Barry Dahl dot com

For the past twelve years or so, I’ve heard the same argument time and time again. I wish I had a nickel (or preferably a beer) for every time someone has said something like:

“You can’t possibly offer an online public speaking course!”

Of course they don’t mean that you can’t offer it, they mean that you can’t possibly have a high-quality public speaking class if it’s offered online.

I say bull. Emphatically.

First. This class has been taught and taught well for at least ten years at various schools. The naysayers (and there’s lots of them) do not want to hear about people who have developed effective techniques for teaching this class – they (the naysayers) just aren’t willing to believe or accept any evidence that differs with their world view.

Second. Just because we use the word “online,” doesn’t mean that the entire class occurs only in front of a computer screen. Many online classes require students to engage in active learning or various other techniques that do not involve the computer – except maybe to document the work they’ve done or for other class communications. The idea that an online course eliminates face-to-face interactions is just plain wrong – unless you design it to avoid all interaction. You can absolutely require the F2F interaction, as you’ll see below (see fourth).

Third. This one is my favorite. The naysayers seem to think that there is something special about the traditional way of teaching the Public Speaking class on college and university campuses. Please explain this to me: How can you possibly call it “PUBLIC SPEAKING” when a student is standing at the front of the closed classroom with a dozen fellow students (mostly friends) and one instructor? What exactly is public about that? In what ways does that possibly resemble standing up in front of an audience in a normal public speaking venue? How did this ever become the gold standard for college public speaking courses?

Fourth. Although it is possible that some instructors primarily have their students record their speeches and post them online (more on that later), many that I am aware of require their students to speak in front of live audiences such as Kiwanis Clubs (Lions, Rotary, etc.), church groups, senior centers, Toastmasters groups, or many other similar groups. Compare this experience with the “classroom speech” described in number three above. It begs the following question: why don’t all public speaking classes (regardless of delivery method) have this same requirement?

Fifth. Last time I looked, the calendar says 2012. YouTube and other sites that allow anyone to communicate with the public are the norm, not the exception. Being able to communicate and effectively present yourself through electronic media is an extremely important skill for future success. Doesn’t matter whether you like that situation or not – it is what it is. A whole new audience opens up for those students when they record their speeches and post them online. That’s an interactive audience that can leave comments and suggestions, but not be restricted to being in the same room at the same time as the speaker. Does a student have extra incentive to do well knowing that both Grandma and a future employer might see this speech – or are they more motivated by their 12 classmates in the classroom?

Sixth. Even better than just recording a speech and posting it online, use live broadcasts via tools like Ustream.tv, LiveStream.com, or Justin.tv – or several other similar tools. All these free tools allow for the live broadcast to be recorded for future viewing and critique, but they also have the pulse-racing feature of going live to an unknown audience. A while back I asked someone if she would be willing to tune in to the LiveStream Internet channel to watch college students give their speeches for the online public speaking class. She replied that as long as she was not already booked, that she would “absolutely tune in to watch and comment.” The person that I was talking to was the college president. Hmmh, both grandma and the president (and many others) can watch your students perform in your public speaking class. Game changer?

Want to build an audience for student speeches? Embed your Livestream channel on the college Facebook page.

There’s also a Facebook app for Ustream.

All of these work on mobile devices (Ustream page).

Through face-to-face live events and both live and recorded Internet broadcasts, an instructor with a little imagination can build a high-quality, 21st century, online version of the college Public Speaking course.

But of course, all of this stuff is just nonsense, right?

Filed under: Online learning | 4 Comments »

The regional accrediting bodies have recently published their updated document: the Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education (Online Learning). The new guidelines were developed through C-RAC (Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions) and  have been endorsed by all regional accrediting organizations in the U.S.

Here is that doc: Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education Programs (PDF)

These guidelines will be used “to assist institutions in planning distance education and to provide an assessment framework for institutions already involved in distance education. The Guidelines are also intended for use by evaluation teams.” 

There are nine “Hallmarks of Quality.” They are:

1. Online learning is appropriate to the institution’s mission and purposes.
2. The institution’s plans for developing, sustaining, and, if appropriate, expanding online learning offerings are integrated into its regular planning and evaluation processes.
3. Online learning is incorporated into the institution’s systems of governance and academic oversight.
4. Curricula for the institution’s online learning offerings are coherent, cohesive, and comparable in academic rigor to programs offered in traditional instructional formats.
5. The institution evaluates the effectiveness of its online learning offerings, including the extent to which the online learning goals are achieved, and uses the results of its evaluations to enhance the attainment of the goals.
6. Faculty responsible for delivering the online learning curricula and evaluating the students’ success in achieving the online learning goals are appropriately qualified and effectively supported.
7. The institution provides effective student and academic services to support students enrolled in online learning offerings.
8. The institution provides sufficient resources to support and, if appropriate, expand its online learning offerings.
9. The institution assures the integrity of its online offerings.

These nine items cover quite a bit of ground and are pretty hard to argue with. But let me take a few minutes to argue against the overall “tone” (or something like that) which seems to perpetuate the idea held by many that online learning is fundamentally different from on-campus (or traditional learning, as they say) and fundamentally “less than.”

Every time they feel the need to say something like “Online learning is incorporated into the institution’s systems of governance and academic oversight,” it sounds to me that this wouldn’t be expected to happen unless they explicitly state that it should. Same goes with almost all of these “hallmarks” which are things that we would expect in traditional learning settings – so why would we start with the assumption that we won’t find them in online learning? I think the accrediting bodies give the appearance of starting out on the side of the e-Learning skeptics (thinking that e-Learning sucks) and expect us to convince them that we really are providing an education to the students enrolled online. This is a pretty sad statement, but not at all a new one.

Although the basic hallmarks may be hard to argue with, C-RAC went further down the road by providing some examples  of meeting the hallmarks – not all of which are as easy to agree with.

“institutions are asked to include evidence of the extent to which they meet these hallmarks. Examples of the types of evidence that institutions might use are provided in this booklet. These lists are not meant to be exhaustive; it is likely that institutions will include additional types of evidence in their reports.”

Here are a few of the examples they provide (called “Analysis/Evidence” in the document):

Hallmark 4:  Curricula delivered through online learning are benchmarked against on-ground courses and programs, if provided by the institution, or those provided by traditional institutions;

• I take exception with the continued denigration of online learning to second-class status. By saying that online learning should be “benchmarked against on-ground courses and programs,” C-RAC is saying that the on-ground learning is the gold standard against which online should be measured. Hogwash.
• I’ve seen examples of where the on-ground learning should be benchmarked against what is happening in the online courses of that discipline/department/college. I think they dropped the ball on this one.

Hallmark 7:  Publications and advertising for online learning programs are accurate and contain necessary information such as program goals, requirements, academic calendar, and faculty;

• Say what? They’re talking about advertising in the accreditation guidelines? And saying that advertising needs to include program goals, calendar info, etc.? That’s crazy talk.
• We produced a series of award-winning online learning video ads at my former college and they don’t fit that description at all – but they were damn good ads.

Hallmark 8:  The institution provides evidence of a multi-year technology plan that addresses its goals for online learning and includes provision for a robust and scalable technical infrastructure.

• Once again I take exception to something that C-RAC probably just thought was a given. This is mostly related to the age-old (okay, 10-15 year-old) debate about whether online learning is a technology function or an academic function. That debate mainly comes from all the silos in higher ed, and the need to fit e-learning into one of them.
• I suppose there is nothing wrong with online learning being addressed as part of the technology plan – especially as far as software/LMS purchasing and other clearly tech-related items are concerned. However, it is a HUGE OVERSIGHT to not encourage colleges to include online learning in their ACADEMIC PLANS!! Yikes. After all, it is about the learning, not about the technology.

That’s a wrap for this time. (P.S. If your school will be going through an accreditation change request for online programs, I know someone who can help with that.)

Filed under: Online learning | 3 Comments »

Regardless of what you call it: “readiness,” “preparedness,” “willingness,” “capability,” “aptitude,” “adroitness,”“alacrity,” or “whatever;” everyone seems to want to measure whether students are “ready” for online learning.

But what are they measuring and what difference does it make? What is it that they really SHOULD be measuring, if anything at all?

These questions (and more) were addressed in a recent webinar by Excellence in e-Education (my company). All the links and resources are shared here – scroll down to Feb. 7, 2012..

We could frame this conversation with some very basic, broad questions:

1. What does “ready” mean?

2. How does being “ready” for online learning differ?

3. Does being “ready” translate into academic success?

There are no “case-closed” types of answers for these questions, but we are learning more all the time about how to develop an informed opinion in this arena.

According to research done by my guest presenter, Melissa Miszkiewicz from Buffalo State College, the question of what constitutes “ready” is another one of those areas where conventional wisdom isn’t backed up by results from research being done.

In a nutshell, what they have found is that being ready for online learning is pretty much the same thing as being ready for learning. Everyone benefits from well-developed time management skills, and the ability to use a computer reasonably well, and self-confidence about your abilities, and purpose or motivation that spurs you on. Even then, there are too many factors at play to guarantee success in online learning or any other kind of learning. Read more about it (and watch the webinar archive) at Excellence in e-Education.

My tweet below led to this reply from Jared.

https://twitter.com/#!/jstein/status/166944494753820672

Even though many of those readiness surveys are rather lame, I do think there’s some value in them (although they could still be much better). As was pointed out near the end of the webinar, these surveys can be useful in helping students understand what they’re getting into if they are totally unfamiliar with online learning. It’s one more way of clarifying the college’s expectations about online learning – or at least it could/should be.

Better yet – just make a clear, concise list of what an online learner can expect when they take online courses from your college. Simple to do, and more effective.

CC-attribution photo By Philo Nordlund

Filed under: Online learning | Comments Off on Online Student “Readiness” – Say What?

Those of us engaged in e-Education have a difficult time using various terms and words consistently and accurately. Therefore, we have a hard time communicating with others and they have a hard time understanding what the heck we’re talking about.

My term for today is “best practices.” It sort of makes me crazy every time I hear this because the practices are not always very good, let alone the BEST!! “Best practices” seems to be very egotistical and most likely just dead wrong. During many of my presentations I’ve made a remark something like this: “Every time I hear the phrase ‘best practices,’ I flip a little switch in my brain that converts the phrase into ‘practices that don’t totally suck out loud.’” That’s very different from “best,” and certainly more accurate.

Unfortunately, some people don’t like it when I use my favorite word (suck), so I’ve been trying to curb that urge.  For a while I found myself saying “good practices,” but that also bugs me, although a bit less than “best.” I always feel as though I’m comparing appliances at Sears – Good, Better, Best (I have no idea if they still do that, but they did about 40 years ago).

From this point forward, I am going to try to use the term “effective practices.” Unless, of course, the practices haven’t been effective and then I’ll call them something else. Effective practices sends me the message that these practices or methods have been tried and been found to be useful or worthwhile. Doesn’t say they’re the most effective; just that they have been at least somewhat effective. Also indicates that there can be several different practices that are effective, but there should only be ONE best – and I doubt that anyone has discovered that one just yet. Especially in an emerging field such as e-Education. But just in case you are the best, and you’ve discovered the best practice: More Power to Ya!!

Now let’s continue to document, to share, and to celebrate our effective practices.

(Graphics are my own. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.)

Filed under: Online learning | 9 Comments »