Activities:
I spent 4 hours with
at AUM. We met with a
liberal arts professor at the new communications lab in the Liberal Arts
Building to video a one hour lecture pertaining to a book review for a graduate
level course. Sandra has been working
with the professor in the development of one of his classes online. She is presently in the third week and has
invited me to assist her in the final development of the class on Blackboard.
We recommended that we split
the hour long lecture into four 15 minute segments, because of file size. We also thought it would be easier for
students to process the information in chunks.
The professor agreed. We shot the
video and afterwards we discussed how we could improve the experience for future
tapings.
This was Sandra’s first
time actually videoing a lecture. Most
professors send video files and have her add them to Blackboard. It was also the professor’s first time making
a video lecture, so there were a few glitches in the process. I recommended Sandra have a short planning
meeting before the next video and she agreed.
Because the video was spontaneous, it was difficult for the professor to
make his point at the end of each segment and transition to his next
point. I thought some type of outline or
simple script might be added next time to create a more polished product. Sandra also made a good point when she
suggested that the entire book didn’t necessarily have to be reviewed in the
video…only the key elements. Because
students were tasked to read the book, they should make connections on their
own.
Discussion:
After making the video,
Sandra and I analyzed the first three weeks of the professor’s class and both
concluded the online version is very teacher centric with little to no
collaboration between students. Students
are expected to read the textbook, watch the lecture videos, and answer
questions through a discussion board. It
is a very traditional approach; however, because it is adult learning and a
graduate level class, I recommended that a more student centered approach might
be more effective. According to
Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2009), the student-centered
approach works well with distance education programs, mainly because adult
learners like to be active and engaged in the learning process.
As for the discussion
threads, it is obvious the professor uses the discussion board as formative
assessment to determine student comprehension of content throughout the
course. Sandra noticed the students were
not necessarily encouraged to actually discuss content through the threads, but
simple answer questions related to content.
Some students probably do read other student interpretations of
information to possibly gain another perspective, but there really isn’t any
active interaction in the threads.
Sandra and I plan to
propose more interaction/collaboration between students. I mentioned threaded discussion through a
program such as Voicethread to Sandra. I
explained that asynchronous communication through Voicethread would possibly
appeal more to “visual/audio” learners instead of the more “verbal” discussion
threads the class is now using. As long
as class size is around 20 – 25 people Voicethread should be an effective
technology to establish a “community of understanding.” The professor must also ensure the thread
stays on track and erroneous information is not shared (Simonson, Smaldino,
Albright, & Zvacek, 2009).
References:
Simonson, M., Smalding,
S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance:
Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
