Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Summer Online Courses Summer Online Courses
A Distance Learning Alternative for Traditional Campuses
North East Regional Computing Program Annual Conference
(NERCOMP)
Boston Massachusetts
March 18, 2003
Copyright Center for Instructional Technology, 2003. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
2
NERCOMP March, 2003
Who we areWho we are
Sarah ChevertonManager of Faculty Development Services
Jim MazouéDistance Learning Coordinator
3
NERCOMP March, 2003
JMU Institutional ProfileJMU Institutional Profile Primarily residential, rural
campus Total Enrollment: 15K
Undergraduate Enrollment: 14K Grad enrollment: 1K
Undergraduates Full-time: 94% 25 yrs. or older: 2%
4
NERCOMP March, 2003
Distance Learning ProfileDistance Learning Profile 30 online courses 600 students
85% graduate level, continuing education, off-campus
Online graduate degree programs: MBA in Information Security CS in Information Security
Online Certificate program: Workforce Development
5
NERCOMP March, 2003
Rationale for 2002 PilotRationale for 2002 Pilot Determine the need for and feasibility of offering
summer online courses Provide flexible and convenient course options
Serve strategic institutional goals Alleviate enrollment pressures
Encourage faculty development and technology integration Provide professional development
opportunities
6
NERCOMP March, 2003
Project PlanningProject Planning Staffed and funded by the Center for
Instructional Technology (Educational Technologies)
Selection process focused on GenEd courses Faculty stipends: $2,500 Pre/Post-Course Assessment Surveys Faculty Course Evaluation
7
NERCOMP March, 2003
Course DescriptionCourse Description
Selected 2 sections of GWRIT 102 (general writing)
4-week course (usually 15 weeks) 2 different instructors 24 students All returning students
8
NERCOMP March, 2003
Project PlanningProject Planning
Instructional Technologist consultation with instructors Assist instructor in creating detailed
instructions for assignments Create online discussion forums Provide guidelines for general communication
strategies
9
NERCOMP March, 2003
Student Orientation Characteristics of Online Learning Technical Support Using Blackboard Using Centra Symposium
Project PlanningProject Planning
10
NERCOMP March, 2003
Findings:Findings:Pre-Course Survey of StudentsPre-Course Survey of Students
Student demographics Most in-state but not in Harrisonburg Half used modem connection
Reasons for taking the course Flexible “class time” Prefer JMU courses Avoid transfer credit
Perception of preparedness Most felt prepared
11
NERCOMP March, 2003
Findings:Findings:Post-Course Survey of Students Post-Course Survey of Students Student satisfactionStudent satisfaction
Flexible “class time” Opportunity to complete coursework
during summer Well-defined weekly schedule Detailed instructions Ability to submit assignments online Ability to contribute through a
discussion board
The course helped me better understand the course material
93%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
I would recommend this course to others
100%
0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
I would recommend this instructor to others
100%
0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
Overall, regarding this course, I have been
43% 43%
14%
0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Very Satisf ied
Somew hat Satisf ied
Somew hat Dissatisf ied
Very Dissatisf ied
N=24
16
NERCOMP March, 2003
Time management/fast paced course Lack of immediate feedback and clarification Scheduling conflicts for group work Difficulty coordinating group work Requires more self-discipline
Findings:Findings:Post-Course Survey of Students Post-Course Survey of Students Student ConcernsStudent Concerns
17
NERCOMP March, 2003
Findings: Findings: Post-Course Instructor Evaluation (N=1) Post-Course Instructor Evaluation (N=1) Instructor satisfactionInstructor satisfaction
Well-defined weekly schedules Using technology in a new way Formalizing the instructional process
18
NERCOMP March, 2003
Students not meeting deadlines Lack of immediate feedback and
contact/feeling of detachment Lack of face-to-face interaction
Findings: Findings: Post-Course Instructor Evaluation Post-Course Instructor Evaluation Instructor concernsInstructor concerns
The technology was appropriate for performing the tasks required
100%
0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
The technology used enabled me to communicate effectively w ith my instructor
79%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
The technology used enabled me to communicate effectivelywith other students
71%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Per
cen
t
Agree
Disagree
N=24
22
NERCOMP March, 2003
Time management/fast paced course Lack of immediate feedback and clarification Scheduling conflicts for group work Difficulty coordinating group work Requires more self-discipline
Findings:Findings:Post-Course Survey of Students Post-Course Survey of Students Student ConcernsStudent Concerns
23
NERCOMP March, 2003
ConclusionsConclusions Students found this to be valuable learning
experience Technology not a barrier to learning, but, as
used, challenged effective communication Course Design significant contribution to time-
management and communication issues Too short for type of course Group-work approach presented challenges
in coordination
24
NERCOMP March, 2003
RecommendationsRecommendations Link compensation to a structured process of
instructional design and faculty development Provide faculty development opportunities Improve planning Extend course duration Limit Add and Drop activity Provide a student orientation Improve communication
25
NERCOMP March, 2003
2003 Faculty Summer Online 2003 Faculty Summer Online Course Development InstituteCourse Development Institute Planning
Academic Council Funding for cohort of 10 faculty $2000 stipend Applications solicited through RFP process Selection committee Proposal selection criteria
26
NERCOMP March, 2003
Proposal Selection CriteriaProposal Selection Criteria Quality of the proposal Impact on students’ curricular needs Applicant’s interest in and commitment to online
teaching Support from the applicant’s department Sustainability of the proposal Potential to benefit teaching and
learning
27
NERCOMP March, 2003
Administrative IssuesAdministrative Issues
Competing with enrollments in Fall and Spring courses
Tuition rates Set at in-state/out-of-state rates
Course size Left to the discretion of individual
departments and instructors
28
NERCOMP March, 2003
Institute Participants required to: Institute Participants required to: Participate in a structured series of workshops,
project work and discussions Receive approval from their academic unit and
college to teach during the summer Develop and teach an online course twice Participate in an evaluation of the course Showcase their work in a peer
workshop
29
NERCOMP March, 2003
Workshop TopicsWorkshop Topics Preparing and planning to teach an online course Course management Learner characteristics Teaching and learning strategies Assessment strategies Interactive learning Creating learning objects and modules Streaming audio and video Accessing digital library resources Copyright and ADA compliance
30
NERCOMP March, 2003
Talking PointsTalking Points
Identify needs Student needs Faculty needs Institutional Needs
Transitioning to online course delivery Flexibility versus structure Costs
31
NERCOMP March, 2003
Contact InformationContact Information
Jim Mazoué[email protected] 540.568.7061
http://cit.jmu.edu/osi
Summer Online Courses Summer Online Courses
A Distance Learning Alternative for Traditional Campuses
North East Regional Computing Program Annual Conference
(NERCOMP)
Boston Massachusetts
March 18, 2003
Copyright Center for Instructional Technology, 2003. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
