Anne's+contribution

This was a 14 week online course entitled ‘Global Environmental Change’, providing 3 natural science, social science or humanities credits, relevant to a variety of international learners (25 in total on this course), including those from the military, located in various countries. The course was led by Christina Mainka with the main intention of providing a framework of key environmental issues and concepts, equipping learners with a critical insight into political, social, scientific, ethical and economic issues that may arise within media and expert opinion, and focussing on the central issue of sustainability of the Earth and the impacts on the human condition.
 * Introduction to the report (Keri) **
 * Overview of the course your group looked at ** (Anne) //– this needs shortened- A//

It was provided for the University of Maryland University College in academic year 2003/4. Previously delivered face-to-face, this was now being provided online, due to university policy. Based in Europe, this was the last of a series of 10-15 courses that Christina had provided for the university.

Recognising the diversity of questions, issues, and inter-related perspectives relevant to the course, it was presented as concerned with six key topic areas, and in terms of 18 learning outcomes. Activities and assignments were set up to enable students to explore varying viewpoints and common misconceptions. The course was organised in weekly components, with the activities for each week outlined in the course schedule, and presented in the regular online written announcements. Specific readings were identified for each week, taken from four key textbooks. Weekly Thought Conferences were organised for weeks 1-6 and 8-13. Each weekly Thought Conference, moderated by the tutor, consisted of 5-10 online discussions, with specific students assigned as ‘posters’ to the discussions, others identified as ‘responders’, and an open invitation for all ‘to wade in’ towards the end of each week. Reports on each of the 12 conferences were produced by assigned ‘conference agents’. Students were assessed on their contribution to these discussions according to set criteria, worth 30% of the final mark. Four home assignments due at the end of weeks 2, 5, 9 and 11 were worth 20% of the final mark, with answer keys made available once the assignment was submitted. A classroom based 3 hour mid-term exam at week 7 and a final online exam at week 12 also accounted for 20% and 15% respectively of the final mark; a course paper, submitted on week 12, was worth 15%.

Students received online advice within the course VLE on what was expected of them in discussions and assignments, along with grading criteria. Social discussion boards were also set up for more informal discussions amongst students (//Chatterbox// and //[Not] just for fun//), and a problems forum was available, in which Christina addressed academic queries. Students had access on the VLE to all relevant course information, details about the tutor, library information, and a webliography where they could share resources. The course also included non-assessed activities to encourage further critical analysis, for example, of websites.
 * Explanation and critique of the course in relation to the core issue**The core issue we focussed on was course design/structure in terms of:
 * constructive alignment of the educational structure and processes as central to curriculum development;
 * the way in which structure influenced the level of interactivity amongst students
 * the accessibility of the course and the materials to learners

//Constructive alignment// Constructive alignment as a concept draws attention to how the learning environment is set up to support the activities that enable learners to achieve desired learning outcomes (Biggs 2003). It focuses on the relationships between learning outcomes, and the design and timing of learning materials and assignments, and the pedagogies that drive and underpin the approaches taken by the teacher. Biggs (2003) suggests that constructive alignment incorporates the idea that students construct meaning through learning activities that are in alignment with their own learning needs, reflecting the notions of social constructivist and adult learning pedagogies (Selwyn 2011).

In critiquing this, we are interested in the strengths and weaknesses of this course structure. It is clear from Christina’s descriptions, reflections, and the course syllabus, that the course set out to cover a range of issues, provoking critical thought and discussion, and putting consistent demands on students to complete various assignments, as evidence of learning. The large number of learning outcomes is evidence of Christina’s passion for the subject area. However, it is not clear how this excessive number of learning outcomes ‘aligned’ to the six topics areas or to the weekly activities or assignments, nor how progression through the topic areas was reflected in these cumulative ‘outputs’ which are the assignments. It appeared that Christina did try to align some of the reading, thought discussions and the home assignment, however, she does indicate that the criteria for assignments differed, suggesting that there remained some lack of alignment. Included here is the end part of an introduction to a discussion (all of which were fairly long), referring to a home assignment: ‘Ironically, some of the developed countries (Italy, Japan, Germany) approaching zero population growth, are giving financial incentives for families to have more children. Aging societies such as Germany, for example, rely heavily on immigration to reduce population pressures (the "greying" problem) felt by the economy. Is overpopulation, really an issue? The late Julian Simon (Home Assignment II), sure didn't think so at all, and the author of "Population Surprise" may have agreed. Enjoy the readings! Remember, posters must respond by Wednesday and responders by Thursday. Open house thereafter. This weeks posters/responders are: //TQ1: Poster: M. A. Responder: J. J.TQ2: Poster: L. V. Responder: C. T.TQ3: Poster: C. A. Responder: A. A.TQ4: Poster: N. G. Responder: S. G.TQ5: Poster:C. T. Responder: B. H. // And here are the TQs.... This example also shows how students were assigned by Christina to particular discussions. However, there seems to have been little opportunity for students to pursue areas of their own interest within the groups, and within a pedagogy of adult learning, use the assignments to organise and build on relevant learning.
 * Now it's your turn! **

Lehmann & Chamberlin (2009) also describe the concept of ‘chunking’ where course activities are divided into weeks or units, with activities being well balanced. Here it is suggested that teachers identify natural points where students are no longer fed material, but instead are given time to do something with it, to avoid them becoming overwhelmed. In this particular course structure it would appear that there was a continual feeding of new material to students, who may not have always had adequate time to reflect on and ‘digest’ their learning.

Overall, it appears that the university requirement to extend the course from a face-to-face setting to the online environment may have put Christina under pressure to adjust the materials with little time to explore the implications of design structure for pedagogical approach or presentation, alignment of learning materials and assessment processes. Her comments reflect this: //It takes much longer to place material online to create the activities from week one all the way through to week fifteen making sure that they are coherent and they are all related and linked or aligned to one another’.//

//Interactivity// In this course example, Christina has set up learning activities in which she hopes students will develop critical thinking. As we have seen, the course incorporated regular assessed ‘Thought Conference’ discussions, with students being assigned to particular discussions in groups, and the expectations of students clearly identified. Laurillard (2002) suggested that students may invest little effort in using ICT-based media such as discussion boards, unless they are assessed. That these discussions are also summarised for others to read at the end is an added strength of the structure, encouraging interactivity as a core activity of the course. However, while this is an attempt to use groupwork, the discussions are limited in time, and while we cannot see details of how they interacted, there may have been limited opportunity for interactive collaboration.

// Accessibility of the course design and structure // Lehmann and Chamberlin (2009) consider that e-learning //‘both encourages diversity and is blind to it’// (p.64), recognising that aspects such gender, race and physical distinguishing features may not be readily obvious online. Learners come to an online course with diverse needs, including physical disabilities, learning difficulties, and a variety of different learning styles, presenting accessibility issues for course designers and developers. In their competency framework for e-learning, the Institute of IT training (2007) suggested course developers take account of the opportunities and constraints of a VLE (or ‘user interface’), and collaborate with usability and accessibility specialists to ensure:
 * * text is legible and comfortable to read by varied learners, (presumably with scope for adaptation in those with particular issues such as dyslexia or dyspraxia, or non-English speakers) ||
 * * a consistent layout, graphic design and navigational system is used throughout ||
 * * the number of menu levels is kept to a minimum ||
 * * navigational controls allow learners to: move backwards and forwards between pages in sequence; return to the top of long pages; move upwards through the menu hierarchy; access help at any time; and exit at any time ||

Laurillard (2002) considered that we cannot predict the exact sequences and pacing of each student as they follow the online course materials, but that greater accessibility and control over the learning experience can be provided to students through well designed use of icons, buttons, or pull down menus. She suggests that an interface must be //‘operationally transparent’// (p193), so students know how to get started at the beginning of a course. Also, that there is a need for testing and evaluation, with feedback from students on interface design and learning activities.

A strength of the course is the layout of the VLE which is fairly readily negotiated //(can we screen shot from Camtasia?).// The menu is set out with various conference areas down the left side, to direct students to relevant activities and information, for example, the librarian, and different forms of help and support, including the ‘Chatterbox’ informal discussion site. The material appears quite well organised, and a long syllabus is presented online in more palatable sections, accessible through a menu, and introduced to students using the concept of a ‘virtual scavenger hunt’. Each Thought Discussion is presented in turn with a preamble/introduction that includes hyperlinks, making source material fairly accessible. However, the textbooks did not appear to be available online and there is evidence that students had difficulties in accessing texts: “Okay, before I completely give up, I thought I should tell you that I'm finding it difficult to find two articles to summerize and compare for our Homework III assignment. I've done searches on all three of the search sites you mentioned using "ANWAR". If you have the time or interest "anyone"..Please help!!! “

Whether we subscribe to the VARK (visual, auditory, read, write) framework (Fleming 2006) or others such as Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983), it is likely that courses incorporating a variety of media, for example, different forms of text, audiolinks, visuals, animation will enhance accessibility. In this course example, the scope for using audio, visuals and graphics has not been fully recognised. For example, Christina provided paced information about the weekly topics and asynchronous discussions, but could have presented these as weekly postings which students could download to iPod or MP3 players. Additionally, where the course activities were supported by regular written announcements, the use of different colours of text may have affected readability for some students, who may have preferred an audio file.

Christina talked in the video of her difficulties in adapting what was a face-to-face course, and it seems likely that the course was not pre-tested, nor fully evaluated when it ran. It is not clear from the student evaluations how intuitive the students found the interface and while some were very enthusiastic about their experience, it is possible that others with a particular learning difficulty did not fully engage. The wide variety of levels of engagement with the discussions, suggests that some students interacted very little with the materials. However, it is unclear if this is due to their digital literacy skills, their ability to evaluate the usefulness of resources (information literacy) (HEFCE report 2011) or practical aspects of the VLE and course design and structure that influenced accessibility. In her review of accessibility practices in e-learning, Seale (2004) has suggested that disabled people should be involved in the design of online material.

A further aspect may relate to the cultural accessibility of the course and whether, for example, material is culturally relevant, particularly in an international context (Keri can you add anything?).

In our early analysis of the course, we thought that the tutor role as an e-moderator was significant and recognised there may be a close relationship between the pedagogical approach/approaches of the tutor, her perceived role as an e-moderator, and her experience of running the course.
 * Explanation and brief justification for the key issue your group selected **

The role of the tutor has been identified as: a designer and administrator of the educational experience; the facilitator and co-creator of a social environment; and a subject matter expert, able to be proactive in ‘scaffolding’ learning experiences (Anderson //et al.// 2001). In contrast, Salmon (2000) emphasised a facilitative rather than tutorial or expert role of the online teacher and provided a five stage model for e-moderating, including: access and motivation; socialisation and 'community building'; information exchange; student responsibility for knowledge construction; and finally a development stage where participants are involved in reflection and assessment and become responsible for their own learning (Salmon 2000). The concept of a community of inquiry as a conceptual framework for online learning has also been viewed as incorporating cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence (Garrison and Anderson 2003). Vlachopoulos & Cowan (2010) suggest that there is little evidence to indicate how tutors choose particular facilitative approaches, recognising that it is not simply appropriate to replicate face to face approaches for online learning (Garrison and Anderson 2003). In particular, teachers need to be able to //‘understand and exploit the strengths’ of// approaches such as asynchronous discussions (Vlachopoulos & Cowan 2010, p.215). In their grounded theory study the authors collected data from the transcripts of an online discussion board, identifying and comparing the strategies used by the tutors in their moderating role (Vlachopoulos & Cowan 2010). In their study, a variety of types of interventions were undertaken by the e-moderators and tutors iteratively modified their approaches to e-moderation, drawing on similar principles used in face-to-face teaching. In another research study, Connolly, Jones & Jones (2007) explored the experiences of a group of tutors newly engaged in a major e-learning project. The authors considered that online learning requires a strong pedagogical strategy, integrating a good understanding of the technological affordances of the approaches taken. Tutors new to e-learning may tend to rely on what they know about face-to-face teaching (Hodgson & Watland 2004, p. 115). In the research, data were generated using focus groups, questionnaires and observation (Connelly, Jones & Jones 2007). The findings indicated that tutors did not feel they had control over their course material as it was prepared for online use and were somewhat disappointed when they initially saw that it lacked the ‘bells and whistles’ that they had expected; however, working with instructional designers they developed the modules to become more engaging and interactive (Connelly, Jones & Jones 2007). These research findings appear relevant to Christina’s experience, and we have previously noted that the pressures to develop this online course, from a face-to-face context, may have given Christina little time to clarify and reflect on her role as e-moderator. Instead, she engages on a regular basis, posting replies to students, and finding the process of delivering the course very time-consuming. This suggests that staff development for tutors moving to online working, and clearer specification of the online tutor role is required. A better understanding of how university lecturers incorporate e-learning into their role may also be important (Gonzalez 2011). A strength of the course is Christina’s enthusiasm for the subject area, and her role as a subject expert. However, in negotiating her role as e-moderator and tutor she often appears to take a more instructional and directional stance, rather than facilitative (Salmon 2000). Developing the concept of a community of inquiry, and allowing students to pursue their interest areas within groups, may have been more effective and comfortable for Christina and the students themselves. It appeared that being interviewed for the IBOE course may have been the first time Christina really had the opportunity to reflect on her experiences.
 * Critique of the course in relation to the key issue **
 * Recommendations for future enhancements to course **
 * A tutor should consider the relationship between pedagogical and philosophical perspectives and their role as an e-moderator, particularly in terms of the degree of input required from the tutor, the nature of the input (is it content, task orientated and/or IT support), their perception of the e-moderator role, and managing learner expectations in what they expect from a moderator
 * A course that includes a wide variety of media and activity types, may be accessible to a wider range of individuals; as such, using merely online discussions may be limited
 * Co-operative work including groupwork may provide a means to assessment, but there should be a rubic or clear criteria outlined to define what is being assessed and this must relate to the course learning outcomes and show progression
 * At the induction phase of the course, the 'tutor presence' may be more intense, and requires a specific type of instructional and also welcoming dialogue
 * To promote accessibility, specific care must be taken in creating the VLE to ensure it is readily used and negotiated by students
 * Attention given to developing a community of inquiry/learning community as particularly relevant to adult learners


 * Conclusions **

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teacher presences in a computer conferencing context. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,// 5 (2), pp.1-15.
 * Reference list **

Biggs, J. (2003) Aligning teaching for constructing learning. The Higher Education Academy- more info required

Connolly, M., Jones, C. & Jones, N. (2007) New approaches, new vision: capturing teacher experiences in a brave new online world. //Open learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and eLearning,// 22 (1), p.43-56

Fleming, N. (2006) VARK: A guide to learning styles. Available at: [] [Accessed 1st Nov 2011]

Gardner, H. (1983) //Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences//. New York: Basic Books

Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003) //E-learning in the 21st century//. London: Routledge Falmer

González, C.(2010) What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching?, //Studies in Higher Education//, 35 (1), pp.61-78 Available at: [] [Accessed 1st Nov 2011]

HEFCE OLTF (Online Learning Task Force) (2011). Collaborate to compete: seizing the opportunity of online learning for UK higher education. HEFCE. [Web link]

Hodgson, V. & Watland, P. (2004) Researching networked managed learning. //Management Learning,// 35 (2), pp.99-116

Institute of IT Training (2007) Competency Framework for e-Learning Designers & Developers, Coventry

Laurillard, D. (2002). //Rethinking University Teaching-a conversational framework for the effective use of educational technology//. London, RoutledgeFarmer

Lehmann, K. & Chamberlin, L. (2009) //Making the move to elearning. Putting your course online.// Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Co. Chapter 7 Basics of course design, pp.67-90.

Salmon, G. (2000). //E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online//. London:Kogan Page.

Seale, J. (2004) The development of accessibility practices in e-learning: an exploration of communities of practice. //ALT-J, Research in Learning and Technology,// 12 (1), pp.51-63.

Selwyn, N (2011) Education //and technology. Key issues and debates.// London: Continuum

Vlachopoulos, P. & Cowan, J. (2010) Choices of approaches in e-moderation: Conclusions from a grounded theory study. //Active Learning in Higher Education//, 11 (3), pp.213-244.