Are you Prepared to Teach Online? Perspectives of Faculty in a Private College in Malaysia

Transcription

1 Are you Prepared to Teach Online? Perspectives of Faculty in a Private College in Malaysia Chan Chang Tik Centre for Instructional and Technology Support INTI College Malaysia Malaysia chanct@intimal.edu.my Abstract: Online discussion in a forum plays a crucial role in the delivery of distance learning materials. We should not use the learning management system as depository of contents but as a platform for active exchange of ideas and collective reflections in order to generate new knowledge. This paper looks into online training of lecturers using e-tivities to promote online discussions. The training lasted 10 weeks and the participants have learned the key skills needed to host an online discussion and to function as e-instructors. This paper also deals with the various aspects of content development for distance learning modules and the problems encountered. We faced difficulties getting writers even though they were paid to write. The issue of intellectual property has kept some would-be writers away. The menace of plagiarism has spread to the lecturers, we discovered some writers who plagiarized diagrams from the text book. Introduction Many private colleges in Malaysia are working towards online education. The basic question is, are the faculty members ready to teach online? Being a good lecturer in a face-to-face classroom environment does not imply that you will be a good e-instructor (online lecturer) too. When a college ventures into online distance learning there are many aspects to consider. Among them are the training of the faculty members and getting the learning materials ready in the distance learning mode. This paper will discuss these two aspects experienced in a private college in Malaysia. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, hence some distance learning content providers take it to the very extreme scenario of not giving any form of learning materials as these are all easily available in the Internet. On the other hand, some faculties opt to develop and deliver a complete set of course materials on their own. In this college learning guides are used. That is, learning materials written in line with the text book. Our students will have to read the learning guides together with the text book to get a complete understanding of the topic and perform some learning activities. In this college, lecturers were paid to write the learning materials. Hence, the issue of writing the materials in addition to the lecturers regular teaching assignments did not arise (Care & Scanlan 2001). However, we faced many problems getting the lecturers to meet the deadlines. The usual excuse was they had a heavy workload therefore, they couldn t find time to write. These lecturers failed to realize that the very reason they were paid to write means they had to do it outside the regular working hours, that is, during their free personal time at home and over the weekends. Having said that, we had many lecturers who did not want to write because they claimed that the writing process took up too much of their time and they cited many other personal reasons like pursuing higher degrees etc. I believe that this thorny issue of content writing for the distance learning programme must be addressed carefully. First and foremost, the college must recognize that developing learning materials is creative academic work and therefore, must be included in the criteria for promotion. Currently, the intellectual property and ownership of the materials belong to the college. Many writers were not happy with this arrangement. Care and Scanlan (2001) are right in saying that a college policy regarding intellectual property must be handled tactfully so as to encourage more faculty members to write. Besides preparing learning materials, some academic staff had to attend online training session for 10 weeks. This is in line with Gold s (2001) claim that lecturers must have actual experience of online learning before they can be expected to be online lecturers. In this online training lecturers learned how to collaborate,

2 reflect and discuss in an online forum. The normal classroom teaching is now replaced with online forum. The usual cognitivist style of teaching is now replaced with the constructivist style. And the verbal delivery mode is now replaced with the non-verbal typing mode. The learning experience gained in the online forum is tremendous. The lecturers learned how to design e-tivities (online activities) that will help to integrate other understandings of multiple perspectives through discussion and reflection. The training provided them an ability to customize learning materials through e-tivities that will help to facilitate the students ability to construct knowledge. How the e-instructors perform in the online discussion has a major impact on the students learning and their satisfaction (Blignaut & Trollip 200). Of course, the use of authentic experiences goes a long way in determining the success of online learning. Lecturers were told to put in first-hand experiences when designing their e-tivities (Herrington, Oliver & Reeves 200). Content Development for Distance Learning Modules Two academic schools are involved in the distance learning programmes. They are the School of Computer and Information Technology (SOCIT) and School of Business and Law (SOBAL). The faculty members of each school were selected by their respective deans to write the distance learning (DL) modules. Each DL module team consists of a content writer(s), a content evaluator, a module leader and an editor. Before the writers began to write, they were trained by an instructional designer. Both the content evaluator and the module leader were given briefing on their roles and instructions on how to fill the checklists. The content development process is as shown in the diagram below: Content Writer Module leader Module Leader Content Writers Instructional Designer Content Evaluator Content Evaluator Editor Figure 1: Content Development Process Content Writer The content writer has to ensure that the scope of the content matches the learning objectives of the unit. In the writing of the unit, the writer must check that the contents are presented logically and coherently throughout the unit and they are appropriately sequenced. Every unit is made up of notes, examples, selfassessment questions and learning activities. It is the responsibility of the writer to ensure that the contents are free from plagiarism. Each course module is supported by learning objects in the range of five units to one learning object. The instructional designer, module leader and the software developer worked together to design the learning object with the contents coming from the writer. Effective learning modules rely on instructional design processes that reflect the absence of or reduction in face-to-face instruction (Brown & Voltz 2005). The necessity of providing a rich learning activity, such as using learning object, opens up opportunities for action rather than directs students down a prescribed pathway. Each writer was asked to write two sample units and submit them to the instructional designer at the early stage. Once the units were certified alright, then the writer proceeded to complete the rest of the units in the module. Every module is made up of 42 units where each unit covers one hour of lecturing time. We have 14 weeks per semester and in each week there are three lecturing hours (that is, three units) and hence we get 14 x (42 units). Content Evaluator There is a content evaluator appointed for each module. The evaluator s roles are to ensure that the contents are relevant to the objectives of the unit and to check for appropriateness and accuracy of the contents. Last but not least, the evaluator also makes certain that the contents are free from plagiarism. No doubt, it is the

3 writer s responsibility in this aspect, but the evaluator just double checks. In the briefing to the evaluators, each of the items in the checklist was explained to them so that they knew exactly how to fill it. The checklist consists of 10 items. Among them are as follows: Are the stated objectives comprehensible? Are the ideas/concepts presented logically and coherently? Is the content generally free from plagiarism? Module Leader The module leader acts like an anchor man. He checks the quality of the questions set to ensure that they are suitable for the students of the given level of study. Furthermore, he must be sure that the questions covered all important topics discussed in the unit and there is a sufficient number of questions. He also checks that the course syllabus is covered in all the 42 units of the module and each unit is written in detail in accordance with the syllabus. He distributes the 42 units among the writers and discusses with those who have problems in completing the units allocated. If the writer encounters some problems and he/she cannot continue to write, then the module leader will have to re-distribute the units among the remaining writers or seeks the assistance of the school to appoint a new writer. Last but not least, he checks whether the explanations and learning activities in the unit are suitable for the students and that the topics are arranged in a proper order. The module leaders were also briefed on how to fill the checklist. We feel that this is necessary so that the module leader can give relevant feedback to the writers to improve on the contents written. There are 8 items in the checklist. Among them are: Are learning activities included for students to learn or practise and apply newly acquired knowledge? Is a summary provided to consolidate learning? Overall, does the unit engage learners in active learning? Editor The editor merely checks the accuracy of the language used in terms of grammar and syntax. Each unit is read twice to ensure that changes are made as recommended. However, any technical jargon used by the writers is retained. Results of Observation of Content Development On an average a module takes a year to complete. The commitment of the writer plays a significant role here. We had a writer who was writing alone and she managed to finish it in three months as compared to another module with four writers and they took more than one year to complete the module. However, the delay or failure to meet deadline wasn t the writers fault all the time. Occasionally, it was due to the content evaluator or the module leader. Even though we pay the lecturers to write we still face problem getting writers. We had to coax them into it through their deans. In the middle of writing, we had writers who resigned and that triggered the process of looking for a replacement. We even had a writer who walked into my office and said Sir, I don t want to write! Get someone else. I personally feel that we should outsource the content writing, don t restrict ourselves to the faculty members only. The issue of intellectual property has kept some would-be writers away. They disagreed with certain clauses in the contract that required them to surrender total right of the learning materials developed to the college. However, the writers are given top priority when it comes to revising the module. If they choose not to do so, then the module will be given to another person. To attract more writers, I believe the college has to consider this issue more seriously. Some writers plagiarized diagrams from the text book. They were advised to remove them and substitute with their own diagrams or they could get their students to refer to the text book for the diagrams. Similarly, for the contents, exercises and examples, writers are not allowed to use the cut and paste technique. They are supposed to write the unit in their own words coupled with their own experiences teaching the course in the class. It looks like this menace is not confined to the students only. According to Dordoy (2002) some reasons for staff cheating are: not understanding the rules (40%), it happens unconsciously (0%), easy access to material via the Internet (5%) and laziness or bad time management (42%).

4 Online Training In an online course you can logon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no necessity for a face-toface interaction. There are of course, some deadlines to meet, but within these, the flexibility of the study schedule is totally yours. The participants were advised to logon at least 2 hours per day to complete all the e- tivities in the course. Before a lecturer can teach an online course, that is, to be an e-instructor, he/she has to undertake a 10- week online training. Lecturers who wrote the module were given preference over others in the training. There are six sessions in the training as follows: Session 1: Getting to know you Session 4: Design questions for e-tivities Session 2: Good online host Session 5: Host a discussion topic Session : Weave and summarise Session 6: Saying goodbye Sessions 1 and 2 are considered warming-up sessions. That is, they are used to get the participants accustomed to the online system, to know each other in the e-community and to learn how to discuss, collaborate and reflect in a forum. The participants were assessed based on their postings and participation in the discussion from Sessions to 5. Every participant has to pass each session before he/she is allowed to proceed to the next session. They were strongly encouraged to participate in the forum regularly and to collaborate and discuss among themselves throughout the training. It is also very important that the participants know how to motivate and encourage each other to move on. This is because in distance learning, the drop-out rate is relatively high so if any of the participants remain silent for a while someone is supposed to send him/her an of encouragement or post a concerned message in the forum. All the participants were advised to post the e-tivities in the forum. This is because we reserved chatroom for informal and social chatting. They were reminded to sign off with names in their responses. In this way, other participants will know whose response it is and also how to address the person the way he/she wants it. They were told not to write Yes, I agree. in their responses. They have to elaborate and state why they agreed or disagreed. As a forum protocol, we want all the participants to avoid using the SMS language. They were encouraged to use good English in all their responses in the forum. Some advice to the participants: Always remember speak to others as you would expect them to speak to you. Do not touch on sensitive issues like religion and politics. At all time, respect other participants views. You may criticize their opinions but not them as a person. Results An online survey was administered on our first cohort of 14 e-instructors. After they had completed the online training, they were asked to fill a questionnaire available in the learning management system. The table below depicts the feedback from them: Item Disagree Satisfactory Agree The Course 1. The course enhances my understanding of the topic. 2. I am able to apply knowledge and skills gained to my profession.. The course is well organized. 4. The course duration of 10 weeks is too long Table 1: Feedback on the course

5 Generally, most of the participants agree that the course was well organized and they have gained from it. Taking satisfactory to mean the participants do not mind, then we can say that the duration of 10-week is agreeable to them. It may be possible to reduce the duration if the training is conducted on a full-time basis. According to Mc Kenzie et al. (2000) vast majority of the instructors (62%) received 1 5 hours of training for online course delivery before teaching their first course. The second most frequently reported amount of training time identified was 21 or more hours, 17% of the faculty. Going by these figures, it is obvious that the staff in this college has received considerably more training. Now, let s focus on the e-tivities used in the course. The participants feedback is as shown in Tab. 2. Item Disagree Satisfactory Agree E-tivities 1. The learning materials or notes provided are of high quality. 2. I learnt how to welcome and encourage participants.. I learnt the importance of key e-moderating skills such as opening, weaving and hosting discussion. 4. I have explored some key skills and topics that will help me to e-moderate knowledge construction forum Table 2: Feedback on e-tivities The participants have learned the key skills needed to host an online discussion and to function as e- instructors. They are happy with the quality of the materials provided in the online course. It is encouraging to note that the participants have satisfied the main objective of the training, that is, to prepare their own e-tivities for the online course they will conduct and to host an online discussion. Hiltz et al. (1999) reported that when students are actively involved in collaborating learning using an online method, the outcomes can be as good as or better than those for traditional classes. On the other hand, when students are simply receiving posted materials and sending back their assignments, the results are poorer than the traditional classrooms. Ascough (2002) concurs by saying that e-instructor should understand that online education is not merely uploading teaching materials, receiving and sending s, and posting discussion topics onto the Internet. More importantly, it provides an arena for interactive, deep, collaborative and multidimensional thinking and learning environment. Conclusion Online discussion is the key element in the delivery of distance learning materials. It provides asynchronous collaborative learning environment where we can get interactions between students and students and also between students and e-instructors. We make use of the e-tivities to engage the students actively in online discussion which often require greater reflection than in a face-to-face discussion. It also promotes team building and critical thinking too (Muilenburg & Berge 2002). It may be a mistake to use the learning management system (LMS) merely for making information readily available and easily retrievable for students. We should turn the LMS into a platform to cater for active exchange of ideas and collective reflection in order to create deeper understanding and to generate new knowledge (Drinkwater et al. 2004). Choosing a suitable LMS to run distance learning courses may not be easy. This is because most of the technology platforms are still in their infancy. They lack the diversity and capabilities that come with the maturity of technologies (Salmon 2002). In this college, we use our own LMS which incidentally still has some technical hitches to overcome. If getting the faculty members to write the distance learning materials is problematic, then the college should rely on other means of getting the job done. For instance, we can advertise and obtain writers from outside the college. We can collaborate and share learning materials from other institutions. We can even refer to independent content providers who specialize in delivering contents tailored to the college needs and even to help lecturers in converting their lecture notes to the distance learning mode.

6 The college also needs to be aware that converting a face-to-face course to an online course is not simply typing lecture notes and posting them on the website. E-instructors have to discover ways to engage the students in active learning. To many, this is a major change from the way they were taught and trained to teach (Kosak et al. 2004). Faculty members need solid support from the college right from the planning stage through implementation. References Ascough, R.S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Pedagogy before technology. Teaching Theology and Religion, 5(1), Blignaut, S., & Trollip, S. (200). Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments an exploratory exploration. Computer and Education, 41, Brown, A.R., & Voltz, B.D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 6(1). Care, W.D., & Scanlan, J.M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Dordoy, A. (2002). Cheating and plagiarism: staff and student perceptions at Northumbria. Northumbria Conference, [Online], Drinkwater, P.M., et al. (2004). Adopting a web-based collaborative tool to support the Manchester method approach to learning. Electronic Journal on e-learning, 2(1), Gold, S. (2001). A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), Hiltz, S.R., N. Coppola, N. Rotter & M. Turoff (1999). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach, [Online], Herrington., J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (200). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), Kosak, L., et al. (2004). Prepared to teach online? Perspectives of faculty in the University of North Carolina system. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(). Mc Kenzie, B.K., et al. (2000). Needs, concerns and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, (). Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z.L. (2002). A Framework for designing questions for online learning, [Online], Salmon, G. (2002). Warp speed or snail s pace? Pathways into the future of e-learning land (understanding the potential of virtual learning environments). VLE Conference 24 th June 2002, The way forward with VLE s: Lessons learned, University of Bristol.