A Graduate’s View of the Course Management System
By Ryan Tansey, Recent Graduate, University of Puget Sound
Two years ago when I wrote my first viewpoint for SmartClassroom (then eLearning Dialogue), I issued my university an “Incomplete,” with the suggestion that faculty spend more time developing their Blackboard skills. Now as a recent graduate of the University of Puget Sound, I am ready to issue a final grade, with one notable change to the primary criterion for the evaluation. For this viewpoint, evaluation is primarily based on how the campus use of Blackboard added value to my education. . .
(Ryan’s final remarks on their use of Blackboard have some suggestions that apply to UVM…excerpts/paraphrasing follows…)
The Good
– putting material and assignments online made it easier for everyone to maximize their time in class. The instructional time in these classes began sooner and lasted longer.
– Faculty who created assignments that required Blackboard participation had students who came to class better prepared to participate in classroom discussions.
– (another) benefit was the archiving of both submissions, as well as easy access to all of the faculty-generated course materials
– also instant feedback on grades
The Bad
– where the professors only partially used Blackboard . . .[they] would sporadically post material, would occasionally respond to online queries, and would redundantly distribute materials both online and in class. . . frustrating to not be able to rely on regular updates.
– when a faculty member would not require students to sign up for the Blackboard instance of the course. ..[they] might post an assignment that a substantial portion of the class would never see.
Often, professors had little or no instruction on Blackboard capabilities. . . Professors who were content to use just the basic features – grades and syllabus – barely enhanced their classes.
Recommendations
It is hard to believe that the university could spend a large amount of money on an effective instructional tool like Blackboard, but spend so little effort helping faculty and students learn how to effectively use this valuable tool.
– The university needs to demonstrate to faculty the advantages of supplementing personalized in-classroom instruction with a technology that promotes active learning in the student body.
– We need to build enthusiasm in the faculty. I realize that it is difficult to make individual faculty adopt any new technology, yet faculty peers and department heads are currently untapped resources.
– we need to provide consistent instruction for both faculty and students. . . Training is infrequently available, and there is a lack of easy-to-find supplemental material.
Entire article, including the grade Ryan gave the university, at: SmartClassroom