2008 E-Learning World Conference, Las Vegas, NV

Experience at 2008 E-Learning World Conference, Las Vegas, NV
November 18-22, 2008 – Dr. Janice Witt Smith, SPHR,

Associate Professor of Management, Dept. of Management and Marketing

Thanks very much for the opportunity to participate in this conference. I had never been to Las Vegas or to an e-learning conference, so I was very excited about both. I left less excited about Las Vegas but certainly very excited about the possibilities in distance learning. I am in the process of creating six DL Human Resource Management courses under a grant and was looking forward to new, innovative ideas that would enhance learning. I was pleasantly surprised and grateful to find that much of what I needed had already been provided at WSSU, particularly through the GOAL course and my interactions with Drs. Galvis and Anderson.

The primary reinforcement that I received was that distance learning tools should enhance the course by supporting (and not replacing) pedagogy and good instructional design. The technology should not drive content, it should support it and enable the faculty member to reach the instructional objectives for the course. The GOAL course at WSSU certainly kept this as its tenet, and I was glad to hear it reinforced over and over again. Additionally, in a number of the workshops, I found faculty from other campuses both domestically and internationally talking about things that we have been doing for the past several years. Many of their universities are just getting into the DL arena. In addition, there were DL directors and the like whose universities were light years ahead of us as well.

Several important concepts and ideas emerged for me:

(1) A team teaching approach could be beneficial to our students in the face-to-face classroom. A group from State Farm Insurance talked about their use of team teaching in delivering webinars through State Farm. They demonstrated the technique and provided and opportunity for us to engage in role plays related to it. While not immediately applicable in my current environment, it reinforced what had been intuition for me when I tried this in 1998 with a faculty member from another business area. Having us either (a) tag team approach where both facilitators are subject-matter experts and decide which portions of the content they will cover; (b) student advocate approach – one facilitator takes the role of the student who does not understand as much, summarizes, pulling along from subject to subject as if asking FAQs from student perspective; and (c) “morning drive” – this is like one of the morning radio shows which have a conversational tone and viewers can call in. Both facilitators are experts and they need to be able to respond to viewer inquiries quickly. They may have different opinions which surface during the exchange. The presenters equated interactivity with engagement, and that the facilitators needed to ensure that they provide personal stories that enhance the content and help them to build credibility with their audience. Because this is a corporate environment, they did not deal with issues such as ownership of content, workload distribution, etc.

(2) A second major “aha” was concerning the movement for open access education and several major repositories of academic content that is available to the world. The focal content was around (i) liberating textbooks and not have them bound but web-available, where faculty can pick and choose the modules they want and print on demand. (ii) Inviting participation in content development from a wide audience. Examples were MITopencourseware, wikipedia, and Public Library of Science.

The analogy was used to think of the music industry in which they (1) create, (2) rip; (3) mix; and (4) burn. Create – anyone can become an author and add to the content; Rip – anyone can translate or customize a course. Mix – the ability to rapidly configure own webcourse or textbook – to assemble a textbook. This is available in Connexions (Rice University Project) in 2009. Burn – anyone can print their own textbook – the print on demand capability, control the quality for themselves, use software such as Lenses and de.li.cious to filer, etc.

There is a push to get NSF to open its archives so that more people have access to research information and there would be a reduction in the funding of a number of proposals looking at the same things. Some discussion about the use of linux 6.2 software which would help with publication, etc. Some of the key challenges with open access – (a) interplay between open education and open access – scholarly articles; (b)impact on promotion and tenure; (c) integration with intelligent e-learning systems; and (d) roadblocks – fragmentation of IP and technology. For more information on open education access, go to http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/.

Another workshop focused on: E-learning has the capacity to transform the university – on-line design and tools can create a mindset for evolvement. Introduction of discussion boards, chats, cell phones, blogs and wikis created a major shift at Abilene Christian University from teacher-controlled/learning managed environment to teacher-controlled open-ended environment. The university formed partnership with Embanet and had UVCMS who did a lot of their development. What came out of it was interactive e-portfolio. They shifted over to MOODLE from Blackboard because of the collaborative development. In the capstone class described, students had to demonstrate mastery over both course content and program outcomes. This focus required an extensive rubric system embedded in e-portfolios. http://test.uvcms.com/proddemos/user-demo

Melissa Engleman’s paper on increasing student engagement linked MBTI type and student learning style. In her study, 60% of the students had sensing learning styles in which they want direct communication; hands-on experience; moderate to high degree of structure; linear, sequential learning, and often need to know why. She suggested that students have difficulty with complex concepts; low tolerance for ambiguity; less independence in thought and judgment; and more dependent on ideas of those in authority. They are dependent on immediate gratification and exhibit more difficulty with basic academics such as reading and writing.

Other random thoughts and learnings – One presenter talked about use of HorizaWimba for synchronous learning environment. Another encouraged the increased use of avatars (animated characters) to guide the process. One presenter talked about the ADA compliance issues with which we should be concerned, particularly as it relates to hearing and visually impaired individuals. We cannot use only one technique thinking that we are reaching all of the students. We have to change the way we present material, having modules and well-defined syllabi, making everything transparent to the learner, and not assuming anything in terms of computer skills, knowledge of software, and the like.

Finally, I need to find more exciting, meaningful and engaging ways of using powerpoint. One workshop talked about ways to structure powerpoint, going beyond bulleted lists to linked powerpoints and provided research that suggested that this made a difference in learning outcome. The high tech component is an enabler, an enhancer, and has to be utilized by someone who knows the content. By itself, technology can do very little. All it can do is to present and enhance core information in the content. The presenter talked about neural learning facilitation, where today’s students require visual input – if they don’t see it, they cannot connect the dots. The presenter argued that virtuosity draws the student into visual learning situation. Tools suggested: foreground/background contrasts – dealing with perceptions; bright colors; use of text and sound; animations; digital scans; concept maps; and videoclips.

Implementation of improved powerpoint techniques requires one or more visual strategies to: illustrate, associate, demonstrate, concretize, identify, describe, initial discussion, link, connect, introduce, and integrate. The key is to decide how and where you create something to assist the learning.