![]()
|
Abstract |
|
![]() |
1. Introduction |
|
![]() |
![]() Like most universities, we do have a few distance learning initiatives on campus. Distance education and online learning are touted as economically sound and convenient (Noble 99). According to Harris, there are three powerful reasons why Internet-based distance education is proliferating in the US. First, he notes that since the technology is available, the need is evident; second, online education is an important financial market for universities; and third, access to education is enhanced and opportunities are expanded from a political point of view through distance learning opportunities (Harris 99). David Noble's thoughts on the "Digital Diploma Mills" and his series of online instruction and the commercialization of higher education criticize the economical soundness of distance education, and the debate rages on about faculty job futures, technological takeover, and the commercialization of higher education (Noble 99). |
|
![]() |
![]() The quality of education in the trend towards online education interests me more the political reasons behind this shift. I teach courses in UB's Department of Media Study. Course size is generally under 25 students per class, and in-class interaction tends to be high. Students, parents, and other educators frequently have overlapping concerns about the use of courseware in higher education, and generally ask four types of questions about courseware use: 1. How do you choose the package? With so many pieces of courseware out there, in addition to textbook publisher’s efforts to make web/texts, how do you find the technology solution to meet your needs? 2. How do you decide which tasks to assign in the courseware? What are your needs with the courseware? What is the benefit of using the technology for particular tasks? 3. How will students learn to use it, especially if they are not computer literate? Will students from non-privileged backgrounds suffer from the introduction of courseware into the curriculum? 4. Why will using the courseware help students learn in the course? Will the technology obscure the real content of the course? These questions are realistic and valid concerns in response to the sometimes-mystifying push for technology in the classroom that has infiltrated most colleges and universities. How can the software designer, the interface designer, the learning community, and the instructor address these concerns? How can the decisions used to address the technology use in and out of the classroom be adequately assessed? In this paper, I demonstrate how I answered these concerns for both "in person" courses and distance learning courses through the implementation of custom courseware called "IOS: Interactive Online Seminars." The advanced level seminar has been ignored by massive software development efforts because of the specialized needs of the course types (institutions often want large introductory courses online first) and cost justification for creating such specialized software. In addition, seminars going online are often assumed to be accommodated through web sites and email between the student and instructor (Flanagan and Egert 98). |
|
![]() |
![]() IOS consists of two applications: an administrative component and a student component. The administrative component is a database application that allows a class instructor to create record entries for courses, students, and projects. The administrative application can monitor the progress of a student in a class by reporting on the current submission status of the student work, monitor the level of participation within the comment area, and track the student’s usage patterns within the system. The instructor uses the administrative application to dynamically change information about the class, such as adding or deleting assignments, changing due dates, and locking student work as examples for future classes. Finally, the administrative system is responsible for maintaining a file structure capable of storing student submissions and criticizing text. The second half of the IOS system is the web-based student interface. The web approach was chosen since it offered the flexibility for cross-platform operation and for student submission of their work from both school and home. The IOS system utilizes Java Servlets (Davidson 99), which can be best described as server-side applets, for most system tasks. Servlets are responsible for accessing database information and for dynamically generating HTML content so the user is free from the FTP process--the servlets are responsible for facilitating the upload. When a student participates in an IOS session, he or she is presented with a link-based navigational interface that allows for the selection of a course, student, and project. These navigation pages are dynamically generated by the servlets. When the student visits a project area, the interface appears as several frames which allow different areas for menu items, multimedia content, and text-based comments and discussions. The student then has the option to browse, post a comment, or submit multimedia content. The system is password protected so that only class participants can post comments, and only the owner of a particular page can submit content in his or her own area. All student comments are tagged with the poster’s name and the time of posting on the server so the instructor can monitor use of the pages and events such as multiple postings by a single student, the time of posting, etc. How does this system measure up? Compared to Web CT, TopClass, and others like them, IOS is certainly limited in its features. Yet it is limited due to the needs of the seminar style course. Packages such as Top Class, for example, incorporate many valuable features, but most of these features are not useful to enhance seminar style learning and interaction. One such feature is the multiple choice test function and automatic test grading. |
|
![]() |
![]() In response to the first problem, the growth issues inherent in the system, the interface elements used to track the status of individual work and mechanisms to enforce equity in the comment process had to be developed. In order to provide stronger feedback mechanisms, the interface incorporates two-part indicators in the project mode to indicate the submission status of a project. The first indicator reflects submission changes on the system. A class participant can view project participants, for example, and determine who has submitted new work and when. The second indicator is a student self-assessment. The student is able to provide commentary and an indication of the state of his or her work. By means of these two indicators, one can quickly access each class member's progress. The visual indicators are incorporated into the interface to allow quick access to work that has changed. To address the potential for inequitable participation using the courseware, a measurement system was implemented. Although it would be desirable for students to comment on every piece of work, this is not often feasible in larger classes. To create balance, a comment requirement was added to the system. The comment requirement manager, housed in the administration section of the system, allows the instructor to detail the number of comments expected of each student per project. When this requirement is set, the system generates a list of participants per student for which he or she will have to comment. Status of both submission changes and student self-assessment is represented graphically. Students can comment as much as they wish once they have met the instructor-generated quota. |
|
![]() |
6. Learning to Learn
in a New Format One approach is by introducing them to courseware as a supplement to an existing in person course. Once a student has been introduced to the concept of courseware with a mentor and has worked through the process himself or her self, the student rarely continues to have trouble. One preventative measure, both in distance and in person courses, is to assign each student a "techPartner" so that there is always someone technologically savvy paired with a beginner. Skeptics of courseware say it won't work if users aren't Web-savvy, and there also are personality inhibitors--for example, there might be individuals who aren't disciplined enough to keep up with material. (Shein 97) In my focus group in-person and distance learning classes at UB, I have thus far found that the education of students from non-privileged backgrounds does not appear to suffer from the introduction of courseware into the curriculum as long as all the students who indicate discomfort are given one-on-one tutorials with the software. Contrary to what might be expected, students who notified me at the beginning of the semester with fears about using the technology because of their backgrounds, experiences, or economic status did not, as a group, fare worse than other students; in fact, these students sometimes became enamored with communicating with technology. But the results show something of interest concerning courseware interaction trends and in person course interaction trends. Those students whose attendance scores were low in my "in-person" class were also the same students who did not use the course’s accompanying courseware or submitted material to the courseware intermittently at best. Thus, with a generous computer access policy at our university, students from any background seemed to have equal opportunity once they were familiarized with the computer and the program. The class, however, did have some students who failed to participate. |
![]() |
![]() |
8.
The Content |
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
9. Conclusion |
![]() |
![]() |
10. References
Davidson, James Duncan, and others. Java Servlet Specification, v2.2. Palo Alto: Sun Microsystems, 1999: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/index.html. Flanagan, Mary. and Christopher Egert. "The Course Submission System: Providing 'Seminars' on the Web", Proceedings from the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Webnet 98 Conference. Orlando 1998: 313-317. Grudin, Jonathan. "CSCW Introduction: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work." Communications of the ACM Dec 1991:30-35.
Gubernick, Lisa and Ashlea Ebeling. " I Got My Degree Through E-Mail." Forbes 16 June 1997: 84-90. Harris, Dale A. "Online Distance Education in the United States: Tele-Learning: The "Killer App"?" IEEE Communications Magazine Mar. 1999: 87-92. Levis, Neil. "Technology's Tool for Active Learning." Times Educational Supplement 4 June 1999:A31. Noble, David. "Digital Diploma Mills." Internet. November 1998. http://communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ Accessed 12 Sept. 1999. Pritchard, Carl L. "From Classroom to Chat Room." Training & Development June 1998: 76-78.
Shein, Esther. "A Firsthand Account of Cyberlearning." PC Week 10 Mar. 1997: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/pcwk/1410/pcwk0057.html. - - -. "Anywhere, Anytime:Web-Based Courses, Virtual Classroom." PC Week 10 Mar. 1997: 115-117. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |