Final Reflection on 531

There are three themes for my thoughts here at the end of the class:

--immediate changes in practice as a result of this course

--the promise for future application of lessons learned

--the disconnect between what this course promised and what it delivered.


First, as I have described on this blog and in our class discussions, I have been able to immediately implement some of the web 2.0 technologies we learned and used in this course. I started a regular Skype call with my undergraduate distance composition students. I also explored the virtual world for its applicability to my own organization's work in continuing medical education. And as a result of the exposure gained in this class, I began a collaboration with a company specializing in this kind of work, developed a program to apply virtual training to the oncology world, and responded to a request for proposals issued by one of my organization's funders.

This immediate application naturally leads to thoughts of future uses of some of the tech tools we used and learned about. In January I will start teaching my F2F university grant writing courses for the year (spring and summer semesters). I plan to integrate the Google Doc into my courses (and can't quite believe I haven't used it before!).

Despite the immediate and future applications of DE tech learned in this course, the great team of colleagues I worked with, and the attentive and enthusiastic guidance of PSU faculty, I have been extremely disappointed with what I call the disconnect between what the course title and even objectives promised and what it has turned out to be.

The course titles is "Course Design and Development in Distance Education."

The objective for the course was:

Participants should increase their knowledge regarding:
1. Organizing human and other resources needed for designing and delivering courses.
2. Issues arising from delivery in different learner contexts.
3. Principles and procedures for structuring and organizing content.
4. Issues in preparing for both package methods and interactive delivery methods.
5. Design and delivery of learner-instructor and learner-learner interaction.
6. Designing and implementing an evaluation and monitoring system.
7. Potential of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning.


Frankly I expected a course in DE instructional design--that's what the title led me to believe and what the objectives (especially #3, 5 and 6) also led me to believe.

Unfortunately the course seemed to have spent so much time on objective #7 that it left out many of the other objectives. Did we discuss the issues mentioned in the other objectives? Yes. Did we have some course assignments and readings that addressed them? Yes.

But I do not feel that the course structure emphasized them enough nor required enough rigor and work and detail to truly allow for accomplishment of objectives 1-6.

So much of the information was vague, outdated, and "big picture" that I do not feel that I know any more about objectives 1-6 than when this course started. Did this course really teach me (or provide the opportunity for me to learn) how to design a DE course? NO.

I hope others' experiences were more positive and if anyone has time and is reading these last posts (!), I look forward to your comments.

Best wishes to all in the future and I hope to "see" you again.

Dierdre

More on Cost for DE (Unit 12)

I had actually read Chapter 4 of our text earlier in the semester, and found that it offered good information about cost issues for DE. I think getting a handle on fixed and variable costs is hugely important.


As I was finishing my paper for this course (since I have another I am working on too!), and writing the budget for my program, something else that became very clear to me was upfront costs versus ongoing costs. My program represents an expansion in an organization's (the Grant Professionals Association, a member organization for grant writer people like me) already existing DE, which would require significant development--up front costs. I was thinking about how I would justify this initial investment to my organization and so found myself budgeting out a couple years in the future. With the right tuition model, it seemed that the GPA could break even after 2 years and finally bring some real revenue in after 3 years. I wonder if many nonprofit organizations or even companies would be willing to get involved in that kind of investment. Of course I am advocating for it, but I just wonder what the real response would be.


This relates, it seems to me, to my post below about my grant submission for the Virtual Oncology Practice. As I said, the budget was about $675K and half was for the tech part. Funders are always looking at cost per learner. So if we have 2000 people complete the activity, then that amounts to $337.50 per person over the year--not too bad.

And while we are seeking grant support to get the project going, we are also seeing it as an investment. So if this request goes through and we get to do this project in 2011, then in 2012 we can get support to expand into more content areas. This would result in a lower budget, since the tech is built and would only need to be updated/expanded (but not started from scratch all over again). This might result in a budget of only $350K and with 2000 learners that's $175 per person. So over time the cost per person goes down, but that is only possible with the investment up front.

Organizations have to be willing to make the investment and take the time that goes into reducing costs and ultimately, eventually (hopefully!) result in cost savings. I think it's important, but hard.

Virtual Training Proposal - In!

Yesterday I submitted a grant request to support my organization's "Virtual Oncology Practice". This will be an animated, simulated oncology office where physicians and nurses interact with simulated patients with non-small cell lung cancer and must make treatment decisions that are appropriate for them based on the type, status and progression of their disease.

The project, if funded, would begin development in January and launch live on the web in May. Then it would be up and live for the oncology community for one year. The budget is about $675,000 (more than half that is the pass-through cost for our tech partner who will create and run the simulation for us).

Aside from the fact that this would be a wonderful, innovative new way for my organization to provide in-depth education on a serious, serious disease (number one cause of cancer deaths in the US), I am extremely happy about this submission because it grew directly out of this course. If I were not taking this course and had not had the Second Life experience (good, bad, etc.), I would not have been prepared for this RFP and probably would not have championed this project to my senior management.

So thanks to you all and this course for having an immediate impact on my adult ed practice and my organization. And of course, if the project gets funded, then the impact will ripple out to several thousand oncology clinicians and the many thousands of patients they serve. And those are the people I am in all this for! :)

Interesting article on SL

I have been working on the proposal I have to submit tomorrow (just finished--now accounting must review!) for what we're calling the "Virtual Oncology Practice". It's a simulation for physicians who treat patients with lung cancer. I have been researching the use of simulation in under and grad-medical education so I can talk about it in the proposal slightly knowledgeably. Anyway, in my travels I found this article on Second Life in education.

The authors state that "The purpose of this study was to assess the value of Second Life among post-secondary instructors with experience using Second Life as an educational tool."

Just thought I'd pass along:

http://tomhoodcpa.typepad.com/files/second-life-education-1.pdf

Learner Support in DE -- Not in Higher Ed (Unit 11)

Chapter 9 of the text focuses on real student support concerns in higher education--library, counseling, and help desk.

This made me wonder about learner support outside of the higher ed realm.

In my organization, we have many DE programs on clinical topics. Physicians and nurses get continuing education credit for these activities and must have appropriate paperwork to document their completion of the activity (and passing of the post-test). These folks must submit this documentation at regular intervals to maintain their practice licenses.

Right now the type of learner support my organization provides is fairly basic--we provide the documentation participants need for their licensure and answer any questions they have. So far we don't do enough to provide support outside of "regular business hours" but I can imagine for a provider of a great deal of DE, this would be necessary. Other than that, there are not a lot of support services that we provide now or may need to provide.

What about others who are working in DE outside of higher ed? What type of learner support does your organization provide?

"Clearly Stated Objectives"? (Unit 10)

This past week we compared two DE courses using the objectives criteria in our “Delivering Digitally” text.

As I did this, I compared our current course to one done by my organization—a “self-contained” archived internet CME program. One of the questions for the comparison was whether the objectives were stated clearly.

It appears that most of us (so far) have declared that the objectives for our course comparisons were stated clearly, though there are quite a few who (like me) feel that the objective of “gain knowledge in…..” for ADTED 531 is pretty vague and perhaps unmeasurable. But several people answered that the objectives were stated clearly by a stating that the objectives were clearly displayed—emphasizing that the objectives were on the syllabus or were visible to the learner before the course.

I wrote about this in the discussion board, but as the week has gone on, I am thinking about what the statement/criterion of "clearly stated objectives" means.

So while the statements of objectives may be visible and prominent, I don’t think that’s the same as actually being “clearly stated.” Maybe I am being very literal here, but to me, “clearly stated” means that they make sense, are understandable, are logical, and are in fact measurable.

Here are some objectives for an activity that I am developing right now for my organization—it’s focused on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC):

Following this program, participants should be able to:
 Use histology to select the best treatment regimen for patients with NSCLC.
 Use gene mutation analysis to select the best treatment regimen for patients with NSCLC.
 Determine whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), minimally invasive surgery, or conventional open surgery is appropriate for their patients with early stage NSCLC.

These strike me as pretty clear and absolutely measurable—we will use pre-posttests, performance in the activity case studies, and post-activity evaluations and interviews to assess the effectiveness of the activity.

What are others’ thoughts on this? And perhaps you have some other objectives from your own practice settings to share.

What at least one university is looking for with regard to DE

I was cruising the job listings in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and found an interesting ad. I thought I'd share it here to show what at least one university is doing to help move toward more DE.

And the position is available at the University of the Sciences (in Philadelphia), if anyone's interested!



------------------------------------------
Position Title: Instructional DesignerDepartment: Academic Technology

Reports to: Executive Director of Academic Technology

Position summary: The Instructional Designer will provide instructional as well as program design expertise for the development and support of hybrid courses, online courses, and specialized educational programs. This position is responsible for managing the instructional development process, setting standards for assisting faculty in the design of online curriculum and instruction, development of learning resources, and retooling of courses and course segments for online delivery methods.

Essential Duties and Responsibilities:
--Develop and institute instructional and pedagogical policies for the creation and delivery of online courses.
--Collaborate with faculty on instructional design issues and manage online course development. --Train and support faculty in the use of the learning management system (Blackboard/Angel) with special attention to building quality online learning programs, and online learning best practices via face-to-face workshops, webinars, and self-study screencast modules.
--Develop curriculum guides for courses and/or program components. Provide design and production assistance and supervise student workers to help faculty in the development of online content.

Education and Experience: Bachelor's degree required (Master's degree preferred) in Instructional Technology, Educational Technology, Technical Communication, or related field 3-5 years of experience in online course and curriculum design in higher education. Experience incorporating technology in a classroom setting and working with university faculty Experience with graphic and multimedia authoring software is a plus.

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Required: Advanced knowledge of principle and practices of instructional design and e-learning; familiarity with multimedia and web design technology Excellent written and verbal communication skills; interpersonal skills; customer service orientation and ability to work in a team environment.

This position requires a highly motivated, take charge individual with a proven track record as a self-starter with excellent organizational skills.