Category: Ask ADDIE

Author(s): Dr. Amanda Major, Sue Bauer

Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE,

I am an instructional designer (ID) at a large university who works on a large team of instructional designers (15+); we collaborative on a variety of projects that I mostly enjoy. For example, we may work with our faculty and several support teams to (re)design faculty courses, collaborate with other instructional designers to launch new faculty development programs, and even contribute to online campus initiatives that need immediate attention. Many of my fellow IDs possess expertise in instructional design and online instruction but do not necessarily have project management experience. In general, we find it challenging to complete projects in a timely and efficient way. We have found that those with project management skills appear to have an easier time defining their projects, facilitating productive meetings, and submitting deliverables on time. What resources or guidance can you provide to help us adopt a more project management (PM) mindset? 

Thanks,

Leader of the Band

Dear Band Leader,

As a time-limited endeavor, projects have a lifecycle. Those with a PM background move through the processes that comprise a lifecycle for facilitating productivity:

• Initiating
• Planning
• Monitoring & Controlling
• Executing
• Closing

By DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Office of Information and Technology (Project Management Guide) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

To move through these processes, the quick establishment of credibility as well as trust is essential. This trust ultimately creates the vital bond that brings together stakeholder management, team facilitation, management support, and meeting clients’ expectations. Defining clients’ expectations and sustaining a project in any environment is challenging–and in large universities these tasks represent an even bigger challenge!  The complexity lies in that clients are difficult to define. They seem more like a group of stakeholders (or those who are affected by the project) who do not directly compensate us for our efforts than actual clients.

These client-like group of stakeholders may be the state board of governors, your associate vice provost, department heads, a group of faculty members, a faculty member with whom you’ve worked for years, or students. Clients are so important, as success factors of a project are based on their perceptions and consensus. Their perceptions of quality and when the project must be completed definitely counts!

The role of the instructional designer varies from institution to institution. Some IDs perform project management roles in their work: some principal investigators conduct research; faculty development managers guide the development of applications (or tech tools); some professionals design, develop, and deliver professional development; and some organizational development specialists guide online program rollouts and campus initiatives. Even if an ID does not lead on a specific project, they utilize project management practices and techniques to contribute as a team member.

Even if your team members have a background in management, this background may not be enough to successfully structure projects. It takes a strong skill-set. This skill-set differs from the competencies needed to manage ongoing operations, like consultations with faculty members or recurring training. Managing projects may require establishing relationships with a new set of stakeholders. It takes additional effort to create goals and facilitate the team’s productivity. You have to be a jack-of-all-trades because of the many different specialization considerations needed, as follows:

• Resource Management
• Integration Management
• Time Management
• Scope Management
• Quality Management
• Stakeholder Management
• Communications Management
• Risk and Budget Management (depending on the project).

These are basic elements of project management according to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMI, 2017). Instructional designers can use these in their leadership or contribution on a project.

Here are some tools, strategies, practices, and techniques that may assist with guiding successful project completion.

Project Management Infographics

Project Management Terminology

Online Project Management—Infographic

Agile Project Management—Infographic for Short-Term Projects

Integration Management Tools

Integration management is a Knowledge Area covering the coordinate of the core project life cycle.

Trello

Basecamp

Google Suite

Wrike

Templated Files for Project Management

George Mason University’s Project Management Office Templates

Free Project Management Templates from Project Management Docs

General Resources

The Role of an Instructional Designer as a Project Manager by Marina Arshavskiy, March 25, 2014

SkillQ Advisor—Project Management for Instructional Designers Video

OLC Project Management for Instructional Designers Course

Thanks for your question. I hope that these resources come handy. Do you have some project management resources, strategies, or tips you’d like to share? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author(s): Dr. Anchalee Ngampornchai, Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE,

I am an instructional designer at a small community college, but I am experiencing a problem that will probably resonate with other instructional designers: the faculty with whom I work (mostly well) appear to have little understanding of what an instructional designer does and, as a result, limit the contributions that I can make to their online courses. For example, they reach out to me with their technical questions but are less likely to see my role in light of improving their courses. Do you have any suggestions that could help me clarify my role to faculty?

Signed,

Crystal Clear

Dear Crystal,

You are not alone in feeling underutilized. Your experience resonates with many instructional designers (IDs) who are eager to contribute more to the pedagogical aspect of online courses. In fact, at least two studies – one by The Chronicle of Higher Education and the other by Intentional Futures – found that the most common obstacle reported by IDs is faculty members’ limited understanding of what instructional designers do.

There are several reasons why faculty have a limited view of what IDs do and, most importantly, how working with an ID can enhance their online courses. One explanation is that instructional designers are still relative newcomers to the higher education landscape (around the time of WWII). And instructional designers’ presence in higher education has only become significant with the growth of online learning. Another explanation is that IDs wear many hats, including course developers, instructional technologists, multimedia specialists, and instructional consultants.  The Instructional Design Symposium and the 2018 TOPkit Workshop feature helpful discussions that uncover the role of IDs varies across institutions. The role of an ID can be confusing even to IDs. How murky might it appear to other faculty members!? Other reasons include cognitive overload—faculty have so much going on that they simply haven’t given much attention to the services that IDs provide beyond online course triage!  Too, faculty may not believe anyone can help them improve or enhance their online courses because no one else knows their fields as well as they do.

If faculty don’t understand what IDs can do, we lose collaborative opportunities. I believe the IDs have a great responsibility to better educate faculty about the ID role. Instructional designers should not assume that faculty know what we do and we should, at the same time, appreciate that faculty may have learned to teach on their own, without the help or support of a pedagogical specialist. Faculty may also be concerned that IDs will judge their course materials, course design, or teaching methods. So, we should clarify our role in as many contexts as possible—earning their trust as well a offering our services and support.

Here are some suggestions for connecting with faculty and clarifying the ID role:

• Use initial faculty consultations as an opportunity to explain your role as an ID
• Share our own research, conference presentations, blogs, and professional publications
• Share personal interests to connect with faculty
• Take time to learn about faculty interests and research
• Plug into the campus culture by attending talks, presentations, and other faculty-sponsored events

We can also publicize our role and services, using websites, digital newsletters, and social media. We can also communicate through face-to-face interactions, including casual conversations and participating in campus committees.

How do you convey the role of the ID to your faculty? Let’s share ideas and hope that our expertise is more valued and better utilized by our beloved faculty! Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author(s): Karen Tinsley-Kim, Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Narrated PowerPoints – how my faculty love them!  ADDIE, I have an issue that I suspect is one that is facing instructional designers and faculty developers all across the country.  The faculty at my Large Public University believe that Narrated PowerPoints are the best way to bridge the gap between challenging content and the online learning environment. Faculty like creating these Narrated PowerPoints because, in addition to helping students, they appreciate the ease of creating these files and the fact that they can be repeatedly used  in their courses and even can be used in multiple classes (depending on the content). But there are so many issues with faculty relying on Narrated PowerPoints as their main content delivery method, especially when these files are not captioned. So, my question is this: what can I do to help faculty make their Narrated PowerPoints more engaging and more accessible to their students?

Signed,

Fill ‘Er Up

Dear Fill ‘Er Up,

This is a great time to be addressing this question. Summer is a popular time to develop online courses as well as an opportunity to prepare for the fall. Narrated PowerPoints (NPPTs) are indeed popular because many faculty are familiar with the technology and it does allow faculty to add an extra layer of explanation and personalization (voice). However, there are problems and limitations associated with NPPTs; some issues are linked to the instructional use of PPTs (and how best to use it in an online environment) and other issues are linked to the addition of voice and the video format. For example, some institutions are no longer supporting Flash/SWF files in their online courses and faculty members may encounter roadblocks when trying to upload their files to YouTube or HTML5 environments.

Narrated PowerPoints have been around for a long time, and therefore it may be useful to reconsider what content is still needed or required in a course. When the ability to easily narrate PPTs became available, many instructors were excited to try this technology as they could record important content that could be reused over several semesters. Although a “one and done” mentality may not have been their intent, some faculty members have built mini-libraries of lengthy NPPTs that they may not have revised for years. While the content itself likely hasn’t changed much, students have.

Today, most students appreciate the ability to watch or engage with digital content at their convenience. However, most students have little patience for videos that are more than a few minutes in length and do not appear to be current (as in recorded this year). In an online course, some students may recognize NPPTs and either skim them as quickly as possible (if they can access it on their computers) or skip them altogether because they anticipate it will be “long and boring.” Instructors’ original goal of using NPPTs—to engage their students and enhance learning—is no longer well-served by relying on long, infrequently updated NPPTs that are not clearly linked to an instructional goal. However, updating how faculty create and use NPPTs represents an opportunity to adopt new ways of delivering digital content that support student learning.  Guidelines for creating engaging NPPTs include:

• Identify and emphasize the instructional goal of the NPPT; Consider other options that might be a better fit for your instructional goal (ex. infographic)
• Keep NPPTs under 5 minutes (2 or 3 minutes is optimal)
• Update NPPTs often and include up-to-date info (news items, department events, new images)
• Include relevant images and limit excessive text
• Conclude NPPT with a clear application of the learning objective (how this NPPT will help the viewer be successful in the course)
• Make sure the NPPT is formatted properly (avoids Flash/SWF format) and is accessible.

A significant technical challenge associated with NPPTs is they are likely housed in Flash or SWF file environments and, while this has been popular, these file types are not accessible for students using mobile devices. For students with deaf/hard of hearing needs, these SWF files cannot be captioned. In addition, web browsers are scheduled to “sunset” or discontinue support for SWF files by 2020. Some higher educational institutions are already preparing for this sunset event by promoting alternatives to their faculty. These options include using HTML5; videos created in HTML5 are accessible via digital devices and can be properly captioned. Screencasting software, such as Camtasia, can record NPPTs that can be uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, or embedded in an LMS or course website. Other online options include PlayPosit and EdPuzzle that allow instructors to add pauses to a video or video clip (self-made or 3rd party) as well as questions, quizzes, short answers, and notetaking options; some options can be tracked to determine the level of student engagement, which Narrated PowerPoints have never been able to do at such a granular level.

Faculty may perceive that NPPTs are more helpful to their students than they really are; well-intentioned and prepared with lots of important information, faculty may be laboring over NPPTs that receive little attention from students.  One way to update faculty on the impact of different resources in their online courses is to share surveys related to students perceptions of instruction (TOPkit website: Sources of Data on Your Campus).  Although it can be hard to hear, understanding what is or is not working for students is some of the most valuable feedback an instructor can have to guide future development of a course.

Narrated PowerPoints are ubiquitous in online and mixed-mode courses across the country.  What are you doing to encourage faculty to revise or update their current NPPTs and encourage them to consider other instructional options that might be a better fit with specific instructional goals (e.g., online games/activities, discussions, collaborative projects)?  Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author and Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE,

I am an instructional designer at a large southern university and I recently had coffee with a faculty member (“Jesse”) who posed this challenging question to me:

In upper-level classes, it can be pretty easy to create learning activities that are engaging; the foundations of a discipline have been laid and students are ready to begin applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating what they have learned.  These learning activities mirror the complexity of higher thinking skills and present challenges and opportunities for elaborate reasoning. They also offer possibilities for meaningful interaction with peers, instructors, and content.

However, developing engaging learning activities for beginning-level courses is more challenging as the cognitive focus tends to be on recall, recognition, and description – tasks that students tend to find boring. Flashcards, study questions, practices quizzes, drill and practice exercises, concept matching, etc. are effective in addressing the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (knowledge, and comprehension) but are not usually very engaging. Too, these activities decontenxtualize concepts and limit opportunities for making real-world connections and develop deep learning.

Any ideas? We appreciate any insight you can provide!

Signed,

Higher Thinking for Everyone!

Dear Higher Thinking:

Jesse has posed a great question that is going to ring a bell with a lot of faculty: how to cultivate students’ higher order thinking skills in beginning courses. Part of this challenge lies in the traditional role of foundational courses—to impart the basic facts of the discipline, usually identified as names, timelines, terms, dates, labels, and norms. While this information is critical to students’ success as they embrace a new discipline, relying on traditional approaches (i.e., rote memorization) to learn the material can be off-putting to students who may have limited experience with memorizing large amounts of material and, more importantly, does little to cultivate their higher thinking skills.  This rote memorization approach does not inspire students to engage with the material, as the information, while perhaps meaningful, is not presented in a way that is meaningful for students.

A powerful approach to cultivating higher-level thinking in all course levels is the constructivist approach: students become active participants in constructing their own knowledge and, at the same time, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate their own knowledge. Examples of activities that foster higher-level thinking include reflection activities, online discussions, peer review, and small group activities and projects. While establishing a core foundation is important in a beginning course, establishing the facts within a context is a strong way to enhance understanding as well as memory.  When students are prompted to use higher order thinking skills in a way that they can relate to, they remember the lower level information with more motivation. Something else to consider is this: beginning courses can foster higher level thinking when new concepts and ideas are applied in ways that engage learners and require them to use new vocabulary in conjunction with problem-solving.

There are lots of resources available to instructors and instructional designers who want to develop activities that foster higher thinking skills.  The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s (2016) Online Course Design and Thinking web page offers suggestions related to putting into practice the goal of creating interactive assignments that require students to think. Two of the most powerful suggestions include the following: (1) allowing enough time for collaborative or group activities and discussions and (2) select learning activities that accomplish objectives (para. 4). For instructors who have a robust list of learning objectives, allowing students to have the time to engage in deep thinking can be the biggest challenge. For example, a discussion or group activity may take more than one week to complete if higher thinking is involved. Another source of information regarding engagement and the adult learner can be found on the TOPkit website under Use Techniques that Complement the Adult Learner. In online courses, cognitive presence has an important role in engaging adult learners and preparing them to tap their higher thinking skills. Cognitive presence is the extent to which instructors and students can construct meaning through discourse within a community; in this case, the community is the course. Cognitive presence creates an environment in which learners can solve problems and come to a consensus. TOPR has some resources for fostering interaction (https://topr.online.ucf.edu/interaction/) and assessment (https://topr.online.ucf.edu/assessment/).   

An instructional designer can play a vital role in helping faculty develop assignments that cultivate higher thinking in their students. Assignments that tap students’ higher thinking skills have the added benefit of engaging faculty more deeply as well, challenging them at the course-design level as well as at the course-delivery level. In addition to facilitating the development of instructional activities, the instructional designer can connect the instructor with additional instructional resources, including collaboration tools (e.g., Google Drive) and web conferences (e.g., Big Blue Button).

Going forward, something to consider is this: how can we engage all students, and not just those students who are already motivated and engaged?  This question is particularly challenging in an online environment where you do have the non-verbal cues of engagement, and it’s easy for students to move through a course while only skimming the surface of what the course and the instructor have to offer.

We hope this answer is useful to you but I hope the TOPkit online community may have other suggestions or questions.  What are some other ways we can encourage our students to go deeper? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn! 

Author and Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE,

I am a senior instructional designer at a small liberal arts college in the South. I have been asked to head-up a somewhat daunting project: to transform our institution’s new faculty orientation (NFO) from its current face-to-face format into an asynchronous online format. The current NFO was developed, and is facilitated by, our Human Resources department and is required of all new faculty before they teach their first course.  After the redevelopment, the new online NFO will be co-facilitated by an instructional designer and a member of the HR staff. Since my school is small, the job to transform our NFO will fall to me and one other full-time instructional designer/faculty developer plus one part-time instructional designer.  It seems like a big job for a small team but we are also excited about the opportunity to have such a big impact on NFO and to show new faculty what we are capable of doing when it comes to online course development and instruction. So, here is my specific question: what are two or three recommendations that you can offer to help us get started?  My colleagues and I really want to start on the right foot.

Signed,

Right Foot

Dear Right Foot:

Wow!  You do have a big job on your hands!  But this is an exciting opportunity to lend your expertise to an area that is so important – new faculty orientation. WIthout knowing the specific content of your institution’s orientation agenda, a typical NFO will contain information regarding institutional rules and culture, payroll and benefits, and specific guidelines relevant to faculty. This is also a great time to introduce faculty to instructional design support services and faculty development resources.

A good place to start is to consider a faculty development model, specifically the Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development (Jowallah, Futch, Barrett-Greenly, & Bennett, 2016). According to this model, factors to consider when creating your NFO include scoping for sustainability, understanding of the institutional culture, addressing the needs of new faculty, and consideration of who will take ownership of the course.  This model provides the groundwork for the planning stage of the development process.  More specifically, the planning stage consists of selecting the design and development strategies that will form the course content and includes the exploration of tools and techniques that will shape your course.

As a co-facilitator and co-developer, your role will be vital to the success of this new approach to NFO. You will likely be collaborating with librarians, media technologists, research and commercialization, office of accessibility services, and other departments so be prepared to manage the needs and priorities of many stakeholders.

Something else to consider regarding the faculty who will be participating in NFO: participants will consist of faculty just starting out in their careers, faculty making a mid-career move to a new university, and faculty who may be new teaching after having worked in industry. This diverse group of learners means ensuring that this new NFO course will address the needs of a diverse group of learners. I also suggest establishing a plan for continuous improvement through ongoing assessment.

Regarding resources, in addition to the links above, include the TOPkit sample course.  Although the TOPkit sample course is designed to serve as a customizable course for online faculty development, there are modules that could be adapted for a new faculty orientation course, including Copyright and Intellectual Property, FERPA, Open Educational Resources, Digital Textbooks, and Mobile Devices and Apps.

In closing, what are some other considerations that should drive initial planning of an asynchronous new faculty orientation?  For example, what is the role of collaboration between the facilitators and the participants?  What kind of course schedule would benefit participants the most? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author and Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE,

I’m an instructional designer at a large public institution, working on a team that supports hundreds of online instructors within dozens of departments. As we work across disciplines, we see creative problem solving, enthusiasm, and great work being done at our university, and we strive to share ideas and connect faculty working towards similar goals. We’re struggling to create a space for faculty to have an easy way to interface with others teaching online so that they may seek thought partners, showcase work, and find resources. We think this collaboration will have an enormously positive impact on student outcomes and the quality of online instruction – we just don’t know how to do it!

Can you help us solve this conundrum?  We want to overcome departmental barriers and a general lack of time to provide a platform for easy collaboration. We would like great ideas and best practices to be shared easily throughout the university. Where should we begin? And how will we maintain a dynamic and engaged community of users?

Signed,

So Many Rocks, So Many Streams

Dear Rocks:

Congratulations on wanting to showcase your online faculty’s work!  It’s exciting to hear that your online faculty are displaying such dynamism and engagement—the question now is how to harness that energy, creativity, and enthusiasm in a way that can be shared and nurtured over time.  One of the challenges facing instructional designers at institutions of all sizes is the nature of online teaching: reaching faculty who are dispersed geographically even when teaching in the same department. A well-designed virtual collaboration space for faculty can facilitate the kind of sharing that you would like to see happen on your campus.  The question, then, is what would that space look like? And what kind of support would faculty contributors need?

The first step in creating this collaborative space – a virtual “teacher’s lounge” – is to involve faculty in the design process.  The October 2017 edition of TOPkit Digest has some tips regarding Building Faculty Buy-In in faculty development.  Questions to ask include how such a virtual collaboration space should look and function, who will manage it, and what kind of control will faculty have regarding the use of its content.  Faculty members’ input for creating the virtual collaboration space will enhance their feeling of ownership of the space.  Their suggestions, too, will better fit their needs.

Once you have the design requirements finalized, it’s time to select the platform that will house your online collaboration space.  This platform can be your current learning management system or some other platform – as long as the platform offers the functions needed to develop your design.  For example, National University built a virtual “faculty commons” where faculty can share their work, best practices, and collaborate with one another.  This faculty commons was created in “partnership with GoingOn Networks, with links to other solutions on campus that housed resources like a streaming video repository (Kaltura) and a virtual meeting center (Adobe Connect).

Next, resources that support online faculty in making the most of their “virtual teacher’s lounge” are essential; these resources can consist of documentation, just-in-time support from instructional designers or technical support staff, and templates that scaffold best practices (TOPkit, Provide Instruction in the Required Technologies).  Examples of documentation include LSM-related information and university-wide goals for teaching and learning.  Templates may consist of sample course homepages, examples of well-designed group projects, and online activities or games.

Finally, there is a role for instructional designers in the long-term watering and feeding of an online faculty collaboration space.  Instructional designers are uniquely positioned to publicize and highlight the site and to encourage faculty to use it and contribute to it.  Along with faculty, instructional designers can participate in, and contribute to, the collaboration platform, offering explanations, posing questions, and emphasizing best practices. They can also scaffold content areas to help faculty contributors organize and share their work effectively as well as encouraging continuous improvement.

In closing, what are some additional potential challenges and benefits associated with creating an online collaboration space for faculty that haven’t been mentioned in this response? Are there tools and techniques that can support and encourage faculty to contribute to and benefit from such a collaborative space? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author and Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE:

I am an instructional designer who feels very comfortable with just about all of the various parts of my job: working with faculty to develop high-quality online courses, staying on top of new developments in the field of online instruction, conducting research, and contributing to the discipline of instructional design by presenting at conferences.  I love what I do.  Still, there is one important area where, I admit, I feel less than confident: implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  I am familiar with the basics of the ADA and support the expansion of educational opportunities to all students, including those with disabilities.  I help faculty with all of the routine stuff (e.g., image alt tags, scripting/captioning videos, etc.).  But I have limited personal experience working with people with disabilities and am concerned that I lack insight into what it’s like to be a student with a disability.  I want to do more than just the minimum, do more than tick the box that says courses are ADA compliant.   Do you have any suggestions that could help me?

Signed,

Dedicated to ADA

Dear Dedicated:
Thanks for submitting such a timely question as we are on the cusp of another academic year!  For many instructional designers and faculty developers, making sure that online courses are ADA compliant is a relatively recent addition to the course development toolbox. Regarding technology and higher education, the ADA requires the following:

• Courses or class materials posted online must be in an accessible format.
• Videos (online and in-class) should have closed captioning to ensure that people with hearing loss can effectively understand the information.
• Materials such as class handouts or readings must be accessible by screen readers commonly used by people with vision loss.
• Physical handouts passed out in class should also be made available in accessible electronic or alternative formats (ADA National Network).

But, as you rightly asked, is this all there is to it?  How can we, as instructional designers and faculty developers, create educational courses (online and onsite) that address the needs of all of our students in a way that sees the ADA as a starting point rather than an ending point?

A deep-seated commitment to creating inclusive courses (online and onsite) involves breaking down the distinction between students who have disabilities and students who do not in favor of universal design principles that address the needs of all students.  For example, closed captions that benefit students who may be hearing impaired can also benefit students who, while not hearing impaired, may simply prefer to see the closed captions in place of, or in addition to, listening to the audio component of a video.  Placing a priority on extending instructional options (e.g., closed captions, alt text) and considerations (e.g., high contrast text, limiting videos to 3 to 10 minutes in length) to all students challenges our binary view of our audience (disabled and able-bodied) that creates the need to manage two sets of learners.  Adopting a universal design mindset means you consistently design courses that consider the needs of all students, including those who may have a visible or invisible disability.

Fortunately, the growth of interest in ADA-compliant, inclusive course design means that resources in support of this goal are increasing, too.  For example, a recent article in Inside Higher Ed—5 Tips for ADA-Compliant Inclusive Design—offers suggestions for using hyperlinks, text design, images/graphics, audio/video items, and documents.  Also, the TOPkit website provides resources for addressing accessibility during faculty development, including links to the California State University’s Accessible Technology Initiative and Florida State University’s Universal Design/Accessibility page.  TOPkit’s Sample Course and Sample Course Light contain lots of good information on UDL principles as well as inclusive instructional strategies and best practices.

Overall, the world has become a better, more inclusive place for persons with visible disabilities as well for those whose disabilities are less visible but still constitute barriers to educational opportunities.  A commitment to inclusivity in education has emerged alongside a revolution in distance teaching and learning—and therein lies our challenge going forward.  How will future advancements in online education address the needs of all students and what can we do to ensure that these advancements serve all students and contribute to their success?  And how do we, as instructional designers and faculty developers, remain vigilant in keeping the focus of new technologies on how these technologies can serve all students?

In closing, I want to ask the TOPkit community for your thoughts. What are your feelings and experiences regarding designing instruction for persons with disabilities?  How do you fulfill the ethical imperative to develop and promote inclusive instruction? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author and Editor: Dr. Shelly Wyatt

Dear ADDIE:

In many ways, I have a happy problem: the faculty at my institution have embraced online teaching and recognize its benefits to their students, the university, and themselves.  As they gain experience in developing and delivering online course content, many faculty have expressed the desire to take their online courses beyond the basics and make them more engaging.  Recently, I spoke with a faculty member (“Sally”) who shared her desire to take her online courses to the next level.  Sally told me that, while she is happy with her online courses, she is concerned that her courses have grown stale.  What is the shelf-life of online course content, she asked?  At the same time, Sally expressed concern regarding throwing off her students by introducing technology that may be unfamiliar to them.  Sally was clearly experiencing that tension between staying with the tried-and-true (voice-over presentations, online quizzes) and embracing new technologies and approaches that may inject new energy and interest in the course but have the potential to overwhelm or frustrate students.  Put simply: Sally wants to jazz up her course but would like guidance on how to go about it.

Do you have any suggestions to help me guide this instructor as she works towards making her online courses more engaging?

Signed,

Revved Up about Supercharging Online Courses

Dear Revved Up:

You are so right—this is a happy problem!  Now that the online modality has been firmly established at many colleges and universities, faculty who have been developing and teaching online courses for several years or more recognize that there may be a lot more that they can do to improve their courses.  The challenge for faculty seeking to upgrade their online courses lies in making sure that any added “bells and whistles” serve a pedagogical purpose.  For instructional designers and faculty developers, this means the support you provide may vary more according to the discipline.

The first and most important step in working with a faculty member who wants to jazz up his or her course is to identify an area, assignment, assessment, or activity that could benefit from redesign. Criteria for selecting an area or activity could include how long ago the assignment or activity was created, level of engagement demonstrated by previous students, publication or availability of new materials, and excitement concerning a new tool or capability made available in the LMS.  Conversely, a faculty member may want to explore areas in the course that could be improved by creating new content.  Another area that may not be obvious but represents a rich opportunity to supercharge an online course and increase engagement involves creating an engaging online persona.  Although it can be an amorphous concept that defies easy description, an instructor’s online persona is the degree to which the instructor develops his or her digital presence.  Simply stated, a faculty member’s online persona is a function of the instructor’s accessibility, responsiveness, personality, humor, and care.  Online tools that can help faculty convey their online teaching persona include: instructor introduction and photograph, discussion that includes biography and welcome message, office hours and discussions through online chat, introduction and content videos, video capture, and daily/weekly announcements (TOPkit “Sample Course,” Module 1).  

For advanced online instructors, the support of an instructional designer is just as vital as it is for those instructors who are just beginning to develop and teach courses online.  Indeed, the role of the instructional designer in supporting the development of more engaging courses is often key; opportunities to increase engagement may be found not in using a new tool or resource but in applying sound principles of instructional design. Often overlooked by even the most skilled and dedicated online instructor is the alignment of content, activities/assignments, and assessments; all the shiny bells and whistles in the world won’t compensate for a course that’s disjointed or poorly designed.

There are lots of great resources for faculty who want to improve engagement in their online courses.  One powerful resource is the Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository (TOPR), a public resource for faculty and instructional designers interested in online and blended teaching strategies. TOPR offers examples of how to incorporate a wide range of tools using sound pedagogical principles, including how to create screencasts that can help students grasp hard-to-explain concepts and how to use social networking tools to share real-time information related to the course content.  Student collaboration represents another opportunity to increase engagement in online courses.  Examples of online collaboration in TOPR includes peer review activities and using wikis to facilitate group projects.

Another excellent resource is the “Sample Courses” section of the TOPkit website. There are two versions of the sample development course (10 week version & 5 week light version) that is based on UCF’s IDL6543 professional development course that is used to credential faculty to create and teach blended or completely online courses.  Both versions of the sample course contain a module titled “Enhancing Your Course with Emerging Technology” that provides an overview of popular online tools (e.g., video conferencing, social networking, social bookmarking, blogs, adaptive learning) along with instructional strategies and best practices.  

Looking forward, digital textbooks are another technology that can make a difference for students in online courses.  According to TOPkit’s Sample Course, “Some are exact replicas of the print textbook, while other offer basic features like highlighting and annotating.  Some cutting-edge digital textbooks exhibit interactive features such as quizzes, simulations, and embedded multimedia.  Searching for keywords helps students quickly locate a relevant part of the book, while interactive quizzes guide students to check for understanding as they read.”  As the use of mobile devices to access course content increases, students’ devices serve as their textbook that, for them, can and should be a dynamic experience that offers more than just static text.

In addition to the examples of I have included here, what are some other ways instructional designers can support faculty who want to take their online courses to the next level?  And how can we, as instructional designers, encourage more faculty to take on this challenge? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Author and Editor: Dr. Kelvin Thompson

Dear ADDIE:

Perhaps you can help us. My colleagues and I are noticing a pattern. In some cases, the instructors who created online courses are no longer the ones teaching them. I’ve personally spoken with a student who complained about the bad experience she was having in an online course that I know was designed well. I was surprised to learn that the person teaching it was not the person who designed it. (As far as I can tell, the course itself hasn’t changed substantively.) Also, we’ve received inquiries from faculty who have been assigned to teach online using someone else’s materials. As one of these instructors said: “I’m not sure what or how much I can change, and this is my first time teaching online, so I don’t really know what the best practices are.”

What can we do to help these faculty be successful?

Sincerely,
Perplexed by Patterns of the Poorly Prepared

Dear Perplexed:

Yes, this is a challenge that we see happening with increasing frequency across a wide range of institutions. While some colleges/departments understand that preparing faculty to teach online is important for faculty “inheriting” an existing online course, others see no reason to prepare them since the online courses are already developed and are, presumably, “good.” In our experience, to further complicate matters, most of the instructors of record of these “handed off” courses are adjunct faculty (or graduate students at the university level).

It is worth noting that the popular approach at some institutions of designing “master courses” (also called template courses or standardized courses) which are then handed off to adjunct faculty to teach does not completely address the problem you’ve raised. In such cases, while the course itself is solid in design, and the instructor is presumably skilled and knowledgeable, it is the combination of course and new-to-the-course instructor that is the potential problem. It seems to us somewhat like driving a friend’s car. There is nothing wrong with the car or the new driver. However, the car is customized for the old driver, and the new driver will need to 1) acquaint herself (e.g., look over the instrument panel and equipment) and 2) possibly make some adjustments (e.g., adjust seats, mirror, and sound system) in order to drive safely and comfortably.

Any faculty preparation that you do (and we would suggest that you do offer some preparation for these faculty) should focus on 1) understanding the design of the course, 2) being clear about what kinds of adjustments are within his scope, and 3) being equipped to carry out the course as designed/adjusted (e.g., LMS skills and facilitation tips).

Depending upon the culture of your institution and the types of faculty development that are accepted, the ways in which you address the above needs might vary. However, we dare say that, especially for adjunct faculty, the fact that you are offering any preparation at all may be perceived as a motivating incentive. Building upon this idea, if indeed adjunct faculty are the primary group “inheriting” online courses, please be mindful to time your offerings accordingly. That is, such instructors often do not receive course assignments until very close to the start of the term, and they may only be available to participate in offerings scheduled after hours, on the weekend, or in a self-paced manner online. Some possible venues for preparing faculty “inheriting” existing online courses, in increasing level of complexity, include:

• Job aids/tip sheets written with inheriting faculty in mind
• Open labs (multiple times) with personnel on-hand to provide “at-your-shoulder” assistance
• A workshop in which participants are guided through the processes of course familiarization and modification
• An actual “course” designed for “inheriting” faculty (Note: See a description of one such course: UCF’s ADL5000.)

One final strategy that some have found helpful as part of the course hand-off process, is encouraging the creation of “designer notes” that remain a part of the course (e.g., within the LMS file management area). Such notes may provide “message-in-a-bottle” type guidance from the original course designer to any and all subsequent inheritors. However, a modified approach might also include a brief note from each iterative instructor noting what modifications were made, what facilitation strategies were effective, etc.

We hope these suggestions are useful to all who need to prepare faculty to be successful in teaching online courses they did not design. However, you might have additional ideas or alternative suggestions. Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn! We would love to see them!

Until next month,

Author and Editor: Dr. Kelvin Thompson

Dear ADDIE:

As instructional designers we are sometimes frustrated to see our faculty use publisher materials as the basis for their online courses. While it is possible to integrate these kinds of materials meaningfully, that is often not what we see happening. It is so tempting for instructors to simply add a link to a publisher’s website and be done with it. Online students can become confused or lost since they must leave their course for an external website. Once they are away from the course browsing around the internet, you can lose them forever! Additionally, instructors can become frustrated because their grades may now appear on the publisher’s website rather than in their own online course gradebook. Copying grades back into the course website is twice the work! (Sometimes it is more work for us as instructional designers too, because we end up helping with the copying!)

We don’t encourage relying on publisher materials in our faculty training, and we can’t stop faculty from making these decisions after the training.

What can we do?

Signed,

Pondering Publisher-Provided Problems

Dear Pondering:

As you’ve suggested, publisher-provided materials are not the problem per se. You’ve rightly expressed concern for what, in our opinion, is the central issue: the quality of the online student learning experience. Any number of factors may impact this student experience positively or negatively. If we had to boil down to one idea the single biggest contributor to positive student experience, though, we would say “intentional design.”

Deliberate, thoughtful decisions about learning outcomes, content selection, student learning activities/assignments, assessments of learning, interaction opportunities, and practical usability are likely the best way to bring about consistently positive student experiences that result in student learning. This is true of individual online courses and entire programs offered by institutions.

Some faculty, expert in their subject areas but not equipped for the systematic design of instruction, may be tempted to assemble courses from components ready at-hand with the least amount of time investment necessary. One can hardly fault faculty for wanting to be time efficient given the myriad demands competing for their attention! However, a “quickest route” mindset rarely results in design decisions yielding the best outcomes for students.

As you’ve noted, faculty preparation for teaching online (i.e., faculty development/training) is the starting point for this kind of intentional design by online instructors. However, nurturing intentional design as an on-going, iterative process may be the best long-term strategy. That is, course design is not a one-time, set-it-and-forget-it kind of thing. Common methods for facilitating this kind of iterative decision-making, depending upon your particular institutional context may include: faculty learning communities, peer mentors, or consultations with an instructional designer.

One sometimes overlooked resource useful in each of these approaches is the course quality rubric. As the Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence (COTE) has noted regarding their open-licensed rubric (OSCQR):

The rubric can be used formatively with… online faculty to help guide, inform and influence the design of their new [or mature] online courses. It is non-evaluative: Conceptually the rubric and process approach course review and refresh as a professional development exercise, to guide faculty in their understanding of improving course design from an effective practices perspective, rather than as a course evaluation, or quality assurance procedure. It prioritizes changes. (Read more.)

If your institution has not already adopted a course quality rubric, the TOPkit “Checklists & Rubrics” section provides a collection of annotated links to many online course standards, rubrics, and checklists drawn from a variety of contexts. Such resources can be helpful indeed if approached as guides in the iterative course design process.

It is our hope that placing a systemic emphasis on intentional design will negate the ill effects of over-reliance on publisher-provided materials and other less mindful decisions.

What thoughts do others have? Please share your thoughts with our TOPkit community on LinkedIn!

Until next month,