We hear a lot about nontraditional students, we frequently assist nontraditional students, and many of us (including me) are ourselves nontraditional students.  Who are they and what should we know as we work with them?

If we consider a traditional student as one who begins a Bachelors degree immediately after high school and completes the degree in four years on campus, then we may define a nontraditional student as any other student.  Others may include in the definition students who are parents, even if they complete their degree in four years.  Part-time status, age, and distance learning are other common attributes mentioned.  “Adult Learners”  is another common term used.  UM defines nontraditional freshmen as “those students who do not enter college for a period of at least three years from the date of high school graduation or from the date they would have graduated from high school if they have a GED.”  (2008-2009 catalog, p. 12)  Nontraditional students may be working more hours than other students, have more dependents, fiscal and home responsibilities, and have fewer opportunities to network with other students, staff, and faculty.

Nontraditional students are not a new phenomenon, but have been a significant part of the student population since GIs returned from WW II.  National statistics vary widely, depending upon how nontraditional students are defined.  I found statistics that varied from 37% to 80% of the student population.

In a Spring 06 enrollment analysis, UM found that nontraditional students are more likely to attend part-time and have a higher dropout rate, which is a concern for FTE and retention.  As a result, UM set the following goals which directly relates to our work (The University of Montana Partnering for Student Success Report, Fall 2008):

1)   Create online orientation for nontraditional and returning students by FY2010.

2)   Investigate the need and interest in specific degree programs for weekends, evenings, and online access by FY2011.

We need to remember that nontraditional students may:

• Need access to students services, faculty, and resources after hours
• Need extra help with computer skills
• Want more rigorous and dense course content
• Want applicable career information, counseling, and contacts
• Be interested in noncredit, skill building courses as well as academic programs

There are plenty of online resources available, including discussion and support groups, tips, scholarship information, etc.  Sites include:

http://www.antshe.org (Association of Nontraditional Students in Higher Education)

http://www.back2college.com

http://www.adultstudent.com

http://www.nontradstudents.com

I believe that by simply being  aware of the different nature and needs of nontraditional students, we will be able to serve them better.  I also welcome discussion about how XLS as a team could better serve nontraditional students and also about how we may be able to assist UM with meeting the goals of online orientations and flexible degree options.  I’d like to propose that we invite relevant UM stakeholders to a round table to discuss this further and join our brainpower, staff talent and resources to these mutually advantageous goals.

Sometimes, it’s not easy to select the right tool for the job. If you’re planning a conference for example, the obvious (traditional) way to go is to setup a website. If you have the means, you may also want to include the ability for participants to enroll online and proposals to be submitted. For our annual conference on online teaching and learning, the Extended Learning Institute (XLi) 2009, we did precisely this. We added a new page for the conference (Dreamweaver), included enrollment capability, account creation, abstract submission and scoring  (in house), and administered the conference website using Contribute.

Anyone who has used Contribute will know what a frustrating experience it can be. It introduces random code into the website, crashes more often than not, and creates additional work for everyone involved. It is just too unstable.

In order to get away from these issues and address the lack of two-way interaction available on a traditional website, we are planning to use a Ning for XLi 2010. ‘Ning’ (’Peace’ in Chinese) is an online platform where individuals can create their own social networks (Wikipedia). It has a number of great features for promoting dialogue around shared interests.

A Ning provides:

• A forum for participants to get acquainted and interact around conference tracks all topics. Discussions can be threaded for ease of communication.
• The ability for individuals to set up groups of their own in order to focus on specific interests– We might imagine faculty establishing a group centered on applying web-based technology in teaching and learning for example.
• Blogs for every individual. Snapshots of the postings are automatically updated to the homepage of the Ning (latest activity) so that the whole community can see what individuals are focusing on.
• RSS feeds of the latest updates– a direct line to your inbox.
• A good degree of customization so that you can make the network tie in with your branding.
• Scheduling of events– and this is beautiful! Scheduled events can be downloaded directly to ICal or Microsoft Outlook, so individuals can have specific sessions at the conference identified in their calendars. What a great way to get a reminder to be in attendance!

These are powerful features for stimulating discussions and promoting networking before, during and after the conference, However, like every tool, Ning has limitations, and we can’t quite get away from the webpage for a couple of very good reasons:

1) The webpage provides a clean interface where key information can be readily accessed. A social network can be a rather chaotic experience for the novitiate.

2) We would like to keep the features that were developed in-house, so that we can more readily track enrollments and submission of proposals. While it is possible to see who has enrolled on the Ning, an additional document would probably have to be developed for concise viewing of this information. It is also not possible to submit documents to a Ning.

This month we will continue to explore the functionality of Ning in more depth as we explore its potential applications for XLi 2010. I would be very interested to know what other people’s experiences of using a Ning for holding a conference are, and what strategies you have used to promote interaction among members of your Ning.

Thank you,

Robert

Sometimes I’ll be the only one oaring which causes the boat to turn in circles. When two of us row, we can get the job done. However, the most efficient (and safest) way is to paddle together, as a united, functional team. There is inherent danger in not rowing as a team, such as getting stuck in an eddy, dropping into holes, lodging in debris, etc. If two members of the team are trying to go right and two are trying to go left, or if the paddlers on the right have more powerful strokes then the paddlers on the left, the end result can have negative consequences. The same is true in a work team environment.

Teams should be comprised of people with different skills, all moving in a common direction to achieve a common goal, in a coordinated effort. Knowing who is on the team, providing structure and support, and coaching the team are critical to the overall success.

We work toward a high degree of collaboration, within each team and within our unit. For example, we must work with the campus community to determine UM’s online course offerings. In order to have a successful program, we must consider the budget impact, provide high quality instructional design and launch an overall communication strategy. Each XLS team member has a common direction (toward a robust, relevant schedule), with a goal of serving students. A team leader, or coach, navigates the process to ensure accurate and timely completion.

How does your organization ensure employees are all paddling in a common direction and utilizing their skills effectively and efficiently?

-Peggy Nesbitt

However, for those interested in venturing into the free web conferencing tool area, perhaps it is best to use a tool designed explicitly for the purpose, and I would say that the two most useful systems in this category are WiZiQ and dimdim.

WiZIQ’s initial appearance belies its web conferencing capabilities. It appears to be a social network where individuals can teach and be taught. However, a little closer inspection reveals that WiZiQ offers more than just the possibility of making a little money on the side. In fact, there is no need to participate in this aspect of the community. It is possible to schedule a session for whatever purposes you would like as long as you have become a member of the network.

Once you’ve joined, scheduling a session is easy. At the login page, select ‘schedule new class’.

Next, choose a title for your session and complete the date and time fields. Note that if you schedule a session for the current time, there is a short delay on entering the session. All sessions are private by default. You have to request to hold a public session or upgrade to premium services to be able to hold a public class. Click schedule and continue to go to the room.

One of the nice features of WizIQ is that it has very friendly interface. You can upload PowerPoint’s, PDFs, draw on the whiteboard, and send an invitation to join the meeting from the meeting room.

Dimdim also prides itself on it ease of use. Unlike WiziQ, dimdim avoids the commercial networking and focusses on delivering on demand sessions. Rather than paying for premium networking opportunities, Dimdim looks to make money from users by having them purchase advanced features.

Once you’ve signed up for dimdim scheduling a session is simple. You have the choice of two options: host a meeting or join a meeting.

Selecting host a meeting, will give you the option to start the session. Similar to WiziQ, you can invite participants to join your session when you have entered the room. Dimdim also has an easy to use interface. One notable feature is the ability to zoom in and out on content. The whiteboard, therefore, can appear to have depth.

Both of these systems have similar affordances and it is worthwhile visiting both to see which you prefer. Of course, you get what you pay for, so these systems are not as robust as Adobe Connect or AT&T Connect. However, they provide a means to utilize the potential benefits of web conferencing on a schedule that suits you. For those who do not have access to web conferencing through the University, it would be worth looking at both of these options.

Robert

When checking email on Tuesday, I was surprised to find one from Karen Swan.  I was even more surprised to discover, upon reading it, that she created a Ning for workshop participants.  Karen not only introduced herself on this social network (and invited us to do likewise), she also provided us with resources that will be used in the workshop and created discussion forums around them.  With a few mouse clicks, my electronic library grew, I was connected to a group of professionals interested in communities of inquiry, and I was invited to deepen my understanding of the CoI framework and survey —  long before the formal learning event will begin.  That’s a real twofer in my book!

Now in addition to anticipating what all I will learn during the one-half day workshop, I’m wondering how the Ning community will support and extend my learning long afterwards.  This is particularly relevant given our intention to use a Ning for the next annual Extended Learning Institute  (XLi 2010). Check back in for a “Part 2” post sometime in mid-August.

Educational commentary to date has been generally supportive of the inclusion of web conferencing in online courses as it can provide the real-time interaction that is missing in purely asynchronous courses. Live interaction is also considered to improve participants sense of social presence and is backed by asynchronous research that suggests a positive correlation between perceived learning, satisfaction and social presence (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997; Richardson and Swan 2003). As with the use of all technologies in education, the effectiveness of web conferencing depends greatly on how it is used in a particular context. As Draper and Brown (2004) observe, use of new technology does not guarantee improvements. In order for technology to be successfully implemented, “pedagogy [has] to be put first, technology second (82)”. In this article, we will look at the findings of four studies on incorporating web conferencing in learning contexts and suggest some guidelines for instructors considering facilitating online learning through web conferencing.

“Teaching and Learning in Live Online Classrooms” presents a year-long study of the impact of integrating a web conferencing tool in hybrid and fully online computer science courses (Sabin and Higgs 2007). Sabin and Higgs surveyed 107 undergraduate and graduate computer science students (respondents, n=60) in order to ascertain differences in student perceptions of the effectiveness of learning between hybrid and online modes of delivery that integrated web conferencing or did not. It was observed that students valued most highly an instructional format that allowed them to seek assistance from the instructor “with assigned homework and projects, help them manage their time on task, and exercise their problem-solving skills (46)”. The hybrid format without Web conferencing was ranked consistently higher than other instructional formats. It was also observed that online courses that included a web conferencing component were perceived to be consistently more effective at facilitating learning that an online course without Web conferencing component (46). Another noteworthy result was that the recordings of the Web conferencing sessions were perceived to be very beneficial for making class content available (45). Recording the sessions was driven by student interest and closely correlated to the desire to access the sessions at a time that suited them best.

“Experiences with a Synchronous Virtual Classroom in Distance Education” takes a pedagogy first approach to determining the effectiveness of the inclusion of a web conferencing system with a group of 15 undergraduate computer science students (Vrankel and Koppelman 2008). It was observed that 67% of the students (10 out of 15) signed into the final examination, and that 90% of those who completed the final exam (9 out of 10), passed (196). It was also observed that students were generally positive about the inclusion of web conferences and that the main reasons to choose virtual classes instead of face-to-face classes where interest in the use of IT tools (64%) and the desire to avoid travel time (43%). Students also reported better understanding of the subject matter as well as appreciating the structure to study regularly provisioned by attending the sessions. About half of the students played recorded sessions at a later date and many of them replayed several classes (196).

“Using Synchronous Software in Web-Based Nursing Courses” investigated the impact of supplementing an online course with a web conferencing system in a public nursing health course (. Both the pilot and the main study, noted substantial support for the facilitation of understanding and improvement of communication. In a T-test analysis, it was further noted that students (n=14) who have participated in web conferencing session reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Web courses than did students from the previous semester in which Web conferencing has not been used.

“Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Synchronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course” investigated the live critique of peer presentations in an educational technology Masters and doctoral program (Bonk and Park 2008). The critiques were designed to provide formative feedback for students working on media design products. Of the 26 respondents, 22 (85%) agreed “that the online critiques were helpful for their project completion”. Follow-up interviews with 8 students revealed that they were satisfied with the synchronous activities in terms of the “prompt feedback, meaningful interactions, and instructors appropriate supports.” The main challenges to the critiques were “time constraints, lack of reflection time, tool related problems, and peers’ insufficient preparation with the necessary equipment and technology.”

The results of these studies and several others (Baecker et al. 2007; Bower 2007; Crofton et al. 2007; Ng 2007; Reushle and Loch 2008; Wang and Tsu 2008) indicate general support for the efficacy of Web conferencing in enhancing student perceptions of the learning experience. While this may well have a positive effect on achievement in online courses, the correlation between the use of Web conferencing and achievement has been less adequately researched. However, as noted earlier, it is not typically the technology that makes the difference to learning achievement itself, but it is how that technology is used in the service of allowing students to achieve learning outcomes of the course. Given such positive reports on the effectiveness of Web conferencing to date, however, it makes sense to continue to explore the applications of Web conferencing in a variety of teaching disciplines and for a variety of learning outcomes. Below is a list of the instructional strategies recommended in the literature for the effective facilitation of web conferencing sessions. Categories are adapted from the work of Bonk and Park (2007):

Preparing Students

• provide sufficient time for students to get acquainted with the Web conferencing system (Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006)
• clarified technology requirements (Bonk and Park 2007; Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006; Wang and Hsu 2008)
• explain expectations of the Web conferencing session (Bonk and Park 2007)
• schedule practice sessions (Bonk and Park 2007)
• be flexible in scheduling synchronous sessions (Bonk and Park 2007)
• provide materials before the meeting (Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006)

Promoting Active Engagement

• scaffold students’ discussions (Bonk and Park 2007)
• create a positive and friendly atmosphere (Bonk and Park 2007)
• limit group size to the requirements of the task (Bonk and Park 2007; Koppelman and Vranken 2008; Wang and Hsu 2008)
• practice with the Web conferencing tool before using (Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006; Wang and Hsu 2008)
• have a backup plan for the session if the technology fails (Wang and Hsu 2008)
• create a lesson plan to provide direction, but be flexible (Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006)
• continue to explain what will happen next in this session (Koppelman and Vranken 2008)
• plan to intersperse activities frequently (5-10 mins) to avoid lecturing (Battin Little, Passmore and Schullo 2006)

Robert

References:

Baecker, R. et al. (2007) Webcasting Made Interactive: Integrating Real-Time

Videoconferencing in Distributed Learning Spaces

In: M.J. Smith, G. Salvendy (Eds.): Human Interface, Part II, HCII 2007, LNCS 4558, pp. 269–278.

Battin Little, B. Passmore, D. & Schullo, S (2006) Using Synchronous Software in Web-Based Nursing Courses. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24(6), 317-325.

Bonk, C. & Park, Y.J. (2007) Is Online Life a Breeze? A Case Study for Promoting Synchronous Learning in a Blended Graduate Course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3 (3), 1-14.

Bower, M. (2007) Groupwork Activities in Synchronous Online Classroom Spaces. Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.

Cox J.R. & Kohorst, K. (2007) Virtual Office Hours Using a Tablet PC: E-lluminating Biochemistry

in an Online Environment. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35 (3), pp. 193–197.

Crofton, J. Rogers, J. Pugh, C. & Evans, K. (2007) The Use of Elluminate Distance-learning Software in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Conference.

Draper S. W. & Brown M. I. (2004) Increasing Interactivity in Lectures Using Anelectronic Voting System.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 81–94.

Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997) Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediatedconferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8-26.

Loch, B. & Reushle, S. (2008) The Practice of Web Conferencing: Where Are We Now? Proceedings ASCILITE Conference Melbourne 2008.

Ng, K.C. (2007)Replacing Face-to-Face Tutorials by Synchronous Online Technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. International Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8 (1).

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to

Students’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 7(1), 68-88.

Sabin, M. &Higgs, B. (2007) Teaching and Learning in Live Online Classrooms. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education.

Vrankel, H. & and Koppelman, H. (2008) Experiences with a Synchronous Virtual Classroom

in Distance Education. Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

Wang, S-K. & Hsu, H-Y. (2008) Use of the Webinar Tool (Elluminate) to Support Training:

The Effects of Webinar-Learning Implementation

from Student-Trainers’ Perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7 (3).

· Facilitate program or course orientation sessions

· Hold virtual office hours

· Conduct advising sessions with distance-based advisees

· Conduct live tutoring sessions

· Provide one-on-one conferencing for a student

· Introduce a course unit/module

· Review difficult concepts/procedures and facilitate guided practice of them

Elluminate also provides a means to promote student to student interaction in online courses. Examples include:

· Collaborative work in small groups (using Breakout rooms)

· Real time problem-solving and project work

· Discussion of course projects, reports, or presentations (using the application sharing feature)

· Student-led reviews of homework, problem, or case study solutions

While web conferencing offers a number of features that can support online learning, it is not meant to replace the largely asynchronous interaction in online courses. For most students, the most important feature of online learning is that it allows for a greater degree of flexibility to pursue an education around complicated schedules. If you are interested in adding a live component to your online classes, you might like to consider these guidelines:

· For a 3-credit course, avoid conducting more than 7 required live sessions;

· Always be prepared to offer alternative times for each required session, in case some learners have a conflict with the times you schedule;

· Record all required sessions so that they can be made accessible later.

Judicious use of a web conferencing system can improve social presence and ultimately affect learning positively (Yong et al. 2007). It can also promote active learning which has been shown through extensive research to be a key principle of learning (Chickering & Gamson 1991). The trick is to see the capabilities of the web conferencing system not as a mirror of the traditional lecture-based classroom, but as a means to promote new forms of interaction among students.

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (Eds.). (1991, Fall). New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, (47), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Yong, L., Huang, W., Hongyan, M., & Luce, T. (2007) International Conference on Interaction and Social Presence in Technology-Mediated Learning: A Partial Least Squares Model. Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing. WiCom. 21-25 Sept. 2007 Page(s):4411 – 4414

I’ve learned a lot in Week One of the course. For example, LMS features designed to promote interaction, such as chat rooms and whiteboards, are nearly impossible for screen readers to handle. Chat room conversations are often refreshed with each new comment made, so a screen reader, which begins at the top with each refresh command, can’t keep up with the quick pace of the conversation. Whiteboards, which are often used by instructors because of their ability to display graphics, can’t be decoded by a screen reader. And that’s just the LMS part of my learning.

The way in which course content is displayed can also create barriers for students with print disabilities.  I often use bullets to organize content because it promotes concise writing and adds a bit of visual interest. Last week, I learned that the phrase, “Image, bullet” will be read aloud by a screen reader at the start of each and every line of bulleted text.  I can’t imagine being subjected to that as a learner. Items in the main navigation menu are communicated in a similar manner, with “Link graphic” read aloud before the name of each menu item.

There are yet other potential barriers for students with disabilities beyond those posed by the LMS or the design of course content. Adaptive technologies can be cost prohibitive to students. And then there’s the hurdle of having to learn how to use this software on top of learning how to navigate an online course environment.

I know there are work-arounds for the above issues; I just have to learn which ones offer efficient and effective solutions. Fortunately I have great resources in the campus Disabilities Services for Students office, my Instructional Design and Development team colleagues, and those involved in my online class.

It’s now Week Two. Time to login and continue learning.

If you can’t wait to find out more, click here.

Robert

As evidence points towards the effectiveness of a Web conferencing component in facilitating the learning outcomes of online courses, purchasing the license for these virtual classrooms is a worthwhile investment for XLS. However, with the development of a new social network called LearnCentral, it will now be possible to have free access to the system that previously cost thousands of dollars.

Why has Elluminate decided to give away access to its virtual rooms?

It could be “a call to action to help bring about positive change within the education community worldwide,” but on closer inspection, it appears to be more about the marketing:

“While LearnCentral and its resources are free, we hope that your use of Elluminate live eLearning and web collaboration will enable you to understand the benefits of using the technology and motivate you to promote the purchase and adoption of our products and services at a departmental, campus, or institutional level in your organization”.

Free access to Elluminate hinges on two points: Events must be public (open to all) and recorded. For most universities, these two requirements preclude their use. Universities make money from  fee-paying individuals keen on accessing the content and expertise of instructors. Universities are also concerned that having the content permanently available in the public domain will reduce the demand for particular courses. While the ivory towers remain, therefore, Elluminate has found a way to market its product to an audience -educators- that has a major influence on its primary market–educational institutions.

In my opinion, LearnCentral has the potential to be one of the pivotal educational communities on the Internet, but the fact that it is underpinned by a strategic effort to sell more licenses takes a little sheen off its rhetoric:

“We believe that the power of community has the power to transform.”

Agreed, but the power to transform that arises spontaneously and is organized by the collective efforts of individuals is different to a transformation that is funded and supported by a special interest.

LearnCentral is still in its infancy. It offers a number of centralized services unavailable elsewhere on the web, and there are some extremely talented people working for the benefit of the network. I have already found a number of groups among the social network that will be useful. Please check them out, and see what you think, but be aware that a free room in this case is purchased at the expense of some fairly lofty ideals.

Robert

Citation: Koppelman, H. Vranken, H. (2008) Experiences with a Synchronous Virtual Classroom in Distance Education ITiCSE’08, June 30–July 2, 2008, Madrid, Spain.