Abstract
This
article describes the development and delivery of an online, graduate course
entitled Marriage and Family Therapy. This course was a traditional,
face-to-face class, offered by an urban university. The professor who teaches
the course worked with three graduate students during the fall 2000 semester
to design and develop an instructionally sound, online version of the course,
which the professor then taught during spring 2001 semester.
We also designed an online evaluation to ascertain the students’
opinions at midterm and final. This
article describes the design and development challenges in terms of meeting
seven major criteria. The lessons
learned include the importance of sufficient time, a diverse team of
developers, and the appropriate and creative use of the technology.
Development Process
The team
who developed the online Marriage and Family course consisted of the
professor, her teaching assistant, and two instructional designers from the
Technology and Learning Team (TLT) at a major urban university, (http://.tlt.cudenver.edu)
The mission of TLT is to assist
faculty integrate technology into their courses.
Generally, the team met every week for about 1.25 hours.
One of our first tasks was to create a team agreement that outlined the
roles and responsibilities of each member of the group. We then began
evaluating and comparing the two course management products our university
supported. We selected eCollege
courseware primarily because they provide 24/7 technical support to students
and professors. We also liked the
infrastructure the eCollege software offers in support of unique online
instructional activities such as threaded discussions, document sharing, and
their Webliography. As Hung and
Der Thang (2001)
note, it is primarily because of this type of technology, and the
infrastructure it provides, that sophisticated online instruction is possible,
feasible, and practical.
The next
step was to convert the major components of the traditional class to an online
environment. The components with which we were particularly concerned were the
small group discussions of the family of origin assignment, the case study
assignment where student groups review cases from several different
theoretical perspectives, guest lecturers, and midterm and final exams that
are designed to help students prepare for the state board examination.
Another
concern in the development process was how to show the videotapes the
professor used in her traditional course for case study work. We considered many options for distributing the videotapes,
including streaming video, digitizing the videotapes and distributing CD-ROMs,
and using a distribution service to copy the videotapes and distribute them
directly to students. The
challenge we faced was obtaining copyright permission from the owners of the
videotapes. We sidestepped this
issue for the beta test of this course by placing the videotapes on reserve in
our campus Media Center. We have
to address this issue differently for the upcoming semesters when the students
are outside our metropolitan area.
As we
added content to the course, we worked with a graphic designer from the
Technology and Learning Team to include visuals and the professor added
copyright free clip art. Most of the artwork is in the weekly introductions,
which are short motivational documents. The
teaching assistant entered over 300 test questions for the midterm and final
examinations. (The courseware randomly assigned 100 questions for each
student.) She also reviewed the course as a student to look for
inconsistencies and problems. Specifically,
she was making sure potential students knew what they needed to do each week
and what was expected of them. The
teaching assistant repeated this formative evaluation several times during the
development process.
As a
team, we spent approximately 400 hours developing the online Marriage and
Family Therapy course. The
professor spent approximately 200 hours, her teaching assistant spent
approximately 80 hours, and the two instructional designers spent a total of
approximately 120 hours.
Course
Delivery
The
Marriage and Family Therapy course is a graduate, introductory theory class in
marriage and family counseling. There were two major goals for developing the
online version of this course. First,
the course is an introductory course taught by different professors.
The online course had to be designed so that any of these professors
were able to go online and teach this course.
Second, the online course gave students in rural areas the opportunity
to participate in the program without having to travel long distances.
The
course requires students to shift their worldview from linear to systemic
thinking. The objectives of this course are to: (a) introduce the student to
an understanding about relational and systems paradigms; (b) introduce the
major systems theories; (c) expose the student to family life-cycle
development, healthy family functioning, diversity, and family-of-origin
issues; (d) examine the roles of marriage and family counselors in a variety
of practice settings; (e) observe various theories in use; (f) examine
professional issues such as training, supervision, and ethical concerns; and
(g) integrate theoretical concepts using the student’s family of origin.
In the traditional, face-to-face class, the professor provides an
overview of the major theoretical orientations in systems therapy.
In written assignments, as well as in small group discussions, students
in the traditional on-campus class examine their own family dynamics to
identify personal issues that might hinder or assist their ability to work
with clients. To understand the
theoretical constructs of different counseling theories, students use examples
from their own family history and watch videos of experts applying different
theories. They also work in small
groups to analyze several different cases from multiple theoretical
perspectives. Additional
assignments include a current research issues paper, a midterm, and a final
examination.
The
challenge in the design of the online course was to maintain the integrity of
the face-to-face segments of the course.
We, therefore, chose a variety of activities and assignments to engage
and stimulate student participation. The
Marriage and Family Therapy course incorporates the seven major principles for
evaluating online courses described by Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, and
Duffy (2001)
.
These principles state
that good online instruction will:
·
encourage
student/faculty contact
·
encourage
cooperation among students
·
encourage
active learning
·
give prompt
feedback
·
emphasize time
on task
·
communicate
high expectations
·
respect diverse
talents and ways of learning
The
importance of student/faculty interaction is vital in an online course (Shank
& Dunlap, 2000)
. To encourage this interaction, the syllabus contained specific and
detailed guidelines regarding not only the course assignments, but also
interactive requirements. At the beginning of the course, we posted several
introductory announcements that created a welcoming and calming environment
for students, particularly those who were new to online instruction.
Additionally, both the professor and the graduate assistant were
available via email to answer questions and solve problems throughout the
course. The course used course
management software (eCollege) that provides 24/7 technical support.
Students were directed in multiple messages to send all technical
questions to the service provider and not to the professor or graduate
student. This strategy put
students in direct contact with technicians who could solve their problems and
reduced the time the professor and graduate assistant spent forwarding
messages to the eCollege technical support group.
The purpose of this strategy was to reduce frustration for everyone and
it worked well.
The
“lecture” segment of the Marriage and Family Therapy course includes three
guest lecturers, all of whom are practicing marriage and family therapists (Phillips,
1995)
. These
experts provided a document, journal article, or case study and the threaded
discussion question concerning their materials. They each also led a discussion during one week of the
course. Students appreciated the variety of viewpoints this provided (Rohfeld
& Hiemstra, 1995)
, reporting that they enjoyed these guest lecturers and found them
valuable and interesting. The
only negative response to these guest lecturers was that one guest lecturer
provided fewer interactions than the students had been accustomed to
previously. This student response
underlines the importance of consistent faculty to student interaction.
One of
the assignments in this course required students to keep a journal reflecting
on their family experiences. Each
week they reflected on the readings, in terms of each student’s own personal
family and some of the threaded discussions focused on the students’
reflections on family experiences. It
was especially challenging to create the discussion segments of the course
that relate to the student’s own family of origin question because we wanted
students to share their experiences but we also wanted to respect their
privacy. We managed this balance by asking students to document the full range
of their reflections and feelings in their individual online journals, which
could be viewed and edited only by the individual student and the professor. For the threaded discussion, however, students could select
to share only a subset of the ideas, reflections, and feelings they entered in
their journal.
To
encourage cooperation among students and to humanize the instructional
experience (Abernathy,
1997)
, we held a traditional, face-to-face meeting during the first week of
class (Eiler, 2000)
. The purpose of this
meeting was to explain the design of the online course, demonstrate the course
management software, and answer questions (Presby, 2001)
. Also during the first
week of class, we asked students to post a short biography and to read the
biographies of the other students in the class.
Students learned more about each other in the threaded discussions,
which occurred nearly every week. Students
also provided feedback to each other (Lamb
& Smith, 2000)
on their case studies (Presby, 2001)
and on the final paper each of them wrote.
Students used the document sharing feature of the eCollege software to
share all of the papers they wrote. Other
students in the class then provided comments, suggestions, and questions to
the author. There was also a “student-only” site for their private
discussions, the kind of discussions that typically occur before or after
traditional, face-to-face courses.
Interestingly, we found that this student-only site was used only once
during the entire course.
Originally,
we anticipated dividing the class into small groups for the discussion of the
family-of-origin questions because we thought this would promote cohesiveness
and better protect student confidentiality (Springer,
Stanne, & Donovan, 1997)
. Each small group would have its own threaded discussion where
students could share descriptions of their family dynamics and compare and
contrast their family structure, roles, rules, and issues with other students
in their group. Each small group would also have its own document sharing
section where students could exchange resources with the other students in
their group. Since this was a
beta test of online courses for the department and we experienced registration
problems, the number of students enrolled did not facilitate this division. We
anticipate, however, that in the future, if the class is large enough, we will
include the small groups.
To
encourage active learning and provide students with authentic experiences,
three case studies were included in the weekly readings. Students completed
the readings and then posted their analysis of the case for the rest of the
class to read. These cases were
also the focus of a threaded discussion, in which both the students and the
professor participated. This
enabled students to practice their new skills and for the professor to provide
coaching, advice, and constructive criticism (Campbell,
1999)
. Television shows and videotapes of current movies illustrated
concepts and principles in the course content.
Another authentic assignment was a threaded discussion, which
originated with students interviewing people regarding a relevant course
question and then discussing with the class the various responses and their
feelings about the responses. In this class, the questions students asked the
interviewees were: “What is a family? and
“What is a healthy family?”
Students
not only appreciate, but also thrive on feedback (Graham et al., 2001;
Lamb & Smith, 2000)
. This includes feedback
on their threaded discussion responses, as well as expedient grading of
assignments. Learning is a
process, often accompanied with mistakes and misconceptions (Bereiter,
1994; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996;
Fosnot, 1996;
Jonassen, 1999;
Phillips,
1995)
. Providing frequent
feedback to learners is a critical component of the learning process.
It is also, however, a time consuming aspect of an online course. The
professor actively engaged in each threaded discussion, providing feedback on
the quality of their comments, as well as integrating the comments with the
course content. For the personal
family of origin questions, the professor also responded to each student’s
answers in their individual online journals.
Another
important aspect of feedback to students is providing explanations of changes
in the course or course assignments. We
provided frequent and detailed announcements to update students on all course
changes, as well as on important upcoming assignments. The graduate assistant
for this course was particularly important in communicating with the students.
She monitored students’ communications to ensure effective and prompt
responses either by herself, or when necessary, the professor.
Without this assistance, the time necessary for the professor to
provide this feedback would be extensive.
This
course was a 3-semester hour credit course.
It was time limited and time defined, with specific deadlines for
various assignments and tasks. It
was not self-paced. Students were
asked to participate in a threaded discussion each week.
For each threaded discussion, we asked students to post one response
and to respond to another student. The
first response was due three days after the topic of the discussion was posted
and the second response was due three days after that.
During the first half of the course, students often posted four or five
comments each week, well above the required two. As the semester progressed past the mid-point, however, most
students posted only the required two responses.
We also
provided time limits for assignments, which insured class flow and helped
avoid "overload" (Ferguson
& Wijekumar, 2000; Lamb & Smith, 2000)
. Every two weeks, we
asked students to answer ten questions that integrated knowledge and personal
experience. Additionally, we
assigned a case study and a “web” research assignment.
In the web assignment, students were asked to locate five websites
related to a particular topic, provide an abstract, and post this in the
Webliographyâ
site of the course for all students to use.
Students were also asked to complete a topic paper to be posted on a
website for future resource availability.
Three
strategies were used to help students determine the quality of work the
professor expected of them (Graham
et al., 2001)
. First, examples and
samples of assignments completed by students in previous classes were
available online to students. Students
could compare their product with previously completed and graded products.
Second, numerous assignments were “public” so students shared their
work and reviewed the work of other students in the course. Finally, for each
assignment, we provided detailed explanations of what students needed to do
and the quality the professor expected.
The
Marriage and Family Therapy course also included a final examination, which
contains 100 multiple choice questions and one essay question.
The multiple choice section of the final was designed to help students
prepare for the state license examination, which is a multiple choice exam
covering many of the same topics. The
essay question gave students the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to
integrate learning for use in a practical case example.
The
correct multiple choice question answers were available after the completion
of the class. Student also
received email comments on their essay questions.
The
students in the Marriage and Family Therapy course were adults, typically
attending graduate school, while also working and participating in their
families. Accordingly, the course
implemented numerous adult learning principles (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998;
Mezirow, 1993)
such as providing students with a variety of experiences on which they
can build their knowledge and allowing students to choose project topics that
are important or interesting to them. During
the first week of the course, the class selected a target population –
either “the layman” or other
graduate students -- for their individual papers.
Later in the semester, students chose the topics of their papers, with
the approval of the professor. The
topics the students selected represented a diversity of interests and provided
a wealth of information for the website. After students finished writing their
individual papers, they shared them with the other students in the class and
the professor, all of whom provided feedback, comments, and questions.
On the basis of this feedback, students revised their papers and
resubmitted them to be posted to the resource website.
Another
strategy we used to address the diverse ways our adult students learn was to
provide assignment information in three different locations.
The syllabus, located in the course home section, contained all the
assignment information. A course schedule, formatted as a table (Lamb & Smith, 2000)
, presented this information again, and then this information was
provided for a third time in each weekly segment.
This redundancy made it easy for students to quickly determine the
current assignment and this reduced the number of administrative e-mail
messages the professor received.
Course
Evaluations
Student
evaluations of the online course taught during the spring 2001 semester were
very positive. After the fifth
week of the course, students reported that they are pleased with the workload
and very satisfied with the interaction with both the professor and the other
students. They also reported
spending an average of six hours per week working on assignments and readings
for the course. Hardware/software
problems and the amount of time required to complete the writing assignments
were of moderate concern. Not
attending a traditional class or having face-to-face interaction was not a
problem for these students. In fact, as Goodwin and Dobrovolny (1999)
reported, convenience is a very positive aspect of distance education
for university students. Convenience
was the major reason for taking the online Marriage and Family Therapy course.
However, knowledge of the instructor was also an important determinant. Students were “highly satisfied” with the course as a
learning experience and several of the students commented that “this was a
positive experience for me”. Also,
the recognition of the difference in having to thoughtfully prepare an answer
and present it to the full class, as opposed to speaking extemporaneously in
class, was acknowledged several times.
At
midterm, in a survey completed by eCollege, 66.7% of the students reported
significant technical problems that “interfered with their learning.”
However, 100% indicated that they were “satisfied” with the online
course at that point in the semester and 66.7% reported the course sequencing
and assignments were easy to understand and follow and that the pace of the
course was “about right”.
At the
end of ten weeks, students completed another evaluation. Generally, students continued to be positive about all
aspects of the course with a slight drop in the mean scores reported.
Anecdotally, this dissatisfaction seems to coincide with the same
dissatisfaction students express in traditional, face-to-face courses as they
approach the 10-12 week point in the semester. Additionally, the interaction
with the first guest lecturer was less positive (mean of 3.2 on a scale of
1-5).
Lessons Learned
The
experience of developing this course was an intellectually stimulating
adventure for everyone on the development team. Team members provided their individual strengths to the
endeavor, creating a dynamic atmosphere.
The process was time consuming and demanding, but well worth the
effort, as well as being an enjoyable experience.
We think, however, it is important to emphasize the intense time
commitment that developing and delivering a quality online course requires (Creed,
1996; Eiler, 2000;
Lamb & Smith, 2000;
Smith, 1997)
. Time is necessary not
only to convert the content from a traditional, face-to-face context to an
online context, but time is also necessary to successfully address the unique
features of an online course. Additionally, the paradigm shift is a difficult aspect for
professors developing their first online course. The design of an online
course focuses not on lectures and presentations but on designing an
interactive learning environment where students are involved in exploration of
the content and in learning with and from each other (Smith,
1997)
. A high level of team interaction and support is, necessary to design
an online course.
Like
Creed (1996)
, we found that one of the advantages of online education is that the
quality of the discussions online is generally superior to those in the
traditional, face-to-face classroom. Students’ responses to the threaded discussion questions
were well-thought out and everyone participated.
In
summary, we believe that it is imperative to have sufficient time and
resources to design and develop quality online university courses. Adequate time to develop the course in a thoughtful manner
and to address the inevitable paradigm shift is critical. Technical training for faculty and funds for graduate
assistants to help with both the development and the delivery of the course
are also imperative. Resources to
create video case-study samples and/or resources for purchasing copyrights
would be an excellent way to augment the learning process.
There is
no doubt that higher education must create a variety of course delivery
mechanisms in order to stay competitive in the 21st century (Menninger,
2000)
. “Although the primary
mission of the university -- the creation, preservation, integration,
transmission, and application of knowledge -- is not changing, the particular
realization of each of these roles is changing dramatically” (Duderstadt,
1997)
. We must also recognize,
however, that in addition to variety, quality is essential.
This undoubtedly will require both university administrators and
faculty to reassess many of their assumptions about how their students learn
and the process of designing, developing, and delivering university courses.
Finally,
we strongly believe that good teaching originates from the identity and integrity of the instructor (Palmer, 1997)
. While a well-designed
course structure is necessary, good
teaching is more than just a good design.
Instructors of online education must be willing to be interactive, to
be more open, more honest, and more available than they usually are in
traditional, face-to-face courses. The
role of the successful online instructor focuses on coaching and mentoring and
understanding that learning is a unique process for each individual learner.
Online instructors have the opportunity to watch this learning process more
closely and to facilitate that process more frequently than they typically did
in traditional, face-to-face courses. All of the opportunities and technological developments create
a challenging and exciting time for university professors.
Our team encourages you to use these “tools” to enhance your
students’ learning and your own repertoire of teaching skills!
References
Abernathy,
D. (1997). Start-up guide to distance learning. Training and Development,
51(12), 39-45.
Bereiter,
C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's world 3. Educational
Researcher, 23(7), 21-23.
Bloom,
J.W., Walz, G.R. (Eds.). (2000). Cybercounseling
and Cyberlearning: Strategies
and Resources for the Millennium. American
Counseling Association, Alexandria, VA.
Campbell,
K. (1999). The web: design for active learning. Available: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/idesign/activel.cfm#cognitive
[Retrieved June 6,, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Creed,
T. (1996). Extending the Classroom Walls Electronically. Available:
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~tcreed/techno3.html#advantages [Retrieved June
13 2001, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Duderstadt,
D. D. (1997). The Future of the University in an Age of Knowledge (1,
2). JALN. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/duderstadt.htm
[Retrieved June 13,, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Duffy,
T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism:
Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology. New York: Simon & Schuser Macmillan.
Eiler,
M. A. (2000). Rethinking online courses:
A case study in progress. Hyperviews: Online, 3(2).
Ferguson,
L., Wijekumar, K. (2000). Effective design & use of web-based distance
learning environments. Professional Safety, 45(12), 28+.
Fosnot,
C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A
psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:
Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Goodwin,
L., & Dobrovolny, J. (1999). Evaluation Report:
GSPA Online Program at UCD. Denver: University of Colorado at
Denver.
Graham,
C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven
principles of effective teaching: a practical lens for evaluating online
courses. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=839
[Retrieved June 6,, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Hung,
W. L., & Der-Thanq, C. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskiam thought
and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for
the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International.
Available: http://www.catchword.com [Retrieved June 14, 2001 from the
CatchWorld database on the World Wide Web.
Jonassen,
D. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models:
A New Paradigm of instructional Theory (Vol. II,). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knowles,
M., Holton, E. F. I., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The
definitive classic in adult education and human resource development.
Lamb,
A. C., & Smith, W. L. (2000). Ten facts of life for distance learning
courses. TechTrends, 44(1), 12-15.
Menninger,
B. (2000). How local can you go? The Industry Standard Magazine.
Available: http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,17892,00.html
[Retrieved June 13, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Mezirow,
J. (1993). How adults learn: The
meaning of adult education (ED368967): ERIC.
Palmer,
P. J. (1997). The heart of a teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching. Change,
November/December, 15-21.
Phillips,
D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7),
5-12.
Presby,
L. (2001). Increasing productivity in course delivery. T.H.E Journal,
February, 52-58.
Rohfeld,
R. W., & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the
electronic classroom. Available: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/rohfeld.html
[Retrieved June 7,, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Shank,
P., Dunlap, J. (2000). Interaction definition and rationale.
Available: http://thunder1.cudenver.edu//wle/strategy/course/week1b.html
[Retrieved June 6,, 2001 from the World Wide Web].
Smith,
K. L. (1997). Preparing faculty for instructional technology:
From education to development to creative independence. CAUSE/EFFECT,
20(3), 36-44, 48.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S.
(1997, November, 1997). Effects
of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science,mathematics,
engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.
Paper presented at the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM.
