By Susan Smith Nash, Ph.D.
The instructor has too much power in an online course, and the students know it. Many approach their online courses with raw fear. What will happen if I have to go out of town and do not have online access? I’m in Iraq, and I’m on patrol during the required synchronous chats. What will my professor say? What if I turn in my paper one minute after the deadline? Will I be treated like a person, is my entire existence defined by my ability to guess the rules and adhere to them? What happens when tech support can’t help me, and my professor blames me for my lack of access, plug-ins, etc.?
The people who say they hate their online learning experiences usually cite a combination of technical access issues and insensitive or non-responsive instructors. In defense of instructors, the learning management system and policies of the institution often unwittingly pit instructor against the student.
If it seemed that the professor at the lectern in the traditional classroom was all-powerful, it’s a hundred times more so in the online learning environment. The eLearning space was supposed to be delightfully neutral, and people were supposed to learn from each other. What we’re finding in study after study is that students rate their experience in their course on their relationship with their instructor. This is not to say that the course design does not matter, or that the content is irrelevant. What it means is that the point of maximum anxiety is located squarely on the instructor.
Power is an illusion. The instructor is following the rules set out by the institution. The institution is following the structure which is dictated to them by their learning management system and data management approach.
What is the poor student to do?
Let’s take a look from the online professor’s point of view.
Rigidities of the “shell”: It’s understandable that the department or institution would want to control the contents of the course. Most colleges and universities are following, to some degree or another, the approach that the University of Phoenix popularized in the late 1990s, which is to say that instructors teach from a pre-prepared course. It’s a great approach in terms of assuring standardized quality. It’s like teaching from the same textbook. This is good, at least philosophically speaking. In practical terms, it strips the professor of the ability to contribute unique insights and content to the course.
You might be surprised to know how many colleges and universities are still using text-heavy content, which is broken into tiny little learning objects scattered about in folders. The student is forced to go on a scavenger hunt for the course content, and is not able to print out the instructional materials. Even though something may be nominally ADA compliant, to make students click multiple times to find little “pods” of information is really unfriendly to the student who may need accommodations due to low vision or mobility. It is also very unfriendly to the student who has limited access.
Designer Access Is Ideal: The courageous colleges and universities require all instructors to take courses in online instruction, and they make sure that they understand the learning management system (Angel, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, WebCT, etc.). They allow the instructors to have full designer access to the platform and to make changes in case there are problems with content or functionality. In such cases, instructors are able to post additional materials, incorporate videos and audio to personalize their greetings and to start new threads.
The most enlightened colleges and universities encourage video and audio reinforcement of material. The student can obtain instructional materials in multiple forms. They also make good use of a textbook, or they create their own texts that can be easily downloaded.
What this means in operational terms is that the instructor has sufficient flexibility to meet all the students’ needs.
Lock-down Is Bad: Nothing makes an instructor feel more helpless than not being able to make changes or to solve problems.
Institutions hamstring their instructors in two ways. First, they provide inadequate training and support. They buy into a learning management system that is much too complex for the skill-level of their faculty.
Colleges also tie instructors’ hands by changing the course management system too often. It is very important to avoid major changes more than once per year. Ideally, the learning management system version should have a shelf life of at least two years.
Locking down content and access is also very negative. If the instructor can’t correct mistakes in the content, the due dates, the grade book, the other operational parts of the course, the students are likely to be very frustrated. Students are made very anxious when they are confused by the content. Nothing frustrates a student more quickly than incorrect due dates, assignments, or glitch-filled assessment tools.
No Departmental Support: The online instructor does not like to feel thrown to the wolves. When students have real questions or complaints, the professor needs to be able to return with a substantive answer.
Some of the policies which are required by federal funding or military contracts may seem capricious and difficult to adhere to if you’re not given the proper tools. For example, if it’s impossible to turn in a grade change, or to correct errors in the grade book, it can be extremely frustrating.
Dehumanized Learning Environment: Requiring the instructor to post a photo and course-related interests is important. It is also important to make audio and video available. Most students will want to be able to access content on the go, and as iPhones, smartphones, and satellite wifi become more prevalent, it will be a must-have.
But, colleges and universities are stuck in the 90s. They still rely heavily on clunky, highly granular objects that consist of little chunks of html. Even if there are images, they tend to not serve true instructional purposes. The average learner experience can be likened to wandering through a labyrinth with not one, but multiple Minotaurs.
Further, they are not availing themselves of all the interactive materials that textbooks routinely offer in general education courses.
Today’s Textbooks Are Gold Mines. Using online drills, downloading audio files, chunks of movies, are instructional techniques that really work. They are pure gold. Why? The answer is simple. They have adapted themselves to the behaviors that people really have, rather than trying to impose an alien behavior upon students.
Today’s students use technology. They communicate with each other using cell phones, instant message, websites, laptops, smartphones. They listen to music and lectures while doing something else. They multi-task. They break their work into small chunks. They practice in order to obtain a desired outcome.
Sadly, very few of these learning techniques or instructional assets are found in the average online course. So, who do students blame? They blame the poor instructor.
All-Powerful? All-Helpless? It Depends on Which Side of the Screen You Sit. From the student’s point of view, the instructor is an all-powerful Wizard of Oz, hidden behind a screen, intimidating and rigid.
From the instructor’s point of view, the role of instructor is very difficult. It is necessary to work with a rigid, clunky e-learning space and somehow make it appeal to students to the point that real learning takes place.
The solution is in the hands of the administration. Solutions can be found if the learning management system is de-rigidified, the approach is made simpler, and instructors are given more freedom and support. Finally, the institution can effect a quantum-leap improvement of the quality of their materials by tapping into the materials provided by textbooks.
[Listen to the companion podcast at:
http://community.elearners.com/blogs/inside_elearning/attachment/1284.ashx - 6.83 MB]
Watch Susan!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5271529527562773989