LESSONS LEARNED: COLLABORATIVE CREATION OF A WEBCT PROTOTYPE FOR UNDERGRADUATE SPECIAL EDUCATION COURSES DONNA PATTERSON Coordinator of Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. E-mail:
[email protected] DIANNE YEE Principal, Highwood High School, Foothills School Division, Alberta, Canada. E-mail:
[email protected]
This paper considers the development of a WebCT course prototype to assist the University of Regina in providing a core of special education courses for teachers in Saskatchewan, Canada. In particular, this initiative has been designed to provide increased access for both preservice and inservice teachers in rural and northern areas of the province. We discuss the online course development process from the perspective of two instructors who wish to use WebCT as a dynamic and personal instructional tool. The paper suggests some of the challenges presented to students and instructors in virtual, collaborative learning environments. We also ask questions regarding the change in university instructors’ roles and interactions when they add web-based course management tools to their instructional repertoire.
1
Introduction
In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, special education courses have traditionally been provided in a faceto-face format by both the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan. As part of the four-year Bachelor of Education program at the University of Regina, students are required to take one course in special education. In addition, Saskatchewan Learning requires that school districts employ special education teachers who have completed at least six undergraduate courses (or 18 credit hours) in special education in order to receive maximum funding for program delivery. And, a recent provincial Special Education Review, Directions for Diversity, [1] recommended that access to these courses be facilitated, particularly for teachers in rural and northern areas of the province. This paper discusses the development of a WebCT prototype course to assist the University of Regina in providing a core of six special education courses for both preservice and inservice teachers in Saskatchewan. The introductory course, Students with Special Needs, became the prototype to be used in the “pedagogical reengineering” [2] of the remainder of the special education undergraduate courses for online instruction. 2
A Pedagogical Framework for the Course Development Process
As instructors we entered into the online course development process desiring to use WebCT, which had been selected as the format for University of Regina online courses, as a personal, flexible, and dynamic instructional tool rather than to simply inherit a predetermined course shell from an instructional designer. We wanted, as instructors, to easily modify course content and structure and also to encourage students to contribute course resources. As Harasim [3] suggested, we hoped “to provide a flexible framework to support advanced pedagogies based on active learning, collaboration, multiple perspectives, and knowledge building.” Hence, we followed a more constructivist and less instructivist approach in our course design process. Coming to an agreement to invest in this type of a course development and instruction project involved considerable self-scrutiny and trust development between the partners. Donna is the Coordinator of Special Education for the Faculty of Education at the University of Regina, and she had instructed the course numerous times in a variety of formats, including coteaching the course face-to-face and individually teaching the course using a FirstClass computer-mediated communication format. She was interested in learning how WebCT could be used to create an online course but had not previously worked with this course management tool. Dianne is a high school principal from a neighbouring province who had previously developed and instructed several WebCT graduate studies courses and as a result was very comfortable working with WebCT. Although she had previous experience as a special education teacher in Saskatchewan and is very interested in the appropriate inclusion of special needs students, she was no longer current with Saskatchewan curriculum or
2 with special education literature. Thus as instructors, this partnership provided both of us with opportunities to teach and to learn, from each other and with our students. 3
The Potential of Web-based Course Management Tools
Various authors have described the advantages of web-based instruction [4,5,6]. From our experiences, we agreed that using WebCT for special education course development held the potential to: •
Accommodate adult learners with shared interests because it is readily accessible to all schedules and geographical locations
•
Increase opportunities for students to participate in thoughtful course discussion through the use of both asynchronous and synchronous communication tools
•
Give students equal opportunity to express their views by encouraging individuals who are reluctant to participate in face-to-face discussion to be more active contributors in alternate discussion forums
•
Facilitate modelling, coaching, and scaffolding through use of student and instructor exemplars and instructor participation
•
Foster metacognitive understanding through reflective processes
•
Foster peer review of student work and collaboration on group projects
•
Allow us as instructors to capture class activities and archive both process and product, enabling access to a rich database of course content beyond the normal time frame of the course.
As we created the prototype course we considered these instructional possibilities. Our prototype undergraduate course has been designed to begin and end with a daylong face-to-face meeting to assist with building a sense of community and to help students network with other special education personnel from the province. The course content includes a major emphasis on the Saskatchewan context as it explores eight areas of student exceptionality: learning disabilities, cognitive challenges, multiple handicaps, communication disorders, sensory deficits, behavioural disorders, giftedness, and students at-risk. 4
Appropriate Practice in Online Instruction
A number of authors have described appropriate practice in online instruction [6,7,8,9]. As we proceeded with the course development and instruction process, the following guidelines have assisted us: •
Instructors need to allow students to shape their coursework by choosing assignments and projects according to a clear set of guidelines.
•
Instructors should provide clear guidelines for interaction with students, regarding types of communication and timelines.
•
In order to communicate high expectations, instructors need to provide challenging tasks, appropriate models or exemplars, and acknowledgement for quality work.
•
Students should be given regularly distributed deadlines to promote consistent interaction with class participants.
•
Asynchronous discussion forums need to be carefully designed and monitored.
•
Students should be given opportunities to present course projects and receive feedback from both students and instructors.
•
Instructors need to provide both information feedback and acknowledgement feedback to their students.
We have structured considerable student choice in the topic and format of course assignments. In addition, we are using a contract for student grades so that students can choose to do a variety of assignments beyond the basic requirements of the course. We have carefully structured the asynchronous discussion groups around the eight areas of exceptionality and important Saskatchewan special education policies—and we are providing opportunity for private and public discussion and feedback. Some information posted to the discussion groups will first be edited by the instructors; other information will posted directly by students. Also we have provided
3 exemplars for a number of our assignments. Our final small group project involves a case study intended to provide a synthesis of course content and skill development. Face-to-face and online discussions will be archived to the WebCT site for students to revisit at a later time, and PowerPoint presentations on each of the areas of exceptionality will be available for all students to download for their own reference or to assist with staff inservice in their individual schools. 5
Important Questions in Online Course Development and Instruction
This collaborative web-based course development and instruction experience has presented a variety of challenges that we believe illustrate several themes. As others [10] have suggested, we believe that special education course content, learner-centered pedagogy, web based course management tools, and university infrastructure--all become necessary “pieces in the puzzle” of successful online course development and instruction. We have become very curious about the impact of technological “gatekeepers” on online course development and instruction. What is the impact on online courses when there is control of the instructional process by the instructor rather than by the IT designer? How are online instructors able to effectively work through the “inevitable infrastructure access issues” for themselves and their students? We also have questions regarding the concept of “technological self-efficacy”--the belief that one has the capability to interact with a given technology [11]. How do online instructors develop their own levels of comfort with web based course management tool--individual mentoring, inservice training, “trial by fire”...? What is the role of online instructors in developing the technological self-efficacy of their students? Considering “intellectual property” in online course development creates much conjecture. How much of our instructional resources should be located on a course website? Who does the data belong to when we are finished creating or teaching the course? What are the implications of creating complementary CD-ROMs of course materials--video clips, audio clips, copies of course notes, articles...? What about the logistics of revising or updating this type of course material--the necessity to create new CD-ROMS for each course and distribute them to students? And finally, we have questions regarding the issue of “online instruction versus electronic textbooks”? What really is required for ethical online instruction? What are the expectations for instructor continuity? For example, should instructors be expected to commit to both course development and delivery--for how long? 6
Conclusion
This experience has provided us with some insight into essential questions regarding how university instructors’ roles and interactions change when they add web-based course management software to their instructional toolkits. But, we have many unanswered questions. As Collis [12] remarked, “It is not the technology but the instructional implementation of technology that determines the effects on learning.” This experience has reminded us that good teaching and learning, whether face-to-face or online, is messy, and difficult, but ultimately energising. What we have wanted to accomplish is providing our students with a rich online investigation of special needs students in a Saskatchewan context and developing a more complete understanding of technological pedagogy ourselves. 7
Acknowledgements
We thank the University of Regina for TEL funding which has given us the opportunity to grapple with these issues regarding collaborative course development and instruction in an online environment.
4 References 1. Directions for diversity: enhancing supports to children and youth with diverse needs, Final Report of the Saskatchewan Special Education Review Committee (2000). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/k/pecs/se/docs/review/committee.pdf. 2. Dabbagh, N. Web-based course management tools. In Educational Technology, An Encyclopedia (ABC_CLIO, Santa Barbara, in press). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://mason.gmu.edu/~ndabbagh/wblg/WBCMT-encyclopedia%20entry.htm 3. Harasim, L. A framework for online learning: the Virtual-U. Computer, 32(9), (1999) pp. 44-49. 4. Harasim, L. Shift happens: online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher http://virtualEducation, 3 (1), (2001) Retrieved September 20, 2002 from u.cs.sfu.ca/vuweb.new/papers/harasim_ihe_nov00.pdf 5. Dabbagh, N. Using a web-based course management tool to support face-to-face instruction. The Technology Source (March /April 2002). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=938 6. Palloff, R., and Pratt, K. Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for the online classroom. (Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco, 1999). 7. Spitzer, D. Don’t forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distance learning. Educational Technology, 11(2), (2001) pp. 51-55. 8. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., and Duffy, T. Seven principles of effective teaching: a practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source (March/April 2001). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=839 9. Volery, T. Online education: an exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), (2001) pp. 77-92. 10. Morris, J., and Cox, G. New times, new rules, new playing fields: an interview with Unext’s Geoff Cox. The Technology Source. (January/February 2002). Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=894 11. Webster, J., and Hackley, P. Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1997) pp. 1282-1309. 12. Collis, B. Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: lessons from the literature. Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2, (1995) pp. 136-149.
