Sharon Porterfield

My online learning experiences were the complete opposite of yours, Stephanie. The year I started my M.Ed., the instructor changed the format of the course delivery. We met face-to-face once a month, and synchronously via WebCT chat once a week. We had assigned readings and came to the chat to discuss them. There were only eight of us in the class so the number of people was manageable.

We found a great sense of community was built. Our first meeting was F2F and we met each other in person. We then went into the weekly chats being able to put "faces to names" and launched ourselves into the topic at hand. I came away from the synchronous sessions very energized and wanting to know more. I was sorely disappointed when the hour was up! We developed, what I feel, was a true learning community. We supported, encouraged, responded to, and learned from each other. The relationships we forged in that group have lasted to this day (six years later) as many of the original eight are still in contact with each other.

With our group, the personalities did not change when online or when face-to-face. I'm sorry your experience was not more positive,  and I now wonder which end of the spectrum more acurately reflects the norm?

Such a good topic and I'm done my M.Ed. research! Mind you, there's always the PhD...

I've been reading this thread with some interest. Are most of you instructors? I'm an instructional designer and have been wondering how humor could be used from my perspective. I never meet the students and in some cases, the SME with whom I work is not the person who teaches the course. Are the courses I develop "doomed" to be flat and humorless because I don't interact with the audience for whom I'm writing?  Also, given the variety of student experiences/backgrounds/lifestyles - how can I ensure the humor is appreciated and/or understood?  This situation was illustrated to me recently when friends from South Africa were watching the show "Corner Gas" and did not see the humor in it at all. My friend looked at me and said, "It must be a Saskatchewan thing".

As a designer, how can I incorporate humor into the content and help ensure the students receiving the course won't also think, "It must be a Saskatchewan thing"?

I think another key component to good communication and ease of development is a solid blueprint. Taking the time initially to look at the individual learning objectives, determining the steps needed to reach them, corresponding learning activities, evaluation, and required media assets gives everyone a solid foundation right from the start. Just as with the construction analogy, the contractors require the blueprints of the building before they can start construction. I never think of a blueprint as "set in stone", but a very solid plan that can tolerate some minor changes as the development progresses.

Very Interesting...and here's a twist...

What strategies do IDs employee when it is the SME who has the music thrust upon him/her by a department head who says, "Thou shalt put your course online!"

I find it much easier to come to a compromise with SMEs who have taken the initiative to put their courses online than it is to compromise with an SME who has been told "You will do this".  The SMEs forced into the dance are uncomfortable, resentful, and reluctant. It is much more difficult to forge the dance partnership in such a situation.

What strategies do IDs employee to help the SME who was driven to the dance by his/her parents and told to have a good time?

We had this discussion in one of the first courses I took in my Master's program. As we learned about instructional design and what it involves, we were asked to think of analogies for it. Again, everyone had a difference of opinion, but in the end, every analogy had merit. Like Bruce, I think it's up to the individual and his/her function. Someone working in a "problem-solving-program-implementing" role in the corporate world may have a different view of ID than someone like me who designs courses for online delivery. However, we'd probably both share the same common knowledge.

Actually, I experienced such differences while working on my Master's degree. My husband and I took the degree at the same time. He comes from an educational administration background and I come from a special ed/educational psychology background. While we shared common knowledge about instructional design and its foundations, our ideas about how to implement what we know and how to design were sometimes quite different. It made for an interesting four years! <G>

I like the analogy of ID as being a type of dance - sometimes we lead, sometimes we follow, and sometimes we're all on the floor line-dancing together.