Online Auditing Course Redesign By: Susan Lulee Instructor: Dr. Marcie Bober-Michel Date: Dec. 15, 2008
Introduction <ul><li>Context:  Two F2F courses are shifting 20% of the classes on line.  </li></ul><ul><li>The audiences: ...
The Challenge <ul><li>Design online self-paced modules for blended learning courses about finance auditing. </li></ul><ul>...
Purpose/Intent <ul><li>Major stakeholders:  The professor, students, and the institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose:  The ...
Impact of the Literature  <ul><li>Clear strategy for separating what content to go online and what content to stay in-pers...
Methodology/Approach
Evaluation <ul><li>Responding ratio are:  93% - Acctg.421  73% - Acctg.626 </li></ul><ul><li>Students in Acctg. 626 were m...
Evaluation  (cont’d) <ul><li>Content specific Multimedia and text were greatly appreciated by all students. </li></ul>Acct...
Evaluation  (cont’d) <ul><li>Interactivity appeared to be the weak point of all three online modules.  </li></ul>
Conclusion <ul><li>Feedbacks from students and the professor prove that online learning is an approach worth exploring .  ...
Conclusion  (cont’d) <ul><li>Questions left for further study: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effectiveness.   What is the right bl...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Online Auditing Course Redesign Susan Lulee Slideshare

823 views
750 views

Published on

This is a final project report for a project that aimed at redesigning online courses.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
823
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hi, my project is Online Auditing Course Redesign
  • Online Auditing Course Redesign Susan Lulee Slideshare

    1. 1. Online Auditing Course Redesign By: Susan Lulee Instructor: Dr. Marcie Bober-Michel Date: Dec. 15, 2008
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Context: Two F2F courses are shifting 20% of the classes on line. </li></ul><ul><li>The audiences: 80 Accounting major on-campus undergraduates & 33 graduates. Students meet twice a week on campus, 3 hrs each meeting. Have no or limited experience in online learning. </li></ul><ul><li>The professor: has taught the course for many years; Have limited experience in online learning. </li></ul><ul><li>The institution: encourage the instructors to use more on line learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Facility: infrastructure is ready. The online modules will be constructed on Blackboard. </li></ul>
    3. 3. The Challenge <ul><li>Design online self-paced modules for blended learning courses about finance auditing. </li></ul><ul><li>Two different levels audience: -- undergraduates, accounting major; -- graduates, non-accounting major. </li></ul><ul><li>No predefined working process </li></ul><ul><li>Work on my own with SME, the professor. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Purpose/Intent <ul><li>Major stakeholders: The professor, students, and the institution. </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose: The professor liked to know how well the on line modules have done and how she could improve it. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluating existed online modules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing three new online modules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose recommendations for continuing improvement and further study. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Impact of the Literature <ul><li>Clear strategy for separating what content to go online and what content to stay in-person. (Fransen & Swager, 2006; Valiathan 2002). </li></ul><ul><li>Effective management of cognitive workload of audiences (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2005, p. 45). </li></ul><ul><li>Engaging online learning activities and asynchronous discussion (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2008). </li></ul><ul><li>Clear evaluation criteria for continuing improvement (Ellis & Calvo, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>On time and on demand learner supports (Mactague, 2004). </li></ul>
    6. 6. Methodology/Approach
    7. 7. Evaluation <ul><li>Responding ratio are: 93% - Acctg.421 73% - Acctg.626 </li></ul><ul><li>Students in Acctg. 626 were more interested in having recap on prerequisite. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Evaluation (cont’d) <ul><li>Content specific Multimedia and text were greatly appreciated by all students. </li></ul>Acctg. 421
    9. 9. Evaluation (cont’d) <ul><li>Interactivity appeared to be the weak point of all three online modules. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Conclusion <ul><li>Feedbacks from students and the professor prove that online learning is an approach worth exploring . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I like the on-line sessions. I wish there were more of them ”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I like the online classes because you get to be hands on ”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ It (online learning) forces them (students) to think about the sites we visit and give their ideas, which in class not everyone does this, since there are so many students in a class ”. </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Conclusion (cont’d) <ul><li>Questions left for further study: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effectiveness. What is the right blending in terms of learning effectiveness? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Connectivity . How will the work done in online modules or face-to-face classes support and connect with each other? How will two portions instructed by two professors of one course be connected with each other? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement . Online asynchronous discussion and interactive activities could greatly draw in participants. What are challenges and solutions for using these? </li></ul></ul>

    ×