Intro to Online Teaching ONTL 650 Part I

Introduction to Online Teaching – February, 2012: End of Part I – Update. By D. Corbin

The concepts learned and experienced thus far in the course:

· Create a learning community that demonstrates the positive impact of student-student and student-instructor on achieving the learning objectives of the course.

· Develop an understanding empathy for the experience of the online learner.

· Developing an understanding of the similarities and differences between online and teaching in a traditional classroom environment.

· Model best practices in online teaching and learning.

In lesson 1, I learned to use Blackboard 9.1 and basic online tools. I reviewed topics like the creation of a discussion board post, sending an e-mail to other students and the instructor, creating and posting a blog entry, and using the group tools. Our class was also shown how to check grades by reviewing points earned and comments by the instructor. Finally, I reviewed the course syllabus and completed a quiz.

We examined the online learning environment and compared/contrasted it with the “on-ground” model during lesson 2. We read an online line article titled; “High-Touch” and “High-Tech” by Dr. Joan D. McMahon and Dr. Neil Davidson (McMahon, 2000). Contrary to my initial belief, online teachers achieve good results and my conception of online learning was somewhat jaded by a prior experience. The study presented by Dr. McMahon and Dr. Davidson showed that online students feel more connected to their online classmates than their “on-ground” ones.

“Models of Online Learning” was the title of lesson 3. The research about online teaching and learning is new and somewhat limited. The initial research appears to show that effective online teaching and learning can take students to higher levels of learning than traditional classroom instruction. A promising study presented in our readings included “Classroom Teaching Changes in Web-Enhanced Courses: A Multi-institutional Study” (Wingard, 2004). The study examined the changes that occur in face-to-face instruction when faculty added web enhancements to their course.

According to Wingard; there seems to be little research reported on the “specific impact of web enhancements on classroom activities—the face-to-face component of traditional courses—and the nature of that impact. Wingard, instructional designer in the Center of Instructional Development & Distance Education at the University of Pittsburg reported on a study conducted by the Learning Technology Consortium. The nine members of the Consortium included Indiana University, Virginia Tech University, University of Delaware, University of Florida, University of Georgia, University of North Carolina, University of Notre Dame, University of Pittsburg and Wake Forest University. Researchers reviewed and evaluated the impact of technology use to improve the processes of instruction and learning. An online survey and semi-structured interviews were used to gather information pertaining to the research questions. Wingard, (2004) reported; the longer faculty worked with the Web, the more likely they were to pursue and derive pedagogical benefits from the technologies. Some faculty indicated they believed that the use of online learning might be motivating for students, provide a sense of connectedness, and help accommodate difficult time constraints.

The second reading; “Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning” (Twigg, 2003) provided examples of improving instruction for students. According to Twigg, “Results showed improved student learning in twenty of the thirty projects, with the remaining ten shows no significant difference.” Outcomes reported by Twigg, included increased course-completion rates, improved retention rates, better student attitudes toward the subject matter, and increased student satisfaction with the instruction model. Course redesign models included; supplemental, replacement, and emporium, fully online and buffet. As stated in the Twigg article, the replacement model utilizes a reduction in class-meeting time, replacing (rather than supplementing) fact-to-face time with online, interactive learning activities for students. It is assumed that some activities can be better accomplished online, than in the traditional classroom. While the commitment of lab space and material is higher than the traditional model, students can use the computer lab resources 24/7.

The Lesson 4 topic included an exploration of Learning Styles. I completed the DVC learning styles assessment and reviewed an explanation of the learning styles. The four learning styles include – Active and Reflective Learner, Sensing and Intuitive Learner, Visual and Verbal Learner, Sequential and Global Learners. (Felder, 2010) My learning style is visual/verbal learner, which is why I need to read out-loud to improve my comprehension. I also, enjoy working with others in small groups to learn new and difficult information. As a future online instructor, students will be asked to identify their learning styles and attempt to match good instructional technique to their learning modalities. “Distance Learning Tips for Online Group Work Success” by David R. Wetzel was presented to the students. The central theme of the article was the importance of communication within the group. As a future online instructor, this reading and others will be used with students prior to beginning group projects.

Online Teaching Styles was the topic for lesson 5. The readings included “A Model to Integrate Online Teaching and Learning Tools into the Classroom (Schmidt, 2010). As suggested earlier and also in this article, “little research exists on how learning environments can be created that successfully combine online teaching and learning with a traditional classroom environments to enhance student learning.” According to Schmidt and Brown, a positive relationship between students’ satisfaction with instruction and success in courses were evident. Enjoyment, control of pace, a student’s preferred instructional environment and accommodating student learning styles were significant factors in measuring student success in a course. Schmidt and Brown presented a model of five considerations when creating a quality mix of online and traditional classroom teaching and learning.

According to the teacher preferences rating on the Penn State Learning Design instrument (Grasha, 2010), my preferred teaching style is Facilitator – 4.5, Formal Authority – 4.0, Delegator - 3.6 and Expert – 3.1. As a facilitator, I believe responsibility is placed on my students to take initiative to achieve results for various task. I typically design group activities which necessitate active learning, student to student collaboration and problem-solving. Also, as a formal authority, I feel responsibility for providing and controlling the flow of content.

The following items are a demonstration of achieved learning objectives for part 1:

Posted a profession Blog - “My Thoughts of Online Learning” and “Intro to Online teaching”

Participated in over 50 online discussions with students of the ONTL 650 course

Developed an online course curriculum for “School Improvement” with assessments

Completed a DVC learning styles inventory and reported the results via discussion thread. Completed the Grasha 5-Teaching Styles Inventory, reflecting on the results via a discussion

Participated in group project to produce the online unit – Civil Rights Movement 1954-1964