Saying Goodbye to the 'Chalk and Talk' Methods of Traditional Teaching:

Saying Goodbye to the 'Chalk and Talk' Methods of Traditional Teaching:

How Educational technology is transforming the nature of higher education pedagogies

By Heather Tufts, 3077620

March 6th, 2007 For: Gregory Fleet

Independent Study: Introduction to E-Commerce

Since its development and first availability over ten years ago, educational technology has slowly grown in use but is now finally changing the ultimate direction of teaching methods and strategies. The following paper will shed light on the current state of its progress in higher education institutions and furthermore will highlight the most valuable clues of the extensity of e-learning's predicted development. Based on current feedback being retrieved from both students and faculty members, it is becoming increasingly evident that web-based technologies are making learning more effective and efficient and are essentially paving the road to future learning structures. The presented analysis shall seek to support these claims by reviewing and presenting the results obtained from numerous studies that have centralized on these subject matters. Focus in this paper will be placed within two categories, that of the student and that of the faculty and will explore some common opinions shared amongst these communities. The paper will also present certain obstacles that are potentially halting the growth of e-learning management systems' usage within universities and colleges.

***

Comparing the nature of E-learning skills versus traditional learning skills is what Alan Roper succeeds to do in his article, How Students Develop Online Learning Skills, Helping faculty employ technology in online courses ultimately prompted changes in their pedagogy. (http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm07110.asp)

Roper is a strong believer that development of a specific set of skills that is differentiated from traditional learning approaches is necessary for students wanting excel in e-learning studies. His methodological approach emerged through enquiries he proposed to e-learning designers, faculty members and administrators. It is through their feedback that he was able to create a survey that was then distributed to a total of ninety three students with GPAs above 3.5. Fifty nine students partook in the survey and are the main contributors to his research findings. In his article he addresses several major points that he believes accumulatively comprise a set of specific necessary e-learning skills.

Students defined the most challenging and crucial skill to be time management. Even for academically advanced students, finding the motivation, dedication and self-discipline seemed to be the most challenging obstacles.

The most advantageous method students reported for keeping on track was to set up personalized schedules and targets and most importantly sticking to them! One

student recalls,

Setting and staying to specific study days was one factor that worked for me. For example, in the evenings, throughout the week, I read my lessons. Saturdays were generally reserved for writing assignments. Saturdays were also devoted to responding to other online postings and building on what I had already submitted. (http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm07110.asp)

The worst enemy that was reported to stand in the way of success when it come to online learning is procrastination. Committing to independent studies was reported to fuel the obstructive power of procrastination and if students allowed themselves to fall off schedule, then the entire course would become suddenly jeopardized. Another student also comments that "You have to discipline yourself in maintaining your schedule and not allow any distractions to disrupt your plan." Self discipline is simply the key to an e-learning success story.

Moving onto the positive elements found in e-learning strategies, interaction played a major part in the feedback reported. An online threaded discussion is when students and instructors are interacting collaboratively. Students claimed this to be beneficial but yet positively challenging at the same time. Discourse through this medium proved to be more enriching and informative as the exchanging of ideas quickly enables students to become more passionate about their studies and intrigued to impress their peers and superiors through the online conversations. Written discussion also enables students to pre think their responses more sufficiently and to also improve the construction of their arguments.
One student claimed,

"Interacting with the other students was the fun part of my (online) classes. As much as possible, I would post a response, question, or comment to another student's posting. This built up an online relationship." Another student suggested, "Respond to several student postings, but make sure you have something meaningful to add, don't just say 'good post.' Also, don't always interact with the same few classmates. Look for something to say with various students."

Threaded discussions are however quite dependent on the instructors will to invoke them. Students claimed that this was only beneficial in their learning experiences when the instructor assigned weekly topics and required online discussions.

Roper also rapports that participating in these threaded discussions helped 52.6 percent of the students retain the information that was exchanged, while reading the responses of others helped 15.8 percent and about 21 percent found e-mailing outside of the course platform a useful way to interact with their fellow peers.

There are many potential benefits that are available to course structures that include online elements, but the question is, are these being implemented and if not, why? In his article, Faculty Adoption of Educational Technology: Educational technology support plays a critical role in helping faculty add technology to their teaching, (http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm07111.asp), Franziska Zellweger Moser narrows his research on the reasons why educational technology is often not implemented in Universities. He based his rapport on a simple achievement cycle that ideologically corresponds to a standard process that should be applied to achieve the desired results. Moser focuses his research on feedback retrieved from faculty using course management e-learning systems, such as WebCT and Blackboard. The most challenging obstacle reported amongst teachers was not having enough time to invest in the actualization of combining online educational technology with their course designs. The general consensus that Moser concludes, is that individual faculty support must be readily available, otherwise the entire course structure could potentially fail. He notes that the growth in regard to implementing educational technology is remarkably low since its introduction and availability over 10 years ago. His chart marked below depicts the adaptation cycle.

The Faculty adoption cycle is also featured in the rapport, Thwarted Education by Robert Zembsky and William F. Massy. (http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf) This e-journal depicts the e-learning adoption cycle in quite simplistic matters. They claim that the growth of educational technology use is merely evolutionary like any technology is. It starts its journey in the most basic sense, is praised as something remarkable, innovative, and 'evolutionary' and then continues to expand until is eventually widely accessible to all. "Adoption processes usually start slowly because of the need for experimentation. They accelerate once the dominant design emerges, then eventually reach saturation"

(Page 9) The key to mass adoption is though a dominant design. There are several course management tools such as Web CT and Blackboard available and are now becoming indispensable amongst most universities and colleges. It should noted of course that there are several types of e-learning technology methods are presented and compared in their relation usage demands: Online Distant Learning Courses (100% online, no face to face contact) Hybrid Courses (a combination of traditional instruction plus distant learning components using course management software applications), and Traditional Courses with Technology elements. (Simple email requirements, online course readings, etc)

The integration of educational technology however is not always a smooth and simplistic development which is what M.J Bishop and Sally White explore in their paper, The Clipper Project: Discovering What Online Courses Offer Residential Universities, (http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm0712.asp). The study was based at Lehigh University based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania , founded in 1865. The university's size consumes of three campuses which cover 1,600 acres and include more than 147 buildings that provide 3.6 million square feet of classroom, laboratory, library, performing arts, office, and living space and is where the Web-based, curricular research project and development initiative was instigated. Over a five year period, the goal of the project was to attempt to develop a virtual community within the university which priory had no online teaching structures, while enabling the researchers to study entire process from student and faculty perspectives. Bishop and White explore:

-How faculty would transform their traditional on-campus courses for online delivery,

-whether the experience of having done so would have any influence on their overall pedagogical styles,

(and )

-what general effect the Clipper Model of collaboration between faculty and instructional technology staff would have on the university as a whole.

The commencement of their project proved to be the most challenging period as they soon learnt soon how difficult it would be for faculty to change their method of teaching from something that they were initially very comfortable with. To kick off the process, unconditional technical and instructional support was necessary. Faculty training sessions and most importantly, personal IT support were readily available and proved to be detriment in accelerating the process.

One of the major changes reported in the article is that the original teaching pedagogies from a large majority of the professors were remarkably influenced as a result of integrating the online elements. When the project was first under development, the course structures were reported to be dull in presentation. Instructors who were unaware of the potential and capacities on course management systems, initially were creating their online courses by simply reflecting what they had already done in the class room. (ie. Inserted PowerPoint presentations, audio files, etc) The faculty were mutually agreeing that more engagement would improve the course structures. After a number of amendments, positive changes were noted immediately. Increased student involvement and furthermore increased communication between students and faculty was beginning to evolve. The core of the evaluation concluded that with the necessary IT support and coaching, teachers can remarkably advance their teaching methods through the integration of new technology. One instructor claims:

In Clipper, I feel that I do know the [online] students a lot better than I do in the regular class. Of course, in the regular class there are 60 students and it is hard to get to know many of them anyway.

I enjoyed the [online] section more and felt I had more contact with the students even though I wouldn't be able to recognize any of them on the street.

I know the students so much more in the online discussion groups.

By the end of the project, Peer feedback played a major role in the positive feedback as the e-learning portals publicly display other students work. One teacher summed up the development suggesting that students no longer were depending on the faculty to teach and interpret material. Through threaded discussions, students are forced to learn.

The Clipper Project achieved its success through a trial and error process. Within an 18^th month period the project was commenced by essentially replicating the traditional course but online. This initial method included PowerPoint presentations, downloadable written resources and scripted lectures which quickly was analysed as boring. The course structures were quickly changed and developed to increase student engagement which proved in the end to be the most successful means of implantation. One professor at the time claimed, We are exploring other options...We have the right principles in mind. We want to increase student engagement in the course, and we want to put the content into a meaningful context for them.

‘Chalk and talk’, the traditional methods of teaching will eventually become obsolete. It is becoming clearly evident that online educational programs are improving not only learning processes but also the faculties approach to teaching. This rapport has served to accomplish some basic ideas and reasons as to why e-elearning applications are continuing to expand in use. The Clipper Project is one of the most extensive researches done in a university environment and covers all stages of the e-learning integration process. The results were simple and concluded that once the learning process had changed through the online course management tools, there was no turning back.

Bibliography

Alan R Roper, How students develop online learning skills

http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm07110.asp

(accessed Jan-Feb 2007)

Franziska Zellweger MoserFaculty, Adoption of Educational Technology
http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm07111.asp
(accessed Jan-Feb 2007)

M. J. Bishop and Sally A. White, The Clipper Project: Discovering What Online Courses Offer Residential Universities. http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm07/eqm0712.asp
(accessed Jan-Feb 2007)

Martin Graff, The Importance of Online Community in Student Academic Performance
Department of Psychology and Education, University of Glamorgan. UK.
http://www.ejel.org/volume-4/v4-i2/v4-i2-art-3.htm

(accessed Jan-Feb 2007)

R. Zemsky and W. F. Massy, Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-learning and Why,

http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf

(accessed Jan-Feb 2007)