Distance Learning: Contextual Issues

Cheryl M. Miller, RN BC MSN

University of Phoenix

Objectives:

At the completion of this course the new facilitator or instructional designer will be able to: Apply the AT A DISTANCE instructional design

framework in creating courses Verbalize the importance of evaluation in

instructional design Verbalize the importance of maintaining academic

integrity in distance learning opportunities.

Goals of Distance Learning-Student Success Roadmap Instructor is #1 Instructors Need Training Course Objectives Meaningful Killer Presentation Learn by Seeing and Doing Real World Applications Put Students through Paces Promote Communication

(Drummond, 2008)

Instructional Design/ Development Instructional Design must be different for distance

education learning opportunities. Challenges arise in distance education involving technology, length of course, learner characteristics, and synchronous vs. asynchronous environments.

Distance Education focuses on Learner-Centered Pedagogy

Distance learning is not just loading the lecture from the traditional classroom for students to read for themselves.

AT A DISTANCE AT A DISTANCE combines components of ADDIE, ARCS, and is an

Instructional Design framework for distance education.

Systematic planning and implementation of distance learning requires a team.

The team should include content expert, instructional designer, technology designer and/or expert, and others with a vested interest in transforming learning.

Use of scaffolding into modules and units.

Analysis

Important for engagement. Learner characteristics Special consideration for classroom without

boundaries (age, experience, geographic location). Prior knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes Instructional analysis Scaffolding Where will information learned be implemented? Learning engagement and transfer Learning policies of the organization

Technologies

Knowing what technologies can do. What tools are available? How do I use the technology available in the

learning environment? Which method or media will best meet the needs of

learning outcomes? Align the tool with the material, objectives, and

instructor.

Affective Domain (Keller’s ARCS)

Role is to engage and empowering learners.

Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

Design/Develop

Design overarching plan/blueprint Build modules Repurpose some material More suitable formats for student understanding

Implement

Sample instruction created Not intended to be the full product. Revision from experts feedback Multiple tries until perfection Performance objectives

Sample – Try Out- Adjustments

This stage identifies a functional draft, prototype, or deliverable to be tested in a realistic setting.

Small-scale testing, feedback from students, revisions

Try Out, Adjustment, Sample, Try Out, Adjustment, Sample until ready for roll out.

Negative Consequences

Performance Improvement Process Is learning a punishment? Tool testing Frustrations for learners Hopefully, short stage should have been found out

in Try Out stage. Time Zone differences, language differences,

network connectivity issues

Completion

Functional, engaging product developed for roll out All modules are put together to be rolled out at this

stage Syllabus formation, roll out Update all reference texts, links, seek new additions

Evaluation/Endorse

Evaluation data is collected. Levels of evaluation. Different ways of evaluating? Develop 4 ways to

evaluate so that the facilitator can use and re-use material without redesigning each time.

Revisions made. Feedback from students, content experts, designers

important for 360 view All outcomes/objectives addressed Instruction is ready for endorsement

Evaluation in Distance Learning

When one hears evaluation in distance learning they might think:

Evaluation of the student’s learning Evaluation of the facilitator Evaluation of the actual course

We will review today the evaluation of the student’s learning and how to evaluate learning in the distance learning setting.

Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels of Evaluation

Level One Reaction/Satisfaction

Level Two Learning

Level Three Behavior

Level Four Results

Evaluations Possible in Distance Learning Quizzes Papers Journal Entries Second Life Simulations Portfolio Development Learning Team Projects Real Life Case Scenarios Power Point Presentations

Evaluation and Academic Integrity

Evaluation levels affect the academic integrity of the course. Evaluations should be meaningful, apply to the work

environment, and engage the learners. Evaluations can occur with collaboration, teamwork, and

communication are essential parts of the assignment completion to help facilitate these skills in the work force.

Evaluations can be formative or informal. Over the course of the education or in the beginning,

middle, and end of the course. What is the reason for the evaluation? Should be to verify

the obtaining of performance objectives and document growth in learning.

Academic Integrity Evaluations should also allow for academic integrity

to be maintained. If the course doesn’t change up evaluation types

from time to time, academic dishonesty can be achieved.

Evaluations should engage learners, empower them to use skills and attitudes obtained in the course in a meaningful way.

Evaluations can be varied so that evaluation offers personal choice to the learner, allowing the student to use different learning methods such as verbal, kinesthetic, artistic, and reading assessments. Choice over assessment type allows for engagement, empowerment, and taking personal responsibility for life long learning.

Allowing for a choice over assessment type allows for engagement, empowerment, and taking personal responsibility for life long learning.

There is a link between academic dishonesty and professional dishonesty.

Conclusions:

Distance learning is a different learning environment.

Instructional Designers need to use unconventional frameworks for designing curriculum for the DL environment.

AT A DISTANCE Framework

Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels of Evaluation

The role of evaluation in maintaining academic integrity.

References:Bailey, W. C., & Bailey, S. (2011). Do online and lecture students view cheating differently? Review of Business Research, 11(5), 33-45.

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/217795397?accountid=458

Drummond, G. (2008). Success in online education: Creating a roadmap for student success. Distance Learning, 5(4), 43- 48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230715482?accountid=458

Evans, A. D., & Lockee, B. B. (2008). AT A DISTANCE: An instructional design framework for distance education. Distance Learning, 5(3), 11-16. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230741268?accountid=458

Galloway, D. L. (2005). Evaluating distance delivery and E-learning: Is Kirkpatrick's model relevant? Performance Improvement, 44(4), 21-27. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/237243937?accountid=458

Guzic, B., McIlhenny, C. V., Knee, D., LeMoine, J. K., Wendekier, C. M., & Demuth, B. R. (2012). Distance learning and clinical simulation in senior baccalaureate nursing education. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 2012(8), e459-e467. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2011.04.005

Harper, M. G. (2006). High tech cheating. «Nurse Education in Practice, 6(6), 364-371. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2006.07.008

Moscato, D. R., & Moscato, E. D. (2009). A case study in implementing second life in a graduate distance learning E-commerce class. Communications of the IIMA, 9(1), 91-98. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/859005755?accountid=458

Okomkwo, C. (2010). Sustainable assessment and evaluation strategies for open and distance learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 11(4), 121-129.

Ricci, F. A. (2013). Encouraging critical thinking in distance learning: Ensuring challenging intellectual programs. Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1372097094?accountid=458

Small, R. V., Arnone, M. P., Stripling, B. K., Hill, R. F., & Bennett, B. (2012). The three C's of distance education: Competence, creativity and community. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(2), 61-72. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151085811?accountid=458

Styron, J., & Styron,R. (2010). Student cheating and alternative web-based assessment. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(5), 37-42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218892592?accountid=458

Yardley, S., & Dornan, T. (2012). Kirkpatrick's levels and education 'evidence'. Medical Education, 46(1), 97-106. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2923.2011.04076.x