Search
There are 13 results.
Category
Tag
Tag
All (74)
Active Learning (3)
Activities (4)
Alt Text (2)
Animations (1)
Assessments (3)
Asynchrony (3)
Authentic Activities (2)
Backwards Design (2)
Canvas (4)
Case Studies (1)
Collaboration (2)
Color Contrast (2)
Communication (2)
Community (2)
Content Creation (11)
Copyright (2)
Course Maintenance (5)
Course Materials (7)
Course Preparation (3)
Discussions (1)
Diversity (2)
Equity (2)
Faculty Support (1)
Feedback (4)
Formative Assessments (5)
Game-Based Learning (2)
Gamification (1)
Generative AI (1)
Group Work (2)
Hyperlinks (1)
Images (3)
Inclusion (1)
Infographics (2)
Learning Objectives (2)
Multimodality (3)
Page Design (2)
Podcasts (1)
PowerPoint (2)
Presentations (2)
Representation (1)
Revising (2)
Rubrics (3)
Scaffolding (1)
Screen Readers (1)
Summative Assessments (1)
Synchrony (3)
Third-Party Tools (1)
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (2)
Video (10)
Visual Accessibility (2)
Visual Design (2)
Written Assignments (1)
Easy and Essential Online Course Elements
Transferring your course online opens a world of possibilities. In fact, you might be tempted to spend hours trying to locate and learn new educational technologies, or to rebuild your entire course in the learning management system (LMS). But while effective use of technology can certainly enhance learning experiences, it can also introduce obstacles for both faculty and students.
Backward Design
Backward design is, as the name suggests, a process for designing curricula, courses, and lectures by working backwards from big-picture learning goals. The concept, introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005), suggests that instructors create assessments, activities, and course content that are explicitly aligned with the broader learning goals of the unit. This is different from the traditional content-driven approach to learning design, which focuses on course content first and only secondarily tries to align that content with learning goals.
Artificial Intelligence and Online Learning
Higher education institutions are racing to keep pace with the disruption caused by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. A 2023 QuickPoll survey by Educause found that 83% of higher education stakeholders believe generative AI will "profoundly change" the sector over the next three to five years. Additionally, 65% agreed that "the use of generative AI in higher ed has more benefits than drawbacks" (McCormack, 2023, Table 1). While institutions are exploring AI's potential in areas such as admissions, enrollment, administrative duties, scheduling, and institutional data research, this piece focuses on the overarching risks and rewards AI presents in teaching and learning.
Formative Assessments
Formative assessments encompass a broad range of low-stakes activities aimed at improving student learning outcomes. In contrast to summative assessments, which are intended to measure products of student learning, formative assessments are oriented towards the learning process itself (Black & Wiliam, 1998). They can provide students with opportunities to evaluate their developing understanding of key concepts, practice new skills, and prepare for summative assessments (McLaughlin & Yan, 2017; Orange, Agak, Okelo, & Kiprotich, 2018). They can also provide instructors with valuable data on student progress (Bell & Cowie, 2001; McLaughlin & Yan, 2017). The results of formative assessments can indicate where individual students are struggling or excelling, allowing instructors to provide targeted feedback and tailor their instructional delivery accordingly.
Enhancing Student Learning Through Course Consistency and Accessibility
Course developers (those who build individual courses) play a crucial role in the success of an online degree program by providing expertise and bringing unique perspectives. Accordingly, it is valuable for faculty to customize their course spaces by infusing them with their own knowledge and personality. At the same time, it is also crucial to prioritize structural consistency within and across courses in an online program, as course consistency is a key aspect of accessibility and a key contributing factor to student success. In particular, students must be able to perceive, operate, and understand the course and course materials using program-standard devices and certain assistive technologies, and this should be true across all of the courses in a program. This is where program chairs and administrators can help support faculty in standardizing key elements of courses to facilitate a seamless student experience. In this piece, we discuss how maintaining structural consistency within and across courses can positively impact accessibility.
Building Your Online Course With the Lister Model
So, you are building a course for the online environment. What an exciting adventure! When building an online course, you may use a similar method to what you used when developing a course previously, or you may use an entirely new technique. Either option is a good option. But, you may have a few questions when you first begin such as: How do I organize my materials? How do I display my materials? How do I make sure my students work together?
Emergency Course Build Checklist: A Response to COVID-19
Your class was never intended to be online. It was delivered face-to- face to a live audience. Perhaps it followed that same structure for years. Now, with little warning, it’s an online class. Where do you start? What do you prioritize? And what is essential to create a meaningfully engaging learning experience online? Rapidly transitioning a course to online doesn’t require recreating every element of the face-to-face version.
Multimodal Models
Designing a successful multimodal course means, at each step of the process, considering what each format does well—structuring the course such that each piece of content, each activity, each interaction uses the most effective delivery method available. But what does that look like in practice? This piece describes three approaches to structuring a multimodal course. In each model, asynchronous and synchronous time complement one another and further module and course objectives. Where the models differ is in the relative importance of asynchronous activities in enabling students to complete synchronous activities and vice versa.