Categories: Technology, Communication Design, Theory & Rhetoric
Summary
Nearly eight years ago Cook and
Grant-Davie (2005) addressed the emerging challenges of online instruction,
delivery, and development in the seminal work Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers. As a
professional educator who assisted in the transition from traditional to online
education for a global private school, I have firsthand experience applying
that collection’s theories and principles. As a PhD student studying distance
education, I eagerly awaited this publication.
The second work surpassed my high expectations. In Online Education 2.0, the authors updated the discussion beyond how to educate online, and asked (1) what theories guide the field and how
they work; (2) how organizations
offering online education address the challenges of the current global
financial recession; and (3) what
effect has standardized classroom management systems and social
media/networking features brought about in the digital classroom?
In this work, contributors came
from broader backgrounds than the previous volume. For example, I noticed chapters
from well-known, highly published names and prestigious universities juxtaposed
with essays by instructors from for-profit universities. The work contained
chapters from graduate students through professors from the North American
continent and England, demonstrating greater geographical dispersion than the
previous work. This greater breadth facilitated greater insight. These
perspectives revealed a variety of situational and complex answers organized
under three central topics: “(1) how programs and faculty experiences have
evolved, (2) how faculty and their courses have adapted to students’ changing
needs and abilities, and (3) how course design and activities have expanded,
given new technologies and delivery methods.” The clearly organized discussion
topics focused on teacher-administrative needs, student needs, and mediation
artifacts or tools.
The
statistically grounded studies, the varied background of the authors, and the
clearly defined structure enabled the editors to acutely update, organize, and
address the field of online education. This work is an essential reference to administrators,
scholars, and teachers pursuing research about or providing classes through
digital means. Combined with what could now be referred to as volume 1.0, these
works provide background and context to anyone new to the discussions and
practices in this field.
This work
contained many intellectual and theoretical jewels. Programs looking to
efficiently increase online enrollment should read Eaton’s chapter exploring
the audience of online education. She revisited her study from the first book
about students in online education. Her chapter’s attention to detail,
categorization, and practical analysis of online education answered the
difficult questions of how to recruit students, what characteristics to seek or
avoid in instructors, and what approach methods students preferred. She
established modern best practices to fine-tune online recruitment. This chapter
alone is worthy of the cover price.
Administrators
responsible for online education development means and methods will benefit
from the practical experience and survey findings about balancing instructor
creativity with outcome consistency in chapter three. Dutkiewicz, Holder, and
Sneath examined the creation, management, and distribution of a capstone
general education course at a small commuter university. Their findings presented
strong practical arguments for pre-designed courses with moderate levels of
instructor creativity. They also suggested methods of continual adaptation to
changing student and faculty preferences.
Those
programs seeking to design fiscally responsible, sustainable online courses will
appreciate the many sensible suggestions of established online education
programs. For example, authors recommended communities of practice throughout
the work. Anyone who studied Meloncon and Arduser’s chapter on sustainability
could easily identify the differences between administratively assigned groups
and CoPs, while noting the situational advantages of the latter for online
education enhancement. Jaramillo-Santoy and Cano-Monreal shared another handy
idea: design a sustainable mentoring program for those teaching online courses.
They demonstrated how advisors trained
other teachers during the transition from traditional to online education and enabled
them to became mentors themselves.
Other chapters
established foundational best practices for the field. The inclusion of Fagerheim’s
enlightening chapter on digital resources available through libraries, virtual
environments, and online resources proved a stroke of editorial brilliance. If
instructors used these resources, they and their students would save money while
remaining informed on current discussion topics. Combined with Stillman-Webb’s
chapter, readers could find resolution to the – elephant in the room - unspoken
legal issues in online education: copyright infringement, intellectual property
questions, and privacy concerns. I concluded the chapter confident in how I
might approach this sensitive issue without ending up in a nightmare of
litigation.
Those
completely new to the fields of technical communication and online education
will appreciate the simple how-to information and straightforward introductory
theories presented in Cason & Jenkins, Tesdell’s, and Jones’ chapters.
Cason & Jenkins outlined the formatting and instructional changes of moving
from traditional to online instruction, while Jones’ teacher-friendly
methodology for online course preparation might ease this shift for
novices.
Some
chapters may merit further inquiry to verify the author’s findings. Tucker’s
meticulous study of the grammar of gamers yielded surprising results and some generous
conclusions. She clearly outlined a shift in student feeling about chat mediums
from Kirtpatrick’s (2005) study. Yet, some of the other assumptions in the article
remain open for further inquiry. Does a larger gaming community directly
influence online forum and virtual chat discussions? Does a call to return to
proper grammar in some online gaming forums or communities at the cost of valid
discussion ideas and arguments really indicate a scholastic turn in the right
direction? Is increased fervor (or should that read: rudeness and a lack of
tact?) in online forums superior to socially moderated, face-to-face dialogue often
practiced in formal coursework?
In retrospect, this work would have remained
incomplete without Gibson and Martinez’s chapter that addressed the ethical
questions of using fascinating new technology and large bandwidth. They addressed
the gap between the younger, wealthier educated class and their counterparts.
Their questions should cause instructors to pause and analyze what effects
their delivery methods and assignments will have on various groups pursuing
online education. I particularly appreciated how they addressed the question of
if it is ethical to take advantage of those instances when our students can
overcome any minor disadvantages they may have between one another and create a
relatively equitable environment if doing so perpetuates or even widens the gap
[of] the digital divide.
The book itself showed no signs of
internal opposition, and many themes and theories flowed through this book. The
editors and authors continued their contention from volume 1.0 for
pedagogically directed content instead of technology-based content. They
assumed the quality of online education matched traditional face-to-face
education. They noticed the greater student diversity added new challenges and
difficulties for online educators. They validated the need for collaboration,
communities of practice, and peer mentoring programs in order to sustain an
online education program in spite of the humanities’ traditional love for the
solo scholastic genius instructor. The authors and editors effectively use rich
qualitative evidence, case studies, and personal experiences to support each of
these ideas. The most common theories used by authors included: rhetorical
theory, the role of communities of practice, instructional design theories, and
critical theories of technology. I recommend this book for all administrators,
educators, and other individuals who make decisions about online education.
Perhaps volume 3.0 will include
responses to these three lingering questions: First, how and when should
instructors incorporate collaboration (either with other teachers or among the
students), and in what manner? Second, what subjects lend themselves to digital
mediums and which topics are best kept to a traditional classroom? Third, how
has the online education culture progressed and further influenced instructional
practices? With the quality of the first two online education works, the field
of online education can only hope for more installments as the field continues
to progress. I also expect continued research to ask, “What does it take to
effectively teach through digital means?” Until then, we may enjoy the wealth
of perspective and insight contained in Cook and Grant-Davie’s two foundational
works.
-----
Maid, B., & D'Angelo, B. J. (2013). What do you do when the ground beneath your feet shifts? In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 25-42). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"The freedom and flexibility to make decisions about course content and online delivery mechanisms had several advantages. It allowed instructors to develop the course in ways that suited their teaching styles and comfort levels. In addition, it allowed for creativity and experimentation in both course design and delivery. However, this freedom and flexibility also resulted in disadvantages that emerged over time. ... curricular flexibility allowed for creativity, but over time it also tended to evolve into some instructor-based idiosyncrasies instead of consistent programmatic focus. ... Flexibility in course design for these courses resulted in inconsistency across sections which eventually began to impact the effectiveness" (Maid & D'Angelo, 2013, pp. 31-32).
"One success--which emerged during the first semester of the redesign--is that many of the instructors appreciated the freedom the course structure gave them to spend less time on course design and more time on directly working with and helping students" (Maid & D'Angelo, 2013, p. 33).
"We intend to convey is that the use of standardized modular course structure in which instructors are part of the redesign and continual development process, we think, is a positive step towards online delivery" (Maid & D'Angelo, 2013, p. 38).
"Programs need to create an outcomes based curriculum for every course" (Maid & d'Angelo, 2013, p. 40).
-----
Tillery, D. & Nagelhout, D. (2013). Theoretically grounded, practically enacted, and well behind the cutting edge: Writing Course Development within the Constraints of a Campus-Wide Course Management System. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 43-67). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"We argue for a rhetorical awareness when using any CMS, grounded in the canon of delivery and the concept of user-centered technology... rhetorical choices [must be] made at three levels: administrator, instructor, and student" (Tillery & Nagelhout, 2013, p. 44)
"Our program views writing as a complex, reflective, social activity. From this perspective, the delivery of the course itself, as the primary point of contact for all stakeholders in the program, must reproduce this complexity and sociability. ... Therefore a CMS can never be 'invisiable' and must provide more than just a repository for content" (Tillery & Nagelhout, 2013, p. 49).
-----
Dutkiewicz, K., Holder, L., & Sneath, W. D. (2013). Creativity and consistency in online courses: Finding the Appropiate In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 68-106). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"This chapter examines how the predominately adjunct faculty teaching Professional Writing online at DU perceive the use of these pre-designed courses" (Dutkiewicz, Holder, & Sneath, 2013, p. 70).
"Every [course] is developed by a ... team of subject matter experts including department coordinators, faculty, and (ideally) instructional designers. This cross functional team works to implement a particular course using the PDC navigational template that spans the entire university. Stewart, Bachman, and Babb (2009) agree on the importance of cross-functional development teams. While few faculty members have the instructional design or technical background required for effective online course development (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006), they serve as subject-matter-experts who ensure that student learning is prioritized over technical design (Gerber & Scott, 2007)" (Dutkiewicz, Holder, & Sneath, 2013, p. 70).
"When the learners received personalized feedback, as opposed to collective feedback, they indicated a higher level of personal satisfaction as well as an increased perception of enhanced learning (Hathaway, 2009)" (Dutkiewicz, Holder, & Sneath, 2013, p. 75).
"More than 80% of the faculty ... indicated that they wanted some autonomy as we'' [in addition to packaged course] ... room for instructor personality, expertise, and style is beneficial to students. ... No respondents ... wanted to develop a completely customized course on their own" (Dutkiewicz, Holder, & Sneath, 2013, p. 80).
"Constructivist pedagogy attempts to move students from knowledge confirmation to knowledge construction with a certain degree of necessary discomfort. Effective online course design and management should move faculty to do the same" (Dutkiewicz, Holder, & Sneath, 2013, p. 90).
-----
Meloncon, L. & Arduser, L. (2013). Communities of practice approach: A New Model for Online Course Development and Sustainability. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 107-131). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"Technigial communication instructors need to develop strategies to design and deliver sustainable online courses with limited resources. One way to do this is through collaborative partnerships" (Meloncon & Arduser, 2013, p. 108).
"A CoP [Community of Practice] has three distinguishing characteristics: "a domain of knowledge, which defines a set of issues; a community of people who care about this domain; and the shared practice that they are developing to be effective in their domain" (Wenger, et al., 2002, p. 27)" (Meloncon & Arduser, 2013, 117).
"A CoP ensures sustainability because it helps to erase the barriers and challenges faced by technical communication instructors. We see this type of community as specifically mitigating the challengs of time, economics, culture and increasing workloads" (Meloncon & Arduser, 2013, p. 119).
"Beyond helping to overcome barriers associated with developing and delivering online courses, a CoP provides specific additional benefits that can positively affect sustainability: providing a community instructors can rely on for all issues - large and small; encouraging instructor professional development and course enhancement; embodying a social constructivism theory of teaching that encourages sharing knowledge and experience; organizing this social body of knowledge and experience into one place, which mimics the knowledge management of corporate organizations; validating teaching as an intellectual endeavor" (Meloncon & Arduser, 2013, p. 122).
"What makes a CoP work is the commitment to a formal dialogue about issues involved in creating and delivering a course, a set of courses, or a program" (Meloncon & Arduser, 2013, pp. 126-127).
-----
Jaramillo-Santoy, J. & Cano-Monreal, G. (2013) Training Faculty for Online Instruction: Applying Technical Communication Theory to the Design of a Mentoring Program. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 132-165). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"The Quality Matters organization has designated eight general standards with which online courses can be evaluated to gauge quality design. These include: 1) Course Overview and Introduction, 2) Learning Objectives (Competencies), Assessment and Measurement, 4) Instructional Materials, 5) Learner Interaction and Engagement, 6) Course Technology, 7) Learner Support, and 8) Accessibility" (Jaramillo-Santoy & Cano-Monreal, 2013, p. 136-137).
"Hezlett's study identified eight commonalities in informal and formal mentoring: (1) coaching and advising in three areas (specific problems related to mentees' current roles, longer-term skill development and career decisions), (2) providing information in three ways (providing a new perspctive on situations, sharing information, and mentors' disclosure of their own experiences), and (3) intervening on the mentee's behalf, either to solve problems or create opportunities. ... (4) providing feedback, (5) managing the mentoring relationship, (6) facilitating the mentees' self-exploration, and (8) protecting mentees from office gossip" (Jaramillo- Santoy & Cano-Monreal, 2013, p. 138).
"We considered many of the same questions Margorie Davie (2005) addressed: What audiences are served by the training process? How can the training meet the needs of each audience? What is the purpose of the mentoring program? What are the different types of mentoring? What purpose does each serve? How can the mentoring program purpose align with the purpose of the online education program? In what ways can the mentor assist with course development and testing? How can the mentoring process effectively introduce digital tools which can be used for the design and eventual delivery of the course?" (Jaramillo-Santoy & Cano-Monreal, 2013, p. 138).
The Mentor2Mentor Training Model: "Identify mentee (design or delivery), Audience Analysis of mentee, Identify Mentor to match Mentee needs, Review Institutional Guidelines with Mentor & Mentee, (If designing a new course:) develop prototype, assess/review prototype, evaluate design, continue with development based on feedback, review by Subject Matter Peer(s) based on Quality Assurance guidelines, review by Online Teaching Peer(s) based on Quality Assurance Guidelines, assess M2M program; (If delivering a course:) Infrastructure support, application of tools, mentoring during delivers over-the should and co-teaching, evaluate delivery, assess M2M program" (Jaramillo-Santoy & Cano-Monreal, 2013, p. 140).
"To represent the mentee/metor relationship visually, we created a set of continua that reflect the mentee's level of knowledge in three domains addressed by our mentoring program: Knowledge of Pedagogy for Online Course Design or Delivery; Knowledge of Tools for Online Course Design or Delivery; Knowledge of Department and Institutional Requirements for Online Learning" (Jaramillo-Santoy & Cano-Monrea, 2013, p. 145-146).
-----
Thrush, E. A., & Popham, S. L. (2013). Teaching technical communication toa global, online student audience. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 166-198) Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"When teachers begin to think about the online teaching of English to a global audience, the archaeological layers that we must unearth may often seem overwhelming. We will try to cut through those complexities to deal with the issues most critical to teaching and learning: who the students are, what the content of the course is, why we teach professional communication, which English we should be teaching, and how we deliver the content" (Thrush & Popham, 2013, p. 170).
"Students needed less instruction in correct English and more knowledge about cultural differences and how those differences may affect the use of English" (Thrush & Popham, 2013, p. 184).
-----
Eaton, A. (2013). Students in the online technical communication classroom: The next decade. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 199-243). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"With online education becoming more common and more accepted nationwide, as students become more comfortable in the process, and as Internet use increases in every age group, our results might change [from the study done in the first volume of this series]" (Eaton, 2013, p. 198).
"To summarize this demographic data, online technical communication students are twice as likely to be female, and are most likely in the 30s or 40s (60% of respondents were in these age groups). They almost certainly work outside of the home (92% of respondents do), and they do an additional average of 20 hours of work at home. They are twice as likely to pursue a Master's than a PhD" (Eaton, 2013, p. 207).
"We can tell from this data that teachers who don't like to or can't communicate frequently with students should not teach nline. Period. Instructors who have had students complain in the past about unclear directions or about frequently change assignments? Skip teaching online or work really, really hard to be clear, consistent, and ahead of schedule. Don't give much feedback, and tend to be slow about returning it? Not for you" (Eaton, 2013, p. 232).
Based on the 2010 data, marketing messages should be 1) fit your busy schedule, 2) improve your skills, 3) participate in a program not available locally, 4) retain your ob or gain a new one, and 5) save the commute" (Eaton, 2013, p. 238).
-----
Scopes, L. & Carter, B. (2013). Cybergogy, Second Life and Online Technical Communication Instruction. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 244-300). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"Cybergogy is the study of how [virtual] environments ... are being used for teaching and learning" (Scopes & Carter, 2013, p. 244).
"Faculty at Drury University, MO report that learners seem to break out of their normal roles and dismiss the social norms and protocols that we are used to in a traditional classroom. Students who would not normally communicate in class are now dominating the virtual classroom" (Scopes & Carter, 2013, p. 279).
-----
Gibson, K. & Martinez, D. (2013). From divide to continuum: Rethinking access in online education. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 329-353). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"We cannot ignore that even though 57% of American households today have access to the Internet (Kruger & Gilroy, 2009), the digital divide is still a significant facot in the effectiveness of innovative technology in the online classroom" (Gibson & Martinez, 2013, p. 329).
"Those with more youth, money, and education will tend to be leaders in acquiring and using new technology, and they will always be ahead of a sizable percentage of our potential students precisely because online college students tend to be those who are a bit older and striving to attain money and education" (Gibson & Martinez, 2013, pp.330-331).
"One defining characteristic of the digital divide today is speed. Broadband, high-speed Internet access allows users to send and receive data at high rates of speed, much faster than dial-up provided and still provides today. ... Some students are unable to participate merely because their access is restricted or even unavailable or their connection and download speeds are not fast enough for the programs" (Gibson & Martinez, 2013, pp. 334, 337).
-----
Cason, J. & Jenkins, P. (2013). Adapting Instructional Documents to an Online Course Environment. In K. Cargile-Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 354-387). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"Cason & Jenkins research revealed that "In the process of moving a course first created for the face-to-face environment to an online interface, [instructors] realize that their course documents, in standing alone, lack the supplemental live presentation of the onsite classroom" (Cason & Jenkins, 2013, p. 355).
"While Cargile Cook (2004), Rude (2005), and others argue for putting pedagogical choices before choices for materials and technology, they are not suggesting that choices about materials are unimportant or unrelated. Cargile Cook (2005) argues that pedagogy rather than technology should shape curricular policies and choices" (Cason & Jenkins, 2013, p. 357).
"Given the importance of writing assignments, we believe that instructors should provide students with a written description of an assignment even if it is open-ended or based on a question in a text" (Cason & Jenkins, 2013, pp.359-360).
"Through the process of our inquiry, we have discovered that our own assignments documents have evolved through three identifiable phases: I) Replacement Practice: Posting assignment sheets directly online as word-processing documents to be printed, with a brief description that situates them in a new environment and establishes their place within the course architecture. II) Sequential Learning Units: Adapting assignment sheets to a sequential learning unit as provided by many course managements systems and presenting them in a more situationally embedded and modular screen view. III) Multimodal Composing: Recreating assignment sheets and instructions with multimodal compasing tools to take fuller advantage of the webbed interface" (Cason & Jenkins, 2013, pp. 360-361).
"The multimedia language of the screen has become the current vernacular; and it can communicate thoughts and complex meanings that are different from and independent of alphabetic text. In sum, to teach online, or in the classroom, is to inhabit the multimedia spaces our students take for granted and to grow familiar and more comfortable with the means and tools for accessing and creating content in that environment" (Cason & Jenkins, 2013, p. 385).
-----
Jones, D. (2013). Expanding the scaffolding of the online undergraduate technical communication course. In K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 388-420). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"I make a case for three additional ways the scaffolding of the typical online undergraduate technical communication course can be expanded to improve the online learning experience for instructors and students. In the first part of this chapter, I suggest that a system of folders can work just as effectively as the more commonly used linear walk-through learning modules. In the second part, I show how well designed evaluation rubrics can be a helpful element for any good online learning space. In the third or final part, I show that instructors must continually work on establishing and maintaining a strong ethos throughout the duration of their online courses" (Jones, 2013, p. 293).
"Using a system of folders, instructors will find that online courses can be easily updated from semester to semester or year to year" (Jones, 2013, p. 397).
"The literature both in support of rubrics and critical of rubrics is plentiful. In Audrey Quinlan's helpful study, she points out to five major advantages for using rubrics. They 'provide students with expectations about what will be assessed,' 'provide students with information on the standards that need to be met;' 'provide students with indications of where they are in relation to goals'; and 'provide teachers with data to support grades' (Quinlan, 2006, p. 26). Negative views of rubrics are easy to find too. While providing her helpful history of rubrics, Wilson is highly critical of their shortcomings, commenting that they 'stripped... the complexity that breathes life into writing' (Wilson, 2006, p. 23). Alfie Kohn comments, 'some observers criticize rubrics because they can never deliver the promised precision; judgments ultimatesly turn on adjectives that are murky and end up being left to the teacher's discretion' (Kohn, 2006, p. 13). Kohn's larger concern is that the increased use of rubrics, especially in earlier levels of education than the college level, can lead to students more focused on the superficial in their writing, and to teachers, if they agree to apply the same rubrics, who 'check [their] judgment at the door' if they are 'willing to accept and apply someone else's narrow criteria for what merits that rating' (Kohn, 2006, p. 13)" (Jones, 2013, p. 401).
"Strategies for using rubrics for online courses. ... First, make students aware of the rubrics used in the course before using the rubrics to assess their work. ... Make them available for the students to review before the first discussion posts are graded. ... Second, avoid using too many different rubrics. ... Third, make the rubrics fair. ... Avoid deducting too many points for relatively minor weaknesses. ... Fourth, make sure each rubric accurately reflects the objectives of the assignment" (Jones, 2013, pp. 404-405).
"Rubrics perhaps work best for smaller online classes, those with 35 or fewer students. Those who teach larger online classes, sections with 100 or more students, have more difficulties largely becasue of the time involved" (Jones, 2013, p. 410).
-----
Cook, K. C. & Grant-Davie, K. (2013). Afterword. In K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication (pp. 496-). Amityville, New York: Baywood Publishing Company.
"The budget crunch of the past five years appears to have driven programs to teach more online courses and to innovate, doing more with less (Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013, 497).
"Some classes may be better suited either to online or to face-to-face instruction, but we argue that online education should not be seen, as a whole, as any 'less rich' than face-to-face. It's simply rich in different ways. We suspect that many of the critics who take the conservative line that online classes are invariably poor substitutes for traditional face-to-face classes have not experienced online education at its best" (Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013, pp. 508-509).
