Supporting Off-Campus Students with WebCT An Example in Medical Ultrasound

1. Supporting Off-Campus Students with WebCTAn Example in Medical Ultrasound Peter Wells1 & Debbi Weaver2 1 School of Physics & Materials Engineering 2 Higher Education Development Unit Monash University, Clayton Victoria, 3800, Australia EET – Monash University 16-17 July 2003

2. Objectives & Outline of Paper • Distance Learning • Unit Description • Previous Experiences • Use of WebCT in 2003 • Evaluation Surveys • 7 Principles of Good Teaching • Examples from 2003 • Design & Navigation • Summary & Conclusions • Acknowledgements • Describe the use of WebCT in supporting mature-age online distance learning students • Discuss the use of student evaluation of online support and learning achievements • Outline some costs & benefits of this form of teaching/learning

3. Students Miss social contact with staff & students Miss some educational advantages (e.g. library/union) Diverse backgrounds (studies/mature-age students) Variability in skills (learning/writing/computer) Monash/staff Assure quality (quality teaching audits) Use technology to students advantage Use technology to academic staff advantage Provide supportive/nurturing environment Distance Learning

4. Physics of Ultrasound & Instrumentation 6 point unit in Grad. Dip. in Medical Ultrasound One of 8 equally weighted units First semester (mid-Feb. to late June) 16 weekly topics 2-day on-campus workshop (if able to attend) Text book prescribed Printed material (350 pages) + 2 CDs supplied Unit Outline – SON4000

5. Ultrasound Physics/Basics (topics 1-11) Printed material + CD Reflections Activities (reading, calculations at level of c = fl) Typical exam questions Image Processing (topics 12-16) Printed material + 2 CDs Activities (image processing using Scion Image) Exercises (assessable) Typical exam questions Unit Topics

6. 2001 – 8 students (used email/post/phone) 2002 – 12 students (used my.monash portal) 2003 – 19 students (used WebCT v.3.7) Assessment Artefact test (hurdle – US artefact image recognition) 1500-word assignment 10% Workshop report 20% Image processing exercises 15% 3-hour written examination 55% Students & Assessment

7. 2001 – email/phone/post 8 students – 5 Vic, 3 NSW Time consuming Repeated questions to lecturer No sense of student community Staff time about ½ hour per working day Inefficient use of staff time on occasions Virtually no formal feedback from students Previous Experience - 2001

8. 2002 – my.monash portal 12 students – 1 overseas, 1 NT, 4 NSW, 6 Vic Learn to use portal (staff & students) No real continuity across units in Grad. Dip. Basically text-only online support using portal Network administrator to upload other material Disjointed online presentation of material Discussion groups not used much by students Again, virtually no formal feedback Previous Experience - 2002

9. 2003 – WebCT 19 students – 1 NZ, 1 NT, 1 Qld, 5 NSW, 11 Vic Learn to use WebCT (staff & students) All units in Grad. Diploma had WebCT sites Additional Grad. Dip. site for common topics Common WebCT presentation/design Requirement for evaluation (quality audit!) Use of WebCT in 2003

10. Tools/pages used Overview/unit outline/guide (single html page) Calendar – important dates (correct printed mistakes) Single pages – questionnaire/updates/information Quiz/surveys – hurdle and evaluation (‘once only’) Assignments – electronic submission of work Discussion groups – for unit content matters WebCT Mail – for ‘personal’ matters Text on Home Page – updated regularly Used ‘dummy’ student to check site regularly Where possible, used html (WebCT’s native language) for speed WebCT Tools/Pages

11. WebCT Home Page • Navigation • Banner • Links • Screen text • Tools/icons

12. Decisions made in using WebCT Use consistent set of icon/links/layout/style Use html as much as possible (for speed) Separate windows (to avoid in advertent shut-down) Discussion Groups would be public (1-to-all) WebCT Mail would be private (1-to-1) Use built-in responses with quiz/hurdle Use built-in analysis of survey responses Mainly stick to single page tools otherwise Strongly discourage email/phone contact WebCT Details

13. Surveys were ‘anonymous’ (do not look at #1) 2 Surveys – Mid-semester & Final Purpose Is use of WebCT achieving the intended staff-student contact? Is use of WebCT efficient in use of staff resources? Is there adequate student-student contact? Are maximum learning outcomes achieved? Evaluation

14. Mid-Semester Mainly addressing students’ use of WebCT Allows changes to advantage current students 7 MCQs + 2 comment-type questions Final Mainly addressing student learning Advantages only future students 13 MCQs + 5 comment-type questions Evaluation Details

15. Questions on Finding information on WebCT pages (MCQ) Ability to contact academic staff (MCQ) Feeling part of the student cohort (MCQ) Ability to contact students (MCQ) Asking questions and getting responses (MCQ) Timing and pace of the work (MCQ) Specific WebCT features causing difficulty (MCQ) Most & least enjoyable aspects to date (comment) Any additional comments (comment) Mid-Semester Evaluation

16. Outcomes from 84% return For current students Reduced slightly the workload (removed one hurdle) Altered due dates from Fridays to Mondays Provided students with summary of survey analysis For future students Altered weightings of assessments components Added assessment from quiz activity Mid-Semester Evaluation

17. Questions on Finding information on WebCT pages (MCQ) Ability to contact academic staff/students (MCQ) Timing/relevance of staff responses (MCQ) Usefulness of printed & CD material (MCQ) Value of on-campus workshop (MCQ & comment) Response to written examination (MCQ) Overall workload and timing/pace (MCQ) Integration of various aspects of unit (comment) Most & least enjoyable aspects to date (comment) Any additional comments (comment) Final Evaluation

18. Outcomes from 76% return For future students Maintain use of both printed & CD material Maybe integrate US-imaging material better Look to slightly reduce workloads Add FAQ section Other responses still to be considered (but unlikely to be many) Use WebCT (version 3.8) in 2004 Final Evaluation

19. Chickering & Gamson (1991) Student-staff contact in and out of class is the most important factor in student motivation & involvement. Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Students do not learn much just sitting listening, they must talk & write about what they are learning, relate it to past experiences. Student learning is enhanced by prompt and frequent feedback and reinforcement by teachers. Time plus energy equals learning. High expectations are important for everyone. Students need the opportunity to show their talents; they are different from one another. 7 Principles of Good Teaching

20. Students’ hits to site 180/105 hits/readings per student 3.2 postings per student Mid-semester survey Have you felt welcomed/ encouraged to contact your lecturer on areas of difficulty? Student-Staff Contact What did you like best about SON4000? “The security of having available communication with lecturer as necessary.”

21. Mid-semester survey Have you felt able to contact your fellow students? Final survey Have you felt able to contact your fellow students? Workshop Engendered community spirit – worked well. Student-Student Contact

22. Mid-semester survey Did the lecturer respond to questions you raised? Final survey Did the lecturer respond to questions and comments you raised? Prompt Feedback

23. Final survey Did you think the workload was fair? Time management or too much work? Time per Task What did you like least about SON4000? “Just not having enough time - my fault!” What did you like least about SON4000? “Racing against time from March to June 2003.”

24. Final survey Did you read the additional Readings provided? Final survey Did you find the Readings helpful? Provided URLs/Refs High Expectations

25. Diverse Talents • Final survey • Do you feel you have achieved the SON4000 objectives? (listed on page … of SON4000 Unit Guide) What did you like best about SON4000? “The workshop and the digital image processing exercises.” What did you like least about SON4000? “Doing the image processing assignments/exercises.”

26. Final survey Do you feel the exam basically covered all learning material in the topics? Other WebCT attributes Quiz/Survey data analysis provided & bar-charts displayed Discussion Groups/Mail detail can be saved Site can be saved & used/modified for next student intake Feedback & Comments

27. Feedback & Comments • Example • This shows detail in one way WebCT can display Quiz/Survey MCQ results • But …. • WebCT does not have all the tools you require!

28. Design & Navigation • What are students real computer skills? • How will students navigate WebCT? • How will you “train” them in WebCT? • Will you up-date single/content/other pages? • How will students know this? • Should information be in the printed material? • Should you move icons around or not? • What are you “saying” by this? • How frequently should any student access WebCT? • Have you checked site as the “dummy” student?

29. Communication was greatly enhanced Time commitment was greater than expected Students liked the online approach we used Quality flexible online learning is possible Can be fun/rewarding Off-campus students will provide feedback Students have varying needs/backgrounds Students still challenge us to teach effectively Do not make assumptions about new technology Summary & Conclusions

30. Students who were the ‘guinea pigs’ for this Demonstrated that you could build a community spirit Debbi Weaver (HEDU/CeLTS) Taught me WebCT basics very quickly/efficiently Designed surveys & analysed student responses Interviewed me every 2 weeks Peter Coombs (SON Course Leader) Encouraged me do get on with it! Acknowledgements