Chapter 03
Instructional, Technology and Teacher, Instructor
3.1 Characteristics of Effective Teachers/Instructor
Though there seems to be a prevailing assumption that effective teaching cannot be defined, the research literature indicates otherwise. The studies below have identified some of the characteristics of teachers who are defined as "effective" by students, peers, and administrators. It is a good idea to keep this list in mind as you prepare to teach and as you monitor your teaching throughout the semester.
Components of Effective Teaching as Perceived by Students
1. Analytic/Synthetic Approach
a. Discusses points of view other than his/her own.
b. Contrasts implications of various theories.
c. Discusses recent developments in the field.
d. Presents origins of ideas and concepts.
e. Gives references for more interesting and involved points.
f. Presents facts and concepts from related fields.
g. Emphasizes conceptual understanding.
2. Organization/Clarity
a. Explains clearly.
b. Is well prepared.
c. Gives lectures that are easy to outline.
d. Is careful and precise in answering questions.
e. Summarizes major points.
f. States objectives for each class session.
g. Identifies what he/she considers important.
3. Instructor-Group Interaction
a. Encourages class discussion.
b. Invites students to share their knowledge and experiences.
c. Clarifies thinking by identifying reasons for questions.
d. Invites criticism of his/her own ideas.
e. Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not.
f. Has interest and concern in the quality of his/her teaching.
g. Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding.
4. Instructor--Individual Student Interaction
a. Has a genuine interest in students.
b. Is friendly toward students.
c. Relates to students as individuals.
d. Recognizes and greets students out of class.
e. Is accessible to students out of class.
f. Is valued for advice not directly related to the course.
g. Respects students as persons.
5. Dynamism/Enthusiasm
a. Is a dynamic and energetic person.
b. Has an interesting style of presentation.
c. Seems to enjoy teaching.
d. Is enthusiastic about the subject.
e. Seems to have self-confidence.
f. Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice.
g. Has a sense of humor.
B. Characteristics of Effective Teachers Most Often
Mentioned
1. They get Wright down to business.
2. They teach at a fast pace.
3. They use a variety of instructional strategies.
4. They stay with their subjects.
5. They use humor.
6. They have command of their classes.
7. They interact with the students.
a. Give immediate response to student question or answer.
b. Provide corrective feedback.
c. Use probing questions.
d. Praise correct answers with an observation based on the answer (i.e., an Explanation of why the answer was correct).
8. Provide a "warm classroom climate."
a. Students free to interrupt at any time.
b. Spontaneous introduction of humor.
9. Nonverbal behavior
a. Uses gestures frequently.
b. Walk around as they talk.
c. Extensive use of eye-contact.
D. Characteristics of Effective Large-Class Instructors
By combining the comments from both the students and instructors who took part in this study, it was found that the characteristics of an effective large-class instructor are:
1. Enthusiasm about the subject.
2. Knowledge of the subject and the ability to communicate this knowledge.
3. Cares about the progress and welfare of the students.
4. Dares to discipline (govern) to eliminate unnecessary talking, etc.
5. Has a sense of humor.
6. Uses a variety of instructional strategies.
7. Interacts with students during, as well as before and after class.
8. Has confidence in him/herself and what he/she is doing.
E. A Checklist for Good Teaching
1. Good teaching tests pre-requisite skills.
2. Good teaching provides feedback to the teacher.
a. Non-credit tests, quizzes
b. Discussions with students
c. Questionnaires
d. Non-verbal messages
1) Drops in attendance
2) Students sleeping
3) Students reading newspaper
3. Good teaching adapts to individual differences.
4. Good teaching provides (specific) feedback to the students.
5. Good teaching is flexible.
6. Good teaching promotes active student learning.
7. Good teaching motivates students.
8. Good teaching is clear and well-organized.
3.2 Instructional technology as comprehensive technology
For organizations to take full advantage of the potential benefits of learning objects, learning objects must become an integrated part of the instructional technology infrastructure. This chapter will describe the theoretical framework we use to conceptualize and work with learning objects, the core issues that led to this effort, the principles that guide our approach, the solution that we are working toward, the particular role of learning objects in that solution, as well as the benefits that we anticipate as a result. The goal of the chapter is to provide a sense of the far-reaching impacts of our decision to use digital learning objects at the core of our instructional technology systems, including some of the obstacles that must be overcome.
Theoretical Framework
Learning Object
We define “learning objects” as digital media that is designed and/or used for instructional purposes. These objects range from maps and charts to video demonstrations and interactive simulations and might be “instructional-generative,” but hope to begin producing this type in the near future.
It generally includes durability, accessibility, reusability, discoverability, extensibility, affordability, and manageability of learning objects. The central benefit of learning objects upon which most institutions focus, including our own, is their potential for reuse. Generally, the most expensive elements of instruction to produce are the media intensive assets. If these assets could be reused, the argument goes; production costs could be greatly reduced. This, in theory, provides the primary financial rationale that justifies investment in the infrastructure required to realize a learning object centered system.
Growing Independent Study Program
At the same time, we are seeing sharp enrollment increases in both our paper-and-pencil and Internet-based Independent Study course offerings. Total enrollment is nearing 50,000 with about 10,000 online enrollments. This represents an expanding constituency of learners who desire high-quality, remotely accessible courses.
Multiple Learning Environments
As a partial solution to the expanding student base, we have begun to explore using online courses to accommodate more students both on- and off-campus. Consequently, we find ourselves facing at least three distinct instructional settings where effective use of technology to aid learning is desired. These are 1) on-campus courses where media is used in classroom presentation, 2) hybrid courses where media may be used both during classroom sessions and in online sessions, and 3) independent study online courses where media supports the instruction of students who will never meet in a classroom. As technology continues to evolve, we anticipate more and more learning environment configurations, each with its own set of capabilities and constraints.
Complex Media Management
The previous four problems can create a nightmare scenario for the management of a university’s media assets. If media is incompatible, inaccessible, and esoteric, and if each asset requires a different delivery method, it is very difficult for a user or manager to know 1) what assets exist, 2) where they reside, 3) what their physical condition is, 4) if they are useful for a particular context, 5) if the correct media player is available to display the desired media at the desired location, and 6) if the person who wants to use it will know how to work that player.
Meet Present Needs While Anticipating Future Adaptation
Too often, institutions of higher education adopt an approach to instructional technology that benefits only the most technologically advanced. They may choose an approach that, in order to be successful, requires instructors and learners to come rapidly up to speed on complex technical tools. New and faster computers and sophisticated software is made available to faculty members who have the time and inclination to jump in, but their less technically adept – or simply overworked – colleagues are left wringing their hands in the shadows of the new faculty techno-stars. Anyone still teaching in a normal classroom with normal students is in danger of becoming disenfranchised and being characterized as “old school” and out-of-date.
Streamline Design, Development, and Delivery
Because demand for instructional media is increasing rapidly all over the university, it was imperative that we ensure that the process of designing, developing, and delivering media become more efficient. A common source of inefficiency in this process at many institutions is the tendency for both university faculty and instructional designers to take an artisan approach to the development of instructional media. In this approach, the creator of the media works alone or perhaps with one other person. The instructional media is designed and developed with little outside feedback or technical expertise. The faculty member or designer is generally learning the technology as they create the media and focus their efforts on meeting only their needs. We felt we needed to streamline this process by bringing more technical expertise to bear and by implementing a more disciplined development process. We also wanted to be sure that these efficiencies weren’t lost in an unwieldy delivery system that introduced inefficiencies of its own.
Improve Quality
Finally, it was continually our focus to improve the quality of the instruction both in the classroom and online. A key feature of this was to involve an instructional designer in every university-funded project. This would increase the chances that instruction, rather than a particular favored technology, was in the driver’s seat. We also recognized that while many faculty members are excellent teachers and researchers, their background in areas such as interface design or Internet-based instruction is usually limited. Some models of development do little more than put relatively high-end development tools in the hands of the faculty member or their teaching assistants, leaving them the entire task of design and development. Rather than forcing them into a role to which they were not suited or trained, it was our goal to bring to them the support of instructional designers, graphic designers, illustrators, 3-D animators, media designers and programmers to create a product that was exemplary in content, instructional approach, visual design, and technical soundness.
Involve Students
Finally, we felt a strong commitment to integrating students into the process of developing instructional media. As a result, we organized the Center for Instructional Design in such a way that each area was overseen by professionals, but staffed by students. Our full-time instructional designers, artists, animators, audio/video producers, and programmers number less than 50 while the number of students working in those areas totals more than 150. This approach helps to keep wages down while providing invaluable practical experience for students seeking work in media-related fields.
The Solution
The title of this section may be a bit optimistic. The solution described below represents our best present thinking in this area. Because the solution will evolve over time, we have focused the discussion below on those aspects that we anticipate will remain stable over the course of several years.
All Digital Delivery
As long as media and equipment was being shuffled from here to there by humans, stored and hoarded in climate-controlled basements, or just piled on a faculty members office floor, we were never going to be able to leverage our resources in a meaningful way. The common language we chose was ones and zeros – we committed to an all-digital delivery system.
Additionally, we need to designe a “tele-podium” in each classroom. The tele-podium consists of the following:
A VCR
A computer with:
· Basic office software
· A CD/DVD-ROM player
· A Zip Drive
· Speakers
· Access to the Internet
· Access to a network drive where instructors can upload materials for classroom use from their offices
· A connection to our campus cable TV network
· A set of connections to accommodate a laptop
Reusable Learning Objects
At the center of this infrastructure is a heavy reliance on reusable learning objects. In our experience, objects are most useful for instructional reuse when they center around a single, core concept. The exceptions to this are objects designed to assess learning. These, we have found, are most useful when they address several related concepts at once.
For example, we have several individual objects that encourage a learner to explore each aspect of Newton’s 1st Law of Motion, including a slow motion video of a car crash and an interactive simulation of a man “surfing” on ice in the back of a moving pick-up truck. However, to assess the learner’s understanding, we created a context dependent item set as a single object. In this object, the learner is asked a series of questions about a woman in a moving elevator to cover several facets of the concept at once.
The Payoff Lower Costs
As expected, the initial expenditure on this system has been higher than for previous technologies. However, we expect long-term financial benefits. These potentially include:
Lower Development Costs. We expect that wide-spread use of instructional design learning object templates will speed development and allow non-experts to created fairly sophisticated media that can be used both in the classroom and online.
Lower Delivery Costs. Once the digital delivery system and the digital library are fully in place, we anticipate that we will save money by eliminating the overhead of a large human delivery organization and maintaining a large amount of media delivery equipment. We also hope to lower our maintenance cost of the media itself, since it will no longer wear out with repeated use.
More Reuse. We expect a significant percentage of the learning objects that we are creating to be reused in many contexts. By having a large library available, we hope to reduce the cost of duplicate media considerably.
More Participation
By publishing standards, making development tools available, and promoting an object approach to developing, we expect to see much more participation on the part of the faculty
Conclusion
Without learning objects at the center of the design, most of the problems we are trying to address would remain relatively unaffected, even if the other changes to the system described above were made. For example, migrating to a fully digital delivery system or setting development priorities, while significant steps, only address part of the need and do little to address cost effectiveness. Even though we are clearly still in the formative phase of our implementation, we are gratified to see that instructors are already reusing objects in their individual classrooms that were originally developed for online courses and vice versa. From a practical standpoint, this marks the beginning of the kind of reuse that, if prevalent, will signal the success of the system or, if absent, the failure. To reach this point, extraordinary coordination and cooperation by disparate university entities has been required. While difficult at times, we have discovered that as we overcome traditional barriers between academic entities and service organizations, we discover new efficiencies that invigorate the entire institution. As more academic publishers and institutions of learning commit to a similar model and make their objects publicly available for reuse, we anticipate these efficiencies will grow exponentially. By that time, we hope to have progressed to the point where using and reusing digital learning objects is as typical a part of on- and off-campus academic life as opening a textbook. And that simply opening a textbook can no longer be considered typical.
Instructional, Technology and Teacher, Instructor
3.1 Characteristics of Effective Teachers/Instructor
Though there seems to be a prevailing assumption that effective teaching cannot be defined, the research literature indicates otherwise. The studies below have identified some of the characteristics of teachers who are defined as "effective" by students, peers, and administrators. It is a good idea to keep this list in mind as you prepare to teach and as you monitor your teaching throughout the semester.
Components of Effective Teaching as Perceived by Students
1. Analytic/Synthetic Approach
a. Discusses points of view other than his/her own.
b. Contrasts implications of various theories.
c. Discusses recent developments in the field.
d. Presents origins of ideas and concepts.
e. Gives references for more interesting and involved points.
f. Presents facts and concepts from related fields.
g. Emphasizes conceptual understanding.
2. Organization/Clarity
a. Explains clearly.
b. Is well prepared.
c. Gives lectures that are easy to outline.
d. Is careful and precise in answering questions.
e. Summarizes major points.
f. States objectives for each class session.
g. Identifies what he/she considers important.
3. Instructor-Group Interaction
a. Encourages class discussion.
b. Invites students to share their knowledge and experiences.
c. Clarifies thinking by identifying reasons for questions.
d. Invites criticism of his/her own ideas.
e. Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not.
f. Has interest and concern in the quality of his/her teaching.
g. Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding.
4. Instructor--Individual Student Interaction
a. Has a genuine interest in students.
b. Is friendly toward students.
c. Relates to students as individuals.
d. Recognizes and greets students out of class.
e. Is accessible to students out of class.
f. Is valued for advice not directly related to the course.
g. Respects students as persons.
5. Dynamism/Enthusiasm
a. Is a dynamic and energetic person.
b. Has an interesting style of presentation.
c. Seems to enjoy teaching.
d. Is enthusiastic about the subject.
e. Seems to have self-confidence.
f. Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice.
g. Has a sense of humor.
B. Characteristics of Effective Teachers Most Often
Mentioned
1. They get Wright down to business.
2. They teach at a fast pace.
3. They use a variety of instructional strategies.
4. They stay with their subjects.
5. They use humor.
6. They have command of their classes.
7. They interact with the students.
a. Give immediate response to student question or answer.
b. Provide corrective feedback.
c. Use probing questions.
d. Praise correct answers with an observation based on the answer (i.e., an Explanation of why the answer was correct).
8. Provide a "warm classroom climate."
a. Students free to interrupt at any time.
b. Spontaneous introduction of humor.
9. Nonverbal behavior
a. Uses gestures frequently.
b. Walk around as they talk.
c. Extensive use of eye-contact.
D. Characteristics of Effective Large-Class Instructors
By combining the comments from both the students and instructors who took part in this study, it was found that the characteristics of an effective large-class instructor are:
1. Enthusiasm about the subject.
2. Knowledge of the subject and the ability to communicate this knowledge.
3. Cares about the progress and welfare of the students.
4. Dares to discipline (govern) to eliminate unnecessary talking, etc.
5. Has a sense of humor.
6. Uses a variety of instructional strategies.
7. Interacts with students during, as well as before and after class.
8. Has confidence in him/herself and what he/she is doing.
E. A Checklist for Good Teaching
1. Good teaching tests pre-requisite skills.
2. Good teaching provides feedback to the teacher.
a. Non-credit tests, quizzes
b. Discussions with students
c. Questionnaires
d. Non-verbal messages
1) Drops in attendance
2) Students sleeping
3) Students reading newspaper
3. Good teaching adapts to individual differences.
4. Good teaching provides (specific) feedback to the students.
5. Good teaching is flexible.
6. Good teaching promotes active student learning.
7. Good teaching motivates students.
8. Good teaching is clear and well-organized.
3.2 Instructional technology as comprehensive technology
For organizations to take full advantage of the potential benefits of learning objects, learning objects must become an integrated part of the instructional technology infrastructure. This chapter will describe the theoretical framework we use to conceptualize and work with learning objects, the core issues that led to this effort, the principles that guide our approach, the solution that we are working toward, the particular role of learning objects in that solution, as well as the benefits that we anticipate as a result. The goal of the chapter is to provide a sense of the far-reaching impacts of our decision to use digital learning objects at the core of our instructional technology systems, including some of the obstacles that must be overcome.
Theoretical Framework
Learning Object
We define “learning objects” as digital media that is designed and/or used for instructional purposes. These objects range from maps and charts to video demonstrations and interactive simulations and might be “instructional-generative,” but hope to begin producing this type in the near future.
It generally includes durability, accessibility, reusability, discoverability, extensibility, affordability, and manageability of learning objects. The central benefit of learning objects upon which most institutions focus, including our own, is their potential for reuse. Generally, the most expensive elements of instruction to produce are the media intensive assets. If these assets could be reused, the argument goes; production costs could be greatly reduced. This, in theory, provides the primary financial rationale that justifies investment in the infrastructure required to realize a learning object centered system.
Growing Independent Study Program
At the same time, we are seeing sharp enrollment increases in both our paper-and-pencil and Internet-based Independent Study course offerings. Total enrollment is nearing 50,000 with about 10,000 online enrollments. This represents an expanding constituency of learners who desire high-quality, remotely accessible courses.
Multiple Learning Environments
As a partial solution to the expanding student base, we have begun to explore using online courses to accommodate more students both on- and off-campus. Consequently, we find ourselves facing at least three distinct instructional settings where effective use of technology to aid learning is desired. These are 1) on-campus courses where media is used in classroom presentation, 2) hybrid courses where media may be used both during classroom sessions and in online sessions, and 3) independent study online courses where media supports the instruction of students who will never meet in a classroom. As technology continues to evolve, we anticipate more and more learning environment configurations, each with its own set of capabilities and constraints.
Complex Media Management
The previous four problems can create a nightmare scenario for the management of a university’s media assets. If media is incompatible, inaccessible, and esoteric, and if each asset requires a different delivery method, it is very difficult for a user or manager to know 1) what assets exist, 2) where they reside, 3) what their physical condition is, 4) if they are useful for a particular context, 5) if the correct media player is available to display the desired media at the desired location, and 6) if the person who wants to use it will know how to work that player.
Meet Present Needs While Anticipating Future Adaptation
Too often, institutions of higher education adopt an approach to instructional technology that benefits only the most technologically advanced. They may choose an approach that, in order to be successful, requires instructors and learners to come rapidly up to speed on complex technical tools. New and faster computers and sophisticated software is made available to faculty members who have the time and inclination to jump in, but their less technically adept – or simply overworked – colleagues are left wringing their hands in the shadows of the new faculty techno-stars. Anyone still teaching in a normal classroom with normal students is in danger of becoming disenfranchised and being characterized as “old school” and out-of-date.
Streamline Design, Development, and Delivery
Because demand for instructional media is increasing rapidly all over the university, it was imperative that we ensure that the process of designing, developing, and delivering media become more efficient. A common source of inefficiency in this process at many institutions is the tendency for both university faculty and instructional designers to take an artisan approach to the development of instructional media. In this approach, the creator of the media works alone or perhaps with one other person. The instructional media is designed and developed with little outside feedback or technical expertise. The faculty member or designer is generally learning the technology as they create the media and focus their efforts on meeting only their needs. We felt we needed to streamline this process by bringing more technical expertise to bear and by implementing a more disciplined development process. We also wanted to be sure that these efficiencies weren’t lost in an unwieldy delivery system that introduced inefficiencies of its own.
Improve Quality
Finally, it was continually our focus to improve the quality of the instruction both in the classroom and online. A key feature of this was to involve an instructional designer in every university-funded project. This would increase the chances that instruction, rather than a particular favored technology, was in the driver’s seat. We also recognized that while many faculty members are excellent teachers and researchers, their background in areas such as interface design or Internet-based instruction is usually limited. Some models of development do little more than put relatively high-end development tools in the hands of the faculty member or their teaching assistants, leaving them the entire task of design and development. Rather than forcing them into a role to which they were not suited or trained, it was our goal to bring to them the support of instructional designers, graphic designers, illustrators, 3-D animators, media designers and programmers to create a product that was exemplary in content, instructional approach, visual design, and technical soundness.
Involve Students
Finally, we felt a strong commitment to integrating students into the process of developing instructional media. As a result, we organized the Center for Instructional Design in such a way that each area was overseen by professionals, but staffed by students. Our full-time instructional designers, artists, animators, audio/video producers, and programmers number less than 50 while the number of students working in those areas totals more than 150. This approach helps to keep wages down while providing invaluable practical experience for students seeking work in media-related fields.
The Solution
The title of this section may be a bit optimistic. The solution described below represents our best present thinking in this area. Because the solution will evolve over time, we have focused the discussion below on those aspects that we anticipate will remain stable over the course of several years.
All Digital Delivery
As long as media and equipment was being shuffled from here to there by humans, stored and hoarded in climate-controlled basements, or just piled on a faculty members office floor, we were never going to be able to leverage our resources in a meaningful way. The common language we chose was ones and zeros – we committed to an all-digital delivery system.
Additionally, we need to designe a “tele-podium” in each classroom. The tele-podium consists of the following:
A VCR
A computer with:
· Basic office software
· A CD/DVD-ROM player
· A Zip Drive
· Speakers
· Access to the Internet
· Access to a network drive where instructors can upload materials for classroom use from their offices
· A connection to our campus cable TV network
· A set of connections to accommodate a laptop
Reusable Learning Objects
At the center of this infrastructure is a heavy reliance on reusable learning objects. In our experience, objects are most useful for instructional reuse when they center around a single, core concept. The exceptions to this are objects designed to assess learning. These, we have found, are most useful when they address several related concepts at once.
For example, we have several individual objects that encourage a learner to explore each aspect of Newton’s 1st Law of Motion, including a slow motion video of a car crash and an interactive simulation of a man “surfing” on ice in the back of a moving pick-up truck. However, to assess the learner’s understanding, we created a context dependent item set as a single object. In this object, the learner is asked a series of questions about a woman in a moving elevator to cover several facets of the concept at once.
The Payoff Lower Costs
As expected, the initial expenditure on this system has been higher than for previous technologies. However, we expect long-term financial benefits. These potentially include:
Lower Development Costs. We expect that wide-spread use of instructional design learning object templates will speed development and allow non-experts to created fairly sophisticated media that can be used both in the classroom and online.
Lower Delivery Costs. Once the digital delivery system and the digital library are fully in place, we anticipate that we will save money by eliminating the overhead of a large human delivery organization and maintaining a large amount of media delivery equipment. We also hope to lower our maintenance cost of the media itself, since it will no longer wear out with repeated use.
More Reuse. We expect a significant percentage of the learning objects that we are creating to be reused in many contexts. By having a large library available, we hope to reduce the cost of duplicate media considerably.
More Participation
By publishing standards, making development tools available, and promoting an object approach to developing, we expect to see much more participation on the part of the faculty
Conclusion
Without learning objects at the center of the design, most of the problems we are trying to address would remain relatively unaffected, even if the other changes to the system described above were made. For example, migrating to a fully digital delivery system or setting development priorities, while significant steps, only address part of the need and do little to address cost effectiveness. Even though we are clearly still in the formative phase of our implementation, we are gratified to see that instructors are already reusing objects in their individual classrooms that were originally developed for online courses and vice versa. From a practical standpoint, this marks the beginning of the kind of reuse that, if prevalent, will signal the success of the system or, if absent, the failure. To reach this point, extraordinary coordination and cooperation by disparate university entities has been required. While difficult at times, we have discovered that as we overcome traditional barriers between academic entities and service organizations, we discover new efficiencies that invigorate the entire institution. As more academic publishers and institutions of learning commit to a similar model and make their objects publicly available for reuse, we anticipate these efficiencies will grow exponentially. By that time, we hope to have progressed to the point where using and reusing digital learning objects is as typical a part of on- and off-campus academic life as opening a textbook. And that simply opening a textbook can no longer be considered typical.
No comments:
Post a Comment