Monday, September 21, 2015

EDTECH 522 Module 2 Reflection: Evaluating Courses

Here is the Canvas Intro evaluation I did for an internal course used at my school. Here is the Creating a Linked In Profile course evaluation I also did as part of this assignment.

I gained knowledge in evaluating more concretely about learning objectives, assessment and instructional materials and how they interact. Correspondingly, I think this evaluation process will affect my course design in the future. For instance, in the Canvas course that a coworker in edtech at my school had created, the learning objectives are fairly clear, the assessments are ok, and the overall instructional materials are intact and relatively high quality. For our needs, the approach taken is probably appropriate and what we needed. Part of the reasoning is he did not have unlimited time to create this course, and so took the appropriate time in certain ways to build it out so learning could occur, and took some reasonable short cuts elsewhere that did not impact student learning results.


As I thought about this, what’s interesting is how the learning objectives, assessment, and instructional materials can vary from course to course. For instance, in some courses, defining and executing REALLY high quality assessment may be the critical component for student learning and success.  That holds true about the instructional materials as well - it is hard to envision a successful learning result if the instructional materials are low quality. In another course, if the objectives are not stated clearly, that can negatively influence the result of the learning.


The point is, depending upon the subject matter, the intended students, the time frame to create (or take) the course, whether it’s self paced or not, etc. can impact the ‘priority’ and relative importance of any of the evaluation criteria. In one course, excellent assessment may be paramount, in others, it’s all about the instructional materials, and so on. As said, it is hard to to envision a course that would have high quality student learning results that did not have excellent instructional materials.

If I were to pick one category that is the minimum area, it would be instructional materials. If I were to describe  a minimum of areas to evaluate, it would be the clarity of learning objectives, high quality and relevant assessment and high quality, engaging instructional materials.  In reality, all of the items in the checklist would need to, at some level, be evaluated, I believe. In my case, there was not a need - right now - for accessibility considerations, but who is to say when we might have an individual on staff who does need that extra capability to successfully navigate the course.

While both courses were generally high quality, I was impressed by the 3rd party course I evaluated - there was more introductory material included, which was appropriate for that course. In addition, I felt that the design overall was a bit more robust. That does make sense since it is a course available to the 'outside', as opposed to the course created internally here at my school.


Finally, one bit of additional learning - gained from the “How to build a Linked In Profile” course - was to include an FAQ section. This did a good job of getting ‘out of the way’ some of the more common questions in one section.

Monday, September 7, 2015

EDTECH 522: Module 1 Reflection

Discuss 2 – 3 critical issues you discovered in the SLOAN-C report entitled, Changing Course (2012).

The 2012 Sloan report was interesting to read. I found the report interesting, and in particular one statistic that was referenced in the report really stood out. When polled, 69.1% of the chief academic officers agreed with the statement “Online education is critical to the long- term strategy of my institution." Clearly leaders at the university level see online education as an important part of their organization's plans. Yet, there are significant barriers to online education (which was described in the report as courses that are "fully online," that is, typically have no face to face interactivity, and where 80% or more of the content is delivered online). 

One of the barriers to more widespread adoption of online learning was the need for "more discipline on the part of online students and lower retention rates." Nearly 90% of academic leaders see more discipline as a barrier to wider adoption. In other words, online learning is not for everyone. I know from personal experience that it has taken some significant adjustments on my part to successfully complete the BSU online courses. I have struggled at times in terms of motivation to complete the work required, and at times questioning the assignments I've been given (to a higher degree than in face to face courses I've taken). While I have adapted and learned much, it has not always been smooth sailing. The lower retention rates - more students than anticipated dropping out - was also a concern. It would be interesting to understand why those students dropped. Given the financial commitment to the courses, I would like to understand the reasoning behind dropping a course. 

Other barriers that were noted include a concern about the quality of learning outcomes, the amount of time it takes to run a successful online course, and the faculty acceptance of online learning. I think these are intertwined. I have also seen a wide variety of learning outcomes, and in some of my coursework I wondered why particular emphasis was place on certain outcomes. It seemed as though some of the courses needed a bit of an update, and in tern an adjustment of some or many of the outcomes. This is not a trivial task, and is certainly related to how much time it takes to successfully run an online course. This is particularly true in ed tech, where paradigms rapidly shift and the likelihood of more frequent course updating is high. That will impact the amount of time taken by the instructor, most certainly. So, if the word gets out - and it would seem like to do so - that online courses are NOT simple and easy to manage within the context of a semester or quarter, AND the courses do require frequent refreshes to stay relevant and engaging, I could certainly see that some faculty may not fully accept online courses. They may also view "online" as a cheaper, less meaningful way to teach a course, which could mean lower status for the faculty teaching online. 

The Sloan report indicated that only about 30% of their faculty accept the legitimacy of online education, which was the LOWEST number recorded since 2004. In other words, faculty's perception of online education is going down, not up. I found that a little curious, and while I personally don't believe that to be true, I do suspect some faculty would feel that way. It does surprise me that perception of validity of online courses is going down. Not surprisingly, at those institutions with a significant online presence already, the faculty acceptance was higher, but again, not even a majority felt their faculty accepted online education (38.4 percent). 

The bottom line seems to be that, while academic leaders see a huge need to increase their online education presence and capability, there are significant barriers for both the institution and the student that must be addressed before significant adoption can occur.

Where are you on the Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning Model described in Stavredes (2011)? What is the implication of this model for you as an online teacher? 


After reviewing Grow's Learning Module, I would position myself somewhere between "Interested" and "Involved" Learner. I feel that I do have a reasonable level of understanding regarding the tools and and at least some of the techniques required of an online teacher. This would tend to put me at the Involved Learner level. However, I am not particularly confident - not having taught any online courses directly before - nor am I particularly motivated to try to actually teach online (a lack of opportunity contributes to this).  These two aspects put me at the Interested Learner level. Upon looking at the text description of Involved Learner level three, it looks as though I more closely fit there, as I would be someone who would respond to an instructor as he or she facilitated my learning in this area. 

I think the Grow's Learning Model is an interesting way to gauge learners. I can envision using this model as an important tool to use when understanding a particular group of students - collectively and individually - when teaching an online (or face to face!) course, and how to most successfully support them in their learning. 

Sunday, September 6, 2015

EDTECH 522 Learning Log

Look here for posts about EDTECH 522, Online Teaching for Adult Learners.