The task of this case study is to present an ordered report of experience about changes in a distance education course. The description and interpretation of the material presented here will lead to a better understanding of what items have to be considered and what work has to be done when educational institutions want to reconsider the instructional design of virtual education courses. The purpose is to invite the reader to make his own judgment and personal conclusions.
 

Introduction

Frequently courses offered at a distance have new sophisticated technologies in service but a poor instructional design. The teaching strategies do not cause rich and worthwhile learning experiences for the students (Kearsley&Moore 1996 / Bates 1995). Only participants who already have the necessary skills to work autonomously at a distance get involved in the learning process.

To address this problem, many administrators and even faculties are convinced that better technology will improve the way in which teachers deliver instruction and in which students learn. A special redesigning process for courses which are taught at a distance is not in all cases considered.

A question which is still not answered today is how to transform a system mainly based on the transmission of information from teacher to students to a system where the students' activity is the center of the learning process.
In place of teacher's lectures virtual universities could construct collaborative learning networks moderated by instruction teams. Students should attain autonomy of access to information and communication with other students.

Pedagogical redesign and correction of instructional strategies of distance education courses can solve the identified problems.

The process of redesigning is complex. It begins at a different level in every course.
The difficulties in the process and the accomplishment of some objectives in this special case of redesign are interesting so that it is valuable to present this experience to a wider audience. A model of the instructional design process to restructure the course is exemplified. The model has been tested through the redesign process.

This report as a contribution to virtual education should be seen and estimated as a qualitative study. Its consideration may invite to make personal conclusions about quality and accomplishment of the process of redesigning the course, the model of instructional design applied to restructure it and the course itself.

Selecting the case

The author of this report participated in the redesign of this particular course as an assistant in instructional design. He made a contribution to the development of the case which guided the revision and refinement of action (Stenhouse, 1988, p. 50). Ethical considerations, e.g. what information about what persons could be presented, were respected because the author was part of the instruction team. Furthermore, no personal information of individuals will appear.

Fieldwork

During the two-month planning and three-month implementation periods of the course, empirical material was collected. The collaboration with the teacher of this course, the academic assistant and the production team provided several opportunities for informal interviews. The collected data was updated and checked for congruence in-between all material during the whole process. Five unstructured interviews with students were conducted. Any dissonance in the material was clarified as soon as possible. The reengineering of the course included preparation of a student manual, a homepage, the design of student activities and their moderation, the structure of a satellite class and Internet environment.
 

Specific Information about the course
(List of criteria about the course suggested by  Moore & Kearsley(1996))

Name: Information Technology (IT) Strategic Planning

Students: from the receiving sites: Ciudad Juarez (2), Estado de Mexico (1), Guadalajara (4), Hidalgo (2), Laguna (5, 2 of them dropped out at the beginning), Leon (1), Monclova (3, 1 dropped out), Monterrey (13, 2 dropped out), Queretaro (4), Saltillo (1, dropped out), Sonora (4), Tampico (2, 1 droped out), Veracruz (2);
beginning with 44 students in 12 remote campus, 1 campus as live audience.
7 students dropped out, 2 did not pass.
The 13 students who took the course in Monterrey were the live audience of the satellite class and they were participating as audience when the videos were taped.
The students were initially put together in 14 groups (at the end 11) with 3 or 4 members each from different receiving sites ("intercampus").

Course time: 3 Months (April to June 1997), 12 Weeks, 12 Days of satellite class of 1.0 h each session.
Working Hours of Students: a total of 12 hours (estimation) learning activities for each of the 12 modules including one hour of satellite class (group work session) and a prerecorded video of 90 minutes, or a total of 144 hours of learning activities for students. One class consisted of the presentation of Team Projects.

Reasons for student taking the course and prior educational background: The course is part of a masters degree study program and the student is required to take courses, although this course is an optional one, i.e. they could have chosen others in its place. Most students have taken classes at distance before (the remote students do not have other options). In general, experiences differ among students.

Preparation and experience of instructors and administrators: The preparation and experience of instructors and administrators is extensive, the teacher had 8 years experience in distance education, the academic assistant 2 ½. The administrators are experienced in this field, too.

Technology Involved: 12 Taped videos, 12 Satellite classes, One Touch, Internet, News-groups, Netscape Chat, Electronic Mail, Telephone/Fax
 

Changes in relevant Items - the redesign process

The purpose of changes in the following items is to give more information to the student what he was expected to do and to focus on students' autonomy and self-study. Furthermore activities of students should be made "visible" in the ongoing process.

The old manual simply explained the program and the rules of the course. It contained the course description, policies, graphics for satellite class and reading materials.

In the new manual we changed the way to address the student; policies should reflect that students are autonomous, responsible human beings, and that the university and the instruction team want to offer an appropriate educational service. Isolated graphics were taken out and the case-study-readings were put in. Further readings and homework were added to another manual with self study material. Specific information about the context of the readings and assignments is given in addition. Now it contains a calendar and an explanation of the organization of assignments.

The old homepage contained the study program, calendar, activities and assignments for each module and the policies. There was a presentation of teacher and assistant and one newsgroup for participation in the course. Some information overlapped with the manual.

The new homepage contains more information about what the student is expected to do and in which newsgroups she should make her comments. It has links to the 23 newsgroups, 10 for the discussion of case-studies, 12 for the discussion of the topics for the intercampus groups, 1 for all of the learners. It contains a list of all students and the working groups. The page has a clearer structure.

The old student activities consisted in listening to the teacher's lecture and participation in the satellite class, elaboration of homework in intercampus groups, one exam, one final project and comments to one not moderated newsgroup, where the participation was not obligatory. In the old structure of the course the session via satellite with the teacher came first, then a video was offered, followed by individual and group work and the writing of the papers which students had to hand in. This centered the process on the teacher's presentation and did not demand much individual study before the "satellite-class".

The focus for the new student activities is to offer an environment which generates participation. Activities of students are made visible and easy to moderate in the "electronic workspace".
The student has to participate in intercampus groups of three or four learners in the discussion of topics every week and in the realization of a team project throughout the entire course. Every learner-group has a newsgroup as their particular workspace.
Furthermore, students have to discuss a case every week (as individual participation) by making comments to newsgroups (one case per newsgroup). Learning of concepts, skills and attitudes is involved.

In the new structure the first satellite class is an introductory session, afterwards the first module begins with viewing the video, doing the assignments and the interaction in the newsgroups. The module is concluded with the satellite class, which is referring to the asynchronous work throughout the week. The idea of the satellite class is the integration of concepts and answers to questions. This way the student activity is the center of the learning process and self-study and discussion is required before the satellite-class.
The course is structured by the objectives and congruent activities which lead to these objectives.

In the old facilitation process feed-back to students about group activities was based on their reports. Two activities, one group-work and one individual once a week were requested. The assistant received the individual work, the teacher the group work. Group work should have been the integration of the individual works. Results had to be sent to the e-mail accounts of the assistant and the teacher.
There was no verification of the elaboration-process of assignments, only the revision for congruence between individual and group-works.
The idea was that the student should have done individual work before doing the group work, but nobody verified the process of elaboration.

In the new facilitation process the comments and products are sent by the students to the different newsgroups to which they are assigned. Cases are for comments of all students in the different newsgroups, the different cases are discussed in different newsgroups.
The main focus is on the facilitation of the elaboration process of the assignments. When there is not sufficient activity by students, the instruction team interferes to achieve more student activity. In case of ongoing low interaction, the groups are restructured to motivate participation, and more active students are put together. This is necessary because active learners get frustrated when they have to wait too long for answers from their team. Another idea is to motivate the learners with a low level of interaction.
Feed-back to students is given constantly. Every week the teacher and the assistant send feed-back to the students about the elaboration process and their participation in newsgroups to let them know how their work is seen by the instructors. The teacher revises participation in the two types of groups and provides feed-back in topics and cases.
Some feed-backs are given only to the personal e-mail account of individual students. In this manner privacy issues can be respected.
The learner support provided by the instruction team is interpreted as extensive. At the receiving sites there are no facilitators, only administrative personnel.
High motivation and participation of some students is very important for the collaborative learning process. This helps to center the process in the student-group as opposed to in the teacher.
 

Nature of instructional strategies

The course consisted in its main part in the discussion of topics and cases and in the development of a comprehensive project.
Material from different authors was used as reading assignments. The cases were designed by the teacher, extracting information from the different readings. The students could not solve them without reading the material.
It was a formula made of lecture in video, discussion and debate both at the internet and the satellite transmission and problem solving activities by the homework and cases.
Concepts were taught by the teacher and the readings, skills like how to use internet, newsgroups, web pages, presentations, working in teams, communication, research and a dynamic attitude of change by the other activities. Many skills like analysis, synthesis and evaluation of information were needed for case studies and the projects.

The pacing was defined by cases and topics every week, there were some due dates. As participation was obligatory in cases and topics (in group work) there was no way for students to delay.
 

Time Investment for Redesign and Facilitation

Team work of TV-Production, graphic-assistant, academic assistant, teacher and instructional designer on Saturdays took about 33 hours per person.
15 hours per person was the team work between academic assistant and instructional designer for the manual design.
430 hours took the facilitation of the learning process, including about 15 hours per week and person for each the teacher and the assistant. The work consisted in reading and writing of electronic mail, revision of newsgroups, structuring of groups, individual feed-back, answering questions and administrative issues.
 

Student's Opinion

Changes in the course design were recognized and acknowledged by students. A student who was already used to working autonomously and dynamically reported minor changes in his perception of this course and another one he had taken before with the same teacher.

Some students reported that they invested between 8 and 14 hours every week in the course and that they did their activities throughout the week. The homepage was accessed frequently. It has not been possible to do all course-work in one or two days a week because the group-work was demanding constant attention. They perceived that the paradigm was to cause autonomous study between students. Participants learned from the commentaries of others. Student groups used netscape chat to interact for the discussion of topics.

Monterrey participants reported that they had more work to do than the remotes, because they were required to present the group-work in the satellite class.

A student would have liked more information about how the course was designed before its beginning. Some students perceived the satellite-class disordered because of the dynamism and spontaneity in its progress, many of them were used to teacher's lecture.
The course offered many opportunities to get used to learning media.
In general, students gave positive feed-back and expressed a positive opinion about the course.
 

Results of the redesign and the case-study

General observations

The participation and interaction of students and the quality of comments was higher than in the former course with the same teacher and assistant. Students now sent their own webpages and references. In the newsgroups they suggested different cases and subjects for discussion. Students were more critical regarding the comments of other students.
There was less dependence on the teacher's lecture and more focus on the student's process of learning. It was possible to verify that students worked continuously throughout the course.

The treatment in general was more supportive. Students did not ask for longer times for elaboration of homework as in former courses.
The group was held together by the structure of the course and the facilitation. We perceived in general a kind of autonomous learning which normally occurs with only a few of the students. The instruction team was convinced that the majority of the students learned autonomously.
The "live audience students" were more involved in the course than the remote students. Support of instruction team and other participants was of course perceived different in the Monterrey's group than in the other sites. The live audience had 13 participants, they could talk live to the teacher, the assistant and the other students.

Differences in student's GPA (Grade Point Average) are not mentioned in this report to sustain higher performance. In former courses the student accomplished different assignments, excellent performance in former assignments caused high grades as likely as in the redesigned course, for this reason results in GPA are not comparable. In general there was no difference in GPA.
The drop out rate in this course is not taken into account as an indicator of higher quality of the course. Students, who cannot keep up with course requirements normally prefer to drop out at the beginning. This has, according to the administrative policies of this institution, less consequences than failing at the end of the course. Dropout rates can be explained by the difficulties and control in course participation or by failures in guidance of students. In our context this item does not offer sufficient information to support achievements or identify difficulties.
 

Identified Difficulties

Students participated a lot in the virtual environment, for this they did not want to participate too much in the satellite class, participation in class diminished compared with a former course with the same teacher and assistant. It is difficult to quantify the amount of interaction.

Perhaps more time for reflection, participation and more time for the students to interact could be considered. In the newsgroups, for the cases the students just handed in their own opinions without discussing them.
If there is no pacing from outside, it is possible that the continuous progress gets lost. Perhaps this depends on the attitude the student attained in her own learning process. This would constitute an area of further inquiry.

The dropout makes organization of the course difficult, changes have to be made in the group-organization after a time, the team-members have to face these changes. Teams at the beginning have trouble communicating with their classmates. Once communication has been established, this difficulty diminishes.

There have been adaptations in the course process, because the instruction team became convinced that it would be better to focus on course interaction than to make a midterm exam. With the same purpose some topics of a module were canceled.

We could focus even more on the remote students, the course design put the live audience at a slight advantage because more activities were requested of them.

For some students at the beginning of the course it was not clear what they were expected to do.

The audio inside of the classroom was sometimes not satisfactory. The sound of telephone sometimes was not sufficient in quality. The one-touch had some technical failures.
We designed the course with the technology which was available. In further courses video-conferences instead of satellite-classes could be considered as a possibility to generate even more interaction.
 

Final Conclusions

The design of virtual courses has to focus on student activities. High quality of activities which demand readings, analysis, synthesis and evaluation are likely to involve students in worthy learning experiences.

The moderation of the learning process empowered by adequate educational technology is very important. Guidance of students throughout the entire course is a non negotiable part for motivation.

Communication is very important. The technology of support has to work. If there are too many technical problems, the motivation of students decreases. Difficulties in communication especially in the assigned groups can have technological reasons or can be explained by the working habits of students. They have to be detected and attended to immediately.
Previous orientation to students about what they are expected to do is substantial.

For the learning outcome and the empowerment of students as autonomous participants of distance education courses we can conclude at least for the students of this course that if they are confronted with an equitable situation they will have higher achievement in autonomous study, collaborative learning and the use of learning media.

The process of the redesign is time intensive. It should be teamwork between teachers, assistants, experts in educational technology and instructional designers during the whole process of planning and implementation of the specific course.

The model of instructional design applied to restructure the course (appendix) was validated and approved in this specific application, it caused the expected results. It is worth being considered and tested in further applications.
 

Appendix

Acknowledgment

The members of the design team and collaborators of this presentation:
Ricardo Rendón (Teacher), rrendon@hylsamex.com.mx
Sonia Gutierrez (Academic Assistant), sgutierr@campus.ruv.itesm.mx
Roble Mendiola (TV and Video-Production), mmendiol@campus.ruv.itesm.mx
Luz Herlinda Godina (Visual Aids), lgodina@campus.ruv.itesm.mx
 

The Model of Instructional Design Applied to Restructure the Course
 
 

References

Aguilar, M. & Stein, H. A Model of Instructional Design Process in Virtual Education  (Diagram). 1997. <http://homepages.mty.itesm.mx/~hstein/globos.htm> (30.08.97).
Bates, (Tony) A.W. (1995). Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education. New York: Routledge
Dede, C. (1996). "The Evolution of Distance Education: Emerging Technologies and Distributed  Learning". The American Journal of Distance Education, 2
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company
Stenhouse, L. (1988). Case Study Methods. In: Keeves, John P. (Hg.). Educational Research, Methodology,
and Measurement: An International Handbook. New York: Pergamon Press, 49-53.