24

Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing
Page 2: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

DIRECTOR’S CUT:

• WHAT DO WE KNOW?

• HOW DID WE GET HERE?

• WHERE DOES THIS ROAD TAKE US?

• THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL COURSE

• ENCORE

Page 3: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

WHAT DO WE KNOW?

• VARIOUS STUDIES SUGGEST OPTIMAL SIZING FROM 12 TO 30 STUDENTS

• NO AGREEMENT IN FINDINGS (“MIXED..AND CONTRADICTORY”)

• QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODICAL APPROACH AND APPLICABILITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 4: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SURVEY SAYS…

Page 5: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SURVEY SAYS…

Page 6: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SURVEY SAYS…

Page 7: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SURVEY SAYS….

Page 8: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SURVEY SAYS…

Page 9: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

“I DON’T RECALL ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT THE NUMBER 25.”

-ERIC FREDERICKSON TO THE AUTHOR, 2.6.17

Page 10: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON…

• SIZING WAS A LOCAL CAMPUS DECISION

• THE APPROACH BY OTHER SUNY CAMPUSES WAS OFTEN EXPLORED AND CONSIDERED

• IN THE EARLY DAYS, (SLN WAS) TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT ONLINE COURSES WERE NOT

A SPACE FOR UNLIMITED ENROLLMENTS

• (SLN) SHARED A LOT OF RESEARCH ABOUT HIGHER LEVELS OF INTERACTION IN THE ONLINE COURSES

(WHICH HELPED WITH THE PREVIOUS BULLET)

Page 11: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

WHERE DOES THIS ROAD TAKE US?

COMPETING INTERESTS:

• COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE SECTIONS/RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

• MAINTAINING A HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTOR/STUDENT INTERACTION

• OFFSETTING ENROLLMENT DECLINES THROUGH ALTERNATIVE ENROLLMENT IN ONLINE PROGRAMS

• MONITORING LEARNING OUTCOMES ACROSS DELIVERY MODALITIES

Page 12: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

TIME THE REVELATOR

• Faculty perceptions of workload

• Time-based studies

Page 13: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL COURSE

COURSE SIZE IMPACT ON INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVENESS:

• “LARGE” COURSES (UP TO 30 STUDENTS) WERE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTOR

EFFECTIVENESS. (SORENSON, 2014)

• FOLLOW UP STUDY: IMPACT ON STUDENTS IN >30 SEAT COURSES DIFFICULT TO PREDICT WITHOUT

FURTHER STUDY (2015)

Page 14: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

MONEY TALKS

• Course caps increase in summer/winter sessions

• Compensation pro-rated based on enrollment

Page 15: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

TIME BASED STUDIES

• TOMEI (2006) FINDINGS:

• 14% MORE TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE INSTRUCTION (CONTENT TRANSMISSION)*

• 16% MORE TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE ADVISEMENT(STUDENT INTERACTION)

• 8% LESS TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE ASSESSMENT

* STUDY INCLUDED “LIVE” SESSIONS AS PART OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY

Page 16: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

TIME BASED STUDIES

WORLEY AND TESDALL (2009):

• OVERALL TIME SPENT TEACHING ONLINE WAS NOT GREATER THAN F2F

• TIME SPENT PER ONLINE STUDENT WAS HIGHER

Page 17: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

TIME BASED STUDIES• “ABOUT A MINUTE PER WEEK PER STUDENT MORE…” (VAN DE VOORD AND POGUE, 2012)

Page 18: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

TIME BASED STUDIES

• COVELLO (2017) SUGGESTS TIME-BASED INSTRUCTOR TASK STUDIES TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE

WORKLOAD

• CONCERNS ABOUT “TAYLORISM”

• ACCOUNTING FOR DIFFERING MANAGERIAL STRATEGIES

Page 19: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

SCALING UP: AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM?

STRATEGIES:

• RANDOMIZED GRADING OF A SELECT NUMBER OF DISCUSSION POSTINGS

• IMPLEMENTING PEER REVIEW OF FELLOW STUDENTS’ POSTINGS

• INTELLIGENT TUTORING/ADAPTIVE LEARNING TOOLS

• EXPLORING POSTING OF AUDIO DISCUSSION AND AUDIO FEEDBACK

(VAN DER VOORD AND POGUE, 2012)

Page 20: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

FINDING OUR WAY BACK HOME

TOOLS FOR OPTIMIZATION

• THE OBJECTIVIST-CONSTRUCTIVIST CONTINUUM

• THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY MODEL (COI)

• KRATHWOHL AND ANDERSON’S REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

(TAFT, 2011)

Page 21: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

OBJECTIVIST/CONTRUCTIVISTCONTINUUM

• OBJECTIVIST COURSES MAY HAVE NO UPPER LIMIT

• CONSTRUCTIVIST COURSES MAY BE OPTIMIZED AT 20

• MIXED APPROACHES: “JUDGEMENT CALL”

(TAFT, 2010)

Page 22: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

COI

• SOCIAL PRESENCE IS OFTEN EMPHASIZED IN CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES

• INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION MAY BE SKEWED TOWARDS AFFECTIVE RESPONSES (NON-CONTENT)

• >25% DECLARE THREADED DISCUSSIONS “MOST IMPORTANT AND INNOVATIVE” TEACHING TECHNIQUE

(TAFT, 2011; NAGEL AND KOTZE, 2009; LEGON AND GARRETT, 2017)

Page 23: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

HIGHER ORDER OUTCOMES TYPICALLY ALIGN WITH UPPER DIVISION CLASSES

AND CORRESPONDINGLY SMALLER SECTION SIZES (TAFT, 2010)

Page 24: Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing

ENCORE

QUESTIONS?

THAT’S A WRAP!