It would have been interesting to hear further reflections from Dr. Rankin on what perhaps didn’t go as well as she had hoped, if she’ll? continue incorporating Twitter in the future, recommendations for other faculty, etc. Additional comments from Dr. Rankin on her experience are here. I’ve used Twitter for quite some time in online courses that I’ve taught but I’ve yet to try incorporating it into a f2f or hybrid context.

Why use Twitter instead of other discussion modes? What is so appealing for students? Is it simply the ability for students to participate on either mobile devices or computers? Is discussion in 140 characters or less sufficient for creating meaningful dialogue? Are students at all concerned with posting such discussions in a public venue as opposed to the more “traditional” walled-garden environments that learning management systems offer? How do such discussions vary from other social networking collaborations? How does one balance the online “chatter” of twitter while also facilitating in-class discussions? These are all questions I hope to address in greater detail at some point down the road.

After viewing this video, what additional questions would you pose to Dr. Rankin concerning her experiment with Twitter?

Related Posts

• July 9, 2009 — Twitter Search in Plain English
• June 20, 2009 — Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning
• March 12, 2009 — Using Audio Feedback to Promote Teaching Presence
• March 11, 2008 — Twitter in Plain English

I’ve only just begun to experiment with Cooliris but thus far I’m very impressed and considering how I might use this combination of search/sort/view functionality in a class or training presentation. Are you a Cooliris user? If not, give it a try! If you have used Cooliris, what are your impressions and ideas for use in education?

Related Posts

• Currently there are no other posts related to this one.

How might Twitter search be useful for an educational activity? Leave a comment with your ideas!

Related Posts

• July 13, 2009 — Twitter Experiment
• September 25, 2008 — Web Search Strategies in Plain English
• September 16, 2008 — Google Reader in Plain English
• May 30, 2008 — Social Media in Plain English
• March 11, 2008 — Twitter in Plain English

Here’s a video introduction to the podcast by Larry Regan, Director of Instructional Design and Development, Penn State University World Campus:

Additional contributions to this collection are welcomed. If you have an idea of how to save time when teaching online, contact Larry Ragan at Penn State University at lcr1@psu.edu for additional information on how to add your idea to this collection.

Related Posts

• December 4, 2008 — Competencies for Online Teaching Success (COTS)
• April 7, 2009 — Online Teaching Online Brown Bag Discussion
• June 20, 2009 — Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning
• March 3, 2009 — What Every Online Instructor Needs to Know
• February 28, 2009 — Teaching 2.0 - Doing More with Less

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i38/38a01001.htm

What do you think? Is what these professors did a permissable act of encouraging online interaction among students?

Related Posts

• March 3, 2009 — What Every Online Instructor Needs to Know
• July 13, 2009 — Twitter Experiment
• July 7, 2009 — Strategies for Managing the Online Workload
• April 7, 2009 — Online Teaching Online Brown Bag Discussion
• March 12, 2009 — Using Audio Feedback to Promote Teaching Presence

Not only are institutions embracing online education today, but students are also flocking to online modes of learning in record numbers. As noted, over one-fifth of all higher education students are now taking at least one online course (Allen & Seamen, 2008). A primary reason why online education may be so popular especially among adult, non-traditional learners is the flexibility that it affords. The learner can continue his or her education while still continuing a career and maintaining other personal commitments.

What other factors do you suspect may be contributing to the steady growth of online education in higher education? Post a comment with your thoughts!

Reference:

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/staying_course

Related Posts

• March 3, 2009 — What Every Online Instructor Needs to Know
• January 8, 2009 — Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices

Rhode, J. F. (2009, May 19). Getting started creating web pages with Google Sites. Presented at Faculty Summer Institute on Teaching Technologies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. | handout | links |

Rhode, J. F. (2009, May 19). Quick and simple creation of educational tutorials. Presented at Faculty Summer Institute on Teaching Technologies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.  | handout | links |

Rhode, J. F. (2009, May 20). Mastering micro-blogging. Presented at Faculty Summer Institute on Teaching Technologies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. | handout | links |

Rhode, J. F. (2009, May 20). Web 2.0 gizmos and gadgets. Presented at Faculty Summer Institute on Teaching Technologies, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. | handout | links |

Related Posts

• February 20, 2009 — Faculty Summer Institute Call for Proposals

Some questions that I’d personally like to throw out for discussion include:

• What does every online instructor need to know?
• What recently has worked really well in your online teaching?
• What recently have you tried that wasn’t as successful as you had hoped?
• What advice do you have for others who are considering teaching online for the first time?
• Any new tips, tricks, or tech that you’ve found and have implemented in your online teaching?

For more details and to register, visit http://www.niu.edu/facdev/programs/online

Please pass this info onto anyone at your campus who you think might be interested in participating. If there is enough interest, we could consider offering similar sessions in the future.

Related Posts

• July 7, 2009 — Strategies for Managing the Online Workload
• December 4, 2008 — Competencies for Online Teaching Success (COTS)
• June 20, 2009 — Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning
• March 3, 2009 — What Every Online Instructor Needs to Know
• February 28, 2009 — Teaching 2.0 - Doing More with Less

No matter the discipline or subject matter, a primary goal of many faculty is to foster an engaging learning environment that promotes critical thinking and application among students. As students exchange ideas with faculty and are challenged to deepen their understanding, opportunities for authentic knowledge construction and enriched application often result. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) refer to such a collaborative and constructive educational experience as a Community of Inquiry (COI) whereby three key elements crucial to the success of any learning endeavor are highlighted: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Figure 1 illustrates the integration of these elements of the learning environment.

Figure 1. Community of inquiry

(Reproduced by permission from Pergamon. From Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.)

The role of the faculty member is vital to developing a Community of Inquiry (COI) and the overall success of the course. Specific tasks such as selecting course content, setting the climate of the online community, and supporting discourse throughout the course all take place within the interplay of the cognitive, social, and teaching activities. Let’s now take a closer look at each of the key components that comprise the COI and then explore the use of audio feedback to promote teaching presence.

Social Presence

Social presence is defined as, “The ability of participants in the community of inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 89). In blended or online course environments, developing social presence can be more challenging than in more traditional face-to-face environments and yet is equally important to the overall success of the learning experience. Social presence is the pathway whereby cognitive presence is developed. As faculty and students cultivate social presence in a course through meaningful dialogue, deepened analysis and application of course concepts can take place.

Cognitive Presence

Cognitive presence categorizes the intellectual processes of an educational experience and refers to the degree to which participants in any community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication (Garrison et al., 2000). Involving the higher-order thinking processes and knowledge acquisition associated with critical thinking, cognitive presence in the learning community is shaped as learners reflect upon their learning experiences and incorporate insights into their collaborations (Garrison, 2003; Garrison et al., 2001). The experience of actively engaging with the concepts of learning in both a self-reflective fashion internally as well as exploring and refining understanding in community is one benchmark of quality learning experiences.

Teaching Presence

Teaching presence refers to functions within the learning experience often performed by the instructor, including the design and facilitation of the educational experience (Garrison et al., 2000). These roles need not be limited to simply the instructor, as students can also exhibit teaching presence in the course through such activities as leading group discussion assignments of collecting and sharing instructional resources. In fact, Rourke and Anderson (2002) found that students actually preferred peer teams leading online discussion as compared to the course instructor.

Students have indicated that exemplary faculty are those who create a learning climate that includes strong elements of social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Perry & Edwards, 2005). Especially in blended or online learning environments marked by significant reliance on computer-mediated communication, the necessity for teaching presence is amplified. Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, and Chang (2003) found that without the instructor’s definitive teaching presence and modeling of collaborative discussion contributions, learner discussions primarily consisted of low-level cognitive interactions. While there certainly is a place for such cognitively insignificant postings in the creation of the social climate, the ultimate goal should be for learners to engage in high-level thinking and communication of new knowledge gained in a way that stimulates the learning experience for all members of the community.

Students expect to be reciprocated for their efforts (Aviv, Erlich, & Ravid, 2005). The faculty member’s influence within the educational experience is crucial to ensuring that communication flows freely and that dialogue proceeds in a collegial and responsive fashion. As the faculty member sets the climate for the dialogue to take place, the expectations established help guide the interactions of all members of the learning community. It is through purposeful development of social, cognitive, and teaching presence faculty can connect in meaningful ways with students no matter the class size or format.

Why Audio Feedback?

For many years faculty have relied solely on textual comments for providing feedback to students. These comments often take the form of handwritten notes in hard copy form on written assignments of all kinds as well as written feedback on project rubrics or evaluation forms. Convenient and accessible to the vast majority of students, such comments often highlight strengths and weaknesses in student performance and provide specific suggestions for improvement. With the development of electronic assignment submission tools within learning management systems like Blackboard, students can now submit written assignments and projects electronically, allowing faculty more options for reviewing student work and providing feedback. No longer must feedback be provided in hard copy form as such written comments can be embedded electronically within submitted student files.

Yet, textual feedback, particularly in the context of a blended or online course, can lack rich detail and tone. Whereas face-to-face learning environments provide ample opportunity for students to hear the “voice” of the instructor and ask questions seeking further clarification, such interactive experiences are more difficult to foster in the online learning environment. Faculty often attempt the time-consuming task of providing detailed written comments to student work submitted electronically while longing for a more efficient and personable way to provide meaningful and personal feedback to students. As textual forms of communication dominate current electronic communications, opportunities to engage auditory and kinesthetic learners ought to be cultivated.

Easy-to-use audio and video technologies are available to faculty who seek to provide alternative forms of feedback beyond simple text. While text feedback is still by far the most accessible to learners, audio and video capabilities are becoming commonplace among learners today and many are growing to expect and appreciate when such media are incorporated to enrich feedback. Ice, Swan, Kupczynski, and Richardson (2008) studied the impact of asynchronous audio feedback in an online course and noted the following:

1. Students perceived audio feedback to be more effective than text-based feedback for conveying nuance.
2. Audio feedback was associated with feelings of increased involvement and enhanced learning community interactions.
3. Audio feedback was associated with increased retention of content.
4. Audio feedback was associated with the perception that the instructor cared more about the student.

In addition, Ice (2008) reported that students were far more likely to apply content for which they received audio feedback than content for which text-based feedback was received and at significantly higher cognitive levels. This supports the rationale the audio feedback can enhance textual feedback and serve as a viable alternative.

Approaches to Using Audio Feedback

Faculty have numerous options when considering incorporating audio feedback to enrich the quality of the feedback provided to students. With an affordable microphone connected to a computer, faculty can take a number of different simple approaches to adding audio feedback to student assignments, including but not limited to, the following:

Audio Comments in Microsoft Word

Microsoft Word allows for the insertion of voice comments in any Word document. In Word 2002 and 2003, simply click the drop-down arrow of the New Comment button on the Reviewing toolbar and select Voice comment. This opens the Sound Object dialog box for you to record your comment. In Word 2007, add the Voice Comment button to the Quick Access toolbar using the following steps and then insert comments as described above:

1. Click the Office Button.
2. Click the Word Options button.
3. Click Customize.
4. Click the drop-down arrow of the Choose Commands From box and select Commands Not In Ribbon.
5. Scroll to and select Insert Voice.
6. Click the Add button, and then click OK.

Several drawbacks to using the audio commenting features in Microsoft Word exist. Some include the requirement of using Microsoft Word as well as the fact that depending on the number and length of audio comments included, the size of the file can become too large to email or return electronically to the student in Blackboard. This presents obvious challenges and therefore should only be considered for very brief audio commenting.

Audio Comments Using Adobe Acrobat Professional

For more extensive audio commenting in electronic documents, a more feasible option is to use the embedded audio features of Adobe Acrobat Professional. Similar to adding audio comments using Microsoft Word, faculty can record and embed audio comments resulting in considerably smaller file sizes than resulting from the same approach with Microsoft Word. Faculty would need a license of Adobe Acrobat Professional in order to convert submitted files to PDF and record audio comments in the files, while students only need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader software to open the commented files. Details on academic pricing for Adobe Acrobat Professional are available from ITS.

Audio/Video Feedback Using Jing

Perhaps the most versatile and affordable approach is to use a capture program such as the free Jing in order to record audio feedback while viewing electronically submitted work from students. These short video recordings, also often referred to as “screencasts,” can include cursor movement, typing, or other on-screen activity as well as narration.

After downloading Jing from http://www.jingproject.com and installing on either a Windows or Mac computer, faculty simply can launch Jing and then open an electronically-submitted file, select a window or region, and begin recording. Jing records all on-screen activity and narration, allowing the faculty the freedom to virtually review students’ work, showing where in the assignment improvement is necessary. Such an approach can be used for any type of electronically-submitted assignment or project and is not restricted to only written assignments. Once finished recording, Jing compresses it into a Flash.swf file that faculty can either save and then return to the student via Blackboard or upload to the free Jing server and receive a link to the video file that can then be sent to the student.

As the available technology continues to advance, numerous additional approaches are sure to become available in the future for enhancing the quality of feedback for students. No matter what approach is ultimately selected, an improved educational experience for students will result.

Learn More

The Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center offers a variety of programs regarding the principles and practices of incorporating media in teaching. The current program schedule and online registration information is available at http://www.niu.edu/facdev/programs/fscurrent.shtml

References:

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Ravid, G. (2005). Reciprocity analysis of online learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 3-13.

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1).

Ice, P. (2008). Better learning with sites and sound. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/03/audio

Ice, P., Swan, K., Kupczynski, L., & Richardson, J. (2008). The impace of asynchronous audio feedback on teaching and social presence: A survey of current research. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2008 - World Conference on Educational Multimedia & Telecommunications.

Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interactions among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.

Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2005). Exemplary online educators: Creating a community of inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2).

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussion. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1). Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/1/

Related Posts

• July 13, 2009 — Twitter Experiment
• June 20, 2009 — Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning

1. List the key concepts you are trying to convey in the 60-minute lecture. That series of phrases will form the core of your microlecture.
2. Write a 15 to 30-second introduction and conclusion. They will provide context for your key concepts.
3. Record these three elements using a microphone and Web camera. If you want to produce an audio-only lecture, no Webcam is necessary. The finished product should be 60 seconds to three minutes long.
4. Design an assignment to follow the lecture that will direct students to readings or activities that allow them to explore the key concepts. Combined with a written assignment, that should allow students to learn the material.
5. Upload the video and assignment to your course-management software.

Here is a sample one-minute lecture:

Click here to view the complete March 6, 2009 article from The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Related Posts

• Currently there are no other posts related to this one.

I know many other institutions have already developed similar initiatives and I’m looking to gather as many ideas as possible.

So, I throw out the question, “What does every online instructor need to know?” Perhaps you are an online instructor currently…what recommendations/tips do you have to share with those who are considering online teaching for the first time?

Maybe you’re an online student…what do you wish that your online instructor knew or did that would improve your online learning experience?

Perhaps your institution has already developed some sort of online experience / course for prospective online faculty? If you were to start from scratch, what would you do the same or differently? What specific topics would you recommend be included?

Feel free to leave a comment here with your comments or suggestions. Or, if you’d prefer to leave a video comment via Seesmic, click here. All video comments are embedded below.

Related Posts

• June 20, 2009 — Online Professors Pose as Students to Encourage Real Learning
• July 7, 2009 — Strategies for Managing the Online Workload
• June 17, 2009 — Growth of Online Learning in Higher Ed
• April 7, 2009 — Online Teaching Online Brown Bag Discussion
• January 8, 2009 — Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices

Technology is certainly not the only answer but can definitely offer some opportunities. What tips do you have to share with others for doing more with less?

Related Posts

• July 7, 2009 — Strategies for Managing the Online Workload
• April 7, 2009 — Online Teaching Online Brown Bag Discussion
• December 4, 2008 — Competencies for Online Teaching Success (COTS)
• October 22, 2008 — Quick Tip: Overview of Teaching and Related Responsibilities

This mixed methods study explored the dynamics of interaction within a self-paced online learning environment. It used rich media and a mix of traditional and emerging asynchronous computer-mediated communication tools to determine what forms of interaction learners in a self-paced online course value most and what impact they perceive interaction to have on their overall learning experience. This study demonstrated that depending on the specific circumstance, not all forms of interaction may be either equally valued by learners or effective. Participants differentiated among the various learning interactions available and indicated that informal interactions were as important as formal interactions in determining the quality of the online learning experience. Participants also reported the activity of blogging as being equally valued and in some ways superior to instructor-directed asynchronous discussion via the discussion board in a learning management system.

The article is available here and can be cited as follows:

Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, (10)1. Retrieved Month Day, Year from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/603/1178

Related Posts

• November 6, 2008 — So You Want to Be an E-learning Consultant…
• November 16, 2007 — JCMC Special Theme Issue on “Social Network Sites”

Related Posts

• January 8, 2009 — Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices
• November 6, 2008 — So You Want to Be an E-learning Consultant…

Deadline for Submissions: March 2, 2009

Conferences and Institutes, Illinois Online Network (ION) and Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES) at the University of Illinois invites you to join other faculty, developers, and innovators from across the state of Illinois and beyond in this four-day conference devoted to the exchange of information and ideas at the 12th Annual Faculty Summer Institute (FSI) 2009, Anywhere, All The Time: Transforming Learning, May 18-21, 2009 on the Illinois campus in Urbana, Illinois.

FSI 2009 will offer more than 50 presentations, including hands-on workshops, forums, keynotes, learning teams, and panel discussions. Not only is registration free for this exciting conference, but presenters are also paid for presenting!

The Steering Committee designs the conference to introduce participants to the use of the internet and computer technologies in teaching and learning, advance the knowledge of those already familiar with e-learning, and provide an opportunity for faculty teaching in similar disciplines to share best practices.

Travel freeze or budget constraints? There is no registration fee to attend this conference and presenters are paid $150 per session!

Proposal Submission Process

• Review the conference website, http://www.illinois.edu/goto/fsi2009, and the Software and Equipment Request Policies.
• Login to the conference website and submit a proposal (75 words or less) by March 2, 2009. Create a login at the conference site.
• You can login to the proposal system prior to April to update the session details and check the status of the submission.
• You will be notified on the status of your proposal in mid April.
• Plan to attend the Faculty Summer Institute May 18-21, 2009, in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
• Specific time slots for sessions will be allocated in April. Please plan on attending the full conference.

For more details, visit http://www.illinois.edu/goto/fsi2009

Related Posts

• May 18, 2009 — FSI 2009 Presentations