Volume 8 - Redesigning Courses For Online Delivery - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

REDESIGNING COURSES FOR
ONLINE DELIVERY: DESIGN,

INTERACTION, MEDIA, &
EVALUATION
Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 12:09 23 February 2019 (PT)
CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Series Editor: Charles Wankel
Recent Volumes:
Volume 5: Misbehavior Online in Higher Education Edited by

Laura A. Wankel and Charles Wankel
Volume 6A: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention using Online
Learning Activities: Wikis, Blogs and Webquests Edited by
Charles Wankel and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 6B: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Social
Technologies: Facebook, E-Portfolios and Other Social
Networking Services Edited by Laura A. Wankel and Patrick
Blessinger
Volume 6C: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Immersive
Interfaces: Virtual Worlds, Gaming, and Simulation Edited by
Charles Wankel and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 6D: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Mobile
Applications: Smartphones, Skype and Texting Technologies
Edited by Laura A. Wankel and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 6E: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Classroom
Technologies: Classroom Response Systems and Mediated
Discourse Technologies Edited by Charles Wankel and Patrick
Blessinger
Volume 6F: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Multimedia
Technologies: Video Annotation, Multimedia Applications,
Videoconferencing and Transmedia Storytelling Edited by
Laura A. Wankel and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 6G: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in E-Learning
Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies
Edited by Charles Wankel and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 7: Digital Humanities: Current Perspectives, Practices and
Research By Bryan Carter
CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES IN HIGHER
EDUCATION VOLUME 8
REDESIGNING COURSES
FOR ONLINE DELIVERY:
DESIGN, INTERACTION,
MEDIA, & EVALUATION

BY
ROBYN E. PARKER
Plymouth State University, New Hampshire, USA
United Kingdom North America Japan

India Malaysia China
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2013
Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Reprints and permission service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78190-690-3
ISSN: 2044-9968 (Series)
ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.
Certificate Number 1985

ISO 14001
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writing of this book has been a team effort. It simply would not have
been possible without the support of my university colleagues at Plymouth
State University, who graciously picked up the service load to provide me

with time to write. My thanks to Trent Boggess, dean of the College of
Business Administration, for his instrumental assistance, in the form of
graduate assistant Valer Suteu, and his professional support. My gratitude
also goes to Emerald Insight’s Chris Hart, contracting editor, Sharon
Parkinson, publisher, and Sarah Baxter, managing editor as well as to
Charles Wankel of St. John’s University, series editor.
Thanks also go to those who have helped shape my thinking and helped
me to develop a concept for course redesign that I’m excited to share.
Redesigning Courses for Online Delivery: Design, Interaction, Media, &
Evaluation is the product of years of reading, discussing, reflecting, and
experimenting. Perhaps I am most indebted to my students, who freely
shared with me when things worked and when they didn’t.
There are several other people who were directly involved in this project.
Thanks to colleague, Professor Deborah Brownstein for her invaluable
insights on metaphor and design thinking. Heartfelt appreciation goes out
to Sheryl Hansen, director, Ohio Board of Regents, eTech Ohio, for a
dozen years of support and her guiding feedback on the DeSIGN concept.
Appreciation goes out to long time collaborator and colleague Professor
Albert (Chip) Ingram of Kent State University. Chip’s input to the interac-
tion chapter was an organizing force, putting order to chaos.
Enduring gratitude to my loving family, without whom I simply
wouldn’t have completed this work. Thanks to my daughter Lauren, who
used her newly minted degree in creative writing to keep her mother from
mixing too many metaphors, Katherine, for her patience and understand-
ing, and Meridith and Rachel, for their expressions of joy and support for
this project.
Finally, this project would not have happened without my loving hus-
band and collaborative partner, Steven Bardus. Steve was graphic designer,
page editor, table maker, and all around go-to guy. Many, many thanks
for his help in bringing this project to fruition.
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.1 Four-Phase Course Redesign Model: DIME . . . . . . . . . 5

Fig. 2.1 Metaphor Reflects Your Views about the Content, Learners,
and Instructor and How They Fit Together . . . . . . . . . 23

Fig. 2.2 Course Redesign Process, Featuring Metaphor as the Lens
through Which the Remaining Elements Are Viewed . . . . 25
Fig. 4.1 Nature of Online Learner Instructor Interactions . . . . . . 58
Fig. 4.2 Playground Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Fig. 4.3 Baseball Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Fig. 4.4 Symphony Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Fig. 5.1 Course Diagram of Learning Activities: Playground
Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig. 5.2 Course Diagram of Learning Activities: Symphony
Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Playground Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.2 Marketplace Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2.3 Safari Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.4 Archeological Dig Metaphor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 3.1 Revising Learning Objectives for Strength and Clarity . . . 36
Table 3.2 Plan Instructional Methods from Course Objectives . . . . 38
Table 4.1 Course Redesign Using the Playground Metaphor . . . . . 66
Table 4.2 Course Redesign Using the Baseball Metaphor . . . . . . 70
Table 4.3 Course Redesign Using the Symphony Metaphor . . . . . 73
Table 5.1 Media Enabled Course Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 5.2 Course Activities by Interaction Type and Media
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 5.3 Sample Tools to Enable Content-Interaction Activities . . 90
Table 5.4 Sample Tools to Enable Instructor Interaction Related
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 5.5 Sample Tools to Enable Peer-Interaction
Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Table 5.6 Revisiting Redesign Decisions for the Playground
Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 5.7 Course Activities and Media Needs: Playground. . . . . . 104
Table 5.8 Revisiting Redesign Decisions for the Symphony
Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Table 5.9 Course Activities and Media Needs: Symphony . . . . . . 108
xi
CHAPTER 1
COURSE REDESIGN USING THE

DIME MODEL
ABSTRACT
Course redesign follows a four-stage process organized around key sets
of considerations related to design, interaction, media, and evaluation. In
this chapter, we introduce the DIME model of course redesign, a sys-
tematic approach to creating and implementing online experiences. We
argue that new mental models are needed to move away from simply
digitizing the in-class experience for online delivery. Online teaching and
learning is unique and requires new approaches. The model puts technol-
ogy in a supporting role, privileging pedagogy, and human interaction.
The principal role of the instructor is explored.
Keywords: Course redesign; online teaching and learning; online peda-
gogy; instructional technology; online education; redesign model
INTRODUCTION
This volume is about change. Whether you are moving your class online
because you find the prospect exciting, or simply because you’ve been
asked to do so, you will need to rethink the way you teach. Successfully
moving courses online involves more than digitizing what you’re presently
doing in face-to-face classes; teaching and learning online requires a differ-
ent approach. But, you may be wondering, how do I get started? All too
often, we default to familiar methods, even when new ones are needed.
Such was the case with a colleague I ran into as she hurried to class one
1
2 REDESIGNING COURSES FOR ONLINE DELIVERY
day.1 She held a camera and tripod in her hands. I nodded, “how’s it
going?” “Great!” she answered, holding up her camera and smiling. “I’m
putting together my online course for this summer!” My colleague planned
to tape the lecture she was about to give in her face-to-face class and then
load it into her online course shell for distance learners to watch.
You may be wondering, why not? In response, I offer another example.
A few years ago I attended a conference focused on teaching with technol-
ogy. The luncheon keynote speaker had an emergency and wasn’t able to
travel to attend the conference in person. So, the planners solved the pro-
blem by having the speaker give his speech from his location, projecting it
on a huge screen hung in the hotel ballroom. The room was filled with a
few hundred educators, eight to a table. We chatted throughout lunch.
Then the keynote speech began and the audience kept right on talking! The
speaker was virtually ignored. No one seemed to perceive this as rude.
After all, the speaker wasn’t present, so he was unaware that his presenta-
tion had become little more than a media broadcast. For many in the audi-
ence, his presentation had been relegated to mere background noise. The
planners had the right idea in not wanting to lose access to the keynote
speaker, but they clearly used the wrong approach to deliver the content to
their audience.
Let’s face it; students frequently tune instructors out during live lectures.
What’s likely to happen when we are not physically with them? Attempting
to replicate the classroom experience online is futile. According to
Carol Twigg, President and CEO of the National Center for Academic
Transformation, it is also one of the biggest obstacles to true redesign. She
argues, by trying to make online courses “as good as” their traditional
counterparts, we make them the same, and trying to make them the same
mostly leads to an inferior learning experience as things are mismatched
(Twigg, 2002). A new approach is needed for online learning.
ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING DIFFERS FROM

THE CLASSROOM
Online teaching and learning can be equal to, better than, or worse than
learning in the classroom; but it is not the same (see Bernard et al., 2004 for
a meta-analysis comparing classroom and online contexts). It can be both
meaningful and satisfying for learners, as well as for instructors, but we
Course Redesign Using the DIME Model 3
need a new framework from which to work. Without one, we tend to work
from what we know. We deliver buckets of content using digitized versions
of our classroom lectures and have students post to “discussion boards” in
an attempt to simulate discussion. Like the conference planners, it’s the
right idea to want to share information with learners and encourage peer
interaction, but it’s the wrong approach if your aim is to create a meaning-
ful learning experience with long-lasting effects.
Rather than trying to replicate the classroom, online, we want to design
an experience that engages students in learning in a way that fosters their

interest and curiosity, and ultimately facilitates deep-level learning that
comes to them by way of technology. These are the outcomes that have
been promised in the literature, observed by instructors, and experienced
by some students, but unfortunately not all (Hill, Wiley, Nelson, & Han,
2004; Keeton, 2004).2
To create a unique course experience, we need a framework that will
move us beyond the boxes that past experiences and university learning
management systems create. The aim of this course redesign process is to
help you think more reflectively about the design and delivery of a learning
experience. The goal is to do more than merely convert courses for web
delivery, but to redesign them and to craft the kind of experiences we want
for our students and for ourselves, as instructors. This volume can help.
In attending professional conferences and giving workshops on redesign-
ing courses, colleagues have shared some of their reasons for resisting the
move to online teaching and learning. Some instructors indicated they lack
experience as online learners themselves; their only models have been of
classroom instruction, so they simply don’t know what works. Others
express a strong desire to “know” their learners, which they presume can-
not be accomplished through online instruction. There are also those who
voice trepidation over the technology learning curve. They see it as too
steep for themselves, but flat for their technology-native learners, leaving
them feeling outpaced.
It is true that past models of instruction do not translate directly to
online environments. It’s also true that our students are different. There is
a growing body of research that suggests contemporary students’ minds are
different due to their use of technology from a young age (Prensky, 2001).
In his book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains,
Nicholas Carr builds upon arguments first offered by Marshall McLuhan
in Understanding Media. Carr (2011) argues that media alter not only what
information we receive but also how we process that information
(see McCluhan, 1964 for the original). Carr quotes American scholar
The Reverend William Ong’s thoughts on the transformative power of
technology. “Technologies are not mere exterior aids but also interior
transformations of consciousness, and never more than when they affect
the word.” (p. 51) Technology is not neutral; it alters the way we structure
our work and it will be deterministic (dogmatic; dictatorial) if we don’t
apply it reflectively.
Learners also bring expectations and past experiences with them to the
online environment. The mental models students have may or may not be
conducive to successful online learning. Although debates about whether
learners are actually different today, and if so why, fall outside the scope of
this chapter, they strongly suggest that a different approach to teaching
and learning is possible and is needed. Whatever approach we take should
take into consideration our content, our learners, and our own instruc-
tional style.
Because technology can change radically in a relatively small space in
time, this volume focuses on a set of stable considerations for redesigning
courses that are steeped in pedagogy and instructional design. Decisions
related to technology are not considered until after other key choices are
made. This approach keeps technology in its place. To do otherwise is the
equivalent of performing repairs on your car based solely on the tools you
have in your toolbox. You might get lucky, but a better approach is to
determine what repair is needed, and then go off in search of the tools with
which to perform it.
DIME MODEL FOR COURSE REDESIGN
DIME is an acronym we use for the course redesign process. This process
centers on four major sets of considerations for redesigning courses for
online teaching and learning. Each letter represents a different set of
considerations, which are ordered in stages. The stages are presented inde-
pendent from the next, but there is overlap; decision-making should be
viewed as an iterative process. Choices made at one stage in the redesign
process will inform decisions made in later stages. Decisions made in later
stages may reveal information indicating the need to revisit previous
decisions. We briefly explain the model here and then explore each set of
considerations in a separate chapter in this volume. Fig. 1.1 depicts the
model.
Fig. 1.1. Four-Phase Course Redesign Model: DIME.
Overview of Considerations in the Model
DeSIGN
The letter D stands for DeSIGN in the DIME model. This is the first of
four sets of considerations for course redesign. It begins with traditional
instructional design practices such as determining learning objectives and
selecting instructional methods. In Chapter 3, we examine the steps in the
instructional design process, focusing on writing strong objectives that will
serve as the foundation of our redesigned course.
In identifying instructional methods, we structure the decision-making
process around four essential activities that instructional methods should
facilitate in an online course: the sharing of information, the demonstration
of skills, the ways learners will practice those skills, and the means to
ensure learning has happened. These are decisions that will eventually
inform our technology choices, but we won’t be ready to consider those
choices until we determine the roles to be played by the instructor and peer
learners in helping students achieve the learning objectives. These roles are
at the center of the second set of considerations: interaction.
Interaction
The letter I stands for interaction. This critical set of considerations focuses
on learner-centered interactions, which ultimately determine the look and
feel of online courses, influencing the way learners experience them. In

Chapter 4, we consider three types of learner-centered interactions that
were first proposed by Michael Moore (1989). Moore suggested that lear-
ners interact with course content, with the instructor, and with their peers.
The role each of these types of interactions plays will vary depending upon
the course. Which type of interaction is privileged in a given course will
depend upon your content, your learners, and your instructional style.
The three types of interactions are expanded upon and organized into
more specific categories of interaction for further consideration. We

explore how learners interact with content through the course structure and
layout, and how they interact with peers who may be cast in the role of
community members primarily providing support, or as information provi-
ders and/or collaborators. Instructor interactions serve to set expectations
for learners and to facilitate learner interactions with content and peers.
Interaction decisions strongly influence the character of the course experi-
ence. Interaction considerations are informed by decisions made previously
during the design phase. They will play a significant role in the determina-
tion of media needs in the phase that follows.
Media
The letter M stands for media, through which course content and interac-
tion flow. The DIME model uses the term media to refer to technology con-
siderations because it represents the fundamental purpose of technology in
online courses, to support or facilitate learner interaction with content, the
instructor, and peers. In Chapter 5 we lay out a process by which media
can be considered in relation to instructional and interactional goals and
needs. We propose 10 media-enabled course activities that are used to guide
the selection process. These activities are organized by instructional
method, type of interaction, and required media characteristics. This
approach brings specific features of media into focus, narrowing the scope
of our decisions.
Evaluation
The letter E stands for evaluation. Evaluation is the process by which we
determine if learning occurred. In Chapter 6, we examine opportunities and
challenges in the assessment of online student learning, evaluation of
instructor effectiveness, and assessment of course quality. We provide stra-
tegies for exploiting the advantages and mitigating difficulties. We explore
formative as well as summative methods of evaluation. Formative evalua-
tion helps in establishing how things should go at the start of the course.
They can also assist in determining how well they are going while the
course is still in session and there’s time to make changes. Summative
methods help in figuring out how things went. Evaluation is a critical step
that should be multifaceted and support continuous improvement efforts.
The four phases of the DIME model provide a framework for making
decisions related to course design. The model is both practical and scho-
larly in its approach. Although the suggestion that learning objectives
should be set before choosing course technology is not new; the framework
the model provides for the decision-making process is unique. This volume
proposes a path that clears away the confusion and provides a new
approach to redesign for the online environment.
Contextual Relative Approach to Redesign
The four sets of considerations for course redesign are informed by a con-
textual relative approach. Contextual relativism is a term first coined by
William Perry. He initially used it to describe the intellectual development
process of undergraduate students in 1970. Essentially, the contextual rela-
tive approach involves attending to the setting or context within which
development occurs (Perry, 1999). This approach assumes that answers to
questions are relative to the situation or context. In course redesign, it is
the decisions we make at each phase that will be situational. Choices should
be made based upon their fit with your content, your learners, and your
instructional style.
There is not “one best way” to redesign an online course. Given a contex-
tual relative approach, there are many valid ways to teach and learn online.
The key is to achieve fit. Develop a vision for your course by examining
each set of considerations in light of your content and learners. Then use
technology to bring your vision to life. It may be easier than you think. It
doesn’t take advanced technology skills; it takes attention to the considera-
tions, some time to reflect, and a willingness to experiment. These are the
skills you’ve built in the classroom and they do translate to course redesign!
NEED FOR A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO REDESIGN
In order to bring about the needed changes to the teaching and learning
process, we need a systematic approach to redesign that is driven by
pedagogy rather than technology. Naidu (2003) argued that it should no

longer be necessary to reiterate that the media are just “the vehicles of the
educational transaction.” To make the most of what technologies can do
for you, Naidu suggests, focusing on the pedagogy first and then look
for the tool. The trouble is that many of us fail to think reflectively when it
comes to technology. Walk through the halls of any university in the
United States and you’ll see rooms darkened, screens aglow, and instruc-
tors standing at the front of the room talking. Rather than using chalk-
boards, instructors now use PowerPoint; this seemingly small shift from
notes on slate to notes on screen has changed the dynamics of classroom
learning, but not necessarily for the better.
Before technology, lecturing was a teacher-centric activity. The professor
shared information, watched learners’ reactions, and then added clarifying
examples by making notes on a chalkboard. Today, with the near-universal
assimilation of PowerPoint into college classrooms, we have become slide-
centric. Consider the scene; learners enter the classroom and settle into
their seats; the instructor dims the lights. All eyes are immediately drawn to
the contrasting element in the room, which is the lit screen displaying the
first slide. Learners’ attention goes to the slides, rather than the instructor,
who is in shadow. The professor becomes the aid to the slides, rather than
the other way around.
We haven’t consciously changed the way we teach, but things have
changed nonetheless. We’ve trained our learners that anything important
will be on the slides. Some learners no longer feel a need to listen. Their
expectations are that information will be distilled into bullet points,
and displayed on the screen for easy note-taking and memorization.
Information going from screen to hand, with little if any pass through the
brain, leads to surface level learning; learners work for grades instead of
knowledge and know-how. They forget the content soon after the exam is
over.
We need a systematic approach to course redesign because we become
stuck in doing what we’ve become accustomed to. For instance, we can
make the technology tools do what we want, but many of us don’t; some of
us don’t even know we can. How many PowerPoint users default to using
the templates? You know the ones, the templates that set all of the informa-
tion out in the bullet points. This may not be the best way to enhance the
information being shared verbally with learners. It does little to stimulate
learner thinking, something needed for learning to happen.
The templates are there for convenience; we don’t have to use them, but
we do, usually without considering other approaches. Using templates
tends to be the default approach, imposing a linear structure on informa-

tion, whether appropriate or not.
The changes needed are not about more or different technology; they
are about reasserting the importance and impact of pedagogy and subordi-
nating the tools to a support role. To do this, we need a process. The
DIME model steers you through the course redesign process, using research
to guide thinking and practical strategies to guide choices.
INSTRUCTOR AS PRINCIPAL PLAYER IN COURSE

REDESIGN
There is much chatter in the news, both mainstream and in the blogo-
sphere, about the role of online courses and technology in educational
reform.3 The excitement over MOOC’s (Massive Open Online Courses),
and how they might help in the management of educational costs and
increased access, seems to be eliciting a bifurcated response from education
stakeholders. Are MOOC’s a panacea or a threat?4
Whatever your view, MOOC’s are changing the conversations taking
place within higher education. But course redesign isn’t about creating or
not creating MOOC’s. You could create one using the DIME model; the
model makes no assumptions about higher or lower enrollments being
superior. MOOC’s could increase efficiencies in some courses similar to the
way large lecture courses do so in face-to-face contexts. But, just as on
campus, there are courses and learners that will require a higher touch
approach, making large enrollments impractical and/or inappropriate. The
contextual relative approach of the DIME model leaves room for consider-
ing redesign elements in light of particular situations.
What really happens when courses move online? Those who are fearful
argue the experience becomes depersonalized, some even proclaim it spells
the end of the professoriate, as we know it (see Kompf, 2001 for example).
Those who are enthusiastic argue the opposite. They say online learning
can be more readily adapted to student performance, personalizing the
experience (see Langmead, 2013 for example). Neither set of arguments
seems to get to the heart of what it is for the instructor to teach online. For
the most part, courses are not “no-man” systems within which learners go
it alone, without an instructor facilitating activities. The role of the instruc-
tor shifts from lecturer to facilitator and designer, but the instructor
remains a principal player in education. Online learners need the instructor
to guide them, interpret the materials, support their process, and communi-
cate that they care.
According to Kim and Bonk (2006), in a survey of 562 college instruc-
tors and administrators, all of whom were members of two associations for
online education (MERLOT and WCET), 66% reported the most needed
skills for instructors in the future will be moderating and facilitating online
courses and developing or planning for high quality online courses. Course
content is important, but learning requires interaction, at least in most
situations. Arguably, that’s why MOOC’s have a 90% attrition rate

(Kolowich, 2013; Parr, 2013). MOOC’s can work for students that are
highly interested in the content, but the extremely high attrition rates indi-
cate the average learner needs more than content. Students need the
instructor, in the course with them, to help them connect the dots and put
meaning to the learning activities.
ACCEPTING THE COURSE REDESIGN CHALLENGE

It helps if you’re coming to the course redesign process out of a sense of
excitement. As you create your course, you may find you are able to do
things online that you were not able to accomplish in the face-to-face class-
room. In one example from my own experience, I found learners much
more willing to accept and act authentically in roles as business consultants
when enrolled in online courses vs. in traditional classroom environments.
In live classes, learners couldn’t get past the physical context, which cast
them as students sitting at desks in a classroom. The online environment
could be shaped in a way that learners felt they were in an office. They felt
like professionals, and they behaved that way, readily engaging information
and using it to make solid recommendations to simulated clients.
Even if you’re not excited about the prospects of course redesign, this
volume may be of help. It is grounded in research, both primary and sec-
ondary, and rooted in experience. It provides a framework for decision-
making that is step-by-step in approach, so it is easy to implement. To fully
employ the redesign process, we will need one more tool. We need a lens
through which to view the process holistically. In the next chapter, we
explore the power of metaphor in helping us break away from default
patterns of thinking, inspiring new approaches to teaching and learning.
Metaphor is a powerful change agent when applied to course redesign.
Through it, we crystallize our ideas about our content, our learners, and
our instructional style, and how we see the three fitting together. Metaphor
helps by providing the lens through which to view the four sets of consid-
erations the DIME model proposes.
CONCLUSION
Teaching online is about change. It is not just a change in course context; it is

more than shifting courses from the classroom to online. It is about creating
a completely different experience that requires redesigning what you’re doing
presently; that’s the exciting part. As you read this volume, you’re encouraged
to apply the four sets of considerations to the redesign of your own course.
Do this and you just may find yourself getting excited by all the possibilities.
There is no single redesign path; the DIME model provides a roadmap by
which you can arrive at the destination you set for your content, your lear-
ners, and yourself. Turn the page and together we’ll begin a journey.
NOTES
1. Examples are real, but locations and participants names withheld to protect
privacy.
2. Visit the No Significant Difference phenomena website to search and review
empirical studies comparing online and classroom learning, from the 1940s going
forward, representing a wide range of views on the subject. Collectively, they seem
to indicate the quality of the experience is not about the delivery system, per se, but
how course elements fit the content, learner, and instructor. Available at http://
www.nosignificantdifference.org
3. The International Journal of Educational Reform explores the issues from a
research perspective. Available at https://rowman.com/page/IJER
4. See the MOOC Moment, a compilation of essays published by Inside Higher
Education for opinions on this question. Available at http://www.insidehighered.
com/quicktakes/2013/05/09/mooc-moment-new-compilation-articles-available
REFERENCES
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet,
P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 379 439.
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring research on internet-based
learning: From infrastructure to interactions. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 433 460). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keeton, M. T. (2004). Best online instructional practices: Report of phase I of an ongoing
study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 75 100.
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. (2006). The future trends of online teaching and learning in higher
education: The survey says…. Educause Quarterly, 4, 22 30.
Kolowich, S. (2013, April, 8). Coursera takes a nuanced view of MOOC dropout rates.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/
coursera-takes-a-nuanced-view-of-mooc-dropout-rates/43341. Accessed on June 20, 2013.

Kompf, M. (2001). ICT could be death knell of professoriate as we know it. Canada’s Voice
for Academics, 48(7). Retrieved from http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?articleid =
1766.
Langmead, S. (2013, March, 29). Adaptive learning helps personalize instruction for students.
eCampus News. Retrieved from http://www.ecampusnews.com/technologies/adaptive-learn-
ing-helps-personalize-instruction-for-students/. Accessed on July 3, 2013.
McCluhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. In M. G. Moore & G. C. Clark (Eds.),
Readings in principles of distance education (pp. 100 105). University Park, PA: American
Center for the Study of Distance Education.
Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 349 366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Parr, C. (2013, May, 10). Not staying the course. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/10/new-study-low-mooc-completion-rates.
Accessed on July 24, 2013.
Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A
scheme. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differ-
ently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1 6.
Twigg, C. A. (2002). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.
Educause Review, 39(5), 28 38.
CHAPTER 2
METAPHOR AS A FRAME FOR

COURSE REDESIGN
ABSTRACT
Metaphor is a powerful change agent when applied to course redesign.
In this chapter, we examine the influence mental models have on our
thinking and the potential consequences they have for our learners. By
choosing a metaphor to frame our redesign process, we reveal our ideas
about our content, our learners, and our instructional style and how they
fit together. This all-important first step in the redesign process can be a
game changer; leading us to create the kind of learning experience we
seek for our students and for ourselves. Metaphor provides means to
break away from default patterns of thinking, inspiring us to play and
develop new approaches to teaching and learning facilitating the rede-
sign necessary to bring about learning in an online context. We examine
real examples of courses redesigned using metaphor, and then we embark
on an exploration of other metaphors and their likely influence on deci-
sions related to course redesign. In the end, we revise the course redesign
model to include metaphor.
Keywords: Course redesign; online teaching and learning; metaphor;
mental models
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is about breaking out of familiar patterns of thinking so that

we can redesign our courses for online delivery. Redesign moves beyond
converting course materials to digital files. It requires a new approach like
13
the one introduced in Chapter 1. The DIME model of course redesign fea-
tures four sets of considerations related to teaching and learning online:
design, interaction, media, and evaluation. The act of considering is not
enough by itself to bring about redesign; we need to consider things from a
new perspective. By looking at things through a new mental model, we see
and respond to things differently.
We will use metaphor to facilitate a new approach to thinking about,
and planning, our online course. Metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a
word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place
of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them” (Merriam
Webster, 2013). In applying metaphor to course redesign, we force ourselves
to look at things in a new way, bringing about a fresh approach. Metaphor
can be a powerful change agent.
According to Jensen in his article titled Metaphors as a Bridge to
Understanding in Educational and Social Contexts, the theory of abduction,
or “reasoning from,” encourages the application of different lenses to see
things from differing perspectives. By so doing, one arrives at an approach
or method that allows for “a whole new level of possible understanding”
(Jensen, 2006). Let’s look at an example.
AUTHENTIC REDESIGN EXAMPLES
The Little Inn at the Crossroads
Regina Bento, Professor of Management at Merrick School of Business,

University of Baltimore, describes the power of metaphor in developing a
course on leadership and spirituality, which she taught to engineers
enrolled in an MBA program at MIT. Professor Bento Indicated she was
uncomfortable with taking an overly directive approach in a course she
saw as more about personal discovery “learning to lead with soul”
than learning leadership theory (Bento, 2000).
In her article titled, The Little Inn at the Crossroads: A Spiritual
Approach to the Design of a Leadership Course, Bento (2000) describes how
a vision of a little inn at the crossroads popped into her mind and set in
motion a series of ideas that reframed her role and organized the course
around the principles of reflection and community. She used a metaphor of
her course as a small inn that she envisioned as a working retreat where
class members would come together for a short time on their own personal
(learning) journeys.
Metaphor as a Frame for Course Redesign 15
With the inn as her mental model, her course content took shape. She
created a website that became the metaphorical inn. The metaphor provided
a conceptual framework that drove her course design. She saw her role as
innkeeper more than professor, in the sense that she wanted to provide the
materials to support her “guests,” but didn’t want to dictate how they had
to be used. Bento said “the little inn was predicated on the assumption that
the adventure of learning to lead from within (with soul), cannot be
imposed or described, but it can be facilitated” (2000, p. 653).
To facilitate the individualized leadership journey, the inn offered a

library stocked with influential works, a studio for exploration and self-
expression through work products, and workshops to bring everyone
together to share, build community and facilitate needed reflection. The
metaphor was powerful in giving shape to a course that provided learners
with a meaningful experience while working to meet challenging learning
objectives (Bento, 2000).
Metaphor can help us create new mental models by helping us think about
our courses differently. It provides a process by which we can unstick
our thinking from default patterns, inspiring us to play and develop new
approaches to teaching and learning facilitating the redesign necessary to
bring about learning in an online context. Metaphor helps us to look at things
differently. This can have dramatic effects when it comes to course redesign.
Medical Education as a Symphony
James Woolliscroft, Dean of the University of Michigan Medical School

and co-author Robert Phillips (2003), redesigned their approaches to
medical education using the metaphor of their course as a symphony. They
contend that framing medicine strictly as a science obscures the fundamen-
tal reality that medicine cannot be practiced as dispassionate science. It is
performed in conjunction with an audience (the patient) without whom the
process is void of purpose.
According to Woolliscroft and Phillips (2003), looking at medical educa-
tion through the lens of the symphony framed a mental model that encour-
aged attention to both the technical and interpretive aspects of medicine. It
also highlighted the role of the patient in its performance. They argue that
a violinist not only needs technical mastery of the instrument, but also the
ability to interpret the notes in order to create music. The audience is
needed to complete the experience. The symphony metaphor altered the
default thinking, that medicine is science, and allowed them to take a new
(and better) approach to physician education.
MENTAL MODELS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSCIOUS
Metaphors That May Be Limiting Your Thinking
Metaphor provides a new lens through which to view our content, our lear-
ners, and our role as instructors. We may not realize it, but there may
already be metaphors in play that are unconsciously directing our thinking
about teaching and learning. We see this in the metaphor of the professor
as “sage on the stage” (Naidu, 2003). If this is the lens through which the
instructor’s role is viewed, then the assumption would be that the majority
of the topic knowledge is possessed by the professor whose job is to give it
to students through the presentation of facts. The operating ontology
would be that education is mostly about providing information. At the cen-
ter of that process is the professor. Applied to course redesign, the meta-
phor would likely yield a class consisting of video lectures and text files
organized in buckets, one per topic. If the professor knows his or her stuff,
and the students take it in and study it, it is expected that learning will
occur.
Change the metaphor applied to the professor and the design changes.
Watch what happens if we view the professor’s role as “guide on the
side” (Naidu, 2003). The student is now at the center of teaching and
learning, not the professor. The professor coaches the student in devel-
oping skills and knowledge to reach course goals. The role of the professor
shifts from providing information to guiding students through activities
designed to uncover information and practice skills. The ontology
here is that education is about designing opportunities to learn rather
than providing information. Either of these models can work given
apt content, learners, and instructor. It’s a matter of finding the lens that
best fits your course and using it to consciously drive your redesign
decisions.
Past Experience Can Create Unhelpful Models
Problems arise with mental models when they aren’t conscious. For
instance, you may have taught a course for 10 years before you decide to
bring it online. Whatever your approach has been will likely be your
default. But, our experiences can imprison us in ways of thinking that
don’t fit new realities. So it is with online teaching and learning. It’s not
about digitizing what you do now. We need to break with the old models
and determine a new one that works online.
Julie Dirksen (2012), in her book Design for How People Learn, argues
that as we gain proficiency, we develop mental models that allow us to
become more and more efficient at the task. These models are helpful, so
long as the task stays essentially the same. But, when the task changes, the
old mental models can get in the way. We default to them instead of look-
ing at things anew. So if developing courses is like riding a bike for you,
you are apt to apply old ways of teaching to a context that requires new
ways. Dirksen (2012) uses the example of the American golfer Tiger Woods
attempting to change his golf swing. His game takes a hit at first as he
unlearns the old way and becomes proficient at the new way. But, if the
new way is what’s needed, he’ll be ahead in the end. So it may be for you
and your students.
We want to guard against habitual rather than reflective practice when
developing learning experiences, especially in online contexts. We also need
to consciously explore the mental models we choose for our redesign to
ensure they shape our course in ways that fit the content, the learners, and
the instructor.
Deborah Appleman (2010), Professor of Educational Studies at Carleton
College, employed the scaffolding metaphor in her book on adolescent lit-
eracy and reading for literature teachers. This is a popular metaphor that’s
been used as a conceptual framework by educators for nearly 30 years
(Bruner, 1975; Paliscar, 1986; Paliscar & Brown, 1984). Scaffolding equates
to structured support provided by the instructor through interaction, which
guides the thinking and actions of the learner so they can reach proficiency
(Dyson, 1990). Appleman (2010) admits that scaffolding makes certain
assumptions about her students and the process of learning to read that
might not fit for primary grade instructors.
…I’d never really thought too much the implications of the metaphor behind that word
scaffolding. I hadn’t considered the limits the rigidity, uniformity, and linearity
such a “building” metaphor might imply, leading to one-size-fits all, teacher-directed
support in the classroom. (p. 56)
Appleman (2010) speaks to the power of mental models and how their
influence on our thinking is often unconscious. By deliberately choosing a
metaphor through which to view our course redesign, we move out of
default thought patterns and become more aware of our choices. Such was
the case for Anne Haas Dyson in applying a different metaphor for
teaching literacy skills. She used the metaphor of weaving. Dyson (1990)
explained her choice this way:
Scaffolding is a vertical metaphor, one that represents how more skillful others support
children’s progress within one activity, weaving has a more horizontal dimension. It
suggests how [students’] progress in any one activity is supported by their experiences in
varied activities. (p. 204)
In other words, the path and pattern to proficiency will be unique to

each learner based upon how the individual integrates information and
practice. The change in metaphor from scaffolding to weaving alters the
approach to the teaching and learning of literacy skills. Instruction
becomes less prescriptive and more focused on supporting student explora-
tion and application to facilitate integration of knowledge and skill.
METAPHOR IS A FRAME AND AN IDEA GENERATOR
Again, either metaphor can work as a redesign framework, but each reflects
a unique view of the learner and instructor roles. These distinctions drive
the redesign process differently. Metaphors are not one-size-fits-all; the
choice of which mental model to use isn’t neutral. The trick to finding
the right lens is to try out a variety of metaphors to see which best captures
the essence of the experience you want for your learners and yourself.
Metaphors each highlight particular aspects of teaching and learning, so
choose the one that best encapsulates the needs of the students and inspires
you to think about teaching differently.
Another Authentic Example
We use metaphor as part of the redesign process, but it need not be shared
with the learners to be effective. In redesigning a course in business com-
munication, I began thinking of my course as a baseball game. For those
not familiar with the game, baseball is played with two teams that take
turns “at bat” in an attempt to “score.” To score, batters must get hits and
advance around four bases to earn a “run.” Bases are evenly spaced around
the infield in a diamond shape.
The better the hit, the farther around the bases a batter will go. If he gets
to first base on his own hit, it’s a “single.” If he gets to second base, it’s a
“double.” Third base is a “triple,” and all the way around the bases to
home base is a “home run.” A batter is “out” if he fails to hit the ball after
three tries, or an opposing player catches the ball in the air, before it
touches the ground. A player is also out if an opposing player possessing
the ball gets to the base before the batter does. A team gets three outs
before having to take the field. The winning team is the one with the most
runs at the end. There are more details, but those are the essentials to
understand the metaphor.1
In thinking about my course as a baseball game, I saw learners as batters
and the products they would produce as hits. Students would learn a given
theory and then apply it to explain a situation and develop a response using
particular writing conventions. It was assumed that at the beginning, lear-
ners would be unlikely to achieve mastery. I saw the initial submission of
an assignment as advancing them to first base, before they could advance
another base, they would need to improve their skills. This set up the idea
that for each lesson, there would be structured opportunities for revision
and feedback. By the end of the course, better students would be hitting
home runs on their first tries no revision needed. So each lesson built on
the previous, and students strove to go from good to better and from better
to best.
In developing this course, I had the good fortune to be working with a
graduate assistant. She was watching my process and asked me whether
I thought the baseball metaphor would appeal to all students. I hadn’t
thought about what the model I chose might do to my learners’ thinking.
Sometimes it will make sense to share your model, as Professor Bento
(2000) did with the Little Inn at the Crossroads. In my case, the model
would add little meaning to my students, and it might even get in the way.
So I chose another model for my learners. I outwardly set the course in the
context of an office and created workspaces using visual cues created
through Flash. These workspaces allowed students to sit in virtual cubicles,
open files, and advise clients in responding to customers and management
through a variety of document styles (letters, memos, fact sheets, and
newsletters).
This inspired me to cast students in the role of communication consul-
tants. Like batters who must respond to varying types of pitches, learners as
consultants would need to respond to varying situations. I maintained the
good, better, best approach to the assignments developed through the base-
ball metaphor and took on the role of their manager, advising them and
eventually evaluating their performance. This worked better than expected.
By setting the course in an office and giving learners a professional title,
they took ownership of their work in ways I hadn’t predicted. They weren’t
just playing the role of consultant; they took ownership of the role. They
produced professional quality documents that demonstrated deep under-
standing of the course material and the task they were undertaking. With
some encouragement, they regularly sent their work out to their peers for
review, getting it to better and best before it reached my desk.
Metaphor is an Essential Redesign Tool

Metaphor functions as both framework and idea generator. Later, as you

undertake the redesign process, your metaphor will be running in the back-
ground, inspiring you to think differently and influencing the choices that
you make. I chose the lens of a baseball game in redesigning my course,
had I chosen a different metaphor, my course would have ended up being
different, not necessarily better or worse, but different and not as good a fit
for my content, my students, and my instructional style. Tables 2.1 2.4
depict four other metaphors and suggest how they might alter the design of
a course in business communication.
Exploring How Different Metaphors Uniquely Influence Redesign
For each metaphor, “general view” reflects the instructor’s perspective

about the learning experience. “Application” and “content fit” reflect the
Table 2.1. Playground Metaphor.

General view Experiment with content. Play with concepts/skills
Application “Play stations” provide opportunities to try skills: aim is to figure things
out; many tries and immediate feedback would be essential.
Slide activities that are fairly straightforward
Seesaw activities that require a balanced approach.
Swings activities that require some risk taking, but are fun
Monkey bars activities that require effort and drive
Content fit Activities are smaller in scope and focus on discrete skills/concepts. For
instance; write an effective email subject line, introduce yourself to
someone at a networking dinner, negotiate with your boss for a day off.
Student fit Likely to fit with student experience. Better suited to survey style courses
where exposure to concepts/skills is the goal, rather than mastery
Table 2.2. Marketplace Metaphor.

General view Choose relevant content. Combine concepts/skills
Application Storefronts each represent a skill or concept to master.
Listening store
Speaking store
Writing store
Graphics store
Persuasion store
Audience store
Content fit Projects involve a variety of skills that come from different sources.
Preparing a sales letter, combine skills from the audience, persuasion,
and writing stores.
Student fit Likely to appeal visually and support the idea of interconnectedness of the
skills. Best if the focus will be on communication channel rather than
other elements such as relational context.
Table 2.3. Safari Metaphor.

General view Seek contextualized content. Apply the concepts/skills
Application Focused journey with a specific goal in mind (i.e., become a better
communicator). Different animals represent different interaction partners.
Lion a dominating boss
Zebra competitive yet cooperative peers
Giraffe the hard to reach customer
Elephant stubborn or difficult people
Content fit Projects will focus on context over content. Problem-based scenarios with
students planning and executing various interaction strategies to reach
desired outcomes.
Student fit Won’t be easily understood as a forward facing metaphor, but could be
used as a framework. Works well if the objectives focus on
communication context rather than communication channel
approach to presenting and interacting with content. “Student fit” reflects

the instructor’s view of the learners.
Looking across the four metaphors, we see differences related to con-
tent, learners and how they will interact with the content, and the role the
instructor will likely play. Content varies in terms of how interdependent
the various elements appear to be. They run along a continuum from dis-
crete elements (in the playground metaphor) to integrated (archeological
Table 2.4. Archeological Dig Metaphor.

General view Discover the content. Interpret with concepts/skills
Application The “dig site” has various concepts/skills to be excavated, identified, and
assessed.
Artifacts might represent common processes constituted through social
interaction:
Organizational Culture
Organizational Structure
Organizational Identity or brand

Decision making
Content fit Projects will focus on describing and assessing abstract, social processes
that influence organizational life. For instance, examining the influence
of new communication technologies on the way information moves
through an organization.
Student fit Advanced students may find this metaphor rich and inspiring. Would work
better for a course in organizational behavior than business
communication.
dig metaphor) with strong clues about how they will be united in the gen-
eral view (combined, applied, interpreted).
The interdependence of the elements has implications for learner prere-
quisite skills and experience. The playground metaphor works well for lear-
ners new to the content or those lacking prerequisite skills. The
marketplace metaphor assumes more skill, but not as much as would be
needed for students in courses designed using the safari or dig metaphors.
Finally, the role of the instructor appears to be directive for the playground
metaphor, which features activities that will require feedback, and facilita-
tive for the safari and dig metaphors. More complex projects will benefit
from guidance, but will not conform well to everyone moving rigidly
through the elements. Learners will need to take the initiative and the
instructor will need to provide support and reinforcement.
Metaphor Reflects Your Views on Content, Learners, and Instructor
Now you try it. Apply each of the metaphors in Tables 2.1 2.4, to begin
the redesign of your course. Choose the one that fits your learners, your
content, and your style best. If none of them seem to fit, try playing with
others: the ocean, leaves on a tree, rock-climbing wall, Shakespearean
drama, trading floor of the stock exchange. Use your imagination; you
Fig. 2.1. Metaphor Reflects Your Views about the Content, Learners, and
Instructor and How They Fit Together.
may be surprised at the perspectives you uncover. Think of the metaphor

you choose as a mirror, reflecting back to you your conscious, and not so
conscious views, about how you, your learners, and your content fit
together. These views are what drive the redesign process and influence the
choices you make. Fig. 2.1 illustrates the point that your choice of meta-
phor is input to the process, but it is also a reflection of your views,
whether conscious or unconscious. Raising awareness of the power of our
mental models helps ensure we’re satisfied with our choices.
REVISITING DIME AS METAPHOR
The course redesign process is about creating a new mental model for your
course rather than having it determined for you by the tools you use or the
way you’ve done things in the past. The approach we choose should be
determined independently, reflectively, and with a particular end in mind
(Parker & Ingram, 2011). This volume offers a process by which you can
develop your approach using the course redesign model introduced in
Chapter 1. The DIME model is more than an acronym representing the
phases of redesign: Design, Interaction, Media and Evaluation. It’s also a
metaphor that captures the changing nature of teaching and learning today.
It also reflects my views about this process and how I should present it to
others.
The metaphor features the American 10 cent piece, the dime. It repre-
sents 1/10th of a US dollar. In the United States, monetary units worth less
than one dollar are coins. We refer to coins collectively as “change.” The
play on words was appealing, but the metaphor does more than just point
to the need for a change in approach to course design. The dime is no
ordinary piece of change. Americans have many sayings revolving around
this, our smallest, but not our least valuable, coin. Our least valuable would
be the penny worth 1/10th of a dime, despite its larger circumference.
This littlest coin has inspired idioms such as “turn on a dime,” which
refers to a radical change in direction in a small space (Lighter, 1997).
Arguably, our method to course redesign is a radical departure from the all
too common approach of replicating the face-to-face course design in digi-
tal format. We may also need to make our choices quickly, before they are
dictated by a technology purchase or some other impediment.
Another idiom featuring the dime is “get off the dime,” which means to
get moving or get started, although there is a lack of consensus about its ori-
ginal meaning (Safire, 2002). Then there are a pair of idioms that seem to
reflect the concern that without a new approach to course redesign, you’re
likely to be disappointed in the experience: “not worth a dime” and “dime a
dozen” (n.d.). The former idiom means poor quality; the latter implies some-
thing is so common that it is of very little value (Ammer, 1997). The meta-
phorical and idiomatic phrases tied to this small coin, highlight the changing
nature of pedagogy in the age of technology and our need to keep up!
THE REVISED COURSE REDESIGN MODEL

Like the course redesign using the baseball metaphor, it is not critical that
you, the reader, buy into the metaphor. Rather, it is an organizing scheme.
The lens is for the creator rather than the consumer. It reflects my views
about the fit of my content, my readers, and me. Fig. 2.2 adds metaphor to
the course redesign process. The arrows between each of the elements
Fig. 2.2. Course Redesign Process, Featuring Metaphor as the Lens through
Which the Remaining Elements Are Viewed.
indicate that each phase provides content for and influences the choices
made in the next phase. Metaphor is at the top as it represents the overall
lens through which you view the entire redesign process.
CONCLUSION
Start the redesign process by finding your metaphor. If you undergo this
process in earnest, you will redesign a course that becomes the kind of
experience you want for your learners and for yourself. In the next chapter,
we begin considering elements related to basic course design. These consist
of determining your course objectives and identifying the instructional
methods. We will follow a detailed process to create a blueprint for your
course. Metaphor will play a role in these critical decisions.
NOTE
1. If you’re interested in learning more about American Baseball, visit Major

League Baseball’s website http://mlb.mlb.com or follow this link to the official
rules: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2012/Official_Baseball_Rules.pdf
REFERENCES
Ammer, C. (1997). Dime a dozen. In The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms.

New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.
com/browse/dime a dozen. Accessed on July 24, 2013.
Appleman, D. (2010). Adolescent literacy and the teaching of reading: Lessons for teachers of
literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bento, R. (2000). The little inn at the crossroads: A spiritual approach to the design of a
leadership course. The Journal of Management Education, 24(5), 650 661.
Bruner, J. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 1 40.
Dime a dozen [Def. 1]. (n.d.) In Thesaurus.com. Retrieved from http://thesaurus.com/browse/
dime + a + dozen. Accessed on June 28, 2013.
Dirksen, J. (2012). Design for how people learn. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Dyson, A. H. (1990). Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy develop-
ment. The Reading Teacher, 44(3), 202 213.
Jensen, D. (2006). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding in educational and social contexts.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1 16.
Lighter, J. E. (1997). Historical directory of American slang (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Random
House.
Metaphor. (2013). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/metaphor. Accessed on July 24, 2013.
Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore & W. G.
Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 349 366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition & Instruction, 1(2), 117 175.
Paliscar, A. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 21(1&2), 73 98.
Parker, R., & Ingram, A. (2011). Choosing online collaboration systems: Functions, uses, and
effects. Journal of the Research Center of Educational Technology, 7(1), 2 15.
Safire, W. (2002, October 6). Off the dime. In The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2002/10/06/magazine/06ONLANGUAGE.html. Accessed on February
10, 2013.
Woolliscroft, J. O., & Phillips, R. (2003). Medicine as performing art: A worthy metaphor.
Medical Education, 37, 934 939.
CHAPTER 3
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
ABSTRACT
Instructional design involves the identification of strong learning objec-

tives and the selection of instructional methods to accomplish them. In
this chapter, we consider how to write online course objectives that
will serve as a foundation for future redesign decisions. Strong learn-
ing objectives are observable, measurable, attainable, and specific.
They are focused on the needs of our target audience and should
fit with our instructional philosophy as reflected by our metaphor. We
explore how individual differences, such as demographics, personality,
past performance, and expectations can affect learner needs and pre-
ferences, which should inform learning objectives and instructional
methods. We structure the design process around decisions related to
four essential activities that instructional methods should facilitate: the
sharing of information, the demonstration of skills, the ways for lear-
ners to practice skills, and the means to ensure learning has happened.
We concentrate on selecting general methods of instruction, which we
will later refine and adapt for online delivery. We walk through the
DeSIGN process in detail, determining strong objectives and exploring
how to use them in identifying instructional methods. Intersections
between these decisions and future redesign considerations are also
discussed.
Keywords: Course redesign; online teaching and learning;
instructional design; learning objectives; instructional methods;
online education.
27
INTRODUCTION
Course redesign continues with the consideration of elements related to basic

instructional design. Throughout the redesign process, our decisions will be
filtered through the lens of our chosen metaphor. The DIME model sepa-
rates course redesign into four major sets of considerations. Considerations
will lead to decisions about (D) design, (I) interaction, (M) media, and
(E) evaluation. We will consider each set in turn. It is important to note,
however, that choices made in one phase of redesign will overlap with those
made later. Decisions are interdependent and reciprocally influential; the
phases of redesign are iterative and should be viewed as ongoing. The model
provides a useful framework for structuring decision-making to ensure we
attend to all of the major considerations.
There is no single, best way to redesign a course. It is a contextually rela-
tive process. In other words, effective redesign depends upon the situation
or context (Perry, 1999). The results will vary based upon the content,
learners, and instructor. To understand your context, we begin the process
by analyzing your target audience, the learners, to determine who they are,
what their needs are, and what expectations they may bring to the learning
situation. We will use this information throughout the redesign process,
but perhaps at no time more than during the instructional design phase.
In the next section, we survey past research results related to individual
learner differences that should be considered as you redesign. Afterward,
we investigate the elements that comprise the design phase: determining
objectives and identifying general instructional methods to be used in
accomplishing them.
ANALYZING YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE
Learners are at the center of the redesign process. Who are they? What are
they ready to do? What potential support for, or impediments to, learning
exist? To explore these questions, we turn to the work of Eddy, Donahue,
and Chaney (2001) who use a contextual relative approach in identifying a
variety of factors that impact learners’ abilities to succeed in an online
environment. The most relevant of these factors for course redesign are
those they identify as intrapersonal in nature. Intrapersonal factors repre-
sent a number of characteristics that relate to the knowledge, attitudes, and
beliefs learners bring to online learning (Eddy et al., 2001).
Design Considerations 29
Students’ attitudes toward learning have been conceptualized in a vari-

ety of ways and tied to outcomes from satisfaction to learning orientation.
For instance, John T. E. Richardson of The Open University in the United
Kingdom conducted a series of studies (with and without co-authors) and
found that intrapersonal variables such as age, gender, and prior qualifica-
tions (performance on qualifying exams) all influence, student perceptions
of the learning environment and their approach to learning (Richardson,
2006). Other factors previously found to be influential on student satis-
faction and performance are personality, skill/knowledge competency,

and expectations for online learning. These factors have been studied in
a variety of ways but rarely in isolation. Confounding effects plague many
studies, which is why we present them as considerations rather than
prescriptions for redesign.
Demographics
Studies have found demographics such as age and ethnicity play a role in
student engagement in the learning process. For instance, DiBiase and
Kidwai (2010) found older adult students were more independent in their
learning, even through technology. Jost, Rude-Parker, and Githens (2012)
recently found that age and ethnicity were predictors of performance
among students enrolled in two-year colleges in Kentucky. However, those
differences disappeared as predictors when controlling for past perfor-
mance. Grade Point Average (GPA) became the only predictor of final
course grade.
In a study conducted at Open University in the United Kingdom,
Richardson (2012) found that ethnic minority students (identified as black,
Asian, and Chinese) were less likely to successfully complete courses than
their white counterparts. These findings held true regardless of age, gender,
socioeconomics, or prior school performance.
There are many potential explanations for findings such as these.
Previous research has suggested that older students come to the class-
room with an increased sense of why they are there and how the educational
experience applies to their lives (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005;
Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006). Links between ethnicity
and performance have been explained as resulting from differences in cul-
tural expectations and fit (Ogbu, 2003). Gender differences have been found
to strongly influence perceptions of instructional technology (Parker,
Bianchi, & Cheah, 2008).
A meta-analysis conducted by Severiens and ten Dam (1994) suggested

gender differences might actually be due to learning styles, which they
found varied by gender. Males were more likely to prefer an abstract learn-
ing style; females were more likely to prefer a more concrete learning
style. These learning styles came out of the work of David Kolb (1981)
who describes concrete learning styles as exhibiting a preference for practi-
cal application and abstract learning styles as preferring more abstract
conceptualization. Learning style can play out in preferences for course
structure and technology use. For instance, Hoskins and van Hoof (2005)
found increased course Internet use among males. Heffner and Cohen
(2005) found increased course use of WebCT (a learning management sys-
tem) by females. The emergent nature of the Internet would fit with the
goals of someone with an abstract style, looking for several possible expla-
nations. The more structured nature of WebCT would better enable
application.
Caution should be used in considering demographic differences among
learners; findings are associative rather than causal. For instance, race has
not been causally linked to lower performance. Rather, commonly associated
circumstances such as socioeconomic status or urban/rural upbringing, will
affect the way learners understand examples or react to course redesign.
Past Performance
Differences among learners in past performance have been found to influ-

ence learner preferences about course structure and technology use. In a
study of 3,145 undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university in
the United States, cumulative GPA was found to influence learner percep-
tions of how helpful classroom technologies such as PowerPoint and Web
CT were. Actual GPA data was used in conjunction with scale measures of
learners’ perceptions about the technologies. The higher the GPA, the less
helpful the classroom technologies were perceived to be, when all other fac-
tors were held constant (Parker et al., 2008). GPA has also been found to
be predictive of success and persistence in online courses (Levy, 2004;
Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). As with demographics, we urge caution
when considering past performance data. Lower GPA would not preclude
students from persisting and succeeding in online courses, a different
approach may be warranted. For instance, DiBiase and Kidwai (2010) sug-
gest instructors need to be more proactive in stimulating participation
among some students and develop a means to explicitly evaluate tacit

learning from online discussions to further support learning.
Personality and Learning Style
The influence of personality and learning style in online environments are

additional intrapersonal factors to consider. In a study examining personal-
ity and preferences for online vs. face-to-face classes, students scored as
introverts on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator preferred online classes; stu-
dents scored as extroverts preferred face-to-face classes (Harrington &
Loffredo, 2010). Open-ended response items provided insights into why
each personality type preferred their chosen teaching mode. Introverts
reported liking the convenience of online classes along with expressing
enjoyment in computer technology, a desire for innovation, and time for
reflection. Extroverts reported that the structure of a face-to-face class
allowed them to learn by listening, which they favored. They also reported
that face-to-face classes allow them to better gauge the emotional reactions
of others, which was important to them.
As with demographic characteristics, the results above are not causal
and they aren’t always consistent. In a study examining Facebook behavior
and personality, results indicated that offline personality is extended by
online behaviors (Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011).
Students scoring high on extraversion on the Big-5 personality test were
found to post more frequently on Facebook, to comment more on others’
statuses and pictures, and to post more content on their own profile.
Although this study did not examine learning, the findings are similar to
those of Blau and Barak (2012) who found extroverted students preferred a
richer, synchronous medium for discussion and more introverted students
preferred leaner mediums such as text chat.
Taken together, personality research suggests you should look for oppor-
tunities to better engage extroverts online, giving them more opportunity
for synchronous interaction so they can learn by listening and better experi-
ence the emotional reactions of others. But it needs to be done in such a way
that it maintains the characteristics valued by introverts such as convenience
and time for reflection. Considerations such as these will inform decisions
about instructional methods as well as choices related to interaction and
media. One final set of intrapersonal considerations we will explore relate to
student motivation and expectations of learning online.
Expectations of Online Learning
Students bring experience and expectations into the online classroom. For
instance, many students take online classes thinking they’ll be easier (Nash,
2005). Others believe they will take less time (Pierrakeas, Xenos,
Panagiotakopoulos, & Vergidis, 2004). Misconceptions such as these are
reflected in the disproportionately high rate of attrition in online classes.
Recent studies report dropout rates as high as 50% for online learners
(Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Nichols & Levy, 2009). In light of recent reports
that the dropout rate for online classes is 15 20% higher on average than
for face-to-face classes, researchers at Kennesaw State University in
Georgia, United States, set out to explore why. One of their findings was
student expectations didn’t match course realities; learners thought the
online class would be easier. Traditional course-retention strategies such as
emails and phone calls from the instructor had no effect on retention rates,
which were just 70%; the retention rates were 69% in the control group
(Leeds et al., 2013).
Motivation also shapes learner expectations. A study of 103 students
enrolled in a yearlong occupational training program used a pretest/posttest
design to measure student expectations and their motivation to learn for
each course before it began. Afterward, they measured their reactions and
actual learning. Sitzmann, Brown, Ely, Kraiger, and Wisher (2009) found
course expectations strongly predicted motivation to learn; motivation to
learn positively influenced trainee reactions to the course, and trainee reac-
tion predicted expectations for future courses. The results indicate a need to
attend to learner motivation, specific to our course content and design. The
better job we do in planning our redesign, the more effectively we can set
(or reset) learner expectations while encouraging motivation to learn.
Richardson suggests that the students’ learner type will make a differ-
ence in his/her expectations and reactions. They found differences in stu-
dent perceptions of a course based upon whether they were meaning-
oriented or reproduction-oriented. Meaning-oriented learners seek to fully
understand the content; sometimes referred to as deep level learning.
Reproduction-oriented learners are the equivalent of surface learners, seek-
ing mainly to memorize for assessment rather than understanding (Lawless
& Richardson, 2002; Richardson, 2003). Richardson (2005) explored stu-
dents’ perceptions of the learning environment using the Course Experience
Questionnaire. Integrating his results with data from two previous studies,
Richardson (2006) concluded that students’ overall satisfaction with a
course is higher when they perceive course assessment and workload to be
appropriate, goals and standards to be clear, course materials to be inter-

esting, and skills required to enhance their overall confidence in their
performance.
Together, the previous findings suggest the need to identify student
expectations and reset them if necessary. To set expectations, first articulate
clear learning objectives so that students can determine the fit between their
learning needs and the course. Expectations will also extend to instructional
methods used to reach the objectives and (hopefully) make the course inter-
esting and engaging. In the next section we work on the first element of
DeSIGN,1 determining the course objectives.
DETERMINE OBJECTIVES
A centerpiece of good design is creating strong learning objectives that state

specifically what students will be able to do as a result of taking the course.
Online teaching and learning is a natural environment for learning by
doing. In a learn-by-doing environment, it is important to write course
objectives in terms of behaviors. In other words, objectives should be writ-
ten so they describe what the learners will be able to do after completing
the course of study. This is true whether your goals are declarative or
procedural in nature; procedural goals are more obviously action-oriented,
but declarative objectives can be written so they too are behavioral.2
Ultimately, objectives should paint a picture of how students will be chan-
ged as a result of their learning experience.
Strong learning objectives set up goals for what learners will be able
to do, and they also indicate how well they should be able to do it. The
objectives will strongly influence all of your course redesign decisions.
Setting your objectives is perhaps the most crucial decision you’ll make in
the overall process.
Characteristics of Strong Learning Objectives
Strong learning objectives have four characteristics. They are: (1) observa-
ble, (2) measurable, (3) attainable, and (4) specific (Arnold & McClure,
1995; Parker, 2005). It takes clear thinking, discipline and some practice to
master this skill. We begin with an example and then some practice in
recognizing the characteristics.
Unpacking the Four Characteristics Using an Example
Example
Learners will demonstrate their knowledge of eight theories of motivation by listing
their elements with 80% accuracy and applying all of the elements of a single theory to
devise methods to improve employee morale and productivity in a given situation.
Make Outcomes Observable

The first characteristic of strong objectives is that they are written so they
result in a behavior, which is observable. Even objectives for survey courses
with goals to increase declarative knowledge can be phrased in terms of
behaviors. To be observable, you should be able to see your learners per-
form the action or see the tangible results of their having performed it. In
the example, we want learners to know the elements of eight theories, but
you can’t see “know.” By phrasing the objective as a behavior, listing the
elements, their knowledge becomes observable. Learners produce lists of
elements, an action that is indicative of their increased knowledge of the
theories.
In the example, one of the observable results will be the list of theory
elements, but there are also other parts that are observable. For instance,
the results of learners’ application of the elements of one theory to a situa-
tion will be visible through the method they devise for improving employee
morale. There is no need to know exactly how learners will accomplish
this yet (i.e., via case study analysis or labeling elements in a scenario).
Those decisions will be made later when we choose our instructional
methods.
Making objectives observable can be challenging. It requires distilling all
of the information learners should know to arrive at a limited set of con-
cisely phrased learning objectives. The process, while initially demanding,
eases future decisions. Instructional method flows naturally from beha-
vioral objectives.
Make Outcomes Measurable

The second characteristic of strong objectives is they are measurable. As
part of objective setting, we need to indicate how much or how well lear-
ners will perform the outcome behaviors. By presetting standards, we bring
into clearer view what it is we want students to be able to “do” at the end
of our course. Consider your target audience and the skills they will likely
bring to the learning environment; consider where they need to be at the
end to meet the needs of future courses or job requirements. Set standards
high enough to make the objective challenging, but not so high as to make
them unachievable for students.3
Standards have strong implications for how assessment of learning will
be carried out. For example, accuracy in reciting elements of a theory
would easily lend itself to a standard examination or perhaps a verbal pre-
sentation. Application would lend itself well to case study or a consultative
project. How the measurement will happen will be partly a function of
instructional method and partly a function of decisions made during the
evaluation phase of course redesign, which we examine in Chapter six.
Make Outcomes Attainable

The third characteristic of strong objectives is they must be attainable. This
is partly about the standards of performance by which outcomes will be
measured, but it’s also about time and resources. Most learners must be
able to achieve the objective given the starting state of their skills and
knowledge, in consideration of the time and other resources that are avail-
able to support accomplishment of the objective. In our example, it would
be unlikely that learners would have enough time to learn the procedural
elements of the theories in order to apply them if the class only met for
three weeks. Learners could probably list the elements of a subset of the-
ories and perhaps recognize their application. It is important to be realistic
about what can be achieved in light of the circumstances.
Make Outcomes Specific

The final characteristic of strong objectives is that they are specific. This
ensures you know precisely what you want learners to be able to do at the
end of the course. In the example, we added specificity by including the
numbers of theories to be covered. This also enhances the measurability of
our goal and will help in making content decisions.
Recognizing the Four Characteristics of Strong Learning Objectives
Writing strong objectives takes practice and revision. Table 3.1 depicts four
revised versions of the example objective. Note how more detail is added to
the objective until it achieves the clarity and strength needed to shape
future decisions. The presence of each characteristic is indicated with an X
for all versions of the objective. If the characteristic is missing it is marked
with a dash; if it is unclear it is marked with a question mark.
Table 3.1. Revising Learning Objectives for Strength and Clarity.

Objective O M A S Explanation
Learners will demonstrate X ? Observable because we can

their knowledge of theories observe a student listing
of motivation through (either verbally or in
listing their elements and writing). Not measurable
applying them accurately because we need a means
to devise methods to by which to determine how
improve employee morale well or how much. More

and productivity. detail is needed to
determine attainability and
specificity.
Learners will demonstrate X X ? ? Measurable in that we know
their knowledge of theories students need to be 80%
of motivation through accurate in listing the
listing their elements with elements of the theories.
80% accuracy and More specificity is still
applying each of the needed; this goal may be
elements of the theory to unattainable within a
devise methods to improve 15-week semester.
employee morale and
productivity.
Learners will demonstrate their X X X X Specific in that the focus is

knowledge of eight theories on eight theories for
of motivation by listing recitation and one for
their elements with 80% application.
accuracy and applying all of
the elements of a single
theory to devise methods to
improve employee morale
and productivity in a given
situation.
O Observable; M Measurable; A Attainable; S Specific.
Target Audience Reflected in Objectives and Metaphor Choice
Objectives are clearly informed by knowledge of your target audience.

For instance, if learners lack previous experience with the content, you
might limit objectives to lower order skills such as knowledge, comprehen-
sion, and application and sequence-learning activities to move students
from declarative to more procedural outcomes (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
Hill, & Krathwohol, 1956). As learners become more advanced in their
program of study, your objectives might involve analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation only.
Knowledge of your target audience likely influenced your choice of
metaphor, whether consciously or unconsciously. An instructor choosing a
playground metaphor likely sees learners as needing to play with ideas and
the role of the professor as arranging the environment to encourage expo-
sure, but not necessarily mastery. Each topic would likely be organized as a
discrete experience with learners moving through them like stations on a
playground.
An instructor choosing a weaving metaphor likely sees learners as
ready to make connections between topics, integrating them into more
advanced actions such as problem solving and decision-making. A weaving
metaphor fits with a view of the instructor’s role as facilitator of connec-
tions between learner and content and learner and course peers.
Discussions and group work are common methods used to facilitate such
connections. In the next section, we investigate how learning objectives
inform selection of instructional methods and make some preliminary
decisions.
PLAN INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS
The process of choosing your instructional methods is creative and (hope-

fully) fun. Inspired by your metaphor and your view of your students’
needs, break out of old patterns of instruction; dare to try new things. In
the section ahead, we’ll use a structured process for making choices about
basic instructional methods. In Chapters 4 and 5 we plan the implementa-
tion of these methods using technology to enable and facilitate them in
online learning. Decisions are iterative, however. Those made at each phase
may suggest revisions to previous decisions.
There are four essential decisions involved in identifying instructional
methods that directly support achievement of learning objectives. They
include: (1) decisions about the information our learners need, (2) decisions
about which skills they will need to be shown, (3) decisions about how to
help them practice those skills, and (4) decisions about how to ensure the
learning will stay with them beyond the class. To help structure decisions in
the design process, we rephrase them to spell the acronym DeSIGN: (De)
Determine objectives, (S) Share information (I) Illustrate skills (G) Guide
practice (N) Nurture progress (Parker, 2005).
Next, we investigate each of the four essential decisions along with

potential instructional methods to use in carrying them out. To illustrate
this process, we revisit our example objective to identify aspects to be
addressed by our methods. Table 3.2 reminds us of the objective and
synthesizes the process by highlighting aspects of the objective, identifying
the set of DeSIGN decisions that are most relevant, and listing representa-
tive instructional methods to be used in implementing them. We’ll walk
through this process, describing each of the decisions and how they fit with
Table 3.2. Plan Instructional Methods from Course Objectives.

Objective
Learners will demonstrate their knowledge of eight theories of motivation by listing their elements
with 80% accuracy and applying all of the elements of a single theory to devise methods to
improve employee morale and productivity in a given situation.
Element comprising the objective DeSIGN stage Potential methods
Learners will list the elements of (1) Share (1) Reading; lecture; video
eight theories of motivation information (2) Flash cards; jeopardy
(2) Guide practice (3) Quiz/exam
(3) Nurture progress
Learners will apply all of the (1) Illustrate skills (1) Demonstration using theory
elements of a single theory to a (2) Guide practice checklists
given situation (3) Nurture progress (2) Observation journals to gather
situations for analysis; group
mini case applications
(3) In-class sharing of journals/
group applications; structured
feedback
Learners will devise methods to (1) Share (1) Lecturette on methods and
improve employee morale and information outcomes tied to theories;
productivity in a given situation (2) Illustrate skills reading of relevant case
informed by theory. (3) Guide practice examples
(4) Nurture progress (2) Demonstration of devising
methods informed by theory
(3) Extension of group mini-cases
from previous element to
include methods
(4) Larger case study application
project (paper/presentation);
application exam.
the objective and methods. We begin by unpacking the objective to identify

information that will need to be shared with learners.
Share Information
Learners will need some information in order to ultimately perform the

behaviors set out in the objectives. In our example objective, students

will need information about the eight theories in order to recite their ele-
ments and later apply them. There are many methods by which instruc-
tors share information, but the classics are to assign readings and/or
lecture. Instructors might also facilitate information sharing by assign-
ing students to conduct primary and secondary research and share it
with their peers through presentations, discussions, or jigsaw learning
(Aronson, 2013).
Any, and all of the methods above, can be adapted to online learning
environments, but decisions about how will come in later phases of the
redesign process. For now, just decide what type of information needs to
be shared and the best method through which to do so. For instance, you
can “tell them,” “refer them,” or “entice them.” Telling them may equate
to a video lecture, while referring them might be giving them a reading
assignment. Enticing them could be a scavenger hunt or other activity
through which learners uncover the information. Later decisions, made
during the interaction and media phases of redesign, will further refine
decisions about how instructional methods will be implemented. Next we
revisit the example objective to identify the skills learners will need demon-
strated so they can perform them.
Illustrate Skills
Many of us learn behaviors best when they are modeled for us. To behave
in the ways set out by the course objectives, learners will need critical skills
illustrated for them. In our example objective, learners will need to see how
the elements of theories should be applied to situations so they can devise
interventions. Skills are typically illustrated through demonstration. The
instructor can direct learners through the process of applying the elements
of a theory to arrive at a specific intervention using examples. This step will
likely come after students have been introduced to the theories through
whatever means chosen to share information. Skills can also be illustrated

through work samples, simulations, and role-plays.
As with information sharing, methods for illustrating skills can be
adapted for online learning; decisions about specific adaptations will be
made during the interaction and media phases of redesign. For now, we will
decide what skills need to be illustrated and the general methods through
which to show them. Next we’ll look at how to guide learners in practicing
the skills needed to accomplish course objectives.
Guide Practice
In order to actually perform the skills, learners will need to practice them.
In our example objective, there are three skills they will need to demon-
strate accurately. Learners will need to list (elements of theories), apply
(the elements of a single theory), and devise (methods of improvement).
Whenever possible, have learners apply skills to authentic tasks.
Authenticity is critical to developing their abilities to perform the skills in
contexts beyond the class. To help learners list elements, instructors might
consider methods that facilitate memorization such as flashcards, cross-
word puzzles, or the game Jeopardy (Benek-Rivera & Mathews, 2004). To
assist learners in applying the elements of theory, instructors could use
methods such as mini-case analysis, structured field observations, and buzz
groups (Svinicki & McKeachie, 2010). To aid in devising interventions to
improve employee motivation and productivity, learners will need to
synthesize and evaluate information. Instructional methods such as pro-
blem solving, critical incident technique, or simulations facilitate higher
order skills (Hermanowicz, 1961; Lee & Caffarella, 1994).
As with information sharing and illustration of skills, methods of guid-
ing practice can be adapted to online learning, which we investigate during
the interaction and media phases of redesign. Next we explore ways to nur-
ture progress, determining how well learners have achieved the objective
and facilitating future application of skills outside of the classroom.
Nurture Progress
The final set of decisions in the DeSIGN process focus on skill assessment
and encouraging future application of skills in post-requisite courses or on
the job. To nurture progress, we will consider evaluative methods as well as
methods that will aid in generalization of skills from this course to other
contexts. Methods should allow instructors to determine whether students
can perform the skills they’ve practiced at the levels of performance speci-
fied in the objective. Using our example objective, the goal was for learners
to list elements of eight theories with 80% accuracy, to correctly apply the
elements of a single theory to a given situation, and based on the resulting
analysis devise methods that would predictably improve employee morale
and productivity. The presumption being, if students can do this with one
theory, they can learn to do it with the others.

In order to check on mastery of the elements of theory, instructors
would likely employ an evaluative method such as an objective examina-
tion and look for learners to earn 80% or better. If learners do not
achieve this score, remedial instruction could be implemented and the
exam administered again. To check on accuracy in application of a single
theory to a given situation, instructors could have learners share field
observations along with their theoretical analyses of them in groups or as
a formal presentation. Learners could use peer and instructor feedback to
refine their analyses. To assess the likelihood the interventions devised
would improve employee motivation and productivity, instructors could
rely on a larger case-study project, branching simulation, or application
questions on an examination (Gordon, 2004). Decisions about nurturing
progress will influence interaction and media choices as well as having
strong implications for evaluation. In Chapter 6, we further investigate
evaluation of learning as well as issues of evaluation unique to online
environments.
CONCLUSION
There are a number of key considerations related to instructional design

involved in the course redesign process. Many of these decisions are part of
good instructional design, regardless of the delivery mode. We advocate for
making design decisions in advance of any related to technology; media
choices should wait until after you know what you wish to use them to
accomplish.
We begin the DeSIGN process after selecting our course metaphor. We
analyze the learning needs of our target audience. Reflectively, we set
course objectives that are observable, measurable, attainable, and specific.
We ensure the objectives fit with our metaphor as well as our target
audience. We also look to our larger program of study to determine fit

with skills coming from prerequisite courses or to be developed for post-
requisite courses. Determining our learning objectives is the most crucial
step in the process. Unclear objectives will lead to fuzzy rationale surround-
ing selection of instructional method, which impacts later decisions related
to interaction, media, and evaluation.
This chapter focused on design, the first of four-course redesign phases
featured in the DIME model. Building upon the decisions made here, we
turn our attention to considerations related to interaction. Specifically, we

explore learner interactions with content, with the instructor, and with
peers. We investigate the ways each type of interaction affects the learning
experience and influences the course redesign process.
NOTES
1. DeSIGN is an instructional design process previously developed by the author
that structures the setting of objectives and the selection of instructional methods.
2. Declarative goals relate to mastery of terms and content knowledge.
Procedural goals relate to application.
3. Locke’s goal setting theory proposes increased motivation when goals are chal-
lenging but achievable (Locke & Latham, 2006).
REFERENCES
Aragon, S. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and non completion
of community college online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3),
146 158.
Arnold, W. E., & McClure, L. (1995). Communication training and development (2nd ed.).
Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Aronson, E. (2013). The jigsaw classroom. Retrieved from http://www.jigsaw.org. Accessed on
February 25, 2013.
Benek-Rivera, J., & Mathews, V. E. (2004). Active learning with jeopardy: Students ask the
questions. Journal of Management Education, 28, 104 118.
Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2012). How do personality, synchronous media, and discussion topic
affect participation? Technology & Society, 15(2), 12 24.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohol, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman-Green.
DiBiase, D., & Kidwai, K. (2010). Wasted on the young? Comparing performance and
attitudes of younger and older US adults in an online class on geographic information.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 299 326.
Eddy, J. M., Donahue, R. E., & Chaney, J. D. (2001). A contextual relative approach to
designing a master’s program in health education using distance education technologies.
The International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 4, 377 384.
Gordon, A. S. (2004). Authoring branching storylines for training applications. In
Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.) Proceedings
of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences, (230 237). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011).
Manifestations of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related
behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(9), 483 488.

Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate
to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 13,
89 95.
Heffner, M., & Cohen, S. H. (2005). Evaluating student use of web-based course material.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 74 81.
Hermanowicz, H. J. (1961). A critical look at: Problem solving as teaching method.
Educational Leadership, 18, 299 306.
Hoskins, S., & van Hoof, J. (2005). Motivation and ability: Which students use on-line learn-
ing and what influence does it have on their achievement? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36(2), 177 192.
Jost, B., Rude-Parker, C., & Githens, R. P. (2012). Academic performance, age, gender, and
ethnicity in online courses delivered by two year colleges. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 36, 656 669.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.),
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.),
The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and society
(pp. 232 255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawless, C. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of aca-
demic quality in distance education. Higher Education, 44, 257 282.
Lee, P., & Caffarella, R. S. (1994). Methods and techniques for engaging learners in
experiential learning activities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 62,
43 54.
Leeds, E., Campbell, S., Baker, H., Ali, R., Brawley, D., & Crisp, J. (2013). The impact of
student retention strategies: An empirical study. International Journal of Management in
Education, 7(1 2), 22 43.
Levy, Y. (2004). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers &
Education, 48, 185 204.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goals-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265 268.
Nash, R. D. (2005). Course completion rates among distance learners: Identifying possible
methods to improve retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(4).
Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter84/nash84.htm. Accessed
on January 24, 2013.
Nichols, A. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Empirical assessment of college student-athletes’ persistence
on e-learning courses: A case study of a U.S. National Association of Intercollegiate
Athletes (NAIA) institution. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 14 25.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disen-
gagement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. (2008). Exploring student and faculty perceptions of
technology in education. Education, Technology & Society, 11(2), 274 293.
Parker, R. E. (2005, January). Design made simple: Leadership training and development for
managers. Presentation to the annual alumni conference of Leadership Portage County,
Rootstown, OH.
Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years:
A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Pierrakeas, C., Xenos, M., Panagiotakopoulos, C., & Vergidis, D. (2004). A comparative study
of dropout rates and causes for two different distance education courses. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.
org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/183/804
Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a
short web-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 433 442.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to
studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 7 27.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2006). Investigating the relationship between variations in students’
perceptions of their academic environment and variations in study behavior in distance
education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 867 893.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2012). The attainment of white and ethnic minority students in distance
education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 393 408.
Severiens, S., & ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative
review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education, 27(4), 487 501.
Sitzmann, T., Brown, K., Ely, K., Kraiger, K., & Wisher, R.. (2009). A cyclical model of moti-
vational constructs in web-based courses. Military Psychology, 21, 534 551.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R.. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623 664.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2010). Teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for
college and university teachers (13th ed.), Boston, MA: Cengage.
Wojciechowski, A., & Palmer, L. B. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be
predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
8(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/summer82/wojciechowski82.
htm. Accessed on July 26, 2013.
CHAPTER 4
INTERACTION CONSIDERATIONS
ABSTRACT
Learner-centered interactions determine the look and feel of online

courses, influencing the way learners experience them. In this chapter we
investigate considerations related to three types of interactions: lear-
ner content, learner instructor, and learner learner. Learners interact
with content through the course structure and layout. They also interact
with peers who may be cast in the role of community members, there to
provide social support, or they may be more prominently cast as informa-
tion providers and/or collaborators. The learner is at the center of both
content and peer interactions. Instructor interactions set expectations for
learners and facilitate learner interactions with content and peers.
Instructors are instrumental forces in bringing about connections between
learners, enabling the social presence necessary for collaboration.
Instructor interaction may also be relational, enabling individualized con-
nections between learners and the instructor. Redesign decisions center
on creating a course structure that fits the learner and content and
results in a satisfying course experience. We use the power of metaphor
to bring into focus the most relevant considerations. In the end, we illus-
trate the redesign of a single course through the lens of three separate
metaphors to demonstrate how metaphor shapes the process, bringing
together design and interaction decisions to create unique and elegant
course designs.
Keywords: Course redesign; online interaction; online teaching and
learning; social presence; immediacy behaviors; online education.
45
INTRODUCTION
Now that we’ve made some initial decisions about our learning objectives
and instructional methods, we’re ready to attend to the next set of considera-
tions in course redesign, those related to interaction. We’re still not ready to
consider specific technologies; discipline is needed as we redesign our
courses. As previously described, the DIME model separates course redesign
into four prime areas of consideration: (1) design, (2) interaction, (3) media,
and (4) evaluation. This model structures the course redesign process by pro-
viding a framework for decision-making. We explore the elements of the
model separately in this volume, but they are interdependent and not com-
pletely distinct from one another. Therefore, decisions related to each phase
of course redesign are iterative and ongoing.
Decisions related to interaction will strongly influence the type of experi-
ence learners and instructors have within a course. For instance, in tradi-
tional classrooms, research has established a strong relationship between
student perceptions of learning and teacher immediacy behaviors (Witt,
Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). Teacher immediacy behaviors consist of nonver-
bal cues like maintaining eye contact, expressive gestures, standing near
students, and verbal cues such as affirming comments and self-disclosure.
These behaviors help motivate students to engage in course activities with a
number of positive outcomes such as increased student motivation to learn
(Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006).
Interactions that have the potential to increase motivation to learn
would be particularly helpful in required courses in higher education.
Required courses are classes students must enroll in, but often have no par-
ticular interest in taking. In this case, the intrinsic motivation associated
with interest in the subject would be absent, at least at the start (Leong,
2011). Past research suggests that teacher immediacy behaviors help stu-
dents feel connected in the classroom, which has been found to affect both
levels of satisfaction and rates of course completion, constructs closely
related to motivation (Leach & Zepke, 2010).
Once courses move online, immediacy behaviors become mediated. As
instructors, we lose access to the nonverbal cues that signal to us whether
students understand or are confused. Learners also miss out on the sponta-
neous and vicarious cues provided by other learners. To compensate for
these losses, interaction must be more carefully planned and provided for
in course redesign. Interaction becomes more instrumental when we move
courses online.
Interaction Considerations 47
In the remainder of the chapter, we explore the three types of learner-cen-

tered interactions important to course redesign: interaction with content,
interaction with instructor, and interaction with peers. We highlight the
essential role instructors play in facilitating learner interactions with content
and peers; interaction, while learner-centered, is instructor driven. At the
end of the chapter, we revisit the power of the metaphor in shaping various
design and interaction decisions, bringing about a unified course concept.
TYPES OF LEARNER-CENTERED INTERACTIONS
Michael Moore first proposed the three types of interaction we explore.

Moore (1989) argued that in online classes learners interacted first and fore-
most with the content and then also with the instructor and other learners.
Briefly, interaction with content is the ability of learners to access, manipu-
late, synthesize, and communicate content information. Learner content
interaction involves redesign decisions related to the overall structure and
layout of a course. This includes decisions about navigation, consistency,
learning activities, and elements of learner control. It also includes decisions
about interaction timing, such as synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction
(Janicki & Liegle, 2001; Swan, 2002).1
Interaction with instructor is the ability for learners to communicate
with, and receive feedback from, the instructor. Learner instructor inter-
action involves redesign decisions related to communicating expectations,
providing feedback, establishing social presence,2 and facilitating learner
engagement (Swan & Shih, 2005). This interaction is also relational in nat-
ure. It involves inter-subjective communication that can be maintained
even at a physical distance (Giuseppe & Galimberti, 1998). In other words,
learners and instructors are in an interpersonal relationship, the quality of
which is subject to the desires, perceptions, and actions of both parties.
Interaction with peers is the ability for learners to communicate with
each other about content and to create an active learning community. This
interaction may be relational, depending upon its quality and character.
Redesign decisions related to learner learner interaction will largely
depend upon the roles peers are cast in relative to the learning process.
Peers may play a central role, as they would in collaborative learning. Or,
they may be tangential, or completely absent, as they would be in a course
designed for independent learning such as computer-based training.
Whatever the role of peer learners, it should be explicitly defined and

communicated to students. Decisions made about the role will likely be
influenced by instructor views about the nature of learning, whether it is
mostly cognitive or social. Instructors who see learning as primarily a cog-
nitive pursuit will likely cast peers in a minor role. Those who see learning
as essentially a social endeavor will likely cast peers in a larger role. This
fundamental choice will then inform more specific redesign decisions about
facilitating social presence, participation, and using synchronous vs. asyn-
chronous interaction methods.

All three types of learner-centered interactions should be considered dur-
ing course redesign, as all three play a role in how learners experience
online courses. Swan (2002) examined students’ perceptions of learning
along with their levels of satisfaction in a study of 73 online courses. She
found three factors to be strongly related to both. They were: clarity and
consistency of course design, contact with and feedback from instructors,
and active and valued discussion. In other words, student perceptions of
learning and satisfaction were influenced by their interactions with the con-
tent, with the instructor, and with their peers. How important each type of
interaction will be to your course will vary based upon learning objectives
and instructional methods. We begin by examining each type of interaction
in more detail along with its most relevant redesign decisions.
Learner Interaction with Content
Decisions about the how learners should interact with course content will
be informed by the chosen learning objectives and instructional methods.
Moore (1989) suggested that it is learner content interaction that makes
the experience educational. In other words, Moore sees content as the dri-
ver of the learning process. As Moore further pointed out, “some learning
programs are solely content-interactive in nature” (p. 101).
In early distance education programs (i.e., correspondence courses), lear-
ners received materials, read and practiced with content, and then sub-
mitted an examination by mail. Today, massively open online classes
(commonly referred to as MOOCs), similarly privilege interaction with con-
tent. Learners enroll in the course and move through materials with little
or no required interaction with others. This structure may or may not be
appropriate for your course, given your content and your target audience.
As we’ve said before, there is not one best way to redesign a course.
Rather, the DIME model encourages reflection on the considerations, so

you can make the choices that best fit your situation.
Fitting Course Structure to Learner and Content

The layout and structure of your course determine the way information
will be organized and presented and how learning activities will be con-
ducted. These decisions may be retroactively affected by the capabilities of
a learning management system (LMS) that you choose, or may be required
to use, but for now we want to create a vision of how learners should
experience the course. Later, during the media phase of redesign, we will
find a means for the technology to enable that vision. Resist defaulting to a
layout developed around the number of topics to be covered or the number
of weeks in a course. These “bucket-models” are well supported by an
LMS, but they may not be the best way to engage your learners with your
content. To get learners actively interacting with content, create a course
layout that helps learners reach course goals. By way of example, we revisit
the course objective first introduced during the design phase.
Sample Objective
Learners will demonstrate their knowledge of eight theories of motivation by listing
their elements with 80% accuracy and applying all of the elements of a single theory to
devise methods to improve employee morale and productivity in a given situation.
To develop the course layout, we return to decisions made about the gen-
eral methods of instruction to be used in accomplishing the objective.
Specifically, we chose the information to share, the skills to illustrate, the
means by which to guide learners in practicing the skills, as well as how to
nurture their future progress (Parker, 2005).
To illustrate the intersection of design decisions with content interaction
decisions, we’ll focus on the information sharing aspect of the sample
objective: learners will demonstrate their knowledge of eight theories of moti-
vation by listing their elements. During the design phase, we decided to
share information about the elements of eight specific theories, which could
be accomplished through assigned course readings and/or lecture. Specific
technologies to use in the delivery will be made later, during the media
phase. First, we need to determine how learners will interact with the infor-
mation shared by creating a course layout that makes it easy for learners to
find the material and to navigate to other course elements.
There are a number of ways the course could be structured. One way is
to set the course up around the eight theories, each theory in its own
content bucket. This structure works well if learners won’t need to inte-
grate information across theories. Given the remainder of our objective
(applying a single theory to devise interventions), this could work.
However, there may be better ways to organize. Research has shown that
fewer, well-structured modules work better in terms of easing learner navi-
gation (Swan, 2002). Another way we could structure the course is by
organizing the theories into modules based upon the theoretical perspec-
tive each represents. The layout would group the “needs theories” in one
module, “behavioral modification” theories in another, and “experienced-

treatment” theories in a third. This structure would reduce the number of
modules from eight to three and enable deeper levels of learner engage-
ment with the material. By grouping theories together, learners could com-
pare and contrast perspectives, which may better inform the application of
theory.
There are still other ways to organize that could be explored.
Information about all of the theories could be located in one place with
course modules centering on learning activities, rather than information
shared. In one module, learners could engage in activities that result in
their ability to accurately list theory elements. In another, they could apply
various theories to scenarios to determine the motivational issues. In yet
another, they could devise methods for improving employee morale.
Whatever layout you choose, it should fit your content, your learners,
and your instructional style. As previously discussed, your views about that
fit are likely reflected in your chosen course metaphor. Later in the chapter
we look at more detailed examples of how metaphor, design, and interac-
tion decisions come together to create a unified course layout. First, we
consider some additional research that should inform learner content
interaction decisions.
Additional Content Structure Considerations

At the start of your course, learner content interactions will increase the
cognitive load of your students. In any class, there is a learning curve asso-
ciated with new content, but when you move your course online, your lear-
ners will also have to become familiar with the way the course operates.
And, they must do so without the benefit of the vicarious clues available in
traditional classrooms. In the beginning, learners must figure out where to
find things, how to participate in activities, and what is expected of them in
terms of participation, all while being introduced to new subjects.
Together, these tasks put a drag on learners’ ability to process information
and perform.
Learners will need time to let the course structure become second nature
before they are ready to truly engage with the subject. Research on multi-
tasking and the brain suggests we are only capable of multitasking if one of
those tasks is fully automatic (Doyle, 2011). For example, when we first learn
to drive, it is very difficult to drive and hold a conversation with a passenger.
Our cognitive energies are aimed at reading signs, obeying speed limits, and
estimating the impact of the actions of other drivers. With experience, these
activities become more automatic. Now we can drive and talk without
experiencing the stress of cognitive overload. Similarly, the navigation of a

course will not be automatic until it becomes familiar and predictable.
Simplicity and redundancy work best to facilitate student navigation
through online courses. Designing each of the modules with similar compo-
nents and clear instructions helps to make navigation an automatic task,
freeing learners’ cognitive energy for engaging with the content itself.
Research supports this approach. Sheridan, Kelly, and Bentz (2013), sur-
veyed 181 undergraduate students enrolled in online courses at two large,
Midwestern universities in the United States to find out what instructor
actions were most important to them. In the top 10 were: creates a course
that is easy to navigate, provides clear instructions on how to participate in
course learning activities, and clearly communicates important due dates and
time frames for learning activities.
One of the greatest opportunities in redesigning courses for online deliv-
ery is the chance to rethink the interactions learners will have with content.
The redesign process can enable content interactions not previously consid-
ered. For example, students could move through the course at different
speeds or complete different assignments based upon their individual learn-
ing needs. Content interactions might also be the product of learners’ own
choices (learner control) or they might be dictated by learners’ performance
(i.e., machine scoring that leads to a set of personalized learning activities).
Decisions related to all three types of learner-centered interactions affect
the way learners experience the course, perhaps more than any other set of
considerations. It is through interaction, whether with content, instructor,
or peers that teaching and learning come to life. Next we explore considera-
tions related to learner instructor interaction.
Learner Interaction with Instructor
If interaction with content is the defining characteristic of education, as

Moore (1989) suggested, it is learner instructor interactions that are
essential to the art of teaching. Decisions about instructor interaction will

have consequences for the way both learners and instructors experience a
course. However, instructor and student views of an experience do not
always align. In a study of 485 instructors and 3,145 students at a large
Midwestern university in the United States, students and instructors had
varied perceptions about the effects of classroom technologies on learner
connections with the instructor and peers. They also varied in their views
of the effects technology use had on student behaviors such as class atten-
dance and discussion participation (Parker, Bianchi, & Cheah, 2008).

Instructors believed classroom technologies enhanced learner instructor
and learner learner relationships more than students did. Students
believed the technology encouraged their attendance, participation, and
concept memory more than instructors did.
Perceptions often differ from reality, but they represent the way indivi-
duals experience and interact with their world. Left on their own, learners
may interpret the meaning behind learning activities to be different than
the instructor envisioned. Learner instructor interactions are those that
help facilitate the learning experience as it was intended.
Online interactions may be learner-centered, but they are instructor dri-
ven. Learners need guidance from the instructor about how to interact with
content, with peers, and with the instructor. Even if interaction doesn’t
involve direct access to the instructor or peers, instructors need to set those
expectations. Without learner instructor interaction, the teaching aspects
of online teaching and learning are absent.
Instructor interactions can be organized into three prime categories:
administrative interactions, facilitative interactions, and relational interac-
tions. Administrative interactions help set expectations for participating in
the course, facilitative interactions support learner interactions with content
and with other learners, relational interactions focus on communication
that results in a mutually satisfying interpersonal relationship between lear-
ner and instructor.
Administrative Interactions
In online courses, we set expectations similar to those set in a traditional
face-to-face class. For instance, it is common practice for instructors to set
expectations about assignments such as due dates and performance stan-
dards. These types of expectations are often included in course syllabi
where they are explicitly expressed. Other expectations are shared less
overtly in face-to-face classes. For instance, indications about whether it is
considered rude to speak out in class, as well as rules for taking turns
speaking, are implicitly set through instructors’ regulating classroom dis-

cussions using eye contact and gestures. The physical setup of the learning
space also provides clues about expected behaviors.
When courses move online, however, we lose many of the nonverbal
and vicarious cues used to regulate learner behavior. This creates uncer-
tainty that can lead to improper behaviors. Behavioral and performance
expectations need to be overtly set to ensure learners know what to do.
For instance, if instructors expect learners to participate in discussions,
they will need to not only tell learners how to participate (i.e., post to the
discussion board), but they will need to indicate that it is an important
behavior by monitoring it and providing learners with feedback about
it. Grading rubrics that delineate between levels of performance are useful
in communicating these types of expectations in a way that learners
understand.
Another set of expectations that should be made explicit to learners is
the availability of the instructor. Precise descriptions of when and how to
interact with the instructor, in terms of communication channels to use,
amount of time to wait for a response, as well as the types of information
the instructor will and will not provide, help to reduce learner uncertainty.
Students seem to be able to deal with whatever the schedules are, so long
as they know what to expect. This has held true in my own experience and
in the experiences of other instructors whom I’ve encountered. For
instance, during a panel discussion at the Association for Writing &
Writing Programs conference held in Boston, Massachusetts, novelist and
online creative writing instructor, A. J. Verdelle, spoke directly to this
point. She tells students to send her a note anytime, but to expect a
response during her next scheduled office time. So if her office hours3 are
on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and a student sends a
note on Friday, they should expect to receive a response the following
Tuesday (personal communication, August 3, 2013).
In my own experience, setting expectations for how available I will be
electronically has also enabled my students to set parameters for their own
participation. I generally do not log into the course on weekends. My stu-
dents know that they should contact me by 5 p.m. on Friday if they need
my help on work they plan to do over the weekend. If they email on
Saturday, they know I’ll respond on Monday morning. They also know I
will not post additional material or request responses from them over week-
ends, freeing them to be offline as well.
Setting explicit expectations helps both learners and instructors better
manage their time and better meet one another’s expectations. Next we
turn to the facilitative interactions that instructors must engage in to bring

about the planned course experience.
Facilitative Interactions
Facilitative interactions are learner instructor interactions specifically
designed to bring about learner engagement. The interactions might con-
centrate on engaging learners with the content, engaging learners with each
other, or both. One way instructors facilitate content interaction is through
demonstrating the level of engagement they expect of students. Instructors

should model the expected frequency, timeliness, and character of interac-
tions, whether with content or with peers (Ruberg, Moore, & Taylor,
1996). Consider your vision for how interactions will take place in your
course. Do you envision students mostly interacting with you, the instruc-
tor? I call this the private lesson model. Alternately, you could have stu-
dents interact almost exclusively with content in a kind of correspondence
course model. Or, you could cast peers as key information resources, using
a constructivist inspired model like the community of inquiry. This model
assumes that learning is a social, collaborative process (Garrison, 2013).
Whatever the intended model, it should be specifically chosen, explicitly
articulated and demonstrated for your learners. If the instructor fails to
facilitate the desired interactions, learners are unlikely to arrive at them on
their own. For instance, in one of my first attempts to redesign a course for
online delivery, I had students submit preliminary ideas about an assign-
ment to a discussion board. My intent was to get the students “talking” to
each other about the assignment before undertaking it for themselves. This
was similar to a process I used in my face-to-face classes. I did not specifi-
cally set the expectation that learners were to respond to the submissions of
others; few students responded.
Instead of generating a class discussion as planned, conversations took
place primarily between individual students and me. Inadvertently, the
demonstrated activity became: a student posts, I respond. This created a
model for student learning that was different from what I had envisioned.
For the remainder of that class, learners turned only to me for information.
If students had questions about anything from assignment due dates to
effectiveness of revisions or to where to find course materials, they sent a
message to me and waited for an answer. Although this approach worked,
it didn’t work as intended and the burden of responding quickly became
overwhelming.
In retrospect, the root of the problem was in hoping that students would
build a relationship with each other to learn collaboratively, but failing to
facilitate the necessary learner learner interactions to accomplish it. If you

want students to interact with one another, you must facilitate it (Picciano,
1998). Begin by setting expectations for peer interaction and making it part
of class performance (Hawisher & Pemberton, 1997). If you’re going to
expect participation, you have to design for it and make it something stu-
dents are accountable for. It won’t just happen. Place value on discussion
by providing students with feedback (either through grades or other means)
about how well they are meeting class expectations.
Facilitating online discussions can be challenging. As I discovered, there

are times the instructor should wait to participate in the discussion. If you
weigh in too soon, you risk shutting down the class discussion. However, if
you wait too long to comment, learners may misinterpret your silence as
disinterest. Hosler and Arend (2013) compare instructor “wait time” in
face-to-face and online contexts. They suggest, in the classroom, an instruc-
tor should wait at least 3 seconds after asking a question to comment
further, even longer for higher order questions. In contrast, they say, online
wait time could be a matter of days. They suggest not weighing in on every
post or answering every question, because once the authority of the instruc-
tor speaks, the discussion ends. Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, and Tinker
(2000) suggest instructors should occasionally post general comments to
the whole class that reference specific student posts, summarize, and refo-
cus the discussion. According to Arend (2009) facilitation should be less
frequent in online classes, but more purposeful.
Instructors will also want to facilitate appropriate kinds of interactions
by establishing a safe environment in which differences of opinion can be
expressed. This will be particularly important if peer interactions are
important to the learning process. Weiss (2000) recommends explicitly
instructing students in the way they should approach peer interactions,
reminding them that there are real people on the receiving end of their mes-
sages. Unlike the face-to-face classroom, the instructor cannot shape and
direct interactions as they unfold. Interaction management needs to be
proactive and unambiguous.
If learner learner interactions are to play a key role in a course, peer
relationships will also need to be facilitated by the instructor. One
approach is to put elements in place to bring about social presence. Short,
Williams, and Christie (1976) defined this concept as the “psychological
closeness” enabled by a particular communication channel. More recent
definitions of social presence move learners to the center, recognizing that
their behavior, as much or more than the channel used, influences how
close they feel. For example, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999)
defined social presence as “the ability of participants to project themselves

socially and emotionally, as “real” people through the medium of commu-
nication being used” (p. 90).
Instructors also play a role in bringing about social presence. There are
things they can do to facilitate it. One simple way is to have students post a
brief personal history or profile for others to read, and to also post one of
your own (Aragon, 2003). To make this even more effective, create a class
activity that uses the contents of peer profiles. This should inspire learner
connections by revealing similarities in backgrounds and attitudes,

encouraging interaction and relationship building (Burleson, Samter, &
Lucchetti, 1992; Sunnafrank & Andersen, 1991). Aiding learners in project-
ing themselves to their peers, and then finding things they have in common
with others, stimulates feelings of social presence.
Another way to facilitate social presence, and learner learner interac-
tion by extension, is to model the tone and style of interactions indicative
of respect and interest. For instance, instructors may want to address lear-
ners by name, rather than writing to the class in general. Another way to
express social presence is to quote directly from the posts of individual lear-
ners, extending their ideas or asking questions. By modeling specificity in
posts, and using a supportive tone, instructors inspire learners to do the
same (Stacey, 2002; Vrasidas & McIssac, 2000). If learners do not use the
desired interaction style, instructors could overtly deconstruct their own
posts, pointing out the elements that should be emulated by learners. They
could also provide feedback to individual learners, off-line, about how they
might interact more effectively.
Instructors will also want to consider social presence when they make
media choices in the next phase of course redesign. One media feature that
seems to help in facilitating interaction between learners is being aware that
others are online at the same time. Called presence awareness, it involves a
means to indicate that individual learners are online and active in the
course space. A familiar technology that features presence awareness is
instant messaging (IM). Learners know whether a person is available to
chat by way of a status indicator. Studies have shown that students who
use IM are more likely to report that it was easier to communicate with
peers, and that they felt more like they were part of a learning community,
than those who did not use IM (Nicholson, 2002). Social media technolo-
gies such as Facebook have presence awareness, which users can turn on
and off at will. Some LMSs have presence awareness built in as well.
Before we can determine how important social presence will be in our
course, we need to determine the significance of peer learners to the
learning process. If they will play an important role, the instructor will
have to facilitate learner learner interaction. For now, put social presence
on the list of considerations. We will further investigate decisions about
peer interaction after exploring the final category of learner instructor
interactions: relational interactions.
Relational Interactions
In the previous section, we explored facilitative interactions. These are the

interactions most closely aligned with the concept of teaching presence.4
Teaching presence is learner-centered. It focuses on bringing about cogni-
tive and social presence in support of learner interaction with content and
peers. Teaching presence is necessary, but not sufficient, to bring about
interpersonal relationships between learners and instructors. In this section
we will consider relational interactions and highlight what distinguishes
them from facilitative interactions.
So far, we have considered our learners in the aggregate. The better we
get to know our learners (in general) the better we can design our courses
to meet their learning needs (on average). This is a practical approach to
the redesign process, especially for higher education courses that attract a
variety of learners. But, in order to build personal relationships with stu-
dents, a desired activity for many instructors, you have to get to know
them as individual people and they need to get to know you. Instructors
sometimes look at online environments as unable to support this type of
relationship building. Although it has been argued that mediating relation-
ships through technology affects their character and quality, authentic rela-
tionships are still quite possible (Parker, 2003). Fig. 4.1 depicts the various
online interactions differentiating facilitative from relational.
When it comes to content and peer interactions, the learner is placed at
the center. In the figure, the double-headed arrows between the learner and
the other course entities indicate that the learner is interacting directly with
content and peers, assuming peers play a role. Notice, however, that the
learner and instructor are placed parallel to each other.
As discussed in the previous section, instructors facilitate how learners
interact with content and peers. The oscillating arrows represent those facil-
itative interactions. These interactions are carried out through decisions
made about the design of the course, such as the learning objectives,
instructional methods, and course structure. Instructors also facilitate lear-
ner learner interactions through their decisions and behaviors. Providing a
means to bring about social presence, setting expectations, and modeling
Fig. 4.1. Nature of Online Learner Instructor Interactions.
desired behaviors all help bring about a sense of community within the
online class.
When we turn our attention away from facilitative interactions and
focus on relational interactions, suddenly, the learner is NOT at the center;
the instructor isn’t either. Instead, we see their relationship as reciprocal.
Relationships are co-created by the learner and instructor. Both parties
have input into deciding what kind of relationship they will have. The char-
acter and quality of each learner instructor relationship will be unique.
The learner and the instructor are both principal players in the interactions
that create the relationship. There are things both parties can do to build
it. As the instructor, it will be important for you to communicate a vision
for, and your openness to, an individual relationship with your students.
Learners will perceive your vision and openness via your course design
choices and through the behaviors you exhibit.
The perspective on relational communication depicted in Fig. 4.1 is
reminiscent of the views of American psychologist, Carl Rogers who first
proposed the person-centered approach. This approach suggests that in
professional contexts, although not to the exclusion of personal settings,
the relationship requires four elements to bring about growth: congruence,
empathy, positive regard, and the perception by both parties that the other
three are in place (Rogers, 1962).
Congruence speaks to the idea that both parties see one another as
authentic people. Attitudes and feelings expressed are perceived as real, not
superficial or as a professional façade. Empathy involves knowing enough
about the other party to understand how she or he sees the world. Positive
regard involves having a warm, accepting attitude toward the other party.
This helps others feel cared about (Rogers, 1962).
Immediacy behaviors help to communicate the presence of congruence,
empathy, and positive regard. They are also indicative of being open to a
personal relationship. Not all parties will be interested in individual rela-

tionships, but for instructors who are, engaging in communication imme-
diacy behaviors helps learners perceive that interest. Immediacy behaviors
include; smiles, nods, eye contact, gestures, and vocal variety, all of which
communicate caring, enthusiasm, and affirmation (Pitt, Wheeless, &
Allen, 2004). Actions such as giving praise, using humor, and sharing per-
sonal information are also considered an expression of immediacy
(Gorham, 1988).
It is possible to demonstrate immediacy behaviors online, but it will
require planning that is often not needed in face-to-face contexts. For
instance, past research suggests that synchronous course components afford
more immediacy than asynchronous communication alone (Pelowski,
Frissell, Cabral, & Yu, 2005). Proving ways for same-time interactions to
take place can communicate to learners that it is important to you to know
them. There are a variety of technologies available that enable synchronous
interaction. We will explore some of these during the media phase of
redesign.
Other ways to demonstrate immediacy online are by providing visual
cues that help signal expressiveness, helping your learners get to know you
(O’Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004). For example, providing audio and/or
video instructions and feedback can cultivate perceptions of immediacy,
assuming they communicate warmth, genuineness, and encouragement
(Cornelius-White, 2007). We can also communicate congruence, empathy,
and positive regard through the words we choose. Gorham’s (1988) verbal
immediacy scale includes behaviors such as recognizing individual learners
and encouraging their ideas and viewpoints, communicating your willing-
ness to engage in one-to-one interactions, and appearing more genuine
through humor and self-disclosure. With attention and planning, immedi-
acy can be accomplished in online contexts.
Ultimately, the learner instructor relationship will be co-created.
Relationships are reciprocal in nature; students are not passive participants.
Relational interactions between learners and instructors are not merely
facilitated by the instructor. The instructor crafts these interactions

along with each student, constructing their relationship together. Learners
interested in building a personal relationship with the instructor will
likely respond to instructor immediacy with immediacy behaviors of
their own.
A key redesign decision will be in electing the relative importance of the
learner instructor relationship. It may be a key element to which you
extend considerable effort and seek media to enable. Or, learner instructor
interactions may be cast in subordination to other types, privileging peer or

content interactions instead. As always, redesign decisions should be made
with the content, the learner, and the instructor in mind. Before we explore
how these decisions might play out in our redesign, we need to revisit the
idea of peer interactions and investigate the potential roles they play in the
learning process.
Learner Interaction with Other Learners
Online learning can feel isolating, a likely contributor to increased attrition

rates. In an exploratory study at a large Midwestern university in the
United States, we set out to examine student expectations of online courses.
Students were asked a series of questions about their expected experiences;
questions explored interactions with content, instructor, and peers. Of the
223 undergraduate students that responded, 37% indicated they would
avoid taking classes online due to a lack of interaction. More than 36% of
those responses specifically indicated concerns about not having access to
peers (Parker & Child, 2009). The learning community model has been
shown to facilitate interest and action in online courses (Palloff & Pratt,
1999). Learning communities will develop only if peers interact authenti-
cally with each other and relationships begin to develop. Instructors can
help to facilitate the process.
Not every course needs to have heavy peer interactions, though.
Learners may be cast primarily in the role of social support, information
resources, collaborative partners, or simply co-attendees. Whichever you
choose, you will want to develop a plan to facilitate the fulfillment of those
roles. Look back at your chosen metaphor; it likely reflects your thoughts
about the role peers will play within your course. There are considerations
associated with each of the peer roles. For the purpose of discussion, the
roles are organized into three nonexclusive categories that cast peers as:
community members, information resources, and/or collaborators.
Community Members
There are many good reasons to facilitate the building of a learning com-
munity within an online class. Constructivist theory posits that learning is a
social process, done best in community (Garrison, 2013; Palloff & Pratt,
2005). In a study of 294 undergraduates enrolled in online classes, Leong
(2011) found social presence, cognitive absorption, and interest to be pre-
dictors of student satisfaction with the online environment. Cognitive
absorption refers to strong engagement in a learning activity. In several stu-
dies, satisfaction has been found to predict student perceptions of learning

(see Eom & Wen, 2006; Swan, 2002).
Building a learning community can also help generate the desire to parti-
cipate. As previously suggested, this may be particularly important in higher
education where students are required to take courses in subjects outside of
their chosen major. Feeling a part of things can stimulate actions that may
stimulate interest, all of which predict student perceptions of learning and
overall satisfaction (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Swan, et al,
2000). In his research on interaction within online courses, Picciano (2002)
argues, “The term ‘community’ is related to presence and refers to a group
of individuals who belong to a social unit such as students in a class”
(p. 22). As previously discussed, instructor facilitation of social presence will
be essential to building a sense of community in online courses.
Instructor interactions, both administrative and facilitative, support
decisions to cast peers as community members. In the next section, we
examine how peers may be cast in a formal role as information providers.
This role may be added to that of community member, or may be assigned
independently. However, the community member role, along with the
learning community that accompanies it, may facilitate increased accep-
tance of peers as information resources.
Information Resources
Learners cast in the role of information resources will provide at least part
of the course content used by fellow learners. One value of the information
resource role is that it forces learners to think more deeply about concepts
and ideas in order to find or produce content that is useful to others
(Anderson, 2003). Frank Openheimer, American physicist and university
professor, seemed to know this intuitively when he uttered the often quoted
phrase, “the best way to learn is to teach.”5
Students that come to know enough about a subject to provide informa-
tion to others, demonstrate two key components of learning: interest and
effort. So, one thing to consider before casting students in this role is the
likely level of their interest in the subject. If the course is in students’ major
field of study, and they can see its value, they will be more likely to have
the interest needed to motivate effort. Without that effort, students may
provide information that is underdeveloped or incorrect, negating the
intended benefits of the interaction.
A popular means for students to share information in an online environ-
ment is through discussion, usually in some asynchronous format. One way
to facilitate meaningful participation is to require prework to guide their
efforts. Prework may be a reading or writing assignment that spurs their

thinking. A short questionnaire or quiz might help evaluate readiness to
participate. In this way, interaction with the instructor facilitates student
information contribution. Students must see each other as credible sources,
so prework and instructor validation help to encourage peer-to-peer infor-
mation sharing.
There are good reasons to use peers as information resources. Past stu-
dies have shown that students perform better on concept knowledge ques-
tions following discussion, even if none of the peers knew the answers at
the start of the discussion (Smith et al., 2009). To get the most out of con-
tent-related peer interactions, instructors will want to design activities to
ensure that both information seeking and sharing occur strategically. For
peers to act and be accepted as information resources, communication
needs to be intentional, conscious, and goal-directed. This supports collec-
tive production of knowledge. There may be times when you need to move
things beyond discussion to more deliberate action. In this case, peers can
serve effectively as collaborators, collectively producing both knowledge
and artifacts in support of course objectives.
Collaborators
Collaboration is more involved than the cooperative behavior of sharing
information. Collaboration means actually working together, integrating
individual efforts with others until the point where it is no longer obvious
which teammates did what work in support of learning goals (Parker &
Ingram, 2011).6 Collaborative learning requires information sharing and
knowledge generation, but it also requires task-oriented and social support
behaviors. If peers are cast as collaborators, they will also need to be cast
as information providers and community members. True collaboration
won’t just happen; instructors will need to facilitate and manage it, espe-
cially in an online course environment.
Teams perform best when they set shared goals, agree upon how they
will work toward them, and have a system in place for holding peers
accountable. Instructors can assist in these processes by having teams cre-

ate contracts, which articulate agreed upon behaviors, and enable peer
feedback through mechanisms such as Rate Your Mate (see Parker &
Coykendall, 2012). Contracts facilitate expectation setting; team norms
become explicit, reducing teammate uncertainty. Contracts set out agreed
upon processes such as time schedules for responding to messages from
teammates and where members should post new information.
There are a number of benefits to collaborative learning. It increases
diversity of understanding (Swing & Peterson, 1982) and increases critical

thinking (Webb, 1980) with learners working together to develop shared
understandings so they can produce results. It also promotes social support
behaviors and can make learning more enjoyable (Panitz, 1999). Personal
experience in using online teams has yielded benefits for a variety of stake-
holders. Learners built connections within the class that were maintained
afterward, providing academic support, professional opportunities, and
feelings of identity with the university.
Online learning teams have challenges associated with them, however.
Higher attrition rates in online classes translate to an increased chance that
teams will have to be reorganized due to loss of members. This is disruptive
to everyone’s learning process. Social loafing or free loading behaviors tend
to be exacerbated by the lack of proximity in virtual teams.7 It is much
easier to forget or ignore team responsibilities on teams that never come
together, especially if social presence is not established. Learners may
experience increased uncertainty due to lack of experience in working on a
virtual team, increasing cognitive load. Choosing to cast peers as collabora-
tors should be contingent upon the needs of your learners intersected with
the course content and your instructional style.
All three types of learner-centered interactions (with content, with
instructor, and with peers) will likely play a role in your online course; the
prominence and character of the various interactions will influence and be
influenced by previous redesign choices. We illustrate that process in the
next section framed by our course metaphor.
METAPHORICAL REFLECTIONS OF INTERACTION
The various considerations involved in redesigning courses for online deliv-

ery can seem overwhelming. When faced with too many choices, humans
tend to make poor decisions, become dissatisfied with decisions, or become
paralyzed and make no decisions at all (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000; Schwartz,
2004). This is the function of metaphor; it narrows our choices. Used as a

lens, it helps to filter out extraneous considerations and focus our attention
on the choices most important to our course vision. Metaphor is a lens
through which some choices are brought into clear focus, while others are
obscured. This is the power of perspective, making the choice of metaphor
your most critical redesign decision. Looking at your course through your
chosen metaphor, the relevant design and interaction choices will become
obvious.
In the following examples, you will see the same course approached
through three different metaphors, each yielding a different set of decisions
in terms of objectives, methods, and interactions that structure the
course. We will apply the metaphors to a higher education course in
Organizational Communications. We will organize the examples around
the elements of the first two redesign phases. After briefly presenting the
metaphor, we will provide a list of decisions related to design and interac-
tion in table format (see Tables 4.1 4.3). Within the text, we will highlight
how these decisions connect to the metaphor. As we’ve said many times
before, metaphor reflects views of how the content, instructor, and students
fit together, each creating a unique course redesign. We begin by looking at
the Organizational Communication course through the lens of a play-
ground metaphor. Afterward, we will look at the same course through the
metaphors of a baseball game and a symphony.8
Application of Playground Metaphor
The playground metaphor is well suited to survey style courses, where

students are exposed to unfamiliar information and introduced to
new skills. We begin our application by deconstructing the metaphor to
identify the component parts that will influence our design and interac-
tion decisions. To aid us in this pursuit, Fig. 4.2 depicts the layout of a
playground.
Brief Description of the Playground Metaphor

A playground features different sets of equipment on which children climb,
swing, and slide. The pieces of equipment are all separate from one
another. Children may run back and forth between the activities, but they
cannot play on more than one piece of equipment at a time. Children on
playgrounds love to experiment. Sometimes they play with other children,
but mostly they play next to them, swinging on the swings or climbing the
Fig. 4.2. Playground Metaphor.
monkey bars, independently, to see how high they can go. Adults monitor
the children at play, to keep them safe, but they only intervene when neces-
sary. This suits most children, who prefer to play autonomously. Given
that brief description, we use the playground metaphor to bring our rede-
sign considerations into focus.
Fitting the Playground Metaphor with DeSIGN Decisions

We start the process by making design decisions, just as we did in the pre-
vious chapter. Learning objectives and instructional methods fit with lear-
ners who are “playing” with new concepts; exposure rather than mastery
are implied by the metaphor. Course concepts function as the equipment
on a playground, each in its own module, independent of the others.
Learners are not expected to use more than one concept at a time (see
Table 4.1).
Learning Objective. When we set the learning objective in Table 4.1, we

limited expectations for learner performance based on the assumption that
learners would be new to the material; we envisioned learner experience
rather than mastery. We limited the scope of learners’ choices to message
content; all other decisions will be made for them.
Table 4.1. Course Redesign Using the Playground Metaphor.

DeSIGN stage
Objective Learners will gain experience in communicating with customers, managers, and
peers by creating messages designed to achieve an assigned purpose for a specific
audience using various formats and correct grammar.
Share (1) Display various message formats to familiarize learners (business letters,
memos, reports, email, brochures, newsletters)
(2) Describe rationale and process of audience analysis to prepare them to match
messages to the audience (demographics, size, status, perspectives on topic)

(3) Outline steps in the writing process to prepare them for creating messages
(organization, research, editing, revision, proofreading)
(4) Review of writing mechanics to help them use correct grammar (punctuation,
capitalization, spelling, bias-free language)
Illustrate (1) Explain effective use of each message format
(2) Demonstrate audience analysis
(3) Compare and contrast effective and ineffective messages
(4) Show common writing errors
Guide (1) Assign practice in writing mechanics
(2) Structure tasks related to the writing process (audience analysis task; research
task; outline message task; draft and revision task)
(3) Develop messages for submission
Nurture (1) Encourage self-assessment using rubrics
(2) Evaluate writing mechanics through auto-feedback mechanism
(3) Respond with performance feedback on submissions
Interaction stage
Content This type of interaction is most privileged under the playground metaphor.
Learners move independently through materials, as they would on a
playground. Course is laid out in holistic, self-contained modules that have
varied content to hold the attention of newer learners. Careful construction of
instructions, explanations, and work samples will be needed. Feedback
mechanisms are essential to meeting objectives.
Instructor This type of interaction is limited primarily to answering questions, providing
evaluative feedback, and monitoring student activity. More specifically,
interactions fall primarily in the categories of administrative and facilitative and
focus on learner content.
Learner This type of interaction could be nonexistent. Consider casting peers as social
support. If peers are used as information resources, limit the scope to activities
such as proofreading.
Share Information and Illustrate Skills. In order to achieve the objective,

we listed the information to share as part of instructional methods. The
learning modules are set up around the four sets of information identified,
similar to the layout of the playground. To get learners ready to perform
(creating messages), we identified skills to show our learners. These are

aligned with the four sets of information we plan to share. Therefore, the
skills will be added to the relevant learning module.
Guide Practice and Nurture Progress. To build skills, we need to make deci-
sions about how to get learners “doing.” Practice activities to accomplish
this end are listed in Table 4.1; learners need to practice the most challen-
ging skills. Modules should be relatively balanced in terms of complexity
and workload. Consider time and effort needed to perform each activity.
We also listed decisions made to assess student learning and support
further applications. Given the autonomy implied by the metaphor, we
encourage learner self-assessment using rubrics. The automated feedback
fits with both the content and learners. It is anticipated that the instructor
would monitor these processes and provide feedback as needed.
Fitting the Playground Metaphor with Interaction Decisions

The playground metaphor suggests learners will primarily interact with
content, just as children interact primarily with the equipment on a play-
ground. This further suggests a course structure of separate, content-speci-
fic learning modules and privileges learner content interactions. Table 4.1
describes how each of the three types of interaction might be used.
Learner instructor interaction will likely be primarily administrative
(expectation setting) and facilitative (of learner interaction with content).
Peer interaction is unlikely to play a role, unless as community members.
By viewing this course through the lens of the playground metaphor, we
reduced the number of considerations to a manageable number. Since the
metaphor strongly suggested a layout of independent subject-specific mod-
ules, our attention was focused on considerations related to learner con-
tent interaction. Next, we redesign this same course using the metaphor of
a baseball game.
Application of Baseball Metaphor
The baseball metaphor differs from the playground metaphor. It fits natu-
rally with skill development that requires drill and practice. It implies skill
improvement to achieve some level of mastery (good, better, best), as we
described in Chapter 2. Once again, we begin by identifying the component
parts of the metaphor that will influence design and interaction decisions.
Fig 4.3 depicts the layout of a baseball diamond.
Fig. 4.3. Baseball Metaphor.
Brief Description of the Baseball Metaphor

In applying the baseball metaphor, we cast learners in the role of batters.
Unlike the playground metaphor, which lends itself to discrete units of con-
tent, the baseball metaphor integrates skills/knowledge to complete a task
(a hit). The more advanced their skills, the farther learners will progress.
As we described when we previously explored the baseball metaphor, hits
can advance the runner to first base (a single), second base (a double), third
base (a triple), or around all four bases for a “home run.” Learners will be
more likely to get to first base early in the course, revising their work to
improve and advance to other bases. Later in the course, learners’ skills
would be enhanced, enabling doubles, triples, or even home runs for which
no revision would be needed.
Feedback is featured under this metaphor. In baseball it comes from the
performance itself and also from a batting coach. This perspective lends
itself to skill building and individualized learning. The best way for a lear-
ner to improve is at “batting practice” with someone coaching for improve-
ment. While the learner is part of a team (the class), batting is an
individualized skill. As in baseball, where a player’s batting average (total
hits per times at bat) and slugging percentage (total number of bases per
times at bat) greatly influence earning potential, the learner’s success in bat-
ting will influence course performance.9 Given that brief description, we
use the metaphor to once again bring redesign considerations into focus.
This time the decisions will be different, beginning with the learning objec-
tive and on through interaction choices (see Table 4.2).
Fitting the Baseball Metaphor with DeSIGN Decisions

Learning Objective. The objective, using the lens of a baseball game, differs
from the one informed by the playground metaphor. This time, we set
some expectations about performance level. Learners are to create effective
messages that will succeed in achieving the assigned purpose. Learners’
approach will be strategic, implying they will be building on some knowl-
edge they gained prior to the course.
Share Information and Illustrate Skills. The information to be shared is

identified and listed in Table 4.2. We see indications of skills learners
already possessed given plans to review and reinforce writing skills. The
information to be shared does not break out into subject related modules
as it did in the playground metaphor. Instead, the information is organized
in parts of a process: defining purpose and audience, and applying the best
format. Skills identified are more complex than those under the playground
metaphor. Learners are to practice applying information to stages in the
process of creating a strategic approach to preparing messages. Learning
modules will be organized around these processes, reminiscent of running
the bases.
Guide Practice and Nurture Progress. Practice activities speak to skills

improvement. Learners attempt messages, revise, and fill skill gaps with
practice materials. The more successful they are in practice, the more
advanced their performance. Expectations of improvement indicate the
need for coaching from the instructor. The methods for providing indivi-
dualized feedback are listed. Auto-feedback has been dropped in favor of
peer consultation, similar to players on a baseball team.
Fitting the Baseball Metaphor with Interaction Decisions

The baseball metaphor suggests learners will primarily interact with the
instructor, but could also benefit from consulting with peers. The
Instructor plays the role of the batting coach and facilitates learner interac-
tion with content. Peers, as members of a team, are cast as community
members or possibly information resources. Content interaction is still
Table 4.2. Course Redesign Using the Baseball Metaphor.

DeSIGN stage
Objective Learners will prepare effective messages to customers, managers, and peers using
the appropriate format, correct grammar, and a strategy that successfully
achieves the assigned purpose with the identified audience.
Share (1) Explain the need for a clearly defined purpose and apt identification of the
audience to achieve it
(2) Explain best application for various message formats
(3) Describe message elements and strategies for organizing

(4) Review writing style
(5) Reinforce need for good mechanics
Illustrate (1) Identify parts of a situational analysis, arriving at the identified purpose
(2) Outline key elements of audience identification and analysis
(3) Match formats to sample purposes/audiences
(4) Integrate purpose and audience to show how they collectively determine the
content and tone of the message
Guide (1) Assign scenarios that state a purpose that should be met. Students are to
identify the appropriate audience and construct messages to achieve the
assigned ends
(2) Compel revisions until message is deemed effective. Then learners move on to
the next scenario: good, better, best model
(3) Guide learners to practice materials to fill any identified skill gaps: situation,
audience, format, writing
Nurture (1) Assess messages and provide developmental and evaluative feedback
(2) Encourage learners to consult others for developmental feedback
Interaction stage
Content This type of interaction is important for new information and practice materials
designed to fill identified skill gaps. Integration of learning materials into
process-oriented modules demonstrates how skills come together in the
construction of effective messages. Learners work through the materials at their
own pace, drawing from those materials most relevant to their assignments and
instructor feedback.
Instructor This type of interaction is privileged under the baseball metaphor, as the instructor
provides coaching to allow learners to progress. Instructor primarily facilitates
learner interaction with content. Relational communication strongly influences
satisfaction of both learner and instructor. Administrative interaction, in terms
of expectation setting, also plays a role.
Learner This type of interaction is likely limited to casting peers in the role of community
members. The sports metaphor lends itself to seeing peers as social supporters
(cheerleaders). Peers play a role in providing developmental feedback. The base
running model lends itself well to identifying particular learners with the skills to
help others.
strongly present, but learner application of information is most informed

by interaction with the instructor.
By viewing this course through the lens of a baseball game, redesign
decisions become focused on providing content that would allow learners
to practice as well as feedback to help them advance. Learners are seen as
part of a community (team), but performance is still an individual endea-
vor. Interaction with instructors is privileged above learner interaction with
content or peers. Next, we redesign this same course one last time using the
metaphor of the symphony.
Application of the Symphony Metaphor
The symphony metaphor departs from both the playground and baseball
metaphors, which focused the learning process on individual learning. The
symphony captures the essence of constructivist learning theories that
argue knowledge is not a matter of learning objective truths, but something
socially constructed. Learners actively create contextualized meanings,
usually in community with other learners, tying past experience to new
information. It is an interpretive process enhanced through discourse
(Delia, 1977; Huang, 2002). So it is with the symphony where musical
scores are interpreted and performed collaboratively with each musician
and section playing their part with a shared vision of what the music should
ultimately sound like. The process moves beyond the mechanics of playing
notes to enacting a musical style that brings that vision to life. In an inter-
view with the Los Angeles Times newspaper, distinguished American com-
poser Leis Spratlan describes the symphonic process this way, “By the time
you get to the actual concert, you’ve worked out pretty much what you
want to do. It’s really a matter of getting 100 musicians to think like one
person” (Schultz, 2010). Fig. 4.4 depicts the symphony.
Brief Description of the Symphony Metaphor

In viewing learners as members of a symphony, we view them as having the
building blocks of performance already in place. For instance, members of
an orchestra all read music using the same basic rules, an ability they bring
with them to rehearsals. Learners would be expected to bring certain skills
with them to the learning experience. Musicians also bring their own
unique skills and perspectives to the experience, based upon the instru-
ments they play and additional roles they may be assigned (i.e., section
Fig. 4.4. Symphony Metaphor.
leader). Similarly, learners will be unique in terms of skills and knowledge

based upon academic major and other experiences.
In looking at Fig. 4.4, the musicians are separated into sections by
instrument type. The implication for course redesign is that learners will be
similarly grouped. Just as sections would be expected to meet for practice
sessions outside of full orchestra rehearsals, learners will meet in groups.
Individual learners will be expected to do some work on their own, as musi-
cians must put in practice hours alone. Learning, as in the performance of
a symphony, will be the result of individual and collective efforts integrated
into a collaborative creation based upon a shared vision. With that descrip-
tion in mind, let’s use the metaphor to bring course redesign decisions into
focus (see Table 4.3).
Fitting the Symphony Metaphor with DeSIGN Decisions

Learning Objective. The learning objective changes again with applica-
tion of the symphony metaphor. This lens suggests learners come to the
Table 4.3. Course Redesign Using the Symphony Metaphor.

DeSIGN stage
Objective Learners will effectively respond to situations involving customers, managers,
and peers, identifying the purpose and audience to be addressed using a
format, writing style, and message strategy that would successfully resolve
the situation.
Share (1) Describe importance of identifying purpose and audience and researching both
(2) Review various formats for messages and how they are best applied
(3) Outline steps of message construction, providing clear connections back to

purpose
Illustrate (1) Show sample messages, highlighting how purpose and audience align with
information provided and message tone
(2) Contrast poorly constructed messages, demonstrating where the errors in
approach are most apparent
(3) Examine classical examples of message outcomes, highlighting positive and
negative consequences
Guide (1) Reinforce need for appropriate writing style and sound mechanics through
assessment and practice
(2) Distribute scenarios for learners to collaboratively analyze in order to
determine the purpose, audience, and best approach to resolve the situation.
Written responses could be authored by individuals or by teams
(3) Organize message construction process by setting dates for staged reviews
Nurture (1) Facilitate class analysis by inviting discussion about other team’s responses to
situations
(2) Direct discussion of potential consequences for each of the class responses
(3) Encourage peer and self-assessment to identify performance gaps
Interaction stage
Content This type of interaction is reduced under the symphony metaphor. Much of the
learning takes place in interaction with others. Facilitating discussions around
processes becomes more essential to the learning process. Content serves
primarily as reference material. Some individual activities to practice skills are
included.
Instructor This type of interaction is primarily facilitative, supporting and guiding peer
interactions and activities. Some administrative interaction may be necessary to
keep learners on the same page and schedule and in setting expectation.
Facilitation of class discussion is essential to class level learning.
Learner This type of interaction is privileged over the others. Peers are cast as
collaborators, information resources, and community members. Social
presence is needed to facilitate achievement of the learning objectives by teams
and the class.
experience with a foundational set of skills that can be combined with

those of other learners to create effective messages. The new objective
sets the expectation that learners will develop effective responses to various
unstructured situations. Learners will need to interpret the elements of
each situation to create a vision for how it should be handled, much as
musicians do in a symphony. The instructor plays the role of conductor,
facilitating the integration of effort so learners collectively create effective
messages.
Share Information, Illustrate Skills, Guide Practice, and Nurture

Progress. Once again, we planned the instructional methods, but this time,
we see increased integration of skills. Information sharing is focused on
making connections between interpretive processes such as researching ele-
ments of the situation and then integrating them in message construction.
Basic course layout is organized around those activities. Skills and practice
decisions align with the activities.
It is in the support of future learning that we see team outcomes as input
to learning in the larger class, as the symphony metaphor implies. Class
analysis and discussion are used to estimate the success of each team’s
strategy, working out the class’s collective vision of what it is to “respond
effectively.”
Fitting the Symphony Metaphor with Interaction Decisions

The symphony metaphor suggests that peer interaction is privileged as lear-
ners are grouped into learning teams that construct messages together.
Learner interaction with content is the equivalent of individual practice to
prepare for working together with teammates. Peers are cast as collabora-
tors as well as information resources and community members. Class
discussion becomes the place where knowledge constructed by the teams is
compared with others, deepening overall learning. Instructor interaction
is primarily facilitative of learner learner interaction.
Illustrating the first two phases of course redesign using three distinct meta-
phors highlights how powerful the metaphor can be in narrowing the scope
of our considerations in making course redesign decisions. Metaphors are
not simply a name playground, baseball game, symphony they are the
lens that brings focus to our views about the fit between our content, our
learners, and our instructional style. In so doing, it structures our thinking,
translating our vision into individual decisions that collectively create an
elegant course design.
CONCLUSION
There is much talk in the blogosphere about online education being inferior
to the traditional classroom, despite empirical support for its equality and
even superiority in enabling student learning. Interaction decisions, more
than any other set of considerations, will determine how you and your lear-
ners experience your course. While interactions should be student centered,
they need to be instructor driven.
Instructors need to facilitate learner interactions with content and with

other learners. Redesign choices related to layout and course structure, the
nature of the instructor learner relationship, and whether peers will be
community members, information resources, or collaborators should all
support the achievement of learning objectives, in light of the target audi-
ence (your learners).
The number of considerations related to course redesign can seem over-
whelming. Leverage the power of metaphor to your focus attention on
those considerations that are most relevant. Once you create a basic vision
of your course, you are ready for the third phase of course redesign. The
purpose of technology is to enable your vision. In the next chapter, we revi-
sit previous decisions to identify technology needs and investigate a process
by which to find media to fill them.
NOTES
1. Synchronous interaction occurs when those involved are acting together in

real time. Asynchronous interaction occurs when those involved are acting at inde-
pendent intervals rather than in real time.
2. Social presence is the perception of psychological closeness.
3. Office hours are commonly used by professors in the United States. They are
dedicated hours for student meetings during which students do not need an appoint-
ment to meet with the instructor.
4. Teaching presence is one of three presences included in the community of
inquiry model; the other two are social presence and cognitive presence. Teaching
presence is defined as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and
social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful, and educa-
tionally worthwhile, learning outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer,
2001, p. 5).
5. Quote has been re-quoted enough times that its origins are not verifiable.
6. Much of this thinking related to Collaboration came out of work done as part
of the now disbanded Collaborative Technologies Learning Community at Kent
State University, which was funded by the Ohio Learning Network from 2001 to
2004. We drew from the small group communication and collaborative learning
literature in developing a series of applied projects.
7. Social loafing and free loading are interchangeable terms that refer to the
tendency for some teammates to put forth less effort on a team than they would if
they were solely responsible for the work.
8. Adaptation of the metaphor inspired by Wooliscroft and Phillips (2003).
9. In the case of professional players associated with Major League Baseball in
the United States.
REFERENCES
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motiva-
tional factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication
Education, 55(1), 21 31.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments
and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance
education (pp. 129 145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence
in a computer conference environment, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),
1 17.
Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57 68.
Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking through online threaded discussions. The
Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1 23.
Burleson, B. R., Samter, W., & Lucchetti, A. E. (1992). Similarity in communication values as
a predictor of friendship choices: Study of friends and best friends. Southern
Communication Journal, 57(4), 260 276.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning:
Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113 143.
Delia, J. G. (1977). Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 63(1), 66 83.
Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research into practice. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Eom, S. B., & Wen, H. J. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes
and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215 235.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environ-
ment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,
2(2-3), 87 105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and
computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
15(1), 7 23.
Garrison, D. R. (2013). Theoretical foundations and epistemological insights of the

community of inquiry. In Z. Akyol & Dr. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities
of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research, and Practice (pp. 1 11). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Giuseppe, R., & Galimberti, G. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Identity and
social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 124, 434 464.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behavior and student
learning. Communication Education, 37, 40 53.
Hawisher, G. E., & Pemberton, M. A. (1997). Writing across the curriculum encounters
asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 1(1), 52 72.
Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2013). Strategies and principles to develop cognitive presence
in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities
of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research, and practice (pp. 148 167). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27 37.
Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of
a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995 1006.
Janicki, T., & Liegle, J. O. (2001). Development and evaluation of a framework for creating
web-based learning modules: A pedagogical and systems perspective. Journal of
Asynchronous Networks, 5(1), 58 84.
Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2010). Engaging students in learning: A review of a conceptual organi-
ser. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 193 204.
Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environ-
ments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5 28.
Nicholson, S. (2002). Socialization in the virtual hallway: Instant messaging in the asynchro-
nous web-based distance education classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4),
363 372.
O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of
affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4),
464 490.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In
M. Theall (Ed.), Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to
excel. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (No. 78, pp. 59 67). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Parker, R. E. (2005, January). Design made simple: Leadership training and development
for managers. Workshop and materials developed for Leadership Portage County.
Rootstown, OH.
Parker, R. E., Bianchi, A., & Cheah, T. (2008). Exploring student and faculty perceptions of
technology in education. Education, Technology & Society, 11(2), 274 293.
Parker, R. E. & Child, J. (2009). Study of student expectations of online courses. Unpublished
raw data.
Parker, R. E. & Coykendall, S. (2012, November). The rate your mate process: Facilitating col-
laboration through goal setting, shared expectations, and peer accountability. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. Orlando, FL.
Parker, R. E., & Ingram, A. (2011). Considerations in choosing online collaboration systems:
Functions, uses, and effects. Research Journal of the Center for Educational Technology,
7(1), 2 15.
Parker, R. E. (2003). Distinguishing qualities of virtual groups: An issue-oriented perspective.

In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. Cathcart, L. Samovar, & L. Henman (Eds.), Small group communi-
cation: Theory and research. (pp. 31 37). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So far but yet so close: Student chat
room immediacy, learning, and performance in an online course. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 16, 395 407.
Picciano, A. (1998). Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 1 14.
Picciano, V. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and perfor-
mance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21 40.
Pitt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship
between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2),
184 207.
Rogers, C. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. Harvard Educational
Review, 32(4), 416 429.
Ruberg, L. F., Moore, D. M., & Taylor, C. D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and
regulation in a computer-mediated communication environment: A qualitative study.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 243 268.
Schultz, R. (2010, August 15). Are conductors really necessary? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/entertainment/la-ca-what-conductors-do-
20100815. Accessed on June 15, 2013.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: Harper-
Perennial.
Sheridan, K., Kelly, M. A., & Bentz, D. T. (2013). A follow-up study of the indicators of
teaching presence critical to students in online courses. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison
(Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice
(pp. 67 83). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
Toronto, Canada: Wiley.
Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C., Knight, J., Guild, N., & Su, T. (2009).
Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science,
323(5910), 122 124.
Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: Networking learners at a distance. Education and
Information Technologies, 7(4), 287 294.
Sunnafrank, M., & Andersen, J. (1991). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity:
A communication-based assessment. In J. A. Andersen (Ed.), Communication yearbook
(14, 451 483). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interac-
tion. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23 49.
Swan, K., Shea, P. L., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual
classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 389 413.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). The nature and development of social presence in online
discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115 136.
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small group inter-
action to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259 274.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based
learning. Educational Media International, 37(2), 105 111.
Webb, N. M. (1980). An analysis of group interaction and mathematical errors in heteroge-
neous ability groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(3), 266 276.
Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, &
B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom: New directions
for teaching and learning (Vol. 84, pp. 47 51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Winter.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). Meta-analytical review of the relationship
184 207.
Woolliscroft, J. O., & Phillips, R. (2003). Medicine as performing art: A worthy metaphor.
Medical Education, 37, 934 939.
CHAPTER 5
MEDIA CONSIDERATIONS
ABSTRACT
Media considerations are pedagogical rather than technological in nat-

ure. In online courses, we use technology to enable learner interaction. In
this chapter, we focus on a process through which we identify media that
will help bring our course to life. Technology tools come and go, quickly.
While some specific tools are suggested, it is the process by which to
identify and select media that is enduring. We begin with a discussion
of media-enabled course activities that are used to guide the selection
process. The 10 activities are organized by type of interaction they repre-
sent and the media characteristics they require. Media have affordances
or functions that can be matched with identified course activities to meet
learner interaction needs. These needs help to narrow the scope of our
selection decisions. After exploring a variety of functions and tools, we
exemplify the media selection process. We extend the work started in
previous chapters by identifying media needs in light of design and inter-
action decisions under the playground and symphony metaphors. In so
doing, we demonstrate how the phases of the redesign process inform our
technology choices.
Keywords: Course redesign; instructional technology; online teaching
and learning; educational technology; media selection; online
education
INTRODUCTION
With the most important considerations made, we are ready to examine the
role of media in redesigning courses for online delivery. As we’ve pre-
viously discussed, technology should support, rather than dictate, redesign
81
choices. It is tempting to let the tools drive the process instead of pedagogy.
Universities invest in software; instructors try to make use of it, without
fully considering its purpose or effects. According to a survey of 4,500
undergraduates at 13 colleges conducted by Educause, students recognize
and object to instructors employing technology unreflectively. Many com-
plained about requirements to use chat rooms and discussion boards with-
out instructor moderation and guidance, others complained of instructors
who “devoted too much time to teaching students some quirky Web tool at
the expense of delivering course material” (Young, 2004, p. A-31).

Perhaps of greater concern is when technology yields inappropriate
influence on content choices. This can occur with or without instructor
awareness. For instance, Clifford Nass, professor of communication and
director of the Communication between Humans and Interactive Media
(CHIMe) Lab, admitted during an interview with The New Yorker that he
once removed a book from his syllabus because he couldn’t figure out how
to “PowerPoint” it (Parker, 2001). Instructors new to a university may sim-
ply teach the syllabus of previous instructors, unaware of how content deci-
sions were made. Pressure from administrators and students to use
technology also contribute to unreflective use. Instructors digitize lectures
and/or class discussion without considering alternative approaches or
anticipating consequences (Kinchin, 2012; Parker & Ingram, 2011).
The Dime model starts course redesign process with basic instructional
design decisions, such as course objectives and teaching methods, then
examines the role of interaction, with content, instructor, and peers, before
considering technology. Now that we’ve considered design and interaction,
we’re ready to consider media.
The Dime model uses the term media to refer to technology considera-
tions because media represents the fundamental purpose of technology in
online courses, which is to support or facilitate learner interaction. Media
are the channels through which information is communicated for the
purpose of developing shared understanding. According to media richness
theory, media fall on a continuum from lean to rich (Daft & Lengel, 1986).
Richer channels, like face-to-face communication or telephone, are
more immediate, so they carry more information (i.e., through feedback or
nonverbal cues) than leaner channels, such as written documents. Ideally,
we choose the media best suited to the needs of our task (Daft, Lengel, &
Trevino, 1987). In order to make the best media choices in redesigning our
course, we must crystalize and articulate the vision we have for our course,
which is implicit in our chosen metaphor and developed through our design
and interaction decisions.
Media Considerations 83
In this chapter, we focus on a process through which we identify the

media that will help bring our course to life. In 1964, Marshall McLuhan
wrote Understanding Media, in which he coined the infamous phrase “the
medium is the message.” Essentially he argued that the medium is
the environment and that, more than any individual factor, it becomes
the influencing factor in the creation of meaning (McLuhan, 1994).
McLuhan was looking at things from a societal standpoint, but the
media chosen during course redesign have the power to restructure course
content and relationships. Technology has been shown to have a restruc-

turing effect in organizations by altering who communicates with whom,
how often, and by what means (Barley, 1990). By recognizing the poten-
tial consequences of technology, instructors can better harness its power
to meet the needs of their content, their learners, and their instructional
style.
Many of the specific tools discussed later in the chapter will be outdated
as soon as this volume is published. The main takeaway from this chapter
isn’t the tools; it is the process by which to identify and select them. The
goal is to provide a framework for making reflective choices.
IDENTIFYING MEDIA NEEDS
Educational technologies are often organized around features. Common

features include document sharing, blogs, polling, and instant messaging.
Organizing tools in this way highlights their affordances, but may lead to
unreflective choices. A better way to organize media would be around the
teaching and learning activities they enable. As we discussed in Chapter 3,
online education lends itself to a “learn by doing” process. Borrowing from
the management literature, Sharp and McDermott (2001) define a process
as “a collection of interrelated activities initiated in response to a triggering
event, which achieves a specific, discrete result for the stakeholders of
the process” (p. 58). We view media selection in course redesign similarly.
Media are needed to enable specific, interaction-related activities that
comprise online education.
The teaching and learning activities media will enable are implicit in the
choices made in previous phases of redesign. Later in the chapter, we will
revisit these decisions and explicitly identify the activities media choices
should enable within our particular course. First, let’s explore the activities
that form the basis of the course media selection taxonomy.
Media Enabled Course Activities
The media selection taxonomy begins with 10 interaction-related activities.

These activities are carried out through technology and will guide media
selection, covered in a later section. First, we need to define the activities
and discuss a means for recognizing their role as revealed in choices made
during the design phase. Courses vary in the activities they include; it is
unlikely a course will involve all 10 activities. The activities are summarized
in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Media Enabled Course Activities.

Activity Description Related Action Verbs
Content-related
Informing Providing new information Describe
Review
Outline
Explaining Clarifying information Explain
Examine
Compare/contrast
Showing Demonstrating examples and processes Display
Demonstrate
Structure
Engaging Integrating interactivity to get learners “doing” Assign
Develop
Reinforce
Instructor-related
Coordinating Organizing learner experience Organize
Manage
Match
Conferencing Enabling simultaneous interaction with Meet
instructor and/or peers Talk
Direct
Responding Providing feedback Evaluate
Respond
Encourage
Peer-related
Networking Facilitating connections between peers Facilitate
Introduce
Collaborating Co-producing outcomes with one or more peer Collaborate
Distribute
Simulating Immersing learners in authentic situations Immerse
Captivate
We begin by investigating those activities most related to delivery of

content.
Informing
Presentation of information is a primary activity in teaching and learning.
The activity of informing is grounded in a cybernetic concept of informa-
tion; meaning information is comprised of facts and the communication of
facts (Norbert, 1954). In teaching and learning, information is knowledge

communicated. The communication of course content is the primary action
associated with informing.
Explaining
Clarification of information is a complement to informing that is directed
toward reducing uncertainty and ambiguity and generating deeper under-
standing of course content. Uncertainty refers to perceived vagueness in
content whereas ambiguity refers to potentially conflicting interpretations
(Schrader, Riggs, & Smith, 1993). Explaining is the activity that aids lear-
ners in thinking about and using information.
Showing
Demonstration supports learners in skill development. Showing learners
how to apply course concepts and processes helps move learning beyond
abstract understanding to the higher levels of learning associated with the
cognitive domains of application, analysis, and creation, originally set out
by Bloom (1956) in his taxonomy of learning objectives and later revised
by Anderson, Krathwohl, and Bloom (2001). Active learning, through
which students see, hear, and do depends upon showing learners the way
(Silberman, 1996).
Engaging
Making content interactive is the key to engagement in online courses.
According to Merriam Webster Online, interactivity involves mutual or
reciprocal action [1]. It involves “the actions or input of a user; especially:
of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication system” utiliz-
ing user commands or responses [2]. Engagement includes learner experi-
mentation with course concepts, during which they provide input
and reactions to the process and exercise a measure of independence and
control (Sims, 2003). Engaging learners in discussions, games, or problem-
based learning precludes learner passivity, fostering deeper level learning
(Douglas, 2012). Next we look at activities most related to learner-instructor

interaction.
Coordinating
The absence of fixed meeting times sets up the need for more explicit man-
agement of learners and learning activities. This activity mostly falls in the
purview of the instructor and consists of actions such as communicating
course expectations, setting assignment schedules, arranging course materi-
als, and organizing learner interactions. As learner autonomy and control

increase, so may the need for learners to coordinate their own interactions
with content, instructor, and/or peers.
Conferencing
There may be times in an online course when learners need to come
together virtually with the instructor and/or peers. Requiring synchronous
meetings may violate some learner expectations (as well as those adminis-
trators who market online courses as learning anytime), but there is sup-
port in the literature for better and more satisfying learning occurring when
at least some sessions are synchronous (Grant & Cheon, 2007; Little,
Passmore, & Schullo, 2006; McBrien & Jones, 2009). From recent personal
experience utilizing conferencing in an online course, social presence was
increased and a learning community was visible. Synchronous sessions
are rich, but do introduce a level of complexity that may or may not be
warranted. As with all choices, the key will be to match the approach to
the content, learners, and instructor.
Responding
Provision of feedback comprises the activity of responding. Feedback is a
primary means by which learning occurs. Chickering and Gamson (1987)
identify the provision of prompt feedback as one of the seven principles of
good practice in undergraduate education. Feedback may be developmen-
tal or evaluative in nature and could come from a variety of human or
computer sources. The final set of activities is most closely associated with
peer interaction.
Networking
Whether peers will be cast as information resources, collaborators, or
social supporters, they will need to make connections and build relation-
ships. Perceptions of learning and satisfaction are enhanced by the sense of
belonging that comes with membership in a learning community (Alavi &
Dufner, 2005). For instance, a study of 314 online learners enrolled in
26 graduate courses, found a significant relationship between the strength of

community and perceived cognitive learning (Rovai, 2002). Learners will
need to make peer connections through the activity of networking.
Collaborating
Casting peers as collaborators sets the expectation that learners will engage
in the co-production of outcomes. Collaborating learners participate
actively in all aspects of a project; they don’t just divide up the tasks for
individuals to perform, assembling them into some unit of production

at the end. Collaborating online involves the integration of the efforts of
learners through interactions that are mediated (Parker & Ingram, 2011).
Simulating
Immersion of learners in authentic situations allows for the simulation of
actions and consequences. Simulations increase learner engagement, facili-
tating deeper learning through complex applications of content through
authentic tasks (Driscoll & Carliner, 2005). Assuming learners are inter-
ested in knowing how to perform these tasks, motivation for learning will
strengthen, reducing attrition and increasing rates of successful completion
(McKeachie, 2002). Simulations may also allow for adaptive learning,
adjusting aspects of the experience to meet individual learner needs
(Kirkley & Kirkley, 2004). Some research indicates boredom on the part
of students if the simulations are highly text based or poorly designed
(Smart & Cappel, 2006). They may involve substantial development effort
and a steep learning curve for users. Learners will likely engage with
content and other learners while simulating.
For purposes of examining media, it helps to think of the teaching
and learning activities in terms of the three types of learner-centered
interactions discussed in Chapter 4. In the next section, we connect learner-
content, learner-instructor, learner-learner interactions to the characteristics
of the media that enable best them.
Activities by Interaction Type and Media Characteristics
Each of the 10 teaching and learning activities easily fits with one of the
three types of interaction involved in online learning. These interactions are
mediated through technology (media) and activities that fall within an
interaction type require similar media characteristics to enact it. When it
comes to selecting specific technology tools, there are countless possibilities.
Organizing the activities by interaction type brings into focus what you
need the tool to do, effectively narrowing your options, which improves
decision-making (Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, & Todd, 2010). Later, we’ll
explore specific tools based upon this organizing scheme. Table 5.2 sum-
marizes activities by interaction type and media characteristics.
Content-Related Activities
The activities of informing, explaining, showing, and engaging primarily
involve learner interaction with content. Instructors or peers may facilitate

the activities (i.e., the instructor provides directions or develops a presenta-
tion), but it is the interaction of the learner with the content, regardless of
the source, that is the primary focus.
The content-related activities of informing, explaining, and showing are
largely one-way in that information flows in one direction from the content
to the learner. They tend to be planned and prepared in advance for lear-
ners’ consumption. They are rarely interactive; when they do afford learner
input of some sort, the activity becomes engaging. Engaging is the content-
related activity that demands the learner take action in order to continue
the activity. Learner actions, such as posting a message, matching words,
or playing a game, make it a two-way interaction. Interactions may be
synchronous (although computer automated) or asynchronous.
Table 5.2. Course Activities by Interaction Type and Media

Characteristics.
Activity 1-Way 2-Way Sync 2-Way A-Sync
Content-related
Informing X
Explaining X
Showing X
Engaging X (auto) X
Instructor-related
Coordinating X
Conferencing X
Responding X X
Peer-related
Networking X X
Collaborating X X
Simulating X
Instructor-Related Activities
Coordinating, conferencing, and responding are considered instructor-
related activities because they directly connect the instructor and learner with
one another, either synchronously or asynchronously. To be considered syn-
chronous, interactions involve simultaneous participation by another person,
in this case the instructor or learner. Asynchronous interactions may some-
times feel synchronous (i.e., learner sends an email message that instructor
receives and responds to immediately), but in light of media characteristics, it
would still be considered asynchronous. The nature of the tool is transmis-

sion (send, receive, send, receive) rather than reciprocal (chat in real time).
In looking at instructor-related activities, we could drill down to make
more specific connections with the categories of instructor interaction dis-
cussed in Chapter 4. For instance, administrative interaction connects well
with the activity of coordinating. Facilitative interaction fits naturally with
responding, as does relational interaction with conferencing. These connec-
tions are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the instructor’s approach to
responding, as well as the learner’s reaction, will influence, and be influ-
enced by, their relationship. For the purposes of media selection, mapping
the activities can be useful.
Peer-Related Interactions
Networking, collaborating, and simulating are activities that directly con-
nect peers with one another in either synchronous or asynchronous interac-
tions. The inter-related nature of these activities will require rich media
affordances to enable them. The complex nature of the interactions will
likely require some complimentary instructor interaction such as coordinat-
ing. There may also be a steeper learning curve for students when using
media to enable collaborative peer interactions.
Next, we turn to types of media that will enable course activities.
Activities organized by interaction type and primary media function are
summarized in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 along with sample tools. Tools are
exemplary rather than prescriptive. A full discussion connecting interac-
tion, activities, and media functions follows.
FINDING MEDIA TO MEET NEEDS
Functions are broad categories of program features that facilitate interac-

tion processes (Parker & Ingram, 2011). Functions have intended purposes,
but are sometimes adapted by users and used in other ways. Richer media
lend themselves to more unexpected or ironic uses by users. Instructors will
want to consider and monitor actual learner behavior as these uses could
have a restructuring effect (Scott, Quinn, Timmerman, & Garrett, 1998).
We begin our discussion of course activities and media functions with those
that enable learner interaction with content. We organize the discussion of
media needs around the interaction related activities that will be supported.
Media for Content-Related Activities
We begin our discussion of media needs with activities related to lear-

ner content interaction. These are informing, explaining, showing, and
engaging. Table 5.3 intersects the four content-interaction activities with
their primary media function. It then provides a list of sample tools, some
of which are explored further within the discussion that follows.
Informing
Information presentation tools support the activity of informing. E-texts
and documents are some of the simplest and most common ways to present
information. Whether learners will actually read the material is a considera-
tion. Discussions on this topic are happening on campus and online.
Conversations focus on how to get students to read. For a sampling of
these conversations, visit The Teaching Professor blog from Faculty
Focus.1 When asked, students in my own classes report, “you have to make
us.” Research on the scholarship of teaching and learning appears to echo
student sentiment with studies on strategies to increase student compliance
(e.g., see Hoeft, 2012).
Table 5.3. Sample Tools to Enable Content-Interaction Activities.

Activity Informing Explaining Showing Engaging
Primary media Information Talking (Audio) Screencasting Interactivity

function presentation
Sample tools E-text Audacity Camtasia Hot Potatoes

Slideshare Pod-O-Matic Jing Quizlet
Prezi Odiogo Explain Everything Quest Garden
Haiku Deck Chirbit Panopto Glomaker
Storify Voicethread Screencast Softchalk
YouTube Merlot
Open Educational OERs
Resources (OERs)
In addition to assigned readings, “slideware” such as PowerPoint or

Keynote are also popular tools for informing. They are frequently hosted
on a server such as Slideshare, so students cannot, or do not have to, down-
load them. Slideware are also commonly combined with audio tools to
create a narration to the slideshow and then converted to video and shared
using a service such as YouTube. This permits learners to stream them.
Bandwidth should be a consideration in the selection and use of any tool.
Bandwidth refers to the amount of data that can be transmitted over a con-
nection and how fast that transmission can take place (generally expressed
in bits per second). In areas without broadband Internet access, this will be
of particular concern. To get a sense of how long it will take learners to
download a file, use one of the many download speed calculators freely
available on the World Wide Web.2
Another set of tools that enable informing are those that allow for
bringing together information from a variety of web sources using a social
bookmarking site such as Pinterist or Delicious. Tools such as these allow
learners to see relationships between pieces of information based upon its
placement on the “board.” Learners can access the original information
source directly from a link on the board. More advanced tools enable the
embedding of web materials from blogs, websites, and twitter into a story
format. Programs like Storify support the development of a narrative or
story around the information. This enables learners to see content within a
specific context.
Explaining
Audio tools support explaining. They can be used alone, such as in a
podcast, or in conjunction with an information presentation tool such as
PowerPoint. Audio is flexible and easy to produce, making it particularly
useful in providing clarification of information presented.
Audacity is a free, online digital recorder and editor that allows for the
creation of audio files. Pod-o-matic enables the creation of podcasts, which
were originally audio only. Today, you can add images and other materials
to a podcast. One advantage to podcasts is that learners can download
them and listen any time they want; podcast is an acronym meaning
“Portable, On-Demand, broadCasting.”
Voicethread is a web-based application that enables instructors and lear-
ners to comment on images, videos, or documents. Completed “conversa-
tions” can be saved and embedded on web pages or blogs. Chirbit is a
similar tool that also enables the embedding of audio in web pages or social
media like Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr. You can record directly from
your browser and even generate a QR code for each audio post. QR codes
are two-dimensional bar codes that can be read by mobile devices using a
reader app. This makes Chirbit particularly powerful in carrying out the
activity of explaining. You can also use it to extract audio from sources
such as YouTube, which can be helpful when bandwidth is an issue.
Finally, Odiogo is an audio reader that you can add to your blog or
other site to allow “readers” to listen to entries by way of an embedded
“listen” button. Text to speech technology allows learners to transform
content into alternate formats based upon preference or need. For instance,
learners may prefer audio to text as it allows them to exercise or drive while
they study. Learners with visual impairments can readily transform infor-
mation into a format they can use.
Showing
Screencast tools enable the activity of showing, which is especially useful in
facilitating learner interaction with content. Showing can also be used to
demonstrate skills learners need to develop.
Camtasia is a screen capture tool that enables you to create video tutor-
ials. Tutorials can be used in showing multistep processes that are difficult
to explain using just text and images. Tasks such as using computer appli-
cations or balancing a spreadsheet are examples. You complete the task on
your computer, recording all of your activity while recording a description
of what you’re doing, step-by-step.
Jing is a free, web-based program that enables instant screencasts of up
to 5 minutes in either image (screenshot) or video formats; screencasts can
be created with our without audio. They can be downloaded or uploaded
to the Screencast.com server (operated by Jing’s publisher) and shared with
learners by way of a URL. This tool is a personal favorite for decisively
answering learner queries about where to locate something within a course
space or how to complete a particular task. I create a screencast to answer
one learner, and then share the link with other learners that likely have the
same question.
Explain Everything is a screencasting tool with an interactive white-
board. Specifically designed for the Apple iPad, this tool enables narration,
annotation, and animation of whatever is on your screen. This may be par-
ticularly useful if you wish to demonstrate mathematical computations or
make clarifying remarks at particular points within video files. The end
product can be exported to a variety of file types (.pdf, .wav, .jpeg) and
sent to a variety of destinations such as a website, Dropbox, or learning
management system (LMS).
Engaging
Interactive content requires input from learners, engaging them with the
content. It can take a variety of forms and is generally regarded as a positive
enhancement to the learning experience as interactivity tends to empower
learner autonomy and interest. More research is needed to establish whether
interactivity of content alone increases learning, but some results are
encouraging (Jung & Choi, 2002; Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, & Nunamaker,
2006). As previously discussed, interactivity introduces a level of complexity
to learning that should be considered. For example, results of a meta-analysis

of computer-assisted instruction, media richness, and student performance
suggested that using a medium that carries too much information may result
in the receiver experiencing content overload (Timmerman & Kruepke,
2006). Interactivity can take a variety of forms; choose the function and tool
that enables the specific activity that fits you, your content and your learners.
Forms, surveys, and quizzes are common functions that support the
activity of engaging. Quizzes and surveys can sometimes add interest or
assist in assessing knowledge or interest. All can be made simply using
Google Docs. Hot Potatoes is freeware for creating interactive, web-based
quizzes, crossword puzzles, and matching activities. Quizlet enables the
creation of digital flashcards that students can manipulate. Flashcards and
matching games aid in concept memory.
To be more engaging, consider guided inquiry. QuestGarden enables
structured web quests through which students search for information and
solve problems. Or use Ted-Ed (the education arm of TED talks) to make
interactive videos by choosing a video from YouTube and structuring lear-
ners’ interactions with it. You can add multiple-choice and open-ended
questions, link students to related articles and blogs, or start a guided or
open-ended discussion, all within the tool.
If you’re short on time or confidence to produce your own interactive
content, there are many already available through open educational
resources (OERs) that feature interactive content. To find relevant resources,
search using Google, enter the search terms "open education*resource*".
Other sources of useful, interactive materials are the National Repository of
online courses offered through hippocampus.org and the Open Learning
Initiative.
There are many content-related media to choose from. Choose those
that fit best with you and your learners. Considerations such as cost, sys-
tem compatibility, learning curve, and fit with content needs should inform
your decisions. Next we turn to media functions and sample tools that
enable learner-instructor interaction.
Media for Instructor-Related Activities
We continue our discussion of media needs with activities related to lear-

ner-instructor interaction. These are coordinating, conferencing, and
responding. Table 5.4 intersects the three instructor-interaction activities
with their primary media function, and provides a list of sample tools to
use in their support. A discussion of media that enables instructor-related
activities follows.
Coordinating
Management tools designed to bring people together are effective in
enabling the activity of coordinating in online classes. Coordinating most
closely relates to the administrative and facilitative categories of learner-
instructor interaction. Some of the tools will also support relational interac-
tion, depending upon how they are employed.
Web-based calendaring tools such as When is Good and Doodle assist
with the scheduling of meetings. These tools can also support peer colla-
boration in setting meetings either with or without instructor involvement.
These applications have free versions as well as premium versions that
provide more functionality for a subscription fee.
Google Voice is a service that enables web-based calling or texting by
way of a number given to learners, which forwards to the instructor’s cell
phone. This enables both synchronous and asynchronous interaction with-
out requiring the instructor to give out a personal cell number. Phone and
text access increases teacher immediacy by shortening response times.
Learner messages are forwarded to a cell phone; instructors may choose to
receive the messages as either voice or text; one of the program features is
Table 5.4. Sample Tools to Enable Instructor Interaction Related

Activities.
Activity Coordinating Conferencing Responding
Primary media Organizing Meeting Feedback

function
Sample tools When is good Free Conference Call iAnnotate
Doodle Calendar Skype Adobe Pro
Facebook Fan Page Big Blue Button VideoAnt
Google Voice Adobe Connect Calibrated Peer
Eyejot Review
speech to text translation. There is no need for the instructor to be online

to receive messages.
Eyejot is a video messaging platform that enables sending video mes-
sages asynchronously (i.e., via email). Whether students would welcome
video messages from a professor is unknown. Therefore, instructors may
want to consider learner preferences. The richer nature of video could
support relational interaction.
Coordinating activities might also include expectation setting and facili-
tating learner interactions by reminding them to be active in the course.

Creating a Facebook fan page that learners can “like” enables posts to
student Facebook feeds without having to be “friends,” something students
may wish to avoid. This can be a good way to communicate short messages
to your class without violating their expectations. The research shows
students are divided about whether being “friends” with their instructors is
desirable (Helvie-Mason, 2011). Not all students wish to “friend” faculty
members, preferring instead to keep their social and professional realms
separate (Hewitt & Forte, 2006). Personally, I favor separation of my social
and instructional lives and I prefer not to manage more than one Facebook
account. For students and instructors who feel differently, or for those who
have better mastered privacy controls, Facebook has been shown to increase
student perceptions of teacher immediacy and class motivation (Mazur,
Murphy, & Simonds, 2007, 2009). Once again, choose and employ the tool
in the way that best fits your content, your learners, and your style.
Conferencing
Tools that allow for synchronous, verbal communication between inter-
actants enable conferencing. Conferencing can easily be used to support
learner interactions with content, instructor, and peers. These tools are
considered rich as they enable synchronous audio and video interactions.
There is a learning curve in using conferencing tools, but it tends to be
steepest for the instructor, depending upon how the tools are used. Most
conferencing tools have built in recording capability, enabling the meeting
to be watched later. If you choose to record the session, be sure to alert
learners that their audio and text comments will be recorded along with the
rest of the conference.
Skype is a tool that enables video calls. The freeware version is most use-
ful for one-to-one calls; group calls are limited to audio only. Premium
account upgrades allow for video calls with multiple attendees. Screen
sharing is a feature of Skype, when video is turned on. Web conferencing
software such as Adobe Connect (educational pricing available) or Big Blue
Button (freeware) enable multiple attendees at web-based meetings, either

with or without video. Meetings typically involve some type of slideware.
“Presenters” can share their screens to include viewing web pages. Shared
viewing of videos does not work well through tools presently available.
Bandwidth demands are high for conferencing tools.
Free Conference Call is a telephone conferencing tool that allows interac-
tants to phone into a meeting. This is an audio-only tool. There is no cost
for instructor or learners beyond those associated with normal telephone
use (depending upon individual plan details, cell minute or toll charges will
apply through your phone service provider). The premium version allows
for toll free calling, but cell minute costs would remain the same for users.
This can be a good solution when bandwidth is an issue.
Responding
Feedback mechanisms enable responding. Feedback is a primary means
by which learning occurs. Chickering and Gamson (1987) identify the
provision of prompt feedback as one of the seven principles of good practice
in education. Richer media tend to support more detailed and timely
feedback.
Feedback on learner submitted documents can be provided using text,
audio, or screencasting. The “comment” and “track changes” features of
Word enable text-based feedback, which chronicles every change to a docu-
ment. This feedback can become a bit unwieldy for students to process as
the margin of the document becomes cluttered with comment bubbles filled
with deleted and moved text. Comment bubbles with actual comments are
not distinguished from those denoting text changes, potentially masking
instructor input. From personal experience, track changes is time consum-
ing for the instructor if the document is in the early stages of development,
but it is quite useful for close editing of nearly finalized documents.
Adobe Pro enables audio comments to be added to .pdf documents, so
your comments are “attached” to the portion of the document to which
they most relate. This can be very useful when reviewing early drafts when
feedback is primarily conceptual in nature. Screencasting works well for
more visual submissions. For instance, images or web pages can be cap-
tured as you talk through them, providing comments at key moments and
recording the session for the learner. For videos, VideoAnt enables text
annotations for any video hosted on YouTube as well as those that are for-
matted as .mov or .flv. The comments are attached to particular segments
of the video. This works well on assignments such as digital presentations
or video productions.
If responding is to be done by peers, instructors will need a means to both

facilitate the process and ensure its effectiveness. Calibrated Peer Review is a
tool that helps to train and organize learners in providing feedback to one
another on writing assignments. There are also auto-responding systems
available to provide students with personalized, immediate feedback using
established algorithms. When teaching business writing, I use a tool called
My Access that provides feedback on student writing using a six-point
rubric. The feedback is available immediately upon submission, allowing
learners to revise and resubmit. This tool works well for my students in
meeting my course learning objectives. Auto-responders are not “no-man”
systems, however. The instructor remains the ultimate evaluator, but these
systems can be beneficial for both learners and instructors.
As with all media, choose those that fit the needs of the learners and
instructor best, given the course content. Considerations such as learner
and instructor expectations are essential. Unmet expectations impede
relationship building and overall satisfaction with the learning experience.
Next we turn to media functions and sample tools that enable learner learner
interaction.
Media for Peer-Related Activities
The final set of activities we consider in terms of media functions are those
that relate to learner learner interaction. Tools we explore are those that
enable the activities of networking, collaborating, and simulating. These
are immersive activities that will benefit from both synchronous and
asynchronous tool features. Table 5.5 intersects the three peer-interaction
activities with their primary media function and suggests sample tools that
could be used to enable the activities.
Networking
In online courses where peer interaction is privileged, networking is more
than merely enabling connections between peers; it is a means to facilitate
relationship building to support activities like collaborating. Relationships
require trust and trust entails predicting and depending upon the behavior
of others (McDaniel & McDaniel, 2004). Perceived similarity also supports
relationship development. In online courses, establishing social presence
among learners is essential for relationships to develop.
Tools that assist in enhancing social presence are those that help peers
perceive one another as individuals, even when they can’t “see” them.
Table 5.5. Sample Tools to Enable Peer-Interaction Related Activities.

Activity Networking Collaborating Simulating
Primary media function Social networks Co-creating Virtual world

Sample tools Bios/Profiles in Google Suite Secondlife
LMS Diigo Activeworlds
Facebook Stixy Atlantis Remixed
Twitter Writeboard OpenSimulator
Celly Bubb.us There

Thinkature OERs
Zoho Projects
Learning Management Systems (LMS) have varying features that can assist.
If you have a choice of systems, or of features you use in an assigned sys-
tem, you might consider the following. Having users upload a profile photo
that will appear next to their name anytime they post to a discussion board
or comment through the LMS. This helps even if the photo is not of the
learner (i.e., a cat, a flower, a truck). Instructors should set the expectation
that the image chosen should remain constant for the duration of the
course. As discussed in Chapter 4, presence awareness indicators facilitate
peer interaction and networking by pointing to whom else is online and
available to chat. This is the virtual equivalent of “bumping into one
another,” which enables interaction.
There are a variety of social media means by which to facilitate network-
ing activities. Instructors can encourage learners to connect through social
media such as Facebook or Twitter or through the more professionally
oriented tool LinkedIn. More pedestrian tools like email and text messaging
can also provide a means for learners to reach out to one another.
Individuals build relationships with other individuals, not with groups or
organizations (Bullis & Bach, 1991). Therefore, consider designing assign-
ments that will support the building of interpersonal relationships, and
then guide learners to tools that will help.
Collaborating
For learners to collectively generate outcomes, they will need tools that
enable them to share information, support relationships, and co-produce
work. Collaborative tools are two-way with synchronous and asynchro-
nous features. Learners may need guidance in choosing the features that
best support the work. Text based projects are well supported by document
sharing and storage tools such as Google Docs or Dropbox. When further
supplemented by communication tools such as Google Groups, for
discussions and messaging, and Google Hang Outs, for video conversations,
the depersonalizing effects of computer-mediated communication can be
reduced (Parker, 2003).
Web bookmarking tools can be useful for creating a library of resources
for the team. Diigo is a social bookmarking site that allows content to be
shared with select individuals. Evernote is software that functions as a web
clipper, but it also allows you to share files and create notes (text, audio, or
video), all organized in “notebooks” that can be shared with select
individuals.
For more complex projects, consider richer, more dynamic media. Zoho
Projects includes a robust set of tools such as calendaring, document shar-
ing, messaging, as well as task management features, which appear on a
dashboard and tie everything together. In addition there are social presence
features such as member pictures and profiles to aid in feeling co-present.
Thinkature similarly features a dashboard, with a less sophisticated format,
but enables teams to collaborate on projects in real time, co-creating
diagrams or slides.
Simulating
Immersive learning environments such as virtual worlds or simulations
enable learners to model behaviors they might use if faced with a situation
in “real life.” Simulations can feel “fun” and provide opportunities for
practice. Virtual worlds are excellent places to simulate complex tasks such
as medical procedures or accident investigations.
Second Life is one of the best-known, 3-D virtual world programs.
Learners create avatars that realistically represent the self, or they can appear
as animals, robots, or vehicles. Some universities feature private “islands”
upon which educational activities take place. Instructors using an unrestricted
island may have “visitors” entering the class, which can be disruptive just as
it would be in a face-to-face class. Think of virtual worlds as just that, the
world. In it you will find all types of activities and all kinds of people. Some
caution is recommended, but there are some excellent examples of simulated
learning taking place in Second Life (see Beard, Wilson, Morra, & Keelan,
2009, for a review of health-related activities on Second Life).
Other 3-D virtual worlds are available, each with slightly different features.
In the following “worlds” you sacrifice some of the visual richness, but gain
more in terms of control. Activeworlds has an education only island, Atlantis
Remixed was solely designed for educational purposes, and Opensim (Open
Simulation) allows for self-hosting to more fully control the experience.
There are many ways to engage students in scenario applications with-
out embarking into virtual worlds. They can be carried out using case study
applications, Internet games or commercially produced simulation mod-

ules. For our purposes, we included simulated activities that don’t involve
peers under the activity of engaging. Choose the activity and media with
the shortest learning curve, so long as they meet course needs.
It’s easy to get stars in your eyes over tools. The possibilities seem
endless, but we don’t want to use more tools than we need; media use is
not an end in itself. Chris Hoadley, associate professor and director of the
Educational Communication and Technology program at New York
University, proposes three laws of educational technology that fit well with
our overall approach. Hoadley (2013) argues:
1. It’s not the technology, it’s what you do with it.
2. It’s not what the technology makes possible, it’s what the technology
makes easy.
3. Pay attention to the trends in learning, not in technology.
To facilitate the selection of media that is best suited to content, lear-
ners, and instructor, we need to revisit the work completed in previous
phases of course redesign.
SELECTING MEDIA TO FIT PREVIOUS

REDESIGN DECISIONS
We can see how it would be easy to get overwhelmed without a structured

process for media selection. The most critical step in this process is accu-
rately identifying the activities you need media to enable. To do this we
need to revisit the course redesign work completed during the Design and
Interaction phases of the process. The action verbs we used in defining
learning objectives, along with those used in outlining choices for informa-
tion to share (S), skills to illustrate (I), practice to guide (G), and progress
to nurture (N), will reveal the course activities and types of interaction
involved. These can then be matched to specific tools, with or without the
help of an educational technologist.3
To demonstrate this process, let’s bring the phases of course redesign
together in a diagram that can function as a graphical organizer (i.e., story-
board) for our course. We’ll extend our redesign efforts from Chapter 4 by
applying graphical organizers to the playground and symphony metaphors.
As previously discussed, each metaphor implicitly organizes the course into
modules within which associated activities will fit. The graphical organizer
makes the implicit explicit, pulling course activities into the course layout
to generate a list of specific media needs that will narrow the scope of the
media selection process.
Extension of Playground Metaphor
As discussed in Chapter 4, the playground metaphor implicitly organizes

courses around individual content elements, making it ideal for survey
courses in which learners are initially exposed to content with little connec-
tion to their previous knowledge. Each piece of playground equipment
might be representative of a set of course activities derived from your learn-
ing objectives and other design choices and the types of interactions we
associated with those choices. By analyzing previous decisions, we can
easily identify course activities, to be enabled by media, in order to achieve
them. We’ll begin with a quick review of the redesign work we accom-
plished previously.
Looking at the course through the lens of the playground metaphor, the
following decisions were made related to learning objectives and instruc-
tional methods. We intentionally made the objective skill-based to fit with
a learn-by-doing approach (see Chapter 3 for a full description of the
process). In keeping with an action-oriented approach, we articulated
aspects of our design related to instruction methods using parallel phrasing,
each choice beginning with an action verb. To refresh, those aspects are
decisions we made about information to share, skills to illustrate, activities
for practice, and the means to nurture progress. Table 5.6 synthesizes the
design and interaction decisions made for a higher education course in
organizational communications in which students were mostly unfamiliar
with the content. This is an abbreviated version of the design document
developed in Chapter 4. We’ll be using this information in our analysis of
course activities that will let us identify our media needs.
Graphically Organizing the Course

As a reminder, the playground metaphor lends itself to organizing the
course around separate content modules. As equipment on a playground,
the metaphor implies content can be chunked into independent units that
function separately, but collectively move the learner to the objective.
As on a playground, there is no interdependency across modules, but
improved ability in one unit will likely strengthen performance in others.
Revisiting the learning objective, we can identify five basic performance
elements. Learners are to (1) gain experience in (2) communicating
Table 5.6. Revisiting Redesign Decisions for the Playground Metaphor.

Objective Learners will gain experience in communicating with customers, managers,
and peers by creating messages designed to achieve an assigned purpose for
a specific audience using various formats and correct grammar
Share (1) Display various message formats to familiarize learners (business letters,
memos, reports, email, brochures, newsletters)
(2) Describe rationale and process of audience analysis to prepare them to
match messages to the audience (demographics, size, status, perspectives on
topic)
(3) Outline steps in the writing process to prepare them for creating messages
(organization, research, editing, revision, proofreading)
(4) Review of writing mechanics to help them use correct grammar
(punctuation, capitalization, spelling, bias-free language)
Illustrate (1) Explain effective use of each message format
(2) Demonstrate audience analysis
(3) Compare and contrast effective and ineffective messages
(4) Show common writing errors
Guide (1) Assign practice in writing mechanics
(2) Structure tasks related to the writing process (audience analysis task;
research task; outline message task; draft and revision task)
(3) Develop messages for submission
Nurture (1) Encourage self-assessment using rubrics
(2) Evaluate writing mechanics through auto-feedback mechanism
(3) Respond with performance feedback on submissions
messages, (3) using different formats and (4) correct grammar, so they (5)
reach a given audience. Fig. 5.1 depicts a diagram of the course based upon
the objective and inspired by the metaphor. The course has five boxes, each
representing a different piece of playground equipment from the metaphor.
Each is labeled with the content most closely related to one of the five
performance elements provided by the objective: the writing process equates
to “communicating messages,” audience analysis process equates to “reach-
ing a given audience,” mechanics of writing equates to “correct grammar,”
along with boxes for document “formats,” and “gaining experience.”
Each box represents a learning module and is filled with action verbs
related to previously chosen design elements comprising the instructional
methods: share information; illustrate skills; guide practice; and nurture
progress. The result is a graphical representation of the overall course orga-
nized into five learning modules. Later we will connect the action verbs
to one of the 10 course activities described previously; this is how we’ll
determine our media needs. Again, the verbs are drawn from the redesign
Fig. 5.1. Course Diagram of Learning Activities: Playground Metaphor.
decisions made in Chapter 4 and depicted in Table 5.6. They are placed in
the module for which the action provides support.
Let’s look at one of the action verbs by way of example. Take the action
verb outline (the process) from the share information section of Table 5.6.
It is placed in the Writing Process module because learners will need
this information shared with them before they can engage in the writing
process. One of the actions that will help learners to use the writing process
is to have the parts of the process outlined for them.
In looking at the modules in Fig. 5.1, we see each contains varied
instructional elements. For instance, the writing process not only involves
information to be shared, but also guided practice (structure the tasks) and
nurtured progress (encourage self-assessment). Let’s unpack things a bit
further by looking at another module. In the Mechanics module, there is
information to be shared (review rules), skills to be illustrated (showing
errors), and practice to be guided (assigning activities). This module inte-
grates various instructional methods to achieve the performance of correct
grammar required by our objective. Other modules are similarly organized.
Match the action verbs listed in the remainder of the modules back to those
used in the design document contained in Table 5.6 to get the full effect.
Once the layout and content of course modules are decided, we’re ready
to translate these design elements into the course activities we discussed at
the start of the chapter. Again, these activities will provide the framework for
identifying our media needs, which will guide our media selection process.
Identifying Course Activities
Previously, we identified 10 course activities that related to one of the three

types of interactions examined in Chapter 4. Table 5.7 lists the activities
and connects them to the action verbs used in our design plan (see
Table 5.6). Notice how actions listed under sharing information fit neatly
into the content-related activity of informing. Similarly, actions listed under
illustrating skills fit into the activities of explaining and showing. Actions
under guiding practice closely relate to engaging. Nurturing progress is

closely tied to the instructor-related activity of responding.
Notice the absence of peer-interaction related activities in Table 5.7,
which makes sense given the playground metaphor. As discussed in
Table 5.7. Course Activities and Media Needs: Playground.

Course Action Verb Media Need Sample Tool
Activity
Informing Outline Slideware PowerPoint

Describe e-text (e-text publisher)
Review Means to assemble materials from Storify
across web with explanation
Explaining Explain Podcast with images Pod-o-matic
Compare & Audio connected to documents with Voicethread
contrast ability for discussion
Showing Display Sample documents Pdf files
Demonstrate Screencast video Camtasia
Show Screencast images with audio Jing
Structure Interactive whiteboard (for Explain- Everthing
diagramming and student
response)
Engaging Assign Games; ALE; quizzes Grammerly; Hot Potatoes
Develop Scenarios Glo Maker or OERs
Coordinating
Conferencing
Responding Respond Text, audio or screencast Audio comment in Adobe
Pro
Evaluate Auto-response, quiz or text Google docs or quiz tool in
LMS
Encourage Interactive Rubric Rubric tool within most
LMS
Networking
Collaborating
Simulating
Chapter 4, learner-content interaction is most privileged because, like

children on a playground, learners will explore the equipment (modules)
mostly independent of one another. A child on a swing may swing next to
another child, but they don’t swing collaboratively. So it would go in a
course framed by the playground metaphor. You may decide your learners
will enjoy the course more if they were aware of one another (swinging can
be more fun if you have another person next to you to motivate you to
swing higher). Make that choice based upon content, learners, and instruc-
tor. If it fits, add networking activities to the list in Table 5.7; indicate the
actions you’ll build into your course to facilitate connections.
Similarly, notice that only responding is featured as an instructor-related
interaction activity. Again, this fits with the playground metaphor and our
previous analysis. In Chapter 4, we determined that learner-instructor
interaction would be limited to answering questions, providing evaluative
feedback, and monitoring student activity. Children on a playground feel
safe with adult supervision, but they don’t welcome adult intervention
unless there is trouble. Extending the metaphor, the learner would look for
the instructor to facilitate their interaction with the content and may need
administrative support, but relational interaction would likely not be fea-
tured. Of course, as with children on a playground, some learners may seek
out a relationship with the instructor, so you may want to consider tools to
enable one, at learner discretion.
Translating design elements into course activities provides a framework
for determining our media need. That helps to narrow the scope of tools
to consider in media selection. Revisit the lists of sample tools in
Tables 5.3 5.5 to refresh on the connection between needs and tools. At
this point, you can choose the tools yourself, or consult an educational
technologist who can guide you to tools that will best meet the needs
you’ve identified. Suggestions for tools to be used in the course depicted in
Fig. 5.1 are included in Table 5.7.
To once again demonstrate the power of the metaphor in framing your
course redesign, let’s look at how using the metaphor of the symphony
alters our course activities and media needs.
Extension of Symphony Metaphor
The symphony metaphor implies collaborative effort, organizing courses

around socially constructed knowledge units. The metaphor casts learners
as both information resources (experts in playing their individual instru-
ments) and collaborators (it takes an orchestra to play a symphony).
Instructors, like conductors, would mainly facilitate the learning (music)

through coordinating peer interactions, providing guidance for content
activities, and assisting individual learners in recognizing and remediating
performance weaknesses.
Once again, we’ll revisit decisions made during previous phases of rede-
sign to help us identify course activities to be enabled by media. Notice
that the learning objectives differ slightly under this metaphor. For peers to
be cast as information resources and/or collaborators implies they have a
base of knowledge upon which to draw. Table 5.8 synthesizes the design
and interaction choices we made for a higher education course in organiza-
tional communications using the symphony metaphor.
Graphically Organizing the Course
As we discussed in Chapter 4, the symphony metaphor lends itself to inte-
grated rather than separate learning modules. Unlike the playground that
Table 5.8. Revisiting Redesign Decisions for the Symphony Metaphor.

Objective Learners will effectively respond to situations involving customers,
managers, and peers, identifying the purpose and audience to be addressed
using a format, writing style, and message strategy that would successfully
resolve the situation.
Share (1) Describe importance of identifying purpose and audience and researching
both.
(2) Review various formats for messages and how they are best applied.
(3) Outline steps of message construction, providing clear connections back to
purpose.
Illustrate (1) Show sample messages, highlighting how purpose and audience align with
information provided and message tone.
(2) Contrast poorly constructed messages, demonstrating where the errors in
approach are most apparent.
(3) Examine classical examples of message outcomes, highlighting positive and
negative consequences.
Guide (1) Reinforce need for appropriate writing style and sound mechanics through
assessment and practice.
(2) Distribute scenarios for learners to collaboratively analyze in order to
determine the purpose, audience, and best approach to resolve the
situation. Written responses could be authored by individuals or by teams.
(3) Organize message construction process by setting dates for staged reviews.
Nurture (1) Facilitate class analysis by inviting discussion about other team’s responses
to situations.
(2) Direct discussion of potential consequences for each of the class responses.
Encourage peer and self-assessment to identify performance gaps.
presented modules as distinct endeavors, the symphony uses modules that

are interdependent. Lack of development in any of the skills would result
in poor overall performance. The course likely involves individual, team
and class-level interactions similar to the way a symphony requires indivi-
dual and sectional practice sessions before bringing things all together
during a full orchestra rehearsal. Similarly, modules in the course will likely
need to be completed in a given sequence.
Revisiting the learning objective, we can identify five basic performance
elements. Learners will (1) effectively respond to situations involving custo-

mers, managers and peers, (2) identify the purpose and audience to be
addressed using a (3) format, writing style, and (4) message strategy that
would (5) successfully resolve the situation. Fig. 5.2 depicts a diagram of
the course objective, inspired by the metaphor. The course is now orga-
nized in 6 modules; the 5 primary performance elements are represented
along with a box for individual skill development in support of the other
elements.
As with the playground metaphor, we gave each of the boxes a content
label related to the performance elements and then filled them with action
verbs related to instructional methods: share information, illustrate skills,
guide practice, nurture progress. Unlike the design plan using the play-
ground metaphor, the symphony metaphor places some action verbs in
Fig. 5.2. Course Diagram of Learning Activities: Symphony Metaphor.

more than one module; instructor-related interactions even appear between

modules. This reflects the integrated nature of the content as well as the
interdependency of the modules. The next step is to translate those action
verbs into course activities that will dictate media needs.
Identifying Course Activities

Table 5.9 presents the action verbs translated to course activities. This time
there are content, instructor, and peer-related activities featured.
Table 5.9. Course Activities and Media Needs: Symphony.

Course Action Media Need Sample Tool
Activity Verb
Informing Describe Narrated slideware Haiku deck

Review Audio annotated documents Adobe Pro (pdf)
Outline e-text (e-text publisher)
Explaining Examine Screencast video Camtasia
Showing Show Screencast images with audio Jing
Contrast Audio connected to documents with Voicethread
ability for discussion
Engaging Reinforce Quizzes plus related review materials OERs or self-produced
from across the web (or e-text). using Glo Maker
Self-paced practice activities related
to review materials.
Coordinatinga Organize Means to display schedule and Google calendar with
reminders GMinder;
Facebook fan page
Conferencinga Direct Web-conferencing with screen sharing Big Blue Button
and audio
Respondinga Encourage Skill rubrics for self and peer iRubric and Calibrated
assessment (related to assignments). Peer Review
Networkinga Facilitate Means to connect learners and Twitter
stimulate idea exchange.
Collaboratinga Distribute Means to facilitate peer interaction Zoho Projects
and collaborative writing.
Simulating
a
There are many collaborative tools that also have features to enable coordinating, conferen-
cing, networking, and responding. Keep things manageable by using media that integrate
multiple activities if possible. Consider consulting an educational technologist for help in iden-
tifying more robust media solutions.
The more activities, the more complex the media needs. Media can often
meet more than one need, but continued discipline in selecting tools will
yield the best choices. Begin by articulating the need for each activity, and
then consider consulting an educational technologist4 to find tools that will
meet multiple needs. Keeping media manageable will enhance everyone’s
experience. For the sake of illustration, sample tools to support each need
are included in Table 5.9.
CONCLUSION
This chapter focused on the media selection process, demonstrating how it

flows from the design and interaction phases and is filtered through our
chosen metaphor. Far too often, instructors will default to digitizing their
traditional classroom approach, default to institutionally provided tools, or
assume they lack the skills required to bring their course online. A better
approach is to let pedagogy drive your choices. Matching interaction needs
with the “right” tool is a matter of zeroing in on media needs using the
course metaphor, identifying the course activities from action verbs used in
the design, and connecting the activities to media needs.
Throughout the course redesign process, we’ve stressed the idea that
choices should fit the content, learners, and instructor. This is especially
true when it comes to media selection. Technology choices are not neutral;
they have consequences. Media influences who interacts with whom, or
with what content, potentially restructuring course elements. Research indi-
cates that learners have channel preferences that they bring with them to
class. For instance, many prefer to email with instructors rather than to use
social media, as it seems more appropriate to the nature of the relationship
(Hewitt & Forte, 2006). Learners can also choose to employ media faith-
fully or ironically. When tools are used faithfully, they are employed by
learners as intended; ironic use of tools means learners adapt them to some
other purpose, which can introduce uncertainty and ambiguity into an
already complex situation.
Ultimately, the goal is to choose the simplest tool to enable as many of
your course activities as possible. Plan for how the tools should be used, be
prepared to offer training or set expectations for learners to gain the skill
gained using outside resources. Consider potential consequences of tool
choices and consider establishing a feedback loop so learners can alert you
to any media issues that are constraining their learning experience.
Finally, you don’t have to go it alone. Use high-quality, pre-

prepared materials whenever possible, these include tutorials for the various
tools you choose. Consult technology experts for support; just stay true to
your redesign decisions. No one knows your content, your learners, or your
instructional style better than you do.
With your media selected, you are well on your way to putting together
your course. There’s just one more phase in the redesign process, but it’s
one of great concern to learners, instructors, and society at large. The
final phase is focused on considerations related to evaluation. In the next

chapter, we explore evaluation of student learning, course quality, and
instructor effectiveness as affected by online delivery.
NOTES
1. The teaching professor can be found at http://www.facultyfocus.com/topic/

articles/teaching-professor-blog
2. Two download speed calculators are available at: www.download-time.com or
http://bandwidth.com/tools/calc.html
3. Educational technologists appreciate it when instructors come to them with
clear media needs defined. This makes their job easier and ensures the needs of your
learners and content are paramount in the media choice process. Consult with a
technologist after you’ve done the preliminary redesign work yourself.
4. If you do not have access to an educational technologist, there are a number
of quality blogs and web resources to assist you in identifying media features and
ratings. Consult blogs at Educause, Edudemic, and the Faculty Ecommons to start.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., & Dufner, D. (2005). Technology-mediated collaborative learning: A research

perspective. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on
asynchronous learning networks (pp. 191 213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Longman.
Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61 103.
Beard, L., Wilson, K., Morra, D., & Keelan, J. (2009). A survey of health-related activities on
second life. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762804/. Accessed on July 5, 2013
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain.
New York, NY: David McKay.
Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication network content
and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 180 197.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3 7.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness,
and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554 571.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and
manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355 366.
Douglas, S. (2012). Student engagement, problem based learning and teaching law to business
students. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 6(1), 33 47.
Driscoll, M., & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced web-based training strategies. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Grant, M. M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruc-
tion and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 213 226.
Helvie-Mason, L. (2011). Facebook, friending, and faculty student communication. In
C. Wankel (Ed.), Teaching arts and Science with the new social Media (pp. 61 87). London:
Emerald Group.
Hewitt, A. & Forte, A. (2006). Crossing boundaries: identity management and student/faculty
relationships on Facebook. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;
jsessionid = 868D59E247180E9FC80D6F415F8C8ECC?doi = 10.1.1.94.8152&rep = rep1&
type = pdf. Accessed on April 12, 2011.
Hoadley, C. (2013, June 10). Three laws of ed tech. The Lab Report. NYC Media LAB
Retrieved from http://www.nycmedialab.org/blog/2013/06/ chris-hoadleys-three-laws-of-ed-
tech. Accessed on July 6, 2013.
Hoeft, M. E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase
compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6 (2), 1 19.
Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v6n2/articles/PDFs/Acc%20Art_
Hoeft.pdf. Accessed on July 4, 2013.
Jung, I., & Choi, S. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement,
satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 39(2), 153 162.
Kinchin, I. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(2), E43 E48.
Kirkley, S. E., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Creating next generation blended learning environ-
ments using mixed reality, video games and simulations. Tech Trends, 49(3), 42 53, 89.
Little, B. B., Passmore, D., & Schullo, S. (2006). Using synchronous software in web-based
nursing courses. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24(6), 317 325.
Mazur, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on Facebook: The effects of
computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and
classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1 17.
Mazur, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self disclosure via
Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175 183.
McBrien, J. L., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom
to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1 17.
McDaniel, D., & McDaniel, R. R. (2004). A field of study of the effect of interpersonal trust
on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 183 227.
McKeachie, W. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college
and university teachers (11th ed.), Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Merriam Webster Online. Interactive [Def. 1 & 2]. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/interactive. Accessed on July 2, 2013.
Norbert, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? The
New Yorker, 77(13), 76 87.
Parker, R., & Ingram, A. (2011). Considerations in choosing online collaboration systems:
Functions, uses, and effects. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology,
7(1), 2 15.
Parker, R. E. (2003). Distinguishing qualities of virtual groups: An issue-oriented perspective.
In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. Cathcart, L. Samovar,, & L. Henman (Eds.), Small Group
Communication: Theory and Research. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319 332.
Scheibehenne, R., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Meta-analytic review of choice
overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409 425.
Schrader, S., Riggs, W. M., & Smith, R. P. (1993). Choice over uncertainty and ambiguity in
technical problem solving. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 10(1-2),
73 99.
Scott, C. R., Quinn, L., Timmerman, C. E., & Garrett, D. M. (1998). Ironic uses of group
communication technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with group
decision support system users. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 353 374.
Sharp, A., & McDermott, P. (2001). Workflow modeling: Tools for process improvement and
application development. Norwood, MA: Artech.House.
Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Des Moines, IA:
Prentice-Hall.
Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learning perceptions and expectations with
strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87 103.
Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201 219.
Timmerman, C. E., & Kruepke, K. A. (2006). Computer-assisted instruction, media richness,
and college student performance. Communication Education, 55(1), 73 104.
Young, J. R. (2004). When good technology means bad teaching. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(12), A-31 A-32.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. (2006). Instructional video
in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness.
Information & Management, 43(1), 15 27.
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS
ABSTRACT
Evaluation is the process by which we estimate how things should go,

explore how things are going, and determine how things went in terms of
course redesign. In this chapter, we examine formative and summative
methods for assessing student learning and establishing teacher effective-
ness and course quality. Evaluation is a subjective, value-laden process.
To introduce the rigor needed to make it meaningful, evaluation should
be multifaceted, planned in advance, made transparent to learners, and
employ valid and reliable methods. Moving courses online presents both
opportunities and challenges for evaluation. We explore ways to imple-
ment assessment to make full use of the advantages of technology while
mitigating the problems associated with online delivery.
Keywords: Course redesign; online education; course evaluation;
assessment; student feedback; online evaluation
INTRODUCTION
Decisions made throughout the redesign process have all focused on bring-
ing about changes: changes in our learners, changes in our course, and
changes in ourselves, as instructors. Learning is a change process. Through
it, learners develop new proficiencies; their experiences should leave them
enriched changed for the better. The same holds true for our redesigned
course. Our deliberate attention to key considerations in the design, inter-
action, media, evaluation (DIME) model should result in an improved
experience that makes the best use of technology, increasing student access
113
and introducing teaching and learning efficiencies, without sacrificing on

quality.
To ensure we arrive at our destination, we turn our attention to the final
phase of course redesign, and making choices related to evaluation. We
have already been making some evaluation-related choices during the other
phases of course redesign. Now, we need to formalize those assessment
decisions. In this chapter, we use the terms evaluation and assessment inter-
changeably, which occurs often in the literature (see Bartley, 2006 for rele-
vant discussion). We feature the term evaluation in the model, but, given
our purpose, will not distinguish it from assessment. During this phase of
redesign, we focus on systematic processes by which we collect and inter-
pret data to determine three things: (1) how things should work in our
course, (2) how things are working in our course, and (3) how things
worked in our course. Data may be used to inform decisions at a variety of
levels. Using the DIME model of course redesign, we investigate evaluation
at the student, instructor, and course levels.
Types of Evaluation
Assessment data may be used for formative or summative purposes.

Formative data is used to inform decisions made before and during a learn-
ing experience, which provides answers to questions about how things
should work and how things are working. Formative data offers the oppor-
tunity to make adjustments to the learning experience as it unfolds.
Summative data is used to answer questions about how things worked; it is
most often collected at the end of a learning activity or course. Summative
data from one learning activity may become formative data for the next.
Formative Assessment
Formative evaluation can assist you in knowing your students, enabling
you to retrofit your design, interaction, and media decisions to a particular
set of learners. For instance, the administration of surveys that assess lear-
ner readiness, the giving of pretests to determine learner proficiency in key
skills, or the design of orientating activities that gauge learner autonomy
can all guide your instructional approach and answer questions about how
things should work. Formative evaluation can also be used to assess things
along the way to determine how things are going. For instance, the review
of student activity reports can help gauge learner participation. The admin-
istration of intermittent attitude checks can identify the need for instructor
Evaluation Considerations 115
intervention, and the use of low- or no-risk assignments can assess learner
understanding of course concepts.
Together, formative assessments can provide a wealth of information
about how students are experiencing a course while they are enrolled and
there is still time to make changes. Competency tests may also be formative
when they are used to examine learner mastery of knowledge and skills
that will be needed for later tasks, assuming the potential for remediation.
Competency tests are often used to ascertain learner achievement of the
learning objectives. When used this way, they are a source of summative
data.
Summative Assessment
Summative evaluation collects information to ascertain how things went.
Assessments that focus on student learning are performance-based. They
are designed to answer questions about how much progress learners ulti-
mately make toward meeting the course objective(s). Summative data may
also reflect learners’ levels of satisfaction with the course as well as outlin-
ing specific actions students took in support of their own learning.
Together, this data can be used in making decisions about revising the
course for the next session.
Nature of Assessment
Assessment is a subjective, value-laden activity. Decisions about what data

to collect, how to collect it, and how to use it are filtered through the per-
spectives of decision makers; they determine which activities are worthy of
evaluation and which are not. In the case of course redesign, the instructor
is the decision maker. In designing and implementing evaluation, the aim is
to make it rigorous and transparent, but it won’t be neutral. Attention
should be paid to reliability and validity of methods to ensure that evalua-
tion strategies actually measure what they are designed to measure. Even
with that, the National Research Council (2001) argues that there is no
way to truly ascertain what a learner knows. The best we can do is esti-
mate, using quality tools to help. The quality of the tools directly affects
the quality of the information gathered; evaluation needs a systematic
approach. Decisions about evaluation need to be made reflectively, as they
will likely affect both learner and instructor behaviors.
The nature of the assessments, and how they will be used, has been found
to strongly influence learner behavior. Biggs (1985) reports on a series of
studies that examined factors that influence the learning strategy students
apply. The strategies were organized in three levels: surface, achieving, or
deep. Deep-level learning is indicative of the greatest effort by learners
and results in the integration of new knowledge and skills into learners’
permanent repertoires, so it can be drawn on and applied across future
contexts. Surface-level learning is a strategy used to meet short-term
expectations, for instance passing a test. Any change in the learner will be
temporary. Achieving-level strategies are used by students motivated more
by attaining the status that comes with earning high grades, rather than a
desire to really learn the material. They behave as model students, but there
may be no permanent integration of the skills and knowledge that come
with deep-level learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976; Ramsden, 2005). One of the
factors found to influence the strategy learners employ is the way the task
will be evaluated. Task will be evaluated; task evaluation, together with per-
sonal and motivation factors, influences actions and effort (Biggs, Kember, &
Leung, 2001).
In addition to affecting student behavior, evaluation also influences
instructor behaviors. Outcomes from formative and summative evaluation
affect instructional practice. In order to make good decisions, evaluation
needs to be well designed and relevant to your learning objectives as well as
to your learners.
Given the purpose, power, and subjectivity of evaluation, it is essential
to be reflective and multifaceted in your approach. Consider the questions
you need to answer and the methods you’ll use to answer them, as part of
your redesign process. The inherent lack of neutrality in evaluation is not
in itself problematic, but it is important that the subjectivity is recognized,
the approach to evaluation is balanced, and that evaluation is purposeful
and meaningful. As you finalize your redesign choices, develop an evalua-
tion process that provides the information you need to make good deci-
sions. In this chapter, we investigate the assessment of student learning and
explore its implications for instructor effectiveness and overall course
quality.
EVALUATION IN ONLINE COURSES
As we move courses online, we need to rethink ways to conduct evaluation.

As with the other instructional elements, we don’t want to simply digitize
the old approaches, we need to rethink things. As we’ve shown throughout
the redesign process, the nature of the online environment and the learning
it enables are different and require new approaches to teaching and learn-
ing. We open our discussion of evaluation with an exploration of the
advantages and challenges that accompany evaluation in online courses.
Changes to Evaluation Processes

The general purposes of evaluation remain unchanged for online courses,

but technology does enable new forms of evaluation. It also presents
some unique challenges. For instance, during the design phase in Chapter 3,
we established that online environments lend themselves well to a “learn
by doing” approach. This makes student learning more visible through
the production of project-based outcomes. These outcomes may better
estimate student competencies than a score on an examination, which is an
advantage.
However, students may not put enough time into completing the projects
or they may perceive there to be insufficient time or support to get them
done. Studies report that online students put in significantly less time than
students attending face-to-face classes. According to Horspool and Lange
(2012), online students spend an average of just 3.2 hours per week on their
course work as compared to and average of 5.53 hours by classroom-based
learners. Fewer hours don’t necessarily translate to poorer student effort or
learning, however these statistics bear some consideration when developing
course assessments. In the remainder of this section, we identify and explore
a series of advantages and challenges of online evaluation. Generally,
challenges can be addressed using technology-enabled advantages.
Advantages of Online Evaluation

Many learning management systems have robust reporting tools that track
student behavior, for instance, what materials they opened, when, and for
how long. Depending upon your choice of technology, this information can
be distilled into reports or placed on a dashboard for instructors use.
Student activity logs can be particularly useful in spotting learners who
may be at risk due to inactivity, something we rarely have access to face-to-
face. Logs also provide clues about learner experiences in relation to ease
of course navigation and the perceived value of content. This information
is useful in making course revisions.
The content of class discussions is archived in online courses. This data
is generally unavailable in face-to-face courses. The archives allow for
contributions to discussions to be analyzed and used as part of student

performance data. If “participation” is a course expectation, there can be
more transparency in terms of quality and quantity of contributions
expected and also in terms of scoring. Archived discussions also make
participation more visible, allowing learners to better see their ongoing
contributions and compare them to their peers. Rubrics are recommended
when scoring participation; we’ll revisit the idea of rubrics in the section on
integrating evaluation later in the chapter.
Challenges of Online Evaluation

One of the challenges to online evaluation is the lack of direct observation
of learners. Without the chance for direct observation, students can easily
misinterpret assignments or fall behind on projects without realizing it.
When they become aware, they may quickly attempt to replicate sample
projects rather than engaging in deep-level learning. According to Ramsden
(1997), insufficient time, lack of perceived support, lack of readiness,
or previous rewards for “replicating” assignments contribute to the use of
surface- rather than deep-level learning. Surface-level learning may go
undetected by evaluation methods that measure only surface outcomes.
While this is not solely a problem in online courses, the lack of face-to-face
meetings reduces opportunities for detection and correction along the way.
Another challenge to online evaluation is the increased opportunities for
learner academic dishonesty. There are two prime concerns related to aca-
demic dishonesty, which seem to intensify for online courses: maintaining
security of exams (to avoid cheating) and increased plagiarism (Le Heron,
2001). Exam security is easier to maintain in a traditional class with techni-
ques such as using a separate answer sheet, so that actual test questions
never leave instructor control. When learners are taking the exam remotely,
questions can be copied and saved using screenshots, typed up in a separate
document and saved, or in less restrictive systems, simply printed and
passed around.
Further complicating matters is the fact that instructors and learners
do not gather in class to go over the exam. So, learners will need access to
the questions in order to understand the feedback they receive. Yet, high-
quality exams are challenging to write, so creating multiple versions is
time- and labor-intensive for the instructor. I find this to be particularly
true with case study-based exams, which are my personal preference when
assessing applied knowledge.
Plagiarism also presents a problem. According to a recent Pew Research
Poll of college presidents, 55% report an increase in plagiarism over the
past 10 years. Of those reporting an increase believe that computers and the
Internet have played a major role (Pew Research Center, 2011). A recent
posting to the Chronicle of Higher Education Technology blog reports
several incidents of plagiarism in non-credit MOOC’s (Massive Open
Online Courses), prompting surprise and an investigation by Coursera into
how widespread the problem is (Young, August 2012).
Other security challenges involve verifying that the learner is actually the
one completing the learning activity, restricting student access to online
materials or textbooks during exams, and ensuring learners aren’t engaging

in unauthorized collaboration while completing exams. Below I share
strategies I have found to be effective deterrents of academic dishonesty.
Rowe (2004) also provides a number of countermeasures that might be
used to help control exam security.
Strategies for Discouraging Academic Dishonesty

It is essential to clearly articulate “the rules” for learners in advance.
Setting expectations, and helping learners to understand the rationale
behind them, facilitates compliance behaviors. In a study of 121 undergrad-
uate business students completing an 11-item cheating questionnaire, the
percentage of respondents who reported cheating behaviors to be inap-
propriate went up significantly when the instructor provided test-taking
policies. For instance, without a specific policy by the instructor, only 10%
of respondents thought it somewhat or highly inappropriate to use an open
book during an online exam. When the instructor stated a policy of no
books, 71% of respondents thought it highly inappropriate (King, Guyette,
& Piotrowski, 2009).
The use of multiple channels in setting expectations helps to ensure that
all learners get the message. The use of video can be particularly effective.
The richer nature of the channel enhances perceptions of teacher immedi-
acy, which has been shown to increase rule compliance. For instance,
Rocca (2004) established a positive link between teacher immediacy and
student attendance. Other related research showed that students are more
likely to comply with requests from instructors who are high in teacher
immediacy and less likely to comply with requests from those low in imme-
diacy (Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988).
In setting expectations for my own exams, I include the rules and reasons
in a weekly video address to learners; I also include a written version of the
rules in the instructions to the exam itself. I let students know that their
behavior will influence the ability for future students to take the exam in a
place of their convenience; the alternative would be requiring students to go
to a testing center. I include specific instructions about what files learners

can and cannot save on their computers, and at what point all of the files
should be deleted from their computers. I also include explicit directions
about whom, if anyone, they may speak with about the exam. Learners are
advised at the start of the exam that in viewing the exam questions, they are
indicating their acceptance of the terms. This seems to be effective. As pre-
viously discussed, making expectations explicit helps to reduce learner
uncertainty and, at least in my experience, facilitates compliance.
In developing online exams, it is difficult to prevent learners from using

outside materials such as the Internet or textbooks during their exams.
Rather than try to restrict their use, I have adopted a strategy of writing
questions that require analysis, evaluation, and synthesis rather than just
concept knowledge and comprehension (see Bloom’s taxonomy in Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohol, 1956). This frees me to encourage
learners to utilize outside resources as they demonstrate deeper-level under-
standing of concepts in applying them to cases. If this is not a possibility
for your content, a testing center or exam proctor could provide a solution
to security concerns. There are also commercial firms such as Kryterion
and ProctorU that provide remote proctoring services via webcam.
For traditional multiple response kinds of exams, in addition to setting
behavioral expectations, you might try question randomization. Narrowed
release dates and shortened response times may help as well. Requiring
learners to make an appointment to take the exam would alert learners
about your awareness of the window of time in which they accessed the
exam. Some Learning Management Systems (LMS) will allow you to vary
release times by student, making this process more manageable.
Unfortunately, some learners are devoting more time to working around
test controls than in studying for exams. One student reported on a team
approach to cheating using a shared Google Doc. According to The
Chronicle of Higher Education Technology blog, students took turns adding
questions to a document that they all could access. With the two attempts
the instructor allowed on each test, even randomization of questions and
restricted release times were no match for the students’ system. All were
given grade A in the class; apparently, none had earned it (Young, June
2012). Learner instructor relationships, along with explicit expectation
setting, seem essential components to reducing tendencies toward cheating.
Plagiarism is another common problem in both online and traditional
face-to-face environments. Students are equally likely to wait too long
to get started on assignments, misunderstand what constitutes plagiarism,
or suffer from a poor work ethic, all of which are common causes of
plagiarism. Strategies for addressing the root causes of plagiarism need

to change in online courses. One approach to addressing this challenge is to
require students to go through a tutorial on plagiarism, so they come to
know what it is and why it’s important to avoid it. This clarifies the issue
and sets expectations. Weekly surveys designed to gather questions from
learners about their projects help to ensure they are getting started and
provide information about any misunderstandings. Over time, surveys can
provide clues about needed revisions to project instructions and/or support
materials.
Another popular strategy is to employ plagiarism-detection software.
Many LMS systems have plagiarism-detection software in them. There are
also stand-alone tools available; one of the most commonly used tools in
the United States is Turnitin.com.
Accessibility Considerations in Online Evaluation

One additional consideration related to evaluation in online courses is the
need to build them so students with learning disabilities can access them.
Access needs may vary from enabling extended time on exams to compat-
ibility with adaptive modes of delivery. For instance, learners who are
visually impaired, with the aid of assistive technologies, have written exams
read to them. At universities in the United States, it is common to have an
office dedicated to providing learning accommodations for students. If
your learners cannot come to campus, that office may be able to help in
the development of exams that learners take remotely, which comply with
accessibility standards.
Moving courses online does present some unique opportunities and chal-
lenges for evaluation. In the next section we investigate how to integrate
evaluation of student learning into course redesign.
INTEGRATING EVALUATION OF STUDENT

LEARNING
Revisiting Learning Objectives
Begin the process of making choices related to evaluation by revisiting

the learning objectives set during phase one of course redesign. We used
a procedure for writing objectives that had strong implications for
evaluation. The objectives were written to meet four criteria. They were to
be (1) observable, (2) measurable, (3) attainable, and (4) specific. We’ll
briefly go over the aspects of the criteria most relevant to evaluation. For a
full review of the process, revisit Chapter 3. Objectives generally include
summative evaluation; formative assessments should also be considered as
they can help learners succeed on summative tasks.
Strong Objectives are Observable
In chapter 3, we introduced the need to articulate learning objectives so
they feature student actions that can be observed or so that the results of
their actions are tangible. In other words, objectives should involve some
behavior that students must perform in order to produce the desired
results. Let’s look at a sample objective.
For example, we might set the objective that learners will demonstrate
the ability to assess the credibility of sources of evidence to generate a list of
reliable sources for a (course-specific) research project. We can’t see our
learners assessing the credibility of sources, but we can evaluate their skill
in doing so based on the quality and number of entries on the reference list
they create. This is how we make the outcomes observable, even when we
are not able to actually observe our students engaging in the behavior. As
written, this objective only meets part of the criteria for strong objectives.
So far, we’ve indicated the knowledge and skills that will need to be
evaluated as part of student learning. As we strengthen the objective, the
additional detail will have further implications for evaluation.
Strong Objectives are Measurable & Attainable
In order to estimate whether learners ultimately meet the objective, we
must establish criteria for measuring their progress in advance. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, decisions about performance standards should be
based upon who our learners are, what skills they already possess, and how
much time they have to develop the needed skills. In our sample objective,
we indicated that learners will gain skills in assessing credibility of sources,
but we did not indicate how many sources would be indicative of the
desired level of achievement. To strengthen the objective, we would add
those details. Adding to our sample objective, we might revise it this way:
learners will demonstrate the ability to assess the credibility of sources of
evidence by reviewing a list of instructor-provided resources and selecting the
10 most credible to be included in a list of reliable sources for a (course-spe-
cific) research project with 80% accuracy. Assessment of student learning
would come from comparing their choices to an answer key. The closer the
match between the learners’ reference lists and the key, the stronger their
skills. Measurability of objectives ties directly to evaluation.
Strong Objectives are Specific

Objectives become more specific as we add information to make them
observable, measurable, and attainable. Sometimes we need to add even
more details to ensure the objective depicts exactly what we want our lear-
ners to know or do and to what level of difficulty. For instance, in the
example above, learners will not be finding their own sources, but how dif-
ficult will it really be for them to spot the 10 most credible sources? We
might bring that into focus by determining how many sources will be pro-
vided for their review and how long they will have to complete their evalua-
tions to bring this into view.
In revising our objective once again, it would read: Learners will demon-
strate the ability to assess the credibility of sources of evidence by analyzing
a list of 25 instructor-provided resources using the American Library
Association’s Guidelines of Information Literacy and identifying the 10 most
credible to be included in a list of reliable sources for a (course-specific)
research project within 48 hours with 80% accuracy.
This objective is more specific and therefore more indicative of what stu-
dents will actually be able to do. It also makes explicit what the summative
evaluation will consist of. This more specific objective also provides clues
about formative assessments that could be included in support of student
learning. These will also be revealed in the instructional methods chosen as
part of the design phase.
Revisit Instructional Methods

Later in phase one of course redesign, we used the objectives to inform our
choices of instructional method through a set of supporting decisions.
Those decisions centered on: information to be shared with learners, skills
to be illustrated for them, means provided for them to practice the skills,
and ways to ensure the learning was carried forward (called nurturing pro-
gress). Consult Chapter 3 for a richer discussion of Design decisions. We’ll
briefly go over the aspects of these decisions that are most related to eva-
luation. Ultimately, both instructional method, and the means by which it
will be conducted, will influence formative and summative evaluations of
student learning.
Evaluation of Information Shared

As we previously discussed, students will need to be provided with some
information about the knowledge and skills they are to build in order to
achieve the learning objectives. Using our sample objective, we might use
narrated slideware to describe the American Library Association’s Guidelines
of Information Literacy and display an example of a website that meets

those guidelines using a screencast to highlight how it meets the criteria.
In order to move learners toward the learning objective, we could
employ formative evaluations to determine if students understand the
information that was shared. In this case, we could use surveys that test
learners’ comprehension of the guidelines. Consider strategies for discoura-
ging academic dishonesty as you develop the surveys. The results of these
assessments could be used to evaluate knowledge competencies that will be
needed later in the summative assessment. Trend results from these evalua-
tions could be used to determine whether the class is ready to move on or
needs more instruction as a whole. Individual learners could be directed to
additional content if they haven’t yet grasped the concepts.
Evaluation of Skills Illustrated

Learners will benefit from seeing how competencies should be applied to
accomplish the learning objective. Competencies are the skills, abilities, and
knowledge needed to perform a task (Jones, Voorhees, & Paulson, 2002).
To achieve our objective, learners will need to see how the guidelines can
be applied in evaluating the reliability of various types of sources.
In Chapter 5, we identified Voicethread as a means to talk through good
and bad examples; this tool also allows for learners to ask questions within
the thread. Given our learning objective, we might show how the guidelines
help us identify reliable and unreliable sources. Formative assessment
might take the form of instructor analysis of questions posed afterwards by
learners.
Evaluation of Guided Practice

Practice ensures the learners are actively learning how to apply the concepts
and guidelines to achieve the learning objective. In the case of assessing the
relative credibility of sources from a list, learners would need to conduct
the kind of analysis previously demonstrated for them. This indicates that
assessment of student learning should center on the performance of authen-
tic tasks. In other words, they should be able to demonstrate competency
in evaluating the credibility of actual sources.
One way to carry out evaluation of practiced skills is to assign a set
of materials for learners to analyze along with a list of the guidelines to
apply. Formative evaluation might take the shape of self-review or
peer review of work, guided by a rubric. Instructor feedback is particularly
valuable when it comes to skills practice. Considerations related to
the method and frequency of feedback should include the nature of the
assignment and number of students in the class. We explore the issue of

scalability in our discussion of additional evaluation methods later in the
chapter.
Evaluation of Nurtured Progress

Ultimately, progress is nurtured through feedback on evaluations, so long
as the evaluation is designed to aptly measure achievement of the learning
objective. This step will entail the summative evaluation depicted in the
learning objective, but it may also entail others forms as well. For instance,
learners may analyze the list of 25 resources, choosing the 10 most credible
for their reference lists. Lists would be compared to the key; learners’ lists
should match at least 80% of the entries on the key. Learners who can per-
form to these standards would have met the objective. However, for those
who didn’t, there would be no information about what went wrong to nur-
ture their future progress. Including an assessment activity in which lear-
ners explained their choices would enrich the information available to the
instructor for the purposes of feedback.
Incorporate an Array of Evaluation Methods
As previously suggested, evaluation estimates student learning more accu-

rately when it is multidimensional. In other words, employing a variety of
assessment methods will better capture information about student learning
and bring the data together for a more complete picture. Tests, discussions,
real world applications, student reflections, teams, peer review, and partici-
pation are all useful means of evaluation in online classes. Rubrics are
essential to the process as they communicate expectations, provide trans-
parency, and aid in overall student achievement. There are many more
methods for estimating learner competencies than we’ll explore here.
Angelo and Cross’s (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers is still one of the best resources with methods easily
adaptable to online classes.
Consider Knowledge-Based Evaluation

Testing learner knowledge of concepts may be used as formative assessment,
summative assessment, or both. We previously discussed ways to maintain
security for online tests such as randomizing questions or administering sev-
eral versions. There are other factors in using tests that should be considered
as well. Kelly and Haber (2006) recommend beginning with the purpose.
For instance, an estimate of concept knowledge can be made using linear

questions and open response questions (linear being multiple choice, true &
false, and matching; open response being fill in the blank, short answer, and
essay). The approach you take will depend upon other considerations such
as the length of time intended for the exam, the grading system, and the
scoring mechanism. These considerations will all impact scalability. If time
is limited or you have a large enrollment course, you may want to limit
open response items or consider alternate scoring mechanisms.
Jordan (2012) recently investigated how learners engaged with e-test

questions and used the feedback provided. She used observational methods
by having students answer questions and provide explanations about their
approach. Factors like question wording and instructions (such as expected
word length) influenced learner engagement as well as whether the assess-
ment was formative or summative. Jordan also found that feedback was
used in more detail when learners were told that their responses were incor-
rect. Also, the more detailed and tailored the feedback was, the more useful
students found it.
Linear and open response tests can work as estimates of concept knowl-
edge, but if you want to estimate learner skill in applying that knowledge,
then performance-based assessments will be more effective (Kelly & Haber,
2006). Performance-based assessment might take the form of creating a pro-
duct, such as the reference list in our sample objective, or an interactive
simulation. We explore ideas for performance-based assessment below.
Consider Performance-Based Evaluation

Performance-based assessment of skills is more likely to be summative in
nature. According to Kelly & Haber (2006), performance-based evalua-
tion may be observational, mechanical, or an interactive simulation.
Observational assessments involve watching the learner perform a skill.
For instance, the learner may give a live presentation during an online class
meeting. Mechanical assessments involve creation of a product such as the
reference list in our sample learning objective. Simulations involve learners
operating within virtual contexts, demonstrating skills in responding to
content relevant circumstances.
Performance-based assessments tend to be multilevel in nature.
Generally, performance requires mastery of concept knowledge to support
skill competencies. Portfolios are popular multidimensional assessment
tools. They frequently include work samples (mechanical assessment), video
demonstrations (observational assessment), and learner interpretations of
portfolio contents (knowledge assessment). Case studies also lend
themselves to multilevel evaluation. They frequently ask learners to analyze

a situation using a particular set of concepts (knowledge assessment) to gen-
erate a response such as recommendations for resolving a problem (mechan-
ical assessment) that they formally present for feedback (observational
assessment).
As discussed previously, assessment is not neutral; it is a judgment call.
Instructors use their knowledge and values to define levels of performance.
By making standards explicit, subjectivity in lessened. Rubrics are a good
tool for crystallizing performance expectations and then communicating

them to learners. Morgan and O’Reilly (2006) argue that creating a detailed
breakdown of standards of achievement (rubric), which is conveyed from
the start, is essential for an effective online assessment.
Rubrics break an assignment into component parts and then describe
what constitutes performance at various levels for each part (Stevens &
Levi, 2005). “Parts” may refer to distinct tasks comprising the assignment,
or the term may refer to separate competencies, which collectively result in
performance. In this case, the individual competencies would form separate
dimensions upon which learning is to be evaluated. Rubrics are usually for-
matted as tables with a row for each of the dimensions and enough col-
umns to accommodate defined levels of performance, one level per column.
Four or five levels of performance are common. Seeking to develop a
rubric with strong inter-rater reliability, Newell, Dahm, and Newell (2002)
found four levels to be most effective in the assessment of student portfo-
lios. Four levels eliminated a neutral answer and forced evaluators to make
a more positive or negative ranking. They also found it easier to make the
performance-level descriptions more distinct. Rubric samples that set out
the National Educational Technology Standards for Students also use four
levels: initiating (attempting), approaching (working), meets (achieving),
and exceeds (leading) (Kelly & Haber, 2006).
Rubrics developed for my own classes use anywhere from 3 5 levels per
dimension, depending on the complexity and relevance of the competency
to overall performance. More complex tasks have more layers of perfor-
mance. The key is to ascertain that your rubric captures distinctions in per-
formance in such a way that you as the instructor understand them clearly
and can articulate them meaningfully to your students. If you use common
assignments, rubrics should be able to be applied consistently across classes
and represent the levels of performance in an agreed upon fashion.
Next we turn our attention to other forms of performance-based evalua-
tion that provide formative data about influences on the learning process
in addition to summative data about learning outcomes. Expectation
setting will play a role in the quality of information gathered. Student per-
formance may benefit from the use of an effective scoring rubric.
Consider Additional Forms of Evaluation

In addition to the more purposeful evaluations we’ve been discussing,
there is often a vast amount of assessment data that relates to student
performance available in the electronic archives of online courses. In this
section, we look at three potential sources: threaded discussion, peer
reviews, and information surveys. Each can be used to answer questions

about how things are going. Together, they hold clues about how things
went. We begin by examining threaded discussions and the information
they may provide along with research-informed practices for their effective
implementation.
Threaded discussions Records of threaded discussion can reveal lear-
ner reactions to course content, signaling levels of comprehension of and
engagement with content. Records can also reveal the strength of the learn-
ing community through learner reactions to one another. Threaded discus-
sions often take place via blog, wiki, or LMS-supported discussion board.
Within instructor-guided discussions, learner responses are nested beneath
a prompt posted by the instructor. Learners respond to the prompt or
other learners’ postings, often inspiring additional questions and com-
ments. Instructionally, threaded discussions are an effective means to
explore course concepts and their applications at a deeper level.
Assignment and assessment of activities such as threaded discussion
can help to facilitate learner engagement, but they need to be well designed
and implemented. In a grounded theory study of learners enrolled in five
online courses, learners reported that poorly structured discussion topics
negatively affect their course experience and their response behaviors
(Vonderwell, Liang, & Alderman, 2007).
Surveys of students indicated that requiring learners to do three things
helps make peer posts more useful to other learners. Respondents suggested
that posts should: (1) make clear that learners have read the content, (2)
respond directly to the post of at least one peer, and (3) add a question or
new information to move the discussion forward. Ultimately, learners
found rubrics reflecting those expectations to be conducive to performance
and student learning (Vonderwell et al., 2007). In a study of 87 graduate
students, Gilbert and Dabbagh (2005) found similar results. Facilitator
guidelines and evaluation criteria made for more meaningful student posts.
However, setting requirements such as word counts and citation rules
appeared to impede the quality and average number of posts submitted.
Discussions can be used as formative or summative evaluation. They are

useful in assessing the level of engagement of individual learners, determin-
ing the strength of the learning community, and identifying any gaps in stu-
dent learning that might be filled by additional instruction. They are an
excellent means to answer questions about how things are going while the
course is in progress. They may also hold clues about how things went to
inform what should be done in the future.
Peer reviews Peer reviews are another way to evaluate how things are
going. We briefly touched on peer evaluation in our discussion of peer

interaction and collaboration in Chapter 4. Peer accountability facilitates
behaviors in support of shared goals. In the case of student teams, those
goals should support learning. Utilizing a peer accountability process such
as Rate Your Mate™ (“mate” refers to teammate) provides a wealth of
data about how things are going (Parker & Coykendall, 2012). Through
the Rate Your Mate process, teams identify shared goals and establish
behavioral expectations. Later, a structured review process provides devel-
opmental and evaluative feedback to each teammate to enhance personal
and group performance. Peer accountability facilitates collaboration and
the peer reviews supplied through a process such as Rate Your Mate give
the instructor a view to how things are going for each team, providing an
opportunity to intervene when teams need additional support.
Peer review can also take the form of learners providing feedback to peers
on the quality of their assignments. In developing a typology of peer assess-
ment, Topping (1998) defines it as, “an arrangement in which individuals
consider the amount, level, value, worth, quality, or success of the products
or outcomes of learning of peers of similar status” (p. 250). This form of
peer review would likely be used in online classes when peers are cast as
information resources rather than collaborators (see Chapter 4 for a full dis-
cussion). This type of peer review will likely improve the learning of both
the recipient and the reviewer, especially if both are trained in the process.
In analyzing the perceived helpfulness of comments provided by peer
learners versus experts (i.e., instructor), Cho, Schunn, and Charney (2006)
found that directive comments (ones that provided a specific critique along
with a suggestion for improvement) and praise comments were most helpful
to learners. Cho et al. found the experts provided far more directive com-
ments than any other type of comment; they also provided far more direc-
tive comments than did peers. On the other hand, peers provided more
praise comments than did experts. Praise comments appeared to provide
motivational effects, making it more likely that learners would revise multi-
ple times.
Peer assessment of assignments guides practice and aids in student learn-

ing. It also provides information useful to instructors in evaluating how
things are going. The review of instructor and peer evaluations can provide
clues about skill gaps and assignment misconceptions while there is still
time to address them in class.
Information surveys One other assessment technique that can help
answer questions about student learning, as it is happening, is information
surveys. Surveys can take many forms, but one that is particularly useful in
answering questions about how things are going is Brookfield’s (1995)

Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ). The CIQ asks learners five questions
designed to get at what’s working, what’s not, and why/how. For example,
one of the questions asks, “At what moment this week did you feel most
engaged?” Another asks the inverse, “When did you feel distracted?”
Another question asks, “What action of others was helpful?” Another asks,
the question again, substituting the word puzzling for helpful.
As an instructor, I find I get valuable information about what I may be
doing that is helpful/puzzling, by using Brookfield’s CIQ (1995). Using
surveys such as the CIQ tends to set expectations among learners that
something will be done to address the puzzling or disengaging elements. So
I only use it when I intend to act. Use the CIQ in moderation. It is most
useful as formative assessment, but may be combined with information
from other evaluation techniques to answer questions about how well
things went, providing a picture of student learning, overall.
Further Considerations on Evaluating Student Learning

In assessing student learning, we looked to answer questions related to how
things should go, how things are going, and how things went. We looked
to our learning objectives and were guided by the predetermined outcomes.
We also looked to our instructional methods; methods will strongly influ-
ence choices as many have evaluation already built in. Interaction decisions
will also hold sway. If you’re using peers as information resources or colla-
borators, you will want to consider peer evaluation strategies.
Previous media selection decisions may also suggest evaluation methods;
methods of evaluation we choose may dictate additional media choices. For
instance, if we opt to give online knowledge tests, we may need a tool with
which to deliver the questions and feedback. If you use an LMS, it may
have a test tool built in. You might also consider independent testing tools
such as QuizStar, ClassMarker, Hot Potatoes, or an interactive form in
Google Docs. If you decide to use peer review of individual assignments,
you might consider a tool that will randomly assign the work to reviewers,
using a double blind system to reduce bias. SWoRD peer review by Panther
Learning, Turnitin.com, or a publisher provided tool such as InSite offered
by Cengage Learning all include the double blind review feature.
Summative evaluation choices may also be enabled by technology. For
instance, should you choose to assign a project such as a portfolio, learners
can create and store them relatively easily in an online tool like Mahara. If
learners want more freedom in their layout and look, WordPress might be
a better choice.
Finally, in choosing evaluation methods and setting performance cri-

teria, the validity and reliability of tests and rubrics need to be established
to ensure the information gathered is truly indicative of the intended stu-
dent learning and that the measures do so consistently. Consider using pilot
tests of surveys, field tests of exam questions, and expert reviews of rubrics
to move you toward the goal of using valid, reliable measures. Analysis of
learner data can provide additional information about the overall effective-
ness of evaluation methods (see Moskal & Leydens, 2000 for a more thor-
ough examination of this concern.)
In the end, instructors will use this evaluation data to estimate student
learning, but it can also be used in evaluating other aspects of the rede-
signed course. Next, we investigate how the data might be used in conjunc-
tion with additional data collection strategies to provide information about
teacher effectiveness and overall course quality.
EVALUATING INSTRUCTOR EFFECTIVENESS

AND COURSE QUALITY
In this section we bring together instructor effectiveness and course quality.

Instructor effectiveness focuses on assessing instructor skill in moderating
and facilitating online courses. Course quality examines the overall learning
experience and how well it brings about the desired change in learners while
leaving them with a general sense of satisfaction. These are separate evalua-
tion questions, but they are often answered using shared methods of data
collection and, given our focus on course redesign, we are most interested
in collecting data that is usable by instructors as they teach and revise
courses for future semesters.
Instructor effectiveness is grounded in interaction; decisions made dur-
ing phase two of course redesign will influence instructor evaluation.
Course quality is a global rating that represents how well the four sets of
redesign decisions come together to create a positive learning experience

for students (DIME). Judgments about quality may vary by perspective;
students, instructors, and institutions don’t always have the same agenda,
so a multifaceted approach is essential to making a reasonable estimate of
course quality (Sherry, 2003).
Learner reviews will provide valuable information about how satisfied
they were by the elements of the course, but they can be unreliable esti-
mates of what worked. Research has established a correlation between
grades earned in courses and student evaluations of teaching (SETs).

Unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean that students have learned
more. For instance, Johnson (2003) in an extensive review of the issue
found support for both the leniency and reciprocity hypotheses. Leniency
indicates that instructors who were more lenient graders were rated higher
on SETs. Reciprocity was the granting of higher SET scores to instructors
by students who received higher course grades (Clayson, 2004, 2008).
Also of potential concern is the finding of a negative association between
SETs and course rigor. Course rigor includes student perceptions of work-
load, difficulty of material, and the amount of time needed to complete
assignments. Centra (2003) found student ratings were lower for more rigor-
ous courses. Results such as these strongly suggest the need to use SETs as
formative rather than summative evaluation in determining instructor effec-
tiveness. There is value in assessing student satisfaction, but it differs in
character from assessments of student learning. Learners may be dissatisfied
for reasons other than their acquisition of new knowledge and skill. What
learners need and what they like in online courses may not be aligned.
In a meta-analyses of 59 published and 96 unpublished studies examin-
ing moderators of effectiveness of web-based instruction, Sitzmann,
Kraiger, Stewart, and Wisher (2006) found many contradictions between
conditions learners preferred and conditions that actually produced better
learning outcomes. For example, learners were found to learn more, rela-
tive to classroom instruction, in courses that required high activity on their
part, gave them high control, and had them engage in low human interac-
tion. But learners were more satisfied when their required levels of activity
were low, they had low control, and levels of human interaction were high.
Learners were also more satisfied with courses that were shorter in dura-
tion, but they learned more from longer courses.
Examination of both learning and satisfaction are needed. Satisfaction
measures can help identify aspects of the course that might demotivate
learners, lessening their effort and potentially contributing to attrition
(Levy, 2007). In assessing instructor effectiveness and course quality, data

from learner satisfaction surveys and performance measures are important,
but additional information will make assessments more robust in answering
questions about how things are going and how things went. In the sections
that follow, we consider three additional means to assess instructor effec-
tiveness and course quality: evidence-based instructor self-reviews, peer
observations, and external reviews.
Evidence-Based Instructor Self-Reviews
Action research has long been used in analyzing and improving classroom
instruction. It differs from formal research in that it’s grounded in the local
context. Rather than testing hypotheses and generating findings that are
generalizable across a larger population, action research seeks to answer
questions specific to instructors and students in particular courses. It
does so through a systematic process that often utilizes mixed methods of
data collection and analysis (Stringer, 2007). Action research is an evidence-
based process that is often used in program assessment as well as by indivi-
dual instructors.
According to Blumberg (2011), it is critical to use evidence in order
to teach effectively. She argues that evidence needs to be both internal and
external to the course. Internal evidence includes data about student learn-
ing; external evidence involves the integration of pedagogy and research-
generated best practices into teaching methods. In her book, Teaching that
Promotes Better Learning, Blumberg (forthcoming) suggests instructors
collect information about their teaching from their own self-reflections.
These can be added to the results of formative assessments given to stu-
dents, the analysis of notes and feedback provided to students, and learner
performance data. These sources of data can be used collectively to answer
questions about how things went and how things should go next time.
Instructor self-reviews can provide valuable insights about how well par-
ticular aspects of our courses are going. Those aspects will be determined
by our approach to self-reflection; in other words, our self-reviews will
answer the questions we see as important. As such, they will not be neutral.
While that does not negate their value, it does suggest a need for triangula-
tion of more objectively derived data to get a more complete picture
of what’s going on. One possibility is to incorporate the use of peer
observations.
Peer Observations
Peer observations are well suited for assessing teacher effectiveness and
overall course quality. Without synchronous sessions to attend, peer review
will likely consist of examining course artifacts such as content modules,
asynchronous discussions, and learner-generated materials to estimate
about how things are working. In looking at instructor effectiveness, they
enable the examination of learner instructor interactions from a nonparti-
cipant point of view. In Chapter 4 we discussed three types of learner

instructor interactions: administrative, facilitative, and relational.
Measures of teacher presence are being developed, which incorporate
behaviors such as directing instruction and facilitating discourse. As a
reminder, teacher presence refers to the sense of closeness learners share
with the instructor (Garrison, 2013). Behaviors incorporated in measures
capture the essence of learner instructor interaction. For instance,
Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001) developed a tool for asses-
sing teacher presence. They suggest it be applied to the discussion of tran-
scripts to look for signs of efficacy in instruction and facilitation. Evidence
of direct instruction would be behaviors such as providing feedback, inject-
ing new knowledge into the discussion, and responding to technical pro-
blems. Evidence of facilitation would be behaviors related to setting the
climate, drawing participants into the discussion, and consensus seeking.
The inter-rater reliability for the measure ran between .77 and .84, with
the stronger reliability associated with the manifest behaviors of direct
instruction. There is still work to be done in establishing validity of the
measures, but peer observers could use them to provide summative feed-
back about instructor effectiveness as well as formative feedback about
course quality.
Another approach is to examine learner’s expressed social presence.
Social presence is a sense of psychological closeness with peers (Short,
Williams, & Christie, 1976). The results of such an examination should
reflect teaching effectiveness in that learner interactions with course content
and peers are facilitated through instructor behaviors. Anderson, Rourke,
Garrison, and Archer (2001) developed a measure for assessing learner
social presence that looks at learner actions such as quoting from a peer’s
post, continuing a discussion thread, addressing fellow learners by name,
complimenting peers, self-disclosure, and use of humor. The measure fea-
tures strong inter-rater reliability (.91 .95).
Sunal, Sunal, Odell, and Sundberg (2003) bring together indicators of
teaching presence, social presence, and course design in their Checklist for
Online Interactive Learning (COIL), which measures outcomes of online

facilitation. This differs from both the Andersen et al. (2001) and Rourke
et al. (2001) measures in that it looks at instructor and learner behaviors
within the same discussion transcripts, capturing the essence of interaction.
One potential limitation in choosing a more comprehensive measure
such as COIL (Sunal et al., 2003) is the presumption that all three types
of learner instructor interactions will be present. Which interactions are
privileged will be a function of the content, learners, and instructor, as
depicted by the metaphor. All types of interaction need not be present to

result in a positive learning experience. The results of the Sitzmann et al.
(2006) meta-analysis demonstrate this; lower interactivity courses were
found to result in better learning, but lower learner satisfaction. Regardless
of the processes peer observers choose to employ, instructors will want to
inform them about their redesign choices. This may help observers choose
the most apt methods, enabling feedback about both the effectiveness of
redesign choices as well as their utility.
External Reviews
There is a growing interest in developing quality standards for online

courses in general. Quality Matters™ is a rubric-based, peer-review system
that more than 700 institutions of higher learning are using to evaluate
online courses as part of a continuous improvement process. The rubric
provides weighted criteria related to learning objectives, instructional mate-
rials, learner interaction and engagement, course technology, assessment,
and accessibility. Although there is concern that an externally generated
review process may impinge on academic freedom, the rubric is written in
such a way that it accommodates the host of choices we’ve made during
the course redesign process.
For instance, rather than prescribing what learner interaction and
engagement should look like, as did the measure developed by Rourke
et al. (2001), the Quality Matters rubric is written so it can be applied to
evaluate the type of interaction intended by the course design.1 The follow-
ing are the rubric items for learner interaction and engagement:
• The learning activities promote the achievement of the stated learning

objectives.
• Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support
active learning.
• The instructor’s plan for classroom response time and feedback on

assignments is clearly stated.
• The requirements for student interaction are clearly articulated.
Student Reviews
Items for the other standards of quality are similarly phrased. By writing
them in this way, the appropriateness of the redesign choices for the con-
tent and learners can be assessed along with the means for implementation.
In answering questions about how things went, you may want to triangu-
late the results of external reviews with those of peer observers, when they
examine actual course discussions. Add in instructor self-reviews and the
result is a rich data set upon which to evaluate instructor effectiveness and
course quality.
There are costs associated with a subscription service such as Quality
Matters. If they preclude your access to such tools, there are other means
for external review. Teaching and course portfolios are options. The
University of Michigan has assembled a variety of resources for creating
portfolios.2 One resource that may be particularly useful is the national
repository of course portfolios.3 Much of the information gathered during
instructor self-reviews and peer evaluations could be included in a course
portfolio and then sent out for external review. The state of Ohio has
created a course review bartering system to help manage costs of external
reviews. While such a system may not exist near you, you might consider
asking associates from our professional organizations to review your
portfolio.
Last Thoughts on Instructor and Course Evaluations
Now that we’ve reviewed a number of evaluation options, we return to

learner-supplied reviews. How learners perceive the instructor and course
may ultimately speak to satisfaction, but student reviews can also provide
actionable information along the way. University-administered end of
course evaluation systems (SETs) provide summative responses to how
things went, at least in theory. But, technology can enable anonymous stu-
dent input during the course of the semester, providing information to
instructors while there’s still time to make changes. Some tools allow you
to adapt the reviews to ask about the things you see as most important to
your content and learners.
One such tool is the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG), an
online instrument that asks learners about the degree to which a course
enabled their learning. There are SALG-generated instruments or the
instructor can create a baseline measure to gather information about
learner competencies pre and post course. The results are then aggregated
for the class. The instructor can see who has completed the instrument, but
the responses themselves are anonymous to the instructor, protecting the

learners and encouraging honesty.
One additional resource for learner reviews of teaching that can be
administered at the discretion of the instructor is the survey system called
TooFast.4 Results are delivered in the aggregate and enable discussions and
change processes during the course.
Assessing teacher effectiveness and course quality should be as multifa-
ceted as evaluation of student learning. Few instructors would implement
a single measure of student achievement within a course. Instead, multiple
tests, projects, and homework are administered to paint a picture of
learning. So it should be for teacher effectiveness and course quality. The
more and varied the data, the more accurate the estimate of how things
worked and the more reliable the information upon which to make future
decisions.
CONCLUSION
The final phase of the course redesign process seeks to answer questions
about how things should go, how things are going, and how things went.
Formative evaluation gathers information about learners, content, and the
instructor prior to the start of the course to inform how things should go.
Formative assessments can also be used during the course, answering ques-
tions about how things are going, which can inform changes needed along
the way. While formative assessment is important to the instructional pro-
cess in general, it becomes more essential in online contexts where vicarious
cues are unavailable; everything needs to be more explicit.
Summative evaluation answers questions about how things went. They
may be used at the close of a learning activity or as part of determining
learner achievement of the learning objectives. Summative evaluations
from one activity may provide formative data to the next.
Data about student learning may be used as part of formative or summa-

tive evaluations of instructor effectiveness and course quality. Methods such
as SETs, instructor self-reflections, peer observations, and external reviews
can also be used to estimate how things are going and how things went.
Evaluation is a subjective, value-laden process. Those designing the pro-
cess determine what is worthy of measurement and what is not. This does
not mean the process is without rigor. A robust evaluation process, which
is planned in advance, made transparent to learners and other stakeholders,
and employs valid and reliable measures, can yield valuable information
about student learning, instructor effectiveness, and course quality. In
higher education, we measure for improvement (see Astin & Antonio, 2012
for a more complete discussion).
Redesign considerations related to evaluation are intertwined with the
other phases of course redesign. As previously discussed, we separate the
considerations into the categories of DIME, but there is overlap. Decisions
made during each redesign phase may affect previous choices and influence
those made in future phases. Course redesign is an iterative process.
Evaluation is the phase that solidifies our course plan and sets the stan-
dards by which we’ll determine our success in bringing about desired
changes in our learners, our course, and ourselves. In the next chapter we
revisit the highlights of using the DIME model for course redesign, examine
additional resources, and suggest future directions.
NOTES
1. Available from www.qualitymatters.org

2. Available from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tstpcp
3. Available from http://www.courseportfolio.org/peer/pages/index.jsp?what =
searchD
4. Available from https://www.toofast.ca
REFERENCES
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence
in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),
1 16.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college
teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., & Antonio, A. L. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice
of assessment and evaluation in higher education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Bartley, J. (2006). Assessment is as assessment does: A conceptual framework for understand-
ing online assessment and measurement. In M. Hricko & S. L. Howell (Eds.), Online
Assessment and Measurement: Foundations and Challenges (pp. 1 45). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study processes. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 185 212.
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process ques-
tionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133 149.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohol, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman-Green.
Blumberg, P. (2011). Making evidence-based practice an essential aspect of teaching. Journal
of Faculty Development, 25(3), 27 32.
Blumberg, P. (forthcoming). Teaching that promotes better learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades
and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44, 495 518.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and per-
ceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts.
Written Communication, 23(3), 260 294.
Clayson, D. E. (2004). A test of the reciprocity effect in the student evaluation of instructors in
marketing classes. Marketing Education Review, 14(2), 11 21.
Clayson, D. E. (2008). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students
learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education. 31(1),
16 30.
Garrison, D. R. (2013). Theoretical foundations and epistemological insights of the commu-
nity of inquiry. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry:
Theoretical framework, research, and practice (pp. 1 11). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful
discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5 18.
Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: Student
perceptions, behaviors and success online and face-to-face. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 37(1), 73 88.
Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York, NY: Springer.
Jones, E. A., Voorhees, R. A., & Paulson, K. (2002). Defining and assessing learning:
Exploring competency-based initiatives. NCES 2002-159. Washington, DC: Council of the
National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Competency-Based
Initiatives.
Jordan, S. (2012). Student engagement with assessment and feedback: Some lessons from
short-answer free-text e-assessment questions. Computers & Education, 58, 818 834.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy
and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication
Education, 37(1), 54 67.
Kelly, M. G., & Haber, J. (2006). National education technology standards for students:
Resources for student assessment. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in
Education.
King, C. G., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empiri-
cal analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators, 6(1). Retrieved from
http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Kingetalpaper.pdf. Accessed on April
8, 2013.
Le Heron, J. (2001). Plagiarism, learning dishonesty or just plain cheating: The context and
countermeasures in information systems teaching. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 17(3), 244 264.
Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers &
Education, 48(2), 185 204.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46, 4 11.
Morgan, C., & O’Reilly, M. (2006). Ten key qualities of assessment online. In M. Hricko &
S. Howell (Eds.), Online assessment and measurement: Foundations and challenges
(pp. 86 101). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Moskal, B. M. & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability.
Practical Assessment & Evaluation, 7(10). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?
v = 7&n = 10
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of
educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies.
Newell, J. A., Dahm, K. D. & Newell, H. L. (2002). Rubric development and inter-rater
reliability issues in assessing learning outcomes. Published in the Proceedings of the 2002
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved
from http://search.asee.org/search/fetch;jsessionid=gmm6tgdthkgtl?url=file%3A%2F%
2Flocalhost%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2F26%2FAC%25202002Paper904.
pdf&index=conference_paper&space=129746797203605791716676178&type=application
%2Fpdf%charset=. Accessed on July 6, 2013.
Parker, R. E. & Coykendall, S. (2012, November). The rate your mate process: Facilitating
collaboration through goal setting, shared expectations, and peer accountability. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, Orlando,
Florida.
Pew Research Center. (2011, August 28). The digital revolution and higher education. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
Press-Releases/2011/The-Digital-Revolution-and-Higher-Education.aspx. Accessed on June
20, 2013.
Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In The experience of
learning (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Ramsden, P. (2005). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton,
D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of learning: Implications for teaching
and studying in higher educationm (3rd ed., pp. 198 216). Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh.
Rocca, K. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal
aggression. Communication Education, 53(2), 185 195.
Rourke, L., Andersen, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous, text-based, computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3),
51 70.
Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/
ojdla/summer72/rowe72.html
Sherry, A. C. (2003). Quality and its measurement in distance education. In M. G. Moore &
W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 435 460). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
Toronto, ON: Wiley.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623 664.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading
time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Odell, M. R., & Sundberg, C. A. (2003). Research supported best
practices for developing online learning. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(1).
Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/ 2.1.1.pdf.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of
Educational Research, 68(3), 249 276.
Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment
in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309 328.
Young, J. R. (2012, August). Dozens of plagiarism incidents are reported in Coursera’s free
online courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
article/Dozens-of-Plagiarism-Incidents/133697/. Accessed on July 24, 2013.
Young, J. R. (2012, June). Online classes see cheating go high-tech. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Cheating-Goes-High-Tech/132093.
Accessed on July 24, 2013
CHAPTER 7
REPRISE AND FURTHER

CONSIDERATIONS
ABSTRACT
Course redesign is a creative process that involves the four sets of consid-
erations set out by the DIME model. In this chapter, we highlight key
considerations related to design, interaction, media, and evaluation and
describe the interconnections of the decisions within the model that make
the process iterative. In addition, we suggest supplementary matters for
your consideration. Specifically, we explore matters related to career
and course management. Career considerations are strategic level con-
cerns related to course redesign that have potentially long-term implica-
tions. Course management considerations are tactical level suggestions
aimed at making your course implementation a success. Issues and
suggestions are grounded in experience.
Keywords: Course redesign; online education; online course
management; instructional design; intellectual property;
promotion and tenure
INTRODUCTION
If you have been redesigning your course as we went through the consid-
erations, it’s time to implement it. If you waited to get started, the time to
begin is now! Course redesign is a creative and fun process that involves
the four sets of considerations set out by the DIME model. These consid-
erations are design, interaction, media, and evaluation. We introduced the
concept of an overarching course metaphor to focus redesign decisions on
the particular needs of your content, your learners, and your instructional
143
style. This contextual relativist approach ensures course redesign decisions

fit your particular situation.1
In this final chapter, we review the four phases of course redesign,
highlighting key considerations and suggesting supplementary matters to
consider as you prepare to implement your course. In addition, we explore
future directions and other matters related to redesign for your contempla-
tion. We begin where we first started our journey together, with a review of
our redesign goals and the illuminating powers of metaphor.
METAPHOR REVISITED
We came to the redesign process with a specific goal in mind, to create the
kind of course we wanted for our students that would result in deep level
learning and a satisfying experience for learners and for ourselves. We
looked at the DIME model as a roadmap that would help get us to our
destination. We had some fun along the way, much of it from playing with
the revealing nature of metaphor.
Our course metaphor has been a powerful lens through which to view
the course redesign process. At the start of the process, we experimented
with a variety of metaphors, to see what each revealed about instructional
philosophy as applied to our content and our learners. We introduced the
playground metaphor, which we used as an example throughout the phases
of redesign. The playground presents learning in independent chunks,
much like equipment on a playground. The instructor monitors learner
activity. Learners will likely come to the course at different levels of
preparation and engage with content as they are able.
We contrasted the view of learners and content as seen through the play-
ground metaphor with those reflected in metaphors such as a marketplace
and a safari. Through the lens of a marketplace, content would need to be
combined from across modules to create projects, much like food at
various the various stands would be brought together to make a meal. The
instructor would play a much more hands on role in facilitating connec-
tions. Through the lens of the safari metaphor, content would be developed
to take learners on a highly focused journey such as making learners better
managers. The instructor would play the role of guide.
The metaphors we choose often reflect our intuitions about our
content, our learners, and our role as instructors, and how the three fit
together. By revealing our intuitions, metaphor moves our choices from
Reprise and Further Considerations 145
our subconscious to our conscious mind, enabling reflective decisions that

capitalize on instincts and check our perceptions.
Throughout the redesign process, we filter all of our choices through our
selected metaphor to create a unified vision for our course. Remember the
metaphor of The Little Inn at the Crossroads introduced in chapter 2? Bento
(2000) used the inn to organize content about “leading with soul,” presum-
ing this would be a spiritual journey for her learners. She presumed they
would need space for self-reflection, discussion, and a library of materials to
consult for inspiration. She saw herself as the innkeeper, the provider of the
nurturing essentials, but not a principal player in the journey itself. Without
the metaphor, it’s unlikely she would have had so clear a vision of how to
create this course experience.
Metaphors need not be forward facing. Learners need not know what
mental models you are employing. They are primarily redesign tools and
won’t necessarily be useful to your learners. Such was the case in one of my
courses utilizing the baseball metaphor. It helped me to conceptualize
content in terms of good, better, best outcomes and to think of myself as a
coach, but in the end, my learners saw the course as an office simulation.
Metaphor is the big picture view that drives redesign decisions, making
them easier. As we’ve seen throughout the four-phases of course redesign,
metaphor helps to focus our attention on the considerations most relevant
to our particular situation. Without it, we might find the number of choices
to consider overwhelming and the results chaotic. Metaphor helps bring
order to the process, by providing a unifying framework for making
decisions within each of the four sets of considerations set out by the
DIME model.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DIME REDESIGN MODEL:

A REPRISE
The course redesign model sets out considerations in four phases beginning
with those related to basic instructional design. This is the phase during
which we decide what our students will learn. This set of foundational
decisions is built upon in the second phase of course redesign. During the
interaction phase, we decide how our students will learn. The media phase
follows, where we choose the tools to accomplish the learning. Finally, in
the evaluation phase, we figure out how we’ll know that the learning has
actually occurred. Throughout our examination of the phases of course
redesign, we outlined considerations related to our content, our learners,

and our instructional style. Next, we highlight some of those considerations
and how they interconnect. Later we suggest additional matters to consider
in implementing your redesigned course. We begin by revisiting decisions
related to instructional design.
DeSIGN Considerations
Online teaching and learning are well suited to a “learn by doing”

approach. As previously discussed, passive methods that may work in the
classroom don’t translate well to online learning. Taped lectures aren’t
engaging enough; they fade into the background as learners attempt to
multitask, something impossible to do unless one of the tasks is auto-
matic—like driving a car or tying your shoes (see Chapter 4). To make
learning active, we create objectives that are behavioral; in the end we see
our learners acting out the skills or have them submit work that require
those skills as evidence. For instance, if we want learners to “know” the
axioms of a theory, we might set an objective that had learners labeling
parts of a scenario where the axioms were visible.
Setting Strong Course Objectives

Making objectives observable is one of four criteria for strong learning
objectives. The others are to make objectives measurable, attainable, and
specific.
Making objectives measurable involves determining in advance how we
would measure the attainment of the objective. In so doing, we foreshadow
evaluation decisions to be crystallized during phase four of course redesign.
Making objectives attainable and specific involves considerations related to
your content and your target audience (your learners). In Chapter 3 we
explored factors of influence on objective setting such as the demographics,
personalities, learning styles, past performances, and expectations of our
target audience. We revisited metaphor to examine views held about our
audience reflected there. For example, are learners ready to play, weave,
dig, or collaborate with the content?
Choosing Instructional Methods

Learning objectives point to instructional methods by suggesting the infor-
mation that will need to be shared with learners, the skills to be illustrated,
ways for learners to practice those skills, and means by which to nurture
the learning progress. During this first phase, we make strategic level deci-
sions about instructional methods that interconnect with considerations
related to interaction, media, and evaluation to become specific enough to
implement. We underscore this process in our review of interaction.
Interaction Considerations
There are three types of learner-centered interactions to consider in online

teaching and learning. There are learner content interactions, lear-
ner instructor interactions, and learner learner interactions. Interaction
with content is what makes the course a learning experience (Moore, 1989).
Interaction with the instructor is what makes this a teaching experience. All
three types of interaction need not be present; some types of interaction
will be privileged over others. Decisions about interaction give the course
its unique character and most influence the way learners and instructors
experience the course.
Learner Content Interactions

Content interactions relate primarily to the layout and structure of the
course. They relate most closely to the instructional methods of sharing
information, illustrating skills, and guiding practice. Learners can engage
these methods in isolation, creating an independent learning experience.
This works best for content in which learners are highly interested, tapping
their intrinsic motivation to move through the course. Without such inter-
est, learners are far more likely to engage content at a surface level,
employing strategies to reproduce information well enough to pass a test,
but gaining little meaning from it (Lawless & Richardson, 2002;
Richardson, 2003). In a situation such as this, it is best for learner interac-
tion with content to be facilitated by the instructor.
Learner Instructor Interactions

Instructor interactions fall into three categories: administrative, facilitative,
and relational. Administrative interactions are focused on setting expecta-
tions. Online teaching and learning lacks the vicarious cues that communi-
cate expectations available in traditional classrooms. In moving courses
online, the implicit needs to become explicit. Learners need to know what
it means to participate in the course, where to find materials, and what they
need to accomplish and by when. Instructors communicate those expecta-
tions through instructions, scoring rubrics, and feedback. Administrative
interactions relate closely to the instructional methods of nurturing pro-

gress. Administrative interactions intersect with considerations during the
evaluation phase of redesign. For instance, setting expectations for class
participation by way of a scoring rubric indicates learner performance will
be evaluated in relation to those expectations.
Facilitative interactions involve the instructor in bringing about learner
interactions with content and/or their peers. These interactions are essential
for learners experiencing the course as intended. They are intertwined with
all instructional methods as they will steer learners through information

sharing and skills illustration and support their skills practice. Courses
privileging content facilitation can be experienced as private lessons with
learners depending upon the instructor for all course related information.
This model works best for small, skills intensive courses where learners
need concentrated feedback. It is not scalable without risking instructor
workload concerns. We’ll revisit peer facilitation in the next section; con-
siderations related to facilitating peer interactions depend upon the role
peers will play in the learning process.
Relational interaction is neither student nor instructor centered; both
are principal players in determining the kind of relationship they will have.
The quality of relationships will vary, as they are co-constructed between
learner and instructor. Immediacy behaviors will be influential and have
implications for the media phase of course redesign, as synchronous chan-
nels are better suited to them (Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral, & Yu, 2005).2
Learner Learner Interactions

Peer interactions also depend upon a kind of immediacy called social
presence.3 Considerations for how to facilitate social presence are essential
if peer interaction is desired. Peers may be cast as community members,
information resources, or collaborators. The more involved they are to be
in the learning process, the more involved the instructor will need to be in
facilitating peer connections. Peer interactions are most related to the
instructional methods of guiding practice and nurturing progress.
Courses privileging peer interaction are built around the principles of
collaborative learning. This approach leverages the power of social learn-
ing. Past studies have shown that learners perform better on concept
knowledge questions following discussion, even if none of the peers knew
the answers at the start of the discussion (Smith et al., 2009). With the right
media, feedback mechanisms and instructor facilitation, collaborative
learning can be scalable to larger enrollment courses. It may violate learner
expectations of working in isolation; however, so explicit expectations for
how the course will run and instructor monitoring are needed, particularly
at the start of a course. Monitoring activities connect with both media and
evaluation considerations.
Role of Metaphor in Interaction Decisions

Used as a lens for course redesign, metaphor helps to filter out extraneous
considerations and focus attention on the choices most important in bring-
ing about your particular course. Looking at your course through your
chosen metaphor, the relevant design and interaction choices become

obvious. In Chapter 4, we exemplified this process, examining a single
course viewed through three different metaphors to demonstrate how deci-
sions varied, resulting in plans for three distinct courses. Each course had a
unique look and feel with elements shaped specifically to meet the content,
learners, and instructor. In the third phase of redesign, those course plans
were intersected with considerations related to media to determine how
best to bring the courses to life.
Media Considerations
Media are the channels that support interaction. Since interaction is the
main activity in online teaching and learning, technology used to support it
are labeled media in the DIME model. In order to choose course media, we
must identify the interaction related course activities set out in the plan
developed during phase two of redesign. We proposed a media selection
taxonomy featuring 10 such activities to be carried out through technology.
The action verbs used in objectives and instructional methods help us
recognize the activities involved. The activities were organized around
interaction type (learner, instructor, peer) and media characteristics. Media
characteristics included one-way and two-way interactions. Two-way inter-
actions are described as either synchronous or asynchronous. Activities and
required media characteristics to enable them fit together to easily identify
the specific media features (or functionality) needed to meet interaction
needs.
In Chapter 5, we explored sample tools that enable the 10 interaction-
related course activities, and considered their fit with our previous
redesign decisions to select media. We matched the course activities
depicted in the plans with specific technology tools to enable them. We
demonstrated this process for two of the course plans developed in
Chapter 4.
Role of Metaphor in Media Decisions

Metaphor provides a means to conceptualize the organization of your
course. It implicitly organizes the content into modules within which the
course activities fit. From that organizing scheme, media needs can be
determined and specific tools identified. Metaphor creates a visual depic-
tion of how learners will encounter the course.
By employing a graphical organizer, such as a storyboard, the implicit
course organization becomes explicit. For instance, we applied the play-
ground metaphor to related design and interaction decisions comprising

our course plan. In so doing, we determined the implied organization was a
five-module course layout with each of the modules standing independent
from one another (like playground equipment). This is similar to the way
playground equipment functions. We fitted each of the course activities
from our course plan into one of five boxes to create a course mock-up.
We applied the media taxonomy to each activity to generate a list of speci-
fic media needs.
Metaphor again narrowed the scope of choices, brining into focus the
layout and interaction needs to be filled by technology. Specific tools were
discussed but the focus was on the media selection process and its role in
bringing courses to life. The final phase of course redesign revisits choices
made during all three of the previous stages to decide how best to assess
student learning, instructor effectiveness, and course quality.
Evaluation Considerations
Evaluation is the process by which we determine how things should go,

how things are going, and how things went. We use formative and summa-
tive methods to answer these questions as they relate to student learning,
instructor effectiveness, and course quality. Formative evaluation enables
changes to be made along the way. Summative evaluation provides data
about how things went that can help inform future activities. In terms of
course redesign, we focused primarily on student learning.
Things change when we move them online. Some of the changes are
advantageous. Others are not. There is accessibility to data online that
isn’t available in face-to-face classes. Learning management systems
(LMS) generally maintain student activity logs that can provide informa-
tion that allows for assessment of levels of engagement. For instance,
charting what materials learners opened, when, and for how long. The
content of class discussions is archived in online courses. The archives
allow for contributions to discussions to be analyzed and used as part of

student performance data or as a means to assess general understanding.
Unfortunately, online contexts also seem to feature increased opportunities
for academic dishonesty. Exam security is especially trying. Articulating
the rules is particularly important; learner perceptions about what consti-
tutes cheating in online settings seem to vary (King, Guyette, &
Piotrowski, 2009).
Evaluation decisions begin in phase one of the redesign process.
Summative evaluation choices are included in the way strong learning

objectives are written. When we make objectives observable, measurable,
attainable, and specific, we make evaluation-related decisions. Evaluation
choices present specific media needs such as means to deliver online feed-
back or administer exams.
In Chapter 6, we argue that evaluation is a value-laden process. In making
decisions about what to evaluate and how, we determine what is important
and what is not. Multifaceted approaches are recommended in assessing stu-
dent learning, instructor effectiveness, and course quality. Transparency
along with the use of valid and reliable methods increases rigor.
The DIME model represents course redesign as a series of considerations
separated into the categories of design, interaction, media, and evaluation,
but there is overlap. Course redesign is an iterative process. Decisions
made early in the process influence later choices. Later choices may indi-
cate a need to revisit previous decisions. Metaphor provides an organizing
scheme that narrows the scope of considerations, making decision making
manageable. The choice of metaphor may be the most essential decision
you make. Next we explore further considerations to contemplate as you
prepare to implement your redesigned course.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
We turn now to other considerations related to moving courses on line.

The matters we’ll discuss fall into two categories: career and course man-
agement. Career considerations are strategic level concerns related to
course redesign that have potentially long-term implications. Course man-
agement considerations are tactical level suggestions aimed at making your
course implementation a success. Suggestions offered in relation to con-
cerns are for your consideration and are grounded in experience. We begin
our discussion with considerations related to course management.
Course Management Considerations
Place the Dots Really Close Together

No matter how clear your course organizing scheme is to you, at some
point your learners are going to get lost. It’s inevitable. For instance, dur-
ing my first foray into course redesign, students would often submit assign-
ments from the wrong lesson or submit more advanced work before
completing assignments designed to support it. They seemed to simply click
around the modules to accomplish some work any work. This left us all
confused as I couldn’t figure out how they were moving through the course
and they felt ill-prepared for the work they were doing. So, I placed the
dots closer together by revising the course to have five modules, each with
the same number of parts. I added audio instructions in addition to those
provided in text. This provided a path and consistency that resulted in
successful navigation through the course.
In courses that are not organized in a linear fashion, it helps to develop
materials to teach the course structure. A video introduction to the course
that describes how things work and where information can be found is
helpful. Weekly video shorts that guide learners to materials and activities
for that week are a good follow-up.
Descriptive labels applied consistently to content is also helpful. It also
helps to develop a system for labeling things learners are expected to do at
particular intervals (i.e., weekly). I use the labels: Look, Act, Due. Look
indicates any materials students should review in support of learning. Look
seems to cover the variety of channels information may be delivered
through, for instance readings, videos, and slideshows. Act indicates activ-
ities learners should complete. These may be prep work such as completing
surveys, posting a comment, reviewing peer work, or completing a simula-
tion. Due indicates assignments to be completed for submission by a parti-
cular date. Keeping due dates consistent helps learners stay organized. For
instance, all work due is to be submitted by 6:00 a.m. on Mondays.
It’s easy for course content to become overwhelming to learners. They
become lost in a sea of links (to articles, to videos, to assignments, etc.). If
possible, limit learner accessibility to less pertinent content, releasing it
only when needed. This is particularly important when learners are first
getting oriented to the course.
In the end, learners must connect the dots for themselves, but placing
them as close together as possible makes things easier for learners, increas-
ing their persistence and likelihood of success in your course. To ensure you
own success, we next investigate ways to maintain realistic expectations.
Keep Expectations Realistic

Much of the added time and effort involved in online teaching is due to
increased student contact and individualized instruction (Cavanaugh,
2005). This is consistent with my experience and that of my faculty collea-
gues. Therefore, it is important to manage learner expectations about your
availability. I continue to work on this, as I personally find it difficult to
ignore learner messages posing questions for which they could easily looked
up the answer or consult another source.
Becoming an easy information source for learners will reinforce the

behavior of coming to you first. Practically speaking, answering all learner
messages will greatly increase the amount of time you spend on your online
course. Pragmatically speaking, answering all of their questions may result
in lost learning opportunities for your students. There’s value in learners
figuring things out for themselves. Educational consultant and professor,
Terry Doyle (2011), synthesizes the last 15 years of neuroscience research
on learning this way: the one that does the work does the learning.
Recently, I implemented a course policy designed to facilitate indepen-
dent and collaborative inquiry among my students and to move them away
from the default behavior of directing every question they had to me.
Esteemed colleague and collaborator, Dr. Albert Ingram, introduced me to
this policy. It’s called 3 before me.4 Essentially, when students have a ques-
tion, they must consult at least three sources to find the answer before they
can ask me. Students have become skilled at independent problem solving
and the number of emails about administrative issues (e.g., where can
I find it or when is this due) has dropped dramatically, leaving me more
time for meaningful interactions with students.
Some learners will be disengaged, and you won’t always know why.
Online learners disengage for a variety of reasons. Learner disengagement
is not always about the class. Online students tend to be older, so are
subject to work-life balance issues in addition to a lack of readiness and
other factors (Street, 2010). Early intervention on the part of the instructor
may help as it allows for additional clarification of course expectations. It
also provides the opportunity to inform learners about their options.
Unfortunately, they sometimes decide to leave the course, as they realize
they do not have the time to devote to it. Although early intervention may
result in increased class attrition, it may ultimately help keep learners in the
program.
One final expectation to hold is that there will be hiccups that affect the
course experience. Learners may respond to an assignment differently than
expected, technology may not work as intended, everything may take
longer than you thought it would. This is especially true when you first
redesign a course. If you expect the unexpected, you won’t be surprised
when it happens and you can prepare your learners for that eventuality
as well.
One way to reduce the impact of these early hurdles is to beta test your
courses. I often use a summer course to roll out a new redesign.
Enrollments tend to be lower, I have fewer competing demands providing
more time for resolving issues, and everyone seems to be more relaxed.
When the rollout must happen during the regular semester, I try to negoti-
ate a lower than normal enrollment cap or offer it exclusively to learners in
a continuing education program as they tend to be more independent and
more candid in the improvement feedback they provide.
Now that we’ve looked at some tactical level concerns related to course
redesign, let’s turn our attention to more strategic concerns. In next section,
we explore the career considerations of intellectual property rights and
tenure and promotion.
Career Considerations
Intellectual Property Considerations

There are two sets of intellectual property (IP) rights that should be consid-
ered in redesigning courses for online delivery. The first is, rights related to
the IP you create and the second is use of materials that are the IP of
others. Concerns about IP are not new, but the online environment
increases their visibility. Online courses often cross national boundaries
and IP laws vary. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, nations that are
members of the Universal Copyright Convention should honor copyright
of individuals from other countries with placement of the copyright symbol
r, name of copyright holder, and date the work was produced, promi-
nently displayed. We begin with concerns related to the use of materials for
which others hold copyright.
Using the IP of Others. In redesigning courses, any materials shared
with learners will need to be your own original work or be used in one
of the following ways: under a license agreement, with the permission of
the originator of the work, or according to fair use laws. For instance,
you cannot download files from the web and put them in your course
without permission of the copyright holder. The same is true for adding
images you did not create yourself into your slideshows. Most of the
material on the Internet is copyrighted, unless the owner specifically
places it in the public domain. (U.S. law does not require work to be
marked as copyrighted; tangible works are automatically the IP of their
creator.)5
There are institutional as well as individual responsibilities assigned
under copyright laws. Most universities have support services to assist with
copyright rules and permissions. Consult your university library about the
availability of such services on your campus.
Protecting Your Own IP. Generally speaking, academics maintain own-
ership of the works they create unless they specifically relinquish copyright,
in writing, to another party. For instance, in publishing a book, authors
frequently give copyright to the publishing house. With the transfer of
copyright go the rights to control future use of the work. In the regular
execution of their duties, professors maintain control of their course syllabi,
class notes and slides, and any other materials they produce. Typical “work
for hire” laws have not been applied to professors to protect academic free-
dom and the open exchange of ideas (see Springer, 2004, for a discussion).
With the widespread use of Learning Management Systems and online
courses, universities have significant pieces of faculty IP stored on their ser-
vers. This has raised questions about whether the rights to the materials
belong to the faculty member or the institution. Institutions seem to vary in
their policies related to this question. An interpretation of the issues and
laws are outside the scope of this discussion (see Twigg, 2006, for more).
The focus of our discussion is on raising awareness that copyright of online
courses is in question. If you are concerned about controlling the future use
of your work, you may want to investigate the rules at your institution.
You might also consider establishing copyright explicitly, to ensure you
and the university are in agreement about how materials can and cannot be
used, by whom, and for what purpose.
In the final section, we explore a key concern for professors still in
pursuit of tenure and/or promotion. Time and effort considerations may be
relevant to contract faculty as well.
Promotion and Tenure Considerations
Quality online courses take time to produce and they take time to teach. A
strong perception exists that they take more time than traditional courses.
According to an Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities survey
of faculty, 64% of the 10,700 respondents reported online classes take
“somewhat more” or “a lot more” effort than traditional classes
(McCarthy, 2009). Furthermore, for those seeking tenure and promotion,

that added effort is not necessarily a valued activity when it comes to mak-
ing those decisions.
Schell (2004) surveyed 232 tenure track faculty members at higher educa-
tion institutions in the United States to explore the perceived value attached
to the development of online courses. Development of online materials had
little to no influence on the success or failure of simulated promotion files.
You’ll want to consider the potential career impact in your individual situa-
tion. Redesigning courses for online delivery may take time away from
the pursuit of activities deemed more valuable in promotion decisions.
Those who wish to engage in course redesign may want to negotiate
their efforts to be considered part of their service load. Another strategy to
consider is to engage in research as part of your redesign efforts. There are
a number of academic journals dedicated to this type of research in which
to publish. The Center for Online Learning, Research, and Service at the
University of Illinois-Springfield has a list of relevant journals available on
their website.6
CONCLUSION
The DIME model of course redesign is all about possibilities. The four sets
of considerations proposed in the model helped us to consider ways to
develop a quality experience while keeping workloads manageable for our
learners and ourselves. Metaphors provide a framework for reflection and
decision making. New media are constantly introduced ensuring an
ongoing need for reflective course development. The concepts we have
reviewed here have stood the test of time and changing technology. As new
ideas in education and technology shape our environments, the DIME and
metaphors should be tools you can turn to again and again to chart your
path (and redesign your courses!) Course redesign is an ongoing journey
that promises to engage and inspire all who accompany you on it. Our time
together is drawing to a close, but in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, “End?
No, the journey doesn’t end here.”
NOTES
1. We defined contextual relativism in Chapter 1 as attending to the setting

or context within which undergraduate student intellectual development occurs
(Perry, 1999).
2. In Chapter 4, we discussed immediacy behaviors that help to communicate the

presence of congruence, empathy, and positive regard. All necessary components
for building relationships in professional contexts (Pitt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004;
Rogers, 1962).
3. Social presence is the perception of psychological closeness (Swan & Shih,
2005).
4. Dr. Albert Ingram is associate professor of Lifespan Development &
Educational Sciences at Kent State University in Ohio, U.S.A.
5. For a discussion on public domain and links to sources of materials placed in
the public domain, consult the ed tech teacher online newsletter at http://edtech
teacher.org/index.php/teaching-technology/research-writing/63-public-images.
6. List of journals available at http://www.uis.edu/colrs/research/journal/
REFERENCES
Bento, R. (2000). The little inn at the crossroads: A spiritual approach to the design of a
leadership course. The Journal of Management Education, 24(5), 650 661.
Cavanaugh, J. (2005). Teaching online: A time comparison. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
spring81/cavanaugh81.htm.
Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research into practice. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
King, C. G., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empiri-
cal analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators, 6(1), Retrieved
from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume6Number1/Kingetalpaper.pdf. Accessed on
April 8, 2013.
Lawless, C. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of aca-
demic quality in distance education. Higher Education, 44, 257 282.
McCarthy, S. A. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. APLU-Sloan National
Commission on Online Learning. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/
survey/APLU_Reports. Accessed on July 24, 2013.
Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So far but yet so close: Student chat
room immediacy, learning, and performance in an online course. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 16, 395 407.
Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years:
A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Pitt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship
184 207.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a
short web-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 433 442.
Rogers, C. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. Harvard Educational
Review, 32(4), 416 429.
Schell, G. P. (2004). Universities marginalize online courses. Communications of the ACM,

47(7), 53 56.
Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C., Knight, J., Guild, N., & Su, T. (2009). Why
peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science,
323(5910), 122 124.
Springer, A. (2004, November). Intellectual property issues for faculty. American Association
of University Professors. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/issues/copyright-distance-
education-intellectual-property/resources-copyright-distance-education-and/intellectual-
property-issues-faculty.
Street, H. (2010). Factors influencing a learner’s decision to drop-out or persist in higher

education distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4).
Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/winter134/street134.html
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). The nature and development of social presence in online
discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115 136.
Twigg, C. A. (2006). Who owns online courses and course materials? Center for Academic
Transformation. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Whoowns.html.
Accessed on March 15, 2013.
U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/ fls/fl100.html. Accessed on
July 19, 2013.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Robyn E. Parker, Ph.D., is a tenured, full professor in the College of

Business Administration at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire,
USA. She earned her doctorate in organizational communication from

Wayne State University and master’s degree in human resource develop-
ment from Boston University. She has been teaching in higher education
since 1990 and online since 2005. A pragmatic scholar, she has dedicated
her career to studying the effects of new communication technologies both
in the classroom and in work organizations. Her expertise is in conducting
needs assessments, communication audits, and designing interventions to
improve organizational performance.
A seasoned trainer and instructional designer, she is committed to mak-
ing eLearning more effective in both university and corporate contexts. She
has received grant funding in support of her work from both FIPSE and
the Ohio Learning Network. Her research on this subject has most recently
been published in The Research Journal of the Center for Educational
Technology and in the journal, Education, Technology, & Society.
Passionate about faculty development, she first created the DIME model
as a framework for her workshops in course redesign.
159

Volume 8 - Redesigning Courses For Online Delivery - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 8 - Redesigning Courses For Online Delivery - Advances in Special Education Technology PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REDESIGNING COURSES FOR

ONLINE DELIVERY: DESIGN,

Volume 5: Misbehavior Online in Higher Education Edited by

MEDIA, & EVALUATION

United Kingdom North America Japan

First edition 2013

Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permission service

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Certificate Number 1985

State University, who graciously picked up the service load to provide me

Fig. 1.1 Four-Phase Course Redesign Model: DIME . . . . . . . . . 5

and Instructor and How They Fit Together . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 2.1 Playground Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.3 Safari Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

COURSE REDESIGN USING THE

ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING DIFFERS FROM

an experience that engages students in learning in a way that fosters their

DIME MODEL FOR COURSE REDESIGN

Fig. 1.1. Four-Phase Course Redesign Model: DIME.

Overview of Considerations in the Model

feel of online courses, influencing the way learners experience them. In

more specific categories of interaction for further consideration. We

Contextual Relative Approach to Redesign

NEED FOR A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO REDESIGN

pedagogy rather than technology. Naidu (2003) argued that it should no

tends to be the default approach, imposing a linear structure on informa-

INSTRUCTOR AS PRINCIPAL PLAYER IN COURSE

situations. Arguably, that’s why MOOC’s have a 90% attrition rate

ACCEPTING THE COURSE REDESIGN CHALLENGE

Teaching online is about change. It is not just a change in course context; it is

coursera-takes-a-nuanced-view-of-mooc-dropout-rates/43341. Accessed on June 20, 2013.

METAPHOR AS A FRAME FOR

This chapter is about breaking out of familiar patterns of thinking so that

AUTHENTIC REDESIGN EXAMPLES

The Little Inn at the Crossroads

Regina Bento, Professor of Management at Merrick School of Business,

To facilitate the individualized leadership journey, the inn offered a

Medical Education as a Symphony

James Woolliscroft, Dean of the University of Michigan Medical School

MENTAL MODELS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSCIOUS

Metaphors That May Be Limiting Your Thinking

Past Experience Can Create Unhelpful Models

In other words, the path and pattern to proficiency will be unique to

METAPHOR IS A FRAME AND AN IDEA GENERATOR

Another Authentic Example

Metaphor is an Essential Redesign Tool

Metaphor functions as both framework and idea generator. Later, as you

Exploring How Different Metaphors Uniquely Influence Redesign

For each metaphor, “general view” reflects the instructor’s perspective

Table 2.1. Playground Metaphor.

Table 2.2. Marketplace Metaphor.

Table 2.3. Safari Metaphor.

approach to presenting and interacting with content. “Student fit” reflects

Table 2.4. Archeological Dig Metaphor.

Organizational Identity or brand

Metaphor Reflects Your Views on Content, Learners, and Instructor

may be surprised at the perspectives you uncover. Think of the metaphor

REVISITING DIME AS METAPHOR

THE REVISED COURSE REDESIGN MODEL

1. If you’re interested in learning more about American Baseball, visit Major

Ammer, C. (1997). Dime a dozen. In The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms.