|
Capstone Project for the Masters in Distance Education,
University of Maryland University College, Adelphi
Talking to a Brick Wall: The Effective Use of Discussion Boards in Online Learning
Jeannie Azzopardi
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. A Look at Distance Education and Distance Learners in the United States
a. Who are our distance learners?
b. Statistical information: Retention and attrition – what’s going on?
III. Talking to a Brick Wall
a. What students dislike about online communication.
b. A sense of community, connectedness, and importance.
c. Assumptions: Students vs. Instructors.
IV. Discussion Bored
a. Defining discussion boards.
b. It’s not an assignment or a quiz.
c. Difference of opinion and difference of perspective.
d. Empathy, compassion and a bit of extra effort.
V. Thinking Outside the Box: The DE Course – Death Investigation
a. How to keep them down on the farm: Establish a reason to remain.
b. Look beyond the borders of the text.
c. Supplemental information.
d. Being provocative.
e. Split them up and pit them against each other!
VI. Brass Tacks
a. Some real life examples
b. A short look at the course series of Law and Literature: Banned and Challenged Books
VII. Conclusion
I. Introduction
The pedagogy found in the traditional brick and mortar classroom and the pedagogy of the virtual classroom is analogous to horses and zebra. A zebra may look like a horse and walk like a horse…even behave in many ways like a horse; but, no matter what you do…it is still a zebra; and a zebra is simply different than a horse. The differences, not only in pedagogy, but in environment must be recognized. The distance course and the distance learner cannot merely be translated…they must be thought of and designed for in a distinctive way.
In distance education, we are still facing nearly double the dropout, stop-out rate of our online students compared to our campus students. The U.S. Department of Education (2002) reports that nearly 50% of online students do not complete their studies, while campus dropout rates hover at less than half that of online students. What is truly distressing is that in the field of distance education, this is expected, even anticipated.
What are not getting much attention are factors for motivation. Research seeks to look at risk factors for distance and nontraditional students through self-report methods. In self-reporting surveys, motivation is rarely on the list. Course design that aims specifically to motivate the student in an online course is something out of the realm of the students understanding. In other words, students are not even aware of the prospect of course design being more motivating. Further, it is intrinsic human nature to blame one’s self for lack of motivation rather than another. In my position as Program Manager for Distance Education for Criminology & Criminal Justice, and in my experience as a distance learner, this position was reiterated continually. Students believed that it was their fault that they were not more engaged in their courses; that it was their failing without ever considering that course design may have a great deal to do with it.
Much ado is made in the United States of a technological transformation of traditional pedagogy as Holmberg (2003) terms as a kind of, “technological euphoria” where what happens in the classroom is simply translated and technologically enhanced in a misguided attempt to boost appeal (p. 22). In this way, the fallacy that traditional education is somehow better than distance education is perpetuated. In Europe, where attitudes are opposite; there is a concerted effort to create, examine and utilize a pedagogy that is unique to distance education. As Holmberg (2003) relates, “…Jung (2000, p. 229), reporting on the Korea National Open University, does not hesitate in stating that ‘it is instructional design, not technology, that is at the centre of quality distance education’ (p. 48)”. To use the above analogy, effective distance education is the art of acknowledging - even celebrating - the differences between horses and zebras.
This paper examines who distance learners are; what they dislike about online learning; what can and does motivate students; where we may be missing the target as course designers and instructors; using technology appropriately, and how we can create an environment that supports, encourages and motivates our students. The primary focus of this paper will be the use of discussion boards but, as it will become apparent, there is more to it than finding an intriguing topic. Proper implementation of discussion boards takes proper course design, talented teamwork, good instincts, and a holistic approach to the consideration of our students.
II. A Look at Distance Education and Distance Learners in the United States
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2003) the number of institutions offering distance education programs is approximately 56% of 2 and 4 year institutions with over 10% more intending to offer distance education courses in the future. There are an “estimated 127,400 different distance education courses…” were being offered at 2 and 4 year institutions with “an estimated enrollment of 3,077,000”
By far, the most preferred method of delivery for distance education courses (60%) is the use of the Internet with video still a close second choice (U.S. Dept. of Ed. 2003).
Institutions that are on the fence about whether or not to develop distance courses have very real concerns. Of the institutions opt not to develop distance education courses many cited lack of administrative support, regulatory issues and their “…concerns about course quality (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2003).”
a. Who are our distance learners?
The U.S. Department of Education (2003) reports that students taking distance courses are typically deemed non-traditional students. These students are older than traditional students (although the number of younger and campus students is growing); they are more likely to be female and have obligations outside of school (children and a least part-time employment), and have been away from a teaching institution for a period of time – usually a year or more. Not only does this demonstrate the make-up of the typical distance learner, it is demonstrative of all the risk factors associated with attrition.
Based on information gathered by the U.S. Department of Education (2002), risk factors for attrition for undergraduates in both traditional and distance education are very much the same and include; “delaying enrollment by a year or more, attending part time, being financially independent (for purposes of determining financial aid), having children, being a single parent, working full time while enrolled, and being a high school dropout or a GED recipient” (p. ix). Having a GED (general education diploma) in lieu of a high school diploma is a factor that has been considered but one that receives weight only when combined with other risk factors. Nevertheless, all of these factors are considered to contribute to attrition and with each additional factor the rate of attrition grows exponentially. While statistics seem to support high risk contributors, other data refutes this. The National Center for Educational Statistics (2002) reports that “The remaining three nontraditional characteristics – working full time in the first year of enrollment, having dependents, and being a single parent – did not have an independent association with persistence” (p. 18).
What is different is that the dropout/stop-out rate for undergraduates attending traditional classes is approximately ¼ while students in distance education institutions have nearly ½ rate of attrition (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2002). However, statistics on attrition in distance education tend to be non-conclusive and based primarily in anecdotal analysis. In some institutions, distance courses have a higher rate of success than do campus courses.
Persons with disabilities find distance education attractive but the level of reporting for disability assistance is small. There is still a certain amount of stigma associated with disability and this has a tendency to keep students (especially non-traditional or older students) from reporting and seeking support.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “Moderately or highly nontraditional students were more likely than either traditional students or minimally nontraditional students both to participate in distance education and to be in programs available entirely through distance education” (U.S. Dept of Ed, 2002).
Today’s distance learner is an adult learner who tends “to be a problem-solver…autonomous, self-directed, and goal- and relevancy-oriented – they need to know the rational for what they are learning” with a trend toward continuing adult education – or lifelong learning - for the purposes of career advancement (Howell, et al, 2003). Statistics show that many non-traditional students are more committed than the campus student – yet, the rate of attrition is still much higher than their traditional counterparts.
It is important to examine and appreciate who our distance students are and what concerns they have. Despite the fact that most of our distance learners fall into the category of a non-traditional student, the older, non-traditional student tends to feel a tremendous amount of trepidation surrounding their ability to handle the technology that may be associated with distance learning. Many of my advisees that have fallen into this category become extremely frustrated when they cannot control and manipulate the technology right away. Howell, et al, (2003) reiterates this point,” They also tend to feel insecure about their ability to succeed in distance learning, find instruction that matches their learning style, and have sufficient instructor support services, and technology training” (p. 4).
b. Statistical information: Retention and attrition – what’s going on?
Some research suggests more personal reasons for attrition – “costs and motivators, feedback and teacher contact, student support and services, alienation and isolation, lack of experience, and training” (Yukselturk, et al, 2006). Students struggle with the technology of distance education as pointed out previously…especially those older students who are not considered ‘native speakers’. While the risks remain the same, the consensus might be the course design and manner of delivery seems to effect whether or not a student will remain in school.
Finally, students entering distance education programs are most at risk during the first year of their degree (U.S. Dept of Ed, 2002). This supports the immediacy for those in the field to do their utmost to encourage, train and motivate the distance learner to remain in school. It is never enough to put “butts in seats” – success is demonstrated by diplomas in hand. All factors measured, those students who are considered to be moderately or highly non-traditional, are at risk on campus or at a distance. However, high-risk non-traditional students that are obtaining their degrees at a distance are at even higher jeopardy of not completing their course work; and this is especially true within the first year. It is safe to assume that motivation is one crucial aspect that plays a strategic role in this variable.
III. Talking to a Brick Wall
a. What students dislike about online communication
Most of the studies prepared by those in the field of distance education (Richardson, 2003; Agnostinho, et. al, 2005; Bibeau (2001); Roberson & Klotz, 2002) show that students are missing some sense of community. This lack of community is also presented as a need for building or development of social presence, personality, interaction, dialogue, connectedness, discourse, discussion and straightforward conversation. Moore & Kearsley (2005) refer to this lack of presence as the theory of transactional distance and argues that it is not just a matter of geography but one of pedagogy which underscores the need for better course design and not necessarily the either-or of traditional versus distance education. Just because a student sits in a chair in a room with other students does not denote more participation than sitting in a chair in a room without other students. Whatever it may be termed, the point is that what distance learners miss is the feeling of being a part of the whole. All of which leave the distance learner frustrated, isolated, depressed, and unmotivated.
It is never a given that students come to us predisposed to failure. Although, it isn’t really a stretch to consider that the feelings of isolation and lack of motivation can lead to attrition in distance education. When other distractions and obligations like family and work are thrown into the mix, common sense dictates that attrition rates would escalate. Being a distance learner does take discipline, motivation and more than a certain amount of confidence. This is especially true when considering the long haul commitment of time required for completion of a certificate or degree.
What begs the question is whether or not distance programs and educators are teaching distance learners how to be motivated distance learners. If not, they should be. As Yukselturk, et al (2006) observes, “Although many participants registered to the program with high motivation… [students reported that their] motivation decreased gradually…they expected more activities to increase motivation throughout the program…contents of homework were not interesting…” And if students are expected to complete their studies, it cannot be a fair demand that they should be tackling the obstacles of isolation, motivation, poor course design and the lack of community on their own.
When asked to participate in discussion boards, students respond with a sort of dread. It is considered drudgery, “confirm[ing] what Rutgers students had already communicated quite clearly: online discussion is perceived as extra work, almost another course… (Vandergrift, 2002)”. There is a certain lack of spontaneity in asynchronous discussion that students miss. Unfortunately, the discussion board is the area of course design that most often promotes retention and community. It is not a possibility to rectify this completely but a purposeful course design that aims to entice and encourage students to converse goes a long way toward looking at spontaneity within the realm of a-synchronicity.
Students struggle with course design and delivery reporting that directions are not clear; that the instructor is not as available as they are used to in a classroom environment; responding to the presented material takes much longer; and they feel isolated and unsupported. Certainly, sitting in a traditional classroom, if nothing else, gives the student a feeling of some kind of psychological support and belonging.
b. A sense of community, connectedness and importance
Students wish to have some type of connectedness with their fellows. It is extremely difficult to maintain motivation when feelings of isolation are paramount. In Vandergrift’s (2003) study she reveals that “Correlational analyses clearly showed a relationship between students’ social presence and students’ perceived learning” (p. 77).
What is extraordinary is that it takes very little to create this sense of community. A few deliberate efforts that allow students to use their imagination and the opportunity to discern their own answers can reap monumental results. Instructor support is crucial as well, to student well-being and, while many instructors opt not to participate in distance education, the truth is that “Faculty who taught distance classes also tended to have more contact with students, particularly using electronic means” (.S. Dept. of Ed., 2002).
Promoting connectedness and community means licensing the student to express themselves through their own life experiences; through real-life situations and an easy flow of conversation that limits restrictive pedagogy. It also means listening. Far more important to the student is the feeling that they are being heard and acknowledged for their contributions – from both their peers and their instructor. “Expressions of and actions testifying to empathy are instigators of motivation promotion and retention; they are thus likely to pave the way for success” (Holmberg, 2003)
Importance, assimilation and learning can be facilitated by allowing connection to the students’ own experiences to the material and, as Holmberg’s (2003) relates “Feelings of empathy and belonging promoting students’ motivation to learn and influencing the favourably can be developed [by] students being engaged in decision making, by lucid, problem-oriented, conversation-like presentations of learning matter that may be anchored in existing knowledge… “ which is true with all learning. Permitting a loose flow of conversation that includes personal ancedotes advances feelings of community and social presence. However, it is valuable to avoid the assumption that more is better as Tu & Mc Issac (2002) comment, “Social presence positively influences online interaction; however, frequency of participation does not represent high social presence.” It is a fine line to orchestrate conversation amid that which is trite and that which is constructive.
c. Assumptions: Students vs. Instructors
The “talking head” is dead. At least as far as distance learning is concerned. Those course designers and instructors who insist on maintaining this white knuckled type of pedagogy will find themselves alone in short order. Nothing about the conventional lecture promotes retention in distance education. For those instructors who are willing to take the risk, they may just find that their roles in distance education are more aligned to that of facilitator, guide, cheerleader and coach. It is a matter not simply a matter of “transposing our comfortable and familiar F2F practices and expectations into the new medium…” (Stodel, et al, 2006). Designing for online courses goes to the very foundation of what we are used to and shakes it vehemently. It may appear that becoming a different type of instructor is becoming a lesser instructor where, in fact, the opposite is true. Creating an online environment that is vibrant and vigorous is difficult and those instructors“…who wishes to maintain “tight control” of a course may not be suited for online course delivery” (Roberson & Klotz, 2003).
What instructors will find is that experiences in distance education and learning are not like those of the traditional classroom – that this fact must guide course design and pedagogy – and that the experiences that are found are rich, sometimes richer, than anything they are used to. The change is not for the distance learner alone – faculty can find profound experiences as well. The work is demanding and many faculty have found that “although they taught more classes, faculty teaching distance education classes were at least as likely to report being very satisfied with the workload” (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2002).
To view a sample assignment table from Death Investigation - click here- Assignment Table
Vandergrift (2002) points out that “…Moore’s (2005) theory of transactional distance… [require students] to fit the precut pieces in their proper places to see the picture.” Vandergrift's assessment of Moore's (2005), although rather narrow, is what she sees as an implication of "a single set of pre-determined objectives, activities, and assessments against which all students are evaluated." Instead she argues, what should be built is an infrastructure that allows “…more like an array of pieces from a mosaic from which each student selects elements to make a personally meaningful image to be share in a dialogic learning community (Vandergrift, 2002).” In other words, the student is encouraged to discover their own picture. A successful interactive discussion “is stimulating; is expressive; conveys feelings and emotions; is meaningful; and is easily understood…, [and whether it] is pleasant; is immediate; promotes responsiveness, and allows the student to be comfortable with familiar topics (Tu & McIssac, 2002).”
Inherently, students perceive that the relationship between teachers and themselves is more formal. The use of a more “casual communication style” is necessary especially to encourage more-reluctant students. Clearly, when students communicate with their peers, the conversation tends to be more casual because students feet that they are “at the same level” (Tu & McIssac, 2002).” This reinforces the move away from the ‘talking head’ dynamic that Holmberg (2003) discusses where the professor transmits and the students receive; especially where conversational interaction is the goal. Ego deflation is best – the decision in course design must consider whether it is more important to use professional, academic language or whether the true essence is to be heard.
IV. Discussion Bored
a. Defining discussion boards
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary (1964) discussion is defined as,”...to strike asunder, shake apart, scatter…” and “…to talk or write about; take up a conversation or in a discourse; consider and argue the pros and cons…” and conversation is defined as “…a talking together; informal or familiar talk; verbal exchange of ideas, information, etc., a social intercourse.” If this is not what is happening in the discussion boards in distance education, what is happening is what most of us are familiar with – memorization and regurgitation. What the dictionary defines as discussion and conversation should be the aspiration of any discussion board. “In an online class, the discussion board is the class… (Vandergrift, 2002)”. This is not only what our students are most comfortable with but what is most easily assimilated. Further, it is a new universe of learning that is exciting, motivational and worthy of celebration.
There is an extraordinary dynamic in the diversion from traditional course design and “…there is a “better” model for online courses. The model should not only present the information and materials to students but also incorporate the social aspects of learning in both the design and instruction of online courses” (Vandergrift, 2003). Students relating to one another and to the mediator – especially when they are permitted to use their own words in speaking about the material, will cement what they are learning in a way that memorization simply cannot. The result will not only take the student on a different journey – but the instructor as well.
As Roberson & Klotz, (2003) aptly point out, a certain amount of intentional freedom in the discussion board “provides a unique opportunity for achieving a level of interaction and feedback that even the traditional on-site classroom has difficulty achieving in a face-to-face environment”. Students cannot sit at the back of the class and daydream, or avoid participation. Roberson & Klotz (2003) reports a student’s feedback, “One of the things I really liked about this class was the opportunity to participate. I have always been a person that never says a word in class. In this class I talked all the time!” In my own course, Death Investigation, one student reported a very similar response; “I do not usually speak up in class. I have found myself interacting more in this class.”
Discussion is the foundation of the distance course – otherwise, what exists is no more than a correspondence course. If this is what the instructor and his/her team intends…then so be it. If the team’s ambition is to draw the student into the subject matter, to make them passionate about what they are learning, then conversation needs to be a fundamental element in course building.
b. It’s not an assignment – or a quiz
As a long time distance learner, my own experience with discussion boards has left much to be desired. Sometimes they have been used to post essay questions for the students to answer. This is merely repetition...and the students respond accordingly, i.e., there is no conversation amongst the class. There may even be a quiz-like posting, a series of true/false, yes/no, or multiples thereof, list of questions. More often, the instructor posts something parallel to asking the students’ response to the readings, ‘what are your thoughts? It is not enough – it certainly is not indicative of interaction - in fact, it tends to make the student feel as thought the instructor could care less.
Again, it is time to think outside the box. Moore (2005) presents transactional distance as the primary entity of distance learning requiring a definite anticipation of dialogue, autonomy and design composition. As a foundational analysis, this path is definitely preferred to the idea of translation. However, Holmberg (2003), goes further in his approach to the pedagogy of distance learning citing “…empathy as the optimal condition for the effective presentation of learning matter and helpful student-tutor interaction” (p.35). Holmberg’s approach is more demonstrative of allowing flexibility in course design and delivery and allowing students to think for themselves. Flexibility is crucial in the development and delivery of distance courses to “…respond to emerging learning needs” (Stodel, et al, 2006). Although research and theories suggest that course design become more structured and consistent, it is vital that flexibility is part of that design. Packaging of distance courses is also on the upswing and this inclination will necessarily decrease interaction unless faculty is trained to purposefully include rudimentary techniques of discussion and support.
Initially, it is a good idea to create “…a “warming-up” exercise, giving students participating in their first online class an opportunity to engage in a dialogue without the pressure of getting the right answer or performing for a grade (Vandergrift, 2002)” . This may be in the form of a ‘welcome’ page where students can introduce themselves and post their picture. It should however, set a non-restrictive tone to the course; one where the students get used to virtual “talking”. Tu & McIssac (2002) take the opposite approach stating that “Sentence structure and grammar should be more rigid since the message was permanent and in public.” Of course, when students post assignments, rigid sentence structure and grammar should be enforced, however, it is more vital to promote a less formal, faster, conversational air in the discussion board. The admonition is only that the students must be careful not to be misunderstood through misspellings and grammatical error in their zeal to post.
c. Difference of opinion and difference of perspective
In the traditional classroom, acceptance is directed toward the instructor. With dynamic discussion boards and groups, acceptance shifts from the instructor to peers. As Vandergrift (2003) points out, “’…the many-to-many communication tool supports and facilitates active learning and collaboration, which, in turn can increase motivation and satisfaction in online courses” (p.80).
Let students know that debate is a good thing. Encourage an exchange of ideas and perspectives. Too often students digress in fear of seeming to aggressive or offensive. As an instructor it is your responsibility to coach and to counsel when conversation begins to heat up. This is not something unique to distance education and should be handled as it would inside the walls of a classroom. My experience has shown that students are respectful and tend to police themselves.
When students’ conversation drifts away from the topic at hand or ceases to instigate or provoke further discussion, it is the responsibility of the instructor to interject some fresh energy into the debate. Be mindful of the ebb and flow of discussion and interpose a “….more fluid attempt to lead students to the acquisition of desired learning outcomes…via Socratic teaching methods whereby the instructor poses leading question/statements to which students engage each other in inductive reasoning…” (Roberson & Klotz, 2003).
Encourage those students who distinguish themselves in their language and style – this allows their voice to be heard. “Students who write clearly and convincingly make their voices “heard” (Vandergrift, 2002).”
d. Empathy, compassion and a bit of extra effort
Willy-nilly or trite postings are counterproductive and may very well decrease motivation and commitment. Make to known straight away that postings such as, ‘I agree’ and ‘thanks for your comments’ are not substantial enough to denote participation. Asking for clarification on a comment could be an exception. A “cognitive presence requires guidance, support, and nurturing; it does not just happen” (Stodel, et al, 2006). Facilitation of thoughtful and provocative discussion will require intervention at some – or many - points throughout the course.
Being compassionate in dealing with distance learners is paramount. Many students who have been caught up in the dealings of their personal life will have feelings of guilt for not participating more. This attitude can become amplified (remember, they are alone with their thoughts) to the point that the student begins to do poorly – or stop-out completely. Letting students know that their lapse is normal, that you recognize and appreciate that life can interfere, can not only bring them back but boost their participation. Some students may have issues with the content itself.
In Death Investigation we spent time on material dealing with infanticide. One woman e-mailed me directly and expressed that she had a fear that she would not be able to deal with the content. My response was to acknowledge her anxiety, convey understanding, relate some of my own feelings (which were feelings of ‘speaking’ for those who could not and so forth) and to reassure her that we could get through the content together. When we were immersed in that particular section, I checked in with her frequently and, as a result, she not only handled it well but was quite prolific in the discussions.
Using chat rooms or IM (Instant Messaging) contributes immensely to students’ feelings of being connected and supported. Many of these forums allow for uploading presentation materials as well. Setting up times that are accessible to a greater number of students is advised, as Agnostinho, et al. (2005) suggest, “…schedule the chat time for later in the evening,” for example. In Death Investigation, scheduled times were twice a week in the morning and evening hours – one day during the week and one day on the weekend. Virtual office hours were also set so that students could ask questions and clarify issues with a nod to immediacy as well as support and encouragement.
The use of synchronous forums must be used with care. It is the expectation of those enrolled in distance courses that their time will not be restricted by mandatory scheduling. A group consensus usually works well when synchronous chat is necessary. Most synchronous forums also allow for transcription of the conversations posted – and most allow for discussion to be copied for posting to an asynchronous forum at a later date for those students unable to attend a scheduled discussion.
Roberson & Klotz (2003) indicate that “the frequency of e-mail, quick responses to e-mail, and quality of messages are important functions sometimes overlooked by online instructors…the rewards far exceed the inconveniences”. Obviously, this demonstrates to the students that you have concern for them…that you are listening. Vandergrift (2002) cautions however, that “Immediate responses…inhibit replies from other students and encourage them to turn only to the teacher, rather than each other…” suggesting that the instructor’s restraint come gradually, diminishing “to encourage students to assume greater responsibility for their own learning.” However, I believe that students can appreciate immediate ownership of responsibility from the initiation of the course with common sense, and straight forward direction.
A word of caution is in order here. As Tu & McIssac (2002) point out, response time was an issue that was critical to the online interaction... [as well as] the level of formality.” Because students consider immediacy an important issue left to their own devices, students will sit with just their thoughts and questions. This tends to greatly diminish motivation, participation and consequently, greatly increases the chance of attrition.
It is not enough for instructors to design a course, upload it, and call it a day (Rovai, 2002). There is more to social presence than wishful thinking“…instructors with higher social presence were viewed as more positive and effective, leading to an increase in affect toward the instructor and the course and that the “Caring and information exchanges in social relationships were found to impact online interactions positively” Tu & McIssac (2002). This supports Moore’s (2005) theory of the dynamics of tranactional distance – where the less communication denotes less social presence and Holmberg’s (2003) assertion of incorporation of empathy into communication. Holmberg (2003) reminds us in no uncertain terms, “Empathy is taken to be the recommended guiding principle for distance education…it influences all activities involved ( p. 41).
V. Thinking Outside the Box: The DE Course – Death Investigation
a. How to keep them down on the farm: Establish a reason to remain
The magic of Death Investigation involved the dynamic of conversation, commitment, discussion and debate. Rovai (2002) comments that there is a need to development a certain level of commitment to the learning process that must be achieved by the relationships that forms within the class. Commitment needs to be more than hypothesis that students are motivated to learn. Although students will demonstrate self-motivation and organizational skills (Agnostinho, et al. 2005), it is best not to assume that students will be persistent in their postings. Continual encouragement of conversation and participation goes a long way.
Beyond encouragement lies a little bit of humor, a sprinkling of fun, a connection to the real world and a great deal of presence on behalf of the instructor. Garner (2006 ) tells us that “Psychologically, the effects of humor and laughter have been shown to reduce anxiety, decrease stress, enhance self-esteem, and increase self-motivation,” and addressing my students as Ghouls in my postings to the discussion boards was a positive step in this direction.
Of course, when dealing with death, its causes and manners, one would rightly assume that there is very little humor to be had. However, in the beginning of our exploration, the students went wild trying to collect evidence and I appropriately teased them all for their lack of conscious regarding civil rights and the mechanics of law “…creating a positive emotional and social environment… (Garner, 2006)”. “Research has demonstrated that students who have teachers with a strong orientation to humor tend to learn more …students will often have better recall of a message if it is presented with humor (Garner, 2006)” which proved itself true when, toward the end of the course the students reminded each other of their early fumbling.
Because“…a feeling of low interactivity can diminish social presence (Tu & McIssac 2002),” I made a concerted effort to employ cases from the real world. At the time of our course in Death Investigation, the Laci Peterson case was hot news. We followed the case as her husband became a suspect, as forensic evidence was being discovered and when the bodies of his wife and infant were found washed ashore in Berkeley, California. When the defense counsel for Scott Peterson claimed that, because the baby was not as badly decomposed as his mother, there must have been someone else involved who took the baby earlier and then disposed of it later – we all knew exactly what had happened. We had covered the material explaining the phenomenon of ‘cradle death’ and knew that this is what had taken place in this case.
Holmberg (2003, p. 41), quoting Boud, emphasizes his theory that new knowledge must be connected to something that the student already knows, “’Knowledge does not exist independently of those who possess it…It always fits into the existing framework of understanding of the learner and is shaped by this framework…Learning for meaning and tight teacher control sit uneasily together’.” Although it may seem a conundrum when students are introduced to new material, there is always a way to associate it to what experiences or awareness the student already possesses. This is why students can recall information that was presented with humor or an anecdotal relationship.
Moore & Kearsley (2005) state that learner engagement is present when, “By the end of course, all or nearly all students (90-100%) are both replying to and initiating messages, both when required and voluntarily; messages are detailed, responsive to topics, and are well-developed communications” While indication of instructor engagement is evidenced when the “Instructor responds to all student queries; responses are always prompt, i.e., within 24 hours; feedback always offers detailed analysis of student work and suggestions for improvement, along with additional hints and information to supplement learning” (p. 144). In my experience with Death Investigation and the efforts made to keep students engaged, this was the precise result.
b. Look beyond the borders of text
As stated above, efforts were made to incorporate real life happenings and knowledge. Roberson & Klotz (2003) reiterate the benefit of these efforts, “When student interactions are relevant to real-world application, there is a greater potential for students to value the experience and gain the desired knowledge, a byproduct of this being increased student motivation”. The second week of the course, Death Investigation, the students encountered a dead body. He lay in an alley way, mangled and nameless. It was their job to discover who he was, what happened to him and who did it. Using the information they gained in their text, supplemental information, evidence that they gathered and a few clues from me, they set about solving a murder.
|
To view the scenario for Death Investigation - click here - Scenario |
Along with their weekly clues, the students were given a bit of the real world that related in some way to their studies. One week might be looking at the crime photos from the Lizzie Borden murders – another, viewing video of the cross-examination of a detective in a murder trial. The students were then asked an unfettered sort of question. They were required to use their brain – to think outside the memorization of text to application. Many of the students responded to the evaluation of the class with comments about how much work the course was…and how very much they learned from all the activities. As Moore & Kearsley (2005) say, “If there is any one secret to good teaching it is summed up in the word “activity” ” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005).
Scenarios are an excellent teaching tool. In Agostinho, et al (2005), the authors argue against the idea that scenarios should look and feel like an interactive video game stating that real-life applications are much more significant. Nothing is more wasteful than the over use of technology. In my working experience I have seen an enormous amount of money used to build out courses. The mistakes made dealt with the content itself – theory and the manner of design, among other things. The amount of technology frustrated the students where it was meant to keep them “entertained”. Many chose to forego the extraneous technological aspects altogether. The subject of theory is a rather stagnant one that would better benefit from using real life examples in a simple scenario. The amount of technology used in Death Investigation was an absolute minimum. Video and audio clips, professional and legal information were all supplied through existing websites. A little research was all that was required.
“Some of the most common causes of failure in distance education result from a disregard of the multidimensional nature of distance teaching” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005), so it is best to keep an open mind, tamp down the technology-euphoria monster and use a bit of elbow grease.
c. Supplemental Information
In the study done by Agostinho, et al. (2005), students were intrigued by the use of scenarios stating that “the scenario strategy created a sense of realism to the tasks and provided an element of fun to the online learning environment [and that it] supported their engagement in the subject because it allowed them to work logically through the tasks” (p. 236). This was echoed by some of my students, with comments like this one:
“This was without a doubt the best online class I have ever taken through SOU. It covered a great deal of information [and] we were challenged to learn all of it and to excel by the many assignments. The discussion board homicide investigation was a GREAT idea, it has really given me a better idea of how to apply the information (and it was fun and interesting).”
In Death Investigation, using supplemental information existing outside the text added tremendous value to the realism of the scenario. “It is equally dangerous, however, to have excess of interaction at the expense of presentation “(Moore & Kearsley, 2005), it is therefore necessary to be selective about what information you’re bringing in. As a student in a distance course, I once had a “lecture” that consisted of 78 pages of information outside the assigned material - one lecture. For Death Investigation, what articles I posted for students were carefully reviewed, relevant to the course material and usually no more than two pages. What was paramount to me was the interaction that supplemental information (as well as the regularly assigned reading) instigated.
d. Being provocative
Wikis, blogs, and other types of communications have been touted as being more appropriate for spontaneous discussion, but I have seen a tremendous amount of spontaneity in a run-of-the-mill discussion board through the use of provocative supplemental information.
During a weekly discussion in Death Investigation centering on homicidal rape, supplemental information, in the form of a short Internet video, triggered the most profound discussion I have ever read. Spontaneity was not an issue – the words poured from the students without restraint. Vandergrift (2002) relates a similar experience in her children’s literature course, “…a major controversy about a book’s representation of Native Americans on that listserv coincided with the corresponding module in the class. This timely, real-life professional concern led to one of the liveliest; most thoughtful and informative educational exchanges possible.”
|
To view the autopsy report for the victim in Death Investigation - click here - Autopsy Report |
Engaging the students immediately upon entering the discussion forum is just another way to create a conversation rich environment. Using language that is exciting and contributory to the scenario, “The CEO has secured us another job!” (Agnostinho, et al, 2005). In Death Investigation, each week’s announcement, both in the lobby and the discussion forum, began with Greeting Ghouls! The sense of fun and familiarity encouraged a feeling of community and decreased anxiety toward the work ahead. When the discussion board became overwhelmed with postings (another reason to create much smaller groups), I had the students post questions for me with the subject line reading: Hey Mediator! Agnostinho, et al. (2005) agrees with this approach; “The regular online presence of the lecturer, and the overall friendly rapport and guidance…emerged as contributing factors in keeping the students engaged, motivated, and enthusiastic in the course.”
e. Split them up and pit them against each other!
Much has been relayed in the literature of distance education that encourages assigning leadership or group leader roles to students. “[H]aving the learners take on the role of discussion leader” (Stodel, et al, 2006) may have the ring of a sound idea but it does not always have the outcome the instructor is looking for. Not every student is a leader – and not every student is willing to take on that level of responsibility in addition to their every day responsibilities. It can create more stress than positive results. The best approach to this activity is to apply it to very small groups where the discussion leader does not get overwhelmed with orchestration.
Moore & Kearsley (2005) report a “High level of interactive qualities” for group interaction as: “instructional activities require students to develop products by working together, cooperatively (e.g., in pairs or small groups)” (p. 144).The approach that was taken in Death Investigation was that of teamwork. Because the class size was so large (50 students – and again, much smaller groups is recommended), we split them in two giving each team a name – Rigor Mortis and Livor Mortis.
The students liked this idea. What they liked more was the fact that they would be in competition with one another. They shared the same scenario – but their discussion boards were kept separated – what was discussed in one group could not be seen by the other. Moreover, the groups had to keep an Investigator’s Notebook that related what each team had discovered – including what results they obtained from the lab (their instructor) from their evidence and so forth. An unexpected by product of the Investigator’s Notebook was that it assisted the teams in keeping track of what they discovered and lessening confusion.
In the end, one team did win (only by hours!) and earned an extra ten points and bragging rights. Moreover, as Agnostinho, et al (2005) underscores“…the course encouraged them to construct their own understanding of the content.”
VI. Brass Tacks…
a. Some real-life examples
Throughout this paper you have seen sidebars that offered a further look at what worked in Death Investigation. I encourage you to take at look at them – use what information seems worthy and by-pass the rest. In the creation of course design that emphasizes discussion, look for the hook. Use provocative information and incorporate flexibility. Look to the headlines for assistance and encourage your students to offer their recommendations for supplemental information. Utilize empathy and compassion and above all, let your students teach each other through their conversations and enjoy all the wonderful fundamentals you will learn!
|
To view some interesting supplemental links used in Death Investigation - click here - Important Links |
b. A short look at the course series of Law and Literature: Banned and Challenged Books
An example of careful development is a series on Law and Literature. The series comprises a look at the death penalty, gender and ethnicity issues, social psychology and the phenomenon of Banned and Challenged Books.
The two textbooks for the Banned and Challenged course are: 100 Banned Books by Karolides, Bald & Sova and Banned in the U.S.A. by Foerstel. The supplemental information that is being integrated into the course will include another text, Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi, an examination of The Bill of Rights, Supreme Court case history, and the long history of banning books and every other book listed on the American Library Association’s yearly list of the 100 most banned and challenged books.
Here is where I throw out the challenge to course designers and instructors to think outside of the box and consider how this course might unfold for them. Consider that most books in the United States are banned or challenged on the basis of political, religious, sexual or social grounds and plan a course of action.
- How would you utilize the APA’s list of 100 banned and challenged books?
- Which materials would you use and how would you make use of them?
- How would you incorporate The Bill of Rights into the course/ discussion boards?
- How would you go about tempering discussion on such volatile issues?
- What might be an appropriate, exciting and enticing final assignment?
Finally consider what an astounding journey you could create for your students…and yourselves.
|
To view a sample of the instructions for a final research paper in Death Investigation - click here - Research Paper |
I. Conclusion
Motivation, the creation of a social presence, and retention have a special bond.
As Tu & McIssac (2002) discovered in the results of their study, “social presence is much more complicated than previously imagined.” But it can be achieved. It is a matter of recognizing that horses are one thing – and one thing we know distinctly, but what we are dealing with in distance education is zebras. One simply cannot be translated to another because they are distinctly and fundamentally different.
Certainly motivation is crucial when we talk of retention, as are empathy, compassion and a loosening of the ‘talking head’ mentality. What we have seen in this paper is that the strategic use of discussion boards can realize these goals and consequently generate an escalation in retention. It is unquestionably time that distance education practitioners change the attitude of conceding to high attrition rates.
Attrition is not the fault of the student and this too, must be recognized and appreciated. Students cannot recognize and articulate something they do not know exists. It is our responsibility to create a distance learning environment that keeps them involved. Through the constructive use of discussion boards we can keep them motivated, on track, using their minds and heightening their self-confidence.
A holistic approach to the consideration of our students proper course design, which in turn includes the hard-line consideration of discussion boards as a compulsory element. Provoking and maintaining conversation, the use of informal language, appropriate use of technology, the integration of timely, relevant information and the cultivation of social presence is what will encourage our students in the Socratic ethos…the ability to draw their own conclusions and to think on their own.
Works Cited
Agostinho, S., Meek, J., & Herrington, J. Desing methodology for the implementation
and evaluation of a scenario-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, Issue 3, Retrieved February 18, 2007, from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=5856.
Bibeau, S. (2001). Social presence, isolation, and connectedness in online teaching and
learning. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 15, no. 3, Retrieved February,
2007, from http://www.salt.org/jidstoc.asp
Garner, R. (2006, Winter). Humor in pedagogy: How Ha-Ha can lead to Aha! College
Teaching , 54 , 177-180. The H.W. Wilson Company.
Holmberg, B. (2003). Distance education in essence: An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks-und
Informationssyte der Univerrsität Oldenburg.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P.B., & Lindsey, N.K. thirty-two trends affecting distance
education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2003, Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system's view 2nd
edition.Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in
relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, Issue 1, Retrieved February 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/v7n1_richardson.asp.
Roberson, T., & Klotz, J. (2002). How can instructors and administratos fill the missing link in online instruction? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, No. IV, Retrieved Febraury 18, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/roberson54.htm.
Rovai, A. (April, 2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International
Review in open and distance learning, 3, No. 1, Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153
Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T.L., & MacDonald, C.J. Learners' perspective on what is
missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7, No 3, Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/325/744.
Tu, C.H., & McIssac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in
online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(3), 131-150.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). A profile of participation in distance education:
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report (NCES 2003-154).
Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Distance education courses for public
elementary and secondary schools: 2002-2003 (NCES 2005-010). Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). Washington, D.C.:
Nation Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Distance education in higher education
Institutions (NCES 98-062). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates (NCES 2002
012). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Vandergrift, K. (July, 2002). The anatomy of a distance education course: A case study
analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, Issue 1, Retrieved February, 2007, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_vandergrift.asp
Webster, M. (Ed.). (1964). Webster's new world dictionary of the American language.
New York, NY: The World Publishing Company.
Yukselturk, Erman, & Inan, Fethi Ahmet (2006-07). Examining the factors affecting student dropout in an online learning environment. Online Report, Retrieved
February 2, 2007, from http://firstsearch. oclc.org.ezproxy.umuc. edu/WebZ
/FSPage?pagetype=return_frameset:sessionid=fsapp13-49136 exzdg4ia nueovn:
entitypagenum=5:0:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. eric.ed.gov%
2Fcontentdelivery%2Fservlet%2FERICServlet%3Faccno%3 DED494345:
entityframedtitle=ERC:entityframedtimeout=10:entityopenTitle=:entityopenAuthor=:entityopenNumber=:
|
