Sheikh
Mohd Imran
bilalgreen1@gmail.com
Abstract
The
study investigates the preferences of instructors and students for design and
pedagogy features of online instruction at the post-graduation level. Characteristics
and Features were identified through a comprehensive literature review combined
with focus groups. Various design and pedagogy features were identified and the
items were structured in a Likert Scale format. Respondents were asked to rate their preferences on
a five-point scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, for each
individual feature. Participants include 7 instructors and 50 students at
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).
Design/Methodology/Approach
The study was carried out using
questionnaire method, whereby respondents rate their preferences on a five
point scale. An independent sample T-test was conducted to determine if there
was a significant difference between the preferences of instructors and
students on the rating of individual features.
Scope
To better understand the design and
pedagogy features of online instruction, India’s largest e-learning academic
institution IGNOU was selected.
Findings
Major findings includes the high level
of agreement on design and pedagogy features by instructors and students, the
similarities in rank order by both students earning regular university credit
and those pursuing professional development goals. When compared with the
ranking of instructors and students, low preferences were being placed on
social interaction features.
Practical
Implications
While there are many parallels between
face-to-face teaching and online instruction, there are some differences.
Asynchronous online instruction must be designed in advance of being delivered.
Keywords: Pedagogy; e-learning; continuing
education; online instruction; development expertise
1. Introduction
E-learning has
not only experienced significant growth, but it has also gone through a
transformation in recent years. Correspondence courses and other forms of
independent study programs have largely given way to options delivered via technology.
This has been partly due to the emergence of the Internet and technologies that
enhances and improves the development and delivery of online instruction. It
has also been due to the need for greater access to education as well as the
economics of not having to require students to be physically present in a
particular setting in order to benefit from instruction (Charlene Hu, 2009).
Institutions of higher education, from community colleges through graduate schools,
now offer online courses and degrees. Professional and trade associations in most
disciplines as well as industry have modified their professional development programs
to capitalize on the benefits of the Internet.
Departments of continuing education in
higher education were quick to respond to the instructional opportunities
offered by the Internet. The distance education mission of continuing education
has been greatly enhanced by creative uses of the Internet. Online instruction
as a vehicle for distance education offers the advantage of easy access. Students
can complete online courses wherever connectivity is available. They are able
to work on courses 24/7 and at times that are most convenient to them. Today
departments of continuing education are major providers of online courses for
professional development and degree-seeking students.
The use of technology
has become systematic to instruction in higher education regardless of the
provider and the structure of the course design. The early focus on online
instruction emphasized asynchronous instruction to maximize flexibility for students
and to take full advantage of the features offered by the Internet. As online courses
became more popular on traditional campuses, synchronous courses gained in popularity.
Today hybrid courses that combine face-to-face instruction with web-based features
are common on most campuses. Technology makes online instruction possible.
However, it is the design and pedagogy of online instruction combined with
content that represents the significance of this new form of teaching and
learning.
2. Construct, Design and Pedagogy (Teaching)
Features
The creation of effective asynchronous online courses makes maximum use
of the instructional features offered by the Internet. They are typically
self-paced courses making it very difficult to make revisions once the course
is in progress and students are enrolled. In contrast to face to face
instruction that allows considerable flexibility during the process of
teaching, asynchronous online courses must be developed prior to implementation.
The development and delivery of online courses require a wide range of expertise
and an infrastructure that is not required for other forms on instructional delivery.
2.1 Range of required development expertise
Determining
content knowledge and desired learning outcomes are clearly the responsibility
of instructors. However, a broader set of expertise is required to develop and
implement an asynchronous online course. The cycle of developing online courses
in higher education typically involves the instructor having conceptualized and
organized the content before the formal development process begins. These are
critical steps and they combine with decisions on instructional design and
pedagogy/teaching to provide a frame work for other areas of needed expertise.
The preferences of students and instructors for specific instructional design
and teaching/pedagogy features are central to the focus of this study.
- The
approach to online course development in higher education employs a team
model. A team member may possess expertise in more than one area. This is
particularly true of instructional designers. Higher educational
institutions have developed support teams in some form to assist faculty
members in the development and delivery of online courses. How
institutions of higher education structure the services and what they
expect faculty to do will vary. The following areas of expertise are
generally provided in some way. Instructional design refers to the technical
features created within a course to enhance learning, access to content
and the implementation of instructional strategies for use by instructors.
- Teaching/pedagogy
refers to the methodology that instructors employ when teaching online.
While there are elements common to most online courses, instructors do
vary in their teaching style just as they vary in face to face instruction.
- Content/knowledge
refers to the information, skills and/or concepts that combine to
represent what students are intended to learn from the course.
- Content
management refers to the processes that are carried out by course developers
in ensuring that the format of the content meets the technical requirements
of the instructional design and the Internet delivery requirements.
- Programming
refers to customized programming required to deliver the instruction as
intended and/or the use of a Learning Management System such as Blackboard
or Moodle.
- Technical
support refers to the consultation and/or tools essential to enhancing the
distribution of online courses, navigation through a course and maximizing
stability of all features.
- Student
support refers to those services that approximate the services received by
students in face to face courses e.g., ease of enrolment, library
resources, advisement and access to instructors.
- Learner
outcomes refer to the determination of the skills, knowledge and/or behaviours
that learners should achieve as a result of successfully completing the
course.
- Formative
evaluation refers to strategies for eliciting information related to learning,
features, content and features that facilitate revision of courses to improve
quality of instruction and learner outcomes.
- Course development refers to the structuring
of features, content, supports and delivery system to prepare the course
for delivery as intended.
2.2 Student Perspectives of Online courses
Online courses often can be less
motivational than traditional classes. They also tend to have higher dropout
rates and on average yield lower grades than regular students get. However,
this is changing. Some professors and schools are redesigning their courses to
take advantage of the Web's interactive and visual possibilities, adopting some
bleeding-edge technologies such as game like simulations and digital avatars to
make online courses more exciting and more effective than traditional
classrooms. Many students even say that a good E-learning course inspires them
to work harder. He offered several advices to students on what to look for in
an e-learning program:
- Do your own research to make
sure the online program or course is accredited by an approved
organization. Also find out if the course will be accepted if you to
transfer.
- Find out whether the courses
are "synchronous" or "asynchronous". Researchers say
one of the biggest reasons students fail at online courses is that they
aren't honest with themselves about how much time they can actually devote
each week to an online course and whether they have the discipline to work
without traditional course structures.
- Have good computer skills and
access to well-equipped computers with high speed Internet connections.
Students nervous about technology should look for online schools with
readily accessible help desks and other technological guidance.
- Check out the course design
and be certain that they start out with a well organized and detailed
syllabus and clear, logical grading criteria.
- Remember that the best online
teachers provide information in many different ways.
- Isolation is one of the most
common reasons given by online students who drop out or fail. So
community-building should be part of the art of teaching.
- Are
the instructors known for quick and thorough responses? The best online teachers
are easily accessible, if not by phone, then by E-mail, instant message,
or some other method.
3.
Designing an Online Instruction
Online courses have not been exempt from
evaluation by students. Not only is it feasible to evaluate the quality of
content and the technology employed in delivering online courses, but all
aspects of courses including the responses of students and instructors to each
other can be examined. The latter have not been a practice, but the capacity
for such review illustrates the potential sources of evaluation from the perspective
of students. The options available for student evaluation of instruction are at
least as comprehensive as for face-to-face instruction. Early in the
development of online instruction many institutions of higher education charged
higher tuition fees for enrolling in online courses. The assumption was that
they were more expensive to create and deliver. This occurred despite
escalating tuition costs generally. Students are sensitive to costs and to the
quality of instruction they receive for their investment.
International students, however, have
additional challenges in each of these areas because of cross-cultural
differences in values, language barriers, and learning format preferences.
Thus, course design should take this
into account in several ways:
·
Attempting
to increase the self-confidence and motivation of students early in the course
through progressive scaffolding of needed skills.
·
Providing
the opportunity to work in small group for the experience of giving and
receiving feedback.
·
Maintaining
a self-paced and self-directed design of the learning environment.
·
Providing
multiple opportunities for reading and writing.
·
Encouraging
face-to-face interactions or meeting with group members and instructors when
possible.
3.2 Instrument Development
A 63 item survey
instrument comprising of statements describing design and pedagogy features were
developed and administered to 50 students enrolled in at least one online
continuing education course and 7 instructors of online courses at the same institution.
The instrument was structured on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses were coded
as follows: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = neutral, 2
= Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree. The instrument was created using
Kwik Survey. Out of 63 items, some major items are listed below in the form of
tables.
3.2.1 Students’ Online Course Experience
Of the 50 student
participants who respond to the online course experience question, 38 (76%) are
taking an online course for the first time, 12 (24%) are taking their second
online course and none has taken three or more online courses. A total of 72 %
of the participating students had experience in taking online courses beyond
the course that they are completing at the time of the study. Students’ online
course experience data are shown in Table 1.
Students’ Online Course Experiences
|
Frequency Percent
|
||
|
No prior course
|
38
|
76
|
|
One prior
course
|
12
|
24
|
|
Total
|
50
|
100
|
Table- 1
3.2.2 Students’ Internet Experience
The Internet
experience of the students is extensive with 2% reporting nine or more years of
experience in using the Internet and 16% report six or more years of
experience, 54% respond four to six years of experience and 28% are having less
experience in using internet.
Students’ Internet Experience
|
Frequency Percent
|
||
|
1-3 years
|
14
|
28
|
|
4-6 years
|
27
|
54
|
|
6-9 years
|
8
|
16
|
|
More than 9 years
|
1
|
2
|
|
Total
|
50
|
100
|
Table-2
3.3
Instructor Participants
Of the 7 instructor
participants, all of them answered the age question, 18-25 (0%), 26-35 (27.57%),
36-45 (42.85%), 46-55 (14.2%), 56-65 (14.2%), 66 and older (0%). The instructor
age distribution is reported in Table-3.
Instructor Age Distribution
|
Frequency Percent
|
||
|
18-25
|
0
|
0
|
|
26-35
|
2
|
28.57
|
|
36-45
|
3
|
42.85
|
|
46-55
|
1
|
14.28
|
|
56-65
|
1
|
14.28
|
|
Total
|
7
|
99.98 (Approx. 100)
|
Table-3
3.3.1 Instructors’ Internet Experience
Of 7 respondents,
3 (42.85%) have more than 9 years internet experience, 2 (28.57%) have 7-9
years experience, 1 (14.28%) have 4-6 years experience, only 1 (14.28%) have
1-3 years experience. The instructors’ years of internet experiences are shown
in Table-4.
Instructors’ internet experience
|
Frequency Percent
|
||
|
1-3 years
|
1
|
14.28
|
|
4-6 years
|
1
|
14.28
|
|
7-9 years
|
2
|
28.57
|
|
More than 9
years
|
3
|
42.85
|
|
Total
|
7
|
Approx. 100
|
Table-4
3.3.2 Instructors online course experience
Of
the 7 online course instructors responding, 2 (28.57%) are teaching their first
online courses, 4 (57.14%) are teaching their second online course, 1 (14.28%)
are teaching their third online courses, and none have taught more than three
online courses. Instructors online course experiences are shown in Table-5.
Instructors online course experience
|
Frequency Percent
|
||
|
No prior course
|
2
|
28.57
|
|
One prior course
|
4
|
57.14
|
|
Two prior courses
|
1
|
14.28
|
|
Three or more prior
courses
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
7
|
Approx. 100
|
Table-5
4. Comparison of Instructor and Student
Preferences for Online Course Features
Each of the 63 items on the
survey instrument describes either a design feature or a pedagogy feature of
online courses. There are 32 design features and 31 pedagogy features. The
individual item descriptions of features are treated independently in the analysis.
The intent was to determine the level of agreement or disagreement between 7 instructors
and student groups in their preferences for the features as defined and grouped
on the survey instrument. Students were asked to provide demographic
information on age, gender, student status, online course experience and
internet experience. Instructors were asked to provide demographic information
on age, gender, faculty status, online course teaching experience and internet
experience. However, only online course teaching experience, age and Internet
experience has been listed in this paper keeping word count limitation in mind.
Further information required on all fields can be had from the authors
personally.
4.1 Descriptive Data on Responses to Survey
Graph-1(Scatter Plot) represents
the number of responses by each group to the 63 individual items on the survey
instrument along with the mean, Std. Deviation and values about design
features.
Graph-1: Correlation between instructors’ ranking and students’ ranking of design
features.
(a) Design
Features:
The
10 most preferred design items as ranked by Instructors and Students
|
Rank
|
Instructors
Preferred Items
|
Students
Preferred Items
|
|
1
|
Be reliable
and free from technical problems
|
Be reliable
and free from technical problems
|
|
2
|
Allow students to easily access required
instructional resources.
|
Allow students to easily navigate from the start to
the end of an assigned task
|
|
3
|
Include
sufficient and easily understood menus
|
Be efficiently accessible anytime and anyplace where
connectivity is available.
|
|
4
|
Allow students to easily navigate from the start to
the end of an assigned task.
|
Allow students to easily access grades on
assignments
|
|
5
|
Provide easy
to follow navigation options.
|
Include
sufficient and easily understood menus
|
|
6
|
Be efficiently accessible anytime and anyplace where
connectivity is available
|
Allow easily
access to any part of the course
|
|
7
|
Allow instructor to tailor responses to individual
student work
|
Allow students to easily access required
instructional resources
|
|
8
|
Allow students to easily navigate from the start to
the end of an assigned task.
|
Provide easy
to follow navigation options
|
|
9
|
Allow students to easily access grades on
assignments.
|
Allow instructor to tailor responses to individual
student work.
|
|
10
|
Provide tools for instructors to easily track
student work and grades.
|
Provide clear explanations for how students access
institutional support services.
|
Table-6
While the list of items
included in the top ten by both groups is similar, they varied in the order in
which they are ranked. The only items not included in the top ten by both
groups are items 32 and 22. Item 32, “provide tools for instructors to easily track
student work and grades,” is included by instructors but not students and item
22, “allow students easy access to any part of the course,” which is not
included in the instructors’ top ten list.
(b)
Pedagogy items:
A correlations analysis on
the pedagogy item rankings between instructors and students is conducted
resulting in a correction coefficient = .868. See the scatter plot in Scatter
plot 2.
Graph-2:
Correlation between instructors’ ranking and students’ ranking of pedagogy
features.
The 10 most preferred
pedagogy items as ranked by instructors and students
Rankings Instructors Overall students:
|
Rank
|
Instructors
Preferred Items
|
Students
Preferred Items
|
|
1
|
Allow students to
understand course goals and objectives.
|
Provide a
detailed syllabus.
|
|
2
|
Stimulate critical thinking.
|
Ensure that all web addresses (URLs) are accurate
and active.
|
|
3
|
Provide a
detailed syllabus.
|
Present clear and understandable performance
expectations
|
|
4
|
Provide students with an
understanding
of the grading
system
|
Provide students with an
understanding of the grading system
|
|
5
|
Ensure that all web addresses (URLs) are accurate
and active.
|
Inform students on how to communicate
with the instructor.
|
|
6
|
Inform students on how to with the instructor.
|
Allow students to understand communicate Course
goals and objectives.
|
|
7
|
Engage students in assignments course objectives
|
provide study guideline for exam related to
preparation
|
|
8
|
Provide an explicit orientation to the course
structure and requirements.
|
Align assessments with
course objectives.
|
|
9
|
Present clear and understandable performance
expectations.
|
Allow all students to work independently at their own
pace.
|
|
10
|
Align assessments with course objectives.
|
Engage students in assignments related to course
objectives.
|
Table-7
4.2 T-test result
In order to compare the
student’s and instructor’s preferences about design and pedagogy features of online
courses, t-test was employed to the data. The test assesses whether the means
of two groups are statistically different from each other or not. The study
mainly focuses on the three values:
(a) T-value: The t-value is mainly calculated by thumb rule, whereby t-value calculated
to be greater than 2 is significantly higher than the value less than 2. We
call it positively or negatively significant to the assumed value at 0.05% of
significance.
(b) M-value: M is the mean of the preferences as calculated from the data of
students and instructors independently.
(c) P-value: The p-value is the alpha level set for the analysis. If the value
comes <0.05, then the difference is significant, otherwise the difference
>0.05 between the two variables is not significant.
Design Items
1. Students rate keeping
student communication record feature (M=3.42, SD=1.0) significantly higher than
instructors (M=2.91, SD=.83), t (218) =2.79, p=.006.
2. Students rate multiple options
for communication feature (M=4.19, SD=.76) significantly higher than
instructors (M=3.82, SD=.90), t (216) =2.52, p=.012.
3. Students rate synchronous
online chat feature (M=3.29, SD=1.03) significantly higher than instructors
(M=2.85, SD=.89), t (216) =2.34, p=.02.
4. Students rate video
lecture feature (M=3.53, SD=1.05) significantly higher than instructors
(M=3.12, SD=.95), t (216) =2.15, p=.033.
5. Students rate self
correct quizzes feature (M=4.18, SD=.85) significantly higher than instructors
(M=3.74, SD=1.02), t (216) =2.70, p=.007.
Pedagogy items
6. Students rate independent,
self-paced feature (M=4.48, SD=.78) significantly higher than instructors
(M=4.14, SD=.91), t (233) =2.27, p=.024.
7. Students rate detail
syllabus feature (M=4.67, SD=.65) significantly lower than instructors (M=4.91,
SD=.28), t (233) =-2.18, p=.030.
8. Students rate explicit
orientation feature (M=4.39, SD=.91) significantly lower than instructors
(M=4.77, SD=.43), t (233) =-2.73, p=.007.
9. Students rate access
additional enrichment feature (M=3.88, SD=.81) significantly lower than
instructors (M=4.29, SD=.89), t (233) = - 2.44, p=.016.
10. Students rate varied
activities to demonstrate what they learned feature (M=3.80, SD=.91)
significantly lower than instructors (M=4.31, SD=.72), t (257) =-3.21, p=.002.
11. Students rate understand
course goals and objectives feature (M=4.55, SD=.64) significantly lower than
instructors (M=4.94, SD=.24), t (233) =-3.58, p=.000.
12. Students rate how to
communicate with the instructor feature (M=4.62, SD=.57) lower than instructors
(M=4.82, SD=.39), t (218) =-2.02, p=.05.
13. Students rate glossary
feature (M=4.15, SD=.91) significantly higher than instructors (M=3.74,
SD=.83), t (218) =2.61, p=.015.
14. Students rate understanding
the grade system feature (M=4.62, SD=.62) significantly lower than instructors
(M=4.88, SD=.33), t (218) = - 2.44, p=.016.
15. Students rate engagement
in course related assignments feature (M=4.44, SD=.69) significantly lower than
instructors (M=4.79, SD=.41), t (216) =-2.89, p=.004.
16. Students rate stimulate
critical thinking feature (M=4.39, SD=.76) significantly lower than instructors
(M=4.94, SD=.24), t (216) =-4.43, p=.000.
17. Students rate align
assessment with course feature (M=4.49, SD=.60) significantly lower than
instructors (M=4.74, SD=.75), t (216) = - 2.11, p=.036.
18. Students rate study
guide for exam feature (M=4.52, SD=.73) significantly higher than instructors
(M=4.06, SD=1.01), t (216) =3.14, p=.002.
19. Students
rate sharing information about themselves feature (M=3.48, SD=.98)
significantly lower than instructors (M=3.91, SD=.75), t (216) =-2.11, p=.017.
5. Conclusion
With the emergence of the
Internet technology, a new instructional delivery system has evolved that not
only increases accessibility to higher education, but offers opportunities to
tailor distance education to the needs of students. While there are many
parallels between face-to-face teaching and online instruction, there are some differences.
Asynchronous online instruction must be designed in advance of being delivered.
The instructor does not have the opportunity to conveniently make content or format
changes during the process of teaching as they are able to do in face-to-face teaching.
During the development stages of creating online course, decisions must be made
on the utilization of features made available by technology. Decisions on the use of
features in online teaching are largely the responsibility of instructors in
the larger context of institutional policy.
The most preferred pedagogy
features by the both groups are as below:
- Allow
students to understand course goals and objectives.
- Provide a
detailed syllabus.
- Provide
students with an understanding of the grading system.
- Ensure that
all web addresses (URLs) are accurate and active.
- Inform
students on how to communicate with the instructor.
- Engage
students in assignments related to course objectives.
- Present
clear and understandable performance expectations.
- Align
assessments with course objectives.
Given the
newness of online instruction, there is a wide array of inquiry that needs to
be pursued to build a strong research base specific to online instruction in higher
education. Just as research should drive instruction in face-to-face teaching,
the same should apply to online instruction.
References
Allen, E., & Seaman, J.
(2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States. The
Sloan Consortium. Retrieved
January 6, 2011, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
Charlene Hu, Xiaolin (2009).
A Comparison of Student and Instructor Preferences for Design and
Pedagogy Features in
Postsecondary Online Courses. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 1(3), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/61207018/A-comparison-of-student-and-instructor-preferences-for-design-and-pedagogy-features-in-online-courses
Ku, H., & Lohr. L.
(2003). A Case Study of Chinese Students' Attitudes Toward Their First
Online Learning. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 51(3).
Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging
learners in online learning environments. TechTrends: Linking
Research and Practice to
Improve Learning, 48(4), 16-23.
Mortera-Gutiérrez, F.
(2006). Faculty Best Practices Using Blended Learning in E-Learning
and Face-to-Face
Instruction. International Journal on E-Learning. 5 (3), pp. 313-337.
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Neuhauser, C. (2002).
Learning Styles and Effectiveness of Online and Face to Face
Instruction. American
Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
