'Custom designed web courses VS. "in-a-box" designed courses'
has skirted by an interesting issue, which i think deserves a fuller
discussion. much of these posts have dealt with the flexible/convenient
aspects of doing web work for courses, which is an issue - left unsaid is
that web stuff is easy, course management stuff is the tough nugget most
of us don't want to have to deal with.
AND
it seems the trend (and quite understandably) is for content-folks with
some technical know-how to create a web-based or web-supported course. the
thread seems to have slipped to what is the best package for the
non-techie to use to do their course.
BUT
why should a fine (great, brilliant, fill-in-your-adjective) instructor
have to know ANYTHING about the technical side? why do we focus on the
notion that the instructor has to also know design and technical details?
a long time ago (20+ years ago), going all the way back to alfred bjork's
CAI physics courses and the company he created to do CAI, the courses were
created by teams (sometimes called 'renaissance teams') where there was a
content/instructional specialist, a technical specialist, and a design
specialist.
in-a-box or other courseware will always be limiting and will never allow
the instructor the full independence they would like to built a creative
course. those of us with technical background can go further, but even i
don't have all the skills i'd like :-)
how much time should i be spending worrying over design issues instead of
content issues? shouldn't i better spend my time thinking about 'process
education' and structuring my course to best fit the cognitive style of my
primary audience? any situation which says the instructor has to design
the content, worry about legal issues (IP), design issues, technical
support, maintenance, etc. is doomed to fail. right now, those doing the
courses are doing it out of fascination with the technology, love of the
challenge, whatever. and in the short run it works...but this thread is
the hint of the real challenge - we cannot sustain growth in asynchronous
delivery of courses without rethinking and restructuring how we go about
putting up new courses.
so, what do you folks think?
-dab
David Alan Bozak Interim Associate Dean, Art & Sciences ________|________
dab@cs.oswego.edu SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 ___\__(*)__/___
315.341.2285 http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~dab o/ \o
"When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
This is an interesting topic. I guess I consider it a first cousin to
the topic I posted about custom courses vs. authorware produced courses.
The relation exists in that the structure of the design team has great
bearing in the decision to design a course from scratch or use a
commercial "course making" product to produce a course.
which isn't really a team, consists of one person who is both content
expert and web designer. The other type, which is similar to my
situation, is a team of three; content expert-instructional designer-web
developer.
The first team requires that the content expert not only have expertise
in the content, but expertise in web development. Generally this is not
a common combination. In this situation the content expert can either
learn how to design features that they deem necessary (which is not all
that likely), or they can use an authoring package that comes as close
as they would consider acceptable to the features they need. I think
that except for the occasions where the content expert is also an expert
in web development, this situation calls for an authoring tool that can
come closest to doing the job.
The second type of team is much different. Each member has the expertise
in one specific area. The content expert provides the content, the
instructional designer knows the best way structure the content, and the
web developer knows how to represent the structure correctly on the web.
In this situation (assuming the web developer knows his/her stuff), a
custom designed course, which meets each necessary feature completely,
can only be accomplished by custom design from scratch.
What it really comes down to is how much funding goes into the design
team. If you can only fund 1 member of the team, ie the content expert,
then you will rely on the functionality of the authoring tool used. If
the funding is in place for a larger more focused design team, you can
have a course designed in a manner that meets every aspect and feature
deemed necessary by the instructional designer.
Thanks,
Abba Tregobov
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Abba Tregobov Bsc (comp eng.), Web Developer
Faculty of Continuing Education
University of Manitoba
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/coned/abba
tel (204) 474-8654
Having said that, I want to say that I agree with John when he says that
the following roles will emerge:
> Content specialist
> Content Presenter
> TA/Support HelpDesk
> Editor
> Writer
> Programmer
> Graphics artist
> Video/Sound technician
> Course administrator
-- but I would want to phrase them in terms of tasks, not people. Every
course has need of writing, programming, graphics design, and so forth,
but not every job needs to be filled by a different person. I think it
depends on which part of the spectrum we're talking about. If we're
dealing with the "middle 50%" then a large team of developers might be
nice but as an early adopter, I think it's best to have small teams
of people who work well together. In order for experiments to work, they
have to be nimble, and large development teams very often aren't.
Marcy
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Marcy Bauman
Writing Program, University of Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Evergreen Rd, Dearborn, MI 48128
fax: 313-593-5552
http://www.umd.umich.edu/~marcyb
marcyb@umich.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I agree with you. This technology will be most effective
when used by groups of people who as a team create a course.
We have job specialization taking place that will
change how we think about course creation.
Right now, it is often still the lone proffessor selecting
a book and developing materials around it.
With online course materials, If you speciallize, you will
see different roles developing:
Content specialist
Content Presenter
TA/Support HelpDesk
Editor
Writer
Programmer
Graphics artist
Video/Sound technician
Course administrator
If this type of thing is going to work, then it will be important
for the course material to be amortized over a much larger audience
than the traditional course. Which means crossing barriers. And
which means that many people who develop courses now, will
stop developing courses and take on different roles...
I think this is parallel to the effect of the industrial revolution
on weaving. Many of those same changes seem poised to happen
in education.
David Bozak <dab@altair.cs.oswego.edu> writes:
% the recent thread
%
% 'Custom designed web courses VS. "in-a-box" designed courses'
%
% has skirted by an interesting issue, which i think deserves a fuller
% discussion. much of these posts have dealt with the flexible/convenient
% aspects of doing web work for courses, which is an issue - left unsaid is
% that web stuff is easy, course management stuff is the tough nugget most
% of us don't want to have to deal with.
%
% AND
%
% it seems the trend (and quite understandably) is for content-folks with
% some technical know-how to create a web-based or web-supported course. the
% thread seems to have slipped to what is the best package for the
% non-techie to use to do their course.
%
% BUT
%
% why should a fine (great, brilliant, fill-in-your-adjective) instructor
% have to know ANYTHING about the technical side? why do we focus on the
% notion that the instructor has to also know design and technical details?
% a long time ago (20+ years ago), going all the way back to alfred bjork's
% CAI physics courses and the company he created to do CAI, the courses were
% created by teams (sometimes called 'renaissance teams') where there was a
% content/instructional specialist, a technical specialist, and a design
% specialist.
%
% in-a-box or other courseware will always be limiting and will never allow
% the instructor the full independence they would like to built a creative
% course. those of us with technical background can go further, but even i
% don't have all the skills i'd like :-)
%
% how much time should i be spending worrying over design issues instead of
% content issues? shouldn't i better spend my time thinking about 'process
% education' and structuring my course to best fit the cognitive style of my
% primary audience? any situation which says the instructor has to design
% the content, worry about legal issues (IP), design issues, technical
% support, maintenance, etc. is doomed to fail. right now, those doing the
% courses are doing it out of fascination with the technology, love of the
% challenge, whatever. and in the short run it works...but this thread is
% the hint of the real challenge - we cannot sustain growth in asynchronous
% delivery of courses without rethinking and restructuring how we go about
% putting up new courses.
%
% so, what do you folks think?
%
% -dab
%
% David Alan Bozak Interim Associate Dean, Art & Sciences ________|________
% dab@cs.oswego.edu SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 ___\__(*)__/___
% 315.341.2285 http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~dab o/ \o
% "When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
850 SW 15th Street . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97331 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
I agree wholeheartedly! I've been developing web-based courseware since 1995
and couldn't do it without a team. From a corporate viewpoint, we need
departmental stakeholders who will champion this new technology to the
learners, project managers for time and budget controls, quality assurance
specialists to keep the end product in line with corporate standards and
credentialing committees....
Then we get to the actual creators of the product: content experts,
instructional designers, HTML writers and editors, programmers, database
managers, graphics experts, audio/video experts, and human-computer interface
designers.
There is NO WAY all of those skills will fit into one person, even with fancier
software. And, we have found that the team approach gives us far better, more
creative solutions. It's often the novice, asking from a different viewpoint,
that leads to insight.
Ann D. Yakimovicz, Ph.D.
President/CEO
Aprendio Inc. "harnessing the power of the web for organizational learning"
18404 E. Lake Terrace Drive
Jonestown, TX 78645
vox/fax: 512.267-0388
email: annyak@aprendio.com
http://www.aprendio.com
As we talk about "what is the easiest" tool to get our product done, I hope
we remember that one of the most important aspects of the whole
design/development process is the analysis and design side. They used to
say in Hollywood, "we'll fix it in the mix". Unfortunately, I have seen a
great number of online courses where the "mix" didn't fix the faulty design!
We have all seen this is just about every "new" process or technology thrown
at education/training. The "talking head" did a lot for video equipment
sales in the 70's, but darn little for the efforts to provide sound
education and training. The technology wasn't bad, but the use of it was -
it was too easy to use!
After almost 30 years at the cutting edge of technology application to
training/education, I still find little substitute for the upfront analysis
and design effort. It still constitutes over 60% of all my project's
resources, regardless of the delivery mode.
Just stirring the pot a little, I hope! Just because we can doesn't mean we
should! How do others approach this, and perhaps even the more basic
question of what is best suited to be processed for online delivery?
Also, how do you train your instructors to transition to the web,
particularly for DE courses? I feel the technology proficiency of an
instructor needs to be such that it is transparent to their process of
facilitating learning.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Sechrest [SMTP:sechrest@PEAK.ORG]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 11:33 AM
> To: WWWDEV@LISTSERV.UNB.CA
> Subject: Re: course design 'teams'
>
> --------
>
> I agree with you. This technology will be most effective
> when used by groups of people who as a team create a course.
>
> We have job specialization taking place that will
> change how we think about course creation.
>
> Right now, it is often still the lone proffessor selecting
> a book and developing materials around it.
>
> With online course materials, If you speciallize, you will
> see different roles developing:
>
> Content specialist
> Content Presenter
> TA/Support HelpDesk
> Editor
> Writer
> Programmer
> Graphics artist
> Video/Sound technician
> Course administrator
>
> If this type of thing is going to work, then it will be important
> for the course material to be amortized over a much larger
> audience
> than the traditional course. Which means crossing barriers. And
> which means that many people who develop courses now, will
> stop developing courses and take on different roles...
>
> I think this is parallel to the effect of the industrial
> revolution
> on weaving. Many of those same changes seem poised to happen
> in education.
>
>
>
>
> David Bozak <dab@altair.cs.oswego.edu> writes:
>
> % the recent thread
> %
> % 'Custom designed web courses VS. "in-a-box" designed courses'
> %
> % has skirted by an interesting issue, which i think deserves a fuller
> % discussion. much of these posts have dealt with the flexible/convenient
> % aspects of doing web work for courses, which is an issue - left unsaid
> is
> % that web stuff is easy, course management stuff is the tough nugget
> most
> % of us don't want to have to deal with.
> %
> % AND
> %
> % it seems the trend (and quite understandably) is for content-folks with
> % some technical know-how to create a web-based or web-supported course.
> the
> % thread seems to have slipped to what is the best package for the
> % non-techie to use to do their course.
> %
> % BUT
> %
> % why should a fine (great, brilliant, fill-in-your-adjective) instructor
> % have to know ANYTHING about the technical side? why do we focus on the
> % notion that the instructor has to also know design and technical
> details?
> % a long time ago (20+ years ago), going all the way back to alfred
> bjork's
> % CAI physics courses and the company he created to do CAI, the courses
> were
> % created by teams (sometimes called 'renaissance teams') where there was
> a
> % content/instructional specialist, a technical specialist, and a design
> % specialist.
> %
> % in-a-box or other courseware will always be limiting and will never
> allow
> % the instructor the full independence they would like to built a
> creative
> % course. those of us with technical background can go further, but even
> i
> % don't have all the skills i'd like :-)
> %
> % how much time should i be spending worrying over design issues instead
> of
> % content issues? shouldn't i better spend my time thinking about
> 'process
> % education' and structuring my course to best fit the cognitive style of
> my
> % primary audience? any situation which says the instructor has to design
> % the content, worry about legal issues (IP), design issues, technical
> % support, maintenance, etc. is doomed to fail. right now, those doing
> the
> % courses are doing it out of fascination with the technology, love of
> the
> % challenge, whatever. and in the short run it works...but this thread is
> % the hint of the real challenge - we cannot sustain growth in
> asynchronous
> % delivery of courses without rethinking and restructuring how we go
> about
> % putting up new courses.
> %
> % so, what do you folks think?
> %
> % -dab
> %
> % David Alan Bozak Interim Associate Dean, Art & Sciences
> ________|________
> % dab@cs.oswego.edu SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126
> ___\__(*)__/___
> % 315.341.2285 http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~dab o/ \o
> % "When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
>
> -----
> John Sechrest . Helping people use
> PEAK - . computers and the Internet
> Public Electronic . more effectively
> Access to Knowledge,Inc .
> 850 SW 15th Street . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
> Corvallis Oregon 97331 . (541) 754-7325
> .
> http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
I suppose that colleges are so flush with cash that they can afford to pay
> Content specialist
> Content Presenter
> TA/Support HelpDesk
> Editor
> Writer
> Programmer
> Graphics artist
> Video/Sound technician
> Course administrator
all these people to create courses. Besides, who owns the copyright?
If you think teachers writing their own courses will result in second rate
classes, I would put up the following classes against any on the net.
"Horror Literature" is done by a middle school English teacher in
Corvallis. It is Doug Knight's first attempt at writing an online course.
http://cyberschool.4j.lane.edu/people/faculty/k/knight/horror1/index.htm
"CyberStat" (AP Statistics) is also a first attempt at writing a
cyberclass. It was done by Rick Thomas, a high school teacher in Eugene.
http://cyberschool.4j.lane.edu/people/faculty/thomas/cyberstat/cyberstat.htmlI
cannot imagine what their classes are going to be like once they get more
experience!
(You can see 25 more of these kinds of classes at
http://CyberSchool.4j.lane.edu)
I have found that when teachers write (and own) their courses, those
courses are better than anything you could pay them to create. Plus, they
keep them always up to date.
Free enterprise is coming to education. Teachers who can work in cyberspace
will do better than those who have to depend on a team of experts to do
their job. Besides, teachers should at least TRY to know more than the kids
they are teaching. They may be your students now, but they will be your
competition tomorrow. At some point schools/colleges are going to get the
idea that it is easier (and cheaper) to hire teachers who can develop
courses and teach them on the net than it is to train those who can't. And
since those teachers can live almost any place on the planet, they are
going to have lots to choose from.
By way of a brief introduction since I don't think I've posted to the list
before, I've been developing electronic course resources at the college level
since late 1992 and have been on both sides of the "teach the teachers" vs.
production team approach. Quite frankly, one of the major hurdles we have to
overcome in getting ionstructors to develop online resources is that time
spent on such work isn't yet applicable to tenure. Many of our younger
faculty would love to work on online projects, but have to first overcome the
"publish or perish" struggle of an un-tenured professor. Tenured professors
who have already developed the resources for their courses aren't always the
most likely to redevelop all of these materials on the web (though, of course,
some of our most interesting projects have been lead by tenured faculty).
It's certainly true that new hires are coming with the skills to create their
own resources and are doing a great job, but there are also times where the
scope of the project really warrants a team of developers putting together the
resource. (In our case, this usually means student assistants.) Publishers
don't ask textbook authors to create all the graphics, copyedit the materials,
and format the final publication - why should instructors have to do it for an
online resource? In many cases the scope of the online project is tantamount
to publishing a textbook. In those cases, of course, the resource is probably
intended to be distributed to other institutions or intended as a framework
for developing other course resources. (In the case where heavy university
funding is involved in supporting such a project, it makes logical sense that
they should also share in the rewards.)
Early on, we thought we could help create a few prototype courses and that the
instructors would see its potential and flock to us for training, but that
wasn't the case. The techincal hurdles for what it took to create a "good"
resources kept going up as the technology improved. It's certainly true that
the content and pedagogical issues need to lead the way, but there's no reason
for an instructor to have to personally scan a large number of images or
create graphics for their resource when someone who is trained in those skills
can do it much faster and more efficiently. We've found a balance between
continuing to support high-profile projects where the return on investment can
be justified (by the number of students reached, the potential for reuse in
future years, or potential to share or exchange it with other institutions),
and continuing to train instructors who are interested in acquiring the skills
to create their own resources.
I think there's a real value in having a few vanguard projects where a content
expert works with a development team to keep pushing the limits of what is
possible, but it will never be the case that institutions will be able to
support development teams for everyone who wants to put together an online
teaching resource. It's back to the issue of supporting the 2-5% of people
leading the way vs. the 50% who will turn out the bulk of the work.
I think there's a value in pushing the edge.
- Shisha
-- Shisha van HornInformation Technology Specialist Center for Technology in Teaching and Learning ------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: shisha@rice.edu CTTL Voice: 713.737.5725 Rice University - MS #120 Fax: 713.737.5699 6100 Main Street WWW: http://cttl.rice.edu/~shisha/ Houston, Texas 77005-1892 -------------------------------------------------------------------
I usually try to avoid "I agree" type postings, but I think Tom Layton is
bang on here: the way of the future is tools for teachers/professors to
create their *own* online courses. A major problem with the "team"
approach: courses developed this way tend to get "set in stone" - so much
work and effort from so many participants using complicated technologies is
*very* hard to edit or revise once the work is done (and everyone is too
tired by then anyway :o) ). Give the teachers flexible, easy to use tools
to develop and modify their own online materials! (I do have more than a
passing interest in this point of view - I've been developing such a tool
myself, and have the good fortune to be spending the next academic year on
leave doing more of the same at a research lab. :o) )
Another thing: <RANT> I resent (and do so every time I hear it repeated,
which is often) the implication that teachers/professors are incapable of
presenting their material appropriately online and need editors, writers,
educational designers and a whole slew of others to tell them how to do it
right. (E.g. at a certain web-ed conference last fall: "You can't let
professors design their own online materials because they will put too much
material on a single page, and don't understand how much the students can
cope with at a single sitting.") Most of us who teach know very well what
the students can/cannot manage/ understand/cope with - we've had the years
of experience to learn it. Many of us have written lecture notes, books,
and all sorts of educational materials: we *are* writers. The people who
teach the material and have taught it for years are the *best* sources of
how to teach it on the web, and shouldn't be relegated to the role of
"content providers". I think most of us would find that very alienating to
the whole process - I certainly would. Give me the tools; I'll design the
course. </RANT>
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
*
June Lester * There are three kinds of people:
jalester@unb.ca * Those who MAKE things happen,
http://www.math.unb.ca/ * Those who WATCH things happen,
~jalester * And those who WONDER what happened.
*
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Charles Deemer | screenwright@workmail.com
Graduate Writing Faculty, Portland State University
Screenwriters & Playwrights Home Page
http://www.teleport.com/~cdeemer/scrwriter.html
Author, "Screenwright: the craft of screenwriting"
http://www.teleport.com/~cdeemer/book/index.html
We have a GREAT oppurtunity to revolutionize education and make it much
better. Please hesitate to throw your lecture notes on the web and
assume that because it is online it is good.
I have seen many many "tools" for educators to use to design online
courses. All of them are extremely limiting in the kind of interactivity
that can be used to engage students in their own learning.
Take it from someone who is writing online courses at the University of
Illinois...the TEAM concept is indespensible. I could not do it without
a web programmer, a CGI programmer, and an editor.
To see the results of our labor visit http://www.useractive.com/tutorial
Scott
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, June Lester wrote:
> > I cannot imagine that you need a team of folks to offer an on-line course.
> . . . .
>
>
> I usually try to avoid "I agree" type postings, but I think Tom Layton is
> bang on here: the way of the future is tools for teachers/professors to
> create their *own* online courses. A major problem with the "team"
> approach: courses developed this way tend to get "set in stone" - so much
> work and effort from so many participants using complicated technologies is
> *very* hard to edit or revise once the work is done (and everyone is too
> tired by then anyway :o) ). Give the teachers flexible, easy to use tools
> to develop and modify their own online materials! (I do have more than a
> passing interest in this point of view - I've been developing such a tool
> myself, and have the good fortune to be spending the next academic year on
> leave doing more of the same at a research lab. :o) )
>
> Another thing: <RANT> I resent (and do so every time I hear it repeated,
> which is often) the implication that teachers/professors are incapable of
> presenting their material appropriately online and need editors, writers,
> educational designers and a whole slew of others to tell them how to do it
> right. (E.g. at a certain web-ed conference last fall: "You can't let
> professors design their own online materials because they will put too much
> material on a single page, and don't understand how much the students can
> cope with at a single sitting.") Most of us who teach know very well what
> the students can/cannot manage/ understand/cope with - we've had the years
> of experience to learn it. Many of us have written lecture notes, books,
> and all sorts of educational materials: we *are* writers. The people who
> teach the material and have taught it for years are the *best* sources of
> how to teach it on the web, and shouldn't be relegated to the role of
> "content providers". I think most of us would find that very alienating to
> the whole process - I certainly would. Give me the tools; I'll design the
> course. </RANT>
>
>
>
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
> *
> June Lester * There are three kinds of people:
> jalester@unb.ca * Those who MAKE things happen,
> http://www.math.unb.ca/ * Those who WATCH things happen,
> ~jalester * And those who WONDER what happened.
> *
> +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
>
For me it comes down to what Lev Vygostksy, a Russian psychologist,
termed "the zone of proximal development." The zone of proximal
development (colloquially speaking) is the difference between what I can
do by myself, and what I can do with a little help from my friends. When
I work with people who are paid to know what tools might suit me, and who
can make intelligent suggestions based on what I've said I want to do, my
course is better for my students and I learn more in the process. This
is not the same thing as saying I have people to scan materials for me
(although that, too, is a help): when I work with designers I work with
people who think with me.
The important point for me as a faculty member is that I am in control
of what I'm doing in the "classroom." I am fortunate to work with
highly competent people who see their job as supporting what I do. I
can't imagine a better arrangement, and although I did just fine
developing my courses on my own when I had to, I would never go back to
that, given the choice.
Marcy
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Marcy Bauman
Writing Program, University of Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Evergreen Rd, Dearborn, MI 48128
fax: 313-593-5552
http://www.umd.umich.edu/~marcyb
marcyb@umich.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is in response to June Lester's recent posting.
You stated that: "Give me the tools; I'll design the course." To me this
IS in effect a "team-design" process. You are simply replacing the team
with a commercial product that fills the role of the team. Most
commercial products lay out a structure for you to follow, as well as
"program level" features along the lines of CGI based tracking,
assignment grading marking etc. In a sense the commercial product fills
the role of the instructional designer and the Web programmer. Please
understand me that I am NOT saying that this is not the proper approach,
because I have seen well designed courses with WebCT, Virtual U etc.
What I am saying is that in many cases there is not a commercial product
capable of providing the exact structure and "program level" features
that are needed.
I can give you an example. In my situation I was hired by the faculty of
Continuing Education at the University of Manitoba, to develop a Web
based course delivery system. When I was hired there was already a huge
independent study based infrastructure in place. There were hundreds of
conventional independent study courses in place. The goal was to
transfer the in place infrastructure to an Internet based system
maintaining what was already in place as well as adding the many new
enhancements that the Internet had to offer. There was, is, or will ever
be a commercial tool available that would be able to maintain the exact
structure and methods that we already had in place. We needed our own
custom made framework, for the hundreds of courses we will be offering.
There are things that we needed that had to be developed in house. The
whole assignment submission/marking/return/tracking system was already
in place, but it needed to be applied to an "internet form". There is no
product that will do this. It had to be custom designed, not by each
individual professor of a course, but by the professional web programmer
(me). The faculty of Continuing Education already had in place several
graphical trademarks that needed to be incorporated into the Internet
frame work. This could not be done by the professors, it had to be done
by the graphic artist member of the team. I could go on and on stating
examples of where things needed to be done by someone with different
skills then the "Content Expert".
We follow the team design approach, Content Expert, Instructional
designer, and Web Developer being the 3 major players. By no means is
the content expert "alienated". It is not simply a matter of us saying
"ok, give us the written material, and we will do the rest." It is a
completely iterative process where every member of the team contributes
to each others role, it is just that each of us have expertise in
different facets required to develop a web course. As I stated earlier
the Content Expert could replace the team with a commercial product that
acts as a Web Programmer and an Instructional Designer, but in certain
cases there are no commercial products available that can do the job
that the Instructional Designer or Web Programmer would have to do.
However in the cases where the content expert decides that an authoring
tool can do exactly what is needed for him/her, that would eliminate the
need for a team.
Thanks,
Abba Tregobov
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Abba Tregobov Bsc (comp eng.), Web Developer
Faculty of Continuing Education
University of Manitoba
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/coned/abba
tel (204) 474-8654
> June Lester wrote:
>
> > Another thing: <RANT> I resent (and do so every time I hear it repeated,
> > which is often) the implication that teachers/professors are incapable of
> > presenting their material appropriately online and need editors, writers,
> > educational designers and a whole slew of others to tell them how to do it
> > right.
>
How many teachers/professors do you imagine have ever written an
INTERACTIVE lesson? How many have the time?
The implication is that if teachers/professors go about presenting their
material on their own without help, that it will not be using the computer
and tools to there wonderful potential.
If all you want to do is PRESENT materials to the student then go ahead.
HOWEVER if you are MORE AMBITIOUS and want to ENGAGE students
INTERACTIVELY then you need will need some help.
Scott
June Lester wrote:
> Another thing: <RANT> I resent (and do so every time I hear it repeated,
> which is often) the implication that teachers/professors are incapable of
> presenting their material appropriately online and need editors, writers,
> educational designers and a whole slew of others to tell them how to do it
> right.
Then you'd love the quote from the Curriculum Director of my college who said
something to the effect of "no-one who designs a course should ever teach
it..."
I'm assuming she also would postulate the reverse - no one who teaches a course
should ever design it.
Ugh. I'm with June and others. While I appreciate the concept of the team, and I
truly resent the time I must spend word-processing my own material (about 4 to 5
times what it takes me to actually design it, which is a colossal waste of my
salary and time) I prefer to go it alone and do my own course material.
I would like to add in the community college point of view, though. We don't
have tenure, therefore don't have to worry about research/publishing. BUT we do
have phenomenal course loads (5 to 7 per term in my case) and no one hands us
our curriulum or course, despite the above-quoted Director. I've been trying to
get courses on-line for three years, but just don't have the time after I've
kept up with the regular courses. I imagine anyone who teaches in a quickly
changing area finds the same thing.
The tools aren't quite easy enough yet - I still struggle and still spend hours
trying to make graphics hold still on a page. Maybe soon...?
--------------603819C096CB78CD58832C77
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Lynne Trepanier
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Lynne Trepanier
n: Trepanier;Lynne
org: College of Geographic Sciences
adr: 50 Elliott Road;;;Lawrencetown;Nova Scotia;B0S 1M0;Canada
email;internet: lynne@cogs.ns.ca
title: Instructor, Cartography:Digital Mapping
tel;work: 902-584-2074
tel;fax: 902-584-7211
x-mozilla-cpt: ;2
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------603819C096CB78CD58832C77--
> If all you want to do is PRESENT materials to the student then go ahead.
> HOWEVER if you are MORE AMBITIOUS and want to ENGAGE students
> INTERACTIVELY then you need will need some help.
>
> Scott
>
Indeed, I will, Scott. Unfortunately it isn't forthcoming, and the
current thinking where I am is that its OK to toss your regular course
onto paper or on the Web and the students will manage somehow. There
isn't even support for doing that, and since it take so much time, most
of us don't bother. We have a long way to go making DE and Web-based
training seem important and specialized, I think, but its getting more
and more critical, if you believe in life-long learning and student
access.
Lynne
--------------249DFEEC86055CB89AEC3809
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Indeed, I will, Scott. Unfortunately it isn't forthcoming, and the current thinking where I am is that its OK to toss your regular course onto paper or on the Web and the students will manage somehow. There isn't even support for doing that, and since it take so much time, most of us don't bother. We have a long way to go making DE and Web-based training seem important and specialized, I think, but its getting more and more critical, if you believe in life-long learning and student access.If all you want to do is PRESENT materials to the student then go ahead. HOWEVER if you are MORE AMBITIOUS and want to ENGAGE students INTERACTIVELY then you need will need some help. Scott
Lynne
--------------249DFEEC86055CB89AEC3809--
The recent discussion regarding whether a team approach is needed for
online course delivery is representative of the major debates
occuring in the field today. The two polarities - course design team
versus individual - may be found in issues ranging from such matters
as copyright, academic freedom, and choice of delivery mode.
To a large degree, this dispute also reflects the differing origin of
online course development. There are two major approaches: one,
which emphasises the individual, originates in the desire of a
traditional on-campus instructor to employ the web as a delivery
tool. The other, which emphasises the team, originates in distance
education institutions or departments.
The central question, in my mind, is the following: is online
education an extension of traditional course delivery? Or is it
another mode of distance education?
This is not a question of technology, or indeed, even of there being
a team involved in course delivery. For both on-campus and distance
delivery, it is manifestly clear that the same technologies may be
adopted, and that a team is to at least some fair extent involved in
course delivery.
This is less obvious in the case of on-campus delivery, where the
emphasis has been on the individual instructor. The 'team', in a
traditional course delivery, functions in the background; it consists
of registration staff, custodians, A/V technologists, librarians,
student support staff, textbook authors, and so on. Traditional
courses which employ the web extend that team to include webmasters,
network technicians, and in some cases, HTML authors, graphic
designers, or digital media technicians.
So to approach this question, we need to ask: why is the design model
different in distance delivery? Why, in distance delivery, was there
a perceived need to move from the focus on the individual and to the
focus on the team? A number of reasons suggest themselves.
One obvious reason is the need for standardized course packages.
Distance delivery involves the production of materials before course
delivery actually takes place. This means that there must be
significant similarity in delivery no matter who is instructing.
Therefore, the primary role of the instructor is subsumed by the
primary role of the course package. And since the course package is
designed by a team, typically, so therefore is course delivery
considered to be the result of a team effort.
Another obvious reason is economics. In distance delivery, since a
significant portion of the course content and delivery mode is
contained in the course package, it is not necessary to hire
instructors with as great a degree of expertise in the subject
matter. This, for example, is the approach adopted by Athabasca
University, where course delivery is coordinated by a fully qualified
instructor, supplemented by a number of lesser qualified tutors.
Since the course tutor cannot assume full responsibility for course
delivery, course delivery is therefore considered to be implemented
by a team.
A third reason which suggests itself is more political: control over
copyright and content. In distance education, to a large degree, the
content *is* the course. So, if content can come and go with
instructors, the institution's stock-in-trade is very ephemeral. In
order to protect its assets, the distance education institution must
maintain ownership over the course content. However, if there is a
primary instructor, who maintains control over that content, then
ownership is difficult to maintain. Thus, the material is deemed to
have been developed by a team, wherein the ownership lies with the
institution.
Now from the point of view of a traditional instructor, none of these
reasons may seem to be very palatable. Ceding control of academic
material to an institution rubs against the concept of academic
freedom and independence. It conflicts with the idea of presenting
many points of view, many, and sometimes new, arguments, theories or
explanations. It institutionalizes not only learning, but also
research, since as academics know, much learning about a topic takes
place in the course of teaching it.
But from the point of view of a person working in a traditional
support role, the move toward course teams constitutes long overdue
recognition of their contribution toward learning. A web technician,
say, is as intimately involved in course delivery as an instructor;
it is unreasonable, then, to say that all credit for successful
delivery of the course is due to the instructor. Librarians, in
particular, have long argued that their academic standing should be
seen as equal to that of course instructors, and it is only as
learning materials have become integral to course delivery that this
standing has been recognized to any significant degree.
Viewed in this way, I think that the dispute regarding course teams
resolves itself into an ownership issue. It has been cast in
discussions on this list as an either-or dispute: either the
instructor owns the course, or the institution does. The nature of
the technology - *someone* must produce the web pages - makes it
appear to be an intractable dilemma. But I think it is not; I think
that the needs of both sides can be recognized and respected.
How this may be the case may be seen when we consider the dispute in
the light of current web course delivery technologies. Once again, we
find the two points of view - individual versus team - reflected in
approaches to online design and delivery.
On-line courses break down roughly into two major categories, which
I'll call 'conference-based' and 'display-based'. A conference-based
course is one in which the primary tool employed is a conferencing
tool; courses delivered using such technologies as FirstClass,
Virtual U, or NetMeeting would count as conference-based. A
display-based course is one in which the primary tool employed is a
display tool; courses delivered using such technologies as web pages,
Shockwave, Acrobat Reader, RealMedia, etc., would count as
display-based.
Conference-based courses have as their inspiration traditional
in-class instruction. The mode of delivery is one in which an
instructor leads students through a series of discussions, assigning
from time to time readings either from texts or web pages. They are
almost always delivered according to a set schedule; although
delivery may be technically asynchronous, nonetheless there is a
specified start and end date, and discussions occur according to a
schedule.
Display-based courses have as their inspiration one of two sources:
either (a) textbooks, or (b) distance education course packages. In
either case, the mode of delivery is one in which students lead
themselves through the material, reading at their own pace, and
participating in discussions when and as directed by the reading
material. Such courses are more thoroughly asynchronous; there is not
usually a fixed start and end date, and no time-based schedule of
events or activities.
Each of these depictions is, of course, an extreme. In the main,
providers of conference-based courses have seen the need for
display-based course materials; hence, these courses often refer to
texts or websites. And display-based course authors have often seen
the need for interaction and conferencing; hence, these courses are
often supplemented with a chat group or discussion list.
Indeed, it should be clear from this depiction that neither
conference-based nor display-based course delivery is an attractive
option. What is wanted is an integrated delivery, one in which
conferencing and display work closely together. This would emulate
more accurately both traditional in-class delivery as well as
traditional distance delivery. For in both modes of delivery, reading
and discussion work hand-in-hand as a unified whole.
When adopting a combined conference-display mode of delivery, a
multi-faceted picture of an online course emerges. We see a course
not as a single entity, but rather, as an entity composed of
constituent parts. In particular, we see a course as consisting of
three components (and here we move into a model and terminology I
have described previously):
- static content (corresponding roughly to textual materials)
- dynamic content (corresponding roughly to an instructor's
in-class instruction), and
- conferencing tools (corresponding roughly to in-class
discussions).
When viewed this way, it is clear that ownership of a course breaks
down into ownership of constituent parts of a course. Specifically:
Static content is owned by whomever produced the static content. This
may be a single instructor, much in the way an instructor might
author a text, but it may be an institution employing a team, much in
the way a movie, video or video game would be produced by a team.
Dynamic content is owned by the instructor. This is the day to day
course management, and could for all practical purposes be owned by,
and controlled by, no other person. For dynamic content would
typically be produced on an as-needed basis from day to day, week to
week.
Discussion content is owned by the discussion participants. Just as
no instructor may claim credit for, or ownership of, comments made in
class by a student, so also a student's contribution to a discussion
list or chat group is similarly outside the instructor's domain.
Viewed in this way, I think that the issue of team versus individual
dissolves. We see that there are two components to online course
delivery, one which essentially involves the instructor, the other
which essentially involves a designer or design team. A combined
approach allows us to preserve such values as academic freedom and
personal style, yet it preserves stability and ownership of course
content by an institution or author.
In a similar manner, the distinction between traditional in-class
delivery and distance delivery is also dissolving. I remember, in
1987, being taught a philosophy of mind course using both in-class
and online discussions. Similarly, traditional classes are today
employing more and more of both web-based displays and internet
conferencing tools. And distance delivery has shifted from the days
of self-contained correspondance packages to delievery by means of
packages plus teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or today, internet
conferencing. As time goes by, I think that we will see traditional
in-class delivery and distance delivery merge into a single entity.
Indeed, to take this discussion a step further, I would venture to
say that advocating the individual over the team is in essence
advocating one delivery mode over the other. But since each delivery
mode is in itself incomplete, so also the advocacy of one over the
other is in essence advocacy of an incomplete course delivery. And
while, indeed, each mode of delivery can be successful to a degree,
it is arguable - and argued - that the success of course delivery in
general is proportional to the degree of employment and integration
of each of the two delivery modes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Downes * Assiniboine Community College - 726-7098
Distance Education and New Instructional Media Designer
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada downes@assiniboinec.mb.ca
http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes
--------------------------------------------------------
One man gives freely yet gains even more. Another
withholds unduly, but comes to poverty. - Proverbs 11:24
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Stephen Downes wrote:
> The central question, in my mind, is the following: is online
> education an extension of traditional course delivery? Or is it
> another mode of distance education?
>
> This is not a question of technology, or indeed, even of there being
> a team involved in course delivery. For both on-campus and distance
> delivery, it is manifestly clear that the same technologies may be
> adopted, and that a team is to at least some fair extent involved in
> course delivery.
...
> So to approach this question, we need to ask: why is the design model
> different in distance delivery? Why, in distance delivery, was there
> a perceived need to move from the focus on the individual and to the
> focus on the team? A number of reasons suggest themselves.
here we have taken the approach/attitude that DL courses are courses and
that technology does not make them inherently different (neither better
nor worse). our learning resources folks have provided a mode of delivery,
period. the instructor deals with course content (and all the related
issues of quality of course, etc.). when we started this (delivering
*live* video with two way audio for interaction), we *had* to have a team,
some of which were in place for only part of the time.
faculty cannot simply walk into a studio and go on-air! can't happen.
doesn't work. you need to learn about the technology, experiment with it,
practice! and that takes training - whether in-house or external. even
having spent several days at a training workshop, i practiced with the
medium before going live, including testing three or four 'lectures'
during a regular course of mine.
if i have a lot of material that i usually use i have to convert it.
overhead projectors are portrait, tv is landscape. :-)
i need copyright clearances.
i need a production person to cue and switch cameras, roll video, screen
calls (this was *live* after all :-).
i recreated my course. i took *all* my material and instead of powerpoint
i moved it straight to linked html pages so that i could roll over
everything i used right to the web for the students to reference later. i
did some of the copyright clearances, i dumped the use of lots of other
material that i didn't want to chase down, and had others do the rest.
this is teamwork. even scrapping the tv portion, it is more than i want to
do by myself more than once. been there, done that, bought the
t-shirt...
> Another obvious reason is economics. In distance delivery, since a
> significant portion of the course content and delivery mode is
> contained in the course package, it is not necessary to hire
> instructors with as great a degree of expertise in the subject
hah! from my experience and that of others, no one would use our
materials and be able to deliver a course. in our case that is partly
(mostly) because of the *key* of interactivity...the 'value-added' nature
of the course is q&a, guided discussion, etc.
> A third reason which suggests itself is more political: control over
> copyright and content. In distance education, to a large degree, the
> content *is* the course. So, if content can come and go with
> instructors, the institution's stock-in-trade is very ephemeral. In
> order to protect its assets, the distance education institution must
> maintain ownership over the course content. However, if there is a
> primary instructor, who maintains control over that content, then
> ownership is difficult to maintain. Thus, the material is deemed to
> have been developed by a team, wherein the ownership lies with the
> institution.
this is a different thread (which i attempted to start; what? no takers?
bummer). the Policies of the Board of Trustees for SUNY says,
"Generally the members of the staff of the University shall retain all
rights to copyright and publish written works produced by them. However,
in cases where persons are employed or directed within the scope of their
employment to produce specific work subject to copyright the University
shall have the right to publish such work without copyright or to
copyright it in its own name. The copyright will also be subject to any
contractual arrangements by the University for work in the course of which
the writing was done."
and the SUNY Learning Network (which has a centralized collection of DL
courses that are asynchronous and Lotus-notes based and SLN provides the
servers, technical support, and 800-number) has a developers agreement
that leaves the copyright in the hands of the faculty with a 5-year
non-exclusive right to use clause for SLN.
so what is the case at your institutions?
> When adopting a combined conference-display mode of delivery, a
> multi-faceted picture of an online course emerges. We see a course
> not as a single entity, but rather, as an entity composed of
> constituent parts. In particular, we see a course as consisting of
> three components (and here we move into a model and terminology I
> have described previously):
> - static content (corresponding roughly to textual materials)
> - dynamic content (corresponding roughly to an instructor's
> in-class instruction), and
> - conferencing tools (corresponding roughly to in-class
> discussions).
...
> Viewed in this way, I think that the issue of team versus individual
> dissolves. We see that there are two components to online course
> delivery, one which essentially involves the instructor, the other
> which essentially involves a designer or design team. A combined
> approach allows us to preserve such values as academic freedom and
> personal style, yet it preserves stability and ownership of course
> content by an institution or author.
well described. thank you for doing this.
> In a similar manner, the distinction between traditional in-class
> delivery and distance delivery is also dissolving. I remember, in
> 1987, being taught a philosophy of mind course using both in-class
> and online discussions. Similarly, traditional classes are today
> employing more and more of both web-based displays and internet
> conferencing tools. And distance delivery has shifted from the days
> of self-contained correspondance packages to delievery by means of
> packages plus teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or today, internet
> conferencing. As time goes by, I think that we will see traditional
> in-class delivery and distance delivery merge into a single entity.
everyone *SHOULD* read
"Electronics and the Dim Future of the University" by Eli Noam
(http://www.asis.org/annual-96/noam.html)
-dab
David Alan Bozak Interim Associate Dean, Art & Sciences ________|________
dab@cs.oswego.edu SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 ___\__(*)__/___
315.341.2285 http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~dab o/ \o
"When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl."
I agree with Scott. The need for a team will depend on what is meant by a
"course". Here in the UK we have had a multi-million pounds stlg
inititative, the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) to
support HE academics in producing CAL and other resouce-based learning
materials. Independent evaluators (Coopers and Lybrand) reported that the
weakest projects were those which lacked explicit instructional
designer/educational technologist input.
Bernard Scott
Dr Bernard Scott
Centre for Educational Technology and Development
Portland Building
De Montfort University
The Gateway
Leicester LE1 9BH
UK
Tel 0116 257 7662 / Fax 0116 250 6101
http://severn.dmu.ac.uk/~mit/ctd.html
Everyone's entitled to their own rants, but I've been helping profs make
technology a tool and not a master for 16 years, and I can count on two
hands how many of them would have produced a comparable or superior
learning experience for the students in those first time offerings without
help from assorted team members. If it's a true 'team' then the prof is
indeed being supported so they are NOT dominated by the technology. Of
course there are individuals who enthusiastically tackle new
teaching/learning environments, but there are lots of others who are put
into that position with considerable less confidence and enthusiasm ... and
those folks deserve a supportive team if it's available.
There, that's my reply rant.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judy Somers, Learning Technologies Group
Division of Continuing Studies
University of Victoria
PO Box 3030 STN CSC
Victoria BC V8W 3N6
Canada
http://www.uvcs.uvic.ca/
tel (250) 721-8293 fax (250) 721-6598
"I have made mistakes, but have never made
the mistake of claiming I never made one."
James G. Bennet
And here's mine: :o)
Over your past 16 years, the technology has been complicated enough to
*demand* a team. But the time is near when the tools will become simple
enough and easy enough to use that we won't need a technical team. So I'll
grant you the technological need *for the (short) time being*. But typing
was a specialized skill when first introduced; now every kid can keyboard.
Scanners are becoming as easy to use as copiers (and as cheap). Producing
web pages no longer requires an HTML guru: editors abound and are getting
more functional and easy to use at a ferocious pace. Interactivity? even
with primitive web tools such as helper applications, an individual can do
quite a bit: see my geometry prototype at
http://www.math.unb.ca/~jalester/POINCARE-X/Pages/Start.html. And projects
such as those currently being developed at the CECM
(http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/) will allow individual content creators to "roll
their own" - for what's coming, see
http://lizardo.cecm.sfu.ca/papers/ed/edmedia/edmedia.html. The technology
required for individuals is here or on the way.
But most of my rant was directed at the implication that teachers and
professors need *editorial, writing and educational design* help. The
philosophy here seems to be that those of us with the most experience in
these areas are somehow incapable of implementing that experience online.
This may be true of a teacher/professor who's never surfed the web and has
little idea of how it works and what's possible, or one with little online
experience who is being pressured to convert his/her material into online
form. But any teacher/professor with interest in and experience of what's
out there can readily see what works online and what doesn't - there're
tons of examples around of both. *These* are the people who should be
creating new online courses. They know the content, they've had enough
experience to see how to use the coming technologies in innovative and
unexpected ways to teach, not just what they've taught for years, but what
they can now teach with the new technology. If all you're concerned about
is to take existing courses and stick them online, then by all means,
create a team to do it (and hope your work is not outdated before it's
done). If you want innovation and creativity combined with a solid
knowledge of content and practical teaching, give the tools to the
experienced teachers. IMHO.
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
*
June Lester * There are three kinds of people:
jalester@unb.ca * Those who MAKE things happen,
http://www.math.unb.ca/ * Those who WATCH things happen,
~jalester * And those who WONDER what happened.
*
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
The topic of "course design teams" has been an interesting one. Not totally
"out-side" the imaginary boundaries of the mandate of the WWWDEV listserv -
but certainly bouncing around the fuzzy edges and that is OK. The listserv
was setup to help those in the development of web-based courseware and as
such I guess together we are really a big team.
Some of you have given examples of your work in the discussion and I hope
others will look at the works submitted and give praises and suggestions.
We have not yet had a "flame" (maybe a spark or two) and I would like to
wrap this segment up at this point.
As an educator for 27 years (a classroom teacher, an instructional designer
as well as a distance education developer, manager and teacher) I too have
my beliefs and I know that facilitating learning is different at different
levels using different methods. I know that in my five years as a manager
in a centre that produced and delivered distance education the content
experts often were uncomfortable having their work edited, both by members
of the "production team" and by their own colleagues. But it was the
exceptional work that did not benefit by substantive and copy editing. My
own productions were always edited, and I am glad they were. (As a very
slight digression - it is interesting being married to a writer with ten
books in print and three new novels coming out in the next year. Linda and
I think good editors are worth their weight in gold!)
Thank you all for your input. If you wish to carry on the debate personally
(use the personal email found in the header) or join DEOS-L - The Distance
Education Online Symposium <DEOS-L@lists.psu.edu> where these issues are
discussed very frequently.
Please remember those of our colleagues who are "bandwidth challenged" -
and keep the postings short, sweet and pertinent.
Many thanks.
Rik Hall - Distance Education and Off-Campus Services
University of New Brunswick (506) 453-4854
http://www.unb.ca/coned/
N.A.WEB '98 - "The Virtual Campus" Oct. 3-6, 1998
http://www.unb.ca/wwwdev/naweb98/
*** Thought du month ***
I like pigs. Dog look up to us.
Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals.
--Winston Churchill
Easier technology makes access easier. It doesn't compensate for a lack
of aptitude, training, or experience in effective use of the technology.
Just how difficult is the technology of pen on paper? Yet how many
instructors still can't create an effective simple one-page paper handout?
And if you can't with a pen, you won't with a computer. (The automatic
transmission has enabled more drivers to be on the road, but it hasn't
created better drivers)
>But most of my rant was directed at the implication that teachers and
>professors need *editorial, writing and educational design* help.
Sorry, 30 years' experience compells me to disagree with you. MOST
teachers and profs DO need editorial, writing, and educational design
help. Often a lot of it, and sometimes very basic stuff indeed. Most
don't acknowledge their need because they don't know what they don't know
or can't discern, or because it's shameful to admit they need it. (Most
also need graphics or technological help if the result is to be any better
than amateur, but this is more easily admitted because it's an "extra"
they're not expected to know.)
Please note that I'm saying "most" here. Some teachers/profs are
multi-talented and don't need much help, if any. Interestingly, they're
often the ones most likely to invite suggestions and accept criticism.
Perhaps real confidence enables openness to help, and vice-versa.
Mediated and live instruction require some skills in common, but each also
requires a cluster of unique skills. A person who's good in one setting
may be poor in the other, and certainly will be less skilled when first
trying it. No shame admitting that, is there?
Well, perhaps there is for some. It's an oft-remarked irony that a
certain breed of teacher makes the worst student. This type thinks they
know it all because, well...because they DO, dammit! Knowing it all is
their job. They're the teacher. Learning from an expert is
essential...for everyone else. Learning through experience is
essential...for everyone else. (Thank goodness there are also
good-natured breeds of teachers out there. You know who you are...and the
others think they're you)
My profession is the development of mediated instruction. That's my grad
degree, my main life's work, my specialty -- I develop, consult, and
instruct. But although I've been rated an outstanding teacher, I know
that I'll develop a much better course by working with experienced
instructors. Each of us contributes our unique expertise.
Instructors have in-depth knowledge of their subject, their students, and
the context in which students are to use their knowledge. That's their
life work. I may learn a wee bit of it as we go along, but I'll never
know as much as they do. And they don't have my skills or knowledge, and
never will.
TOGETHER we can produce something better than either could alone.
Thinking otherwise is just an exercise in ego....
- Jim
**************************************************************************
Jim Bigsby -- Educational & Training Consultant -- jbigsby@islandnet.com
1255 Maple Rd, North Saanich, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8L 5P7
Res: (250) 656-0845 Fax: (250) 656-0945
**************************************************************************
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee!
The legislature in my state eliminated tenure for public school teachers.
Distance Education means that teachers world wide will have to compete with
other teachers world wide for students.
Geography no longer provides you with a monopoly on students.
I costs my district about $300 to deliver a course to a single student in
my city. It costs our distance education program about $300 to deliver a
course to a single student in Korea, or Canada, Mexico, any state in the
union, etc.
If an instructor has yet to master the technology of a "simple one-page
handout" it is time to replace that person.
In the beginning, institutions will be willing to train their current
faculty in new technology based instruction. A little later on they will
find it easier to hire teachers who already know how to teach with
technology. And since the teachers do not have to move to another city to
take a new job .....
Jim's right. Teachers live in an oral tradition: teaching is part acting.
Often they create materials which work because of their own enthusiasm for
them. When you remove the teacher, and the enthusiasm, and just look at
the materials.... Well, enough said.
>
>Please note that I'm saying "most" here. Some teachers/profs are
>multi-talented and don't need much help, if any. Interestingly, they're
>often the ones most likely to invite suggestions and accept criticism.
Reflects my experience also. The good worker welcomes criticism, the bad
worker calls it an affront to his/her dignity.
>Mediated and live instruction require some skills in common, but each also
>requires a cluster of unique skills.
Yes. Thorstein Veblin invented the term "learned incapacity" to apply to
people who have skills in a task very similar to the one at hand, but
sufficiently different that the skills don't apply. People in this
position often have difficulty seeing the difference and have a longer
learning curve than people who start knowing nothing!
>Well, perhaps there is for some. It's an oft-remarked irony that a
>certain breed of teacher makes the worst student. This type thinks they
>know it all because, well...because they DO, dammit! Knowing it all is
>their job. They're the teacher. Learning from an expert is
>essential...for everyone else. Learning through experience is
>essential...for everyone else. (Thank goodness there are also
>good-natured breeds of teachers out there. You know who you are...and the
>others think they're you)
>
>My profession is the development of mediated instruction. That's my grad
>degree, my main life's work, my specialty -- I develop, consult, and
>instruct. But although I've been rated an outstanding teacher, I know
>that I'll develop a much better course by working with experienced
>instructors. Each of us contributes our unique expertise.
>
>Instructors have in-depth knowledge of their subject, their students, and
>the context in which students are to use their knowledge. That's their
>life work. I may learn a wee bit of it as we go along, but I'll never
>know as much as they do. And they don't have my skills or knowledge, and
>never will.
>
>TOGETHER we can produce something better than either could alone.
>Thinking otherwise is just an exercise in ego....
Yes. Teachers often work in isolation (or did until quite recently) and can
easily get the idea that they are the only ones with expertise that
matters. My experience is that teachers are often good at critiquing
material, but often bad at creating it. I learned this from painful
experience.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>**************************************************************************
>Jim Bigsby -- Educational & Training Consultant -- jbigsby@islandnet.com
> 1255 Maple Rd, North Saanich, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8L 5P7
> Res: (250) 656-0845 Fax: (250) 656-0945
>**************************************************************************
> Raymond B. Vickery
>
>
> Manager, Distance Education
Open School
>
> "Beauty is in the walking. We are betrayed by destination." Gwyn Thomas
Note new e-mail address: rvickery@cln.etc.bc.ca
Note new phone number: 250-953-7407