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.

Blackboard's Competition

The 2008 TLT conference in Raleigh was even better than the earlier versions of the conference that I have gone to, and there were many times when I had to choose one of three or more interesting-sounding sessions. However, one I particularly wanted to make time for was "A Study of Three CMS Systems: Blackboard, Moodle, and Sakai." The idea of open-source course management systems intrigues me, and I am very interested in alternatives to Blackboard.

The session presenters (Biwu Yang, Sharon Collins, Matt Long, and Ginny Sconiers) were from East Carolina University. They described a CMS platform evaluation project they are conducting, using all three CMS systems at once. They were able to recruit a number of faculty members to use Moodle, Sakai, and then Blackboard 7.2 in successive semesters. (This struck me as being so remarkable that I double-checked with one of the presenters afterward, to make sure I had heard correctly.)

The study is continuing, but the presenters reported that Moodle was challenging to get going, but users liked it for its "social feel": faculty said it "feels good." However, Moodle lacks a good conversion tool for moving materials from another CMS platform, and faculty needed a good deal of help in reformating their courses.

Sakai does have a conversion tool that reformats material from Blackboard. However, importing outside content, particularly tests and quizzes, presented some problems. The platform has only a few templates, and there are so many settings for tests and quizzes that learning to use the system is complicated.

I'm still shaking my head at the idea that faculty members taught their courses using three different platforms in three successive semesters, and it was clear that this test required a great deal of technical support, something that is probably more feasible for a large school like ECU. Therefore, I have no desire to see us try to replicate this study, but I do want to follow up on ECU's work and look for another report from them next year.

The ECU page describing the "CMS Platform Project" has links to more information about each system, a "contact us" link, and a search box (at the top) that can be used to find the presenters' e-mail addresses.

I found what seems to be Moodle's home page at http://moodle.org/, and Sakai is at http://sakaiproject.org/. Both these sites have demonstration courses and other materials describing the systems.

The presenters did mention that ECU is hosting Moodle sites for some instructors at other schools, but they didn't mention whether they are accepting any more applications.

Online Course Delivery Enhancement

In March 2008, I had the pleasure of attending The University of North Carolina Teaching and Learning with Technology Conference. Currently, I teach online courses in psychology and am always interested in learning of new ways to infuse technology in the learning process. Recently I have become interested in course redesign which is a method for modifying courses using technology to increase student success. Course redesign was developed by the National Center for Academic Transformation. At the UNC TLT conference, I was a panelist in a session for course redesign. I wanted to take the opportunity to learn about the latest in educational technology and to consider how I could incorporate it into a redesign proposal.

One session that I found particularly interesting was on engaging students with social software applications such as: blogs, wikis and podcasts. As I further attempt to further infuse technological tools in my online classes and the online component of my face-to-face courses, I was intrigued by the possibilities social applications can offer. For example, blogs would be an easy way to include journaling on a course related topic throughout a semester. Based on the subject matter I could allow other students read and comment on each others entries or only view and comment on a student's entry myself. I also think wikis would be an excellent tool for facilitating exam reviews. Students could be assigned to groups and determine how they would contribute information for the review. Finally for the visual learners, podcasting would be an excellent way for them to view demonstrations of concepts.

There was some discussion about how to infuse social networking sites such as: MySpace and Facebook in courses. I am a little wary of incorporating those tools yet. Inclusion of such sites would have to be considered on a course by course basis. After informally asking a few of my students whether they would want a professor to join Facebook and contact them about school, there was hesitation and responses of 'no'. There are some social environments, I think, where students would not prefer to be contacted by professors for pedagogical purposes.

Finally, I was very impressed with the notion of using virtual worlds for instruction. Based on the demonstration I could see many application centered disciplines, such as health care fields, benefiting from this technology. I also think it would be a useful tool to train counseling psychologists. Meeting different types of clients in a virtual world could teach them about how to handle clients with various psychological issues. I believe that there are many new and exciting ways to use new technological advances to enhance student learning. However, I think we should always proceed with caution in what types of tools we use for the learning environment.