Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 23:57:16 -0400 From: Michael Chejlava Subject: Paper 10 MJC Question to authors This looks like a great idea. Most of the problems seem to be related to the technology being currently inadequate and unfamiliarity in using it. These will decrease in the future. Also, as to the scheduling, it is unlikely that universities will go to a standardized schedule, since even athletics did not motivate administrations to do this. Howver might schools with similar schedules begin to band together in consortia to present courses like this. I see grant possibilities here. My main questions are about the OLCC-FAC. What were the main uss of this? I saw some comments in the evaluation section. Was this mainly course handling, or were the faculty having their own discussions about the papers? Also, I assume that the faculty could also "eavesdrop" on the student discussions. Did all faculty do this? How were faculty loads figured for this type of course? Thank you for all of the information provided it looks like this is going to be a powerful educational tool for the future. After all, look at this conference as an example. One last shot on my pet project: In the near future (<10 years) when all students have laptops with wireless networks this will go much smoother, since they will be able to check e-mail between (and during :-()classes. Since I am only teaching one course in the summer, I have been able to check my e-mail many times a day. This makes following discussions easier. This is a good learning experience for the students since the use of netwroks and enterprise software to have groups work together from varied locations is growing. While wading through large numbers of messages is tough, our students will need the ability to be able to sort through the noise to get the information needed. Also they will need to learn how to write efficiently so as to not bury their colleagues in gigabytes of prose (or poetry) like I do. -- Michael Chejlava Department of Chemistry & Environmental Science Lake Superior State University Sault Sainte Marie, MI ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:06:03 EDT From: "Dr. Jim Beard" Subject: Paper 10 - JB: Response to MJC Question to Authors Below is the response by the authors of paper 10 to Michael Chejlava. ************** > Might schools with similar schedules begin to band together in consortia > to present courses like this? This would certainly be possible. The spring semester (or quarter) is particularly difficult because the spring vacation period is often different at different schools. The fall semester (or quarter) is probably better for scheduling. The on-line segment was shorter in length than a typical semester and positioned so that it started later and ended before a typical semester. This was done to try and avoid scheduling problems for a typical course. As the number of schools participating such courses increase then the number of students could be better handled in smaller groups and groups could be formed on the basis of similar schedules. For example, four courses each with 100 to 200 students might work better than one course for over 600 students. One of the major advantages of a distance learning course is that the schedules do not have to be identical since the student can access the information on his/her own schedule. As long as we have a two week rotation for papers and individual schools only take one week for spring break, the only problem would then be if a particular school would be scheduled to discuss their own paper during one of these weeks (which turned out to be the case in our course). > OLCC-FAC > What were the main uses of this? OLCC-FAC established a community consisting of the course instructors and the three industrial chemists who authored the papers. This made it easy to privately exchange ideas. (Course instructors were not to use OLCC-STU to communicate with students, other instructors or authors of papers.) OLCC-FAC was used for pre-course planning (e.g., the format of the course - number of papers from industrial chemists - the number of student papers - decisions about the WWW and OLCC-STU Listserv - length of discussion for each paper - establishment of a committee to select the two student papers). At one point one of the industrial chemists was leaving town and a course instructor volunteered to substitute. Drafts of the papers prepared by the industrial chemists were distributed and course instructors had an opportunity to suggest changes via OLCC- FAC. Course instructors had an opportunity to ask questions of other instructors and the industrial chemists. In retrospect some course instructors believed OLCC-FAC should have been used more to inform other instructors about what they were doing at their schools. Many of the participating schools had class meetings, discussions and assignments which were not part of the on-line segment. Sylvia Esjornson reports that some of the class meetings, discussions, and assignments, while not part of the on-line segment, were designed to enhance students' overall participation on-line . For example, each student was assigned to compose analytical questions about the on line text; however, the class as a group selected a subset of those questions to post to the list from their collection of questions. > (OLCC) Was this mainly course handling, or were the faculty having > their own discussions about the papers? Faculty discussion of the papers after they were distributed to students was minimal. There were suggestions made to authors when preliminary versions of the papers were distributed on OLCC-FAC. There was some discussion of course handling, but not as much as we would have liked. We could have encouraged faculty to use OLCC-FAC for these two purposes, but it worked satisfactorily and maybe better to let each person decide how much use they wanted to make of the list. > I assume that the faculty could evesdrop on the (OLCC-STU) student > discussions. Yes, they could and were expected to do so. > Did all the faculty do this? Yes, as far as we know. >How were faculty loads figured for this type of course? This varied from institution to institution. Reed Howald stated that he did not think he received any credit at the dean's level for offering the course, but his department chairman was aware of what he was doing. There was no reduction in other parts of his teaching load, but in any case the credit for two students in a 3 credit class would be small. >Thank you for all of the information provided it looks like this >is going to be a powerful educational tool for the future. After >all, look at this conference as an example. Yes. We agree. >One last shot on my pet project: In the near future (<10 years) >when all students have laptops with wireless networks this will go >much smoother, since they will be able to check e-mail between >(and during :-()classes. Many of us do not expect this degree of affluence for our students. But if students can work together on chemistry projects by any means they will learn chemistry. Possibly even during lectures. We will accept learning however it comes. >Since I am only teaching one course in the summer, I have been >able to check my e-mail many times a day. This makes following >discussions easier. Yes, but even checking once a day seemed to work for most students in this course. At SWOSU, most students checked their e-mail 2 or 3 times a week for the course. The computer space allocated to the mailbox was a factor in determining how often the mailbox needed to be emptied. >This is a good learning experience for the students since the use >of netwroks and enterprise software to have groups work together >from varied locations is growing. While wading through large >numbers of messages is tough, our students will need the ability >to be able to sort through the noise to get the information >needed. Also they will need to learn how to write efficiently so >as to not bury their colleagues in gigabytes of prose (or poetry) >like I do. Competent processing of volumes of technical information was one of the performance objectives of the course at SWOSU. Sometimes we used the division of labor approach. Each of 12 students was assigned to give, in 3-5 minutes, a combined summary of four or five question/answer messages. In the space of an hour, our class had explored the entire range of the week's discussion. Reed Howald noted that both OLCC and CHEMCONF have taught him how to read selectively, and both of his students learned something of this in addition to learning more about computers and about environmental chemistry. As a group, most of the instructors who participated (in OLCC-FAC) were very aware of the need for effective reading and writing and made a conscious effort to communicate with precision and care. Jim Beard for the Authors of Paper 10 Catawba College 2300 W. Innes St. Salisbury, NC 28144 (704) 637-4113 FAX (704) 637-4204 jbeard@catawba.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 20:59:33 EDT From: Donald Rosenthal Subject: Paper 10 - DR: Two Student Papers Discussed On-Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I monitored the on-line discussion of papers during the course. The authors of the two student papers which were selected for discussion over a two week period: ^^^^^^^^ 1. Had to respond to questions from other participating students 2. Participated in the discussion of their paper. It seems to me this was a very valuable learning experience for these students. I would appreciate receiving comments from Erik Ricker - one of the student authors from Niagara University, Leonard Archer - the course instructor at Missouri Western State College and other course instructors. Donald Rosenthal Clarkson University Potsdam NY 13699-5810 315-265-9242 ROSEN1@CLVM.CLARKSON.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:11:33 -0500 From: Leonard Archer Subject: Paper 10 - LJA: OLCC Instructor Response MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Donald Rosenthal wrote: >"The authors of the two student papers which were selected for >discussion over a two week period: > ^^^^^^^^ >1. Had to respond to questions from other participating >students >2. Participated in the discussion of their paper. > >It seems to me this was a very valuable learning experience for >these students." Don, The OLCC paper authored by the five students at Missouri Western State was truly a collaborative effort, from the original selection of topic, through the writing of individual sections and then the final responses to other student questions. The short time frame that was given in this course for student authorship of papers somewhat dictated the co-authorship. The paper was actually completed exactly one week after a class session in which a topic was chosen and a draft outline was created. Each of the five students had three days to submit a draft of their individual sections for instructor comments, proofing, and roleup into the combined form. One of the primary goals of the paper was to create a document that would utilize the full potential of the Internet for expanding the reader's knowledge regarding the environmental issues addressed in the paper - thus the decision to use HTML pointers to as many of the references as feasible. The class created a local course web page on which to post the paper for others to access. Each student author became somewhat of an "expert" on his own section of paper content. While time constraints prevented exhaustive research on the paper content, the HTML links allowed the authors to directly reference the complete work for those desiring more information on a particulartopic. Seldom do students in our chemistry program get the opportunity to work together in this type of collaborative effort prior to graduation and entrance into the job market (something prospective employers look for in new graduates). For my students, the excitement of being selected as one of the two OLCC course student papers for national discussion was followed immediately by the realization that the job was only half completed - they would now have to do even more research in order to be able to answer a myriad of questions over the original paper content. The students selected a "class leader" to direct the incoming questions to the individual student author best capable of handling a specific inquiry and to monitor the timeliness and completion of their responses (more practice in organizational skills and time management). I honestly believe that my students learned more about the original topic of their paper while engaged in the on-line question and answer session than during the original writing phase. I watched them carefully research most every question before providing an answer. I watched them resist the temptation to give a "hip shoot" answer before more carefully writing a researched response (improvement in technical writing skills). Many answers were preceded by collegial discussions as to a "best response" (collaborative problem solving). Several answers resulted in subsequent student followup comments or requests for clarification (peer review). Four of my five students had dial up modems on their home computers which provided for greater on-line access and efficiency, and for a significant expansion of hours in the "virtual classroom." The overall feeling of student pride and "ownership" of this course and satisfaction in their personal participation peaked during the actual on-line discussion of their paper. Yes Don, it was truly was "a very valuable learning experience for these students". It was also a truly positive teaching experience for me, and thus one of the primary reasons why I will continue to support OLCC in its future offerings. __________________________________________________________ Dr. Len Archer Chairperson, Department of Chemistry Missouri Western State College 4525 Downs Drive, St. Joseph, MO 64507 816-271-4468 (work phone), E-mail: archer@griffon.mwsc.edu __________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:16:46 -0700 From: Doris Kimbrough Subject: Re: Paper 10 - DK: Two (or more?) Student Papers Discussed On-Line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >It seems to me this was a very valuable learning experience for >these students. I would appreciate receiving comments from >Erik Ricker - one of the student authors from Niagara University, >Leonard Archer - the course instructor at Missouri Western State College >and other course instructors. This also struck me as a particularly valuable aspect of the course, and as a follow-up to Don's comments, I was wondering if there would be a way you could extend this learning experience to more of the students taking the course without overwhelming them with e-mail: smaller groups perhaps, or web-directed e-mail that didn't go to the entire group? Doris Kimbrough Doris R. Kimbrough Chemistry Department Box 194 University of Colorado at Denver Denver, CO 80217-3364 dkimbrough@castle.cudenver.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:11:12 EDT From: "Dr. Jim Beard" Subject: Paper 10 - JB: Response to Two or (more?) Students Papers ... Doris wrote: >>It seems to me this was a very valuable learning experience for >>these students. I would appreciate receiving comments from >>Erik Ricker - one of the student authors from Niagara University, >>Leonard Archer - the course instructor at Missouri Western State College >>and other course instructors. > >This also struck me as a particularly valuable aspect of the course, and as >a follow-up to Don's comments, I was wondering if there would be a way you >could extend this learning experience to more of the students taking the >course without overwhelming them with e-mail: smaller groups perhaps, or >web-directed e-mail that didn't go to the entire group? > >Doris Kimbrough We are currently planning two new on-line courses. They are being planned for the Spring and Fall of 1998. The Spring course will be similar to the first on-line course in that the topic will be Environmental and Industrial Chemistry. This course will be headed up by Dr. Leonard Archer of Missouri Western State College. The Fall course will be on Pharmaceuticals: Manufacture and Regulation and will be chaired by Dr. Lindy Harrison of York College of Pennsylvania. It is hoped that in future OLCC offerings more small group discussion can be promoted through services such as a web-based conferencing software (now under examination by the course organizing committees). The possibility of individual schools exchanging papers for direct student email discussion has been mentioned. Greater interaction between individual schools and individual faculty is also planned. More direct interaction with course "technical resource individuals" is also in the works. The Organizing Committee for OLCC-2, Spring 1998. Committee Chair: Dr. Leonard Archer Department of Chemistry Missouri Western State College St. Joseph, MO 64507 818-271-4468 archer@griffon.mwsc.edu Publicity/Registration: Dr. James Beard Department of Chemistry Catawba College Salisbury, NC 28144 704-637-4113 jbeard@catawba.edu Content Coordinator: Dr. Sylvia Esjornson Department of Chemistry Southwestern Oklahoma State University Weatherford, OK 405-774-7032 esjorns@swosu.edu Technical Advisor: Dr. George R. Long Department of Chemistry Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705 412-357-2575 grlong@grove.iup.edu Faculty Coordinator: Dr. Lindy Harrison Department of Chemistry York College of Pennsylvania York, PA 17405-7199 717-846-7788 X1210 harrison@ycp.edu Listserv Manager: Dr. Donald Rosenthal Box 5810 Department of Chemistry Clarkson University Potsdam, NY 13699-5810 313-265-9242 or 268-2352 rosen2@clvm.clarkson.edu Jim Beard for the Authors Catawba College 2300 W. Innes St. Salisbury, NC 28144 (704) 637-4113 FAX (704) 637-4204 jbeard@catawba.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:52:11 EDT From: "Dr. Jim Beard" Subject: Paper 10 - JB: Regarding DR:Two Student Papers Discussed On-Line Don Rosenthal Wrote: > I monitored the on-line discussion of papers during the course. > The authors of the two student papers which were selected for > discussion over a two week period: > ^^^^^^^^ > 1. Had to respond to questions from other participating students > 2. Participated in the discussion of their paper. > > It seems to me this was a very valuable learning experience for > these students. I would appreciate receiving comments from > Erik Ricker - one of the student authors from Niagara University, > Leonard Archer - the course instructor at Missouri Western State College > and other course instructors. I received the following response form Erik Ricker: I found the volume of mail that I received while in the course to be appropriate and commensurate with a course of that number of credit- hours. I presently don't see the need to up the ante with a newer system of distribution, but: The ev-chem class was fairly small in the grand scheme of things, and relatively experimental. When/if classes grow from perhaps 100 students, to something along the lines of 1000 students, it will indeed be bulkier and very difficult to read all of the mail and respond or comment. My idea would be to break schools' groups up into smaller groups, and have each group address/monitor one aspect of the curriculum. The web page or listserv site could be set up with this in mind, and have 'links' or listservs to accomodate all users, topical users, and faculty users. This would work very well with a webpage, allowing anyone (with proper access) to look at more than they needed to, were they so inclined. As well, with some more modern link-monitoring programming, it's possible to tell what student looked at what, and when. A useful way of monitoring how one's students are applying themselves, when they are doing so, and how often. As an editorial note, my absence from rapant discussion is not due to any overt problems or concerns with the list, but I have found gainful employment, and have been forced to be away from some/all of my accounts frequently. As a note to the note, I am now a technician dealing with exactly that which we are discussing, and the overwhelming lack of sophistication with most users of the web is astounding. I consider myself pampered when writing on this list, you folks actually know what we're talking about when we make acronymal (sic?) references to techie- stuff. ;) Erik Ricker ************************ Jim Beard for the authors of Paper 10 Catawba College 2300 W. Innes St. Salisbury, NC 28144 (704) 637-4113 FAX (704) 637-4204 jbeard@catawba.edu