Reflecting on the Instructional Design of Distance Education for Learners: Learnings from the Instructors Free

The National Center for Educational Statistics (1999) estimated that there were approximately

1.6 million learners attending distance education courses in 1999. Many of these learners were K-12 teachers attempting to fulfill newly established technology certification requirements. The outreach of educational institutes to teachers in need of fulfilling these requirements continues to expand as the Internet becomes a more popular medium for providing technology integration skills and knowledge instruction to those who find it difficult to travel to traditional classrooms. As the student body of such distance education becomes greater, the importance of quality delivery of distance education becomes more important.

Distance education courses, however, are not generally designed to stand on their own as in traditional correspondence courses where the learner received an instruction packet and submitted assignments at their own pace with little or no social interaction with peers or an instructor. Distance education today is most likely referring to a technology-delivered course that is designed to provide informational and instructional elements as well as learning and social elements that actively involve learners with content, peers, and instructor. Thus, the benefits of distance education to provide instruction to those who have limitations of time or travel (Hawkridge, 1999; Stock-McIssac, 1999) no longer needs to compromise the value of social interactions that is often lacking in traditional correspondence courses.

Incorporating these interaction elements however, comes at a price. Learners in distance education seem to have a wide range of technology skills and content application knowledge (Lamb & Smith, 2000). Distance education can be perceived as one-on-one instruction because the learner rarely “sees” peers and often perceives the instructor as their primary means for guidance and support, sometimes to the exclusion of reading the provided on-line materials. Thus, addressing the needs of such a wide variety of learners can be a challenge to course designers as well as the course instructor. Designing for such a diverse audience often means incorporating multiple representations of the same information and providing learners with multiple ways to interact with content and peers and demonstrate learning. Thus, it is critical for instructors to develop deep knowledge of a course as a whole and the facilitation aspects associated with each design element integrated into the course to support the needs of the this diverse student body.

There is little literature that describes the instructors’ views on the successes and challenges of the different types of design elements incorporated into distance education courses. This article provides one perspective on the design elements incorporated into the Pennsylvania State University World Campus Educational Technology Integration Certification courses (http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/pub/edtech/index.shtml) and a brief overview of the authors’ experiences facilitating these courses including their opinions about theoretical and practical implications of different instructional design elements.

Distance education occurs when the instructor and learners are separated by time and geography and connected by two-way synchronous or asynchronous communication systems for instructional purposes (Simonson, Schlosser, & Hanson, 1999). The designs of distance education courses however, are varied and changing. Although a large majority of these courses still seem to be modeled after the tradition correspondence courses or attempt to mimic face-to-face classroom environments (Cyrs, 1997), more distance education programs are integrating a variety of strategies, tactics, and elements to narrow time and distance gaps. They are in essence providing learners with convenience and value through virtual classroom environment experiences that incorporate multiple types of interactions, on- and off-line activities, and support.

Grabowski and Small (1997) suggest that there are three design elements in hypermedia applications like those we see being designed into Web-based distance education. These include information, instruction, and learning. Information is a flow of messages that may or may not be used for instructional purposes. Instruction is information specifically selected, organized, and sequenced with the deliberate intent for instruction. Learning elements specifically prompt active cognitive processing of information by the learner. Information is assumed within both the instruction and learning elements, the significance of which is that information is not necessarily related to a learning outcome, but when incorporated and organized into instruction and learning elements becomes key to learning. While the task of the instructional designer is to create distance education environments that bring together information, instruction, and learning elements to promote and scaffold learning the task of the instructor is to support learner use of the design elements during the learning process.

Much literature has shown that well-designed technology-supported activities facilitated learner interactivity (Hardin & Ziebarth, 1995;,Owston, 1997), increased mental functioning (Conlon, 1997), and promoted social interaction (Kagan & Widaman, 1987;,Sharan & Kussell, 1984;,Slavin, 1983), all of which were hypothesized to be important aspects in the construction of knowledge. Learners required information resources from which to learn. While interacting with information, either human or nonhuman resources, the learners built internal representations of their own knowledge (Laue & Wenger, 1998,,Koszalka, 1999). Such interactions included reading, highlighting, manipulating, evaluating, or discussing new information (Wittrock, 1990). Well-designed distance education can be effective at providing information, instructional, and learning resources that facilitate the learning process. However, the design elements of distance education do not always produce the desired effects on their own. One explanation may be related to prompting active involvement with such resources and creating adequate social aspects of the virtual classroom.

Vygotsky’s (1990) sociohistorical learning theories placed the individual within a social system that required other learners with whom and from whom learning takes place. Research literature supports the premise that learning was more successful when peers actively collaborated and interacted socially during and after instruction (Brisco & Peters, 1997;,Clift, Veal, Johnson, & Holland, 1990;,Duin, 1996; Riel, 1990). Learning was not based solely on the establishment of new knowledge; rather it began with the needs and interest of individual learners and grew out of discourse and shaping of understanding through social interactions with peers and the instructor. Without a classroom, per se, traditional strategies used in building collaborative activities and fostering communication must be facilitated in innovative ways to create an online learning environment that provides an effective social system in which to learn. Since social interaction is key to learning, online learning environments need to incorporate design elements that prompt and support social interactions since there is a lack of physical presence among peers and the instructor in which these activities generally take place.

Interestingly, informational resources can be presented as design elements that are both social and non-social in nature (Koszalka, 1999). For example, online lectures can be presented using synchronous conferencing but are more often presented as on-line notes or slides to provide students with lecture-type experiences, the former being social the latter being non-social in nature. References to on- and offline reading and manipulative resources can provide students with individual active learning experiences or if accompanied by discourse elements support social learning. These different types of distance education design elements can provide both individual and shared social experiences and are thought to stimulate learning.

Thus, the purpose of well-designed distance education, to activate and support deep learning in the individual learner, can be achieved through the integration of a variety of design elements including relevant information, instruction, and learning activities, both of a social and non-social nature. However, even in well-designed courses the design elements may not stand on their own. Instructor intervention is often required, as in face-to-face courses, to facilitate active involvement in course activities and social events. Thus, given the great number of information resources generally integrated into distance education it is important for instructors to identify and understand the purpose of each design element and how to use these elements to support the multiple needs of learners.

The remainder of this article describes instructional design elements incorporated into several distance education courses for the Technology Integration Certificate offered through The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) World Campus and reflections from the instructors on different design elements, from both facilitation and learner participation and success points of view. The discussion ends with recommendations on the theoretical and practical implications for facilitating distance education.

The Educational Technology Integration certificate program at Penn State offers a series of distance education courses designed to help teachers, trainers, instructional designers, and media-support personnel integrate technology effectively and efficiently into teaching practices and learning environments. The graduate-level certificate courses, developed in WebCT and presented primarily as asynchronous learning environments, are taught using a combination of Web-based technologies, print, and other media to provide an effective balance of flexibility and distance interactions among instructors and students. The three courses described each incorporate different instructional design elements to enhance the learning process.

This introductory level course introduces the microcomputer and its educational applications to teachers. Based on the premise that the participants are novices, this course provides basic instruction on operating microcomputers and opportunities to develop the skills necessary to apply common software packages, for example, word processing, email, presentation software, in educational situations. The course incorporates a number of information, instruction, and learning elements supported by both on-line and offline resources (see Table 1).

As in all of the Educational Technology Integration Certification courses, text and graphic organizers are used to introduce each of the course units and provide Website help, contact information for instructors or technical support, a syllabus, course assignment requirements, list of content references, grading criteria, and course policies. Each unit also specifically provides learners with basic course content, project guidelines, assignment write-up guidelines, links to technical support on required software-oriented assignments, and examples of exemplary projects that model appropriate uses of relevant technologies (see Figure 1).

The instructional elements of the course provide a variety of step-by-step guidelines for participating and completing each unit activity and organized informational resources to support each unit. Firstly, an orderly set of instructions dictates a suggested process for completing each unit. Secondly, many of the more complex tasks provide students with an additional level of instruction or template-driven process for completing assignments. For example, students are required to share information about themselves with the class in a context assignment. A template is provided that prompts students for specific information, such as experience level with software, grade level and teaching experience, and when submitted automatically posts a context Website for each student. Learners are then provided with instructions for modifying their context page, as they desire. They are directed to refer to their peers’ site during unit activities or to identify someone who can support their learning. The instructor is also a key information resource as she or he provides course information and instruction through email and participation in discussion forums. Finally, textbooks are chosen that provide key content for each course.

In addition to the assumption that the learners will actively interact with the course resources the courses include learning elements specifically designed to engage them in on- and offline interactions and manipulations of the unit content. All learners are also required to actively share their thoughts and ideas about specific content. Their participation is predicated on researching specific content areas, sharing learnings, opinions and project ideas, and assessing and providing feedback to others. Specific guidelines are established for participation such as frequency, number, and types of postings. Third, the learners are provided with interactive on-line and offline activities and assessment guidelines to test skills and knowledge required for each unit of study. Fourth, specific project guidelines are provided to scaffold application of new skills and knowledge and prompt reflection and peerand self-assessment of projects developed for each unit. Finally, each unit requires the learners to share project ideas, receive and use peer feedback to finalize project plans, and develop a project representing their understanding of the unit content.

This course focuses on using computers in learning environments to engage critical thinking, knowledge representation, and reflection. The premise is that computers can result in the most meaningful thinking when used as cognitive amplification tools, mindtools (Jonassen 1999). Learners build knowledge bases using a variety of computer tools. With cognitive tools learners function as designers using the technology as tools for analyzing the world, assessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others. They are in essence then teaching the computer what they know. The practice techniques in the course maximize student-to-student and student-to-instructor interactions, enhancing learning transfer and promoting the development of social networks for sharing challenges and successes.

The unique information elements provided in this course incorporate links to optional freeware software that learners can explore to identify applications to use for their required projects. Two additional instructional elements in this course include a project contract that includes supportive guidelines for completing projects and links to relevant sample projects. The students complete the contract after learning about the different types of computer tools and deciding which of the tools they will use to build their knowledge bases. The sample projects provide students with exemplary samples of past learners’ projects with accompanying explanations of the purpose and approach to the project. The unique learning elements include links to interactive software tutorials, and activities where students either individually or in groups actively investigate mind-tools, build knowledge bases, complete reflection activities, and report on implementation of one of their mindtools projects.

This course introduces students to methods and models of using the Internet in the classroom. The course exemplifies effective integration of Web resources by providing learners with opportunities to use the Web in three cases: teacher as planner, teachers at integrator, and teacher as publisher. By contextualizing the tasks that teachers already perform, the learners are provided with exercises that provide materials immediately applicable to their classrooms.

The unique information elements include links to several different types of on-line resources for each case that are not related directly to the content of the course but prompt thinking about the wide variety of resources available on the Web that could be used to support classroom teaching. Unique instructional elements include on-line templates to prompt lesson plan development as well as links to sample exemplary projects. The unique learning elements include active involvement in researching and moderating discussions on Internet use issues, creating acceptable use policies based on the Internet use discussions, developing and posting a visual representation of the different types of resources available on the Web, creating a variety of lesson plans, and producing and posting an instructional Website.

Each of the courses described incorporated a variety of instructional design elements to facilitate and scaffold learning. The combination of information, instruction, and learning elements, both social and non-social in nature, can provide learners with a variety of resources to engage them with content, instructor, and peers during the learning process. Although designed to facilitate the learning process, some of the elements have effectively assisted in the teaching and learning process while others have challenged the instructor and learners.

The variety of design elements used throughout these courses provided many opportunities for learners to actively participate and demonstrate competence and learning gains. Each design element, however, presented different opportunities and challenges for the instructor and learners. We will address each of the three design elements, information, instructional, and learning, as they related to the teaching and learning processes. Each will be discussed in terms of examples, successes, challenges, and practical recommendations for other instructors.

All of the courses contained relevant information resources that the designers felt were critical to supporting the learning process. It was evident, through discussions, questions, and submitted assignments, that the students accessed the information resources common to all three courses at least once in the beginning of the course, e.g., syllabus, contact information, grading criteria. As assignments came due, and the end of the semester approached, it seemed clear that students did not continue to refer to these information resources rather posted inquiries to discussions forums or to the instructor for clarification on timelines, project requirements, or grading criteria. There were also similar types of questions regarding offline text and referenced on-line readings potentially meaning that learners were not accessing and reviewing these materials. It was almost as though the learners were looking for an instructor-driven lecture on content rather than exploring the provided information resources on their own.

Often our reply to such questions began with providing a reference to key information resources, either the syllabus or specific readings, in the course that could answer the students’ questions. Then, if additional detailed questions were raised it was evident that the student did review, but did not necessarily understand the content as presented. We could then address specific questions with additional resources, short content responses, or further examples.

Thus, one key learning as an instructor, in regard to information elements, was to make sure that we knew what information resources were available in the course and how they specifically related to course objectives and assignments. Second, it was important to send periodic notes to the student body describing the importance and relevance of the information resources. Creating a database of generic assignment postings during course preparation was valuable in saving time, especially when teaching the same course multiple times. This type of posting prompted students to review the information materials first, then ask for clarification or additional examples as required to understand the concepts rather than posting questions asking for content. The challenges for us were to reduce learner dependence on the instructor for content and keep the amount of time reiterating content that was presented in the referenced information resources to a minimum. It was important to set expectations in upfront exchanges regarding the review of course resources and protocols for asking questions.

We found that course preparation was key and it was extremely difficult to conduct a successful distance education course by preparing for “classes” on a weekly basis. Instructors need to take time to learn the course and prepare their own support materials, e.g., databases of generic responses to anticipated questions, establishing interim project due dates. Knowing the courses elements and how they related to the assignments, objectives, and schedule was critical in saving time and supporting learners. The preparation process should assist the instructor in developing a deep understanding of the course as well as help to proactively avoid potential learner issues.

During the course, explaining course requirements in greater detail in a message board or email communication helped to alleviate confusion and allowed learners to question their own interpretation of the information. Reminding learners of specific references to Websites and/or pages to access relevant resources prior to activities, projects, and forums was a good way to focus their preparation and remind them of the provided content and instructional materials. Establishing communication protocols such as when to expect replies, how to submit questions, appropriateness of using email and discussion forums, early on with students helps to set reasonable expectations.

Excluding the technical inquires, the instructional elements generated the most student questions. Instructions for completing work and participating in activities were written in a straightforward, chronological, stepby-step manner. Deadlines as well as participation guidelines were provided in detail. However, students often missed key activities, failed to participate in small events, or to fully complete projects based on provided instructional guidelines, This potentially indicated that guidelines were not clear, learners misinterpreted instructions, or did not fully read and comprehend the instructions. Although guidelines and dates were provided in multiple formats throughout the course, for example, course calendars, syllabus, assignment pages, it was important to send reminders of key dates, requirements to participate in events, and prompts to review course activity guidelines to students. Such reminders reduced the number of logistic-related questions and led to projects and discussions that were more likely to meet the established guidelines. It potentially also helped the learners establish effective study practices for reviewing materials.

The instructional templates provided for activities often contained many open-ended questions that were prone to a wide variety of interpretations. Providing some additional direction on such templates led to more desirable project compliance. It was also prudent to refer learners to sample projects to clarify template completion and project expectations. It was important for us to briefly describe what was exemplary about the sample projects and indicate that projects should not mimic exactly the samples, but illustrate the student’s own work while exemplifying the key aspects of the sample.

Finally, we found that holding office hours in a chat room at specific times throughout the week assisted students in working through issues. The focus of the chats was different from that of a traditional classroom lecture. The chats during “office hours” were used as a communication tool to simulate live discussions to resolve content or assignment related issues.

Perhaps the most significant learnings we had were based on the learning elements of the distance education environment. These can best be discussed in terms of social, project, and assessment activities.

In terms of the social activities there were several different types of instructional elements used to encourage communication and provide students with learning elements. Specifically, each course integrated private email for activities or communication purposes, bulletin boards to support technical and content help among peers, bulletin board discussions on specific topics, and one of the courses integrated a chat room element to support synchronous discussions.

The integrated private email was primarily used for submitting assignments or to interact individually with the instructor or other students in the class. Email became the major tool for learners to submit questions while the public bulletin boards became a major tool for us to respond to questions. Since many of the questions submitted individually were the same we avoided having to send hundreds of individual responses by preparing responses and posted them to the public bulletin board so everyone could benefit from the question and response. This also seemed to prompt learners to use the forums more for their questions and the learners began to answer each other’s questions. For example, in one of the classes, over a 12-week period there were more than 100 questions (21 students in the class) submitted to the instructor for technical support or assignment clarification. A vast majority of the questions were submitted to the instructor’s mailbox during the first third of the course, the numbers fell sharply during the last two-thirds of the course when a majority of the questions were submitted to public forums.

The successes using the email element for student support were that students felt free to interact with the instructor and other students to resolve issues, ask questions, and become better acquainted with the technology. Often, as instructors we took advantage of the questions to create “teachable moments” for the entire class. The challenges to the instructor were handling the emails so that there was a minimum of frustration from both the instructor’s and students’ perspectives. Expectations for response times needed to be set up front and reminders sent to students frequently. The apparently easy access to the instructor comes with its limitations. Instructors and examples of appropriate use of the email element and response times is critical to maintaining student expectations and lowering frustration levels. Although the social interactions are frequent and often rich in learning content, they can be inhibiting to the teaching and learning environment if procedures are not clearly defined.

The bulletin boards were also a powerful source of group and class social learning interactions. Combinations of moderated and unmoderated forums focused students on different types of interactions. The learner-moderated forums generally required the moderator to research a topic and then moderate a discussion on that topic. Skills and knowledge of the content area and facilitation were exercised and tested during these activities. In demonstrating their understanding of the topic, learners had to illustrate understanding of the topic from multiple perspectives and respond intellectually to others’ comments. In other forums learners had to provide project idea feedback that their peers used to enhance their unit projects.

As instructors one of the key tasks was to model effective moderating of online discussions. This included providing a good starting point for the discussion, summarizing key points, raising key issues, and often playing devil’s advocate to elicit responses to difficult issues … sometimes strategically disagreeing with learner points that seem to be logical and well thought out. We then tried not to get involved, but rather monitored, learner-moderated discussions. Most of the comments we provided went privately to the moderator, only occasionally sending a note to a forum to break a monotonous, apparently nonrelevant discussion stream. We learned that the more we interfered with the discussions the less control the learner moderator had and the more attention we garnered. The challenge then was to let the moderators conduct the discussions so that the class would have a valuable discussion and could demonstrate competence in the discussion content.

The projects completed and submitted, for the most part, were of high quality, indicated high levels of interaction with and understanding of the content, and often exceeded course guideline expectations. The biggest challenge was a technical one. Although there were clear guidelines on how to save and post projects, students often failed to use the guidelines and often had to re-post the project several times. Again, our learning was to remind students often about saving and posting guidelines and tutorials that were available.

Finally, one of the most difficult components of these courses for the learners was the peer assessment. Peer assessment elicits higher order thinking because learners had to be able to identify critical components of projects and justify that the projects meet or do not meet expectations. The learners initially complained that they were uncomfortable assessing their peers’ work. We began to introduce the learners to the assessment rubrics through a short forum discussion and focused their attention not on the lesson plan content that was being assessed in this case, but on how the technology resources were integrated into the lesson based on the unit content. Once we got the learners comfortable that they were not evaluating their peers teaching styles or the lesson plan content but rather the technology integration practices they had learned about in the unit they became more comfortable with peer assessment. It was also important that we as instructors would spot check the assessment to make sure that the learners were effectively assessing and providing good feedback to their peers.

Overall, the learning elements in these distance education courses seemed to actively involve the learners in activities that were socially supported through peer and instructor interactions. Although the intent of the design elements was to facilitate the learning process, the complexity and nuances of this type of instruction sometimes confused the learners. Being very familiar with the learning elements, pitfalls from past offerings, and proactive in providing additional instructions and support helped the learners focus more on the content learning and less on the logistics of completing the activities.

Research in online leaning environments is still relatively new and there are many questions that should continue to be addressed in regard to instructional design and delivery of distance education. As illustrated throughout the previous examples instructor support in distance education environments that incorporate multiple design elements is critical. Not much is understood about the relationships among the design elements, instructors, and learners. The following are unanswered questions about design elements in online learning environments.

Is there a relationship between the types of elements in a distance education course and learning outcomes? Distance education courses are often complex and contain many different elements. There may be certain elements that support learners, or different types of learners, better than others.

Is the instructor’s knowledge of the design elements related to success of the learners? We provided several examples of how our knowledge of the design elements led to proactive interventions that seemed to reduce learner frustration and prompt better project deliverables. Empirical evidence is required to support these suggestions and potentially provide instructional design guidelines to support distance education developers at large.

Does required discussion forum participation enhance learning? It may be argued that learners are participating in the discussion forums simply to fulfill a requirement instead of taking advantage of the intended goal of this type of interaction in fostering discourse. It is important to identify how learners are participating in such forums and what they perceive as the value of participation. This may also help us to develop guidelines to support discussion participation such as the research currently occurring with threaded discussions and technology supported argumentation software. What are student experiences in developing relationships with peers or the instructor in online learning environments? Some students prefer passive participation to active. Students who log in less often may or may not be socially engaging in courses. They may, however, be learning as a passive observer. The social relationships prompted in distance education may not be of value to all learners especially considering that some distance education learners may perceive learning without social interactions as better. These questions, as well as, others begin to address some of the theoretical issues involved in distance education and the instructor’s role in supporting learning through instructional design elements.

Distance education is becoming a more popular and accepted method of delivering instructional courses to teachers trying to meet technology integration certifications. Well-designed distance education courses offer a variety of experiences to support learners. However, the instructors of such courses are critical to learner success. The instructors can be challenged by the complexity of such courses and integration of multiple design elements that foster active and social learning. However, if they prepare well, develop a deep understanding of the relationship between the design elements and course goals and activities, and create support tools and strategies they will be more likely to facilitate their students learning process.