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.