Category: Ask ADDIE

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/

Posted on by Addie

Hyflex, Blendflex, Asynchronous, Synchronous: Decoding Modalities (Issue 22)

Author(s): Dr. Amanda Major

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE, 

The shift to remote teaching during the ongoing pandemic has prompted faculty to deliver creative online experiences for their students, combining different modes of delivery and using new technology tools. My university needs a way of categorizing these different mode options so that faculty will know the parameters of how to deliver their courses, students can make informed course enrollment decisions, and internal staff can have a common language to support faculty and students’ efforts for success. Could you use your decoder expertise and help us decipher between the different modalities? 

Signed, 

Caesar Cipher 

Dear Caesar Cipher, 

I can understand your confusion. Students need to understand the course modalities for which they are registering so they may plan their semester schedules or determine if the mode meets their learning preferences or specific life circumstances. Faculty need to know the parameters of each modality so they may deliver the course in a method consistent with students’ expectations. Internal higher education staff, who may support teaching or learning activities, need to have a common language so they can make recommendations consistent with the course modality, technology tools, and instructional techniques that best complement learning experiences.  

When many campuses switched to remote learning over late Spring 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many faculty members unfamiliar with the Learning Management System (LMS) utilized video conferencing sessions or video streaming to deliver their lectures. They learned as quickly as possible how to store their instructional content and create assessments on their institution’s LMS. Some faculty couldn’t help but offer the bare necessities for course delivery, and others found creative ways to deliver their courses, i.e., repurposing a clear shower door as a lightboard during video sessions and creating lab kits customized to the course to send to their students. These examples went above and beyond most faculty members’ efforts, as many faculty spent enormous amounts of mental and physical energy during that unprecedented time managing their own lives, like determining how to school and care for their children while they had to work from home. 

"A choose-your-own adventure faculty development program will serve innovative modality-attribute combinations."

As higher education institutions re-opened, administrators introduced HyFlex and BlendFlex modalities as a method for following CDC recommended guidelines and to accommodate stakeholders (parents, students, faculty, local businesses, and others) who have strong needs and preferences for remote or in-person course delivery. In its pure form, HyFlex is conceptualized as a student-directed method because students choose which option suits them best, online or face-to-face instruction. It’s designed to serve on-ground and online students with limited resources, especially relevant for emergency situations, via multi-modal delivery (Beatty, 2019). Essentially a HyFlex approach to learning, BlendFlex affords students the option to seamlessly move between experiences of face-to-face and online synchronous or asynchronous instruction to complete required elements of a course (as described by Carol Lee in Liebermann, 2018). Both modalities imply that there is both an online and face-to-face version of the course designed, developed, and delivered. Empathy is due to faculty, as well as those who guide and support them (project managers, faculty development coordinators and facilitators, instructional technologists, multi-media specialists, and instructional designers), as they attempt to live up to Hyflex and Blendflex ideal standards while also managing extenuating life circumstances during their institution’s campus re-openings.  

For these reasons, describing the different modalities in terms of whether instruction has certain space or time requirements, as well as the degree of flexibility between space or time, makes the most sense. The following chart may clarify modality differences, which was inspired from instructional designer dialogue at the University of Central Florida but does not reflect any official definitions from the University. 

 Required Elements for Students 
Modality Physical classroom Live, Synchronous Sessions Online, Asynchronous Instruction  Video, Asynchronous Instruction 
Blended, Mostly Online  Up to 20% Possibly* More than 50% Possibly* 
Blended, Face-to-Face More than 20% Possibly* Up to 50% Possibly* 
Web-based No Optional Only^ Yes Possibly* 
Face-to-face  More than 50%  Possibly*  Optional Only ^  Optional Only ^  
Video Possibly* Yes- Possibly* Yes- 
HyFlex  Possibly*  Possibly* Possibly* Possibly* 
Extended  Reality Possibly* Possibly* Possibly* Possibly* 
“Possibly” denotes that those components may be required if the synchronous or physical classroom components are scheduled in advance.

^ ”Optional only” denotes that the element can be designed/delivered by faculty but must be offered to students as an optional activity, not as a requirement.

-“Video” denotes that completion of synchronous or asynchronous learning activities are required by viewing recorded video. The required amount of each type of learning activity (synchronous or asynchronous) must be communicated to students prior to enrollment so they may schedule their time appropriately.

A quick description of required elements is warranted. The physical classroom requirement means that students and faculty must attend in-person at a physical space on campus. That may include individuals using robotic proxies; live, synchronous streaming; or video recordings for accessibility reasons or excused absences. Often, synchronous sessions substitute for already scheduled face-to-face modes in which a student is required to be physically present. Live, synchronous sessions require students and faculty to be online at the same time but not in the same location, occurring during a video conferencing session, collaborative environment, or video streaming (if not recorded for later viewing definitive of asynchronous video instruction). Asynchronous instruction does not require faculty nor students to be in the same location, at the same time. Typically, online asynchronous instruction is delivered over a platform, such as an LMS, communication platform, or website.   

The modality is defined by time and space requirements, i.e., when students must be present and where students must be located to receive instruction. The reason for defining course modes is so students and faculty know where to be and when. For this reason, some would argue that Video and Extended Reality (e.g., as the use of augmented reality like Pokemon Go, mixed reality like via Holo Lens, and extended reality that provides simulated experiences) are attributes of instruction that could occur in any modality, when students are face-to-face, or asynchronously or synchronously interacting.  

Attributes offer a common language as well as a set of best practices for faculty and professionals supporting or guiding their efforts to source materials and adapt instruction. Attributes may occur in instances or permeate an entire course. Designers are intimately familiar with these attributes: mastery, experiential, service, gamified, technology enhanced, personalized adaptive, immersive, project based, case based, active, appreciative, inclusive, internationalized, team based, and so on. 

The faculty development implications of having a variety of modalities, as well as attributes, provide a smorgasbord of options from which faculty may pick and choose— a decision made best in congruence with their instructional preferences, their students’ preferences, and their program’s niche. For instance, a group of language arts faculty members are designing a series of courses on an adaptive platform so students may enjoy a personalized learning experience that outshines popular language learning apps. These faculty members need to know the basics of instructional design, teaching online courses, and basics of mastery learning. They, however, need more in-depth procedural knowledge about the adaptive platform and associated teaching methods, inclusive teaching and responsive systems design. As another example, for faculty planning to teach online using the institution’s LMS, all they need to know are the essentials of the platform as well as best practices for designing/teaching online. For the outcome of faculty learning nuanced skills to deliver innovative courses, a one-size-fits-all approach to faculty development is no longer relevant. Creating a faculty development ecosystem that supports a program-approved, choose-your-own-adventure credentialing system will serve an array of innovative modality-attribute combinations.  

Ultimately definitions for instructional modalities, and support provided for each, must align with the designated accrediting bodies as well as the institutions’ vision, mission, infrastructure, and resources. For other ideas of how instructional modalities may be defined, take a look at Azus Pacific University’s Instructional Modalities, and the University of Central Florida’s Course Modalities and Attributes. For pros and cons of synchronous, asynchronous, and combination courses, see Kansas State University’s Keep Teaching Online Modalities. If you’re re-designing your faculty development ecosystem to enable course innovations across modalities and attributes, you may glean some ideas from TOPkit’s Examples of Faculty Development Pathways. 

What other modalities or attributes have you applied or are exploring at your higher education institution? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

References 

Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-Flexible Course Design (1st ed.).  Ed Tech Books.   https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex 

Lieberman, M. (January, 2018). Introducing a New(-ish) Learning Mode: Blendflex/Hyflex. Inside Higher Ed: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/01/24/blendflex-lets-students-toggle-between-online-or-face-face  

Posted on by Addie

Full Throttled Out: Running on Fumes for Fall Faculty Development Efforts (Issue 20)

Car doing drifting, and doing a burnout.

Author(s): Dr. Amanda Major

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

Ever since the Spring, my colleagues and I have shifted gears to help faculty teach in a virtual or online format while working from home! The global pandemic has popularized virtual/online teaching, consequently, increasing demands for our virtual/online course design, development, and facilitation know-how. We continue to selflessly give knowing that our help facilitates students learning and faculty teaching at a distance to remain free from COVID-19 exposure.

We do, however, realize that there is an extent to our race to nowhere fast. My colleagues and I are suffering from Zoom fatigue, mixed up sleep patterns, and concerns for balancing rapid course development with course quality. On top of work stressors, our family members are either needing extra care, working from home, or completing school from home. They depend on us to meet their needs. We are in full throttle, running on fumes, with no expectation of hitting the brakes any time soon.

Now, as Fall begins, we are running out of energy. Please help us curtail burnout!

Signed,

Running on Fumes


Dear Running on Fumes,

You are experiencing stress and anxiety in uncertain times. You are on the verge of burnout if not already experiencing it. 

What is burnout and its symptoms? According to the Mayo Clinic (2020), job burnout is marked by physical or emotional exhaustion with a reduced sense of accomplishment and personal identity. Symptoms could include any combination of these work related reactions: cynicism, trouble getting started, lack of energy, difficulty concentrating, reduced satisfaction with achievements, feeling disillusioned, or impatience with colleagues, staff, faculty, or students. You may also experience a change in sleeping habits or unexplained physical symptoms. Some may use substances to feel better. 

Whether or not you and your faculty development colleagues are experiencing burnout, you likely have experienced a range of emotions as you addressed faculty development needs during this pandemic. During the onset of the pandemic, many higher education institutions closed campuses and faculty mass transformed their courses into a virtual format. Though those in your profession had the requisite knowledge for the transition, it was a transition nonetheless and likely extra work, especially navigating the changes the pandemic brought to your lifestyles.

Taking care of your body, mental well-being, and spirit or connection to the universe if essential to feel better and optimally perform.

The type of work accomplished by consultants, technical problem solvers, coordinators, and facilitators of faculty development combined with the increased demands has real effects. Those who prepare faculty to teach virtual, online, or hybrid courses engage in emotional labor, regulating their emotions in order to take care of the faculty with whom they are helping, similar to that of healthcare professionals caring for patients.

The task demand for those in our profession during these times required fast-tracking faculty development and speeding up course production while ensuring quality courses. Though, few additional resources were likely allocated towards those efforts, thereby workloads likely increased. You may have been counting on summer for some rest, but work demands were such that you could not use that time to rejuvenate. Nights of late work or anxiety due to the stressors of the transformation may have taken a toll on your circadian rhythms, now your sleep patterns are off. No wonder you are exhausted!

Burnout is a real phenomena in this line of work, because we tend to be passionate about what we do until we do so much that we aren’t sure that we are making a real contribution. Continuing to work while feeling depleted may put your job performance and health at risk.

I, myself, have grappled with managing stressors related to burnout throughout my career in digital learning. I have found that engaging in self-care practices empowered me to sustain my professionalism throughout the years.

Taking care of yourself during these times is paramount. Taking care of your body, mental well-being, and spirit or connection to the universe is essential to not just feeling better but also to optimally performing to help others. According to Huijser, Sim, and Felton (2020), this is a call to action.

I offer this list of tips to prevent burnout.

  • Harness the power of social connection. Surround yourself with nurturing people.  Debrief with a trusted friend. Seek solace from supportive, hard-working colleagues. Stay connected to supervisors who have trust in you. 
  • Work for a progressive unit. If you have a choice, choose to work for an institution that is forward-thinking, has clear strategic goals and priorities, and offers resources to support these.
  • Create autonomy over your activities and schedule. This may mean taking breaks and being okay with work products that are good enough rather than pursuing a nebulous state of perfection. Definitely let go of non-essential tasks. Make some room for engaging activities that are intrinsically motivating for you or professional development opportunities related to your career growth.
  • Enjoy and find satisfaction in your work. Know that you provide a valuable skill set. Make your work your own and enjoy collaborating with supportive colleagues when possible.
  • Take care of your physical self. Exercise, eat right, sleep well, and listen to your body. When it is time to stop and get up from your computer, do so. 
  • Practice self-care. This may mean taking a day off work, conducting daily reflections, connecting with nature, engaging in spiritual practices or meditation, or practicing gratitude. 
  • Seek professional help. Look into your Employee Assistance Program or health insurance plan for a counselor, therapist, or psychiatrist that meets your needs.

 In the words of Parker Palmer (2000), 

“Self-care is never a selfish act—it is simply good stewardship of the only gift I have, the gift I was put on earth to offer others. Anytime we can listen to true self and give the care it requires, we do it not only for ourselves, but for the many others whose lives we touch.”

We owe self care to ourselves, to others, as well as to our profession. 

Though demands of events triggered by the pandemic have placed extraordinary demands on professionals in our field, we are finding ways to take care of ourselves. Many more strategies for self-care and preventing burnout likely exist that particularly address the unique situations of those who prepare faculty to teach online during these unprecedented times.

What strategies have you found effective for taking care of your body, mental well-being, and spirit or connection to the universe? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Reference

Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Posted on by Addie

The Road to Instructional Designer Credibility (Issue 19)

Credibility road sign

Author(s): Dr. Rohan Jowallah

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

I am new to the instructional design profession. I got this job–which I love–because I taught online, used flipped classroom strategies, and redesigned my course several times—not because I have any training or education in this field. I also did not have the support I needed with my first supervisor (who has since left). I’m looking to re-image myself because my faculty see me and automatically think “Oh you just want me to teach online!” OR “You demanded I take a survey. Who are you to tell ME what to do?”

What do you suggest? I really want to help my faculty move toward the 21st Century in higher education.

Signed,

Reformation in Progress

Dear Reformation,

Thanks for your question! First of all, I hope you are keeping yourself safe. Even in the best of times, the scenario you present is challenging – yet quite commonly encountered. During the additional challenges posed by the COVID-19 situation, it can be even more difficult to engage faculty in quality online instruction. If ever there was a time to consider yourself as a central figure in your institution, it is now. Instructional designers have been called upon to assist and play a vital role in supporting faculty in teaching remotely. There are a few strategies that can be used to navigate various organizational cultures.

More than ever, instructional designers are central figures for institutional teaching and learning goals.

#1 Ensure that you locate a faculty member who is an advocate for online teaching and learning. Once you do so, make every effort to build a healthy relationship. This will create a way for you to provide needed instructional guidance. Once you find this online champion, you will have access to others who may be interested. Remember, any cultural shift will take time.

#2 I would also recommend that you use the online Faculty Development Decision Guide (FDDG) to assess your organizational needs. Doing so will also provide you with a pathway for developing initiatives for supporting faculty.

#3 Since you have also taught online and have developed various courses, it will be necessary to model/show faculty members the endless possibilities of online teaching and learning. The most significant way to show your skills will be to demonstrate them in practice.

#4 Finally, I would also recommend that you start a series of communication with your faculty members. Your conversation could focus on current practices and research in online teaching and learning, tools, and technologies used in online learning and teaching, and your research. Importantly, I recommend that you consider hosting some informal sessions. These sessions could take the form of one-to-one meetings or group meetings. Your ultimate aim is to build rapport with faculty. Doing so will require time, understanding, support, engagement, and effective communication.

I’m sure there are many more tips that others in the community have found useful. What strategies do you use for effectively engaging faculty in the online course design process – especially during such challenging times as we are currently facing? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Posted on by Addie

Mergers & Acquisitions: Models of Curriculum Design Review (Issue 18)

Author(s): Sue Bauer, Trudian Trail-Constant

Editor: Dr. Denise Lowe

Dear ADDIE,

I’m an Instructional Designer at a R1 university where our teaching and learning center has recently merged with our Academic Technologies team. As part of this process, I’ve been asked to lead a curriculum review of all the workshops, institutes, and training we offer to our teaching community (this includes faculty, graduate students and post-docs). This is a large task that involves reflecting on what competencies we want them to have, and where there is  overlap or gaps in our offerings. One of the attributes we want to assess is modality and where it might make sense to increase our offerings either fully online or blended. My questions are:

  • What suggestions or recommendations do you have for designing online faculty development courses? Are there specific examples where a self-paced, fully online facilitated or blended might be the best choice?
  • What approaches have others taken to broadly reviewing all their offerings and going through the process of curriculum mapping?

Signed,

Lost in Translation

Dear Lost in Translation,

Merging your teaching and learning center with your academic technologies team sounds like an exciting but daunting process. I hope the consolidation of the teams improves the progress toward your common goals as the teams learn to communicate in each other’s design language. As you mentioned, this is a critical time to review your faculty development offerings to ensure your curriculum design develops the intended learning outcomes free of gaps and superfluous overlaps, and aligns across all offerings.

As you review the gaps in your curriculum and select the modalities in which to design and deliver new offerings, consider utilizing a faculty development framework. A recent TOPkit Digest described three top faculty development models for planning new or revamping faculty development programs.

Curriculum design review assesses learning outcomes, closes gaps, and aligns training with other programs.

Whichever framework you use to redesign your faculty development program, consider incorporating these three components in your project to strengthen your effectiveness:

  • Survey your stakeholders as early in the redesign process as possible, including your unit personnel, institutional faculty, and even stakeholders external to your institution. This survey will help garner valuable feedback and preferences regarding faculty development in general, your past offerings specifically, and future faculty development offerings. The results of your survey can inform your decisions about modalities, pacing, gaps, etc.
  • Continually align the learning objectives, content, activities, and assessments throughout your redesign. This can help you close gaps and reduce needless overlaps in your offerings and outcomes.
  • Include a timeline in your project planning. This is important for keeping everyone involved in sync and to ensure the redesign actually gets completed. The timeline should include:
    • Tasks to be completed
    • The expected duration of each task
    • The date on which each task needs to be complete
    • Dependencies between tasks

Another resource you may find useful is the Faculty Development Decision Guide (FDDG), an interactive tool designed to allow institutions to evaluate their online faculty development needs, create a plan of action for their own online faculty development program, and have access to resources that will support faculty development. This tool is based on the Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development (QTMFD).

Whatever the outcome, I hope your unit will share lessons learned and recommendations when your process is complete and your newly formed unit is in operation and progressing toward its objectives.

I’m sure there are many more tips that others in the community have found useful. What strategies do you use for effectively engaging faculty in the online course design process? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!