Planning for Engagement and Interaction on a Course Map
Concurrent Session 5
Brief Abstract
Meaningful engagement and interaction in the virtual classroom takes planning, research, and creativity. The use of a course map ensures the thoughtful planning and organization of a course prior to development. Critical components of the course map include topic, objectives, activities, tools/materials, interactions and engagements, scaffolds, formative/summative assessments and rubrics.
Presenters
Extended Abstract
Course planning and design for the virtual classroom are a crucial step to student success. The COVID-19 pandemic forced multitudes of classroom educators to learn this lesson for themselves at the expense of their students. The amount of time to plan for the shift to virtual learning was minimal and training was emergency-based. As time progressed, new virtual educators learned and adapted to the online classroom providing a better experience for their students. Though the most complex piece, a virtual group, continues to perplex educators.
As a Master Reviewer of courses, I can attest that a detailed course map is the key to a successful course with group activities. The document varies from institution-to-institution, yet some common pieces are common: 1) week/module number, 2) objective(s), 3) readings, 4) assessments, 5) files available to the students such as PDF or docx, 6) content pages like lectures or informational pages, and 7) external links to YouTube or other websites. This coordination of resources and detail by the instructor, provides structure as a team constructs the course. That team includes the course instructor and instructional designer, yet it might include a media collaborator and others.
Working to improve the model for student success, I have modified the columns as 1) topic, 2) objective(s), 3) activities, 4) tools/materials, 5) interactions and engagements, 5) scaffolds, and 6) formative/summative assessments and rubrics.
The first column, topic, combines the ideas of week/module with the typical unit title so students conceive of the course structure instead of a week/module number. Gen Z students are introducing faculty to a new phenomenon as noted by Chin (2021). They rarely understand organizational structures, especially when pertaining to saving documents on a computer. The hierarchical nature of a directory and subdirectory concept is mindboggling to them. The idea of a course map is similarly challenging for their context and should be addressed with manageable “chunks.” Making the hierarchical structure of a course apparent helps students to create the links to prior knowledge.
The second column, objective(s), lists the unit/chapter/module objectives with the corresponding course objectives noted in the parenthetical. Objectives must be observable and measurable, written from the students’ perspective, and descriptive of a meaningful task. The course objectives are broader, while the unit/chapter/module objectives are more specific, addressing a smaller aspect of the broader objective.
Two points of caution on objectives: 1) activities vs. objectives and 2) levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. A learning activity is very specific and often describes a passive activity. For instance: “Student take notes on main events in the Louisiana Purchase.” A revision might be: “Students name the main events in the Louisiana Purchase.” The previous states students are doing something, yet passively receiving information. In the later example, students are held accountable for the information they received.
The other challenge in objectives is matching levels of the unit/chapter/module to the course-level objective. Align the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy within two steps. For instance, if the course-level objective uses “analyze”, a level four, higher order thinking objective, do not pair it with a unit/chapter/module-level objective using “define”, a level one, lower order thinking objective as those are too distant for alignment. Most courses have a variety of lower and higher-order thinking objectives throughout the semester. Few courses start with all lower-order thinking and progress to higher-order thinking objectives. Tune into the levels of Bloom’s verbs so students are successful in meeting instructor’s expectations. Students voice frustration when faculty teach at lower order thinking yet test at higher order thinking levels. Careful attention during course planning will lead to increased student satisfaction.
The third column, activities, provides links to each page in the unit where content is delivered. This includes lectures, videos, external links, readings, PDF/docx documents, or discussion forums. These should include a reference to the correlating unit/chapter/module objective so students comprehend how the activity relates to their learning within the course structure. If adaptive release is used on activities, make note of the order in this column. Students will need to complete the activities in a particular order for progressing to the next activity.
The fourth column, tools/materials, provides links to the tools and materials used in the activities. Tools might include Jamboard, Flipgrid, VoiceThread, GoogleDocs, Whiteboard, Padlet, Mentimeter, Slack, Wordclouds, MindMeister, Thinglink, Genially, Discord, Canva, Zoom, Lockdown Browser, Respondus, Turnitin, and Feedback Fruits to name a few. Instructors are using tools for an educational benefit, not for the sake of using a tool. The tool clearly aids in the learning of course content or removes a barrier for the student. Learning to use a tool is critical time away from content. Make sure the tool is accessible, easy to install (if applicable), and worthy of the time.
The fifth column, interactions and engagements, is for the concept of active learning and planning for the three types of interaction: student-content, student-instructor, and student-student. While some instructors argue virtual cooperative learning is ineffective, researchers refute that claim when activities are properly structured (Lowry, 2006.) Active learning has many definitions, yet the basic concept is that the student is not passively receiving information. Rather, they are busy creating or generating knowledge through a process of investigation or interaction with someone or something.
Over the span of a course, I look for a mix of student-content, student-instructor, and student-student interactions. Automated feedback on quizzes and instructor replies to email or other graded material are essential to build instructor presence. Yet, meaningful and quality student-student learning is elusive in many online courses. The challenge is structure and student communication.
Many times, the group activity is too simplistic and can be accomplished by one student instead of by the group. Ingenious students have figured this out and allowed a lone wolf to complete the “group project” and submit on behalf of the group. This lone wolf is concerned about their grade and eager to ensure they get an “A.” Lone wolves enabled the social loafers to prosper. The resolution to this was created by Jonassen (1994) in his “ill-structured problem.” Essentially, this was a complex, and many times, an authentic/real-world issue that involved several roles within the group such as a researcher, compiler, presenter, and tech person. He provided these roles to the group in advance as scaffolds to give them an idea of the structure they needed to complete the task.
The world is fraught with communication. We are pummeled by advertisements and messages daily. Our students struggle to agree on a method in time to complete a task because there are several methods to communicate. At the beginning of the course, I ask students to share their preferred method of communication in their “Meet & Greet” posting. This provides everyone knowledge of how/where to communicate with them. The only rule is they must share the address/number for the method. If it’s text, we need the number. If it’s email, share the preferred address. When students form their group, I look to the “Meet & Greet” posting to craft an introductory message with the preferred contact information and suggest they come to consensus on a singular method then stick to it.
The sixth column, scaffolds, draws upon the research of Lev Vygotsky (1978.) His zone of proximal development suggests the optimal work for students occurs when they need some assistance to complete the task. If the student needs continual assistance, or no assistance, then the task is either too difficult, or not difficult enough for the student. Scaffolding is the assistance used by the student to complete the task. In the virtual classroom, the scaffold for each learning activity takes on an increased role as it is a part of the educator’s presence in the course.
My goal, as an educator, is to provide a scaffold for each activity students complete. The scaffold might be minimal such as a brief introduction/overview that is provided for the assigned reading. The scaffold could also be as complex as a document describing the components of each section of a persuasive paper along with how to introduce counterarguments or quotes, the minimum number of citations required for each section, links to the Purdue OWL, and the primary structure for crafting an argument.
The seventh column, formative and summative assessments, including scoring rubrics, is the final column on the revised course map. A mix of traditional and authentic assessments honors the application of real-world application of the content, as well as the rapid turnaround on grading that is possible on more traditional testing. Formative, ungraded material, for practice should be present as well as summative assessments. Scoring rubrics for authentic assessments are necessary so students are aware of what instructors are looking for at each level of scoring on the rubric.
Plan for interactivity: Attendees will start with a Mentimeter activity to collaborate on the challenges with virtual small groups.
Primary takeaways: Attendees will receive digital access to download the revised course map tool along with the faculty scaffolds to aid in course development.
References:
Chin, M. (2021, Sept 22). File not found: A generation that grew up with Google is forcing professors to change their lesson plans. Retrieved May 9, 2022 from https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-directory-structure-education-gen-z
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. Retrieved November 24, 2008 from https://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/maltt/cofor-1/textes/jonassen_2005_cognitive_tools.pdf
Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Cheney, P. D., and Hightower R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631-661.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.