Featured Articles

Editor's Note: This research paper was presented live at the Teachers Develop Teachers' Research - TDTR5 - Conference, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, September 9, 2001. It addresses the crucial problems of course design, levels of feedback, and teacher satisfaction. The results have significant implications for teacher selection, training, and support.

Making Teachers Feel Contented with Online Courses

Our aim was to examine levels of satisfaction of English teachers (currently taking online courses or having taken such courses in the past), and determine the factors influencing them.

Very often, online course designers do not get sufficient feedback on levels of satisfaction of their courses’ participants – feedback that might otherwise bring forth some improvement in the course design and delivery approaches, as well as in proper placement testing procedures.

We were especially interested in observing some connection between confidence levels of participants (i.e., to what extent they felt computer-fluent) and their satisfaction levels, in order to find out whether this connection indeed exists, and if so, what sort of relation it is – positive or negative.

Professional experience is a variable which might influence satisfaction levels: the longer this teacher has been in the field, the more experience he/she might have accumulated to make learning easier and more enjoyable.

On the other hand, those who have been working for only a few years may have retained their learning skills; their learnability may be higher, hence their satisfaction level may be expected to be greater as well.

Such factors as age, country of birth, being a native vs. non-native speaker of English, cultural background, educational status, etc. may play a certain role in determining satisfaction levels and have to be taken into consideration when predicting satisfaction levels.

However, we found the main factors influencing satisfaction levels to be the delivery mode and the collaboration aspect. It also appears that communication with instructors and peers plays a decisive role in determining satisfaction levels of participants.

It all began last winter when my online students started complaining, which happened just a few weeks after the course had begun. Normally, one expects a few unhappy students in every group, but in this case, the students were themselves teachers, some of them with lots of experience. Just look at their complaints:

When I was accepted into the course, I was told that my computer skills were sufficient, and that I'd learn along the way. I feel like a very weak pupil who doesn't understand many of the things posted; the language isn't familiar to me, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I now know how students feel when something isn't clear. Very frustrating and demoralizing.

We have had severe computer problems. My computer has been infected with a virus that was extremely difficult to get rid of, and Debby's computer crashed. Rodika has been ill, and Orit seems to have disappeared! Quite frankly, something to which I was really looking forward turned into a nightmare, with due dates coming nearer and nearer, and more things to do pouring in, with no way of doing anything about it!

Help!!! Why did you make me a group leader????!!!!! This is a grave mistake. I am at minus-basic level. Please reply.

I am writing to you because I have a problem with the group. Since we received our assignment on Tuesday, I have written 3 e-mails off to Victoria and Nataly. I have received no reply, letter, or any word from them. I am unable to take responsibility for others who don't want to be involved.

I cannot understand why this has developed into such an issue! I see now that being in one group with Jenny after this will be pretty unpleasant. I don't think she should have run to you complaining before she even knows how I usually work and what has happened.

Something was definitely going wrong in the logistics department. We decided to research the topic. The initial idea was to collect the data from the existing pool of students by e-mail questionnaire; but as we realized that the problem was fairly universal, we came to a conclusion that it would be better to extend our survey, making it available to a wider audience.

A survey questionnaire was created and posted on the Web as an interactive (clickable) form. The survey consisted of three parts:

· What was the level of your computer proficiency at the beginning of the course?

· Was there an improvement in the level of your computer proficiency when you finished the course?

· When you submitted an assignment for assessment, did you get a feedback on time?

· When you would send a question to your instructor, did you get an answer on time?

In general, how can you define your level of satisfaction with the course taken?

What questions will you ask before making a decision to take an online course in the future?

Part Three: What was the influence of these factors on your satisfaction with the course?

· Timeliness of instructor’s answers to your questions and feedback on your assignments

The Results

We had a fairly short period of time to collect the data; fortunately, the mailing lists where we posted the request to fill in the questionnaire, and the Web as a medium turned out to be very efficient. The results thus obtained are presented below.

There were 70 respondents; those who identified their origin were from 8 countries:

Factors that Influence Satisfaction with the Course

What was the influence of the following factors on your satisfaction with the course?

Timeliness of instructor’s answers to questions and feedback on assignments

Preliminary Conclusions

1. The majority of the respondents who indicated that their initial computer skills were higher (intermediate+ or advanced) than required for the course they took (intermediate), and that – quite naturally – there was no improvement in their computer proficiency, belonged to low satisfaction levels group. On the contrary, most of the respondents reporting consistent initial skills deficiency (mostly moderate – one step below the required) or adequacy of skills noted that their computer-related skills improved towards the end of the course. Not surprisingly, they belonged to medium-to-high and high satisfaction level groups.

Thus we hypothesize that a moderate gap between the initial skill level and the requirements can be viewed as a positive motivational challenge; at the same time, overqualification (having much higher computer skills than required for the course) can serve as a negative outcome predictor.

When planning placement testing, one should include some elements that would expose overqualification. Such applicants should be screened and filtered: they are a potential low satisfaction risk group!

2. It turned out that 27% of the respondents (~1/4) learned what the prerequisites were only after actually having started the course. However, this 1:3 “informed/uninformed” ratio was relatively constant throughout all the satisfaction level groups.

3. Timeliness of instructor response and assignment grading

4. The character of the answers:

Helpful and comprehensive: Reported by 4/5 of high- and medium-to-high- satisfaction respondents

Encouraging: Reported by 9/10 of high- and medium-to-high- satisfaction respondents

5. Peer collaboration:

Fair distribution of team workload was consistently reported by 7/8 of high- and medium-to-high- satisfaction respondents; 1/8 indicated that some worked more than the others – these respondents probably were those who worked less, so they were still quite happy with the courses…

In low-satisfaction group, only about half of the respondents reported fair workload distribution; it looks like for this group, fairness of workload distribution was not among the decisive satisfaction factors.

In all satisfaction level groups, most of the respondents noted their opinion was taken into consideration, so it looks that, although generally being quite important, this factor does not define satisfaction level directly.

While in lower satisfaction groups only about 60% of the respondents noted that the grading system was sufficiently clear and objective, in higher satisfaction groups practically all respondents reported it; this factor appears to be consistently connected with higher satisfaction levels.

6. Proficiency improvement

As we earlier said, proficiency improvement does not directly correlate with satisfaction levels. However, while in low-satisfaction groups this claim remains valid, in higher-satisfaction groups the proficiency increase figures are much higher.

The question whether a respondent was actively using the new skills and knowledge was included as a hidden verification tool against the emotional self-assessment: persons who are really dissatisfied with a course will not use the stuff learnt in it for their teaching. This turns out to be a correct assumption: only about half of the low-satisfaction group reported using what they had learned, while in the higher-satisfaction group, the figure rises to 4/5.

7. As you remember, we asked whether the respondent was planning to take similar courses in the future.

For the whole population, 31% answered “maybe”, and 69 gave an outright “yes”.

When analyzed separately for different satisfaction level groups, this looks different:

In higher-satisfaction groups, however, “yes” doubled to 78%. Nothing surprising in this, of course, but it’s nice to know.

A colleague who has both taken and authored quite a few online courses has noted recently: “Online courses are addictive – both to take, and to develop and teach. “

Feedback

The online form we used also contained a fill-in field: what questions will you ask before entering another online course?

The answers to this included lots of questions showing that people just do not read course prerequisites. However, some of the questions were quite relevant and up to the point. We collected and grouped them:

PROCEDURES:

How many hours of work is expected? (The course I took was for 56 hours and the work was at least double)

GROUP WORK:

Will I be put in a group without being asked first or will I be able to choose my partners?

How will the instructor assign groups and group work - will I have a say so in whom I want to work with?

What is the background of the other participants (computer and teaching experience)?

INSTRUCTOR:

Does the instructor know more than I do? (I was almost at the same level as the instructor in the course I took).

To what extent is the instructor willing to answer questions, explain and encourage?

How does the instructor see his role and what is his general attitude to queries? Will he be flexible?

Standards and expectations of instructors; whether the presence of non-native English speakers will influence those standards and expectations.

ACCREDITATION:

What are the professional credentials of the online program providers, instructors, and administrators?

Some Broader Conclusions

To minimize uncertainty, which later results in dissatisfaction, course descriptions should include:

Course structure, schedule, procedures, workload, group work, communication protocols, etc.;

Assessment criteria:

Components

Incomplete / Unacceptable

Good

Excellent

Content

1. Consistency of structure

0 to 5 points

Lesson plan is not consistent

6 to 10 points

Lesson plan is adequately structured.

11 to 15 points

Lesson plan is structured clearly and explicitly; it grabs attention.

2. Target
audience

0 to 5 points

No class outline is presented

6 to 10 points

Main features of the class have been identified. Insufficient description of specific learning styles or preferences.

11 to 1 5 points

Class outline fully describes the target population. All the necessary information regarding the class is present.

3. Lesson objectives

0 to 5 points

Little or no connection can be traced between the declared lesson objectives and the plan presented.

6 to 10 points

Connection between the declared lesson objectives and the plan presented is sufficiently clear.

11 to 1 5 points

Connection between the declared lesson objectives and the plan presented is clear and explicit.

4. Incorporation of Internet resources

0 to 6 points

No resources are listed.

7 to 13 points

Some listing of Internet resources is provided.

14 to 20 points

A variety of Internet resources are included. Each resource can be unambiguously identified.

Presentation Form

5. Clarity of writing and information display

0 to 5 points

It is hard to understand what the writer is trying to say. Misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and improper punctuation are evident and distracting.

6 to 10 points

Writing is generally clear, but unnecessary words are used. Meaning is sometimes unclear. A few words are either misused or misspelled. A few grammar and punctuation errors have been found. The document could profit from better organization.

11 to 1 5 points

Writing is crisp, clear, and succinct. The writer incorporates the active voice when appropriate. No misspelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes are evident.

Extensive information concerning the faculty (course authors, instructors and administrators);

Ways to Achieve Higher Satisfaction Levels

To ensure higher satisfaction levels, special attention should be paid to the following aspects of the course:

Communication media: e-mail is by far the most popular means of communication; learners seem to feel most comfortable with it. In addition, e-mail is “push technology”, as opposed to “pull technology” like message boards. If you want ALL your messages delivered and received on time, PUSH!

About ¼ of online learners manage not to have found out what the prerequisites are until after they have started the course. It makes sense to create a kind of a “license agreement” listing all the major points a learner has to know, and develop a mechanism that involves some sort of confirmation sent by every learner before actually starting studying.

To help the learner make sure the course "fits" as regards qualifications vs. requirements, it is advisable

To develop an elaborate screening test that enables the course administrator to screen applicants who are either severely underqualified, or apparently overqualified; this applies not only to computer-related skills, but to any other aspect as well;

To provide enough tools (online tutorials, mini-training sessions, self-assessment tests, quizzes, etc.);

To pay special attention to performance of learners during the first 2-3 weeks and offer additional help if you see some of them might need it.

Encouragement should be used sparingly: otherwise learners develop a feeling of being attended on by a babysitter, which eventually affects their confidence and ability to learn independently. By no means may an instructor show irritation – even if the learner keeps asking the same question for the fifth time within one week.

Learners have different learning styles: some are “social learners” and work best in teams; others prefer doing it alone. Hence, unless the nature of an assignment dictates otherwise, the option of working alone or joining a team should be left open. The first two or three assignments done in instructor-appointed and reshuffled teams are enough for the group to get to know each other; after that, whenever teamwork is assigned, it is better to give the learners a chance to team up with someone they prefer.

A Frequently Asked Questions page will drastically cut the number of questions the instructor has to answer.

Learners should be informed that their papers will not be graded instantly – usually it takes 4-5 days for the instructor to grade 25 papers. If this point is not stressed at the beginning of the courses, the learners tend to develop unrealistic expectations. A protocol should be developed to enable instructors have sufficient time for answering questions. Seeing their projects published on the course web site gives learners a feeling of accomplishment.

LA eLearning Center Mission Statement

2. Computers will never replace teachers; however, teachers who do use computers will replace those who don't.

· believe that feeling good about their work does not necessarily go together with feeling dog-tired;

· are looking for a nice and easy way to learn some new skills and methods that will make their work more challenging and enjoyable;

· realize that studying from home makes more sense than commuting to the university;

Every day thousands of people buy a new computer. More and more children grow in homes where computer is as common and habitual as a refrigerator or a TV set. For these kids, using a PC is as natural as writing or riding a bike. Tomorrow they will come to school; some of them are already school kids and will become students in a year or two.

Schools and especially universities are ready for this quiet revolution in education. More and more equipment finds its way to classrooms; more and more courses are offered in distance mode. Students who use computers with ease will certainly prefer to study without having to travel every day. Universities will benefit from it, too: they will accept more students without having to build more classrooms, light them, clean them, air-condition them, etc.

Most of the teaching/learning interaction will occur online: materials will be uploaded to websites and accessed from home; questions will be asked and answered via e-mail and chat; papers will be FTP-ed to instructors' folders for grading; message boards will replace university corridors.

e-Learning will soon be competing with conventional face-to-face instruction in many fields and countries; in some areas it will even squeeze the latter out to the periphery of the action field.

Today's pupils who will become e-learners tomorrow are quickly grasping the meaning of this and acquiring the skills needed for efficient integration into this new and exciting mode of knowledge acquisition. The new generation of learners will speak Computerese at a native-speaker level.

Teachers, on the other hand, seem to be lagging more and more behind. Imagine a teacher of writing who still uses his inkpot while all his pupils have already switched to ball-point pens. But a computer is just a smart pen, after all!

Both Lev Abramov, M.Sc., and Natalie Martkovich, M.A., come from professional EFL background and were among early adopters of CALL. They have shared their experience in the field by teaching in-service courses in several Israeli universities and colleges; today they co-own and manage their own company for CALL-related online in-service courses for EFL teachers. Their teaching initiative and research are a grassroots venture derived from their practical involvement in the field. Lev is currently combining his work with postgraduate studies at the University of Southern Queensland.