The Catacombs of Instructional Design

Source: www.mnn.com

     While touring Rome one spring I went into the ancient catacombs. Our guide was a very unusual - and candid - priest. When asked why soldiers did not pursue people into this dark underworld, his response was: "Too damn spooky!" Pursuing us into the catacombs of educational philosophy, beyond where the light of quantitative analysis yields any certainty, are the questions that plum the depths of our passion for teaching and understanding of ourselves. And they can be very spooky indeed. One of those questions concerns what instructional design method or methods will best serve our students while remaining true to our own deeply held beliefs about what education truly is. During this summer I have had the pleasure of studying instructional design models in some depth, while simultaneously turning a critical lens on how I presently teach. Over the months I have come to believe that there are a couple of key elements that must be present while drawing the blueprints for my classes.

Flexibility

     There are a number of instructional design models for educators to explore - ADDIE, Merrill's First Principles of Instruction, Understanding by Design, Universal Design for Learning, Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, the Successive Approximations Model, and, of course, the venerable Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Each comes at instruction from different angles and correlate differently with individual teaching and learning styles. The models that work best for me and, it would seem, many of my colleagues, are those that allow me a fair amount of flexibility. Teaching is anything but predictable, so any teaching strategy that is too restrictive will have very limited use. For me, the ADDIE model holds the most promise. 

Source: www.slsd.org

Though it is a bit too sequential for my tastes, various points of entry are possible in an interconnected wheel of teaching phases. The model is data driven, but the data is not limited to the quantitative realm. In fact, implementing this model most effectively will entail a fair amount of qualitative, formative assessment.

     "Understanding by Design", the popular approach based on the work of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, is sequential in a way that I found unsettling at first. Central to their philosophy is the idea of "backward design" - first determining what you want students to know and be able to do at the end and then moving in reverse to make sure everything preceding the instructional curtain call works to achieve those ends.  They argue that the benefit of this is a lesser probability of instruction being out of synch with its intended goals. So, to put it less academically, "Understanding by Design" is a kind of front end alignment that is not unlike what you would do with the family Ford. This model also emphasizes transference of information as a goal via "big ideas" (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) as opposed to bombarding students with facts (and failing to connect them). The model promotes activities that students find to be meaningful rather than rote, lifeless, and time consuming labor. As in the ADDIE model, flexibility is still possible, though I have argued previously that beginning with a set target - indeed, working backwards from it -  does not adequately take into account the unintentional goals and achievements that sometimes form the most memorable teaching memories.

     Other models also serve up flexibility - particularly the Bloom's Revised Model, which is less prescription and more a continuum of increasing levels of higher level thinking. Bloom did not ever say that the "lower" levels of thinking were unimportant, as some have erroneously believed, but rather that they should not form the majority of the instructional emphasis. We should always be pushing our students toward higher levels of understanding and application, while at the same time understanding that more basal, fundamental foundations for those levels must also be constructed.

     When reflecting on my own teaching under the light of flexibility, I must admit that I have been too rigid in my teaching, less willing to implement or even consider coming at my instructional objectives from a variety of approaches - linear and nonlinear. Some of this is no doubt a result of the teaching models that I have been exposed to in my own education, but the more likely culprit is my deeply ingrained tendency toward linear learning. As Khan found out in Star Trek II, this can lead to "two-dimensional thinking" and getting your ship blown out of the Mutara Nebula.

Source: www.listal.com

Multiple Approaches

     

     A review of instructional design literature reveals loud and consistent support for multiple approaches to crafting one's teaching. No one model has carried the day and, in fact, a conclusion arrived at by many researchers is that a combination of elements of the best models, assembled according to student needs, results in the best learning. Perhaps we all like to plant our flag in pedagogies that have served us well or that our mentors have adhered to. To do so, however, short changes our students and our own professional skill and growth. Each instructional model that I studied has something that can enhance my teaching, because each addresses, at least in part, some aspect of the fluid dynamics that lie at the core of teaching. For example, while I might not proceed along the trail specifically blazed by M.D. Merrill, his call to confront students with authentic problems and tasks resonates with me and will be a more pivitol consideration in my lesson planning moving forward.

Source: www.learnupon.com

     Having a well-supplied toolbox is especially important in a blended learning scenario where the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face and online learning come together to present challenges and opportunities that call for a wealth of best practice skills. In the context of my own teaching this becomes more enticing and necessary as I make the transition this fall from teaching exclusively online back to my roots in traditional classroom instruction. As I indicated earlier, I have tended to be more one-dimensional in my instructional design habits, but I am now more aware that "mixing and matching" the best of the models that are out there will help to sharpen my own thinking while renewing my excitement when entering the classroom every day.

     In the end I am struck by what is perhaps an element of hypocrisy that I have been prone to. How can I expect my students to be open-minded, to seek multiple sources of information and application, if I am not equally, or perhaps more, committed to it myself? How can I teach my students to resist dogma and assumption in their varied forms if I, myself, do not turn back the barbarians at my own gates? These are sobering thoughts, but invaluable sources of light as I wander the catacombs of my own teaching and learning.

Reference:

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. New York: Pearson.

Researching Instructional Design Models

         Some of the most interesting research in education these days is focused on instructional design. The reason for this is two-fold. Most importantly, dedicated teachers are focused on constructing lessons that are aligned with the latest insights into what works in increasingly diverse and demanding classrooms. In addition, as testing mania continues to dominate educational policy, they are under increasing pressure to "produce" by primarily quantitative measures. The Internet provides a gateway to a tremendous amount of information and conversations about pedagogy. As with all online academic research, one needs to be a smart shopper as the medium abounds with both dis- and misinformation. Still, some recent explorations of instructional design models in both online and print domains seem to point to themes that the savvy sage should be aware of.

Making It Personal

     Much of what is being written highlights the need for instructors to personalize instruction. This is not surprising given the individualism that pervades American culture. As the nation has moved away from the "assembly line model" and towards services that are tailored to specific needs and convenience, education has followed somewhat reluctantly behind. A study published by Educational Media International (Ausbern, 2004) demonstrated that adult students, in particular, preferred classes that allowed for a fair amount of "individualization" and self-directed learning. As Peggy Hannon and her colleagues found in their comparison of two popular instructional design models by Gagne and Laurillard (Hannon, 2002), such learning is promoted by instructors who set the context and mechanisms for dialogue. This was shown to be true in both online and face-to-face teaching and learning as well as across disciplines. 

     As online instruction has grown exponentially in recent years in further response to individual student schedules and sagging enrollment at some higher learning institutions, research into Internet-based environments has abounded. Online learning literature, such as a 2014 article by Thomas Tobin in The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, emphasizes how critical it is that instructors personalize learning as much as possible. Other writers, such as Max Cropper (2009) and his associates lament how difficult it is to "account for individual differences in conceptual understanding". Possible routes to a solution include tapping into students' prior knowledge more effectively and consistently when planning instruction (Tallikari et al., 2008) as well as utilizing technology that students have access to and prefer (Elias, 2011; Savenye, W. et al., 1991; Shibley, et al. 2011; Kulasekara et al., 2011).

Multiple Designs for Success

     Instructional design models abound, among the most popular being ADDIE, Universal Design for Learning, Understanding by Design, Merrill's First Principles of Instruction, ARCS, Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, and a framework based on Bloom's Revised Technology. Ask researchers and teachers which model is best and they will defend their turf with the same tenacity that Trekkies argue whether it was the Klingons or the Romulans who ruined the galactic neighborhood. Fortunately for those designing teaching and learning, the data that attenuates each model is now substantive enough to provide some help. 

     There is much in the literature that supplies specific instructions for how to implement any model a teacher uses. If you are a fan of the Merrill approach, then some particularly helpful advice is offered by Joel Gardner. The ADDIE model has also garnered a fair amount of admirers because of the flexibility that it offers and its applications across subject areas (Davis, 2013; Shelton & Saltsman, 2006; Soto, 2013). I am glad to know that the venerable Bloom's model, which was "revised" to make it more palatable to the technology generation, continues to age well and still has its staunch advocates.

     Still, many researchers have concluded that depth, breadth, and ease of learning are actually achieved by a combination of theoretical approaches melded together according to student learning styles and the specific goals of instruction (Lee & Chang, 2014; Cropper et al., 2009; Hannon, 2002; Parra, 1012; Soto, 2013)) and guided by careful reflection and collaboration (Tracey, M. et al., 2014; Kanuka, 2006). The beginning point is a sober consideration of specifically what will be taught and the pedagogy that is appropriate for achieving those ends. Teachers sometimes draw criticism for trying to force technology or particular rigid models into areas of instruction where they are not appropriate. Given the pressure that they are under from administrators and the state board to "integrate technology" and implement curriculum approaches that they know little about and had no say in deciding upon, such a transgression becomes more understandable. Indeed, this stress is best summarized, and perhaps caused, by statements such as: "The challenge for educators and producers of pedagogical materials is how to progress along the same continuum as the new paradigm of digital learning affordances and deliveries" (Ashbaugh, 2013). I do not believe that pedagogical materials are "produced" (they are fashioned), and I get nervous when instruction is lashed to "paradigms" and "continuums". It does seem clear, however, that the tired cliche "form fits function" remains applicable. Instruction is an art, and the models of instruction, like an artist's paints, should be mixed and applied according to need and vision. 

     The grass may not be greener on the other side, but it certainly isn't purple.

     

References

Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical to global practices and quality online learning designs. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 14(2).

Ausbern. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective. Education Media International. 41(4).

Cropper, M., Bentley, J., & Schroder, K. (2009). How well do high-quality online courses employ Merrill's First Principles of Instruction? Educational Media and Technology Yearbook.

Davis, A. (2013). Using instructional design principles to develop effective information literacy instruction. Association of College and Research Libraries. 74(4).

Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 12(2).

Hannon, P. (2002), Gagne and Laurillard's models of instruction applied to distance education: A theoretically driven evaluation of online curriculum in public health, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). 3(2).

Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and e-learning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology. 9(2).

Kulasekata, Jayatilleka & Coomaraswamy. (2011). Learner perceptions on instructional design of multimedia in learning abstract concepts in science at a distance. Open Learning. 26(2).

Lee, J. & Jang, J. (2014). A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures. Educational Technology Research and Development. Volume 62.

Parra, S. (2012). Component display theory design in a foreign language unit. Journal of Applied Learning Technology. 2(3).

Savenye, W. (1991). Teaching instructional design in a computer literacy course. Educational Technology Research and Development. 39(3).

Shibley, I., Amaral, K., & Shibley, L. (2011). Designing a blended course: Using ADDIE to guide instructional design. Journal of College Science Teaching. 40(6).

Shelton, K. & Saltsman, G. (2006). Using the ADDIE model for online teaching. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 2(3).

Soto, V. (2013). Which instructional models are educators using to design virtual world instruction? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 9(3).

Tracey, M., Hutchinson, T. & Grzebyk, T. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Association for Educational Communication and Technology. Volume 62.

Taking a Look at Two Instructional Design Models

Source: paintingabout.com

A Messy Business

     Designing instruction is a messy endeavor, or it has been, at least, in my experience. I suppose that there are some highly organized, analytical minds out there who can bypass trial and error and paint pedagogy in concise, unerring strokes on the first try. I am from a much different school of instructional art, where the interior of my mind palace is analogous to the artist's studio pictured above. Ideas, experiences, beliefs, and subject content are mixed together in multiple ways and splattered about until a form emerges. Though I start with some goal or construct in mind, I quickly find that my instructional aspirations become a tiger's "fearful symmetry" and require some organizational framework, lest my students become lost in a jungle of my own making. As graphic organizers aid in bringing a blurry landscape of ideas and facts into gradual focus, so do instructional design models provide a means for clarifying and implementing teaching and learning in a way that has the best chance of resulting in student success.

     There are many instructional design models to choose from, and doubtless more are on the way as the great experiment which is public education continues to produce and redefine best practice. Of particular interest to me are two models - "Understanding by Design (UbD)" and the "Universal Design for Learning (UDL)". As is true with most mainstream approaches to pedagogy, these two models share some characteristics and differ in others. Both strive to aid the instructor in reducing the paint splatter or, at the very least, making sure that what finds its way onto the canvas is more Monet than mess.

The Educator's Easel

     UbD has been widely used by school systems across the country as a template for instructional design and it is a favorite of the influential Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Much staff development has been devoted to its principles and schools often require teachers to do their lesson planning within its framework. UDL has emerged in recent years and is frequently referenced in online learning scholarship. Both models place a premium on teachers clearly determining what content is most important ("trimming the fat"), providing varied and multiple opportunities for students to access that content, and creating contexts in which students can apply their learning. UbD proposes a sequential, three-step model for pedagogy.

Source: nccscurriculum.org

Key to UbD is the "backward design" approach. For people like me, for whom doing things backwards is normal, this model has immediate appeal. For other more linear thinkers this requires some getting used to. UDL does not propose stages but, rather, principles or guidelines.

Source: pinterest.com

These two models do achieve much the same things. Planning effective learning experiences in the UbD model necessitate consideration of the aspects of engagement and representation that are addressed in UDL. Determining "acceptable evidence" in UbD is analogous to the "multiple means of action and expression" outlined in UDL. Both models undertake to cleanse instruction of what the UbD authors, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, call the "twin sins" of typical instructional design in schools - activity-focused teaching and coverage-focused teaching (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005, p. 3). Both forms of heresy limit the learner's interaction with, and application of, the content being taught. Each also assumes little or no variance in learning styles or interests. For both UbD and UDL the fulcrum of effective instruction is not content-based or instructor-based, and, therefore each model can be applied in the full range of instruction from the elementary years on through the college/university classroom. In fact, the organizing and contextual principles of both are useful when designing learning in vocational and professional training.

Joining Forces

     To me the benefits of these instructional design models are best realized by viewing UDL as enveloping UbD. The what, why, and how of learning that are the foundations of UDL greatly enhance the backwards design of UbD. Identifying desired results certainly gets clarifies "why" what we are teaching is important - both to the us and our students. Determining acceptable evidence is more likely to be effective if we embrace basic tenets of differentiation that unlock learning for a wide variety of learning styles and aptitudes. Finally, as we set about the business of planning learning experiences and instruction to satisfy the philosophy of UbD, we are, in fact, faithful to UDL's call for us to present content in different ways. UDL is more of a context than a recipe and, whether we move forward or backwards on the canvas we are painting, it effectively frames our efforts. Supplying multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement dovetail UbD's goals of moving away from simply "covering material" (a phrase I hear often and detest) or engaging students in empty, mindless activities that have no salient connection with specific learning goals. While all teachers want their students to be able to understand and apply what is being taught, as McTighe explains, the "devil is in the details"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8F1SnWaIfE

 Construction or Liberation?

     Michelangelo famously remarked that he did not "create" his famous David, rather, he simply freed what was already there from its prison of stone. Philosophically, this is much different than building something with a specific vision in mind. Pedagogically, there is a vast difference between spontaneous, "let's see where this takes us and adjust" approaches to teaching, common in Montessori curriculums, and standards-driven instruction with specific, and largely predetermined, outcomes. UDL retains some usefulness in the former, while UbD is more applicable to the latter. Still, both of these frameworks, along with other instructional models, have something to say to each of us - no matter what our philosophical bend may be. Indeed, the measure of any instructional model may be its elasticity. The craft of teaching at its best allows for both construction and liberation, and it is not predetermined or defined by either.

Reference

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd edition). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Momentum

I remember as a child playing on one of those round, revolving platforms at a local park. The idea was to run as fast as you could, jump on, and then enjoy the ride. Eventually, though, I became dizzy and, jumping from the platform before it completely stopped, I ended by doing a face dive back onto the solid ground below. I could not keep my balance - there was too much momentum. I feel something akin to that again as I reflect on my experiences and learning in this course.

In the months ahead, as I dust myself off and regain my inertia, I will be able to more clearly see what has been accomplished this semester. For now, though, I can surely recognize some of the key experiences during what has been a very rewarding ride.

The literature reviews allowed me to delve more deeply into pivitol aspects of online teaching and the blogs provided a framework for reflection and application. Through synthesizing a fairly broad range of articles, I was able to discern themes and apply those to online teacing. The GoogleDoc was very helpful in this respect, as I found the columns to be useful in focusing and sorting. This part of the class contributed to the acquisition of techniques and applications based on current research - the first of the course objectives.

Further objectives were addressed in the work that we did in teams to actually "teach" a book that we had read to the class. Interaction and coordination with my classmates as well as with the professor encompassed many of the tools that we studied during the semester. While we were allowed a fair amount of freedom, guidelines and expectations were clear, and a rubric (developed by the class) detailed what standards we would be held to. Even though I was in an excellent and patient group, I found this endeavor to be much harder than I expected. Had the professor not been so willing to handle many of the technical aspects of our module, I wonder how successful we would have been. As I look toward implementing what I learned in my own online teaching, I see areas that I need to focus on for those times when I will not have someone else to set things up for me.

I found the video and telegami feedback from the professor to be extremely rewarding. This investment in time helped to establish the kind of "instructor presence" that my literature review clearly identified as crucial for the success of online instruction. I confess that I need to do the same thing in my own classes. I have thus far resisted because I do not like cameras, as they tend to be much less kind and forgiving than my professor for this course. I recognize that I need to "get over it" and simply do it. The professor modeled how this video feedback can provide specific feedback on course work rather than simply supplying vague and empty praise. As many studies have shown, feedback only achieves lasting effect if the student knows what in particular was "good", "interesting", "weak", etc. The video feedback was supplemented by written critiques in the form of responses to blog posts and other communications. I came away with a much clearer sense of what "instructor presence" truly means.

The webex class meetings enabled me to share ideas with my classmates and the professor. It seemed that our class included a range of experiences, personalities, and approaches to teaching. Some were teachers and some were not. This made our conversations even more enlightening and useful. As with the group work, we connected using the very tools we were studying, and thus saw how important hands-on, experiential learning is.

As I shared during meetings and in some of my writing, when it comes to taking formal classes, I learn best when there are regular class meetings and the teacher presents a fair amount of the content. I do not favor packaged, module-driven courses in which the teacher has little or no contact with the class, and I also dislike completely teacher-centered pedagogy in which the students sit passively and have very little role in constructing knowledge. Somewhere in the middle is optimal for me - somewhere around a 60/40 split - in which the teacher still provides most of the content but there is still ample opportunity for students to engage the content and each other. I realize that this is the model that works best for me, and that it is by no means universal.

The blended learning model that I studied in this course holds great promise for my own teaching at Lenoir-Rhyne. As my responsibilities change, I will likely transition back from entirely online teaching to primarily face-to-face. My goal is to incorporate the tools and approaches that I have learned into a blended or even flipped classroom, As I progress through the online teaching program I feel more confident in my ability to do this. At my core, I still remain bookish and antiquated in many ways, but I feel that I have progressed at an above average rate in the objectives for this course and the program as a whole. The full effect of my learning will not be felt until I have the time to "play" with the tools I have assembled.

For now, I remain quite dizzy indeed.

Types and Uses of Feedback

One of the most difficult aspects of face-to-face teaching and learning to replicate in the online environment is engaging feedback. Much like on-stage performers, what and how we "give" is predicated on what we are "getting" from the audience. In the best of teaching there is a constant interplay between the teacher and the taught, and there are even times when those roles are switched. Much of the recent literature in online teaching has sought to explore what constitutes "effective feedback" and the mechanisms for providing it.

Defining Feedback

Source: www.henrybuell.com

According to Sandy Quilligam (2007) effective feedback "involves someone's thoughts on another person's performance that are delivered in a form that enables the recipient to listen to what is being said, receive it constructively, reflect on what has been said and consider how to take action as a result." This constructive element of feedback is echoed by Kulhavy (1977), who points out that "feedback is significantly more effective when it provides details of how to improve the answer, rather than when it just indicates whether the student's work is correct or not." Feedback that is terminal - only indicating right or wrong with no expectation for disagreement or extension - is certainly neither actionable nor an impetus for improvement. Dylan Wiliam (2016) even contends that "most of the time, the student work we are looking at is not important in and of itself, but rather for what it can tell us about the student." This certainly frees feedback from the bounds of the prescriptive mode, as indicated by Quilligan and Kulhavy, and places it in the descriptive frame. Indeed, it even runs counter to the findings of a mega-study by Lorna Kearns in which "instructors believed that feedback to students should be based on specific individual and class performance data with an eye toward improvements in clearly defined instructional objectives (Kearns, L, 2012). In a developmental (and transcendentalist) approach, prompt and detailed feedback helps the student to develop a "critical eye" while also garnering credibility for the teacher in the sense that "the teacher knows what he or she is talking about (Wiliam, 2016).

A surprising study by Pyke and Sherlock (2010) looked at the types and frequency of student feedback in an online course over a full semester. The results confirmed what many suspect - that feedback is weighted heavily (70%) toward "corrective", instructor-to-student communication with "motivational" coming in a distant second at 20%. The authors found that what motivational feedback there was came primarily at the beginning of the semester and then steadily waned. Teams of students were more likely to get corrective feedback. The study suggested that online teachers be more mindful of the proportions of the feedback they provide as well as when it is served up (Pyke & Sherlock, 2010, p. 119).

"My Kingdom for a Horse" (or just some feedback!)

Mechanisms for delivering feedback to students, whatever its definition, vary widely. Jackson & Back (2011) considered role-play as a feedback device while Roter, Larson, Shinitzky, Chernoff & Serwint (2004) looked at video techniques. Peer feedback, which is often used in face-to-face classrooms, translated less effectively to online learning according to a study by Ertmer, et al., (2007). Students were concerned that not all of their classmates could provide quality feedback in a timely manner that was free of bias (Ertmer, et al., 2007, p. 427). Still, while not hanging their hat on its accuracy, students valued peer feedback because it included "confirmation that their ideas were meaningful to others" and afforded them the benefit of "their peers' insights and perspectives"(Ertmer, et al., 2007, p. 427). Jason Huett (2004) touts the use of email for feedback. Citing a 2003 exploration by Selma Vonderwell, Huett posits that email "allows for improved communication and gives students the opportunity to ask more questions of their instructors" while also creating "a sense of anonymity that potentially allows for greater participation by shier students" (Vonderwell, 2003, as cited in Huett, 2004). 

Feedback Mirrors Philosophy

Source: teachonline.asu.edu

My review of some of the research into the types and uses of feedback supports my long held belief that how we define components of teaching and learning and how we use them are firmly rooted in our educational philosophy. If we are steeped in classical notions of education in which the teacher is at the center and knowledge is transmitted rather than constructed, then we are more likely to view feedback as prescriptive and one-directional. In such a philosophy we like our feedback straight, without the base alloy of motivational or critical intent. If, however, we adopt a more constructivist approach in which knowledge is a joint creation of teacher and student, greatly aided and enhanced by Wiliam's "critical eye", then feedback becomes a vital, two-way line of communication. If Pyke and Sherlock are correct, then more attention and study needs to be directed at the types and frequency of the feedback we provide students in both face-to-face and online classes. Only then can we understand its true nature and unlock its vast possibilities.

References 

Ertmer, P., Richardson, J., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 412-433.  

Huett, J. (2004). Email as an educational feedback tool: Relative advantages and implementation guidelines. Instructional Technology and Distance and Distance Learning, 1(6).

Jackson, V. & Back, A. (2011). Teaching communication skills using role-play: An experience-based guide for educators. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 14(6), 775-780. 

Kearns, L. (2012). Student assessment in online learning: Challenges and effective practices. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3). 

Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, ,47(1), 211-232.

Pyke, J. & Sherlock, J. (2010). A closer look at instructor-student feedback online: A case study analysis of types and frequency. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 100-121. 

Quilligan, S. (2007). Communication skills teaching: the challenge of giving effective feedback. Clinical Teacher, 4(2), 100-105. doi:10.1111/j.1743-498X.2007.00154.x.

Roter, D., Larson, S., Shinitzky, H., Chernoff, R., Serwint, J.R., Adamo, G. & Wissow, L. (2004). Use of an innovative video feedback technique to enhance communication skills training. Medical Education, 38(2), 145-157. 

Wiliam, D. (2016). The secret of effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 10-15.

 

The Lonely Learner

In reviewing a number of articles recently on synchronous online learning, one thread has continued to emerge - the need for students to feel "connected" to the learning community. Certainly, this need exists in face-to-face classes, and it has always been the responsibility of teachers at any level to draw their students individually into the larger conversation. Yet, this seems to be a particularly crucial component in e-learning.

Presence

In his study of synchronous learning courses for his article "Synchronous Learning: Is There a Future", Martin Sivula concludes that there certainly is. The convenience afforded online students to attend from their homes or other convenient locations on a schedule that fits into work and family time continues to drive the demand for online courses. Yet, no amount of convenience or technological wizardry takes the place of "instructor presence" and the opportunity to "work collaboratively with classmates" (Sivula, 2013; Burnett, 2003; Hastie, Chung & Nian-Shing, 2010; Wdowik, 2014).  Filiz Tabak and Rohit Rampal came to similar conclusions when they analyzed synchronous online instruction for undergraduates in senior level business administration offerings. As in the Sivula study, students enjoyed being able to exchange ideas on various subjects without the anxiety that often attends speaking out in traditional class (Tabak & Rampal, 2014). Their study suggested that the amount of time invested in online conversations mattered little, what was more important was that the opportunity be there. Collaborative projects were also singled out as being particularly enhanced in the online environment because students could "overcome traditional limitations of space, time, and distance" to connect with their peers for real-time research and writing (Tabal & Rampal, 2014).

Source: expertbeacon.com

The Ties That Bind

The thread was picked up by McBrien, Jones & Cheng (2009) in their more broadly based study among courses in social foundations, special education, and instructional technology. Undergraduate and graduate students were included who used the Eluminate interface in education courses at the University of South Florida campus. As with other platforms such as Webex and Blackboard, the young scholars pointed out that technological advantages came at the price of normal technological glitches, but, on the whole, they felt that the online approach fostered deeper learning (McBrien, Jones & Cheng (2009). Further, though, these students expressed the same need for "connectedness", and, like their counterparts in the Sivula, Tabak, and Rampal studies, they listed student interaction in a less threatening environment, quality discussions of content, and flexibility (particularly in group projects) as being paramount. Connecting for project-based learning also kept students from getting lost in a synchronous online media design course that was studied by Yun Jeong Park and Curtis Bonk. As I have come to expect, while combing through their findings, I found yet another plea for "connectedness" that afforded prompt feedback, meaningful interactions with other students, and support from the instructor (Park & Bonk, 2007). In this study students delineated not just having someone else at the end of the virtual tether, but, more specifically, a "sense of community" as being a decided advantage of the virtual component (Park & Bonk, 2007). The online platform took away the feel of cold print and substituted the human element, with one student confiding that, "when you actually hear the voice speaking those same words, there is helpfulness and kindness in the tone" (Park & Bonk, 2007). Florence Martin and Michele Parker discovered that the desire to create "social presence"  and a "sense of community" in their courses was a substantial motivator in adopting online synchronous learning (Martin & Parker, 2014). This would seem to indicate that, thankfully, the yearning for "connectedness" is a two-way one, with professors as well as students recognizing its myriad benefits.

Researchers across the spectrum of K-12, undergraduate, and graduate studies are consistently finding that, when students feel connected to their classmates and teachers, they are willing to endure, if not totally overlook, the complications that often attends dependence on technology. Further, the online platform used does not seem to matter. What does matter is purposeful design in which learning objectives are seamlessly tied to online tools and ports of entry. In the Tabak and Rampal research offering, as well as in another study by Wang and Reeves (2007), students actually said that, at the end of the day, they still preferred face-to-face classes, but even these skeptics saw value in including an online aspect to the course because the dialogue both in and outside of class was enhanced (Tabak & Rampal, 2014).

 

The Human Element

Source: mirabiledictu.org:

In the classroom as in our interpersonal relationships, meaningful and lasting connections normally do not occur by accident. We have to invest the time and effort into fashioning structures within which that communication can take place. In all of the studies that I have looked at, there are references to a framework that removes human contact from the realm of the shallow and incidental. When that framework is not there, loneliness ensues and learning is lost.

 

References:

Akarasriworn, C., & Heng-Yu, K. (2013). Graduate students' knowledge construction and attitudes toward online synchronous videoconferencing collaborative learning environments. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 14(1), 35-48.

Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teaching In Higher Education, 8(2), 247.

Hastie, M., I., Chun, H., & Nian-Shing, C. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations In Education & Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24. doi:10.1080/14703290903525812.

Martin. F and Parker, M. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how? Merlot Journal of Online Learning and teaching,10(2), pgs. 192-210. Retrieved from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/martin_0614.pdf.

McBrien, J., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/605/1264.

Park, Y.J. & Bonk, C. (2007). Is online life a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), pgs. 307-323. Retrieved from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/park.pdf.

Sivula, Martin, "Synchronous Learning: Is there a future?" (2013). Technology. Paper 8. Retrieved from: http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/technology/8.

Tabak, F. & Rampal, R. (2014). Synchronous e-learning: Reflections and design considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 10(4), pgs. 80-92. Retrieved from: http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1793.

Wang, C., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Synchronous Online Learning Experiences: The perspectives of international students from Taiwan. Educational Media International, 44(4), 339-356. doi:10.1080/09523980701680821.

Wdowik, S. (2014). Using a synchronous online learning environment to pomote and enhance transactional engagement beyond the classroom. Campus - Wide Information Systems, 31(4), 264. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.acaweb.org/docview/1658674473?accountid=13505.

Asynchronous Learning: Learning Unbound

Unlocking the Chains

Credit: http://cloudyskiesandcatharsis.tumblr.com/

     A colleague of mine and I have been reviewing research of late on asynchronous learning, which, unlike synchronous learning, is freed from the chains of a set time and place. This model has become particularly attractive to colleges, universities, and even K-12 schools that are running online programs. It is based on a constructivist model of education that approaches learning as something that is "built" by the teacher and the student with assumptions that knowledge is constructed from experience, learning results from a personal interpretation of knowledge, and that learning is an active process born of meaningful negotiation from multiple perspectives (Smith & Ragan, 1999, p. 15). Tools for this kind of teaching and learning include virtual libraries of materials created by the instructor and the students, e-mails, discussion boards, all manner of social media, virtual portfolios, and other points of connection that make it possible for students to work at their own pace and at a time of their choosing. As I was recently reminded at a conference where I presented a paper and found myself defending online learning in a bloody academic battle that drove one student participant from the room in tears (luckily she sided with me), separating education from the death grip of traditional brick and mortar boundaries and bias will take a Promethean effort. My intellectual adversary, like many, had what I consider to be some common yet very mistaken notions about what online learning is. Uncommon was the degree of hatred that he had for it, in any form, synchronous or asynchronous. He saw it as part of some capitalistic conspiracy, designed to enslave us, assimilate us, and further sabotage efforts to achieve social justice.
     While it is true that some online courses are of the poorest quality, the same can be said of face-to-face classes as well. The medium is not the problem. Creating a learning community that values collaborative and reflective learning while also insisting on depth and breadth of content mastery is the ultimate responsibility of the teacher -plugged or unplugged. However, as the debate broadened and the assemblage of professors, students, and administrators began to weigh in, it became clear that many of the opinions illustrated points illuminated in the research that my partner and I had uncovered.

Thanks for Noticing Me

     It is clear that communication with fellow learners and with the instructor is a key to making the asynchronous model succeed. Woo and Reaves, in their study of web-based learning environments (WBE), found  that "most present-day Web-based learning environments do not live up to their potential for meaningful interaction" (Woo & Reaves, 2008). A combination of factors contribute to WBE's coming up short, including poorly trained teachers, lack of a dependable infrastructure, the daunting amount of information available via the Web, and a lack of authentic activities. Meaningful engagement does not necessarily await the development of new Web applications. Teachers should seek out social media habitats that are already familiar to the student. Northey, Bucic, Chylinski, & Govind, R (2015) used Facebook as the basis for a longitudinal study that showed that the popular site "increased student involvement, real world contextualization, and application of the student’s knowledge and skills (Northey, Bucic, Chylinski, & Govind, R, 2015). 

Credit: Bill Knapp www.slideshare.net

     Dziuban, Moskal, Brophy, & Shea, (2007) came to similar conclusions in a broad review of current literature. When utilized in a focused and organized way, Facebook, along with other social media sites such as Friendster and MySpace, greatly increased student satisfaction with asynchronous learning (Dziuban, Moskal, Brophy, & Shea, 2007). "Focus" is important as the lack of it has been shown to derail asynchronous learning by alienating students and contributing to the information brain freeze mentioned above. "One danger of asynchronous learning is its open-endedness," caution Rira-Marie Conrad and J. Ana Donaldson in Engaging the Online Learner. "There must be a distinct beginning and end to asynchronous activities in order to minimize overload and subsequent learner frustration" (Conrad & Donaldson, 2014).

Oh Captain, my captain

     While the research certainly points to the pivotal roles that collaboration and individualization play in successful asynchronous learning environments, there is also a clear indication that the instructor is still the key to their success. In an interesting study that followed full-time undergraduates, full-time postgraduate diploma students, and practicing professionals in training settings, Hew (2015) reported that, far from simply facilitating instruction or posting assignments, teacher roles expanded "to preventing discussion from going off track, resolving conflicts (especially on sensitive subject matters), and motivating discussions." A durable misconception of the intent of online learning is that instructors simply send out "packets" of assignments, bless them when they are returned, and enter a grade. Rather, online teaching at its best, particularly when asynchronous instruction is blended with synchronous teaching, depends on constant monitoring and adjustment by the instructor. It is far from passive and, in my own experience, reminds me at times of a hockey goalie trying to keep the puck in play. An interesting side note is that Hew's study was completed at the University of Hong Kong, in a country that is frequently compared to the United States in all things educational, though the differences in social and political contexts are immense. Two years earlier Hew participated in another study, this time among Asian Pacific graduate students, that highlighted a further challenge for online teachers in asynchronous WBE's - being sensitive to the cultural needs of students. Encouraging online participation hinges on an open invitation to students to join the conversation in a manner that is culturally sensitive as well as interactive (Ng, Cheng, & Hew, 2012).

Prometheus Unbound

     Certainly, especially in asynchronous online teaching, the nexus of the research my colleague and I considered reinforced a philosophy of education that is far from the teacher-centered approach that Paulo Freire railed against and that is assumed by many to be a common feature. To Freire a learning community's lifeblood is dialogue - dialogue that cannot exist unless "dialoguers engage in critical thinking - thinking which discerns an indivisible solidarity between the world and the people and admits of no dichotomy between them - thinking which perceives reality as a process, as transformation, rather than as a static entity - thinking which does not separate itself from action, but constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of the risks involved (Freire, 1993). Dialogue in an asynchronous WBE takes place around the clock, in different places and across many pathways. Still, as the research my colleague and I have reviewed so far indicates, students expect - and deserve -  to connect with their classmates in a meaningful, collaborative, teacher-mediated, and enhanced workshop of ideas and concepts.

     Only then can Prometheus be loosed, and real learning can take place.

References

Conrad, R-M. & Donaldson, J. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for

creative construction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 22.

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Brophy, J. & Shea, P. (2007). Student satisfaction with asynchronous
     learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,11(1), 87-95.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Revised Edition). New York: Continuum, p. 73.

Hew, K. F. (2015). Student Perceptions of Peer versus Instructor Facilitation of Asynchronous Online
     Discussions: Further Findings from Three Cases. Instructional Science: An International Journal
     of the Learning Sciences, 43(1), 19-38.

 

Ng, C., Cheng, W., & Hew, K. (2012). Interaction in asynchronous discussion forums: peer
     facilitation techniques. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 280-294.

Northey, G., Bucic, T., Chylinski, M., & Govind, R. (2015). Increasing Student Engagement Using
     Asynchronous Learning. Journal Of Marketing Education, 37(3), 171-180.  

Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
     Prentice Hall, p. 15.

Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. (2008). Interaction in asynchronous web-based learning environments:
     Strategies supported by educational research. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
     12(3-4), 179-194.