Citation
What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction?

Material Information

Title:
What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction? relationships between approaches to teaching, concerns with technology, and selections of strategies
Creator:
Wood, Victoria Lynn
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
270 leaves : ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Education and Human Development, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Educational Leadership and Innovation
Committee Chair:
Grabinger, R. Scott
Committee Members:
Dunlap, Joanna C.
Lowry, May
Muth, Rodney

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Internet in education -- Case studies ( lcsh )
Teaching -- Case studies ( lcsh )
Instructional systems -- Case studies ( lcsh )
Instructional systems ( fast )
Internet in education ( fast )
Teaching ( fast )
Genre:
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 251-270).
Thesis:
Educational leadership and innovation
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Victoria Lynn Wood.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
51820777 ( OCLC )
ocm51820777
Classification:
LD1190.E3 2002d .W66 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
WHAT INFLUENCES SELECTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
FOR WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION? RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
APPROACHES TO TEACHING, CONCERNS WITH TECHNOLOGY, AND
SELECTIONS OF STRATEGIES
by
Victoria Lynn Wood
B.S., University of North Dakota, 1987
M.S., Arizona State University, 1990
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
Spring 2002


2002 by Victoria Lynn Wood
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Victoria Lynn Wood
has been approved
by
& [oz*
Date
Rodney Muth


Wood, Victoria Lynn (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
What Influences Selections of Instructional Strategies for Web-Based Instruction?
Relationships Between Approaches to Teaching, Concerns with Technology, and
Selections of Strategies
Thesis directed by Associate Professor R. Scott Grabinger
ABSTRACT
This project provides an initial exploration into educators selections of
instructional strategies for web-based instruction. I set out to answer the general
question, What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based
instruction? I chose two views by asking whether educators beliefs about
teaching and learning influence practices in distance-learning classrooms or
whether the technology is central to educators choices. Using an embedded-case
study design, I examined eight cases (seven mini-cases and one larger case) of
online instruction. I collected data from educators and instructional designers
through an online research website. These data came from surveys, interviews, and
documents. Survey data described participants approaches to teaching and their
concerns with web-based instruction. I compared these data with their selections of
instructional strategies for web-based modules. I found that participants assumed
three roles in their websites that describe their selections of instructional strategies.
IV


These roles are Facilitator, Guide, and Leader. Educators beliefs, as expressed by
teaching approaches, strongly related to their selections of strategies for web-based
instruction, whereas technology, as expressed by concerns with web-based
instruction, did not. Findings indicated that teaching conceptions, teaching
experience, type of technology, and instructor behaviors influenced participants
selections of instructional strategies.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
v


DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to my God, my family, and those with a passion
for teaching, learning, and technology.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Life is full of relationships. Some relationships are very strong, last a
lifetime, and provide foundations for life. Others are conceived out of needs,
similar interests, or common goals. I am blessed with an abundance of connections
that sustained me throughout this project.
My husband, Jeff, is foundational to my life. Without his encouragement
and support I would not have had the courage to continue working against
challenging circumstances. He is my finishing editor, encourager, and sounding
board. Through him I am blessed with three children, Michael, Bryan, and Bobby. I
appreciate their patience with this process especially when there seemed to be no
end in sight. They taught me valuable fife lessons for which I am eternally grateful.
Michael taught me how precious life is and that time is too short to waste. Bryan
demonstrated courage in facing difficult challenges. And Bobby, showed
faithfulness in staying with tasks that are at times overwhelming. I feel centered
and whole because of my family.
Within the academic community, I found different types of support. The
committee members were an invaluable resource of encouragement and
challenging ideas. Along the way, I joined a writing class who collectively


provided editorial comments, helped me strategize ways to complete the research,
and gave an objective view of data. Finally, I would like to thank the instructors
and students who willingly participated in this research by allowing an outsider to
look over their shoulders.
I am blessed by a group of wonderful friends who prayed for me and
faithfully encouraged me. They were willing to listen to my ramblings about which
they understood little.
As I look back, I realize that I am here because of these friendships. With
my continued gratitude...
...Vickey


CONTENTS
Figures.......................................................xviii
Tables...........................................................xx
CHAPTER
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.......................................1
Problem Description.........................................3
Facultys Response to Technology.....................5
Faculty Challenged by Technology.....................7
Example of Instructional Strategies for Distance Learning ...8
Conceptual Framework........................................9
Propositions...............................................11
Research Project Description...............................13
Research Question and Propositions..................13
Embedded-Case Study.................................15
Research Context and Population.....................15
Data Collection Methods.............................17
Data Analysis Methods...............................17
Benefits of Study..........................................19
IX


Limitations of Study.......................................19
Conclusion.................................................20
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................21
Distance Educators Instructional Design Activities........21
Learn the Technology................................23
Determine the Content...............................24
Design Learning Activities..........................25
Determine Student Assessments.......................27
Factors Influencing Selections of Instructional Strategies.28
Teaching and Learning Needs................................29
Teaching Context....................................30
T eaching Experience................................31
Learning Needs......................................32
Teaching Conceptions................................33
Technology Needs...........................................41
Type of Technology..................................42
Support.............................................43
Experience and Skill................................44
Concerns with Technology............................46
Summary....................................................48
x


3. RESEARCH METHODS
49
Embedded-Case Study Design...................................51
Research Context: What Cave Was Explored?.............53
Approach and Rationale: Why This Method and Cave?.....54
Researchers Role: What Was the Leaders Contribution?.......56
Pilot Studies: What Happened on Prior Expeditions?...........59
Pilot Study #1: Research Design.......................59
Pilot Study #2: Interface Design......................62
Research Population: Who Were the Fellow Explorers?..........63
Motivation for Population Selection...................63
Instructor Group: Background Information..............64
Self-Selection of Student Population..................64
Student Group: Background Information.................65
Surveys, Interviews, and Documents: What Samples Were
Collected? When? How? Why?...................................65
Surveys...............................................67
Approaches to Teaching Inventory...............68
Stages of Concern Instrument...................77
Interviews............................................80
Documents.............................................81
Course Website.................................82
xi


Student Websites
83
Data Collection Summary...............................84
Data Management Procedures: How Was Integrity of the
Samples Preserved?...........................................85
Analysis Procedures: What Tests Were Performed on the
Samples?.....................................................85
Level 1: Individual Student Mini-Cases................87
Step 1.........................................87
Step 2.........................................92
Step 3.........................................92
Level 2: Across Student Mini-Cases....................93
Step 1.........................................94
Step 2.........................................99
Level 3: Mini-Cases Within Larger Case Context.......100
Step 1........................................100
Step 2........................................100
Step 3........................................102
Limitations.................................................103
Summary.....................................................105
4. STUDENT MINI-CASE FINDINGS.....................................106
Student Mini-Case Grouping..................................107
Facilitators................................................109
xii


Janes Website Features................................110
Sues Website Features................................115
Guides.......................................................119
Lisas Website Features...............................120
Marks Website Features...............................123
Roses Website Features...............................125
Leaders......................................................128
Anns Website Features................................128
Beths Website Features...............................132
Summary of Student Groups.......................!............135
Relationships Between Selections of Instructional Strategies and
Approaches to Teaching.......................................137
Facilitators: Selections and Conceptual Change/
Student-Focused Teaching Approach.....................139
Guides: Selections and Information Transmission/
Teacher-Focused Teaching Approach.....................142
Leaders: Selections and Teaching Approaches...........144
Summary of Strategies and Approaches..................148
Relationships Between Selections of Instructional Strategies and
Concerns with Web-Based Instruction..........................149
Collaboration and External Concerns...................152
Information and Internal Concerns.....................153
Summary of Strategies and Concerns....................154
xm


Summary of Student Mini-Case Findings.....................155
5. LARGER AND MINI-CASE FINDINGS................................159
Larger Case...............................................160
Course Features....................................160
Course Introduction................................163
Lessons............................................165
Learning Activities................................166
Instructors: Selections and Conceptual Change/
Student-Focused Teaching Approach..................170
Instructors: Selections and External Concerns With
Web-Based Instruction..............................173
Integrating Larger and Student Mini-Case Data.............175
Discussion................................................182
Approaches to Teaching Inventory...................182
Stages of Concern Instrument.......................185
Experience and Skill...............................186
Summary...................................................188
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................189
Teaching and Learning Needs...............................192
Technology Needs..........................................194
Summary of Findings.......................................196
Contributions to the Field................................197
xiv


Further Research
199
Implications...............................................202
Conclusion.................................................209
xv


APPENDIX
A. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (ORIGINAL).211
B. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (MODIFIED).216
C. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY
(ORIGINAL AND MODIFIED)......................219
D. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY
(KEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION).................221
E. COURSE WEBSITE ASSIGNMENT CALENDAR........224
F. COURSE WEBSITE ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 8 ...225
G. COURSE WEBSITE ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 10.226
H. COURSE WEBSITE DISCUSSION BOARD EXAMPLE...227
I. COURSE WEBSITE-SITE MAP.....................228
J. EMAIL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................229
K. RESEARCH WEBSITE APPROACHES TO TEACHING
INVENTORY....................................230
L. RESEARCH WEBSITE OVERVIEW.................231
M. RESEARCH WEBSITE PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM.232
N. RESEARCH WEBSITE STAGE OF CONCERN
INSTRUMENT...................................233
O. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (ORIGINAL).....234
P. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (MODIFIED).....238
Q. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT -
KEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION...................241
xvi


R. TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES..........245
REFERENCES........................................251
xvu


FIGURES
Figure
1.1 Faculty selecting instructional strategies ................................5
1.2 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies ...............10
1.3 Two research propositions.................................................14
2.1 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies ...............28
3.1 Cave exploration..........................................................52
3.2 Embedded-case study analysis process......................................86
4.1 Janes website screen shot...............................................112
4.2 Sues website screen shot................................................115
4.3 Lisas website screen shot...............................................121
4.4 Marks website screen shot...............................................123
4.5 Roses website screen shot...............................................126
4.6 Anns website screen shot................................................130
4.7 Beths website screen shot...............................................133
4.8 Group selections of challenging instructional strategies and survey data.... 156
4.9 Group selections of guiding instructional strategies and survey data.....157
5.1 Course website screen shot...............................................162
xviii


5.2 Larger and mini-case selections of challenging instructional strategies
and survey data............................................................178
5.3 Larger and mini-case selections of guiding instructional strategies
and survey data............................................................181
6.1 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies..................191
XIX


TABLES
Table
2.1 Research on Conceptions of Teaching...................................35
3.1 Questions Addressed in Chapter 3......................................53
3.2 Data Sources and Collection Methods...................................66
3.3 Reliability Measures for Approaches to Teaching Data..................72
3.4 Items for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused Dimension Organized by
Subscales............................................................74
3.5 Items for Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused Dimension
Organized by Subscales...............................................75
3.6 Seven Stages of Concern...............................................78
3.7 Motivation for Data Collection........................................84
3.8 Level 1: Data and Analysis Procedures for Individual Student Mini-Cases...88
3.9 Taxonomy of Web-Based Learning Environments (WBLE),
Dimensions and Descriptions..........................................90
3.10 Level 2: Analysis Procedures Across Student Mini-Cases...............93
3.11 Researchers Criteria for Organizing Instructional Strategies........95
3.12 Characteristics of Challenging and Guiding Instructional Strategies..99
3.13 Level 3: Analysis Procedures for Mini-Cases Within Context
of Larger Case......................................................101
xx


4.1 Features Describing Student Mini-Case Groups.............................108
4.2 Facilitators: Janes and Sues Website Features..........................Ill
4.3 Guides: Lisas, Marks, and Roses Website Features.......................119
4.4 Leaders: Anns and Beths Website Features................................129
4.5 Group Selections of Strategies and Approaches to Teaching Data...........138
4.6 Facilitators Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data........141
4.7 Guides Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data...............143
4.8 Leaders Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data..............145
4.9 Group Selections of Strategies and Stages of Concern Data.................150
4.10 Individual Student Stages of Concern Data................................151
5.1 Features Describing Course Website.......................................161
5.2 Student Assignments and Course Evaluations...............................165
5.3 Instructors: Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data..................170
5.4 Instructors Stages of Concern Data........................................173
6.1 Factors Influencing Selections of Instructional Strategies...............197
xxi


CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
For years, we have read about the promise of technology in instruction. Many
practitioners maintain that using technology in educational settings transforms
pedagogical practices (Brooks, 1997; Cobum & Treeger, 1997; Dwyer, Ringstaff, &
Sandholtz, 1991; Heflich, 1997; Schrum & Berenfeld, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994).
Others join the dialog and advocate that technology is increasing the pace of this
transformation (Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999) by challenging
educators pedagogical beliefs and attitudes about learning (Donovan & Macklin,
1998; Dwyer et al., 1991). The consequence is learner-centered rather than lecture-
based instruction (Heflich, 1997; Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994).
According to some, quality distant-learning experiences result from matching the
right technology with a specific discipline (Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995). From
this perspective, using technology leads to transformed instructional practices and
quality student learning experiences.
Others point out that the potential of technology does not easily transfer into
educational practices (Barrett, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998;
Ehrmann, 1995; Geoghegan, 1994; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Means, 1994).
1


According to many researchers, instructional strategies are the most important
contributor to the quality of technology-based learning (Ahem & Repman, 1994;
Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Blanton, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Heflich,
1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 1994; Phipps, Wellman,
& Merisotis, 1998; Zhao, 1998). It is teachers beliefs about teaching and learning
that lead to selections of instructional strategies in technology-based learning
contexts (Ndahi, 1999; Webster & Hackley, 1997). Evidence suggests that
technology reveals and extends practices rather than transforming them (Means,
1994; Miller & Olson, 1994; Ndahi, 1999; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998). The idea is
that those who teach well continue to do so through a technical interface, whereas
those who teach poorly also continue their practices in technology-based
environments. Some educators point out that it is possible to use distance-learning
technology for lecture-based and test-giving instruction (Gillespie, 1998; Wolcott,
1993), strategies that promote shallow or surface learning (Detterman, 1993;
Nickerson, 1995; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999).
Given these two views of influence and practice in distance-learning
environments, this study examines selections of instructional strategies. It asks, do
educators beliefs about teaching and learning influence practices in distance-
learning classrooms or is technology central to educators choices and selections of
instructional strategies?
2


Using an embedded-case study design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989), I
examined eight cases (seven mini-cases and one larger case) of online instruction. I
collected data from educators and instructional designers through an online research
website. These data came from surveys, interviews, and documents. Survey data
described participants approaches to teaching and their concerns with web-based
instruction. I compared these data with their selections of instructional strategies for
web-based modules. The purpose was a better understanding of what influences
selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
Problem Description
The growth in distance learning presents an exciting, interesting, and often
challenging opportunity for educators. It is exciting because experience and success
with distance learning have convinced even some of the more reluctant educators
that meaningful learning can occur with a separation of teacher and student. It is
interesting because technology changes daily as new and more powerful capabilities
are introduced. It is challenging because skilled faculty who know how to create
meaningful student learning experiences in traditional settings may be challenged
implementing similar designs through technology (Brand, 1998; Heflich, 1997;
Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999).
At an institutional level within the United States, distance learning is growing
rapidly as a supplement and/or replacement for more traditional programs (Challis,
3


1998; Curtin, 1999; Lewis, Alexander, Farris, & Greene, 1997; Phipps et al, 1998).
Although distance learning has been around for more than 100 years, recent changes
in technology have facilitated considerable and fast growth in this field.
In an effort to remain competitive, many institutions feel pressure to offer
online classes but find themselves ill equipped to meet the growing demand (Meyen,
Tagan, & Lian, 1999; Schrum, 1998). Reasons for this include lack of technical
expertise, inadequate infrastructure, lack of administrative support, and ill-prepared
faculty (Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Meyen et al., 1999; Ndahi, 1999;
Schrum, 1998).
Green (1999) describes the problem of ill-prepared faculty in his recent report
on Information-Technology needs in college and university settings. He reports,
assisting faculty efforts to integrate technology into instruction remains the single
most important information technology (IT) challenge confronting American
colleges and universities (p. 3). Two-fifths (39%) of the institutions surveyed
identified technology integration by faculty in instruction as their most significant
challenge.
The development of distance-learning courses is neither simple nor intuitive
(Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996). Skilled faculty who know how to design learning
experiences in traditional settings may have difficulty implementing a similar design
through technology (Brand, 1998; Heflich, 1997; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Ndahi,
1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). During the design process faculty
4


may experience tensions between knowing how learning occurs and knowing how to
make it happen in a technological environment (Barrett, 1998; Boling & Robinson,
1999; Heflich, 1997). Barrett (1998) concludes that these tensions are a result of
competing values of teaching and learning versus technology (see Figure 1.1).
Barrett goes on to stay that resolving the tensions that exist between process needs
and those of technology represents a major task for distance educators and one that is
ongoing in nature (p. 82).
Figure 1.1. Faculty selecting instructional strategies.
teaching & learning technology
needs needs
selections of instructional
strategies
Facultys Response to Technology
According to Bebko (1998), faculty members are not of one mind about
technology and distance education. They fall into two categories, those who are
5


alarmed and those who are encouraged (p. 11). Those who are alarmed cite multiple
reasons for their discomfort, including hardware and software problems (Dillon &
Walsh, 1992), lack of time (Dillon & Walsh, 1992), lack of support (Clark, 1993),
lack of skills (Ndahi, 1999), lack of experience (Ndahi, 1999; Wiske et al., 1988),
and love for the traditional classroom (Breivik, 1998).
Those who are encouraged are interested in learning about new technologies
(Bebko, 1998; Moskal, Martin, & Foshee, 1997) and believe that both faculty and
students benefit from using distance-learning technology (Ndahi, 1999).
Individually, faculty value development of their own technical skills as well as
increased access to educational resources worldwide through data, voice, and video
(Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Froke, 1995; Schrum, 1998). Faculty also
perceive three benefits for students. First, they believe that distance-learning
technologies provide students greater access to each other and to rich, diverse
sources of information (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard,
1999). Second, faculty view technology as a tool that supports superior forms of
learning and problem solving (Bebko, 1998; Means, 1994). Finally, faculty believe
that students who are skilled technology users are more marketable in the workplace
(Bebko, 1998; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Porter, 1997; Schrum, 1996).
6


Faculty Challenged bv Technology
Although faculty are motivated and interested in using technology for
instruction, they are often frustrated with the implementation. Frustration can occur
because of lack of experience and an inability to visualize use of technology in the
teaching-learning relationship (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Donovan & Macklin,
1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Zhao, 1998). Educators lack experience both as students and
as teachers in distance-learning environments. Their knowledge base and
professional skills were primarily acquired in traditional face-to-face classrooms.
Because they lack experience, they may have difficulty strategizing use of
technology in their own classrooms (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Hunt & Bohlin,
1993; Nickerson, 1995; Reiser & Salisbury, 1991; Vickers & Smalley, 1995).
As a result, some faculty end up using new technologies in old ways,
such as using the Internet for text-based lectures, reading assignments, and student
testing (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Wolcott, 1993;
Zhao, 1998). Others, challenged by the process, choose to reexamine their notions of
the teaching-learning relationship and redesign their courses for technical learning
environments (Barrett, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996;
Stuhlmann, 1994; Zhao, 1998). Still others, concerned about their own lack of
teaching and-or technical skills, avoid the challenge altogether and continue with
their traditional classroom practices (Ndahi, 1999).
7


Example of Instructional Strategies for Distance Learning
The selections of instructional strategies for distance-learning courses are
different from strategy selections for traditional face-to-face courses and worthy of
exploration (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992;
Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn, 1999). The following
example illuminates differences between these two environments.
Class time is often a starting point in the instructional design process. For
instance, a one-hour class that meets three times a week for 15 weeks has,
effectively, 45 to 50 minutes of class time each session. Faculty design learning
activities around this schedule. They keep group projects small to fit the time frame.
This same class delivered over three long weekends requires a different design.
Faculty, concerned about engaging and motivating students during these long class
days, may vary activities and design more complex group projects. Thus, class time
affects the design in terms of selections of instructional strategies.
In contrast, class time has a different meaning for a distance-learning course.
As one teacher put it (Stevens, personal communication, October, 1998):
I no longer know where to start with a course. I used to start with class time,
the number of sessions, and then design the course around it. If I had a four-
hour class session, I made sure the students did most of the talking. I would
present some information, have students engage in a small-group activity
forcing them to make sense out of what was presented, and then bring the
groups together to share what they had learned. The number of activities
designed was based on the number of class sessions. This doesnt make sense
in a distance-learning course. Im having difficulty even knowing where to
start.
8


Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) described how class time affected their design of a
graduate-level distance-learning course on analyzing social prejudice:
In planning this unit, for example, we had envisioned a 3-hr lecture
equivalent. Instead, the original course was disassembled, new connections
appeared, other possible directions of how to use the material emerged, and
the result became an open-ended set of lessons that can take a short time, a
whole semester, or a lifetime, (p. 12)
Although Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) started with class time, the use of the
Internet challenged their original conceptions and influenced the course design. As a
result, they reevaluated what they were trying to teach, what students needed to
learn, and how technology could help the process. Consequently, they began with
descriptions of learner outcomes. Then, Hirumi and Bermudez planned student
activities and interactions around those outcomes and goals. The result was an open-
ended set of modules delivered over the Internet.
Conceptual Framework
Of the distance-learning research reviewed, many studies emphasize the
importance of instructional design and selections of strategies (Ahern & Repman,
1994; Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Blanton, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995;
Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998; Zhao, 1998). For
instance, Ahem and Repman (1994) compare two different technologies for course
delivery (two-way video-audio and computer-mediated communication) and find
both useful for learning. They conclude that quality-learning experiences are more
9


dependent on selections of instructional strategies than on the type of technology
used. Heflich (1997) arrive at the same conclusion in his research on attitudes and
practices of educators in online educational discussion groups. He asserts that it is
not the technology that is important; rather, it is the learning environment it helps to
engender that is significant (p. iv).
Research with educators in distance-education settings and traditional face-to-
face classrooms reveal eight major factors (see Figure 1.2) influencing selections of
instructional strategies. Logically, these factors organize under the headings of
teaching and learning needs, and technology needs and include (a) teaching context,
Figure 1.2. Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies.
teaching & learning needs technology needs
selections of instructional
strategies
10


(b) teaching experience, (c) learning needs, (d) teaching conceptions, (e) type of
technology, (f) support, (h) experience and skill, and (i) concerns with technology.
Depending on the educator, one or more factors may influence the design more than
others. Chapter 2 elaborates on these factors and presents evidence for their
influences.
Propositions
From the eight factors influencing selections of instructional strategies, I
chose two as possible explanations for selections of strategies in online
environments. These two factors are the research propositions that limit the study.
(Note: According to Yin (1989), a proposition is a hypothesis that constrains what is
being studied and helps the researcher focus on certain data while ignoring others. I
used these propositions to design details of the study including decisions about what
data to collect, what to analyze, and how to interpret emerging understandings.)
The first proposition emerged from research on teachers' conceptions of
teaching and their practices in traditional classrooms (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992;
Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999). Research
suggests that teachers beliefs about what it means to teach influences the variety of
instructional strategies engaging students in learning. For example, Singer's (1996)
study of443 iaculty reveal an explicit connection between the espoused teaching
paradigms of college faculty and the instructional behaviors they use in their
11


teaching practice (p. 675). As an illustration, faculty valuing a student-centered
teaching paradigm emphasized peer interaction and student involvement as
instructional strategies (Singer).
The second proposition centers on educators beliefs about technology.
According to literature, educators concerns with an innovation influences how it is
used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997).
Those who are new to an innovation have internal concerns with the technology.
They are concerned with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects
them personally. As knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows,
concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others. Based
on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how the
innovation is used in educational environments (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells &
Anderson, 1997). For example, in a longitudinal study of technology integration in
traditional classrooms, Dwyer, Ringstaffj and Standholtz (1991) find that teachers
inexperienced with technology concern themselves with classroom discipline and
resource management issues (internal concerns). Instructional strategies include use
of computers for drill-and-practice as well as individualized seatwork. As their
experience and mastery of technology increases, concerns change from managing the
classroom to exploring new ways for facilitating student learning (external
concerns). Instructional strategies include collaborative group work, child- rather
than curriculum-centered strategies, and active student tasks (Dwyer et al., 1991).
12


Essentially, this is an exploratory study that examines distance-learning
practices from an educators perspective. The emphasis is on what influences
selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Two research
propositions focus attention on educators conceptions of teaching, concerns with
technology, and explore relationships with selections of instructional strategies.
Research Project Description
From the earlier example, class time and technology both influence selections
of instructional strategies for Hirumi and Bermudez (1996). However, this
information leads to interesting questions, such as, which has more influence over
selections of instructional strategiesteaching and learning needs or technology? If
the answer is, it depends, then what does it depend on? For any given type of
technology, are some strategies selected more consistently than others? If so, which
ones and why? What lessons can be learned about instructional strategy selections
from educators designing distance-learning courses?
Research Question and Propositions
Although answering all such questions is beyond the scope of this
dissertation, they lead to a guiding research question: What influences selections of
instructional strategies for web-based instruction? Two propositions shaped the
13


design of the study and framed decisions about what data to collect, analyze, and
interpret (see Figure 1.3). These research propositions state that
1. Educators approaches to teaching relate strongly to their selections of
instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
2. Educators concerns with web-based instruction relate strongly to their
selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
Figure 1.3. Two research propositions.
teaching & learning needs technology needs
teaching experience support
teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill
Cteaching conceptions^) C^concems with technology^)
selections of instructional
strategies
14


Embedded-Case Study
This study used an embedded-case study research design (Cresswell, 1998;
Yin, 1989). Unlike case studies that focus on one specific case or unit, an embedded-
case study examines sub-units or mini-cases within the context of a larger case
(Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). With an embedded-case study, mini-cases contribute a
greater understanding of what is observed in the larger case. Therefore, the larger
case was the most complex and interesting. The mini-cases broadened our
understandings and interpretations of what was observed in the larger case.
The larger case consisted of two instructors, the online course called Online
Instructional Strategies, and the enrolled students. Larger case data included
instructors survey data, their email interviews, and course documents. Embedded
within that context were the student mini-cases consisting of seven students and their
web-based instructional modules. Individual student-participant survey data, their
email interviews, and their course assignments comprised student mini-case data.
Research Context and Population
The context of the study was an online graduate-level class at a mid-western
university. This ten-week course occurred during the winter session 2000-2001. The
course focused on exploring and understanding instructional strategies for web-based
learning environments. The course was 100% online, meaning that all interactions
between instructors and students occurred through the course website or email. The
15


research population consisted of two instructors and seven students. All are
educators and/or instructional designers. Students met course goals by completing
multiple assignments stipulated by instructors including developing web-based
instructional modules.
It should be noted that this study was a static rather than dynamic
examination of selections of instructional strategies. This meant that I focused on
instructional strategies selected ahead of time and did not look for strategies used by
the instructors in online class discussions. I made this decision for three reasons.
First, I am interested in instructional strategies selected in the design of online
learning environments. I wanted to know what affects selections ahead of time rather
than those chosen in response to student-teacher interactions. Second, other
researchers have investigated student-teacher interactions in online discussions
(Ahem & Repman, 1994; Anderson & Harris, 1995; Heflich, 1997; Mason, 2001;
Townley, 1997) and described key strategies for facilitating effective online
discussions (Addesso, 2000; Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000; Draves,
2000; Jackson & Anagnostopoulou, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Third, since the
student modules were not implemented with learner populations, examining the
course statically affords more equitable comparisons with student modules and
student selections of strategies.
16


Data Collection Methods
For this study, I collected data from multiple sources. These data came from
surveys, interviews, and documents. Through an online research website (see
Appendix L), I collected survey data about participants Approaches to Teaching
(see Appendix B) and personal concerns with web-based instruction (see Appendix
P). I conducted individual participant interviews through email (see Appendix J). I
reviewed multiple documents available through the course website (see Appendix I)
such as the course syllabi, discussion board archives (see Appendix H), and
assignment descriptions (see Appendices E, F, G, H, and I). In addition, I reviewed
the web-based instructional modules developed by student participants. These
comprised the larger and mini-case data.
Data Analysis Methods
For each research proposition, I combined and analyzed data on three levels:
as individual student mini-cases (individual student), across student mini-cases
(student group), and student mini-cases within the context of the larger case (online
class). Because I used multiple data sources and evaluated them on three levels, I
used different analysis techniques to make sense of it.
At an individual mini-case level, I combined data creating student mini-cases.
Data from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Appendix B) described
participants approaches to teaching along two dimensions: Conceptual
17


Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused. Data from
the Stages of Concern Instrument (Appendix P) portrayed participants concerns
with web-based instruction differentiating between internal and external concerns.
Information about expertise at website development, experience with instructional
design, and motivation for taking the class came from email interviews with
participants. I examined instructional websites for instructional strategies, patterns of
communication, types of information, and other discriminating features. At this
point, I combined data and created student individual mini-cases. Then for each
research proposition, I examined each mini-case for relationships and explanations.
The second level of analysis occurred across student mini-cases. For each
proposition, I examined the seven student mini-cases and looked for common
selections of strategies and explanations for those selections. For instance, three
students selected strategies that emphasized facts and information rather than
concepts and ideas. In the analysis, I evaluated these mini-cases as a group and
looked to see if survey data explain this grouping. In this process, I identified
common elements and understandings of emerging data as it relates to each
proposition and created tables and drawings as explanations.
Analysis of the student mini-cases within the context of the larger case occurs
last. For each proposition, I combined and evaluated data. As a consequence, I
examined emerging understandings and explanations within the context of the online
course and looked evidence of influence of the larger case on the student mini-cases.
18


At this point, I examine additional data from the course website in relationship to
emerging understandings and explanations. These analyses add insights into the
larger case.
Benefits of Study
Four reasons make this research meaningful. First, it articulates relationships
between approaches-concerns and selections of instructional strategies for web-based
learning environments. Knowing why educators make choices in these learning
settings makes transformation of those practices possible. Second, this study
suggests areas for further research. Third, it contributes to our knowledge base and
understanding of web-based instruction with regard to selections of instructional
strategies. Finally, it may be useful information for faculty development.
Limitations of Study
This project is limited in four ways. First, it was a study of instructional
strategies selection for web-based instruction and its implementation with one online
class. As such, conclusions drawn apply to this online course, these instructors, these
students, and not to educators at large. Second, the student mini-cases consist of
survey data, interview data, and their web-based instructional modules. These
modules were not implemented with learner populations. This suggests that the
instructional websites developed by student are limited in scope and size, and not
19


representative of complex, well-developed instructional websites. Third, it is a study
of limited distance-learning technology, namely, web-based instruction. These
limitations mean that the findings are generalizable to the propositions, this research
population, and teaching context but not necessarily to educators in the general
population. Finally, the research population was small and may represent a biased
sample group.
Conclusion
This study provided information on what affects selections of instructional
strategies in for web-based instruction. Conceptually, I limited it to two propositions,
namely, approaches to teaching and concerns with web-based instruction. In Chapter
2,1 outline the theoretical perspectives that support the use of this conceptual
framework. I describe the embedded-case study research design in Chapter 3. Topics
include descriptions of the methodology, rationale for its use, information about the
research population, methods for data collection, and procedures for data analysis.
Because of the number of cases and the volume of data, I present the student mini-
case findings in Chapters 4 and the student mini-cases within the larger case context
findings in 5.1 conclude the study with a summary of the findings, limitations of the
outcomes, and a discussion of other areas of research (Chapter 6).
20


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Educators shoulder much of the responsibility for successful student learning
in web-based classrooms (Ahern & Repman, 1994; Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995;
Blanton, Moorman, & Trathen, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Zhao,
1998). Faculty, concerned about the instructional process that engages students with
learning, work to design meaningful learning experiences through technology
(Bebko, 1998). This task is neither simple nor intuitive (Brandt, Farmer, &
Buckmaster, 1993; Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn,
1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). Holloway (1991) explains distance
education is not, as some mistakenly think, the simple translation of content from
one delivery medium to another. Distance education touches every facet of an
educational organization, not just teaching.... And distance education brings with it
new pedagogical demands not anticipated in the face-to-face model (p. 261).
Distance Educators Instructional Design Activities
Teaching experiences are different in technology-based educational settings
(Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Hunt &
21


Bohlin, 1993; Stuhlmann, 1994; Thomson & Stringer, 1998) and require different
strategies that engage students in learning. Distance educators report spending more
time upfront designing courses than with traditional classes (Barrett, 1998; Loeding
& Wynn, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998; Wolcott, 1993; Zhang, 1998).
Their instructional design efforts shift from delivering predefined content to
structuring activities that develop students' abilities to solve problems (Barrett, 1998;
Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et
al., 1998). It is a change from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered
learning (Berge, 1997; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Heflich, 1997; Moore & Kearsley,
1996; Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994; Zhao, 1998). According to Dillon
and Walsh (1992), faculty who make the transition to student-centered instruction
are not only more successful distance teachers, but also more successful classroom
teachers (p. 17).
The transition from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered learning
leads to changes in teacher-student roles (Barrett, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992;
Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Educators report that they take on a greater role as
planner, guide, facilitator, and mentor, and a lesser role as deliverer of content
(Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998). As a consequence, students roles also change.
They have greater freedom and assume more responsibility for their own learning
(Bebko, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Hirumi & Bermtidez, 1996; Moore & Kearsley, 1996;
Schrum, 1998). Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) describe it this way
22


Before this experience, I viewed teaching as a controlled and controlling
process. In relinquishing the power to learn to the students themselves, I am
also relinquishing the responsibility to succeed in learning. It is a freeing
feeling to realize that I don't have to be Atlas to the students, as I have now
acquired partners in the learning process, (p. 13)
In the design of technology-based courses, educators work to (a) learn the
technology, (b) select the content, (c) design learning activities, and (d) determine
student assessments. This list of activities is not complete, but brings to light upfront
and instructional design activities that change as a result of distance-learning
teaching environments.
Learn the Technology
For any technology-based teaching context, faculty develop skills using the
technology. The technical skills required depend on the type of technology and
faculty motivation. If the teaching context is an Internet-based course management
system such as Blackboard, eCollege, or WebCT1, teachers learn how to use the
system to provide content, interact with students, collect student work, access
information, and assess student performance. Through practice and experience,
educators come to understand the limitations of the technology for instructional
1 Blackboard, eCollege, and WebCT are password protected course management systems for
online course delivery. The system provides a technical framework for organizing course content.
Included are areas to post announcements, syllabi, create tests, and conduct online discussions.
23


purposes and learn how to troubleshoot when it is not working properly (Clark,
1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Townley, 1997; Zhao, 1998). If the teaching context is
Internet-based but independent of any formal course management structure, then
educators may develop additional skills such as how to create web pages and set up
online discussion forums. Faculty expertise can extend to becoming the technical
support person for their students. For example, some students may be unable to
attach files for electronic submission and need assistance learning how (Barrett,
1998). Regardless of the technology, educators in distance-learning environments
develop technical skills.
Determine the Content
Faculty determine what information learners need to have access to and how
to provide it. In traditional classes, this passing along of facts and information may
occur through lectures. In web-based learning environments, educators concerned
about the learning process use other strategies for delivering content. Rather than
lecturing in online classes with pages of text, emphasis is on what content students
need (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Townley, 1997), how to
organize it (Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998; Schrum & Berenfeld, 1997; Wood et
al., 1998), and how students should progress through the information (Barrett, 1998;
Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Townley, 1997). The content may be
detailed notes on a specific topic, links to rich sources of information, or well-
24


designed, specific information about the course with clear expectations for student
performance (Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Wolcott, 1993).
Design Learning Activities
Moving to online classrooms involves teaching in unfamiliar settings and
developing new strategies for engaging students in the learning process (Bailey,
Ross, & Griffin, 1996; Berge, 1997; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin,
1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Townley, 1997; Vickers
& Smalley, 1995). Predominately, the three types of learning activities that distance
educators select are checkpoints, skills, and virtual online communities.
First, distance educators create activities that evaluate what students are
learning and how well they understand it. In traditional classrooms, faculty can tell
with a quick glance whether things are making sense (heads nodding) or nonsense
(frowns, creased eyebrows). In distance-learning environments educators report
building in similar checkpoints into their courses to solicit feedback from students
through quizzes, surveys, or direct questioning (Bebko, 1998; Cook, 1995; Hirumi &
Bermudez, 1996; Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998).
Second, educators may select strategies that develop students skills to use
the technology, to find and evaluate information, and to solve problems. Many
distance educators train students in the technology prior to the beginning of class
(Bebko, 1998; Scott-Fredericks, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994). In doing so, students adjust
25


to the learning environment and can focus on learning the content (Scott-Fredericks,
1997). Oblinger and Rush (1997) state that the volume of new information is
increasing at such a rapid pace that the class of2000 will be exposed to more new
data in a year than their grandparents encountered in a lifetime (p. 3). In light of
this, distance educators select strategies that guide students through large volumes of
information and help them evaluate web-resources (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Breivik,
1998; Gillespie, 1998; Phipps et al., 1998; Thomson & Stringer, 1998). Learning
activities may send students on Web Quests (searching the Internet for resources)
and challenge them to compile their own Webliographies (list of links to online
resources). Many distance educators select strategies that develop students ability to
solve problems (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998;
Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998), such as presenting case studies and
difficult, complex problems.
Third, communication and student interactions are central to distance-
learning environments. According to Dillon and Walsh (1992), effective distance
teaching places student involvement as the foundation of all distance teaching
activities (p. 16). Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis (1998) suggest that the more
interactive the course, the more effective the student learning. Some educators
maintain that student interactions are the beginning point for the design of online
classes (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998). Others conclude that interactions enhance
student learning (Cook, 1995; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Phipps et aL, 1998), must be
26


built into the course (Ahem, 1996; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn,
1999; Meyen et aL, 1999), and be fostered throughout the duration of the course
(Cook, 1995; Schrum, 1998). Learning activities that create and build virtual
communities are online discussions, peer reviews, and group projects.
Determine Student Assessments
Distance educators report that student evaluations change in these new
settings. Because of the barrier of technology, it is not always possible to know who
is taking an online test and guard against cheating. Rather than proctoring exams
(having students come to a central location and taking exams in a traditional
classroom setting), many educators choose other methods to evaluate student
learning (Barrett, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Zhang,
1998; Zhao, 1998). Alternative assessments include complex projects, online
discussion contributions, or reports. As an example, Hirumi and Bermudez (1996)
report incorporating assessments as part of the learning process rather than as an
evaluation of students knowing facts. The transition is from evaluating students
acquisition of knowledge to providing students with immediate feedback on their
learning and understanding of a subject (Barrett, 1998).
27


Factors Influencing Selections of Instructional
Strategies
A review of literature (from both traditional and distance-education
classrooms) reveals major eight factors that influence educators as they select
instructional strategies. I organize factors into those that relate to teaching and
learning needs, and those that relate to the technology. The instructors and students
are the central to teaching and learning needs, whereas the innovation is key to
technology. These factors are (Figure 2.1) (a) teaching context, (b) teaching
experience, (c) learning needs, (d) teaching conceptions, (e) type of technology,
Figure 2.1. Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies.
teaching & learning needs technology needs
teaching experience support
teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill
teaching conceptions concerns with technology
selections of instructional
strategies
28


(f) support, (h) experience and skill, and (i) concerns with technology. Depending on
the educator, one or more factors may influence the design more than others. In the
following sections, I describe each factor and its influence on selections of
instructional strategies.
Teaching and Learning Needs
Teaching and learning needs are those factors that specifically relate to
educators and their students. The four factors in this group are (a) teaching context,
(b) teaching experience, (c) learning context, and (d) teaching conceptions. Specific
details that characterize classroom environments, instructors, and students define the
teaching context. Educators backgrounds, as defined by years of teaching
experience, types of teaching experience, and personal learning experiences, explain
teaching experience. Students are central to the learning context that includes
information about what students need to learn, what skills they need to develop, and
how they can be successful. Teaching conceptions describe how educators
understand and view the teacher-student learning relationship. According to the
reviewed literature, teaching conceptions present the strongest evidence of influence
on selections of instructional strategies.
29


Teaching Context
Four elements that characterize the teaching context and influence selections
of strategies are class size, class length, course level, and discipline.
Classes with 150 students require different instructional strategies than those
with 15 (Hannafin & Freeman, 1995; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). As
the class size grows, educators tend to adopt content-oriented attitudes and select
lecture-based strategies (Singer, 1996). With fewer students in classes, faculty are
more likely to select strategies that actively involve students in learning activities
(Singer).
The time-in-class often influences the selections of instructional strategies
(Hannafin & Freeman, 1995; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Educators select different
strategies for one-hour classes as opposed to eight-hour classes. With shorter class
periods, faculty focus on teacher-centered strategies such as lecturing. With longer
classes, educators tend to vary the class activities and work to involve students in
complex group projects.
With undergraduate courses, faculty select strategies that organize content
and present information. With graduate level courses, the emphasis changes to
developing students abilities to solve problems (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer,
1996; Stark, Lowther, Bentley, & Martens, 1990; Stark, Lowther, Ryan, & Genthon,
1988a)
30


Academic discipline influences selections of instructional strategies (Singer,
1996; Stark et aL, 1990; Stark et aL, 1988a). For instance, interviews with 89
teachers (Stark et al., 1988b) reveal differences in instructional design choices based
on discipline. These educators divide into two groups. The first group describes their
discipline as sets of concepts, principles, ideas, phenomena, or objects to be
explained to students and organize their course content structurally or
chronologically. Examples of these disciplines include history, biology, and
sociology. This group select strategies that focus on teaching concepts, principles,
and equipping students to become effective thinkers. The second group (i.e. teaching
composition or literature) views their field as a group of people who share the pursuit
of common values and interests. They use knowledge creation to organize course
materials. Faculty select strategies that promote student growth, skill acquisition, and
personal enrichment.
Teaching Experience
Educators backgrounds, as defined by years of teaching experience, types of
teaching experience, knowledge of their discipline, and personal learning
experiences, explain teaching experience. Some researchers advocate that teachers
tend to teach the way they were taught (Means, 1994; Ndahi, 1999; Stark et al.,
1988a). Other researchers conclude that teaching practices are developmental,
meaning that beginning educators start with certain behaviors and attitudes that
31


develop and change over time (Dwyer et aL, 1991; Fox, 1983; Hannafin & Freeman,
1995; McCutcheon, 1992; Ross, Cornett, & McCutcheon, 1992; Sheingold &
Hadley, 1990; Stuhlmann, 1994). Thus, years of teaching experience influence
selections. According to Fox (1983) inexperienced teachers focus on what they bring
to the learning situation and strategize ways to teach and share information.
Experienced teachers concern themselves with student learning activities such as
simulations and role-playing.
Learning Needs
In planning classroom activities, faculty consider student characteristics and
their learning needs. This includes considerations for students maturity level, their
school level (graduate or undergraduate), incoming knowledge, and current skills
(Schrum, 1998; Stark et aL, 1988a). Additionally, educators focus on what learning
needs to happen so that students can be successful in class (Barron, 1995; Bebko,
1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez,
1996; Nickerson, 1995; Zhang, 1998). Based on these considerations, teachers make
changes to their class designs and modify student expectations. For example, some
students may be unable to attach files for electronic submission and need an
alternative solution for handing in assignments (Barrett, 1998). Based on students
and their learning needs, teachers may select strategies that develop students' abilities
to find and evaluate rich sources of information rather than strategies that organize
32


and present content (Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998; Thomson & Stringer, 1998;
Zhao, 1998).
Teaching Conceptions
In this research, I explore the teaching conception of what it means to
teach. Conceptions of teaching describe educators views of how learning takes
place and what it means to teach and to know (Kember & Gow, 1994; Pratt, 1992;
Ross et al., 1992; Schubert, 1992). They are dynamic interpretations that evolve and
change through practice (Pratt, 1992; Schubert, 1992). Additionally, teaching
conceptions are structures that influence actions teachers make through teaching
activity selections and curriculum choices (Pratt, 1992; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor,
1994; Ross, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992).
A conception is a specific meaning or interpretation attached to
phenomena. It is a theory defined within a specific context as it applies to a specific
task. Educators apply theories to their teaching practices all the time (Bednar,
Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Foshay, 1991; McAninch, 1993; McCutcheon,
1992; Putnam, 1991; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). A theory is a set of
propositions, postulates, or generalizations that explain or describe educational
phenomena (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; McAninch, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
They are human constructions that help teachers anticipate and make sense of
classroom experiences (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Reed, 1993; Thornton, 1993).
33


Practices are the methods teachers use to draw students into the learning equation.
The relationship between theory and practice is a dynamic one not easily understood
(Calderhead, 1993;Foshay, 1991; McAninch, 1993;Munro, 1993).
Teachers do not operate on a single theory to define their teaching practices
(McCutcheon, 1992; Ross et al, 1992). Rather their practices reflect a blending of
those theories based on an understanding of them and their own personal learning
experiences. With each teaching experience they continually build, refine, and
reconstruct theory (Ross et al, 1992; Schubert, 1992) moving towards equilibrium in
their practice.
Many researchers examine teachers theories and conceptions of student
learning. Some researchers call them teaching theories (Fox, 1983), conceptions of
teaching (Fox, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), meaning
of teaching as it relates to learning (Menges & Rando, 1989), orientations to teaching
(Kember & Gow, 1994), or approaches to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999;
Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b). Regardless of the phrase used, this body of
research describes, from an educators' perspective, what is means to teach.
Table 2.1 overviews the findings of seven studies on teaching conceptions.
Relationships among teaching conceptions depend on the researchers and their
descriptions of conceptions. For instance, some research report that conceptions are
mutually exclusive (Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). While
others claim that overlaps exist between conceptions with one usually dominates
34


Table 2.1
Research on Conceptions of Teaching
Researchers Conceptions of Teaching Relationships
Fox (1983) transfer information to students mold/shape students into predetermined roles guide students in exploration of broad field develop emotional and intellectual aspects of students simple theories: transfer and shape developed theories: guide and develop
Kember & Gow (1994) transfer of knowledge to learners facilitate learning through problem solving & motivation little overlap
Menges & Rando (1989) provide content to students develop student's ability to learn and process information motivate students to learn hold multiple conceptions one dominates
Murray & MacDonald (1997) impart knowledge to students enthuse, encourage, and motivate students facilitate students' learning support students overlap among conceptions hold multiple conceptions
Pratt (1992) engineering conception: deliver content apprenticeship conception: model ways of being developmental conception: cultivate the intellect nurturing conception: facilitate personal agency social reform conception: seek a better society overlap among conceptions hold multiple conceptions one dominates
Samuelowicz &Bain (1992) impart information transmit knowledge and attitudes of discipline facilitate students understanding of discipline change students' understanding of world support students learning mutually exclusive ordered
Trigwell & Prosser (1994) teacher-focused, information transmission teacher-focused, help student acquire concepts of discipline teacher/student interaction, help students acquire concepts of discipline through relationship student-focused, help students develop conceptions of discipline student-focused, change students' conceptions of hierarchical
discipline
35


over the others (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992). Samuelowicz and Bain
(1992) maintain that teaching conceptions are ordered. Still others view teaching
conceptions as hierarchical (Biggs, 1993; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser,
1996a) with the higher or more advanced conceptions including the lower, less
complex ones.
Some researchers observe that educators may hold ideal and working
conceptions of teaching (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz &
Bain, 1992). Ideal teaching conceptions describe how educators view learning in
general, whereas working conceptions reflect actual teaching practices and
assessment strategies.
Fox (1983) identifies four basic theories of teaching. First, transfer theory
assumes that the teacher's responsibility is to specify what needs to be learned and to
deliver information to students. Next, the shaping theory emphasizes shaping or
modeling students into predetermined roles. The traveling theory treats the subject to
be learned as a broad field with educators guiding students explorations. Finally, the
growing theory focuses on the emotional and intellectual development of students.
As faculty become more experienced in their teaching, they tend to adopt more
complex conceptions of teaching. Fox sees the transfer and shaping models of
teaching as simple theories representing inexperienced teachers approaches to
teaching, whereas the traveling and growing models are developed theories.
36


Developed theories reflect more precisely what research says about effective
student learning and are likely to be held by experienced teachers.
The two conceptions of teaching that emerge from interviews and surveys
with 170 faculty in Hong Kong (Kember & Gow, 1994) are transmission of
knowledge and facilitation of learning. Transmissions of knowledge includes the
subscales of training for a specific job, using media, imparting knowledge, and
knowing the subject. Facilitation of learning includes the subscales of problem
solving, interactive teaching, facilitative teaching, taking care of students and
motivating them. Kember and Gow (1994) conclude that although complex bundles
of characteristics combine to describe each conception with no overlap between
them.
Menges and Rando (1989) arrive at three teaching conceptions as a result of
their research with graduate teaching assistants. Through interviews and surveys,
Menges and Rando asked, What is the meaning of teaching. Three primary
orientations emerge from these data. First, teaching is a focus on content by
identifying what needs to be taught and students mastering the materials. Process is
the second orientation that emphasizes facilitating students' ability to learn and
process information. The final orientation places motivation as key to teaching.
Educators with this conception strategize ways to make the content interesting and
motivating for students. An individual may hold more than one conception, however
one is usually more dominant than the others.
37


A slightly different model surfaces from a study of 80 faculty in a Business
School. Based on interviews and surveys, Murray and MacDonald (1997) define four
conceptions of teaching: (a) imparting knowledge-, (b) enthusing, encouraging, and
motivating students', (c) facilitating student learning; and (d) supporting students.
Murray and MacDonald conclude that categories of teaching conceptions overlap,
that faculty report multiple roles, and that faculty do not necessarily fit well into any
one conception. Teaching conceptions may be context-dependent. Educators may
have an ideal and working conception of teaching. Their current practices
represent their working conception and may differ from their ideal.
Through interviews with 253 faculty over a five-year period, five conceptions
held by faculty became known (Pratt, 1992). They are engineering conception
(delivering content), apprenticeship conception (modeling ways of being),
developmental conception (cultivating the intellect), nurturing conception
(facilitating personal agency), and social reform conception (seeking a better
society). These conceptions are dynamic in that they change over time based on
experiences. Pratt does not see these conceptions as mutually exclusive. He reports
that educators may hold multiple conceptions with one dominate over others.
Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) describe five mutually exclusive teaching
conceptions. They are (a) teaching imparts information; (b) teaching transmits
knowledge and attitudes within an academic discipline; (c) teaching facilitates
understanding; (d) teaching focuses on changing students' understanding of the
38


world)-, and (e) teaching supports student learning. The dimensions of expected
outcomes, knowledge gained, students' existing conceptions, directionality of
teaching, and control of content emerged as criteria for discriminating between
various conceptions. Conceptions are ordered with supporting student learning being
the highest and most complex. Teaching to impart information is the lowest and least
complex. Samuelowicz and Bain conclude that these conceptions may be context-
dependent (apply to a specific course and group of students). Additionally, faculty
may have ideal and working conceptions of teaching.
Based on research with 24 faculty, Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994)
identify five conceptions of teaching: (a) Approach A: teacher-focused strategy
where emphasis is on transmitting information to students-, (b) Approach B: teacher-
focused strategy thatfocuses on helping students acquire concepts of the discipline',
(c) Approach C: teacher/student interaction strategy where students acquire the
concepts of the discipline to satisfy internal demands-, (d) Approach D: student-
focused strategy aimed at helping students develop their conceptions', (e) Approach
E: student-focused strategy aimed at changing students conceptions. Approach A
assumes the teacher is the most important element in the teaching equation. The
focus is on what needs to be taught and in what order with little or no concern for the
learner. Approach F assumes the opposite. Teachers holding this conception
concentrates on students by working to create relationships, meet student needs, and
encourage learner self-direction. Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) consider these
39


conceptions to be hierarchical where the more complex conceptions (Approaches C,
D and F) include the more limiting conceptions (Approaches A and B), but not vice
versa. Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor conclude that conceptions of teaching are
dependent on the context (topic being taught and the classroom setting).
Although different conceptions of teaching exist, researchers report that
teaching conceptions inform and influence teaching practices (Boulton-Lewis, Wilss
& Mutch, 1996; Fox, 1983; Menges & Rando, 1989; Murray & MacDonald, 1997;
Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). Samuelowicz and Bain
(1992) report that teaching conceptions shape practices through curriculum structure
(what is taught), teaching methods (how curriculum is taught), and assessments
(what is valued as learning outcomes). Pratt (1992) supports this view and sees
teaching actions as purposeful, thoughtful, and governed by teaching conceptions. As
an illustration, Singer (1996) observes that faculty valuing a student-centered
teaching paradigm select peer-interaction and student involvement for instructional
strategies.
In summary, teaching and learning needs are those factors that specifically
relate to educators and their students. The four factors in this group are (a) teaching
context, (b) teaching experience, (c) learning context, and (d) teaching conceptions.
Based on the reviewed literature, teaching conceptions present the strongest evidence
of influence on selections of instructional strategies in this category.
40


Technology Needs
The innovation of web-based instruction is central to this second group of
factors influencing selections of instructional strategies. The four factors in this
group are (a) type of technology, (b) support, (c) experience and skills, and (d)
concerns with technology. Educators report differences in their classroom practices
based on medium for course delivery. Faculty support comes through training,
relationships with others, and administration. For this group of factors, experience
and skills specifically relate to educators use of technology. Educators concerns
with technology influence its use. Within this group of factors and the reviewed
literature, concerns with technology represents the strongest evidence of influence on
selections of instructional strategies.
In a way, this research involves the adoption of an innovation. In this case,
the innovation is Web-based instruction. The adoption of an innovation is not an
event, rather it is a complex process influenced by many factors (Lowry, 1997;
Rogers, 1995). An innovation consists of two parts: the physical object and the
information base that supports use of technology to solve certain problems (Rogers,
1995). The Internet (physical object) provides access to information, knowledge, and
a worldwide community (Gillespie, 1998). The information base includes details
about the Internet, how it can be used as an instructional environment, and what
happens as a result of its use.
41


Online, Internet-based, web-based instruction, computer-mediated
communication (CMC), web-based learning environments (WBLEs) (Mioduser,
Nachmias, Lahav, & Oren, 2000), and computer conferencing are all terms
describing the innovation in this research project (Ahem & Repman, 1994; Gillespie,
1998; McCormack, & Jones, 1998; Relan & Gillani, 1997). Common features
include chat rooms, email, electronic discussion groups, and web pages (Gillespie,
1998; McCormack & Jones, 1998; Mioduser et al., 2000).
Type of Technology
The type of technology influences how educators use it to provide
information and content, and set up interactions with students. Some researchers
argue that the type of technology is key to student success in distance-learning
courses (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995). In fact, Barrett (1998)
advocates that the subject matter and student population should determine the type of
technology used for instruction. A good choice enhances student learning and faculty
motivation to use the technology while a poor choice does not (Barrett, 1998; Bebko,
1998; Ehrmann, 1995). Examples of technology type influencing selections of
instructional strategies include using one-way teleconferences for lectures and video-
conferencing for active dialogues with students around learning issues (Bebko,
1998).
42


Support
Support for educators comes through training, relationships with others, and
administration. Based on the amount and type of support, instructors select different
instructional strategies. Because technologies change so fast, practitioners need
support to learn the technology, keep up with the latest information resources, and
select good instructional strategies (Breivik, 1998; Bright & Waxman, 1993).
Faculty need help identifying, selecting, and implementing useful strategies
for this new environment (Bailey et al., 1996; Breivik, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992;
Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Thurston, Secaras,
& Levine, 1996; Townley, 1997). Due to their autonomous nature (Meyen et al.,
1999), faculty primarily work through instructional design issues on their own and
come up with viable solutions to problems. However, the transition to an online
teaching environment involves moving to an unfamiliar setting and developing new
ways of engaging students in the learning process (Bailey et al., 1996; Dillon &
Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Roschelle &
Pea, 1999; Townley, 1997; Vickers & Smalley, 1995). Support through training
gives faculty options through suggestions of useful instructional strategies (Barrett,
1998).
Collaborative relationships with colleagues and experts in the field help
clarify vision for distance-learning environments and identify solutions for problem
areas (Becker, 1994; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Heflich, 1997). Distance-learning
43


practitioners work to build and maintain these relationships, and learn from others
(Barrett, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998).
Support from administration means a reliable technical infrastructure and
support for educators efforts with technology (Barrett, 1998; Clark, 1993; Dillon &
Walsh, 1992; Ndahi, 1999; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). At an institutional level,
faculty and students both need a reliable technical infrastructure (Anderson & Harris,
1995; Bebko, 1998). Without this structure, instructors choose strategies that do not
rely on the technology. For individual educators, support may mean reduced teaching
loads (Becker, 1994; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Zhang, 1998), extra time or pay for
distant-learning course development (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Jacobsen, 1998;
Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999; Zhang, 1998), enrollment caps for online
courses (Barrett, 1998), and paid teaching assistants (Dillon & Walsh, 1992). Lack of
support can negatively impact a course (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998) and limit
educators selections of instructional strategies.
Experience and Skill
Practitioners involved with an innovation have a set of skills developed over
time through practice, training, and experimentation. Skills can be technical ones,
such as how to turn on a computer or create a web page, or soft ones that deal with
effective ways to use technology for online discussions. In some cases, the lack of
educators experiences and skills leads to rejection of the innovation (Barron &
44


Goldman, 1994; Boling & Robinson, 1999; Gillespie, 1998; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993;
Levin, 1995; Owston, 1997; Reiser & Salisbury, 1991; Vickers & Smalley, 1995;
Wolcott, 1993). In other cases, experience and skills influence how educators use the
technology. For example, inexperienced distance educators may use
videoconferencing to lecture because they use same pedagogical model in their
traditional classes (Wolcott, 1993). A case in point, Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz
(1991) report that teachers, new to technology, use computers for simple word
processing and drill-and-practice exercises (low skill and experience). Unskilled or
inexperienced practitioners tend to use the Internet for text-based lectures, reading
assignments, and student testing (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996;
Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998). In other words, lack of experience and skills limits how
educators envision using the technology for student learning.
As experience and skills develop, teachers change their use of technology
(Reed, 1990). The focus shifts from how can I use this technology to teach? to
how can this technology facilitate student learning and interaction? Stuhlmann
(1994) characterizes it as a shift from a teacher-directed model of instruction to one
that is student-centered. Other researchers report that experience with technology
leads to changes in teaching practices (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Becker, 1994;
Dwyer et al., 1991; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Wolcott,
1993). Through a longitudinal study with teachers, Dwyer, Ringstaff and Sandholtz
(1991) observe that teachers progress through a five-stage evolutionary process. The
45


five stages are entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Dwyer et
al., 1991). Educators in the earlier stages (entry and adoption) focus on the
computers, software, and discipline issues. As teachers progress through the stages
their focus changes from learning the technology to inventing new ways of engaging
students in collaborative work.
Concerns with Technology
According to the research reviewed, concerns that an individual has with an
innovation influence the way it is used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers,
1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Those who are new to an innovation are concerned
with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects them personally
(;internal concerns). As knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows,
concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others. Based
on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how the
innovation is for learning (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells & Anderson, 1997).
Research demonstrates that concerns relate to teaching practices (Bebko,
1998; Dwyer et al., 1991; Evans-Andris, 1995; Reed, 1990). For instance, Dwyer,
Ringstafif and Sandholtz (1991) found that teachers use technology differently in
their classrooms based on experience and their concerns explain some of those
differences. In the early stages, teachers concern themselves with learning the
technology, managing their classroom, and using the simplest software for student
46


work (drill-and-practice and traditional testing). These concerns are internal since
their focus on the technology and how it impacts their teaching practices. With the
later stages (appropriation and invention) educators concerns change to an external
perspective as they concentrate on developing student skills and organizing group
learning through technology.
Other studies support the notion that as practitioners begin to use technology
in educational settings their concerns (internal) center on learning the technology
(Geoghegan, 1994; Reed, 1990), acquiring access (Bebko, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard,
1999), and delivering instruction (Ndahi, 1999; Wolcott, 1993). As educators'
mastery and adoption of technology increases their concerns (external) change to
strategizing ways to equip students (Becker, 1994), meeting student needs (Barrett,
1998; Ndahi, 1999), and facilitating communication (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998;
Thurston et al., 1996). Some even classify it as a movement towards constructivist
behaviors that equips students to facilitate their own learning (Becker & Ravitz,
1999; Heflich, 1997).
In summary, technology factors influence selections of instructional
strategies. The four factors in this group are (a) type of technology, (b) support, (c)
experience and skills, and (d) concerns with technology. Based on the reviewed
literature, concerns with technology present the strongest evidence in this category
for selections of instructional strategies.
47


Summary
The literature reviewed elicited eight major factors that influence educators
as they select instructional strategies. I organize factors in two groups: those that
relate to teaching and learning needs and those that relate to the technology. From
these eight factors, I selected two as propositions for this research project. In Chapter
3,1 describe the research design and explain details of data collections and analysis
methods.
48


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Using an embedded-case design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989), this research
explored selections of instructional strategies for web-based learning environments.
The guiding research question is: What influences selections of instructional
strategies for web-based instruction?
The review of research in Chapter 2 elicited eight major factors that influence
selection of instructional strategies in traditional and distance-educational settings.
Two of these factors offer explanations for the selection of strategies for web-based
instruction and are propositions for this study. The first proposition (see page 50)
emerges from studies of teachers approaches to teaching and their practices in
traditional classrooms (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996; Trigwell &
Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al, 1999). Research suggests that teachers
beliefs about what it means to teach influence the variety of instructional strategies
used to engage students with learning. The second proposition (see page 50) came
from research on adoption of innovations in educational contexts. According to the
literature reviewed, concerns that an individual has with an innovation influence the
way it is used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson,
49


1997). Educators who are new to an innovation, for example, concern themselves
with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects them personally
(internal concerns). As their knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows,
their concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others.
Based on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how
to use the innovation in educational environments (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells &
Anderson, 1997).
These two propositions shape the design of the study and frame decisions
about what data to collect, analyze, and interpret. The guiding research question is:
What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction?
Within that context, the two research propositions state that
1. Educators approaches to teaching relates strongly to their selections of
instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
2. Educators concerns with web-based instruction relate strongly to their
selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
This study used an embedded-case study research design (Cresswell, 1998;
Yin, 1989). Unlike case studies that focus on one specific case or unit, an embedded-
case study examines sub-units or mini-cases within the context of a larger case. With
an embedded-case study mini-cases contribute a greater understanding of what is
observed in the larger case. Therefore, the larger case was the most complex and
50


interesting. The mini-cases broadened our understandings and interpretations of what
is observed in the larger case.
For this study, the larger case consisted of two instructors, the online course
called Online Instructional Strategies, and the enrolled students. Larger case data
included instructors survey data, their email interviews, and course documents.
Embedded within that context were the student mini-cases consisting of seven
students and their web-based modules. Individual participant survey data, their email
interviews, and their course assignments comprised student mini-case data.
In this Chapter, I detail the embedded-case study research design. I present
descriptions of the studys context, approach and rationale, researchers role, pilot
studies and findings, research population, methods for data collection and
management, and procedures for data analysis and interpretation.
Embedded-Case Study Design
According to Ehrmann (1997), program evaluation is like using a small
flashlight for cave exploration (see Figure 3.1). The beam is small and insufficient
for illuminating a large pitch-black cave. Views and understandings of what is in a
cave are determined in part by the direction and intensity of the beam. It takes
multiple trips and careful examination to begin to appreciate what the darkness hides.
The flashlight in a cave is an appropriate metaphor for this embedded-case study.
The flashlight is small and the cave is large. This project represents an initial
51


exploration in this interesting and relatively unexplored environment of selections of
instructional strategies for web-based instruction.
Figure 3.1. Cave exploration.
Exploration of a cave often begins with decisions around multiple topics (see
Table 3.1). The team leader or guide (researchers role) determines which cave to
explore {context), what to look for {research question) and, once inside, which paths
to take {propositions). These decisions are not arbitrary. Rather, explorers make
decisions based on the perceived value of the exploration and justification for the trip
{approach and rationale). Additionally, the leader selects team members {research
population) to help with the expedition. Based on prior experiences {pilot studies),
the leader selects tools for sample collection {data collection methods). Then, once
inside the cave the leader gathers multiple samples for closer examination {data
collection). Back in the lab, he conducts different tests on the samples and follows
standardized procedures {analysis methods). Based on the evidence and analysis
52


procedures, the leader then draws conclusions (results) and reports them a larger
audience. As the team leader for this exploration, I made these decisions and
describe them in the following sections.
Table 3.1
Questions Addressed in Chapter 3
Topic Questions About the Study
research question What is the exploration purpose?
propositions Which paths are explored?
research context What cave was explored?
approach and rationale Why this method and cave?
researchers role What is the leaders contribution?
pilot studies What happened on prior expeditions?
research population Who are the fellow explorers?
data What samples were collected?
data collection methods How were samples collected?
data management procedures How was integrity of samples preserved?
analysis procedures What tests were performed on samples?
Research Context: What Cave Was Explored?
The cave or environment for exploration was an online graduate-level class
offered at a mid-western university. The 10-week course occurred during the winter
session 2000-2001 as partial requirement for a certificate program on Web-Based
53


Learning Environments (see Appendix I for course site map). This course was 100%
online, meaning that interactions between the instructors and students occurred
totally through the course website and email. The course focused on exploration and
understanding of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. In the course
website, the instructors stated that
This course is a laboratory... and the purpose of our lab is to explore
strategies for teaching online. What strategies should we adapt from other
media? Does teaching online require any brand new strategies?... Together,
well examine theories, methods, tools and activities in order to find themes
that we can use in our own educational websites.
Two instructors designed the course, created the instructional website, and
facilitated student learning. In fulfillment of course requirements, students completed
seven assignments (see Appendix E for class assignments) and participated in online
discussions. The assignments included three group projects and four individual tasks.
Twelve students completed the course, seven of whom chose to participate in this
research project.
Approach and Rationale: Whv This Method and Cave?
Two reasons make an embedded-case study design the appropriate one for
this research project. First, the larger case naturally constrains the boundaries of the
mini-cases. This project explores selections of instructional strategies by students
(mini-cases) set within the context of selections of strategies by instructors (larger
case). Originally, the study did not include the instructors as part of the data. But the
54


initial pilot study made it evident that instructional strategies used by an instructor as
well as the assignment, influence the nature of students instructional websites and
therefore needed to be included. Second, the sizes of analysis units are not equal in
physical and conceptual size. Instructional websites created by students averaged 11
pages in size with 17 external links. These numbers compared with 30 web pages
and 121 external links in the course website. Therefore, conceptually, the larger case
included the student mini-cases.
Five features make this cave exploration appropriate, unique, and interesting.
First, this research examines phenomena within a real-life context thereby adding to
its strength (Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989). To begin with, the course was an authentic
online coursethe phenomena being studied. This online course emphasized
exploring, understanding, and designing web-based instruction As part of the
course, instructors and students designed instructional websites and selected
instructional strategies.
The second feature was the medium for data collection I collected all data
online. This made it feasible for students outside the area (the instructors city of
residence) to participate in this research. In fact, the student group included someone
(
from another state as well as someone from another country. A research website (see
Appendix L for an overview) provided details about the study and informed
participants of their role. I used online forms to obtain permission for participation
(see Appendix M) and collect individual survey data (see Appendices K and N).
55


The third feature was the variety of evidence collected through surveys, email
interviews, and documents. Thus multiple sources led to the studys conclusions
(Cresswell, 1998; Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989) and offered different views of the student
mini-cases and larger case.
The fourth feature was the size of the research population and analysis units.
Although an embedded-case study is not as in-depth as a traditional case study, the
mini-cases add significant opportunities for multiple levels of analysis and insights
into the larger case (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). Enough mini-cases (seven
students) support analysis of data across cases but not so many that the amount of
data overwhelmed me.
The concluding feature was that the course website and student instructional
modules were independent of any technical framework other than the Internet. This
meant that the structures of the web-based modules developed by participants were
independent of preconceived or artificial structures, such as Blackboard and
eCollege, and dependent on participants own notions of structure.
Researchers Role: What Was the Leaders
Contribution?
As the team leader for this study, I came with my own learning experiences,
knowledge of distance education, technical knowledge, and skills that influence the
56


research design, population selection, data collection methods, and interpretation.
However, throughout the research, different strategies help temper biases.
The strongest impact came from committee members who challenged my
initial conceptions and interpretations of the study. Their questioning focused
attention on what I was asking, why I was asking it, and how I interpreted data They
suggested alternative explanations as well as other areas of literature to explore. In a
way, they were outside observers providing objective views of the project, data, and
conclusions.
Literature in the field contributed to the design of this project and
interpretations of data The literature provided tangible and credible focus for the
research question and propositions. Later, continual reference to literature refined
understandings of data and conclusions. Sometimes it validated the findings. At other
times, it offered alternative explanations.
From within the project, the variety of evidence collected provides multiple
views of selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Because data
came from multiple sources, different analysis techniques make sense of it. No single
data source or analysis method leads to the findings. Rather, they were a
consequence of multi-faceted views and interpretations coming together. According
to Cresswell (1998), triangulating data provides corroborating evidence and different
views. These strategies increase the trustworthiness and authenticity of a study
(Cresswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995).
57


The most difficult and potentially subjective aspect of study was
identification of participants selections of instructional strategies. For this reason, an
outside reviewer evaluated two participant websites and identified selections of
strategies. I then compared my identifications with those of the outside reviewer. For
these two participants, I observed a total of 13 different instructional strategies
whereas the outside reviewer identified 16. For the most part, interpretation and
naming of instructional strategies accounted for differences between our
identifications. However, the outside reviewer noted one strategy that I missed in
reviews. I agreed with her observations and added this strategy to the mini-case data.
Peer reviews provide an external check of the analysis process keeping the
researcher honest (Cresswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman,
1995).
To balance potential bias in identification and interpretation of instructional
strategies, the instructors of the course reviewed the list and descriptions of
instructional strategies. I asked the instructors to look for inconsistencies or missing
strategies. According to Marshall and Rossman (1995), this strategy confirms a
researchers observations and increases confidence in the findings.
The final strategy tempering bias involved two pilot studies. Each study
focused on separate populations for different purposes. Based on findings from these
two studies, I revised the research question, propositions, survey instruments, and
underlying design.
58


Pilot Studies: What Happened on Prior Expeditions?
Two pilot studies corroborated the potential value of this exploration and
improved the research design. Each served a different purpose and was with a
separate population. The first pilot group provided feedback on the overall research
design, value of the study, and survey instruments. After I made changes to the
research design and survey instruments, I asked a second pilot group to review the
research website. Since I collected data for this research project totally online, this
second group critiqued the user interface of the research website and offered
suggestions for revising survey items.
Pilot Study #1: Research Design
The first pilot study occurred in the fall of 2000 with a group of 13 students. I
selected this population because I was teaching the class and the students shared
common characteristics with the target research population. The course focused on
facilitating learning through web-based instruction. As an outcome, students
developed web-based instructional modules. This class was dissimilar to the research
population in that the pilot group met face-to-face for 15 weeks rather than online.
The class provided feedback on the overall research design and potential value of the
study.
Toward the end of the course, students in the pilot group took paper copies of
the two survey instruments. Group discussions contributed information about the
59


research process and meaning of data. I compiled and analyzed the survey data. Then
for three students, I combined their mini-case data sets and examined these sets for
relationships between survey data and selections of instructional strategies. Four
findings resulted in changes to the research project.
The finding with the greatest consequence was that the instructor influences
students selections of instructional strategies for their web-based instructional
modules. Hence, the instructors for the research population are included in the study.
This resulted in a change from a multi-case to an embedded-case study design. In
this new design, the students comprised mini-cases embedded within context of the
larger case (instructors). This added value to the study because it examines
instructional strategy selections within the context of an authentic class. The student
mini-cases then contributed to understandings and interpretations of the larger case,
but are not the sole evidence for answering the research question.
This change in design may seem like a small thing. However, in the process
of analysis, I realized that the authenticity of the larger case adds credibility to the
research and begins an honest dialog for answering what influences selections of
instructional strategies in web-based learning environments. Although the student
mini-cases expanded our understandings, their instructional modules were not
authentic learning environments implemented with learner populations and are
treated as such. This simple change in design, from a multi-case to an embedded-
case study, was a paradigm shift for me. I did not appreciate the enormity and
60


implications of this change until I started writing the results. This new design
increased the volume of data and complicated analysis procedures.
Feedback on the two survey instruments was particularly valuable. Timing
was very important. Participants felt both surveys were more meaningful after the
students had designed their web-based instructional modules rather than before. This
pilot group also circled individual survey items that appeared vague, inappropriate,
or unclear. The greatest concern was for the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (see
Appendix A for the original inventory). Some of the inventory items and the scale
seemed better suited for traditional lecture-based classrooms than for web-based
learning environments. I modified both surveys (see Appendices B and P) based on
feedback from this pilot group.
After reviewing the web-based instructional modules developed by students,
I realized that I had difficulty objectively identifying selections of instructional
strategies. As a result, another literature search resulted in a pedagogical assessment
tool called the Taxonomy for Web-Based Learning Environments (WBLE)
(Mioduser et al., 2000; Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren, & Lahav, 1999) (see Appendix
R). Consequently, for this study, I used this taxonomy for a more objective
evaluation of the pedagogical features of the course and students websites.
The final finding was the need for another pilot group. I collected data from
the first pilot group in class through paper copies of the survey instruments and
through discussions. Collecting data online through a technical interface is very
61


different. Therefore, a second pilot group evaluated the user interface of the research
website.
Pilot Study #2: Interface Design
Committee members and selected colleagues (a total of seven people)
comprised the second pilot group. After designing the research website (see
Appendix L), I emailed the URL to the group. They reviewed the website from a
students perspective and answered the following questions: (a) Does it explain the
study well? (b) Are the directions clear and easy to follow? (c) Is it inviting for
students? (d) Are the online surveys easy to take? (e) What would be helpful to add?
(f) Is this sufficient for obtaining permission to participate? The emphasis was more
on the mechanics of collecting data through a technical interface and less on the
research design.
Three suggestions came from this pilot group. First, the consensus was that it
was easy to get lost in cyberspace while using this website. As a result, I
redesigned the research website. The home page became a simplified five-step
process for participating in the research (see Appendix L). Throughout the remainder
of the website, I clarified directions and simplified navigation. Second, I refined
more of the survey items. Finally, the second pilot group determined that the
research website was sufficient for collecting data (see Appendices K and N) and
obtaining participants consent (see Appendix M).
62


Research Population: Who Were the Fellow
Explorers?
The research population included nine participants: seven students and two
instructors. An online course titled Online Instructional Strategies was the research
context. Of the 12 students enrolled in the course, seven participated in the research.
Reasons for non-participation may include lack of time, lack of interest, or an
unwillingness to have an outsider (someone not enrolled in the class) look their
websites. Without more information, it is difficult to determine factors influencing
participation in this research.
Motivation for Population Selection
Five factors motivated selection of this research population. First, the class
was 100% online implemented with a learner population. Since the study was about
instructional strategies in web-based learning environments, it was an authentic
context for addressing the research question and propositions. Second, students
designed instructional websites as one of the course outcomes. These websites were
key evidence for addressing observing selections of instructional strategies for web-
based learning environments. The size of the population (third) was large enough to
allow for combination and analysis of data across cases, and yet, small enough for
data collection and analysis at an individual level. Fourth, the students and
instructors all used the same technology (the Internet) for their web-based
instructional modules. Therefore, differences between selections of instructional
63


strategies among participants occurred for reasons other than choice of technology.
Finally, the instructors were interested in the research topic and willing to
participate.
Instructor Group: Background Information
Two instructors worked collaboratively to design the course, develop the
instructional website, and manage the course. Both women came with considerable
experience in the field of instructional design (over 15 years each) and expertise in
instructional website development. Additionally, one had over 10 years experience
as a teacher. The other reported 15 years experience as a trainer and six years as an
instructor in higher education.
Self-Selection of Student Population
Data collection began with an announcement posted on the course discussion
board inviting all students to take part in the research study. Because of the initial
low response rate (three), personal emails from the instructors and me followed the
announcement posting. As a result, 8 out of 12 students responded. However, one
student did not take the online surveys and was not included in the study.
Consequently, seven students from the class (58%) comprised the student group.
64


Student Group: Background Information
All seven students were enrolled in a graduate-level certificate program for
web-based learning environments or a masters degree program for instructional
designers. There were six females and one male. Four students were classroom
teachers (K-12 setting) and three instructional designers. Reported years of work
experience ranged from 2 to 22 years. Although they had a diverse background in
work experience, all but one considered themselves inexperienced at website
development. All participants indicated that this was their first or second online
class. Reasons for enrolling in the course included convenience, skill building, and
that it was a requirement for their program.
Surveys. Interviews, and Documents:
What Samples Were Collected? When? How? Why?
I used surveys, guided interviews, and document reviews (see Table 3.2) for
data collection. According to Campbell (1997), and LeCompte and Preissle (1993),
collecting data from multiple sources prevents the researcher from accepting their
initial impressions of data and provides multiple views of the phenomena. It
enhances the breadth, scope, and density of data by clarifying initial assumptions
during the course of the research (Cresswell, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993;
Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989). Others point out that multiple sources increase the quality
of the research design (Cresswell, 1998; Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989).
65


Table 3.2
Data Sources and Collection Methods
Data Source Collection Methods Who? Or What?
surveys Approaches to Teaching Inventory research website instructors students
Stages of Concern Instrument research website instructors
students
interviews email guided interviews instructors
students
documents course website printed copies of web pages course web pages:
text copied to Word files course syllabus
assignments
student assignments
student biographies
discussion board archives
student websites printed copies of web pages web pages
text copied to Word files activity pages
Because the surveys referred to the websites developed for assignment
Weeks 7-8, data collection began after students completed their modules but prior to
the last week of class. Thus, data collection began in January 2001 and ended six
weeks later, after the last email interview.
66


Surveys
I used two surveys (see Appendices B and P) in this study. The Approaches
to Teaching Inventory (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997,1999; Prosser et al, 1994;
Trigwell & Prosser, 1991,1996a, 1996b; Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell
et al., 1999) evaluated participants approaches to teaching within the context of
web-based instruction. The Stages of Concern Instrument (Hall, George, &
Rutherford, 1979; Reed, 1990; Takacs, Reed, Wells, & Dombrowski, 1999; Wells &
Anderson, 1997) discriminated between participants internal and external concerns
with web-based instruction.
Three reasons motivated the use of surveys in this study. First, these surveys
allowed me to point the flashlight in a specific direction and examine limited aspects
of the phenomena being studied. According to Krathwohl (1993), use of surveys in
multi-case studies limits the data to one or two perspectives within the context of
potentially large volumes of data. In this case, these two surveys focused attention on
the two research propositions. Second, these surveys came from a review of
literature on selections of instructional strategies and offer possible explanations for
classroom practices. Finally, the use of surveys replaced the need for in-depth
interviews with participants about their beliefs on how teaching and learning takes
place, and their concerns with web-based learning environments.
67


Approaches to Teaching Inventory. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory
developed by Prosser and Trigwell (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993,1997,1999; Prosser et
al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et
al., 1999) measures participants approaches to teaching along two different
dimensions. The dimensions are: Information Transmission/!eacher-Focused and
Conceptual Change/Student-Focused. Educators adopt different approaches to
teaching based on their views of what it means to teach and how learning takes place
(Kember & Gow, 1994; Pratt, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Schubert, 1992). These two
approaches do not represent two ends of the same continuum; rather they are seen as
relatively independent of each other (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997).
Eight questions differentiate between these two approaches and contain the
subscales of intention and strategy. Intentions are motives that define why a person
uses a particular approach, whereas strategies describe what a person does to
implement an approach (Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a; Trigwell et
al., 1999). Below is an example of an intention and strategy item for the Conceptual
Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. (See Appendix B for the inventory
used in this study.)
Intention: I believe that assessment in this web-based instructional module
should be an opportunity for learners to reveal their changed
conceptual understanding of the subject.
Strategy: In designing this web-based instructional module, I built in ways for
learners to discuss their changing understanding of the subject.
68


I selected this inventory for three reasons. First, the inventory data addressed
the first research proposition. Data collected from this inventory differentiated
participants approaches to teaching along two different dimensions. I used these
data as starting points for analysis and interpretation of relationships with selections
of instructional strategies for web-based modules. For example, if a research
participant reported Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused as their primary
approach to teaching then I examined their instructional website text for strategies
that indicate instructors telling facts and information.
Second, Prosser and Trigwell (1993) developed this inventory to evaluate
educators approaches to teaching within a specific context. As a result, conclusions
drawn are specific to selections of instructional strategies for their web-based
modules and not for idealized instructional settings. Because of this specificity, it
was easier describing relationships between approaches and instructional strategies.
This means that conclusions drawn can be generalized to this research population
and the two propositions, but not necessarily to the population at large.
Finally, this inventory evolved out of a long research history (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1993, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, 1996a,
1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999). As far as I know, this was the
first time the Approaches to Teaching Inventory was used for a web-based teaching
context.
69


After the pilot studies, it became evident that I needed to modify the
Approaches to Teaching Inventory to accommodate this research population and
learning environment. In light of this, I made three modifications (see Appendix C).
First, I created an introductory web page for the survey. Because of the
software that I used to create the online surveys, participants were unable to refer
back easily to the introductory paragraph (see Appendix K). Therefore, in the
introduction, I reminded participants that inventory items refer specifically to their
web-based instructional modules (context specific) and not idealized instructional
settings. To each item, I added the phrase, this web-based instructional module,
reminding participants of the teaching context.
Second, I modified some of the inventory items. Prosser and Trigwell (1993,
1997) developed this inventory for faculty in traditional university settings. As such,
some of the inventory items make reference to lectures and class time. These
terms do not translate well to web-based instruction. As a result, while honoring the
intention, strategy, and approach of the authors intent, I changed some of the
inventory items to fit this population and teaching context (see Appendix C for a
side-by-side comparison of the original and modified surveys).
The concluding modification was to the inventory scale. Prosser and Trigwell
(1999) use a scale (1 to 5) representing how often a particular intention or strategy is
true for faculty. Because Prosser and Trigwell use this inventory with educators
teaching traditional semester-long classes with predictable weekly class periods,
70


these measures are more relevant. However, these measures are not as meaningful
for web-based learning environments. Participants in both pilot studies pointed out
this discrepancy. Consequently, I changed the scale of 1 to 5 to indicate participants
agreement with an item. Thus, the scale ranges from strongly disagree to strongly
agree (1 = irrelevant, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Prosser and Trigwell use this inventory in a number of studies (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1993, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b;
Trigwell et al., 1999) and prove it be internally consistent and reliable. The internal
consistency reliabilities for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused and Information
Transmission/Teacher-Focused approaches are .75 and .81 respectively (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1993). However, for this study, since I modified some of the items and the
measurement scale, these results no longer apply.
The Approaches to Teaching Inventory developed by Prosser and Trigwell
(Prosser & Trigwell, 1993,1997; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a;
Trigwell et al., 1994) measures participants approaches to teaching along two
different dimensions and contain subscales of intention and strategy. For the
modified inventory, the reliability measures were .78 (Conceptual Change/Student-
Focused) and -.09 (Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused). The -.09 for the
Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach indicated a need for additional
analysis of participant data.
71


To understand more about the inventory results, I calculated correlations
between factors. From these tables, I identified three factors that were negatively
correlated to other factors in their subscales. The three factors are items 1, 2, and 14
(see Appendix B). I removed these items and used the Cronbach reliability model to
recalculate reliabilities for these dimensions and subscales. As evident from Table
3.3, removing items 1, 2, and 14 improved the alpha coefficients for these measures.
Table 3.3
Reliability Measures for Approaches to Teaching Data
Approaches to Teaching Inventory Adjusted Approaches to Teaching Inventory
items alpha items alpha
Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused 3/ 5/ 6, 8, 9/ 13, 14, 16 .78 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16 .86
intention 5, 8, 14, 16 .17 5, 8, 16 .57
strategy 3, 6, 9, 13 .84 3, 6, 9, 13 .84
Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15 -.09 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15 .32
intention 2, 4, 11, 12 -.36 4, 11, 12 .49
strategy 1, 7, 10, 15 .36 7, 10, 15 .65
72


Items 1 and 2 were for the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach for
the subscales strategy and intention respectively. Item 14 represents one factor in the
intention subscale for the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach.
Five possible explanations for the negative correlations among factors are (a)
lack of fit with a web-based teaching context, (b) lack of fit with the dimension and
subscales, (c) small research population, (d) poorly worded or constructed items, and
(e) inappropriate rating scale.
First, as an example for lack of fit with web-based instruction, Item 14 from
the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused dimension and intention subscale states that
In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to
generate their own notes rather than supplying them with mine (see Table 3.4). This
item makes reference to student note taking, a behavior consistent with traditional
classroom situations where the instructor lectures and students take notes on what is
heard. This student behavior may not apply to a web-based teaching context.
The second reason for negative correlations is lack of fit with the dimension
and subscales. Item (14) provides an example of this explanation. The other three
items in the intention subscale refer to requiring learners to reveal changed
understandings, encouraging learners to restructure knowledge, and questioning
learners ideas. The focus is on challenging learners to reevaluate what they know
and understand about a subject. Student note taking may not correlate with the other
three subscale items.
73


Table 3.4
Items for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused Dimension Organized by Subsca/es
Item Intention Subscale
5 I believe that assessment in this Web-based instructional module should be an
opportunity for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject.
8 In designing this Web-based instruction module, I encouraged learners to restructure
their existing knowledge in toms of the new way of thinking about the subject.
14 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to generate
their own notes rather than supplying them with mine.
16 In this Web-based instructional module, I built in opportunities to question learners
ideas.
Item Strategy Subscale
3 In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop a conversation with learners
about the topics being studied.
6 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important for students to discuss,
among themselves, the difficulties that they may encounter studying this subject.
9 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I used difficult or undefined
examples to provoke debate.
13 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I built in ways for learners to
discuss their changing understanding of the subject.
For the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach, Items 1 and 2
(see Table 3.5) also demonstrate a possible lack of fit within the dimension and
subscales. Item 2 (intention subscale) states that In this Web-based instructional
module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be completely described in
terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to know. The other three
factors for the intention subscale emphasize presenting facts, providing detailed
74


information, and knowing answers to questions posed by learners. Objectives may
not relate to knowing and presenting facts. As another example, Item 1 (strategy
subscale) states that I designed this Web-based instructional module with the
assumption that most of the learners have very little useful knowledge of what is
being covered. The other three factors in the strategy subscale emphasize covering
Table 3.5
Items for Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused Dimension Organized by
Subscales
Item Intention Subscale
2 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be
completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to know.
4 I believe it is important to present a lot of facts in this Web-based instructional module so
that learners know what they have to learn about this subject
11 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important to provide learners with
complete and detailed information about the subject.
12 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that I should know the answers to
questions that learners may put to me.
Item Strategy Subscale
1 I designed this Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the
learners have very little useful knowledge of what is being covered.
7 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I concentrated on covering the
information that might be available from a good textbook.
10 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I structured it to help learners to pass
formal assessment items.
15 When I designed this Web-based instructional module, I only provided learners with the
information they might need to pass a formal assessment.
75


information from a textbook and helping students pass formal assessments.
Assuming learners have little knowledge may not relate well to these other three
items.
The third reason is that the size of the research population was very small (n
= 9). As such, analysis and data interpretations should be viewed with extreme
caution. The results of this small group of educators may be representative of the
general population of educators or a biased sample group. Without additional studies
with larger populations specific to this teaching context, the quality of the modified
inventory and the reliability of the dimensions and subscales cannot be determined
confidently.
Another reason (four) for these results is that the items may be poorly worded
or inaccurately translated from the original Approaches to Teaching inventory.
Although I modified items trying to honor the intention, strategy, and teaching
approach, these modifications may not represent an accurate interpretation of
Prossers and Trigwells notions.
Finally, I modified the participant rating scale. Although I used a scale of 1 to
5 (the same as Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), I modified their descriptions for each
number. Prosser and Trigwell use a scale (1 to 5) representing how often a particular
intention or strategy is true for faculty. I changed the scale of 1 to 5 to indicate
participants agreement with an item. Thus, the modified scale ranges from strongly
disagree to strongly agree (1 = irrelevant, 2 strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4
76


agree, 5 = strongly agree). This new scale for interpreting approaches to teaching
may not accurately measure participants approaches to teaching.
Nevertheless, given that this was an initial exploration of relationships
between approaches to teaching and selections strategies, I decided that it was a
useful tool for this research project with the following two restrictions. First, I
removed three factors (Items 1,2,14) from the calculations. I made this decision
because the reliability of the inventory improved when I removed them and the items
did not intuitively fit within their dimensions and subscales. I recalculated
participants reported approaches to teaching based on 13 rather than 16 items. It was
interesting to note that in the original analysis of approaches to teaching data (all 16
items), participants separated into two groups. Removing these three items and
recalculating participants approaches to teaching had no effect on these groupings.
Second, I did not rely totally on numeric scores to describe participants approaches
to teaching. In the analysis and interpretation of data, I used text from each item to
compare with selections of strategies.
Stages of Concern Instrument. An online version of the Stages of Concern
Instrument (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Wells & Anderson, 1997) (see
Appendices N for the online version, O for the original instrument, and P for the
modified version) collected data from participants about their concerns with web-
based instruction. This 35-item survey was a modified version of the instrument
77


developed by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1979). I used the survey to determine
participants current concerns for seven different stages and divide their concerns
into internal and external concerns (see Table 3.6). Four stages (awareness,
informational, personal, management) represent internal concerns where the focus is
on how the innovation affects them personally. The other three describe external
stages (consequence, collaboration refocusing) where the focus is on how the
innovation affects others.
Table 3.6
Seven Stages of Concern
Concern Stage Description
external 6refocusing interested or involved in exploring other innovations
5collaboration interested in sharing innovation with others through discussions, and encouraging others to try it out
Aconsequence concerned with impact innovation may have on their immediate sphere of influence, such as students and colleagues
internal 3management focused on personal management strategies for using innovation, such how to use it efficiently
2personal concerned with how innovation affects them personally and whether they are able to meet those needs
1informational interested in learning details about the innovation such as general characteristics, requirements for use, and purpose
0awareness unconcerned with or uninterested in the innovation
78


I selected this inventory for two reasons. First, the inventory data addressed
the second research proposition. A unique feature of this inventory is the ability to
measure attitudes of those involved with an innovation and differentiate between
internal and external concerns. These data were starting points for addressing the
second proposition, namely that a relationship exists between concerns and
selections of instructional strategies. For example, if a participant scored high on
internal concerns, then I examined their mini-case data for confirming evidence.
Second, this inventory evolved out of a long research history (Anderson &
Harris, 1995; Hall et al., 1979; Reed, 1990; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Other studies
use the Stages of Concern Instrument with web-based instruction to measure
students change in concerns over time (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Wells &
Anderson, 1997). For this study, I used the instrument to evaluate educators current
concerns with web-based instruction.
I made few modifications to the Stages of Concern Instrument (see Appendix
P). As a research vehicle, this survey can be used for any innovation where the
researcher wants to measure the attitudes of participants involved with an innovation.
The only requirement is the replacement of the word innovation for the specific
technology being explored, in this case web-based instruction (Hall et al., 1979;
Reed, 1990; Takacs et al., 1999; Wells & Anderson, 1997). As an example of
modifications, I changed the statement:
79


Full Text

PAGE 1

WHAT INFLUENCES SELECTIONS OF INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES FOR WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION? RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN APPROACHES TO TEACHING, CONCERNS WITH TECHNOLOGY, AND SELECTIONS OF STRATEGIES by Victoria Lynn Wood B.S., University ofNorth Dakota, 1987 M.S., Arizona State University, 1990 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation Spring 2002

PAGE 2

by Victoria Lynn Wood All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Victoria Lynn Wood has been approved by R. Scott Grabinger RodneyMuth

PAGE 4

Wood, Victoria Lynn (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) What Influences Selections oflnstructional Strategies for Web-Based Instruction? Relationships Between Approaches to Teaching, Concerns with Technology, and Selections of Strategies Thesis directed by Associate Professor R Scott Grabinger ABSTRACT This project provides an initial exploration into educators' selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction I set out to answer the general question, "What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction?" I chose two views by asking whether educators' beliefs about teaching and learning influence practices in distance-learning classrooms or whether the technology is central to educators' choices. Using an embedded-case study design, I examined eight cases (seven mini-cases and one larger case) of online instruction. I collected data from educators and instructional designers through an online research website. These data came from surveys, interviews, and documents. Survey data described participants' approaches to teaching and their concerns with web-based instruction. I compared these data with their selections of instructional strategies for web-based modules. I found that participants' assumed three roles in their websites that describe their selections of instructional strategies. IV

PAGE 5

These roles are Facilitator, Guide, and Leader. Educators' beliefs, as expressed by teaching approaches, strongly related to their selections of strategies for web-based instruction, whereas technology, as expressed by concerns with web-based instruction, did not. Findings indicated that teaching conceptions, teaching experience, type of technology, and instructor behaviors influenced participants' selections of instructional strategies. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed v

PAGE 6

DEDICATION This research is dedicated to my God, my family, and those with a passion for teaching, learning, and technology.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Life is full of relationships. Some relationships are very strong, last a lifetime, and provide foundations for life. Others are conceived out of needs, similar interests, or common goals. I am blessed with an abundance of connections that sustained me throughout this project. My husband, Jefl: is foundational to my life. Without his encouragement and support I would not have had the courage to continue working against challenging circumstances. He is my finishing editor, encourager, and sounding board. Through him I am blessed with three children, Michael, Bryan, and Bobby. I appreciate their patience with this process especially when there seemed to be no end in sight. They taught me valuable life lessons for which I am eternally gratefuL Michael taught me how precious life is and that time is too short to waste. Bryan demonstrated courage in facing difficult challenges. And Bobby, showed faithfulness in staying with tasks that are at times overwhelming. I feel centered and whole because of my family .. Within the academic community, I found different types of support. The committee members were an invaluable resource of encouragement and challenging ideas. Along the way, I joined a writing class who collectively

PAGE 8

provided editorial comments, helped me strategize ways to complete the research, and gave an objective view of data. Finally, I would like to thank the instructors and students who willingly participated in this research by allowing an outsider to look over their shoulders. I am blessed by a group of wonderful friends who prayed for me and faithfully encouraged me. They were willing to listen to my ramblings about which they understood little. As I look back, I realize that I am here because of these friendships. With my continued gratitude ... ... Vickey

PAGE 9

CONTENTS F . .. tgures ........................................................................ .......................... xvn1 Tables ......................................................................... ............................. xx CHAPTER 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................... Problem Description ........................................................................ 3 Faculty's Response to Technology ...................................... 5 Faculty Challenged by Technology ...................................... 7 Example oflnstructional Strategies for Distance Learning . 8 Conceptual Framework ......................... ......................................... 9 Propositions .................................................................................. 11 Research Project Description ......................................................... 13 Research Question and Propositions ................................... 13 Embedded-Case Study ....................................................... 15 Research Context and Population ....................................... l5 Data Collection Methods ................................................... 17 Data Analysis Methods ...................................................... 17 Benefits of Study ........................................................................... 19 IX

PAGE 10

Limitations of Study ............................... ...................................... 19 Conclusion .................................................................................... 20 2. REVIEW OF LITERATUR . ...................... ....................................... 21 Distance Educators' Instructional Design Activities ...................... 21 Learn the Technology ........................................................ 23 Determine the Content .................................................... ... 24 Design Learning Activities ........ ............. ............ ......... ... 25 Determine Student Assessments ......................................... 27 Factors Influencing Selections oflnstructional Strategies .............. 28 Teaching and Learning Needs ....................................................... 29 Teaching Context ........ ..................................... ............ ... 30 Teaching Experience ................. ........................ ............... 31 Learning Needs .................................................................. 32 Teaching Conceptions ................ ...................... ................ 33 Technology Needs ................... ..................................................... 41 Type of Technology ..... ..................................................... 42 Support ............... .............................................................. 43 Experience and Skill ............................. ............ ............... 44 Concerns with Technology .................... ............. ..... .... ... 46 Summary ....................................................................................... 48 X

PAGE 11

3. RESEARCHMETHODS ...................................................................... 49 Embedded-Case Study Design ....................................................... 51 Research Context: What Cave Was Explored? ................... 53 Approach and Rationale: Why This Method and Cave? ..... 54 Researcher's Role: What Was the Leader's Contribution? ............. 56 Pilot Studies: What Happened on Prior Expeditions? ..................... 59 Pilot Study #I: Research Design ........................................ 59 Pilot Study #2: Interface Design ......................................... 62 Research Population: Who Were the Fellow Explorers? ................ 63 Motivation for Population Selection ................................... 63 Instructor Group: Background Information ........................ 64 Self-Selection of Student Population .................................. 64 Student Group: Background Information ........................... 65 Surveys, Interviews, and Documents: What Samples Were Collected? When? How? Why? ..................................................... 65 Surveys .............................................................................. 67 Approaches to Teaching Inventory ......................... 68 Stages of Concern Instrument.. ............................... 77 Interviews .......................................................................... 80 Docwnents ......................................................................... 81 Course Website ...... ........... ................................... 82 XI

PAGE 12

Student Websites .................................................... 83 Data Collection Summary .................................................. 84 Data Management Procedures: How Was Integrity of the Satnples Preserved? ....................................................................... 85 Analysis Procedures: What Tests Were Performed on the Samples? ....................................................................................... 85 Level 1: Individual Student Mini-Cases ............................. 87 Step 1 ..................................................................... 87 Step 2 ..................................................................... 92 Step 3 ..................................................................... 92 Level2: Across Student Mini-Cases .................................. 93 Step 1 ..................................................................... 94 Step 2 ..................................................................... 99 Level 3: Mini-Cases Within Larger Case Context ............ 100 Step 1 ................................................................... 100 Step 2 ................................................................... 100 Step 3 ................................................................... 102 Limitations .................................................................................. 1 03 Summary ..................................................................................... 1 05 4. STUDENT MINI-CASE FINDINGS .................................................. 1 06 Student Mini-Case Grouping ....................................................... 1 07 Facilitators .................................................................................. 1 09 Xll

PAGE 13

Jane's Website Features .... ...................... ........... ..... ..... 110 Sue s Website Features .................................................... 115 Guides ....... ................ ........... ...... ..................... ..... ..... ........... 119 Lisa s Website Features ........................... ....................... 120 Mark's Website Features ..................................... ..... ..... 123 Rose's Website Features .................................................. 125 Leaders .......... .... . .... ... ... .... ....... .... .................... ...... ............... . 128 Ann's Website Features ................................................... 128 Beth's Website Features ... .................. ......... ................... 132 Summary of Student Groups .......................... ........ ................... 135 Relationships Between Selections of Instructional Strategies and Approaches to Teaching ... ................ ......................................... 137 Facilitators: Selections and Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused Teaching Approach .................. ... .......... 139 Guides: Selections and Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused Teaching Approach ....................... ...... 142 Leaders: Selections and Teaching Approaches ................. 144 Summary of Strategies and Approaches .............. ........... 148 Relationships Between Selections oflnstructional Strategies and Concerns with Web-Based Instruction ........... .......... .................. 149 Collaboration and External Concerns .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. 152 Information and Internal Concems ................................... 153 Summary of Strategies and Concerns ........ ... . .. . ............ 154 Xlll

PAGE 14

Summary of Student Mini-Case Findings .................................... 155 5. LARGER AND MINI-CASE FINDINGS ........................................... 159 Larger Case ................................................................................. 160 Course Features ............................................................... 160 Course Introduction ......................................................... 163 Lessons ............................................................................ 165 Learning Activities .......................................................... 166 Instructors: Selections and Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused Teaching Approach ............................... 170 Instructors: Selections and External Concerns With Web-Based Instruction ..................................................... 173 Integrating Larger and Student Mini-Case Data ........................... 175 Discussion ................................................................................... 182 Approaches to Teaching Inventory ................................... 182 Stages of Concern Instrument .......................................... 185 Experience and Skill ........................................................ 186 Summary ..................................................................................... 188 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 189 Teaching and Learning Needs ..................................................... 192 Technology Needs ........................................... ........................... 194 Summary ofFindings .................................................................. 196 Contributions to the Field ............................................................ 197 XIV

PAGE 15

Further Research ................. ....................................................... 199 Implications ............................................................................... 202 Conclusion .............. ........... ....................................................... 209 XV

PAGE 16

APPENDIX A APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (ORIGINAL) ........ 211 B. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (MODIFIED) ........ 216 C. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (ORIGINAL AND MODIFIED) ......... ......................................... ... 219 D. APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (KEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION) .......... ................................. 221 E. COURSE WEBSITE-ASSIGNMENT CALENDAR ...................... 224 F. COURSE WEBSITEASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 8 ... 225 G. COURSE WEBSITE-ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 10. 226 H. COURSE WEBSITEDISCUSSION BOARD EXAMPLE ............. 227 I. COURSE WEBSITESITE MAP ................................................... 228 J. EMAIL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................. 229 K. RESEARCH WEBSITEAPPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY ................................................................................... 230 L. RESEARCH WEBSITEOVERVIEW ........................................... 231 M. RESEARCH WEBSITE-PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ........ 232 N. RESEARCH WEBSITESTAGE OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT ................................................................................. 233 0. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (ORIGINAL) .................. 234 P. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (MODIFIED) .................. 238 Q. STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENTKEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION ....................... ..... ................ 241 XVI

PAGE 17

R. TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES ............................. 245 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 251 xvii

PAGE 18

FIGURES Figure 1.1 Faculty selecting instructional strategies ....................................................... 5 1.2 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies ............................. 1 0 1.3 Two research propositions ........................................................................... 14 2.1 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies ............................. 28 3.1 Cave exploration ......................................................................................... 52 3.2 Embedded-case study analysis process ........................................................ 86 4.1 Jane's website screen shot ......................................................................... 112 4.2 Sue's website screen shot .......................................................................... 115 4.3 Lisa's website screen shot ......................................................................... 121 4.4 Mark's website screen shot ....................................................................... 123 4.5 Rose's website screen shot ........................................................................ 126 4.6 Ann's website screen shot ......................................................................... 130 4.7 Beth's website screen shot ........................................................................ 133 4.8 Group selections of challenging instructional strategies and survey data .... 156 4.9 Group selections of guiding instructional strategies and survey data .......... 157 5.1 Course website screen shot ...................................................................... . 162 xviii

PAGE 19

5.2 Larger and mini-case selections of challenging instructional strategies and survey data .......... ...... ................................. .. .................................... .. 178 5.3 Larger and mini-case selections of guiding instructional strategies and survey data ......................................................................................... 181 6.1 Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies ............................ 191 xix

PAGE 20

TABLES Table 2.1 Research on Conceptions ofTeaching ............. .............................. ............. 35 3.1 Questions Addressed in Chapter 3 ................................................................ 53 3 2 Data Sources and Collection Methods ............. ...................................... ..... 66 3.3 Reliability Measures for Approaches to Teaching Data ................................ 72 3.4 Items for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused Dimension Organized by Subscales ............... ........ .... ..................................................................... 74 3 5 Items for Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused Dimension Organized by Subscales .................. ............................................................ 7 5 3 .6 Seven Stages ofConcem ......... .................................................................... 78 3. 7 Motivation for Data Collection .................................................................... 84 3.8 Levell: Data and Analysis Procedures for Individual Student Mini-Cases ... 88 3 9 Taxonomy ofWeb-Based Learning Environments (WBLE), Dimensions and Descriptions ......................................................... ............. 90 3.10 Level2: Analysis Procedures Across Student Mini-Cases ............................ 93 3.11 Researchers' Criteria for Organizing Instructional Strategies . ..................... 95 3.12 Characteristics of Challenging and Guiding Instructional Strategies ... . . ... . 99 3.13 Level3: Analysis Procedures for Mini-Cases Within Context ofLarger Case ................. ....................... ..................... ........................... 101 XX

PAGE 21

4.1 Features Describing Student Mini-Case Groups . ........ ... . ....... ......... ... .... I 08 4.2 Facilitators: Jane's and Sue's Website Features .......................................... III 4.3 Guides: Lisa's, Mark's, and Rose's Website Features ....................... ....... 119 4.4 Leaders: Ann's and Beth's Website Features ............................................. 129 4.5 Group Selections of Strategies and Approaches to Teaching Data ..... ........ l38 4.6 Facilitators' Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data ............ l41 4.7 Guides' Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data ........... ...... 143 4.8 Leaders' Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data ................. 145 4.9 Group Selections ofStrategies and Stages of Concern Data ....................... 150 4.10 Individual Student Stages of Concern Data ................................................ 151 5.1 Features Describing Course Website .......................................................... 161 5.2 Student Assignments and Course Evaluations ............................................ 165 5.3 Instructors: Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data .......................... l70 5.4 Instructors' Stages of Concern Data .... ...................... .. ..... ............ .. .. . .... l73 6.1 Factors Influencing Selections oflnstructional Strategies ........................... 197 xxi

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM For years, we have read about the promise oftechnology in instruction. Many practitioners maintain that using technology in educational settings transforms pedagogical practices (Brooks, 1997; Coburn & Treeger, 1997; Dwyer, Ringstafl: & Sandholtz, 1991; Heflich, 1997; Schrum & Berenfeld, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994). Others join the dialog and advocate that technology is increasing the pace of this transformation (Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999) by challenging educators' pedagogical beliefs and attitudes about learning (Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Dwyer et al., 1991). The consequence is learner-centered rather than lecture based instruction (Heflich, 1997; Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Stuhlmann, 1994). According to some, quality distant-learning experiences result from matching the "right" technology with a specific discipline (Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995). From this perspective, using technology leads to transformed instructional practices and quality student learning experiences. Others point out that the potential of technology does not easily transfer into educational practices (Barrett, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Geoghegan, 1994; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Means, 1994) 1

PAGE 23

According to many researchers instructional strategies are the most important contributor to the quality oftechnology-based learning (Ahem & Repman, 1994; Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Blanton, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 1994; Phipps, Wellman, & Merisotis, 1998; Zhao, 1998) It is teachers beliefs about teaching and learning that lead to selections of instructional strategies in technology-based learning contexts (Ndahi, 1999; Webster & Hackley, 1997) Evidence suggests that technology reveals and extends practices rather than transforming them (Means, 1994; Miller & Olson, 1994; Ndahi, 1999; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998) The idea is that those who teach well continue to do so through a technical interface, whereas those who teach poorly also continue their practices in technology-based environments. Some educators point out that it is possible to use distance-learning technology for lecture-based and test-giving instruction (Gillespie, 1998; Wolcott, 1993), strategies that promote shallow or surface learning (Detterman, 1993; Nickerson, 1995; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). Given these two views of influence and practice in distance-learning environments, this study examines selections of instructional strategies It asks, do educators' beliefs about teaching and learning influence practices in distance learning classrooms or is technology central to educators' choices and selections of instructional strategies? 2

PAGE 24

Using an embedded-case study design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989), I examined eight cases (seven mini-cases and one larger case) of online instruction. I collected data from educators and instructional designers through an online research website. These data came from surveys, interviews, and documents. Survey data described participants' approaches to teaching and their concerns with web-based instruction. I compared these data with their selections of instructional strategies for web-based modules. The purpose was a better understanding of what influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Problem Description The growth in distance learning presents an exciting, interesting, and often challenging opportunity for educators. It is exciting because experience and success with distance learning have convinced even some of the more reluctant educators that meaningful learning can occur with a separation of teacher and student. It is interesting because technology changes daily as new and more powerful capabilities are introduced. It is challenging because skilled faculty who know how to create meaningful student learning experiences in traditional settings may be challenged implementing similar designs through technology (Brand, 1998; Heflich, 1997; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). At an institutional level within the United States, distance learning is growing rapidly as a supplement and/or replacement for more traditional programs (Challis, 3

PAGE 25

1998; Curtin, 1999; Lewis, Alexander, Farris, & Greene, 1997; Phipps et al., 1998). Although distance learning has been around for more than 100 years, recent changes in technology have facilitated considerable and fast growth in this field. In an effort to remain competitive, many institutions feel pressure to offer online classes but find themselves ill equipped to meet the growing demand (Meyen, Tagan, & Lian, 1999; Schrum, 1998). Reasons for this include lack of technical expertise, inadequate infrastructure, lack of administrative support, and ill-prepared faculty (Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Meyen et al., 1999; Ndabi, 1999; Schrum, 1998). Green (1999) describes the problem of ill-prepared faculty in his recent report on InformationTechnology needs in college and university settings. He reports, "assisting faculty efforts 'to integrate technology into instruction' remains the single most important information technology (IT) challenge confronting American colleges and universities" (p. 3). Two-fifths (39%) of the institutions surveyed identified technology integration by faculty in instruction as their most significant challenge. The development of distance-learning courses is neither simple nor intuitive (Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996). Skilled faculty who know how to design learning experiences in traditional settings may have difficulty implementing a similar design through technology (Brand, 1998; Heflicb, 1997; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Ndabi, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). During the design process faculty 4

PAGE 26

may experience tensions between knowing how learning occurs and knowing how to make it happen in a technological environment (Barrett, 1998; Boling & Robinson, 1999; Heflich, 1997). Barrett (1998) concludes that these tensions are a result of competing values ofteaching and learning versus technology (see Figure 1.1). Barrett goes on to stay ''that resolving the tensions that exist between process needs and those of technology represents a major task for distance educators and one that is ongoing in nature" (p. 82). Figure 1.1. Faculty selecting instructional strategies. teaching & learning needs selections of instructional strategies Faculty's Res_ponse to Technology technology needs According to Bebko ( 1998), "faculty members are not of one mind about technology and distance education. They fall into two categories, those who are 5

PAGE 27

alarmed and those who are encouraged" (p. 11). Those who are alarmed cite multiple reasons for their discomfort, including hardware and software problems (Dillon & Walsh, 1992), lack oftime (Dillon & Walsh, 1992), lack of support (Clark, 1993), lack of skills (Ndahi, 1999), lack of experience (Ndahi, 1999; Wiske et al., 1988), and love for the traditional classroom (Breivik, 1998). Those who are encouraged are interested in learning about new technologies (Bebko, 1998; Moskal, Martin, & Foshee, 1997) and believe that both faculty and students benefit from using distance-learning technology (Ndahi, 1999). Individually, faculty value development of their own technical skills as well as increased access to educational resources worldwide through data, voice, and video (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Froke, 1995; Schrum, 1998). Faculty also perceive three benefits for students. First, they believe that distance-learning technologies provide students greater access to each other and to rich, diverse sources of information (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). Second, faculty view technology as a tool that supports superior forms of learning and problem solving (Bebko, 1998; Means, 1994). Finally, faculty believe that students who are skilled technology users are more marketable in the workplace (Bebko, 1998; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Porter, 1997; Schrum, 1996). 6

PAGE 28

Faculty Challenged by Technology Although faculty are motivated and interested in using technology for instruction, they are often frustrated with the implementation. Frustration can occur because oflack of experience and an inability to visualize use oftechnology in the teaching-learning relationship (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Zhao, 1998). Educators lack experience both as students and as teachers in distance-learning environments. Their knowledge base and professional skills were primarily acquired in traditional face-to-face classrooms. Because they lack experience, they may have difficulty strategizing use of technology in their own classrooms (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993; Nickerson, 1995; Reiser & Salisbury, 1991; Vickers & Smalley, 1995). As a result, some faculty end up using "new'' technologies in "old" ways, such as using the Internet for text-based lectures, reading assignments, and student testing (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Wolcott, 1993; Zhao, 1998). Others, challenged by the process, choose to reexamine their notions of the teaching-learning relationship and redesign their courses for technical learning environments (Barrett, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Stnhlmann, 1994; Zhao, 1998). Still others, concerned about their own lack of teaching and-or technical skills, avoid the challenge altogether and continue with their traditional classroom practices (Ndahi, 1999). 7

PAGE 29

Example oflnstructional Strategies for Distance Learning The selections of instructional strategies for distance-learning courses are different from strategy selections for traditional face-to-face courses and worthy of exploration (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn, 1999). The following example illuminates differences between these two environments. Class time is often a starting point in the instructional design process. For instance, a one-hour class that meets three times a week for 15 weeks has, effectively, 45 to 50 minutes of class time each session. Faculty design learning activities around this schedule. They keep group projects small to fit the time frame. This same class delivered over three long weekends requires a different design. Faculty, concerned about engaging and motivating students during these long class days, may vary activities and design more complex group projects. Thus, class time affects the design in terms of selections of instructional strategies. In contrast, class time has a different meaning for a distance-learning course. As one teacher put it (Stevens, personal communication, October, 1998): I no longer know where to start with a course. I used to start with class time, the number of sessions, and then design the course around it. Ifl had a four hour class session, I made sure the students did most of the talking. I would present some information, have students engage in a small-group activity forcing them to make sense out of what was presented, and then bring the groups together to share what they had learned. The number of activities designed was based on the number of class sessions. This doesn't make sense in a distance-learning course. I'm having difficulty even knowing where to start. 8

PAGE 30

Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) described how class time affected their design of a graduate-level distance-learning course on analyzing social prejudice: In planning this unit, for example, we had envisioned a 3-hr lecture equivalent. Instead, the original course was disassembled, new connections appeared, other possible directions of how to use the material emerged, and the result became an open-ended set of lessons that can take a short time, a whole semester, or a lifetime. (p. 12) Although Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) started with class time, the use ofthe Internet challenged their original conceptions and influenced the course design. As a result, they reevaluated what they were trying to teach, what students needed to learn, and how technology could help the process. Consequently, they began with descriptions of learner outcomes. Then, Hirumi and Bermudez planned student activities and interactions around those outcomes and goals. The result was an openended set of modules delivered over the Internet. Conceptual Framework Of the distance-learning research reviewed, many studies emphasize the importance of instructional design and selections of strategies (Ahern & Repman, 1994; Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Blanton, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Heflich, 1997 ; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998; Zhao, 1998). For instance, Ahern and Repman (1994) compare two different technologies for course delivery (two-way video-audio and computer-mediated communication) and fmd both useful for learning. They conclude that quality-learning experiences are more 9

PAGE 31

dependent on selections of instructional strategies than on the type of technology used. He:tlich (1997) arrive at the same conclusion in his research on attitudes and practices of educators in online educational discussion groups. He asserts that "it is not the technology that is important; rather, it is the learning environment it helps to engender that is significant" (p. iv). Research with educators in distance-education settings and traditional face-toface classrooms reveal eight major factors (see Figure 1.2) influencing selections of instructional strategies Logically, these factors organize under the headings of teaching and learning needs, and technology needs and include (a) teaching context, Figure 1.2. Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies. teaching & learning needs technology needs teaching experience support teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill teaching conceptions selections of instructional strategies 10 concerns with technology

PAGE 32

(b) teaching experience, (c) learning needs, (d) teaching conceptions, (e) type of technology, (f) support, (h) experience and skill, and (i) concerns with technology. Depending on the educator, one or more factors may influence the design more than others. Chapter 2 elaborates on these factors and presents evidence for their influences. Propositions From the eight factors influencing selections of instructional strategies, I chose two as possible explanations for selections of strategies in online environments. These two factors are the research propositions that limit the study. (Note: According to Yin (1989), a proposition is a hypothesis that constrains what is being studied and helps the researcher focus on certain data while ignoring others. I used these propositions to design details of the study including decisions about what data to collect, what to analyze, and how to interpret emerging understandings.) The first proposition emerged from research on teachers' conceptions of teaching and their practices in traditional classrooms (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999). Research suggests that teachers' beliefs about what it means to teach influences the variety of instructional strategies engaging students in learning. For example, Singer's (1996) study of 443 faculty reveal an "explicit connection between the espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty and the instructional behaviors they use in their 11

PAGE 33

teaching practice" (p 675). As an illustration, faculty valuing a student-centered teaching paradigm emphasized peer interaction and student involvement as instructional strategies (Singer). The second proposition centers on educators' beliefs about technology According to literature, educators concerns with an innovation influences how it is used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Those who are new to an innovation have internal concerns with the technology. They are concerned with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects them personally. As knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows, concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others. Based on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how the innovation is used in educational environments (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells & Anderson, 1997). For example, in a longitudinal study oftechnology integration in traditional classrooms, Dwyer, Ringstafl: and Standholtz (1991) find that teachers inexperienced with technology concern themselves with classroom discipline and resource management issues (internal concerns). Instructional strategies include use of computers for drill-and-practice as well as individualized seatwork. As their experience and mastery oftechnology increases, concerns change from managing the classroom to exploring new ways for facilitating student learning (external concerns). Instructional strategies include collaborative group work, childrather than curriculum-centered strategies, and active student tasks (Dwyer et al 1991). 12

PAGE 34

Essentially, this is an exploratory study that examines distance-learning practices from an educators' perspective. The emphasis is on what influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Two research propositions focus attention on educators' conceptions ofteaching, concerns with technology, and explore relationships with selections of instructional strategies. Research Project Description From the earlier example, class time and technology both influence selections of instructional strategies for Hirumi and Bermudez (1996). However, this information leads to interesting questions, such as, which has more influence over selections of instructional strategies--teaching and learning needs or technology? If the answer is, "it depends," then what does it depend on? For any given type of technology, are some strategies selected more consistently than others? If so, which ones and why? What lessons can be learned about instructional strategy selections from educators designing distance-learning courses? Research Question and Propositions Although answering all such questions is beyond the scope of this dissertation, they lead to a guiding research question: What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction? Two propositions shaped the 13

PAGE 35

design ofthe study and framed decisions about what data to collect, analyze, and interpret (see Figure 1.3). These research propositions state that I. Educators approaches to teaching relate strongly to their selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. 2. Educators' concerns with web-based instruction relate strongly to their selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Figure 1.3. Two research propositions. teaching & learning needs technology needs teaching experience support teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill selections of instructional strategies 14 concerns with technology

PAGE 36

Embedded-Case Study This study used an embedded-case study research design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). Unlike case studies that focus on one specific case or unit, an embedded case study examines sub-units or mini-cases within the context of a larger case (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). With an embedded-case study, mini-cases contribute a greater understanding of what is observed in the larger case. Therefore, the larger case was the most complex and interesting. The mini-cases broadened our understandings and interpretations of what was observed in the larger case. The larger case consisted of two instructors, the online course called "Online Instructional Strategies," and the enrolled students. Larger case data included instructors' survey data, their email interviews, and course documents. Embedded within that context were the student mini-cases consisting of seven students and their web-based instructional modules. Individual student-participant survey data, their email interviews, and their course assignments comprised student mini-case data. Research Context and Population The context of the study was an online graduate-level class at a mid-western university. This ten-week course occurred during the winter session 2000-2001. The course focused on exploring and understanding instructional strategies for web-based learning environments. The course was 100% online, meaning that all interactions between instructors and students occurred through the course website or email. The 15

PAGE 37

research population consisted of two instructors and seven students. All are educators and/or instructional designers. Students met course goals by completing multiple assignments stipulated by instructors including developing web-based instructional modules. It should be noted that this study was a static rather than dynamic examination of selections of instructional strategies. This meant that I focused on instructional strategies selected ahead of time and did not look for strategies used by the instructors in online class discussions. I made this decision for three reasons. First, I am interested in instructional strategies selected in the design of online learning environments. I wanted to know what affects selections ahead of time rather than those chosen in response to student-teacher interactions. Second, other researchers have investigated student-teacher interactions in online discussions (Ahern & Repman, 1994; Anderson & Harris, 1995; Heflich, 1997; Mason, 2001; Townley, 1997) and described key strategies for facilitating effective online discussions (Addesso, 2000; Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000; Draves, 2000; Jackson & Anagnostopoulou, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Third, since the student modules were not implemented with learner populations, examining the course statically affords more equitable comparisons with student modules and student selections of strategies. 16

PAGE 38

Data Collection Methods For this study, I collected data from multiple sources. These data came from surveys, interviews, and documents. Through an online research website (see Appendix L), I collected survey data about participants' Approaches to Teaching (see Appendix B) and personal concerns with web-based instruction (see Appendix P). I conducted individual participant interviews through email (see Appendix J). I reviewed multiple documents available through the course website (see Appendix I) such as the course syllabi, discussion board archives (see Appendix H), and assignment descriptions (see Appendices E, F, G, H, and 1). In addition, I reviewed the web-based instructional modules developed by student participants. These comprised the larger and mini-case data. Data Analysis Methods For each research proposition, I combined and analyzed data on three levels: as individual student mini-cases (individual student), across student mini-cases (student group), and student mini-cases within the context of the larger case (online class). Because I used multiple data sources and evaluated them on three levels, I used different analysis techniques to make sense of it. At an individual mini-case I combined data creating student mini-cases. Data from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Appendix B) described participants' approaches to teaching along two dimensions: Conceptual 17

PAGE 39

Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused. Data from the Stages of Concern Instrument (Appendix P) portrayed participants' concerns with web-based instruction differentiating between internal and external concerns. Information about expertise at website development, experience with instructional design, and motivation for taking the class came from email interviews with participants. I examined instructional websites for instructional strategies, patterns of communication, types of information, and other discriminating features. At this point, I combined data and created student individual mini-cases. Then for each research proposition, I examined each mini-case for relationships and explanations. The second level of analysis occurred across student mini-cases. For each proposition, I examined the seven student mini-cases and looked for common selections of strategies and explanations for those selections. For instance, three students selected strategies that emphasized facts and information rather than concepts and ideas. In the analysis, I evaluated these mini-cases as a group and looked to see if survey data explain this grouping. In this process, I identified common elements and understandings of emerging data as it relates to each proposition and created tables and drawings as explanations. Analysis of the student mini-cases within the context ofthe larger case occurs last. For each proposition, I combined and evaluated data As a consequence, I examined emerging understandings and explanations within the context of the online course and looked evidence of influence ofthe larger case on the student mini-cases. 18

PAGE 40

At this point, I examine additional data from the course website in relationship to emerging understandings and explanations. These analyses add insights into the larger case. Benefits of Study Four reasons make this research meaningful First, it articulates relationships between approaches-concerns and selections of instructional strategies for web-based learning environments. Knowing why educators make choices in these learning settings makes transformation of those practices possible. Second, this study suggests areas for further research. Third, it contributes to our knowledge base and understanding of web-based instruction with regard to selections of instructional strategies. Finally, it may be useful information for faculty development. Limitations of Study This project is limited in four ways. First, it was a study of instructional strategies selection for web-based instruction and its implementation with one online class. As such, conclusions drawn apply to this online course, these instructors, these students, and not to educators at large. Second, the student mini-cases consist of survey data, interview data, and their web-based instructional modules. These modules were not implemented with learner populations. This suggests that the instructional websites developed by student are limited in scope and size, and not 19

PAGE 41

representative of complex, well-developed instructional websites. Third, it is a study of limited distance-learning technology, namely, web-based instruction. These limitations mean that the findings are generalizable to the propositions, this research population, and teaching context but not necessarily to educators in the general population. Finally, the research population was small and may represent a biased sample group. Conclusion This study provided information on what affects selections of instructional strategies in for web-based instruction. Conceptually, I limited it to two propositions, namely, approaches to teaching and concerns with web-based instruction. In Chapter 2 I outline the theoretical perspectives that support the use of this conceptual framework. I describe the embedded-case study research design in Chapter 3. Topics include descriptions of the methodology, rationale for its use, information about the research population, methods for data collection, and procedures for data analysis. Because of the number of cases and the volume of data, I present the student minicase findings in Chapters 4 and the student mini-cases within the larger case context findings in 5. I conclude the study with a summary of the findings, limitations of the outcomes, and a discussion of other areas of research (Chapter 6). 20

PAGE 42

CHAPTER2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Educators shoulder much of the responsibility for successful student learning in web-based classrooms (Ahern & Repman, 1994; Barrett, 1998; Barron, 1995; Blanton, Moorman, & Trathen, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Zhao, 1998). Faculty, concerned about the instructional process that engages students with learning, work to design meaningful learning experiences through technology (Bebko, 1998) This task is neither simple nor intuitive (Brandt, Farmer, & Buckmaster, 1993; Hetlich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). Holloway (1991) explains "distance education is not, as some mistakenly think, the simple translation of content from one delivery medium to another. Distance education touches every facet of an educational organization, not just teaching .... And distance education brings with it new pedagogical demands not anticipated in the face-to-face model" (p. 261). Distance Educators' Instructional Design Activities Teaching experiences are different in technology-based educational settings (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Hunt & 21

PAGE 43

Bohlin, 1993; Stuhlmann, 1994; Thomson & Stringer, 1998) and require different strategies that engage students in learning. Distance educators report spending more time upfront designing courses than with traditional classes (Barrett, 1998; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998; Wolcott, 1993; Zhang, 1998). Their instructional design efforts shift from delivering predefined "content" to structuring activities that develop students' abilities to solve problems (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998). It is a change from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered learning (Berge, 1997; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Heflich, 1997; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Oblinger & Rush, 1997; StuhJmann, 1994; Zhao, 1998). According to Dillon and Walsh (1992), faculty who make the transition to student-centered instruction "are not only mote successful distance teachers, but also more successful classroom teachers" (p. 17). The transition from teacher-directed instruction to student-centered learning leads to changes in teacher-student roles (Barrett, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Educators report that they take on a greater role as planner, guide, facilitator, and mentor, and a lesser role as deliverer of content (Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998). As a consequence, students' roles also change. They have greater freedom and assume more responsibility for their own learning (Bebko, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Schrum, 1998). Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) describe it this way 22

PAGE 44

Before this experience, I viewed teaching as a controlled and controlling process. In relinquishing the power to learn to the students themselves, I am also relinquishing the responsibility to succeed in learning. It is a freeing feeling to realize that I don't have to be Atlas to the students, as I have now acquired partners in the learning process. (p. 13) In the design oftechnology-based courses, educators work to (a) learn the technology, (b) select the content, (c) design learning activities, and (d) determine student assessments. This list of activities is not complete, but brings to light upfront and instructional design activities that change as a result of distance-learning teaching environments. Learn the Technology For any technology-based teaching context, faculty develop skills using the technology. The technical skills required depend on the type of technology and faculty motivation. If the teaching context is an Internet-based course management system such as Blackboard, eCollege, or WebCT1 teachers learn how to use the system to provide content, interact with students, collect student work, access information, and assess student performance. Through practice and experience, educators come to understand the limitations ofthe technology for instructional 1 Blackboard, eCollege and are password protected course management systems for online course delivery. The system provides a technical framework for organizing course content. Included are areas to post announcements, syllabi, create tests, and conduct online discussions. 23

PAGE 45

purposes and learn how to troubleshoot when it is not working properly (Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Townley, 1997; Zhao, 1998). If the teaching context is Internet-based but independent of any formal course management structure, then educators may develop additional skills such as how to create web pages and set up online discussion forums. Faculty expertise can extend to becoming the technical support person for their students. For example, some students may be unable to attach files for electronic submission and need assistance learning how (Barrett, 1998). Regardless of the technology, educators in distance-learning environments develop technical skills. Determine the Content Faculty determine what information learners need to have access to and how to provide it. In traditional classes, this passing along of facts and information may occur through lectures. In web-based learning environments, educators concerned about the learning process use other strategies for delivering content. Rather than lecturing in online classes with pages of text, emphasis is on what content students need (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Townley, 1997), how to organize it (Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998; Schrum & Berenfeld, 1997; Wood et al., 1998), and how students should progress through the information (Barrett, 1998; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Townley, 1997). The content may be detailed notes on a specific topic, links to rich sources of information, or well-24

PAGE 46

designed, specific information about the course with clear expectations for student performance (Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Wolcott, 1993). Design Learning Activities Moving to online classrooms involves teaching in unfamiliar settings and developing new strategies for engaging students in the learning process (Bailey, Ross, & Griffin, 1996; Berge, 1997; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Townley, 1997; Vickers & Smalley, 1995). Predominately, the three types oflearning activities that distance educators select are checkpoints, skills, and virtual online communities. First, distance educators create activities that evaluate what students are learning and how well they understand it. In traditional classrooms, faculty can tell with a quick glance whether things are making sense (heads nodding) or nonsense (frowns, creased eyebrows). In distance-learning environments educators report building in similar checkpoints into their courses to solicit feedback from students through quizzes, surveys, or direct questioning (Bebko, 1998; Cook, 1995; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998). Second, educators may select strategies that develop students' skills to use the technology, to find and evaluate information, and to solve problems. Many distance educators train students in the technology prior to the beginning of class (Bebko, 1998; Scott-Fredericks, 1997; Stublmann, 1994). In doing so, students adjust 25

PAGE 47

to the learning environment and can focus on learning the content (Scott-Fredericks, 1997). Oblinger and Rush (1997) state that "the volume of new information is increasing at such a rapid pace that the class of 2000 will be exposed to more new data in a year than their grandparents encountered in a lifetime" (p. 3). In light of this, distance educators select strategies that guide students through large volumes of information and help them evaluate web-resources (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998; Phipps et al., 1998; Thomson & Stringer, 1998). Learning activities may send students on "Web Quests" (searching the Internet for resources) and challenge them to compile their own "Webliographies" (list of links to online resources). Many distance educators select strategies that develop students' ability to solve problems (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998), such as presenting case studies and difficult, complex problems. Third, communication and student interactions are central to distance learning environments. According to Dillon and Walsh (1992), "effective distance teaching places student involvement as the foundation of all distance teaching activities" (p. 16). Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis (1998) suggest that the more interactive the course, the more effective the student learning. Some educators maintain that student interactions are the beginning point for the design of online classes (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998). Others conclude that interactions enhance student learning (Cook, 1995; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Phipps et al., 1998), must be 26

PAGE 48

built into the course (Ahern, 1996; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Meyen et al, 1999), and be fostered throughout the duration of the course (Cook, 1995; Schrum, 1998). Learning activities that create and build virtual communities are online discussions, peer reviews, and group projects. Determine Student Assessments Distance educators report that student evaluations change in these new settings. Because of the barrier oftechnology, it is not always possible to know who is taking an online test and guard against cheating. Rather than proctoring exams (having students come to a central location and taking exams in a traditional classroom setting), many educators choose other methods to evaluate student learning (Barrett, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Zhang, 1998; Zhao, 1998). Alternative assessments include complex projects, online discussion contributions, or reports. As an example, Hirumi and Bermudez (1996) report incorporating assessments as part of the learning process rather than as an evaluation of students knowing facts. The transition is from evaluating students' acquisition of knowledge to providing students' with immediate feedback on their learning and understanding of a subject (Barrett, 1998). 27

PAGE 49

Factors Influencing Selections oflnstructional Strategies A review of literature (from both traditional and distance-education classrooms) reveals major eight factors that influence educators as they select instructional strategies. I organize factors into those that relate to teaching and learning needs, and those that relate to the technology. The instructors and students are the central to teaching and learning needs, whereas the innovation is key to technology. These factors are (Figure 2.1) (a) teaching context, (b) teaching experience, (c) learning needs, (d) teaching conceptions, (e) type of technology, Figure 2.1. Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies. teaching & learning needs technology needs teaching experience support teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill teaching conceptions selections of instructional strategies 28 concerns with technology

PAGE 50

(f) support, (h) experience and skill, and (i) concerns with technology. Depending on the educator, one or more factors may influence the design more than others. In the following sections, I describe each factor and its influence on selections of instructional strategies. Teaching and Learning Needs Teaching and learning needs are those factors that specifically relate to educators and their students. The four factors in this group are (a) teaching context (b) teaching experience, (c) learning context, and (d) teaching conceptions. Specific details that characterize classroom environments, instructors, and students define the teaching context. Educators' backgrounds, as defined by years of teaching experience, types ofteaching experience, and personal learning experiences, explain teaching experience. Students are central to the learning context that includes information about what students need to learn, what skills they need to develop, and how they can be successful. Teaching conceptions describe how educators understand and view the teacher-student learning relationship. According to the reviewed literature, teaching conceptions present the strongest evidence of influence on selections of instructional strategies. 29

PAGE 51

Teaching Context Four elements that characterize the teaching context and influence selections of strategies are class size, class length, course level, and discipline. Classes with 150 students require different instructional strategies than those with 15 (Hannafm & Freeman, 1995; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). As the class size grows, educators tend to adopt content-oriented attitudes and select lecture-based strategies (Singer, 1996). With fewer students in classes, faculty are more likely to select strategies that actively involve students in learning activities (Singer). The time-in-class often influences the selections of instructional strategies (Hannafm & Freeman, 1995; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Educators select different strategies for one-hour classes as opposed to eight-hour classes. With shorter class periods, faculty focus on teacher-centered strategies such as lecturing. With longer classes, educators tend to vary the class activities and work to involve students in complex group projects. With undergraduate courses, faculty select strategies that organize content and present information. With graduate level courses, the emphasis changes to developing students' abilities to solve problems (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996; Stark, Lowther, Bentley, & Martens, 1990; Stark, Lowther, Ryan, & Genthon, 1988a) 30

PAGE 52

Academic discipline influences selections of instructional strategies (Singer, 1996; Stark et al., 1990; Stark et al., 1988a). For instance, interviews with 89 teachers (Stark et al., 1988b) reveal differences in instructional design choices based on discipline. These educators divide into two groups. The first group describes their discipline as sets of concepts, principles, ideas, phenomena, or objects to be explained to students and organize their course content structurally or chronologically. Examples of these disciplines include history, biology, and sociology. This group select strategies that focus on teaching concepts, principles, and equipping students to become effective thinkers. The second group (i.e. teaching composition or literature) views their field as a group of people who share the pursuit of common values and interests. They use knowledge creation to organize course materials. Faculty select strategies that promote student growth, skill acquisition, and personal enrichment. Teaching Experience Educators' backgrounds, as defined by years of teaching experience, types of teaching experience, knowledge of their discipline, and personal learning experiences, explain teaching experience. Some researchers advocate that teachers tend to teach the way they were taught (Means, 1994; Ndahi, 1999; Stark et al., 1988a). Other researchers conclude that teaching practices are developmental, meaning that beginning educators start with certain behaviors and attitudes that 31

PAGE 53

develop and change over time (Dwyer et aL, 1991; Fox, 1983; Hannafm & Freeman, 1995; McCutcheon, 1992; Ross, Cornett, & McCutcheon, 1992; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Stuhlmann, 1994). Thus, years ofteaching experience influence selections. According to Fox (1983) inexperienced teachers focus on what they bring to the learning situation and strategize ways to teach and share information. Experienced teachers concern themselves with student learning activities such as simulations and role-playing. Learning Needs In planning classroom activities, faculty consider student characteristics and their learning needs. This includes considerations for students' maturity level, their school level (graduate or undergraduate), incoming knowledge, and current skills (Schrum, 1998; Stark et al., 1988a). Additionally, educators focus on what learning needs to happen so that students can be successful in class (Barron, 1995; Bebko, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Nickerson, 1995; Zhang, 1998). Based on these considerations, teachers make changes to their class designs and modify student expectations. For example, some students may be unable to attach files for electronic submission and need an ahemative solution for handing in assignments (Barrett, 1998). Based on students and their learning needs, teachers may select strategies that develop students' abilities to find and evaluate rich sources of information rather than strategies that organize 32

PAGE 54

and present content (Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998; Thomson & Stringer, 1998; Zhao, 1998). Teaching Conceptions In this research, I explore the teaching conception of''what it means to teach Conceptions ofteaching describe educators views ofhow learning takes place and what it means to teach and to know (Kember & Gow, 1994; Pratt, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Schubert, 1992). They are dynamic interpretations that evolve and change through practice (Pratt, 1992; Schubert, 1992). Additionally, teaching conceptions are structures that influence actions teachers make through teaching activity selections and curriculum choices (Pratt, 1992; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994; Ross, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). A "conception" is a specific meaning or interpretation attached to phenomena. It is a theory defined within a specific context as it applies to a specific task. Educators apply theories to their teaching practices all the time (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Foshay, 1991; McAninch, 1993; McCutcheon, 1992; Putnam, 1991; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). A theory is a set of propositions, postulates, or generalizations that explain or describe educational phenomena (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; McAninch, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). They are human constructions that help teachers anticipate and make sense of classroom experiences (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Reed, 1993; Thornton, 1993). 33

PAGE 55

Practices are the methods teachers use to draw students into the learning equation. The relationship between theory and practice is a dynamic one not easily understood (Calderhead, 1993; Foshay, 1991; McAninch, 1993; Munro, 1993). Teachers do not operate on a single theory to define their teaching practices (McCutcheon, 1992; Ross et al., 1992). Rather their practices reflect a blending of those theories based on an understanding of them and their own personal learning experiences. With each teaching experience they continually build, refine, and reconstruct theory (Ross et al., 1992; Schubert, 1992) moving towards equilibrium in their practice. Many researchers examine teachers' theories and conceptions of student learning. Some researchers call them teaching theories (Fox, 1983), conceptions of teaching (Fox, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992), meaning of teaching as it relates to learning (Menges & Rando, 1989), orientations to teaching (Kember & Gow, 1994), or approaches to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b). Regardless of the phrase used, this body of research describes, from an educators' perspective, what is means to teach. Table 2.1 overviews the findings of seven studies on teaching conceptions. Relationships among teaching conceptions depend on the researchers and their descriptions of conceptions. For instance, some research report that conceptions are mutually exclusive (Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). While others claim that overlaps exist between conceptions with one usually dominates 34

PAGE 56

Table 2.1 Research on Conceptions of Teaching Researchers Fox (1983) Kember& Gow (1994) Conceptions of Teaching transfer information to students mold/shape students into predetermined roles guide students in exploration of broad field develop emotional and intellectual aspects of students transfer of knowledge to learners facilitate learning through problem solving & motivation Menges & Rando (1989) provide content to students develop student's ability to learn and process information Murray& MacDonald (1997) Pratt (1992) Samuelowicz &Bain (1992) motivate students to learn impart knowledge to students enthuse, encourage, and motivate students facilitate students' learning support students engineering conception: deliver content apprenticeship conception: model ways of being developmental conception: cultivate the intellect nurturing conception: facilitate personal agency social reform conception: seek a better society impart information transmit knowledge and attitudes of discipline facilitate students' understanding of discipline change students' understanding of world support students' learning Relationships simple theories: transfer and shape developed theories: guide and develop little overlap hold multiple conceptions one dominates overlap among conceptions hold multiple conceptions overlap among conceptions hold multiple conceptions one dominates mutually exclusive ordered Trigwell & Prosser (1994) teacher-focused, information transmission hierarchical teacher-focused, help student acquire concepts of discipline teacher/student interaction, help students acquire concepts of discipline through relationship student-focused, help students develop conceptions of discipline student-focused, change students' conceptions of discipline 35

PAGE 57

over the others (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992). Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) maintain that teaching conceptions are ordered. Still others view teaching conceptions as hierarchical (Biggs, 1993; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a) with the higher or more advanced conceptions including the lower, less complex ones. Some researchers observe that educators may hold "ideal" and ''working" conceptions of teaching (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Ideal teaching conceptions describe how educators view learning in general, whereas working conceptions reflect actual teaching practices and assessment strategies. Fox (1983) identifies four basic theories of teaching First, transfer theory assumes that the teacher's responsibility is to specify what needs to be learned and to deliver information to students. Next, the shaping theory emphasizes shaping or modeling students into predetermined roles. The traveling theory treats the subject to be learned as a broad field with educators guiding students' explorations. Finally, the growing theory focuses on the emotional and intellectual development of students. As faculty become more experienced in their teaching, they tend to adopt more complex conceptions ofteaching. Fox sees the transfer and shaping models of teaching as "simple" theories representing inexperienced teachers' approaches to teaching, whereas the traveling and growing models are "developed" theories. 36

PAGE 58

Developed theories reflect more precisely what research says about "effective" student learning and are likely to be held by experienced teachers. The two conceptions of teaching that emerge from interviews and surveys with 170 faculty in Hong Kong (Kember & Gow, 1994) are transmission of knowledge andfacilitation of/earning. Transmissions ofknowledge includes the subscales of training for a specific job, using media, imparting knowledge, and knowing the subject. Facilitation oflearning includes the subscales of problem solving, interactive teaching, facilitative teaching, taking care of students and motivating them. Kember and Gow (1994) conclude that although complex bundles of characteristics combine to describe each conception with no overlap between them. Menges and Rando (1989) arrive at three teaching conceptions as a result of their research with graduate teaching assistants. Through interviews and surveys, Menges and Rando asked, "What is the meaning of teaching." Three primary orientations emerge from these data. First, teaching is a focus on content by identifying what needs to be taught and students mastering the materials. Process is the second orientation that emphasizes facilitating students' ability to learn and process information. The final orientation places motivation as key to teaching. Educators with this conception strategize ways to make the content interesting and motivating for students. An individual may hold more than one conception, however one is usually more dominant than the others. 37

PAGE 59

A slightly different model surfaces from a study of 80 faculty in a Business School. Based on interviews and surveys, Murray and MacDonald (1997) define four conceptions of teaching: (a) imparting knowledge; (b) enthusing, encouraging, and motivating students; (c)facilitating student learning; and (d) supporting students. Murray and MacDonald conclude that categories of teaching conceptions overlap, that faculty report multiple roles, and that faculty do not necessarily fit well into any one conception. Teaching conceptions may be context-dependent. Educators may have an "ideal" and ''working" conception of teaching. Their current practices represent their working conception and may differ from their ideal. Through interviews with253 faculty over a five-year period, five conceptions held by faculty became known (Pratt, 1992). They are engineering conception (delivering content), apprenticeship conception (modeling ways ofbeing), developmental conception (cultivating the intellect), nurturing conception (facilitating personal agency), and social reform conception (seeking a better society). These conceptions are dynamic in that they change over time based on experiences. Pratt does not see these conceptions as mutually exclusive. He reports that educators may hold multiple conceptions with one dominate over others. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) describe five mutually exclusive teaching conceptions. They are (a) teaching imparts information; (b) teaching transmits knowledge and attitudes within an academic discipline; (c) teaching facilitates understanding; (d) teachingfocuses on changing students' understanding of the 38

PAGE 60

world); and (e) teaching supports student learning. The dimensions of expected outcomes, knowledge gained, students' existing conceptions, directionality of teaching, and control of content emerged as criteria for discriminating between various conceptions. Conceptions are ordered with supporting student learning being the highest and most complex. Teaching to impart information is the lowest and least complex. Samuelowicz and Bain conclude that these conceptions may be context dependent (apply to a specific course and group of students). Additionally, faculty may have "ideal" and ''working" conceptions ofteaching. Based on research with 24 faculty, Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) identify five conceptions ofteaching: (a) Approach A: teacher-focused strategy where emphasis is on transmitting information to students; (b) Approach B: teacher focused strategy that focuses on helping students acquire concepts of the discipline; (c) Approach C: teacher/student interaction strategy where students acquire the concepts of the discipline to satisfy internal demands; (d) Approach D: student focused strategy aimed at helping students develop their conceptions; (e) Approach E: student-focused strategy aimed at changing students' conceptions. Approach A assumes the teacher is the most important element in the teaching equation. The focus is on what needs to be taught and in what order with little or no concern for the learner. Approach F assumes the opposite. Teachers holding this conception concentrates on students by working to create relationships, meet student needs, and encourage learner self-direction. Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) consider these 39

PAGE 61

conceptions to be hierarchical where the more complex conceptions (Approaches C, D and F) include the more limiting conceptions (Approaches A and B), but not vice versa. Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor conclude that conceptions of teaching are dependent on the context (topic being taught and the classroom setting). Although different conceptions of teaching exist, researchers report that teaching conceptions inform and influence teaching practices (BoultonLewis, Wilss & Mutch, 1996; Fox, 1983; Menges & Rando, 1989; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996). Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) report that teaching conceptions shape practices through curriculum structure (what is taught), teaching methods (how curriculum is taught), and assessments (what is valued as learning outcomes). Pratt (1992) supports this view and sees teaching actions as purposeful, thoughtful, and governed by teaching conceptions. As an illustration, Singer (1996) observes that faculty valuing a student-centered teaching paradigm select peer-interaction and student involvement for instructional strategies. In summary, teaching and learning needs are those factors that specifically relate to educators and their students. The four factors in this group are (a) teaching context, (b) teaching experience, (c) learning context, and (d) teaching conceptions. Based on the reviewed literature, teaching conceptions present the strongest evidence of influence on selections of instructional strategies in this category. 40

PAGE 62

Technology Needs The innovation of web-based instruction is central to this second group of factors influencing selections of instructional strategies. The four factors in this group are (a) type of technology, (b) support, (c) experience and skills, and (d) concerns with technology. Educators report differences in their classroom practices based on medium for course delivery. Faculty support comes through training, relationships with others, and administration. For this group of factors, experience and skills specifically relate to educators use oftechnology. Educators' concerns with technology influence its use. Within this group of factors and the reviewed literature, concerns with technology represents the strongest evidence of influence on selections of instructional strategies. In a way, this research involves the adoption of an innovation. In this case, the innovation is Web-based instruction. The adoption of an innovation is not an event, rather it is a complex process influenced by many factors (Lowry, 1997; Rogers, 1995). An innovation consists of two parts: the physical object and the information base that supports use of technology to solve certain problems (Rogers, 1995). The Internet (physical object) provides access to information, knowledge, and a worldwide community (Gillespie, 1998). The information base includes details about the Internet, how it can be used as an instructional environment, and what happens as a result of its use. 41

PAGE 63

Online, Internet-based, web-based instruction, computer-mediated communication (CMC), web-based learning environments (WBLEs) (Mioduser, Nachmias, Lahav, & Oren, 2000), and computer conferencing are all terms describing the innovation in this research project (Ahem & Repman, 1994; Gillespie, 1998; McCormack, & Jones, 1998; Relan & Gillani, 1997). Common features include chat rooms, email, electronic discussion groups, and web pages (Gillespie, 1998; McCormack & Jones, 1998; Mioduser et al., 2000). Type of Technology The type of technology influences how educators use it to provide information and content, and set up interactions with students. Some researchers argue that the type of technology is key to student success in distance-learning courses (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995). In fact, Barrett (1998) advocates that the subject matter and student population should determine the type of technology used for instruction. A good choice enhances student learning and facuhy motivation to use the technology while a poor choice does not (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995). Examples oftechnology type influencing selections of instructional strategies include using one-way teleconferences for lectures and video conferencing for active dialogues with students around learning issues (Bebko, 1998). 42

PAGE 64

Support Support for educators comes through training, relationships with others, and administration. Based on the amount and type of support, instructors select different instructional strategies. Because technologies change so fast, practitioners need support to learn the technology, keep up with the latest information resources, and select good instructional strategies (Breivik, 1998; Bright & Waxman, 1993). Faculty need help identifying, selecting, and implementing useful strategies for this new environment (Bailey et al., 1996; Breivik, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Thurston, Secaras, & Levine, 1996; Townley, 1997). Due to their autonomous nature (Meyen et al., 1999), faculty primarily work through instructional design issues on their own and come up with viable solutions to problems. However, the transition to an online teaching environment involves moving to an unfamiliar setting and developing new ways of engaging students in the learning process (Bailey et al., 1996; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Townley, 1997; Vickers & Smalley, 1995). Support through training gives faculty options through suggestions of useful instructional strategies (Barrett, 1998). Collaborative relationships with colleagues and experts in the field help clarify vision for distance-learning environments and identify solutions for problem areas (Becker, 1994; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Heflich, 1997). Distance-learning 43

PAGE 65

practitioners work to build and maintain these relationships, and learn from others (Barrett, 1998; Donovan & Macklin, 1998). Support from administration means a reliable technical infrastructure and support for educators' efforts with technology (Barrett, 1998; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Ndahi, 1999; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). At an institutional level, faculty and students both need a reliable technical infrastructure (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998). Without this structure, instructors choose strategies that do not rely on the technology. For individual educators, support may mean reduced teaching loads (Becker, 1994; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Zhang, 1998), extra time or pay for distant-learning course development (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Jacobsen, 1998; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999; Zhang, 1998), enrollment caps for online courses (Barrett, 1998), and paid teaching assistants (Dillon & Walsh, 1992). Lack of support can negatively impact a course (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998) and limit educators selections of instructional strategies. Experience and Skill Practitioners involved with an innovation have a set of skills developed over time through practice, training, and experimentation. Skills can be technical ones, such as how to turn on a computer or create a web page, or soft ones that deal with effective ways to use technology for online discussions. In some cases, the lack of educators' experiences and skills leads to rejection of the innovation (Barron & 44

PAGE 66

Goldman, 1994; Boling & Robinson, 1999; Gillespie, 1998; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993; Levin, 1995; Owston, 1997; Reiser & Salisbury, 1991; Vickers & Smalley, 1995; Wolcott, 1993). In other cases, experience and skills influence how educators use the technology. For example, inexperienced distance educators may use videoconferencing to lecture because they use same pedagogical model in their traditional classes (Wolcott, 1993). A case in point, Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1991) report that teachers, new to technology, use computers for simple word processing and drill-and-practice exercises (low skill and experience). Unskilled or inexperienced practitioners tend to use the Internet for text-based lectures, reading assignments, and student testing (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998). In other words, lack of experience and skills limits how educators envision using the technology for student learning. As experience and skills develop, teachers change their use of technology (Reed, 1990). The focus shifts from "how can I use this technology to teach?" to "how can this technology facilitate student learning and interaction?" Stuhlmann (1994) characterizes it as a shift from a teacher-directed model of instruction to one that is student-centered. Other researchers report that experience with technology leads to changes in teaching practices (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Becker, 1994; Dwyer et al., 1991; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Wolcott, 1993). Through a longitudinal study with teachers, Dwyer, Ringstafl: and Sandholtz (1991) observe that teachers progress through a five-stage evolutionary process. The 45

PAGE 67

five stages are entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Dwyer et al., 1991). Educators in the earlier stages (entry and adoption) focus on the computers, software, and discipline issues. As teachers progress through the stages their focus changes from learning the technology to inventing new ways of engaging students in collaborative work. Concerns with Technology According to the research reviewed, concerns that an individual has with an innovation influence the way it is used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Those who are new to an innovation are concerned with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects them personally (internal concerns). As knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows, concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others. Based on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how the innovation is for learning (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Research demonstrates that concerns relate to teaching practices (Bebko, 1998; Dwyer et al., 1991; Evans-Andris, 1995; Reed, 1990). For instance, Dwyer, Ringstaffand Sandholtz (1991) found that teachers use technology differently in their classrooms based on experience and their concerns explain some of those differences. In the early stages, teachers concern themselves with learning the technology, managing their classroom, and using the simplest software for student 46

PAGE 68

work (drill-and-practice and traditional testing) These concerns are internal since their focus on the technology and how it impacts their teaching practices. With the later stages (appropriation and invention) educators' concerns change to an external perspective as they concentrate on developing student skills and organizing group learning through technology Other studies support the notion that as practitioners begin to use technology in educational settings their concerns (internal) center on learning the technology (Geoghegan, 1994; Reed, 1990), acquiring access (Bebko, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999), and delivering instruction (Ndahi 1999; Wolcott 1993). As educators' mastery and adoption of technology increases their concerns (external) change to strategizing ways to equip students (Becker, 1994 ), meeting student needs (Barrett, 1998; Ndahi, 1999), and facilitating communication (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Thurston et al., 1996). Some even classify it as a movement towards constructivist behaviors that equips students to facilitate their own learning (Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Heflich, 1997). In summary, technology factors influence selections of instructional strategies. The four factors in this group are (a) type of technology, (b) support, (c) experience and skills, and (d) concerns with technology. Based on the reviewed literature concerns with technology present the strongest evidence in this category for selections of instructional strategies. 47

PAGE 69

Summary The literature reviewed elicited eight major factors that influence educators as they select instructional strategies. I organize factors in two groups: those that relate to teaching and learning needs and those that relate to the technology From these eight factors, I selected two as propositions for this research project. In Chapter 3, I describe the research design and explain details of data collections and analysis methods. 48

PAGE 70

CHAPTER3 RESEARCH :METHODS Using an embedded-case design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989), this research explored selections of instructional strategies for web-based learning environments. The guiding research question is: What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction? The review of research in Chapter 2 elicited eight major factors that influence selection of instructional strategies in traditional and distance-educational settings. Two of these factors offer explanations for the selection of strategies for web-based instruction and are propositions for this study. The frrst proposition (see page 50) emerges from studies of teachers' approaches to teaching and their practices in traditional classrooms (Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Singer, 1996; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999). Research suggests that teachers' beliefs about what it means to teach influence the variety of instructional strategies used to engage students with learning. The second proposition (see page 50) came from research on adoption of innovations in educational contexts. According to the literature reviewed, concerns that an individual has with an innovation influence the way it is used (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 49

PAGE 71

1997). Educators who are new to an innovation, for example, concern themselves with understanding what the innovation is and how it affects them personally (internal concerns) As their knowledge of and experience with an innovation grows, their concerns shift to an external perspective on how it works in relation to others. Based on those concerns (internal or external), educators make decisions about how to use the innovation in educational environments (Dwyer et al., 1991; Wells & Anderson, 1997). These two propositions shape the design ofthe study and frame decisions about what data to collect, analyze, and interpret. The guiding research question is: What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction? Within that context, the two research propositions state that 1. Educators' approaches to teaching relates strongly to their selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. 2. Educators' concerns with web-based instruction relate strongly to their selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. This study used an embedded-case study research design (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). Unlike case studies that focus on one specific case or unit, an embedded case study examines sub-units or mini-cases within the context of a larger case. With an embedded-case study mini-cases contribute a greater understanding of what is observed in the larger case. Therefore, the larger case was the most complex and 50

PAGE 72

interesting. The mini-cases broadened our understandings and interpretations of what is observed in the larger case. For this study, the larger case consisted of two instructors, the online course called "Online Instructional Strategies," and the enrolled students. Larger case data included instructors' survey data, their email interviews, and course documents. Embedded within that context were the student mini-cases consisting of seven students and their webbased modules. Individual participant survey data, their email interviews, and their course assignments comprised student mini-case data. In this Chapter, I detail the embedded-case study research design. present descriptions ofthe study's context, approach and rationale, researcher's role, pilot studies and findings, research population, methods for data collection and management, and procedures for data analysis and interpretation. Embedded-Case Study Design According to Ehrmann (1997), program evaluation is like using a small flashlight for cave exploration (see Figure 3.1). The beam is small and insufficient for illuminating a large pitch-black cave. Views and understandings of what is in a cave are determined in part by the direction and intensity of the beam. It takes muhiple trips and careful examination to begin to appreciate what the darkness hides. The flashlight in a cave is an appropriate metaphor for this embedded-case study. The flashlight is small and the cave is large. This project represents an initial 51

PAGE 73

exploration in this interesting and relatively unexplored environment of selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Figure 3.1. Cave exploration. Exploration of a cave often begins with decisions around multiple topics (see Table 3.1). The team leader or guide (researcher's role) determines which cave to explore (context), what to look for (research question) and, once inside, which paths to take (propositions). These decisions are not arbitrary. Rather, explorers make decisions based on the perceived value of the exploration and justification for the trip (approach and rationale). Additionally, the leader selects team members (research population) to help with the expedition. Based on prior experiences (pilot studies), the leader selects tools for sample collection (data collection methods). Then, once inside the cave the leader gathers multiple samples for closer examination (data collection). Back in the lab, he conducts different tests on the samples and follows standardized procedures (analysis methods). Based on the evidence and analysis 52

PAGE 74

procedures, the leader then draws conclusions (results) and reports them a larger audience. As the team leader for this exploration, I made these decisions and describe them in the following sections. Table 3.1 Questions Addressed in Chapter 3 Topic Questions About the Study research question What is the exploration purpose? propositions Which paths are explored? research context What cave was explored? approach and rationale Why this method and cave? researcher's role What is the leader's contribution? pilot studies What happened on prior expeditions? research population Who are the fellow explorers? data What samples were collected? c data collection methods How were samples collected? data management procedures How was integrity of samples preserved? analysis procedures What tests were performed on samples? Research Context: What Cave Was Explored? The cave or environment for exploration was an online graduate-level class offered at a mid-western university. The 10-week course occurred during the winter session 2000-2001 as partial requirement for a certificate program on Web-Based 53

PAGE 75

Learning Environments (see Appendix I for course site map). This course was 100% online, meaning that interactions between the instructors and students occurred totally through the course website and email. The course focused on exploration and understanding of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. In the course website, the instructors stated that This course is a laboratory ... and the purpose of our lab is to explore strategies for teaching online. What strategies should we adapt from other media? Does teaching online require any brand new strategies? ... Together, we'll examine theories, methods, tools and activities in order to find themes that we can use in our own educational websites. Two instructors designed the course, created the instructional website, and facilitated student learning. In fulfillment of course requirements, students completed seven assignments (see Appendix E for class assignments) and participated in online discussions. The assignments included three group projects and four individual tasks. Twelve students completed the course, seven of whom chose to participate in this research project. Approach and Rationale: Why This Method and Cave? '(wo reasons make an embedded-case study design the appropriate one for this research project. First, the larger case naturally constrains the boundaries of the mini-cases. This project explores selections of instructional strategies by students (mini-cases) set within the context of selections of strategies by instructors (larger case). Originally, the study did not include the instructors as part of the data. But the 54

PAGE 76

initial pilot study made it evident that instructional strategies used by an instructor as well as the assignment, influence the nature of students' instructional websites and therefore needed to be included. Second, the sizes of analysis units are not equal in physical and conceptual size. Instructional websites created by students averaged 11 pages in size with 17 external links. These numbers compared with 30 web pages and 121 external links in the course website. Therefore, conceptually, the larger case included the student mini-cases. Five features make this cave exploration appropriate, unique, and interesting. First, this research examines phenomena within a real-life context thereby adding to its strength (Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989). To begin with, the course was an authentic online course-the phenomena being studied. This online course emphasized exploring, understanding, and designing web-based instruction. As part of the course, instructors and students designed instructional websites and selected instructional strategies. The second feature was the medium for data collection. I collected all data online. This made it feasible for students outside the area (the instructors' city of residence) to participate in this research. In fact, the student group included someone from another state as well as someone from another country. A research website (see Appendix L for an overview) provided details about the study and informed participants of their role. I used online forms to obtain permission for participation (see Appendix M) and collect individual survey data (see Appendices K and N). 55

PAGE 77

The third feature was the variety of evidence collected through surveys, email interviews, and documents. Thus multiple sources led to the study's conclusions (Cresswell, 1998; Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989) and offered different views ofthe student mini-cases and larger case. The fourth feature was the size of the research population and analysis units. Although an embedded-case study is not as in-depth as a traditional case study, the mini-cases add significant opportunities for multiple levels of analysis and insights into the larger case (Cresswell, 1998; Yin, 1989). Enough mini-cases (seven students) support analysis of data across cases but not so many that the amount of data overwhelmed me. The concluding feature was that the course website and student instructional modules were independent of any technical framework other than the Internet. This meant that the structures of the web-based modules developed by participants were independent of preconceived or artificial structures, such as Blackboard and eCollege, and dependent on participants' own notions of structure. Researcher's Role: What Was the Leader's Contribution? As the team leader for this study, I came with my own learning experiences, knowledge of distance education, technical knowledge, and skills that influence the 56

PAGE 78

research design, population selection, data collection methods, and interpretation. However, throughout the research, different strategies help temper biases. The strongest impact came from committee members who challenged my initial conceptions and interpretations ofthe study. Their questioning focused attention on what I was asking, why I was asking it, and how I interpreted data They suggested alternative explanations as well as other areas of literature to explore. In a way, they were outside observers providing objective views of the project, data, and conclusions. Literature in the field contributed to the design of this project and interpretations of data The literature provided tangible and credible focus for the research question and propositions. Later, continual reference to literature refined understandings of data and conclusions. Sometimes it validated the findings. At other times, it offered alternative explanations. From within the project, the variety of evidence collected provides multiple views of selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. Because data came from multiple sources, different analysis techniques make sense of it. No single data source or analysis method leads to the findings. Rather, they were a consequence of multi-faceted views and interpretations coming together. According to Cresswell (1998), triangulating data provides corroborating evidence and different views. These strategies increase the trustworthiness and authenticity of a study (Cresswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). 57

PAGE 79

The most difficult and potentially subjective aspect of study was identification of participants' selections of instructional strategies. For this reason, an outside reviewer evaluated two participant websites and identified selections of strategies. I then compared my identifications with those of the outside reviewer. For these two participants, I observed a total of 13 different instructional strategies whereas the outside reviewer identified 16. For the most part, interpretation and naming of instructional strategies accounted for differences between our identifications. However, the outside reviewer noted one strategy that I missed in reviews I agreed with her observations and added this strategy to the mini-case data. Peer reviews provide an external check of the analysis process keeping the researcher honest (Cresswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995). To balance potential bias in identification and interpretation of instructional strategies, the instructors of the course reviewed the list and descriptions of instructional strategies. I asked the instructors to look for inconsistencies or missing strategies. According to Marshall and Rossman (1995), this strategy confirms a researcher's observations and increases confidence in the findings. The final strategy tempering bias involved two pilot studies. Each study focused on separate populations for different purposes. Based on fmdings from these two studies, I revised the research question, propositions, survey instruments, and underlying design 58

PAGE 80

Pilot Studies: What Happened on Prior Expeditions? Two pilot studies corroborated the potential value of this exploration and improved the research design. Each served a different purpose and was with a separate population. The first pilot group provided feedback on the overall research design, value of the study, and survey instruments After I made changes to the research design and survey instruments, I asked a second pilot group to review the research website. Since I collected data for this research project totally online, this second group critiqued the user interface of the research website and offered suggestions for revising survey items. Pilot Study # 1: Research Design The first pilot study occurred in the fall of 2000 with a group of 13 students. I selected this population because I was teaching the class and the students shared common characteristics with the target research population. The course focused on facilitating learning through web-based instruction. As an outcome, students developed web-based instructional modules. This class was dissimilar to the research population in that the pilot group met face-to-face for 15 weeks rather than online. The class provided feedback on the overall research design and potential value of the study. Toward the end ofthe course, students in the pilot group took paper copies of the two survey instruments. Group discussions contributed information about the 59

PAGE 81

research process and meaning of data. I compiled and analyzed the survey data. Then for three students, I combined their mini-case data sets and examined these sets for relationships between survey data and selections of instructional strategies. Four findings resulted in changes to the research project. The finding with the greatest consequence was that the instructor influences students' selections of instructional strategies for their web-based instructional modules. Hence, the instructors for the research population are included in the study. This resulted in a change from a muhi-case to an embedded-case study design. In this new design, the students comprised mini-cases embedded within context of the larger case (instructors). This added value to the study because it examines instructional strategy selections within the context of an authentic class. The student mini-cases then contributed to understandings and interpretations of the larger case, but are not the sole evidence for answering the research question. This change in design may seem like a small thing. However, in the process of analysis, I realized that the authenticity ofthe larger case adds credibility to the research and begins an honest dialog for answering what influences selections of instructional strategies in web-based learning environments. Although the student mini-cases expanded our understandings, their instructional modules were not authentic learning environments implemented with learner populations and are treated as such. This simple change in design, from a multi-case to an embedded case study, was a paradigm shift for me. I did not appreciate the enormity and 60

PAGE 82

implications of this change until I started writing the results. This new design increased the volume of data and complicated analysis procedures. Feedback on the two survey instruments was particularly valuable. Timing was very important Participants felt both surveys were more meaningful after the students had designed their web-based instructional modules rather than before This pilot group also circled individual survey items that appeared vague, inappropriate, or unclear. The greatest concern was for the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (see Appendix A for the original inventory). Some of the inventory items and the scale seemed better suited for traditional lecture-based classrooms than for web-based learning environments. I modified both surveys (see Appendices B and P) based on feedback from this pilot group. After reviewing the web-based instructional modules developed by students, I realized that I had difficulty objectively identifying selections of instructional strategies. As a result, another literature search resulted in a pedagogical assessment tool called the Taxonomy for Web Based Learning Environments (WBLE) (Mioduser et al., 2000; Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren, & Lahav, 1999) (see Appendix R). Consequently, for this study, I used this taxonomy for a more objective evaluation of the pedagogical features of the course and students websites. The final fmding was the need for another pilot group. I collected data from the first pilot group in class through paper copies of the survey instruments and through discussions. Collecting data online through a technical interface is very 61

PAGE 83

different. Therefore, a second pilot group evaluated the user interface of the research website. Pilot Study #2: Interface Design Committee members and selected colleagues (a total of seven people) comprised the second pilot group. After designing the research website (see Appendix L ), I emailed the URL to the group. They reviewed the website from a student's perspective and answered the following questions: (a) Does it explain the study well? (b) Are the directions clear and easy to follow? (c) Is it inviting for students? (d) Are the online surveys easy to take? (e) What would be helpful to add? (f) Is this sufficient for obtaining permission to participate? The emphasis was more on the mechanics of collecting data through a technical interface and less on the research design. Three suggestions came from this pilot group. First, the consensus was that it was easy to get lost in "cyberspace" while using this website. As a result, I redesigned the research website. The home page became a simplified five-step process for participating in the research (see Appendix L). Throughout the remainder of the website, I clarified directions and simplified navigation. Second, I refined more of the survey items. Finally, the second pilot group determined that the research website was sufficient for collecting data (see Appendices K and N) and obtaining participants' consent (see Appendix M). 62

PAGE 84

Research Population: Who Were the Fellow Explorers? The research population included nine participants: seven students and two instructors. An online course titled "Online Instructional Strategies" was the research context. Of the 12 students enrolled in the course, seven participated in the research. Reasons for non-participation may include lack of time, lack of interest, or an unwillingness to have an outsider (someone not enrolled in the class) look their websites. Without more information, it is difficult to determine factors influencing participation in this research. Motivation for Population Selection Five factors motivated selection of this research population. First, the class was 100% online implemented with a learner population. Since the study was about instructional strategies in web-based learning environments, it was an authentic context for addressing the research question and propositions. Second, students designed instructional websites as one of the course outcomes. These websites were key evidence for addressing observing selections of instructional strategies for webbased learning environments. The size of the population (third) was large enough to allow for combination and analysis of data across cases, and yet, small enough for data collection and analysis at an individual level. Fourth, the students and instructors all used the same technology (the Internet) for their web-based instructional modules. Therefore, differences between selections of instructional 63

PAGE 85

strategies among participants occurred for reasons other than choice of technology. Finally, the instructors were interested in the research topic and willing to participate. Instructor Group: Background Information Two instructors worked collaboratively to design the course, develop the instructional website, and manage the course. Both women came with considerable experience in the field of instructional design (over 15 years each) and expertise in instructional website development. Additionally, one had over 10 years experience as a teacher The other reported 15 years experience as a trainer and six years as an instructor in higher education. Self-Selection of Student Population Data collection began with an announcement posted on the course discussion board inviting all students to take part in the research study. Because of the initial low response rate (three), personal emails from the instructors and me followed the announcement posting. As a result, 8 out of 12 students responded. However, one student did not take the online surveys and was not included in the study Consequently, seven students from the class (58%) comprised the student group 64

PAGE 86

Student Group: Background Information All seven students were enrolled in a graduate-level certificate program for web-based learning environments or a master's degree program for instructional designers. There were six females and one male. Four students were classroom teachers (K-12 setting) and three instructional designers. Reported years of work experience ranged from 2 to 22 years. Although they had a diverse background in work experience, all but one considered themselves inexperienced at website development. All participants indicated that this was their first or second online class. Reasons for enrolling in the course included convenience, skill building, and that it was a requirement for their program. Surveys, Interviews, and Documents: What Samples Were Collected? When? How? Why? I used surveys, guided interviews, and document reviews (see Table 3.2) for data collection. According to Campbell (1997), and LeCompte and Preissle (1993), collecting data from multiple sources prevents the researcher from accepting their initial impressions of data and provides multiple views of the phenomena. It enhances the breadth, scope, and density of data by clarifying initial assumptions during the course ofthe research (Cresswell, 1998; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989). Others point out that multiple sources increase the quality ofthe research design (Cresswell, 1998; Stake, 1988; Yin, 1989). 65

PAGE 87

Table 3.2 Data Sources and Collection Methods Data Source Collection Methods Who? Or What? surveys Approaches to research website instructors Teaching Inventory students Stages of Concern research website instructors Instrument students interviews email guided interviews instructors students documents course website printed copies of web pages course web pages: text copied to Word files course syllabus assignments student assignments student biographies discussion board archives student websites printed copies of web pages web pages text copied to Word files activity pages Because the surveys referred to the websites developed for assignment Weeks 7-8, data collection began after students completed their modules but prior to the last week of class. Thus, data collection began in January 2001 and ended six weeks later, after the last email interview. 66

PAGE 88

Surveys I used two surveys (see Appendices Band P) in this study. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999) evaluated participants' approaches to teaching within the context of web-based instruction. The Stages of Concern Instrument (Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979; Reed, 1990; Takacs, Reed, Wells, & Dombrowski, 1999; Wells & Anderson, 1997) discriminated between participants' internal and external concerns with web-based instruction. Three reasons motivated the use of surveys in this study. First, these surveys allowed me to point the flashlight in a specific direction and examine limited aspects of the phenomena being studied. According to Krathwohl (1993), use of surveys in multi-case studies limits the data to one or two perspectives within the context of potentially large volumes of data. In this case, these two surveys focused attention on the two research propositions. Second, these surveys came from a review of literature on selections of instructional strategies and offer possible explanations for classroom practices. Finally, the use of surveys replaced the need for in-depth interviews with participants about their beliefs on how teaching and learning takes place, and their concerns with web-based learning environments. 67

PAGE 89

Approaches to Teaching Inventory. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory developed by Prosser and Trigwell (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999) measures participants' approaches to teaching along two different dimensions. The dimensions are: Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused and Conceptual Change/Student-Focused. Educators adopt different approaches to teaching based on their views of what it means to teach and how learning takes place (Kember & Gow, 1994; Pratt, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Schubert, 1992). These two approaches do not represent two ends of the same continuum; rather they are seen as relatively independent of each other (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997). Eight questions differentiate between these two approaches and contain the subscales of intention and strategy. Intentions are motives that define why a person uses a particular approach, whereas strategies describe what a person does to implement an approach (Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a; Trigwell et al., 1999). Below is an example of an intention and strategy item for the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. (See Appendix B for the inventory used in this study.) Intention: I believe that assessment in this web-based instructional module should be an opportunity for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. Strategy: In designing this web-based instructional module, I built in ways for learners to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. 68

PAGE 90

I selected this inventory for three reasons. First, the inventory data addressed the first research proposition. Data collected from this inventory differentiated participants' approaches to teaching along two different dimensions. I used these data as starting points for analysis and interpretation of relationships with selections of instructional strategies for web-based modules. For example, if a research participant reported Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused as their primary approach to teaching then I examined their instructional website text for strategies that indicate instructors telling facts and information. Second, Prosser and Trigwell (1993) developed this inventory to evaluate educators' approaches to teaching within a specific context. As a result, conclusions drawn are specific to selections of instructional strategies for their web-based modules and not for idealized instructional settings. Because of this specificity, it was easier describing relationships between approaches and instructional strategies. This means that conclusions drawn can be generalized to this research population and the two propositions, but not necessarily to the population at large. Finally, this inventory evolved out of a long research history (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999). As far as I know, this was the frrst time the Approaches to Teaching Inventory was used for a web-based teaching context. 69

PAGE 91

After the pilot studies, it became evident that I needed to modify the Approaches to Teaching Inventory to accommodate this research population and learning environment. In light of this, I made three modifications (see Appendix C). First, I created an introductory web page for the survey. Because of the software that I used to create the online surveys, participants were unable to refer back easily to the introductory paragraph (see Appendix K). Therefore, in the introduction, I reminded participants that inventory items refer specifically to their web-based instructional modules (context specific) and not idealized instructional settings. To each item, I added the phrase, ''this web-based instructional module," reminding participants of the teaching context. Second, I modified some ofthe inventory items. Prosser and Trigwell (1993, 1997) developed this inventory for faculty in traditional university settings. As such, some of the inventory items make reference to "lectures" and "class time." These terms do not translate well to web-based instruction. As a result, while honoring the intention, strategy, and approach of the authors' intent, I changed some of the inventory items to fit this population and teaching context (see Appendix C for a side-by-side comparison of the original and modified surveys). The concluding modification was to the inventory scale. Prosser and Trigwell (1999) use a scale (1 to 5) representing how often a particular intention or strategy is true for faculty. Because Prosser and Trigwell use this inventory with educators teaching traditional semester-long classes with predictable weekly class periods, 70

PAGE 92

these measures are more relevant. However, these measures are not as meaningful for web-based learning environments. Participants in both pilot studies pointed out this discrepancy. Consequently, I changed the scale of 1 to 5 to indicate participants' agreement with an item. Thus, the scale ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 =irrelevant, 2 =strongly disagree, 3 =disagree, 4 =agree, 5 =strongly agree). Prosser and Trigwell use this inventory in a number of studies (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999) and prove it be internally consistent and reliable. The internal consistency reliabilities for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approaches are .75 and .81 respectively (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993). However, for this study, since I modified some of the items and the measurement scale, these results no longer apply. The Approaches to Teaching Inventory developed by Prosser and Trigwell (Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1997; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a; Trigwell et al., 1994) measures participants' approaches to teaching along two different dimensions and contain subscales of intention and strategy. For the modified inventory, the reliability measures were 78 (Conceptual Change/Student Focused) and -.09 (Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused). The -.09 for the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach indicated a need for additional analysis of participant data. 71

PAGE 93

To understand more about the inventory results, I calculated correlations between factors. From these tables, I identified three factors that were negatively correlated to other factors in their subscales. The three factors are items 1, 2, and 14 (see Appendix B). I removed these items and used the Cronbach reliability model to recalculate reliabilities for these dimensions and subscales. As evident from Table 3.3, removing items 1, 2, and 14 improved the alpha coefficients for these measures. Table 3.3 Reliability Measures for Approaches to Teaching Data Approaches to Teaching Adjusted Approaches to Inventory Teaching Inventory items alpha items alpha COnceptual Change/ 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, .78 3, 5, 6, 8, .86 Student-Focused 13, 14, 16 9, 13, 16 intention 5, 8, 14, 16 .17 5, 8, 16 .57 strategy 3, 6, 9, 13 .84 3, 6, 9, 13 .84 Information Transmission/ 1, 2, 4, 7, -.09 4, 7, 10, .32 Teacher-Focused 10, 11, 12, 15 11, 12, 15 intention 2, 4, 11, 12 -.36 4, 11, 12 .49 strategy 1, 7, 10, 15 .36 7, 10, 15 65 72

PAGE 94

Items 1 and 2 were for the Infonnation Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach for the subscales strategy and intention respectively. Item 14 represents one factor in the intention subscale for the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach. Five possible explanations for the negative correlations among factors are (a) lack of fit with a web-based teaching context, (b) lack of fit with the dimension and subscales, (c) small research population, (d) poorly worded or constructed items, and (e) inappropriate rating scale First, as an example for lack of fit with web-based instruction, Item 14 from the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused dimension and intention subscale states that "In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to generate their own notes rather than supplying them with mine" (see Table 3.4). This item makes reference to student note taking, a behavior consistent with traditional classroom situations where the instructor lectures and students take notes on what is heard. This student behavior may not apply to a web-based teaching context. The second reason for negative correlations is lack of fit with the dimension and subscales. Item (14) provides an example of this explanation. The other three items in the intention subscale refer to requiring learners to reveal changed understandings, encouraging learners to restructure knowledge, and questioning learners' ideas. The focus is on challenging learners to reevaluate what they know and understand about a subject. Student note taking may not correlate with the other three subscale items. 73

PAGE 95

Table 3.4 Items for Conceptual Change/Student-Focused Dimension Organized by Subscales Item Intention Subscale 5 I believe that assessment in this Web-based instructional module should be an opportunity for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. 8 In designing this Web-based instruction module, I encouraged learners to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject. 14 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to generate their own notes rather than supplying them with mine. 16 In this Web-based instructional module, I built in opportunities to question learners' ideas. Item Strategy Subscale 3 In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop a conversation with learners about the topics being studied. 6 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important for students to discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they may encounter studying this subject. 9 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I used difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. 13 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I built in ways for learners to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. For the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach, Items 1 and 2 (see Table 3.5) also demonstrate a possible lack of fit within the dimension and subscales. Item2 (intention subscale) states that "In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to know." The other three factors for the intention subscale emphasize presenting facts, providing detailed 74

PAGE 96

information, and knowing answers to questions posed by learners. Objectives may not relate to knowing and presenting facts As another example, Item 1 (strategy subscale) states that "I designed thls Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the learners have very little useful knowledge of what is being covered., The other three factors in the strategy subscale emphasize covering Table 3.5 Items for Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused Dimension Organized by Subscales Item Intention Subscale 2 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to Imow. 4 I believe it is important to present a lot of facts in this Web-based instructional module so that learners Imow what they have to learn about this subject. 11 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important to provide learners with complete and detailed infollDation about the subject. 12 In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that I should Imow the answers to questions that learners may put to me. Item Strategy Subscale I designed this Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the learners have very little useful Imowledge of what is being covered. 7 In designing this Web-based instructional module, I concentrated on covering the information that might be available from a good textbook. 10 In designing this Web-based instructional module I structured it to help learners to pass formal assessment items. 15 When I designed this Web-based instructional module, I only provided learners with the information they might need to pass a formal assessment. 75

PAGE 97

information from a textbook and helping students pass formal assessments. Assuming learners have little knowledge may not relate well to these other three items. The third reason is that the size of the research population was very small (n = 9). As such, analysis and data interpretations should be viewed with extreme caution. The results of this small group of educators may be representative of the general population of educators or a biased sample group. Without additional studies with larger populations specific to this teaching context, the quality ofthe modified inventory and the reliability of the dimensions and subscales cannot be determined confidently. Another reason (four) for these results is that the items may be poorly worded or inaccurately translated from the original Approaches to Teaching inventory. Although I modified items trying to honor the intention, strategy, and teaching approach, these modifications may not represent an accurate interpretation of Prosser's and Trigwell's notions. Finally, I modified the participant rating scale. Although I used a scale of 1 to 5 (the same as Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), I modified their descriptions for each number. Prosser and Trigwell use a scale (1 to 5) representing how often a particular intention or strategy is true for faculty. I changed the scale of 1 to 5 to indicate participants' agreement with an item. Thus, the modified scale ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 = irrelevant, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = 76

PAGE 98

agree, 5 = strongly agree). This new scale for interpreting approaches to teaching may not accurately measure participants' approaches to teaching. Nevertheless, given that this was an initial exploration of relationships between approaches to teaching and selections strategies, I decided that it was a useful tool for this research project with the following two restrictions. First, I removed three factors (Items 1, 2, 14) from the calculations. I made this decision because the reliability of the inventory improved when I removed them and the items did not intuitively fit within their dimensions and subscales. I recalculated participants' reported approaches to teaching based on 13 rather than 16 items. It was interesting to note that in the original analysis of approaches to teaching data (all 16 items), participants separated into two groups. Removing these three items and recalculating participants' approaches to teaching had no effect on these groupings. Second, I did not rely totally on numeric scores to describe participants' approaches to teaching. In the analysis and interpretation of data, I used text from each item to compare with selections of strategies. Stages of Concern Instrument. An online version of the Stages of Concern Instrument (Dwyer et al., 1991; Falba, 1997; Wells & Anderson, 1997) (see Appendices N for the online version, 0 for the original instrument, and P for the modified version) collected data from participants about their concerns with web based instruction. This 35-item survey was a modified version of the instrument 77

PAGE 99

developed by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1979). I used the survey to determine participants' current concerns for seven different stages and divide their concerns into internal and external concerns (see Table 3.6). Four stages (awareness, informational, personal, management) represent internal concerns where the focus is on how the innovation affects them personally. The other three describe external stages (consequence, collaboration refocusing) where the focus is on how the innovation affects others. Table 3.6 Seven Stages of Concern Concern Stage external &-refocusing 5-<:ollaboration 4-<:onsequence internal 3--management 2--personal !-informational o-awareness Description interested or involved in exploring other innovations interested in sharing innovation with others through discussions, and encouraging others to try it out concerned with impact innovation may have on their immediate sphere of influence, such as students and colleagues focused on personal management strategies for using innovation, such how to use it efficiently concerned with how innovation affects them personally and whether they are able to meet those needs interested in learning details about the innovation such as general characteristics, requirements for use, and purpose unconcerned with or uninterested in the innovation 78

PAGE 100

I selected this inventory for two reasons. First, the inventory data addressed the second research proposition. A unique feature of this inventory is the ability to measure attitudes of those involved with an innovation and differentiate between internal and external concerns. These data were starting points for addressing the second proposition, namely that a relationship exists between concerns and selections of instructional strategies. For example, if a participant scored high on internal concerns, then I examined their mini-case data for confirming evidence. Second, this inventory evolved out of a long research history (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Hallet al., 1979; Reed, 1990; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Other studies use the Stages of Concern Instrument with web-based instruction to measure students' change in concerns over time (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997). For this study, I used the instrument to evaluate educators' current concerns with web-based instruction. I made few modifications to the Stages of Concern Instrument (see Appendix P). As a research vehicle, this survey can be used for any innovation where the researcher wants to measure the attitudes of participants involved with an innovation. The only requirement is the replacement of the word "innovation" for the specific technology being explored, in this case ''web-based instruction" (Hallet al., 1979; Reed, 1990; Takacs et al., 1999; Wells & Anderson, 1997). As an example of modifications, I changed the statement: 79

PAGE 101

To: I am concerned about facilitating use of this new innovation in view of limited resources. I am concerned about facilitating use of web-based instruction in view of limited resources. Only one item on the inventory proved problematic for the pilot groups in that it did not directly refer to web-base instruction and seemed vague. As a result, while honoring the stage to which this it referred, I modified this item. Consequently, I changed the item: To: I would like to determine how to enhance my facilitation skills. I would like to determine how to enhance my facilitation skills with web based instruction Researchers have shown that the 35-question inventory is reliable (coefficient alpha= .91 (Reed, 1990; Takacs et al., 1999)). For this study and the nine participants, the reliability coefficient was .69. Because I only modified one question and the reliability was acceptable, I performed no further analysis of these data. Interviews Interviews served two purposes. First, they provided background information about the participants to include their work experience, instructional design skills, web page development skills, and motivation for taking the online class. (See Appendix J for a list of questions.) Second, literature suggests that skills and 80

PAGE 102

experience with teaching and technology influence selections of strategies (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Hannafin & Freeman, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Stark et al., 1988a). Having this information allowed exploration of alternative explanations and interpretations of data. Documents Reviews of documents add to the depth and breadth of data collected. They provide a different perspective on what is being observed (Weiss, 1994). Online course materials and student instructional websites (see Table 3.2) constituted the documents reviewed in this study. It should be noted that this study was a static rather than dynamic examination of selections of instructional strategies. This meant that I focused on instructional strategies selected ahead oftime and did not look for strategies used by the instructors in online class discussions. In all, I evaluated over 355 pages of text documents. However, not all data addressed the research question and propositions. I decided what data to include in the study based on whether or not the data addressed the research question and propositions. Given this criterion, I included much of the data found in the research documents and set other pieces aside. For example, I only included two of the seven student assignments (see Appendix E for a list of class assignments) because they addressed the research question and propositions. Both were individual student assignment tasks rather than group projects. 81

PAGE 103

Course Website. Documents available through the course website included the course syllabus, descriptions of assignments (see Appendices E, F, and G), student biographies, discussion board archives (see Appendix H), and student assignments. The course website consisted of30 web pages and included 121 external links. Web page count does not translate to the number of printed pages of text. For instance, a single web page in the course website resulted in 12 pages of printed text. Web page numbers include all pages created by the instructors such as performance guidelines and case study descriptions. It does not include pages accessible through links but not directly developed by the instructors. The first assignment that was evidence occurred in Weeks 7-8 of the 10-week course (see Appendix F). Students created web-based instructional modules. This effort constituted 20% of a student's course grade. For these web-based modules, students choose from five different instructional topics that included (a) activating learning, (b) learning through tests and exercises, (c) promoting collaboration, (d) motivating learners in virtual classrooms, and (e) venturing beyond courses. As part of instructional modules, the instructors recommended including an overview, interaction types, tools, examples, recommendations, and bibliography. Every student in the class met this requirement. Two students in the research population negotiated with the instructors to design instructional modules around topics other than the five specified in the assignment description. Upon completion, students posted the URLs for their instructional websites to the course discussion board and 82

PAGE 104

then facilitated discussions about their modules. On the average, students made 8.9 comments per website. The second assignment that was evidence for addressing the research question and propositions occurred in Week 10 (see Appendix G). Students developed an individual action plan. This task comprised 5% of the course grade. For this assignment, students reflected on their own learning experiences during the semester. Students then described what they learned, how this knowledge impacted their understanding of online instruction, and what learning needs they had. Students posted their action plans to the course discussion board. Student Websites. The student instructional websites averaged 11.6 web pages in size and ranged from 4 to 18 pages. Each web page consisted of text, graphic images, and a navigation system. Web page count represented only the main web pages of an instructional website and did not include pop-up windows intended as feedback with little to no navigation. Data from these modules included all web pages created by students such as information pages, answers to questions, feedback on assessment items, tip sheets, checklists, matching games, crossword puzzles, and tutorials. It did not include web pages that were accessible through links but not directly developed by students. On the average, student websites contained 17 external links, ranging from I to 46. 83

PAGE 105

Data Collection Summary For this study, I collected data from three different sources: surveys, interviews, and documents (Table 3.7). These data provided different views. Table 3.7 Motivation for Data Collection Data background information approaches to teaching concerns with webbased instruction student website development context selections of instructional strategies additional evidence Data Source email interviews biographies in course website Approaches to Teaching Inventory Stages of Concern Instrument course website course website student websites course website student websites 84 Why? describe population demographics explore alternative explanations for observations address proposition # 1 describe participants' approaches to teaching address proposition # 2 describe participants' concerns with web-based instruction describe assignment requirements explore alternative explanations for observations in student websites and mini-case data describe participants' selections of instructional strategies explore alternative explanations for observations

PAGE 106

Data Management Procedures: How Was Integrity of the Samples Preserved? Prior to any analysis, pseudonyms replaced all references to individual data. This process preserved the anonymity of research participants. I used five management strategies to collect and store data First, I downloaded all online survey data (Approaches to Teaching and Stages of Concern) from the research website, compiled it, and entered it in a database. Second, I printed out and saved as text files all online course materials (such as assignment descriptions, student biographies, course syllabus, student assignments, and discussion board comments). Third, I printed out all instructional website materials developed by students, bookmarked their URLs, and copied the text into Word files. I recorded (on paper) data collected using the Taxonomy for WBLE (fourth), and added the data to a database. Finally, I downloaded and saved all email interview data as text files. Essentially, I stored all data on a computer, compiled duplicate paper copies in notebooks, and maintained backups of the data on floppy disks. Analysis Procedures: What Tests Were Performed on the Samples? Because ofthe complexity of the embedded-case study design and the variety of evidence, I combined data and analyzed it on three levels (see Figure 3.2): (level 1) individual student mini-cases, (level2) across student mini-cases, and (level 3) student mini-cases within the context ofthe larger case. Notice a funnel represents 85

PAGE 107

the embedded case-study analysis process. Analysis begins with large volumes of data interpreted as individual pieces. The researcher then combines these data for evaluation and interpretation at different levels. Figure 3.2. Embedded-case study analysis process. survey data interview data course documents web-based modules text taxonomy data literature review individual student mini-cases across student mini-cases explanations understandings answer for research question interpretations for research propositions Ievell level2 level3 For level I, I combined and examined individual student mini-case data. At the second level, I grouped student mini-case data and evaluated group data collectively. For the final level, I analyzed the larger case data and interpreted 86

PAGE 108

student mini-case data within this context. The process ended with understandings and interpretations as it relates to the research question and the two research propositions. Level 1: Individual Student Mini-Cases Data analysis at this first level is a three-step process (see Table 3.8). I first analyzed individual participant data. I combined these data creating individual mini case data sets. Finally, I analyzed these mini-case data sets within the context of the research question and two propositions. Step 1. As a first step, I analyzed individual student survey, interview, and document data Because these data came in different forms, I used different analysis methods. I combined interview and student biography data from the course website. These data described participants' work experience and skills at developing websites. Data from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory described participants' approaches to teaching along two dimensions: Conceptual Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused. For the 16 inventory items, participants rated their agreement for a particular item on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = irrelevant, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 =disagree, 4 =agree, 5 =strongly agree). As stated earlier (see page 72), I removed items 1, 2 and 14 because of the reliability of these factors. As a 87

PAGE 109

Table 3.8 Levell: Data and Analysis Procedures for Individual Student Mini-Cases Data step 1 student background survey data selections of instructional strategies additional evidence step 2 individual mini-cases step 3 Analysis Procedures (1) compiled from bios on discussion board: experience, skills, interests (2) compiled for each participant: experience, skills, and reasons for taking class Approaches to Teaching Inventory generated descriptive statistics for 2 dimensions: Iriformation Transmission/Teacher-Focused, Conceptual Change/Student-Focused Stages of Concern Instrument generated descriptive statistics for internal and external concerns, and for 7 stages: awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration, refocusing web-based instructional modules (assignment Weeks 7-8) (I) created site maps (2) generated descriptive statistics for student websites using Taxonomy of WBLE: # html pages, # of images, # outside links, and types of instructional strategies (3) performed analysis of website text read and marked initial codes on website text identified instructional strategies selected collected descriptive features analyzed student assignments looked for patterns, themes, categories formed initial codes combined data for each mini-case surveys interviews assignments instructional website data analyzed mini-case data based on each research proposition analyzed for approaches relationship analyzed for stages relationship made notes, observations, and posed questions created drawings and tables 88

PAGE 110

consequence, I calculated participants' approaches to teaching by positively scoring items, adding these scores together, and then dividing by the number of items in the dimensions and subscales. (See Appendix D for Approaches to Teaching Inventory data interpretation key.) Inventory data from the second survey described participants' internal and external concerns with web-based instruction as well as seven separate stages. For each of the 35 inventory items, participants rated their agreement on a scale ofO to 7 (0 = irrelevant, 1 = not true, 2 = seldom true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = true, 5 = more true, 6 =very true, 7 =really true). For each stage (five items per stage), I scored responses to items positively and added these values together. I then calculated participants' internal (stage 0 to 3) and external (stages 4 to 6) concerns by combining the scores from appropriate stages and then dividing by the number of items. The last step was necessary because of the unequal number of items for these two categories (20 items for internal and 15 items for external concerns). Dividing by the number of items allowed for equitable comparisons between internal and external concerns. (See Appendix Q for Stages of Concern Instrument data interpretation key.) The most difficult and potentially subjective aspect of study was identification of participants' selections of instructional strategies. In light ofthis, I used multiple methods to identify selections of strategies. 89

PAGE 111

Prior to collecting data, I generated a list of instructional strategies. This list evolved from experience and literature. Initially, I used this list as a checklist for reviewing participant websites. I created site maps for each website. These data were starting points for analyzing website data and identifYing selections of strategies. I used the Taxonomy ofWBLE (Mioduser et al., 2000; Nachmias et al., 1999) to review participant modules. This tool evaluates pedagogical aspects of instructional websites and supports high-level analysis. With this taxonomy (see Appendix R) I evaluated participant websites along four dimensions (see Table 3.9): (a) descriptive-descriptive characteristics of a website, (b) pedagogical-instructional Table 3.9 Taxonomy of Web-Based Learning Environments (WBLE}, Dimensions and Descriptions Dimension descriptive pedagogical knowledge communication Description general information: site identification, site evolution, language, target population, site size, subject matter instructional strategies: instructional configuration, instructional models, instructional means, interaction type, cognitive process, locus of control, feedback, help functions, learning resources, evaluation knowledge organization and presentation: representational structure means, type of knowledge, and navigation tools communication channels: types oftele-learning, types of communication, links, communication means 90

PAGE 112

strategies engaging students with learning, (c) knowledge-knowledge presented and _how they are organized and (d) communication-communications between instructors and students. From these reviews, I compiled additional selections of instructional strategies. I marked participants' website text three separate times. I conducted these reviews on clean copies of text with three or more weeks between reviews. Throughout this process, I compiled lists and create tables of strategies. I combined these strategies with those generated from the checklist and taxonomy evaluation. I choose names for instructional strategies that are short, descriptive, and not evaluative in nature. During this process, I observed that participants used the same instructional strategy in different ways. This variation created a challenge for interpreting and explaining data. For example, every participant selected mini-lectures as an instructional strategy. However, there was great diversity in how these mini-lectures support student learning. As an illustration, Mark's mini-lectures presented facts, definitions, and links to online resources. In contrast, Sue's mini-lectures provided different points of view and asked questions that challenged learners' ideas. Thus, I created unique strategy names distinguishing different functions. Therefore, "mini lectures" present facts and information, whereas "questions" challenges learner ideas. 91

PAGE 113

I also observed that the research participants selected multiple strategies for a single learning activity. For example, the instructors selected case study, develop product, discuss conceptions, group project, and peer review as strategies for the one learning activity in Weeks 5-6. I analyzed additional documents found in the course website. These documents included all course assignment descriptions, student products, and discussion board archives. I reviewed these documents for evidence that might support approaches to teaching, concerns with web-based instruction, and explain selections of strategies. I marked text with initial codes and note observations. Step 2. At this point, I combined data for each student participant. These data comprised the student mini-cases and include participant background, survey data, selections of instructional strategies, and additional evidence. Step 3. For each research I examined each student mini-case for relationships and explanations. I looked for relationships between approaches to teaching, concerns, and selections of strategies. To exemplify, if a participant reported an Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach to teaching, then I examined their instructional module for evidence. On separate pieces of paper, I made notes, observations, and posed questions. I created data tables and explanatory drawings. 92

PAGE 114

Level2: Across Student Mini-Cases The second level of analysis occurs across student mini-cases (see Table 3.10). Analysis at this level is a two-step process. Initially, I analyzed survey data as a group. Then I compiled lists of selected instructional strategies and looked for natural groupings. Based on these analyses, I grouped student mini-cases. As a second step, I analyzed group data for each proposition. Table 3.10 Level 2: Analysis Procedures Across Student Mini-Cases Data Analysis Procedures step 1 survey data step 2 selections of instructional strategies generated descriptive statistics for surveys (Approaches to Teaching and Concerns with WBI) using SPSS frequencies means standard deviations significant differences reliability measures compiled tables of text descriptions of students' survey data (Approaches to Teaching and Concerns with WBI) grouped data based on common elements ( 1) refined list of instructional strategies (2) grouped selections based on patterns and commonalities (3) categorized instructional strategies (1) grouped student mini-cases based on selections of instructional strategies and other distinctive features (2) examined group data for common elements and relationships with selections of instructional strategies analyzed for approaches relationship analyzed for stages relationship (3) created tables and drawings of data ( 4) tested emerging understandings of data against literature 93

PAGE 115

Step 1. First, I combined student survey data and analyze it. I calculated frequencies, means, standard distributions, significant differences, and reliability measures. I also created text description tables of students' survey data. I categorized and grouped instructional strategies. Organizing instructional strategies helped me think though data analysis, presentation, and interpretation. It facilitated comparisons between approaches to teaching, concerns with web-based instruction, and selections of instructional strategies. I organized the strategies around the two groups of active participants (instructors and students) and the type of included information. Strategies naturally separated into two groups: challenging and guiding. From an educator's perspective, these created groups best described and organized the variety of instructional strategies. Other researchers use similar criteria for organizing instructional strategies in two groups (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 1994; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Each uses slightly different criteria for separating instructional strategies (see Table 3.11). Prosser and Trigwell (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999) divide strategies into Conceptual Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused. Barr and Tagg (1995) utilize learning and instruction, while Niederhauser and Stoddart (1994) use student-centered and computer-centered transmission of knowledge to separate strategies. 94

PAGE 116

Table 3.11 Researchers' Criteria for Organizing Instructional Strategies Dimensions Prosser and Trigwell (1999) Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused studentfocused confront learner's conceptions of field Barr and Learning Tagg (1995) student-focused student constructs knowledge Niederhauser Student-Centered and Stoddart (1994) student-centered student constructs knowledge Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused teacher-focused tell information Instruction teacher-focused student acquires knowledge Computer-Centered computer-centered student learns knowledge According to Prosser and Trigwell (1994), Conceptual Change/StudentFocused strategies provide opportunities for learners to discuss difficulties, restructure knowledge, and generate their own notes. Strategies include developing conversations with learners, using difficult examples to provoke debate, building in ways to discuss information, and questioning learners' ideas. Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused strategies present facts, provide detailed information, describe the subject in terms of objectives, and answer questions posed by learners. Strategies include covering information from a good textbook, helping learners pass formal assessments, and assuming learners know very little of the subject. The two 95

PAGE 117

criteria separating instructional strategies into groups are (a) student-focused or teacher-focused, and (b) confronting learners' conceptions of the field or telling information. Prosser's and Trigwell's two categories are similar to what Barr and Tagg (1995) define as learning and instruction paradigms. Criteria separating these two paradigms are (a) student-focused or teacher-focused, and (b) student construction of knowledge or student acquisition of information. The learning paradigm promotes student learning by encouraging student discovery and construction ofknowledge. Strategies include specifYing learning results, creating public assessments, and developing collaborative learning environments. The instruction paradigm's purpose is to cover materials, teach, transfer knowledge from faculty to student, and improve the quality of instruction. Strategies include end-of-course assessment, lectures, and individualistic classroom learning. Niederhauser and Stoddart (1994) use slightly different criteria for separating strategies. They are (a) student-centered or computer-centered, and (b) student construction of knowledge or student acquisition of information. Student-centered strategies help students construct their own representations of concepts, allow them to analyze data, encourage them to draw inferences, and challenge them to generate their own solutions. These strategies contrast with computer-centered ones that provide students practice in basic skills, make sure students get the right answer, provide drill and practice in the content required, and reinforce the correct solution. 96

PAGE 118

Although challenging and guiding do not fit neatly with the categorizations defmed by other researchers, these created categories fit reasonably well with the research, and best organize and describe participants' selections of instructional strategies. Challenging strategies focus on learner actions and encourage learners to interact with concepts and ideas. They involve active participation of learners in complex learning activities. Examples of challenging strategies include activities where learners participate in group projects, facilitate online discussions, and develop instructional websites. They focus on what learners experience and think about. This concentration is achieved through discussions and various learning experiences. Challenging strategies are easily understood within the context of cave exploration. These strategies focus on learners and equipping them for cave exploration. As a result, the leader introduces different paths for exploration and engages learners in conversations. Discussions center on which paths to explore, what to see and experience, what skills are important, and what equipment is needed. With challenging strategies, the leader (instructor) provides everyone (learners) with flashlights and allows for different learning experiences. Guiding strategies emphasize actions of an instructor and focus on providing information. Hence, the instructor determines student learning needs and sees knowledge as represented by facts and information. Examples of strategies in this 97

PAGE 119

category include presenting facts, preparing detailed outlines of the learning terrain, providing learning tips, and creating performance guidelines. They focus on what the instructor presents and how this information is organized. Guiding strategies emphasize safety and control for cave exploration. The instructor defines which paths to explore, what to see and experience, and how to have a safe journey. With guiding strategies, the leader is in control and the only one with a flashlight. Consequently, leaders choose where to shine the light thereby determining what others see and experience. They lead the expedition and work to keep others on the same trail. In summary, challenging strategies focus on learner actions and encouraging learners to interact with concepts and ideas (see Table 3.12). Guiding strategies contrast with challenging ones by emphasizing the actions of an instructor, and representing knowledge as facts and information. I should note that all strategies did not fit neatly into these two categories. When this happened, I categorized strategies by "information type" rather than the "instructor's role. In the research, ''types of information" was the most common characteristic separating teaching conceptions and instructional strategies (Fox, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Menges & Rando, 1989; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell et al., 1994). 98

PAGE 120

Table 3.12 Characteristics of Challenging and Guiding Instructional Strategies Instructor's Role challenging act as facilitator challenge learners provide multiple flashlights create learning activities guiding act as guide determine paths to explore illuminate different aspects of cave with single flashlight organize information Information Type concepts and ideas facts and information Strategies develop conversations with learners provide map of learning terrain have learners actively involved give learners options challenge learners to reflect organize and present facts provide structure and guidance reinforce learning Step 2. Based on selections of instructional strategies and website characteristics, I combined data into groups and evaluated them in relation to each proposition. For instance, three students selected strategies that emphasized facts and information rather than concepts and ideas. In the analysis, I evaluated these minicases as a group and looked to see if survey data explain the grouping. In the process, I identified common elements and understandings of emerging data as it related to each proposition. I created tables and drawings to explain what I observed. 99

PAGE 121

Level 3: Mini-Cases Within Larger Case Context Analysis ofthe student mini-cases within the context of the larger case occurs after analyses at levels 1 and 2 (see Table 3.13). For level3, analysis began with understanding and interpreting the larger case data. I then analyzed these data in relation to the emerging mini-case data. Emphasis was on how the emerging interpretations and explanations of mini-case data fit the larger case and literature. Step 1. As a first step, I analyzed individual larger case data. These data included instructor surveys, interviews, and documents. I used the same analysis methods for the larger case that I use for the student mini-cases. For instance, I combined interview and biography data from the course website and described instructors' work experience and skills at developing websites. Based on the survey data, I calculated the instructors' approaches to teaching and concerns with web based instruction. I then analyzed the course website for selections of strategies. Initially, I created a site map. I evaluated the course website against the checklist. I used the Taxonomy for Web-Based Learning Environments and described pedagogical aspects of the course website. I identified instructional strategies selected through multiple reviews of the course website. Step 2. For this step, I combined the larger case data. Then, for each research proposition, I examined the larger case data set for relationships and explanations. I 100

PAGE 122

Table 3.13 Level 3: Analysis Procedures for Mini-Cases Within Context of Larger Case step 1 step2 step 3 Data instructor background survey data selections of instructional strategies larger case data student mini-cases within context of larger case larger case data Analysis Procedures (1) compiled from bios from course: experience, skills, interests (2) compiled from interviews: experience, skills Approaches to Teaching Inventory generated descriptive statistics for 2 dimensions: Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused, Conceptual Change/Student Focused Stages of Concern Instrument generated descriptive statistics for internal and external concerns compiled tables of text of instructors' survey data (Approaches to Teaching and Concerns with web-based instruction) course website (1) created site map (2) generated descriptive statistics for course website using Taxonomy of WBLE: # html pages, # of images, # outside links, and types of instructional strategies (3) performed analysis of course website text read and marked initial codes on website text identified instructional strategies selected collected descriptive features (I) combined larger case data (2) analyzed larger case data based on each research proposition analyzed for approaches relationship analyzed for stages relationship made notes, observations, and pose questions created drawings and tables (1) analyzed data from student web-based modules within the context of course requirements, expectations (2) analyzed student web-based modules within the context of course and instructor group examined for patterns, themes refined instructional strategies and categories searched for alternative explanations examined literature for confirming evidence analyzed larger case data with data from student mini-cases examined for ways student data contributes to understanding of larger case looked for patterns, themes refined instructional strategies and categories searched for alternative explanations examined literature for confirming evidence 101

PAGE 123

looked for relationships between approaches to teaching, concerns, and selections of strategies. To exemplify, the instructors selected 11 challenging and 5 guiding instructional strategies. I looked at their survey data to see if these data explain selections. On separate pieces of paper, I made notes, observations, and posed questions. I then created data tables and explanatory drawings. Step 3. I examined student mini-cases within the context of the larger case. This step was important for accepting, refining, and possibly refuting explanations generated at levels 1 and 2. For example, after reviewing a checklist developed by a student within the context of the course, I realized that the assignment description influenced her selections of instructional strategies. Initially, the checklist appeared to be a thoughtful list of questions intended to engage others in conversation. However, the checklist items merely restated elements from the assignment description. So in this step, I examined the student mini-case data and looked for the instructors' influence that might offer alternative explanations and interpretations. As the final piece, I looked at the larger case as a whole. I articulated what I observed through tables, drawings, and text. In this process, I evaluated whether the student mini-cases affmned, refuted, or broadened our understandings of the larger case data. Always, attention was on how findings and observations answered the research question and addressed the two propositions. 102

PAGE 124

Limitations The results of this research generalize to this research population, question, and propositions. As such, the population size, instructor-student differences, static examination, and researcher bias limit conclusions. This study occurred with one authentic online class, two instructors, seven students, and seven student instructional modules. Because of the small population and instructor-student differences, relationships between teaching approaches and strategy selections may apply to this population or be reflective of educators in general. Although I evaluated eight instructional websites students developed seven of them to meet class requirements. This meant that student websites were different from the course website. Four features characterize differences between them. First, students designed mod\Iles around less complex learning topics. Rather than multiple topics and issues, students chose one learning topic and created instruction around it. Student websites were smaller in size (an average of 12 pages compared with 30 pages in the course website) and less complex. Second, the students did not implement their instructional websites with learner populations. Even though the instructors required students to share their websites with fellow students, it was questionable whether learners other than their peers looked at their websites and interacted with their learning activities. Third, students did not include an assessment element sufficient for grading student performance. The final element was the 103

PAGE 125

organization ofwebsites. A traditionallO-week course schedule organized the course website while lessons, lectures, and learning activities organized student websites. These differences indicate that students' selections of strategies cannot be compared equitably with instructors' selections. This study was a static rather than 4ynamic examination of selections of instructional strategies. I focused on instructional strategies selected ahead of time and did not look for strategies used by instructors in online class discussions. Static examinations resulted in limited observations about teaching practices and did not represent the full breadth of instructional strategies utilized in online classes. Also, guiding instructional strategies may focus on facts but be implemented in challenging ways. Throughout data analysis and interpretation, I found it difficult to remain objective. For this study, many strategies limited researcher bias but, in reality, totally objectivity was not possible. In the analysis process, I found that my own biases, teaching conceptions, and notions of exemplary technology-based teaching practices rose to the surface. I value a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. In my own teaching practices, I select strategies that emphasize student involvement and dialog. Therefore, interpretations and conclusions may represent my own worldviews and understandings rather than an objective reflection. 104

PAGE 126

Summary In summary, analyses of embedded-case study data are very complex. Essentially analysis begins with the smaller, individual pieces and progresses towards analyzing and understanding the whole. Therefore, I separate the findings into two chapters. In Chapter 4, I report the findings from the student mini-cases. The larger case findings (Chapter 5) include descriptions of instructors' roles, online course descriptions, and interpretations of student mini-cases within this context. Chapter 6 concludes with a summary ofthis research, areas of future research, and limitations ofthe study. 105

PAGE 127

CHAPTER4 STUDENT MINI-CASE FINDINGS Based on analysis of student mini-case data, participants separated into three groups that are Facilitator, Guide, and Leader. Instructional strategies, information types, personal references, questions, and references characterize differences between groups, whereas the roles students assume in their instructional websites best describe these groups. Facilitators predominately opted for challenging strategies that engaged learners in conversations and activities. They questioned learners' conceptions of a field and encouraged learners to work out solutions to problems. Guides consistently choose guiding strategies that organized and presented facts, strategies that emphasized teacher actions rather than those of the learners. Leaders select both challenging and guiding strategies. Although Leaders engaged learners through conversations and activities, emphasis was on learners knowing facts and viewing the field of study the same way that the Leader does. The approaches to teaching data best explain differences between these groups. Relationships between participants' selections of strategies and concerns with web based instruction were less evident. 106

PAGE 128

In the following sections, I explain the conclusions from the study. I begin with descriptions of the three groups that characterize students' roles relative to their websites. Based on these groupings, I present evidence for relationships first with teaching approaches and then with web-based instructional concerns. Student Mini-Case Grouping Grouping student mini-cases allowed me to look for commonalities across instructional websites, search for explanations of strategy selections, and examine relationships posed by the two research propositions. In this process, I found that instructional strategies, information types, personal references, questions, and references separate and describe these groups. Based on the active participants (instructor or learners) and type of information, instructional strategies separate into challenging and guiding strategies. Challenging strategies focus on learner actions and encouraging learners to interact with concepts and ideas. Guiding strategies emphasize the actions of an instructor, and represent knowledge as facts and information. (See Chapter 3, page 97 for criteria separating and organizing instructional strategies.) Information types refer to the kinds of information observed in websites and may include attitudes, feelings, definitions, facts, and application strategies. Personal references were the number of personal pronouns used by students in their websites. They included terms such as "I," ''you," ''we," and "us." Personal pronouns indicate 107

PAGE 129

conversations between two or more persons. Questions refer to the number of questions posed by the instructional designer in their websites. Questions also indicate conversations with others and may present different viewpoints and considerations. Resources are references to experts, software, online examples, books, and general information. The three data groupings that emerged from student mini-cases analysis were Facilitators, Guides, and Leaders (see Table 4.1). The numbers in the table are group averages. Facilitators (Jane and Sue) selected more instructional strategies than any other group. They used twice as many challenging as guiding strategies. Their websites represented the greatest breadth in types of information with an emphasis on concepts and ideas. As a group, Facilitators used more personal references, posed Table 4.1 Features Describing Student Mini-Case Groups Facilitators Guides Leaders Jane Usa Ann Sue Mark Beth Rose total strategies 10.5 6.3 7.0 challenging 7.5 1.3 3.0 guiding 3.0 5.0 4.0 information types 10.5 4.0 5.5 personal references 127.0 26.7 56.0 posed questions 27.0 7.0 6.0 resources 37.5 28.7 21.0 108

PAGE 130

more questions, and included more resources than any other student group. Consistently, their websites illustrated instructors assuming the role of a Facilitator by engaging students in conversations around difficult and challenging topics. Guides (Lisa, Mark, and Rose) chose more guiding than challenging strategies. Their websites emphasized facts and information. Of the three groups, the Guides had the fewest number of personal references. In the role of a Guide, designers organized facts and presented information. Leaders (Ann and Beth) selected both challenging and guiding strategies. Although they included more personal references than Guides, their websites also focused on facts and information. For each group and student mini-case, I elaborate the data from the table above. I naine students' selections of instructional strategies and types of information and describe how they used personal references, posed questions, and resources. These data come together and describe students' roles in instructional websites. Facilitators Jane and Sue assumed the role of Facilitators in their instructional websites. As Facilitators, they presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, posed questions, and challenged learners to find solutions. Throughout their modules, their strategies emphasized students in conversations and activities. Ofthe students' websites, Jane's and Sue's modules were the most complex, integrated, and holistic. Their websites integrated lessons, instructional content, and 109

PAGE 131

learning activities in such a way that separation into discrete units is very difficult. Their website structures were web-like with multiple levels of navigation. Table (see Table 4.2) lists Jane's and Sue's selections of instructional strategies organized by the categories of challenging or guiding. I summarize the variety of information observed in their websites. For personal references and posed questions, I separate them into those observed in the general website as opposed the ones included as part of learning activities. This distinction was important since it suggests intentions and illustrates how participants used them in their instructional websites. I separate the resources by numbers and types of occurrences. Jane's Website Features Jane designed an instructional module on "Test and Exercise Learning" (see Figure 4.1 ). Her website consisted of 15 main pages with 27 additional pop-up, feedback, or resource windows. Of the student group, Jane's website had the greatest variety in the types of information. She integrated learning activities throughout her website by presenting concepts and then stimulating learners through questions and different viewpoints. Jane's challenging strategies emphasized students learning through experience and activity. Of the students' websites, Jane posed the greatest number of questions and included the most resources. 110

PAGE 132

Table 4.2 Facilitators: Jane's and Sue's Website Features Jane Sue challenging strategies case study brainstorm activity discourse case study learning experience discourse learning objectives learning objectives questions problem-solving tool reflective activity questions timed-test exercise reflective activity true-false exercise guiding strategies learning tips mini-lecture mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise website overview truefulse quiz information types application strategies application strategies attitudes attitudes behaviors behaviors concepts definitions definitions different viewpoints different viewpoints fucts fucts feelings feelings problems problems procedures procedures suggestions suggestions personal references 86 website 104 website 17 learning activities 47 learning activities posed questions 28 website 14 website 1 0 learning activities 2learning activities resources 2 books 1 book 36 examples 0 examples 13 experts 3 experts 3 information sources 9 information sources 8 software references 0 software references Ill

PAGE 133

Figure 4.1. Jane's website screen shot. *-Test and Exercise Learmng Nelscape :._::{! :: ; file Y:iew o ,!;;omrrninicator Help home .... ) Test and Exercise Learning This website was developed as a student assignment for the online certification program Designing and Implementing Web-based Learning Environments. The goal of the assignment is to teach other course participants how to implement Test and Exercise Learning in educational websites_ The site is based on the main aspects of tests and exercises as outlined in chapter 7 of the book Designing Web-Based Training by William Horton. While navigating through this interactive site, you will learn what Test and Exercise Learning is all about and diffurent tools available to implement online tests Throughout the site, you will find several exercises for you to l1'y as well as links to web sites that have successfully implemented such exercises. For your convenience, the examples link provides a complete list of all example web sites referred to throughout this site. The resources link provides a list ofbooks, websites. and software that were used in developing this site, as well as additional resources available for further study. Your journey will start with a middle school level physical science problem, Jane's website logically separates into four parts, (a) opening pages, (b) lessons, (c) conclusion, and (d) resources. The opening pages introduced the learning topic, oriented learners to the website, and presented a problem. Six lessons engaged learners with the topic of testing and assessment strategies. In the conclusion, 112

PAGE 134

learners applied what they learned to the introductory problem. Resources link to examples of online testing and additional references. In the opening pages, Jane used learning objectives, learning tips, case study, and website overview as instructional strategies. For this website, the learning objectives were to (a) learn what Test and Exercise Learning is all about, (b) know how to implement different strategies, and (c) know about the different tools available for implementing online tests. Jane's learning tip was "Your task is not to solve the but rather to determine how this activity can best be assessed." Learning tips provide frameworks for learners and guide students through the learning process. Jane opened her website with a case study introducing a problem to be solved. She encouraged learners to imagine that they were teaching a middle school physical science class and need to determine an appropriate assessment strategy for it. With the website overview, Jane described the structure of her website and offers suggestions for navigating through it. Six lessons supplied the majority of the instructional content. In these lessons, she blended the instructional strategies of learning experiences, timed-test exercise, true-false exercise, mini-lectures, and questions. In general, Jane introduced a concept, let learners experience it (such as a timed-text exercise), and then questioned learners' interpretations of the experience. Jane created multiple online assessments including a timed-test and true-false exercise. These assessments did not evaluate learners' knowledge, but allowed students to participate in different 113

PAGE 135

learning experiences. Following these exercises Jane asked questions. For example, after experiencing a true-false exercise, Jane asked learners "What did you think of this type of question? Was this type appropriate for what we were trying to measure?'' Throughout her instructional website, Jane raised questions not as a prompt for correct answers, but to encourage learners' reflections about purposes and implementations of different testing strategies. In these lessons, Jane supplied information, presented different viewpoints, and offered implementation suggestions through mini-lectures. In the conclusion, Jane used discourse and reflective activity as strategies. As a wrap-up to Jane's case study on "Indian Cuisine," learners joined an online discussion about the case. Learners selected an appropriate assessment strategy and then justified their selections in discussions with other students (discourse). For this reflective activity, Jane gave structure through questions and statements that guided learners' reflections. The final element of this website was a collection of links to resources and examples. These included links to online examples, software, books, and online examples. In Jane's instructional module, she integrated learning activities throughout by presenting concepts and challenging learners through questions and different perspectives. Jane's use of challenging strategies emphasized students learning through experience and activity. 114

PAGE 136

Sue's Website Features Sue's instructional website was titled "A Teacher's Guide to Conflict Resolution" (see Figure 4.2). Her website has 13 main pages with 34 supporting pages. Her website opened with a classroom conflict involving a student named "Randy." Sue gave learners information on conflict resolution by including things to think about, strategies to use, and different perspectives to consider. She included a problem-solving tool learners can use as they work through conflicts. A unique Figure 4.2. Sue's website screen shot. ; De f:dit ::{lew o l:!elp l;lqme Troublend oy, Resolution Pr,oc(is$ .. Tools:. Test Your Forum \ Abpq_ t Us. Welcome to the Teacher's Guide to Conflict Resolution! This site is designed for K-12 teachers who want to learn how to work through conflicts beHer. You will have the opportunity to: Discover your own reaction to conflicts through the case: Trouble with Randy Learn to use the Stage! Lights! Action! process to resolve conflicts. Print and use tools to help you work through your conflicts. Test your knowledge about how to solve a conflict. Share your experiences with others in the discussion forum. start with Randy"s case 115

PAGE 137

feature of this website was an expert named "Dr. Dewgood." This expert gave learners feedback on their choices to resolving the conflict with Randy and offers different perspectives about it. Of the student groups, Sue used more personal references than the others. Similar to Jane's, Sue's website divides into four parts that are (a) opening pages, (b) lessons, (c) conclusion, and (d) resources. The opening pages included learning objectives, an introduction to the "Trouble with Randy Case," and a muhiple-choice exercise. Sue's learning objectives started with the phrase ''You will have the opportunity to" and continued with five objectives. Each one began with verbs such as "discover," "learn," and "share" indicating active participation of learners. Sue presented the case study involving a conflict between a classroom teacher and a student named Randy. As part ofthe case study, Sue described the teaching context and conflict. Through a multiple-choice exercise, learners choose actions they might take in response to this classroom conflict. For each ofthe three choices, windows pop-up with information about what might happen next in the conflict situation. Through links, learners can "Hear what Dr. Dewgood says." These links lead to other pop-up windows with considerations, strategies, and encouragement. Sue used multiple instructional strategies in her lessons. They were mini lecture, questions, problem-solving tool, brainstorm activity, and reflective activity. Sue's mini-lectures present a variety of information including attitudes, behaviors, 116

PAGE 138

feelings, procedures, and suggestions. To exemplify, Sue offered the following in a mini-lecture on identifying and understanding the needs ofthose involved in conflicts: "Becoming aware of the other person's needs is just as important as knowing your own needs. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Why is the other person involved in this conflict? What does the other person need for a satisfactory solution?" As evident, mini-lectures encouraged learners to see different perspectives, examine choices, and make decisions. From this example, Sue's questions challenged learners to see conflicts from different perspectives. As part of the lessons, Sue supplied a problem-solving tool containing two additional instructional strategies. The tool (a 6-page worksheet) was a three-step process for working through conflicts. Included were suggestions and activities. Suggestions were mini-lectures about "setting up the stage," ''turning up the light," and "taking action." Brainstorm and reflection are the learning activities. In this tool, Sue encouraged learners to brainstorm different aspects of a conflict, to generate possible solutions, and to examine potential consequences of those solutions. Throughout this worksheet, Sue supported learners in their reflections (reflective activity) about their choices and options in conflict situations. In the conclusion, Sue used a true/false exercise and discourse. In the true/false exercise, learners test their knowledge of terms and definitions given in the lessons. For test items, Sue let learners know correct answers combined with additional information and suggestions. As an illustration, in response to the 117

PAGE 139

true/false statement "Body language is an important part of the active listening process," learners read, "Body language such as learning forward, nodding and making eye contact can help the process." As a wrap-up, learners joined an online discussion (discourse) about their experiences involving conflicts in classroom situations. Although not a robust list, Sue references books, experts, and online information. Sue's instructional website presented a problem, provided theory and strategies for working through conflicts, reinforced learners acquisitions of terms and defmitions, and invited learners to apply their learning to their own experiences. Jane and Sue assumed the role ofFacilitators in their instructional websites. As Facilitators, they presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, posed questions, engaged learners in conversations about the learning topic, and challenged learners to come up with solutions. Throughout their instructional modules, emphasis was on engaging students in dialog and learning activities. Their websites were integrated meaning that lessons, instructional content, and learning activities were interwoven and difficult to separate. In their web pages, Jane and Sue work to connect with learners through personal references and questions. 118

PAGE 140

Guides As Guides Lisa, Mark, and Rose consistently selected strategies that presented facts and allowed learners to recall knowledge (see Table 4.3). In general Lisa's, Mark's, and Rose's websites gave information through definitions, facts, application strategies, and suggestions. Of the student group, these instructional Table 4.3 Guides: Lisa's, Mark's, and Rose's Website Features challenging guiding information types personal references posed questions resources Lisa crossword puzzle fill-in blank exercise learning tips matching exercise mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise website overview application strategies definitions facts suggestions 11 website 11 learning activities 0 website 5 learning activities 1 book 27 examples 0 experts 17 information sources 5 software references Mark brainstorm activity learning experience role-play activity discussion fill-in blank exercise instructional goals learning tips mini-lecture scavenger-hunt activity application strategies definitions facts suggestions 4 website 21 learning activities 0 website 0 learning activities 2 books 13 examples 0 experts 2 information sources 0 software references 119 Rose peer reviews mini-lecture review checklist application strategies attitudes facts suggestions 6 website 27 learning activities 0 website 16 learning activities 2 books 13 examples 2 experts 2 information sources 0 software references

PAGE 141

modules had the fewest number of information types and were notable in their limited use of personal references and questions. Two out of three only posed questions as part of learning activities. One person used no questions. Their instructional modules are linear and compartmentalized. The website structures were hierarchical with only two levels of navigation Guides used consistent page layouts and navigation systems throughout their websites. Lisa's Website Features Lisa developed a website on "Activate Learning" in which she reviewed 14 different online learning activities by describing them, offering suggestions for implementation, and providing links to examples and resources (see Figure 4.3). Her website included 17 web pages with 11 supplementary pages. Lisa was unique in that she selected no challenging instructional strategies. The other research participants selected both guiding and challenging instructional strategies. For the most part, learners can navigate sequentially through her website with "Prev," "Top," and ''Next" buttons. Learners go through a sequence of web pages lessons and then take one of four self-assessments before progressing onto the next section. These self assessments evaluated learners' acquisition of terms and definitions. In this instructional module there was no online discussion, no interaction between learners, and no links through email to the instructor. 120

PAGE 142

Rgure 4.3. lisa's website screen shot. *Activate Learning Home-Netscape -J,; Webcasts Presentation : Sequences Drill-and-Practice Activities Scavenger Hunts GUided Research Guided Analysis j Team Design e rainstorming I Cas e Studies Role-Playing 1 Scenarios .j . Critiques VirtUal _: . I I , ' ,.I Activate Lea171ing Home Learning activities make learning interactive, and interactivity boosts learning. People learn by considering, researching, analyzing, evaluating, organizing, synthesizing, discussing, testing, deciding, and applying ideas. The main focus of most of these activities is learner-content interaction, but some of the activities (Team Design, Brainstorming, Case Studies, Role-Playing Scenarios, and Group Critiques) also include Ieamer-Ieamer interactions. Webcasts usually include learner-instructor interaction. All the other activities could have learner-instructor interactions, though not necessarily during the activity. This presentation sequence will give brief descriptions of each of the learning activities, with links to examples and resources. You can jump around in any order by using the links on the left, or you can go in sequence by using the Next and Prev links atthe bottoms of the pages. Lisa's website divides into the following three sections: (a) opening pages, (b) lessons, and (c) self-assessments. In the opening pages, Lisa oriented learners to her website. With the website overview strategy, Lisa described how she organized her website and how learners can progress sequentially through it. She included the following learning tip "Some page will have a link to a quiz at the bottonrlook out 121

PAGE 143

for those! And after you've looked at all the learning activities, use the Review link to fill in a crossword puzzle about the learning activities." The lessons were mini-lectures on 14 different online learning activities. For each learning activity, Lisa defmed what the activity is, suggested when it might be useful, and gave hardware-software considerations. For each information page, she linked to online examples of learning activities and helpful resources. In the mini lectures, Lisa used few personal references and did not pose any questions. Lisa's four self-assessments were matching exercise, multiple-choice exercise, fill-in blank exercise, and crossword puzzle. In the matching exercise, learners pair up terms with definitions. The multiple-choice exercise required learners to match a classroom situation with the correct online learning activity. An example of a multiple-choice item is "An instructor breaks the class into groups, and asks each team to develop a business plan for a dot com business. What learning activity is the instructor facilitating?" Lisa posed five questions as part of this multiple-choice exercise, the only ones in her website. At another point in Lisa's module, learners completed sentences by filling-in the blank with correct terms. The final activity was a crossword puzzle where students completed the puzzle by matching terms with corresponding defmitions. For the most part, Lisa's website emphasized information and facts. In the instructional lessons, participants learned information and then self-assessed their knowledge. 122

PAGE 144

Mark's Website Features Mark selected the same learning topic as Lisa ("Activate Learning") and covered the same 14 online learning activities (see Figure 4.4). Mark's website consisted of 17 pages with no pop-up or support pages. Mark gave information through mini-lectures and engaged learners in two learning activities. Mark was the only participant to pose no questions in his website. Figure 4. 4. Mark's website screen shot. ctivate Learning Activities Covered In This Site Webcasts Presentation Sequence Drill and Practice Scavenger Hunts Guided Research Guided Ana!vsis Team Design Brainstorming Cas e Studies Role-Play Group Critiques Virtual Laboratories Hands-On Activitie s Learning Games Experience learning Activities Learning I i site i s tq about l 1 the different types ofactivities used to 1 I stimulate learning and inferactivity in online 1 lessons. . I i . Not oniy does this give an o verview of I a variety of learning activities you can use I for your next proje .. ct. you'll also an opportunity to see some of these activities l I i I l I I l inuse lfolithin thi_ s site. 1 1. Firstreviewtheactivitiesthatare .I in this _site. 1 2. Then test your knowledge with the j S c avenger Hunt. 3 Fi rially. take a look at an accompanying site. that Litilizes a Brai nstorini ng activity. 123

PAGE 145

Mark's website divided into (a) opening pages, (b) lessons, and (c) learning activities. In the opening pages, Mark introduced his website with this single instructional goal ''to learn about different types of activities used to stimulate learning and interactivity in online lessons." An instructional goal is different from learning objectives in that the emphasis is on knowing facts rather than on developing student skills. Mark continued with the learning tip, "First review the activities that are covered in this site. Then test your knowledge." In the lessons, Mark's mini-lectures described different types of online learning activities, told when to use them, gave variations, presented examples, and identified hardware-software requirements. In these mini-lectures, Mark used phrases rather than complete sentences. He also used questions to organize content. These were not questions in the true sense; rather they introduced and organized information given in bulleted lists that follow. In the learning activities, Mark used a scavenger-hunt activity to test learner's knowledge and a brainstorm activity as learning experiences. The learning activities were the only instances where Mark used personal references. In the scavenger hunt, learners searched the websites of fellow students for examples of learning activities. Learners used a fill-in blank exercise to identify where they found a particular learning activity. Mark combined the strategies of brainstorm, learning experience, role-play, and discussion for one learning activity. Learners choose a "role," such as "democrat or republican," and brainstorm through an online discussion board ways 124

PAGE 146

to improve the presidential voting process. With this learning activity, learners experience online brainstorming while assuming political roles. In Mark's online discussions (discussion), learners experienced role-playing and brainstorming, but did not dialog about the instructional content of the website. In Mark's website, he presented information through mini-lessons and had two learning activities. This was not an integrated instructional website meaning that Mark gave facts separate from engaging learners in activities. Therefore, these were easy to separate. For the most part, there was little interaction between learners (except for the role-play activity), no personal references except in the learning activities, and no posed questions. It represented a "lecture-based" instructional module, where the designer organized and presented facts, and learners acquired information. Rose's Website Features Rose's website on "Venture Beyond Classrooms" consisted four pages with no supplemental pages (see Figure 4.5). Of the students' websites, Rose's was the least robust with the fewest selected instructional strategies. In the online course discussion board, Rose said that her website forms were not functioning properly and may indicate an incomplete project. 125

PAGE 147

Figure 4.5. Rose's website screen shot. >*Page Tille Netscape ., --_.;:: .:;:,;:....._-= ,,_ 1 Io:fit Y'oew ,!!o Qlmmunicator !:!elp Leamer Interactions Tools Recommendations Bibliography Learning Activity Examples Ubraries Glossaries Mentoring Conferences Guided Tours F jeld Trips Simulations VentuTe Beyond ClassTooms As we all know, lots of learn ing takes place everyday outside the classroom. Horton points out that when designing Web Based Training we should 'broaden the perspective [of education] to include all the w ays people learn', rather than using WBT to mimic existing methods of education. (Horton, Designing Web-based Training 2000, p, 15) The examples that Horton provides for going beyond the classroom are valuable web-based resources that one can access to continue his/her own learning. These resources include activities that are alternatives and adjuncts to what many educators perceive as tradi tional or conventional courses, such as Virtual Libraries and Mus eums, On-line glossaries and job aids, telementoring programs, virtual conferences, gu i ded tours and field trips, as well as Electronic simulations These alternative and adjunct act i vities provide an exciting and "inviting portal to self-education". ( Horton, p. 522) Besides this engagement for the non-dassroom or non course-based Ieamer, these activities t:an complement, augment, or extend traditional classroom or WBT courses. As resources, these activities can replace existing lessons o r act as a supplemental tool, like a 'cheat sheet or reference card. In the learning activity, Rose combined the strategies of checklist and peer reviews. Through links, learners see examples of electronic checklists. Learners fill out an online checklist as they review websites of fellow students (peer reviews). The checklist contains the 16 questions posed by Rose. Once the checklist was complete, learners email it to the instructor (Rose) In turn, the instructor sends the completed 126

PAGE 148

checklist information to the website creator. The checklist contained six yes/no checkboxes and six fill-in discussion boxes. "Did he/she provide and OVERVIEW identifying the instructional purpose of the activity?" was an example of a yes/no item, whereas "How is the activity?" was a fill-in item. With Rose's website, it was difficult to separate its instructional content from that of the online course. There was little information and what was there seemed to mirror information from the course website. As an example, Rose gave a short description of learner interactions types and links to online examples. In the course website, the instructors offered a 12-page description of interactions types and rationale for their role in online instruction. Rose's descriptions appear to summarize the instructors' descriptions. In the learning activity, many of the checklist items were reminiscent of the assignment description (for Weeks 7-8 see Appendix F). For example the first checklist item asked if there was an overview in the website This matches the assignment criteria that recommended students including an overview in their instructional websites. Rose provided general information about online interactions and linked to online examples. Rose used few personal references and her only posed questions were in the checklist. In general, Guides organized and presented facts. The type of information was very general and high level. Their websites were compartmentalized meaning that either they were "telling information" or there was a learning activity with little 127

PAGE 149

overlap between the two. This separation was evident in their use of personal references and posed questions. Primarily, Guides included personal references and posed questions as part of learning activities but did not integrate them throughout their websites. Dialog around the learning topic, either learner-to-learner or learner to-instructor, was not set up nor encouraged. Leaders As Leaders, Ann and Beth selected both challenging and guiding strategies (see Table 4.4). Although Leaders actively engaged learners through conversations and activities, emphasis was on learners knowing facts and viewing the field of study the same way that the Leader does. Their instructional modules were linear and compartmentalized. Their website structures were hierarchical with only two levels of navigation Leaders were similar to the Guides in that they posed few questions. But they were also similar to the Facilitators in their use of many personal references. Their instructional modules seem to blend the styles of Facilitators and Guides. Ann's Website Features Ann website on "Activating Learning-Learning Games," consisted of four pages with no supplementary pages (see Figure 4.6). She opened her website by presenting all the learning activities and then supplementing these activities with 128

PAGE 150

Table 4.4 leaders: and Website Features challenging guiding information types personal references posed questions resources Ann discussion leader learning experience learning options product development reflective activity discussion instructional goals mini-lecture application strategies definitions filets suggestions 14 website 6 learning activities 3 website 2 learning activities 2 books 9 examples 16 experts 1 information sources 4 software references Beth discourse discussion fill-in blank exercise mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise role model application strategies attitudes behaviors concepts definitions facts suggestions 18 website 74 learning activities 0 website 7 learning activities 5 experts 0 examples 0 experts 5 information sources 0 software references facts and information This was opposite others (Lisa and Mark) who presented information and then had learning activities. At first glance, Ann's selection of more challenging than guiding instructional strategies places her in the Facilitators group. 129

PAGE 151

However, her instructional website emphasized facts, she posed few questions, and had a few personal references. These features separate her from this group. Figure 4.6. Ann's website screen shot. 3tfAchvate Learning-Netscape Activate Learning Learning Games Welcome to week 8 of our online class. This week you will learn about a learning activity from the Horton textbook chapter 6 called Learning Games. Learning Objectives: Mer completing this activity, you will be able to: describe learning games ; explain the instructional purpose of learning games; identify which types of interaction are likely for learning games; recognize \/Vhat tools are available and required to support learning games; prepare instructional recommendations for using learning games in educational web sites; choose a learning game you can use in a future instructional design project Assignment: For this activity, you will : Read about learning games and explore various learning games available on the web (links to learning games are provided on the about page). When exploring the learning games, think about the instructional purpose(s) and interaction likely for each game; Discuss the following questions in the group discus sion area: a What are the instructional purposes of learning games? Ann's website divides into three parts that are the (a) learning activities, (b) lessons, and (c) resources. On the opening pages, Ann lists the learning objectives and activities. Ann introduced the learning objectives with the phrase "After 130

PAGE 152

completing this activity, you will be able to" followed by six learning objectives. Each started with verbs, such as "describe," "explain," "identifY," and "prepare" indicating active learner involvement. Ann's instructional website was unique in that she gave learners options. For instance, Ann tells learners "Do one of the following two activities: Write a brief statement explaining how you would use a learning game? OR create your own learning game." On this opening page, Ann has five assignments. In the learning activities, Ann used the strategies of discussion, develop product, experiential learning, discussion leader, and reflective activity. As part of learning assignments, learners read about learning games and shared their observations with others in online discussions (discussion). Discussion topics included "What are the instructional purposes oflearning games?" and "What types of interaction are likely for each game?'' In another assignment, Ann encouraged learners to try out different online learning games (experiential learning), discuss their experiences (reflective activity), and develop their own learning game (develop product). Once learners completed this assignment, they led online discussions (discussion leader) with others about their learning game. Ann's lessons were mini-lectures with links to online examples. In these lessons, Ann included terms, definitions, suggestions on use, hardware-software considerations, and links to examples. For the most part, Ann covered the same types 131

PAGE 153

of information in her lessons that the Guides do. In the resources page, Ann included links to books, examples, experts, information, and software. Ann's instructional website were linear and where the learning activities were easily separated from the instructional lessons. Ann used few personal references and posed questions. Although the learning activities involved the students, the remainder of the website focused on facts and information. Beth's Website Features Beth's website is titled "Project Alert" and develops the teachers' skills (see Figure 4. 7). In a teaching role, educators support and develop students' skills to say "no" to drugs and alcohol. Beth presented instructional lessons about shaping, equipping, and encouraging students. Her website had 10 main pages with 10 supplementary pages. Her website was under construction, meaning that some of the links were not supplementary pages end in "dead end" pages, and forms for the learning activities did not work properly. In general, Beth introduced a teaching strategy, defined it, included a learning activity, and offered learners the opportunity to discuss ideas. There was little supporting materials or descriptions of strategies, just a brief paragraph introducing various strategies. Beth's instructional website was linear with consistent page layouts. Beth's selection of more guiding than challenging instructional strategies placed her in the Guide group. However, she 132

PAGE 154

included a variety of information types and used many personal references. These features separated her from this group. Figure 4.7. Beth's website screen shot. -'- PROJECT ALERT Key T e(Jching btrategie5 A Tul4rial 0 How Project ALERT is taught is as important as what is taught. Seven Key Teaching Strategies, drawn from research on effective learning and behavior change, are critical to successful program delivery and have been designed into the curriculum and training workshops. By participating in the following tutorial, you will have an opportunity to strengthen teaching skills that most teachers use every day in the dassroom. The Key Strategies that are highlighted are specific to Project ALERT; all examples are from Project ALERT dassrooms. Have fun and please e-mail us if you have questions or comments. E xplanation Tutorial Beth's website divides into two parts: (a) introduction and (b) lessons. In the introduction, Beth mentioned experts in the field and the skills learners needed to complete the course. For instance, Beth said "To successfully complete this tutorial, 133

PAGE 155

you should be comfortable navigating a web site and interacting with others through a discussion board and chat room." In the lessons, Beth used discourse, discussion, fill-in blank exercise, mini lecture, multiple-choice exercise, and role model. In these lessons, Beth described seven teaching strategies useful for developing student skills to say "no" to drugs and cigarettes. For each strategy, Beth defined the teaching strategy (mini-lecture), had a learning activity around it, provided resources, and included online discussions. For the multiple-choice exercises, Beth gave examples of classroom-teaching situations such as, "You have just begun Lesson 5 when the fire alarm goes off. By the time you and your student are back in the classroom, 15 minutes out ofyour 45 minute period is lost." In response to the given situation, learners choose one option from a drop down menu (this is one of the features that is not yet working). Learners can check on their choices by clicking on a link. In these solutions, Beth role models encouraging and supportive statements that teachers can make to students. In the jillin the blank exercise learners created their own list of proximal goals as defmed by the lesson. Beth used the strategies of discussion and discourse for conversations with student. At the end of each lesson, Beth invited learners to add comments or ask questions in online discussions. For the most there was no structure to the discussion, just an open invitation for teachers to join the dialog. However, for one teaching strategy, Beth gave more structure to the online discussion (discourse) by 134

PAGE 156

asking learners to share personal experiences and think of application examples that could be used in teaching situations. For the most part, Beth organized her website around seven teaching strategies. In the lessons, Beth gave simple definitions of teaching skills and set up learning activities. Although Beth used 94 personal references, she primarily utilized them in learning activities as she role-modeled statements that teachers can use to encourage their students The learning activities focused on attitudes and thoughts, but seemed to lead learners to common conclusions and viewpoints. Ann and Beth's instructional websites demonstrated a blending of guiding and challenging strategies. Ann's learning activities engaged learners in conversations, gave learners options, and encouraged their experimentation with different learning games. However, her lessons provided high-level information and facts. Beth's learning activities and feedback modeled statements teachers should make, attitudes they should have, and behaviors they should act on. Beth strategies lead others to her conceptions ofthe field. Summary of Student Groups In interpreting these data, it is important to remember that students created their modules to meet course requirements around a single learning topic. Differences between groups may have occurred for reasons other than those 135

PAGE 157

identified in Chapter 2. Student motivation and effort may account for group differences. After initial reviews of student websites, I looked for evidence of student motivation Since Guides created linear websites, posed few questions, and used few personal references, it would be easy to assume that these students were less motivated than the Facilitators who created integrated and complex websites, with many personal references and posed questions. This might be the case for Rose, but not necessarily for Lisa and Mark. Rose's instructional website, which mirrored certain aspects of the course website, contained few web pages and instructional strategies, and included a nonfunctioning checklist All of which suggests minimal student effort. On the other hand, Lisa's website contained a crossword puzzle, a matching game, and other learning activities requiring extra creation effort on her part. Her website was the second largest in the student group and included 50 links to resources. Lisa's website did not represent minimal student effort. Therefore student effort did not account for student group differences. In summary, students grouped into Facilitators, Guides, and Leaders. Facilitators (Jane and Sue) selected more instructional strategies than any other group. They used twice as many challenging as guiding strategies. Their websites represented the greatest breadth in types of information with an emphasis on concepts and ideas. As a group, Facilitators used more personal references, posed more questions, and included more resources than any other student group. 136

PAGE 158

Consistently, their websites illustrated instructors assuming the role of a Facilitator by engaging students in conversations around difficult and challenging topics. Guides (Lisa, Mark, and Rose) chose more guiding than challenging strategies. Of the three groups, the Guides had the fewest number of personal references. In the role of the Guide, instructors organized facts and presented information. Leaders (Ann and Beth) selected both challenging and guiding strategies. Although they used more personal references than Guides, their websites focused on facts and information. Relationships Between Selections oflnstructional Strategies and Approaches to Teaching Two student groups demonstrated a strong relationship between students' selections of strategies and their approaches to teaching. The third group had a weaker relationship. To illustrate, Jane (Facilitator) believed strongly that it was important to question learners' ideas and understandings of the subject (Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach). She posed numerous questions that challenged learners to think about choices they make and reasons for making them. The Facilitators' teaching approaches aligned with their selections of challenging instructional strategies. Lisa (Guide) believed that it was important to present facts and give detailed information (Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused teaching approach); therefore, her website provided multiple external links to examples, resources, and software. Lisa's choice of learning activities (crossword puzzle and 137

PAGE 159

multiple-choice exercise) reinforced learning ofterms and definitions. Lisa's teaching approach matched her selections of guiding instructional strategies. With the third group, the relationships between approaches to teaching and selections of instructional strategies were less evident. A case in point, Beth (Leader) believed that it was important to develop conversations with and among learners (Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach). However, she gave definitions, posed few questions, and provided few resources. Other than one learning activity, there was little interaction with learners. Beth's selections of more guiding than challenging strategies was not consistent with this approach. Table 4.5 organizes and presents group data about selections of instructional strategies and approaches to teaching. The numbers in the table represent group Table 4.5 Group Selections of Strategies and Approaches to Teaching Data Fadlitators Guides Leaders Jane Usa Ann Sue Mark Beth Rose total instructional strategies 10.5 6.3 7.0 challenging 7.5 1.3 3.0 guiding 3.0 5.0 4.0 Conceptual Change/Student-Focused 4.3 2.5 3.5 Infonnation Transmission{reacher-Focused 2.7 3.2 2.7 138

PAGE 160

averages. The approaches to teaching data were calculated on a scale of 1 to 5 (see page 68 in Chapter 3 for more details) (1 =irrelevant, 2 =strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 =agree, 5 =strongly agree). The number three is the transition point between agreeing and disagreeing with a teaching approach. The higher the numbers over three, the more participants agree with that approach to teaching Numbers under three indicate disagreement with it. Two groups reported a high Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach, whereas the third group had a high Information Transmission/TeacherFocused teaching approach. The Facilitators' high Conceptual Change/StudentFocused approach to teaching was consistent with their selections of more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. A high Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused teaching approach aligned with the Guides' selections of more guiding than challenging strategies. The Leaders reported a high Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused approach to teaching but their selections of strategies showed a combination of challenging and guiding instructional strategies. Facilitators: Selections and Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused Teaching Approach Ofthe student mini-cases, Jane's and Sue's selections of strategies represented the strongest relationship with a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. As a group, Jane and Sue designed websites that emphasized conversations with learners, discussed concepts and ideas rather than facts and 139

PAGE 161

information, offered different viewpoints, and engaged learners in activities. This aligned with their high Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. According to Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994), a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach centers on learners and their understandings interpretations ofthe subject being studied (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al. 1999). Teachers stress what learners do and say rather than what they do and say. Those adopting this approach provide opportunities for learners to discuss difficulties, restructure knowledge, and generate their own notes. Strategies include developing conversations with learners, using difficult examples to provoke debate, building in ways to discuss information, and questioning learners' ideas. Table 4.6 illuminates the relationships between Facilitators' selected strategies and reported approaches. In the table, I list items from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (see Appendix B for complete inventory) that either Jane or Sue agreed with. The Facilitators agreed with all items (seven) defining a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach. Although Jane and Sue did not agree with an Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach, they did agreed with the two items (out of six) listed in the table that define that approach. Jane and Sue selected twice as many challenging as guiding strategies and aligned with this teaching approach. 140

PAGE 162

Table 4.6 Facilitators" Strategy Seledions and Approaches to Teaching Data Challenging Strategies brainstorm activity case study discourse learning experience learning objectives problem-solving tool questions reflective activity timed-test exercise true-fu.lse exercise Guiding Strategies learning tips mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise truefu.lse quiz website overview Conceptual Change/Student-Focused learners reveal changed conceptualtmderstandings in their assessments learners encouraged to restructure existing knowledge learners' ideas questioned converse with learners learners discuss difficulties learners given difficult or undefined examples learners discuss changed tmderstanding of subject Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused instructor knows answers to posed questions concentrate on covering information Other researchers describe similar teaching conceptions influencing selections of instructional strategies. For instance, with a learning paradigm the instructor elicits student discovery and construction of knowledge (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Knowledge exists in each learner's mind and is shaped by individual experience. Students construct knowledge rather than acquire it. Learning is seen as student-centered and controlled (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Still others describe this theory of teaching as guiding and developing students (Fox, 1983), developing student's 141

PAGE 163

ability to learn and process information (Kember & Gow, 1994; Menges & Rando, 1989), and facilitating student learning (Murray & MacDonald 1997; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Regardless of the researcher, strategies emphasize the actions of learners and on knowledge construction. Guides: Selections and Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused Teaching Approach Guides reported a high Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach to teaching and selected more guiding than challenging strategies. This group showed the strongest relationship between an Information Transmission/TeacherFocused approach to teaching and selections of guiding instructional strategies. In general, Guides organized and presented facts with little emphasis on conversations. Their websites separate ''telling information" from student learning activities. An Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach is one where the focus is on fucts, information, and skills, but not relationships between them (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999). Teachers concentrate on what they do and say rather than what learners do and say. Educators adopting this approach present fact, provide detailed information, and answer questions posed by learners. Strategies include covering information from a good textbook, helping learners pass formal assessments, and assuming learners know very little of the subject. 142

PAGE 164

The table for the Guides (Table 4.7) was almost opposite that of the Facilitators. They selected more guiding than challenging instructional strategies and reported a higher Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused than Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach. Table 4.7 Guides' Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data Challenging Strategies brainstorm activity learning experience peer reviews role-play activity Guiding Strategies crossword puzzle discussion fill-in blank exercise instructional goals learning tips matching exercise mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise review checklist scavenger-hunt activity website overview Conceptual Change/Student-Focused learners encouraged to restructure existing knowledge Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused instructor presents filets instructor provides complete and detailed information instructor knows answers to posed questions concentrate on covering information Barr and Tagg (1995) consider this approach to teaching an instruction paradigm where the instructor covers the material, teaches, transfers knowledge from educator to students, and delivers knowledge in chunks. In this paradigm, 143

PAGE 165

educators view learning as linear and cumulative, teacher-centered, and teacher controlled (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Still others describe this teaching conception as transferring information to students (Fox, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994),providing or delivering content (Menges & Rando, 1989; Pratt, 1992), and imparting knowledge to students (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Apart from the researcher or terms used, the emphasis is on the actions of the instructor, and on knowledge as represented by facts and information. Leaders: Selections and Teaching Approaches The Leaders reported a higher Conceptual Change/Student-Focused than Information TransmissiQn/Teacher-Focused teaching approach (see Table 4.8). These data indicated beliefs in conversing with learners, questioning learners' ideas, and setting up learner-to-learner discussions Yet their selections of strategies did not represent a strong alignment with this approach. As an example, Beth only selected one challenging strategy and five guiding strategies indicating a focus on the teacher and not the learners. Although Ann selected more challenging than guiding strategies, her mini-lectures concentrated on facts, posed few questions, and contained limited personal references. 144

PAGE 166

Table 4.8 Leaders' Strategy Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data Challenging Strategies discourse discussion leader learning experience learning options product development reflective activity Guiding Strategies discussion fill-in blank exercise instructional goals mini-lecture multiple-choice exercise role model Gonceptual Change/Student-Focused learners encouraged to restructure existing knowledge learners' ideas questioned converse with learners learners discuss difficulties learners discuss changed understanding of subject Information Transmission[reacher-Focused instructor knows answers to posed questions concentrate on covering information With the Leaders, relationships between selections of strategies and approaches to teaching were less evident. Four reasons might explain these relationships. The Leaders may (a) hold other conceptions of teaching, (b) be transitional in their conceptions and practices, (c) represent a blending of teaching conceptions, or (d) indicate lack of relationship. First, in examining these data, it is important to remember that Prosser and Trigwell identify five distinct approaches to teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999). The five approaches to teaching are: 145

PAGE 167

Approach A: teacher-focused strategy with the intention of transmitting information Approach B: teacher-focused strategy with the intention that students acquire the concepts of a discipline Approach C: teacher-student interaction strategy with the intention that student acquire concepts of the discipline Approach D: student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions of a discipline Approach E: student-focused strategy aimed at students changing their conceptions of a discipline Based on the two extreme approaches (Approach A and E), Prosser, and Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) developed the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Therefore, the items in the inventory are congruent with these two approaches and not the full spectrum of approaches. It is possible that the Leaders' selections of strategies match one of the other teaching conceptions. For instance, Beth role models supportive and encouraging statements that teachers can make to students. As another example, Ann selected more challenging than guiding strategies and set up learner-to-learner conversations. However, the discussions are of a general nature. These two examples illustrate alignment with Approach C (Teacher/Student Interaction teaching approach) where the instructor, through dialog, helps students acquire the concepts of a discipline. This is different from Approach E where educators challenge students' conceptions by presenting difficult problems or viewpoints. Instructors building relationships with learners, opening communication channels, and discovering common ground characterize the Teacher/Student Interaction teaching approach (Prosser & Trigwell, 146

PAGE 168

1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999). Other researchers report similar conceptions of teaching (Menges & Rando, 1989; Pratt, 1992). For example, Pratt (1992) describes a nurturing conception where teachers facilitate student agency. Menges and Rando (1989) identify a similar conception of teaching that motivates students to learn. Ann and Beth's selections of strategies may indicate that they hold other conceptions of teaching. Second, Ann and Beth may be transitional in their teaching conceptions and practices. According to Fox (1983) teaching conceptions are developmental. Beginning educators start with certain behaviors and attitudes that develop and change overtime (Dwyer et al., 1991; Fox, 1983; Hannafm & Freeman, 1995; McCutcheon, 1992; Ross et al., 1992; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Stuhlmann, 1994; Westerman, 1991). Inexperienced teachers focus on what they bring to the learning situation and strategize ways to teach and share information (transfer teaching conception), whereas experienced teachers concern themselves with student learning activities such as simulations and role-playing (growing teaching conception) (Fox, 1983). Other researchers see teaching conceptions as hierarchical with the higher or more advanced conceptions including the lower, less complex ones (Biggs, 1993; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). With developmental and hierarchical models, educators may hold the more complex and advanced teaching conceptions, but their practices may still align with the less complex, simple ones 147

PAGE 169

(Fox, 1983; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). In this case, Ann and Beth may be transitioning in their teaching conceptions and practices. A third possibility is that Ann and Beth may hold multiple conceptions of teaching. Some researchers observe that educators embrace more than one conception with one usually conception dominant over the others (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992). Thus their practices represent blending and overlap in the types of strategies selected for educational settings. In this study, participants selected both challenging and guiding instructional strategies. This variety may indicate an overlap in teaching conceptions. The final option is that Ann and Beth may represent a lack of relationship between selections of strategies and their teaching approaches. In a study with college faculty, Murray and MacDonald (1997) observe a disjuncture between educational beliefs and teaching practices. For instance, educators may hold a "facilitating student learning" teaching conception and report using lecture-based teaching practices (Murray & MacDonald, 1997). Summary of Strategies and Approaches In summary, two student groups demonstrated a strong relationship between students' selections of strategies and their approaches to teaching. The third group indicated a weaker relationship. The Facilitators' high Conceptual Change/Student Focused approach to teaching was consistent with their selections of more 148

PAGE 170

challenging than guiding instructional strategies. A high Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused teaching approach aligned with the Guides' selections of more guiding than challenging instructional strategies. The Leaders reported a high Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching but their selections of strategies showed a combination of challenging and guiding instructional strategies. Relationships Between Selections ofinstructional Strategies and Concerns with Web-Based Instruction There was less evidence of relationship between participants' selections of strategies and their concerns with web-based instruction. I found evidence for two relationships between selections of instructional strategies and concerns with webbased instruction. First, relationships between Facilitators' selections of strategies and their external concerns were strong. Second, although not as strongly, Guides internal concerns and their selections of guiding strategies were related. Although I found evidence for relationship, variations occurred within groups about their concerns indicating little relationship. In the following sections, the categories of collaboration and information explain the exploration of relationships, my expectations, and findings. Table 4.9 organizes and presents student group data about selections of instructional strategies and concerns with web-based instruction. The numbers in the table are group averages. The scale for the concerns with web-based instruction ranges from 0 to 7 (see page 77 in Chapter 3 for more details) (0 =irrelevant, 1 =not 149

PAGE 171

true, 2 = seldom true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = true, 5 = more true, 6 = very true, 7 = really true) Two is the transition point for this scale. Numbers over two indicate agreement with these concerns, whereas numbers below two indicate non-agreement. Higher numbers indicate stronger participants' concerns. All three groups reported higher external than internal concerns. Facilitators reported the highest external concerns and Guides the highest internal concerns with web-based instruction. Table 4.9 Group Selections of Strategies and Stages of Concern Data Facilitators Guides Leaders Jane Usa Ann Sue Mark Beth Rose total instructional strategies 10.5 6.3 7.0 challenging 7.5 1.3 3.0 guiding 3.0 5.0 4.0 external concerns 4.9 4.0 3.4 internal concerns 3.1 3.6 2.6 Initially, I evaluated student data in groups and looked for relationships with selected strategies. But as I examined individual data for each stage, I observed interesting variations within groups (see Table 4.10). The numbers in the table represent individual student scores. For some ofthe stages, students reported opposite positions on concerns. As an example with the Facilitator, Jane's score (3.4) 150

PAGE 172

on Stage 2 showed agreement with this stage whereas Sue's score (1.4) indicated disagreement. This type of relationship (opposite positions within a group) occurred with Stages 2, 3, and 6 for the Facilitators, Stages 2 and 6 for the Guides, and Stages 0, 2, and 3 for the Leaders. I checked individual data to see if participants reported "0" on inventory items. A response that an item is irrelevant ("0") is different from a Table 4.10 Individual Student Stages of Concern Data Facilitators Guides Leaders Jane Sue Usa Mark Rose Ann Beth External Concerns 5.7 4.1 4.3 3.1 4.5 4.3 2.5 Stage 6 -refocusing 3.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 3.6 1.0 1.0 Stage 5 -collaboration 7.0 6.0 5.4 3.8 5.4 5.6 3.6 Stage 4 -consequence 7.0 5.0 6.4 4.2 4.6 6.2 3.0 Internal Concerns. 3.9 2.2 3.9 3.3 3.7 2.7 2.5 Stage 3 -management 4.6 0. 8b 3.6 3.2 4.4 3.0 1.6 Stage 2 personal 3.4 1. 4a 3.4 2.6 1.2 a 2.6 1.4 Stage 1 informational 6.0 5.4 6.2 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.8 Stage 0 -awareness 1.6 1.2 2.2 3.4 5.4 1.6 3.2 a Participants reported "0" two or more times for a stage. b Sue reported "0" for one item and "1" for the other four items describing this stage response indicating disagreement ("1") and would account for some ofthe differences. This explained Sue and Rose's low scores for Stage 2 but did not 151

PAGE 173

account for the other differences. These scores indicated disagreement between group members in their concerns. Collaboration and External Concerns With external concerns, educators concern themselves with how the innovation affects those around them, how to work collaboratively with others, and how to learn from others to improve their own skills (Dwyer et al., 1991; Hallet al., 1979; Wells & Anderson, 1997). A teacher concerned with engaging students in meaningful online discussions is an example of an external concern. In this study, I expected to see a strong relationship between high external concerns and selections of instructional strategies. Researchers report that educators concerned with students in online teaching environments strategize ways to equip students (Becker, 1994), identify and meet students' needs (Barrett, 1998; Ndahi, 1999), develop students' skills (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Phipps et al., 1998), and facilitate effective online communications (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Thurston et al., 1996). As such, they concentrate on developing student skills and organizing group learning through technology. I found evidence for this relationship with the Facilitators. Of the student groups, Facilitators reported the highest external concerns with web-based instruction. In fact Facilitators' external concerns are the highest reported concerns 152

PAGE 174

of the student group. Their use of personal pronouns and posed questions suggest conversations with learners. Facilitators' selections of challenging strategies emphasize developing student skills, discussing difficult issues, and engaging learners in learning activities. This relationship did not hold as well with the Guides and Leaders. It was notable that every student agreed or strongly agreed with Stages 4 and 5. Yet, their selected strategies did not always align with their concerns for consequence and collaboration. For example, Lisa and Mark's highest concern with the seven stages was Stage 4. Yet their websites tell information about different instructional strategies rather than presenting student perspectives and learner needs in web-based learning environments. Information and Internal Concerns Guides demonstrated a positive but not strong relationship between their internal concerns and their selections of more guiding instructional strategies. The Guides reported the highest internal concerns with web-based instruction. Their instructional websites organized and presented information. They separated the informational instructional part from the learning activities. Also, as a group, the Guides used the fewest personal references and questions. Their guiding strategies suggested a focus on the instructor and not on learners. However, given that the Guides selected more guiding (5.0) than challenging strategies (1.3), I expected that 153

PAGE 175

their internal concerns would be higher than their external ones. This was true for Mark whose internal concerns (3 .3) were higher than his external ones (3 .1 ). In fact, Mark is the only participant in the research population with higher internal than external concerns. This was not true for the other two Guides. Lisa's internal concerns (3.9) were lower than her external ones ( 4.3) as were Rose's (internal= 3.7, and external = 4.5). This relationship did not seem to hold as well for the other two groups. I saw lack of agreement within group members. With the Facilitators, Jane and Sue report opposite scores on Stages 2 and 3. For instance, Jane's Stage 3 score was 4.6 and Sue's score was 0.8. This indicated that Jane was concerned with management issues such as time and resources required, but Sue was not. The variations with Stage 2 can be explained with irrelevant items, but not for the Stage 3 items. More variations occur with the Leaders. Ann and Beth reported opposite positions on Stages 0, 2, and 3. Irrelevant items cannot explain differences in their concerns. The variability within groups indicated lack of relationship between group concerns and their selections of strategies. Summary of Strategies and Concerns In conclusion, there was a less obvious relationship between students' selections of strategies and their concerns with web-based instruction. All groups reported higher external than internal concerns. The Facilitators' selections of 154

PAGE 176

challenging strategies correlated with external concerns, whereas the Guides selections of guiding strategies aligned somewhat with internal concerns. Beyond these observations, evidence was insufficient to suggest a strong relationship in this study. Summary of Student Mini-Case Findings In an effort to understand more about relationships between selections and inventory data, I created two Venn diagrams of students' selections of instructional strategies (see Figures 4.8 and 4.9). These diagrams illuminate differences between the stUdent groups in their selections of strategies and include survey data. The categories of guiding and challenging strategies separate the two drawings. In reviewing and evaluating these data, challenging instructional strategies align with Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approaches and external concerns, whereas guiding strategies line up with Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused and internal concerns. Figure 4.8 shows students' selections of challenging instructional strategies based on their group. The drawing illustrates common strategies and overlap between groups. Ofthe 15 challenging strategies identified in the student mini-cases, 11 are unique to a specific group and 4 overlap with one or more groups. Learning experience was the only strategy common to all student groups. Notice that the 155

PAGE 177

Facilitators report the highest Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach, the highest external concern, and select the most challenging strategies. Figure 4.8. Group selections of challenging instructional strategies and survey data. Legend peer reviews role-play activity Facilitators Jane, Sue case study learning objectives problem-solving tool questions timed-test exercise true-false exercise Tour Guides Usa, Mark, Rose CC = Cnnceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach External =external concerns with web-based instruction discussion leader learning options product development Leaders Ann, Beth Guiding instructional strategies align with Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused teaching approaches and internal concerns with web-based instruction. Figure 4.9 shows students' selections of guiding instructional strategies 156

PAGE 178

based on their group. The drawing exemplifies 6 unique and 7 overlapping guiding strategies. Mini-lectures and multiple-choice exercises are the only strategies Figure 4.9. Group selections of guiding instructional strategies and survey data. crossv.ord puzzle matching exercise review checklist scavenge-hunt activity Tour Guides Usa, Mark, Rose Facilitators Jane, Sue internal = 3 .I truefulse quiz Leaders Ann, Beth IT= Information Transmissionffeacher-Focused teaching approach Internal = internal concerns with web-based instruction role model common to all student groups. As evident from the Figure, Guides report the highest Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused teaching approach, the highest internal concerns, and select the most guiding strategies. 157

PAGE 179

To summarize, student participants separate in three groups based on their roles in instructional websites. These groups are Facilitators, Guides, and Leaders. The strongest relationships for the two research propositions occur with Facilitators and Guides. The approaches to teaching data best explain differences between these groups indicating a strong relationship. Relationships between participants' selections of strategies and concerns with web-based instruction were less evident. 158

PAGE 180

CHAPTER5 LARGER AND MINI-CASE FINDINGS The combined larger and student mini-cases enlarged our understanding and interpretation of relationships between strategy selections, teaching approaches, and concerns with web-based instruction. Five fmdings emerged from analysis of these data. First, the instructors assumed the Facilitator role in their course and selected more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. Second, the instructors' selections of strategies related strongly to their teaching approaches. Student mini cases strengthened and broadened relationships between selections and teaching approaches. Third, data from student mini-cases confirmed the instructors' Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. Fourth, the collective larger and student mini-case data indicated a limited relationship between strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction. Finally, the instructors influenced students' web-based designs and their selections of instructional strategies. In the following sections, I present evidence for these conclusions. I begin with course website features and instructors selections of instructional strategies. Within this framework, I describe how the instructors' selections relate to their 159

PAGE 181

teaching approaches and concerns with web-based instruction. Student mini-cases add to the conversation. The chapter concludes with a general discussion of the research findings. Larger Case Based on analysis of data, the instructors assumed the role of Facilitators in their course. As Facilitators, they presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, set up collaborative projects, posed questions, and challenged learners to generate solutions. Throughout their course, emphasis on engaging students in conversations, collaborative work, and various activities. Table 5.1 describes the course website features that characterize their instructional role as Facilitators. In general, the instructors selected more challenging than guiding instructional strategies, posed questions, used many personal references, and included numerous resources. Course Features The course, "Online Instructional Strategies," explored instructional strategies for web-based environments. The course website contained 30 web pages and 121 links to external websites (see Figure 5.1). On various pages, the instructors used different page layouts with multiple layers of navigation. The architecture of this website was a web-like structure rather than linear or hierarchical (Appendix I) 160

PAGE 182

Table 5.1 Features Describing Course Website challenging strategies guiding strategies information types personal references posed questions resources Deb and Kim case study discourse discussion leader group project learning objectives learning options peer reviews product development questions quiz reflective activity discussion learning tips mini-lecture performance standards website overview application strategies attitudes concepts definitions different viewpoints facts problems suggestions 163 website 352 learning activities 38 website 101 learning activities 33 books 12 examples 30 experts 1 00 information sources 15 software references 161

PAGE 183

Figure 5.1. Course website screen shot. *Instructional StrategiesNetscape li!ll Welcome! So glad to have you here! Course Description: This course is a laboratory ... and the purpose of our lab is to explore strategies for teaching online. What strategies should we adapt from other media? Does teaching online require any brand new strategies? Since the Internet is new medium for teaching, there are no set-in-stone . answers. We've been online learners and/or teachers and so have you ... so .... /t that's where we'll start. We'll facilitate guided inquiry into the nature of amgnl1)en S in this medium and work to what works well and in ./ what Circumstances. Together, we'll examtne theones, methods, tools and activities in order to find themes that we can use in our own educational websites Prerequisites: We're assuming that areal least minimally proficient at working with HTML and Dreamweaver. What we hope to do in this course, is to help you refine what sorts of activities you will put in the ed webs that you develop.For those of you who have not been involved in the WLE certificate program, a course in basic Web programming (HTML, use of authoring tools, site and page design, ftping/uploading files to a Web server, Web image basics) is a prerequisite. Documents in the course included a course syllabus, descriptions of assignments (see Appendix E for assignment calendar), weekly task descriptions, mini-lectures, discussion board archives (see Appendix H), and student assignments. Home, syllabus, assignments, weekly assignments, and discussions organized course navigation. 162

PAGE 184

During the 10-week course, students completedseven assignments (see Appendix E for class assignments) and participated in online discussions. All interactions between instructors and students occurred through the course website and email. The assignments included three group projects and four individual tasks. Logically, the course separated into (a) introduction, (b) lessons, and (c) learning activities. Course Introduction The opening course web pages described the learning topic, oriented learners to the course website, introduced course participants, and established course expectations. In the syllabus, the instructors explained the learning topic and described six learning objectives for the course. Descriptions began with the phrase "As a result of course activities, you will be expected to" followed by six learning objectives. Each objective began with a verb (define, uncover, select, evaluate, examine, and apply) indicating a student task or activity. "Examine various techniques and tools (threaded discussion, collaboration tools, scripts, etc.) for increasing interaction" was an example of a course objective. To orient students to the learning environment, the instructors described the physical layout of the course website (website overview). They began with a "How to Get Started" section that described the major navigation and organization for the course website. 163

PAGE 185

In the beginning, the instructors introduced themselves and required learners to do the same. On the course syllabus web page, the instructors described their personal work experiences and gave contact information. As a first assignment, students posted personal biography information to the course discussion board (discussion). The message describing this assignment was "Here's the place to post some professional and personal (well, not toooo personal!) information about yourselfl First, tell us what you do for a living and why you are taking this class. How much knowledge and skill in this area do you already have? What do you hope to gain? In what context will you be using the knowledge you and skill you gain? Also, tell us about YOU and what you do for fun and recreation!" The syllabus described course expectations through assignment descriptions, point values for those assignments, and grading criteria (see Table 5.2). On different assignments, the instructors included performance standards not as assignment descriptions but specifications for acceptable performance levels for students. As an example, the instructors stated that "On formal assignments, we grade substantially lower for less-than-optimal (non graduate level) grammar, spelling, and presentation." One guideline described AP A writing style and criteria for an "A" grade on assignments. 164

PAGE 186

Table 5.2 Student Assignments and Course Evaluations Assignment Weekly course participation Week 2 interaction presentation (group) Weeks 3-4 methodology presentation (individual) Weeks 5-6 case studies (group) Weeks 7-Slearning activity (individual) Week 9 rubric (group) Week 10 action plan (individual) Lessons Points 25 10 15 15 20 10 5 In the lessons, the instructors used mini-lectures and questioning providing definitions, information, resources, and present different viewpoints. The mini lecture in Week 1 began with "On this page, we'll provide some definitions so we're all on the same page about terms. On the next page, we'll begin to look at what is mean by interaction and how these meanings impact the selection of instructional strategies for ed webs." Following this introduction, the instructors defined the terms "instructional strategies," "interaction," "facilitator," "learners," "asynchronous," "synchronous," and "instructor-led." A mini-lecture followed these definitions on "Interaction in Instructional Websites: What is it and why does it matter?" 165

PAGE 187

Throughout these mini-lectures, the instructors posed questions (questioning) that encourage learners to think about what they are learning, why these learning issues are important, how instructional strategies are applied, and what skills are needed to implement them. Examples of the instructors' use of questioning included "What types of interactions were used? Why were they important? What interaction do you think is most important for the learners? Why?" Learning Activities The instructors used nine instructional strategies in the student learning activities. Two of them were general strategies that apply to every assignment. The others applied to a specific assignment or combined with others as part of a learning activity. Online discussions were central to the course. Learners' contributions to the course discussion board constituted 25% of their course grade. The instructors defined "making quality contributions" as posting ideas from assignment activities, critically evaluating and synthesizing class content, asking for input, and assisting others. For every assignment, learners posted their assignments to the course bulletin board for their peers to review. These learning activities combined the strategies of discourse and peer reviews. Discourse engaged learners in conversations about prior learning experiences, positions on different issues, and different viewpoints. With peer reviews learners examined the work of fellow students, provided meaningful 166

PAGE 188

feedback, and learned from others. The purpose of peer reviews, as stated in the course materials, was for others to read their reports, look for commonalities, ask questions, and share insights about what was learned. Learning tips provided frameworks for learners. Instructors tell learners how to progress through the course, what they need to focus on, and where they should concentrate their efforts. For example, the instructors provided this learning tip for Weeks 5-6 of their class, "You will have two weeks off after week 6. The assignment for week 7-8 is very time consuming. Feel free to let us know what techniques area you want to work on before the break so you can get started over the break." In the course, the instructors used three case studies. For every case, the instructors described the problem, gave relevant facts, and provided additional resources. Based on the assigned case study, learners determined critical interactions types (learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor) and selected appropriate instructional methods. The first case was a workshop for supervisors writing job descriptions. The second case involved the design of an attitude-change website. The third case focused an ethical decision-making course. Each case was complex with no single or correct solution. Having made those decisions, learners posted their solutions, via a web page, to others in the class. As part of the assignment, learners acted as discussion leaders in the course bulletin board. As leaders, they stated their positions about the case, interacted with fellow students, and justified their decisions. 167

PAGE 189

Three of the seven assignments were group projects. One project occurred in Week 2 of the course. In groups established by the instructors, learners found exemplary examples of interactions for online instruction, explained why these examples were exemplary, and described what learning outcomes might occur. In Week 9, the instructors assigned students to one of three groups representing the three online interaction types (learner-content, learner-learner, and learner instructor). For the assigned interaction type, students developed four to six critical design guidelines and presented the groups' rationale for selecting these guidelines. Students worked collaboratively to meet instructors' expectations and articulate what they believe. The quiz occurred in Weeks 5-6. Although the quiz was not graded, the instructors used the results to organize students into groups for the case study assignment. The quiz was not a test of knowledge; rather it encouraged learners to think about different concepts and make decisions. For every question, the instructors included a comment box for learners to express their thoughts. "Is this a good quiz?" and "What is your favorite methodology?" were examples of the questions in the quiz. Learning options gave students the ability to select what activity to do and where to put their effort. For example, in the assignment for Weeks 7-8,learners choose their topic for their online instructional modules The choices were (a) activating learning (b) learning through tests and exercises, (c) promoting 168

PAGE 190

collaboration, (d) motivating learners in virtual classrooms, and (e) venturing beyond courses In the course, the instructors expanded on learner options by allowing two students to select topics unrelated to the five options presented. In Weeks 7-8, learners developed an online learning activity (see Appendix E for assignment description). Up to this point in the course, learners engaged in online conversations about the principles of online learning, examined different types of online interaction, and worked on different case studies. Then, in Weeks 7-8, students applied those ideas and concepts as they developed their own instructional websites (develop product). In the final week of class, Week 10, students created an individual action plan. For this assignment, students reflected (reflective activity) on their own learning experiences during the semester. Students described what they learned, how this knowledge impacted their understandings of online instruction, and what learning needs they had. Students posted their action plans to the course discussion board. As Facilitators, the instructors presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, posed questions, engaged learners in conversations about the learning topic, set up collaborative projects, and challenged learners to come up with solutions. Throughout their course emphasis was on engaging students in dialog and learning activities. On web pages, the instructors connected with learners through personal references and questions. 169

PAGE 191

Instructors: Selections and Conceptual Change/ Student-Focused Teaching Approach A strong relationship existed between the instructors' selections of challenging strategies and a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach. This relationship was stronger than the one observed in the student mini-cases with the Facilitators. Table 5.3 organizes their data by grouping challenging strategies Table 5.3 Instructors: Selections and Approaches to Teaching Data Challenging Strategies case study discourse discussion leader group project learning objectives learning options peer reviews product development questions quiz reflective activity Guiding Strategies discussion learning tips mini-lecture performance standards website overview Conceptual Change/Student-Focused learners reveal changed conceptual understandings in their assessments learners encouraged to restructure existing knowledge learners' ideas questioned converse with learners learners discuss difficulties learners given difficult or undefined examples learners discuss changed understanding of subject Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused 170

PAGE 192

with Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach and guiding strategies with Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused teaching approach. The instructors agreed with each other for every item on the Approaches to Teaching inventory. As Facilitators, the instructors selected strategies that presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, posed questions, engaged learners in conversations about the learning topic, set up collaborative projects, and challenged learners to come up with solutions. From the table, it was evident that the instructors' strategy selections agreed with those defining a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach. Observations about frequencies of strategy selections strengthened this relationship. In this study, I did not track the number of times that participants selected specific strategies. I merely reported those observed in websites. I made this decision because the student websites were small and counting strategies such as questioning was difficult. One of the changes that I made to the Approaches to Teaching Inventory was to the scale (see Chapter 3, page 70 for complete description). Prosser and Trigwell (1999) use a scale (1 to 5) representing how often a particular intention or strategy is true for faculty. Because Prosser and Trigwell utilize this inventory with educators teaching traditional semester-long classes with predictable weekly class periods, these measures are more relevant. However, these measures are not as meaningful for web-based learning environments. As a consequence, I changed the scale to represent how strongly participants' agreed with an item. However, in 171

PAGE 193

looking at the larger case data, frequencies may indicate the strength of agreement with a particular teaching approach. In order to clarify, learners posted their completed tasks to the course discussion board for every assignment, not just once. In this way peers reviewed and commented on all the work of fellow students. With the questioning strategy, the instructors did not pose just one question rather they posed 139 questions. In the assignments, four were group projects and three were case studies. Even the number of personal references (515) indicated a strong bias towards conversation and dialog. In general, the instructors frequently selected challenging over guiding instructional strategies Therefore, frequencies of strategies strengthen relationships between selections and teaching approaches. To recapitulate, a strong relationship existed between the instructors' selections of challenging strategies and a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach. The instructors' twelve challenging and five guiding instructional strategies emphasized student rather teacher actions and behaviors. Their selections included case study, learning options, discourse, peer review, and questioning. These were consistent with their reported Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach Frequencies of strategy selections strengthened this relationship. 172

PAGE 194

Instructors: Selections and External Concerns With Web-Based Instruction Little relationship exists between the instructors' strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction. Both instructors reported higher external than internal concerns with online learning, however they differed in their responses (see Table 5.4). Unlike their responses to Approaches to Teaching Inventory, the instructors varied greatly in their responses to the Stages of Concern Instrument. To illustrate, Deb's external concerns were 4.5 and her internal concerns were 2.7. This resulted in a variance of 1.8. Kim's external concerns were 3.6 and her internal concerns 3.1 with a variance of0.5. Based on these data, Deb was more concerned with consequence and collaboration than Kim. Table 5.4 Instructors' Stages of Concern Data Deb Kim group External Concerns 4.5 3.6 4.1 Stage 6 -refocusing 1.2 3.2 2.2 Stage 5 oollaboration 6.0 3.8 4.9 Stage 4 -consequence 6.4 3.8 5.1 Internal Concerns 2.7 3.1 2.9 Stage 3 -management 2.2 3.8 3.0 Stage 2 -personal 1.6 2.2 1.9 Stage 1 informational 5.6 1.0 3.0 Stage 0 -awareness 1.2 5.2 3.2 173

PAGE 195

In examining individual stage data, variations between the two instructors become more apparent. On four out of seven stages, Deb and Kim's reported scores represent opposite positions on these concerns. (The inventory scale is 0 = irrelevant, 1 = not true, 2 = seldom true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = true, 5 = more true, 6 = very true, 7 =really true. See Chapter 3, page 77 for more complete descriptions of this inventory and scale.) For example, Deb's score (5.6) on Stage 1 showed strong agreement with this stage whereas Kim's score (1.0) indicated disagreement. This type of relationship (opposite positions for a stage) occurred with Stages 0, 1, 2, and 6. I checked individual survey item data to see if the instructors reported "0" on inventory items. A response that an item is irrelevant ("0") is different from a response indicating disagreement ("1 "). However, for the 35 items in the inventory, Deb only reported "0" twice and Kim not at all. Therefore, these scores represented disagreement between the instructors in their concerns. Given the instructors' selections of instructional strategies, their teaching experiences, technical skills, and research, I expected that the instructors would report consistently high external concerns. What I found was variability in their concerns indicating disagreement between the two instructors. These variances raise the question, which instructor selected what strategies? Since I am unable to answer this question, I assume that both instructors agreed on their selections of strategies. Their strong agreement on the Approaches to Teaching Inventory contrasted remarkably with their variance on the Stages of Concern Instrument. For these 174

PAGE 196

instructors, I did not find evidence for strong relationships between concerns and selections of instructional strategies. In summary, the instructors assumed the role of Facilitators in their course. As Facilitators, the instructors selected more challenging than guiding strategies. They presented problems, provided information, pointed to additional resources, posed questions, engaged learners in conversations about the learning topic, set up collaborative projects, and challenged learners to come up with solutions. For teaching approaches, the instructors agreed strongly with each other and a Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach. These data strongly related to their selections of strategies. This was not the case with their concerns with web based instruction. They disagreed on their concerns for four out of the seven stages. The instructors' strategy selections were not strongly related to their concerns with web-based instruction. Integrating Larger and Student Mini-Case Data The student mini-cases enlarged our understandings and interpretations of larger case data resulting in four conclusions. First, participants' selections of instructional strategies strongly related to their teaching approaches and selections of strategies. Second, data from student mini-cases confirmed the instructors' Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach to teaching. Third, the collective larger and student mini-case data indicated a limited relationship between strategy 175

PAGE 197

selections and concerns with web-based instruction. Finally, the instructors influenced students' web-based designs and their selections of instructional strategies. First, participant's strategy selections strongly related to their teaching approaches. In the larger case, the instructors reported a Conceptual Change/Student Focused teaching approach that matched their selections of more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. Adding the student mini-cases to the equation, this strengthens and broadens relationships. Similar to the instructors, the Facilitators (student group) selected more challenging than guiding strategies and matched the instructors' teaching approaches. This group strengthened the relationship observed in the larger case. Two other student groups broadened this relationship. Guides demonstrated an alignment between guiding strategies and an Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused teaching approach. The Leaders suggested that other teaching conceptions (besides Conceptual Change/Student-Focused and Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused) influenced selections of instructional strategies. Thus the collective data strengthened and broadened relationships between teaching approaches and strategy selections. Second, student data confirmed the instructors teaching approaches. For the assignment in Week 10, students developed an individual action plan. As part of the assignment, students answered the question "How did this course operationalize the instructional strategies we discussed?" Learners responded to the question with 176

PAGE 198

statements such as ''we were given choices," "emphasis was placed on us, the learners," "not a single instructional methodology ... many instructional strategies and tactics," and ''we received lots of feedback, both from our fellow learners and from our instructors. And no memorization of facts in this class-lot of active cognitive processes going on!" Students' reflections stressed multiple strategies, different viewpoints, lots of feedback and discussions, variety in learning activities, and collaborative projects. These statements verified the Conceptual Change/Student Focused teaching approach as reported by the instructors. Third, the combined larger and student mini-case data indicated a limited relationship between strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction. With the larger case, the instructors' varied in their concerns on four out of the seven stages. In the student mini-cases, I found evidence that both supported and questioned relationships between strategy selections and concerns. With the student Facilitators, their selections of challenging strategies aligned with external concerns. The Guides' guiding strategies related to internal concerns. Aside from these observations, student group members varied in their concerns and relationships were not evident. Collective data pointed to little relationship between strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction. Finally, evidence suggested that the instructors influence students' selections of challenging instructional strategies. Combining the larger and mini-case data illuminated the instructors' influence. Based common characteristics, I grouped the 177

PAGE 199

instructors with student Facilitators. Figure 5.2 organizes participants' challenging strategies with Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach and external concerns. Adding the instructors to the Facilitators group did not affect Conceptual Change/Student-Focused data, but lowered external concerns from 4.9 to 4.5. Figure 5.2. Larger and mini-case selections of challenging instructional strategies and survey data. role-play activity Facilitators Jane, Sue, Instructors a:=2.5 extemal = 4.0 a:=4.3 extemal = 4.5 case study group project learning objectives problellHiolving tool questions quiz tilred-test exercise tnre-fulse exercise Tour Guides Lisa, Mark, Rose CC =Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach External= external concerns with web-based instruction 178 Leaders Ann, Beth

PAGE 200

The combination of instructor and student data significantly affected the organization of unique and overlapping challenging strategies. As observed in mini cases, the student groups have II unique and 4 overlapping strategies. These numbers demonstrate group diversity among selected strategies (see Figure 4.8 in Chapter 4 for student groupings, page I 54). With the student groups, Facilitators had 6 unique challenging strategies, the Guides 2 and Leaders 3. Adding the instructor to the mini-case data changed these numbers to 9 unique and 8 overlapping strategies. Notice that the Facilitators had 8 out of9 unique strategies. Role-play activity was the only unique strategy for Guide and Leader groups. These new groupings highlight the instructors' influence Two reasons may explain these influences. First, the course focused on instructional strategies in web-based learning environments. Early in the course, the instructors gave a mini-lecture on three types of interactions and described why interactions were important considerations for online instruction. The three types of interactions were learner-content, learner learner, and learner-instructor. In subsequent assignments, learners found examples of different interaction types (assignment Week 2) and determined critical interaction types for case studies (assignment Weeks 5-6). Then in the assignment for Weeks 78, learners created web-based modules around the five instructional topics of(a) activating learning, (b) learning through tests and exercises, (c) promoting collaboration, (d) motivating learners in virtual classrooms, and (e) venturing beyond courses. Learners described likely interactions types for their instructional topic. 179

PAGE 201

Given the emphasis the instructors placed on interaction types, it was no surprise that students included a variety of types in their own modules. Examples of strategies that demonstrated different types of interactions were discourse, role-play, brainstorm activity, peer review, discussion leader, and learning options. Second, as described earlier in this chapter, the instructors selected more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. Learners in the course engaged in online discussions, worked on collaborative projects, investigated different learning methodologies, and shared work with peers. In this way, students experienced involvement in discussions and learning activities. Since students in this study reported that this was their first or second online class, they were inexperienced with online learning and considered novices at instructional website development. According to Putnam (1992), inexperienced practitioners tend to repeat what they experienced. Students inay select certain strategies because the instructors first modeled them. These two reasons might also explain why little evidence exists for instructor influence with guiding instructional strategies. Figure 5.3 organizes guiding strategies with Information Transmissionffeacher-Focused teaching approach and internal concerns. Adding the instructors to the student Facilitators group data lowered Information Transmissionffeacher-Focused from 2.7 to 2.6 and increased internal concerns from 3.0 to 3.1. However, including additional data did not significantly impact the number of unique and overlapping guiding strategies (see 180

PAGE 202

Figure 4 9 in Chapter 4 for student groupings, page 155) With the instructors' data, the number of unique strategies changed from 6 to 7 and did not affect the number overlapping strategies. These findings indicated little instructor influence on student selections of guiding strategies. Figure 5.3. Larger and mini-case selections of guiding instructional strategies and survey data. Legend crossv.urd puzzle matching review scavenge-hunt activity Facilitators Jane, Sue, Instroctors internal = 3 .0 performance standard true-mise quiz Tour Guides Usa, Mark, Rose Leaders Ann, Beth IT= Information Transmissionffeacher-Focused teaching approach Internal =internal concerns with web-based instruction 181 role model

PAGE 203

Discussion This research is not complete without a discussion of observations as they relate to this study. Two different survey instruments captured glimpses of participants' perspectives of teaching and technology. Both came from a long research history and each with their own issues. Along the way, I expected participants' backgrounds to influence their selections of strategies and found that indeed it did, but not in ways anticipated. Approaches to Teaching Inventory The most disappointing aspect of this study was the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. I chose this survey because it has a long research history, was simple (only 16 items), was specific to the teaching context rather than "idealized" settings, and has not been used in a web-based instructional setting. After piloting the instrument with two groups, I modified it for this teaching context and research population, but this led to questionable reliability. Although removing three of the items (see Chapter 3) improved its reliability, these results reduced confidence in the outcomes. There are four things to consider with this inventory. First because of the modifications made the survey may be flawed. Prosser and Trigwell (1993) report an internal consistency of .75 for the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused approach and .81 for the Information Transmission/ Teacher-Focused approach. For the modified survey and this population, the 182

PAGE 204

reliability measures are .78 and -.09.respectively. Removing three items improved these measures to .86 and .32. I have confidence in the items evaluating the Conceptual Change/Student-Focused teaching approach and less in those defining the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach. I do believe that the Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused approach is valid and "alive and well" among academia. My experiences with faculty development and the findings of other researchers (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Fox, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Menges & Rando, 1989; Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Prosser & Trigwell, 1993, 1999; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a) testify to a lecture based teaching approach that focuses on facts and information. However, the items on this inventory may not accurately represent this approach. Because of the small research population group, confidence in this inventory is not possible. Second, the inventory may not be robust enough. This could account for low reliability among items. Based on the two extreme teaching conceptions, Prosser and Trigwell created the Approached to Teaching Inventory (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser, Trigwell, & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999). But in their research, they identify five teaching conceptions. As seen with the student mini cases, the Leaders selected strategies that align with Teacher/Student Interaction teaching approach rather than the two represented in the inventory. Thus, the inventory may not accurately measure the full spectrum of teaching approaches. 183

PAGE 205

Third, inventory items may not apply to web-based instruction or this research population. Prosser and Trigwell developed this inventory for faculty teaching traditional, lecture-based settings (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1994; Trigwell et al., 1999). Some of the items apply to a traditional teaching context and may not fit an online teaching context. Also, the students' instructional modules did not include an assessment element, yet three inventory items referred to student assessments. These discrepancies may indicate a mismatch with the context or population. Finally, this inventory was context specific. Researchers observe that educators embrace both "ideal" and ''working" teaching conceptions (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a). Educators hold generalized notions (ideal) of what it means to teach and how learning takes place. They express working conceptions within the context of a specific class through their teaching and assessment practices. I chose this inventory because it was context specific and representative of working teaching conceptions. This meant that participants' teaching approaches applied to their own instructional websites and not to online learning in general. Given that this was an exploratory study, I used these data and made text based comparisons. I found strong evidentiary support for relationships between strategy selections and teaching approaches, and a need for further research. 184

PAGE 206

Stages of Concern Instrument The Stages of Concern Instrument measured participants' concerns with web based instruction. I supposed that participants would express common concerns because students were enrolled in this online class (experiencing the innovation they were expressing concerns about) and in a certificate program for Web-Based Learning Environments. I also assumed that the instructors would share common concerns since they were teaching online and had considerable experience teaching in this context. Therefore, I was not surprised to see all but one reporting higher external than internal concerns. What did surprise me was the variability of concerns within groups (student and instructor groups). In other studies, the Stages of Concern Instrument measures concerns for an innovation over time. For instance, Wells and Anderson (1997) use it as a preand post-assessment for learners taking a class on using the Internet for instruction. In another example, Takacs, Reed, Wells, and Drombrowski (1999) measure teachers concerns with the Internet and hypermedia before and after technology training. Falba (1997), involved with faculty development, utilizes the tool to assess educators concerns with technology in education, again measuring attitudes over time. In these instances, the Stages of Concern Instrument measured changes in participants' concerns over time, before and after exposure to the technology and receiving training. In every case, demonstrating the effectiveness of training for reducing technology concerns was an outcome. 185

PAGE 207

However, demonstrating the effectiveness of training was not the purpose in this research. Rather, the Stages of Concern Instrument took a snapshot of participants' current concerns with web-based instruction. Based on research and my own assumptions, I expected to see evidence of relationships between strategy selections and concerns. But evidence did not support relationships. Experience and Skill Two things surprised me in this study. According to research, technical experience and skills influence educators' selections of strategies. I found differences, but not as expected. First, I anticipated that the most technically skilled participants would create the most involved and complex websites. Research implies that comfort and skill with technology precedes innovative and complex practices (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). One student (Lisa) in this study considered herself technically skilled and reported over 20 years experience with technology. Lisa's experience included database management and some website development (more than four websites). Of this research population, Lisa was the only participant selecting all guiding instructional strategies. Even though Lisa created four online assessments (cross-word puzzle, matching, multiple choice, and fill-in the blank) requiring additional technical skills, her website was relatively simplistic and linear. Lisa did not include online discussions, interactions between 186

PAGE 208

learners, or email links to the instructor. Her website showed no evidence of instructor influence. Based on her technical experiences and the instructors' emphasis on interactions, I expected to see more complexity and interaction in her instructional website. Second, I assumed that inexperienced developers would create websites that were predominately linear, text-based, and organized around simple learning topics. Researchers report that practitioners go through stages as they adopt technology in their instructional practices. Initially, educators report an emphasis on learning the technology (Geoghegan, 1994; Reed, 1990), acquiring access (Bebko, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999), developing students' skills (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Ehrmann, 1995; Gillespie, 1998; Thomson & Stringer, 1998), using it for simple tasks (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998), and delivering instruction (Ndahi, 1999; Wolcott, 1993). Unskilled or inexperienced practitioners tend to use the Internet for text-based lectures, reading assignments, and student testing (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998). As educators' mastery and adoption of technology increases, their practices change to strategizing ways to equip students (Becker, 1994), meeting student needs (Barrett, 1998; Ndahi, 1999), and facilitating communication (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Thurston, Secaras, & Levine, 1996). Some ofthe student websites met my expectations. But I was surprised to find some instances where inexperienced 187

PAGE 209

practitioners (Jane and Sue) created involved, integrated websites around difficult and complex learning topics. Summary The combined larger and student mini-cases enlarged our understanding and interpretation of relationships between strategy selections, teaching approaches, and concerns with web-based instruction. Participants' separated into three groups based on their selections of strategies and website characteristics. The roles developers assumed in their websites describe these groups and are Facilitators, Guides and Leaders. The approaches to teaching data best explain differences between these groups indicating a strong relationship. The collective larger and student mini-case data indicated a limited relationship between strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction. The instructors influenced students' web-based designs in their selections of instructional strategies. 188

PAGE 210

CHAPTER6 SillviMA.RY AND CONCLUSIONS This project provides an initial exploration into educators' selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. I set out to answer the general question, "What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction?" I chose two views by asking whether educators' beliefs about teaching and learning influence practices in distance-learning classrooms or whether the technology is central to educators' choices. Based on analysis, educators' beliefs, as expressed by teaching approaches, strongly relate to their selections of strategies for web-based instruction, whereas technology, as expressed by concerns with web based instruction, does not. Findings indicated that teaching conceptions, teaching experience, type of technology, and instructor behaviors influenced participants' selections of instructional strategies. In general, I found that the roles participants assumed in their websites describe their selections of instructional strategies. Based on literature reviews, distance educators view their teaching roles differently in technology-based classroom contexts (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Berge, 1997; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Gillespie, 1998; Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Moore & 189

PAGE 211

Kearsley, 1996; Oblinger & Rush, 1997; Schrum, 1998; Zhao, 1998). As I analyzed larger and mini-cases data, I observed that participants assumed three different roles in their instructional websites. These roles are Facilitator, Guide, and Leader. Facilitators selected more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. Their websites represented the greatest breadth in types of information with an emphasis on concepts and ideas. As a group, Facilitators used more personal references, posed more questions, and included more resources than other groups. Consistently, their websites illustrated instructors assuming the role of a Facilitator by engaging students in conversations around difficult and challenging topics. The Facilitator role was consistent with distance educators who describe their changed roles as planners, facilitators, and mentors (Barrett, 1998; Breivik, 1998; Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Schrum, 1998; Stuhlmann, 1994). Guides chose more guiding than challenging strategies. Of the three groups, the Guides had the fewest number of personal references. In the Guide role, instructors organized facts and presented information. Literature describes this role as content deliverer (Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998; Ndahi, 1999; Wolcott, 1993). Leaders selected both challenging and guiding strategies. Although they included more personal references than Guides and engaged learners in conversations, their websites focused on facts and information. In the Leader role, emphasis was on students knowing facts and viewing the field of study the same way 190

PAGE 212

that the Leader does. Leaders showed learners how to progress through large volumes of information (Barrett, 1998; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Townley, 1997) and how to interpret what they found (Breivik, 1998; Gillespie, 1998). Describing participant websites through their selections of strategies and other descriptive characteristics facilitated the search for explanations of strategy selections. More specifically, I explored eight factors (see Figure 6.1) that might explain selections of strategies. According to Barrett (1998), educators experience Figure 6.1. Factors influencing selections of instructional strategies. teaching & learning technology needs teaching experience support teaching context learning needs type of technology experience/skill teaching conceptions selections of instructional strategies 191 concerns with technology

PAGE 213

tensions between teaching and learning needs, and technology needs as they select strategies for distance-learning environments. I examined larger and mini-case data for evidence of influence within these two broad areas and found that teaching and learning needs influenced selections more than technology needs. Specifically, the approaches to teaching data best explain differences between these groups indicating a strong relationship. Relationships between participants' selections of strategies and concerns with web-based instruction were less evident. Teaching and Learning Needs Teaching and learning needs are those factors that specifically relate to educators and their students. For this research population, evidence indicated that two of the four factors influenced strategy selections. They were teaching conceptions and teaching experience with teaching conceptions representing the strongest relationship. For teaching context and learning needs, I was unable to determine influence. Teaching conceptions are views educators' hold about the teaching and learning relationship. Survey data from the Approaches to Teaching Inventory described participants' conceptions ofteaching for their websites. Two participant groups (Facilitators and Guides) demonstrated strong relationships between selections of strategies and approaches to teaching. The third group (Leaders) had a weaker relationship. The Facilitators' high Conceptual Change/Student-Focused 192

PAGE 214

teaching approach was consistent with their selections of more challenging than guiding instructional strategies. A high Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused teaching approach aligned with the Guides' selections of more guiding than challenging instructional strategies. Relationships between the Leaders' teaching conceptions and strategy selections were less evident. Teaching experiences also related to selections of strategies. In this study, the more teaching experience participants had, the more challenging strategies they selected. Guides reported no experience with classroom teaching. While their work experiences included time as corporate trainers, faculty tech support, and workshops developers, they reported no formal classroom teaching experiences. In their instructional websites, Guides predominately organized and presented facts. This contrasts with experienced classroom teachers and their strategy selections. Those with teaching experience (ranging from 4 to 22 years) selected more challenging strategies than the Guides. This finding is consistent with other research on teaching. Novice and expert teachers vary in their classroom behaviors and selections of strategies (Dwyer et al., 1991; Fox, 1983; Hannafin & Freeman, 1995; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Stuhlmann, 1994; Westerman, 1991). Inexperienced teachers focus on facts and what they bring to the learning equation. They tend to have a limited view of the field (Westerman, 1991) and strategize ways to organize and present information (Fox, 1983; Westerman, 1991). Expert teachers focus on learner needs and activities (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990; Westerman, 1991). Westermann (1991) 193

PAGE 215

observes that expert teachers integrate present learning with students' prior knowledge through dialog and learning activities. Because of insufficient evidence, I was unable to determine the influence of the teaching context and learning needs. The features that characterize the teaching context include the number of students, class length, course level, and discipline. These features did not apply to the seven modules. Learning needs pertain to student characteristics such as maturity level, school level, incoming knowledge, and current skills. Because student websites were not implemented with actual learner populations, learner needs were not applicable. Thus, I was unable to determine the influence that teaching context and learner needs have on participants' selection of instructional strategies. Technology Needs Four factors comprised the technology needs category. Evidence demonstrated that the type of technology influenced selections, and that technical experiences/skills and technology concerns do not. Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions about support. In this study, participants selected some instructional strategies because of a web-based teaching context. The most obvious example ofthis was the website overview strategy selected by four participants. With this strategy, participants described the structure and navigation for their websites. Other researchers describe 194

PAGE 216

influence technology has on strategy selections. Examples include strategies that organize and present information (Meyen et al., 1999; Schrum, 1998; Schrum & Berenfeld, 1997; Wood et al., 1998), tell students how to progress though information (Barrett, 1998; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Meyen et al., 1999; Townley, 1997), engage learners in conversations (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Gillespie, 1998; Phipps et al., 1998; Schrum, 1998), and clarify student performance expectations (Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Meloy, 1994; Wolcott, 1993). For example, Wolcott (1993) observes that faculty develop extensive and detailed course syllabi for distance-learning classes, different from their behaviors in traditional settings. Evidence suggests that the type of technology influences strategy selections. Technical experiences and skills did not relate to selections of strategies. Those with high technical skills (as defined by years of experience) selected the most and fewest challenging strategies. The least experienced students created complex websites with challenging strategies as well as linear text-based mini-lectures. Combined larger and student mini-cases data indicated no clear relationship between strategy selections and concerns with web-based instruction .. With the larger case, the instructors' vary in their concerns on four out of the seven stages. In the student mini-cases, I found evidence that both supported and questioned relationships between strategy selections and concerns. With the student Facilitators, their selections of challenging strategies aligned with external concerns. The Guides' guiding strategies related to internal concerns. Aside from these observations, 195

PAGE 217

student group members varied in their concerns and, therefore, relationships were not evident. Support comes through training, relationships with others, and administration. Since students comprised the majority of this research population, this category may not apply. For the instructors, I did not have enough information about their own support to draw any meaningful conclusions. Summary ofFindings Table 6.1 recaps conclusions about the eight factors that research says influence selections of instructional strategies. For this study, evidence revealed three factors that influenced selections and two that did not. For the other three factors, I did not have enough information to draw conclusions one way or the other. A checkmark in the influence column does not indicate the degree of influence, only that data suggested relationships with selections. In reviewing these conclusions, it is important to remember that influence does not mean causation. In summary, data show that teaching and learning needs have greater influence over strategy selections than the technology. As an aside, I also observed that the instructors' influenced students' selections of challenging instructional strategies. 196

PAGE 218

Table 6.1 Fadors Influencing Seledions of Instructional Strategies Teaching and Learning Needs teaching context teaching experience learning needs teaching conceptions Technology Needs type of technology support experience/skill concerns with technology Influence No Influence Contributions to the Field Unable to Determine This study contributes to the field through its collection methods, research contexts, and practice articulation. First, I used new methods for data collection. I created an online research website to inform participants of the study, obtain participant permission, and collect survey data. I conducted interviews through email. These techniques facilitated data collections from individuals located in different physical locations. Second, this research used two-well developed inventories in new contexts. Prosser and Trigwell (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Townley, 1997; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996a, 1996b; Trigwell et al., 1999) use the Approaches 197

PAGE 219

to Teaching Inventory with facuhy in traditional university settings. In this study, the instrument evaluated educators teaching approaches in a non-traditional setting-an online class. While I made modifications that resulted in reliable data for only one of two dimensions, I feel confident this instrument could be useful for web-based teaching contexts. In some studies, the Stages of Concern instrument measures changes in participants' concerns with an innovation over time. For instance, Wells and Anderson (1997) use it with learners taking a class on using the Internet for instruction. In another example, Takacs, Reed, Wells, and Drombrowski (1999) measure teachers concerns with the Internet and hypermedia. Falba (1997), involved with faculty development, utilizes the tool to assess educators concerns with technology in education. In these three studies, the Stages of Concern Instrument measured changes in participants' concerns before and after training. For this study, the instrument took a snapshot of educators' concerns with web-based instruction. These data were compared with instructional strategy selections. Third, it articulates practice (Kember & Gow, 1994; McCutcheon, 1992; Schubert, 1992), explains choices (Kember & Gow, 1994; McCutcheon, 1992; Pratt, 1992), and may lead to transformed practices (McCutcheon, 1992). In analyzing participants' websites, I had to describe them meaningfully and explain differences. To accomplish this, I identified instructional strategies, categorized them, and identified descriptive website characteristics. For instance, a difference exists 198

PAGE 220

between guiding and challenging instructional strategies. Guiding strategies focus on the teacher organizing and presenting information whereas challenging ones focus on learners understanding difficult concepts and ideas. Recognizing, organizing, and categorizing instructional strategies contributes to the collective knowledge about educator practices in web-based learning environments. This information is useful for faculty development. As part of a faculty development team, I support educators transitioning from traditional classrooms to distance-education teaching environments. Predominately, workshops concentrate on teaching the tool and building technical skills. According to Donovan and Macklin (1998), sustained changes in teaching practices are unlikely unless technology uses are grounded in sound pedagogy. Understanding roles that faculty assume in web based instruction helps practitioners know choices they make (Kember & Gow, 1994; McCutcheon, 1992; Pratt, 1992), articulate them through a common vocabulary (McCutcheon, 1992), and potentially transform their practices to be more consonant with beliefs about what matters (McCutcheon, 1992; Pratt, 1992). Further Research Since this was an initial exploration, multiple strategies revealed what influenced educators' strategy selections for web-based learning contexts. The fmdings indicated that teaching approaches strongly influence educators' selections of instructional strategies. The roles educators' assume in their websites explained 199

PAGE 221

differences. The study was very involved, complex, and broad. This was both good news and bad news. The good news was that I employed new and different methods for collecting and analyzing data. I figured out how to collect data online, how to analyze student websites, how to modify survey instruments, and how to use instruments in new environments. These new and different methods also represented the pad news. Because I made many changes and tried out new methods, I have less confidence in the findings. As next steps in furthering this research, I recommend follow-up, limits, simplifications, and/or extensions. Following up with this research population is a first suggestion. This study examined participants' teaching conceptions specific to their instructional modules. These conceptions represent ''working" ones that are specific to a particular instructional topic or classroom. Researchers point out that educators embrace both "ideal" and ''working" teaching conceptions (Murray & MacDonald, 1997; Pratt, 1992; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Prosser et al., 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996b). Ideal conceptions are notions ofwhat it means to teach and how learning takes place. As a follow-up for this study, a researcher might go to participants and assess their "ideal" teaching conceptions, and compare these data with their working conceptions and look for relationships between them. A second way to further this study is to interview participants about their intentions and motivations for selections instructional strategies. One of the cautions expressed by Pratt (1992) is in assuming 200

PAGE 222

that one particular approach is "better" than another. According to Pratt (1992), each approach has philosophical and epistemological foundations that are consistent with particular people, purposes, and contexts. Thus, participants might articulate their intentions and motivations clarifying what influenced their selections. Looking at students developmentally is a final means for continuing the study with this research population. Because teaching practices evolve and change, look at selections of strategies after they have developed multiple instructional websites and compare these with those observed in this study. Look for evidence of change over time. This research could be narrowed three ways. First, my research represented a broad sweep of selections, teaching approaches, and technology concerns. I recommend limiting it to teaching approaches and strategy selections. Second, confine the research to authentic online class websites rather than student instructional modules. Finally, look at strategies selected for student evaluation and assessment. According to Pratt (1992), assessment strategies reveal educators' dominant teaching conceptions. Instructors self-reporting their selections of instructional strategies simplify the analysis process. Using a list of strategies, educators could check off strategy selections for their online classes, and add others not included. This would take the place of in-depth analysis of participants' websites. This research could be extended to new teaching contexts or other teaching approaches. The instructors in this online course are well versed in instructional 201

PAGE 223

design and effective instructional strategies for online learning environments. It would be interesting to see if the relationship between educators' teaching approaches and selected strategies hold with educators in other disciplines. Looking for relationships with other teaching conceptions would extend this study. Prosser and Trigwell (1997) report five different teaching conceptions, yet their inventory represents only the two extremes. Possibly, the Approaches to Teaching Inventory could be extended to reflect the full spectrum of teaching approaches. Implications In light of results from this study, other research findings, and experiences with faculty development, seven principles emerge as keys for supporting faculty transitioning from traditional classrooms to distance-learning environments. These principles are developmental in nature and intended to be part of ongoing conversations about beliefs, practices, and technology. The seven principles for fostering teacher skills in technology-based classrooms include the following: 1. Begin with conversations about educators' beliefs about teaching and learning relationships. 2. Have faculty articulate student-learning needs. 3. Bring in experienced distance educators to share examples and experiences with technology-based classrooms. 4. Provide educators with a framework for thinking through strategy selections. 202

PAGE 224

5 Allow faculty to experience distance-learning environments as students. 6. Encourage faculty by providing continuing support and focus. 7 Promote community among practitioners. First, begin by raising awareness of educators' beliefs about teaching and learning. In this study, participants' discussed online instructional strategies, learning theories, and interactions in web-based learning environments The instructors were well versed with "effective" online instructional strategies. Students participated in various learning activities as they gained knowledge about different learning theories, instructional strategies, and types of interactions. Because the course focused on online instructional strategies, I assumed that research participants were more aware of their choices of strategies. This could account for the strong relationship between teaching approaches and selected strategies. In general, however, educators may be unaware oftheir own theories and/or lack the ability to articulate them (McCutcheon, 1992; Moskal, Martin, & Foshee, 1997; Munro 1993; Stark et al., 1988). Knowing what you believe about teaching and learning allows examination and potentially transformation of those practices (McCutcheon, 1992; Pratt, 1992). Conceptions of teaching and learning can be revealed through discussions, use of survey instruments such as the Approaches to Teaching Inventory, observations of classroom practices, and reflective thinking of one's own practice. 203

PAGE 225

Second, have educators describe their students and articulate student-learning needs. Wolcott (1993) observed that as faculty planned distance-education courses, they paid more attention to outlining course content than to defining and meeting students' needs. According to Barrett (1998), exemplary distance educators identify and meet student needs. Emphasis is on who the students are, what they bring to the learning situation, and what they need to be successful in a distance learning environment (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Hiltz, 1994; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). Faculty who can articulate students' learning needs are more likely to meet them. Third, bring in experienced distance educators to share stories of exemplary learning situations and talk about challenges transitioning to new environments. Becker (1994) suggests that, if teachers are to successfully incorporate technology in their teaching practices they must have access to other people who are experts (Means, 1994) and who have mastered the integration of technology in their classroom. Since knowledge emerges from observing the complexities of actions in specific contexts (Berliner, 1986; Carter, 1993), it is important to examine these "masters" in the context of their classrooms. Teachers know and understand their practice through dialog with other practitioners (Beattie, 1995); through direct classroom experiences; through formal, professional education; and through observations and stories of other teachers' experiences (Jalongo & Isenberg, 1995). 204

PAGE 226

Fourth, provide a framework for thinking through selections of instructional strategies for technology-based classrooms. Researchers report that practitioners go through stages as they adopt technology in their instructional practices (Dwyer et al., 1991). In the beginning, educators focus on learning the technology (Geoghegan, 1994; Reed, 1990), using it for simple tasks (Gillespie, 1998; Hirumi & Bermudez, 1996; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998), and delivering instruction (Ndahi, 1999; Wolcott, 1993). As educators' mastery of technology develops their practices change to strategizing ways to equip students (Becker, 1994), meeting student needs (Barrett, 1998; Ndahi, 1999), and facilitating communication (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Thurston et al., 1996). Given that integration of technology is developmental, provide mental models or reflective frameworks to facilitate and encourage this process. Putnam ( 1991) calls these frameworks ''recipes." According to Putnam, a recipe is a "cluster of meanings" embedded in ordinary language that may contain a list of ingredients, procedures for combining those ingredients, sets of instructions, and possibly formulas for determining actions. Use of recipes does not result in mastery of a subject; rather they provide starting points. Novice educators' tend to use recipes literally. As they develop expertise, they bring in a broader spectrum of strategies from their own practices and may reframe or restructure recipes (Putnam). This framework should be a reflective tool for selecting instructional strategies for technology-based classrooms. It needs to facilitate educators' 205

PAGE 227

reflections about their teaching conceptions, students' learning needs, types of instructional strategies, and notions of exemplary distance-education practices. Included as part of this framework are examples, lists of challenging and guiding instructional strategies, suggestions on how those strategies can be used, and various assessment strategies. Fifth, allow educators to experience distance-learning environments Educators may lack experience both as students and as teachers in distance-learning environments. Because they lack experience, they may have difficulty conceptualizing and strategizing use oftechnology in their own classrooms (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993; Nickerson, 1995; Reiser & Salisbury, 1991; Vickers & Smalley, 1995). Participating in online discussions helps educators appreciate their complexity and identify skills required for successful management. Ideas for providing this experience include taking online Approaches to Teaching Inventory, participating in online discussions about their practices, and creating web pages with links to helpful examples. Six, transitioning from traditional classrooms to technology-based ones requires considerable effort, time, and support (Brand, 1998; Heflich, 1997; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Ndahi, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). On an individual level, support may mean faculty development workshops (Barrett, 1998; Bebko, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Green, 1999; Ndahi, 1999), reduced teaching loads (Becker, 1994; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Zhang, 1998), extra time and/or pay for 206

PAGE 228

development of distant-learning courses (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Jacobsen, 1998; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999; Zhang, 1998), established enrollment caps for online courses (Barrett, 1998), and paid teaching assistants (Dillon & Walsh, 1992). At an institutional level, support means ongoing and accessible technical support for students and faculty (Anderson & Harris, 1995; Bebko, 1998), flexibility with regard to registration (Barrett, 1998), and centralized resources (Barrett, 1998). Faculty development opportunities provide training in technology uses as instructional tools. Educators need to understand the limitations of technology and how to troubleshoot when it is not working properly (Becker, 1994; Breivik, 1998; Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Dusick, 1998; Jacobsen, 1998; Townley, 1997; Zhao, 1998). Because technology changes so fast, practitioners need to be keep up with the latest information resources and technologies in their field (Breivik, 1998; Bright & Waxman, 1993). Also, faculty need help identifying, selecting, and implementing useful strategies for this new environment (Bailey et al., 1996; Breivik, 1998; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Green & Gilbert, 1995; Ndahi, 1999; Thurston et al., 1996; Townley, 1997). In addition to support, faculty may need help focusing their effort and making choices. Evidence suggests that technology-based instruction reveals and extends practices rather than transforming them (Means, 1994; Miller & Olson, 1994; Ndahi, 1999; Owston, 1997; Zhao, 1998). Ifthis is the case, then educators who teach well 207

PAGE 229

continue to do so in distance-education settings, whereas those who teach poorly also continue their practices in these enviromnents. Those making the transition to technology-based classrooms may be overwhelmed learning the technology, selecting strategies, and having their teaching practices revealed. When the experience results in poor outcomes, practitioners tend to "blame the technology'' rather than accessing their own teaching practices. According to Detterman (1993), taking new information and successfully applying it to new contexts is very unlikely. Some faculty may need support limiting their effort while transitioning to distance learning enviromnents. Support can come through well-timed questions such as ''what is the one thing about your current teaching practices that you would like to improve?" This principle facilitates incremental transformation in teaching practices and can limit faculty frustrations. Finally, promote and facilitate collaboration among peers. The adoption of an innovation is not an event, rather it is a complex process influenced by many factors (Lowry, 1997; Rogers, 1995). Successful adoption of an innovation has an order as defined by groups of people (Geoghegan, 1994; Rogers, 1995; Wells & Anderson, 1997). Those who first adopt an innovation are considered innovators and early adopters. They are drawn to the innovation because of their desire and willingness to experiment with new ideas and/or technologies. Different reasons motivate the adoption of the next people groups (early and late majority). They look to the innovators and early adopters for examples of success and use. They want to try it 208

PAGE 230

out ahead oftime and to know what works/does not work before investing time and energy. Within any teaching organization, a wide variety of people groups exist. Supporting faculty means capitalizing on these differences and intentionally bringing groups together to discuss challenges, successes, and learning issues. Through relationships with others, vision clarifies and potential solutions for problem areas arise (Becker, 1994; Donovan & Macklin, 1998; Heflich, 1997). Educators transitioning from traditional classrooms to technology-based ones are central to these seven principles. Emphasis is on equipping faculty to facilitate transformation of their own teaching practices. Conclusion Teacher actions are dynamic and evolve with practice. Faculty, concerned about the instructional process that engages students with learning, work to design meaningful learning experiences through technology (Bebko, 1998). This task is neither simple nor intuitive (Brandt et al., 1993; Heflich, 1997; Hirumi & Bermudez 1996; Loeding & Wynn, 1999; Schrum, 1998; Siktberg & Dillard, 1999). This project was an initial exploration into educators' selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction. I set out to answer the general question "What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction?'' I chose two views by asking whether educators' beliefs about teaching 209

PAGE 231

and learning influence practices in distance-learning classrooms or whether technology is central to educators' choices. Based on analysis, educators' beliefs as expressed by teaching approaches strongly relate to selections of strategies for web based instruction. 210

PAGE 232

APPENDIX A APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (ORIGINAL) Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Approaches to Teaching Inventory (copied from Appendix Approaches to Teaching) This inventory is designed to explore the way that academics go about teaching in a specific context or subject. This may mean that your responses to these items may be different to the responses you might make on your teaching in other contexts or subjects. For each item please circle one of the number (1-5). The numbers stand for the following responses: 1 2 3 4 5 this item was only rarely true for me in this subject. this item was sometimes true for me in this subject. this iteni was true for me about half the time in this subject. this item was frequently true for me in this subject. this item was almost always true for me in this subject. Please answer each item. Do not spend a long time on each: your first reaction is probably the best one. 1. 2. I design my teaching in this subject with the assumption that most of the students have very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered. I feel it is important that the subject should be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what students have to know for formal assessment items. 211 only almost rarely always 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 233

3. In my class/tutorial for this subject I try to develop a 1 2 3 4 5 conversation with students about the topics we are studying. 4. I feel it is important to present a lot of facts in 1 2 3 4 5 classes so that students know what they have to learn for this subject. 5. I feel that the assessment in this subject should be an 1 2 3 4 5 opportunity for students to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. 6. We take time out in classes so that the students can 1 2 3 4 5 discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they encounter studying this subject. 7. In this subject I concentrate in covering the 1 2 3 4 5 information that might be available from a good textbook. 8. I encourage students to restructure their existing 1 2 3 4 5 knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject that they will develop. 9. In lectures for this subject, I use difficult or 1 2 3 4 5 undefmed examples to provoke debate. 10. I structure this subject to help students to pass the 1 2 3 4 5 formal assessment items. 11. I think an important reason for giving lectures in this 1 2 3 4 5 subject is to give students a good set of notes. 12. When I give this subject, I only provide the students 1 2 3 4 5 with the information they will need to pass the formal assessment. 13. I feel that I should know the answers to any 1 2 3 4 5 questions that students may put to me during this subject. 212

PAGE 234

14. Formal teaching time is made available in this subject for students to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. 15. I feel that it is better for students in this subject to generate their own notes rather than always copy mine. 16. I feel a lot of teaching time in this subject should be used to question students' ideas. 213 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 235

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Approaches to Teaching Analysis (copied from Appendix Approaches to Teaching) The Approaches to Teaching Inventory has been developed to measure the ways teachers approach their teaching in a particular situation. It is composed of 16 items. Eight items are part of a sub-scale describing an approach which is intended to change students' conceptions or ways of seeing things through a focus on the student (conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) approach). Four items refer to the motive of the approach and four to the strategy. The other eight items form a sub scale labeled information transmission/teacher-focused approach (ITTF) with four items referring to the intentions to transmit information and four to the use of a teacherfocused strategy to achieve that intention. The items are grouped as follows: Dimension: Conceptual Change/Student-Focused (CCSF) Intention items Item # I feel that the assessment in this subject should be an opportunity for students to reveal 5 their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. I encourage students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of 8 thinking about the subject that they will develop. I feel that it is better for students in this subject to generate their own notes rather than 15 always copy mine. I feel a lot of teaching time in this subject should be used to question students' ideas. 16 Strategy items Item # In my class/tutorial for this subject I try to develop a conversation with students about the 3 topics we are studying. We take time out in classes so that the students can discuss, among themselves, the 6 difficulties that they encounter studying this subject. In lectures for this subject, I use difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. 9 Formal teaching time is made available in this subject for students to discuss their 14 changing understanding of the subject. 214

PAGE 236

Dimension: Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused (ffiF) approach Intention items Item # I feel it is important that the subject should be completely described in terms of specific 2 objectives relating to what students have to know for formal assessment items. I feel it is important to present a lot of facts in classes so that students know what they 4 have to learn for this subject. I think an important reason for giving lectures in this subject is to give students a good 11 set of notes. I feel that I should know the answers to any questions that students may put to me during 13 this subject. Strategy items Item # I design my teaching in this subject with the assumption that most of the students have 1 very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered. In this subject I concentrate in covering the information that might be available from a 7 good textbook. I structure this subject to help students to pass the formal assessment items. 1 0 When I give this subject, I only provide the students with the information they will need 12 to pass theformal assessment. All items are scored positively. 215

PAGE 237

APPENDIXB APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (MODIFIED) Directions: This inventory is designed to explore the way you go about teaching in a Web-based instructional environment. This may mean that your responses to these items may be different to the responses you might make about your teaching in other contexts or for other subjects. The term module refers to the course, unit, or module you designed as a requirement for this class. Please answer each item. Do not spend a long time on each. Your first reaction is probably the best one. For each item, please circle one ofthe numbers (1-5). The higher the number, the more the statement reflects your attitude or strategy in a Web-based environment. The nl.unbers stand for the following responses: 1 2 irrelevant agree 3 strongly agree 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree 1. I designed this Web-based instructional module with the 1 2 3 4 5 assumption that most of the learners have very little useful knowledge of what is being covered. 2. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is 1 2 3 4 5 important for the subject to be completely described in terms of speCific objectives relating to what learners have to know. 3. In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop 1 2 3 4 5 a conversation with learners about the topics being studied. 4. I believe it is important to present a lot of facts in this 1 2 3 4 5 Web-based instructional module so that learners know what they have to learn about this subject. 216

PAGE 238

5. I believe that assessment in this Web-based instructional 1 2 3 4 5 module should be an opportunity for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. 6. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is 1 2 3 4 5 important for students to discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they may encounter studying this subject. 7. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I 1 2 3 4 5 concentrated on covering the information that might be available from a good textbook. 8. In designing this Web-based instruction module, I 1 2 3 4 5 encouraged learners to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject. 9. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I used 1 2 3 4 5 difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. 10. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I 1 2 3 4 5 structured it to help learners to pass formal assessment items. 11. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is 1 2 3 4 5 important to provide learners with complete and detailed information about the subject. 12. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that I 1 2 3 4 5 should know the answers to questions that learners may put tome. 13. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I built 1 2 3 4 5 in ways for learners to discuss their changing understanding ofthe subject. 14. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is 1 2 3 4 5 better for learners to generate their own notes rather than supplying them with mine. 217

PAGE 239

15. When I designed this Web-based instructional module, I only provided learners with the information they might need to pass a formal assessment. 16. In this Web-based instructional module, I built in opportunities to question learners' ideas. 218 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 240

APPENDIXC APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (ORIGINAL AND MODIFIED) Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Original I design my teaching in this subject with the assumption that most of the students have very little useful knowledge of the topics to be covered. I feel it is important that the subject should be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what students have to know for formal assessment items. In my class/tutorial for this subject I try to develop a conversation with students about the topics we are studying. I feel it is important to present a lot of fucts in classes so that students know what they have to learn for this subject. I feel that the assessment in this subject should be an opportunity for students to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. We take time out in classes so that the students can discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they encounter studying this subject. Modified I designed this Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the learners have very little useful knowledge of what is being covered. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to know. In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop a conversation with learners about the topics being studied. I believe it is important to present a lot of fuctsin this Web-based instructional module so that learners know what they have to learn about this subject. I believe that assessment in this Web based instructional module should be an opportunity for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important for students to discuss, among themselves, the difficulties that they may encounter studying this subject. 219

PAGE 241

In this subject I concentrate in covering the information that might be available from a good textbook. I encourage students to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject that they will develop. In lectures for this subject, I use difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. I structure this subject to help students to pass the formal assessment items. I think an important reason for giving lectures in this subject is to give students a good set of notes. When I give this subject, 1 only provide the students with the information they will need to pass the formal assessment. I feelthat I should know the answers to any questions that students may put to me during this subject. Formal teaching time is made available in this subject for students to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. I feel that it is better for students in this subject to generate their own notes rather than always copy mine. I feel a lot of teaching time in this subject should be used to question students' ideas. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I concentrated on covering the information that might be available from a good textbook. In designing this Web-based instruction module, I encouraged learners to restructure their existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I used difficult or undefined examples to provoke debate. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I structured it to help learners to pass formal assessment items. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important to provide learners with complete and detailed information about the subject. When I designed this Web-based instructional module, I only provided learners with the information they might need to pass a formal assessment. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that I should know the answers to questions that learners may put to me. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I built in ways for learners to discuss their changing understanding of the subject. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to generate their own notes rather than supplying them with mine. In this Web-based instructional module, I built in opportunities to question learners' ideas. 220

PAGE 242

APPENDIXD APPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY (KEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION) Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Approaches to Teaching Analysis (modified inventory for dissertation research) The Approaches to Teaching Inventory has been developed to measure the ways teachers approach their teaching in a particular situation. It is composed of 16 items. Eight items are part of a sub-scale describing an approach intended to change students' conceptions or ways of seeing things through a focus on the student (conceptual change/student-focused (CCSF) approach). Four items refer to the motive of the approach and four to the strategy. The other eight items form a sub scale labeled information transmissiop/teacherfocused approach (ITTF) with four items referring to the intentions to transmit information and four to the use of a teacher-focused strategy to achieve that intention. 221

PAGE 243

The items are grouped as follows: Dimension: Conceptual Change/Student-Focused (CCSF) Intention items Item # I believe that assessment in this Web-based instructional module should be an opportunity 5 for learners to reveal their changed conceptual understanding of the subject. In designing this Web-based instruction module, I encouraged learners to restructure their 8 existing knowledge in terms of the new way of thinking about the subject. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is better for learners to generate 14 their own notes rather than supplying them with mine. In this Web-based instructional module, I built in opportunities to question learners' ideas. 16 Strategy items Item # In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop a conversation with learners 3 about the topics being studied. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important for students to discuss, 6 among themselves, the difficulties that they may encounter studying this subject. In designing this Web-based instruCtional module, I used difficult or undefined examples 9 to provoke debate. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I built in ways for learners to 13 discuss their changing understanding of the subject. 222

PAGE 244

Dimension: Information Transmission/Teacher-Focused (mF) approach Intention items Item # In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that it is important for the subject to be 2 completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what learners have to know. I believe it is important to present a lot of facts in this Web-based instructional module so 4 that learners know what they have to learn about this subject. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe it is important to provide learners with 11 complete and detailed information about the subject. In this Web-based instructional module, I believe that I should know the answers to 12 questions that learners may put to me. Strategy items Item # I designed this Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the 1 learners have very little useful knowledge of what is being covered. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I concentrated on covering the 7 information that might be available from a good textbook. In designing this Web-based instructional module, I structured it to help learners to pass 10 formal assessment items. When I designed this Web-based instructional module, I only provided learners with the 15 information they might need to pass a formal assessment. All items are scored positively. 223

PAGE 245

APPENDIXE COURSE WEBSITE-ASSIGNMENT CALENDAR Weekl Week2 11/6/0011/12/00 ltn3/00-11119/00 Get acquainted with website Read online lesson Post Bios Discussions Group Project 3-5 exemplary examples of interaction used in instructional website Why it is exemplary Expected outcomes Post to discussion board, facilitate discussions, URL Individual Projectmethodology Select an instructional methodology Week34 __ 11/20/00-__ Report to group: purpose, interaction, types ofleaming 12/3/00 objective, types of learners, special considerations 12/4/00Week54i --12/17/00 1/2/01 -Week7-8 -1114/01 Week9-10 -11151011/28/01 Post to discussion board, fucilitate discussions URL Group Project-case study (for one of three cases) Describe which types of interaction is most critical to your case -* Describe which methodology (from week 3) most applies Apply method and provide a detailed plan Post to discussion board, fucilitate discussions, URL Individual Projectweb-based learning activity Select 1 technique (activate learning, text & exercise learning, promote collaboration, virtual classroom/ motivate learners, venture beyol).d courses) Develop online learning activity that helps others in class learn : l) what it is, 2) type of interaction, 3) tools to support these types of activities, 4) good examples using teclmique, 5) recommendations for using technique, 6) bibliography Provide overview, interaction, tools, good examples, recommendations, bibliography Post URL to discussion board, fucilitate discussions Group Project-Online Interaction Rubric Develop 4-6 critical design guidelines for interaction Rationale for guideline Types of tools & resource to implement / Examples Post to discussion board, fucilitate discussions, URL Individual Action Planreflective activity on what W
PAGE 246

APPENDIXF COURSE WEBSITE ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 8 Individual Web-based Learning Activity 20 points Due: Wednesday, Week 8 Each student in the course will individually select 1 techniques area Oetters A-E ) from the following list Let us know which one you have selected and provide two alternates in case the one you want is already taken by someone else) no later than Tuesday of week 7. Once we have given you the go ahead, you will develop a learning activity to help others in the class understand the area you have chosen. Post your web-based activity no later than Wednesday of week 8 Each of these areas comes from the Horton book For your chosen area, develop a learning activity that helps others in the class learn the following information: 1. Overview --What is it? How does it work? What it the instructional purpose? 2. Interaction -Which types of interaction are likely Oearner-content, learner-learner, learner facilitator)? 3. Tools -What tools are available to support these types of activities? What hardware and /or software considerations should be considered? 4. Good Examples-Provide some good examples (URLs) of the technique in use. 5. Recommendations-Provide detailed instructional recommendations for using the technique in educational websites. Any overriding learner and facilitator considerations for use? 6. Bibliography -What resources did you use to prepare this learning activity? Once the activities are posted, class participants should participate in the activity (as a learner) and provide comments about the activity (as a colleague): How is the activity? Recommendations? Any HW/SW considerations to add? Comments? Any additional thoughts on the potential impact on interaction? Other good examples that you know of? Any thoughts about recommendations? Anything to add? Facilitators (the author of the assignment) should respond both as a facilitator of the activity (if appropriate to the type of activity you design) and as a colleague to your colleagues' comments 225

PAGE 247

APPENDIXG COURSE WEBSITE ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION WEEK 10 WEEKS 9-10 Action Plan: Integrating Interaction Instructions: As our final activity it is time to sit back and take some time to reflect on what we've learned and accomplished, and create an action plan for moving forward in terms of integrating interaction into our own online learning environments. Post, in the Week 9-10 discussion area, a response that includes the following information : What do you feel you have learned and accomplished during this course (either through class activities and projects, working on your Web site, discussion with your colleagues, or your own research)? How will it impact the design of your own online learning environments? During this semester, we examined the importance of interaction in online learning environments as well as instructional methodologies, learning strategies and activities, and tools that can be employed to support interaction. What online interaction issues, topics, and skills are you interested in exploring further? Why? Please describe in detail 3 to 5 ways you would like to promote interaction in your own online learning environments How did this course operationalize the instructional strategies we discussed? 226

PAGE 248

APPENDIXH COURSE WEBSITE DISCUSSION BOARD EXAMPLE p Online Instructional Strategies EJ A team 1 (wk 2) folder El A team 2 (wk 2) folder EJ A Test elsios eJ Course Bulletins e:J Course Cafe EJ Course Questions 1 eJ Ieamer-Ieamer folder EJ Louise's Discussion Forum EJ Mery's Discussion Folder : E:lweek 1 elweek2 e:lweeks3-4 Elweeks5-6 f27 Weeks 7-8 1 Elweeks9-10 Welcorne .. backl.Hope_ y()ti had a nice tireak .and a good h _bl(day. was hectic (but good). Wotild tq hear aboUt-what OV<>nlf\nO did over the break! < ' ': i you'll learn about of the ta9tics ana online learning designers can use to make what we'Ve been . cori5tructivistleaming rriethodologies) 'come you.be able to practice this a learning activity devMopfQr the rest of ug! : . . .: . seelhatyou about in ttje J <{ .. and teaming methods toryo_ur,tesson ' . 227

PAGE 249

APPENDIX I COURSE WEBSITE-SITE MAP Home / APAStyle Assignments -Graduate Level Writing Communication "" Constructivism Introduction --------Interaction Def & Rationale --------StufftoDo ... The Web: Design for Active Learning Putting Courses Online -----Interaction Examples Learner Identified Characteristics ---Reflection World Lecture Hall Stuff to Do ... Maricopa PBL --Instructional Methods Intentional Learning Week 3&4 Situated Cognition -Stuff to Do... Inquiry-based learning, etc/ Memo Cas 1 0 ta Job description Format Q / e : c gons Job description: Example / utz / Action Verbs Week 5&6 --Case Studies Case 2 : Tnangles Persuasion Stuff to Do... Case 3: Dodecahedrons Butler Letter ---Learning Activities Website Week7&8 -Stuff to Do ... / Online Interaction Rubric Week 9&10 --Action Plan for Integrating Interaction ""' Stuff to Do ... Privacy Memo ,Discussions Test category Bios & Collaboration -Links ____ Course Bulletins Course Cafe '\ Course Questions Documents - Assignments & URLs 228

PAGE 250

APPENDIXJ EMAIL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1) How many online classes have you taken? 2) How many online instructional web sites have you created (either as a class assignment or as a work project)? 3) What is your experience with web page development (these do not have to be for instructional purposes) prior to this assignment? (None= this was the first website you have ever created, Little = developed 1 -4 websites prior to this assignment, Some = developed 5 10 websites prior to this assignment, Experienced = I 0 -I5 websites, Very Experienced = developed more websites that you can count) 4) What is your experience designing instruction? This could be experience as a teacher in the classroom, as a trainer in a corporate setting, or as an instructional designer (for education or corporate) Please provide the number of years of experience (i e I year as a classroom teacher, 3 years as an instructional designer . ) 4) Why did you take this online class? 5) Why did you enroll in the technology program at UCD? 6) Do I have your permission to include a screen shot of the opening page of your website in the final report? (You name would be removed, but the website title and navigation system would be included.) 229

PAGE 251

APPENDIXK RESEARCH WEBSITEAPPROACHES TO TEACHING INVENTORY Approaches to Teaching in a Web-based Environment 1 I designed this Web-based instructional module with the assumption that most of the learners ha\le little useful knowledge of what is being covered. irrelevant strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree w l_ij nnl!llliIIIl!llllli!IIIlllllll!lliiiDIIJIIIIIIlllllllli!IImmnnmmnnnnnnnnnnmBIIIIl1llll!lllm ...... ,.._---,----..... _---_.,..,. .... 2 In this Web-based instructional module, I belie\le that it is important for the subject to be completely described in terms of specific objectives relating to what the learners have to know. irrelevant w strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 1-.!U I2J 3 In this Web-based instructional module, I tried to develop a conversation 230

PAGE 252

APPENDIXL RESEARCH WEBSITEOVERVIEW *Keeping it Simple for Data CollectionNetscape -VickeyWOOD Instructio1la[ Strategies CR,searcli in Web-based Environments Keeping It Simple for the Study Welcome to a research project on instructional strategies in Web-based environments! My name is Vickey Wood and I need your help answering some interesting questions. You have been asked to participate because you are currently enrolled in the class "Online Instructional Strategies" and have designed a Web-based instructional website. Participation will not affect your grade for the website or class. Participation in this research is simple. It is requires following the steps outlined below. You might want to bookmark this page or add it to favorites for quick reference. Complete the permission slip**. Want to know more? Read about your rights as participants and how you contribute to this study. Take the online survey about your concerns with Web-based instruction (Part 1**). Want to know more? Check out the theoretical foundation J: .a.l.-------1. -.! -_ ... --.J ___ ___ -------------___ ..__ -.... 231

PAGE 253

APPENDIXM RESEARCH WEBSITE-PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM for Participating in Research-Netscape -vickoyWOOD Instructional Strategies In Web-based Environments Permission/or Participation Below is an overview of the research project on ''The Design of Web--based Instructional Websites: What Influences the Selection of Instructional Strategies?" As participants, you should understand your rights and how you contribute to the project. Remember, participation is voluntary and will not affect your grade for the class or website. Feel free to contact me with any questions. PermiSsion: ...... .,. .. . .: for Research 232 After reading this information you may acknowledge participation in one of two ways: 1. Fill out the online permission slip. Enter your name, email address, assignment URL, and date. 2. Or send an email with your name, email address, assigmnent URL, date, and a statement acknowledging your participation in the research. Regardless of the method used, I will confirm your information through email once received. Next, take Parh of the Concerns with Web-based instruction

PAGE 254

APPENDIXN RESEARCH WEBSITE-STAGE OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT concern>S. . l "' ,, Part 1 Concems with Web-based Instruction (Part 1) 1 I would like more information about the purpose of Web-based instruction. iii! 0 irrelevant !iJ 1 not true of me now !iii 2seldom true of me now til 3 somewhat true of me now til 4 true of me now l:il 5 more true of me now t!!l 6 very true of me now tit 7 -really true of me now 2 I am more concerned about other innovations than I am about Web-based instruction. li!! 0 -irrelevant ill 1 not true of me now IS 2 seldom true of me now fi1 3somewhat true of me now iii 4 true of me now 233

PAGE 255

APPENDIXO STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (ORIGINAL) Hall, G. E., George, A. A. & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring the stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the CoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX; The University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Directions: The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine what people who are using of thinking about suing various innovations are concerned about at various times during the innovation adoption process The items were developed from typical responses of people who ranged from no knowledge at all about various programs to many years experience in using them. Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how your feel about your involvement or potential involvement with distance learning. We do not hold with any one definition of the innovation is, so please thing in terms of your own perceptions of what it involves. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Not true of me now Somewhat true of me now Very true of me now 1. I would like more information about the purpose of this innovation. 2. I am more concerned about facilitating use of another innovation. 3. I would like to develop working relationships with administrators and other individuals to facilitate the use ofthis innovation. 4. I am concerned because responding to the demands of staff relative to this innovation takes so much time. 234 irrelevant not true very 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 256

5. I am not concerned about this innovation at this time. 6. I am concerned about how my facilitation affects the attitudes of those directly involved in the use of this innovation. 7. I would like to know more about this innovation. 8. I am concerned about criticism of my work with this innovation. 9. Working with administrators and other change facilitators in facilitating use of this innovation is important to me. 10. I am preoccupied with things other than this innovation. 11. I wonder whether use of this innovation will help or hurt my relations with colleagues. 12. I think that this innovation could be modified or replaced with a more effective program. 13. I am concerned about facilitating use of this innovation in view of limited resources. 14. I would like to coordinate my efforts in using this innovation with other change facilitators. 15. I would like to know what resources are necessary to adopt this innovation. 16. I want to know what priority others want me to give this innovation. 17. I would like to excite those directly involved in the use of this innovation about their part in it. 18. I am considering the use of another innovation that would be better than the one that is being currently used. 19. I would like to determine how to enhance my facilitation skills. 235 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 257

20. I need more information about and understanding of this innovation. 21. I would like to help others in facilitating the use of this innovation. 22. I spend little time thinking about this innovation. 23. I see a potential conflict between facilitating this innovation and overloading staff. 24. I am concerned about being held responsible for facilitating use of this innovation. 25. Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my attention on this innovation. 26. I know of another innovation that I would like to see in place of this innovation. 27. I am concerned about how my facilitating the use of this affects those directly involved in its use. 28. Communication and problem-solving relative to this innovation take too much time. 29. I wonder who will get the credit for implementing this innovation. 30. I would like to know where I can learn more about this innovation. 31. I would like to modify my use of this innovation based on the experiences of those directly involved in its use 32. I have alternative innovations in mind that I think would better serve the needs of our situation. 33. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress and process of facilitating the use of this innovation. 236 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 258

34. I am concerned with finding and allocating time needed for this innovation. 35. I have information about another innovation that I think would produce better results than this innovation. 237 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 259

APPENDIXP STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT (MODIFIED) Directions: The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine your present concerns with instruction. Web-based instruction is defined as the course, unit, or module created for your class assignment. Circle the number that best reflects your present concerns or how you feel about your involvement or potential involvement with Web based instruction. Your first response is usually the best one. Answer as completely and truthfully as you possibly can. If any item appears to be of little relevance or irrelevant to you at this time, please circle "0" on the scale. Otherwise, the higher the number, the better the statement reflects your present attitude. Thank you for taking time to compete this task. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Irrelevant Not true of me Dow Somewhat true of me Dow Very true of me now irrelevant not true very true 1. I would like more information about the purpose of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Web-based instruction. 2. I am more concerned about other innovations than I am 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 about Web-based instruction. 3. I would like to develop working relationships with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 administrators and other individuals to facilitate the use of Web-based instruction. 4. I am concerned about responding to the demands of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Web-based instruction because it requires so much time. 5. I am not concerned about Web-based instruction at this 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 time. 6. I am concerned about how my facilitation of Web-based 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 instruction affects the attitudes of those directly involved in its use. 238

PAGE 260

7. I would like to know more about Web-based instruction. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am concerned about criticism of my work with Web0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction. 9. Working with administrators and other individuals in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 facilitating use of Web-based instruction is important to me. 10. I am actively involved with things other than Web-based 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 instruction. 11. I wonder whether use of Web-based instruction will help 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or hurt my relations with colleagues. 12. I think that Web-based instruction could be modified or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 replaced with a more effective program. 13. I am concerned about facilitating use of Web-based instruction in view of limited resources. 14. I would like to coordinate my efforts in using Web based instruction with other individuals. 15. I would like to know what resources are necessary to adopt Web-based instruction. 16. I want to know what priority others want me to give Web-based instruction. 17. I would like to excite those directly involved in the use of Web-based instruction about their part in it. 18. I am considering the use of another innovation that would be better than Web-based instruction. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. I would like to determine how to enhance my facilitation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 skills with web-based instruction. 20. I need more information about and understanding of Web-based instruction. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. I would like to help others in facilitating the use of Web0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction. 239

PAGE 261

22. I spend little time thinking about Web-based instruction. 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I see a potential conflict between facilitating Web-based 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 instruction and overloading staff. 24. I am concerned about being held responsible for 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 facilitating use of Web-based instruction. 25. Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 attention on Web-based instruction. 26. I know of another innovation that I would like to see in 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 place of Web-based instruction. 27. I am concerned about how my facilitating the use of 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Web-based instruction affects those directly involved in its use. 28. Communication and problem-solving relative to Web0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction take too much time. 29. I wonder who will get the credit for implementing Web0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction. 30. I would like to know where I can learn more about Web0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction. 3I. I would like to modify my use of Web-based instruction 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 based on the experiences of those directly involved in its use. 32. I have alternative innovations in mind (rather than Web0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 based instruction) that I think would better serve the needs of our situation. 33. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with the progress and process of facilitating the use of Web-based instruction. 34. I am concerned with finding and allocating time needed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for Web-based instruction. 35. I have information about another innovation that I think 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 would produce better results than Web-based instruction. 240

PAGE 262

APPENDIXQ STAGES OF CONCERN INSTRUMENT KEY TO DATA INTERPRETATION Based on modified version ofHall, G. E., George, A. A. & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring the stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the CoC Questionnaire. Austin, TX; The University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Stage 0Awareness Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is indicated. 2. I am more concerned about other innovations than I am about Web-based instruction. 5. I am not concerned about Web-based instruction at this time. 10. I am actively involved with things other than Web-based instruction. 22. I spend little time thinking about Web-based instruction. 25. Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my attention on Web based instruction. Stage 1 Informational A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated. The person seems to be unworried about him/herself in relation to the innovation. He/she is interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner such as general characteristics, effects and requirements for use. 1. I would like more information about the purpose of Web-based instruction 7. I would like to know more about Web-based instruction. 15. I would like to know what resources are necessary to adopt Web-based instruction. 20. I need more information about and understanding ofWeb-based instruction. 30. I would like to know where I can learn more about Web-based instruction. 241

PAGE 263

Stage 2 Personal The individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands, and his/her role with the innovation. This includes his/her analysis of his/her role in relation to the reward structure of the organization, decision-making, and consideration of potential conflicts with existing structures or personal commitment. Financial or status implications ofthe program for self and colleagues may also be reflected. 8. I am concerned about criticism of my work with Web-based instruction. 11. I wonder whether use of Web-based instruction will help or hurt my relations with colleagues. 16. I want to know what priority others want me to give Web-based instruction. 24. I am concerned about being held responsible for facilitating use of Web based instruction. 29. I wonder who will get the credit for implementing Web-based instruction. Stage 3 Management Attention is focused on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information resources. Issues related to efficiency, organizing, managing, scheduling, and time demands are utmost. 4. I am concerned about responding to the demands of Web-based instruction because it requires so much time. 13. I am concerned about facilitating use of Web-based instruction in view of limited resources. 23. I see a potential conflict between facilitating Web-based instruction and overloading staff. 28. Communication and problem-solving relative to Web-based instruction take too much time. 34. I am concerned with fmding and allocating time needed for Web-based instruction. 242

PAGE 264

Stage 4 Consequence Attention focuses on impact of the innovation on students in his/her immediate sphere of influence. The focus is on relevance of the innovation for students, evaluation of student outcomes, including performance and competencies, and changes needed to increase student outcomes. 6. I am concerned about how my facilitation of Web-based instruction affects the attitudes ofthose directly involved in its use. 17. I would like to excite those directly involved in the use of Web-based instruction about their part in it. 19. I would like to determine how to enhance my facilitation skills with Web based instruction. 27. I am concerned about how my facilitating the use ofWeb-based instruction affects those drrectly involved in its use. 31. I would like to modify my use of Web-based instruction based on the experiences ofthose directly involved in its use. Stage 5 Collaboration The focus is on coordination and cooperation with others regarding use of the innovation. 3. I would like to develop working relationships with administrators and other individuals to facilitate the use of Web-based instruction. 9. Working with administrators and other individuals in facilitating use of Web based instruction is important to me. 14. I would like to coordinate my efforts in using Web-based instruction with other individuals. 21. I would like to help others in facilitating the use of Web-based instruction. 33. I would like to familiarize other departments or persons with the progress and process of facilitating the use of Web-based instruction. 243

PAGE 265

Stage 6 Refocusing The focus is on exploration of more universal benefits from the innovation, including the possibility of major changes or replacement with a more powerful alternative. The individual has definite ideas about alternatives to the proposed or existing form ofthe innovation. 12. I think that Web-based instruction could be modified or replaced with a more effective program. 18. I am considering the use of another innovation that would be better than Web-based instruction. 26. I know of another innovation that I would like to see in place of Web-based instruction. 32. I have alternative innovations in mind (rather than Web-based instruction) that I think would better serve the needs of our situation. 35. I have information about another innovation that I think would produce better results than Web-based instruction. 244

PAGE 266

APPENDIXR TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES Merisotis, J.P. & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What's the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. change 3, 13-17. Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A. & Lahav, 0. (1999). Taxonomy of educational Websites--A tool for supporting research, development and implementation of Web based learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 5(3), 193210. 245

PAGE 267

t) Site Identification URL ('b 00 ("'l Site Name t:l. '"0 Root Site t) a Origin 0 org ('b 0 k-12/edu 00 ...... 0 0 co/com 0 gov. 0 ac 0 other Authors & Affiliation 0 academic institution 0 public organization 0 school 0 teacher 0 student 0 other Site Evolution Date of Creation: Last Update: Completed: yes I no Language( s) Target Population Target Population 0 kindergarten 0 elementary school 0 high school 0 college/university 0 further education Site Size #pages Subject Matter 246

PAGE 268

'"d Instructional Configuration 1:1 individualized instruction ('b 1:1 classroom collaborative learning 0... 1:1 web collaborative learning crq 0 OS. Instructional Model 1:1 directed (") 1:1 inquirybased >--' t) Instructional Means 1:1 informationbase s 1:1 tools ('b 1:1 structured activity l:) r:.n ..... 1:1 open-ended activity 0 l:) 1:1 virtual environment 1:1 student modeling/adaptive mechanism Interaction Type 1:1 browsing 1:1 information gathering 1:1 simple activity 0 complex activity 0 on-line tool 1:1 expert consultation Cognitive Process 0 information retrieval 0 memonzmg 0 data analysis & inference making 0 problem solving & decision making 0 creation & invention Locus of Control 0 student controlled 0 software environment controlled 0 mixed initiative Feedback 1:1 automatic 0 human asynchronous 1:1 human synchronous Help Functions 0 technical help 0 contextualized content-help 0 didactic help 247

PAGE 269

Learning Resources 0 within website resources 0 linked WWW resources 0 addrtionalexternalresources 0 external resources only 0 real-time data collection 0 ask an expert 0 ask a peer Evaluation 0 standardized tests 0 alternative evaluation 248

PAGE 270

Knowledge Representational 0 one page only Structure 0 linear structure g. 0 branch structure (1) 0 hierarchical net 0 web tj Representational Means 0 text, (1) 0 image,# 0 interactive image, # r:n ..... 0 0 animation, # 0 sound,# 0 real-time updating,# Navigation Tools 0 index in home page 0 local-page indexing 0 content bar 0 tool bar 0 time-line 0 alphabetical bar 0 image map 0 permanent frame-index 0 internal search engine 0 knowledge map Type ofKnowledge 0 declarative 0 procedural 0 qualitative model 0 expanded by users 249

PAGE 271

n Types of telelearning 0 teleinforming 0 0 tele-conferencing 0 tele-manipulation e 0 tele-creating (') Communication type 0 synchronous activities p, Type of synchronic 0 textual 0 1:3 information 0 visual tJ s 0 sound B 0 video en Links 0 within site, # I-' 0 0 links to external sites, # 1:3 0 links to external databases 0 links to external tools 0 links to external activities 0 links to virtual reality devices 0 links to human communication Communication means 0 email 0 discussion group without mediator 0 discussion group with mediator 0 chat 0 MOO/MUD 0 video conference 0 tele-manipulation 250

PAGE 272

REFERENCES Addesso, P. (2000). Online facilitation: Individual and group possibilities. InK. White, & B. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 112-123). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ahern, T; (1996). A framework for improving the task-to-technology fit in distance education. TechTrends, 41(6), 26. Ahern, T., & Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on online education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 537-546. Anderson, S., & Harris, J. (1995). Educators' use of a statewide telecomputing network: A descriptive analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(4), 407-440. Bailey, G., Ross, T., & Griffin, D. (1996). Barriers to curriculum-technology integration in education. Educational Considerations, 23(2), 14-17. Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13-25. Barrett, N. (1998). Theory and practice of distance education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. 251

PAGE 273

Barron, A. (1995). New technologies for education: A beginner's guide. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Barron, L., & Goldman, E. (1994). Integrating technology with teacher preparation. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 81-11 0). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Beattie, M. (1995). New prospects for teacher education: Narrative ways of knowing teaching and teacher learning. Education Research, 37(1), 53-70. Bebko, P. (1998). Influences upon higher education faculty use of distance education technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Becker, H. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321. Becker, H., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers' pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T., & Perry, J. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, andfuture (pp. 88-101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Berge, Z. (1997). Characteristics of online teaching in post-secondary, formal education. Educational Technology, 37(3), 35-47. 252

PAGE 274

Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit ofthe expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, August/September, 5-13. Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19. Blanton, B. (1998). The application of the cognitive learning theory to instructional design. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 171-177. Blanton, W., Moorman, G., & Trathen, W. (1998). Telecommunications and teacher education: A social constructivist review. In P. D. Pearson, & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 235-275). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Boling, N., & Robinson, D. (1999). Individual study, interactive multimedia, or cooperative learning: Which activity best supplements lecture-based distance education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (I), 169-174. Boulton-Lewis, G., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1996). Teachers as adult learners: Their knowledge of their own learning and implications for teaching. Higher Education, 32, 89-106. Brand, G. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal ofStaffDevelopment, 19, 10-13. 253

PAGE 275

Brandt, B., Farmer, J., & Buckmaster, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learn. In D. Flannery (Ed.), Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning (pp. 69-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Breivik, P. (1998). Student learning in the information age. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Bright, G., & Waxman, H. (1993). The future of research on technology and teacher education. In H. Waxman, & G. Bright (Eds.), Approaches to research on teacher education and technology (pp. 123-130). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Brooks, D. (1997). Web-teaching: A guide to designing interactive teaching/or the World Wide Web. New York: Plenum. Calderhead, J. (1993). The contribution of research on teachers' thinking to the professional development of teachers. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacher thinking: Understanding professional development (pp. 11-18). London: Falmer Press. Campbell, T. (1997). Technology, multimedia, and qualitative research in education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 122-132. Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study oftea,ching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12,18. Challis, A. (1998). Faculty attitudes toward distance education in Utah public colleges and universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 254

PAGE 276

Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes ofhigher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 19-33. Coburn, K., & Treeger, M. (1997). Letting go. New York: Harper Perennial. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood. Cook D. (1995). Community and computer-generated distance learning environments. In M. H. Rossman, & M. E. Rossman (Eds.), Facilitating distance education (pp. 33-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfive traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curtin, D. (1999, August 26). Online classes catching on fast at Metro State. Denver Post. Denver, CO: IA, 23A. Detterman, D. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. Detterman, & R Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dillon, C., & Walsh, S. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21. Donovan, M., & Macklin, S. (1998). One size doesn'tfit all: Designing scaleable, client-centered support for technology in teaching. Paper presented at the meeting ofEducause Conference on Information Technology in Higher Education, Seattle, W A. 255

PAGE 277

Draves, W. (2000). Teaching online. River Falls, WI: LERN. Dusick, D. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members' use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(2), 123-137. Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 4552. Ehrmann, S. (1995). Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology and higher learning? Change, 27(2), 20-27. Ehrmann, S. (1997). The flashlight project: Spotting an elephant in the dark. Assessment Update, IX(4), 3, 10-11, 13. Evans-Andris, M. (1995). An examination of computing styles among teachers in elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 15-31. Falba, C. (1997). Choreographing change one step at a time: Integrating technology in teacher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Foshay, W. (1991). What we know (and what we don't know) about training of cognitive strategies for technical problem-solving. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, andfuture (pp. 344-353). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. 256

PAGE 278

Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories ofteaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-163. Froke, M. (1995). Antecedents to distance education and continuing education: Time to fix them. In M. Rossman, & M. Rossman (Eds.), Facilitating distance education (pp. 61-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Geoghegan, W. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? Reaching mainstream faculty. Paper presented at the meeting of the 22nd Annual Conference ofthe International Business Schools Computing Association. F. (1998). Instructional design for the new technologies. InK. Gillespie (Ed.), The impact of technology onfaculty development, life, and work (pp. 39-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Green, K. (1999). Campus computing, 1999. Encino, CA: Campus Computing. Green, K., & Gilbert, S. (1995). Great expectations: Content, communications, productivity, and the role of information technology in higher education. Change, 27(2), 8-18. Hall, G., George, A, & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring the stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the CoC Questionnaire (ED 207170). Austin, TX: The University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207170). 257

PAGE 279

Hannafin, R., & Freeman, D. (1995). An exploratory study of teachers' views of knowledge acquisition. Educational Technology, 35(1), 49-56. Heflich, D. (1997). The impact of online technology on teaching and learning: The attitudes and ideas of educators in the field. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Hiltz, S. (1994). The virtual classroom: Living without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Abelex. Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1-16. Hunt, N., & Bohlin, R. (1993). Teacher education students' attitudes toward using computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 487-497. Jackson, B., & Anagnostopoulou, K. (2001). Making the right connections: Improving quality in online learning. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 53-64). London: Kogan Page. Jacobsen, D. (1998). Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology for teaching and learning in higher education. Paper presented at the meeting ofED-MEDIA and ED TELECOM 98: World Conference on Education Multimedia and Hypermedia and World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany. 258

PAGE 280

Jalongo, M., & Isenberg, J. (1995). Teachers' stories: From personal narrative to professional insight. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74. Krathwohl, D. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. White Plains, NY: Longman. LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic. Levin, S. (1995). Teachers using technology: Barriers and breakthroughs. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (1 ), 53-70. Lewis, L., Alexander, D., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1997). Distance education in higher education institutions (NCES 98-062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. NCES 98-062). I Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage. Loeding, B., & Wynn, M. (1999). Distance learning planning, preparation, and presentation: Instructors' perspectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 181-192. Lowry, M. (1997). Supporting adoption of innovations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 34(1 ), 10-13. 259

PAGE 281

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mason, R. (200 1 ). Effective facilitation of online learning: The Open University experience. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 67 -75). London: Kogan Page. McAninch, A. (1993). Teacher thinking andthe case method: Theory and future directions. New York: Teachers College. McCormack, C., & Jones, D. (1998). Building a Web-based education system. New York: Wiley Computer. McCutcheon, G. (1992). Facilitating teacher personal theorizing. In E. Ross, J. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 191-205). Albany, NY: State University ofNew York Press. Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technology to advance educational goals. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (pp. 1-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meloy, J. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Menges, R., & Rando, W. (1989). What are your assumptions? Improving instruction by examining theories. College Teaching, 37(2), 54-60. 260

PAGE 282

Meyen, E., Tagan, P., & Lian, C. (1999). Developing online instruction: Partnership between instructors and technical developers. Journal of Special Education, 14(1), 18-31. Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study ofteaching with technology. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 26(2), 121-141. Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, 0., & Oren, A. (2000). Web-based learning environments: Current pedagogical and technological state. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 55-76. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York: Wadsworth. Moskal, P., Martin, B., & Foshee, N. (1997). Educational technology and distance education in central Florida: An assessment of capabilities. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (I), 6-22. Munro, P. (1993). Continuing dilemmas of life history research: A reflexive account of feminist qualitative inquiry. In D. Flinders, & G. Mills (Eds.), Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 163-177). New York: Teachers College. Murray, K., & MacDonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33(3), 331-349. 261

PAGE 283

Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Lahav, 0. (1999). Taxonomy of educational Websites--A tool for supporting research, development and implementation of Web-based learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(3), 193-210. Ndahi, H. (1999). Utilization of distance learning technology among industrial and technical teacher education faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4), 21-27. Nickerson, R. (1995). Can technology help teach for understanding? In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 7-22). New York: Oxford University. Niederhauser, D., & Stoddart, T. (1994). Teacher's perspectives on computer assisted instruction: Transmission versus construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Oblinger, D., & Rush, S. (1997). The learning revolution. In D. Oblinger, & S. Rush (Eds.), The learning revolution: The challenge of information technology in the academy (pp. 2-19). Bolton, MA: Anker. Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-22. 262

PAGE 284

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education Institute for Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Phipps, R., Wellman, J., & Merisotis, J. (1998, April). Assuring quality in distance learning: A preliminary review. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Porter, L. R. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom: Distance learning with the internet. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pratt, D. A. (1992). Conceptions ofteaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203220. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1993). Development of an approaches to teaching questionnaire. Research and Development in Higher Education, 15,468-473. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 25-35. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University. 263

PAGE 285

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academic conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231. Putnam, R. (1991) Recipes and reflective learning: "What would prevent you from saying it that way?" In D. Schon (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 145-163). New York: Teachers College. Reed, S. (1993). A schema-based theory of transfer. In D. Detterman, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction (pp. 39-67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Reed, W. (1990). The effect of computer-and-writing instruction on prospective English teachers' attitudes toward and perceived uses of computers in writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 3-27. Reiser, R., & Salisbury, D. (1991). Instructional technology and public education in the United States. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, andfuture (pp. 227-235). Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited. Relan, A., & Gillani, B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional classroom: Similarities and differences. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 41-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25,43. 264

PAGE 286

Ross, E. (1992). Teacher personal theorizing and reflective practice in teacher education. In E. Ross, J. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory and research (pp. 179190). Albany, NY: State University ofNew York. Ross, E., Cornett, J., & McCutcheon, G. (Eds.) (1992). Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory and research. Albany: State University of New York. Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. (1992). Conception of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93-111. Schrum, L. (1996). Teaching at a distance: Strategies for successful planning and development. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(6), 30-33. Schrum, L. (1998). On-line education: A study of emerging pedagogy. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 78, 53-61. Schrum, L., & Berenfeld, B. (1997). Teaching and learning in the information age: A guide to educational telecommunications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schubert, W. (1992). Personal theorizing about teacher personal theorizing. In E. Ross, J. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 257-272). Albany: State University of New York. 265

PAGE 287

Scott-Fredericks, G. (1997). The graduate student experience in computer-mediated classes: A grounded theory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofNebraska, Lincoln. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practices (ED 296706). New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College ofEducation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296706). Siktberg, L., & Dillard, N. (1999). Technology in the nursing classroom. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 20(3), 128. Singer, E. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37(6), 659-679. Stake, R. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 253-276). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Stark, J., Lowther, M., Bentley, R., & Martens, G. (1990). Disciplinary differences in course planning. Review of Higher Education, 13(2), 141-165. Stark, J., Lowther, M., Ryan, M., S., Genthon, M., Haven, C., & Martens, G. (1988, January). Reflections on course planning: Faculty and students consider influences and goals. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University ofMichigan. 266

PAGE 288

Stark, J., Lowther, M., Ryan, M., & Genthon, M. (1988). Faculty reflect on course planning. Research in Higher Education, 29(3), 219-240. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stuhlmann, J. (1994). Telecommunications and teaching practices: What leads to change? Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 3(2), 199-211. Takacs, J., Reed, W., Wells, J., & Dombrowski, L. (1999). The effects of online multimedia project development, learning style, and prior computer experiences on teachers' attitudes toward the internet and hypermedia. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 341-355. Thomson, J., & Stringer, S. (1998). Evaluating/or distance learning: Feedback from students and faculty. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Thornton, S. (1993). The quest for emergent meaning: A personal account. In D . Flinders, & G. Mills (Eds.), Theory and concepts in qualitative research: Perspectives from the field (pp. 68-82). New York: Teachers College. Thurston, C., Secaras, E., & Levine, J. (1996). Teaching teleapprenticeships: An innovative model for technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(5), 385-391. 267

PAGE 289

Townley, R. (1997). Students' and instructors' perceptions of internet education in the community college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approaches, perceptions of context and learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22,251-266. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996a). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275-284. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996b). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teachers' approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75-84. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70. Vickers, M., & Smalley, J. (1995). Integrating computers into classroom teaching: Cross-national perspectives. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M.S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching/or understanding with new technologies (pp. 271-282). New York: Oxford University. Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282-1300. 268

PAGE 290

Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press. Wells, J., & Anderson, D. (1997). Learners in a telecommunications course: Adoption, diffusion, and stages of concern. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 83-105. Wiske, M., Zodhiates, P., Wilson, B., Gordon, M., Harvey, W., Krensky, L., Lord, B., Watt, M., & Williams, K. (1988). How technology affects teaching (ED 296706). Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296706). Wolcott, L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 26-36. Wood, V., Stevens, E., McFarlane, T., Peterson, K., Richardson, K., Davis, R., & LeJeune, N. (1998). Faculty development workshop: Critical reflection in a web-based environment. Poster session presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Washington, DC. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage. Zhang, P. (1998). A case study on technology use in distance learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4), 398-419. 269

PAGE 291

Zhao, Y. (1998). Design for adoption: The development of an integrated web-based education environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30(3), 307-328. 270