Genesis of an Online Course
Amy Dunbar*
June 2003
Revised November 2003
This paper presents a descriptive and evaluative analysis of the transformation of a face-to-face graduate tax accounting course to an online course. One hundred fifteen students completed the compressed six-week class in 2001 and 2002 using WebCT, classroom environment software that facilitates the creation of web-based educational environments. The paper provides a description of the required technology tools and the class conduct. The students used a combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning methods that allowed them to complete the coursework on a self-determined schedule, subject to semi-weekly quiz constraints. The course material was presented in content pages with links to Excel problems, Flash examples, audio and video files, and self-tests. Students worked the quizzes and then met in their groups in a chat room to resolve differences in answers. Student surveys indicated satisfaction with the learning methods.
*Associate Professor
University of Connecticut
School of Business, Accounting Department
2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041A
Storrs, CT 06269-2041
860-486-5138
amy.dunbar@business.uconn.edu
Genesis of an Online Course
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to provide information to educators who are considering transforming a face-to-face course to an online course. The paper discusses issues that arise in this transformation process, ranging from accommodating different student learning styles to technology requirements. In particular, the genesis of an online taxation of business entities course, from its initial planning to the student survey results for 2001 and 2002, is described and evaluated. One hundred fifteen students completed the required six-week course in the MS in Accounting (MSA) Program in the two summers. For most students, this class was their first introduction to both graduate work and an online environment. The students were accustomed to learning in an instructor-centered environment, and they were thrust into a student-centered environment in which the burden of learning was shifted from the instructor to them. Adjusting to a new learning style was not easy for most.
Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) describe learning models that motivate course delivery, and they state that although no particular model is the best approach, the instructor should be aware of the different learning models and use technology as a facilitator in applying a particular learning model. They describe two basic learning models of learning: objectivist and constructivist.
“The objectivist model assumes that an instructor should be in control of the learning environment (i.e., pace and material), that learning is dissemination of knowledge, that dissemination best occurs via abstract representations of the reality, and that learning occurs best in isolated settings (i.e., the context of the learning environment need not be ‘real’). Constructivism assumes that the learner needs to be in control of the learning environment, that learning is the creation of knowledge, and the realism of the context for learning needs to be high.” Collaborativism is an extension of constructivism, which “assumes that the control of the learning environment should rest with the peer groups, that learning is the sharing of knowledge representative of disparate points of view, that knowledge is personally experienced, but can be shared through collaborating, and that the realism of context is high in the sense that individual experiences prior to learning are real but low in the sense that the experiences are shared vicariously through discourse.”
The online learning environment is well suited for the collaborative model of learning. The content and pace of learning is under student control, subject to deadlines imposed by the instructor. The instructor serves as a guide in the learning process. The argument can be made that some accounting courses are simply bodies of knowledge that can be more efficiently transmitted through lectures. In such case, the instructor can use audio or video tools to record lectures, which students can access when they choose. Although the opportunity to ask questions is limited by the instructor’s availability online, the student can choose to listen instead of read the course material.
THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
Distance learning, of which online learning is one form, focuses on students who are separated in space from their peers and the instructor. Oblinger, Barone, and Hawkins (2001) use the term “distributed learning” for both distance and campus instruction that uses technology to distribute the course. They state that distance and on-campus instruction are converging, with online delivery systems and approaches being employed for distant, commuting, and residential students. “This convergence of ‘clicks and mortar’ in the form of technology-mediated education is distributed learning”[1] Certainly many of the tools used in the online course described in this paper could also be used in a distributed learning course delivered on campus.
The demise of some for-profit online ventures calls into question the future of online learning. On January 7, 2003, Columbia University announced that it will shut down Fathom, its for-profit online-learning venture, which had been designed to sell Web-based courses and seminars to the public.[2] In 2001, other universities, including New York University, The University of Maryland University College, and Temple University, closed their for-profit ventures.[3] The lessons we glean from these failures is the importance of aligning the program with the university’s non-profit objectives and the need for faculty involvement. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, “A. Frank Mayada, director of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s grant program of online education, said NYUonline should have sought more involvement from New York University professors in teaching and production. Instead many of the courses were taught by adjuncts with less expertise and teaching experience. ‘It wasn’t able to tap the real value of NYU , which is the faculty.’”[4] Faculty involvement is crucial from the design to the delivery of the course.
Sherry (1996) stresses the importance of interactivity between teacher and students, between students and the learning environment, and among students themselves. Gagne and Shepherd (2001) state that it is a common belief that interacting with the instructor and/or with other students is somewhat hampered in a distance course. They quote Ryan (2000), who observes: "Interaction with the online instructor using e-mail, telephone, or chat demands greater efficiency than open oral discussion, and therefore is more limited. This is perhaps the greatest limitation of the online delivery method. Almost all online participants felt that this was the greatest weakness of the class." Gagne and Shepherd compared a face-to-face with an online class. The performance of students in a distance course was similar to the performance of students in the on-campus course for an introductory accounting graduate class. They also found that the students' evaluations of the course were similar, although students in the online course indicated that they were less satisfied with instructor availability than the in-class students.
Ponzurick, France, and Logar (2002) find that MBA students in a distance education environment tend to have a lower level of satisfaction with the distance education course than do students in a face-to-face environment. Students, however, elected to take the distance education courses because of convenience.
Online delivery was chosen for the MSA courses primarily for its flexibility. The MSA website states, “The … Program has been designed to be flexible to accommodate a variety of students' interests and needs.”[5] In 2001 and 2002, students completed the MSA program by taking four 6-week courses in both the first and second summer and two 13-week courses in the fall semester. In 2003, all classes are 12-week classes. Some students do not work in the first summer, but after that most students work full-time. As accounting employees, they frequently miss live classes for many reasons, including being sent to various job locations around the state, having out-of-town training, and feeling pressure to work late to meet client deadlines. A combination of asynchronous (instructor and student not present at the same time)[6] and synchronous tools in an online environment makes the classes more accessible and flexible for students. Although students may prefer the live classes, they cannot always attend the live sessions. The online courses, however, are always available wherever the student has access to the Internet. In addition, many of the accounting firms provide online continuing education.[7] Thus, students will continue to learn in an online environment in the workplace.
To determine the requirements necessary to deliver an online course, in December 2001 the Accounting Department chair met with the Associate Vice Provost/head of Institute of Teaching & Learning and the Director of Instructional Media & Technology to outline a strategy for beginning the conversion of MSA courses to a distance-learning format. In January 2001, the instructor and course designer created a timetable for taking the taxation of business entities class online in summer 2001. Additional meetings were held during the semester to ensure that the selected teaching methods supported the course objectives. First the objectives for each class session were determined; then the coursework to demonstrate objective achievement was designed. Developing the coursework led to the modification of existing course content to ensure that students were focusing on relevant material. This course design process would be useful whether the course was delivered face-to-face or online.
Once the course activities were determined, the issue was how to provide the course content and to help the students perform the course activities in an online environment. The university provides its instructors with access to WebCT (Web Course Tools), a secure classroom environment software that facilitates the creation of web-based educational environments. WebCT can be used to create entire on-line courses or to supplement existing face-to-face courses.[8] Many universities provide access to WebCT, Blackboard, or a university-developed secure environment to offer online courses. The tools offered in course-environment software are similar, including a calendar, chat room, discussion boards, email, gradebook, and quiz function, all of which are accessed on the course homepage.
The instructor must decide how to provide the course content – through a textbook, web pages, or a combination of both. I chose both to deliver the course content. Thus, my initial technology needs were basic knowledge of an html editing package, such as Dreamweaver or Frontpage, to create the syllabus and content pages that provided the key points for each session. WebCT provides a content module tool, which allows the instructor to organize web pages, much like the chapters of a textbook, with self-tests, glossary, and search capability.
The coursework consisted of quizzes and projects. I used the WebCT quiz tool to create exams and Excel to create projects. In response to students’ requests for additional help, I added content page links to audio, video, Flash, Powerpoint, and Excel files. As my content pages became more developed, I substituted my online content modules for a textbook.
Creating the audio and video files is simple, but time consuming. I used Snag-it[9] to create the initial audio (*.avi) files and then used RealProducer to convert the audio files to *.rm files. RealPresenter was used to create video files of Powerpoint presentations. Creating the Flash files was very time-consuming because Flash has a steep learning curve. An alternative for demonstrating problem-solving techniques is to use Powerpoint presentations, but learning exercises created with Flash allow student interaction. For example, students can enter text, click buttons, or drag elements on a page. In addition, self-tests can be created with Flash, which can incorporate interesting sound effects to keep student attention. My learning curve for Flash was steep, so Powerpoint may be a more efficient alternative.
The WebCT tools selected for this course facilitated the desired learning environment: a combination of asynchronous (calendar, discussion board, and email) and synchronous (chat room) activities that allowed students to complete the coursework on a self-determined schedule, subject to due date constraints.
In addition to WebCT, instant messenger software was used in the course. [10] In the summer 2002 course, Placeware, synchronous conferencing software, was used for two classes. Placeware provides the ability to view spreadsheets interactively and to poll students, thus creating a more interactive environment. Using these tools, the class web site was developed and welcomed its first students in summer 2001.
Students must have certain technology available to them to be able to successfully work in an online environment. The MSA program director sent a letter to students detailing the general technology requirements.[11] In addition, this course required the following software.
AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).[12] AIM was the most crucial communications tool in the course. Each student has a class “buddy list,” including that of the instructor. Whenever a student logs onto AIM, the student can see who is online, and contact other students or the instructor with questions.
RealPlayer.[13] The RealPlayer browser plug-in is needed to play the audio and video (*.rm) files created by the instructor to explain material.
Flash Player.[14] This browser plug-in is required to view the Flash files, which demonstrated sequential problem solving.
Netscape/Internet Explorer Browsers. Students are asked to use both Netscape and Internet Explorer because one browser is used to access university library materials through a university proxy account, requiring special browser settings, while the other browser is used for regular web site access.[15]
To help students become comfortable with the WebCT online learning environment, students view a WebCT tutorial. The WebCT tutorial reviews the typical online tools, such as the discussion board, email, and chatroom tools, which are common to course environment software packages. The most useful tools in this course are the course calendar, content module, self-test, quiz, and grade tools.
Course Calendar. The course calendar provides a listing of the semester's activities, with the added advantage that the entries are clickable, enabling students to open the content module or quiz directly from the calendar. The calendar reinforces the time constraints. Seeing the due date of the first quiz on the calendar makes students aware that they must promptly start working with the material.
Content Modules. The content modules contain web pages with links to audio, video, Excel, and Flash files, which explain the particular topic, much like a textbook chapter. In addition, a project module contains two projects. An html editor (e.g., DreamWeaver) site management tool creates a map of all the files, which allows quick access to files that needed corrections or updates.
Self-tests. The content modules have related self-tests. Creating self-tests disciplines the instructor to focus on the learning objectives not only for an entire module, but for the specific content page, resulting in more focused pages.
Quiz Tool. The quiz tool creates quizzes and exams. In this course, the quizzes are discussed in groups, although each student must submit his or her own quiz. The quizzes create an incentive for students to meet the time constraints for learning the material and to work together in a chat room.
Grade Tool. The grade tool makes the students responsible for ensuring that the grades are correct. After WebCT grades the quizzes and exams, scores are automatically entered in the grade page. Once the quizzes have been submitted by all students, the grades are released, and students can click on the grade and see the graded quiz, including the solutions. The student’s ability to see the correct answers with solutions allows learning to continue in an efficient manner. For example, if a student enters an answer that is correct, but WebCT was not programmed to accept that answer, the student asks the instructor to reconsider that answer. The student is responsible for ensuring his/her answer is correct. Thus, learning continues even after the class ends because students review their final exams to ensure that an error had not been made in grading.
CLASS CONDUCT
The taxation of business entities course covers the tax rules that govern the formation, operation, distribution, and liquidation of entities. At the end of the course, students should be able to identify and address the tax and nontax issues faced when choosing the tax form of business organization. This objective is accomplished through content modules, quizzes, projects, and exams.
Content Modules
The content modules include Property Transactions, C Corporations (regular corporations), and Partnerships. Because the life cycle of a business incorporates many of the concepts learned in the property transactions module of the undergraduate introductory tax course, the course begins with a content module on property transactions. This review enables graduate students who come from various schools to have the same baseline knowledge.
Students send instant messages when they have questions while they are working through the content modules. Answering a question with a question, rather than simply giving the answer, provides an incentive not to use the instructor as a source of answers. For example, asking students for a journal entry to record the transaction in question puts the burden of learning on the student. The emoticons in AIM can be used to convey humor when appropriate.[16]
Quizzes
Twice-weekly quizzes were completed by all students. Most students clamor for the module quiz before they start reviewing the module. Thus, the key concepts in the module require quiz questions to ensure that students cover the module material. To encourage students to work self-tests in the content modules, some quiz questions are patterned after self-test questions.
Following the collaborative model, students worked in small groups on the quizzes and projects.[17] In summer 2001, the groups were created by the instructor and consisted of eight members for quizzes and four members for projects. End-of-semester surveys showed that students did not like this arrangement. In summer 2002, the groups consisted of six members and were the same for quizzes and projects. End-of-semester 2002 surveys indicated that students wanted to self-select into groups because of scheduling issues. To address this issue, in summer 2003, groups were created based on when students expect to work online, information provided in a survey at the beginning of the semester.
In the 2001 class, students were required to be in a chat room during the regularly scheduled class times. As the semester progressed, students objected to this practice. They wanted more flexibility in scheduling the times they worked with their groups. The requirement was dropped in 2002, but students were asked to attend two synchronous classes in conjunction with the projects. Audio or video recordings of the synchronous classes are available for students who cannot attend.
In the 2001 class, quiz due dates were Wednesday and Sunday; in the 2002 class, the dates were Tuesday and Thursday. Accelerating the due dates helped keep the class on schedule. In 2002, instructor online hours were during the scheduled class times, Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:30 PM to 4 PM and from 6 PM to 9:30 PM. On the other weekdays, I was online generally for an hour in the morning and back online between 1 PM and 9 PM., with a two-hour break at 5 PM. Now that the MSA program has moved from 6- to 12-week classes, instructor availability is more limited because students indicate on group board postings when they expect to work online, allowing more efficient scheduling of online time. Students also know when the instructor and class members will be online because they create “away” messages using AIM.[18]
The group members set up times to meet in the chat room. At the beginning of the semester, this time was usually the day the quiz was due. As the semester progressed, groups began scheduling multiple meetings. Most groups established a rule that each member had to work the quiz and come to the chat room prepared to compare answers. Generally, each group member would list the answers. If there were conflicting answers, each student explained his/her answer. If they could not resolve it on their own, they sent me an instant message asking me to come to their chat room. On the occasions when I was called into the chat room, I saw active learning taking place. The process was exhilarating from my perspective -- students were teaching each other. Although WebCT records the chat room discussions in the first four chatrooms, I did not review the logs during the semester. Subsequently, I checked some of the logs. The discussion in Exhibit I is from the log of a typical chat session.[19]
EXHIBIT I
Projects
The projects involve the preparation of spreadsheets reconciling book income to taxable income and the tax forms. For the 2001 and 2002 summer classes, face-to-face classes were held for projects, mainly because the university did not provide tax-forms software. The students met in their groups, and I circulated among the groups, answering questions. In summer 2003, there are no face-to-face classes; instructor-created Excel versions of the tax forms are now part of project spreadsheet files.
Exams
The only student-independent work required was the completion of two online exams. In the summer 2001 course, students took exams in the classroom. Subsequently, the MSA program decided not to require students to come to campus to take the exams at the same time because most online students do not live close to campus, and, as working students, they could be assigned to an out-of-town client. Thus, in the summer 2002 course, students took the exams online. The timed exams, which consist of short-answer and multiple choice questions, were taken during a set period of time on the exam day. The concern with possible collusion was alleviated by creating exams with random-order questions. In addition, the multiple choice questions had random-order answers. No restrictions were placed on the material that students could access, but the only permitted interaction was with the instructor.
Initially, I also asked students to sign onto AIM before starting the exam and tell me where they were and if they were alone. A backlog of AIM messages developed with students having to wait to start the exam until I “talked” with them. Now I post the exam procedures on the discussion board and remind students of the consequences of cheating.
It is possible that students could meet to work the exam together. Because the exams are generated from a random data base, each exam is unique. It is possible that some questions are the same, although in different order. If the question was a multiple-choice question, the answers would also be in random order. Thus students would have to compare the actual answer. Nevertheless, there could be some benefit to collusion if the group of students finds the common questions. I can only rely on time pressure to provide a disincentive. I would be far more hesitant to test in this manner if my students were undergraduates as opposed to graduate students, most of whom are working.
STUDENT REACTION TO THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
At the end of each semester, the class was surveyed about the learning environment. The tabulated the results are reported in Exhibit II. One third of the student responses to questions on the videos (Exhibit III), synchronous classes (Exhibit IV), groups (Exhibit V), and online classes in general (Exhibit VI) were randomly selected and reported.
Tools in general. Questions 1 and 2 asked students which tools they used and whether they wanted more/less of the tools. Working the quizzes in the chat room was the method used most; 84 percent in 2001 and 67 percent in 2002 used a combination of these two tools “a lot.” The percentages for “a lot” for 2001 and 2002 were as follows for the remaining tools: self-tests (67%, 74%), Excel files (60%, 51%), AIM – student /instructor (58%, 56%), AIM – student/student (58%, 67%), Flash files (44%, 40%), audio files (33%, 42%), videos (40% 2002), discussion board (24%, 32%). Students did not use the discussion board as much as I had anticipated but instead used other tools to get help. The use of RealPlayer increased from 2001 to 2002 as evidenced by 89 percent of the students viewing the videos, whereas only 72 percent used RealPlayer to listen to audio files in 2001 (no video files were available in 2001).
Students generally were satisfied with the quizzes and projects, although more students in 2002 relative to 2001 thought they should be reduced. 2001 students wanted more self-tests (65 percent). Despite the addition of more self-test questions, the 2002 students still want more self-tests (77 percent). The request for more Excel problems increased from 35 percent to 57 percent, and for audio files increased from 25 percent to 37 percent. The demand for more Flash files remained the same across the two years (22%, 21%).
EXHIBIT II
Videos. Question 3 asked if students found the RealPresenter videos useful; 66 percent of the comments were positive. Exhibit III reports student response regarding the videos. Thirty-four percent of the students did not like the videos for reasons ranging from duplication of content module material to problems getting the videos to play. I expect the technology problems to dissipate over time.
EXHIBIT III
Synchronous Classes. The class used audio conferencing in conjunction with Placeware. Question 4 asked how students accessed the synchronous classes. Eighteen percent of the students accessed the Internet through their phone lines, so they were not able to listen and be in the Placeware online classroom at the same time. Seven percent found the synchronous classes ineffective with audio only. Seventy-one percent had both audio and video, of which 60 percent were satisfied with the classes. Question 5 asked whether the classes were useful. Student responses are provided in Exhibit IV. Sixty-five percent of the comments were positive. The satisfaction percentage should increase as the instructor’s ability to conduct synchronous classes increases. Question 6 asked how often synchronous classes should be held. Fifty-four percent wanted just the two classes; 28 percent wanted one-hour synchronous classes every week.
EXHIBIT IV
Technology Demands. Question 7 asks if student computers were able to handle the technological demands of the class. Most students indicated that the computer was not a problem, increasing from 56 percent in 2001 to 81 percent in 2002. The speed of the Internet connection remained a problem, although it decreased from 40 percent in 2001 to 19 percent in 2002.
AIM. Question 8 asked about AIM communication. Some of my students used AIM sporadically to contact me, but only one student did not use it at all over the two years. Most students were satisfied with their interaction with the instructor, although satisfaction decreased from 78 percent to 68 percent. On the university-level survey, however, students rated the instructor over 9 on a 10 point scale.
Groups. Question 9 asked students about their groups. What surprised me the most was how much the students enjoyed working in groups, as evidenced by their comments in Exhibit V. Although the group process worked better in 2001 than in 2002, students generally were satisfied with their groups. Perhaps the fact that approximately 10 percent of their grade was based solely on group-member evaluations created an incentive to work with their group members. They then discovered that they could help each other improve their quiz scores (approximately 22 percent of their grade) and their project scores (another 22 percent of their grade). Thus, over half their grade was dependent on group interaction. The rest of the grade was based on the two exams.
EXHIBIT V
Online vs Live Class. Question 10 asked what would have to change to make the online experience a positive experience, and Question 11 asked if they would prefer to take the class live. Of the students in both 2001 and 2002, 56 percent would choose to take this class online if they had a choice between online and live. At first glance, this statistic looks grim, but recall that these students were just six weeks away from being undergraduates. The students found online learning challenging, as evidenced by their comments, some of which are listed in Exhibit VI. Part of their responses can be attributed to being thrust into the graduate environment with its attendant heavier workload. Perhaps they expected their old learning patterns to continue to work for them. In the fall 2001 semester, I taught tax research online to 19 of my summer online students. When asked in a survey how many would prefer to take the class live, only 3 said they would prefer a live class. Several students said they changed their mind about online education once they started working fulltime in the fall.
EXHIBIT VI
At the university level, an online evaluation replaced the paper evaluation used in live classes. The summary of the survey questions given to the instructor after the semester ended is provided in Exhibit VII. The survey results in 2002 for the afternoon class are not as high as the evening class or the 2001 classes. The student comments from both classes that accompanied the survey (not tabulated), however, were similar. In general, students appear to be satisfied.
EXHIBIT VII
DISCUSSION
The feedback from the students leads me to the conclusion that the online environment is as effective as the face-to-face environment. Then the issue is simply efficiency. From my perspective if a student self-selects into an online environment, the student must have concluded that the online approach is more efficient. Thus, the issue then is the instructor’s efficiency relative to face-to-face courses, both in terms of total time and time per student.
How many hours are needed for planning, execution, and course updating? I did not track my time for the planning part of the process, but I estimate that I spent at least 10-15 hours per week for the spring semester working on transforming the face-to-face class to an online class. Once the class was online, I averaged 40 hours per week online, overcompensating for not being face-to-face. During this time, I was able to work on course material preparation, but students could see me online and ask questions at any time. Currently, for a single class, I have reduced my time on AIM to 10 hours per week, approximately the same time for a regular class with office hours. In the summer 2003 class, I had two 25-student classes, and I was online about 20 hours per week. Thus, my total time and time-per-student is about the same as a face-to-face class.
Initially, my time-per-student was very high because I spent considerable time working with individual students online, and I found myself repeating discussions. I became more efficient by improving the content pages with additional videos on troublesome points. In addition, I learned to ask if the student was working with another student online, and I would ask the student to create a chat session with the other student. This process evolved over time to students waiting to contact me until their group was meeting. If the student was working solo, I frequently asked the student to post our AIM discussion on the group board. The most effective deterrent, however, to constant bombardment with questions before the student has really tried to learn the material is to answer a question with a question. It quickly becomes obvious when a student needs to spend more time in the content module.
Grading quizzes and exams requires little time because WebCT grades the quizzes, with the exception of the short-answer question, which I use sparingly. I provide detailed solutions in the quiz, so students rarely contact me with quiz questions. The projects, however, are very time-consuming because of the iterative process. The students do not complete the tax forms until the workpapers are correct. Thus, the workpapers go back and forth several times before the student can proceed to the forms. Because I do not want to require students to purchase entity form software, I created Excel-based forms to make it possible for students to submit projects in electronic form. Students now link the form input directly to the workpapers. Although the Excel-based forms are much easier to grade, creating the forms offsets any grading benefit. Three projects are submitted during the semester. The time spent on the projects is comparable to the time I spent in my face-to-face classes, averaging about 25 hours per project.
With respect to web site maintenance, I rely on end-of-semester feedback to tell me what I need to change. I average 8 to 10 hours per week updating each week’s content module and quiz. Some of these hours overlap with my online hours.
Although I do not track my time, I estimate that I spend about 25 hours week on my two classes, which is comparable to face-to-face classes. What I am not accounting for in this estimate is the time I spend learning new technology tools. On the other hand, the MSA program has just started using grading assistants for online instructors. My grading assistant now reviews my web pages for errors and updates quiz questions.
The combination of asynchronous and synchronous materials in the WebCT environment worked well for my students. I felt closer to my students than I did in a live class. When I loaded AIM and saw my students online, I felt connected to them. Each student had an online persona that blossomed over the semester. The use of emoticons in AIM helped us create bantering communication, which contributed to a less stressful learning environment.
The students appreciated the flexibility, and they liked not having to drive to classes. Although many of my students would have preferred a live class, they performed well in this online class. I did not attempt to statistically compare their performance with my past live classes, but the exam distributions appear similar to past classes. I was happy with the overall class performance.
One student concluded, “Just reading the material without having anyone explain it to you makes it more difficult to understand at first (at least for me). I waffled between wanting online and in person teaching … . Ultimately I chose online because this way we can do it at our own pace and we always have the ability to go back to where we might not have understood and do it over.” Thus, flexibility appears to outweigh what to the student appears to be an easier way to learn.
Perhaps the biggest impediment to moving to a learner-centered environment is instructor resistance to change. Distance learning has caused me to abandon the notion that I am central to the learning process. When I taught live, I was the focal point; in a distance setting, the student is the focal point. I am now much more comfortable with the collaborative method of learning, and I would use many of the online tools even if I taught live classes. Oblinger, Barone, and Hawkins (2001) state, “Until the educational process becomes learner-centered, in the classroom and at the institutional level, we may not realize the full value of distributed education. Distributed learning challenges our institutions not only to look at new ways of doing what we have always done, but also to look at doing new things. Should we use fewer lectures and invest more in collaborative learning? Would learning be more effective if we altered the lecture-laboratory-recitation model to a hands-on integrated approach? Students with an Information-Age mindset expect education to emphasize the learning process more than a canon of knowledge. They want to be part of learning communities, rejecting the broadcast paradigm of television (or the note-taker in the lecture hall).” Faculty involvement, however, is still necessary. Online learning is not a correspondence course; the faculty/student and student/student interaction is crucial to the learning process. Online tools can facilitate these interactions, helping the student to attain the course objectives in a flexible, self-paced environment.
Gagne, Margaret and Morgan Shepherd, A Comparison Between a Distance and a Traditional Graduate Accounting Class. T.H.E. Journal, April 2001. 58-64 (http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3433.cfm)
Leidner, D. E., and S. L. Jarvenpaa. 1995. The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View. MIS Quarterly (September): 265-291.
Oblinger, D.G., C. A. Barone, and B.L. Hawkins. 2001. Distributed education and its challenges: an overview. American Council on Education. (http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-01.pdf)
Ponzurick, T. G., K. R. France, and C. M. Logar. 2000. Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education (December): 180-187.
Ryan, Richard C. "Student Assessment Comparison of Lecture and Online Construction Equipment and Methods Classes." T.H.E. Journal, January 2000: 78-83.
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in Distance Learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337-365.
Willis, B. 2002 Distance Education at a Glance, http://www.uidaho.edu/eo/distglan.html.
EXHIBIT I
Log of a Partial Chat Session
The students are discussing the third, fourth, and fifth questions in a quiz. Semi-weekly quizzes averaged 15 – 25 questions, some with multiple parts. Although WebCT lists the full student name, only initials are used here.
MG>>Q3: 2 DM>>1 DC>>1 DP>>1 SS>>q3: 1?? MG>>that was one of the self test questions I think DP>>2 needs to be partnership level DP>>not partner SS>>yep, I'm sure now. 1 AG>>right DM>>i think it's 1 as well DC>>me too DM>>michelle? MG>>I still think it's 2, I am looking up the self test that I got it off of the double check DP>>in the self test it says partnership AG>>yeah, I think it does MG>>you're right SS>>yep, character is determined at partnership DM>>Q4: 3?? DC>>5 SS>>I got 3 as well AG>>3 MG>>3 DP>>3 DM>>85,000(.30) + 12,000 = 37,500 AG>>right DC>>I screwed up, didn't multiply the 1000 by 12 DC>>so 3 MG>>y SS>>I'm not sure on 5 MG>>Q5: 4 DM>>Q5: 2?? DC>>3 AG>>4 DM>>not sure at all DM>>ha- all different! SS>>amy, michelle, how'd you get 4? MG>>80-5+6 AG>>80000-5000+6000=81000 DP>>i have that too DC>>why deduct the 5000? DM>>what about the guaranteed payments AG>>because those two items are excluded from ordinary income MG>>they are added back in for taxable income MG>>that gp that is DM>>oh ok AG>>the gp is already included as a deduction DC>>why did you subtract the ltcg? DC>>never mind, it's not ordinary income DM>>i thought it was not included AG>>it's excluded from ord inc MG>>it goes on Sch K, I think SS>>so the charitable is deducted at the partner level, right AG>>yeah DM>>y DC>>yeah, I see it now MG>>yes SS>>ok, then I agree with 4
EXHIBIT II
End-of-Course Survey
1. Each blank below is for a learning method you may have used in this class. How often did you use each method?
|
|
2001 (N = 55) |
2002 (N=57) |
||||
|
|
1 (Never) |
2-4 |
5 (A lot) |
1 (Never) |
2-4 |
5 (A lot) |
|
Working through the content modules on the internet (as opposed to printing them out and working from paper). |
2% |
31% |
67% |
2% |
42% |
56% |
|
Printing out the web pages and working through the paper version |
29% |
33% |
38% |
16% |
30% |
54% |
|
Working the self-tests |
2% |
31% |
67% |
|
26% |
74% |
|
Working the examples and problems in Excel files |
2% |
39% |
60% |
|
49% |
51% |
|
Viewing the Flash files |
11% |
45% |
44% |
2% |
58% |
40% |
|
Listening to sound files |
29% |
39% |
33% |
9% |
49% |
42% |
|
Working the quizzes with my group in the chat room |
2% |
15% |
84% |
5% |
28% |
67% |
|
Using AIM to ask the instructor questions |
2% |
40% |
58% |
2% |
42% |
56% |
|
Using AIM to ask another student questions |
2% |
40% |
58% |
|
33% |
67% |
|
Using the discussion board |
5% |
71% |
24% |
2% |
67% |
32% |
|
Watching RealPresenter videos |
|
|
|
11% |
49% |
40% |
|
Attending synchronous classes |
|
|
|
4% |
54% |
42% |
2. What should the instructor do to improve the course with respect to each of the learning tools:
|
|
2001 |
2002 |
||||||
|
|
Get rid of it |
Provide less |
OK |
Provide more |
Get rid of it |
Provide less |
OK |
Provide more |
|
Web pages in the content modules |
|
|
64% |
36% |
|
2% |
65% |
33% |
|
Self-tests |
|
2% |
33% |
65% |
|
|
23% |
77% |
|
Excel examples and problems |
|
4% |
62% |
35% |
|
4% |
46% |
51% |
|
Flash files |
11% |
20% |
47% |
22% |
2% |
18% |
60% |
21% |
|
Audio files |
20% |
16% |
38% |
25% |
7% |
11% |
46% |
37% |
|
Quizzes |
|
7% |
82% |
11% |
|
28% |
61% |
11% |
|
Projects |
|
|
89% |
11% |
2% |
19% |
67% |
12% |
|
RealPresenter videos |
|
|
|
|
4% |
18% |
37% |
42% |
|
Synchronous classes |
|
|
|
|
4% |
23% |
40% |
33% |
3. If you didn't watch the videos, why didn't you watch them? If you did watch the videos, were they worth your time? Would you like to have videos for all the content modules? How would you change the videos? (Student responses are listed on Exhibit III.)
|
|
2002 |
|
A. Helpful |
27% |
|
B. Helpful – want more |
27% |
|
C. Positive with suggestion |
5% |
|
D. Positive with criticism |
7% |
|
E. Negative |