Distance Learning: Taking an Existing Course Online

 

Billie Jo Kaufman, American University

Elena Marty-Nelson, Nova Southeastern University

Gail Levin Richmond, Nova Southeastern University

 

  Note: this outline primarily covers experiences Professors Marty-Nelson and Richmond had while teaching Federal Income Tax class. In her then capacity as Director of the NSU Law Library & Technology Center, Professor Kaufman directed staff members who assisted students in dealing with an online environment (connectivity, computer failure, etc.). As the outline indicates, the initial offering of this course was accomplished using only electronic media.

 

This past fall, Professor Kaufman accepted the Directorship at AU. Because she had already committed to teaching a Cyberlaw Seminar at NSU, we moved the seminar to a primarily online environment rather than dropping it or assigning another faculty member. As her discussion will indicate, Professor Kaufman took advantage of a variety of media, including compressed video, discussion boards, and in-person meetings.

 

I.              The Major Questions

A.    Who taught?

B.    What course?

C.    When created and offered?

D.    Wherewithal required to support course?

E.    Why offer a course online?

F.     Why not offer a course online?

G.    Was the experience worthwhile?

H.    Will we do it again?

 

II.          Who Taught?

A.    Experienced Law Professors

1.     Already familiar with subject matter

2.     Already tenured, so time spent creating course didn't interfere with scholarship requirements

B.    Used same casebook and Code/Regulations edition when teaching course in traditional format, but didn't always teach same chapters or Code sections

1.     Some casebooks are available in electronic format, but we chose to stay with the casebook we'd used in the past

C.    Willing to collaborate to create and teach course

 

III.       What Course?

A.    Federal Income Tax

B.    Authorized for 3 or 4 credits; we selected 4 credits

1.     This reduced need to compromise on coverage

2.     It compensated students for additional time spent responding to quizzes, group projects, and postings.

 

IV.        When Created and Offered?

A.    Began creation in spring 2001 and finished before classes started in fall

1.     We prepared a word for word script, including PowerPoint insertions

2.     We videotaped a full lecture for every class (mostly separately but together for initial lectures)

3.     We reviewed each videotape before Instructional Technology converted them to CD-ROM

4.     We wrote quizzes, projects, etc., for every chapter

5.     We attended sessions introducing the use of WebCT

6.     We uploaded the course elements (other than the lectures) to WebCT

7.     We instructed the students in getting WebCT passwords

B.    Offered totally online in fall 2001

C.    Offered partially online but with 7 one-hour class sessions in fall 2002

D.    Offered traditionally but with online postings and in-class quizzes in fall 2003

1.     The fall 2003 course was not team-taught because Professor Marty-Nelson was taking a sabbatical.

2.     The fall 2003 course used LexisNexis web course instead of WebCT because Professor Richmond thinks it is easier to use and students already had Lexis passwords.

 

V.           Wherewithal Required to Support Course?

A.    University Office of Instructional Technology (OIT)

1.     Videotape staff

2.     Digitizing staff

3.     WebCT trainer

B.    Law Center

1.     Mandatory laptop requirement meant all students had necessary equipment when in building

2.     Dean whose budgets included funding for wireless network in building, compressed video for externship students, laptops for all faculty members, and smart podium in lecture rooms—and who was willing to provide grant funding for course creation

 

C.    Law Library & Technology Center

1.     Help desk staff already familiar with student laptop problems

2.     Staff assisted students in various uses of technology—classes on spreadsheets, word processing, time management software, etc.

3.     “Webguyz” to post materials to Law Center website

4.     Director who was committed to supporting use of technology in the classroom and who ultimately offered her own online Cyberlaw Seminar

D.    Faculty members willing to take a risk

E.    Limitations

1.     Asynchronous because of time conflicts for day and evening students

2.     Large enrollment to avoid burdening other professors teaching the course, who would have to pick up the extra students

3.     Although we controlled the laptop specifications, some students had better off-site connections than others.

4.     In 2001 the ABA rules concerning distant learning limited students to 3 credits per term toward residency; students taking this course were required to earn one more credit than the minimum for residency that semester. This is no longer a problem, but school must still devise a monitoring system to comply with the new ABA credit limitations.

 

VI.        Why Offer a Course Online?

A.    General goals—Delivery system must support teaching goals rather than driving them

1.     Enhance students' experience in typical large upper-class course

2.     Increase students' active participation and assessment opportunities; quizzes and projects instead of randomly being called on

3.     Use discussion boards to provide opportunities for spontaneous discussions, digressions, etc., that are normal for face-to-face courses

4.     Provide outlet (through discussion boards) for students who do not typically volunteer in class (We could have gone further by allowing anonymous postings.)

5.     Self-directed learning opportunities; within limits set by quiz and project dates, students could pace themselves in class

6.     Compare final performance of day and evening students (but they didn't get the socializing experience of a joint class because we didn't meet in person)

B.    Goals for a course such as Income Tax

1.     Core concepts such as gross income, distinction between exclusion and postponement

2.     Statutory construction skills; teaching students to work with legal material from which cases are derived

3.     Legal analysis

4.     Critical thinking about policy

 

C.    Added flexibility for evening students

1.     Two nights available with fewer course conflicts

2.     Able to reduce commuting for one semester

3.     Could replay lectures as often as they wanted, somewhat ameliorating evening students' generally reduced access to faculty members

4.     Note: Day students did not share the evening student satisfaction, as they had to be in the building every day for other courses.

D.    Chance to reflect about a course each faculty member had taught for years

1.     Faculty members brought different strengths to course—organization, creativity, familiarity with different types of technology

2.     Increased collaboration on course goals, discussion of which chapters were critical and which expendable

 

VII.    Why Not Offer a Course Online?

A.    Rapid change incompatible with our CD-ROM lecture format; too many changes to justify voice over or text-based postings. This is a particular problem for a course like Income Tax.

1.     Subsequent cases and legislation made lectures erroneous

2.     New casebook edition that changed problems discussed in lectures

3.     New generation of laptops not able to read CD-ROMs because university stopped supporting the I-Zone Player program on which the CD-ROMs were based

B.    Impossible to gauge the extent to which students grasp the subject matter during the semester.

1.     Group projects allowed stronger students to carry weaker students

2.     No method for preventing collusion on posted quizzes; this reduced the amount of credit we could award. (With in-class meetings, we could have used software such as Examsoft to administer and tabulate quizzes.)

3.     Because there are no classes, students can't come to podium after class. This can be a problem for shyer students, who wouldn't normally come to faculty member's office.

4.     If class size is small enough, mandated discussion board postings might provide indication of student performance.

C.    Fewer bonds with students

1.     Important when they need recommendations for LL.M. programs or employment

2.     Frustrating to walk through atrium and not know the students in your class

D.    Faculty time constraints. An online course may involve significantly more preparation and monitoring time. This is particularly true for areas in which rapid change is the norm. What value will course creation receive at tenure time?

E.    Insufficient institutional support, particularly for technology, in an era of scarce resources

1.     The school can support only a given number of courses before it must invest in addition staff.

2.     Staff needs guidance to coordinate and prioritize faculty “requests” for assistance with these courses, use of high-tech classrooms if videoconferencing, etc. (Platforms such as Blackboard, included in Lexis subscription, may require less staff help than WebCT.)

3.     Does institution value innovation? Do library professionals find educational technology exciting or threatening?

4.     Do students have adequate remote access/dial-in capabilities? Or will school mandate students have access to an outside ISP? Are some ISPs better than others?

 

VIII. Was the Experience Worthwhile?

A.    Student performance, measured by examination grades, was strong.

1.     High-end performance (total needed for an A) was stronger in the hybrid class.

2.     Middle-range performance (C+ and B grades) was comparable for the totally online and hybrid classes.

3.     Low-end performance (D and D+ range grades) was stronger in the hybrid class.

4.     We don't know, based on only two offerings, whether the difference related to a stronger student mix in the hybrid class, the effect of the in-class meetings, or our decision to reduce the size of the class for the hybrid class.

B.    Student evaluations were strong (9.22 in 2001 and 9.67 in 2002) in both settings.

C.    We've incorporated elements of the online class into traditionally taught courses. These include earlier (and increased) feedback to students and online discussions.

 

IX.        Will We Do It Again?

A.    We might try another hybrid version but vary the mix to 2/3 in-class; 1/3 on-line.

B.    We probably won't use CD-ROMS again.

1.     Students in the “pure” online course indicated they found them beneficial.

2.     They add less value if the course is primarily in-class, and they may send a mixed message (CD-ROM being lecture while in-class is interactive). But they make it too easy for the student to be a passive knowledge recipient.

C.    We would consider other electronic formats—webinars, video streaming, compressed video lectures—to supplement in-class sessions

Association of American Law Schools