Desire2Blog

MnSCU Online Course Definitions - Part One

Apparently we've had a communication problem within Minnesota Online. We're a couple 13, 14 years (copyright the Common Man, Dan Cole) into this thing called online learning, and now we are being told that we need to be much more specific about what we mean when we say that we are offering online courses, and also hybrid and traditional face-to-face courses for that matter as well.

The big question right now appears to be: "Just what exactly is an online course?"

Along with that question, you also get to decide what is an on-ground class and what is a hybrid/blended course. Let the fun begin.

This will be the first post of 2 or 3 in which I will try to explain my position regarding the proposed changes to the ways that we define the delivery method of various types of courses. In MnSCU, we attach something known as a media code to every class that is entered into the student records/registration system. I have previously posted about some of the confusion that surrounds the media codes, but I need to take a different angle with this post. This first post will only look at what is a traditional classroom course - and what isn't. Online and blended courses are coming soon.

Currently, media code 00 is used for the traditional classroom or face-to-face learning arrangement. The following are some of the typical components of this delivery method:

1. The course meets in a traditional classroom (or facsimile thereof) on our campus or in another college facility.
2. The course typically meets on a regular schedule such as Mon-Wed-Fri mornings from 10 to 11; although it is possible to have a one-day course or any other date/time schedule that is conducive to a successful course.
3. There is no reduced seat time as measured by the traditional method of 1 classroom hour (50 minutes, of course) per week for the typical semester of 15-16 weeks. For example, a 3-credit course would typically meet for 48 (50 minute) hours during the semester, or the equivalent.

That all seems rather basic and shouldn't be controversial. However, the proposal would call for one more requirement:

4. "All instruction is delivered face-to-face in a classroom setting."

In other words, media code 00 (traditional F2F or "on-ground" instruction) CANNOT use the IMS or even use the Internet in any basic sense. AND APPARENTLY THAT'S OKAY!!

If a faculty member wants to use any kind of Internet resource then we will need to use a separate code for that. Media Code 10 (classroom-based with web facilitation) includes the following features:

1. The course meets in a traditional classroom (or facsimile thereof) on our campus or in another college facility.
2. The course typically meets on a regular schedule throughout the term and DOES NOT have reduced seat time.
3. "May use the Internet"
4. "May use the IMS (currently D2L)"

Apparently, an instructor's decision to include Internet resources into a course requires a completely different coding in the course registration system. When I asked about this, I was told that they WEREN'T going to specify that the Internet CANNOT be used in a face-to-face (code 01) course, but that is how the end result appears to me.

This bothers me on several levels - but I'll only mention three at this time:

1. This appears to restrict an instructor's ability to add new content on the fly if the mood so strikes her. "Gee class, I just found a great new resource on the Internet, but we can't use it in this class because this is a 'NO INTERNET' class."
2. Coding every class this way will be a nightmare. Just trying to get the information about each class about whether it uses the Internet or not will be quite a chore, not to mention the need to explain why you're asking for this information in the first place without sounding like an idiot.
3. It also bothers me that on some level we are making the use of the Internet to be some sort of a special thing - at least that's the way it looks to me. If we are doing that, why don't we also do some of the following? A) indicate which classes are mostly lecture and which are not, B) indicate which classes require students to engage in active learning and which don't, C) indicate which faculty members take most of their test questions from the textbook and which take most from their lectures or other resources, D) which classes use PowerPoint all the time and which don't, E) and what about clickers - shouldn't those be specified too? Etc, etc., etc.

Blackborg Rides Again

Blackboard went on another buying spree today. Just a few random thoughts.

If Blackboard had purchased either Wimba or Elluminate, they could have spun it as a strategic business decision. By purchasing both of them, the only possible explanation is that it is another example of squelching innovation and limiting competition.
In Ray Henderson's blog post, he refers to both companies as "former rivals." Although it's true that Blackborg has some sort of a lame virtual classroom, synchronous tool (I believe they call it the Bb POS), very few people who work in educational technology would have seen Wimba as a rival of Blackboard. Or Elluminate. Hell, we barely see D2L or Moodle as rivals of Blackboard.
Maybe when you are the most hated company in the education sandbox, everyone seems like a rival to you.
Ray also says "We hear consistently from our clients that their online infrastructure and offerings have grown from important to mission critical." Apparently they stop listening when those clients follow that up with "However, the last thing we want is to have total vendor lock-in where we are completely dependent upon you and at your mercy (of which you have none)."
My favorite tweet of the day went something like this: "Blackboard Collaborate sounds so much nicer than Blackboard Conglomerate, Blackboard Cartel, or Blackboard Cabal"
It seems to me that buying Wimba would have been sufficient since it is more fully developed than Elluminate. However, by purchasing Elluminate they have effectively upset the partnership arrangements that Elluminate has with Desire2Learn eCollege, RemoteLearner (Moodle), and Unicon (Sakai). If you believe that Blackboard will really continue to "sustain this work and the partnerships," then you just haven't been paying attention.

To all the Bb lovers out there (you know who you are), I have one question:

Will you still be Blackboard lovers when they purchase Apollo (UofPhx), Kaplan, Capella, and others to complete their vertical integration into the education space?

Custom Home Pages in D2L

I recently gave a short presentation about using custom home pages for courses taught using Desire2Learn. This is a 6-minute Slidecast (via Slideshare) that includes audio. Click the arrow to start the audio.

D2L Custom Homepages by Barry Dahl

View more webinars from Barry Dahl.

Do you know what web pages are "framebusters" if you try to embed them into the D2L course home page? Check out slide 5.
Do you know where you can easily make custom widgets for your course home page? Check out slide 9.
Please share in the comments if you do something different and useful on your course home page.

D2L Intelligent Agents

My first look at Intelligent Agents in Desire2Learn.

Having spent some time working on a Data Analytics project for MnSCU that would have served as an early alert system for online students not making good progress, I've been curious to see how deep the functionality runs in the D2L Intelligent Agents (IA) tool. The short answer is that there's some basic functionality there that might prove beneficial to some users, but the tool falls short of being a full featured Army soldier (you know, Be All That You Can Be!). (CC-by Flickr photo by Sarah G...)

I've recorded a narrated slide show that will illustrate the basics. In the slides you'll see: (a) where to access the IA tool, (b) how to create a new agent, (c) how to write a customized (sort of) email to be triggered by the agent, (d) how to schedule (or not) the agent to run when you want it to, (e) what happens when the agent is run, (f) and some pros and cons about the IA tool.

Click the green triangle Play button at the bottom of the frame to listen to the narration for the slides (or not). For better views of the screen shots, click the Full Screen icon in the lower right corner.

D2L Intelligent Agents

(View more webinars from Barry Dahl.)

Basically, there are a few good things in this tool. You can receive notifications (and/or also send them to students via their D2L email address) for the lack of login activity for a specified number of days. You can also receive notifications when a student has performed poorly (or performed well, if you prefer) on a particular assessment that they have completed.

There are several shortcomings that I feel need to be pointed out. The IA tool could be very useful if these things are added in the near future:

1- The login agent only works at the system login level, not at the course access level. However, faculty will mainly want to know who isnt accessing their specific course, which is where the agent was created in the first place, so this is only logical. With version 9, D2L added information to the User Progress tool to indicate the last time the student accessed the course homepage. Now they absolutely need to make this information available for the IA tool. Slide 14 specifically addresses this concern.

2- Currently the release conditions for an agent require an action on the part of the student, such as you took a quiz and got a high or low score, etc. However, it is usually more valuable for the faculty to know (and for students to get an email) when they are not doing something didnt take the quiz, havent posted to discussion forums, etc.

3- There isn't a way to create an agent that looks at overall user progress based on the overall grade book score, such as "you have only received 50% or less of the points available so far in this course, and your immediate attention is needed." The agent needs to be available to run on an overall view of user progress rather than just on one or more individual items in the course.

I contacted D2L about a future road map for the development of the IA tool. I received a reply from Matt T. He said, "I dont have any details on specific time lines to address any of these or an overall road map for the tool, but I agree all three would be great additions."

My first grade for the IA tool is a solid C (I was always a tough grader, just ask my accounting students from back in the day). It is a step in the right direction, and has really great potential moving forward, BUT, it does need to move forward with additional enhancements to really meet expectations.

Now Hiring - Fabulous Salaries

Don't let all the news about budget cuts and layoffs scare you away. Here at Lake Superior College we are hiring adjunct faculty for as much as $545,000 annually. Here's the catch. You won't earn all that because it is only a part-time job (so you might earn 1/2 of the $545K if you teach half-time) and it clearly states that there are no benefits included with this position. (Click to view enlarged photo)

A hat tip to @bergjj for the heads up on this one.

5 Reasons Microsoft Won't Buy Blackboard

Inside Higher Ed's BlogU recently posted the following article: 5 Reasons Microsoft Will Buy Blackboard. While reading the story I couldn't help but think how different the article might have been if I'd written it. A little something like this ...

The top 5 reasons why we WON'T see Microsoft buying Blackboard by the end of 2010:

1. Because they suck! (they = Bb of course)
2. Because Microsoft is trying harder not to suck so much.
3. Because buying Blackboard would only prove that Microsoft is more evil rather than less.
4. Because most of the people in the education space (including lots of Blackboard users) think that Blackborg is a terrible partner for education. Not exactly the best way for Microsoft to become more relevant in the education sector.
5. Because they suck!

Please let me know if I've missed anything.

MnSCU Online Course Definitions - Part Three

Part one looked at the proposed changes to definitions of on-ground courses. Part two looks at the state of affairs regarding blended/hybrid courses in MnSCU. Part three will now parse some of the information related to the new proposals to further define what is and what isn't an online course.

The main reason for this effort appears to be a response to complaints/feedback indicating that students find information in the course registration system to be confusing regarding the

delivery method that they should expect when they sign up for a class. Therefore, MnSCU is attempting to create additional class codes so that students will have better advance notice as to whether the course will use the Internet in any way, whether they will have any required seat time, and even what types of online activities they should expect to engage in. That might not sound too bad on the surface, but the devil is in the details - as usual. (synchronized swimming photo (CC) courtesy by Eric Bgin)

Currently, MnSCU/MnOnline defines an online course something like this:

All courses where the delivery method is entirely or predominately online, are to be setup with the media code set to 03 Internet Delivered Course.
Predominately = where all, or nearly all, course activity occurs in an online environment. One to two activities may occur face-to-face in a classroom, with the maximum being two activities.

Therefore, online courses in MnSCU have traditionally allowed up to two classroom sessions to be scheduled. Obviously this can be a significant issue for true distance students who are unable to come to a campus for the one or two required sessions. Many schools, such as my own, have strongly discouraged these types of required classroom sessions since it severely decreases the attractiveness of the courses to distance students.

IMO, the real confusion in the current set of definitions comes in the area of test proctoring. (No surprise, but I have previously posted about test proctoring in MnSCU here and also here.) At LSC, we have always treated proctored exams as fitting the definition of the "one or two activities that may occur face-to-face." In other words, we treated it more as a maximum of two times that you can require a distance student to have a specific time-and-place requirement. That might be a classroom activity, but it also might be the requirement of finding an acceptable proctor in the area where you live.

In the past we had one or two faculty members who assigned more than two proctored exams. After working with those faculty members, we were able to reduce the number of proctored requirements by changing assessment methods and consolidating small quizzes and tests into more significant exams (like a mid-term and final) that would still be proctored. Our goal was not to eliminate proctoring, but to reduce the angst that is caused on many different fronts by having a large number of proctored requirements.

So, let's get to the proposed changes. There are three proposed categories:

1. Online - Completely Online
2. Online - Completely Online with "synchronous" components
3. Online - Predominantly Online

Category #1 "Completely Online" has the following features:

All instruction is delivered online
No face-to-face meetings
No proctored exams
May not have required synchronous class meetings

Category #2 "Completely Online with synchronous requirements" has the following features:

All instruction is delivered online
No face-to-face meetings
No proctored exams
Has required synchronous online meetings or activities

Category #3 "Predominantly Online" has the following features:

Nearly all course activity occurs in the online environment
One or two activities may occur face-to-face in a classroom, with the maximum being two activities
No more than two face to face meetings -- as a cohort in the same physical location
May have proctored exams
May have synchronous components
NOTE: this is very similar to the current MnSCU definition of online

This brings several questions to mind:

1. Why do we want to allow an unlimited number of required proctored assessments as we have in the current definition and one of the proposed definitions? Isn't this absurd? At LSC we had the pleasure of providing proctoring services for one students from another MnSCU school for more than 20 different quizzes - FOR ONE COURSE!! Indeed, this is absurd.
2. What exactly do we mean when we say that there are "required" synchronous components? Does that mean that if you don't do them that you will fail the course, or does it mean you will miss out on a few of the available points? Big difference. Students often blow off a requirement that doesn't keep them from achieving their goals. What if the synchronous work comprises 5% of the total grade in a course? What if it comprises 75% of the total grade? Aren't those very different - and how will the students know in advance which one is the case for the courses they just signed up for? Oh yeah, they won't.
3. Will students understand what the heck we mean when we say "synchronous components?" Aren't we just creating a much more confusing situation rather than less?
4. Will students want to know which synchronous components will be used? Maybe they're totally down with using a web conferencing solution, but totally against using UStream or Skype. Should we care whether they object to one technology or another? Is that their choice to make?
5. Is a "synchronous group meeting" the same thing as a synchronous class meeting? If three students need to get together online at the same time in order to successfully complete their group project, is that a "required" synchronous meeting, or was it optional since they could have chosen to fail instead, or could have done a lousy job, or could have let one person do all the work?
6. Due to completely normal course scheduling issues, it won't always be possible to know months in advance whether a faculty member will require proctored exams or synchronous components. Many time we don't even know for certain who will be teaching a class until after it is already full of registered students. Perfect example would be late in the registration window when we end up canceling a class for a tenured faculty member and then re-assign a fully registered class to that person to keep them at a full teaching load (this happens all the time, BTW). Is the newly assigned faculty member required to live up to the proctoring/synchronous plan that the previous instructor had laid out, or are they free to change it even though 30 students signed up expecting no proctored exams (or whatever)?
7. Isn't the course registration coding a perfectly ridiculous place to try to tell students about all the nuances of how a course will be "delivered" to them? Students signing up for online courses will be confused by all the extra flags and codes - if they read them at all. Our system-wide course registration system is a highly inflexible beast - with very little chance to provide clarifying information. I can't see this working well in any way, shape, or form.
8. Determining the proper coding for thousands of courses is going to be a nightmare on campuses. The amount of information needed from each instructor will expand exponentially. The opportunities for coding errors or misunderstandings will also skyrocket. I can see it now: Student: "Hey, I signed up for a fully online course and now they say that I need to be connected every Tuesday night at 7 PM. What gives?" School official: "I'm very sorry, but I think our faculty member was confused about the difference between synchronous and asynchronous communications. Sorry about that."
9. This one is a big one for me - how do these new guidelines position us for the future uses of web technologies? IMO, it positions us perfectly for dealing with the online world in about 2002. The whole distinction between synchronous and asynchronous is becoming more and more blurred. Although a traditional LMS discussion board is pretty clearly asynchronous and a Skype Internet phone call is pretty clearly synchronous - most of the newer technologies fall somewhere in the middle and are not easily classified. Is Google Wave a synchronous tool or asynchronous? It's both, of course. What about a webinar using WebEx or DimDim or something similar? Since they can easily be recorded and archived, they are both also. Is the D2L pager synchronous or asynchronous? Both, of course. And on and on and on.
10. Is this a solution in search of a problem? Sure feels like it. Or, alternately stated, I believe this will create an even bigger problem than whatever problem has been currently identified.

That's enough for one post. I guess there will be a part four as I attempt to clarify what I think should be done with this mess. Coming soon.