The Design Phase

Introduction

Having analysed the users, environment and possible content of the courses for academic staff involved in course conversion and tutoring online, this discussion focuses on the course design and development.

Reading some of the recommended literature and other resources, I am clearer about the approach to the course design that I believe will make the course useful and relevant. In particular, the audience need an approach that is both andragogically sound as well as practical and applicable to their daily teaching. The instructional design theories set out by Jonassen (2005) were very useful in giving some variety to the approaches. I particularly liked his ideas about the ‘Constructivist Learning Environment’, which seemed to embrace a variety and mix of qualities that should lead to engaging and meaningful learning.

Downes (2005) extends this further by suggesting that teaching (and learning) do not really take place through lecturing and demonstrating but through “the creation of an environment into which the learner is immersed”. Siemans (2004) introduces ‘Connectivism’ which sees learning no longer as an internal or individualized activity, but the ability to plug into our internal and external networks, so we learn what we need for tomorrow rather than relying on what we know today.

Crawley (2004), suggests that many teachers in higher education are “ill prepared, practically and psychologically, to embrace and utilize e-learning, and often unconvinced of its value in their teaching.” Many faculty have reluctantly entered the e-learning arena because their institution or department have installed a learning management system and they are expected to use it. From my observations in my own institution, the LMS is used primarily as a website from which students can download lecture notes. Schlusmans et al (2004) argue that although e-learning can radically change the outlook of education, a radical change requires more than using email and Powerpoint presentations on the web, but “a complete rethinking of the educational system.” These are some of the challenges we face in our university as well as in our School.

The Design

The drivers at our School for the utilization of eLearning are at the moment practical rather than pedagogical. The challenge is moving staff from using technology for storing and disseminating course notes to using collaborative discussion tools and other communication devices. At our annual staff retreat in August, we considered the impact of larger student numbers, more subjects/courses in a broader curriculum, as well as the move from 3-year to 4-year degree programmes. We discussed the need to find ways to use technology in teaching to help with both the quantity issues and the need to enhance teaching and learning quality. During further discussion with individual staff, there was some concern expressed about the use of technology, the practical issues as well as the expectations of students.

Staff generally felt that they did not know how to use the LMS, to work as an online tutor or to develop eLearning materials. Therefore one of the priorities is to provide staff development in these areas. One of the ways to try to overcome staff reluctance to attempt eLearning was to introduce a new user-friendly learning platform and help staff and students use it. (The major barrier found to using technology in teaching was the unfriendliness of the PolyU LMS - WebCT 4.1). In late August we introduced “Moodle”, an open source course management system based on the social constructionist approach to online learning design. We had already provided an introduction to teaching staff, through a series of demonstration sessions in the summer. We then set up a number of subject areas and ‘enrolled’ students.

Progress in the first four weeks of the semester has been good. Seven staff are now offering courses hosted on Moodle, and so far 480 students have self-enrolled for 13 subjects.

The design of the proposed programme follows:

Course Title: Online Teaching Toolbox

Overall aim: To develop teachers’ skills so that they are confident to offer more online teaching methods

Course objectives:

1. To enable teachers to provide a stimulating virtual learning environment for students
2. To enable teachers to adapt or redesign their courses for online delivery
3. To enable teaching staff to use the tools available on the LMS to facilitate students’ learning

Supporting Standards

• Referenced to standards in online design and tutoring (European e-learning and IMS Standards)
• Referenced to other academic institutions
• Adapted to Asian/Hong Kong/ Chinese culture & learning traditions
• Taking account of hospitality and tourism programmes overseas.

Target Learners

• Academics in the School of HTM at Hong Kong PolyU
• Teaching assistants and other who have teaching responsibilities
• Course designers

Teaching & Learning Methods

Key strategies will include:

1. One-to-one coaching
2. Classroom demonstration
3. Hands-on workshops
4. Online coaching and collaboration
5. Online simulations

Design Approach
The design of the courses should be:

• Modular – units should be designed as reusable learning objects or RIO’s
• Flexible – units can be studied when it is convenient to staff
• Units should be able to be completed in 15-20 minutes.
• The pathway should be random not linear.
• Applied, but with a sound pedagogical base to underpin each unit.

Short interrelated topics will be developed that can be clustered according to staff needs and requirements. For example, a communication tools cluster, a course conversion cluster etc. There will be a core of key units that underpin the philosophy and pedagogy of the whole course, and these should be completed by all staff. However, because the courses will be designed primarily as online units, with the option of face-to-face sessions, they could be accessed in a random manner and teachers could opt for their own menu of units. (See Project Proposal for details of units).

Assessment Strategies

No formal assessment will occur. However, formative assessment, using feedback and providing on-line help will be available.

Evaluation

Evaluation should be ongoing. The course should make adjustments and respond to participants’ needs and concerns rather than a fixed agenda. Feedback should be incorporated into version two of the course. The course will be offered on an ongoing basis to accommodate teachers’ schedules and needs.

Conclusion

The courses above should be able to be developed using a constructivist approach, and using a mix of media. The courses will scheduled, but individual units will be available on a roll-on, roll-off basis. It may be possible to reproduce all the units (including classroom sessions) as online learning objects, to include demonstration and simulation.

References

Downes, S. (2005, Jul 1). Are the basics of instructional design changing?. Message posted to Stephen's Web, archived at http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=6 Retrieved on 18 September 2005

Siemans, G. (2004, Dec 13). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Message posted to elearningspace, archived at http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/archives/001874.html Retrieved on 17 Sep 2005.

Jonassen, D. (n.d.). Welcome to the design of constructivist learning environments(cles). Retrieved Sep. 18, 2005, from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/

Crawley.J, Shrouded in the mists of someone else’s vision – Teachers using Learning Technology in Post Compulsory Education, Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. September 2004, Retrieved Sep 18, 2005 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003709.htm

Schlusmans, K.H.L.R., Koper, E.J.R., Glesbertz, W.J., Integrated eLearning, Chapter 9, Work processes for the development of integrated eLearning courses. (pp 126-138). London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003. Chapter retrieved Sep 20, 2005 from http://dspace.ou.nl/retrieve/99/workprocesses.pdf