.pdf. Gagne, R.M. (1977). The Conditions of Learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Hannafin, M.. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117. Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27. Holland, W., Jenkins, H., Squire, K. (2002). Video Game Theory. In B. Perrron & M. Wolf (Eds). Routledge. Retrieved February 15, 2006 from http://www.educationarcade.org/gtt/ Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 215-239). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., and Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Applying Pedagogy during Game Development to Optimize Game-Based Learning 181 Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Showers, B. (1992). Models of Teaching (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kolb, D.A. (1985). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Leake, D. B. (2000). Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leddo, J. (1996). An intelligent tutoring game to teach scientific reasoning. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 10(4), 22-25. Mitchell, A. & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London, England: The Learning and Skills Development Agency. Nelson, L. (1999). Collaborative Problem-Solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 241-267). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Novak, J. (2005). Game Development Essentials. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Pfeiffer, J.W., & Jones, J.E. (1975) Introduction to the structured experiences section. In J.E. Jones & J.W. Pfeiffer (Eds.). The 1975 annual handbook for group facilitators. La Jolla, CA: University Associates. Savery, J. R., Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 161-179). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwartz, Lin, Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1992). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 183-213). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sklar, M. (n.d.). Mickey's 10 Commandments. Retrieved May 01, 2006 from http://www.themedattraction.com/mickeys10commandments.htm. Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Stapleton, C. B. & Hughes, C. E. (2006). Believing is seeing: Cultivating radical media innovations. Computer Graphics and Applications. 26(1), 88-93. Stapleton, C. B. & Hughes, C. E. (2003) Interactive imagination: Tapping the emotions through interactive story for compelling simulations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24(5), 11-15. Wikipedia (2005). Game development. Retrieved March 04, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_entertainment. Wilson, B. (1995). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 11

INTERPLAY INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY: ENGAGING LEARNERS WITH INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT CONVENTIONS Christopher Stapleton1 and Atsusi Hirumi2 1

Founding Director of Media Convergence Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, USA 2 Associate Professor and Co-Chair of Instructional Technology, University of Central Florida, USA Advances in telecommunication technologies and the continued need for training, education and professional development have resulted in a proliferation of e-learning opportunities (e.g., elearners.com, corporatetraining.com, ecollege.com, connectionsacademy. com, phoenix.com). The problem is that many e-learning programs continue to mimic traditional correspondence mail models of distance education, relying heavily on selfinstructional text or lecture-based materials that often fail to engage learners and promote meaningful interactions among participants and the subject matter. The creation of modern elearning programs requires research and the development of new instructional strategies that realize the potential of telecommunication technologies to facilitate collaborative and independent learning (Hirumi, 2002; Bates, 1990; Mason & Kaye, 1990; Soby, 1990). This chapter posits an innovative instructional strategy that incorporates powerful conventions of interactive entertainment (Stapleton & Hughes, 2006) to engage and motivate learners in totally online, hybrid, and conventional learning environments. The strategy consists of six key instructional events that apply three core conventions of interactive entertainment (i.e., story, play and game) to structure compelling learning experiences. The events may be applied in an instructional unit or lesson, or they may be structured to create an experience arc throughout a course to arouse high levels of emotional investment. The chapter is divided into five main parts. Part I discusses the role of entertainment in educational settings. Part II delineates the three core conventions of interactive entertainment. Part III describes the interplay instructional strategy, noting the interrelationships between the six instructional events and key elements. Part IV illustrates the structuring of events within a

184

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

course to enhance learner engagement and motivation. Finally, Part V presents a short summary of key concepts and conclusions.

PART I: MEDIATING ENTERTAINMENT AND EDUCATION ―Entertainment, education and training are all in the business of making memories for a lifetime.‖ Michael Macedonia, Director, Disruptive Technology Office (DTO) of the Advance Research Defense Agency (ARDA)

Attempts to merge education and entertainment are not new. Combining the two can make education more engaging and entertainment more educational. However, adding one to the other without a critical analysis of each construct can dilute the power of both. Forcing learning requirements and traditional teaching practices on entertainment can undermine the flow of the dramatic structure and disrupt the playful interactions that make entertainment appealing. In turn, the importance and depth of content information and vital instructional events for facilitating learning can be overlooked, oversimplified or trivialized while upholding the compelling engagement of the entertainment goals. The reemerging interest in educational computer games, as a way to leverage the recent success of entertaining video games, shows both promise and concern. Educational games can engage learners. The use of rich visual and aesthetics can draw learners into worlds that can awe and inspire (Poole, 2000). Games can also motivate learners through fun, challenge and instant feedback within a virtual, interactive and immersive environment (Mitchell & SavillSmith, 2004). Furthermore, the use of audio, video, text and graphics may accommodate different learning styles (Berson, 1996) and encourage media literacy (Mitchell & SavillSmith, 2004), as well as facilitate decision-making, by encouraging learners to experiment with different ways of thinking and learning in a relatively ―safe‖ environment (Gee, 2003). However, educational games can also distract learners, who may be enamored by the use of high-end graphics and animation or concentrate on competing, scoring and winning, rather than learning (Clark, 2003). Game goals may not be congruent with learning objectives (Clark, 2003), the game may be too easy or too challenging, it may take too long to complete, or it may just be poorly designed, causing confusion and/or providing insufficient or inappropriate feedback (British Education Communications and Technology Agency, 2001). Computer games, that go beyond the assessment of student learning using relatively simple game shells, may also take considerable time, human and financial resources; resources that may not be readily available to faculty. The Interplay Instructional Strategy addresses many of the aforementioned concerns, applying key principles of interactive entertainment to produce memorable learning experiences for educational computer games, as well as for conventional face-to-face, hybrid and totally online learning environments. Games are useful, but their power is attributed to key principles of entertainment that go well beyond the concept of games; from toys, to movies, comic books, playgrounds, as well as cultural myths and legends. Entertainment in the 20th century has had a major effect on society, influencing world cultures, opinions, and economies. Entertainment in modern western society has become a language onto itself. A message can be lost without its appeal. People are more likely to

Interplay Instructional Strategy

185

believe an outlandish lie if it is a story well told than the boring old truth. News becomes entertainment, truth becomes a trademarked brand, and learning becomes ―edutainment‖ that neither meets the standards of high quality education, nor entertainment (Fabricatore, 2000). Although educational software may be preferred to conventional classroom practices, students typically dislike such applications, ―because the fun factor is missing‖ and ―would never voluntarily play such a game outside of class‖ (Leddo, 1996, pp. 23-24). Edutainment produced during the 1980‘s and 90‘s was like combining two great things and coming up with less than the sum of its parts. To the entertainment industry, ―education‖ has become the kiss of death. For some educators, ―The intention should be enlightenment, not entertainment… To turn learning into fun is to denigrate the two most important things we can do as humans: To teach [and] To learn‖ (Stoll, 1999, p. 22). Is there a way to incorporate the best qualities of entertainment and apply it to the highest ideals of education? Entertainment needs to be used as a means, not as an end, yet it can not be compromised by educational requirements. Successful integration of entertainment and education entails exploring the core construct of entertainment and reapplying its components to the instructional design process (also discussed in Chapter 10). Cinema, broadcast, and cable television have transformed entertainment from a superfluous distraction in the 19th century, to the power of ubiquitous and pervasive media of today. However, we must be cognizant not to confuse the passive media of the 20th century with the interactive entertainment of the 21st century. Where entertainment can be passive, education cannot (Hertz, 1997). With the rapid advancement of interactive entertainment, the rush to leverage its capabilities to enhance learning can produce clashes between instructional and the entertainment design processes. The goal of the Interplay Instructional Strategy is to mediate between the two. Previous clashes between education and entertainment come partly from the vast differences in how people think and operate in both arenas. Instructional design tends to be systematic, reasoned, and grounded; entertainment is more likely to be idiosyncratic, intuitive, and novel. The differences between education and entertainment are vast, yet the goal is basically the same: to make memories for a lifetime. The conflict appears when the systematic, reasoned, and generally accepted instructional design process is interpreted by entertainment experts as formulaic and predictable (or boring). However, the idiosyncratic, intuitive, and novel process of producing entertainment can also be seen by educators and instructional designers as haphazard, ungrounded, and not replicable. The chart presented in Figure 1 seeks to find common ground where entertainment and education intersect without directly conflicting with or diluting one another. The Interplay Instructional Strategy exploits the common ground by defining an intersection between the vague and imaginative process of entertainment with the exacting and explicit process of the instructional design. Common ground may be found by examining Interplay Conventions of story, play and game, and their underlying structure for entertainment. The Interplay Instructional Strategy posits a sequence of events that are both instructional and entertaining in nature. Common overlaps can be found if we look at the imaginative process of instruction (implicit, visionary, heuristic motivating) and the cognitive process of entertainment (explicit structure, conventions and expectations). However, we cannot stop there. The overall learning experience needs to utilize the power of an overall journey or experience. The Experience Arc provides the use of emotional waypoints to structure a compelling transformation for the

187

Interplay Instructional Strategy

one or another. These terms are also used interchangeably, however, they have distinct conventions that are intricately linked (Figure 2).

Instruction: Story‘s Intentional Learning Practice: Play‘s Incidental Learning Performance: Game‘s Intrinsic Learning

Figure 2. Interplay components driving education practices.

The dynamic forces of the interplay conventions can be applied to a course to create compelling student-centered experiences. Stories provide directed exposition that can easily integrate intentional learning (explicit facts, goals and objectives). Play provides practice and free discovery to explore the subject matter for incidental learning (contextual relevance and implicit personal and professional growth). Games provide challenges for performance to master the subject for intrinsic learning (internalizing the core essence of the subject). As technology and its range of interactivity advances, we are able to apply sophisticated models that synthesize game, play and story. Few professionals have extensive experience in all three with even less opportunities to apply advanced media technology that have the capability to do all three. Hollywood directors have difficulty applying games to content that is intended for movie houses. Game Developers believe linear stories disrupt game flow. Playgrounds designers consider the application of story or game as too restrictive for freeplay and imagination. There is an on-going professional discourse that pits game mechanics against story development and play design. However, game, play and story become intricately linked when applied to the power of 21st century interactive entertainment. Breaking down and creatively interlinking their distinct properties in a form called Interplay Conventions are necessary to craft meaningful tools for education. We can see the dynamic ―interplay‖ between game, play and story by how the entertainment industry cross markets movie franchises. For instance, the Harry Potter movie starts out as a story in the form of a book turned movie; then it is made into a video game; and you can buy a wand, cape and hat to play wizard in an imaginary castle. They all work with the same components of characters, emotions, back story, etc., yet each form into either a

188

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

story, game or play toy as a product. What determines whether the entertainment content is marketed as a game, play, or story, is its intent. To illustrate, let‘s take a generic example of a ball. A ball can be used as a toy in an openended exchange that we call PLAY. The ball has properties that we can freely discover by hitting (cause), bouncing (effect) and catching (consequences). Good game design is based on designing 15 seconds of quality play that you can apply over and over again. If you add goals, rules and tools to hitting a ball, the exchange immediately becomes a GAME, where competition produces winners and losers. The objective can be to sink the ball in the pocket (goal) with your cue stick (tool) as long as it stays on the table (rules). In comparison, a Magic Eight-ball can become an interactive STORY. You or your friend (characters) can ask a question about your future (world) and the Eight-ball can then propel your imagination into a hypothetical journey (event). Table 1 shows how a variety of video games can be broken down into the core components of story, play and game, and their elements which all add to each game‘s entertainment value. Whether the game is as simple as Tetris or involved as Zelda or the Sims, the elements enhance the engagement of the user. By breaking down these common structural elements, we can compare properties and transfer them to other applications and markets. Table 1. Computer games broken down into interplay components and elements. Video Games

Interplay Components & Elements Story Character World Events Play

Tetris (Compete Game) Building a wall Brick Layer (self) 2D hole Falling Bricks Puzzle

Zelda (Story Game)

Sims (Play Game)

Coming of age quest Prince elf (character) Fantasy world Meet people find things. Social

Cause

Select

Approach/act/engage

Effect Consequences Game

Rotate Fits or doesn‘t fit Skill Fill the hole completely Point and click twister

Object response Get clue (good/bad) Investigate

Soap Opera Everyman (God) Neighborhood Daily life Masquerade Work, play, learn, shop, Positive/negative effect Social standing Manage resources

Fulfill destiny

Prosper

Sword, magic

Wealth, hygiene, property

Physical and magical laws

Social guidelines

Goal Tools Rules

Do within time limit

189

Interplay Instructional Strategy

INTERPLAY OF STORY PATHOS, PLAY PARTICIPATORY, AND GAME PROCEDURAL Story, play and game each has a distinct purpose for engaging learners. In Figure 3, we juxtapose the interactive entertainment components and elements to illustrate their interrelationships. The components and their interrelationships also lay the foundation for the Interplay Instructional Strategy describe in the next section.

Interplay Conventions Story 1. Character 2. Worlds 3. Events Play 1. Stimulus 2. Response 3. Results Game 1. Goals 2. Tools 3. Rules

Figure 3. The interrelationships between story, play, game and their respective elements.

Story Pathos and Elements Entertainment starts with capturing the heart with story, because that is where the story‘s pathos sparks the emotional branding of an entertainment franchise. Story answers the basic question, ―why should we care?‖ Compelling books, movies and television seal an emotional bond with the audience that drives most all other entertainment sales. Even before we experience the story, advertising and marketing campaigns set up our emotional expectations with the story‘s characters, worlds and events. The elements of story establish the core personal motivation and emotional interaction with the subject matter, be it for learning or amusement. The characters draw empathy from the audience by identifying with the viewer and their world. Even if it is total fantasy, on the emotional level, there is identification with the character. Once there is an emotional attachment, the author can propel the action forward with various character interactions. Story events become consequence generators that are embedded with dilemmas, challenges or conflicts that build the character‘s transformation from ordinary to extraordinary.

190

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

When learning about famous figures, inanimate phenomenon or abstract theories, the story can be the first to spark the imagination and encourage investment through emotional attachment. Stories without emotions are narrations that consist of a series of events that may or may not compel the mind. As an audience member, I am less concerned about Frodo as a Hobbit and more concerned because he is a little guy against impossible odds,like I feel in life. My empathy makes me care about Frodo and I put myself in Frodo‘s shoes and feel what Frodo feels. A series of questions can be used to help create engaging stories. These questions, and subsequent answers, are critical to structuring satisfying experiences as well as sparking interest and demonstrating relevance in the educational material. The story questions to answer are: 1) 2) 3) 4)

STORY: Why should I care? CHARACTERS: Whom do I identify with? Who am I? WORLDS/SETTINGS: In what context does the world provide meaning? EVENTS: What happens and when to provoke and propel action?

Play Participatory and Elements Central to the physiological and psychological interactivity of entertainment is play‘s participatory role in engaging the body. The play invites us in to be stimulated by the cause, effect and consequences of the environment and answers the core question of, ―what do we do?‖ Like a playground, this invitation is filled with intuitive clues and responsive activities that have direct impact on the world that can be as simple as a ball to as complex as a simulated battlefield. The elements of play establish the physical interactions between real, virtual and imaginary realities. Where the story can be passive, play (like learning) cannot. In answering the question, ―what do I do,‖ play induces the cause, effect and consequences of the immediate interplay exchange. Play is in the moment and provides immediate gratification. As entertainment, there is fun in repeating the play process. In a driving simulator, I turn the wheel, the car responds and the consequence is that I stay on the road and avoid other objects, or I lose ground or crash. I do it again, I get better, but then the circumstances change and I do it again. The play questions to answer are: 1) 2) 3) 4)

PLAY: What do I do? CAUSE/STIMULUS: What prompts me? If I… EFFECT/RESPONSE: How does it respond? Then it will… CONSEQUENCE/RESULT: What result will provide meaning? Because…

Game Procedural and Elements The advancement of computer generated interactive content relies on procedural programming, or game mechanics. It answers the question, ―how does it work?‖ The sophistication of the game‘s procedural aspects interweaves goals, rules and tools to monitor

Interplay Instructional Strategy

191

behavior, measure performance, and manage resources to build the player‘s investment in the experience. Even though the game may be about winning and losing, in entertainment, losing needs to be fun so that the player is encouraged to get up and try again. Failure to make losing fun can be the short-coming in unsuccessful interactive entertainment and is viewed as one of the problems with education. In education, the negative consequences associated with failure prohibits risk taking. Unless students have a very high self-esteem and sense of self-worth, they will not persist after repeated failures. Winning and success have their own pay-offs; more time and energy needs to be spent on how to make failure fun. The elements of game establish the social interactions between the real, virtual or imagined players. The game component of interactive entertainment answers the question, ―how does it work?‖ The nature of the game establishes a goal with measurable outcomes where you can either win or lose on multiple levels. The procedural programming manages the rules and tools (e.g., weapons, resources, data or special powers) that players are equipped with and can manipulate to impact play. The game questions to answer are: 1) 2) 3) 4)

GAME: How does it work? Goals: What for? What is the object of desire? Tools: With what? What resources and choices do I have? Rules: Why not? What are my limits, states or values?

The role of interactive entertainment is about satisfying expectations. Whether it is about fantasy, reality, amusement, adventure, buying, or learning, you are satiating inner hopes and desires of the target audience. Its role in education and instructional design is to attract learners, invite their participation, and build their engagement as well as triggers an emotional catharsis that can seal a memory for a lifetime. Interactive entertainment utilizes the Interplay Conventions of play, game, and story in distinct ways and for distinct purposes. In education, the power of interactive entertainment is used to engage and motivate learners through: (a) the story‘s ability to spark passion in the subject matter; (b) the play‘s ability to invite physical as well as social participation; and (c) the game‘s procedural mechanics to dynamically structure complex techniques that encourage risk, challenge abilities, and makes failure fun. The primary goal of the Interplay conventions is to incorporate the artistic conventions of traditional media to form instructional content that is appealing and compelling to students. In an educational context, it is important that the creative tools and structures of interactive entertainment are used as a means and not an end.

PART III: INTERPLAY INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY ―"Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire." William Butler Yeats

The Interplay Instructional Strategy applies the core interplay conventions found in interactive entertainment to design and deliver student-centered and collaborative scenariobased learning environments. The Interplay strategy is designed to help educators, instructional designers and distance education professionals create conventional, hybrid and

192

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

totally online courses or training programs that build self-motivated interest in the subject matter while providing compelling and engaging learning experiences. The Interplay instructional strategy originated from the creation of free-choice learning environments, such as informal science education centers where visitors go to learn as part of their discretionary free-time. Science centers do not compete with compulsory learning; they compete with Location-Based Entertainment (LBE) venues such as theme parks, playgrounds or shopping malls. Free-choice learning environments need to entertain as well as bridge to formal education, where LBEs do not, to bring added-value to public, private and home schools. Field tests and case studies led to the Interplay strategy that can be applied beyond informal education to conventional, hybrid and totally online learning environments for toddlers, college students, and working professionals.

Interplay Instructional Events The Interplay Instructional Strategy integrates grounded instructional events to apply sound pedagogical principles and practices at the onset, rather than superficially adding educational requirements on top of entertainment later in the design and development process. Basing the strategy on both ―grounded1‖ instructional events and key principles of interactive entertainment avoids the difficult choice of compromising one or the other in subsequent stages of development and helps ensure that the entertainment value and the instructional value enhance, rather than compete with each other. There are six Interplay instructional events that correlate with the key components and elements of interactive entertainment, as seen in Figure 4.

Interplay Instructional Strategy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Expose Inquire Discover Create Experiment Share

Figure 4. Application of Interplay Conventions to form the Interplay Strategy.

The Story component focuses on the pathos or emotions that are critical to both sparking an entertaining educational journey, and finding closure to the learning experience. These 1

―Grounded‖ events are based on research or theory. See Chapter 10 for additional details on the application of grounded events and strategies.

Interplay Instructional Strategy

193

outcomes inform both the first and last event of Expose and Share. The Play component engages learners with the material and informs the second and third events of Inquiry and Discovery. Play provides open-ended environment with no pressures of winning or losing to gain understanding and familiarity with the material. The Game components heighten the personal challenge of the material by using the material in novel ways with Creation and by testing their own ideas through Experimentation. Together, the six events apply the principles of interactive entertainment to produce the Interplay Instructional Strategy. Each component and related events are discussed in further detail to facilitate application of the strategy.

Story Events The Story Events focus on establishing instructional relevance for students, assuming they may have little to no interest in the instructional topic from the beginning. In answering the key story question, ―Why should I care?‖ we need to tap into a personal experience (either real or fictional) that the students can identify with. The story uses information about students‘ needs and interests to formulate characters who gain empathy from the audience before introducing any concepts or challenges. We start by having a character describe either their background story or experience. The character‘s background and experiences are shared at the end from the student‘s perspective to gain closure and relevance to the sequence of events. The character‘s point-of-view can be a subject matter expert, a fictional character or the student themselves. In good storytelling form, this character‘s perspective needs to expose the students within an appropriate contextualized environment with stimulating events that can propel the interest and stimulate inquiry within the story and the subject matter. The second event of story is used last in the sequence to establish the transformation of the student from an novice to an expert. Many learning experiences are not completely absorbed until you need to teach another (or share). The sequence thus comes full circle with the student becoming the teacher.

Event 1: Expose Exposure provides context for an instructional unit and related objectives. In entertainment, exposure is accomplished mostly through story devices. A theme park attraction would use a ―Preshow,‖ a computer game may use a full motion computer generated video in the form of a mission briefing, and a movie would use an establishing shot to provide the lay of the land. Exposure provides not only the back-story to entice empathy for the character or player, it also orients the audience into the same reference point or point of view. For learning, Exposure sets up specified learning objectives in a meaningful way to invite the student to contribute, to engage and to achieve the challenges to be set before them. Where entertainment can be passive, the instructional event should be an active experience that the student or class can reflect on the entire course (to be explored further in the next section). Exposure becomes the common experience that can be leveraged as a reference point through out the class. The elements of story (characters, worlds and events) allow us to construct this instructional event as well as the final event.

194

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

Event 6: Sharing It is hard not to share your feelings after a good movie or an exciting adventure. The sharing of personal experiences and feelings become the second story event, facilitated at the end of the lesson or unit, to seal the memory of the learning experience. The process of sharing compels learners to put lessons learned in their own perspective as well as others. Personal reflection draws out the personal value and meaning of the learning experience that cannot be taught, yet is critical to be remembered or related. The collective sharing becomes the body of knowledge that students will take to heart and remember over time; knowledge that is readily transferable to other applications. Sharing is where there is as much learning for the teacher then there is teaching for the student if constructed appropriately.

Play Events Play Events focus on inviting and building engagement with the subject matter. Where we can pique the interest of the student within the emotional context of good story elements, we now need them to interact with the dynamic elements of the subject matter. The jump from story to play is facilitated through the elements of play, including cause, effect and consequences (or stimulus, response and result). The exposure event (story) will not necessarily satisfy the student‘s interest. In fact, it should leave them wanting more to prompt inquiry, much like how a movie trailer can be entertaining, yet is not a complete story. The trailer becomes a teaser to motivate you to actually attend the screening when the movie is released. The Exposure event sets up the motivation for Inquiry and Inquiry promotes the two play events of Inquire and Discover by setting a common context, point of view, and reasoning. The engagement of play is set up in two events; Inquiry is to spark the curiosity and Discover is to invite safe and tantalizing physical participation to satiate that curiosity. The purpose is to cover dynamic forces and elements within the subject matter that will later be tested with the Game elements of interplay. The object of play is the toy and the context of play is the playground. These two aspects of interactive entertainment (play and playground) are helpful in designing the inquire and discover instructional events. Play and playgrounds immediately spark interest in participation, yet in a non-threatening consequence that is free of losing (which comes later with game elements). Play comes from mimicking life and work. In Caroline Pratt‘s book, ―I learn from Children,‖ she uses play as the child‘s work and subsequently coined the phase Play-School in the early 20th century. Play was not superfluous to learning but central. The tools of work become the toys for play. It also applies to the modern day application of entertainment to interactive devices or interface design where constructive play relates the joy of engagement with importance of learning skills. Interactive designer, Dan Mapes has stated, "At LEGO Digital, one of the central design principles that we followed was to toys-to-tools and tools-to-toys. The elegance of this form of design is the intimate relationship between function and intuitive ease of use. We simplified professional tools to put them in the creative hands of kids but we also had a vision of the resulting toys enhancing the creativity and productivity of adults as well‖ (Mapes, 2000). The playground extends the play dynamic to the context of their surrounding or workplace. The playground provides the response to the toy‘s stimulus that plays out the consequence of action in a compelling and immersive context. With the context and goals set

Interplay Instructional Strategy

195

by the story‘s exposure, the next two events allow for the exploration of the subject‘s dynamic forces. Inquire sets up a curious point(s) of interaction to invite play and Discover plays out the many variables that influence outcomes. Together, Inquire and Discover provides experience, familiarity and confidence in understanding the nuance of the subject‘s tools and functions.

Event 2: Inquire The inherent objective of inquiry is to validate the success of the previous event of Exposure. If the previous story event properly sets up the desire to learn, then student inquiry should be automatic. This event should provide a response to that inquiry or student‘s curiosity with something to do and something in response to showcase different elements that will be used. The curiosity evolves from an intellectual inquiry to a physical inquiry using interactive devices and interfaces. Such exchanges transforms the student‘s role from being a passive ―vessel‖ to be filled with knowledge, to an active ―spark‖ to set a proactive desire to know by engaging the subject matter. This series of playful cause and effect devices (toys) will need to culminate into some form of consequence that prompts the student to discover the value and relationship of the different aspects of the subject matter in fuller context during the next instructional event. For instance, within a driving simulation the devices of turning the steering wheel, pressing the gas, and using the break all have different properties and responses in relationship with each other and in context of a race. These consequences result in speed and direction as well as behavior reacting to the environment, such as the surface of the racetrack. The opportunity to openly play with each element outside the strict context of competition or a linear track (practice track) provides the ability to understand the properties of the elements. The opportunity to openly play also demonstrates the nuance of student performance by testing their limitations by themselves and in relationship with each other that leads to discovery. Event 3: Discover Not every example of inquiry and discovery is as straightforward as a driving simulation. However, utilizing tools as toys or applying the play primitive of a toy or archetypal game for use as a tool during instruction can help translate the learning objective into playful inquiry and discovery. The translation forms the ―fun factor‖ to inspire repeat play to the extent exploration is needed to achieve a discovery. Where playful and active inquiry produces the satisfaction of continual exploration, it is the discovery that provides the personal reward, achievement, and the ―ah ha‖ moment. The consequences of discovery, whether negative or positive, provide feedback to inspire further exploration or discovery to the next level of achievement.

Game Events Game Events focus on testing the student‘s mastery of concepts after they have understood the nature and properties of the subject matter with open-ended play. The dynamics of a simple playful ball can transform drastically with the element of competition

196

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

whether with another player or with the machine. The added level of game mechanics necessary to the procedural aspect of interplay elevates the interaction and investment, and builds the mastery of subject matter. With explicit goals, elaborate rules and sophisticated tools, game design rapidly becomes the testing ground (or assessment) for both the student and the instruction. The playground extends that play dynamic to the context of the students‘ surrounding or workplace. With the context and objectives set by the story‘s exposure, the play events allow for the exploration of the subject‘s dynamic forces. The playground provides the response to the toy‘s stimulus that plays out the consequence of action in a compelling and immersive context. The Inquire event sets up curious point(s) of interaction to invite play and Discover plays out the many variables that influence outcomes. The initial three events associated with the Interplay strategy provide experience, familiarity and confidence in understanding the nuance of the subject‘s tools and function. The fourth event, create, sets up opportunities for the student to apply the components of instruction in novel ways and to internalize the understanding. The experiment event challenges the student to take personal risks with their confidence of the material.

Event 4: Create The act of creating is a pivoting point in the learning and entertainment process. It transforms the experience from being merely reactive to truly interactive. Instead of responding to cues, the learner contributes to the content by applying the elements of the subject matter in novel ways. Create not only increases the investment level, thus increasing the entertainment value; it also brings understanding to a new level of sophistication where the knowledge is internalized which also adds to the learners‘ confidence level. Creating is critical in setting up the Experiment phase where our knowledge is tested and performance is evaluated. Event 5: Experiment An experiment provides an opportunity to assess student learning and provide feedback without the stigma of losing or winning. Like true experimentation, the goal is less about the hypothesis being right or wrong, but rather setting up the elements of the subject matter so that new knowledge can be gained. Entertainment is set up in a similar way where the best games make losing as fun as winning. By making failure fun, learners are encouraged to get up and try again. Failure also establishes input from the student‘s point of view of where their interests are high but their understanding is lacking. The experiments, whether they fail or succeed, provides new insights to the body of knowledge for the whole class. It also fosters feeling of success with the process and enhances motivation for subsequent units or game levels. Final instructional event (Event 6: Share) brings students back to the story, as discussed earlier in this section.

Assessment and Feedback Two instructional events (assessment and feedback), that are essential to learning and are integrated with, but not listed as one of primary six instructional events in the Interplay

Interplay Instructional Strategy

197

Instructional Strategy because they are embedded in the other events. All activities and events in interactive entertainment need some form of constant assessment and feedback to provide the context, timing and relevance of implementation. Within virtual tutoring or adaptive learning systems, constant assessment and feedback are accomplished by Artificial Intelligence (AI) to feed just-in-time-data to adaptive systems and provide a customized learning experience. With interactive entertainment, the flow of story, game and play is one of the most important aspects of building intensity, engagement and enjoyment so the experience should not be interrupted with logistical programmatic needs (that may be incurred by assessment and feedback if applied as distinct instructional events). Breaking the flow of interplay will dissipate excitement and learner engagement will need to be re-ignited after the instructional event. Working assessment and feedback into each interplay event provides explicit awareness of performance that directs learning and associates performance directly with their learning experience. Constant feedback and assessment are accomplished by utilizing the sensing and triggering devices of the interactive system where their choices and actions reveal their understanding and retention. This area requires additional research where behavior is evaluated for comprehension and retention, however, it provides for a broader range of testing beyond the explicit and quantifiable multiple choice questions. Nuances and multiple tracking of action provide new levels of assessment that are being leveraged by research.

Case Study: “Measure Me” The following case examines how the interplay instructional strategy was used to create an online educational program, called ―Measure Me,‖ to teach tenth graders statistics (components and applications) and graphs (bell curves). The program extended an informal education experience at a science center to formal education in the classroom, with the option for use at home, all to support aspects of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests (FCAT). In the case of the Measure Me experience at the Orlando Science Center, an online computer-based statistical analysis station was needed that focused on how raw data is transformed into a bell curve. The bell curve, in turn, showed how the data can be used to compare the player‘s stature with other visitors. By jumping, hanging, stretching, and other playful activities, the exhibit collected data anonymously at each station. The data were not truly ―scientific‖ due to the fact that no one could validate the data, but this offered students an extra opportunity to recognize anomalies in data. For instance, a 6-foot person could have told the machine they were only 3 years old with the data point spiking or skewing the shape of the bell curve graph. In short, students were to find meaning and value in statistics using different sampling of data to create bellcurves. For many tenth-graders, it would be hard to find a more boring subject than statistics or math. By this age, math can hold serious social stigma or personal fear. Being labeled a geek, if you are successful, or stupid if you are unsuccessful, provides little positive outcome for those being introduced to the subject. The Interplay Instructional Strategy provided an opportunity to override these fears and associations by facilitating learning as interactive entertainment. The answers to the questions associated with story, play, and game, mentioned

198

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

in the previous section, provided the basis for applying the Interplay Instructional Strategy and integrating entertainment value with the instruction.

Answering Story Questions The designs of the story-based events needed to establish a compelling story first. By answering the story interplay questions, we constructed the story to base the first event (Expose). 1) Story: Why should students care? What are the student‘s greatest hopes and fears? Answers: Money, dates/friends or status/recognition. 2) Characters: Who do students identify with? Who am I (from students‘ perspective)? Who is the most important person in their lives? Answers: Themselves as friends, wage earners, and achievers. 3) Worlds/Settings: In what context does the world provide meaning? Where do students find the greatest influence to their lives? Answer: A party, a sports event and a school outing)? 4) Events: What happens and when to provoke and propel action? What situation or dilemma could happen where students needed to use statistics? Answer: To get rich, get a date or get recognition)? So what is most important to a tenth-grader? By interviewing students, viewing age appropriate television shows, and using personal experiences, we concluded that they consider themselves as the most important thing in their lives (not surprising). In this story, both the point-of-view and central character needed to be first person, or themselves. Their biggest concerns were money, the opposite sex and peer recognition. For the first instructional event, we needed to expose students to one of three situations to provoke interest in the action and decisions. Each scenario set them up to either make money, find a friend or save the day. The event was then built around these story elements. Their character was either an entrepreneur, who was ordering rental skates for a sporting event; a matchmaker, trying to find a friend a date; or a camp counselor ordering life jackets for a boat outing. In each case, both the fear of failure and the hope of success were emphasized for the best emotional engagement. The key was to expose learners to a problem where the solution was formulated in a meaningful manner using statistics viewed in a bell curve. Answers to the story questions also helped to formulate the final event (Share). During the final instructional event, an award, in the form of a digital document, provided an excuse for sharing, whether it was bragging rights on how they were or how rich they became. The awards were auto-generating based on the statistics created by individual students or the competitive score generated by the class. Every student was awarded which forced the system to come up with some pretty obscure awards. Sharing is the event that seals the memory of learning that makes it real (statistics don‘t lie, people do), relevant (I am the recipient of the award), and relational (I am special out of any sampling of people). The sharing of results, the expression of feelings of accomplishments, and the sharing of the experience provide both the entertainment and education values of the instructional strategy.

Interplay Instructional Strategy

199

Answering Play Questions Once the student‘s interest was piqued with a story of being rich, popular or famous, the student validated their exposure (in other words, demonstrated effectiveness of the story and first instructional event) by their interest to inquire about the subject. An invitation to play was designed using toy type devices for the student to act upon their newly found interest. The student acting upon their curiosity validates the previous story event. So in designing the play, we defined participation. Then sufficient cause, effect and consequence were needed to be provided the inspiration to discover. To create play, we needed a toy and/or playground. Taking the ball as a toy for example, it has the cause (stimulus) of hitting, the effect (response) of bouncing; with the consequence of catching, or dunking or making a goal. In the case of statistics, what was the object or field of play for learning? With one of the learning objectives being able to read a bell curve to understand the relative meaning, the field of play became the graph itself. In our case, we made the curve a skate board course with the side view having shapes of a bell curve. We took the dynamics of the bell curve, the learning tool, and made it match the dynamics of the toy (cause, effect and consequence). The design of the Inquiry and Discovery events were derived from the answers to the interplay questions for Play. The answers defined the type of toy and playground. The tools (or toys) of the workplace (Playground) that the statistician uses are the bell curves (consequences) that are created from raw data (cause), samplings, and averages (effect). How one designed the play, informed the design of the Inquiry and Discovery events. Answers to the play questions were: 1) PLAY: What do students do? What is fun to do that relates to changing the shape of a bell curve? Sample: Using the apex of the curve as a dynamic shape such as a curl on the skateboard curve. You influence the shape of the curl by the sampling of people. Your position on the curl marks your relevant position (apex, highest, lowest, etc.) The metaphor helps to take it out of context of math during the play period. 2) Cause/Stimulus: What prompts the students to act? If the student…What does the student do to prompt a response from the system? Sample: We drop skater demographic groups (samplings) into the graph. For each 10 or 100 people, it creates a symbol that stacks up in the appropriate place in the form of a bar graph. It is as if someone inserted coins in a slot machine, the result turns into a side view of a large skating curve. Extra animation and sounds of the curve changing shapes and the skater responding will provide enhanced entertainment value entertaining. 3) Effect/Response: How does the system respond? Then it will… How will the response provide a good payoff whether successful or not? Sample: The bell curve graph will settle on a shape to represent a side view of the skating park and the bell curve of the chosen sample. The skater will stop at the point of the user‘s relative standing (based on inputted measurements). The sampling can be changed in any direction to constantly change these two elements just to watch the animated figure dance and skate around.

200

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi 4) Consequence/Result: What result will provide meaning? Because…How does the student find meaning in the responses? Sample: Relating types of people thrown into the park and the corresponding shape of the curve, one starts to understands how to manipulate the bell curve based on samplings. Being able to make the curve go high, low, to the left or to the right will prepare them for more challenging tasks. With trophies at the top of the screen, when the skater reaches ―The most,‖ ―least,‖ or ―average‖ position, the award is given. The student manipulates the data to achieve the result they want. It is the intent to have the students achieve all the trophies, but no negative consequence if they don‘t to encourage more play.

With this stage of events, we wanted open-ended discovery without negative consequences associated with winning or losing. In this case, we took the tool of the bell curve and made it a toy similar to a pinball/slot machine without scoring. Instead of using it directly as a gauge for success or failure, which were saved for the next stage of Game elements, we needed to take joy in the mere act of play. The theme was related to a student event (skateboard park); we had fun dumping people into the park (drag and drop) and watched the reactions to the curve and subsequent skater responses. The Inquiry event sparked students‘ curiosity in a reactive environment that invited participation and demonstrated the dynamics of the subject matter as a toy and playground. Inquiry was themed in the context of events important to students, such as skate boarding. We took the first-person perspective, where the student was represented as the skater reacting comically to changes in the course. Inquiry was promoted by allowing students to drag and drop different samples onto the park and see the relationship between visitors and their own measurements. The animation and sounds provided the comical relief to the process and added entertainment value. The success criterion for this stage was that the activity was fun, repeatable and related to the learning material. The Discovery Event was the revelation that if the student selected the right sampling, s/he could predict the curve shape and vice versa. Once this discovery was made in play the trophies became the consequential element. That trophy event, when achieved, made proclamations, such as: ―You are the tallest person of all the 14-18 year olds that came to the museum today.‖ The student may have been the only one in that category, but the system still accepted it anyway so the student could manipulate the data and create an automated response compiled of the conditions that have been set. Having fun manipulating the graph accomplished the inquiry as a digital toy. It was the hidden discovery that the device could be manipulated towards predictable ends that verified that the Inquiry event achieved its job. Obtaining all the trophies elevated students to the next level. What distinguished this from game was that there were no losers. Students could play and enjoy until they get it.

Answering Game Questions Where the play events provided an intuitive understanding of the components of statistics and the bell curve, the game challenged mastery and critical thinking to help with the applications of the components. The Game added explicit goals, tools and rules to the simplicity of open-ended play to increase the intensity of the entertainment and the sophistication of the learning. The game components (goal, tools, rules) helped define the

Interplay Instructional Strategy

201

Create event and the Experiment events. The Game Questionnaire provided the game premise and theme. The Game questions and answers were: 1) GAME: How does it work? Sample: The students select a meaningful goal (be rich, be popular, be a hero) and manipulates tools (data sampling) to achieve an end result (bell curve) by following the principles of statistics (rules). 2) Goals: What for? What is the object of desire? Sample: The goal is directly related to their desires, hopes and fears. In this case money, popularity and recognition. 3) Tools: With what? What choices do I have? Sample: the activity of sampling is related to inviting people to certain events and/or ordering resources to achieve the goal. 4) Rules: Why not? What are my limits, states or values? Sample: rules and principles of statistics work directly to define the game rules of sampling, averaging, etc. to anticipate and manipulate desired results. The Game events of Create and Experiment provided challenges to promote personal investment and achievement. There was an added risk to game that was not present in play. However, the added risk allowed for deeper levels of understandings and greater emotional heights of accomplishments that led to the satisfaction with the experience. In the choices of activities, the student can either get rich as an party planner renting skates for the skate park events; increase the odds of meeting a friend based on the invitation list to your party; or become a hero by supplying the right amount of the correct sizes of life jackets to a school boat outing. Beyond the obvious cause and effect responses of play, the manipulation of statistics in game can create strategies that promote critical thinking and a command of the principles. Whether the criterion is measured in dollars, people or unused body bags, success is not just a matter of finding the best, most frequent or average answer. Success lies in matching the sample to the desired results. For instance, ordering for a father daughter event is much more predictable (thus more profitable) than a family night. This causes a unique two-hump bell curve that reaches success in a way not demonstrated in the presentation. The opportunity to explore play events increases the options for the creation of novel approaches. However, the create event inspires novel thinking prior to the students evaluation to encourage risk taking and creative thinking. The experiment event presented an opportunity to pose questions beyond the examples that were pre-determined. Here a student was able to construct a hypothesis that required the extrapolation of data to suggest a trend or insight that was not as explicit as achieving the most, best or average mark. For instance, with a table of statistics collected from research sources, could the student predict the chances of storm while on the boat; an injury at the skate event; or the odds of a romance at the party leading to marriage? The availability of appropriate and diverse statistical resources allowed for the creative application of, and experimentation with the results.

202

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

PART IV: EXPERIENCE ARC ―Fail often and succeed sooner‖ Tom Kelly The Art of Innovation

The Interplay Instructional Strategy can work not only as a series of events within a lesson or unit; it can be implemented across an entire course in the form of an experience arc. All interactive entertainment experiences are designed to create intriguing and persistent interactions between the many dynamic forces of drama (Story), competition (Game), and exploration (Play). These dynamic forces can be applied to a course to create compelling student-centered experiences that integrate intentional learning (explicit goals and objectives), incidental learning (implicit personal and professional growth) and intrinsic learning (through performance and practice). The experience arc is structured as a journey where the student plays the role of the protagonist as they interact with the Interplay Strategy to achieve the goals of the class. Before getting into the process of designing an experience arc, it is important to note that the core story structure applied to the Interplay Strategy draws from both linear and interactive story traditions. Interactive story structure differs significantly from the passive media convention of a linear plot, which is controlled entirely by the author. Interactive stories can resemble an interactive game in that the audience participates in the authorship of the story. This is similar to a Role-Playing-Game (RPG), where instead of the linear plot being based on predetermined events, interactive story is based on rules that the audience impacts and reacts too, similar to a game. However, interactive stories are also drastically different from interactive games. Games are designed for the player to be in control with very explicit goals to either win or lose. A story is designed to follow the intent of the author with very implicit goals to take the participant to places they would not have gone on their own accord. The interactive story manipulates the audience without controlling the audience‘s action. In other words, while game interactivity is about the player pushing mechanical buttons to drive the action; a story‘s interactivity is about the story pushing our personal buttons to drive the emotions. We posit that the interplay conventions of play, story and game serve e-learning activities differently. The explicit goal-oriented interactivity of Game supports the player‘s performance and can be utilized for assessment. The open-ended interactivity of Play supports the trainee‘s practice, similar to performance but is the interaction is not about winning or losing, it is about process. The narrative type of interactivity with Story is about instruction or coaching, where the author or instructor takes learners to levels and places they would not have gone on their own accord. Where the art of interactive story has been practiced and refined over the millenniums in theaters and conventional face-to-face classrooms, it has yet to be successfully transferred to the design of online or computer-based instructional materials. This is due to a lack of sophisticated models of artificial intelligence, voice recognition and other sensing devices. However, as digital interactive stories emerge, it will play a growing role in defining the future of e-learning and assisting in transforming live instruction into digital online formats.

Interplay Instructional Strategy

203

Experience Arc Structure Like a good story, the experience arc is not a repetitive structure of a series of events of equal value and impact that accumulate to cover the scope of the class. It is a structured journey that builds in intensity and culminates in a climatic and memorable experience. The goal of the experience seeks to be as transformational for the student as it would be for a character in a story. The experience arc is structured as a cross between an archetypal story of a Hero‘s Journey and a classic story curve of a Hollywood screenplay. The Hero‘s journey and classic story curve are not only familiar to wide audiences; they are structures that audiences have grown to expect from entertainment. To create an experience arc, we begin by organizing a course into Units, Lessons and Events, that are then directly related interactive entertainment equivalent of Acts, Scenes and Events (See Chapter 10, Figure 1). We then plot the course, not in a straight line (as in Chapter 10, Figure 1), but through an experience arc that follows the pattern of a story curve with a beginning, middle and end. The story curve is a series of events that build intensity over time to reach an emotional climax to then a resolution or evolution of the conflict to provide a satisfying closure. The form of the curve comes as you graph the emotional journey with time on the X-axis and intensity on the Y-axis (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Interactive Experience Arc applied to a Course.

The series of learning objectives in the course become structured as a series of emotional waypoints inherent in classic story structures that make up the experience arc. The acts also correspond to the beginning, middle and end.

204

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

Act I: Beginning The Hook (Once Upon a Time…) represents an initial transitional scene that invites the audience (learners) to play. The hook is like an ―establishing shot‖ in a movie where it provides the appropriate orientation. The hook also works like an entry gate to a theme park that takes students‘ attention off real life and prepares them for their journey by orienting them to the vision (goal) of the quest (class). The purpose of this phase is to set up expectations and to spark a passion for the goal. The Ordinary World (the simple life) provides the student the opportunity to explore the lay of the land gaining familiarity with the other characters, the tools of the trade and the laws of the land. During this phase, students empathize with and transition into the role of the protagonist and prepare to be sent on the quest. The purpose of this phase is to equip the students with whatever they need to function independently, because the role of the instructor will need to play the alternating roles from mentor (guide) to villain (antagonist).

Act II: Middle The Inciting Incident (Kidnapping the Princess). This transitional scene is the moment that needs to rock the students‘ world and pull the rug out from under their comfort zone to propel them into an escalating series of challenges, risks and achievements. The ―inciting incident‖ is the decisive ―point of no return‖ in the classic Hollywood screenplay where the protagonist is ―on their own‖ and must prove him or herself. The dramatic ―inciting incident‖ plants the seed for the inevitable climax that provides the satisfaction in overcoming the odds in defeating the villain, getting the girl or saving the world. The purpose of this phase is to reduce or eliminate dependency on the instructor and put the student into the driver‘s seat and to stimulate and challenge the student‘s abilities. Building Conflict and Investment (Slaying the Dragon) is the meat of the experience, where learner engagement and investment are escalated by incrementally increasing challenges and risks. This is where students gradually transition from ―Zero to Hero‖ by going through a series of challenges that put more and more at risk to help define the character of the students. This is also where each student must take a unique role that is special to their talents and passions that make it a truly unique and personal experience. The ―Dragon‖ can be achieving the objective, defeating the villain, or facing the fears (demons) inside them selves. First, we must start by drawing the dragon out from the cave. The slaying of the Dragon is not the goal, but the ultimate obstacle to achieving the goal. The purpose of this phase is to define the individual student‘s goals that develop their unique professional and/or creative development to provide the solution to the problem.

Act III: End The ―Inevitable Climax‖ (Zero to Hero: become a knight for saving the princess). This scene is the culminating confrontation (delivery) with the class and their goals and objectives. This moment needs to achieve as much of an emotion catharsis as possible, however, it is a delicate moment to craft. The climax must test and challenge students‘ achievements, skills

Interplay Instructional Strategy

205

and talents to the fullest extent, but it must not set up students for failure. The result must not be fixed and there needs to be the possibility of failure, but the student protagonist needs full confidence in facing the challenge. In this way, the student gains a valuable lesson whether s/he fails or succeeds, and feels good about it. This is where learning becomes truly entertaining in the form of either a comedy or tragedy, where the experience is well worth the challenge. The purpose is to build the excitement, investment and confidence so the student can take on the responsibility for their own action and evaluate their own performance, so s/he can reap the full reward of their achievement. The ending…(They all live happily ever after) is the resolution or evolution of the student‘s journey whether triumphant or tragic. There are lessons to be learned and this moment seeks closure to seal that memory for a lifetime. If students experience failure, they should laugh about it. If they experience success, they should gloat in it. Students are to expend and express any last emotions and reflections of the experience so that there is divestment in the process, closure is complete, and knowledge is gained. For the climax, the instructor was along for the ride and by that time should not have been either the judge or jury, but a mere observer. That would have defeated the ability to sincerely reflect on the lessons learned in this phase that will ensure the positive conclusion and send off of for the class. Where the climax validates the intentional learning, the purpose of this phase is to harvest all of the personal incidental and intrinsic lessons learned from each class member. This time of sharing should be documented as the closing story or epilogue.

Case Study: Digital Media Production We applied the Interplay Instructional Strategy across an entire Digital Production course to engage novice undergraduates who may have never been apart of a professional production team. We needed to transform the students into self-directed professionals who could lead or manage any type of media project or slip into any type of production as a valuable player. The purpose of the course was not to learn the operation of software programs or the design and production skills, it was an experience to learn how to manage a project from creating a compelling idea, articulating the idea within a succinct pitch, researching the competition, managing the design and teams, making a plan, documenting accomplishments and tracking progress. The end result was to produce an original piece of digital media with professional integrity and with the resources already present within the class. The previous instructional methods used to teach the course included both student and teacher-directed approaches that yielded inadequate results. Originally, students were allowed to do basically whatever they wanted, as long as it produced a piece of digital media in the end. Students were graded more on product than process and demonstrated very inconsistent levels of professional integrity. In reaction, a teacher-directed, by-the-book approach was established where the instructor directed students to fill out worksheets, plan steps, and document procedures The students, with faithful obedience, followed the instructor‘s directives, but the experience was not preparing self-sufficient professionals who are needed in real production. Application of the the Interplay Instructional Strategy allowed us to provide a highly focused and intense study of explicit working procedures and tools, but with a studentcentered approach that instilled self-confidence and self-sufficiency within a production environment. The most important objective was not to memorize a procedure, but to assimilate the value and meaning of a series of procedures and adopt the principles and tools

206

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

for future production. The emotionally charged process enabled young producers to recall critical methods in a timely and intuitive fashion. Table 2 helps illustrate how the course was transformed into an experience arc. Primary course topics were first placed within the table (column one) and correlated to the main stages of the experience arc (column two). The basic Interplay component, with corresponding educational practice (column three) were then assigned to each stage of the experience are, followed by breaking down the Interplay component into its respective Interplay instructional event (column four). For each stage of the experience arc, we designed an interplay event that provoked the intended emotional waypoint (column five) that we wanted students to experience. Table 2. Transformation of a Sequence of Course Topics into an Experience Arc. Course Topics Tools of the Trade & Request for Proposal

Experience Arc Stages

Interplay Component

Interplay Event

Emotional Waypoint

Hook (1 Lessons)

Story (Instruct)

Expose pitfalls of production

Local Boy Screws up

Concept Design

Beginning (2 Lessons)

Play (Practice)

Big Dreams Impossible Odds

Prototype & Design Document

Inciting Incident (2 Lessons)

Play (Practice)

Production

Middle (6 Lessons)

Game (Perform)

Test, Adjust, Deliver

Climax (2 Lessons)

Game (Perform)

Post Mortem

Ending (1 Lessons)

Story (Instruct)

Inquire to the capabilities and possibilities Discover the farther limits of abilities Create the power of the tools and methods of production Experiment with testing results on target audience Share the lessons learned

You are all fired! Start over The Come Back Champs The Show Down Living Large

Each of the emotional waypoints needed to engage the students in escalating levels of challenges, intensity and coordination. Each emotional waypoint also represents key transformational stages of character (or student) development. The starting point for structuring the experience arc was the desired end result (course goal) where many entertainment and instructional designers begin. In the case of Digital Media Production course, we wanted students to transform from a novice (zero) to a professional (hero) in a classic three act structure. The third act made up of the climax and the ending of the story is where the students‘ and instructor‘s hopes and fears culminated. During the post-mortem, we needed to share an experience that made both students and the instructor feel accomplished (living large) after over coming the odds in a test of their abilities resulting from their novel experiment (the showdown).

Interplay Instructional Strategy

207

The second act set up the third act by providing an inciting incident where the students discovered how much they didn‘t know (You are Fired!). The students succeeded by failing; the more successful the prototypes were, the more the misconceptions in the students‘ concept designs were disproved. However, this realization improved the final design document that plotted their plans to create a unique and successful project by pushing their expectations and abilities farther than have achieved before. The success of the second acts depended upon setting it up with the first act of exposing the typical misconceptions of productions (local boy screws up) and providing students with the tools of the trade. The experience of ―screwing up‖ inspired students to inquire further into better methods of producing stronger possibilities with their concept designs (Big Dreams, Impossible Odds). In the next section, we elaborate each emotional waypoint to facilitate application of the Interplay Instructional Strategy.

Local Boy Screws up (Hook/Story/Expose) The course used a Zero to Hero story that began by exposing the pitfalls of production. The first activity needed to humble students (Zero), but excite them about what they didn‘t know and foreshadow what they will learn (Hero). We hooked them by designing a fun experience for the first lesson; an activity called ―Putting the Fun in Dysfunctional.‖ The activity set students up for repeated failure by exposing their misconceptions about production. Students were made to fail early often so that they could succeed sooner, but we made losing fun to promote and sustain engagement. Making failure fun at the start of the course also broke the ice between students. The instructor posed as NASA client and provided a Request for Proposal (RFP) to design and build a vehicle to safely launch a human (raw egg) ten yards using only the available resources (bag of office supplies). The class was split up into small teams and went through a rapid bidding, concept, design, production, testing and launching process in one lesson. The instructor injected ―consequence generators‖ to put on pressure and to trip up and mislead students. For instance, one team‘s design was given to another team to build, exposing numerous flaws. The instructor also changed the scope of the project (like dysfunctional clients do) as well as purposely misinterpreted every item on the client‘s requirement questionnaire to add confusion and promote failure. The messy end result produced lots of fun as students laughed at their own flaws and became eager to find new ways to work better as a team. During the first lesson, students were also exposed to the tools of the trade in the form of timesheets, production schedules, client requirement questionnaires, etc. that were used through out the class. They were also assigned individually to create and post a pitch for a ―blue-sky‖ concept on-line so the concepts could be evaluated by the class for the semester project. Students were also asked to create an RFP for the project, based on lessons learned from their initial experience,that specified student-driven criterion for success for all submissions through out the class. Big Dreams, Impossible odds (Beginning/Play/Inquire) In the beginning we used creative play to promote inquire about the capabilities of the team and the possibilities of the project. The objective was for students to gain an understanding of the lay of the land and to set them up to dream about the hero‘s quest. The information presented to stimulate inquiry depicted the broad range of talents and

208

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

competencies necessary to pull together an effective production team. The students were asked to brainstorm ideas for the RFP and inquire about each other‘s skills. Students were also encouraged to dream outside-of-the-box to push their expectations and creativity generate excitement and foster originality. Based on the talents that were tested by the first assignment, roles and goals were assigned to create three competing Concept Designs. The Concept Designs, in turn, were evaluated based on the RFP created by the class.

You are all Fired! Start over (Inciting Incident, Play, Explore) The second lesson was the first time that students were expected to perform their individual roles and bring together their contributions to fit into a larger deliverable (Concept Design). Through an inciting incident, we played out the possibilities and pushed further exploration to reach the farther extents of the student‘s abilities. Concept design was the student‘s first real test and pressure was applied to do well as a team. The mantra for the day was, ―if one fails, we all fail.‖ This is where teams started to understand the realities of real-life productions and the range of styles, commitment, work ethic, etc. in any given team. To prove their concepts, the next lesson was to create a working prototype to show, not tell, their ideas. The lesson compelled students to cooperatively play and explore ideas to enhance and create rapid prototypes for others to play-test and evaluate. For the play-testing of the prototypes, the instructor introduced a few twists in the proceedings. The prototype needed to speak for itself. Competing teams evaluated the success each prototype and concept design. Going easy on other teams would only weaken their own team‘s chances of a good grade. The winning team gets the highest grade, the second place team gets the next highest grade, and the third place team gets the lowest grade. No team got the same grade. The inciting incident was that the highest grade given was an Incomplete, the next highest was a ―D‖ and the lowest was an ―F‖. Students were all fired in their chosen positions. They were to take the best of each concept and put it together into one great concept and do the same with the team assignments. Success gave them another chance for a final Concept Design. No grade was given between an ―A‖ or an ―F‖ for the next presentation to heighten the drama (the lesson being there is no compromise to quality). The inciting incident pushed students beyond their comfort zones and their own perceptions of what was good enough. They were pushed to explore at the farthest limits of their abilities. Big talk needed to be turned into demonstrated results. Now the real game began. The Comeback Champs (Middle, Game, Discover) The middle act in the larger story was the most involved and defined the character‘s (student‘s) transformation. The story first exposed the pitfalls of production. The play promoted inquiry to the limitations and explored the possibilities. The game is where the students discovered the capability and power of production tools and methods through a series of escalating tests of individual and team performance. Discovery started with the building of media assets, then proceeded to the assembly and finally the integration of the assets into the whole. The game was played over six lesson, representing the longest section of the experience arc. The preceding and subsequent scenes set up the students to be operating independently at the height of their abilities.

Interplay Instructional Strategy

209

The Showdown at the OK Coral (Climax, Game, Experiment) The Showdown capped off the achievement of producing digital media that was larger than the sum of its parts. The lesson (scene) presented the inevitable climax, meaning it achieved the pay-back for the inciting incident. Where students were fired in the inciting incident, this is where students could literally be hired by potential employees; professionals in the field asked to evaluate students‘ work. The Showdown must be anticipated through out the entire second act to increase the intensity and value of the reward. The climax represented the biggest risk in the game and put students‘ experiments to the test. There was as much public and professional pressure applied as possible. In this case, the people evaluating the students‘ products could have likely been their future employers. Living Large (Closure, Story, Share) The closing scene sealed the memory and provided a broader perspective for all members. With the emotional intense process, this stage became therapeutic where everyone expressed his or her reflections and feelings. We heard from all different perspectives to provide a complete picture that was capsulated within their final take home exam that had just one question, what did you learn? To get students to think seriously about this question, and not regurgitate knowledge, they were instructed to make their responses subjective and personal and reveal specific examples so that the incidental and intrinsic learning were revealed with the intentional learning. Students were also told to prepare their response in the form of a story that was to be shared with the next class on how to succeed in the production course.

PART V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ―Dreams are more real than reality itself, they're closer to the self.‖ Gao Xingjian Dialogue and Rebuttal

This chapter is based on the premise that new instructional strategies are needed to realize the potential of emerging telecommunication technologies to facilitate individual and group learning. For many students, entertainment experiences (like dreams) can be as real, if not more real, than the instructional reality. To enhance learner engagement and create memorable online, hybrid, and conventional face-to-face classroom learning experiences, we posit an instructional strategy that applies key principles of interactive entertainment. The Interplay Instructional Strategy consists of six fundamental events (i.e., Expose, Inquire, Discover, Create, Experiment and Share) that integrate three interrelated components of interplay (story, game, play) and their respective elements to exploit similarities, and reconcile differences in entertainment and education. The strategy may be applied to an instructional lesson or unit, or across lessons and units to form an experience arc that transcends an entire course, including emotional waypoints at the beginning, middle and end, that follow a dramatic story structure to build, and eventually satisfy learners‘ expectations (which is fundamental to forms of good entertainment). Interactive entertainment can have a growing influence on education as e-learning adopts more simulation technologies. Where conventional instructional materials has physical

210

Christopher Stapleton and Atsusi Hirumi

limitations, simulations allow us to augment the learning process in ways never before possible, allowing us to learn even from what we shouldn‘t, couldn‘t, or wouldn‘t even do real life. As in video games, we can enter the mind of the scientist, play God with the cosmos or reenact a point in history and learn as we do naturally, from our mistakes, not just from our successes. However, where technology as a tool can change business and industry, it is when technology becomes an entertainment form that it enters into our ever day life and makes high-end capability accessible to most everybody. The recent rapid advancement and adoption of simulation technology to video games, has brought hip-powered computing the desktop PC to the World Wide Web and increase consumer demand for e-learning. In this way, entertainment has already had an indirect impact on e-learning. Applying interplay conventions within an instructional strategy provides the opportunity for interactive entertainment to have a direct impact on e-learning, making it appealing to broader audiences and applications. However, the real future beneficiary of this progress will be for entertainment itself. Being able to apply Interplay Instructional Strategy to e-learning opportunities delivers to interactive entertainment the power to extend its reach to more diverse applications and communities. By being used as a means to an end, rather than an end to a means of amusement, e-learning provides entertainment with reach to more people and markets than it currently does in education and training. As a result, education and instructional design will provide interactive entertainment with the ability to provide more explicit benefits to society with more measurable results and methodologies than ever before. The unique combination of interplay conventions and instructional design may be the basis for transforming the functional aspects of simulation technologies (virtual reality) into an expressive and impacting form called Experiential Media (Stapleton & Hughes, 2005; Stapleton, Smith & Hughes, 2005). Experiential media is where you go beyond education, beyond entertainment and beyond many current forms of interactivity. The power of realtime, multi-sensory, immersive capabilities of simulation technologies can be the transformational power of education and the memorable affect of entertainment to create experiential learning. This transformation requires us to look at interactivity as more than pushing buttons and making multiple choices. Interactivity is an entire creative palette from which to design, going from the passive media (listening to radio); to engaging media (thinking or feeling by watching a film); to active media (immersion on theme park ride); to reactive media (making choices in a computer game); to interactive media (by making personal contributions in role-playing games); to experiential media (by living out learning experiences through simulation). It is this range of capability that will more effectively bring e-learning into our everyday lives where we work, play, create, fight or commune. Applying interactive entertainment to e-learning, in the form of the Interplay Instructional Strategy, will help education more than something that is to be consumed, as a video game, but something that is to be achieved. The Interplay Strategy provides the structure to melt the boundaries of education, entertainment and our everyday lives. Application of the Interplay Strategy will, however, rely on continued innovation quite different from the entertainment formula of repeating successes. Research and continued development of the strategy will hopefully inspire change, different thinking and even more compelling methods for facilitating learning and advancing education. The combination of entertainment and education should be more the sum of the parts, but a force that we have yet to realize.

Interplay Instructional Strategy

211

REFERENCES Bates, A. W. (1990). Third generation distance education: The challenge of new technology. Paper presented at the XV World Conference on Distance Education, Caracas, Venezuela. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 332 688). Berson, M. J. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in social studies: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 486-499. British Education Communications and Technology Agency (2001). What is the educational value of computer and video games? Retrieved 03 February 2006 form http://www.ictadvice.org.uk/index.php. Clark, D. (2003). Computer games in education and training. Retrieved 03 February 2006 from http://www.bbk.ac.uk.ccs/elearn/events.htm. Fabricatore, C. (2000). Learning and videogames: An unexploited synergy. Retrieved 05 May 2004 from http://www.elearndev.org/dl/FabricatoreAECT2000.pdf. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Hertz, J. C. (1997). Joy Stick Nation: How videogames Ate Our Quarters, Won Our Hearts, and Rewired Our Minds. Boston, MA: J.C. Herz, Little Brown & Co. Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160. Leddo, J. (1996). An intelligent tutoring game to teach scientific reasoning. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 10(4), 22-25. Mason, R., & Kaye, T. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15-30). New York: Praeger. Mitchell, A. & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London, England: The Learning and Skills Development Agency. Poole, S. (2000). Trigger happy, video games and the entertainment revolution. New York, NY: Arcade Publishing. Soby, M. (1990). Traversing distances in education: The PortaCOM Experiment. In A. W. Bates (Ed.), Media and technology in European distance education. Proceedings of the EADTU workshop on media, methods and technology (pp. 241-247). Milton Keynes, England: The Open University for EADTU. Stapleton, C. B. & Hughes, C. E. (2005). Mixed reality and experiential movie trailers: Combining emotions and immersion to innovate entertainment marketing. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Human-Computer Interface Advances in Modeling and Simulation, New Orleans, LA, January 23-27, 40-48. Stapleton, C. B., Smith, E. & Hughes, C. E. (2005). The art of nurturing citizen scientists through mixed reality. Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium of Mixed and Augmented Reality, Vienna, Austria, October 5-8, 2-11. Stoll, C. (1999). High Tech Heretic – Reflection of a Computer Contrarian. New York, NY: First Anchor Books.

In: Pedagogical Models: The Discipline of Online Teaching ISBN: 978-1-61761-605-1 Editors: Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan Fulgham ©2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 12

THE FUTURE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION: A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENDA Farhad Saba San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA

A CRITIQUE OF THE PRESENT Emergence of post-industrial technologies such as digital media has offered a plethora of affordances to educators. Many of these potentials, however, are co-opted in educational organizations, which have an industrial structure to perpetuate systems and practices that will be inadequate to prepare students for the work environment of the future. Recent events in a variety of situations ranging from managing global security to responding to large scale disasters and epidemics, to polarization of the domestic political climate and cultural tensions, have shown that solutions that were effective in the past are no longer providing the desired results. Bold new visions are needed to respond to the requirements of the future society. The current educational system needs to make radical changes in its administrative and pedagogical structures to deal with such requirements. Contemporary distance education theory offers a platform for developing a dynamic instructional design model and flexible organizational structures for the educational systems of the future. It suggests radically different instructional design models and organizational structures that will prove necessary in educating the workforce of the future. The fast-paced work environment of the 21st century requires that individuals be able to adjust to new conditions as they materialize. The next generation of workers must not only be proficient in standard competencies, but must also have developed decision-making and critical thinking skills. In this chapter,Dynamic Instructional Design (DID), will be described, and it will be demonstrated that if it is implemented in flexible educational organizations it provides the potential for students to engage in education that is directly responsive to their individual prior learning as well as their learning preferences. It is hypothesized here that such a system of teaching and learning will have the following effects:

214

Farhad Saba Decrease in the cost of education for learners and their families Increase rates of course and program completion by students who drop out of the education system or otherwise fail to complete their degree requirements Decrease in time-to-degree among students who for a variety of reasons (including unavailability of required courses) cannot complete their degree at least in four years.

INTRODUCTION In the past 10 years, the practice of distance education has steadily grown in business, higher education, K-12 schools, and government including the military (Saba, 2005). What was once a peripheral form of teaching and learning is now becoming a mainstream activity, partially due to the affordances of new media technologies, which have made access to educational programs more convenient. Usually, application of technology lowers the cost of units produced or persons served; however, this has not been the case in education. There is evidence that by implementing distance education, some businesses have saved the cost of travel and reduced the time that employees spend away from their tasks, but the picture for actual savings is unclear. (Schute, 2003) What is certain is that despite billions of dollars of expenditure on technology infrastructure in public education at various levels, the cost continues to rise at 10 to 15% per year. (College Board, 2004) The primary objective of this chapter is to demonstrate that such a cost increase is due to two factors: 1) Instructional design model has not changed markedly since the introduction of new media for distance teaching and learning in the mid 1990s. 2) Institutions of higher education, and K-12 schools have not moved to make radical changes in their organizational structures in order to accommodate new instructional design models, even if they were developed. These factors have created a condition for students, faculty, and administrators to reach the same learning objectives with more expensive means. While access to educational services has increased in some cases making it more convenient to take courses at a distance, such improvements are marginal in comparison to what a futuristic model of distance teaching and learning can offer. The hypothetical premise of this chapter is that this model can bring radical improvements in meeting the needs of learners in the post-industrial economy while decreasing the costs for institutions in general and individual learners in particular. It will explore how the new media can support radical changes in instructional design, restructuring current institutions and developing new ones. Hypotheses will also be presented to outline a research agenda the fulfillment of which will be necessary to make the future of education more responsive to student needs.

The Future of Distance Education: A Research and Development Agenda

215

THE NEW MEDIA REVOLUTION The end of the 20th century signaled the advent of the analog to digital revolution in media and telecommunication, which changed affordances of communication systems for teaching and learning. A significant new capability of digital media is that they make differential responses to learners possible. Although we rarely use this capability in day-today teaching, it offers a fundamental change in instructor/ learner communication, creating opportunities for radical instructional redesign and redevelopment. Providing differential responses for learners has several primary aims: 1) Detection and diagnosis of a specific learner‘s prior knowledge and skills in a particular subject matter or domain. 2) Instructing learners in direct response to their specific individual needs. 3) Development of requisite autonomy within the learner to pursue his or her interest in relation to the structure demanded by the instructor and educational institution. Affording learners a certain degree of autonomy is imperative for educating the workforce of the future. Such a workforce is expected to succeed in a post-industrial economy that relies on critical thinking for alternative solutions rather than offering muscle power for obtaining standardized and uniformed results. The concept of individualized instruction is not new to education. As early as the 1960s educators have engaged students in some form of individualized instruction. (Saettler, 1990) Observing and responding to learner differences has been a wide spread practice particularly in Special Education where as a matter of routine instruction could not have been presented in any other form but tailored to the particular student, albeit at a relatively high cost. Today, some teachers engage in ―differentiated instruction‖ (Benjamin, 2005) and technology is used in their classrooms to make learning as relevant to individual needs as possible. Nevertheless, large-scale implementation of customized teaching and learning has not been impossible for the following primary reasons: 1) Until the last two decades of the 20th century, personal computers were not available to students at an affordable cost. 2) Computers were not sufficiently networked until the mid -1990s to utilize the digital databases and information banks available to a critical number of students. 3) Digital information was scarce and could not adequately respond to individual needs of learners. 4) Administrative structures of many educational institutions were based on a bureaucratic model which, though it enabled them to address the need of mass education for an industrial economy, was not designed to address specific objectives for a particular learner for the workforce of the post-industrial 21st century.

216

Farhad Saba

Under these conditions, earlier attempts in programmed instruction and computer assisted instruction resulted only in partial success, but today these conditions are changing. In 2002, the total number of personal computers sold since 1975 reached 1 billion, and their cost has steadily decreased. The Internet also has provided a ubiquitous network at an affordable cost for most students to use communication network services on their computers. It is reasonable to expect that the new media will be able to afford models of instructional design and organizational development that would be commensurate to social and economic needs in the 21st century. This is not an argument for technological determinism, however. Technology, no matter how prevalent, potent, and available, will not make the change by itself; if it could, these changes would have already taken place! Much remains to be done by educators who strive to experiment with new instructional design models and shape their organizations to accommodate them. Increasingly, institutions of higher education and K-12 schools are requiring students to own a desktop or laptop computer to complete their coursework. In recent years the cost of such machines, especially the desktop models, have dropped 50% every 15 months, while their power has doubled every 18 months. The availability of the Internet, which was extended to educational institutions in the mid- 1990s is another crucial factor. Since its advent in the 1960s, the speed of information throughput on trunk lines has increased from 50 Kbps to today‘s 10 Gbps. Current projections indicate that not only will such an increase in performance and affordability continue in the foreseeable future, but also that the volume and variety of digital information will continue its rapid increase. Additionally, a plethora of new handheld wireless devices are now available, and they have enhanced learning in a variety of settings. Currently, the indexable portion of the World Wide Web offers 11 billion pages of textual information. Audio/ video on-demand availability coupled with new Web 2.0 applications such as wikies, Weblogs, social software, and personal knowledge management tools have created a virtual information-rich environment in which the goal of personalized learning has become within reach. These technologies can be used to create dynamic learning environments to respond to the individual needs of the learner.

TODAY’S INFORMATION-RICH ENVIRONMENT Today‘s information-rich environment is not well organized. It is a collection of content with various levels of veracity, accuracy, and reliability with an amorphous structure that is not generally designed for teaching and learning. Its primary strength is in providing a free flow of information. In recent years some publishers have gravitated towards providing more structured materials, such as content of books and instructional materials through the Internet. A few content providers such as Element K NetTrecker, and Netg, have been engaged in offering structured standard-based educational content that can be used for differentiated learning via the Internet. From the present vantage point, it seems the Internet will continue to offer massive amounts of unstructured information in text, audio, video, animation, and other media formats with various levels of reliability and usability. Specialty companies such as NetTrecker, however, are more likely to warm up to creating differentiated content in which instruction for attaining one objective is presented at various levels of complexity,

The Future of Distance Education: A Research and Development Agenda

217

comprehensibility, and usability. Today, players can change the difficulty levels of video and computer games to suit their abilities. It is not farfetched to envision a future in which the same can be done for instructional materials.

TODAY’S LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (LMS) Admittedly, providing instructional materials to meet the different needs of students is not as easy as making computer and video games adaptable to various levels of difficulty. Nevertheless, current so-called learning management systems are woefully inadequate to afford any flexibility for differential responses to instructors or learners. Blackboard, WebCT and eCollege, three widely used software and services in education, primarily manage instructors‘ content and offer them some administrative capabilities such as keeping track of students‘ grades. Recently, some of the companies offering learning management systems have taken certain steps to include additional capabilities in which instructors can respond to students more dynamically through text, voice, and possibly video as well. Blackboard, for example, has made a strategic alliance with the Berkeley Electronic Press enabling users to access tens of thousands of scholarly materials. The ResearchNow content building block of Blackboard Academic Suite makes it possible for educators to search directly and use more than 85,000 journal articles, working papers, and institutional repository materials. Previously, Blackboard also forged an alliance with Horizon-Wimba, which provides application services for real-time conferencing. The need for such dynamic services is increasingly felt by those who offer learning management systems. Saba (no relation to the author) a company that offers learning management system products and services, also announced a strategic alliance with Centra for real-time communication. These initiatives as well as others by LMS providers, such as tapping into MERLOT, a repository of learning objects, are steps in the right direction. But they fall short of offering dynamic differentiated responses to learners.

LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF THE FUTURE The LMSs of today were not designed to offer dynamic responses to students. They were intended to extend classroom instruction style to the new networked computer environment. Adding such capabilities to them by offering services, which include massive amounts of information to choose from, is an afterthought. But perhaps more importantly, they lack the capability to assess the profile of each individual learner dynamically, since initially their designs were inspired by the contemporary system of industrial mass education and not individualized learning. To respond to the future work environment‘s need for workers who can think differently and offer alternative solutions to problems, profiling of each individual learner becomes paramount. Such a profile includes the learner‘s prior knowledge of a specific field domain as well as practical skills, and emotional intelligence. What is important to understand in this discussion is that prior knowledge, skills, and emotive disposition are not static constructs; they evolve over time as instruction progresses. The learning management system of the

218

Farhad Saba

future must be able to sense such changes dynamically and reflect the results to both the learner and the instructor so they can make appropriate instructional and learning decisions accordingly. This dynamic teaching and learning environment has far reaching ramifications for current instructional design models, which will be discussed later in this chapter. An example for needed change is sufficient here. One of the major issues with needs assessment as it is practiced today is that it usually looks at the learner‘s needs at only one point in time. ―Frontend-analysis‖ implies that assessment of learner‘s needs takes precedence over other steps in a linear process. In a dynamic (non-linear) environment, needs assessment is a constant process. It is also evident from this discussion that learners‘ needs should not be assessed collectively, as it is usually done today because their individual profiles may differ markedly. Collective needs assessment, which is predominant now, will be of little value in learning and teaching environments that are highly sensitive to individuals with different prior learning and skills, especially when in many cases pacing of individual learners in moving towards attaining certain objectives may also greatly differ. Furthermore, although certain standards must be achieved by all individuals, the LMS of the future must also accommodate the learning aspirations of individuals who may wish to go beyond the standards or offer a differing vision of them. Building such a system will inevitably include technologies that are beyond the current platform of most LMSs. A database is usually the basic platform for current learning management systems in use. In the future, database technology must be supplemented or supplanted by a new class of software. Companies such as Quantum Simulations have already created software based on artificial intelligent (AI) technology for offering individual tutoring to science students in high schools. What is certain is that the LMS of the future will be hybrid, as they are becoming now. They use multiple technologies for responding to learners individually and differentially. What is also certain is that no matter how advanced they become, at least from the current vantage point, it is not desirable to eliminate instructorlearner communication entirely. Because the algorithms in machines will remain finite for the foreseeable future, they will not be able, nor it is desirable for them to offer the open-ended dialog that might generate new knowledge in conversation between the instructor and learner or among learners for that matter. The questions, therefore, are: 1) To what extent will LMSs of the future be able to offer an acceptable combination of economy of scale and mass customization to educators? 2) To what extent is it desirable to offer the time of expert instructors to interact with students? 3) If some part of instructional system can be automated, costs may decrease without sacrificing quality. What then is the proper balance between structure as it is prescribed by an instructor or an instructional organization and autonomy as it is desired by the learner?

The Future of Distance Education: A Research and Development Agenda

219

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Traditionally, distance in education has been conceptualized and measured in geographical terms. As (Keegan, 1986) demonstrated, in distance education the learner and the instructor are separated in space and time. (Moore, 1983) building on prior theories of distance education in his study of more than several hundred published articles in adult, independent and distance education, determined there is a psychological distance in addition to geographic separation. Although the paradigm which conceptualized distance in geographic term is true, it does not explain the social aspects of the field. Further, Moore posited that this psychological or ―transactional‖ distance is a function of two variables of structure and autonomy. In other words, psychological distance in education is determined by the extent to which the instructor or the instructional organization controls the process of teaching and learning and to what extent the learner desires to have autonomy in this process. Saba and Shearer (1994) conducted a study which tested the validity of this model. Thirty graduate students enrolled in an educational technology Master of Arts program received individual instruction on the concept of culture on a laboratory distance education system which simulated the current networked environment. The learners and instructor were separated in two laboratories through which they could communicate via audio, video and text using an ordinary phone line for audio, a closed circuit video system for the likeness of the learner and the teacher, and a networked Macintosh SE computer for sharing a HyperCard stack developed to present various concepts related to the subject of human culture. Timbaktu, a screen sharing software, was used to simulate the current capabilities in screen and file sharing. Although video images containing the body language and facial expressions of the instructor and learners as well as data on the usage of the HyperCard were available and undoubtedly important, these were not analyzed or reported in this preliminary study. Instead, researchers focused on the data collected of verbal communication, which was thought to be a sufficient demonstration of the dynamic relationship between learner and instructor. Voice communication between the instructor (who repeated the instruction for each individual learner) and the learners was recoded, transcribed, and analyzed by trained discourse analysts. Other data types collected were reserved for future studies. Speech acts in each minute of the thirty-minute instructional sessions were analyzed and categorized as evidence for structure (e.g. direct instruction by the instructor) or autonomy (e.g. asking questions or offering information by the learner). The results were then fed into the STELLA database a simulation software on a Macintosh computer which is capable of demonstrating the dynamic relationship of variables over specified periods of time. The study determined that there was a dynamic relationship between structure and autonomy. Although the shape of the plots of each learner was different, the general pattern remained the same among three variables of structure, autonomy and transactional distance for the subjects under study (Note: in the original 1994 study the word ―dialog‖ was used to mean autonomy. Later, autonomy was adopted the term which best described what Moore originally had in mind). Currently, students working with the author in their research projects are involved in expanding the model to include other variables such as prior learning and learning preferences (styles). Also, Rick Shearer, a colleague at Pennsylvania State University, is

220

Farhad Saba

involved in an analytical study of the concepts of structure, dialog, autonomy and transactional distance to define them more precisely and offer operational definitions for them for research purposes. In addition, Shaffer (2006) has called for using system dynamics to develop a standard model of distance education. These, however, are early steps in research to shed more light on how educational organizations and instructional design systems of the future should be shaped to reflect the dynamic nature of teaching and learning.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS IN THE AGE OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS While media systems have dramatically changed and are potentially capable of offering differential treatments commensurate to a learner‘s profile, instructional system design (ISD) models have remained the same. These models, introduced in the early 1970s, share the same structure; they typically prescribe a front-end analysis followed by design of instructional materials, development, and production as well as implementation and evaluation. ISD models have been in use for well over 30 years in many organizations with varying degrees of success. When long term planning for a group of homogenous learners is called for, such models usually succeed and they have been the basis for developing countless programs and products. However, these models allow for pre-defined objectives to be attained by the learner that are determined through needs assessments that are usually conducted one time. Providing dynamic response to individual learning needs, as these needs evolve during the instructional process is neither prescribed nor emphasized. There are no prescribed processes in place to accommodate self-organized and spontaneously developed objectives that were not present during the original needs assessment. The frequency of assessment, design, development, evaluation, and feedback to assessment must be increased dramatically to reflect the realities of instructional design for dynamic systems. It must be emphasized that that more, in systems parlance, is different; that is more of something may produce qualitatively different conditions and results. Further, dynamic systems are very sensitive to the initial values of their key variables. So then, prior knowledge of each individual learner would have dramatic effects on how he or she learns. When the results of initial needs assessments are aggregated for a group of learners and instructional design decisions are made based on aggregate data, sensitivity to initial conditions for each individual learner is lost with consequences that cannot be measured, determined, or understood. Further research is needed to see how the dynamic model presented in Figure 1 should be expanded to reflect the realities of self-organized, just-in-time learning systems that function in an information- rich environment and are capable of differentially responding to the learner‘s need for autonomy and instructor‘s need for structure. This research project is necessary to develop instructional system design models that are sensitive to the needs of an individual learner in a dynamic learning environment.

The Future of Distance Education: A Research and Development Agenda

221

ORGANIZATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS Assuming that such instructional design models can be researched and developed, new organizational structures are needed to make full advantage of them. Currently, administrative structures of most public institutions of education are not designed to accommodate individual needs of learners. The same situation exists in many training and human performance divisions of businesses as well as government organizations. Many of these institutions are run as industrial-age bureaucracies that are only prepared to deal with the aggregate needs of students en masse. For example, most schools keep calendars with deadlines for the entire school or college population of hundreds and sometimes thousands of students. Alternately, dynamic instructional design may require individualized academic calendars based on how each student is capable of making progress to attain certain standards of proficiency and pursue new learning interests that may spontaneously develop as a result of self-organization. Even the suggestion of such dynamic academic calendars to accommodate individual differences is cause for a nightmare to the administrator who can only function within the confines of a lock-step, one-size-fits-all calendar. The annual staring point of most academic calendars, in fact, is not even industrial; it is agrarian. It starts in fall, historically the time when students are relieved of farm chores during the summer! A contrasting example is the airline industry. While computer technology has for decades accommodated individual scheduling preferences of millions of travelers on an on-demand basis worldwide every single day of the year, educational and training institutions use the same computer technology to support an antiquated industrial block scheduling. The research hypothesis proposed here is that there are hidden costs involved in ignoring the individual learner‘s needs. Such costs are not only reflected in increased tuition fees and other direct expenses, but also in increased time-to-degree, which has made the concept of a four-year-college degree an anomaly for many students. Another example is the rate of dropouts in high schools and colleges. To the extent that attending to individual needs of the learners can mitigate the circumstances leading to students dropping out of colleges or universities, costs for such enormous waste in human development can be reduced or eliminated entirely. More positively, students who can participate according to their ability in controlling their academic program will be educated in an environment that is more realistic. They are more likely to develop competencies that are closer to the expectations of the future employers, who will not be satisfied with standardized skills of the workforce, but in addition will require problem solving and critical thinking skills in a work environment that is subject to rapid and frequent changes.

CONCLUSION This chapter outlined a few fundamental research questions the answers to which are necessary to make the educational organizations of the future, in general, and distance education, in particular, more responsive to individual learner needs. Distance education, today, is at a crossroad. It can succumb to the forces of cooptation and support the current education system with surface changes that look different. It also suggests a bold new vision

222

Farhad Saba

for instructional system design models and organizational structures that are responsive to the individual needs of the learners, as well as to the needs of the 21st century economy; an economy that will thrive on the invention of otherness in countless products and services.

REFERENCES Benjamin, A. (2005). Differentiated instruction using technology: A guide for middle and high school teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Professional Education. College Board (2004). Trends in college pricing 2004. Retrieved from the World Wide Web http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost04/041264TrendsPricing2004_ FINAL.pdf Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. London; Dover, N.H.: Croom Helm. Moore, M. G. (1983). The individual adult learner. In Tight, M. (Ed.) Adult Learning and Education, 153-168. Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the united states. Distance Education, 26(2), 255-273. Saba, F. & Shearer,R.L. (1994) Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 8, 1. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Schute, A. (2003). From teletraining to e-learning and knowledge management. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 297-313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shaffer, S. C. (2006). System dynamics in distance education and a call to develop a standard model, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 6(3).

224

Index

clarity, 142, 177, 178 class, viii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 79, 91, 98, 103, 124, 143, 185, 193, 196, 198, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 218 class size, 38, 68 classroom, xiii, xiv, 3, 4, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 67, 73, 74, 76, 83, 92, 95, 99, 106, 132, 137, 142, 144, 145, 149, 151, 185, 197, 209, 217 classroom culture, 99 classroom environment, 26 classroom settings, xiv, 58 clients, 22, 207 climate, xii, 213 closure, 192, 193, 203, 205 clustering, 164, 165, 166, 167 coding, 123, 145, 151 cognitive abilities, 54 cognitive impairment, 99 cognitive load, 145, 148 cognitive process, 11, 142, 185 cognitive style, 85, 124 cognitive tasks, 54 cognitive theory, 143 cognitive tool, 23, 30 collateralization, 112 collectivism, 112, 116, 117, 137 college campuses, 77 college students, 99, 136, 192 colleges, ix, 30, 31, 43, 68, 76, 77, 79, 83, 99, 144, 221 commodity, 35 communication systems, 215 communication technologies, vii, 1, 60, 65, 81, 89 community, 2, 3, 24, 38, 39, 65, 67, 68, 77, 83, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 109, 110, 117, 118, 126, 133, 136 compatibility, 160 compensation, 148 competition, 112, 113, 116, 118, 119, 123, 188, 195, 202, 205 complaints, 104 complexity, 29, 36, 83, 145, 216 compliance, 104, 138 composition, 124 comprehension, 107, 197 computer conferencing, 80, 96 computer labs, 103 computer simulation, 146, 149, 151 computer simulations, 146 computer skills, 116

computer systems, 89 computer technology, 211, 221 computerization, ix, 75, 76, 136 computer-mediated communication (CMC), 125 computing, 74, 98, 129, 210 conference, 66, 95, 133 configuration, 160 conflict, 98, 115, 117, 135, 185, 186, 203 confrontation, 204 connectivity, xiv, 102, 103, 116, 160 consciousness, 34, 39 consensus, 53, 60, 113 constructivism, 31, 32, 89 constructivist learning, 161, 180 consumer demand, 210 consumption, 114 context cultures, 115, 116, 119 convention, 202 cooperative learning, 81 coordination, 206 coping strategies, 115 copyright law, 63, 64 correlation, 44 correlations, 158, 162 cost, viii, xii, 33, 34, 62, 68, 74, 76, 101, 103, 142, 167, 214, 215, 216 cost effectiveness, 62 counseling, 151 course content, 5, 76, 90, 93, 94 creative thinking, 37, 201 creativity, viii, 33, 37, 114, 194, 207 credentials, 94, 132 critical analysis, 91, 184 critical thinking, xii, 10, 173, 200, 201, 213, 215, 221 criticism, 27, 36, 40, 41, 81 critics, ix, 15, 34 cross-cultural comparison, 136 cues, 53, 66, 88, 110, 125, 173, 175, 196 cultural differences, 101, 110, 115, 117, 124, 125, 134 cultural practices, 97 cultural studies, 40, 137 cultural tradition, 48 cultural values, x, 97, 98, 112, 121 culture, viii, xiii, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30, 34, 35, 66, 97, 99, 100, 101, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 132, 137, 219 currency, 63, 111, 112, 176 curricula, 36 curriculum, ix, x, 36, 37, 43, 57, 60, 63, 73, 76, 78, 87, 97, 98, 127, 132, 159, 180 cyberspace, 5