2 Yoon

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, 2007-2008

ONLINE EDUCATION SUCCESS FACTORS: ALIGING TECHNOLOGIES WITH INSTRUCTION Seung Won Yoon Western Illinois University ABSTRACT This article presents two conceptual frameworks, one for course instructors to balance instructional events, learner interactions, and technologies, and the other for administrators to create a simple, stable, sustainable, and scalable technology infrastructure that enables important learner interactions identified from the first framework. Discussion is also presented regarding how these two frameworks can facilitate constructive and supportive dialogues between instructors and administrators.

H

aving worn numerous hats for distance learning and having taught courses using numerous delivery technologies in the field of corporate training and instructional technology, I can strongly agree with the literature stating that distance learning in the U.S. higher education, especially online education which uses the Internet as a delivery tool is not only here to stay and grow (Allen & Seaman, 2003), but is viewed among more than half of the university professors as a very effective instructional medium that is capable of pulling an equal or greater quality course compared to their counterpart onsite courses (Allen & Seaman, 2004). The traditional distance education before the age of the Internet was characterized by the physical and temporal distance between the students and the instructor. And the nature of delayed or technology-mediated communication was not regarded as effective as that of the face-toface. However, online education that utilizes modern communication and multimedia technologies at affordable cost has been rapidly 30

31

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

adopted to reach approximately 3.2 million college students in 2005. Our daily instructional practices on campus seem to indicate a further growth of online education in that more online courses are being proposed to be developed and some onsite courses are continuously being converted to online in order to reach more or new groups of students, especially those who work. If not a full-pledged online course, very interesting trends are also happening for onsite courses to integrate more of online components, such as resources and cyber communities on the Internet or discussion forums on a Course Management System (CMS). New educational practices caused by changing technologies are challenging the higher education system in the U.S. Leaders must make prudent technology-related decisions in multiple areas, such as cyber security, information systems and services, reliable network, policy, quality distance education, IT funding and human resource management in the middle of limited budget (Gandel, 2000). My experiences in the area of online education, as a programmer, student, CMS consultant, development project manager, technology staff member, and an instructor support that tools of the trade will come and go, change, and advance, but a quality course is one that has been designed and implemented well regardless of technologies used. It is almost impossible to repeat a success unless the whole efforts to distance learning are the blend of pedagogy, technology, and organizational support which involve active feedback loops among key participants: instructional and technology staff members, leaders, and the learners (Yoon, 2003). Having these elements at hand will help the institution better prepare and manage their technological resources and also respond to the changing and growing demands of the users. Whether it is about migrating onto a new CMS (which has been reported as a time consuming and resource intensive task), assisting with the faculty members develop and deliver an online course, or adjusting course scheduling and enrollment policies, cooperation among multiple groups is crucial. The literature points out the particular importance of collaboration among administrators and faculty members (Milheim, 2001). Expecting instructors to be versatile

Seung Won Yoon 32

and adaptive to technological changes is a risky and imposing solution that is not likely to succeed. Milheim (2001) states that a high-level of interactivity should be ingrained into any distance learning programs and faculty members who deliver the educational experiences directly to the students need to be advised to know the needs for time and resources that administrators should put forth to ensure constructive policies and support. This paper aims to provide a framework through which dialogues can take place among those two parties to align technology-related decisions to support high interactivity in online courses. Distance Learning Success Factors Studies reported major factors contributing to the success or hindrance of distance learning at a program level. Phipps and Merisotis (2000) reported that institutional support, teaching and learning, course structure, student support, faculty support, and evaluation as important for successful distance learning, while the teaching and learning category was recognized as most critical. In contrast, factors such as ineffective administrative structure, organizational change, lack of technical expertise, poor social interaction and quality, lack of faculty compensation and time, threat of changing technologies, legal issues, ineffective evaluation, and poor student-support services were found as common distance learning barriers (Muilenburg & Berge, 2001). Although individuals’ learning styles and backgrounds can affect the student’s course experiences and how they learn from it, major success or barrier factors identified above commonly lead to the primary importance of interaction experiences enjoyed by the learners with various stakeholders, such as instructional, technology, and student-support service staff members, course contents, and resources on the Internet. Students’ course experiences will be largely shaped by their interactions with those and they in turn will affect their learning.

33

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

In online education, all the students’ interactions are facilitated through the students’ interacting with and via technologies. Interactivity: Responsibilities of the Instructors An online course that does not balance the quantity, variety, and quality of student interactions runs a risk of becoming a busy, boring, or superficial course. With all good intentions, a course in the U.S. Civil war, marketing, or geography can be designed to utilize authoritative readings, video or audio recordings from the instructor, and diagnostic quizzes followed by peer discussions or a terminal examination. Hearing the benefit of reflecting and sharing of thoughts, instructors may want to add more activities or assessments hoping to promote collaboration among the learners. In onsite courses, with a little more planning and preparation, instructors can utilize various activities and resources on the Internet (probably at the speed of their thoughts and acts). However, in distance learning, they would soon find that not a single technology, even a very powerful and feature-rich CMS comes up very short to accommodate the instructor’s familiar course events and activities. The Internet provides numerous tutorials and if lucky, computing support on campus provides occasional workshops and laboratory visits for the instructor to better implement technologies to support their instructional practices. Unfortunately, my experiences indicate that this pattern is reactive and less than effective, particularly when technological features change. A more scalable and sustainable approach is necessary. Given that instructors are primarily responsible for designing the structure of a course and by teaching the course over time, know the most about the goal and contents of the course, utilizing technologies can be planned and determined around their familiar instructional events and expertise. The following template has been designed adopting Hirumi’s (2002) proposed framework for designing and sequencing online interactions. The first column lists instructional activities or assessments and the item can be drawn from established

Seung Won Yoon 34

instructional methods, such as Gagne’s nine event of instruction, guided discovery, or problem-based learning. Hirumi (2002) states that the online learners’ interactions can be classified as learner-human (instructor, peers, and others, such as workplace managers) or learnernon-human (content, interface, and environment) entities. He challenges that distance learning can encompass off-line activities, such as visits to a local library or field experts. The last two columns identify available technologies and the type of technologies being used as a real-time (synchronous) or different time (asynchronous) delivery tool or an information resource or community. I would like to note that the same technology can be used in more than one delivery type and a type of technology can utilize more than one tool. For instance, email (asynchronous) can evolve as a mailing list (community), while a community can be created among class members only or on the Internet (to interact with others outside the course) and utilize a chat or asynchronous discussion forums. Given the upsurge of numerous online communities and resources, and the fact that our next generation students spend more time on the Internet than books (for gaining knowledge and information), the last two columns will stimulate instructors to make better use of various technologies converging on the Internet. A sketch plan to teach a course in online marketing may look like the following (using the nine events of instruction strategy):

35

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Table 1

Interactions Table Activity

Interaction

Technology

Delivery Type

Gain attention (Examples: Email and banner ads ) Inform objectives (launching an ecommerce site) Relate to prior knowledge (catalogue sales or fundraising, sharing) Present stimulus (case study: Google – scavenger hunt) Provide guidance (viral marketing – resource / professional organizations / interview experts) Elicit performance (brainstorming / group report) Provide feedback (instructor or group)

L.C

Images on the Internet

Asynchronous

L.C

CMS, Chat

Asynchronous, synchronous

L.P

Discussion

Asynchronous

L.C,P

Internet, discussion

Resource, asynchronous

L.C,O

Internet, wikipedia

Asynchronous, resource, community

L.T,P

Chat, whiteboard, email Conferencing, email, discussion CMS

Synchronous, asynchronous

L.IS,P

Synchronous, asynchronous

Assess performance L.C Synchronous (online quiz) Memory aid and L.C.O Internet, blog Asynchronous transfer (manager feedback, subscribe to famous bloggers) L: Learner, C: Contents, IS: Instructional Staff, P: Peers, O: Others, T: Technology

Experiences, technical expertise, trials and errors, and feedback from colleagues will lead to the refinement of this approach. Here, technologies are selected for the purpose of facilitating crucial learner

Seung Won Yoon 36

interactions. A balance among quantity, variety, and quality can be also made in determining the sequence and type of learner interactions and the types and frequency of technologies used for contents, communications, and assessments. Technology Alignments In an onsite classroom, when technological failures occur, there is at least a teacher present to carry out the course. In online education, however, a glitch in technology may mean a helpless teacher or a learner with frustration from failed systems or inability to participate. Quality learner interactions identified as important for meaningful course experiences are only feasible when technologies are simple to use for the instructor and the students, stable, sustainable, scalable (in view of desired growth or changes), and most of all are capable of enabling social interactions for the learner (4S+1S, Vaccare & Sherman, 2001). Other technology selection frameworks also exist. Reiser and Gagne (1982) show how different media, such as papers, video, and computers compare in terms of capacity to produce, disseminate, and replicate information. The ASSURE model (Analyze needs, State objectives, Select methods, media, and materials, Utilize media and materials, Require participation, and Evaluate and revise) can help an instructor to consider major instructional factors in selecting technologies. However, unlike the 4S+1S model, these seem to be more appropriate for the course instructor to choose technologies within a single course. The strength of the 4S+1S model is that it applies a standardized methodology for planning and selecting technologies addressing the needs of both instructors and administrators. These frameworks are not mutually exclusive though. The 4S+1S model can be used alone or in conjunction with the other models in assessing whether technological arrangements are consistent across multiple course environments or at a program level.

37

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Expectations and Responsibilities of the Leaders Leaders may feel comfortable in seeing that their institution has a faculty development center, provides online student-support services, and offers workshops or monetary incentives for online course development. However, if little feedback or dialogue is taking place related to how the distance learning infrastructure promotes or interferes with the students’ interacting with rich content materials, instructional, technology, and student-support service staff members, and various resources over the Internet, constructive and cooperative collaborations can take place by centering dialogues around how interactions are managed across different distance learning courses and how technologies are effective or efficient in accomplishing those interactions. Unless the structure of the course has been established, instructors feel comfortable in using various delivery technologies, or proper arrangements be made to assist with online course development or delivery, faculty development initiatives can run into strong resistance due to the fact that enabling important learner interactions in distance learning course take greater amount of time and efforts on the part of the instructors and require a strong interaction-supporting technological infrastructure. Given that advancements and innovations seem to better describe the current and future direction of technologies and distance learning, leaders are in a position to ensure that administrative, technology, and policy infrastructures are established and supported to help the instructors implement various learner interactions required for quality course experiences. Two perspectives presented here, the conceptual framework of online interaction and the 4S+1S technology selection model should be helpful for dialogues to happen for both the administrators and the instructors who are equally charged to provide quality educational experiences for the students and whose roles are mutually affecting and improving the practices of the other.

Seung Won Yoon 38

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the Opportunity. The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/entering_mainstream.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the Main Stream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/entering_mainstream.pdf Gandel, P. (2000). Top IT challenges for 2000. Educause Quarterly, 2, 11-16. Hirumi, A. (2002). A Framework to Analyzing, Designing, and Sequencing Planned E-Learning Interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160. Milheim, W. (2001). Faculty and Administrative Strategies for the Effective Impementation of Distance Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 535-542. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to Distance Education: A Factor-Analytic Study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7-22. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the Line: Benchmark for Success in Internet-Based Education. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf Reiser, R., & Gagne, R. (1982). Characteristics of Media Selection Models. Review of Educational Research, 52(4). 499-512.

39

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Smaldino, S. E., Molenda, M., Heinich, R., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Vaccare, C., & Sherman, G. (2001). A Pragmatic Model for Instructional Technology Selection. In R. M. Branch & A. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Educational Technology and Media Yearbook (Vol. 27). Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Yoon, S. W. (2003). Facilitating Learning in Online Environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 19-30.