Genesis of an Online Course
Amy
Dunbar*
June
2003
Revised
November 2003
Abstract
This paper presents a descriptive and evaluative analysis of
the transformation of a face-to-face graduate tax accounting course to an
online course. One hundred fifteen students completed the compressed six-week
class in 2001 and 2002 using WebCT, classroom environment software that
facilitates the creation of web-based educational environments. The paper
provides a description of the required technology tools and the class conduct.
The students used a combination of asynchronous and synchronous learning
methods that allowed them to complete the coursework on a self-determined
schedule, subject to semi-weekly quiz constraints. The course material was
presented in content pages with links to Excel problems, Flash examples, audio
and video files, and self-tests. Students worked the quizzes and then met in
their groups in a chat room to resolve differences in answers. Student surveys
indicated satisfaction with the learning methods.
*Associate Professor
University of Connecticut
School of Business, Accounting
Department
2100 Hillside Road, Unit 1041A
Storrs, CT 06269-2041
860-486-5138
amy.dunbar@business.uconn.edu
Genesis of an Online Course
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to
provide information to educators who are considering transforming a
face-to-face course to an online course. The paper discusses issues that arise
in this transformation process, ranging from accommodating different student learning
styles to technology requirements. In particular, the genesis of an online
taxation of business entities course, from its initial planning to the student
survey results for 2001 and 2002, is described and evaluated. One hundred
fifteen students completed the required six-week course in the MS in Accounting
(MSA) Program in the two summers. For most students, this class was their
first introduction to both graduate work and an online environment. The
students were accustomed to learning in an instructor-centered environment, and
they were thrust into a student-centered environment in which the burden of
learning was shifted from the instructor to them. Adjusting to a new learning
style was not easy for most.
LEARNING STYLES
Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) describe learning models that motivate
course delivery, and they state that although no particular model is the best
approach, the instructor should be aware of the different learning models and
use technology as a facilitator in applying a particular learning model. They
describe two basic learning models of learning: objectivist and constructivist.
“The objectivist
model assumes that an instructor should be in control of the learning
environment (i.e., pace and material), that learning is dissemination of
knowledge, that dissemination best occurs via abstract representations of the
reality, and that learning occurs best in isolated settings (i.e., the context
of the learning environment need not be ‘real’). Constructivism assumes that
the learner needs to be in control of the learning environment, that learning
is the creation of knowledge, and the realism of the context for learning needs
to be high.” Collaborativism is an extension of constructivism, which “assumes
that the control of the learning environment should rest with the peer groups,
that learning is the sharing of knowledge representative of disparate points of
view, that knowledge is personally experienced, but can be shared through
collaborating, and that the realism of context is high in the sense that
individual experiences prior to learning are real but low in the sense that the
experiences are shared vicariously through discourse.”
The online learning environment is well suited for the collaborative
model of learning. The content and pace of learning is under student control,
subject to deadlines imposed by the instructor. The instructor serves as a
guide in the learning process. The argument can be made that some accounting
courses are simply bodies of knowledge that can be more efficiently transmitted
through lectures. In such case, the instructor can use audio or video tools to
record lectures, which students can access when they choose. Although the
opportunity to ask questions is limited by the instructor’s availability
online, the student can choose to listen instead of read the course material.
THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
Distance learning, of which online learning is one form, focuses on
students who are separated in space from their peers and the instructor. Oblinger,
Barone, and Hawkins (2001) use the term “distributed learning” for both
distance and campus instruction that uses technology to distribute the course.
They state that distance and on-campus instruction are converging, with online
delivery systems and approaches being employed for distant, commuting, and
residential students. “This convergence of ‘clicks and mortar’ in the form of
technology-mediated education is distributed learning”[1]
Certainly many of the tools used in the online course described in this paper
could also be used in a distributed learning course delivered on campus.
The demise of some for-profit online ventures calls into question the
future of online learning. On January 7, 2003, Columbia University announced
that it will shut down Fathom, its for-profit online-learning venture, which
had been designed to sell Web-based courses and seminars to the public.[2]
In 2001, other universities, including New York University, The University of
Maryland University College, and Temple University, closed their for-profit
ventures.[3]
The lessons we glean from these failures is the importance of aligning the
program with the university’s non-profit objectives and the need for faculty
involvement. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, “A. Frank Mayada,
director of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s grant program of online education,
said NYUonline should have sought more involvement from New York University professors in teaching and production. Instead many of the courses were taught by
adjuncts with less expertise and teaching experience. ‘It wasn’t able to tap
the real value of NYU , which is the faculty.’”[4]
Faculty involvement is crucial from the design to the delivery of the course.
Sherry (1996) stresses
the importance of interactivity between teacher and students, between students
and the learning environment, and among students themselves. Gagne and Shepherd
(2001) state that it is a common belief that interacting with the instructor
and/or with other students is somewhat hampered in a distance course. They
quote Ryan (2000), who observes: "Interaction with the online instructor
using e-mail, telephone, or chat demands greater efficiency than open oral
discussion, and therefore is more limited. This is perhaps the greatest
limitation of the online delivery method. Almost all online participants felt
that this was the greatest weakness of the class." Gagne and Shepherd
compared a face-to-face with an online class. The performance of students in a
distance course was similar to the performance of students in the on-campus
course for an introductory accounting graduate class. They also found that the
students' evaluations of the course were similar, although students in the
online course indicated that they were less satisfied with instructor availability
than the in-class students.
Ponzurick, France, and Logar (2002) find that MBA students in a distance
education environment tend to have a lower level of satisfaction with the
distance education course than do students in a face-to-face environment.
Students, however, elected to take the distance education courses because of
convenience.
Online delivery was chosen for the MSA courses primarily for its
flexibility. The MSA website states, “The … Program has been designed to be
flexible to accommodate a variety of students' interests and needs.”[5]
In 2001 and 2002, students completed the MSA program by taking four 6-week courses
in both the first and second summer and two 13-week courses in the fall
semester. In 2003, all classes are 12-week classes. Some students do not work
in the first summer, but after that most students work full-time. As
accounting employees, they frequently miss live classes for many reasons,
including being sent to various job locations around the state, having out-of-town
training, and feeling pressure to work late to meet client deadlines. A
combination of asynchronous (instructor and student not present at the same
time)[6]
and synchronous tools in an online environment makes the classes more
accessible and flexible for students. Although students may prefer the live
classes, they cannot always attend the live sessions. The online courses,
however, are always available wherever the student has access to the Internet.
In addition, many of the accounting firms provide online continuing education.[7]
Thus, students will continue to learn in an online environment in the
workplace.
UNIVERSITY/INSTRUCTOR
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
To determine the requirements necessary to deliver
an online course, in December 2001 the Accounting Department chair met with the
Associate Vice Provost/head of Institute of Teaching & Learning and the
Director of Instructional Media & Technology to outline a strategy for
beginning the conversion of MSA courses to a distance-learning format. In January
2001, the instructor and course designer created a timetable for taking the taxation
of business entities class online in summer 2001. Additional meetings were
held during the semester to ensure that the selected teaching methods supported
the course objectives. First the objectives for each class session were
determined; then the coursework to demonstrate objective achievement was
designed. Developing the coursework led to the modification of existing course content
to ensure that students were focusing on relevant material. This course design
process would be useful whether the course was delivered face-to-face or
online.
Once the course activities
were determined, the issue was how to provide the course content and to help
the students perform the course activities in an online environment. The
university provides its instructors with access to WebCT (Web Course Tools), a
secure classroom environment software that facilitates the creation of
web-based educational environments. WebCT can be used to create entire on-line
courses or to supplement existing face-to-face courses.[8]
Many universities provide access to WebCT, Blackboard, or a
university-developed secure environment to offer online courses. The tools
offered in course-environment software are similar, including a calendar, chat
room, discussion boards, email, gradebook, and quiz function, all of which are accessed
on the course homepage.
The instructor
must decide how to provide the course content – through a textbook, web pages,
or a combination of both. I chose both to deliver the course content. Thus,
my initial technology needs were basic knowledge of an html editing package,
such as Dreamweaver or Frontpage, to create the syllabus and content pages that
provided the key points for each session. WebCT provides a content module
tool, which allows the instructor to organize web pages, much like the chapters
of a textbook, with self-tests, glossary, and search capability.
The coursework
consisted of quizzes and projects. I used the WebCT quiz tool to create exams
and Excel to create projects. In response to students’ requests for additional
help, I added content page links to audio, video, Flash, Powerpoint, and Excel
files. As my content pages became more developed, I substituted my online
content modules for a textbook.
Creating the audio
and video files is simple, but time consuming. I used Snag-it[9]
to create the initial audio (*.avi) files and then used RealProducer to convert
the audio files to *.rm files. RealPresenter was used to create video files of
Powerpoint presentations. Creating the Flash files was very time-consuming
because Flash has a steep learning curve. An alternative for demonstrating
problem-solving techniques is to use Powerpoint presentations, but learning
exercises created with Flash allow student interaction. For example, students
can enter text, click buttons, or drag elements on a page. In addition,
self-tests can be created with Flash, which can incorporate interesting sound
effects to keep student attention. My learning curve for Flash was steep, so
Powerpoint may be a more efficient alternative.
The WebCT tools
selected for this course facilitated the desired learning environment: a
combination of asynchronous (calendar, discussion board, and email) and
synchronous (chat room) activities that allowed students to complete the
coursework on a self-determined schedule, subject to due date constraints.
In addition to WebCT, instant messenger software
was used in the course. [10]
In the summer 2002 course, Placeware, synchronous conferencing software, was
used for two classes. Placeware provides the ability to view spreadsheets
interactively and to poll students, thus creating a more interactive
environment. Using these tools, the class web site was developed and welcomed
its first students in summer 2001.
STUDENT TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS
Students must have
certain technology available to them to be able to successfully work in an
online environment. The MSA program director sent a letter to students detailing
the general technology requirements.[11]
In addition, this course required the following software.
AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).[12]
AIM was the most crucial communications tool in the course. Each student has a
class “buddy list,” including that of the instructor. Whenever a student logs onto
AIM, the student can see who is online, and contact other students or the
instructor with questions.
RealPlayer.[13]
The RealPlayer browser plug-in is needed to play the audio and video (*.rm)
files created by the instructor to explain material.
Flash Player.[14]
This browser plug-in is required to view the Flash files, which
demonstrated sequential problem solving.
Netscape/Internet
Explorer Browsers. Students are asked to use both Netscape and Internet
Explorer because one browser is used to access university library materials
through a university proxy account, requiring special browser settings, while
the other browser is used for regular web site access.[15]
STUDENT
INTRODUCTION TO THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
To help students
become comfortable with the WebCT online learning environment, students view a
WebCT tutorial. The WebCT tutorial reviews the typical online tools, such as
the discussion board, email, and chatroom tools, which are common to course
environment software packages. The most useful tools in this course are the
course calendar, content module, self-test, quiz, and grade tools.
Course Calendar.
The course calendar provides a listing of the semester's activities, with the
added advantage that the entries are clickable, enabling students to open the
content module or quiz directly from the calendar. The calendar reinforces the
time constraints. Seeing the due date of the first quiz on the calendar makes
students aware that they must promptly start working with the material.
Content Modules.
The content modules contain web pages with links to audio, video, Excel, and
Flash files, which explain the particular topic, much like a textbook chapter. In
addition, a project module contains two projects. An html editor (e.g., DreamWeaver)
site management tool creates a map of all the files, which allows quick access
to files that needed corrections or updates.
Self-tests.
The content modules have related self-tests. Creating self-tests disciplines
the instructor to focus on the learning objectives not only for an entire
module, but for the specific content page, resulting in more focused pages.
Quiz Tool.
The quiz tool creates quizzes and exams. In this course, the quizzes are discussed
in groups, although each student must submit his or her own quiz. The quizzes
create an incentive for students to meet the time constraints for learning the
material and to work together in a chat room.
Grade Tool.
The grade tool makes the students responsible for ensuring that the grades are
correct. After WebCT grades the quizzes and exams, scores are automatically
entered in the grade page. Once the quizzes have been submitted by all students,
the grades are released, and students can click on the grade and see the graded
quiz, including the solutions. The student’s ability to see the correct
answers with solutions allows learning to continue in an efficient manner. For
example, if a student enters an answer that is correct, but WebCT was not
programmed to accept that answer, the student asks the instructor to reconsider
that answer. The student is responsible for ensuring his/her answer is
correct. Thus, learning continues even after the class ends because students
review their final exams to ensure that an error had not been made in grading.
CLASS CONDUCT
The taxation of business
entities course covers the tax rules that govern the formation, operation,
distribution, and liquidation of entities. At
the end of the course, students should be able to identify and address the tax
and nontax issues faced when choosing the tax form of business organization.
This objective is accomplished through content modules, quizzes, projects, and
exams.
Content Modules
The content
modules include Property Transactions, C Corporations (regular corporations),
and Partnerships. Because the life cycle of a business incorporates many of
the concepts learned in the property transactions module of the undergraduate
introductory tax course, the course begins with a content module on property
transactions. This review enables graduate students who come from various
schools to have the same baseline knowledge.
Students send
instant messages when they have questions while they are working through the
content modules. Answering a question with a question, rather than simply
giving the answer, provides an incentive not to use the instructor as a source
of answers. For example, asking students for a journal entry to record the
transaction in question puts the burden of learning on the student. The
emoticons in AIM can be used to convey humor when appropriate.[16]
Quizzes
Twice-weekly
quizzes were completed by all students. Most students clamor for the module
quiz before they start reviewing the module. Thus, the key concepts in the module
require quiz questions to ensure that students cover the module material. To
encourage students to work self-tests in the content modules, some quiz
questions are patterned after self-test questions.
Following the
collaborative model, students worked in small groups on the quizzes and
projects.[17]
In summer 2001, the groups were created by the instructor and consisted of
eight members for quizzes and four members for projects. End-of-semester
surveys showed that students did not like this arrangement. In summer 2002, the
groups consisted of six members and were the same for quizzes and projects. End-of-semester
2002 surveys indicated that students wanted to self-select into groups because
of scheduling issues. To address this issue, in summer 2003, groups were
created based on when students expect to work online, information provided in a
survey at the beginning of the semester.
In the 2001 class,
students were required to be in a chat room during the regularly scheduled
class times. As the semester progressed, students objected to this practice.
They wanted more flexibility in scheduling the times they worked with their
groups. The requirement was dropped in 2002, but students were asked to attend
two synchronous classes in conjunction with the projects. Audio or video
recordings of the synchronous classes are available for students who cannot
attend.
In the 2001 class,
quiz due dates were Wednesday and Sunday; in the 2002 class, the dates were
Tuesday and Thursday. Accelerating the due dates helped keep the class on
schedule. In 2002, instructor online hours were during the scheduled class
times, Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:30 PM to 4 PM and from 6 PM to 9:30 PM. On the other weekdays, I was online generally for an hour in the morning and
back online between 1 PM and 9 PM., with a two-hour break at 5 PM. Now that the MSA program has moved from 6- to 12-week classes, instructor availability is more
limited because students indicate on group board postings when they expect to
work online, allowing more efficient scheduling of online time. Students also
know when the instructor and class members will be online because they create
“away” messages using AIM.[18]
The group members
set up times to meet in the chat room. At the beginning of the semester, this
time was usually the day the quiz was due. As the semester progressed, groups
began scheduling multiple meetings. Most groups established a rule that each
member had to work the quiz and come to the chat room prepared to compare
answers. Generally, each group member would list the answers. If there were conflicting
answers, each student explained his/her answer. If they could not resolve it
on their own, they sent me an instant message asking me to come to their chat
room. On the occasions when I was called into the chat room, I saw active
learning taking place. The process was exhilarating from my perspective --
students were teaching each other. Although WebCT records the chat room
discussions in the first four chatrooms, I did not review the logs during the
semester. Subsequently, I checked some of the logs. The discussion in Exhibit
I is from the log of a typical chat session.[19]
EXHIBIT I
Projects
The projects
involve the preparation of spreadsheets reconciling book income to taxable
income and the tax forms. For the 2001 and 2002 summer classes, face-to-face
classes were held for projects, mainly because the university did not provide
tax-forms software. The students met in their groups, and I circulated among
the groups, answering questions. In summer 2003, there are no face-to-face
classes; instructor-created Excel versions of the tax forms are now part of
project spreadsheet files.
Exams
The only
student-independent work required was the completion of two online exams. In
the summer 2001 course, students took exams in the classroom. Subsequently,
the MSA program decided not to require students to come to campus to take the
exams at the same time because most online students do not live close to campus,
and, as working students, they could be assigned to an out-of-town client.
Thus, in the summer 2002 course, students took the exams online. The timed exams,
which consist of short-answer and multiple choice questions, were taken during
a set period of time on the exam day. The concern with possible collusion was
alleviated by creating exams with random-order questions. In addition, the
multiple choice questions had random-order answers. No restrictions were
placed on the material that students could access, but the only permitted
interaction was with the instructor.
Initially, I also
asked students to sign onto AIM before starting the exam and tell me where they
were and if they were alone. A backlog of AIM messages developed with students
having to wait to start the exam until I “talked” with them. Now I post the
exam procedures on the discussion board and remind students of the consequences
of cheating.
It is possible
that students could meet to work the exam together. Because the exams are
generated from a random data base, each exam is unique. It is possible that
some questions are the same, although in different order. If the question was
a multiple-choice question, the answers would also be in random order. Thus
students would have to compare the actual answer. Nevertheless, there could be
some benefit to collusion if the group of students finds the common questions.
I can only rely on time pressure to provide a disincentive. I would be far
more hesitant to test in this manner if my students were undergraduates as
opposed to graduate students, most of whom are working.
STUDENT REACTION TO THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
At the end of each
semester, the class was surveyed about the learning environment. The tabulated
the results are reported in Exhibit II. One third of the student responses to
questions on the videos (Exhibit III), synchronous classes (Exhibit IV), groups
(Exhibit V), and online classes in general (Exhibit VI) were randomly selected
and reported.
Tools in
general. Questions 1 and 2 asked students which tools they used and
whether they wanted more/less of the tools. Working the quizzes in the chat
room was the method used most; 84 percent in 2001 and 67 percent in 2002 used a
combination of these two tools “a lot.” The percentages for “a lot” for 2001
and 2002 were as follows for the remaining tools: self-tests (67%, 74%), Excel
files (60%, 51%), AIM – student /instructor (58%, 56%), AIM – student/student
(58%, 67%), Flash files (44%, 40%), audio files (33%, 42%), videos (40% 2002),
discussion board (24%, 32%). Students did not use the discussion board as much
as I had anticipated but instead used other tools to get help. The use of
RealPlayer increased from 2001 to 2002 as evidenced by 89 percent of the
students viewing the videos, whereas only 72 percent used RealPlayer to listen
to audio files in 2001 (no video files were available in 2001).
Students generally
were satisfied with the quizzes and projects, although more students in 2002
relative to 2001 thought they should be reduced. 2001 students wanted more
self-tests (65 percent). Despite the addition of more self-test questions, the
2002 students still want more self-tests (77 percent). The request for more
Excel problems increased from 35 percent to 57 percent, and for audio files increased
from 25 percent to 37 percent. The demand for more Flash files remained the
same across the two years (22%, 21%).
EXHIBIT II
Videos. Question
3 asked if students found the RealPresenter videos useful; 66 percent of the
comments were positive. Exhibit III reports student response regarding the
videos. Thirty-four percent of the students did not like the videos for
reasons ranging from duplication of content module material to problems getting
the videos to play. I expect the technology problems to dissipate over time.
EXHIBIT III
Synchronous
Classes. The class used audio conferencing in conjunction with Placeware.
Question 4 asked how students accessed the synchronous classes. Eighteen
percent of the students accessed the Internet through their phone lines, so
they were not able to listen and be in the Placeware online classroom at the
same time. Seven percent found the synchronous classes ineffective with audio
only. Seventy-one percent had both audio and video, of which 60 percent were
satisfied with the classes. Question 5 asked whether the classes were useful.
Student responses are provided in Exhibit IV. Sixty-five percent of the
comments were positive. The satisfaction percentage should increase as the
instructor’s ability to conduct synchronous classes increases. Question 6 asked
how often synchronous classes should be held. Fifty-four percent wanted just
the two classes; 28 percent wanted one-hour synchronous classes every week.
EXHIBIT IV
Technology
Demands. Question 7 asks if student computers were able to handle the
technological demands of the class. Most students indicated that the computer
was not a problem, increasing from 56 percent in 2001 to 81 percent in 2002.
The speed of the Internet connection remained a problem, although it decreased
from 40 percent in 2001 to 19 percent in 2002.
AIM.
Question 8 asked about AIM communication. Some of my students used AIM
sporadically to contact me, but only one student did not use it at all over the
two years. Most students were satisfied with their interaction with the
instructor, although satisfaction decreased from 78 percent to 68 percent. On
the university-level survey, however, students rated the instructor over 9 on a
10 point scale.
Groups.
Question 9 asked students about their groups. What surprised me the most was
how much the students enjoyed working in groups, as evidenced by their comments
in Exhibit V. Although the group process worked better in 2001 than in 2002,
students generally were satisfied with their groups. Perhaps the fact that
approximately 10 percent of their grade was based solely on group-member
evaluations created an incentive to work with their group members. They then
discovered that they could help each other improve their quiz scores
(approximately 22 percent of their grade) and their project scores (another 22
percent of their grade). Thus, over half their grade was dependent on group
interaction. The rest of the grade was based on the two exams.
EXHIBIT V
Online vs Live
Class. Question 10 asked what would have to change to make the online
experience a positive experience, and Question 11 asked if they would prefer to
take the class live. Of the students in both 2001 and 2002, 56 percent would
choose to take this class online if they had a choice between online and live.
At first glance, this statistic looks grim, but recall that these students were
just six weeks away from being undergraduates. The students found online
learning challenging, as evidenced by their comments, some of which are listed
in Exhibit VI. Part of their responses can be attributed to being thrust into
the graduate environment with its attendant heavier workload. Perhaps they
expected their old learning patterns to continue to work for them. In the fall
2001 semester, I taught tax research online to 19 of my summer online
students. When asked in a survey how many would prefer to take the class live,
only 3 said they would prefer a live class. Several students said they changed
their mind about online education once they started working fulltime in the
fall.
EXHIBIT VI
At the university level, an online
evaluation replaced the paper evaluation used in live classes. The summary of
the survey questions given to the instructor after the semester ended is
provided in Exhibit VII. The survey results in 2002 for the afternoon class
are not as high as the evening class or the 2001 classes. The student comments
from both classes that accompanied the survey (not tabulated), however, were
similar. In general, students appear to be satisfied.
EXHIBIT VII
DISCUSSION
The feedback from the students
leads me to the conclusion that the online environment is as effective as the
face-to-face environment. Then the issue is simply efficiency. From my
perspective if a student self-selects into an online environment, the student
must have concluded that the online approach is more efficient. Thus, the
issue then is the instructor’s efficiency relative to face-to-face courses,
both in terms of total time and time per student.
How many hours are
needed for planning, execution, and course updating? I did not track my time
for the planning part of the process, but I estimate that I spent at least 10-15
hours per week for the spring semester working on transforming the face-to-face
class to an online class. Once the class was online, I averaged 40 hours per
week online, overcompensating for not being face-to-face. During this time, I
was able to work on course material preparation, but students could see me
online and ask questions at any time. Currently, for a single class, I have reduced
my time on AIM to 10 hours per week, approximately the same time for a regular
class with office hours. In the summer 2003 class, I had two 25-student
classes, and I was online about 20 hours per week. Thus, my total time and
time-per-student is about the same as a face-to-face class.
Initially, my
time-per-student was very high because I spent considerable time working with
individual students online, and I found myself repeating discussions. I became
more efficient by improving the content pages with additional videos on troublesome
points. In addition, I learned to ask if the student was working with another
student online, and I would ask the student to create a chat session with the
other student. This process evolved over time to students waiting to contact
me until their group was meeting. If the student was working solo, I
frequently asked the student to post our AIM discussion on the group board. The
most effective deterrent, however, to constant bombardment with questions
before the student has really tried to learn the material is to answer a
question with a question. It quickly becomes obvious when a student needs to
spend more time in the content module.
Grading quizzes
and exams requires little time because WebCT grades the quizzes, with the
exception of the short-answer question, which I use sparingly. I provide
detailed solutions in the quiz, so students rarely contact me with quiz
questions. The projects, however, are very time-consuming because of the
iterative process. The students do not complete the tax forms until the
workpapers are correct. Thus, the workpapers go back and forth several times
before the student can proceed to the forms. Because I do not want to require
students to purchase entity form software, I created Excel-based forms to make
it possible for students to submit projects in electronic form. Students now
link the form input directly to the workpapers. Although the Excel-based forms
are much easier to grade, creating the forms offsets any grading benefit.
Three projects are submitted during the semester. The time spent on the
projects is comparable to the time I spent in my face-to-face classes,
averaging about 25 hours per project.
With respect to
web site maintenance, I rely on end-of-semester feedback to tell me what I need
to change. I average 8 to 10 hours per week updating each week’s content
module and quiz. Some of these hours overlap with my online hours.
Although I do not
track my time, I estimate that I spend about 25 hours week on my two classes,
which is comparable to face-to-face classes. What I am not accounting for in
this estimate is the time I spend learning new technology tools. On the other
hand, the MSA program has just started using grading assistants for online
instructors. My grading assistant now reviews my web pages for errors and
updates quiz questions.
The combination of
asynchronous and synchronous materials in the WebCT environment worked well for
my students. I felt closer to my students than I did in a live class. When I
loaded AIM and saw my students online, I felt connected to them. Each student
had an online persona that blossomed over the semester. The use of emoticons
in AIM helped us create bantering communication, which contributed to a less
stressful learning environment.
The students
appreciated the flexibility, and they liked not having to drive to classes.
Although many of my students would have preferred a live class, they performed
well in this online class. I did not attempt to statistically compare their
performance with my past live classes, but the exam distributions appear
similar to past classes. I was happy with the overall class performance.
One student
concluded, “Just reading the material without having anyone explain it to you
makes it more difficult to understand at first (at least for me). I waffled
between wanting online and in person teaching … . Ultimately I chose online
because this way we can do it at our own pace and we always have the ability to
go back to where we might not have understood and do it over.” Thus,
flexibility appears to outweigh what to the student appears to be an easier way
to learn.
Perhaps the biggest impediment to moving to a learner-centered
environment is instructor resistance to change. Distance learning has caused
me to abandon the notion that I am central to the learning process. When I
taught live, I was the focal point; in a distance setting, the student is the
focal point. I am now much more comfortable with the collaborative method of
learning, and I would use many of the online tools even if I taught live
classes. Oblinger, Barone, and Hawkins (2001) state, “Until the educational
process becomes learner-centered, in the classroom and at the institutional
level, we may not realize the full value of distributed education. Distributed
learning challenges our institutions not only to look at new ways of doing what
we have always done, but also to look at doing new things. Should we use fewer
lectures and invest more in collaborative learning? Would learning be more
effective if we altered the lecture-laboratory-recitation model to a hands-on
integrated approach? Students with an Information-Age mindset expect education
to emphasize the learning process more than a canon of knowledge. They want to
be part of learning communities, rejecting the broadcast paradigm of television
(or the note-taker in the lecture hall).” Faculty involvement, however, is
still necessary. Online learning is not a correspondence course; the
faculty/student and student/student interaction is crucial to the learning
process. Online tools can facilitate these interactions, helping the student
to attain the course objectives in a flexible, self-paced environment.
References
Gagne, Margaret
and Morgan Shepherd, A Comparison Between a Distance and a Traditional Graduate
Accounting Class. T.H.E. Journal, April 2001. 58-64 (http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3433.cfm)
Leidner, D. E.,
and S. L. Jarvenpaa. 1995. The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View. MIS Quarterly (September): 265-291.
Oblinger, D.G.,
C. A. Barone, and B.L. Hawkins. 2001. Distributed education and its challenges:
an overview. American Council on Education.
(http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-01.pdf)
Ponzurick, T. G.,
K. R. France, and C. M. Logar. 2000. Delivering graduate marketing education:
An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing
Education (December): 180-187.
Ryan, Richard C.
"Student Assessment Comparison of Lecture and Online Construction
Equipment and Methods Classes." T.H.E. Journal, January 2000: 78-83.
Sherry, L.
(1996). Issues in Distance Learning. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337-365.
Willis, B. 2002 Distance Education at a Glance, http://www.uidaho.edu/eo/distglan.html.
EXHIBIT I
Log of a Partial Chat Session
The students are discussing the
third, fourth, and fifth questions in a quiz. Semi-weekly quizzes averaged 15
– 25 questions, some with multiple parts. Although WebCT lists the full
student name, only initials are used here.
MG>>Q3: 2
DM>>1
DC>>1
DP>>1
SS>>q3: 1??
MG>>that was one of the self test questions I think
DP>>2 needs to be partnership level
DP>>not partner
SS>>yep, I'm sure now. 1
AG>>right
DM>>i think it's 1 as well
DC>>me too
DM>>michelle?
MG>>I still think it's 2, I am looking up the self test that I got it off of the double check
DP>>in the self test it says partnership
AG>>yeah, I think it does
MG>>you're right
SS>>yep, character is determined at partnership
DM>>Q4: 3??
DC>>5
SS>>I got 3 as well
AG>>3
MG>>3
DP>>3
DM>>85,000(.30) + 12,000 = 37,500
AG>>right
DC>>I screwed up, didn't multiply the 1000 by 12
DC>>so 3
MG>>y
SS>>I'm not sure on 5
MG>>Q5: 4
DM>>Q5: 2??
DC>>3
AG>>4
DM>>not sure at all
DM>>ha- all different!
SS>>amy, michelle, how'd you get 4?
MG>>80-5+6
AG>>80000-5000+6000=81000
DP>>i have that too
DC>>why deduct the 5000?
DM>>what about the guaranteed payments
AG>>because those two items are excluded from ordinary income
MG>>they are added back in for taxable income
MG>>that gp that is
DM>>oh ok
AG>>the gp is already included as a deduction
DC>>why did you subtract the ltcg?
DC>>never mind, it's not ordinary income
DM>>i thought it was not included
AG>>it's excluded from ord inc
MG>>it goes on Sch K, I think
SS>>so the charitable is deducted at the partner level, right
AG>>yeah
DM>>y
DC>>yeah, I see it now
MG>>yes
SS>>ok, then I agree with 4
EXHIBIT II
End-of-Course Survey
1. Each blank below is for a
learning method you may have used in this class. How often did you use each
method?
|
|
2001 (N = 55)
|
2002 (N=57)
|
|
|
1 (Never)
|
2-4
|
5
(A lot)
|
1 (Never)
|
2-4
|
5
(A lot)
|
|
Working
through the content modules on the internet (as opposed to printing them out
and working from paper).
|
2%
|
31%
|
67%
|
2%
|
42%
|
56%
|
|
Printing
out the web pages and working through the paper version
|
29%
|
33%
|
38%
|
16%
|
30%
|
54%
|
|
Working
the self-tests
|
2%
|
31%
|
67%
|
|
26%
|
74%
|
|
Working
the examples and problems in Excel files
|
2%
|
39%
|
60%
|
|
49%
|
51%
|
|
Viewing
the Flash files
|
11%
|
45%
|
44%
|
2%
|
58%
|
40%
|
|
Listening
to sound files
|
29%
|
39%
|
33%
|
9%
|
49%
|
42%
|
|
Working
the quizzes with my group in the chat room
|
2%
|
15%
|
84%
|
5%
|
28%
|
67%
|
|
Using
AIM to ask the instructor questions
|
2%
|
40%
|
58%
|
2%
|
42%
|
56%
|
|
Using
AIM to ask another student questions
|
2%
|
40%
|
58%
|
|
33%
|
67%
|
|
Using
the discussion board
|
5%
|
71%
|
24%
|
2%
|
67%
|
32%
|
|
Watching
RealPresenter videos
|
|
|
|
11%
|
49%
|
40%
|
|
Attending
synchronous classes
|
|
|
|
4%
|
54%
|
42%
|
2. What should the instructor do
to improve the course with respect to each of the learning tools:
|
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
|
Get rid of it
|
Provide less
|
OK
|
Provide more
|
Get rid of it
|
Provide less
|
OK
|
Provide more
|
|
Web pages in the content
modules
|
|
|
64%
|
36%
|
|
2%
|
65%
|
33%
|
|
Self-tests
|
|
2%
|
33%
|
65%
|
|
|
23%
|
77%
|
|
Excel examples and problems
|
|
4%
|
62%
|
35%
|
|
4%
|
46%
|
51%
|
|
Flash files
|
11%
|
20%
|
47%
|
22%
|
2%
|
18%
|
60%
|
21%
|
|
Audio files
|
20%
|
16%
|
38%
|
25%
|
7%
|
11%
|
46%
|
37%
|
|
Quizzes
|
|
7%
|
82%
|
11%
|
|
28%
|
61%
|
11%
|
|
Projects
|
|
|
89%
|
11%
|
2%
|
19%
|
67%
|
12%
|
|
RealPresenter videos
|
|
|
|
|
4%
|
18%
|
37%
|
42%
|
|
Synchronous classes
|
|
|
|
|
4%
|
23%
|
40%
|
33%
|
3. If you didn't watch the
videos, why didn't you watch them? If you did watch the videos, were they
worth your time? Would you like to have videos for all the content modules? How
would you change the videos? (Student responses are listed on Exhibit
III.)
|
|
2002
|
|
A.
Helpful
|
27%
|
|
B.
Helpful – want more
|
27%
|
|
C.
Positive with suggestion
|
5%
|
|
D.
Positive with criticism
|
7%
|
|
E.
Negative
|
34%
|
4. With respect to the synchronous classes, which of the
following applies to you.
|
|
2002
|
|
I used audio only. The audio
enabled me to get what I wanted from the synchronous class.
|
11%
|
|
I used audio only. Not
having access to video made the class ineffective for me.
|
7%
|
|
I used audio and video, but
I was not able to keep up with the class.
|
11%
|
|
I used audio and video, and
it worked just fine.
|
60%
|
|
I didn't attend the classes,
but I did listen to the recorded audio files of the classes.
|
7%
|
|
I didn't attend the classes,
nor did I listen to the recorded audio files of the classes.
|
5%
|
5. If you didn't attend the synchronous classes, why not?
If you did attend the synchronous classes, were the classes worth your time?
(Student responses are listed on Exhibit IV.)
|
|
2002
|
|
A.
Positive
|
44%
|
|
B.
Positive with criticism
|
21%
|
|
C.
Negative
|
14%
|
|
D.
No time to attend
|
12%
|
|
E.
No feedback responses
|
9%
|
6. How often should I hold synchronous classes?
|
|
2002
|
|
Don't hold any synchronous
classes
|
4%
|
|
Once a week for one hour
|
28%
|
|
Once a week for 1 1/2 hours
|
5%
|
|
Once a week for 2 hours
|
2%
|
|
Twice a week for 1 hour
|
4%
|
|
Twice a week for 1 1/2 hours
|
2%
|
|
Twice a week for 2 hours
|
2%
|
|
Just for projects (twice a
semester)
|
54%
|
7. I am concerned that the online experience may not have
been a good one for some of you. It is possible that your computer was not able
to handle the technological demands of this class. Which of the following
describes your computer? Check all that apply.
|
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
I had to frequently reboot
because files wouldn't display.
|
15%
|
5%
|
|
I shared a computer with
others so I didn't always have access to the computer.
|
11%
|
5%
|
|
My internet connection
bumped me off frequently.
|
27%
|
9%
|
|
My internet connection was
too slow.
|
40%
|
19%
|
|
I liked working on computers
on campus, but the computer locations were closed when I wanted to be there.
|
9%
|
5%
|
|
My computer worked fine for me.
|
56%
|
81%
|
8. Some of you did not interact very much with me on AIM.
I am concerned that this lack of interaction may have negatively impacted your
view of an online course. I would like to know why some of you chose not to
contact me. Choose all the reasons that apply.
|
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
The instructor wasn’t online
when I was online.
|
5%
|
7%
|
|
I don’t like using AIM
|
7%
|
9%
|
|
I didn’t realize that I
could contact the instructor by AIM
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
I figured I could learn the
material on my own without the instructor’s help.
|
7%
|
14%
|
|
The interaction with my
group members was sufficient.
|
40%
|
32%
|
|
I just didn’t have time to
interact with the instructor
|
4%
|
9%
|
|
I would have interacted
more, but I didn’t always have access to an online connection at home (e.g., family members/household members were using computer).
|
15%
|
5%
|
|
I was satisfied with my
interaction with instructor.
|
78%
|
68%
|
9. Tell me about your group. What made it a good group or
a not so good group? Is there anything I could do to help the group learning
process? (Student responses are listed on Exhibit V.)
|
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
A.
Positive comment
|
80%
|
54%
|
|
B.
Positive with suggestion
|
4%
|
18%
|
|
C.
Positive with complaint
|
15%
|
18%
|
|
D.
Suggestion only
|
2%
|
5%
|
|
E.
Negative comment
|
|
5%
|
10. What would have to change to make the online experience
a good one for you? (Student
responses are listed in Exhibit VI.)
|
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
Fine
as is
|
33%
|
37%
|
|
Online
learning is harder
|
15%
|
5%
|
|
Better
online access
|
11%
|
5%
|
|
Need
more time
|
6%
|
9%
|
|
Less
of something
|
6%
|
9%
|
|
More
of something
|
|
11%
|
|
More
live classes
|
13%
|
4%
|
|
Teach
the class live
|
9%
|
4%
|
|
Miscellaneous
comments
|
7%
|
12%
|
|
Print
out notes
|
|
5%
|
|
11. Knowing what you
know now, back up to day one. If you could choose to have a live instructor
in a classroom or take this class online, which would you choose? Assume that
the live classes would be for 3 1/2 hours twice a week. The live classes
would be a combination of lecture and active learning.
|
2001
|
2002
|
|
Live Class
|
Online Class
|
Live Class
|
Online Class
|
|
44%
|
56%
|
44%
|
56%
|
EXHIBIT III
Student Video Comments – Summer 2002
(Instructor’s name converted to
INSTRUCTOR)
A.
Helpful
1. I thought they were
worth the time to watch. I think they clarified some gray areas. They helped
because sometimes you would explain it a different way than it is written and
it is easier to understand.
2. I watched the beginning videos and they were
helpful. Towards the end of the semester I guess I got lazy and just worked the
problems from the quizzes from the modules
3. I watched almost all the videos and listened to
all the sound files you created. It's extremely helpful. There are some
concepts, such as NOL or limitation on charitable contribution; it is difficult
to explain the different ways in writing. A sound file from INSTRUCTOR clears
everything up. I listen to the sound file and write my own note on the
side...it's perfect! However, I don't think you need to make videos or sound
files for everything, just on some particular important or complicated areas.
4. I thought that the videos were very helpful;
they were definitely worth my time. I don't think they are needed for every
module. I would prefer videos to a synchronous class, because it is much more
convenient.
5. The videos were decent... I primarily still
worked off of the written pages in the content modules for doing quizzes and
projects, but it definitely helps to have some things explained, especially the
more difficult topics. It helps to reinforce the concepts. I say keep them.
B. Helpful - Want More
1. I think I would have a video before each module.
It provides a framework to tackle the modules so you have a better of idea of
what the information is about.
2. I would like to have videos for all content
modules.
3. I thought the videos were very useful in the
beginning. However, since they weren't available for all modules, I got in the
habit of using the content modules more intensely instead of the videos, and
therefore stopped using them in the second half. I think if I had been smart
enough to use them the whole time it would have been very helpful, as the first
ones were.
4. Yes, the real presenter videos were very
helpful. It helped to explain some things that were difficult to learn using
the content module alone. Videos in all the content modules would have been
helpful.
5. Videos for all of the content module would be
helpful to learn a little faster for the 6 weeks we have.
C. Positive with suggestion
1. The videos were worth my time. However I think
that maybe just giving everyone the slides you show might work too and be less
time consuming.
D. Positive with criticism
1. I watched most of them and thought that they
were very helpful when I did get to view them. However, I often ran out of time
with all of the work to get done for this class and my other class. I think
that they are great to have with the content modules but only if I get to print
out the modules so that I can compare them to the videos and follow along to
take notes. Also, it is good to mention that they can be done in line with the
notes rather than after because I didn't know that, and it would have saved
time.
E. Negative
1. I didn’t find the videos that helpful. I only
used them as a back-up if I didn’t understand something that was on the content
module. All of the explanations were not needed.
2. I find it difficult to learn that way. I find it
easier to read the content modules and to follow the sample problems.
3. I didn't watch the videos because I couldn't get
my real player to work and I didn't find them necessary.
4. I didn't have the opportunity to watch as many
videos as I would have liked because my computer is not a big fan of real
player. It kept making my computer freeze.
5. I didn't watch the videos because I couldn't get
the picture to view on my computer.
6. I didn't watch them, because I felt that my time
was better spend redoing quizzes, talking over stuff with other students and INSTRUCTOR,
and studying the content modules. The selftests really helped a lot too,
because I could see what I was doing wrong.
EXHIBIT IV
Student Synchronous Class Comments – Summer 2002
A.
Positive
1. I attended one and it was helpful. The second I
was out of town and could not attend.
2. Yes, the synchronous classes were worth my time.
It saved my group time when starting the projects because things looked
familiar and made sense. Without the synchronous class, the projects would have
been more difficult and less meaningful.
3. The synchronous classes were helpful for project
explanations. It gave a taste of what was to be expected about the project. The
class not only explained the project, but it was a way to tie information we
were learning to the project and apply the information. It was definitely worth
it, because it made the projects look less intimidating than if there were no
explanation of what was to be expected.
4. I attended the classes and I think they were
worth my time. I was able to get input on the project and ask questions.
Sometimes, it's easier to do it that way than through IM.
5. They were definitely worth my time...helped a
lot.
6. I was only able to attend the 1st synchronous
class, but I found it worth my time. It really helped to get a start on the
project, which seemed rather overwhelming at a first glance.
7. Yes they were worth my time because it helped
walk through the projects, and I feel can be helpful for the quizzes or
problems in the content module. It will allow people to be walked through
problems that are difficult.
8. I thought they helped although having them too
often would be too much of a time strain.
B. Positive with criticism
1. The first one was definitely worth my time, but
I felt that the second one was a little to long to continue to retain all the
new information that was given to us.
2. I was audio only. The first class was very good
even without the video because you covered the spreadsheets and provided
instructions for the project. The second class was ineffective because I could
not follow along and I did not receive instructions for the project, which is
what I was expecting. It was very frustrating.
3. I thought that the synchronous classes were
helpful, but somewhat lengthy. I would have liked them better if we could have
done the same amount of material in a shorter period of time.
4. The first class I attended I had both audio and
video and that was worth my time. The second class however I only had audio and
because SNET is a HORRIBLE internet provider, I couldn't even access the uconn
webpage, so I was pretty much lost the whole time. I think they're only worth
it if you have both.
C. Negative
1. They were not very helpful. It made me more
confused. I learned a lot more working with my group members and through AIM.
2. They got me very confused
D. Did not attend because student had no time
1. Busy
2. I couldn't attend at the scheduled times. But I
could get access to them later.
E. No feedback responses
1. Yes
EXHIBIT V
Student Group Comments –
Summer 2001
Tell me
about your group. What made it a good group or a not so good group? Is there
anything I could do to help the group learning process?
A. Positive
1. We all got along
very well, and were always willing to help each other. We also each were always
prepared and contributed.
2. I think we had a
really good group because everyone was flexible and generous with their time.
We were almost always able to meet as a whole group outside of class at least
twice a week. We used the chatrooms extensively and did not move on until
everyone in the group was comfortable with the material. I think we had a
really good synergy. INSTRUCTOR, I think you did a lot for our group in that
you were available on IM almost always and came to our chatroom when we needed
you. It's a difficult medium, and I feel you were there for us as much as was
possible.
3. The second half of
the course everyone really pulled together and the team dynamics were much
better. We were able to analyze the quizzes much better and Project 2 went much
smoother. I was very pleased with our group's participation with each other.
You really helped out with the project by going through why we do each step
instead of just giving us an answer. By making yourself visible during class
time and throughout other days, my group was able to contact you with
questions, which made this much better.
4. My group was
great. Everyone made an effort to coordinate meetings online or in person if
necessary. We did all of the quizzes together and learned a lot from each
other.
5. I really liked my
group. They were fun to work with and very helpful on the quizzes. It was a
good group.
6. The best thing was
that every one was very nice and we all worked together very well. Also, it was
very easy to ask someone to explain something to you that you were stuck on. My
group members would help each other out until we understood what we were stuck
on. Time was never an issue.
7. The group worked
well, with meeting personally for the projects and in the chat rooms to go over
the quizzes. Well, I found myself not only working with the people in my group
a lot, but also with other people in other groups a great deal, especially in
the overlapping chat rooms.
8. All of the group
members were willing to help each other out--answering questions, explaining
concepts, etc. Everyone was flexible, as well. I think using my classmates as
resources was a great way to learn in a non-traditional, web-based
environment.
9. My group was very
good. We all helped each other out. We worked well together. I think you
handled the group learning process well. It was hard, but there isn’t really
anything better to do.
10. For the most part,
we could all meet at the same time to discuss the quizzes. Our schedules were
pretty similar. When doing the project forms, at least one person seemed to
know what they were doing on both projects (that was a good thing btw).
Although some were slower than others when it came to the learning process, I
did not feel as though there was any free riding going on.
11. Great
group...worked well together...no complaints
12. We worked well
together when we met in class for the projects. We also made strong efforts in
chat rooms during the quizzes.
13. This was a great
group to work with because everyone was approachable and ready to help each
other. We were able to find times to meet to discuss homework, and if someone
couldn’t be there, the person would receive emails about what we discussed and
our rationale. In online courses like this, it seems the best thing for the
Prof. to do to help the group learning process is to be available online when
groups are meeting (to the best of your ability)
14. My group was great.
Sometimes there were group members who didn't contribute and just waited for
the answers but it didn't happen all the time so that is OK. My group really
helped with my learning process.
B. Positive with
suggestion
1. Good group, nice
people. Maybe more chatrooms at first would facilitate easier discussion until
people get used to the chat room format. More rooms would mean less talking at
once and force participation from everyone remaining.
C. Positive with complaint
1. This group was
great from the start with the exception of one absent member. We got along well
and managed to match our schedules so that we could do our homework. Sometimes,
though, it is not possible for everyone to meet, but everyone, except for one, managed
to meet most of the time.
2. My group was good
because we were able to get things done effectively. It could have been better
if I was able to get a firmer grasp of the material before group meetings.
D. Suggestion only
1. Make groups
according to people's outside schedules, if possible.
Student Group Comments – Summer 2002
Tell me
about your group. What made it a good group or a not so good group? Is there
anything I could do to help the group learning process?
A. Positive
1. The group was great. Everyone was an equal
contributor.
2. We had a great group. Every Tues. and Thurs. we
had a set time where we would meet in the chat room and go over the quiz.
Everyone was also willing to meet together to do the project.
3. My group was great; everyone gave 100%.
4. I thought my group was great. We worked very
well together. I also think it was amazing the amount of diversity that went on
in who "lead" the group. Everybody picked up their strong suits and
gave it to the group. I was blown away at how well, everyone contributed almost
all the time.
5. I think my group was awesome. I don't know what
I would do without them. They definitely helped me a lot in my learning
process. Five heads is always better than one. Everyone tried their hardest to
participate and to contribute to the learning.
6. I though we had
a very good group, we did the quizzes together and people were very helpful
with explaining things if someone didn't understand
7. It was a nice group. Every member contributes
his best to group work.
8. My group was good because we met on a regular
bases and were always willing to help each other.
9. I liked my group. I think it was really helpful
to bounce ideas off of each other.
10. I think the group thing worked out great. We
didn’t meet as a complete group but as 3 or 4 at a time due to different
schedules. It would have been hard to find time for all of us to meet so making
it pretty open was good.
B. Positive with suggestion
1. Group was fine but had various schedule conflicts.
I personally did not mind doing it all alone but certainly agree with the
learning process as a group.
2. The group was great. Generally there is one or
two people who don't carry their weight and that wasn't the case (of course
there is always one wierdo on the bus and when I get on I can never find him).
There were some issues with meetings but for the most part it seemed to be
unavoidable problems because we are so busy and the amount of work in a short
time is difficult. overall this group worked very well together. I enjoyed the
online meetings; however if you want to facilitate better learning have 2
attended classes for each project: one to work in the group on it and the other
to turn in a final project. The class we had to turn in the project was good;
however there was little time to interact and compare projects.
3. I really enjoyed the people in my group.
However, one thing I think you should take into consideration next time around
is the differences b/n full-time students and full-time workers/students.
Including myself, there were 2 people out of 5 who didn't work full-time. The
only times we could meet were after 8 to accommodate the full-time workers. Not
that I mind, but often times students who work full-time are concerned with "getting
by". That happens with full-time students too but not as often. The
full-time workers in my group didn't want to get together to work on projects
together. I really need that interaction to get through the projects.
Basically, I think that you should group full-time workers together, and group
full-time students together.
C. Positive with complaint
1. I think we had a good group, but it was very
time consuming to go over the quizzes on-line.
2. I don't think groups should be expected to
communicate as much as they were expected to. I believe that some people learn
better on their own and then are able to help group members once they learn the
material themselves. A good group is always there to help each other and knows
how to give and take. I liked communicating with my group using im.
3. I liked all of my members. My one frustration
was that we had a set a meeting time of Monday and Wednesdays at 8 pm and we never once met at that time. It was frustrating, because with my busy schedule
I needed to plan ahead of time and often I counted on the Mon/Wed meetings and
they got changed because people were not ready. The group itself did facilitate
learning. We often corrected each other’s mistakes and hashed out difficult
problems together. It would be nice if we could use the conference call set up
for group meetings - typing takes a long time.
D. Suggestion only
1. Maybe make one set of groups that consist of
people living at UCONN for the summer so that way they can meet in person for
quizzes and projects if they'd like, it makes learning easier because typing on
IM gets time consuming and harder to explain how things work.
E. Negative
1. I think that to help the group learning process,
people should be allowed to pick their groups. I just think that our group got
off on the wrong foot from day 1 and it made everyone less willing to
contribute. When there is one person who always says you are wrong, you become
less likely to want to contribute. I think that happened with our group, at
least I know I feel that way. What made it worse is the fact that the person
who said things were wrong had no explanation as to why. It was like they just
wanted to argue.
EXHIBIT
V
Student Online Class
Comments – Summer 2001
What would have to change to make the
online experience a good one for you?
Fine as is
1. I love online
classes.
2. I enjoyed the
flexibility that the on-line course afforded me. It made life easier because I
work full time. You (INSTRUCTOR) were always available to answer questions, and
responded quickly to emails. I am in awe of the amount of time and effort you
put into this class! I think you did a great job, and I learned an immense
amount in this class.
3. I am really
satisfied with this class (except my laptop freezes almost every time when I am
online. Tonight, it froze 2 times already :- ( Professor INSTRUCTOR has worked
HARD to help us learn as much as possible. She is just a wonderful and best
professor--I couldn't resist her a great funny spirit and smile :-)
4. I enjoyed it. It was
the material that frightened me.
5. Nothing.
6.
Nothing
Online learning is
harder
1. Just reading the
material without having anyone explain it to you makes it more difficult to
understand at first (at least for me). I waffled between wanting online and in
person teaching in [online vs live] question above. Ultimately I chose online
because this way we can do it at our own pace and we always have the ability to
go back to where we might not have understood and do it over. The self tests were
very helpful, as well as the numerous examples provided in the modules. I'd say
this WAS a good experience for me. :-)
2. I was opposed to
the online experience at first. But after getting used to it, I really like it.
It is a very convenient way to learn, especially when taking grad classes. The
only negative aspect is that sometimes it was difficult teaching myself the
material. Interacting with students and the professor over AIM is not the same
as interacting in the classroom. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to
include the old-fashioned personal interaction with an online class. I think
meeting in groups in person in Hartford a couple times to work on the projects
was a good idea.
Better online access
1. I definitely need
an upgrade to my computer. If my computer wasn't so slow, and my internet
connection wasn't horrible the experience would have been better. The
experience itself was good for me, especially the format you set up - meeting
w/ my group, and having constant contact with you - but my computer
frustrated me a lot! I was very nervous at the start because I had never done
anything like this, but overall I would recommend online courses for the future
because of the flexibility the system offers.
2. To do the work, you
need about a thousand windows up, which makes the memory issue at home a real
pain. I should have come to class to use the machines, but I found the
classroom distracting with the discussion groups and all. Every time I did come
to class, I would try to get into the assignment, I would feel guilty about not
getting into the discussion group so I would get in (discussion group) there
and be over my head because the assignment wasn't done yet (I scheduled my day
to do it in class.) For the ones just graduating from school with the summers
off, I'm sure it was fine because they had the time. I however, was taking
another class in the eve... and my time was constrained. In short, I thought
you were really fun and I wish I had taken class with you as an undergrad. It
would have been fun. I thought the on line was interesting because it forced
the student to understand the material. Unfortunately, if you’re not connected
to the university mainframe, it's a technical nightmare. Either that or I need
a new computer (it's on order) Thanks again for everything - it was a wild
ride. Have a good summer and watch out for the religious zealots who force you
into a square you're not comfortable with. Traditional religion is dogma for
kids. As adults, it's our duty to blaze our own trail. It's incumbent upon us
to ask questions, push the limit, and make our own roadmap rather than blindly
following someone else's. Not that you would :)
Not enough time
1. It was an overall
good experience. Though it was a little overwhelming at first I feel as though
I got a lot out of it. The negative feelings I have about the class are mostly
due to the workload and short time span. However I realize that the negative is
due to the fact that it was a condensed class, not that it was on-line.
Less of something
1. There should be
less grade impact from participation. Some people learn differently than
others, and those who choose to learn independently should not be negatively
impacted for it. Otherwise, the online course experience was wonderful.
More live classes
1. I guess just a
little more interaction in the classroom. I would have preferred that you
lectured a little and then let us on our own to do work and read through the
modules, quizzes, etc.
2. It should have
been more gradual. Maybe start off with some classroom instruction and then
work to combine the two throughout the semester. I prefer live instruction. I
find that an instructor working through difficult problems helps me to better
understand the material.
Teach the class live
1. This class would
have been much better had it not been an online class. I don't think any
student can successfully teach themselves taxes and I think you miss out of a
lot of stuff you could have learned by having this class online.
Miscellaneous comments
1. I would like to
not have to be logged in at 6-9 on Mondays and Wednesdays, and just take care
of things on other more flexible times.
Student Online Class
Comments – Summer 2002
What would have to change to
make the online experience a good one for you?
Fine as is
1. Nothing. I enjoyed it, and I feel like I learned
a lot more compared to other classes I've taken that were live.
2. I thought that generally the experience with
this online class was a good one. However, I feel that you are an excellent
professor and I kind of feel that I missed out on some things in that respect.
3. I liked the online course
4. The experience it self was not bad at all, tax
in general is just very difficult!!!
5. Nothing really, it was an enjoyable experience.
6. Nothing. I enjoyed it. :-)
7. Nothing. This was a really good experience for
me. I learned a lot. I wish that all classes were structured this way.
Online learning is harder
1. It was rough getting used to it, but once I
figured it out, I found it to be a good experience - a learned a lot about
computers! You just have to try to be patient, even though it’s not easy when
things are moving so fast. Warn students to be patient! Overall, I would say
nothing has to be changed but the individual's attitude toward an online
course.
Better online access
1. I would have gotten DSL earlier, some times my
internet connections ( 10 kb/sec) just wasn't worth it. As to the content of
the course itself, I think it was fine.
Not enough time
1. I wish I had more time so that I can really
understand the material...but there is not much that can be changed to get
that.
Less of something
1. It would have to be less time consuming
More of something
1. I think that if there were more synchronous
classes and videos this would help the experience.
2. I think more video explanations with you talking
would be more helpful, but I thought I had a good experience overall.
More live classes
1. More
live classes
Teach the class live
1. Make it not online, but I guess that's not possible!
I don't know if I could have a good online experience. I am a very visual
learner, so I remember examples and other things that professors write on the
board and explain, and that just isn't possible in an online class.
Miscellaneous comments
1. Make it more coordinated because some people
everyone would be working on this class at different times and it was difficult
to get live feedback
2. I'm not sure at this time!
Print out notes
1. Have the lecture notes printed out for us.
EXHIBIT VII
University Course Survey Results for 2001 and 2002
. I responded with 
. After a few
more exchanges, we finally ended with 
.