Multi-week projects...do students use the extra time well?

One of the design decisions I made early on was to try to reduce the number of things students had to turn in. I didn't want to have things due every week. Instead, I wanted to require just three significant projects (significant in terms of authenticity and relevance...projects that could have a life outside of the course), and give students adequate time to work on them. I wanted students to have 3-5 weeks to work on each project, and I worked hard to match the project requirements and scope to the number of weeks I assigned for each one. I wanted to make sure students had enough time to let their creativity percolate, and enough time to actually creatively accomplish what they wanted to. And, allowing for more time per project also recognizes that adult students have things that come up in their lives that require their immediate attention...and academics must be set aside temporarily. With multi-week projects, students can still get projects done even if they have to take some time away from the coursework. Or, if they are taking more than one course and have to juggle deadlines.

But, I'm not sure that all of the students used the available time well. I have a sense that there is still a fair amount of last-minute scrambling going on for some. Some people work better that way, which is fine. But, for those who don't, the work -- and the learning -- suffers. So, is there anything I can do differently next time to avoid this potential issue, sort of having smaller project deliverables throughout (and then I'm back to what I wanted to avoid in the first place...lots of due dates for students to track)?

The idea I have is to require that each student post one question about their project each week that I would then respond to. This would help us stay connected, and hopefully at least encourage students to think about their projects from the get-go. I could even be a bit more specific then "post a question" by guiding the type of questions they should be asking at different phases of the project. For example, at the beginning of the project, I could ask, "Who is the audience, and what are the learning objectives for this instructional message?" During the middle of the project I could ask, "What challenge are you facing at this point in the design of your instructional message?"

I am going to keep thinking about this issue, but am thinking now that this sort of guided prompting on my part could help students use the weeks available to them for each project in a more productive way.

2nd guest speaker great addition to course

Dr. Marty Tessmer was the 2nd guess speaker for the course. He spent close to two hours answering questions about creating online tutorials. During the previous 1-1/2 weeks, the students had read his book on the topic. The original plan was that they would provide Marty with formative evaluation data about the book before he published it. So, the students completed a "Final Post" discussion about the book, then each posted three questions for Marty in a discussion forum. He responded to all of their posted questions. Then, the experience culminated in the live (via Adobe Connect) session. Marty was able to collect some useful information regarding the direction of his book (e.g., needs to add two chapters and a section at the end of each chapter on formative evaluation). And, the students got to spend time with a well-known ID professional and author, discussing a topic of great interest (and related to the final Culminating Project). Plus, it was a change of pace at a typically low-energy point in the semester -- I think it served to reenergize folks for the final push. [Note: It was also helpful to have Marty so involved with them during a week that I was away at a conference.]

Even though the two guest speakers have been so successful, I decided to cancel the final guest speaker in order to give the students more time and space to focus on their final Culminating Project. Instead, I have offered to host Q&A sessions for the project if the students want and need them.

Reflecting on my processing of the Zoomerang results

I received some very useful feedback from the Zoomerang survey…I really appreciate when people take the time to share their thoughts and ideas. I haven’t posted to this blog for awhile as I have been focused on the course (grading the second Culiminating Project), and making appropriate adjustments to the course based on the feedback.

Only about ½ the group responded to the Zoomerang survey. Right or wrong, my positive spin on it is that those who did not respond are satisfied with the direction of the course. At least I can’t think of a time when I provided an opportunity to share feedback and those who were unhappy about a particular aspect of the course didn’t take advantage of the opportunity. [Note: It also has a lot to do with how you ask for feedback, the questions you use. I learned from Marty Tessmer – formative evaluation expert – that you have to ask questions in a way that invites a response and assumes that there is always something that can be improved. So, questions that ask, “What three things would you change and why?” indicates that there are at least three things that one should be able to suggest for improvement. The invitation, and structure of questions, can definitely change the response rate and the quality of the responses received.]

Of the responds I received, there were several positive comments, which is good. It is helpful to have reinforcement for what I am doing and what I have designed. Positive comments included things about my attentiveness, quality and quantity of feedback on projects, nature of projects, flexibility to resubmit projects for more points, and the Duarte and Reynolds readings.

I also received several constructively critical comments. Some of the issues shared I immediately addressed. For example, because of comments about the workload being too heavy, I eliminated a Hands-on/Minds-on project to make more space and time for folks working on the final Culminating Project. There were also comments about wishing there were more discussions, so I added a discussion as a way to help the group process Marty Tessmer’s book on designing online tutorials.

Some comments I could respond to now. For example, I received negative comments about the Mayer text. Although I couldn’t fix it for this term, I will find another way to expose students to Mayer’s principles without using his text next year.
Some of the critical comments presented challenges for me because:

• They were inconsistent (some folks liking a particular aspect, and others not)
  
• They were about aspects of the course to which I am committed from an educational perspective (in this case, I just haven’t made the case well enough, I am assuming)
  
• They are about structural issues with the eCollege shell that are out of my control, or – for me to design around – requires a fairly cluegy approach to the design
  
• They are more related to the individuals than the course. At least I think they are…

Let me say a bit more about that last one… Honestly, as an instructional designer, I point my finger at myself as much as possible. It gives me comfort to think that there are things I can do – or do differently – to improve the chances that students’ motivation to learn will be enhanced. But, sometimes, I receive a few comments to a survey like this one that feel more like an abdication of student responsibility than something I can directly address.

For example, a specific comment I received had to do with being consistently confused about due dates. Because it is so easy to lose track of due dates in an online course, I standardized on a single weekly due date – end of day on Sundays. There are three times during the course where there are differing due dates, and those are related to three sets of peer reviews due on Thursdays. The calendar of graded activities (in the Syllabus) and Weekly Agendas – both including information regarding due dates – has been available since the start of the course. My assumption was that people would rely on whatever method they use to track course due dates. For example, I mapped all the due dates to my daytimer so they would be included in my overall view of my week. I also printed out the syllabus and weekly agendas so I could check items off as we went (in fact, I designed the weekly agendas to function as a checklist).

Was my assumption faulty? Yes, or I wouldn’t have received the comments. Was my assumption unreasonable? No. This is a graduate level course, with students who are midway through their programs. Online courses require a proficient level of self-directedness…folks have to be able to manage time, resources, and energy for themselves. Is there something I could do to make things easier to track? I guess so, I’m just surprised I need to.

Where does this leave me? I’ve made some positive adjustments for the remainder of the semester, and have a list of things – like the Mayer text – to reconsider for next time. The feedback – as always – was very useful to my thinking. I always appreciate it when folks take the time to share their thoughts and ideas, even when it isn’t what I hoped or wanted to hear. If you ask for feedback, you have to be prepared for what you receive, and be willing to take appropriate actions based on what you receive. I think I accomplished this.

Wish I had a crystal ball -- Eliminating required discussion a mistake

So, I am now quite clear that eliminating required discussions of readings was a bad idea. As one student in the class described, discussions are a place to work out a comprehensive understanding of the readings in preparation for applying the readings to their projects.

If something is optional, which the discussions have been, very few folks choose to participate. Not because they don’t see the value…I think several students do find it valuable. However, there are many other things requiring their time and energy…it is easy to lose track of the optionals regardless of value.

My issue in rethinking the design now, however, is what else to get rid of from the course in order to make room for required discussions (not weekly, but around key readings in advance of Culminating Project due dates).

Maybe I need to make the Minds-on/Hands-on presentation assignment a little larger, eliminate the Presentation Prowess Culminating Project, adjust the final Culminating Project to incorporate the Presentation Prowess objectives (or simply refocus more in that area of development), and then add in required discussions. Alternatively, I could give up on my efforts to illustrate the relevancy of establishing an online presence via blogging…eliminate the blogging activity. So, I think I can create wiggle room in the course to allow for required discussions without messing up what I think is working.

I need a crystal ball.

First guest speaker

The first guest speaker will be tonight from 7-8pm. We are using Adobe Connect. I hope this one (and the other two I have planned) reenergize things. This is the time in the semester where there is often a dip in energy as folks sort of gear up for the final push. So, my hope is that some new voices and views will be the right mix to keep folks engaged and processing the course material as they prepare and complete the final project.

Checking-In Survey

I created a Checking-In Survey in Zoomerang to gather some anonymous data from the students about how things are going in the course. This is the text I provided as an introduction to the survey:

Hello, everyone! We are at the midpoint of the course. Although I've been receiving feedback from various individuals in the course since the start of the term, I want to formally collect feedback. As you know, I have been trying out different strategies this term -- such as limiting the number of required weekly activities, not requiring weekly discussion participation, not requiring collaborative projects, and so forth. At this point in the course, I think it is appropriate for you to have an anonymous opportunity to comment on the experience thus far. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful, professional feedback. Thank you.

The questions I asked are:

1. What aspects of the course have you found most helpful in enhancing and supporting your motivation to learn about instructional message design, and why?
   
2. What aspects of the course have you found least helpful in supporting and enhancing your motivation to learn about instructional message design, and why?
   
3. What three things would you change about the course, and why?
   
4. What topics and/or issues from the readings and videos are unclear and require further attention?
   
5. What additional comments would you like to share with me that will serve to enhance the course and your experience in the course?

I think it is important for students to have opportunities to provide feedback and share ideas in a variety of forums. I prefer students to own their feedback, but I recognize that anonymous feedback can also lead to quite fruitful comments that can be used to enhance the course and learning experience, and alert me to issues that require my immediate attention.

Students are still submitted their surveys, and once I have them all I am going to process them in this blog. Again, I want my process for thinking about this course and their experience in the course to be as open as possible. The students will, hopefully, learn about course design decision-making by “listening in” to how I work through competing ideas, perspectives, and the like.

Is “no required discussions on readings” working? (I keep asking!)

Yes and no. I have had several comments from students that it is a relief to not have the typically required weekly discussions on readings. And, I understand that. It is a relief because they are actively working on projects…and the discussions could feel like a disruption to that work. However, I have found two things that are problematic for me:

• I miss the opportunity to process the readings with students. It is also another way that I establish my credibility, share my expertise. So, the lack of that weekly connection has left me feeling disconnected from the students. Just like an on-campus course, I relish the time I am with the students in discussion, working on an in-clas activity, and being together. I have certainly enjoyed the interactions with students and among and between students in the optional Self-select Study Groups discussion, but it isn’t frequent enough for my liking…and although there are a few enthusiastic participants, it isn’t the whole group so not all perspectives are shared.
  
  
• The quality of the students’ application of the readings to their projects is quite variable. There could be a lot of reasons for this – such as lack of clear directions from me, students who have competing demands and therefore only put in the minimum, not enough points assigned to that component of the projects, and so on – but I think that part of the reason may be that students aren’t completing the readings, or if they are they are not processing them in a way that helps them with application later. Maybe if we were having required weekly – or biweekly – discussions about the readings students would keep up with readings (not to say that they aren’t) and would have a chance to test their understanding of the concepts before being asked to apply them.

This is something I still need to work out, for myself and the students. I may send out a quick survey about this issue if the results of the second Culminating Project (Presentation Prowess) are the same on this issue as they were for the first Culminating Project (Instructional Message in Print). If students don’t have the application-of-readings-to-instructional-message-design-decisions component well addressed in their Design Scripts, then the Design Scripts (and overall Project) lose their effectiveness as portfolio (academic and professional) products. Plus, if the students cannot defend their instructional message design decisions with the literature, I will most certainly feel that the course failed.

Twittering Under Way

A few folks have taken me up on trying to use Twitter to stay connected during the course. I wanted a way for us to connect in a more playful, informal way...as we would if we were on-campus together. Just regular chit-chat, in contrast to the much more formal communication done in the course shell via asynchronous threaded discussion. I'm enthusiastic about it because I think it will also help folks connect with the larger community of practice. For example, Nancy Duarte (author of one of our texts, slide:ology) and Garr Reynolds (we are reading an excerpt from his Presentation Zen book) are on Twitter. Also, some notable IDers and ITers, such as David Wiley, Bernie Dodge, and David Warlick.

However, I keep thinking about what to contribute. Is this important enough for me to share? It is an interesting process, and I think it will take awhile to get used to. But, I am wholeheartedly trying, and have connected with a number of folks in and out of the course so far.

Anyway, the experiment is underway. [By the way, my Twitter username is jonidunlap.]

Not using a week-by-week structure

Typically, I set up my online courses in the LMS using a week-by-week structure. However, I have never really liked that structure because it seems more natural to me to think in terms of activity, especially when those activities occur over multiple weeks. From a student-scheduling perspective, I realize that a week-by-week structure might help folks. But, I am always afraid that the week-by-week structure hides the complexity and context of projects...potentially causing important details to be lost.

When I started working on this course, I kept thinking about what I would do in an on-campus course in an attempt to simplify things, and get the workload for students (and me) under control. So, all of the structure for this course is based on what I do in on-campus courses. I provide descriptions of activities and projects with the syllabus. Then I use weekly agendas to drive what happens each week, with pointers to the various activity and project descriptions. For me, this seems more manageable, simplistic, straight-forward.

I am not sure what the students think about this structure, especially given the fact that many of them have spent a year in online courses that followed a week-by-week structure. So, my decision to structure the course based on activity type -- with weekly agendas for reference -- could fall flat. My hope is that the folks in the course will share with me their views on the design of the course so I can continue to enhance it while in progress and for the next run of the course.

No required discussion...working?

One of the things I've been concerned about with my design for the course is my decision to not requiring weekly discussions, as previously mentioned in this blog. For the first two weeks I did have an organized discussion set-up in which participation was listed on the Weekly Agendas as a to-do. My thinking with these early discussions was to make sure people were connecting to the course, each other, and me. In addition, I was hoping to sort of get people into the habit of sharing, comparing, advising, chit-chating about the activities and readings...so that when we transitioned to no-required discussion weeks that people would still want to connect and discuss in the Self-select Study Groups forums.

I really haven't given it enough time at this point. I am, as I anticipated, disappointed that people aren't clammering to discuss the readings (this week, Dr. John Medina's Brain Rules). I know that everyone has other demands on their time...and even if they wanted to participate, time just doesn't allow.

Just in case, though, I did post an announcement today as a reminder and invitation to join the discussion, if desirable. I also listed the questions I had posted in the forum so folks reading the announcement would know what was going on in the forum. There has been a little more activity since then...we'll see.

If the discussions are not relevant, then I don't want people to feel they have to participate. Then it is just busy-work...

Culminating Projects and assessment

There are three Culminating Projects for the course. One is focused on print, one on stand-alone presentation, and one on multi-modal presentation. I am pleased with the projects, and think that they will lead to quality products that are relevant to the students' workplace or community, and relevant as professional portfolio examples.

But, here's my problem. I don't like creating assessment tools for projects. I'm not good at it. It is really time-consuming to do it well. And, I have to do it because people need to know how they are being assessed. So, my next task is to get those finalized. I have drafts for all three projects, but once I post them to the course they are real...and we all have to live with them.

I'm not sure why I struggle so much with this part of teaching. I always have. I just want to provide the directions and assume that everyone will simply follow the directions and do their best. Grade = A. But, that isn't very realistic. And, again, adult learners are simply too busy -- have too many demands on their time -- to live in that much ambiguity about assessment. A little ambiguity is fine. In fact, it is the way of the world, of living in the world. But, too much ambiguity in this context leads to frustration and disconnection. So, I will get it done.

I find that searching the Internet for examples of how others have assessed this, that, or the other thing, to be very helpful. That is what I did this time too. It makes a difference because it gives me ideas, shows me alternative approaches and structures, pushes me to be better.

Lining up guest speakers

I knew from the get-go that I wanted to include 2-3 guest speakers during the semester. I am well-experienced with the ebbs and flows of a course, and around November we will need some new ways of connecting and some new folks to connect with. I feel really good about lining up three folks...they will really add new life and energy to a typically low point in the semester.

I am glad that we have access to a good tool for these synchronous live sessions with guest speakers. We will use Adobe Connect, and we will record the sessions for those folks in class who cannot make the live sessions. I also hope that the guest speakers will participate in a discussion forum for a few days following the live session...all are in agreement, so it should work out well.

The first reading = Tufte

I selected Edward Tufte's essay on The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint for the group's first reading. I did this on purpose because this essay can either (a) resonate with people's feelings and experiences about conventional presentations and the limitations of PowerPoint (e.g., low resolution), or (b) rile folks up because they disagree with Tufte's hard-line or his message style. Regardless, it can be a somewhat emotional reading for folks, and I wanted everyone to get emotional about our work as instructional message designers. I wanted folks to be thinking about how they could prove Tufte wrong, how they could show alternatives to PowerPoint for the presentation of instructional messages, how they could defend/rationalize (using the literature on theory and research) the use of tools like PowerPoint for presentation, and so on.

I think the essay worked as a first reading. Now we will move into readings (i.e., Medina and Mayer) and videos (i.e., the Discovering Psychology videos) that are grounded in research. This will empower the group, and give them the information they need to reevaluate Tufte's message and decide whether or not he is correct...and, if so, what to do about it as instructional message designers.

Soundtrack of Your Life activity

During the first week, folks completed the Soundtrack of Your Life activity. This went over very well. It worked as an alternative to bios, and -- hopefully -- it also achieved two important instructional message design objectives too:

* To remind everyone of the potential of audio -- including music -- as a layer in an instructional message...a layer that enhances the message, makes it richer, more memorable, more engaging.

* That as the designers of instructional messages we need to think beyond convention. We need to think about things differently, allow ourselves to be creative and unique.

I hope that the activity was successful in conveying those messages...I really want this course to not only provide the necessary foundation to be great instructional message designers, but to also free everyone to explore and try new things.

It launched!

Well, the course is live. Not too much activity yet, but that is pretty normal. Folks are at work, so it tends to be more important for me to check in and answer questions during the evening hours.

I am antsy about not having the Culminating Projects posted. I really do need to wait to gather data from the group, but I prefer to have everything posted when the course starts. Although that has the potential of feeling overwhelming, adult learners prefer to have all of the information up-front so they can start planning their schedules accordingly. [This hearkens back to my conversations with Raymond Wlodkowski and my 22-page syllabus!] Anyway, it should all be fine as long as the detailed project descriptions are available during Week 2.

Need to do a front-end analysis

I realized, a bit too late, that I have been making a number of assumptions about the technical skills of the audience as I designed the assignments. I think most of the assignments have reasonable technical requirements (e.g., Word, PowerPoint), so it should be fine. But, for the three Culminating Projects in particular, I was planning on requiring the integration of Web 2.0, podcasting, digital storytelling, and the like. Since this is not a learn-how-to-use-tools course, I need to make sure my expectations of tool proficiency are realistic. So, my plan is to add a technical skill survey (just a couple of questions) to the individual "welcome" emails I will send out to everyone during the first week of the course. This will help me determine how to modify the assignments so that everyone can achieve the learning objectives. I suspect I will be able to modify the projects, if need be, for flexible tool use...allowing each learner to choose from a selection.

Formative evaluation

With the support of a colleague who participated in a formative evaluation, I think I've fixed all major (and a few minor) issues with the course shell and content. But, even now, I just noted a couple of little inconsistencies that weren't caught earlier. Let's hope it is good for launch.

Doing a tools double-take

I was plugging in Web 2.0 tools everywhere, into every assignment. I am still committed to making a go with Twitter, and to asking folks to use Web 2.0 tools creatively in support of the instructional messages they are designing. But, I have just gone through the course, and pulled out the instances of tools-because-they-are-cool. For example, for the In My Life activity, I originally asked folks to post their photos to a group Flickr account I had set up for the course. And in doing so I violated an instructional message design principle related to proximity. The photos need to be where the text is that describes the photo. Duh.

The added realization is that I was creating unnecessary complexity for each assignment by involving external tools...when the same result could be achieved by using the structure and tools provided within eCollege. Crazy.

Choosing books

I always have trouble selecting books. There is never one book that does it all, and I am reluctant to ask students to purchase a ton of books knowing we will only read a chapter here and there. For awhile, I was convinced that I would ask the group to purchase three books: Tufte's Beautiful Evidence, Medina's Brain Rules, and Reynolds' Presentation Zen. I like all three of these books. But, the problem was that I really needed a book that would get at design principles for instructional messages. That left me with two obvious options: Mayer's Multimedia Learning and Lohr's Creating Graphics for Learning and Performance (there are others too, such as Williams' The Non-Designers Design Book...a good one, for sure, but fairly narrow for the context). And, for a let's-get-inspired-by-just-looking-at-the-pages perspective, neither book is very good. Although I like Lohr's book (except the images are a bit too cartoony for my liking), I went with Mayer. It makes sense for a graduate level course because it presents theory and empirical evidence in support of principles we can apply to the design of instructional messages. It is an easy read, although he is SO repetitive (the book could use with a thorough edit...cut it in half). That's OK, I will instruct the group to keep this in mind as they read the book and use their best judgment for scanning, skimming and moving on. Mayer is an important person in our field, and it is absolutely appropriate for them to get to know his work.

After settling on Mayer, I REALLY wanted a visually inspiring book, one that not only presented good content on the instructional message design topic (even in the author didn't use that term), but one that actually put the content into practice with a great book design. Tufte's books all meet this criteria. Presentation Zen does as well (but, the content is thin, and Reynolds has most of the content on his blog). I had been keeping an eye on Nancy Duarte's book -- slide:ology -- for awhile. It was getting great press (Garr Reynolds was really talking it up on his blog, for example), but it wasn't due to release until September. Suddenly, the date changed to early August...and I knew I had to check it out for the course. I'm glad I held off on making the book decision until seeing her book, it was exactly what I was looking for to compliment Mayer. She's great!

I am also happy that I have selected a few readings from Tufte and Medina, and one from Reynolds. I think the group will enjoy the reading. (And, Tufte should do a good job at ruffling some feathers...he's always good at that.)

It keeps crashing!

Because I am a "veteran" of online teaching, I was asked to be one of a handful of faculty piloting the new version of eCollege this fall in preparation for a big roll-out in the spring. Although there are some clear improvements (e.g., how discussion forums are displayed instead of using a pull-down menu, and the cleaner general look-and-feel of the interface), there are some challenges:

* The WYSIWYG interface is unstable. I'll set up a page, think it looks good, come back later and it is a mess.

* There is still no search functionality. This seems so basic that to have yet another major roll-out and not include the ability to search the content of a course is...well, crazy.

* It is constantly crashing on me! Or, it won't be able to load a page, and sends me an error message about trying back again later, or that for my own safety I need to log on again. This is quite maddening because I have to keep logging in, and I'm never sure about the status of my work.

I'm glad to have the new version, but "new" never seems to live up to what I hope for.

Is it all challenging enough?

When I started layout out activities, assignments, and projects, I had about 25 things. Yikes! So much for simplicity and balance. It has been very effortful to get the workload under control. My concern -- one of many, I guess -- is that the learners feel they have read, practiced, and discussed enough in advance of completing a "Culminating Project" (which is a project I assess against a rubric and provide more detailed feedback, as opposed to simply check-off as completed which is what I will do with the Minds-on/Hands-on and React and Respond activities). I am trying to not overwhelm with discussions every week. I am trying to ask for a reasonable amount of reading to be accomplished. And so on. I wonder if I will get it right this time -- the balance between workload, engagement, efficacy-strenthening...

Due dates; work week

I think it can be hard to track multiple due dates within a week. When I think about teaching on-campus, I don't do that to my on-campus students. Assignments and projects are typically due at the beginning of a class meeting...with the expectation that learners will complete everything for the week by that date and time. So, for this course, I am going to try to avoid multiple due dates for products. I won't be able to adhere to this guideline when asking learners to discuss and issue using a discussion protocol, or for peer review activities...but I will try to keep due dates as simple as possible.

Related, I have often tried different weekly schedules in order to help learners protect some of their weekends for family and to rest and rejuvinate. I have two small children, and the weekends are all about them...so I am sensitive to this issue. However, whenever I have played with the schedule this way I have received backlash. Learners implore me to give them the weekend to do the work. So again, for the sake of simplicity, this course will function on a Monday-Sunday schedule. This means that the due dates for weekly work is 11:59pm every Sunday. But, let's be honest, it is only 11:59pm in my hopes that learners will get some sleep...I won't be checking timestamps or anything like that. As long as the work is done by Monday morning (9am MST), all is well (except for those who are then sleep deprived).

Other ways of connecting...what about Twitter?

With the elimination of required weekly discussions, and some collaborative team work, I have concerns about social connection. To try to address this, I have added in a few collaborative activities (for "Hands-on/Minds-on" assignments) and no-penalty peer reviews for Culminating Projects. But, I have been thinking about something more organic, more natural. So, I would like to invited everyone in the class to join me in a Twitter community. I also think it would be fun to include other faculty, and other eLearning students.

Here's my thinking about how it might play out...

One of the IT 5130 students is reading something in the Mayer book and has a question about a term or phrase. She immediately tweets the group, and gets a couple of responses. This allows for a little back-and-forth communication about Mayer, message design, and so on. Another student is working on an assignment and is wondering about embedding music. He tweets the group and gets a response. Another student can't believe what she has just read in Tufte and needs to share. So, she tweets the group and finds someone else who can't believe it either. And so on.

This seems much more natural than logging into eCollege, getting into the course shell, then getting into a discussion forum...and then waiting for someone to respond later (after she or he has already moved on to other work, thoughts, issues).

Also, I have three conferences this fall...and so will be away for about 2 weeks total. I thought it would be fun to tweet everyone from the conferences, let them know what folks are sharing and talking about. A sort of "reporting from the field" experience. I think this could be a good way for us to stay connected.

So, this is my plan. Fingers crossed.

Will they do the reading?

Without required weekly discussions, I am worried that folks won't read. And the readings are really critical to getting this stuff... I am making an effort to require annotations and citations with Culminating Projects, but that isn't necessarily an immediate application of the reading to something. Yet, I don't want to add back in required weekly discussions...I just think it is an overload. I wonder what will happen, and how the learners will react.

Requiring participation in weekly discussions

My thinking about requiring people to participate in weekly threaded discussions has really changed lately. What I really want is for discussion to flow naturally, because people want to connect and share ideas related to what they are reading and experiencing. But, I also know that adult learners have many demands on their time, and when push comes to shove may neglect to pursue these sorts of learning opportunities unless persuaded with requirements and points.

Now, getting back to the desire for things to flow naturally... I decided to pursue this with IT 5130. There will be a few "required" discussion opportunities. But, the other discussion opportunities will be voluntary. To this end, I have set up "Self-select Study Groups" for readings and tools. My hope is that people will choose to contribute to these groups because the connection and sharing is relevant. I am not going to count number of posts or anything like that...and hope that doesn't leave a few folks alone in a forum wanting to discuss and having no colleagues with which to discuss.

To counter this very real possibility, I have added a requirement to the Design Sketches that must be turned in with each Culminating Project. The Design Sketch is a description of the instructional message design decision the learner has made, with a rationale -- based on the readings -- for the decision. OK, so learners will be required to include a certain number of references: a certain number from each of the readings, and then a certain number from the required and optional discussion forums. And, they only way a learner can cite a discussion forum is if she or he participated in the discussion forum by offering at least two ideas, insights, perspectives, or counter-arguments.

So, ultimately I am counting... But, the idea is that people will make their own decisions about participation -- and the value of that participation -- based on perceived relevance and knowing the consequences (a few missed points on Culminating Projects) if they don't participate.

Weekly Agendas

One of the strategies I've decided to use for the course -- one that I always use in my face-to-face courses and really like -- is the weekly agenda. I like having a one-page document, or checklist, that spells out what needs to be done. The weekly agendas are pithy on purpose...the details are elsewhere (pointed to from the agenda). This means that learners have to click to other parts of the course to get the details, but it also means that multiple agendas can refer to the same assignment, and that assignment only needs to reside in one location (as opposed to being copied and pasted multiple times...which is then a nightmare if I need to make a change to the assignment).

What is a "Hands-on/Minds-on" activity?

I think of Hands-on/Minds-on assignments as similar to the type of learning activities I would ask students to participate in during an on-campus class session. In other words, they are activities that are designed to help you process the readings (hence the "minds-on" part), and practice the application and creation know-how and skills (the "hands-on" part) that are needed for the Culminating Projects. These activities are designed to be completed in 1-2 weeks, so they are short-term assignments.

The reason for this category of activity in IT 5130 is because one of the issues I struggle with as an online educator is finding the workload balance (I've been exploring this issue for awhile, see my article on workload reduction strategies to see where I started). I tend to feel overwhelmed by the workload in online courses, as do learners. I want the coursework to be challenging and reflect high expectations, as graduate-level coursework should. But, at the same time, I want learners to have a good, relatively stress-free experience that recognizes their full personal and professional lives. So, one of the angles I took when I started to think about redesigning this course was what I would do if I was teaching the course on-campus. Now, I don't mean to suggest that what I do on-campus is ideal or the gold-standard for comparison purposes. But, I don't tend to feel overwhelmed when teaching on-campus...so, I thought there might be something for me to explore there. It is because of this analysis that I determined to try this distinction between short-term activities (Hands-on/Minds-on) and the multi-week activities (Culminating Projects).

Groupwork

I know that many of the folks who will take IT 5130 have been involved in a lot of complex teamwork activities. For this course, I'm going to focus on individual activities, with a lot of encouraged sharing and required peer review of the three Cumulative Projects. I'm pretty fond of groupwork for online learning communities for a number of instructional reasons. But, time to give them a break.

What I hope...

When I took Instructional Message Design a gazillion years ago, the required text was Fleming and Levie's classic -- but out of print -- text, Instructional Message Design. Chapter after chapter of principles...really dense material, but incredibly valuable. That course -- above any other course -- made me a better instructional designer. Them I taught the course for a number of years, face-to-face. And, with the same results. Students would share afterwards how valuable -- although very challanging -- the course was to their work. That is what I want for the learners in this course, for them to complete the course believing that the experience -- and the readings and work completed -- has made them better instructional designers.

It begins...

It has been a month since my father died, and it is a month out from when the course starts. So, I think I am ready to start going through all of my notes for this course and plan the experience.

A few months ago I had an interesting conversation with Raymond Wlodkowski (well-known author of texts on enhancing adults motivation to learn, and diversity in the classroom) regarding my application of his motivational framework to online courses. This sort of spun off into a discussion about course structure, and how structured to be. I tend to be very structured with online courses (which lead to me creating a 22 page syllabus for my on-campus Adult Education and Learning course...yikes!). At this point, I believe I have been too structured, too complex, too cluttered. So, with this course I want to be minimalist, natural, organic. I'm not sure it is possible for me to do that, but what gives me hope is that I used to teach that way...before teaching online.

Here is the flaw in my thinking about online course design, I believe. The courses I create are for graduate students (or, at least, post-undergraduate). But, my thinking has been that the audience for online programs and courses are not as self-directed as they need to be, that the demands on their time cause a distraction from engaging in the coursework. And, therefore, that I needed to provide layers of structure, and deadlines, and directions in order to scaffold the missing self-direction and wave a red flag to garner attention.

But, here's the reality. Adult learners are self-directed, are motivated. They just may not be self-direct and motivated to do what I want them to do. This has everything to do with relevance (and, of course, their need to balance the many demands on their time and energy). If the learning activity isn't relevant to them, then they are less engaged in the activity. If they do see the relevance, and can find the time and energy to make it happen, then they will engage. My job is to create learning activities that have the potential of being seen as relevant and, thus, engaging. I can't force this to happen with layers of structure, and deadlines, and directions. There is no magic number or size of red flags I can wave to make this happen.

So, throughout this design process, I am going to keep reflecting on what I used to do when teaching face-to-face in a classroom -- what my attitude about the learning-teaching exchange was, what I valued in terms of flow and structure -- and see if I can come up with an approach that reflects a valuing of adult learners' intrinsic motivation to engage. My approach will be as minimalist as appropriate (without leading everyone to confusion), and I will try to create learning opportunities for students that are inviting and not forced.

Let's see what happens...