Module 4: Designing and Delivering DE using Technology (Week 6)

Module 4: Designing and Delivering DE using Technology (Week 6)

Classroom discussions this week brought out an important point that while DE course design and development focuses around a concept of a team of experts (Moore & Kearsley, 2012), that such teams can be just as beneficial when designing and developing more traditional face-to-face (F2F) courses. Reid, Dooley, Maybee, and Nelson (2015) from Purdue University have acknowledged this fact and have developed an Interactive Course Re/Design (ICD) Model that allows faculty to become more aware of the complexities of course design and development.  Additionally, the model provides faculty with access to various support professionals to aide them when designing/redesigning courses.  While this model may not replace a full ISD team that is found in DE, it does go a long way toward providing similar resources for traditional F2F faculty members.

Another topic of discussion this week addressed the importance of maximizing student interaction and participation in both DE & F2F courses.  While DE course design and development is driven to meticulous planning efforts in this area, F2F teachers have more freedom to adapt their teaching methods “on the fly” to increase class participation.  This doesn’t mean that DE teachers cannot adjust their teaching methods during a course; however, due to the asynchronous nature of DE discussions, there are inherent delays in the conversation.  Additionally, the lack of feedback mechanisms can create miscommunication between sender and receiver.

References:

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

Reid, P., Dooley, F. Maybee, C. and Nelson, D. (2015). Purdue university information technology: Interactive course re/design for higher education instructors [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.itap.purdue.edu/learning/cdm/

Larry's Reflections on Module 4: Designing and Delivering DE Using Technology

Module 4: Designing and Delivering DE using Technology (Week's 4-5)

As I look back over the reading and discussions from this module, there is no question in my mind that technology plays a fundamental role in the design and delivery of distance education curriculum, especially for online courses.  During our class discussions we talked about the issue of everyone having access to the technology; but access to technology that works is even more important.  The best course design and development will be de-railed quickly if the website is easily overloaded and slows down, susceptible to viruses, does not work well with multiple types of software, or crashes constantly.  Having reliable, redundant, and compatible technology should be the first issue of concern.

Other issues warranting attention by instructional designers and faculty include how the course appears to the students and faculty within the learning management system.  Course designers should ensure there is a uniform fit and feel.  Students (and faculty) shouldn’t have to feel like they are starting over each time they take a new course.  Other issues include identifying specific learning objectives/content and how technology can be used to enhance content and student learning.  Another concern is identifying the time requirements of assignments/projects for the students and faculty and ensuring there is enough course time present to complete them.  Finally, concerns over the handling and management of group projects, conflict, and assessments/evaluations must be considered before designing and developing a distance education course.

Probable one of the most important concerns for course designers and developers is being able to create a “sense of community” and “presence” in the virtual classroom.  This applies equally to both students and faculty.  Since there is no physical presence in distance education, Web 2.0 technologies such as discussion boards, blogs, wikis, and social networking tools can be integrated into the curriculum to help overcome the challenges associated with community and presence.  According to Collins, Weber, Zambrano (2014) it is critical for students to know and feel that there is a real professor teaching the course and he/she is available and responsive to the students.

Reference:

Collins, D., Weber, J., & Zambrano, R. (2014). Teaching business ethics online: Perspectives on course design, delivery, student engagement, and assessment. Journal Of Business Ethics, 125(3), 513-529. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1932-7

Larry's Reflections on Module 3

Module 3: Web 2.0 Technologies for DE (Week's 3-4)

During the past two weeks I've come to appreciate the user-friendliness and accessibility of various Web 2.0 technologies offered up by Google.  Not only is this blog being hosted by Google Blogger; but, I have an ePortfolio hosted on Google Sites and have been using Google Docs to collaborate on a spreadsheet project in another course.  Each of these Web 2.0 technologies were surprisingly intuitive and offered relatively easy to understand help functions within their site menus.  Admittedly, there was some trial and error involved with each; however, I was able to meet objective requirements without too many problems.

Until enrolling in OMDE 601 & 603 this semester, the extent of my social networking ability rested primarily within FaceBook.  While I do have accounts in LinkedIn, Instagram, and Snapchat I've rarely used these applications to communicate with others.  Additionally, my OMDE 601 course has introduced me to another Web 2.0 technology, Twitter, and I am learning how to use this application along with the others mentioned above.

As I work through learning how to function within all of these Web 2.0 technologies, I find myself understanding how easy it could be for these technologies to transform from a helpful educational tool to a distraction to effective learning.  While I find the "exposure" to each them quite interesting, I am also a bit overwhelmed with having to bounce in-between the applications in order to meet course objectives.  In other words, I feel like the technology has taken over as a result of "over exposure".

While I have chosen to use the various Web 2.0 technologies offered by Google, the available options and providers are seemingly endless.  Course designers and developers must be cautious when integrating Web 2.0 technologies into course curriculum to ensure they serve a useful purpose for effective learning.

In closing this blog post, I offer the following short scholarly article by Gabriella Grosseck published for the 2009 World Conference on Educational Sciences:


To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042809000895