(FromWeb-Wise Learning: Wisdom From The Field, edited by B. Giebert & S. Hunter-Harvey, pp. 83-112,
Xlibris Press, 2003.)
Going Global with Online Graduate Distance Education
Mark Bullen, Ph.D.
Editors’ notes:
The Internet has made it possible for universities and businesses to form collaborative
partnerships in ways that were never before possible. It has also created the opportunity for
learners to access instructional resouces that may be offered by institutions that are thousands of
miles from their place of residence.
This contributor describes an international collaborative online program that attracts
students from around the world. He describes a project management model and how a systems
approach to curriculum development was utilized. Considerations made regarding the selection
of off-the-shelf products or a custom design are discussed.
The writer describes various methods of grouping students, and for accommodating
multiple instructors in a single course. He also identifies the need to combine theoretical and
practical concepts to meet the needs of a diverse community of learners. Finally, considerations
for enhancing learner motivation and participation in forums are presented.
Abstract
This chapter describes the development of an international online Post Graduate
Certificate in Technology-based Distributed Learning. This was a collaborative venture between
the University of British Columbia and the Virtual University of the Monterrey Technical
Institute (ITESM) in Mexico. Since the program’s inception, there have been over 800 UBC
course enrollments and 1500 enrollments from ITESM. Over 400 UBC students enrolled in the
program and 48 have been awarded certificates after completing the five courses in the program.
In 2002 the Certificate became part of a new joint UBC-ITESM online Master of Educational
Technology..
Introduction
In the last five years, distance education has moved from the margins of post secondary
education to the center. Thanks largely to the huge growth and interest in online delivery of
education, we have seen the convergence of technology-based learning with distance education
approaches which has given rise to distributed learning. A distributed learning environment has
been defined as:
A learner-centered approach to education, which integrates a number of
technologies to enable opportunities for activities and interaction in both
asynchronous and real-time modes. The model is based on blending a choice of
appropriate technologies with aspects of campus-based delivery, open learning
systems and distance education. The approach gives instructors the flexibility to
customize learning environments to meet the needs of diverse student
populations, while providing both high quality and cost-effective learning
(University of North Carolina, 1995).
Post-secondary institutions around the world are now facing an increasing demand for
technology-based distributed learning because of the the changing nature of work and the trend
to lifelong learning. Accessible educational programs for diverse groups of working
professionals in a variety of specialized fields need to be developed rapidly, yet few traditional
institutions are equipped to meet the organizational, financial and training challenges that come
with the transition to technology-based learning (Bates, 2000; Rowley, Lujan & Dolence, 1998).
The need for training and professional development in this field contributed to the
development of the “Post Graduate Certificate in Technology-based Distributed Learning” by the
University of British Columbia (UBC) and the Virtual University of the Monterrey Technical
Institute in Mexico (ITESM). The online certificate program was developed to teach educators
how to design, develop, and deliver technology-based distributed learning, and how to plan and
manage technology-based distributed learning at departmental, institutional and statewide levels.
Analysis and Assessment of the Project
The Challenge
The challenge we faced was to develop an online program in technology-based
distributed learning that would meet the diverse needs of learners around the world. Specifically,
the program had to achieve five key goals:
1. To fit into an already established Master’s program at the Virtual University of the
Monterrey Technical Institute (ITESM) in Mexico.
2. To be acceptable for graduate credit at the University of British Columbia.
3. To be acceptable for Certificate credit for students who may not meet the graduate
admission requirements of the University of British Columbia.
4. To be designed in such a way that all three groups of students could work together in
one online environment.
5. To be technologically accessible to students around the world with varying levels of
technology access and technological skills. (Bates & Escamilla de los Santos, 1997)
The Rationale
The development of this program stemmed from a strategic alliance formed between
UBC and ITESM. The driving force behind the agreement to develop the five course certificate
in Technology-based Distributed Learning was that ITESM was ready to make the transition
from a remote classroom model of distance education in which lectures were delivered by
satellite video, to a networked learning model of online delivery that was more learner-centered.
ITESM had recently finished developing a new vision statement and redefined its philosophy of
education to include principles of collaborative learning, development of critical thinking, and a
learner-centered approach.
Deciding to use WBI
The World Wide Web as the core delivery technology for this program was chosen
because:
1. The program was about technology-based distributed learning, so it made sense to use one of
the key technologies that was being discussed in the program.
2. We needed to be able to reach a worldwide audience in a cost-effective and timely manner.
3. Our target audience consisted primarly of working professionals who needed the time and
place flexibility that asynchronous Web-based instruction offered.
4. Web-based instruction facilitated the kind of reflection, collaboration and critical thinking
that are key goals of this program (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001;Harasim et al., 1997;
Hiltz, 1997).
5. The program could use online resources available through the Internet. To deliver this
program in any other way would have been an example of not practicing what we preached
and would have limited access for the global audience.
The Design and Planning Process
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the program was to equip educators with the skills and knowledge to
effectively develop, design, deliver and manage technology-based distributed learning. More
specifically, upon completion of the program learners will be able to:
1. Design, develop and deliver high quality technology-based distributed learning in
ways that reflect a variety of different approaches to teaching and learning.
2. Select and use technologies on the basis of their differing educational and operational
characteristics.
3. Accurately cost and budget technology-based courses.
4. Effectively plan and manage technology-based courses so that they are produced on
time, to high standards, and within budget.
5. Critically evaluate research in technology-based distributed learning.
6. Understand the broader social issues related to the use of technology-based learning.
7. Learn to network and collaborate online with other professionals from around the
world who are working in similar or contrasting contexts.
8. Through personal experience, develop an understanding of what it means to be a
technology-dependent learner, and the critical factors necessary for success.
The Program Structure
The five courses in the program were:
1. Designing, Developing and Delivering Technology-based Distributed Learning
This course introduces learners to the concepts of distributed learning and distance
education, explores the theoretical background, presents three approaches to
delivering distance education and discusses the design, development and delivery
issues with each approach.
2. Selecting and Using Technology for Distributed Learning
In this course, three approaches to selecting technologies for distributed learning are
presented. The main theme of the course is that selecting technologies should be done
on a rational basis, taking into consideration a number of pedagogical, institutional
and administrative factors. There is no "magic formula," and the final choice should
be based on sound principles.
3. Planning and Management of Technology-based Distributed Learning
This course is aimed at managers and administrators in postsecondary institutions. It
focuses on the issues related to effective planning and management of technologybased distributed learning at the project, institutional, and state or system level. The
main theme is that technology must be integrated into the teaching plans of
institutions if it is to be effective in terms of cost and learning outcomes. Simply
adding technology to an existing organizational infrastructure will add costs, and will
likely have marginal impact on learning outcomes.
4. Social Issues in Technology-based Distributed Learning
This course takes a critical look at the use of technology-based distributed learning
and its social impact. Issues such as the de-skilling of the teaching process, the
commodification of education, the increasing influence of business on education, and
the growing involvement of business in the delivery of online learning are discussed.
5. Research and Evaluation Issues in Technology-based Distributed Learning
In the final course in the program, the current research on technology-based
distributed learning is examined. The purpose of this course is to help participants to
become critical consumers of research so that they will be able to assess its quality
and relevance to their professional contexts.
Full course descriptions are available from the program Web site at
<http://itesm.cstudies.ubc.ca/info>.
Program Structure
To maximize access and flexibility, we rejected a cohort model for the program. While
there was a recommended sequence through out the program, students could start with any
course, and could earn the certificate by completing the five courses in any order. Although our
recommended sequence was the order presented above, this sequence was not mandatory.
The courses could be taken for UBC certificate credit, for credit as electives in UBC
graduate programs, and as core courses in several ITESM graduate programs. All five courses
were core courses in the ITESM Master's in Educational Technology. Four of the courses are
part of the their Master's in Management of Educational Technology, four werepart of their
Ph.D. in Education, and one was available in their Master's in Education. Students could also
take the courses on an audit basis. Regardless of their status, all credit students in the program
followed the same curriculum and assessment procedures.
The Development and Design Process
To properly understand the planning and design process that was followed to develop this
program, it helps to know something of the institutional context involved. The program was
developed at the University of British Columbia (UBC) by the Distance Education and
Technology (DE&T) division of Continuing Studies. UBC is a traditional university with an
enrollment of approximately 30,000 full and part-time students. It is the oldest and largest of the
six public universities in British Columbia, Canada. Despite its rather traditional and
conservative nature, UBC has a long history of involvement in distance education. UBC offered
its first correspondence courses in 1949 and, although the organizational structure has changed
over the years, it has had a small but active distance education division since then.
The current Distance Education & Technology division is part of the larger Continuing
Studies unit at UBC. DE&T has a staff of 30 who are responsible for designing, developing,
delivering, and providing technical support for a variety of distance education and distributed
learning programs. Course development at DE&T is handled by six course developers who are
responsible for instructional design and project management. In addition, there are also three
Web programmers, , and a marketing manager.
Courses and programs are developed by DE&T using a project management model. A
typical project team consists of a course author or content expert, project manager, instructional
designer, and a Web programmer. Depending on the needs of the project, a graphic designer,
multimedia producer, and an interface designer may be added to the team. The course developer
assumes the role of project manager and also provides instructional design support to the course
author/content expert. The course author is usually a UBC faculty member.
Course development follows a five-phase process which is a modification of a typical
systematic approach to instructional design along the lines of the Dick & Carey (1996) model, or
similar models developed by Braden (1996), and Hackbarth (1997). The process begins with the
development of a "course blueprint" which specifies broad course goals and learning objectives,
and includes a detailed specfication of the course content and learning objectives for each unit or
lesson. At this stage, preliminary choices regarding technology use are made which are subject to
modification later in the course development process.
Criteria for technology selection come from the ACTIONS model developed by Bates
(1995). Once the blueprint is developed and approved by the academic reviewer, course
development moves into the second phase in which the course content is fully developed by the
course author, and the learning environment is designed with the assistance of the instructional
designer. At the end of this second phase, technical production begins. Revisions to content are
made in the third phase. The fourth phase is when the course is delivered, and in the fifth phase,
revisions are made after the first offering of the course, based on feedback from students,
instructors and other members of the course team. The key elements of the course development
process are the use of a team of experts, and the provision of project management, instructional
design and technical assistance by the DE&T team.
The design and planning process used to develop the “Certificate in Technology-based
Distributed Learning” was somewhat different in that, unlike other course development projects,
DE&T staff were acting as both instructional designers and content experts/course authors. In
addition, the project management was handled by a member of the DE&T course team.
Therefore, all aspects of this program were handled by DE&T staff, and for the first time,
instructional design and content expertise were handled by the same person.
The impact of this combination of roles on the development process was interesting.
Many of the steps and procedures that are followed in regular course development were only
adhered to implicitly in developing the courses in this program. We did not prepare a detailed
"course blueprint" as we require in other projects. The learning objectives were often developed
after the content had been outlined. Sometimes, assignments were sketched out before either
learning objectives or content had been fully detailed. In other words, the linear course
development process that we use in other projects was only loosely adhered to in developing this
program. This caused some consternation among the project team members. How could we
expect the content experts on other projects to follow the systematic approach so rigidly when
we were not willing to do the same ourselves? In reflecting on this, it became clear that we had
not really abandoned our systematic approach. Instead, because we were so used to thinking
about course development in systematic terms, we had internalized many of the steps that would
otherwise be articulated explicitly.
This is the difference between a novice and an experienced tennis player. With a novice,
every movement is visible; the player thinks about every stroke, and every step. The process is
open for all to see, and it is not very elegant. With an experienced player, the steps and
movements flow together. The player reacts reflexively, often without conscious thought. The
strokes are smooth and articulated, and the play is elegant and enjoyable to watch. We like to
think the process of development we followed was akin to the experienced tennis player, except
that it was probably not particularly elegant. In fact, we did a lot of experimenting and revising.
However, the key point is that it was done with our collective experience as instructional
designers, with tacit knowledge that we were able to draw on without explicitly going through
the steps of the systematic process of instructional design.
Several factors guided or constrained our development of this program. First, we were
attempting to appeal to a global audience. Our understanding of the potential market for this kind
of program led us to believe that we would be able to attract participants from all over the world.
This meant that we would have participants with varying levels of technology accessibility so we
designed the program to be accessible with relatively low-end computer equipment and slow
Internet access speeds.
On the pedagogical side, we wanted to exploit some of the unique communicative
potential of the Web. We did not want to use the Web simply as a mechanism for delivering
content, nor did we want to take an independent study course and use the Web as a pipeline for
students to download it. Instead, we wanted to put into practice collaborative learning strategies
that are so frequently mentioned in the literature as being ideally suited to the networked learning
environment (Harasim et al, 1995; Haughey & Anderson, 1998).
Course Design
All five courses used a combination of Web-based and printed resources, however, the
central component of each course was the Web site. This site contained the core content of each
course, the course schedule, assignments, learning activities that helped to engage students with
the content, online readings, and links to online resources such as online journals and relevant
Web sites. Integrated with the content and resources were the online teaching and learning tools
that facilitated interaction between and among students and the instructors, and between the
students and the content of the course. These tools included the asynchronous discussion forums,
synchronous chat rooms, an online note-keeping function that allowed students to keep personal
notes that were linked to each page of content, and student and instructor biography pages.
Printed resources consisted of a collection of photocopied articles and book chapters, as
well as one or more textbooks. The question of whether to make all articles and readings, except
the textbooks, available online was discussed by the course team early on in the development
process. A number of factors were considered: the time and cost of scanning and editing printed
articles, copyright, student preferences for reading material on screen or in print, and the cost
impact on students if they simply printed out the online readings. We decided to use a printed
package because of cost considerations for, student preferences, and the reality that many
publishers will not grant permission for their material to made available on the Internet.
One of the key principles that guided our course design was to keep the use of technology
relatively simple and accessible. Remember, these courses were developed between 1997 and
1999 when high speed Internet service was beginning to be widely available. We expected to
draw students from around the world with widely varying levels of technology access. We
anticipated most students would be accessing the course via telephone lines and modems with a
maximum speed of 56K. The design implications of this principle were a graphically lean Web
site that would download relatively quickly even on a 28.8k modem connection, our minimum
speed recommendation. Thus, with the exception of the home page, graphics were generally only
used when required to illustrate teaching points, or for navigational purposes. Adhering to this
principle also meant we used virtually no online multimedia. In the one course that required
illustration of multimedia applications, we distributed the material on a CD to avoid bandwidth
limitations.
Another key principle underlying course design was to keep the navigational interface
and structure of the course Web site simple and intuitive. To put this principle into practice, we
established a “one-click" rule. No matter where a user was in the Web site, they would always
be only one click away from any of the key components of the site. It was relatively easy to
follow this principle in the first three courses of the program because the interface was customdesigned. Frames were avoided, and a simple navigational bar was placed at the top and bottom
of every page which allowed users to move to any component of the course from any page with
only one mouse click.
A course Web site includes eight sections:
1. Index: A hyperlinked index to the entire course.
2. Map: A graphical and hyperlinked representation of the course structure. It provides
a graphical alternative to the text-based outline that appears on the Index page (see
Figure 1).
<<Insert Bullen Figure 1>>
Figure 1. Course map
3. Announcements: Course announcements such as updates or changes to the course
Web site, reminders of assignment due dates, etc.
4. Blocks: The core content which is divided into several Blocks or Units. Clicking on
this link takes the user to a hyperlinked list of the course Blocks.
5. Assignments: Contains a detailed description of course assignments, including due
dates and instructions for submission.
6. Forums: The asynchronous discussion area. “Hypernews” was initially used for
asynchronous discussions. Discussion forums were integrated into the course Web
site with the navigational bar placed at the top and bottom of each Hypernews page,
and frames were used for technical reasons.
7. Resources: Links were provided to a variety of online resources such as online
articles, online journals, other relevant Web sites, an online library service from UBC,
and student and instructor biography pages.
8. Help: This section contained technical assistance for users.
Student reaction to the Web site interface design was overwhelmingly positive. Most
appreciated its intuitive nature and the fact that it downloaded quickly, even with slow modem
connections. Initial reactions to Hypernews, was mixed, with many students complaining about
its relatively primitive feature set. However, by the end of the first course, as students became
familiar with it, opinions changed. Interestingly when we later shifted to WebCT, many students
demanded a return to Hypernews. This indicated to us was that change is always difficult, and
that no matter how clumsy an application is, once users become used to it, they resist changing,
even if a new application offers superior features.
After the the third course, Planning & Management, was developed and delivered the
course team decided to test WebCT for developing the fourth course. We soon began to realize
how much technical production time was required to develop courses using a custom-built
interface. Even though we used the same interface in the first three courses, each one had to be
assembled manually, with navigational links added to every page individually. Because Web
course production was increasing exponentially, we could no longer continue what was
essentially a craft-based approach to the technical side of Web course development, and needed
to move to a more industrial approach. The choice was either to develop our own integrated
application, or use an existing one, and we selected WebCT.
While adopting WebCT saved an enormous amount of production time and gave us a
better asynchronous discussion application, it meant making significant changes to the interface
design. For example, we had to forego our cherished custom "one click" interface feature.
Two main benefits of moving to WebCT were the reduction in time required to "publish"
a course (the technical production), and the use of a relatively sophisticated asynchronous
discussion forum that did not require separate installation and complicated adminstration.
WebCT automatically creates a "path" or set of linked pages and allows for certain navigational
links to be added on a global basis. Thus, once the blank course was created, content was
essentially "poured" into the template by uploading html files using the built-in file manager.
Our production time was decreased by nearly 50 percent. Updating courses was also much
easier, and making changes to the structure of the course did not require changing links and
recoding of pages.
Having a built-in asynchronous discussion application also saved time. In addition, the
WebCT discussion forum allowed us to design more collaborative learning activites, and to
exploit more fully the networked potential of Web-based instruction.
In fact, the asynchronous discussion forums were perhaps the most critical feature of the
courses as we utilized the unique interactive features of online instruction to promote and
facilitate collaboration, and higher order thinking. The development process did not come
without challenge, however, as we implemented an application.
The underlying issue with many of the technical problems we experienced with WebCT
is that it was initially developed to be Web-based adjunct to a traditional teacher-centered
classroom model of teaching rather than an environment for complete online courses.
Nonetheless, we were able to overcome these obstacles and used WebCT to create a
collaborative, interactive, learner-centered online environment, but it has taken a lot of effort,
particularly on the part of students (Bullen, 1999a).
Collaborating in the Virtual Learning Environment
Web-based instruction, or virtual learning, has been hailed by many as the salvation of
both distance education and traditional face-to-face teaching. The champions of virtual learning
argue that it will transform teaching and learning. The prevailing transmission model of teaching
in which learners passively assimilate knowledge will be replaced, some argue, with a learnercentered model that allows learners to critically examine and construct knowledge, based on their
own experiences and previous knowledge. Because of its asynchronous and interactive qualities,
appropriately-designed Web-based education will facilitate and support active collaboration and
interaction among students, and between the instructor and students, thus making distance
education more appropriate for the higher-level cognitive goals of college and university
education (Harasim et al, 1997; Paloff & Pratt, 1999;; Romiszowski, 1997;).
The online learning literature is replete with references to its potential to create a new
learning environment in which interaction, collaboration, knowledge building and critical
thinking are the defining features (Harasim et al., 1997; Haughey & Anderson, 1998; Hiltz,
1997; Riel & Harasim, 1994). Harasim (1994) suggests that computer networking in education is
a new paradigm that she calls network learning, a unique combination of place-independent and
asynchronous interaction among learners connected by computer networks that will result in new
educational approaches and learning outcomes.
There is limited empirical support, however, for the claims made about the potential of
online learning to facilitate higher level thinking. As early as 1987, Harasim reported, "We
understand little about the new phenomenon of learning in an electronic space. There is, as yet,
very little data describing or analysing teaching and learning within this asynchronous, textbased (screen) environment" (Harasim, 1987, p. 119). Although more data are available now, as
recently as 1998, Kanuka & Anderson observed, “the types and means by which individuals
create new knowledge in online environments are not well understood” (p. 57). Bullen (1998)
found that creating an interactive online learning environment that promoted critical thinking
depended on more than simply creating the appropriate technological environment.
A cursory examination of many of the Web-based courses does not support the idealistic
notion of a new paradigm. A survey of Web-based courses by Boshier et al. (1998) found that
most were not fully exploiting the potential of the Web. Much of what was being produced is
simply online textbooks, or “page-turners” in which learners work independently with very little
interaction with the instructor, or between, and among fellow learners.
Developing collaborative learning activities in the virtual learning environment presents
some practical and logistical problems that inhibit their use and encourage educators to fall back
on “tried and true” methods. How do you create collaborative groups, for example? If you allow
students to create their own, you run into time problems created by the asynchronous nature of
the virtual environment. It takes several weeks for learners to find appropriate partners and create
a working group. On the other hand, if you create groups for learners, you run the risk of creating
groups of incompatible learners. Scheduling collaborative activities in a meaningful way also
poses a problem. Ideally, all the small groups should present the results of their work to a larger
group, but the longer time frames of the asynchronous environment make this difficult with
groups of 20 or more in a traditional 12-15 week term.
Assessing collaborative activity is another thorny issue. Many students resent the idea of
being assessed on a group basis because they worry that their mark will be affected by the work
of others over whom they have no control. For online instructors, monitoring and assessing the
work of many small groups also presents problems. Do you assess the process of collaboration,
or the product, or both? What criteria should be used? What do you do when groups do not seem
to functioning? How do you know if collaboration is having any impact on student learning?
These are all issues we faced in designing and teaching the courses in our online
Certificate in Technology-based Distributed Learning. Our design for collaboration in the Social
Issues course involved three components (Bullen, 1999b):
1. An online brainstorming session for the entire class,
2. Small group work to develop a position on a social issue, and
3. The presentation of that issue to the larger group.
The online brainstorming session was divided into two parts that involved the entire
class. In the first part, students were asked to suggest one or more social issues related to the use
of technology-based distributed learning that they felt should be discussed in the course. This
session lasted for two days and the intent was to put ideas on the table but not discuss them.
Once this phase was completed, the entire class was invited to discuss the issues presented, and
to sort them into a framework that could be used to guide the course. The two instructors created
a framework that drew on those suggested by the students. This framework was then presented to
the students who were asked to approve the framework as a suitable focus for the course.
In the second phase, small groups of five or six students were created by the instructors.
Each group was instructed to choose one of the issues identified in the brainstorming session and
to develop a position on it. This required writing a short 500 word position paper. Each group
was responsible for working out how they would collaborate, assign responsibilities, and
moderate a discussion on the issue. To facilitate the small group work, each group was given
their own discussion forum within WebCT. In addition, they were able to use the chat feature to
meet synchronously.
In the final phase, the small groups came together to present their positions and each
group moderated a discussion over a 10-day period. Each group was responsible for assigning
the roles of presenter, moderator, and summarizer to members of their group.
Overall, our experience with this collaborative process was successful. Most students said
they learned a lot about both the process of online collaboration and the issues under discussion
(Janes, 1999, 2000). However, the process was not without problems. A number of students were
frustrated with the time it took for the groups to come together and get down to work. This is
related to the asynchronous nature of the course and the fact that the students were from all parts
of the world. Making decisions often involved long time delays that proved to be frustrating for
students were used to working in a real-time environment.
Other issues that emerged were the incompatibility of some group members. Some
students complained that one or more members of their groups were not doing their share of the
work, and they felt it was unfair that they should receive the same mark. The problem of
information overload was also reported by students as they became exhausted by the amount of
online discussion activity.
Online collaboration requires careful design, preparation and organization. The
collaborative activity must be intrinsically meaningful and related very clearly to the outcomes
of the course. Secondly, it helps if students are involved directly in the setting the agenda for the
collaborative activity. This was accomplished in the online brainstorming session by having the
students select the issues and create the guiding framework for the course. For logistical reasons
we did not allow students to create their own groups, but this is something that may be
considered depending on the context. Thirdly, clear criteria for assessment must be established,
and these should be related to both the process and the product. Related to this is the importance
of requiring some tangible product as the outcome of the collaborative process – a “deliverable”
as some would call it. Without this, the collaborative process may be viewed as unnecessary, or
irrelevant to the achievement of course learning outcomes.
The virtual learning environment offers tremendous potential for innovation in teaching
and learning, but it will not happen without a concerted effort by educators in both how we
design online courses, and how we teach online. The “paradigm shift” that so many enthusiastic
supporters of virtual learning discuss may be vastly over stated and certainly not much will
change as we move to virtual learning unless educators realize that the technology itself will not
change much; as always, it is the pedagogy that makes the difference.
Implementation Issues
Teaching online presented several challenges that had a common underlying theme: how
to make effective use of the unique characteristics of the online environment. A challenge was to
exploit the networked, asynchronous, and global nature of the online program so it went beyond
simply using the Internet to transmit content, something that is so common in many Web-based
courses (Boshier, 1998). The specific challenges we faced were: (1) developing a virtual
community that could serve as a basis for meaningful collaborative work, (2) motivating online
participation effectively, and (3) developing meaningful assessment strategies that balanced the
learners' individual needs and the instructors need to keep their workload manageable.
Developing a Virtual Community
In attempting to develop a virtual community, we tried to balance the benefits of
belonging to a global community of practitioners and learning from a group with diverse
experiences, against the value of feeling connected to, and able to interact meaningfully with, a
small group of colleagues. These were somewhat contradictory goals because belonging to a
global community means being part of a large group, and thus makes meaningful interaction and
the development of connections difficult. To complicate this challenge, we also wanted to expose
students to the different perspectives of all three instructors, while facilitating the development of
a collegial relationship with them.
Our attempts to achieve these goals involved experimenting with several different
approaches to organizing groups and their instructional arrangements. To provide students with
both a global community and exposure to all three instructors, we decided to experiment with a
team teaching approach. There were three assignments in the course, so we decided that each of
us would be responsible for marking one of the assignments. We all participated in the online
discussions and the students remained in one group of 60. Recall, however, that this program was
developed collaboratively with ITESM in Mexico. Although each institution was responsible for
delivering and administering the course to their own students, both groups of students were
accessing the same Web site, and we purposely built in activities that encouraged the ITESM and
UBC students to work together.
Our rationale for using this team teaching approach, and keeping all 60 students in one
group, was to develop a virtual community of learners, and to provide each participant the
opportunity to "meet" and interact with a diverse group. We felt the exchange of ideas and
experiences would be much richer in a larger group, would provide more opportunities for
meaningful collaboration, and that this kind of interaction would allow the participants to learn
from each other and see how the concepts in the course could be applied in a variety of different
contexts.
These were lofty goals that, upon reflection, we determined were only partially realized.
Students were divided in their reaction to the team teaching approach. Some appreciated the
opportunity to learn from the expertise of three instructors instead of one. Others, however, felt
they were unable to develop a relationship with the instructors because there were three, and they
were never sure whether questions should be directed to one, two, or all of the instructors. There
was also a certain amount of inefficiency in the team approach. Because of the students'
uncertainty about dealing with a team of instructors, some would send e-mail to all three
instructors and, without our knowing it, the three of us would respond separately.
Student reaction to being in one large group was much more clear-cut. Most felt that it
was extremely difficult to make sense of the asynchronous discussions when there were so many
participants. The sheer volume of messages made it almost impossible to stay on top and student
inexperience with the protocols of asynchronous discussions also contributed to the confusion as
many students would start new threads for topics that were already under discussion.
In subsequent courses, we divided the students into three groups of twenty online
discussions. Students found that the smaller group enabled them to connect with their fellow
students because they stayed with the same group throughout the course. We also used a
modified team teaching approach which cycled the three instructors through the three groups of
students. Thus, each group of students was exposed to each instructor for one third of the course.
Although students appreciated the smaller discussion groups, the modified team teaching
approach was not received well. Once again, most students felt they were unable to make a
connection with the instructor because, just as they were getting to know one, they would be
moved to another. Instructors also found it difficult to get to know their students when they only
worked with each group for approximately four weeks.
In the third iteration of the course we dropped the rotating tutor concept and assigned one
instructor to each group of students. In essence, we created three sections of the course with each
instructor being responsible for his or her own group, including marking assignments,
moderating discussions, and responding to student inquiries. This arrangement was the most
successful.
However, despite this gradual evolution to a fairly traditional approach to class
organization, these courses retained a certain uniqueness in that there was still a larger virtual
community to which all the students belonged. While most online activity ocurred with their
small group of 20-25, there was always at least one online discussion which involved all
students. For example, we generally had at least one "visiting instructor" in each course who
moderated a 7-10 day discussion. The visiting instructor is an expert in the field and his or her
discussion is open to all UBC and ITESM students. In addition, students are free to "drop in" on
any group’s discussions. The intermingling of the groups are further encouraged with the
collaborative assignments because students are permitted to work with students from any of the
groups.
Motivating Online Participation
Tagg and Dickinson (1995) suggest that the continued presence of the instructor is a key
factor in maintaining student participation. In addition, conventional wisdom in the literature on
computer mediated communication suggests that unless students are rewarded in some way for
participating in online discussions, they will generally avoid it, make minimal contributions, or
just lurk (Harasim et al., 1995). Because the online discussions were a key component of these
courses, we felt that maximum participation was essential to achieve effective and meaningful
learning. Our first attempt to enhance participation was to assign marks. The final course grade
consisted of a participation component that was worth 10% of the total. This seemed like a
simple approach, but when it came to assign marks, we realized it was not a trivial matter. To
make qualititative judgements about student participation would involve analyzing all their
contributions according to some predetermined criteria, and developing these criteria and
analyzing the contributions would be an extremely time-consuming task. The alternative would
be to assign the grades based simply on quantity of participation in terms of number and/or
length of messages. Unfortunately, this method would ignore the content of the messages.
In the end, we used a rather subjective and arbitrary approach and assigned full marks to
any student who participated regularly and was on topic. Those who did not participate, or made
very few contributions, were given no marks, or very low marks for participation. We were
uneasy about this approach because of its extreme subjectivity, and also found that the purpose
for assigning participation marks was not being achieved. Although we did get very high rates of
participation, students posted very long contributions that read like short essays or position
statements rather than contributions to a developing discussion. Also, there was also little follow
up and many students seemed to make their required contribution and then left the discussion.
In retrospect, this should not have come as a surprise. Research by Bullen (1998)
suggested that simply assigning marks for online participation may only result in students
making perfunctory comments in order to get their marks. In addition, he found that many
students decide to forego the marks if their time was limited, and they thought they could better
invest it in completing an assignment that carried a higher value. A more productive approach
suggested by Bullen is to develop assignments that make use of online discussions in some way
for their completion. In this way, students have some inherent motivation for participating
because, to complete their assignment properly, they will need to draw on the discussions. Even
with this approach, many students reported that they felt they were investing a large amount of
time in the online discussions and should be rewarded for this.
Developing Meaningful Assessment Strategies
Developing appropriate assessment strategies is intimately linked to the other two
implementation issues - motivating online participation, and developing a virtual community.
Most of the courses had some type of final paper or other short papers that drew on current
research in the field. We encouraged students to draw on their professional or work experience
so that their papers were grounded in a practical educational context. Most students welcomed
this because they were working in the educational sector and were able to apply the assignments
to some aspect of their professional lives. However, for a few students, often full-time graduate
students who were taking the course as an elective, this posed a difficulty because they were not
working in an environment that was directly relevant. These students had to imagine hypothetical
situations to which they could apply the assignments.
What set the assignments apart from traditional assessment methods was their
collaborative, international, and online nature. For example, in some of the courses, students
were required to form groups of three or four with members from at least two different countries,
and to work collaboratively to complete their assignment. As discussed earlier, this consisted of
working in groups of three or four to research a social issue, presenting the issue to the rest of the
class, and moderating a discussion around the issue. The final paper in this class was done
individually, but required students to draw on the online discussions.
Our aim with the assignments was to deal with content, process, and context. Each course
had a number of very clearly stated content or knowledge learning objectives. We also had some
process objectives, one of which was to have students gain experience in working collaboratively
in an online environment. Because course development increasingly involves partnerships and
international relationships, much of the work is being done in a networked environment with
very little face-to-face contact. We feel it is essential for professionals in the field of technologybased distributed learning to gain experience working in this environment with their colleagues.
Course Evaluation Strategies
A number of assessment strategies have been used to evaluate several dimensions of this
program and its courses. Informal formative evaluation has been conducted by soliciting
feedback from students in a designated “Course Feedback” discussion forum. Instructors read
and respond to the comments posted here regularly and have found that students are often
brutally frank about what they think works and does not work. By monitoring this forum, we
have been able to make adjustments to the courses in progress.
At the conclusion of each course, the feedback comments are reviewed to determine if
there are any implications for revisions to other courses in the program, or to the next offering of
the same course. Students also provide informal feedback in other discussion forums and by
direct email to instructors. A formal online evaluation questionnaire is posted at the end of each
course for student completion and covers instructional design, technical, interface design, and
instructor performance issues.
Challenges and Recommendations
Online course development is fraught with challenges because we are dealing with new
technologies, new approaches to teaching and learning, and new systems for organizing the
delivery of education. This program was particularly challenging because, in addition to
technological, pedagogical and organizational innovation, it required working around the
traditional university bureaucracy. In this age of global learning, developing programs for new
and emerging markets of learners depends on speed for success. Yet, traditional university
procedures for program approval are often cumbersome and slow. At the University of British
Columbia, gaining new course approval can take anywhere from three to five years as proposals
work their way through program, departmental, and faculty curriculum committees before they
can be submitted to the Senate for approval. Three to five years is a lifetime in Internet years.
Because we recognized that one of the selling features of this program would be the
credibility and stature of the University of British Columbia, the project had to be developed as a
UBC program. We worked closely with our Faculty of Education advisory committee and
developed a two-stream plan that saw the creation of temporary courses for the program while
the formal approval process was initiated. This meant we could offer the program with five fully
accredited courses in the Faculty of Education before we had received formal Senate approval.
We also found it necessary to adjust the course content to meet the diverse needs of our
learners, such as the certificate students who usually were very practical and had a professional
motivation for taking these courses, and the graduate students who tended to have a deeper
interest in the theoretical aspects and were less concerned about application to professional
contexts. We attempted to combine these two streams so that the practical was informed by
theory, and so that some of the more esoteric theoretical considerations were tempered with the
practical reality of applying concepts to real-world workplace situations.
Summary
We have all heard the constant refrain about lifelong learning, the changing nature of
work in the age of the Internet, and the concomitant change in the educational needs of today's
adult learners. There is no doubt that some of the rhetoric is often overused, misused, and
sometimes is self-serving, but it should also be clear that educators today face a much more
complex and dynamic challenge than they may have faced 10 or 20 years ago. The needs of
today's adult learners are in constant flux, and educational programs must be developed rapidly
and made accessible to diverse groups of working professionals in an amazing variety of
specialized fields. When properly developed, Web-based instruction makes it possible to reach
the new adult learners of today and those of tomorrow. The “Certificate in Technology-based
Distributed Learning” serves as an example of how instituitons can collaborate across
international boundaries and cultures to use this technology to reach and successfully meet the
needs of one emerging global audience of professionals - those in the field of technology-based
distributed learning.
References
Bates, A.W. (1995). Technology, Distance Education and Open Learning. London:
Routledge.
Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and
University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bates, A.W. & Escamilla de los Santos, J. (1997). Crossing Boundaries: Making Global
Distance Education a Reality. Journal of Distance Education, 12(2), 49-66.
Boshier, R., Mohapi, M. et al. (1997). Best and worst dressed Web courses: Strutting into
the 21st century in comfort and style. Distance Education, 18(2), 327-349.
Braden, R.A. (1996). The Case of Linear ID and Development. A Commentary on
Models, Challenges and Myths. Educational Technology, March-April, 5-23.
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance
education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1-32.
Bullen, M. (1999a, October). Technology Meets Pedagogy in Online Learning. Paper
presented to the WEBNET 1999 conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Bullen, M. (1999b, September). Collaborating in the Virtual Learning Environment:
Problems, Practicalities and Potentials. Invited presentation at Primera Jornada Regional de
Informatica Educativa y Ensananza Virtual, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th edition). New
York: Harper Collins.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence,
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education,
15(1), 7-23.
Hackbarth, S. (1997). Web-based Learning Actitivities for Children. In B. Kahn (Ed.),
Web-based Instruction (pp. 191-212). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: issues in computer-mediated graduate
courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
Harasim, L. (1994). Computer networking for education. In T. Husen & T.N
Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide
to Online Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual-U: a Web-based system to
support collaborative learning. In B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction, pp. 149-158.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Press.
Haughey, M. & Anderson, T. (1998). Networked learning. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Hiltz, S.R. (1997). Impacts of college level courses via asynchronous learning networks:
some
preliminary
results.
Journal
of
Asynchronous
Learning
Networks,
1(2).
http://www.aln.org/alnWeb.journal/issue2/hiltz.html
Janes, D. P. (1999, November). Techniques and Strategies for International Group Work:
An Online Experience. Paper presented at NAWeb’99, Fredricton, New Brunswick, October,
1999.
Janes, D. P. (2000) . International collaborative group interaction: An online experience.
In B. Mann (Ed.). Perspectives in Web Course Management. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press
(in press)
Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge
construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of
online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Riel, M. & Harasim, L. (1994). Research perspectives on network learning. MachineMediated Learning, 42(2&3), 91-113.
Romiszowski, A.J. (1997). Web-based distance learning and teaching: revolutionary
invention or reaction to necessity? In B.Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction, pp. 25-37.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Press.
Rowley, D.J., Lujan, H.D., & Dolence, M.G. (1998). Strategic Choices for the Academy:
How Demand for Lifelong Learning will Re-Create Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
University of North Carolina (1995) Distributed Learning Environments: An Integrating
Model for Distance Education.
http://www.iat.unc.edu/publications/broadcasts/archive/march95.html
Biography
Mark Bullen is the Associate Director of Distance Education and Technology at the
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
He was one of the authors and instructors in the online graduate Certificate Program in
Technology-based Distributed Learning which is a collaborative venture between UBC and the
Virtual University of the Monterrey Technical Institute (Mexico). He has been involved in the
development and teaching of all five courses in the program and is now involved in developing
and teaching courses for the joint UBC-ITESM online Master in Educational Technology.
Mark is also an adjunct Professor with Athabasca University where he teaches courses in
the Master's Degree in Distance Education. He has taught workshops on developing and
delivering web-based instruction and planning and management of technology-based distributed
learning in Mexico, Malaysia and Canada and he has been a consultant on distance education
projects in Mongolia and Indonesia. He is member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian
Association for Distance Education.
Mark has a Ph.D. in Adult Education (1997), a Master's degree in Educational
Psychology (1989) and a B.Ed. (1982) from the University of British Columbia. His research
interest is in the area of instructional design and computer-mediated communication.