Timing is Everything! Using Selective-Release to Guide Successful Student Orientation

1. Timing is Everything! Using Selective-Release to Guide Successful Student Orientation 14th Annual Sloan-C Conference On Online Learning November 5-7, 2008

2. Format • Goals • Research • Product • Construction • Feedback • Your Questions

3. Note: Some of the screen shots are too small to read on these handouts. If you would like a copy of these slides, please email me at rinkoff@csp.edu

4. Goals • User friendly and intuitive to student • Create a student feeling of success • Allow professor to monitor progress and offer support if necessary • Provide connection to existing informational content

5. Goals (cont’d.) • Create connections • Student to university • Student to professor • Student to others in cohort • Driven by pedagogy NOT by technology

6. Research: Key Topics The “Three C’s” • Confidence • Connection • Conversation

7. Confidence Student positive experience with online learning is directly related to: • familiarity with the online learning environment • confidence level with computer technology (Sheard & Lynch, 2003)

8. Connection Instructor creates an environment where students begin connecting with one another before they connect with the material. (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) Students trust they are in a safe environment (camaraderie develops). (Lock, 2002)

9. Conversation Critical to making students feel like part of a group Reduces feeling of isolation for online students Associated with retention (Gaide, 2004)

10. Conversation (cont’d.) “In this new generation, communication among learners is no longer marginal.” (Lock, 2002, p. 37)

11. Product • Collaborative effort between faculty and WebCT staff • Fully online orientation that met our goals • Adopted by the entire College of Business • Easy to tweak to make specific to different programs

12. Product – Student View

13. Product – Student View

14. Product – Student View

15. Product – Student View

16. Product – Student View

17. Product – Student View

18. Product – Student View

19. Product – Student View

20. Product – Student View

21. Product – Student View

22. Product – Student View

23. Product – Student View

24. Product – Student View

25. Product – Student View

26. Product – Student View

27. Product – Student View

28. Product – Student View

29. Product – Student View

30. Product – Student View

31. Product – Student View

32. Product – Instructor View

33. Design Framework • Selective release • Date • Deliverable

34. Design Framework • Available for major Learning Management Systems: • WebCT • Blackboard • Angel • Moodle • Desire2Learn • Sakai (EduTools, 2007; WebCT Instructor Community, 2007)

35. Construction • Selective release deliverable • Created “quizzes” for each score at least 1 point • Default settings must be modified • First deliverable • Subsequent deliverables

36. Practical Construction Outline on paper first! Use a whole tablet, one page of paper per screen. Looks like this: Name of this page From: [name of last page] Contents of this page [list files, content matter, etc.] Quiz title, score = [whatever you decide] Go to page titled [next page name]

37. Construction – 1st page • Attempts Allowed: Unlimited • Available: Now (or appropriate date) • Results: Use the highest score for students grade • Score Release: Upon submission • Student Results Display: • Show response to each question, evaluation only • Show feedback for each question only

38. Construction – Page 2 & After • Attempts Allowed: Unlimited • Available via Selective Release • Previous [quiz name] Equals [quiz score] • Results: Use the highest score for students grade • Score Release: Upon submission • Student Results Display: • Show response to each question, evaluation only • Show feedback for each question only

39. Feedback from IT Staff • Need knowledgeable instructors for quick troubleshooting • Students display greater understanding of administrative and academic processes and policies • Students display greater understanding of support resources

40. Feedback from Students • Clear and easy to understand • Has added to confidence level • Fun to meet other students and instructor before course content

41. Feedback from Instructors • Helps students with technology and process before they get connected to course content • Has a “heads-up” on student ability • Can truly connect with students; students know they have an advocate

42. Bibliography Bailey, M. and Luetkehans, L. (1998). Ten great tips for facilitating virtual learning teams. Distance Learning ’98. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, 19–25. Boyer, N. (2003). The learning contract process: Scaffold for building social, self-directed learning. Distance Education, 4(4), 369-383. Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2002). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Daugherty, M. & Turner, J. (2003). Sociometry: An approach for assessing group dynamics in web-based courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(3), 263-275. EduTools. (2007). ArchiveCMS: Product comparison system. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.edutools.info/compare.jsp?pj=8&i=263,276,299,358,366,386,387

43. Bibliography (cont’d.) Fung, Y. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. School of Education and Language, The Open University of Hong Kong.    Gaide, S. (2004). Best practices for helping students complete online degree programs. Distance Education Report, 8(20), 8. Hathorn, L. G., & Ingram, A. L. (2002). Online collaboration: Making it work. Educational Technology, 42(1), 33-40. Hiltz, S. R. (1998, November). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building learning communities. Invited address at WEB98, Orlando, FL.<http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm>. Jiang, M. (1998). Distance learning in a web-based environment: An analysis of factors influencing students’ perceptions of online learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59-11A, 4044. Katzenbach, JR and Smith, DK. (2006). The wisdom of teams. New York: Collins Business Essentials.

44. Bibliography (cont’d.) Lander, D. (2005). The consuming (no)body of online learners: Remembering e-communities of practice. Studies in Continuing Education, 27(2), 155-174. Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 13-33. Lencioni, P. (2005). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408. Lorenzetti, J. (2002). Well begun is half done: Is orientation a key to retention? Distance Education Report, 6(22), 1, 6. Mai, R. P. (1996). Learning partnerships: How leading American companies implement organizational learning. Chicago: ASTD and Irwin.

45. Bibliography (cont’d.) Moore, J. (2005). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices, August 2005. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/ v9n3_moore.pdf Motteram, G. & Forrester, G. (2005). Becoming an online distance learner: What can be learned from students’ experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance education, 26(3), 281-298. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating together: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on the short leash: The (miss) application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 53-65. Pfeiffer, W. J. & Jones, J. E. (Ed.). (1982). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol.1). La Jolla, CA: University Associates Publishers and Consultants. Russell, D., Calvey, D. & Banks, M. (2003). Creating new learning communities: Toward effective e-learning production. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(1), 34-44.

46. Bibliography (cont’d.) Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence, An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York: Doubleday. Sheard, J., & Lynch, J. (2003). Accommodating learner diversity in web-based learning environments: Imperatives for future developments. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 16(4), 243-260. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. Song, H., & Yonkers, V. (2004). The development and evaluation of multi-level assessment framework for analyzing online interaction. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (27) Chicago, IL, October 19-23, 2004. Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf Thompson, L., & Ku, H. (2006). A case study of online collaborative learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 361-375. Van Dam, N. (2004). The e-learning fieldbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vroman, K. & Kovacich, J. (2002). Computer-mediated interdisciplinary teams: Theory and reality. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(2), 159-170. WebCT Instructor Community. (2007). LMS options and comparisons. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://ctlet.brocku.ca/webct/LMS_Options_and_Comparisons

47. Your Presenter Carol Z. Rinkoff, Ph.D., is chair of the MBA program at Concordia University in St. Paul, MN, where she teaches both online and on-campus undergraduate and graduate management courses. Carol has a passion for integrating educational pedagogy with technology.

48. Acknowledgements • Special thanks to my Concordia University – St. Paul colleagues who made this product possible: • Heather George, Coordinator of Instructional Technology • Renata Mayrhofer, faculty (Organizational Management & Leadership) • Ben Phillip, Instructional Technology Specialist • Jean Rock, chair (Organizational Management & Leadership) • Craig Witthaus, faculty (Organizational Management & Leadership)