Copyright August 2000 JD Eveland
DEVELOPMENT
OF ON-LINE DISTANCE LEARNING
REPORT
OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT UNDER SUMMER FELLOWSHIP GRANT, SUMMER 1998
CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, LOS ANGELES
JD Eveland and Jill Nemiro
With
Theresa Ashby
Scott Englert
Michael Schalke
September 1998
Abstract
This report describes activities undertaken under a Summer Fellowship grant by Dr. JD Eveland, Dr. Jill Nemiro, and a group of students, relating to implementing distance learning (DL) initiatives within CSPP. Three major thrusts are reported on: (a) a needs assesssment about DL querying CSPP faculty and staff; (b) a preliminary review of DL initiatives at other schools; and (c) a design and implementation of a prototype DL course on organizational communications within the OP G-2 curriculum. Suggestions for next steps in the DL area are offered.
Introduction
This report describes the progress made with the distance learning implementation effort conducted under a CSPP-LA Summer Fellowship grant to Dr. JD Eveland and Dr. Jill Nemiro. This project was designed to create prototype distance learning (DL) modules for CSPP-LA based on existing Organizational Psychology courses, and to explore a variety of other issues related to the potential operation of DL programs in the CSPP environment.
The original plan was to redevelop two courses into distance learning models: (1) Organizational Communications (T630b, Dr. Eveland) and (2) Team Design (T629, Dr. Nemiro). Each of these courses had been offered in traditional classroom format in the past; each had significant potential for redesign into the distance learning format. The summer project was to analyze the structure and purposes of the courses, develop appropriate multimedia tools to support on-line learning, identify suitable arrangements for those parts of the courses that cannot be carried out effectively on-line, and develop strategies for evaluating their implementation. The Communications class was to be implemented in Fall 1998 with the OP-G2 students, the Teams course in Spring 1999 with the same group. Due to budget limitations, the direct planning work on the Teams course had to be postponed; however, much of the background work is relevant to that course as well, and it is hoped that it may be implemented as well.
The
overall aim was to develop a body of expertise in creating distance learning
courses that can benefit all CSPP as it moves to develop an institutional
distance learning capability. Such a
capacity will not only allow CSPP to open new markets, but can also create
opportunities for cross-campus collaborations that will increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of current programs.
We believe that we have made significant strides in that direction.
This
report will cover three main initiatives carried out by the investigators and a
team of students under the grant: (1) an initial "needs assessment"
made up of interviews with selected CSPP-LA faculty and staff; (2) an
introductory scan of DL initiatives being operated at other institutions, and
(3) the design and implementation of the prototype Organizational
Communications course itself. We will
conclude with some general observations on the future of DL at CSPP. We will not repeat the theoretical discussion
of DL issues presented in the proposal; readers interested in such issues are
referred back to that document.
The Needs Assessment Phase
Any distance learning experience, while in the long run potentially cost-effective, may initially involve a substantial financial and human resource investment, in terms of needed technology and time. To simply develop an online course because other universities are doing it without devoting time to see what CSPP's unique needs may be, would be foolish. An effective educational program should be designed to achieve goals that meet specific instructional and organizational needs. While the temptation is often great to begin a program without a thorough analysis of these needs, there is a danger in beginning any program without a complete needs assessment, in essence using a "we know it already approach." Clearly, the key danger is that without a needs assessment, we may be designing and implementing a program that does not meet the organization's needs. Any useful program should have objectives, criteria, and a design that emanates from an initial needs assessment (Goldstein, 1993). Thus, we began our summer fellowship project with the needs assessment phase. We spent much of our summer talking with faculty and staff, exploring with them the possibilities of how CSPP-LA might incorporate distance learning into its curriculum. Our intent was to better understand current and desired interest in distance learning at CSPP-LA.
Data Collection and Analysis
Eight faculty (5 clinical, 3 organizational), and three staff were interviewed. All participants were from the CSPP Los Angeles campus. Interviews were semi-structured, and lasted approximately 40 minutes, though some were as brief as 20 minutes and others lasted an hour and a half. Interviews were conducted by at least one of the principal investigators. Detailed interview notes were taken by CSPP-LA organizational psychology students serving as research assistants for the project. In the interviews, participants were asked to discuss: (a) how they defined distance learning, their current usage of distance learning methods, and their knowledge of other distance learning examples; (b) what distance learning methods they might interested in using, and for what purposes; (c) how they felt distance learning techniques might enhance their current curriculum or work; (d) when distance learning methods would not be feasible; (e) needed training and resources; and (f) their overall feelings about moving into distance learning.
The detailed interview notes were coded for potential themes. Coding "represents the operations by which data are broken down, conceptualized, and put back together in new ways" (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 57). Two levels of coding were involved--first level coding and pattern coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In first-level coding, descriptive codes were generated so as to summarize the data. In pattern coding, codes were then grouped together, creating a smaller number of categories. HyperResearch, a qualitative computer-assisted data analysis program, was used to assist in the coding process. A major advantage of this program was its code-and-retrieve capability, which allowed for dividing the text into segments or chunks, attaching codes to chunks, and finding and displaying all instances of those coded chunks.
Results
The interviews covered a number of areas, including (a) current awareness and use; (b) feasible and non-feasible uses; (c) advantages, disadvantages, concerns; (c) needed training and resources; and (d) development/implementation issues. Interview results are discussed here in terms of a number of major categories that emerged from the data.
Definition of distance learning: We were interested in getting a general sense of how participants defined distance learning, based on their current knowledge of the area. Although experience levels with distance learning varied among participants, all of them were able to verbalize a definition for what distance learning was. Participants stressed two major characteristics--geographic dispersion, and the use of technology to communicate. Geographic dispersion was referred to as completing a class with members not geographically located in the same place, a lack of face-to-face contact. This was the most frequently mentioned characteristic, with over half of the participants suggesting this as the most important characteristic to a definition of distance learning. The second most frequently mentioned characteristic was the use of technology to communicate. When students and the instructor are separated from one another by geographic distance, information technology is the tool which they can use to link up and communicate with one another. However, interestingly, distance learning was not solely associated with sophisticated types of information technology. Three of the participants suggested that the capability for distance learning has been around for quite sometime (for example, a correspondence course), and in fact, distance learning is nothing new. It is the technology that has changed; before communication took place through the written word (snail mail), now it occurs with newer, more sophisticated tools.
A third characteristic of distance learning was the idea that these types of experiences are mostly designed for independent study or programmed learning. Lastly, distance learning was characterized by terms such as convenient, efficient, and accessible. We now offer a definition of distance learning based on what the participants shared:
A course design in which students and a professor can participate and complete a learning experience while not being co-located, but rather geographically dispersed. Students and the professor communicate with one another through various modes of information technology, and face-to-face interaction is limited or nonexistent. Distance learning is characterized as convenient, efficient, and accessible.
Background and experience with distance learning: Only one of the participants interviewed had extensive experience with distance learning, having both previously taught an online course (using Internet relay chat, e-mail, and self-directed work), and participated as a student in online graduate coursework. The other participants, while limited in their actual experience with distance learning, were able to share examples of distance learning that they had heard of or witnessed. Some examples included (a) a clinical masters program offered online, with three face-to-face meetings (at the beginning, middle, and end of the program); (b) the use of videoconferencing in an organization to pull in experts from around the world for lectures; and (c) a graduate program that heavily uses ongoing discussion groups and e-mail.
Current usage of distance learning methods: Outside of face-to-face contact, participants currently used basic, simplistic methods to communicate with students outside of the classroom, including e-mail, phone and voice mail, fax, and mail. One participant had done some experimenting with the use of a scanner. None of the participants were currently using more sophisticated methods of information technology, such as web pages, chat rooms, discussion boards, teleconferencing, or videoconferencing, in their interactions with students.
Feasible methods: In order of frequency mentioned, participants suggested that they would be interested in using the following methods in their curriculum or work: (a) websites or discussion boards; (b) e-mail: (c) videoconferencing; and (d) chat rooms. Specifically, it was suggested that websites or discussion boards would potentially be useful for providing information and outside classroom discussion. E-mail would be used for continuous feedback, having students send in assignments, posting syllabi, and providing access to the professor outside of the classroom. Videoconferencing might be used for clinical supervision, and linking human resources internal to CSPP and external as well. Chat rooms might substitute for classroom discussion or reaction papers.
Feasible tasks: Participants suggested several tasks or purposes that they might use distance learning methods for in their interactions with students. In order of frequency mentioned, participants suggested they might accomplish the following through electronic interchanges: (a) receiving papers, assignments and giving feedback; (b) posting class readings; (c) providing general information (such as hot links, opportunities for funding, or useful databases); (d) providing course relevant information (for example, updates, scheduling changes, pre-class discussion questions and assignments; posting syllabi); (e) including more self-directed work or programmed learning; (f) giving exams online; and (g) making accessible expertise from scholars and people in industry.
Nonfeasible uses: By far, some of the most interesting discussion in the interviews centered around what participants felt would not be feasible using distance learning methods. Over half of the participants strongly believed that distance learning would not be appropriate for subjective, abstract, creative, and/or affective work. Sensitive issues were also seen as not appropriately shared through distance learning. Further, teamwork, collaboration, flow or intimacy was not best accomplished through information technology. Specific classroom activities such as processing cases or role-plays, where there is an emphasis on feedback and internal group dynamics, were seen as inappropriate for distance learning.
All of the clinical faculty felt that an intensive clinical, experiential, process-focused class would be most inappropriate conducted through distance learning methods. For example, one participant shared that in a clinical interviewing class "the chemistry of the transaction is not captured in electronics."
Earlier it was suggested that some faculty felt giving exams might be feasible through distance learning methods. However, there were other participants who felt academic assessment could not be achieved effectively through information technology. Questions raised included: How do you assess oral exams online?; How do you give class tests online?; How do you establish control to avoid cheating? How do you ensure that a body of material has actually been mastered?; How do you assess skills online? (perhaps one can assess knowledge, but assessment of skills poses a problem); How do you build in security systems so that issues discussed online remain confidential?
Previously,
it was mentioned that some faculty suggested chat rooms might be used as a
substitute for class discussions. On the other hand, there were other faculty
that felt distance learning methods would not be appropriate substitutes for lengthy class discussions.
Finally, it was suggested that establishing and maintaining relationships between faculty, staff, and students are critical and would be compromised somewhat if done solely through electronic interchanges. Distance learning should also not be a replacement for adjunct faculty.
Advantages, Disadvantages and Concerns: The major advantage of establishing distance learning at CSPP centered around accessibility. Distance learning was seen as a way to make the campus and its academic programs more accessible to students not living locally. The ability to recruit from outside the Los Angeles area would also be increased. Distance learning methods were also seen as a way to gain access to outside information, scholars, or industry professionals to enhance the classroom experience. We would be better able to leverage limited resources across the CSPP campus system, establish links with scholars from other universities, establish links with industry professionals, and provide more information to students through the use of various databases.
Distance learning was also seen as more convenient and cost-effective. Faculty suggested they could be more efficient by grading papers and doing more preparation work online. Distance learning would also free up face-to-face classroom time. Students are often overwhelmed with the amount of content that is covered during class time. If more content was delivered through distance learning methods, face-to-face classroom time could be used for more relaxed, advanced work.
Three disadvantages to establishing distance learning on campus were (a) less usage of available support resources; (b) lack of spontaneous interactions; and (c) missing out on the nonverbal aspect of communication. If students are not on campus regularly, they are less likely to "drop in" at the library. Library use would be more individual and self-directed. Students would also be less likely to have spontaneous interactions with faculty and other students. Lastly, communication would be mostly through one mode--text or the written word. Nonverbal behavior, such as body language, would not be accessible through most electronic forms of communication.
A series of concerns arose when we discussed moving into distance learning programs. The most frequently mentioned concern was the money it would take to develop and implement these programs. The key issue was how much money might be taken away from other equally important tasks and programs. Another fundamental concern was time. Faculty realized that these types of courses would require them to work more at home, which would necessitate more established boundaries. For example, when are faculty and staff to be accessible to students and when are they not? Another aspect was how easy it is to have one's time swallowed up online. As one participant shared in his reservations about distance learning, "it can mushroom into so much.”
One interesting concern centered around how moving into distance learning might impact the reputation of school. It was suggested that, as a professional school, we are already doing something different. If we move into distance learning as well, this might severely affect CSPP's reputation. Further, how does industry at large view degrees from distance learning programs? Are students that graduate with distance learning degrees viewed more negatively than those from more traditional programs? If so, this may also hamper the reputation of the school.
The last concern centered around the issue of confidentiality. This was previously seen as a concern when giving exams. Here, participants suggested that we need to consider the sensitive nature of communication that occurs in our classrooms. Many felt that e-mail was not a confidential mode of communication, and that the potential for individuals to "snoop" or reveal others identities was a threat.
Needed training and resources: Participants listed a variety of areas in which they would need training if distance learning was to be implemented. Technical training would be essential. In particular, participants suggested they would need assistance in how to construct a Web page, how to lead a discussion board, how to use videoconferencing, and general training in any needed software and/or hardware. Participants also desired course design assistance. Some suggested they wanted to experience a prototype distance learning course, to walk through such a course from beginning to end. Then, after such experiences, they wanted to learn how to design or modify a course to make it a successful through distance learning methods. Participants also wanted to be able to draw from others' experience using distance learning, to see what others have done. What has been successful and what has not?
Some participants suggested it would be beneficial to provide a better awareness of what distance learning means and the methods involved. One participant suggested, "I still don't quite understand what it means to be online with them (students)." General information on distance learning would include (a) when to use it and when not; and (b) the various types of electronic communication, the pitfalls and proficiencies of each, and how to sort through what kinds of learning experiences each medium is appropriate for.
Resources needed to implement distance learning at CSPP included (a) technical and administrative support, (b) adequate software and hardware, (c) sufficient money and time, and (d) a vision or strategy to guide the implementation. Over half of the participants suggested that technical and administrative support would be needed. This would involve hiring more personnel, specifically a technical instructor, individuals to assist in development, and various experts to help guide the distance learning effort. Faculty and staff strongly suggested the need for more staff to guide development and implementation of distance learning, as their current responsibilities severely limit the amount of time available for such an effort.
Nearly half of the participants suggested that adequate software and hardware would be essential for distance learning efforts to be effective. There was some concern that the campus might "not be ready" for the level of sophisticated technology that would be required. As suggested earlier, needed along with better technology, would be support and assistance in the use of this technology.
Technology costs money, and developing distance learning takes time. Examining whether the campus has sufficient money and time was seen as essential. Faculty need development time, and a budget needs to be in place to support this effort. The overall question raised was, "Does the institution have the technology, time, and money to support such an effort?"
Finally, a strong commitment is needed from top administrators within CSPP to support distance learning. Along with this commitment, an overriding vision and strategy needs to be developed to guide development and implementation.
Development and implementation issues: Two key suggestions with respect to development and implementation were--go slow, and do it right or let it go. Nearly half of the participants suggested that development and implementation should be done slowly, involving a study of what has been done previously, and allowing for time to pilot programs before implementation. One participant shared, "Let me sum it up. We need to proceed slowly and do it right. We don't need deadlines! Take our time and make sure we have everything we need." Doing it right involves making sure we have adequate resources, sufficient time and money, needed training, and proper course design. If these elements cannot be guaranteed, then participants felt we should let go of the development of distance learning programs.
Another important suggestion for development and implementation was to get stakeholders’ input. In particular, student input was viewed as critical. One participant explained, "We need to include students, take a read on what they want because they are partners in the learning process." Certain issues that faculty and staff anticipated would be important for students were: (a) accessibility to computers and the Internet; (b) accessibility to technical support; (c) varying levels of sophistication with computers; and (d) a general feeling of not getting their money's worth (from an online program). Participants stressed that all stakeholders need to get together to have an honest dialog about distance learning, realistically appraising the potential opportunities and limitations.
We concluded our discussions with participants asking them about their overall feelings about moving into distance learning. There was a sense of reserved excitement among some--"I'm excited but it needs to be done right," "I'm excited now but if it will take 10% more of my time, I'm not so excited," "I'm excited but also indifferent." In general, the overall feeling about moving into distance learning was one of caution and ambivalence. This caution and ambivalence emanated from the realization that this type of learning could significantly impact the way in which learning is delivered in the future, and the fact that the institution may not currently have sufficient resources (technology, time, and money) to effectively move in this direction.
Summary
We learned a great deal from our discussions with faculty and staff over the summer.
In summary, first the current usage of communication methods, aside from face-to-face, is mostly limited to e-mail, phone, and voice mail. Websites/discussion boards, e-mail and videoconferencing generated the most interest for future use. Second, distance learning methods are viewed as most feasible for providing general and course relevant information, and giving feedback to students. Distance learning methods are viewed as not feasible for subjective, abstract work, and clinical, experiential face-to-face classroom interactions. Third, in order for distance learning to work, we would need adequate software and hardware, technical training and support, course design assistance, sufficient money and time, and an overall vision and strategy to guide development and implementation. Fourth, "cautious" summarizes the overall feeling of participants on moving into distance learning. Development and implementation should be slow, and done right or not done at all.
Initial Explorations of Other Institution's Experiences
We were able to contact five institutions which lead to the understanding of a variety of learning platforms, advantages to distance learning and disadvantages to distance learning. We used several methods in collecting our data: phone, the internet, and E-mail. There were some problems in contacting educational institutions and professors because of the summer schedule; this part of the investigation will also continue through the following year.
Five graduate schools who have online program of some sort were contacted
Fielding Institute
Colorado State University
Thomas Edison State College
University of Baltimore
Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute
Current Technologies
The online learning platforms that were most commonly used are:
Discussion forums (text-based): The forum was used specifically for addressing specific questions, items of common interest, and quizzes.
E-mail: This method was commonly used by most institutions for both traditional learning and distance learning.
Phone Conferences: This was also used in the traditional learning environment. In the distance learning environment, it was used for clarification and feedback.
Face-to-Face: Most of the institutions used a "dual model" or "multi-model" learning method, integrating in-class sessions with other computer methods.
Real-Time conferencing: This is typically implemented through Chat-rooms. The professors would set a specific time for students to interact within real time. These seem to have mixed effects; students who would talk in class sometimes talk less in the chat. However, some reported just the opposite.
Document sharing: Students and/or professors would put up a piece of work for the class to review and make comments regarding the subject matter or presentation of the work.
Videoconferencing: This method was used to bring faces to the students. However, currently only a few schools are using this method.
Message boards: These are used to post updates for assignment changes, dates, etc.
Advantages and Disadvantages of
distance learning
It creates flexibility. It increases the skill level for online computer applications.
It also creates a wider base of knowledge for new delivery systems. However, the participants/students may come to the class with different online skills. The
personal interaction could get lost, however; this is why the dual model was so
popular. Students who participate in an online course require a great deal of
self drive and motivation.
The New On-Line Course Prototype
A central focus of the project is the development and preparation for implementation of the prototype on-line course in Organizational Communications. This class was selected for several reasons. First, it is a relatively new course, having been offered only once before, and thus was ready for some major tinkering anyway. Second, it is a G-2 class, and all the current OP G-2’s have had extensive Internet experience, thus reducing the need for student training before going into the on-line mode. Third, there is an interesting reflexive quality to having a course on communications itself employ new communications technologies; it provides an opportunity to experience the effects of new tools while learning about them and participating in their evaluation.
We determined at the start that at least three face-to-face sessions would be needed – one each at the beginning (to introduce course tools), the middle (to process how people were reacting to it), and the end (to assess the outcomes).[1] If the course is eventually moved into an entirely on-line mode, such as a joint offering across campuses, these procedures will obviously have to be modified. But at the experimental stage, it was judged impractical to dispense with face-to-face interaction altogether.
Information Tools
The course is designed to employ a range of information tools, like those reported as used in other settings. In addition to the occasional in-person class, the following are employed:
·�
Email / Listserv: A moderated listserv using an account at
Hotmail (orgcommo@hotmail.com), used
to distribute announcements, call attention of students to the need to check
in, and to allow student-to-student interaction in a group setting where
needed.
·�
Posted materials for
review -- collaborative analysis / comments:
Readings prepared for on-line review, employing a group format for
review and comment (see below).
·�
Ongoing threaded
discussions: Using a Dialogue Board
operated on the CSPP Intranet server (the Board can be accessed at http://w3.cspp.edu/internal/la/op/eveland/wwwboard/index2.html),
this board facilitates ongoing discussions on particular topics.
·�
Group projects with
shared information spaces: This part of the technology is still evolving.
·�
Weekly Chat
sessions: Using (for the moment) private
chat rooms on an IRC server (EFNet); eventually we hope to set up a private
Intranet-based chat server.
·�
NetMeeting shared
workspace /collaboration tool: This is likewise unimplemented as yet, but we
plan to move into it soon.
Course Structure
The
course is organized into eight general sections referred to as “chunks”. They are of varying importance. To assess this importance, roughly
corresponding to the amount of time and energy we expect the students to put
into the process, we assigned “units” of arbitrary weight. Figuring that for a two-unit course students
would generally be expected to invest about 3-4 hours per week over a 14-week
term, we arrived at a total of 50 available units. These were allocated among the chunks as
follows:
·�
Interpersonal
communication 9
·�
Organizational
structure and communication 9
·�
Technology and media 6
·�
Architecture and
physical spaces 3
·�
Conflict management 4
·�
Network properties and
analysis 10
·�
Telecommuting 3
·�
Research dimensions of
communication 6
Three
units correspond very roughly to a week in the calendar. However, given the fact that the class is not
chained to a fixed amount of time per week, the activities in a given chunk can
be accomplished faster or slower, according to the students’ inclinations.
The plan is that each chunk will feature at a minimum three
interrelated features:
Selected readings, analyzed and synopsized (see below)
An on-line exercise or group project
At least one interactive chat session
Exactly what goes into each of
these is still under development.
Detailed planning for all sections of the course is impractical in such
an experimental environment; we are still trying to determine how the different
features work or fail to work.
The plan
is to process the readings using an interactive procedure adapted from a course
taught on-line by Dr. Joseph Walther of Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute. Essentially, this procedure calls for
assigning the students to different roles – some to prepare straight summaries
of the material, some to criticize it, and some to develop a “synopsis” based
on this input. The material is then
shared on-line as a basis for discussion.[2] The procedure may be modified as the course
proceeds; after one iteration (as of September 15), the core is correct,
although some specific instructions may need changing.
Course Management – The Web
Pages
The
central management tool for the course is its Web Home page with attendant
links.[3] The front page for the course is shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Course
Home Page
All other
pages have the same general “look and feel”.
The other pages include:
Info.htm: General course
information, description, schedule, and readings – the same items included in a
conventional course syllabus.
Notes.htm: The “Notes and
Assignments” page, where we post downloadable notes and links to other specific
resources, and assignments that the students are asked to carry out.[4]
Links.htm: The “Hot Links” Page, where we post links of
general interest and utility. It
included a form for the students to submit new links to the instructor for
posting.
The Home Page also includes ways to contact both the instructor and the listserv, a link to the Dialog Board, a “Current Topic” block where the nature of the key questions involved in the current chunk are posted, and, perhaps most important, the “Bulletins” block, where students are alerted to the latest course information and requirements.[5] In general, the Home Page is the centerpiece of the organization of the course. It gets changed almost every day in some way, partly out of necessity, partly to keep the students’ interest engaged.
The Dialogue Board provides, as we have noted, a facility for threaded discussions on various topics. It uses software maintained by the CSPP Central IT staff, although local management of the material included is in the hands of the instructor. Figure 2 shows the front-end structure of this Board.
Figure 2: The Dialogue Board
Figure 3 shows the “posting” facility of the Board. Entry of new messages takes place on the index page; responses to particular posts are made on the page with the individual post. Messages are posted to the Board immediately, so that there is no necessary delay between the time a point is made and when it can be responded to, other than that introduced by the fact that people log into it at irregular hours.
Figure 3: The Posting Facility
Chat
The main tool used for real-time interactions (apart from occasional one-on-one conversations in the halls) is on-line chat. At present, we are using Internet Relay Chat (IRC), a public free resource accessible through a number of different public servers. We have chosen to use EFNet, one of the larger IRC servers, as our host. To access IRC, students can use any IRC client program; we recommend mIRC, a shareware program that is both readily available and easy to use. Figure 4 shows a typical mIRC screen in mid-chat.
Figure 4: mIRC Chat screen
Using IRC effectively is not intuitive; it is, rather, an acquired skill that takes practice. It is possible to carry on several conversations at once, moving back and forth between them. But this can be difficult for newcomers to master quickly. We had two practice rounds of chat before attempting the first substantive discussion. The software allows conversations to be recorded in a log. Each of our chat rounds has been archived and a transcript posted to the Web site for review. It is clear that it is a useful tool, as part of the rest of the course, but continued practice is indicated.
Time and Effort
One point made by almost all analysts of DL is that it is labor-intensive; implementing it effectively takes more time and energy invested on the part of the instructor, and really the students, than does a conventional class. Even with a WYSIWYG HTML editor, Web pages do not compose themselves. Once the basic template was prepared, it was not too complicated to put up the first set of pages. However, the Web site takes constant maintenance, requiring access at least once per day, sometimes more often. The listserv has to be checked at least 2-3 times per day to ensure that it responds rapidly to postings. Scanning materials for posting is also time-consuming. In addition, we are also using extensive Web support for the G-1 Internet course; while maintaining this is less intensive than maintaining the communications course, it still takes several hours per week. All told, we are probably spending 2-3 hours per day dealing with the course in various ways. With more experience, this may become less burdensome. We hope.
Evaluation
It is particularly important that this experiment be carefully evaluated, both formatively (during its operation) and summatively (after it is completed). The evaluation component is being worked out with one of the students in the class, who is making this evaluation the subject of her second-year research project in a participant-observation study, supplemented with other kinds of data. The basic criteria for the evaluation include, among others:
Student
learning -- to what degree was the material taught effectively learned?
Student
satisfaction -- to what degree did students find the experience effective and
enjoyable?
Costs
-- how much time and energy is consumed in the DL process itself, compared to
more conventional approaches?
Unforeseen
benefits -- are there any benefits that emerged serendipitously from the DL
experience?
At the conclusion of the project in December, we will make available to the community an update to this report containing the results of the initial evaluation and the lessons learned.
Conclusions
So where do we go from here? A fundamental next step is to continue our efforts in needs assessment, encouraging an honest dialog centered around whether CSPP-LA, in its current financial crisis, can muster the needed resources to support distance learning programs. We also need to include students in our needs assessment efforts. What are their thoughts on moving in this direction? We need to continue exploring what others are doing as well. What can we learn from others? How might we make our programs unique? What kind of a niche can CSPP carve for itself in the distance learning arena?
One recommendation we offer to assist in the transition to distance learning is to begin by viewing distance learning as a way to complement, rather than replace, current methods of instruction. Distance learning can be used in many forms: (a) entire courses can be taught online; (b) courses can incorporate a certain number of face-to-face sessions in conjunction with the use of electronic forms of communication; or (c) distance learning methods can be used to supplement regular, face-to-face courses, allowing for outside discussion and feedback.
Another recommendation is to realize that there is no "right" way to incorporate distance learning into our curriculum and work. Although we can learn from the experiences of others, we suggest course design (or redesign) should be individualized. In other words, the degree of use of distance learning methods should suit the content of a particular course and teaching style of a particular instructor.
Lastly, we realize that time and money are essential elements needed to implement a distance learning effort. However, we do currently have access to some of the more basic information technology tools--e-mail, discussion boards, phone, fax, and snail mail. Perhaps even with these basic forms of technology, we can begin experimenting with distance learning. We agree that development and implementation should be slow and done right. We also realize the only way to begin -- is TO BEGIN!
References
Goldstein, I. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (3rd edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
APPENDIX A
Reading Analysis Procedures
Given that much of this class will not feature face-to-face interaction, we need a mechanism to maintain a collaborative spirit among class members. Part of this collaboration will be in the form of pooled reviews and analyses of assigned reading materials. For each "chunk", you will be assigned some readings, and the role of writing responses to that reading as part of a collaborative report. These assignments will be made as the course proceeds.
A. Reviews, Critiques, Synopses Some weeks you may be assigned to write a review, a critique, or a collaborative synopsis. JD will make the assignments, and he'll let you know about them as soon as he can. When this is your assignment, here is what you must do. Students submit a review or critique message via e-mail to a team of 2 or 3 "coordinators." Coordinators share responsibility for collection, synthesis, and distribution of synopses to the class. All reviews and critiques assigned are to be e-mailed directly to the coordinators for that chunk, as well as copied to JD for inspection and record-keeping. Deadlines for review and critique submissions will be established when the assignment of roles is made.
B. When you are assigned to do a "review": Read the assigned materials and prepare your analysis to be sent to the coordinators. A "review" message contains:
The word, "Review," in the subject
line of the message.
Author
and Title of reading (abbreviated).
Discussion
of the following questions: What are
the 2 or 3 most important points in the reading? Why? How are they supported? What is
learned from them? How can they inform
our study of organizational communication, at what level, if at all?
A good review does not stop at the first three major points in the reading, but identifies the three key points from a thorough reading of the complete source. It may contain specific quotations, etc., as support. Review messages are to be sent to specified coordinators, and to JD.
C. When you are assigned to do a "critique": As with a review, read the materials and send your analysis to the coordinators. A "critique" message contains:
The
word, "Critique," in the subject line of the message.
Author
and Title of reading (abbreviated).
Discussion
of the following questions: What are
the 2 or 3 things wrong or weak with regard to the claims offered or conclusions drawn? What are potential antitheses? What needs
to be known or shown to resolve the issues?
Where should this research or analysis go?
A good critique message goes beyond criticizing the writing style. It reflects a thoughtful skepticism reflecting having examined issues from all sides. A really impressive critique may even draw carefully from other class readings! Critique messages are to be sent to coordinators, and to JD.
D. When you are assigned to be a "Coordinator": Coordinators work cooperatively together to write one synopsis of a reading assignment from the reviews and critiques, and distribute them to the class. Synopses include the name and authors of the article(s). They compile and condense reviews and critiques so as to reduce duplication (while noting frequency of ideas), and organize comments. In their editorial duties coordinators may not omit vague interpretations, although they are free to correspond with submitters for clarification. Coordinators are expected to add their own perspective. Beyond that, good synopses credit their contributors. They do not just cut & paste contributions, but weave them together. Great synopses are not divided into two sections (of reviews and critiques), but form a stylistic and editorial whole.
E. Non-structured Reading Report Groups As an alternative to the assignment of review-critique-coordinate roles, students may be assigned to a group which will have no particular a priori roles or interim deadlines. These groups are also charged with developing synopses, just as the ones described immediately above. However, they are free to determine their own procedures and timelines for generating the synopsis. The most important thing in Reading Reports is that they educate us and provide a thorough basis for discussion in some format. Through them JD can tell what you learned, didn’t learn, or mis-apprehended, then use interaction to revise and expand on the topic. While not a substitute for reading each assignment individually, students are expected to read the synopses prior to the class meeting at which they are discussed.
Appendix B
Copies of Core Web Pages for Organizational Communication Class
Current as of 9/30/98