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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.