PNLA Quarterly, Vol. 63 No.1 Fall 1998

The Internet Navigator: Collaborative Development and Delivery of an Electronic College Course

By Nancy Lombardo, University of Utah

During 1994, there was much discussion of the Virtual University concept. Governors Leavitt of Utah and Romer of Colorado were proposing a revolutionary new method of delivering education across institutional boundaries. In order to prepare for this educational eventuality, Wayne Peay, Director of the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library at the University of Utah asked Nancy Lombardo to develop a model for an electronically delivered course. The course was to be developed and delivered collaboratively by all academic Libraries in the state of Utah. At the time, Internet training was a ubiquitous priority at all Utah academic libraries, so an Internet skills course was determined to be the ideal shared teaching resource. One goal of the project was to create a modular teaching tool that could be used at all academic institutions, adapted to specific needs at those institutions, and used independently by any Internet user.

The resulting Internet Navigator course is a one credit, college level, introduction to the Internet course delivered electronically over the World Wide Web. It was designed, developed and implemented by a team of thirteen academic librarians, representatives from each library in the Utah Academic Library consortium (UALC.) The proposal for the project was written in the spring of 1995 by Nancy Lombardo and Wayne Peay. Project funding was awarded by the Utah State Higher Education Technology and Distance Education Initiative in May of 1995. In the year that followed, the course was developed and implemented. The course has now been offered at 10 Utah institutions of higher education. This ILA\PNLA presentation described the development of the course, demonstrated the course as it exists today and outlined some of the issues associated with a multi-institutional approach to librarians implementing a virtual college course.

The goals of the project, as identified in the original proposal, were:

? Implement a model for an electronically delivered Internet course using current Internet technology
? Train students to use the Internet as a resource and equip them with the skills necessary to succeed in the electronic information environment
? Initiate and electronic, interactive learning environment that overcomes time, distance and location barriers
? Cooperatively create and electronic reference tool to be accessible statewide

Students enrolled in the course learned to use the Internet as an information resource. A strong emphasis was placed on presenting the Internet as a research tool. Rather than creating another course focusing on the mechanics of the Internet and its technology, the Internet Navigator focused on the information aspects of the Internet and strived to encourage critical thinking. Students were taught research strategies, search techniques and the importance of identifying criteria based on their own information needs. The need for, and the importance of, evaluation of information sources was emphasized. The course was self paced and independent study, requiring the students to take responsibility for their own learning.

Forming the Development Team

The development of the Internet Navigator began with the recruitment of volunteers from each academic library in Utah. UALC directors were very supportive of the project and the resulting development team was composed of thirteen librarians, including Nancy Lombardo as principal investigator. The members of this team were to cooperatively develop the course and serve as preceptors, or local instructors, during the first quarter of implementation. A graduate student in Educational Psychology was employed to assist the team in project evaluation.

The preliminary outline for the curriculum had been designed for the grant proposal. Prototype documents following this outline were prepared in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) and presented to the group at the first developers meeting held August 25, 2995. This initial meeting presented the project goals and course outline to the development team. Discussion of goals ensued and revisions and modification were made to improve and expand the course outline and clarify the goals. A development schedule was outlined. The team’s goal was to offer the course during the Winter Quarter beginning in January of 1996 and team members volunteered to develop specific portions of the course. At that time, developers were trained in HTML techniques for effective Web page design.

A second meeting was held on October 25, 1995. The team assessed the progress of the project, examined course content, determined areas needing further development and discussed details of course administration. The group had formed a congenial working relationship. The day long meetings included lunch and these informal aspects allowed the team to get to know one another and better understand the varying resources at the different institutions represented.

After the first quarter of implementation, a third meeting was held to review the information gathered from student evaluations, to share observations and suggestions based on the teaching experiences of the librarians, and to discuss possible revisions and improvements. Serving as preceptors had provided the team with many insights into the benefits and problems with electronic course delivery. Issues relating to self pacing were also discussed. Many administrative issues remain unresolved. These will be discussed later in the presentation.

Course Development

Development of the one credit course proceeded on schedule, despite the highly variable degree of expertise among the team members. Some of the librarians involved had not done course development and many were inexperienced with HTML. A mailing list was established to allow the development team to share ideas, ask questions and stay informed on the progress of the project.

The course curriculum consists of an initial student skills survey, 5 required course modules with assignments and quizzes, a final project in the form of Web page demonstrating practice of the research techniques outlined in the course and a final course evaluation. Developers took advantage of the forms capability of the World Wide Web. CGIEmail was utilized to automate most of the delivery of the student work to the appropriate preceptor. Quizzes were designed to be taken online and results displayed to the student for immediate feedback. Quiz results were automatically emailed to the preceptor for grading and recording. In order to implement the course at all the academic institutions in the state, technology requirements were limited to that which could be reasonably supported at all institutions.

Technical difficulties provided an interesting challenge late in the development process. The main server, which was to be the primary delivery mechanism, suffered a hardware failure and was completely unavailable for three weeks in November and December of 1995. All data on the server was lost. This crisis caused a reconsideration of the delivery methods and resulted in the course being mirrored on two additional servers. Providing access to the Internet Navigator course content on three distinct Internet servers provided students with uninterrupted access and prevents catastrophic loss of data or content.

Implementation of the Internet Navigator

For the targeted trial quarter or semester beginning in January of 1996, 8 of Utah’s academic institutions had received approval and were able to offer the course. There was a great deal of variability in procedure at the various institutions. At some institutions, the preceptors were simply provided with a list of students enrolled. The preceptors had to find the student phone numbers or email addresses and contact each student to provide instructions for beginning the course.

Grading was discussed at the development meetings. Some schools allow students to take the course Credit/No Credit, rather than for a grade. Students were encouraged to take the course for a grade to allow for more consistent evaluation criteria. Students were graded based on a 100-point scale, with quizzes providing 50, assignments adding 30 and the final project making up the final 20 points. Preceptors agreed to grade generously during the trial quarter, as there was no precedent for this type of instruction and it was agreed that the students should not be penalized for flaws in the experiment. Preceptors took different approaches to informing students of their grades. Some sent summaries after every quiz, others sent scores less frequently.

Students generally seemed enthusiastic about the course. However, some students found email correspondence with the preceptor to be slow. A question asked one day might not be answered until the following day, slowing their progress on the course. Some students would have liked more hands-on assistance. Other students believed the course required more time than was appropriate for one credit. However, when questioned on the actual number of hours spent, the median number was 25 and the mean was 30, indicating that, in fact, students spent an appropriate amount of time for a one credit college level course.. The independent study and self-paced aspects allowed procrastinators too much freedom. At some institutions, the course began as an open-ended course, but later required completion of the course within the confines of the quarter schedule.

There was some concern among preceptors that having the course accessible over the World Wide Web would lead to participation from multitudes of Internet users who were not registered for the class. Occasional unidentified quizzes did appear in the email of one or another preceptor. These were generally posted to the preceptors’ mailing list in case a student misdirected a quiz to the incorrect preceptor. Of the few cases of actual non-registered students submitting quizzes over the Internet, our all time favorite identified herself as Chris P. Lettuce! The chuckle was worth the bother of an extra quiz.

There were variations in the actual administration of the course from one institution to the next. One preceptor saw all his students at registration and explained access to the course at that time. One college was required by the Continuing Education Department to hold a meeting of all students at the beginning of the quarter. Another preceptor offered four prearranged optional labs for students to come together and receive face-to-face instruction and assistance with questions or problems. Preceptors spent an average of one hour per day answering the email sent by their students, grading quizzes and assignments and assisting students with course work.

The traffic on the Navigator mailing list can be heavy, but students are encouraged to use the list to chat with other students from around the state, to ask questions regarding the course and to share their experiences. The assignment only requires that students introduce themselves to the list. If the traffic is too much for them, they are allowed to sign off once the assignment is complete.

The students enrolled in first quarter of the course represented a broad range of majors. Computer fields did not dominate. Most considered themselves traditional, as opposed to non-traditional of distance students. A large number had little or no Internet experience, although about one third of the students described themselves as regular Internet users. The vast majority were regular computer users, which was expected as this was an intended prerequisite for the course. The overall student rating of the course, based on the required student evaluations, was between Excellent and Very Good. In general, the students seemed very pleased with the course and many commented on the convenience of the delivery method and schedule.

Internet Navigator Goals Achieved

The Internet Navigator course has been successfully implemented and has achieved the goals outlined in the original funding proposal.

1. Implement a model on-demand delivery Internet course

The on-demand course was offered and delivered over the World Wide Web using the latest Internet technology, including HTTP, HTML, forms, mailing lists, and cgiemail. The development team met on March 29, 1996 to discuss the first quarter results of the Internet Navigator course. In general, the preceptors believe the course to have been a success. Over time, the course was offered at 10 of the 11 academic institutions in Utah and continues today at 8 of those institutions.

2. Equip students for the electronic information environment

The students were extremely positive in their overall rating of the course. A large majority found the method of learning to be convenient and claimed they were able to use their time more efficiently. Many students believed they performed better in this course because of the delivery method and the self-paced schedule. Many also believed that they performed better in their other courses due to the convenience and flexibility of the Navigator. All the modules were rated well by students and most students particularly appreciated the focus on searching, research strategies and evaluation techniques. The preceptors believe that these skills will transfer to research using other online tools and using traditional resources.

3. Create a collaborative, interactive learning environment

A collaborative, interactive learning environment was created by the Internet Navigator course. The development and precepting team shared knowledge, skills and expertise to create the experimental course. These same resources were shared during the implementation of the initial quarter or semester of the course. By collaborating and making use of current Internet technology, the team was able to create an environment where students could talk to each other around the state, regardless of time, distance and location. Using the navigator electronic mailing list, students were able to carry on discussions and ask questions at their own convenience. Preceptors and students could respond with answers, regardless of which student initiated a question. In this way, the state wide precepting team and student body were able to share in the responsibility for teaching and learning.

4. Cooperatively create and electronic reference tool to be accessible statewide

The course material serves as a teaching resource for all Utah academic institutions, all Internet users and has been adapted for varying applications at Utah academic institutions, as well as other teaching institutions around the Internet. Many requests from outside the state of Utah have been received, asking permission to use part or all of the Internet Navigator course. Two preceptors from Australia have been added to the list of preceptors. Librarians have noted the benefit of the modular format. The modular format allows librarians to adapt segments of the course for subject specific training, as requested by academic departments or professors on campus. For example, a librarian may be asked to provide Internet training to a class in the Architecture Department. Module 4 can be used as an outline, with students focusing on Architectural topics during the exercise.

While the course is considered a success, many issues remain unresolved. The complexities of offering a course across traditional institutional boundaries had its difficulties. There are obvious discrepancies in tuition, course numbering and time restrictions. Funding for the project covered the development and initial course delivery. However, though the class continues to be popular with students and is offered continuously at 8 institutions in Utah, no mechanism for continuing support has been developed. Maintenance and updating for the course require a substantial and continuous time commitment. Ultimately, a mechanism for reimbursement for course maintenance must be developed to sustain resources shared by multiple institutions.

Please fee free to contact Nancy Lombardo with any questions or comments regarding this presentation.

Nancy Lombardo
Systems Librarian
Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library
University of Utah
10 N 1900 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890
(801) 581-5241
nancyl@lib.med.utah.edu

Internet Navigator Gateway Page - http://www-navigator.utah.edu/
Primary Navigator Server - http://medlib.med.utah.edu/navigator
PowerPoint Presentation - http://medlib.med.utah.edu/nancy/ila/ila98.ppt