Going the Distance: Designing and Delivering Distance Education Courseware

Betty Hart
Associate Professor of English
English Department
263 Science Center
University of Southern Indiana
8600 University Blvd.
Evansville, IN 47712
(812) 465-1669
blhart.ucs@smtp.usi.edu

Unless your institution is lucky or blessed enough to have a team of expert media developers waiting to respond to the needs and creative urges of its faculty, instructors who wish to design and produce educational courseware are in for a lot of hard work and long hours. Developing courseware for distance education takes more than an idea; it takes goal setting, planning, research, and time for locating resources, working out design and delivery issues, and testing for production. Assuming the roles of designer, teacher, student and administrator of the project, faculty developers can plan their creative agenda to satisfy both institutional and instructional interests in the product’s application.

In creating courseware for Kuumba, a distance education course in ethnic literature, I focused my goals on design and medium. Feeling that these features were most appropriate for a course emphasizing cultural diversity, I planned my work around creating format and content that evoked a variety of cultural themes. Meanwhile, delivery and instruction issues continued to influence those plans. Analyzing how these factors influenced my decisions and work will reveal how I determined such design features as content, format, navigation, linkage, redundancy, and scope of the project.

I began my project by articulating its instructional objectives. This was an important start for the process, as focusing on the teaching goal helped define the project’s scope. The instructional objectives were (1) to provide course information for enrolled students – a kind of syllabus; (2) to provide a brief overview of the materials and resources used in the course (books, bibliographies, Internet resources, etc.); (3) to provide basic tutorials for important topical concepts and for writing projects; (4) to provide commentary on each week’s lesson that might stimulate the students’ independent thinking about the week’s topic; and (5) to offer models of student writing and commentaries to demonstrate successfully completed assignments.

These objectives covered the typical material found in course syllabi. However, I desired my software to be more than just an electronic syllabus. I wanted it to be more personal and creative. I wanted the software to represent a teacher’s personality for the students. To that end, I also considered certain aesthetic and cultural features in my design concept, keeping in mind the potential for certain kinds of expression made possible with the computer.

Other boundaries were defined by the recognition that student users would possess diverse levels of computer literacy. This meant that I could count on there being only some students who would appreciate the creative features of the project and some who would not even know how to load the software. Finally, I had to acknowledge, too, that all urges – creative, practical, and otherwise – had to be generally consistent with the style and standard of other representations of our institution. This meant that the university would probably not back me on content that might be too embarrassing or controversial, and that my institution would not sponsor any instructional material that compromised its mission, objectives, or public reputation.

The Instructor’s Agenda

My experiences with a previous offering of this course as distance education taught me that students would want as many concrete assurances that they were on course as I could provide. In a regular classroom, of course, these assurances are given day to day in casual and formal consultation with students. With distance education students, however, the assurances come in the forms of e-mail, phone calls, and letters. Though these formats provide usually short, personal, and specific information about the students’ work, most of the students seek final authority in the documents containing information on course policies and requirements. The courseware is the reference of final authority. Unlike a syllabus, which works somewhat like a contract, the course software serves not only as documentation, but also as a resource of instruction and interpretation for information about the course and its subject. That, at least, is what I wanted it to be.

Though the creative component was important to me personally, it was not my primary instructional objective. Rather, the suitability of the format as an instructional mode took precedence over other concerns. I wanted the courseware to be able to deliver the content while emphasizing user control over format and creativity. I wanted the style of interaction to favor the student’s need to explore, yet to help the student avoid getting lost in the hypertextual labyrinths created by too many linking options. My most important instructional concern was that the pattern and organization for presenting content would be logical so that students could perceive the overall structure of the text and format of the courseware. I wanted them to have a sense of the software package as a knowledge base for important concepts and ideas covered in the course.

Though some of these concerns might seem more student-oriented than instructor-related, I felt that issues such as navigation, logical transitions between ideas, and format redundancy were just as important as content in the design agenda. A student’s comfort and confidence in using electronic media are essential to the interaction between the student and the media that results in learning. For students at a distance who do not have the benefit of a teacher to assure them that they are on the right track, the courseware must be designed to minimize the potential for failure and confusion.

The Designer’s Agenda

While my instructional agenda reflected my approaches and experiences as a teacher, my role as the designer afforded a more personal agenda. I chose this format in the first place because I saw a potential for using the associative (hypertextual) format of computer-created documents literally to cast off the traditional Western model of teaching and to explore a more culturally-based model. This other model would give the students more autonomy in determining their own course of learning. In this model, the teacher still controlled content, but the path to the knowledge would be determined by the student’s engagement with the text. This model represents a more ethnically diverse approach to learning. Specifically, it connects to a traditional mode of learning among people of color – story-telling. By immersion in the experience of choosing and selecting (browsing) knowledge through available content and situational context, the student has greater control over what he or she learns. This element of cultural orientation was especially important to me as a person of color, working in the creative mode. I saw the medium of computer-generated design as an opportunity to express myself in an academic environment while affirming my own cultural values.

As the project’s designer, I had the advantage of knowing exactly what I wanted for the software’s content and visual format. I saw myself essentially as an artist – albeit an electronic one – with the computer as my tool and the desktop as my canvas. The creative contexts with which I was concerned were aesthetic, cultural, functional (controls and structure), domain-related, and stylistic. Each of these contexts would be considered, along with my instructional objectives, as influences upon the style and content of my pages.

The aesthetic features were to reflect a combination of cultural styles – colorful, playful, patterned, symbolic, strongly contrasting, and relying heavily upon metaphor for meaning and upon surprise to disrupt the apparent. I imbued the design of my pages with these qualities by the selection of color, the arrangement of information on pages, the order of information, the navigational format, art work, and content. I addressed the cultural objective by establishing two voices to deliver the text – the teacher/information maker and the teller/information interpreter and commentator. By doing so, I created a more personal relationship with the student user. On one hand was the authority of one who makes knowledge, and on the other was the voice of the person who could judge the knowledge and act as a sort of guide for the student acquiring the knowledge. This "dual-voice" relationship particularly occurs in electronic environments where the user responds to both the authority of the program and the advice of the tutor/programmer.

This is a point I wish to underscore. The format of computer texts supports non-conventional learning modes more than other, more familiar media, which is why I initially became interested in creating courseware with a computer. The computer allowed me a different kind of creative freedom, or, as I have previously noted, a more culturally indigenous mode of expression. For those with a "closet" urge to be an artist, the computer's ability to eliminate certain talent deficiencies will allow that artistic urge a safe expression.

One convention I could not ignore in the design, however, was a consideration for the style and standard of university publications. This was not necessarily an imposition or constraint on my creative prerogatives, but I did consider the level of language, the preference of student or teaching concerns over scholarly format, the respect for a reasonable standard of "good taste and decency" in the choice of content, and the quality of the product as representative of the university's standard of teaching and scholarship.

The Students' Agenda

As consumers of the instructional product, students have a very clear agenda: they want access to and understanding of the information required for learning. Courseware should be tested, bug-free, useful, and easy to use. Their choices in navigation, or where to go from one point in the program to another, should be apparent and easy to execute. The content should be relevant to the course's objectives, organized according to some logical principle of arrangement, and presented in an attractive, engaging format. Given also the computer's capacity for gaming and role playing, student users may appreciate a playful quality in both the content and in the nature of their interaction with the program.

I have learned that many students are intimidated by the computer; many of them harbor anxieties and suspicion that all computer errors are human errors, namely theirs. Though they are quick to accuse the computer program and the computer itself of "not working," most of them confess that they are "very poor at using computers." Programming errors (which may lead to a program's failure to load or execute) can often scare off students, usually early in the course. As a courseware developer, then, the instructor's job is to design courseware that has a simple interface and that works. Menus, navigational bars placed consistently on consecutive pages, and predictable formats all ease the students' anxieties over their use of the software. Help screens, as well as opportunities to confirm choices, should be readily accessible.

In its design, the courseware needs to incorporate not only these practical matters of interface but also matters of compatibility with the students’ learning styles. The program’s compatibility with a particular student’s learning style can be affected through conventional interaction occurring between the user and the courseware and through the developer’s system for delivering information. In creating Kuumba, I assumed that most students had some familiarity with reading and navigating hypertextual computer documents. I assumed that they understood concepts such as linking, anchoring, menus, selection, scrolling text, button-navigation, history, and the metaphor of book and pages as computer screens. Assuming their literacy with the conventions of the medium, then, I presented my content as highly visual, interactive, and intricately linked. This presentation style allowed a student to move freely in the document and to choose paths for exploration of the material. I resisted the urge to emphasize art work and variety in creating backgrounds and screens in order to support a consistent look for related information – more focus on content than context and, subsequently, reinforcement of the student’s ability to predict what happens next and his or her security in knowing it will.

The courseware designer often imagines a rich technological environment in which the application will be used. I designed my courseware with the idea that students would have access to equipment with the current technology. I learned that some students were "making do" with outdated technology (386 PCs without modems or multimedia sound cards), while others had access to computers only in libraries or friends’ houses. One student assured me that she was marrying a man with a computer and would soon be able to use the CD-ROM courseware and send e-mail. Another student explained that he was operating out of his in-laws’ basement in a rural area and was not able to get to a library, a school computer lab, or anything more technological than a television and a telephone. The key in such situations, I learned, is redundancy!

For every platform I developed for the course, I created its low-tech complement: PowerPoint presentations were converted to Web documents; CD-ROM material was formatted with a word processor and included in the student handbook; the course syllabus was composed as a Web site; information was both e-mailed and sent via U.S. mail; and students were encouraged to arrange campus classroom or office visits if desired. The courseware has the capability of saving written work as text files so that students can submit their work electronically. Many students took advantage of this; but others delivered their work in person, often because they did not know how to attach files to e-mail documents or because they did not trust the computer to transmit their work. Because there were some features of the courseware that could not be readily translated to other platforms, I arranged with the campus library to install a copy of the courseware on one of the lab computers so that students who did not have access to their own computers could access the courseware, at least on campus. For my student in the rural area, I sent printouts of computer screens.

If things do go wrong, the student needs quick and available help. To further support the students' use of the computer, I often capture screens and use the graphic files as illustrations in the course manual, which is included in the student handbook for the course. I create presentation files in MS PowerPoint to tutor students in the use of the software, and I include a demonstration in the opening videotape of class lectures. The presentation slides are converted to HTML format and posted on the course Web site during the first few weeks of the course. Students can also call the instructor or, ultimately, the university's computer center for assistance.

The Institutional Agenda

The university ultimately approves or disapproves the distribution of the courseware, and, for that reason, the project must be consistent with university styles and standards. Additionally, the university has its allegiance to the statewide partnership of other colleges and universities and must represent this organization’s interests, as well, in sanctioning and distributing instructional materials. In most cases, respect for institutional concerns requires little more than using good judgment and taste in the selection of content and choice of design. Specifically, since my institution emphasizes its teaching mission and its availability to students who might not otherwise have access to higher education opportunities, I had to be sure to make this courseware more geared to its instructional purpose and to the circumstances of student users than to other objectives such as artistic flair or electronic virtuosity.

Perhaps a more important issue in terms of the university’s responsibility in sponsorship of the courseware is that of copyright. The developer must be careful to document borrowed work and materials and to obtain copyright permissions where required. At my institution, the distance education office offers invaluable assistance in verifying permission for copyrighted material and in keeping faculty informed of copyright policy. Our distance education staff will help in any way possible, from tracking down permissions to offering satellite conferences for training faculty in copyright procedures. To prevent copyright problems, faculty developers must keep track of their sources of information and materials. Further, they should read carefully all notices of copyright and reproduction so that they may comply.

Written permission is best, but e-mailed permissions are acceptable, as well as (in some cases) the developer’s attributing sources in the manner of conventional documentation. Many textbook publishers will support your selection of their texts by allowing liberal use of text material in your courseware. Because some matters of copyright become sticky, faculty developers may wish to create as much of their material as possible, especially photographs, art work, and text. Then, of course, the faculty developer should copyright her original material.

The Greater Rewards Agenda

Designing courseware takes much time and effort. Among the many tasks involved are the selection of a multi-media program for designing and producing the work, organizing and planning the format and structure of the courseware, and collecting content and computer media. The most time-consuming activity I experienced in creating Kuumba was learning to use the multi-media program and all the other programs necessary for creating and formatting material. I used programs for animation, font design, photo-editing, graphic design, file conversions, word processing, and Web-browsing, among many others. I spent summers at special training institutes learning how to use the programs, all the while critically aware that software has a limited shelf life before becoming obsolete. In most cases, program updates and replacements favor less technical skill and knowledge required for operation. So you may find yourself learning HTML or some other object-oriented language, only to find that a new WYSIWYG program has eliminated the need to know that programming language. My nemesis was the appearance of templates and wizards in most multimedia composing programs. There was, however, the reward of knowing that I could always refuse to use the template or reject the wizard’s help and instead use the program’s language to gain greater creative control.

The other reward is in seeing your investment of time pay off. This is important because the costs of training and acquiring the technology used in producing your courseware will seem, and indeed will be, phenomenal. The university may affirm its support and appreciation of your hard work and creativity by financing the development of your project through faculty development and grants. Equally important is that your university publicize your work through its usual channels for informing the academic community about sponsored research and developments.

For me, the greatest reward was in seeing the software being used. The final product, according to students enrolled in the course, worked: the software loaded successfully, contained material that they needed, and allowed them to use the computer to help them learn. It worked for me in that it allowed me a rich medium for creatively interpreting my knowledge, expressing my cultural orientation, and achieving my teaching objectives for the course. Courseware development required a focus on and tenacity of purpose. Despite the time, effort, and expense involved, the faculty developer will find appropriate compensation for these investments in the return: a successful and useful product.