Category: Ask ADDIE

Posted on by Addie

Considerations of Generative AI for Content Creation (Issue 32)

Robot working on a laptop computer

Author: Anastasia Bojanowski, University of Central Florida

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe, University of Central Florida

Dear ADDIE,

Some of my colleagues are leveraging Generative AI for content creation.  I have content that needs to be updated and would like to use AI platforms. However, I soon became overwhelmed when I searched for options. Further, I have reservations regarding the accuracy and reliability of AI platforms.  Any suggestions?

Lost in the Matrix

Dear Lost in the Matrix,

I can sympathize with feeling overwhelmed when considering AI platforms for content creation. The options are plentiful.  You are also wise to question the accuracy and reliability of content creation. Indeed, the rate of Generative AI to hallucinate or invent information is estimated to be between 3-27% (Metz, 2023).  Further, the output can contain biases and misinformation (Zewe, 2023).  However, with a healthy level of pragmatism, Generative AI has a place in content creation if users follow the ASSURE and ADDIE models and include design and learning theory in prompts.

When updating content, consider using the design features of platforms and applications.  For example, older PowerPoints can be refreshed with a newer theme, stock images, and the “Designer” feature native to the program.  Additionally, presentations can be uploaded into free versions of Google’s Gamma, Adobe Express (webpage), and Canva.

Generative AI prompts should follow design and learning theory models for content creation.

Another option is to use platforms such as Microsoft’s Copilot or Open AI’s ChatGPT to generate an initial draft of anything from lesson plans to grading rubrics.  Consider experimenting with each by using the same prompt and vetting results. Regardless of the selection of the platform, the prompt should be composed to include instructional design and learning theory. Christie (2024) recommends constructing prompts that include Gagné’s (1985) events of instruction:  

  • Gaining attention
  • Informing the learner of the objective
  • Stimulating recall of prerequisite learning
  • Presenting the stimulus material
  • Providing learning guidance
  • Eliciting the performance
  • Providing feedback
  • Assessing the performance
  • Enhancing retention and transfer
Prompt using Gangé’s Events of Instruction: You are an expert in creating an exercise supporting experiential and active learning.  The activity requires peer collaboration for an asynchronous online course and is based on the creation and review of a digital portfolio for professional purposes.  Students will be sorted into groups of 3 for peer review.  Upon completion of the activity, students will create a digital portfolio that includes a skills-based resume, statement of philosophy, projects, and community service.  Afterward, students will be asked to provide feedback on design and content. The activity is a 3-week activity. Please create a brief yet compelling description of the activity that can be posted in Canvas as an introduction.  Create step-by-step directions to create a digital portfolio that includes content pages for the following: skill-based resume, personal statement, projects, and community service, and contact. Include any resources that can help create a college student digital portfolio.  Create a peer review worksheet that students can use to evaluate design and content. Make sure that the worksheet can be filled out online. Generate a grading rubric that evaluates design, skills-based resume, alignment of skills-based resume with projects, and peer review. Consider each part of the instructions given and generate the most engaging lesson.

Keep in mind that the generated lesson may require several iterations to achieve the desired output.  Further, the output is an initial draft that requires vetting for accuracy and integrity and adding legitimate resources. Output requires careful review to support universal design principles, protect privacy, and avoid bias. 

The one platform that lists sources used to generate output is Microsoft’s Copilot. A follow-up prompt that asks for specific sites or resources to be included has mixed results.  Consequently, the problem with legitimacy and accuracy persists.

Moving forward, content creators should require Generative AI platforms to safeguard privacy and provide robust bias reviews—even with free versions of their platforms.  Just as textbook companies were forced to ensure universal design to accommodate learners with disabilities to remain competitive, Generative AI platforms should protect privacy and minimize bias to be a viable candidate for content creation.

What other ideas or plans for the inclusion of AI have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Christie, B [Alchemy]. (2024, January 17). AI for the new year: Integrating AI into academic work [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx0gGJ18MlI

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Metz, C. (2023, November 16).  Chatbots may ‘hallucinate’ more often than many realize.  The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/technology/chatbots-hallucination-rates.html

Zewe, A. (2023, November 9). Explained: Generative AI: How do powerful generative AI systems like ChatGPT work, and what makes them different from other types of artificial intelligence? MIT News. https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-generative-ai-1109

Posted on by Addie

Strategies for Mitigating Student Anxiety (Issue 31)

Word cloud of person representing "anxiety" over a clock face

Author: Charlotte Jones-Roberts, University of Central Florida

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe, University of Central Florida

Dear ADDIE,

In my recent classes, I’ve noticed students being more open about feeling anxious in an online classroom. I’m worried these students aren’t getting the most out of class due to the anxiety they feel. Are there any design affordances or teaching strategies I can use to help these students?

Signed,

Deep Breaths

Hi Deep Breaths,

Thanks for your question! You are keen to notice an increase in student anxiety because overall anxiety has been on the rise steadily over the past decade. Anxiety is also found to be a major factor which affects student success and withdrawal rates (Ali & Smith, 2015).

Online instructor and teaching presence is pivotal to student connection.

First and foremost, it is pivotal to follow accessibility requirements. If a student has registered with institutional accessibility services, there is usually a required accommodation for students such as extra time for tests and assignments.

However, it is entirely possible that a student is still experiencing feelings of anxiety. Luckily, there is some research that reflects strategies to help students with feelings of anxiety in online courses.

  • Make things clear from the start! Studies such as Conrad (2002) and Abdous (2019) have indicated that most feelings of anxiety occur at the beginning of the course. Ensuring clarity and organization of the course schedule, assignments, grading point distribution, and scheduled meetings from the beginning of the course can mitigate these initial concerns. Steer clear of surprises!

  • Take out the guess work. Anxieties can be high when a student doesn’t know what to expect in tackling a complicated task (Abdous, 2019). Use low stakes practice activities, clear rubrics, and offer sample assignments to show your students how to do their best.

  • Show them you’re a human, not an online robot. Increasing your teaching presence online is pivotal to connection and alleviating anxieties surrounding an online course (Barcelona et. al., 2023). Send video announcements to check in with the weekly assignments. For video office hours, make yourself easily available with an app like Calendy that allows the students to schedule a 15-minute appointment without becoming burnt out making appointments.

In the end, every student is different. It may also be helpful to have beginning, midpoint, and end of course surveys to see how you can meet the needs of each individual student and class group.

What other ideas regarding strategies for relieving student anxiety have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Best,

ADDIE

References

Abdous, M. H. (2019). Influence of satisfaction and preparedness on online students’ feelings of anxiety. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 34-44. 

Ali, A., & Smith, D. (2015). Comparing social isolation effects on students attrition in online versus face-to-face courses in computer literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 12(1), 11-20. 

Barcelona, A. B., Baraquiel, J. A., Cupo, E. B., Ferreras, E. T., Galarion, C. G., Yabut, L. A., & Zapanta, J. R. A. (2023). Statistical anxiety and teacher presence among graduate students: A moderation analysis. American Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 76-87. 

Conrad, D. L. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. The American journal of distance education, 16(4), 205-226. 

Posted on by Addie

A “Weighty” Issue: Grading Schemes and Course Design (Issue 30)

wooden scale balancing one big ball and four small ones

Author and Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe, University of Central Florida

Dear ADDIE,

Thanks for your responses to the issues we all share in Instructional Design. I’m an ID at FAU and work with some amazing faculty. Of course, the faculty member has the ultimate say in their course. One question that I have been ‘pondering’ has to do with the weighted percentages many faculty like to use. I have been wondering if there is an effective way to explain that concept to students. At times I am unclear about the grouping of assignments and the ultimate value of specific assignments. I imagine that students are also somewhat muddled by this concept. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide, both for me and to share with others.

Signed,

Muddled and Confused

Dear Muddled,

What a great question for this forum! I’m sure many instructional designers – and even faculty new to teaching – have wondered this same thing. Some faculty choose to use a simple point system for grading of assignments that may or may not include extra credit points as well. In this case, there is a maximum number of points for all assignments given in a course. The total points earned for these assignments equals a specific letter grade. Very simple to understand and implement – so why would an instructor elect to use a weighted system in which certain groups or individual assignments have a higher percentage weight in the course than others? It can, indeed, be confusing for students to understand and calculate where they stand in a course at any given time.

First, let’s understand that “grouping” assignments can be used for simple point or weighted grading systems. In simple point grading schemes, this grouping places similar assignments together for ease of viewing and course planning. In a “weighted” grading scheme, however, the assignment groups reflect specific percentages of the total course grade, and those percentages equal 100%. When the overall points for a specific assignment group are calculated, they are multiplied by the percentage attached to that group. The final grade is determined by adding the group percentage grades to obtain a total. The great thing is that all learning management systems work well with weighted systems. Canvas specifically has a “What-if” function that allows students to see what their final grade would be in they earned various grades on remaining assignments (Barrett-Fox, 2023).

Pie chart with 30% Discussions, 50% Quizzes, and 20% Research grading categories.
Weighted Grading Scheme

The learning management system will determine the overall course grade by performing this calculation:

Final Grade = (average Research grade) x 20% + (average Discussion grade) x 30% + (average Quiz grade) x 50%

Many proponents of weighted assignments claim there are several advantages to this system of grading. According to CTLD Support at Metropolitan State University of Denver (2021), making the assignment points equal a specific number is unnecessary; points do not need to be shuffled when assignment changes occur; and weighting ensures that more in-depth assignments will be worth more than multiple small assignments. The instructor can determine and reflect which assignments are of greater value, which provides them greater flexibility. Instructors may also be able to view patterns of student grades within the gradebook subcategories for specific types of assignments to allow for tutoring or intervention – while students can see their own individual activity patterns for improving their academic skills (Salt Lake Community College, 2021). The best part is that you don’t need to worry about the math and all those potentially moving points!

Critics of this grading method, however, argue that students may have less incentive to do well at coursework that counts less towards the overall course grade. I would argue that this could occur using either grading scheme, as students may still be less likely to expend their energy on lower-point activities. Franke (2018) concludes that weighting of assignments, especially final assignments, should be done in a critical and intentional manner since uncritical assignment weighting can discount student learning that has occurred throughout the course, not just at the end.

Weighting assignments should be done in a critical and intentional manner.

Considering the pros and cons for using a weighted grading scheme, here are some best practices for implementation (CTLD, 2021):

  • Instructors should thoroughly explain the system to their students, using graphics as visual references.
  • Important assignment groups should be weighted more heavily than less assignment groups.
  • All assignment groups should total 100% – unless extra credit is provided.
  • Individual assignments should still be worth the number of points that make sense, based on the grading criteria used.
  • With each assignment group, points are still relevant when compared to one another. For example, a 60-point discussion assignment will have greater impact on the final grade than a 20-point discussion assignment.

For an example of how to share the weighted assignment grading scheme with your students, you might want to point them to this video for How Weighted Grades Work (Warner, 2016). The video provides an easy-to-understand instructional format with examples to demonstrate weighting grades in practice. Another simple instructional video is How Do Weighted Grades Work (McCrady, 2021) – similar title, but a different presenter.

What other ideas regarding the use of assignment grouping and weighting – or other grade book strategies –  have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Barrett-Fox, R. (2023, August). Lighten your load: Weight grades. Rebecca Barrett-Fox.https://anygoodthing.com/2020/10/15/lighten-your-load-weight-grades/

Franke, M. (2018). Final exam weighting as part of course design. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 6(1), 91-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.9

McCrady, V. [Victoria McCrady]. (2021, January 19). How do weighted grades work [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L16_SgnBxcw

Metropolitan State University of Denver, Center for Teaching, Learning and Design (2021, April 19). Weighted Grading. https://ready.msudenver.edu/canvas-spotlight/weighted-grading/

Salt Lake Community College. (2021, August 3). What are the benefits of weighting assignment groups in Canvas? SLCC Knowledge Base. https://slcconline.helpdocs.com/instructional-best-practices/what-are-the-benefits-of-weighting-assignment-groups-in-canvas

TOP HAT. (nd). Weighted Grades. https://tophat.com/glossary/w/weighted-grades/

Warner, B. [Brent Warner]. (2016, July 29). How weighted grades work [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJT-ckF6PU

Posted on by Addie

Implementation of AI in Online Teaching and Learning (Issue 29)

AI-generated woman sitting with computer and robot

Author: Dr. Jann Sutton, University of North Florida

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe, University of Central Florida

Dear ADDIE,

I am concerned! My colleagues are talking about the educational impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT. I see news articles pop up and am wondering how AI will influence the instructor and instructional designer roles. Some of my faculty are really freaking out! I really don’t know where to start.

Help! AI is melting my brain!

Signed,

OA-Organic Acumen

Dear OA,

The speed of technological change is enough to melt anyone’s brain, I feel for you! However, like any new technological application, we need to approach it methodically and thoughtfully.

Take a deep breath dear reader, as artificial intelligence in the educational setting has been around for decades. It is embedded in adaptive learning, analytics, grading systems, plagiarism checkers, and in our chat messaging systems. AI is typically considered a computer system that has been developed (trained) over time to aid our cognitive capacity. AI can be a valid time-management aid!

Take a deep breath...artificial intelligence in the educational setting has been around for decades.

Recently, some of the more popular AI tools like ChatGPT (text generator),  Dall-E2 (graphics generator), Pictory (video/narrator generator, editor), Grammarly (writing assistant), and Otter.ai (audio/video transcription) have become hot topics for our community. Educators are concerned about how AI will be used to derail students’ learning and influence their ability to write and create. Of course, this is a real concern, but let’s consider whether we can approach the proliferation of AI options as a teaching moment.

Let’s explore how AI, specifically ChatGPT, can be harnessed as a teaching and learning tool. Review the following suggestions which provide entry points to investigate text generators.

  1. Experiment with ChatGPT, make an account, input (ask) questions, and define your parameters. Start by asking simple questions and evaluate the responses – are they accurate, incomplete, or completely inaccurate? During one session, continue to input more complex scenarios and questions. See how some instructors are using ChatGPT to create discussion prompts and lesson plans!
  2. Create assignments utilizing ChatGPT. For example, in a multi-part assignment/project, students can use the tool to draft a short paper, solve an equation/problem, or write a discussion post about a course-related topic of interest. Part of the assignment should be to compare the tool’s responses to their course texts. Consider asking them to keep a reflective journal of their experience and their AI prompts. In a follow-up discussion, students can collectively discuss their experiences using an AI tool: Is it ethical to use, did it help them gain a broader understanding of the topic, and was it accurate? Of course, the instructor needs to be THE guiding voice through this process and carefully review the outputs to help students discern the AI results.
  3. Harness strategies to develop authentic assessments which will make it difficult for a text generator to respond if you or your instructors are not ready to embed the tool in pedagogical activities. Focus on recent local events specific to your course topic which require critical thinking and analysis that cannot be easily replicated by a text generator.
  4. Reflect on your current AI policy and help instructors draft a statement for their syllabi and/or assignment instructions. Can students use it when preparing an outline, but not a final draft? Define your expectations and make them explicit.

Further exploration might include “talking” directly to ChatGPT, asking it how you can incorporate AI into your specific course, and experimenting with how to evaluate its use. Get to know the AI tools, their strengths, and their limitations.

AI-generated conversation with instructor

To give you an idea of how this could work for a research or discussion-related assignment, this image is a screen shot of a discussion between myself and ChatGPT.

As you can see, the ChatGPT AI system provides ideas based on the specificity of my queries. The more specific you are, the better responses are generated by the software. The AI-generated results might also provide you with new ideas to think about, enhancing the depth and breadth of your creativity and research. This is how it works with the graphic image AI software as well – specificity can bring awesome results!

As with all technological advances, there are potential concerns regarding AI, such as privacy issues, equity considerations, and resource allocations. While these concerns should be taken seriously, this article focuses primarily on the positive applications of AI in education.

Personally, I see ChatGPT as a type of Google search engine on steroids. It is powerful, but only as powerful as my own discerning capabilities. A search engine provides resources that are not created equal; similarly, I need to review the AI output and then decide on my own how I will use the results.

What other ideas or plans for the use of AI have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence innovation in education: A twenty-year data-driven historical analysis. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 4(4), 134-147.

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2017). Seven things you should know about artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/4/eli7143.pdf.

McMurtrie, B. (2023). What you can learn from students about CHATGPT. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Rose, R. (2023). ChatGPT in Higher Education: Artificial Intelligence and Higher Education. University of North Florida Digital Pressbooks.

University Center for Teaching and Learning. (nd). ChatGPT resources for faculty. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://teaching.pitt.edu/resources/chatgpt-resources-for-faculty/

Posted on by Addie

Cyberbullying: A Guide for Supporting Faculty Under Attack (Issue 28)

shocked lady looking at computer

Author and Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

The faculty members at my institution are facing a unique challenge, especially since the extensive use of Zoom for class meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of our faculty have come under attack on social media for the way they teach, the way their courses are designed, the way they dress, the way they style their hair, etc. Apparently, nothing is off limits for those that post these negative comments! What can instructional designers and administrators do to help support faculty when they are under such stress?

Signed,

Cyber Stressing

Dear Stressing,

Faculty have varied challenges in teaching a diverse student population but facing social media attacks should not be one of them. Unfortunately, this is occurring frequently in the higher education landscape. What you are describing is known as “cyberbullying.” Cyberbullying is defined by Willard (2004, as cited in Li, 2008) as “sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices.” These can include tactics such as flaming, harassment, cyberstalking, denigration, masquerade, outing and trickery, and exclusion.

definition of harassment terms

According to Cain, Linos, and Chretien (2019), there have been “coordinated public attacks directed at higher education faculty,” usually politically or socially motivated from students who disagree with statements made by faculty members concerning sensitive or controversial subjects. When opinions, attitudes, or attempts to engage is civil discourse goes viral, the goal is to destroy reputations or careers – not to further scholarly discourse – which further undermines the development of critical thinking and the ability to confront challenging issues. Unfortunately, these negative effects can have repercussions for both the faculty members and their institution.

A "critical instructional design" approach can prioritize course concepts and strategies that may mitigate cyberbullying.

For those of us in faculty support roles, it is important to understand the emotional distress and/or abuse the faculty member may be experiencing. How can one focus on well-designed courses, professional development, and scholarly activities when facing such aggression? The relational support instructional designers and administrators can provide is like self-care but may be viewed as “other care.” Faculty members also have a role to play here. There are purposeful actions each role can take to mitigate the physical, mental, and financial stress during this type of challenge, as indicated in the table below.

Cyberbullying is not an event that anyone – students or faculty – should have to understand or face, but it is a fact of life in today’s world. The steady increase of technology continues to make such communication increasingly easy because it offers anonymity, instant gratification, and often biased rhetoric. While instructional designers, administrators, and faculty peers cannot replace licensed mental health professionals when needed, we can provide some structure and support for faculty under fire. Policies, expectations, syllabi, and engaging critical thought content to capitalize on student involvement are the foundation of effective course design to help mitigate the onset and potential effects of cyberbullying.

Recommendations for Mitigating Cyberbullying for Faculty and Support Roles
WhoRecommendations
AdministratorsDevelop and disseminate clear social media guidelines that outline free speech and academic freedom components.
 
Provide formal training for faculty on social media conduct, communication, and online scholarly discourse.

Form a social media crisis team that can (1) provide an a priori crisis plan and (2) intervene rapidly in cyberbullying cases to protect the faculty member and the university.  
  
Instructional DesignersUsing the COI framework, consider teaching presence elements in course design to create a positive learning environment by establishing policies, procedures, and processes; and reviewing instructor response approaches in course syllabi and expectations (Cox and Raditch, 2022).  

Use a “critical instructional design” approach (Morris, 2017) to assist faculty to prioritize collaboration, participation, social justice, learner agency, emergence, narrative, and nurturing relationships between faculty/students and students/students to help give students a voice and minimize conflict.  

Incorporate instructional support on cyberbullying in faculty development programs and training, especially for online teaching.  

Be flexible in work or training programs deadlines when faculty members are facing cyberbullying challenges.  

Offer relational support and mitigation design ideas through the building of the instructional designer/faculty relationship.  

Offer cyberbullying resources such as the Cyberbullying Research Center, designed for educators at all levels.  
  
FacultyUse principles of civil discourse to reduce the chances of evoking rage and inviting a cyberattack.  

Recognize that one does not have to participate in social media discourse to become a target of cyberbullying as cellphone videos, forwarded emails, and online links to manuscripts are easily shared online by the attacking party.  

If one becomes a cyberbullying target, inform administration immediately, refrain from further social media communications with the attacker(s), and seek legal advice.  

Provide support in private and/or public to peers undergoing a cyberbullying attack.
Adapted from Cain, J., Linos, E., and Chretien, K. (2019). Cyberbullying in academic medicine: A framework for managing social media attacks. Academic Medicine, 94(5), 626-629. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002649

What other ideas do you have that could improve the Ask ADDIE approach to inviting questions or article ideas? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Cain, J., Linos, E., and Chretien, K. (2019). Cyberbullying in academic medicine: A framework for managing social media attacks. Academic Medicine, 94(5), 626-629. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002649

Cox, T. and Raditch, J. (2022). Teaching Online and Cyberbullying: Exploring Cyberbullying Policies. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 71-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v5i1.152

Del Ray, R., Ortga-Ruiz, R. and Casas, J. (2019). Asegu`rate: An intervention program against cyberbullying based on teachers’ commitment and on design of its instructional materials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 434. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030434

Li, Q. (2008). Cyberbullying in schools: An examination of preservice teachers’ perception. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology (CJLT), 34(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21432/T2DK5G

Morris, S. M. (2017, October 27). A call for critical instructional design. Sean Michael Morris. https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/a-call-for-critical-instructional-design/

Posted on by Addie

E-Readiness: The Key to Online Teaching Success (Issue 27)

Author & Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

My organization is facing a new challenge. We require online faculty to complete a faculty development program for online teaching that most consider phenomenal. However, it seems that some participants are still not fully prepared or “ready” for teaching effectively in the online environment based on personal reflections or student evaluations. Do you know of any instruments or strategies that can be used to effectively gauge readiness for online teaching? 

Signed,

Ready to Teach

Dear Ready,

What a great question! Most of us engaged with online teaching and learning can look back over the early years of this endeavor and recognize that we have come a long way. In days past, when online teaching presented a new educational landscape, there were many schools that did not have any such faculty development requirements to adequately prepare their instructors for this new environment. Other schools took a minimalistic approach to this preparation by providing a single online course for faculty to complete prior to teaching online. Regardless of approach, those organizations that provided any training usually focused on the technology of the Learning Management System (LMS) rather than pedagogical principles and standards (Lane, 2013).

As the years have rolled past – and with such natural phenomena as the recent pandemic pushing us into new innovations – there are many more thorough faculty development programs available through our educational institutions now. Some have argued that this unprecedented push into new territories leaves organizations with little to no training, insufficient bandwidth, and little preparation to successfully engage with this “new normal” (Li & Lalani, 2020). However, your question prompts the continuing issues of program quality, effectiveness, and how well these programs prepare faculty to successfully navigate and engage in the online environment.

Competency themes are integral for achieving e-readiness in online faculty development programs.

Phan and Dang (2017) define teacher e-readiness as one’s willingness to explore an online modality, preparation for basic technical and communication skills, and participation in training for new teaching methodologies. This preparation is the responsibility of both the institution and the faculty member. In fact, researchers found that perceptions of positive institutional support were of primary relevance to the acceptance or rejection of online learning opportunities for most teachers (Howard, S., Tondeur, J, Saddiq, F, & Scherer, R., 2020). But, on which competencies or skills should our training programs focus?

In blended teaching, seven global themes of competency have been identified: (1) pedagogy, (2) management, (3) assessment, (4) technology, (5) instructional design, (6) dispositions, and (7) improvement (Pulham & Graham, 2018). Many argue that the skills needed to teach in blended and online modalities are unique to each environment (Pulham, Graham, & Short, 2018). The authors recommend that faculty development programs should reference all domains of unique competency that demonstrate distinctions between traditional and online teaching. For more information, the above articles reflect upon the unique modality competencies in detail.

As one of the foremost figures in blended and online learning research, Dr. Charles Graham has authored and co-authored many articles, resulting in the Blended Teaching Readiness Survey. While this instrument is validated for the K-12 environment, several of the items contained within the survey can be applied to higher education as well. The survey is grouped around identifiable competencies and could help to inform our development planning:

  • Dispositions – attitudes and beliefs towards online teaching and learning
  • Online Integration – ability to select when and how to effectively combine online and in-person experiences as core instruction
  • Data Practices – use of digital tools to help students succeed
  • Personalizing Instruction – ability to develop a learning environment
  • Online Interaction – ability of facilitation with and between students

This instrument could be very useful for further development as an e-readiness tool for instructors in higher education. While the competencies indicated would likely remain similar, the manner in which these skills are integrated into the online modality could be subject to change due to the more independent nature of higher education institutions. However, due to its research validation, it remains a potential tool to further reflect upon our approaches to faculty development programs in online teaching. Another resource for this is found on the TOPkit website. The Checklists & Rubrics for Evaluating Online Programs can be useful to ensure our training programs are meeting the needs of the participants.

What other ideas do you have that could improve the Ask ADDIE approach to inviting questions or article ideas? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Archibald, D. E., Graham, C. R., & Larsen, R. (2021). Validating a blended teaching readiness instrument for primary/secondary preservice teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13060

Graham, C. R., Borup, J., Pulham, E. B., & Larsen, R. (2019). K-12 blended teaching readiness: Model and instrument development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1586601

Howard, S., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2021). Ready, set, go! Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching in secondary education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30:1, 141-158, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1839543

Lane, L. (2013). An open, online class to prepare faculty to teach online. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 1-32. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=An+open%2c+online+class+to+prepare+faculty+to+teach+online&id=EJ1004897 

Li, C., & Lalani, F. (April, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/ 

Phan, T. & Dang, L. (June, 2017). Teacher readiness for online teaching: A critical review. International Journal on Open and Distance e-Learning, 3(1), 1-16. Retrieved from https://ijodel.com/june-2017-issue/ 

Pulham, E. B., & Graham, C. R. (2018). Comparing K-12 online and blended teaching competencies: A literature review. Distance Education, 39(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476840

Pulham, E., Graham, C. R., & Short, C. R. (2018). Generic vs. Modality-Specific Competencies for K-12 Online and Blended Teaching. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(1), 33–52. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/JOLR/v/4/n/1/

Posted on by Addie

The “Great Unveiling”: A Peek Behind the Curtain of Ask ADDIE (Issue 26)

Author(s): Dr. Denise Lowe, Dr. Shelly Wyatt, & Dr. Kelvin Thompson

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Like many online content developers, the editors and contributing authors of TOPkit Digest have remained behind the curtain, their names and credentials hidden from sight. Recognizing the benefits of transparency regarding individual Digest contributors, the editors of the Digest have decided to add the names and credentials of individual authors to their developed content. Likewise, the names of contributors to the Ask ADDIE column will also now appear on each entry, thus giving credit where credit is due rather than maintaining the anonymity of “ADDIE.”

Inspired by popular advice columns of the past (Ask Abby and Ann Landers) and present (Ask Amy and Miss Manners), Ask ADDIE emerged from the desire to provide a space where instructional designers and online faculty developers could share challenges and difficulties in an anonymous format where an experienced instructional designer would provide guidance and helpful resources. Similar to these pop culture advice columnists, “ADDIE’s” identity was purposely obscured behind a silhouetted persona allowing readers to form their own mental picture and facilitating a sharing of authoring duties behind the scenes. In practice, the authors of the Ask ADDIE column have been derived primarily from the intellectual resources of the University of Central Florida (UCF), while the questions have come from instructional designers, administrators, and faculty from various institutions, both in and out of the state of Florida.

While all of the columns written for Ask ADDIE are worthwhile reading since they address real challenges provided by our readers, some of them have been particularly timely and delivered in concert with issues higher education has faced over the years.

Ask ADDIE provides a space for faculty developers to share challenges in an anonymous format.

Take, for example, the most recent issue published, Essential Work or Essential Workers: Who Can Tell? (Issue 25), that effectively dealt with the “regular and substantive interaction” requirement by the Department of Education (DOE) for online courses. Updated definitions for these requirements caused quite a stir among faculty and instructional designers who now needed to return to the integration of this interaction within basic course design. This article, written by Dr. Florence Williams, an instructional designer at UCF, provided detailed definitions and course design ideas using active learning viewpoints and learning management system (LMS) capabilities in a collective approach.

Or, what about Hyflex, Blendflex, Asynchronous, Synchronous: Decoding Modalities (Issue 22), which attempted to make sense of all the new online approaches “forced” upon us by the Covid-19 pandemic? In the confusion over modalities, Dr. Amanda Major helped us to understand each modality, its benefits and uses, and how the “one size fits all” approach was no longer relevant to online learning. Like Dr. Williams, Dr. Major also works as an instructional designer at UCF.

In Foundations to Skyscrapers: Stages of Quality Design (Issue 17), Dr. Denise Lowe provided a graphical approach to the ADDIE model of course design (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) in renewed attempts to bring quality to the forefront of the design process. By breaking down the design model, readers were able to visualize the types of design tasks associated with each design level. This response was also helpful in program reviews to prepare faculty for online teaching. Dr. Lowe is a Senior Instructional Designer at UCF, and the graphic was designed by Mireya Ramirez from the Graphics team of the Center for Distributed Learning (CDL) at UCF.

Looking back at the very beginnings of Ask ADDIE, I Heard it Through the Grapevine…They’re Forgetting! (Issue 1), Dr. Kelvin Thompson, CDL Executive Director, delved into the always relevant topic of providing faculty development programs and tools that are actually useful for faculty to remember the concepts of online course design and teaching. The tips provided helped to break down the highly conceptualized design concepts that are used infrequently in a way that maintained collegial respect and support between the faculty member and the instructional designer.

Ongoing articles such as these provide relevant information, tips, and suggestions for all of us working in course design or online teaching. The benefits of such collective learning cannot be overstated since many of us deal with similar challenges within our own institutions. There is much wisdom among us – we all improve when it is shared!

Lessons learned from the early days of Ask ADDIE include the importance of faculty engagement in the development and delivery of online courses, including intentional course design, customization, and instructor presence. The human element retains its primacy at the center of robust, engaging online course design and delivery in the context of adaptive courseware, real-time student performance data, and the role of “efficiencies” (scale, return on investment, replication). The hurricane-force winds of change created by COVID-19 have created new challenges that are represented by the latter Ask ADDIE entries, including new course modalities and questions regarding what is really essential for successful online course design and delivery.

Going forward, questions may include implications of using Zoom for online faculty development and how instructional designers and faculty developers can create productive relationships with teaching faculty from a distance. Despite the current challenges and opportunities that have emerged because of COVID-19, the timeless nature of instructional designers and faculty development remains unchanged: Instructional tools and practices are driven by the needs and goals of learners. 

What other ideas do you have that could improve the Ask ADDIE approach to inviting questions or article ideas? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Ask ADDIE Editors:

Dr. Denise Lowe, Senior Instructional Designer, Division of Digital Learning, UCF, July 2018 – current

Dr. Shelly Wyatt, Associate Instructional Designer, Division of Digital Learning, UCF, July 2017 – June 2018

Dr. Kelvin Thompson, Executive Director, Center for Distributed Learning, Division of Digital Learning, UCF, January – June 2017

Ask ADDIE Authors:

Williams, F. (2022, February). Ask ADDIE: Essential Work or Essential Workers: Who Can Tell? (Issue 25). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2022/02/09/essential-work-or-essential-workers-who-can-tell-issue-25/

Stahl, N. (2021, November). Ask ADDIE: What’s the Objective Here? (Issue 24). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2021/11/09/whats-the-objective-here-issue-24/

Nettles, B. (2021, July). Ask ADDIE: Getting started with digital badges (Issue 23). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2021/07/14/getting-started-with-digital-badges/

Major, A. (2021, May). Ask ADDIE: Hyflex, Blendflex, Asynchronous, Synchronous: Decoding Modalities (Issue 22). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2021/05/11/hyflex-blendflex-asynchronous-synchronous-decoding-modalities-issue-22/

Sumner, J. (2020, November). Ask ADDIE: Getting Engaged: Marrying Together Faculty and Online Student Engagement (Issue 21). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2020/11/12/getting engaged-marrying-together-faculty-and-online-student-success-issue-21 

Major, A. (2020, August). Ask ADDIE: Full Throttled Out: Running on Fumes for Fall Faculty Developments Efforts (Issue 20). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2020/08/31/issue-20/

Jowallah, R. (2020, May). Ask ADDIE: The road to instructional designer credibility (Issue 19). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2020/05/06/issue-19/

Miller, R., Bauer, S., & Trail Constant, T. (2020, January). Ask ADDIE: Mergers & Acquisitions: Models of Curriculum Design Review (Issue 18). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2020/03/07/mergers-acquisit…-review-issue-18/

Lowe, D. (2019, October). Ask ADDIE: Foundations to skyscrapers: Stages of quality design (Issue 17). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2019/10/11/foundations-to-skyscrapers-stages-of-quality-design-issue-17/ 

Lowe, D. (2019, July). Ask ADDIE: Not a Magician Spock, Just an Old Country Instructional Designer (Issue 16). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/forums/topic/not-a-magician-spock-just-an-old-country

Tinsley-Kim, K. & Wyatt, S. (2019, May). Ask ADDIE: Becoming a more proactive faculty whisperer (Issue 15). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2019/05/01/becoming-a-more-proactive-faculty-whisperer/

Roberts-Jones, C. (2019, January). Ask ADDIE: Happily ever after: Positive working relationships between instructional designers and faculty (Issue 14). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2019/01/18/happily-ever-after-positive-working-relationships-between-instructional-designers-and-faculty-issue-14/

Major, A. & Bauer, S. (2018, November). Ask ADDIE: Same music, different rhythm: Missing the beat in project management (Issue 13). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2018/11/05/same-music-different-rhythm-missing-the-beat-in-project-management-issue-13/

Ngampornchai, A., & Wyatt, S. (2018, June). Ask ADDIE: More than meets the eye: Helping faculty   understand the ID role (Issue 12). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2018/06/11/more-than-meets-the-eye-helping-faculty-understand-the-id-role-issue-12/

Tinsley-Kim, K., & Wyatt, S. (2018, May). Ask ADDIE: Running on empty: Injecting instructional power into narrated PowerPoints(Issue 11). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2018/04/30/running-on-empty-injecting-instructional-power-into-narrated-powerpoints/

Wyatt, S. (2018, March). Ask ADDIE: Don’t wait to go deeper: Cultivating higher thinking in beginning classes(Issue 10). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2018/03/20/dont-wait-go-deeper-cultivating-higher-thinking-beginning-classes/

Wyatt, S. (2018, February). Ask ADDIE: Right foot, right steps: Collaborating on a “new” new faculty orientation(Issue 9). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2018/02/08/right-foot-right-steps-collaborating-new-new-faculty-orientation/

Wyatt, S. (2018, January). Ask ADDIE: Mining for gold in your own backyard: Faculty sharing and working across departments(Issue 8).Retrieved from TOPkit website:  https://topkit.org/2018/01/10/mining-gold-backyard-faculty-sharing-working-across-departments/

Wyatt, S. (2017, September). Ask ADDIE: Looking to “up” my ADA game (Issue 7). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/09/06/looking-ada-game-issue-7/

Wyatt, S. (2017, July). Ask ADDIE: Revving up online courses without getting off track (Issue 6). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/07/19/revving-online-courses-without-getting-off-track-issue-6/

Thompson, K. (2017, June). Ask ADDIE: Second-hand courses but not second-rate instructors (Issue 5). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/06/08/second-hand-courses-not-second-rate-instructors-issue-5/

Thompson, K. (2017, May). Ask ADDIE: The “quickest route” is always (Issue 4). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/05/09/quickest-route-isnt-always-issue-4/

Thompson, K. (2017, April). Ask ADDIE: Experience (with great engagement) really can be the best teacher (Issue 3). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/04/05/experience-great-engagement-really-can-best-teacher-issue-3/

Thompson, K. (2017, March). Ask ADDIE: You’ll get the keys when you pass your driver’s test! (Issue 2). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/03/01/youll-get-the-keys-when-you-pass-your-drivers-test/

Thompson, K. (2017, January). Ask ADDIE: I heard it through the grapevine…they’re forgetting! (Issue 1). Retrieved from TOPkit website: https://topkit.org/2017/01/12/i-heard-it-through-the-grapevine/

Posted on by Addie

Essential Work or Essential Workers: Who Can Tell? (Issue 25)

Author(s): Dr. Florence Williams

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) now requires that all online courses for which students may use Title IV funds (federal financial aid) include regular and substantive interaction (RSI) between students and instructors. There must be “scheduled and predictable” opportunities for instructor/student interaction in course design. As proponents of online learning design, my colleagues and I thought that we could work with any policy requirement for student access, accessibility, or interaction by leveraging innovation and delivery with design thinking. However, this need to address instructor/student interaction through course design, and the related guidance for implementation are new. Putting it bluntly, we’re stumped! Should we include the RSI in course-design consultations or share the requirement as a quality item and leave it to the faculty to create these opportunities through course facilitation?

Signed,

Stumped Proponent

Dear Stumped,

You have brought an exciting concern to the fore. As we continue into these pandemic times, faculty and instructional design relationships become more complicated. Course design often addresses in-course interaction by facilitating student engagement with the content and with each other. While the online instructor guides the process through facilitation, course design should also address scheduled and predictable instructor/student interaction opportunities. The new regulations from the DOE, which went into effect on July 1, 2021, update the definitions for correspondence education by using RSI to distinguish distance education courses for which students can utilize Title IV funds. The RSI requirements in the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), WCET (WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies), & University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) (2019) report provides a broad context for consideration that  is supported by the reports of the individual agencies of WCET (2020) and UPCEA (2020). In short, the consensus is that since the instructor must primarily initiate the RSI, it can best be addressed by both structured course design and quality course facilitation.

Proactivity & productivity in course design are crucial to align with policies for student/instructor interaction.

RSI includes engaging students in teaching-learning and assessment that incorporates the course content and aligns with the course learning objectives. Course design that supports RSI must provide direct instruction by presenting content in meaningful ways to meet the needs of diverse learners. Instructors must provide feedback to student queries about the content and give critical and focused feedback on their coursework and assignments. In cases where the course design includes a collaborative activity, the instructor must provide information for the group’s engagement and feedback on group tasks.

Recommendations for course design that establishes this interactive structure may include:

  1. Be proactive and interactive. Create opportunities for connecting with the content and instructor through active learning design. Proactively place learner considerations at the center of the design approach with opportunities for regular and consistent student interactions. Focused interactivity begins with the syllabus design in which the instructor can identify options for intentional engagement.
  2. Create social and collaborative engagement. Build pathways for developing an instructor-led learning community by encouraging diversity awareness and respect for the ideas and skills of others. Establish substantive discussion and engagement guidelines for students. As the instructor, engage substantively through monitoring and increased responsiveness.
  3. Acknowledge tensions between policies and practices. Quality assurance requires course design to foster a connection between the curriculum and compliance expectations and tie these into the course in meaningful ways. Connect students with helpful resources by incorporating institutional and departmental policies, links to learning advisors, and program or department resources.

It is crucial to be proactive and productive in the course design phase to align with the RSI policy for student/instructor interaction. Several Learning Management Systems (LMS) have built-in affordances or intelligence agents that support effective instructor-initiated course facilitation. These agents can facilitate an interaction structure for small and large courses through:

  1. Course assessment policies
    • Incorporate practice opportunities and peer reviews 
    • Develop question banks for online quiz randomization
    • Create rubrics and collaboration expectations 
    • Provide guided feedback on student coursework 
    • Create automated quiz (re)views that correct erroneous information, provide answers, and directions for further study
  2. Effective time management practices
    • Message students who did not visit topics, have been absent for xxx days, have missed assignments
    • Preset announcements to launch on specific dates
  3. Meetings and office hours
    • Create appointments for whole-class engagement
    • Provide regular opportunities for one-on-one meetings

What other policies or practices for incorporating regular and substantive interaction through course design have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References

Online Learning Consortium (OLC), WCET (WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies), & University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA). (2019). Regular and Substantive Interaction: Background, Concerns, and Guiding Principle. In Online Learning Consortium. Online Learning Consortium.

 

Posted on by Addie

What’s the Objective Here?: Using Module-based Objectives for Student Success (Issue 24)

Author(s): Nicole Stahl

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

Are module objectives all that important to create? I don’t want to spend time creating something that students don’t read, but I always hear that establishing objectives are something critical to do. I’m not sure what’s the best way to save time for myself and still help my students.

Signed,

Trying Not to Take the Easy Way Out

Dear Trying,

Thank you for the care that you have for your students. Everyone faces the challenge of “is the effort that I’m putting in worth it” when creating content. While it certainly may not seem like your students are actively reading your module objectives, students tend to ask “why” they are doing the work you assign. Having your module objectives clearly listed for your students is a first step in getting them to understand why they are learning what you have provided and why you are asking them to complete specific assignments.

According to Adelphi University, establishing module objectives will allow you to clearly think through and organize what it is that you want students to learn not just in your course, but throughout each module (2020). By understanding the individual pieces of the puzzle that make up your course, the design process will run smoother than before. While it may feel as if you are spending time and effort in determining these objectives, in the long run you are making the design process go by faster because you will know what needs to be covered in each module for students to obtain the knowledge and skills they need to achieve by the end of the course.

Additionally, a quality course design includes objectives and assessments that are in alignment. Many higher education institutions are promoting Quality and/or High Quality designated courses. If you are interested in designing and developing a quality course, course and module objectives are a component to this process.

The rubric above is a snapshot of the rubric criteria used by Quality Matters. Learning Objectives, Competencies, Assessment, and Measurement are key factors in quality course design.
"Module-based objectives...can serve as a kind of checklist that spells out what [students] should know and be able to do..." (Adelphi University, 2021)

When students are clearly able to demonstrate their understanding and comprehension through a completed activity, then the objective and assessment are in alignment. Without a module objective(s) to guide them through the process, both you and the student would be left wondering if they successfully accomplished the goal of the activity and learned what they needed. This sense of dissatisfaction can lead to poor academic performance and disengagement with the course. In turn, listing the objectives of a module is a subtle way of illustrating to the student how they are progressing through the course and the knowledge that they are building along the way. Objectives that are student-centered and focused will lead to better learning outcomes.

If you are struggling with sharing your own objectives or understanding the importance of module objectives, I recommend reading these two Design with Quality in Mind blog posts: Measurable Module Objectives and Align Module Objectives. The Eberly Center also provides a quick guide on composing strong learning objectives that are measurable and use action verbs (2021).

Once you have an understanding of the objectives that best fit your course, you can also use this Objective Builder Tool to ensure you are creating quality measurable objectives. There are also mnemonic tools that you can follow, such as SMART: Specific, Measurable, Action-Orientated, Realistic, and Time-Based (Writing Module-Based Learning Objectives, 2020).

Ultimately, while it may be frustrating having to come up with both course objectives and module objectives, in the long run both you and your students will benefit from this information. Establishing clear objectives will guide you through the design process, and having a list of objectives will help the student successfully navigate through your course. And the more you practice writing objectives, the easier it will be!

What other ideas or tips for writing creative and powerful objectives do you use at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Resources

Design with Quality in Mind a. (2021, September 1). Align Module Objectives with Assessments. Center for Distributed Learning. https://cdl.ucf.edu/align-module-objectives-with-assessments/

Design with Quality in Mind b. (2021, August 6). Measurable Module Objectives. Center for Distributed Learning. https://cdl.ucf.edu/measurable-module-objectives/

Eberly Center. (2021). Design & Teach a Course, Articulate Your Learning Objectives. Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html

Quality Matters. (2021). QM Rubric & Standards. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards

Writing Module-Based Learning Objectives. (2020, August 10). Faculty Center for Professional Excellence. https://www.adelphi.edu/fcpe/programs/online-and-blended-course-development/resources-for-planning-and-development/course-mapping-and-learning-objectives/writing-module-based-learning-objectives/