Merrill Chandler, James A. Levin, and Sandra R. Levin
College of Education
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Paper to be presented
at the 2002 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting
New Orleans, LA, April, 2002
Online education courses continue to pop up everywhere as technological advances continue to make it easier for colleges, universities, and businesses to connect instructors and trainers with students via the Internet. Communication technologies have become increasingly important to distance education programs where most of the interaction and communication occur online, students get to know their instructors and other students, all online. In online environments the development of community has become even more critical for learning, particularly when the learning community facilitates how, where and what learning occurs online (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). One of the central features the Curriculum, Technology and Educational Reform (CTER) program employed to facilitate community development is a two-day on-site orientation for new students. CTER Orientation was designed to familiarize students with CTER services, procedures and resources made available through Academic Outreach, the College of Education and the University. Orientation afforded students an opportunity to learn more about the CTER program, instructors, courses, and the technologies to be used in pursuit of completion of their coursework.
CTER OnLine. In spring semester of 1998, the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign created an online initiative specifically aimed towards pre-college teachers and instructional staff interested in learning via technology. This two-year masters of education degree program was to be conducted through the use of an online delivery system using synchronous and asynchronous interactive communication technologies, among others to teach courses and to interact and engage students. Curriculum, Technology, and Education Reform or "CTER" (http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu) is now in its fifth year of accepting students to the program. Twenty-six students began their first CTER OnLine course in June 1998; twenty-nine students started in August 1999; cohort three has twenty-five students who began in August 2000; and the latest cohort, added June 2001, includes twenty-five students.
CTER students are required to complete eight courses, typically taken over a two-year period to earn a masters of education degree. There are five required courses:
Three additional courses are selected from the following list of elective courses:
Students typically enroll in one fall course, one spring course and two intensive courses during the summer semester. Students wanting to accelerate the two-year program have been able to work with CTER faculty and staff to complete the program in less than two years time (anywhere from 12-14 months depending on course scheduling). Students "double-up" on the courses (enroll in two course each fall and spring and four courses during the summer semesters) to meet the eight-course requirement. "Doubling up" also makes the student eligible for financial aid, something they would not otherwise be eligible for if following the two-year schedule. Course content is delivered largely online. In some cases, instructors and students set aside one class session for a face-to-face gathering usually late in the semester, to share project presentations. The instructor, with input from students, decides whether or not they will schedule a face-to-face meeting. The only other face-to-face interaction for each cohort is the initial cohort meeting at the two-day program orientation, which is the focus of this paper.
A Glimpse of CTER
Welcome to CTER Orientation. The first day of June 2001 brought with it a new cohort of CTER students. This was now the fourth cohort accepted into CTER and the College of Education at the University of Illinois. Jim Levin, CTER program director, gathered the new cohort in Room 37 at the College. Twenty-five of the 26 students who have accepted CTER's offer to enroll had arrived on time. One student called that he would be late, unable to miss an important meeting at his school, but he is expected later. Sandy Levin, program coordinator, introduced CTER staff (Jim B., James B., Rita, Pedro, and Merrill) to the new CTER students. College and Department administrators stopped in with welcoming comments. Dean of the College, Susan Fowler welcomed the group to the University; Michelle Perry, chair of the Educational Psychology Department, echoed the dean's remarks. Educational Psychology Professors Tom Anderson and David Zola were acknowledged along with Tony Perissini and Tom Anderson from Math Teacher Link. Each professor would later describe their course offerings.
For CTER orientation, students set aside one weekend to visit campus and become familiar with the CTER program, staff, other students in the cohort. The first day was a full day, beginning with coffee and introductions and ending later that evening with a picnic for new students hosted by CTER faculty. For the first half-hour, students were greeted with light refreshments--coffee, tea, bagels, rolls and muffins. Students met the staff and received an information packet to browse. That packet was needed to navigate through the next day and a half. Professor Jim Levin reviewed the packet's contents with the full cohort, making sure all were aware of the schedule. One of his most important tasks was to turn student's attention to the services available to them as non-residential students. Online students are "processed" through the Office of Academic Outreach rather than the Office of Admissions and Records. Any questions that students may have about program registration, including registering for courses each semester and making payments, must be directed to Academic Outreach. The most important of these processes is receiving their University identification card (ID). The ID grants the student access to University resources, including borrowing privileges from the University Library via Academic Outreach.
Students listened carefully and quietly, interested in the introductions; they had few questions. The lack of questions did not mean that they are not interested. They had made a significant investment that students do not take lightly. Tuition and fees were more than $1000 per course. There were a number questions about financial aid.
During the first day of orientation, students had to deal with the deadline for registration and tuition payments for the summer courses, which was that day. "Contact Tracy today!" "Oh, also, for your next course, the registration deadline is July 5." This information was followed by a chorus of queries, "When do we have to make that payment? When do Fall classes begin? When is the Fall payment due? The Academic Outreach representative responds to each: payment is due July 5 at the beginning of the next course; the payment for fall is due August 10; class begins August 22. Moments before 10 AM, CTER students received their Network IDs and passwords. Students were again reminded that they must complete their summer registration that day.
To begin the summer program, students needed to enroll in two required courses as Professor Jim Levin explained: Educational Psychology 387, Computer Uses in Education, followed by Educational Psychology 490NET, Networks for Learning. In laying out the first two courses, Jim explained that EdPsy 387 is an introductory type course which gets them involved in the production of knowledge using technology rather than being a consumer who only "surfs the net." For each course, there is a major project requirement, details to be determined by the instructor. He explains that "most courses are project oriented". In EdPsy 387, students were required to develop their own "electronic-portfolios" using a mix of media. University of West Georgia professor Michael Waugh, now at the University of Tennessee, would teach EdPsy 490NET. Students were advised that Professor Waugh would contact them with additional information about the course as time drew closer.
There was little interaction among students early in the day, they knew so little about each other; the levels and subjects taught, whether they were classroom instructors or technology coordinators, what type of classroom experiences they had or where students resided. Unlike previous CTER cohorts, all students in the CTER4 cohort were from Illinois. Cohort 4 was a mix of K-12 teachers and technology coordinators. There were nineteen women and six men, ranging from a few years to more than 20 years of service. One CTER student taught in a private school; one student was from higher education.
With their questions addressed, it was then the students' time to introduce themselves to their fellow students and CTER staff. In addition to their names, and where they are from, each student talked about their interests in technology and why they chose to enroll in CTER. Leonard is interested in using the computer for math, Theresa is interested in being a change agent in her high school. Beverly just wants to know more about technology than her son does. Each student shared something about who they are. For Diane, a school technology coordinator, this was a very useful exercise. She said later "I've already scoped out who I'm going to work with." She assessed that there were others, advanced techies like herself, in the room. They would challenge her, help her to develop new skills and knowledge without being slowed by their lack of technical experience and training with these technologies. Students were then led to their first icebreaker activity, a chaotic icebreaking activity where each student is asked to find others in the group who share their same educational goals, teaching level, and other common characteristics. This information would come in handy later at the picnic where another icebreaker will ask students "Do you know your fellow students, faculty and staff?" There students were asked to match interesting facts or experiences to their fellow students. Small prizes were given to students who were able to match the most names.
CTER orientation continued. Prior to lunch, students had their pictures taken. The pictures were placed on the CTER web page along with a composite of the whole group. Later that day and the next as students began EdPsy 387, they had to retrieve their own photos from the CTER server to add them to their electronic portfolios. For lunch, sandwiches were ordered and students had an opportunity to talk to a current CTER student and a graduate from the first CTER cohort. However, these students were not on campus.
CTER had acquired a videoconferencing system, which allowed students in Champaign to interact with other CTER students in Wood Dale and Springfield, IL. These two school districts (Springfield and Wood Dale) obtained the Polycom videoconferencing systems through a grant from AT&T in partnership with CTER faculty. Cynthia and Robert interacted with the new students at orientation using video over IP. From their home districts, they signed on to the system and connected to another Polycom set up in the orientation room. They used this time to introduce themselves and to share some of their experiences as former and current CTER students while capturing students' imagination through the use of video. This was the promise of CTER in the classroom where the Polycom video could be used efficiently and effectively not necessarily to replace face-to-face interactions, but to offer an opportunity for students to participate at a distance when a face-to-face meeting would otherwise be required. Students did not have to travel to receive high quality instruction. This was one of the key reasons why students were attracted to online courses.
Professor Sandy Levin and Professor Jim Levin facilitate and asked Robert and Cynthia questions about their CTER experiences. Cynthia told the new cohort to form study groups, "it makes life a lot easier if you do." She was part of a group from Springfield, that met locally to talk about the CTER course work. She mentioned that because it is an online course, people thought that they are going to breeze through it, but the reality according to Cynthia was that, the work "is not easy, nor is this an easy way to get a masters." She said the work was "intense", yet students could expect to learn a lot. One of the benefits to working in a group is that "you can and will develop colleagues." These are colleagues located in all parts of the state and country that you can call on for their expertise on different matters. For Cynthia, working with technology opened up new avenues for finding (human) resources.
Robert suggested that students could expect to do well, that is, as long as they are able to manage their time. Robert pulled out a personal experience about the importance of managing your time. He shared how last Spring Break, he "let the work slide" and because of his failing to pay attention to the workload, catching up was terribly difficult. "Set time aside" for the CTER work was his advice. "Online courses can be more time consuming than traditional courses", he reminds the students, especially if you do not find the time to complete your weekly assignments.
After lunch, the technical support staff went over the software sent to students on a CD-ROM and accompanying tutorials that had been previously mailed to their homes. Shortly after lunch, students were directed to use iBook laptop computers with wireless network connections. Most students were PC users, but part of the program was designed to have students become familiar with different platforms. PCs were used when students convened the next day in the Computer Lab. Students quickly signed on to the University servers, and began to develop their CTER profiles and access their web space.
At this time students began to develop their "eportfolios." Pedro had already moved students' photos to the new CTER4 website. Students took this time to begin to understand how the CTER server actually worked. They reviewed their CTER packet; some students began to complete the consent forms for Human Subjects Review and Institutional Review Board purposes. They also completed the online preliminary survey. Small groups began to gel and talk to each other, answering questions about their "levels" of expertise with technology. They were beginning to develop their own identity and relationships as a cohort.
Not all students were comfortable with the new tools that they now had at their disposal. Lois told me that she has a young child, "My husband works long hours, so I have to be careful about how I use my time." She's discussed her concerns with Kayla, a CTER 3 student who was from Lois' school district. Lois feared that she did not have the technical skills needed for this program. She regularly used computers at her school and at home, sending and receiving email, she'd even done a PowerPoint presentation. But she was concerned that she was not skilled or experienced enough with different technologies to be effective in the program. She was also concerned about the time commitment. Would she have time to do CTER considering she had an infant to take care of? Her nervousness was also fueled by having to leave town for several days the following week to visit family. She was not starting the course fully engaged. She knew she would fall behind.
The differing levels of skill in the room was apparent from the questions students were asking and the problems being resolved by staff. Locating the correct URLs was tricky for some, "copy and paste" was suggested. One group was advanced in their technology skills and knowledge. They were mostly technology coordinators or computer teachers in their districts and buildings. There the talk was about not being "bored" or not moving fast enough in the program. They had already finished the initial "eportfolio" steps. Their desire was to move through all of CTER as quickly as possible, hoping that the activities would become more challenging. They wanted to hear more about the two students currently in CTER3 who were "doubling" their coursework to complete the program in one year. In another group, PC users grumbled about having to use Macs during the first day. The instructor walked them through; "Go to the Apple, select ‘chooser', then Appleshare, then the server IP address." "Here's how you change your password." "Here's the Education and CTER server." The first day ended with a cohort picnic hosted by one of the CTER faculty on his farm.
The second day of CTER orientation began in the College's computer lab, where students could use PCs or Macs. They now moved their pictures taken yesterday from the CTER website to their own eportfolios web page. On this second day, it was apparent that friendships had been made over the past 24 hours. Several students had a chance to chat and connect. Theresa and Greta, Chantal and Mark, Sylvia and Erica, Muriel, Beverly and Zoë all comfortably chat, share and help each other. Those who were from the same districts worked together but on the second day there is much more mingling going on. Ample time was given to students to work on their portfolios. Some finished early and surfed the Web; others had the attention of CTER staff. Professor Jim Levin reassembled the cohort in the PC lab and began his first course presentation for EdPsy 387. He told the class that his goal is to move users of the Internet from "surfing to serving." They were given a lesson in URL meanings and troubleshooting. All 26 students squeezed into the PC lab for their initial and only face-to-face class session. They listened, took notes, asked questions, and then worked to place their pictures and personal biographies on their portfolios. It was the beginning of a new semester at CTER.
Typically, on-campus orientation is designed to "help students make a successful transition" to university life and the residential campus and its resources (Scagnoli, 2002). Those who do not favor orientation for off-campus students suggest that on-campus orientations help students "assimilate into the university environment, locate facilities and services available there and finalize enrollments, lecture timetables and that these issues are not relevant to the distance education student" (Bowser, 1992). Non-residential online students have been thought not to need orientation because they were not on campus and not in need of a focused induction to campus resources and opportunities.
Bowser (1992) noted that for the on-campus students, the primary objective of orientation is to "address institutional and educational factors which have been identified as having an negative affect on the students' learning objective." In other words, orientation is to address those issues which could possibly frustrate students and hinder their chances to complete the course or program. Building on the objectives of on-campus orientation, Bowser (1992) lists five specific objectives, which should be included when preparing students for online study:
Bergmann and Raleigh (1998) cite three specific objectives for presenting their orientation, which are similar to those of Bowser (1992). Orientation seeks to meet the following three outcomes:
Bergmann and Raleigh (1998) place greater emphasis on the need for comfort and familiarity with the technology. Because they were working in a program where students must be comfortable working with video and audio equipment to transmit the course content via video conferencing, Bergmann and Raleigh (1998) noted that time had to be taken up front to acquaint the student with the technology. No greater need was there than for students to become comfortable in the online environment and recognizing that they were in large part responsible for their learning. Often it is believed that because the interaction is online that community and collaboration would be sacrificed for the convenience of working at home via the Internet. Bergmann and Raleigh (1998) objected to this misplaced perception, instead seeing the online environment as one where dialogue, collaboration and community are essential to successful online programs.
Scagnoli (2002) also considered the orientation process important to setting the groundwork for successful online student participation. She offers several questions to help us locate the appropriate orientation process. Familiar with two online programs (CTER and HRE Online), Scagnoli suggests that program developers and managers use the following questions "to determine the instructional design and the kind of orientation process that will be conducted."
The program: Is it necessary that students learn more about the program during an orientation period that will increase their involvement and eventually lessen the drop out rate?
The courses: How helpful is it for the success of the program that students know about the way each course will be organized; the criteria the professor will use to evaluate, teach, and communicate and keep the class connected?
The technological applications used in the program: Shall the prerequisites to the program include some basic technological skills? To what extent should these skills match the ones that will be used in the program?
The social interaction of the learning environment: How important for the success of the program is it that all students become familiar with the other students' backgrounds or interests before they start the program? How can this familiarity affect the cohort/group formation?
Students location/background: Where are students geographically located? Are there cultural issues to be considered in an orientation?
Instructors for the orientation: Who will prepare/organize/be in charge of the orientation: the instructors of the first courses/the coordinator of the online program/the college?
CTER orientation emphasized many of the above ideas when the online Graduate program was designed. The CTER program demonstrated that whether residential or non-residential, new student orientation played an important role for online students. Key objectives of orientation were to help students become aware of the on-line learning environment, become familiar with resources and support areas (e.g., library services, technical support, Special Services), make clear enrollment procedures and important enrollment dates (e.g. Academic Outreach), and most importantly, clarify any technical questions or issues students may have about the technologies needed for the program.
Often overlooked was the function that an orientation serves to bring together the cohort as a community. Community development is equally critical to students' success in an online program. Face-to-face interaction is limited so developing a relationship online is critical for students to find success and personal fulfillment. For this reason students selected for the program must be self-starters, who are disciplined and organized as teachers, students and time managers. In the CTER OnLine environment, there were text-based course requirements; students must still read articles, book chapters, published reports and other materials online or in printed format. Another significant portion of student work was project-based, often done in teams with each member responsible for a particular task, which is why strong learning communities take on even greater significance in CTER. Communities where students were able to interact with and support each other in those environments (Levin, Levin, Chandler, 2001). CTER orientation provides a gateway to develop and initiate community building within the CTER cohorts.
CTER studies have previously identified several important reasons why the CTER OnLine program had been successful in providing an effective online environment for learning. Data gathered throughout the first three years of the program, suggested the following five dimensions of effective online learning and teaching (Levin and Waddoups, 2000):
At orientation, CTER faculty and staff focused on how CTER OnLine constructs a rich learning community at the very outset of the program. At CTER, a learning community consisted of a collective group, the cohort, working together on various projects online using different technologies (e.g., WebBoard, Tapped In, Real Audio) to engage and interact with each other on the topics in question. Online learning at CTER was not a sole or solitary process. It was done with others in dialogue; and it is through this dialogue, these conversations, interactions, engagements (using technology), that community begins to take form.
CTER cohorts represented a learning community, defined by Kowch and Schwier (1997) as a "collection of individuals who are brought together by natural will and a set of shared ideas and ideals." As technology was added to the development of learning communities, it "offers opportunities for extending learning beyond the boundaries of a classroom, province, and country and this in turn promotes the development of a rich tapestry of formal and informal learning communities (Kowch and Schwier, 1997)."
Each year following orientation, attending CTER students are asked to comment on their level of satisfaction with the orientation activities held over the two-day period. Additionally, CTER has routinely gathered evaluative data on each respective cohort using a series of program surveys, pre-, mid-, and post-, and interviews to gather participants' perceptions on their experiences in the program. Other less formal data such as end of program "yearbook" comments, emails and other electronic communications have also helped CTER evaluators and faculty to gain more insight into the effectiveness of the program. CTER has gathered and analyzed those data to better understand student perceptions of the program and to improve the services offered during that time. The following is a brief analysis of students' impressions of CTER Orientation as expressed in surveys over the first four CTER cohorts. It should be noted that a 5-point (very satisfied=5 to very unsatisfied=1) Likert-type scale was used for the first 3 cohorts. For the most recent cohort, a 4-point scale was used without a neutral response item.
Face-to-Face Student Orientation
It is clear that CTER students have welcomed and been pleased with CTER orientation efforts when we look at the survey items. When asked about their overall satisfaction with the face-to-face orientation, each cohort in Chart 1 reported minimally that 88% of the students were very satisfied or satisfied, trending higher over time for those who were "very satisfied."
Chart 1. Satisfaction with Face-to-Face Student Orientation
The CTER efforts to develop an orientation that considered student feedback from year to year to improve the process were praised by one student. The student, commenting on orientation said, "It was useful. I can tell that the CTER program has taken the feedback of previous students cause there are a lot of things that went very smoothly that I was thinking in the past maybe had not and they had worked out some of the kinks and it went very smoothly I thought. Very helpful."
One of the more important functions of orientation is to familiarize students
with the technologies that will be used throughout the program in their classes.
Over the four cohort orientations, no fewer than 82% of the students from
any year's cohort reported satisfaction with the technology training
during orientation.
Chart 2. Satisfaction with Orientation Technology Training.
Students had expressed some dissatisfaction in the first orientation (8% unsatisfied, 4% very unsatisfied), circumstance not entirely clear, yet no one has expressed dissatisfaction with training for the past three orientations.
Technical Support
CTER received good reviews on the level of satisfaction with technical support with no fewer than 92% reporting being satisfied or very satisfied with orientation technical support. Student responses have been quite consistently reported over the years of orientation.
Chart 3. Satisfaction with Technical Support at Orientation
Students were asked if they were satisfied with the College of Education's computer lab, where students worked their second day at orientation. With each passing year, more and more students express strong satisfaction with the lab, as the numbers trend upward.
CTER4 students were also asked whether "the hardware and software in the computer lab meet your training needs?" All 21 students responding to this question said that the computer lab met the needs of the students, despite some trouble moving between platforms.
The orientation took place in a separate room from the computer lab. In the "orientation" room, students used the College's wireless iBook notebook computers to connect to their assignments. These notebooks have been used in orientation for the past two years. For the most recent three orientations, the number of students who reported being "very satisfied" shows an upward trend.
Chart 5. Satisfaction with Orientation Room Setup
Prior to their arrival to CTER orientation, students received a CD-ROM with software to download to their personal computers for use during the program. With this CD packet they received a set of activities, for example a scavenger hunt to complete prior to arriving on campus. This hunt helped to familiarize students with the contents of the CD-ROM and helped them to begin exploring the software and tutorials and to learn how to use the software needed for the program. When asked about these activities, nineteen out of twenty-one CTER4 students responded that they had "no" problems completing the online activities. When asked "Were the online and written documentation materials useful for you?" seventeen of the eighteen students found the materials useful. One respondent commented that they could not recall or remember the documentation so their ability to comment on it was limited. Equally important, twenty out of the twenty-one respondents reported that they had plenty of time to work on the activities at the orientation session.
As students arrived at the orientation they were welcomed into a relaxed and calm environment where they engaged each other and faculty in the opening conversations. As orientation proceeded CTER faculty explained what CTER is. It is a program for precollege teachers and administrators to better make use of technology in all facets of the educational experience. It is explained that it is not a program where quality and expectations are lower that a more traditional on-campus program. There is considerable work to do as a student. They had to stretch their understanding of what it is to work in an online course. When students, faculty and staff are all introduced, students begin to sign on to the servers, locating and moving their photos, taken only a short time earlier, into their own electronic portfolios.
Students received first hand information about what to expect at CTER. Past and current CTER students arrived to the classroom via Internet connection at the lunch hour to tell students of their experiences. On the second day two more CTER program students would arrived for an in-person Q and A about CTER. In both instances, new students heard from the current and past students what it means to be in an online program. They were told that CTER is "intense," the work is challenging, and the learning that occurs will make the two year-program well worth it. They were cautioned that though they do not have to travel as some of their colleagues seeking masters in other programs, they will inevitably find themselves short of time to complete assignments. "Plan ahead and manage your time" is what new students heard. They learned how demanding the work is. Faculty and staff are flexible to the needs and circumstances of these full-time teachers yet they should not expect online education at CTER to mean lower expectations than the on-campus students. High quality work is demanded from all students.
While attending orientation, students begin their first class in CTER, Educational Psychology 387, "Computer Uses in Education." This introductory class provided an overview to the course and requires that students begin to use the technologies and software while CTER instructors, staff and technical support are around to assist with any questions. Professor Jim Levin stressed that this course was highly interactive with a focus on project work that is connected to a student's interest. Other courses will not be as interactive and will require more reading of texts, articles and other materials. Some may require students to be more reflective and to engage in regular writing assignments. Students gain an understanding of what is expected from them, not to frighten them from the program but to give them a reasonable expectation of what it is to be in the CTER program and the expectations for CTER coursework.
CTER provided ample time for students and staff to interact formally and informally during the two-day orientation. Activities and tasks were set aside specifically to allow students to find space so they can get to better know one another. One of the first activities on the agenda for orientation is the introductions. Students heard about each other's backgrounds, interests, grade levels, and locales. Sometimes location provided opportunities for face-to-face collegiality and community. One of the students from a past CTER cohort shared with this cohort how she and others who worked or lived in the same community met regularly at their local Pizza Hut to discuss CTER projects and activities – they called themselves "the Pizza Hut group."
Even in instances where nervousness and shyness at a first meeting does not immediately draw students together, they have had instances where they recall one another's background and areas of expertise to call on them later. Time was set aside so students could interact with each other, get to know each other's background, levels of experience, levels at which they teach and other important information so as to begin the collegial process of developing a community. In one instance students who never talked to each other at the orientation later became colleagues and good friends after they later recognized they were both teaching at the same grade level. Though they did not speak, one student recalled how she thought that the other student would be "really cool" to work with. They began to email each other and now regularly team up to reflect and respond to each other's work. She would later state. "I knew there were people that I wouldn't click with and then there were others who were really enthusiastic about it and I knew I would."
CTER students engaged each other through email, web chats, synchronous and asynchronous communication, videoconferencing, and other text and voice communication modes. Through these different communication tools CTER faculty and staff were able to facilitate and develop a learning community. More explicit steps included the student introductions, the ice-breaker activities, the evening picnic hosted by a CTER faculty member at his family farm, the scavenger hunts, and posting their pictures and their personal descriptions in their electronic portfolios. These all helped students to become familiar with each others' backgrounds and interests. More subtle were the inclusion of past and present students in talking to the new cohort about friendships developed with colleagues in their cohort, course requirements to post a comment to a fellow student's portfolio page, to post reactions to their colleague's assignments and to share their thoughts. As students became more comfortable and familiar with other students, the program and the instructors, they then tend to take responsibility for maintenance of the community. For instance, several CTER4 students serve in technology related capacities in the schools and districts. These students, who started the CTER orientation with more technology expertise, assisted those who were not comfortable or knowledgeable about the technologies they had to use to complete their eportfolios. So CTER4 students received help from CTER faculty and staff and also from the more tech-savvy students.
This level of collaboration began with staff, but was soon shared by other students. Most were comfortable helping students in their classrooms as teachers. Working with classmates is a part of the classroom culture. Even when one student privately expressed being bored, to relieve that boredom she helped others. Other students just wanted to work with each other, to engage their fellow students in using technologies to enhance and improve their skills. For whatever reasons, culture or boredom, students began to talk to each other and then to collaborate. It was this kind of engagement and dialogue that got students "going" in terms of developing a learning community. In the evening hours the sharing and friendships continued as they socialized with each other at the picnic. In an evening icebreaker activity, students shared something about themselves not previously shared that day. They would talk about their district and buildings, their interests and locations. They would find others who were just as nervous about being in an online masters program, or those who were ready for the challenge of a rigorous program. They laughed and joked and relaxed while learning about the program, their colleagues and themselves. The next morning's session began with clearly a higher level of interaction amongst students. Students picked up the conversations that they had begun the day and evening before.
Several CTER faculty and all of the staff were present at orientation, placing a face to the instructors' names that the students would become familiar with during the next two years. Faculty took time to give brief introductions to their courses that will be taught and were available to take questions from students. When faculty were not available, the program director and coordinator briefed students on those instructors and their courses. CTER instructors spent a few minutes listening to the students introducing themselves, but then at break times, students who might be less willing to ask a question while the full group was present could chat with instructors informally. Staff, including technical support, were on hand so faculty and administrators of the program could freely move about the orientation room and computer lab to address students' questions and concerns about financial aid, library privileges, and registration.
Each CTER cohort had a faculty member host an evening picnic for the new students. This time has been an additional opportunity for students to get to know CTER faculty and staff in a low stress, informal setting. Most students attended and enjoyed the chance to become familiar with a group they would get to know well as classmates and colleagues. Not all agreed with its timing, as one student indicated that this gathering is best left to a time when students know each other better, feeling as though she was with all strangers on that evening. She commented, "I weighed my family versus going to a picnic with a bunch of strangers." After completing the summer and part of the fall courses, she was at a point where, "Now I would love to go see people because we've been talking to each other and forming relationships."
Orientation is designed to familiarize students with the requisite skills required to become successful in CTER. Students had to locate themselves on a technology skills continuum and then proceed to get the right amount of assistance and support for where they are in terms of technical capacity. CTER does require that students have a minimal amount of technical expertise and specifies hardware requirements. Yet, students who were able to do the most basic computer related activities, such as knowing what a web browser is and how to send and receive email are successful in the program. On the other hand, students with a great deal of expertise with technology have also found the program challenging and worthwhile. So with diverse levels of expertise, students explored freely how to use different technology tools during orientation to assure themselves that they will be able to effectively participate in an online environment. Some of the topics covered in the orientation include the effective use of discussion groups, e-mail, and synchronous chat sessions; the location and downloading of web browser plug-ins; and effective Internet research techniques.
Because there was limited face-to-face interaction, the time spent at the orientation must be useful to the needs of the students. For example, students who may be taking their first courses involving technology were given instruction on how to log into the University and College's Web server and were given the time to practice their skills on the server so that they were comfortable with using the technology. Those with stronger technology backgrounds have used this time to begin their first CTER assignments, designing an electronic portfolio for their first course.
Students had most of the afternoon of the second day to work on these assignments. Those with laptop computers took the time to ask for technical assistance in configuring the system so that they could access the web pages on their laptop. Mac and PC preferences did not matter since students could use either platform, whichever they found most comfortable. Technical support staff members were able to provide one-on-one assistance, and assure students that they could do the assignments. The staff's role differed from student to student.
With few exceptions, orientation marked the initial visit for students to the University campus and the College of Education. Even if those students had attended the University of Illinois previously, they had likely encountered the university as residential students and not as online students. CTER OnLine student procedures differ from residential students. University registration, financial aid, even library privileges were different from their on-campus counterparts. Students need to be clear on how to register, be aware of important dates, and know who to talk to in the event of any problems or administrative concerns. All of these operations were taken care of at the outset of the first day. Academic Outreach staff were on-site to answer questions, to register students and to accept any outstanding payments. With these rules and procedures out of the way, the focus could be directed squarely on the learning and community activities.
One criticism of online education has been the dearth of evaluations for these programs. From its inception, CTER has collected student data on the perceptions of CTER and its value to students enrolled in the program. Students were asked to complete and submit electronic questionnaires for orientation activities. Students were also asked to complete a preliminary program survey to lay a baseline for their knowledge and skills in technology and to chart progress over time. At the end of the first year, students completed a mid-program questionnaire, and after the program they fill out a post-program questionnaire. CTER had also adapted the University-wide individual course and instructor evaluation form into an electronic format, which CTER students complete online at the end of each course.
The results of each survey have been reviewed by the CTER faculty, and changes have been made in the program based on that feedback. In so doing, CTER has established a relationship between evaluation and program development. Program suggestions and ideas for program improvements have been routinely made a part of CTER faculty planning. One result of having an evaluation culture has been the ability for CTER staff and faculty to respond to student's request for more information on troubleshooting and networking. A virtual tour of former CTER students' school and district networks is planned for future courses to address student needs expressed through these evaluation mechanisms. This culture of evaluation and the relationship to program reform was established from the very beginning at orientations where the CTER evaluation staff members participated in the orientation process.
Over the past four years, the content of our orientation has shifted from an emphasis on hands-on technology training with some social activities and administrative procedures to providing online tutorials for technology training prior to the face-to-face meeting. We have shortened orientation from three days to one and one-half days and focus more on community building, administrative procedures, and the beginning of the first course. For students with less technology expertise, additional hands-on training is provided on an as-needed basis.
What does this have to do with building an online learning community? The answer can be summed up simply: Online groups of learners do not spontaneously evolve into rich communities. From our experiences, we believe that social interactions are key to successful collaborations among students. Pincas (1998) reported that students need to develop a "virtual time and space within which they interact." Weigerif (1998) found that "success or failure in the online course depended upon the extent to which students were able to cross a threshold from feeling like outsiders to feeling like insiders."
We have found that the activities in our face-to-face orientation lay the groundwork for students to move from being an outsider to being a member of a group. They come together for a particular purpose (to learn more about curriculum, technology and education reform), and use technology as a means to communicate in an educational, social and cultural environment.
The community building that starts in the orientation continues through each of the eight courses these students take in an online format. Some of the courses they take involve all asynchronous interactions, while others will require a mix of synchronous and asynchronous activities. This multiplicity of instructional environments allows students to experience the variety of methods available to them for teaching and learning in an online community (Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999).
From a social perspective, students chat online about their personal lives, experiences in their own classrooms, and share resources and ideas willingly. This is evidenced in our archived chat logs, group emails, case-study interviews, informal study-groups and occasional face-to-face meetings throughout the program (Waddoups, Levin, & Levin, 2000).
Our students tend to be homogeneous in that the majority of the students are either classroom teachers or technology coordinators, but they also work in culturally diverse settings and bring a multitude of perspectives to class discussions. In addition, students come into the program with a wide-range of technology expertise. This diversity leads to multiple perspectives on teaching and learning.
In some courses, professors encourage active participation by assigning a percentage of the students' grade to not only engagement in a dialog with the instructor, but also in communication with their fellow students. The tools used in the online program afford privacy for students to share issues they encounter in their schools with others in a positive, constructive environment. This in turn encourages the formation of group identity, reduces the feeling of isolation and promotes a higher quality of interaction between students (Levin, Waddoups, Levin, & Buell, 2001).
Functions served by orientation
From our analysis and discussion, it seems clear that providing an orientation to an online program serves multiple functions. Orientation establishes expectations about the program and courses by introducing them to the faculty and each other and getting the opportunity to ask alumni questions about their experiences.
Orientation establishes the value of the learning community. Students are given the opportunity to meet one another, learn which students share their subject matter and grade level and establish a feeling of collegiality between students and faculty members.
Orientation establishes rapport between students, instructor and staff. Time and attention is given to engaging in formal and informal getting-to-know-you activities enabling students and faculty to get to know one another on a more personal level.
Orientation establishes expectations for technologies to be used in the program. While we have shifted much of the technology training to online tutorials, an effort is made to provide timely and adequate technical support to enable all students to succeed.
Orientation establishes rules and procedures for administration of the program. The on-campus visit gives students the opportunity to see the facilities, obtain necessary administrative information and ask questions of staff from different organizations on campus that will help make their educational experience successful.
Orientation establishes a culture of evaluation. As a research institution, the University of Illinois is committed to finding new and more effective means of instruction for practicing professionals. CTER students are aware of our mission and help to support our efforts.
And lastly, orientation is only the first step in the development of an effective online learning community. Orientation for online programs has been lightly regarded when compared to the need for orientation for residential students. CTER Orientation recognizes that orientations are important steps in building what are complex learning environments where students engage each other in dialogue to develop strong, dynamic online learning communities. Orientation lays the groundwork for enhancing and extending relationships so that students help to create an environment where they become sources of expertise for each other. In this environment, students who had lacked confidence in their technology skills can developed confidence because classmates now ask them for technical assistance. One student commented on her new role, "Hey, it's good to be used or thought of as a resource!"
Why would an online program like CTER have an on-campus face-to-face orientation? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have an online orientation? There are several reasons for the CTER orientation to be face-to-face.
Our initial reason for holding a face-to-face orientation was to make sure that each of the students had mastery of the technology that they would need to participate in the on-line interaction that would follow the orientation. We thought it would be easier to train and troubleshoot face-to-face rather than at a distance. It is difficult, for example, to use email to solve a problem with your modem that prevents you from sending email at all.
However, once we had our first couple of orientations, the feedback from the CTER students led us to several additional conclusions about face-to-face vs. online interaction, even in the CTER orientation.
First of all, CTER students urged us to move as much of the technical training as possible to an online format, so that they could go through it online before the face-to-face orientation. In this way, they could spend as much or as little time with the training as they needed, depending on how expert or novice they were with the technologies. Also, the face-to-face time could be spent in troubleshooting difficulties that arose during their preliminary efforts to use the technologies. In some cases, CTER students brought their computers with them so that troubleshooting could focus on their specific situation.
Secondly, we have become increasingly convinced that the face-to-face orientation allows kinds of community building that an online format would not allow. It provides for an extended intense interaction among students and between students and CTER faculty that would be more difficult to conduct at a distance. It allows students to put a face to other students and faculty, and to attach details to that face.
We are continuing to conduct our research and evaluation of CTER, with the goal of continuing to reform the program based on the results. For this purpose, it has been helpful to continue to have face-to-face meetings, including the CTER orientation, in part to gain some insight into what the benefits and costs are of face-to-face interaction as compared to the wide variety of online interaction. As we find aspects of the orientation that can be done as well or better online, we will continue to shift those aspects to an appropriate online medium. We will at the same time continue to investigate what aspects can be best done face-to-face.
Recent research on learning by cognitive scientists has supported the notion that expertise consists of the use of multiple coordinated representations of the domain of expertise (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980; Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999; Levin, Stuve, & Jacobson, 1999). In the CTER program, we see orientation as a supportive environment to help our students take the first steps along the journey from novice to becoming an expert in the area of technologies for learning and teaching. By building a community of learners, we make available a diverse set of sources of knowledge and skills. By giving our students multiple coordinated presentations of knowledge and skills in this domain, we hope that CTER Orientation can provide the foundation for our students' learning odyssey.
Bergmann, M., & Raleigh, D. (1998). Student orientation in the distance education classroom. In Distance Learning '98. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. Madison, WI, August 5-7, 1998. EDRS# ED422844.
Bowser, D., & Race, K. (1992). Designing an orientation program to prepare students for distance education study. Paper presented at the World Conference of the International Council for Distance Education. Bangkok, Thailand. November 1992. EDRS# ED359413.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Kowch, E., & Schwier, R. (1997). Building learning communities with technology. Paper presented at the National Congress on Rural Education. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, February 21, 1997. EDRS # ED408 857.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Levin, S., Levin, J., & Chandler, M. (2001). Social and organizational factors in creating and maintaining effective online learning environments, Paper presented at AERA 2001 Seattle, WA.
Levin, J., Levin, S. R., & Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 256-269.
Levin, J. A., Stuve, M. J., & Jacobson, M. J. (1999). Teachers' conceptions of the Internet and the World Wide Web: A representational toolkit as a model of expertise. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 1-23.
Levin, S., Waddoups, G., Levin, J., & Buell, J. (2001). Highly interactive and effective online learning environments for teacher professional development. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2, 2. [Online available at http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n2/slevin/ ]
Levin, S., & Waddoups, G. (2000). CTER OnLine: Providing Highly Interactive and Effective Online Learning Environments, Paper presented at the SITE 2000 conference.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Pincas, A. (1998). Successful online course design: Virtual Frameworks for discourse construction. Educational Technology and Society, 1(1).
Scagnoli, N. (2001). Student Orientations for Online Programs. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 1, 19-27.
Waddoups, G., Levin, S., & Levin, J. (2000). Developing a community of practitioners via advanced technologies: The case studies of CTER Online, Paper presented at AERA 2000, New Orleans, LA.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1).