Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing
Big, Bigger, Too Big: Online Course Sizing
- 2. DIRECTOR’S CUT: • WHATDO WE KNOW? • HOW DID WE GET HERE? • WHERE DOES THIS ROAD TAKE US? • THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL COURSE • ENCORE
- 3. WHAT DO WEKNOW? • VARIOUS STUDIES SUGGEST OPTIMAL SIZING FROM 12 TO 30 STUDENTS • NO AGREEMENT IN FINDINGS (“MIXED..AND CONTRADICTORY”) • QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODICAL APPROACH AND APPLICABILITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9. HOW DID WEGET HERE? “I DON’T RECALL ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT THE NUMBER 25.” -ERIC FREDERICKSON TO THE AUTHOR, 2.6.17
- 10. HOW DID WEGET HERE? A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON… • SIZING WAS A LOCAL CAMPUS DECISION • THE APPROACH BY OTHER SUNY CAMPUSES WAS OFTEN EXPLORED AND CONSIDERED • IN THE EARLY DAYS, (SLN WAS) TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT ONLINE COURSES WERE NOT A SPACE FOR UNLIMITED ENROLLMENTS • (SLN) SHARED A LOT OF RESEARCH ABOUT HIGHER LEVELS OF INTERACTION IN THE ONLINE COURSES (WHICH HELPED WITH THE PREVIOUS BULLET)
- 11. WHERE DOES THISROAD TAKE US? COMPETING INTERESTS: • COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ONLINE SECTIONS/RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS • MAINTAINING A HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTOR/STUDENT INTERACTION • OFFSETTING ENROLLMENT DECLINES THROUGH ALTERNATIVE ENROLLMENT IN ONLINE PROGRAMS • MONITORING LEARNING OUTCOMES ACROSS DELIVERY MODALITIES
- 12. TIME THE REVELATOR •Faculty perceptions of workload • Time-based studies
- 13. THIS IS NOTMY BEAUTIFUL COURSE COURSE SIZE IMPACT ON INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVENESS: • “LARGE” COURSES (UP TO 30 STUDENTS) WERE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVENESS. (SORENSON, 2014) • FOLLOW UP STUDY: IMPACT ON STUDENTS IN >30 SEAT COURSES DIFFICULT TO PREDICT WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY (2015)
- 14. MONEY TALKS • Coursecaps increase in summer/winter sessions • Compensation pro-rated based on enrollment
- 15. TIME BASED STUDIES •TOMEI (2006) FINDINGS: • 14% MORE TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE INSTRUCTION (CONTENT TRANSMISSION)* • 16% MORE TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE ADVISEMENT(STUDENT INTERACTION) • 8% LESS TIME REQUIRED FOR ONLINE ASSESSMENT * STUDY INCLUDED “LIVE” SESSIONS AS PART OF INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
- 16. TIME BASED STUDIES WORLEYAND TESDALL (2009): • OVERALL TIME SPENT TEACHING ONLINE WAS NOT GREATER THAN F2F • TIME SPENT PER ONLINE STUDENT WAS HIGHER
- 17. TIME BASED STUDIES •“ABOUT A MINUTE PER WEEK PER STUDENT MORE…” (VAN DE VOORD AND POGUE, 2012)
- 18. TIME BASED STUDIES •COVELLO (2017) SUGGESTS TIME-BASED INSTRUCTOR TASK STUDIES TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE WORKLOAD • CONCERNS ABOUT “TAYLORISM” • ACCOUNTING FOR DIFFERING MANAGERIAL STRATEGIES
- 19. SCALING UP: ANIMPOSSIBLE DREAM? STRATEGIES: • RANDOMIZED GRADING OF A SELECT NUMBER OF DISCUSSION POSTINGS • IMPLEMENTING PEER REVIEW OF FELLOW STUDENTS’ POSTINGS • INTELLIGENT TUTORING/ADAPTIVE LEARNING TOOLS • EXPLORING POSTING OF AUDIO DISCUSSION AND AUDIO FEEDBACK (VAN DER VOORD AND POGUE, 2012)
- 20. FINDING OUR WAYBACK HOME TOOLS FOR OPTIMIZATION • THE OBJECTIVIST-CONSTRUCTIVIST CONTINUUM • THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY MODEL (COI) • KRATHWOHL AND ANDERSON’S REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY (TAFT, 2011)
- 21. OBJECTIVIST/CONTRUCTIVIST CONTINUUM • OBJECTIVIST COURSESMAY HAVE NO UPPER LIMIT • CONSTRUCTIVIST COURSES MAY BE OPTIMIZED AT 20 • MIXED APPROACHES: “JUDGEMENT CALL” (TAFT, 2010)
- 22. COI • SOCIAL PRESENCEIS OFTEN EMPHASIZED IN CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES • INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION MAY BE SKEWED TOWARDS AFFECTIVE RESPONSES (NON-CONTENT) • >25% DECLARE THREADED DISCUSSIONS “MOST IMPORTANT AND INNOVATIVE” TEACHING TECHNIQUE (TAFT, 2011; NAGEL AND KOTZE, 2009; LEGON AND GARRETT, 2017)
- 23. BLOOM’S TAXONOMY HIGHER ORDEROUTCOMES TYPICALLY ALIGN WITH UPPER DIVISION CLASSES AND CORRESPONDINGLY SMALLER SECTION SIZES (TAFT, 2010)
- 24.
Editor's Notes
- #16 Based on the data from this one study (one couse), the author found that ideal course sizing based on actual workload was 17 for F2F, 12 for online.