Synchronous learning and the asynchronous online course

The new GRCC strategic plan includes a college action project (CAP) focusing on expanding and improving outcomes in online learning. CAP members include faculty, staff, and administrators from various disciplines and departments across campus. This year we will be piloting a web-conferencing solution – Zoom- in tandem with Techsmith Relay SaaS – a cloud-based media management tool. Our goal is to improve access to student support services and increase instructor immediacy and teaching presence in the virtual classroom.

Skype video conference
Skype – CC-BY-NC-SA by M. Fawcett on Flickr

Departments that will be exploring how to use these technologies to support distance learners include: advising, enrollment services, the Library, academic tutoring and student success. Students will be able to consult with support professionals in real-time using audio / video or through the instant messaging / chat feature. Other features include a “waiting room” offering privacy when serving students one at a time, a whiteboard, screen sharing, remote control, and a recording feature for students to review help sessions later.

In a 2010 study, C. Baker from Tarleton State University, found that synchronous online learning resulted in significantly higher levels of instructor immediacy and presence. Teacher presence is the degree to which a student feels their instructor is accessible and responsive in the virtual classroom. Immediacy refers to the degree to which students feel their instructor is a “real person”.

The use of synchronous technologies such as web-conferencing in the online course can help to mitigate feelings of isolation which often result in lower student satisfaction levels and higher attrition rates. However, there are certain constraints in regards to flexibility when adding synchronous activities to an asynchronous online course .

Using a design-based research approach, P. Lowenthal and others (2017) were intentional in their efforts to leverage synchronous technologies in the  redesign of virtual office hours. Although few students historically attended office hours – whether virtual or face-to-face – by including the synchronous sessions in the syllabus, using the LMS calendar to remind students of the sessions, adding a brief instructional lesson and recording the session, they saw increased student attendance, participation, and satisfaction.

References:

Baker, C. (2010) The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Student Affective Learning, Cognition, and Motivation. The Journal of Educators Online. 7(1), 1-30.

Lowenthal, P. R.; Dunlap, J. C. & Snelson, C. (2017). Live synchronous web meetings in asynchronous online courses: Reconceptualizing virtual office hours. Online Learning 21(4), 177-194. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1285

Advertisements

Focus on Quality: Teaching Online

Five GRCC faculty enrolled in the Quality Matters APPQMR training over the summer. English Professor Mursalata Muhammed shares here why she took the training and what she got out of it…

Why I Took the Quality Matters Rubric – Mursalata Muhammad

Greetings colleagues –

I wanted to share with you the reasons I decided to take the Quality Matters applying the rubric training earlier this summer – which is offered through the Distance Learning department.

I’d given myself a three-year timeline for improving how I teach online – and – even though I’d taken the online hybrid course certification GRCC offers in-house, some time ago, it just simply wasn’t enough for what I needed as a teacher.

I found moving what in do in the traditional, in-seat class to an online environment overwhelming. I needed to see improvement, and earlier this year I was nearing that three-year mark for myself. I was about ready to quit – specifically teaching freshman composition EN 101 online. I have the most trouble with that specific course. So, I took the workshop and was happy with the information I received because, yes, there are nationally recognized quality standards that we should be following for our online course design, and it’s not for lack of trying here at the Community College. But this level of standards wasn’t available to me before I took the Quality Matters workshop.

What I found for me – specifically – was what I needed to know as a designer and how to design learning online. Things I do intuitively in the classroom and in one-on-one interactions with students aren’t simple for me to translate into the online environment. The Quality Matters rubric workshop gave me a set of multiple standards that helped me better articulate teaching habits that I don’t think about but just do.

The Quality Matters workshop allowed me to take a step back and to observe how one thing that I might do in the traditional class requires multiple steps when translated into the online classroom. The workshop helped me turn off my automatic pilot long enough the make better learning design decisions – this is good for teaching in any environment.

My takeaway: there are concrete actions I can employ to improve how I teach composition online. Additionally, I was able to apply many of the strategies from the workshop to my template course. I keep a working template Blackboard course for classes I teach. In this way, I was able to see improvements in course design and my teaching while taking the Quality Matters workshop.

I found the Quality Matters rubric workshop useful. If you want more information about it from me, send me an email or give me a call.

UGA OER study shows promise for underserved students

Pell-eligible students enrolled in courses using OER at the University of Georgia not only saw signifiant improvement in course final grades but also lower withdrawal rates.

References:

Colvard, N., Watson, E.,  & Park, H. (2018). The impact of Open Educational Resources [OER] on various student success measures. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Ed. Vol 30, No 2.  http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE3386.pdf

 

Balancing online and on-campus course enrollments

Research shows that students enrolling in at least one online class have a greater chance of completing their academic programs.

But what is the ideal mix of online to face-to-face enrollments?

Peter Shea and Temi Bidjerano gathered data from 45,557 students from 30 community colleges that considered the number of online courses students took along with their on-campus courses. Their findings indicate that for the average full-time student, no more than 40% of their courses should be taken online. In other words, the average full-time student should take as many as two online courses and three on-campus courses during a semester. For students considered academically at-risk, the number of online courses should be fewer. Conversely, students with higher GPAs may consider taking more online.

References:

Shea, Peter & Bidjerano, Temi. (2018). Online course completion in community college and degree completion: The tipping point.  The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Vol 19. No. 2. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3460/4568

Other resources:

Johnson, Hans & Cuellar Mejia, Marisol. (2014). Online Learning and student outcomes in community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California. http://www.ppic.org/publication/online-learning-and-student-outcomes-in-community-colleges/

 

Nearly all undergrads now own a smartphone

According to the Educause Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) smartphone ownership amongst college undergrads is nearly ubiquitous. The ECAR 2017 Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology found that 97 percent of college students now own a smartphone. The vast majority of students are connected virtually anytime / anywhere. As far as using their devices for school: 78 percent said their smartphones are “moderately important to their academic success”.

How do they use their smartphones for academics?

According to a recent article in Campus Technology 67 percent of fully-online students use their smartphones for completing at lease some of their coursework, including accessing reading content, communicating with their professors and classmates, accessing video and slide presentations, etc.

References:

Brooks, D. Christopher & Pomerantz, Jeffrey. (2017) ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2017. Educause Center for Analysis and Research. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology/2017/introduction-and-key-findings

Schaffhauser, Dian. (2018). Two-thirds of online students do some coursework on a mobile device. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2018/06/19/two-thirds-of-online-students-do-some-coursework-on-a-mobile-device.aspx

Additional resources:

Anderson, Monica & Jiang, Jingjing. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/

 

 

 

 

 

Top nine things online students value about eLearning

In a recent study Tony Bates shares what online students value about online learning.

The top nine aspects include:

  • Mobile-friendly content
  • Access to career services advising
  • Positive return on investment
  • Innovative aspects that decrease the cost and time to degree (competency-based, stackable certificates, OER)
  • Interactivity with peers
  • Multiple channels that provide information about courses and programs (both traditional and digital)
  • Flexible and personalized programming
  • Flexible and personalized delivery options (continuous enrollment, accelerated programming, flexible credit transfer)

The full article can be found here…

https://www.tonybates.ca/2018/06/26/what-do-online-college-students-want-and-like/