Moving an in-class module online: a case study for chemistry

Abstract

This article summarises the author's experiences in running a module “Computers for Chemistry” entirely online for the past four years. The module, previously taught in a face-to-face environment, was reconfigured for teaching in an online environment. The rationale for moving online along with the design, implementation and evaluation of the online module are presented. The design and implementation were structured to align with Salmon's five stage model for e-moderating. The issues that arose on implementation are discussed along with an outline of supporting learners in an online environment. Lessons learned from running the module online are presented to provide interested practitioners some guidelines for adopting a similar approach.

---

Introduction

The incorporation of online spaces in higher education programmes is now ubiquitous with virtual learning environments (VLE) such as Blackboard or Moodle typically organised at an institutional level so that individual lecturers may add content or learning activities to a dedicated space for their module. Most lecturers and students would consider the VLE as the hub of where e-learning is situated. The evidence to date is that such dedicated spaces are mainly used as content repositories for notes, additional links to journal articles and supplementary material. A survey of several Irish higher education institutions in the Dublin region, representing 76 000 students and 4500 staff found that “in the majority of cases, VLEs are being used as repositories rather than learning environments”, with most courses having anything from “About half” to “All” coursework incorporated into the VLE. Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint and PDF files were the most common format, with 75% of students surveyed reporting that they accessed the VLE to “Get copies of lecture notes” and just over 60% accessing to “Get other course material” (DRHEA, 2009). Therefore, despite the widespread use of VLEs in institutions, cases of their use as online learning environments appear limited. The situation is reflected in the UK. In a review of the student learning experience in chemistry by the Higher Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre in the UK, students ranked “e-learning” as both the least effective and the least enjoyable from a range of teaching options (Gagan, 2008). Reasons for this are likely to include that academic staff are unsure about how to use online environments, that there is a concern over increased workload, and a worry that an online module might diminish or remove the lecturer's role (DRHEA, 2009).

A valid question to consider is whether an online environment will ultimately result in better learning—a question that can only be addressed in each practitioner's own circumstances. Salmon proposes that educators should ask themselves before considering a move online what the pedagogic rationale is for considering such a move (Salmon, 2002). This is an important starting point as moving online simply due to institutional pressures (e.g. purportedly to save money) or technological factors (e.g. demands from students for high-tech experiences that may be experienced elsewhere) are unlikely to motivate a practitioner to develop a sound learning environment. Pedagogic reasons for change may include attempts to enhance student-centred activity, harness technology to provide rapid feedback, facilitate student group work, provide student support to large groups and/or develop intimacy in the student-teacher relationship with large groups (Salmon, 2002).

This paper presents a report of the move from an in-class teaching approach to the use of virtual learning environments with content delivered through online resources and students supported primarily by discussion boards. A lot of material in the literature promotes the use of discussion boards to encourage reflection, but this is probably not the main learning outcome in technology disciplines, where outcomes such as the ability of students to be able to work in groups, solve problems and demonstrate critical thinking are considered important employability skills (Hanson and Overton, 2010). There are some useful reports which provides a critical appraisal of the use of discussion boards in online learning. Kanuka surveys the literature examining the use of internet based technology in facilitating a higher level of learning, against the backdrop that the technology has been in place for greater than a decade at the time of writing and that “sine non quo of higher education… is to improve critical thinking” (Kanuka, 2005). She reports some disappointing data in the use of technology in supporting this goal. A survey completed by over 2000 North American academics revealed that 57% of these academics believed web-based technology “had a positive impact on learning”, although this number should be considered in light of another comment, from the same survey which states that over one third of academics are extremely/very satisfied with student interest and participation because “their students are satisfied”. Participants in this report stated that they needed significant support in encouraging critical thinking (Saundercook and Cooper, cited in Kanuka 2005). Laurillard puts it very succinctly when she says that achieving higher levels of learning “remains an elusive goal” (Laurillard, 2002). It is in this context that the role of discussion boards in this online module are examined.

A difficulty for a lecturer used to teaching in class moving some or all of their teaching online is the question of how to actually teach online. A very useful model in this regard is that proposed by Salmon, commonly known as the five-stage model for e-moderating (Salmon, 2000). While this model, or rather the uncritical adoption of it as a model for e-learning, is open to debate (Moule, 2007) it suited this situation as the delivery and support of the module was primarily based in the discussion board. Salmon's five stages encompasses (1) access and motivation; (2) online socialisation; (3) information exchange; (4) knowledge construction; and (5) development. The implementation of the module described in this report is presented along these lines.

This paper aims to address the issues in developing a module for an online environment from a practitioner's perspective. The rationale for such a move is presented along with the support mechanisms used. In doing so it is hoped to provide an example for others considering moving some of their teaching online.

Framework for design

Rationale for change

A module “Computers for Chemistry” was delivered in a lecture/workshop format annually to a group of third (final) year students of a Level 7 general degree in chemistry.† The module's primary aim was to ensure students were familiar with the use of a variety of computer software programmes that they would routinely use in the final year project and as a professional chemist. These included using Microsoft Excel for presentation and graphical analysis, working with experimental data, statistical analysis, using chemistry drawing software and using Microsoft Word for professional document preparation. The module content was contextualised to chemistry and followed on from a second year module on basics of using Microsoft Excel. The module was assigned fifteen hours class time and was delivered as five three-hour hands-on computer workshops, with an assignment submitted at the end of each workshop. The module was practical, and given its immediate use to students, it was popular and received good feedback. However, two problems were noted in the delivery of the module. The first was that as students progressed through the workshops, they would naturally get stuck at various points. The teaching method employed was that as students needed help, they would be shown how to do a task individually and then they could try to complete it after demonstration. In practice this meant that students were reluctant to try out approaches to overcome difficulties, preferring to wait for instructor help. This persisted even if help was deliberately hesitant, limited, delayed because of lecturer-student ratio, or a combination of these! Following on from this, the capacity to use this model as a “learn how to learn” opportunity was limited. In a subject where content and approach is constantly evolving (for example the learning required to move from Office 2003 to Office 2007), it is felt that the ability to successfully overcome new and unfamiliar material based on prior learning is a core skill. Therefore the in-class module as it was delivered offered limited scope to allow students develop these skills.

In order to address the deficiencies identified in the in-class environment, an online module was developed. The rationale for deciding to deliver online were that (1) students could review content in their own time, at their own pace—an important consideration for the broad range of capabilities within the group in using computer software; (2) students, upon coming across a problem would have to work through it independently, with some support from tutor and peers at a remove; and (3) the online environment would offer a flexibility in assessment so that learners of all abilities would be able to challenge themselves in applying the content.

Preparing materials for an online environment

Learning in an online environment presents its own challenges. The learner needs a clear structure of what they are required to do, where the learning materials they need are located, what support is available and how they are going to be assessed.

The module was broken into five components, to run over five weeks. The components were: (1) drawing graphs in MS Excel, professional formatting; (2) handling experimental data in Excel, Excel functions; (3) statistics in Excel; (4) chemical drawing software and equations and (5) producing professional documents in MS Word. In this way, the delivery of material was iterative, so that each week progressively developed on the previous one, with the aim of producing a professional document (journal article or thesis) in MS Word by Week 5. This module immediately preceded (or ran alongside in one year) the students' final year project.

The learning materials were purposefully developed for the module to align with this content. Different styles of content were developed. Lecture notes were available with audio in screencasts produced in Camtasia Studio.‡ These essentially were a replica of the introductory talk that would accompany the in-class delivery of the module, although the design of the slides had a progress indicator and the various sections of the presentation were accessible through a table of contents embedded in the screencast. The material was also presented as screen-capture demonstration videos, again with audio and table of contents, produced in Camtasia Studio. These were by far a much more popular resource for students, so much so that the lecture notes were phased out when MS Office was updated from version 2003 to version 2007. The Excel files used in the demonstration videos were also available to students so they could practice what they had seen in the video for themselves. Other formats such as those suitable for iPod/iPhone were also developed, although there was little to no take up of these, and they were discontinued after one year.

Assessment strategy

Having considered the desired learning outcomes and mechanisms for delivering these to students, the final component to plan was the assessment method. Table 1 summarises the assessment components aligned with the expected learning outcomes of the module. These cover several aspects. Firstly, there were weekly assignments that addressed the core concepts in each week's assignment. These effectively mimicked the assessments used in the in-class delivery of the module, and allowed students to demonstrate their competencies in completing the tasks outlined in the learning materials each week. There were five of these assignments, and each one was worth 13% of the final mark. Typically, they were designed to take about one hour to complete. In addition to the weekly assignments, there were additional weekly supplemental activities, which would develop some of the core material in each week's resource, looking at how new competencies could be developed based on what was covered and apply it to a chemistry-related situation. These resources required students to source additional information, as described below, and accounted for 25% of the total grade. Finally, as the course was moderated through a discussion board, and student support and interactions were channelled through the boards, use of the boards was worth 10%, graded according to the rubric shown in Table 1. On submitting each assignment through the VLE, students work would be marked, and individual feedback provided. This feedback also asked them to consider important aspects for the following week's assignment, so there was a need to get it done quite quickly.

Table 1 Alignment of learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment for online module

Learning outcome	Teaching method	Assessment
a Rated on a progressive scale of 1–10% from no contribution (0), acknowledgement/little contribution (1–3%), requesting assistance (4–6%), responding to assistance (6–8%), showcasing work (9–10%).
Use spreadsheets to produce graphs to the standard of a professional publication, for experimental data analysis and statistical analysis	Demonstration of how to complete these tasks with examples to practice on	Context-based activities relating to chemistry to showcase skills developed. (3 × 13%)
Demonstrate competence in using chemistry drawing software of your choice to produce chemical structures of quality for professional publication.	Demonstration of how to complete these tasks with examples to practice on	Drawing a selection of chemical structures and reactions from a provided list and those relevant to final year project. (1 × 13%)
Use Microsoft Word or equivalent to prepare a document of a professional standard suitable for publication or thesis, including the incorporation of figures, tables and equations.	Demonstration of how to complete these tasks with examples to practice on	Prepare a report of professional quality incorporating required elements based on a previously completed laboratory practical or an aspect of the final year project. (1 × 13%)
Apply knowledge of chemistry and software in unfamiliar contexts for problem-solving and source relevant information for this purpose.	Supplement structured activities with open-ended exercises	Open-ended context-based assessment. (5 × 5%)
Support a community of practitioners by sharing knowledge and information	Moderated discussion board	Assessment rubric^a for discussion board contributions. (10%)

---

Support structure

In order to support the delivery of the module, deal with queries and difficulties and provide feedback, a discussion board system was used. Each weekly component had its own discussion board and students were required to use this to ask any questions related to the module. Questions by email were not allowed, unless they related to an individual mark or personal issue. Students were provided with “netiquette guidelines”. For example, as the number of discussion posts would run into several hundred, students were required to change the subject heading when they replied to a message. This made it easier to navigate messages on review. Several netiquette guidelines are available on the internet.

The discussion board was also used to provide general class feedback on each weekly assignment. It was typical to have several issues that were common to many students, and this weekly general feedback aimed to highlight the most important of these, as well as provide a gauge to students how they were performing in the context of the general class feedback.

For two years of the four, a guest expert was invited onto the discussion board for one week to address any queries. This was done in week 3, to coincide with the statistics component of the module. A mathematics colleague whose expertise was in statistics joined the board for the week, so that students could ask questions related to statistics and have them answered by an expert in the field.

A weekly chat-room clinic was also tried for two of the four years. This was specifically to address any difficulties that were holding students back (e.g. technical, misunderstanding of assignment). While it was popular, it was difficult to find a time in the students' timetable when they were free, and as the use of discussion board became the norm (see below), the need for this clinic diminished.

Implementation of the module

The implementation of the module attempted to follow Salmon's five stage model for online learning (Salmon, 2002) as described below.

1. Access and motivation

The main purpose in the first stage of online delivery is to provide a thorough induction to the module—to facilitate the students accessing and familiarising themselves with the VLE. Activities here should be easy, but stimulate the student with an interesting introduction in using the new learning platform. Salmon emphasises the point that at this stage the students' emotional and social capacity to learn should be paramount; module content is not an issue at this stage.

This area was addressed by scheduling a face-to-face induction class. Students were given an overview of the module detailing the aims and expectations. The rationale for using an online learning environment was presented. Students were then asked to log on to the module in this class, and were encouraged to look around and try out some of the materials available—audio files, videos, notes etc. to ensure they could access them. Students were also encouraged to use the discussion board, and put up a post in a designated area. There was an informal (show of hands) discussion with students where they were surveyed on their prior experiences, computer access, internet access and type. In earlier years, some students did not have internet access at home, but more recently all students indicated they have had internet access. An important aspect from an organisational point of view was to have the room with computers timetabled for a certain time during the week, so that students knew they would definitely have access to the materials at a particular time, if required. The students were presented with the outline of the module and told to use the discussion board to raise any queries. The first of five assignments was then made available.

A key issue here on the role of induction is the initial engagement of students with the module, from an emotional perspective (interested to complete tasks, feelings about ability to do module) and a motivational perspective (hinting at the added value of online delivery, encouraging students to return). In the first year of implementation, the primary goal at induction was to ensure physical access, but emotional issues were not considered. After the first year, it became apparent that for genuine engagement to take place, it was important to address student concerns about their capacity to do this module “alone” (the most common and significant concern) and the unfamiliar territory of an online learning environment. To do this, examples of previous students' issues and their feedback were presented in class to provide a sense that the concerns students were having had been concerns of previous students that had been overcome.

2. Online socialisation

Salmon stresses the importance of online socialisation, quoting a large-scale study which states that the “leisure side of the VLE should not be eliminated for the sake of efficiency” (Breen, cited in Salmon, 2000). This group of students see each other at all other classes during the week, and in the first year little effort was put into this aspect as it was felt unnecessary. However, it was noticed that students were using the discussion board as a means of communication with each other (birthdays, class outings, etc.). From the second year of implementation, a separate space on the discussion board (“Virtual Snackery”, named after the student common area) was created. This was a place where students could use outside the formal discussion boards for support and feedback. It was very popular. As an example, the class often has several nationalities, and in one year a language class developed on this discussion board. While in one sense this is trivial, it is felt that students may have logged on to the board to check the social aspects, and moved into the module content; or just that these trivial aspects normalised the process of engaging and contributing on the discussion boards.

3. Information exchange

As a tutor, my module was very much a one-to-many model in the first year, mimicking the in-class environment. This was in part unintentional, but because of my own insecurity about running the module for the first time, I was very quick to reply to students' queries and questions on the topics. However, after coming back to the discussion board having attended a conference, I found that in my absence, students had begun to answer each other's queries, and that an online support community was developing. Therefore in later years, I purposefully stepped back from providing assistance and guidance, only stepping in if a comment went unanswered after a period of time (24 h) or if replies were not constructive, at which point I would provide some guidance prompts. There is evidence that students may become disillusioned if no one else is reading their postings and some authors suggest that the role of the moderator is to ensure that each participant gets a response (Collison et al., 2000). However, Salmon argues that there is a fine line on the part of moderator between allowing the students get on with their task and interacting by summarising at key points to give the students a sense of value in their contributions.

4. Knowledge construction

An element of the assessment introduced in later years was for students to work on an open-ended activity. This usually developed from the structured activity presented in the weekly tasks. The purpose of these was to allow students some freedom in pushing their own boundaries of competence with the software. As an example, in the first week, students were required to complete several graphs in MS Excel, obtain the slope of straight-line graphs and use these values in calculations. In the supplemental activity, students were asked to find out how to determine the point of intersection of two simultaneous linear equations in MS Excel, and using this method, apply it to the solution of a UV/vis absorption question about calculating the concentration of two unknown species present—a problem easily solved by simultaneous equations.

In order to do this, students were initially provided with some links to external information—YouTube videos or other websites. As the weeks went by, less initial guidance was provided and students were required to source this information themselves. The rationale here was two-fold. In a subject were the interface is always changing, it is important to be able to source information that will be able to help in learning how to use new software or new interfaces. This addresses a larger issue around sourcing suitable information to learn how to learn. Secondly, it was important from the perspective of the sense of community in the module that the material very much addressed the students as chemists—and so the material in the additional assignments offered great scope to relate the algorithmic approaches to completing tasks in software to tackling problems in chemistry. As such, according to the ideas of Lave and Wengers' community of practice (1998), chemistry students are not learning how to use Excel, but they are learning how professional chemists would use Excel in their role, as well as the means of how to actually perform the tasks. Hence, if it is possible to harness this sense of contextualised role, it may be useful in providing authentic learning tasks.

Students were encouraged to assist each other in completing these tasks. With the exception of the first supplementary task, described above, all of the other supplementary tasks were quite open, in that students could draw whatever on content they wished to complete the assignment. This minimised any potential for plagiarism, as each submission was individual to student, albeit within a framework of whatever general approach was required. Assistance was shared on the discussion board and in turn by compiling a series of weblinks, which students submitted with an annotation describing their use. Therefore, the entire process at this stage very much mimicked a professional environment, as students were working on independent problems with the help of their peers. It can be argued that to truly incorporate the core value of the knowledge construction process in Salmon's model, the efforts of the group should be collaborative rather than cooperative, and a future iteration of the module may try to build in some more group-oriented tasks in this section of the assessment. Students are asked to showcase their work on the discussion board so that they could get ideas from each other about how particular approaches can be useful.

5. Development

The core goal of the module was to enable students to produce professional documentation relevant to chemistry, underpinned by the ability to work with data and prepare suitable representations of data (tables, charts, etc.) in the presentation of their scientific work. Their first test of this is the final year project thesis, as their project immediately followed (or in one year coincided with) the module. Therefore the final open-ended assessment aimed to draw the elements of the first four weeks together and along with learning about using MS Word to produce professional documents, prepare a small-scale report encompassing all they had learned. In this way, students were bringing together the various module content covered and using it for a purpose. This development stage aimed to facilitate them reaching any personal goals in their presentation—which in these cases would be specific to their project. For example, students of organic chemistry may have had to use their chemistry drawing package software extensively and consistently or prepare suitable presentation options for NMR structural data, whereas students of analytical chemistry would have to decide how to best represent a usually large amount of data to in an efficient manner to illustrate their arguments.

Evaluation

The module has been delivered online once a year for the last four years. After each year, students were asked to complete a survey asking their experiences of the module, the process of learning online and their thoughts on the discussion board. Some themes arising out of the responses collected over the four years (N ∼ 80) and discussion board postings are outlined below.

Expectations

The first major theme was around the role and value of the module induction in addressing expectations of the module in the one hand and of the students on the other. Many students commented that they felt the induction was very important because they were not aware of what was involved in e-learning, and were afraid of being left alone to complete the module. This probably reflects the opening comments about the usage of “e-learning” in higher education—that as a content repository rather than a learning space. An important aspect of the induction was to reassure, and in feedback students recorded a sense of relief that the nature of the supports available were explained. One student's comment reflects this when she said that “it was nice to know there was someone at the other end of the line.”

While the module induction formally ended after the initial in-class session, there were several recurring difficulties each year—some addressed in induction and others not—which needed to be clarified online. These included technical aspects, such as how to submit assignments or where to find some resources, which could be easily addressed through including a video on submitting assignments and having multiple signposts to information depending on where students were accessing it from. A very common issue that arose every year was the expectations of the quality of the assessment. Initially students may have thought the module to be easier than it was, as they had usually some experience in using the software. Therefore, in their first assessment, it was common, in about half of the cases in the earlier years, for students to submit their assignment having completed the tasks required but not considered the professional production required in the module. In these cases, it was likely that the students had not looked at the learning resources for the first assignment (which made the production standard clear), and just worked from prior knowledge. This resulted in a second online induction after the first assessment about the quality required, usually incorporated in general class feedback at the end of the first week and became less of a problem after that. In the last two years, this point has been made more forcibly in the initial induction, and this issue became less common.

Students were asked about the extent of learning they felt they had achieved, on a Likert scale (1–5). The majority of students over the four years of implementation agreed or strongly agreed with the with the statements that they “learned a lot” (80%), that the module was “intellectually challenging” (82%) and that their overall impression of the module was positive (90%). The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed, with some disagreeing. Those in the former category self-reported that they already had a high knowledge of Excel and Word. However, they also reported that the open-ended assignments gave them scope to try out new things and get feedback on these.

Learning materials

Students were asked to state what they felt about the quality of the learning materials used in the module. As mentioned earlier, the overwhelming majority of students preferred the screen-capture videos focussing on specific tasks rather than the lecture notes explaining tasks. In addition, many commented that they liked the table of contents that can be included as a left-hand menu in the screencasts as an easy way of navigating. Students also commented that they liked that there was a separate discussion board for each topic.

Aside from the quality of the materials, an interesting point was made by some students (in different years) about the nature and tone of delivery. One student commented that he “wanted more of funny Michael” and another that the materials were “sometimes too formal”. This can be interpreted as a plea for more personalised learning materials, and probably relates to the earlier points about emotional engagement with the module. This is clearly a difficult balance to strike, but perhaps a suitable middle ground is to keep audio narration casual. The tone of discussion boards mimicked the (relatively informal) tone in classes that students would be used to.

Independence

A theme of independence as a learner arose in several aspects of student feedback. Students enjoyed the freedom the online environment afforded. One student who was having difficulty with some aspects early on in the module posted her frustration to the discussion board, looking for help. In replying to her (with useful assistance), another student stated “e-learning is amazing!! Just this evening I had eight cups of tea during ‘class’”. The flip-side of independence is that students had to take a lot more control of their learning. This was a difficult leap for some, including the student who posted her frustration, above. However, after the first assessment was done, and the expectations clarified, things tended to settle down into a routine.

Another aspect of independence was reflected in the open-ended assessments. These allowed students to really challenge themselves in what they could do with the software. Some very good students, who were perhaps not served well in the old in-class module, were afforded an opportunity to try out some advanced features of software, such as writing macros or database-type features in Excel. In fact some students spent a huge amount of time working on these extra assignments, as they decided on what problem they were going to work on. In the initial design of the module, no marks were given for these assignments, but the topics covered would be asked in an in-class end of module exam. However, it was felt that since most students were spending a lot of time on this work, the end of module exam was superfluous, and the marks went directly to these assignments instead. This also prompted more students to do these assignments on schedule, rather than waiting just before the end of module exam, when it was in place.

Collegiality

Salmon's model aims to develop an online community, and it is felt that in this module, this was successful. Several students commented on the fact that they found the discussion boards helpful and that it “was very helpful to read what others wrote about their assignments”. Another commented that he completed the assignments “out of hours, so I would not have the lectures [sic] help”. However, “lurking” is an issue that is common with discussion boards. One student noted that she found the discussion boards “useful, but I was afraid to use it when I had a question to ask because I was afraid it was a stupid question and everyone in the class could read it.” While this is no different to in-class situations, it was possible to coax some of these students online by some common e-moderating strategies, such as summing up what has been discussed so far and asking others for their thoughts, or placing open questions online checking on progress and difficulties. There were, however, a small number of students who just refused to post online—this is discussed in the Recommendations section below.

Assessment

As mentioned above, the first assessment was a shock to several students as it indicated to them that they were going to have to upgrade their knowledge for this new level of expectations. Some students felt that the workload was high compared to other modules, but many of these students also self-reported that they enjoyed the freedom of the open-ended activities and enjoyed spending a lot of time on them. However, some of the tasks required in each week were revisited, and some repetitious tasks removed to reduce the workload a little.

The average class grade was monitored yearly (Table 2). In the last iteration of the in-class module, the average was 55%. In the first year online, with little discussion board support and an end of module exam, the average was 66%. The following year with much more extensive induction and discussion board support incorporated, the average was 72%. In the last two years, replacing the end of module exam mark with the supplemental assignment mark, the averages were 71% and 73%. Of course, a comparison between years is not possible as each year had different students and different circumstances and the assessment strategies differed, but the averages did help to reassure me as a lecturer that students were in general coping with the online environment while the same core content, and a lot of additional supplemental content was being covered.

Table 2 Average grades for each year of implementation

Year 0	In class	55%
Year 1	Online, no discussion board	66%
Year 2	Online, discussion board	72%
Year 3	Online, discussion board and open ended course work	71%
Year 4	Online, discussion board and open ended course work	73%

---

Recommendations for practice

After four attempts, this module has settled into a consistent module delivered annually to students, and it is strange to remember back to first implementation and the concerns that existed then. In recommending a similar approach to colleagues, I would highlight the following points.

In terms of organising module content, it is necessary to have everything available from the start of the module. Resources, links and discussion boards should be clearly arranged and if possible, have multiple entry points. Assignments were released weekly.

Because it is unlikely that students will have taken an online module before, a clear set of guidelines needs to be explained at induction. This included things the kind of tutor support that would be available, discussion board etiquette, and time to allow for response to queries. For the latter point, I would try to check the discussion board twice daily, at lunch and in the evening, except in the first week when I would check 3–4 times per day. However, once the module got going and students got used to the routine, 1–2 times per day was more than sufficient. The agreement with students was that any query would be addressed within 24 h by me if it hadn't been answered by one of their peers, which in most cases, it was. It was important though to be seen to be visible, so if another student answered a query, I would acknowledge that, and perhaps prompt a further aspect to the discussion. If a student posted a query that no-one answered, I would reply to say that I saw the post and would get back to it within a given time if no-one replied first. There were typically about 500–600 posts per implementation for a class of 20 students. About half of these were instructor posts, and about 10–15% were social posts or acknowledgements by students. The remainder were queries or responses to queries by students.

A problem with “practice” literature is that it sometimes suffers from the Lake Wobegon effect, where all the students' interactions and learning are reported as being above average. Of course, in any real classroom, there is diversity in engagement and diversity in efforts on the part of students. In considering the students who have completed this course, it's possible to group them into four categories, shown in Fig. 1. Firstly there were the Wobegon students, those who engaged enthusiastically with the discussion board and worked very hard on their course work. Typically in each class, about 10% of these students were in this category, and occasionally they would be students who might not have been so vocal in lectures. These were very important to have on board, as they drove the module online—the engagement ultimately has to come from students. In one year, there were no students who fitted into this category, and the module did not run as well, and it took a lot more work as an instructor to prompt and encourage engagement. The only thing to caution about this group is that their interactions should be tempered so as they don't dominate the discussions. Replies like “That's a good point, what do other people think?” were an approach to deal with this.

Fig. 1 Categories of students in terms of work effort and engagement on the module.

The second group of students were those who worked hard but did not engage in the social dimension of the boards. This could have been due to shyness, or sense of the fact that there was nothing to be gained from engagement. Usually though, they were drawn toward the first group as the module progressed, especially if their first assignment did not go well for reasons discussed above. However, effective methods encouraging ‘lurkers’ into engaging include summarising by name or theme the contributions made so far and asking what other people had to say about whether they agreed or disagreed. This usually pulled in those who were enthusiastic about the module content, but were initially reticent or lazy about engaging. Those who were too shy to post were more difficult, but it was important that no-one was ever identified as not being a contributor. Ultimately, the choice was theirs. This second group made up the vast majority of students on the module—typically about 80%—perhaps because it was their final year and they were motivated to do well.

Some students did not engage or work hard on the module (∼10%). Interestingly, some of these were active on the boards, offering suggestions or engaging in the social aspects. They just didn't get their work in on time! These students were dealt with by occasional email prompts, offering suggestions of time-management and clarifying the components of each week's assignment. This often helped. Finally there were those who did not engage or work on the content. For these students, the goal was to get through the module with minimum effort. Again, email prompts here had some effect, usually in getting the students to at least complete the core component of each week's work.

Conclusions

The teaching of a module in an online environment is not without its challenges, for both lecturer and student. However, it was found in this case that aligning the module delivery and support to the Salmon five-step model meant that the module could address several additional learning outcomes not present in the in-class situation. I hope that in sharing this personal account, it may encourage other practitioners with some rationale to teach online to try it themselves. An open-access version of the module is currently being made available at the website: http://www.michaelseery.com/chem3204.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Dr Roisin Donnelly, Learning, Teaching and Technology Centre (LTTC), Dublin Institute of Technology, to this work. In addition, development project funding from the LTTC was used to support the development of this module.

Notes and references

1. Collison, G., Elabum B., Haavind S. and Tinker R. (2000), Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies for Moderators, Ashwood Publishing, Madison.
2. DRHEA Enhancement of Learning: Enabling eLearning and Blended Learning (2009). Available at: http://www.drhea.ie/enhancement_audit.php.
3. Gagan, M. (2008), Review of the Student Experience in Chemistry, Higher Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre.
4. Hanson, S. and Overton, T. (2010), Skills required by new chemistry graduates and their development in degree programmes, Higher Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre.
5. Kanuka, H. (2005), An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies, J. Comput.-Mediated Commun., 10(3), article 8.
6. Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd Ed, Routledge Falmer, London.
7. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press.
8. Moule, P. (2007), Challenging the five-stage model for e-learning: a new approach, Assoc. Learn. Technol. J., 15(1), 37–50.
9. Salmon, G. (2002), E-tivities, Kogan Page, London.
10. Salmon, G. (2000), E-moderating, The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, Kogan Page, London.

---

Footnotes

† Higher education degree awards in Ireland are made at Level 7 (three year General degree), Level 8 (four year Honours degree), Level 9 (Masters degree) and Level 10 (Doctoral degree) in accordance with the Irish National Framework of Qualifications.

‡ Camtasia Studio is commercial screen-casting software from Techsmith—www.techsmith.com.

---