Online Auditing Course Redesign Susan Lulee Slideshare
0 likes339 views
The document summarizes the redesign of an online auditing course. An instructor was tasked with developing three new online modules for blended learning courses in auditing for both undergraduate and graduate students. The instructor evaluated existing online modules and developed new modules. Student feedback indicated that multimedia content was appreciated but interactivity in the modules needed improvement. The instructor concluded that online learning is worth exploring further but questions remain around the right balance of online vs in-person learning, connectivity between the two, and engaging students online.
Online Auditing Course Redesign Susan Lulee Slideshare
- 1. Online Auditing Course Redesign By: Susan Lulee Instructor: Dr. Marcie Bober-Michel Date: Dec. 15, 2008
- 2. Introduction Context: Two F2F courses are shifting 20% of the classes on line. The audiences: 80 Accounting major on-campus undergraduates & 33 graduates. Students meet twice a week on campus, 3 hrs each meeting. Have no or limited experience in online learning. The professor: has taught the course for many years; Have limited experience in online learning. The institution: encourage the instructors to use more on line learning. Facility: infrastructure is ready. The online modules will be constructed on Blackboard.
- 3. The Challenge Design online self-paced modules for blended learning courses about finance auditing. Two different levels audience: -- undergraduates, accounting major; -- graduates, non-accounting major. No predefined working process Work on my own with SME, the professor.
- 4. Purpose/Intent Major stakeholders: The professor, students, and the institution. Purpose: The professor liked to know how well the on line modules have done and how she could improve it. Evaluating existed online modules Developing three new online modules Propose recommendations for continuing improvement and further study.
- 5. Impact of the Literature Clear strategy for separating what content to go online and what content to stay in-person. (Fransen & Swager, 2006; Valiathan 2002). Effective management of cognitive workload of audiences (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2005, p. 45). Engaging online learning activities and asynchronous discussion (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2008). Clear evaluation criteria for continuing improvement (Ellis & Calvo, 2007) On time and on demand learner supports (Mactague, 2004).
- 7. Evaluation Responding ratio are: 93% - Acctg.421 73% - Acctg.626 Students in Acctg. 626 were more interested in having recap on prerequisite.
- 8. Evaluation (cont’d) Content specific Multimedia and text were greatly appreciated by all students. Acctg. 421
- 9. Evaluation (cont’d) Interactivity appeared to be the weak point of all three online modules.
- 10. Conclusion Feedbacks from students and the professor prove that online learning is an approach worth exploring . I like the on-line sessions. I wish there were more of them ”. I like the online classes because you get to be hands on ”. “ It (online learning) forces them (students) to think about the sites we visit and give their ideas, which in class not everyone does this, since there are so many students in a class ”.
- 11. Conclusion (cont’d) Questions left for further study: Effectiveness. What is the right blending in terms of learning effectiveness? Connectivity . How will the work done in online modules or face-to-face classes support and connect with each other? How will two portions instructed by two professors of one course be connected with each other? Engagement . Online asynchronous discussion and interactive activities could greatly draw in participants. What are challenges and solutions for using these?
Editor's Notes
- #2: Hi, my project is Online Auditing Course Redesign