Copyright: TechTrends, 1997

A publication of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology
Article Date: January/February, 1997
TechTrends Vol. 42 No. 1, 24-28
By Karen L. Murphy, Sharon Cathcart, and Sailaja Kodali
kmurphy@tamu.edu
http://disted.tamu.edu/~kmurphy

Integrating Distance Education Technologies in a Graduate Course

With advancements in networks, computers, and telecommunications technologies, educators have a wide variety of tools to choose from to support teaching. Coupling these technological changes with changes in pedagogy from teacher-directed to learner-directed classrooms provides a dynamic and complex environment for teachers and learners alike. Instruction occurring within the constructivist paradigm typically involves active learning, peer tutoring, collaborative learning, and situating cognitive experiences in authentic activities. Constructivism recognizes learning as the process of constructing meaning about, or making sense of, our experiences.

Teaching a graduate course that incorporates the application of multiple technologies within a constructivist paradigm is a challenge, but certainly doable. In the summer of 1995, a course titled "Training and Dissemination Using Distance Learning" was taught over a three-week period in the College of Education at Texas A&M University (TAMU). This course incorporated some of the resources available through the Internet together with distance learning technologies. The following is a discussion of the process that I, the instructor, used in developing and conducting this course: advance planning, technological issues, pedagogical issues, difficulties and limitations, and suggestions for other educators interested in using multiple technologies in their classrooms.

Advance Planning
Advance preparations were critical for this course, which met for 15 three-hour sessions over 17 consecutive days, including Saturdays. The class gathered at one of three sites: two sites on the university campus, and the third site at a school approximately 30 miles away. Sometimes we met face-to-face, but usually we used interactive videoconferencing, which enabled us to see and hear each other in real time. In addition, computer conferencing was available to communicate 24 hours a day. Each class session consisted of mini-lectures, discussions, demonstrations and labs, and time to work collaboratively.

Course overview
My goals for the students included gaining hands-on experience in using and moderating video and computer conferences; and they were to use Internet resources such as mailing lists, gopher, the World Wide Web (Web), telnet, ftp, and MOOs to access and share information. The students worked in teams to design and develop instruction for delivery via their choice of computer conferencing, videoconferencing, or the Web. I designed the course with these learner objectives in mind:

• Demonstrate expertise in participating in and moderating interactive video and computer conferences;
• Analyze and incorporate interactive teleconferencing strategies in instruction via three modes of delivery;
• Analyze the characteristics of three delivery modes to determine what instructional strategies and methods can be used under what conditions to promote optimal learning;
• Collaborate with others in using a delivery technology to provide instruction that requires learners to learn at the higher levels of the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domains; and
• Use a variety of Internet resources to access, share, and create information.
  

The students were evaluated in these areas: a group project delivered by either computer conference, interactive videoconference, or the Web; completion of five Internet exercises; computer-mediated communication (CMC); and class participation.

The group projects were the most challenging, given the time constraints of the course. The project consisted of three components:

• design and develop an instructional activity to be delivered by one of the three modes;
• develop a learner guide to help learners complete the instruction; and
• present the instruction activity using the specific delivery mode.
  

Each group prepared a short, concise printed guide (that might also be made available on-line at a later date, depending on the distance technology used) to tell learners how to use the instruction. Students were asked to consider the following in preparing the learner's guide: learner characteristics, the learning context, the hardware and software needed, the materials needed to accomplish the task, the format of those materials, any prerequisite knowledge or skills, expected behaviors, and methods of feedback.

To meet the Internet requirement, the students chose five exercises from "Internet Tools--Practice in finding the good stuff: Exercises." The choice of exercises had to include at least one of each of the following: gopher, telnet, ftp, WWW, and MOO.

The CMC portion of the grade required two components. In the first component, every student had to moderate (or co-moderate) a VAX-Notes computer conference on a topic of interest and to participate actively in the other conferences. VAX-Notes was accessible on the university's mainframe computer. I evaluated the students on the quality and level of their participation as both a moderator and a participant. The second component required each student to subscribe to at least one electronic mailing list, such as DEOS-L and EDNET, and to subscribe to at least one on-line journal, such as DEOSNEWS and the On-line Chronicle of Distance Education and Communication. They shared information gathered from the mailing lists and on-line journals in their computer conferences.

Class participation was determined on the basis of reading the assigned materials in advance of class as well as active participation in class discussion, group discussion, and assigned activities.

Sample LISTSERVs and Online Journals

Students chose the technology they wished to pursue in more depth and then formed groups to develop their instructional projects. The groups worked collaboratively to prepare instruction on a small segment of a topic. I gave them specific instructions: the students had to use the Internet to first access information, and second, to share this information with each other via CMC; the instructional activities had to require the learners to engage in active learning; and the projects had to incorporate at least three Internet resources. While I initially asked each group to develop a small segment of a large class topic, the students rebelled--they wanted the freedom to select their own topics. The result was that the projects were anchored in some meaningful, real-world context related to the interests of each group.

The students formed five groups, resulting in five projects. Three groups chose to work with the Web, one group chose computer conferencing via FORUM (computer conferencing software developed at TAMU), and one group worked with interactive videoconferencing. The nature of the projects were such that they required the students to take initiative, discuss, reflect and improve upon their own work.

The text (Burge & Roberts, 1993) guided the students in developing their instructional activities. Each group demonstrated interactive techniques from Twelve interactive techniques for teleconferencing (n.d.) based on their particular delivery mode.

The groups presented their instructional activities using their particular delivery mode. For example, the videoconference group presented a lesson on cardio-pulmonary resuscitation accompanied by a videotape that they produced. Team members serving as site facilitators at each site supervised hands-on practice with their classmates.

Course Materials and Resources
The course materials included the course syllabus, the required textbooks, and a bound course pack consisting of technology training materials and selected readings. Approximately 50 books, articles, and microfilms on telecommunications and distance education were on reserve at the university library. The students received a list of journals which focus on distance learning and educational technology, and they visited the university library for instruction on searching and retrieving on-line resources. At the library, the students watched a demonstration on accessing the university library catalog along with ERIC and other databases via the Internet.

Logistics
The logistics were complex, due to the use of multiple technologies and the compressed format of the course. Logistics included videoconferencing, computer access and software, library resources, and developing the course pack. Several weeks in advance I reserved the videoconference sites and made arrangements for keys to the various sites. About the same time, I reserved space in the computer labs in the College of Education for class sessions and for students to work after class. Because other faculty were using the labs at the same time, scheduling was critical. In the labs, I ensured that FORUM computer conferencing software was installed on the PCs and the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) editor Web Weaver was installed on the Macs. I obtained the FORUM manual from the software developers on campus and a guide to videoconferencing from the authors. I made arrangements with the university librarian for a presentation and handouts on on-line resources. Access to VAX-Notes computer conferences is through the Computer Information Service (CIS), so I communicated by email with the technical expert about setting up the conference and revising the VAX-Notes user and moderator guides (which a former graduate assistant had developed). I asked the VAX-Notes technician to assist us with our technical problems during the course, which he did by participating in the "technical questions" part of the conference. I communicated with the CIS Web manager to learn what was involved in setting up Web pages. To make books and other resources available in the library, I provided my reserve book list to the Reserve Librarian several weeks in advance. Finally, I put together the course pack.

Part of the logistics related to my own learning how to locate software, hardware, and human resources and how to use various types of software. For example, in the month before the class began, I learned to use two HTML editors, Internet Assistant for the PC and Web Weaver for the Mac. And from a computer lab assistant and technical experts at CIS, I learned how to set up Web pages. I actually developed and set up my home page during the course sessions, while some of the graduate students were doing the same! While I was already comfortable with using videoconferencing for course delivery, for the first time I used my computer regularly in conjunction with the videoconference system for both presentation software (PowerPoint) and Internet demonstrations, such as ftp and telnet. I practiced setting up the computer and prepared many of the PowerPoint presentations in advance. I worked with a graduate student who was taking a problems course with me earlier in the summer on developing guidelines for using the tools of the Internet; together we developed ten Internet exercises based on five Internet tools. An integral part of the logistics was to develop the detailed syllabus.

Technological Issues
Because I have been using more than one delivery technology to teach graduate classes for several years, I am comfortable with dealing with complexity. At the time I taught this class, I had been teaching to multiple sites via interactive videoconference for two years. Previously, at another university, I had worked as an instructional designer with instructors using videoconference for the first time. An avid user of email for over a decade, I had been incorporating computer conferencing into my coursework regularly for two years. Once the university began providing our students with access to the Web, I was able to incorporate all three technologies into a course.

Training on the technologies occurred during the first three class sessions. The first face-to-face meeting of the whole class gave students an opportunity to get acquainted with videoconferencing and computer conferencing. Those students who used the site 30 miles away drove to the main campus for those three days. I typically used a three-phase approach to acquainting students with each technology. First, I introduced each technology by demonstrating and using the technology in class. Then each student used the technology briefly, with my assistance or the assistance of another class member already familiar with the technology. Finally, all students used the technology on a daily basis to communicate both during class and outside of class. For example, each student facilitated a videoconferencing session from a remote site. The students rotated this responsibility in such a way that at least one student at each remote site was already familiar with the equipment, and therefore was able to assist the other students in using the technology. As mentioned earlier, the students demonstrated their expertise with using the Internet by completing five exercises, which they could do either individually or in small groups.

I found that students needed additional technical advice as they developed their projects. The students used technical manuals associated with their technology but often found them complex and difficult to understand. We relied on our technical experts to answer specific questions, often through our computer conferences.

Pedagogical Issues
In many of the courses I teach, I see myself as a facilitator, helping students master the technologies in order to use these tools to accomplish their objectives. As Gunawardena (1992) suggests, distance teaching is more effective with the teacher-as-facilitator. The nature of this course and the demographics of the students supported my personal preference for learner-controlled education experiences. I found that all of the students were eager to engage in hands-on activities and the design and implementation of projects. I used my detailed syllabus to provide information, guidance, and limits to the students regarding activities, projects, and other outcomes. However, rather than give my perspective on the students' experiences, I'll let two of the students make comments:

Student A: Learner control, self-direction, and satisfaction. As students, we found that hands-on activities were extremely important in learning each of the technologies. The structure of the class required that these activities occur often, so that we used the Internet, computer conferencing, and videoconferencing on a daily basis. Each of us gained a greater sense of mastery over the technologies because of this frequent use.

We entered this course with varying levels of technological expertise, and it wasn't long before our fellow students became important resources. Sharing information and helping each other with the activities enabled all of us to learn more quickly and efficiently. The instructor empowered us to share knowledge by asking us to make in-class presentations and assist other students during activities. This sort of peer teaching and learning probably developed more rapidly in our class because of the short time frame of the course. It seemed easier to take control and responsibility for class assignments and the group projects because of the camaraderie and support of our fellow students and the instructor.

Computer conferencing provided us with a convenient mechanism for asking technical questions and sharing technical information. We found that having this information sharing process worked very well and freed us from time and place restrictions. We felt a certain sense of control and autonomy in being able to work at times that were convenient, and not just during class hours.

Our training included not only how to use the technologies, but why and when those technologies are more effectively used. In addition, our instructor modeled positive behaviors on how to deal with equipment and software problems and failures. For those of us who anticipate using technologies in classroom environments, her calm responses to our panicked concerns were valuable training experiences.

We found the compressed time frame to be a constraint. Many of us felt that we didn't have enough time during the course to internalize instructional strategies, delivery techniques, and course content. The instructor was flexible in working with us to ensure that our activities were indeed necessary to meet course objectives. The limited amount of time allowed us to create a project with only one delivery system. Once our projects were complete and we saw what others had developed using other technologies, we realized the drawbacks of doing only one project. We suggested to our instructor that future projects be smaller so that students could work with all three technologies.

Student B: Interaction and Collaboration. Using varied technologies increased our opportunities to interact with each other, the instructor, and the instructional content of the course (Moore, 1989). Computer conferencing provided a particularly convenient and effective way of getting to know each other. At the beginning of the course, we all introduced ourselves in a computer conference. Many students remarked that they referred back to these introductions for several days as they put faces and names together. We all found, as the class developed, that we had very little class time for social interaction. To solve this problem, we used computer conferences to share thoughts on such topics as what to have for lunch, family life, and hobbies.

Our group projects also helped create a sense of community among the students. The compressed time frame required that we form our groups, define our objectives, and complete our assigned tasks in a matter of days. Using the technologies to support our social and technical needs allowed us to complete our tasks. We learned to value the contributions of each group member. Collaboration occurred easily and naturally within the framework that the instructor created.

Final Thoughts
As an instructor, I recognize that the relative success of a course depends not only on my approach but also on the group dynamics. In this case, my constructivist style of teaching promoted an atmosphere that fostered collaboration, peer teaching, and individual initiative. The design of the syllabus encouraged active learning and collaboration. I took great pride in observing the development of a community of learners, stepping in to facilitate that process only when I felt it was warranted. I noted that the students exhibited great individual initiative and increased self-responsibility, a result of the careful structuring of the content to provide a framework for the students to construct their own learning.

This atmosphere also seemed to empower the students to negotiate changes in the requirements. For example, the students decided that they wanted the option of doing their Internet exercises in small groups rather than individually. They also decided that they should co-moderate fewer computer conferences than the syllabus prescribed. The students asked for these changes because of the lack of time available to complete their activities within the fast-paced course. I agreed that I underestimated the amount of time required when designing the syllabus.

Time was a critical factor in this course. Because this was the first opportunity that I had to teach the course--and in such a short period of time--I developed the syllabus very carefully. Teaching every morning six days a week required a lot of preparation time both prior to the beginning of the course and on a daily basis. I tried to create effective instructional strategies and anticipate problems related to the time factor. Even though class sessions occupied only the mornings, I was available to the students most days at least by telephone and email until night. In all, I used the Internet approximately five hours per day from home or office.

Using three technologies proved to be both a blessing and a curse. The positive aspect was that computer conferencing provided more frequent communication with the students than would have been possible with only one technology. This availability was particularly important for the two students who came to the main campus only infrequently. On the negative side, using so many technologies and ensuring their smooth functioning presented hourly challenges. I felt that I had to be expert in all three technologies, when in fact I struggled with HTML and developed my Web home page along with the students who were using the Web for their projects (links to the students' Web projects can be found on my home page: http://disted.tamu.edu/~kmurphy).

Implications for future distance educators
The course could serve as a model for integrating various technologies. Instructors who would like to teach using multiple technologies and structure the course in a similar fashion should hold constructivist learning beliefs. The distance educator should design and deliver instruction that integrates strategies promoting three forms of interaction: students with the content, with the instructor, and with the other students. This helps students accept greater responsibility for their own learning by making them active participants in the learning process.

References

Burge, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (1993). Classrooms with a difference: A practical guide to the use of conferencing technologies. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Gunawardena, C. N. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 58-71.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Twelve interactive techniques for teleconferencing. (n.d.). Madison, WI: Instructional Communications Systems, University of Wisconsin-Extension