---------------------------------------- Notes taking from first focus group on May 14 1998. -Morning Session General Questions What's the advantage of working with these integrated tools instead of using what's available tools on campus? Is the university building customized tools? Do particular tools are better on specific browsers? Easiness of conversions Is it downgradable? If a faculty member moves to another university, would he/she be allowed to take the on-line course? Will there be problems with restrictions on WAM environment? Questions on WAM time limits? Openness of the content tools should be strong. Instructional material should reside in local systems to assure total security and reliability. Set up standards to implement protocols. Questions about protocols? Limitations on import/export, upload/download utilities. Graded sheets should be divided by sections and offer statistics by section. Notes on Quizzes Can the software give immediate feedback after a question is answered instead of waiting until all questions are answered and the quiz is submitted? Are all quizzes just for grading purposes, can you have practice quizzes or both? How reliability is the security concerning students grades when using this kind of software? Can you have questions randomize from a bank of questions, so all students' quizzes are different? Web Design Can you have links to other sites from your course page? Can you created a web page without knowing any HTML? How easy is the utility to upload files into the server? Are links automatically created? Software should allow exporting grades to umail. Software should be open to customization and other commercial tools. Allow imports from other instructional tools. Calendar Faculty has a calendar for students to see schedule and students can add personal annotations to the calendar. Accessibility Would the software be available for students using an ISP? Comments on using Technology in the classroom. Have listservers been successful? The listservers are successful is participation is part of the final grade. If the listserver is voluntary, there is not much participation from the students, you should entice the students to use these kinds of tools; for example, a question from a test could be posted. Students tend to be trivial while using these tools. WebCT conceptualizes courses into a certain way. How flexible is it to add other tools to adapt to different instructional styles or different styles of learning? A WebCT course is designed as a roadmap, but what do you if your class is not suitable for this model? Faculty should learned how to rehost what they teach on the blackboard into a virtual environment. Be open to discover new possibilities of web environment. Merge technical offerings with faculty way of thinking. Transition to a new environment may cause mental blocks. Faculty needs to learn how to convert their way of teaching interactively into on-line teaching. Advantage of using the same tool is that students can use that knowledge in multiple classes. Disadvantage is that student would be thought in different ways. Standardization of these tools is meant from a perspective of product setup and not teaching methodologies. Virtual realities model and distance learning. Faculty resistance to new ideas and tools. The more divergent opportunities are offered the more successful the interactive tools would be. The more effective training is peer training. Multiple tools would discourage peer support. According to Human Interaction theory, inconsistency is useful to avoid boredom. Standardization of software rises issues about academic freedom. Genetic diversity on software, we should offered different tools just like we offered options for word-processing and spreadsheets. Tools are flexible, and one platform doesn't limit creativity. It is flexible. The difficulty is how much time it takes it to make look the way you want. Add links to customize tools. Use an easy tool to help teaching assistant put things on-line. Plain vanilla, self-taught tool that offers web based chat, post assignments on-line. This environment would make it easier to use and add more complexity to web pages without relying on technical people. Errors WebCT allows you to so restricted things even when it warns against such an action. Security/Reliabity How secure is the instructor area? Are passwords sent on an unsecured link? Is so there is a breach of security and student could break into instructor's area. Security is reliable is software setup correctly. How can you backup your course if the server crashes? By using framed based environment, are we putting the disable students at a disadvantage? What about using a graphical interface instead of a text based for disable students? Demands on the server when you have more than 500 students taking a quiz at the same time? Policies on issues when the server is down. Suggestions Offered an introductory and advanced training. One model of web course management is not enough, there should be more tan one tool. Math department would only use it to post syllabus, online grading, homework assignments. Biology would be interested in images, videos and other multimedia offerings. It should be free. -------------------- Audience Questions and Comments Faculty Focus Group II Web Development and Management Tools Thursday, May 14, 1998 Afternoon session Q= question C=comment I. Ellen's introduction Q: Can we set up our own server? II. Dan's demo of what student sees when using WebCT-based course: Quiz examples (physics and hockey tutorials): Q: Would WebCT replace WebSpinner? [WebCT is just another recommended tool; not mandated; is a more integrated collection of web development tools] Calendar demo: Q: Personal calendar for each student? Q: Can faculty add notes to appear on all calendars? Bulletin board: Q: Is this just email? [threaded discussion, grouped into topics] Chat: communicate real-time (but not archived) III. Faculty had a few minutes to try hands-on use of WebCT IV. Jamie's demo of how faculty might create a home page with simple content [customizing home pages; eliminating unneeded icons; adding student web page links; working with quizzes; using course management features; uploading/downloading files; adding course content; etc.] Q: Can individual choose password? [Yes: multiple levels of access--student, instructor, grader, . . .] Q: Are there options to create tools of your own? Q: Can we link to listservs? --other external tools? Q: After demo of video clip: Would we have to put video file on the WebCT server? [No --could link to it wherever it resides on Web.] Q: Can you track student use of files on your own server? Can you track use of links to other servers? Q: What kind of tools are available to students in creating their own pages? [same as faculty] What other tools are available to them? [glossary, notes, etc.] Q: What is training curve for students? Will student training be available? Q: When will Web development tool be available? [this summer-- for use by fall] Q: What is the cost? [free or very low] Comment: That is very important since small dept.s can't pay. Q: Can we do linking , branching, or ÒchainingÓ based on how student answers quiz? (--if student does well on a question, go to one Web location; if not, go elsewhere) Q: Can sequence be different for different groups of students? --create student groups; link to external site based on group? Q: Can I get a hook into each page? [apparently referring to tracking] Q: Statistical tracking: privacy issue? C: Self-assessment: Tests seem simplistic. Q: What about essay questions (recognize key phrases in text?) Faculty discussion: What they want C: I want students to be able to handle WebCT within 10 days (no class time spent learning it) Q: Can I direct email to different student groups? (contact Group 1 alone; send different message to Group 3; Òdynamically allocate group membersÓ?) C: We use HyperNews. Example: Separate discussion space for each class session [separate forum]. Three study groups and one conference. Q: What about students' being able to see how they are doing? Q: How do you post content? (WebCT does not have an HTML editor; you upload or type simple text) Q: What about using separate tools (like ShockWave)? Q: Can you switch things around; create a different environment? C: Commercial courseware programs are painful to learn to use. Q: Do students have the same set of tools? Q: Can we track access on our own server? count access to links? Q: If I were to upload web pages, could I insert WebCT quizzes and self-test questions into those independently created pages? Q: How many people use live quizzes? How do you proctor? [one method: specify a block of time that quiz is available] Q: Will students using dial-in access have long waits, be able to get in? Q: What about WAM account time limits? Q: Shouldn't campus be planning now for critical, high-priority student access to Web-based class materials? C: My class will always have textbooks so ISP costs will be an added cost, not a substitute cost. C: I am finding that students need to have familiar interfaces (ideally a single campus standard). Q: Does campus support Netscape's ÒComposerÓ? Has campus selected an html editor? Q: Will there be a special dispensation for distance ed classes? Q: How will we set up more than one class? Q: How many other tools has the committee evaluated? C: I like the quiz-tool feature and the ability to track hits. Q: How much storage will we allot to faculty? Is it better to link to files stored on other servers? Q: Could we have a Òvirtual reading roomÓ--link to a secure server elsewhere? Q: Will the university charge Continuing Ed. courses or courses aimed at industry? Example: cases in which an agency pays a flat fee and students do not individually pay registration to the university. [Note relationship of charging to site licensing] Q: What about students who have limited or low-level access (like Lynx)? C: A different concern is whether the university designs for the past or the future. We shouldn't prevent the university's using the latest technology for on-campus students. [Distance ed traditionally focuses on the lowest common denominator.] Q: What is the incremental cost of converting a traditional class to a Web-based class? [Answer: Òblood, sweat, tearsÓ] C: Regular faculty need hand-holding and individual training. C: WebCT could make this learning easier. C: Faculty need to plan these courses meticulously. --can start implementing in an incremental manner. --supplement what you do in your class. C: Features I would like: archive online chat; monitor student use of Web pages; archive classes from semester to semester. C: I like the ability to make a visual link to text and materials. Q: How would we work out arrangements with serving off-campus population? Example: Extension Service's serving farmer on Eastern Shore who wants to learn ÒXÓ (not part of university). [part of univ. educational mission those who are not currently registered students. --arrangement depends on site license] C: I like it that WebCT makes it possible to select only the features we want. Q: Can student projects Òstay aroundÓ? Q: Would a team of teachers be able to work concurrently on parts of a course? Would the shared Web development pages be transportable? -------------------- General statements from faculty during and after the sessions: * Must be easy or no one will use it. * Should have multiple packages available and supported for flexibility * Should have only one tool for consistency and support reasons * Disability issues should be addressed * Security and Stability concerns * Ability to break up a class into groups for messaging purposes * Statistics for grades * Internet connection concerns * Ability to link to other resources * Speed concerns * Monitor student activity * Ability to tailor content for individual students * Sign me up I'm ready to go. ----------------- Additional faculty feedback, my notes from one-on-one conversations (these folks sought me out): IMPORTANT FEATURES: Grading-- the ability to manage total student grades on a secure server. Ability to set access rights for graders, and to adjust these rights, so that graders could be granted full access to instructors materials, or partial access. Ease of use, especially after the initial learning curve. After having gotten comfortable with the tool, faculty want easy importing of files, few steps, no translation problems; they don't want to have to re-type anything. Once trained and comfortable with the tool, courses shouldn't take any longer to prepare than well-planned non-digital courses. Ease of use for students -- student interface should require no training beyond intitial "introduction to the syllabus," should be quick & simple. (Weird side-note: these faculty actually *are* interested in the quizzing, which seems to be different from some of the other comments we've received!) Have a good week, all. ------------------- Hi, First, let me thank the committee for providing us with a the session yesterday and the feedback forum. Ive been reflecting on the questions you put to us and have some further thoughts to offer. What I have focused on at this point is that I am sure most of the ideas we provided yesterday are ones the committee already appreciates. So what did I miss or not see at that time? Here goes... 1. The model we examined is perfectly appropriate for what can be reasonably expected at this point. I do not know the other types that are out there. Strange that I have not looked. That may be because of my experience with much educational and utility software developed without utilizing the range of possible pedagogical strategies. In any event, I am impatient with myself for being uninformed. None the less, the model is one that I would use for many purposes. Other faculty just starting to design such course material will find it very helpful. One of the strongest points of this model is that it reveals possibilities which most faculty will use as stepping stones to more creative course designs. Coupled with training, continued support and good access to a range of virtual resources faculty will use the model. Although there seems to be considerable resistance by some faculty to get into such course design, I think there are ways to help them. Using the their established modes of change for University Faculty,( individual competitive productivity and respected peer resources) seems to be the way to go. Of course rewards always help. I do not think time is really the factor. 2. It might be helpful to design a nest of training experiences related to the model. I use the figurative term nest purposefully. Using the characteristic analogies of a nest with its purpose, varied participants and their roles, construction, use, content and limitation caused by environmental hazards, etc. , a training design focused on the model would probably result in considerable faculty utilization. ( I am not suggesting that one would ever use the term nest with faculty) The only thing about my analogy that does not work is constant growth and change in technology. (Do birds design better nests?) 3. While technology is sometimes the limiting factor, it is more the case that the developers are either uninformed or indeed see pedagogy in a very limited way and in turn do not know learning possibilities. An example in the model we examined yesterday is the quiz feature. It seems to be assumed that a course will have a quiz. That assumption leads developers in one direction. The fact that all kinds of assessment possibilities and data collection are missing suggests to me that either the bottom line is too much of a motivator or that developers are just not informed. As an aside may I say that I am painfully aware that my associates(including me) in the field of education are a big part of then problem. Those who know best about pedagogy and learning seem not to bring their expertise to software development as we would expect. I must say that The College of Education on this campus in partnership with other campus units is unforntunately missing a great opportunity to develop a program for educational and utility software and web utilization specialists. It could be that integrated software cant be all things for us. However, the inter-relatedness of the web suggests that perhaps there is a dynamic virtual model out there someplace. That is, inter-relationships in the model itself only not self contained. In some ways I am thinking about the possibilities we find in a program such as Power Point where one can have much already worked out to the possibilities of a blank template. The only difference would be that the program would be dynamic and not contained in software, but rather a web site. Thats it for now. Thanks again for inviting me. I'd appreciate any hints you can send my way about other models and who designs them ----------------------- What other comments/questions/suggestions would you like to provide to the committee? -- Something is becoming more and more apparent as many of us....yes, many of us...continue to rehost our courses on the WWW. We do not need expensive multimedia firms or expensive courseware shells to put our courses on the WWW. In fact, such courseware shells (and I will not name them here, lest I get in trouble) will probably soon prove to be a big mistake. Universities and colleges should spawn many hybrid approaches and allow the faculty to take the lead in the development of their courses. As time goes on, more and more inexpensive resources, tools, and materials are appearing. This can be seen in my statistics course. I am using an on-line text by a professor at Rice University, my own lecture notes in html and the hypercourseware wanna-be-shell, and running off of a WebStar server in my office. -- It is important to choose a product that other institutions are using as we become more collabortive with peer institutions. -- The problem is that universities are being persuaded to invest in the extensive development of one course rather than in the development of many faculty. If this continues, we will have a model in which universities become educational industries. One course fits all. Faculty will no longer develop their own courses and unique perspectives but rather they will be "facilitators" of "turn-key" course materials. Much of this is profit oriented. Faculty and administrators are looking to old as well as new markets (e.g., continuing education, certificate courses) for revenue. Higher education goes capitalistic! And I thought that our mission was one to serve society rather than to exploit it! But I believe that the attempts at centralization and capitalization of education will fail. Industry projections of profits will prove wrong. In a short time faculty, market forces, and competition will take the wind out of the sails of investment in courseware. Faculty and students will demand academic freedom, diversity, and decentralization. The Internet will spawn a new breed of itinerant teachers who love to teach and students who love to learn. The Internet will allow an inexpensive Web server on every teacher's desk and authorware will allow simple generation and hosting of course materials. I look forward to a freer, less expensive environment for teaching in the future. -- One aspect of a non-synchronous "chat" would be the ability to remove a student file- faculty in my department have run into problems with abusive messages on listservers but didn't want to take the time to monitor the inputs to the group. Web CT looks a lot more intuitive than the topclass version I have seen ------------------- General statements from faculty during and after the sessions: * Must be easy or no one will use it. * Should have multiple packages available and supported for flexibility * Should have only one tool for consistency and support reasons * Disability issues should be addressed * Security and Stability concerns * Ability to break up a class into groups for messaging purposes * Statistics for grades * Internet connection concerns * Ability to link to other resources * Speed concerns * Monitor student activity * Ability to tailor content for individual students * Sign me up I'm ready to go. --------------------