E-LEARNING COURSE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY Krista Siniscarco 路 Danny Taft
Table of Contents 1 2
3
Project Statement Research Questions Value Proposition Scope Methodology Secondary Research Primary Research
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Course Development Framework Development Schedule Collaboration Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Case Study: Applied Theory in Design
24 25
Best Practices & Recommendations Limitations and Future Study
26 28 29
Appendices Interview Protocols Survey Questions Glossary
30
References
Project Statement Through this research study, we plan to use contextual inquiry to develop an intimate understanding of the online course development process and its stakeholder relationships, roles, and responsibilities. An examination of this system will reveal ways in which the development process creates high contact, richer content, and cutting edge learning tools that strengthens the results of the eLearning program. We will use this knowledge to identify opportunities for continued innovation in the system and alignment of stakeholder expectations, goals, and objectives. Design thinking, a concept integral to design management, begins with a holistic examination of the system to gain understanding before converging to a more specific focus. It is made successful through understanding of the driving forces, organizational objectives, and the motivating factors behind decisions. Design management tools and processes, like divergent, convergent and lateral thinking, mind mapping, affinitizing and judgment-free brainstorming, seek to foster new perceptions and continuous renewal of the points of view of industry, partners, customers, and community. Additionally, service design tools and processes, like journey maps, service blueprints and experience models, are used to maintain a focus on the service experience. In concert, these approaches provide organizations with a complete view of their service offerings and supporting system and how the two can seamlessly work together to achieve the mission of the organization.
Research Questions 1. How are the pedagogy and learning activities of the physical classroom being translated to the online learning environment in support of course objectives? a. What is the course development process? b. Who are the stakeholders? i. What are the roles, responsibilities and expectations? ii. What are the individuals’ goals for the process? 2. What is the current process for revision of course content? 3. Where are there opportunities for continued innovation in the development and revision processes to consistently meet the needs of the stakeholders while supporting the mission of the institution and online learning program?
Savannah College of Art and Design | 1
Value Proposition For faculty course developers and instructors, eLearning instructional design staff, educational technology staff and stakeholders, and distance learning students, who are committed to excellence in teaching and learning through the development, delivery, and consumption of courses through online media in alignment with the SCAD mission, vision and values, our study provides insights into the development process and an opportunity to examine that process from a new perspective. We do this by employing contextual research methods and applying service design frameworks to analyze the existing structures in order to discover opportunities for continued innovation in the course development process. Unlike a traditional review of course development which is typically focused through a single pedagogical lens, our study will take a holistic approach, examining the process as a service system and through the application of design thinking.
Scope This study will focus on the research, analysis, and synthesis of our insights gained regarding the course development process for multiple online degree programs. In the research phase of our study, we will begin by gaining an understanding of the system at large. Through analysis and synthesis, our scope will narrow and focus on particular aspects of the system as identified by the research. This project will not include the development and testing of prototypes.
Design Process
Research
2 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Online Course Development Study
Analysis
Synthesis
Prototype
Methodology Ethnographic research is a core component of the design process, informing the designer’s decisions at every step. The ethnographic process is based on empathetic interactions with research subjects, seeking to build trusting, judgement-free relationships that reveal a deeper understanding of their actions and motivation and allow patterns in behavior to emerge. In this project we sought to employ ethnographic methods to gain an understanding of the roles and activities of each member of an online learning development team and to reveal both the motivations for their success and the barriers in their paths.
Secondary Research To provide a strong theoretical basis for inquiry, we began our research with a review of relevant scholarship in the field of online learning. The papers and journal articles selected covered a range of topics from best practices in online learning to analyses of various technological approaches to teaching and learning online. These articles served both as a foundation for our study and as a guide for its primary research component.
Primary Research The function of the primary research component of this study was to build an understanding of the ways that online learning departments internalize pedagogical theories and approaches to develop effective and inspiring online courses. In the execution of this research the accessibility of SCAD eLearning proved to be key. The core of the primary research process consisted of ethnographic interviews with faculty developers, program coordinators, and eLearning administrators.
Savannah College of Art and Design | 3
Course Development Framework Curriculum Curricular Objectives Course A
Course B
Design
Course C
Course Objectives
Lecture/Instruction
Project 1
Assignment 1
Readings/Discussion
Goals
Part A
Part C
Part B
Evaluation
Goals
What?
How?
Deliverables/Outcomes
4 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Why?
Evaluation
Curriculum
Phase 3
Curricular Objectives
Phase 1
Course A
Course B
Design
Course C
Course Objectives
Lecture/Instruction
Project 1
Assignment 1
Readings/Discussion
Goals
Phase 2 Part A
Part C
Part B
Evaluation
Goals
What?
How?
Deliverables/Outcomes
Why?
Evaluation
Savannah College of Art and Design | 5
Development Schedule Stage 1 Education
Stage 2 - Development
D
First-time Developer First-time Instructor Returning Developer Returning Instructor
Faculty introduction to online teaching and pedagogy.
Institutional Support Faculty-Instructional Designer(ID) Collaboration
Showcase best practices and examples. Introduction to campus resources (Library, Virtual Lecture Hall, Writing Center, etc.)
(Online and Face-to-Face interactions)
Technology & Tools Faculty-e-learning Specialist Partnership
(Online and Face-to-Face interactions)
Discussion of specific curricular and course Finalize course content. objectives and assignment goals. Copyediting. Outline course from syllabus. Course Upload. Begin assignment design and detailing Faculty member teaches course content. onground section of course.
Instructional s
Evaluation and recommendations of specific technologies and tools. (Project - What, How, Why)
Technology su management tools.
Student acces
OR
Introduction to course management platform (Blackboard). Exploration of supplimental technology and tools. “What is out there?” “What are the possibilities?”
Faculty-Student Interactions
Collect or create media and learning objects to support course content.
“What tools can add to learning in this course?”
Synchronous a nities for inte conversation.
Student group
Critique and c
On-the-fly cha content or ass
Feedback & Evaluation Faculty-Student-ID
6 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Initial reflecti process.
Solicit studen
d learning ontent.
Stage 4 Revision
Stage 3 Delivery
The education stage serves to introduce the developer to the online learning platform, course management software, and other available technologies. The first stage is also a chance for the instructional designer and developer to begin building a collaborative working relationship.
Instructional support for faculty. Student access to resources.
The development stage begins with the course mapping activity, after which the course is developed on a unit-by-unit basis, with the subject matter expert writing unit content and working with the e-learning designers and specialists to select or develop tools and technologies for in-class activities. The development stage should take place at the same time that the faculty developer is teaching the course on-ground. This allows the development team to observe the instruction and learning activities in the classroom and design similarly effective activities for the online course. This also allows the team to adhere to a fast-paced schedule, developing the course one unit per week, as they are taught onground. The development stage finishes with course editing and media design, once the content has been written.
Technology support for course management platform and supporting tools.
Synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for interaction, feedback and conversation. Student group work. Critique and class discussions. On-the-fly changes or additions to course content or assignments.
Evaluation of course development process and course delivery.
Initial reflection on course development process.
“Were the course objectives and assignment goals met? What worked well? What could be improved?�
Solicit student feedback
The suggested course development follows a schedule that is divided into four stages: education, development, delivery, and revision.
Student feedback. Set plan for course revisions.
The course is taught online for the first time in the delivery stage of the process. The instructor teaches the course and provides feedback to the developement team on the effectiveness of the online tools and the course content in general. Additionally, student feedback is solicited during this stage. The e-learning department provides technical and instructional support to the faculty member throughout the course delivery. The revision stage occurs as soon as the first run of the course is complete. The development team incorporates both the student and instructor feedback and evaluates the success of the online course in meeting the objectives and goals identified during the course mapping activity in the development stage. Any necessary revisions are evaluated and executed by the development team. Savannah College of Art and Design | 7
Collaboration We propose that true collaboration is required for the course development team to produce the highest quality course content and learning experience. In collaboration, which differs from coordination, all members of the team bring their unique skills and expertise to the table and work together through all stages of the development process. Coordination - individuals or groups of people working alongside one another and communicating to accomplish a common goal. Collaboration - individuals or groups of people willfully working together and continuously communicating by sharing knowledge and ideas, learning from each other, brainstorming, and partnering throughout the process to accomplish a shared goal or vision. Collaboration is an iterative process that should involve evaluation and assessment. In order to foster collaboration, a strong foundation of communication is required. This is an opportunity for team members to build a common language and set communication expectations and protocols. Healthy communication can build trust and mutual respect within the team. Once this strong foundation is established, the team can begin to set mutually agreed upon roles, responsibilities, and expectations and select a schedule, approach, and process.
Building Blocks of Collaboration
Collectively agreed upon...
Strong foundation of... 8 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Timeline/ Schedule Roles
Trust
Approach/ Process
ResponsibiliExpectations ties
Respect
COMMUNICATION
pment Tea o l e v m De Content
Students
Media and Learning Objects
Pedagogy
Peer Tutoring
Tools and Technology
Campus Resources
Writing Center
Library
Savannah College of Art and Design | 9
Phase 1 - Curricular Outline Phase one of the development process is an overview and understanding of the department’s curriculum, over-arching objectives, and courses. Once the decision is made to offer an online degree program, a team comprised of members of the academic department and e-learning should be assembled. This preliminary team should include the department chair, department faculty, instructional design liaison and the director of the instructional design team. The team will start to build a collaborative working relationship and foundation of communication between the academic and e-learning departments. Phase one gives the team the opportunity to build a common language and share working models, frameworks, and processes. We suggest that the entire team work together to visually map out the curriculum by aligning courses with curricular objectives. A similar process occurs in phase 2 to map out each course. This model will be used to guide the development process and should be referenced as each course in the program is developed. After the curriculum is mapped, the team should identify key players and development teams and set a timeline with milestones.
Director of Instructional Design
Lead Instructional Designer
10 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Department Faculty
Curriculum Curricular Objectives
Phase 1
Course A
Course B
Design
Course C
Course Objectives
Lecture/Instruction
Project 1
Assignment 1
Readings/Discussion
Goals
Part A
Part C
Part B
Evaluation
Goals
What?
How?
Deliverables/Outcomes
Why?
Evaluation
Savannah College of Art and Design | 11
Phase 2 - Course Development Phase two of the process encompasses the development, delivery, and revisions of each individual course within the curriculum. The core development team should include a subject matter expert, instructional designer, online learning specialist and media designer. The team will also coordinate with students and campus resources at various points in the development process. We suggest that the core development team hold an initial meeting to visually map the content of the existing on-ground course. The team should begin by outlining course objectives and then aligning those objectives with lectures, readings, discussions, assignments, and projects. Assignments and projects should then be sequenced and broken down by goal and part or deliverable. Much of this mapping is completed by asking questions related to goals, tools, processes, deliverables, and intent. Once the course is mapped, content can be evaluated and brainstorming of strategies for translating content into an online environment can occur. It is imperative that each member of the development team share their ideas and expertise during this stage of the process. The team should set a development plan and schedule with responsibilities, expectations, milestones, and checkpoints.
pment Tea velo m De Subject Matter Expert
Students
The team should be in constant communication and schedule synchronous meeting times to collaborate, brainstorm, and problem solve throughout the development process. Once the course has been delivered, the team should reconvene to assess the development process, course content, and instruction to make necessary changes for the next instance of the course. All stakeholders should be considered during the revision process.
Media Designer
Instructional Designer
Online Learning Specialist
Peer Tutoring
Campus Resources
Writing Center
Library
12 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Curriculum Curricular Objectives Course A
Course B
Design
Course C
Course Objectives
Lecture/Instruction
Project 1
Assignment 1
Readings/Discussion
Goals
Phase 2 Part A
Part C
Part B
Evaluation
Goals
What?
How?
Deliverables/Outcomes
Why?
Evaluation
Savannah College of Art and Design | 13
Phase 3 - Evaluation Phase three of the development process is a holistic evaluation of the program curriculum. This should occur once each course in the program has been developed and delivered. The evaluation team should be comprised of department faculty, the director of instructional design, the lead instructional design liaison for the department and representatives from institutional assessment. Students or student feedback should also be included in the evaluation process. During the evaluation phase, courses, course objectives, and student outcomes should be measured against curricular objectives. The team should work together to determine a process and strategy for measuring curricular outcomes. Once the evaluation is complete, recommendations should be delivered and a suggested schedule for revisions and development should be outlined. The evaluation process should be repeated at regular intervals, as agreed upon by the department and institution.
Director of Instructional Design
Lead Instructional Designer
Department Faculty
Institutional Assessment
14 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Students
Curriculum
Phase 3
Curricular Objectives Course A
Course B
Design
Course C
Course Objectives
Lecture/Instruction
Project 1
Assignment 1
Readings/Discussion
Goals
Part A
Part C
Part B
Evaluation
Goals
What?
How?
Deliverables/Outcomes
Why?
Evaluation
Savannah College of Art and Design | 15
Case Study - SDES 702: Applied Theory in Design As a means of prototyping the second phase of our proposed development process, we mapped out the syllabus of an on-ground course, from course-level objectives down to project part goals. This exercise was carried out using a whiteboard, Post-Its, and Sharpies to dissect one of the core courses on design thinking for design management and industrial design students: Applied Theory in Design. Beginning with the course description, course goals, and student learning outcomes found in the syllabus, we identified the core objectives of the course and any subordinate objectives, putting these on orange Post-Its and spreading them out horizontally on the whiteboard. Subordinate objectives were given smaller Post-Its than higher-level outcomes; for example brand development and project management were aligned under professional skills. This exercise allowed us to lay out the skeleton of the course, and provided the toplevel requirements to be supported by the course project, assignments, readings, exercises, and discussions. With this framework of objectives laid out, we arranged a second row of Post-Its below the objectives. These blue Post-Its each featured a reading assigned at some point in the course and were arranged sequentially, from left to right, as they appeared in the syllabus. Using a different colored marker for each reading, we drew arrows to any course objectives supported by that particular reading. Any debate about a connection between a reading and an objective was discussed and closed before moving on. Once all of these connections were mapped out, we determined from the syllabus that discussions were held around each of the readings. These were reflected on the map by a catch-all bracket, since the discussions would support the course objectives through the readings. As the sole standalone assignment, a paper written in response to the reading of the article “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking� was represented by a yellow Post-It below that of the reading. This process was repeated for the course project, focusing on high-level deliverables. Each deliverable project part was written on a green Post-It and laid out from left to right in the order in which they are completed in the course. Again, using a different colored marker for each deliverable, arrows were drawn to all of the course objectives supported by that project part. Any supporting or continuing tasks were laid out on smaller Post-Its below the major deliverables. Once all project parts had been mapped to course objectives, we 16 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
sought to further dissect those parts by asking three questions about each: What is it? How is it completed? and Why is it completed in that way? Answers to each of these questions were written on Post-Its and placed in the appropriate segment of the diagram. Having completed this process for the readings and the course project, we sought to align the tasks in the course with the lectures and seminar discussions that provided instruction to students. Once again, each lecture was written on a separate Post-It and laid out on the board in the order in which they were delivered on the ground. Once this schedule of lectures was created, we mapped the schedule of readings and the schedule of project parts alongside the lectures, trying to identify the relationships between the readings and lectures in support of project goals or milestones. The benefit of this mapping exercise lies on a higher level than the creation of a simple outline of the course. It arises from the discussions required to create that outline. By performing this activity in a group consisting of faculty developers, instructors, and instructional designers, the team can ensure that all members of the development team understand the goals, outcomes, and high-level concepts addressed in the course. This understanding is the basis for the development of the course in our model, allowing developers and instructional designers to focus more on those components of the course that differ or are unique to the online course.
Savannah College of Art and Design | 17
18 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Savannah College of Art and Design | 19
Course Content
Alignment of Course Objectives and Content
Readings
Lectures
Project/ Assignment Understand Principles & Theory of Design
Course Objectives
Build Professional Skills Build Collaborative Skills How to Write a Design Brief Understand and Apply Reframes Storytelling for Idea/ Business/Design Development 20 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Creating the Perfect Design Brief (Philips)
Design for Business (Martin)
The Dominant Paradigm
Design Brief
Designer as Problem Solver --Design Criteria 80/20 Rule
Reflection Paper
Project Brief
Wicked Problems (Buchanan) Intro to Praxis
Crossing th Chasim (Moore) Trends + Consumers Personas
Inductive Deductive & Abductiv Reasoning
Trends onsumers
ersonas
Crossing the Chasim (Moore) Inductive, Deductive, & Abductive Reasoning
Good to Great (Collins) Architecture of the Joke --Value Proposition Reframe Video --Value Proposition
What is quality? How is it defined?
Iterative Design Strategy --Parallel Design Thinking
A-B-C-Q Model --Systems View --Contradiction
Final Proposal
Final Video --Process Book
Savannah College of Art and Design | 21
Course Project Mapping
Goals
Reframe Video
Project Brief
Deliverables
Value Proposition
P
Frame project
Define problem
Identify stakeholders
Present pro
Define scope
Ask different questions
Define idea
Recieve cri
Project plan & schedule
Reconsider problem
Express value to stakeholders
Select final
Present research analysis
Differentiation
Business co
Video
Written document
Visual/verb
Written document
What?
Research & presentation
Value propo
Re-target goals and deliverables
Storyboard
“The Wall”
Sketches/m
Customer ethno. research
“The Wall”
3 reframe diagrams Face-face group meetings In-class discussion
How?
(Tools & Processes)
Why?
(Intent)
Google Docs
Synthesis of
Dropbox
Dropbox
Data Viz - Mind maps, whiteboard, affinitizing Storyboarding Markers & postits PPT/Keynote
PPT/Keynot
MS Word
MS Word
Video editing software
Analysis of research
Storyboardi
Google Docs
Cameras Surveys, interviews, observations
Draft video
Collaborative writing
Collaborative visualization
Understand problem and customer
Ideation
Foundation of team
Flexibility in access and editing
Collaborative writing
Idea develo
Ease of access, editing, and tracking
Using professional tools of the trade
Foundation of team
Peer feedba
Ease of access, editing, and tracking
VISUAL tool
Visual tools Intro to storytelling 22 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Value proposition formula
Final Proposal
on
olders
Final Video
Process Book
Present proposed solutions
Present final solution
Document process
Recieve critique
Problem - Reframe
Stages of design
Select final solution
Scenarios
All of the “what”
Business components - market
Solution Viability
Portfolio piece
“Sales” pitch Visual/verbal presentation
Video
Printed book
Value proposition
“Sales” pitch
Images & text
Synthesis of research
PPT/Keynote
Print graphics software
PPT/Keynote
Storyboarding
Collaborative writing
Storyboarding
Video editing software
Final “walking the wall” analysis
Ideation
Finalize idea
Storytelling
Idea development
Storytelling
Using tools of the trade
Peer feedback
Using tools of the trade
VISUAL
VISUAL tools
VISUAL
Storyboards Sketches/models “The Wall”
Draft video
d customer
and
Savannah College of Art and Design | 23
Best Practices and Recommendations Phase 1
Phase 2
Curriculum
Education
Development
Delivery
Phase 3 Revision
• Development team collaboration ◦◦ Equal partnership, playing to each member’s skills and strengths ◦◦ Build a foundation of trust ▪▪ roles and responsibilities ▪▪ communication protocols ▪▪ expectations ▪▪ timeline ▪▪ common language
• Instructional designers “embedded” in departments ◦◦ Attend classes during development process ◦◦ Participate in faculty meetings ◦◦ Observe student projects, presentations and interactions
• Consistency in development process ◦◦ Shared framework and approach in instructional design team ◦◦ Liason instructional designers for schools/departments ◦◦ Faculty liaisons to eLearning within departments
• Faculty advocates ◦◦ Showcase and celebrate successes ◦◦ Faculty presenting to and mentoring faculty during education stage
• Encourage interaction between on-ground and online students ◦◦ Collaborative opportunities ◦◦ Shared tools and pedagogy
• eLearning “boot camp” ◦◦ Semi-annual event ◦◦ Kick off education stage of phase 2 ◦◦ Faculty showcase ◦◦ Exploration and introduction to technology
• Synchronous learning opportunities ◦◦ Encouraged but not mandated ◦◦ Flexible schedule ◦◦ Group work
24 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Evaluation
Limitations and Future Study Limitations of the Study The scope of this study was limited by both time and accessibility. Research was restricted to the institutional side of the online learning interaction, incorporating a careful regard for students but without involving them directly as research subjects. While this was partially due to accessibility issues, it was also a conscious decision, since much of the development process occurs before students are involved. Data collection from outside institutions was also limited to secondary research, again due to accessibility and time constraints. Due to time and execution concerns, this study also did not involve a prototype of course development, as testing and implementation of an as-yet undeveloped online course would involve resources innaccessible to students.
Proposed Research The area of online learning development remains a rich topic for research. Ideally, the research component of this study would be continued with a focus on a wider range of higher education institutions and the development and delivery of their online course content. This broader research would allow the study to incorporate and compare practices and approaches across varying curricula and disciplines.
Savannah College of Art and Design | 25
Appendices Interview Protocols eLearning • What is eLearning’s approach and philosophy for online course development? • What is the course development process? • Instructional content vs assessments? • How often is this process adjusted for specific course content? • Who is involved in the course development process? • At which stages are they involved? • What are their individual roles and responsibilities? • What is the process for evaluation and revision of course content? • How are student and instructor feedback incorporated in the process? • What policies exist for course content delivery? • How do you define collaboration? • What role does collaboration play in course development? • Can you describe a very positive experience/example of a successful course? • Can you describe an experience/examples of a course that did not go as smoothly? • How much time does it take to develop a course? • What is your preferred timeline for course development? • How are developers selected for course development? • How are developers trained for the online course environment? • How is a course affected by the person teaching it? • How often is a course taught by the same person who developed it? • Is course content designed for this? How? • What role does technology play in the course development process? • How is technology selected for use in a course? • Are exercises or activities designed to use specific types of technology? • How do you measure success of the eLearning program? • How do you communicate that success?
26 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Faculty • • • • • •
What is your experience with teaching online? What is the online course development process? Who did you interact with and at what stages? What parts of the process went most smoothly? Were there any stages in the process that did not go as smoothly? How much time did you spend developing the course? • If you could do it over, what timeline would you prefer? • What is the process for evaluation and revision of course content?
Savannah College of Art and Design | 27
Survey Questions 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 28 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
How many courses have you taken online? At what institution did you take these courses? What is your major or course of study? Which of the following best describes your course of study? a. Online-only b. Mostly on-ground, with some online courses c. An even mix of on-ground and online courses How satisfied were you with the frequency of your interaction with your professor? How satisfied were you with the frequency of your interaction with other students? How satisfied were you with the quality of your interaction with the following online course components? a. Discussion Boards b. Group Areas c. Grading Opportunities d. Assignment Submissions e. Quizzes f. Assignment or Project Descriptions g. Faculty-Student Interactions h. Student-Student Interactions Please describe a positive experience you had in an online course. Please describe a negative experience you had in an online course. Describe how the content delivery technology has effected your learning experience. How did your online learning experience compare with your previous on-ground learning experiences? a. Online was stronger b. The experiences were equal c. On-ground was stronger Was there anything lacking in your online course curriculum that you would like to see incorporated? Were there any synchronous activities involved in your online course? Do you feel that synchronous activities did or would have enhanced your online learning experience? Please describe the ways that synchronous activities effected your learning experience.
Glossary Course Management System - a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, and reporting of classroom and online events, e-learning programs, and training programs and content. Course Objective - a description of what learners will be able to do at the end of instruction, and a clear reason for instruction. Curriculum - the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or higher education institution. e-learning - electronically supported teaching and learning; computer and network-enabled transfer of skills and knowledge. - the practice of creating instructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing. Pedagogy - the method, approach and practice of teaching. Subject Matter Expert (SME) - a person who is an expert in a particular area or topic.
Savannah College of Art and Design | 29
References Betts, Kristen. “Lost in Translation: Importance of Effective Communication in Online Education.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume XII, Number II, Summer 2009. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/betts122.html. Brinthaupt, T.M., L.S. Fisher, J.G. Gardner, D.M. Raffo, and J.B. Woodard. “What the Best Online Teachers Should Do.” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7, no. 4 (December, 2011): 515-524. Carroll-Barefield, Amanda, Sherry P. Smith, Lori H. Prince, Dr. Carol A. Campbell. “Transitioning from Brick and Mortar to Online: A Faculty Perspective.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number I, Spring 2005. http://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/carroll81.htm. Chickering, Arthur W. and Stephen C. Ehrmann. “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as a Lever.” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 49, no. 2 (1996): 3-6. Chickering, Arthur W. and Zelda F. Gamson. “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin 39, no. 7 (1987): 3-7. Covington, David, Donna Petherbridge, Sarah Egan Warren. “Best Practices: A Triangulated Support Approach in Transitioning Faculty to Online Teaching.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number I, Spring 2005. http://www.westga. edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/covington81.htm. Fischman, Josh, Kenneth E. Hartman, James J. Linksz, William Pepicello. “Online Learning: What College Presidents and the Public Think About Its Future.” Presentation at the 2011 EDUCAUSE Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA, October 18-21, 2011. Fish, Wade W. and Leah E. Wickersham. “Best Practices for Online Instructors.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10, no. 3 (2009): 279-284. 30 | K. Siniscarco and D. Taft
Hai-Jew, Shalin. “An Instructional Design Approach to Updating an Online Course Curriculum.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine, Volume 33, Number 4, 2010. http:// www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ AnInstructionalDesignApproacht/219118. Hrastinski, Stefan. “Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine, Volume 31, Number 4, 2008. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/ EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/AsynchronousandSynchronousELea/163445. Hutchins, Holly M. “Instructional Immediacy and the Seven Principles: Strategies for Facilitating Online Courses.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration VI, no. III (Fall, 2003). Keengwe, Jared and Terry T. Kidd. “Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6, no. 2 (June, 2010): 533-541. Puzziferro, Maria and Kaye Shelton. “Supporting Online Faculty - Revisiting the Seven Principles (A Few Years Later).” Online Journal of Distance Learning 12, no. 3 (2009). Terrell, Steven R. “Supporting Different Learning Styles in an Online Learning Environment: Does it Really Matter in the Long Run?” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number II, Summer 2005. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/ terrell82.htm.
Savannah College of Art and Design | 31
eLearning Course Development Contextual Inquiry by Krista Siniscarco and Danny Taft is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.