3    Graduate Student Online Orientation Programs

A Design-Based Research Study

Jennifer Lock, Yang Liu, Carol Johnson, Jane Hanson, and Alicia Adlington

Public institutions of higher education are offering and expanding their online and blended learning programs at an increasing rate (Allen & Seaman, 2016, 2017; Donovan et al., 2019). In conjunction with the ever-changing world of technology, online and blended learning environments are evolving from text-based settings to environments that are rich in multimedia and include both synchronous and asynchronous communication. In response to this evolution, instructional designers and faculty instructors are expected to conceptualize and develop online and blended technology–enabled environments using a combination of text and voice. An important consideration when creating these environments is how future students of these programs will be prepared to be successful learners—particularly in online, media-rich learning environments. A team of researchers at one western Canadian university used a design-based research (DBR) approach to investigate this question within the context of a graduate education program.

The purpose of this chapter is threefold. First, the need for, as well as the nature of, orientation and preparation programs to support online learners in higher education is examined. Second, findings from the first year of a two-year DBR study of an online orientation for graduate students in a Faculty of Education are shared. Third, drawing on the literature and from the analysis of the data from the study, implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed and identified.

Online Learning

The delivery of online education is intended to increase access and convenience for students and break down barriers to higher education and collaboration through the use of technology. It was found from the 2018 Canadian National Online and Digital Education Survey that “83% of responding institutions offered distance education courses for credit” (Donovan et al., 2019, p. 6). This national study found that “over half of the institutions with fewer than 1,000 students (52%) did not offer online courses, while almost every institution with more than 10,000 students did” (p. 6). Donovan et al. (2019) found “in 2016–2017, 18% of all Canadian post-secondary students were taking at least one online course for credit” (p. 7). Furthermore, a steady growth was reported in online enrolment within Canadian institutions. As institutions of higher education in Canada trend toward growth in distance education programs, consideration needs to be given to how online programs are designed, delivered, and facilitated. This growth also requires students to have requisite skills with technology along with other soft or transferable skills that they may not have needed for face-to-face learning in the physical classroom.

Online learning exhibits key differences from face-to-face instruction. Unlike in the traditional face-to-face classroom, online learning does not require students to arrive at their class at a particular time and location to engage in learning. In the face-to-face learning environment, the majority of interaction between the instructor and a community of peers occurs within the physical space of the classroom. In contrast, the blended or online classroom requires students to unlock the door with a username and password. Within the online classroom environment, a new experience of learning takes place along with a new set of technological expectations (e.g., navigate to access content, engage in online classroom discussions, submit assignments to a digital repository, etc.).

One should not assume that all or most adult students are comfortable or proficient with technology, even those considered by Prensky (2012) as “Digital Natives” (p. 69). Prensky claimed that “students today are all ‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games, and the Internet” (p. 69). However, they might not be proficient in the use of technology for learning, specifically online learning (Johnson & Lock, 2018). As such, institutions of higher education must not make the error of overestimating student readiness for online learning. Many online postsecondary students are returning adult learners who might not necessarily be technologically savvy and might require instruction, coaching, and/or support on how to engage in the online environment. Students might also be required to work with a learning management system (LMS). As noted by Curran (2014), students in an online environment can encounter a steep learning curve that can be challenging if they are not familiar with the learning platforms and/or educational technologies used. Further issues such as “anxiety associated with using technology, being out of one’s comfort zone” (Gillett-Swan, 2017, p. 21), can exacerbate students’ frustration and hamper their success. In response to these issues, Chu and Tsai (2009) argued that

Educators should pay more attention to giving enough practice time for adult learners to motivate them to engage in Internet activities that could enhance their confidence in utilizing technical learning tools. For program designers, the content provided is especially critical for adult learners, which should reflect and connect to their everyday life, and offer resourceful links for them to construct their own knowledge base. (p. 498)

In the absence of such comprehensive teaching and designing approaches, it is likely that adult learners might not succeed within an online environment. The digital barrier to learning, combined with both course expectations and learning how to use technology, might seem to be insurmountable to some students.

Deriving from an ongoing global research initiative of the New Media Consortium (NMC) the NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition suggested that 21st century learning requires students to become proficient in the digital technology environment and that institutions have a role to play in supporting this development: “Institutions are charged with developing students’ digital citizenship, ensuring mastery of responsible and appropriate technology use, including online communication etiquette and digital rights and responsibilities in blended and online learning settings and beyond” (Adams Becker, Cummins, Freeman, Hall Giesinger, & Ananthanarayanan, 2017, p. 22). Online learning therefore requires students to be equipped with the necessary skills to be able to work well in this new learning environment. It is important for institutions of higher education with online course offerings to have mechanisms in place to support students in developing their confidence and competence in order to be successful in online learning environments. These mechanisms can ensure that students have a successful transition, enjoy a positive online learning experience, and continue to enrol in online courses.

Orientation Programs for Online Learning

Low retention rates in online courses can be problematic when students are not equipped with learning strategies and the necessary soft or transferable skills (e.g., time management, self-regulation) to aid in their success. Institutions of higher education are beginning to provide orientation programs to support students enrolled in online learning courses. These programs can assist in addressing students’ misconceptions about learning online and provide opportunities for students to learn strategies and skills to support them in being successful online learners. The challenge is to create a customized orientation that meets the needs of students, one aligned with the particular program’s theoretical approach to online learning.

Studies suggest that students benefit from participating in an online orientation prior to the start of a formal program. Cho (2012) reported that familiarity with learning technologies is a major factor in students’ success. With an effective orientation, students become more comfortable with using the technology (e.g., text-based discussion forums, video and audio for discussions and feedback, and synchronous conferencing), and they can focus their learning on course content rather than technology. Additionally, Cambridge-Williams, Winsler, Kitsantas, and Bernard (2013) found that students who completed an online learning orientation program had a higher rate of graduation, and institutions that offered such programs had higher rates of retention. Koehnke (2013) further demonstrated that online orientation had significant statistical implications for those who completed such programs. Specifically, students who had online orientations had higher retention rates than those who did not. It is evident that orientation programs enable the success of students in online learning environments.

Some institutions of higher education have identified their online orientation programs as mandatory for students taking online courses. Although mandatory programs might be seen as being inflexible, they ensure that all students participate in activities that prepare them to learn online. For example, Richland Community College (RCC) provided its students with an optional, face-to-face orientation program from 1999 to 2009 (Jones, 2013, p. 43). RCC shifted its orientation into the online environment when it began to embed online courses into its programs; orientation became mandatory for students taking an online or hybrid course. These orientations ensured that students were equipped to learn successfully both in the traditional classroom and online.

As institutions of higher education look toward the development of content and activities for their online orientations, how these programs are developed depends on the individual institution’s culture and program goals. For example, Mensch (2017) identified that Indiana University of Pennsylvania sought to prepare its students by developing their self-awareness of skills through an initial self-assessment. The university identified self-regulation and time management skills as markers for determining a student’s fit for online learning. This highlights aspects of why an institution might develop an online preparation program focused on specific experiences or goals.

Adult learners, according to Curran (2014), “will find greater success in online programming if institutions commit to providing them with the introductory technology-skills seminars prior to starting their courses” (p. 1). As noted by Jones (2013), offering an orientation program to students new to online learning provides them with

realistic expectations for their online course environment and provide[s] hands on practice with the technology that they will be using in their course. The orientation also provides the students with time to work out any potential technology barriers, without the worry of it affecting their academic coursework or grades. (p. 44)

When attention is not given to course design and orientation of learners to the online environment, “it is very likely that adult learners may not prevail within an online environment” (Bawa, 2016, p. 3). By providing such opportunities, students will “become more comfortable with the online learning environment” (Jones, 2013, p. 44). Therefore, the challenge for institutions of higher education is to design orientation programs that assist adult learners in developing their confidence and competence in learning within a technology-enabled environment.

Designing for Success Orientation Program

A large online graduate program exists within a Faculty of Education at one western Canadian university. Students who enrol in this program have a range of experiences and skill levels with technology and learning within technology-enabled environments. Students were previously offered two synchronous orientation sessions: one that focused on the academic and administrative aspects of their program and one that introduced them to the technology. Each orientation was from 60 to 90 minutes in length. The technology orientation introduced students to the theoretical approach and key features of the LMS and synchronous technology. Because the orientation was introductory and delivered primarily as a lecture, students had limited opportunities to experience and “play” with the technology prior to the start of their program. The students therefore experienced frustration in their first online courses; they struggled to balance skill acquisition related to the technology with the rigour of graduate-level learning.

In 2016, the research team received a two-year institutional Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant. The focus was on studying the development of practical skills and knowledge in online learning for graduate students. The project was designed to explore the impacts of an online orientation program for new graduate students. The program was built upon the literature as well as a needs analysis with key educational stakeholders in our faculty; the team sought their input on current needs and recommendations for the orientation program. The development of practical skills and knowledge through the Designing for Success program should foster academic success for online graduate students in their professional programs of study.

Two key theoretical frameworks were used as a foundation for the research on and design of the Designing for Success orientation program. First, the conceptual model for the program was based on Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI). Second, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL), grounded on three principles of design, guided the designers to create opportunities within the orientation program for multiples of engagement, representation, action, and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). These two frameworks guided the design of the online environments (Desire2Learn or D2L for asynchronous and Adobe Connect for synchronous activities) and the nature of the learning tasks.

Community of Inquiry

Garrison (2006) explained that “the goal is to create a community of inquiry where students are fully engaged in collaboratively constructing meaningful and worthwhile knowledge” (p. 25). The community of inquiry is composed of learners and instructors “transacting with the specific purposes of facilitation, constructing, and validating understanding, and of developing capability that will lead to further learning” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 23).

CoI is composed of three key elements or presences (social, cognitive, and teaching) in which the nexus is the robustness of the educational experience (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). First, social presence is “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real people’ through the medium of communication being used” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 94). Activities created in our Designing for Success orientation program to foster social presence included students posting introductions, sharing images of themselves, and communicating with each other for the purpose of getting to know one another. Within a community, it is the instructor’s role to “set the tone and draw reluctant participants into the discussion” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 54). It is critical for students and their instructor to have conditions created “for sharing and challenging ideas through critical discourse” (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005, pp. 142–143) at the beginning of an orientation program.

Second, cognitive presence involves “the process of both reflection and discourse in the initiation, construction and confirmation of meaningful learning outcomes” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 4). Students were provided with opportunities to create and engage in the online classroom community in the orientation program. An online “café” was created in the discussion area for students to assist each other with any emerging course or technical questions and to encourage collaboration for problem solving. The instructor modelled the introduction discussion by posting an introduction and image of herself. The second instructor also posted her introduction by creating a short video clip. The instructors continued to model cognitive presence by providing timely responses and feedback to student assignments and emails. As a final activity, students took an online learner quiz and emailed to the instructor their reflections of themselves as online learners.

Third, teaching presence is “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 5). Within the community, both students and the instructor have roles in teaching presence. In our orientation program, teaching presence involved setting the curriculum and implementing it through various instructional strategies. Implemented strategies included audio and video in both content and assignment submission, discussion postings using text or audio, drop box for written assignments, email reflections to the instructor, quizzes, grade book entries, partner assignment using GoogleDocs, and ePortfolio. The content included a variety of text, audio, and video, all of which took into account various learning preferences of students. The course was designed to emulate the organization of the students’ online academic course to increase familiarity with the online environment for their graduate program.

CoI helped to inform the design and facilitation of the online learning experience for Designing for Success. The three presences and their intersection helped to inform the design as well as the facilitation of our orientation program.

Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is “a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn” (CAST, 2018). It is “a set of principles for curriculum development that give[s] all individuals equal opportunities to learn” (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014, para. 1). Founded on neuroscience and educational research, UDL provides a comprehensive approach to designing learning to meet the diverse learning needs of students using multiple approaches and media (Meyer et al., 2014).

The UDL framework was used to direct the design of an online orientation environment guided by the three UDL principles: (1) providing multiple means of engagement; (2) providing multiple means of representation; and (3) providing multiple means of action and expression (Meyer et al., 2014). For multiple means of engagement, students had the opportunity to engage in synchronous and asynchronous discussions. They could engage in the tasks at various levels. For example, they could participate in the Adobe Connect orientation session and then go online to Adobe Connect to practise using the various features. The learning content was available in text, audio, and/or video form in order to provide multiple options for representation. For multiple options for expression and action, students had the opportunity to select from a list of ways to express what they learned. As an example, they watched a video on how to address procrastination; their associated task was to respond to a question about the video by using the audio or video feature in the D2L assignment drop box. UDL guided how various approaches and flexibility were built into the design of the online orientation program so as to support better the diverse learning needs of the adult learners.

Research Design

A DBR methodology was selected. It is a flexible methodology designed to “improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories” (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, pp. 6–7). The use of DBR is based on creating an intervention-based solution to a problem. This form of research, as noted by McKenney and Reeves (2012), “strives to positively impact practice, bringing about transformation through the design and use of solutions to real problems” (p. 14). This design allowed for the implementation of the innovation (Designing for Success) and the study of the iterations over time and with various cohorts. Ethics approval to conduct the study was received from the university’s research ethics board.

Context

Based on research-informed practice, our graduate program orientation, Designing for Success, provided a consecutive seven- or 10-day online experience grounded on four goals: (1) to familiarize students with online learning tools used by the program; (2) to introduce students to best practices for online learning; (3) to prepare students for online graduate learning; and (4) to provide students with various supports and resources to assist them in learning online within a graduate program context. This program provided opportunities for students to experience synchronous communication (e.g., Adobe Connect) and asynchronous communication (e.g., D2L discussion forums, audio postings, video feedback). These opportunities modeled how students would experience using the technology in their programs (e.g., posting to a discussion forum), and allowed them to learn strategies to be effective online learners. The experience of using both text and voice within an online environment provides low-stakes learning opportunities designed to help students develop the necessary knowledge, skills, and strategies to be successful online learners.

The study is focused on the iterations of the Designing for Success program in relation to its design, implementation, and assessment. The first phase of the work involved designing and implementing the orientation program. An assessment of the program through surveys and interviews with students and instructors, along with D2L learning analytics, followed implementation. Follow-up interviews with students were conducted six months and one year after completion of the program. In the second phase, data from the initial implementation along with the follow-up data were used to inform the redesign of the program. The redesigned/refined program was implemented, and assessment of its impact occurred through a second iteration.

Data Collection

All graduate students who entered online programs starting in the summer 2016, fall 2016, and summer 2017 academic terms were invited to participate in the program. In total, 112 students were enrolled in their choice of one of the four cohorts; of these students, 18 completed the survey, 6 participated in the interview at the end of their program, and 1 completed the interview after six months. Seven subset students gave consent to have their data (e.g., online discussion posts, messages, etc.) in D2L analyzed. Based on the statistics from the online management system (D2L), the research team drew data in terms of which content topic had been visited, frequency of topic views, quiz results, checklist progress, and which discussion boards were accessed and utilized. In addition, two instructors were interviewed as part of data collection for the first year. One instructor led the design of the D2L course shell and facilitated both the synchronous and the asynchronous components of the program. The second instructor worked as a consultant on the D2L course shell design and co-instructed in the synchronous sessions.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey data to determine mean scores and frequency counts. Saldaña’s (2013) first and second cycles of coding were used in analyzing the qualitative data from the participants’ first and second interviews. With the first cycle, codes were assigned using key phrases from interview questions. The second cycle used the in vivo coding process in which words or phrases from transcripts were recorded as codes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). The analysis involved finding repetition of the words or phrases that led to the development of patterns (Miles et al., 2013). The data were hand-coded by two members of the research team. D2L’s learning analytics were analyzed using descriptive statistics of averages and frequency counts in relation to items accessed. Triangulation and member-checking of the data were used to support the integrity of the study.

Discussion of the Findings

From the analyses of the interview data, survey responses, and learning analytics, five themes emerged in regard to a technology-enabled environment that used a combination of text and voice to prepare students to be successful online learners: (1) the role of design in supporting confidence in learning in an online environment; (2) the use of modifications to course design to enhance the learning experience; (3) the role of the instructor in facilitating learning; (4) the impact of expectations of learning in an online environment; and (5) the development of confidence and competence for online learning.

Design

Data were collected on the design of both the asynchronous component (D2L online course shell) and the synchronous component (Adobe Connect) of the Designing for Success program. We used the data to examine the design feature of each technology.

Asynchronous Component

From the survey data, a subset of students (n=18) indicated that the inclusion of multimedia in the learning content was helpful in D2L. It provided them with a “fun” way to understand the essentials of online learning through easy-to-follow visual aids. As explored previously, developing an intuitive and easy-to-navigate online environment within a learning management system can be challenging. New users might not be familiar with the structure of or the terms used for specific features. This issue had to be considered not only in the navigation structure of the course in D2L but also in how the content was created and posted. From the survey data, the course design overall was found to be clear and easy to navigate. As noted by one student, the design of the D2L environment was “simple, intuitive, [and] well laid out. It seemed very simple to navigate and I was able to explore on my own very easily.” According to the data, it had an “intuitive manner.”

The orientation program was designed with modules meant to be completed on a daily basis. As noted by a student, “I enjoyed that the content area was broken down very clearly by day. I appreciated the checklist and wish my courses had this feature (they currently do not).” This student went on to indicate that she observed some inconsistency in the layout. For example, “there were one or two instances where an assignment was in one location and not in the other. For instance, you needed to go into the drop box in order to see the details of an assignment rather than in the daily postings where the other assignments were.” The perceived inconsistency was designed purposefully to show students the various features of D2L. However, we discovered the need to articulate clearly to students the reasons for using different tools for learning tasks in order to provide clarity and minimize frustration.

A critical feature of the design was the succinctness of the content and support materials. For example, students appreciated the short informational slides, as indicated in the following interview: “I liked how the different slides were just one page, so you could just flip through the different pages.” Furthermore, daily modules were used to structure the topics. One student commented on appreciating how each day’s topic was specific and relevant to online learning.

Students appreciated the inclusion of multimedia, such as images and videos, describing it as a “break” from reading, and it allowed for “multiple perspectives” on learning. Multimedia were so positively received that one survey respondent requested that a future course include a learning task in which students create their own videos in order to gain hands-on experience with different media. One interview respondent noted that “I really appreciated that there were multimedia tools because I am a visual learner and the videos really helped me absorb the learning quickly. I am intrigued by the audio tool and cannot wait to try that in our classes.” This demonstrates that the introduction of such an audio tool sets an expectation of its use in graduate courses.

Students from Cohorts Three and Four (n=5), who gave permission to have their D2L learning analytics reviewed, accessed and/or completed the activities within the orientation course. On average, these students accessed 92% of the topic content of the course. Some of the topics were visited four times or more per student. In Figure 3.1, we compare the rates of access for each student in the two cohorts. For example, the topic outlining how to use tools in the online environment (specific to the LMS used for the study) was visited four times by a participant from Cohort Three. The same topic was visited once, twice, three times, and once by each participant from Cohort Four. Topics accessed the most by the students were “Maximizing success for online learners”; “Are you ready to learn online?”; “Take charge of distractions”; “Time management for smart goals”; “Using planners”; and “Self-regulation.” Table 3.1 provides an overview of how often students accessed the various topics.

Table 3.1 D2L learning analytics of content areas assessed.

Students provided helpful insights into course design from the data collected. They identified the need for information about the university library as well as additional instructional and interactive videos (e.g., a video orientation to the layout of the course, opportunities for students to record video introductions). Such data helped to inform subsequent iterations of the course within the D2L environment.

Synchronous Component

From the survey data, overall student (n=18) perceptions of the synchronous Adobe Connect sessions were positive; the sessions were identified as being helpful. Some problems occurred, such as incorrect session links issued, system outages, and so on. These challenges became opportunities for learning; students indicated that they preferred to understand why a problem happened in Adobe Connect in order to prepare themselves better for future troubleshooting. In addition, the data suggested that an introductory session be separate from an “enrichment” session so that students could collaborate and/or have further practice using the Adobe Connect presenter tools. Some students experienced user or technical errors during Adobe Connect sessions (e.g., microphone issues, problems with Adobe Flash, etc.). These issues were typically addressed in the moment by one of the instructors, and at times the learning plan for the session was “paused” until all students could participate. Survey respondents recommended that such problems be addressed privately or separately with the student so as not to hold up the rest of the students in the session. It was also recommended that students view a “how to” video prior to their first synchronous session in order to anticipate and solve possible issues.

Respondents also recommended that practical discussions be incorporated into synchronous sessions for future iterations of the course. Students desired practical “play” time in order to learn more about various features of Adobe Connect and to be more confident in using them. One student commented that, for both D2L and Adobe Connect, they wanted access to “sandbox” versions beyond the orientation program: “It would be nice if it were open still to play around in it.” This feedback was implemented beginning with Cohort Four; one formal Adobe Connect session was followed by a second session that allowed students, at their own convenience, to log in and experiment with the various features of the application in order to develop proficiency and comfort.

Students’ perceptions and experiences of the synchronous sessions were positive; the learning activities were identified as helpful. Incorrect session links and user errors marred the experience for some, and this reminded the design team to check carefully and address such issues before students log in for their synchronous sessions. These issues, however, gave students chances to troubleshoot and anticipate challenges in their future studies. Overall, the data indicated that the design and facilitation of synchronous and asynchronous activities were successful and met project goals.

Modifications to the Design

Three major modifications were made to the design of the orientation program. The first modification was to the duration of the program. Students reported that a seven-day program was too short. They were unable to create community connections fully, especially given that many of them were enrolled in a wide variety of programs. As one student commented, “I think that maybe there just wasn’t an opportunity to really build a relationship or community with the people in the class.” Students appreciated the opportunity to introduce themselves, but they wanted more chances to talk with each other and work collaboratively. The program was therefore extended from seven to 10 days starting with Cohort Three. In addition, the instructors paid greater attention to opportunities for connection. Feedback showed that this change was well received. A student from Cohort Four remarked in her interview that she initially “couldn’t understand why we needed 10 days to get acclimatized to the online part of the program.” Yet later she was “happily surprised by the course content and the community connection.” The student noted that the instructor played an integral part in the success of the program since she helped to define the expectations of the course, encouraged the students, and allowed them to connect with others when applicable. Given the experience, the student recommended that the instructor clarifies the intention with regards to the duration of the program along with the expectation that students participate in the program for 15 to 30 minutes per day.

The second modification was to allow students to have access to the D2L orientation program course shell after they completed the program. The research team initially assumed that students would not wish to return to view content after they completed the course. However, as evident in the learning analytics, the five students from Cohorts Three and Four who gave consent to view their data visited the course after the last day. One participant from Cohort Three visited the shell 25 times over a five-week period after the orientation program ended and their graduate studies began. Students accessed resources and materials by going back to the orientation program in D2L. As a result, the research team decided to provide students with unlimited access to the course shell upon completion of the orientation program.

The third modification was to the synchronous Adobe Connect content. A second instructor, a regular user of Adobe Connect, was added to assist with synchronous components of the orientation after feedback from the first cohort indicated that this was a weak aspect of our program. The co-teaching of subsequent cohorts provided a more supportive environment for the program instructor, and the students appreciated the unique perspectives that each instructor brought to the sessions. The addition of co-teaching helped to relieve some of the tension that the original course instructor had in facilitating the synchronous session. User error was addressed, and both instructors felt more confident delivering content to students.

In addition to these three major modifications, minor modifications were made to the D2L course design and to the activities of the Adobe Connect sessions in response to student feedback. The team found that it can be challenging to find the right blend of activities and pacing to meet the spectrum of novice to more advanced online learners enrolled in the program; students in each cohort presented various levels of knowledge and skill.

Role of the Instructor

The instructor of an orientation program plays a critical role. This individual needs to have a strong online presence in both synchronous and asynchronous environments, and a mentor-like presence helps to foster confidence in students. The instructor should make the orientation program interesting and both challenge and motivate students. Furthermore, an instructor should possess the ability to facilitate the activities in a way that students can move through components in a timely manner but be responsive to the various levels of knowledge of and skill with the technology.

The primary instructor for our Designing for Success program has several years of experience working with D2L. She both designs and teaches courses in the K–12 environment, and she has recently worked with postsecondary faculty members in designing and supporting their use of D2L. The instructor is also an alumna of the faculty’s graduate program. As such, she has an awareness of the work required of graduate students. For this project, she worked collaboratively with members of the research team to design the asynchronous D2L environment and the synchronous Adobe Connect sessions. The instructor’s experience and practice in addition to ongoing team consultation helped to inform the design of the learning environment.

Students indicated in the survey and interview data that they appreciated knowing that the instructor was both available and approachable during the orientation program. One student stated that it was important “just knowing that your instructor is there to support you if you’re having a struggle through the online learning and being flexible.” To support student growth and provide a positive experience, the instructor used the “24-hour rule” (i.e., responses to students’ inquiries within 24 hours while the course was running). The instructor also tried to maintain a healthy online presence—posting content and responding to students in discussion areas and so forth—so that students knew she was there to provide support and assistance throughout the orientation.

Instructors were expected to be expert users of the technology when delivering an orientation program. The efficacy of such a program can otherwise be questioned by students, and frustration can occur when an instructor demonstrates user error. For our study, the instructor designed the initial one-hour Adobe Connect session to introduce students to online collaboration through synchronous technology. They engaged in an introductory activity and went on to explore features within Adobe Connect, such as the breakout room. The instructor was experienced in using the learning management system but was not as skilled in using Adobe Connect at the beginning of the research project. Interviewed students expressed concern about the lack of direction from the instructor, and they were unsure of what to expect from future synchronous sessions. One student commented that the instructor “showed us how to break into rooms,” but once they were in the rooms they were given no direction on what they were supposed to do, and “We were all just sitting there in the rooms.” After our own debriefing session about the situation, and given student feedback, we decided to have a second instructor assist with the synchronous sessions.

Instructor error also occurred on two occasions with the link to the Adobe Connect session. Adobe Connect is a free-standing communication application, and the instructor was required to create a session link within it and provide that link to students. In one situation, two different session links were posted in D2L for the session. Confusion occurred as a result, and some students could not access the session and had to be directed to the correct link. In the second situation, the link was provided, but a technical issue arose on the night of the session. The instructors had to create a new link and post it for the students. These two situations were problematic since they created confusion. One student recommended that the instructor or someone from the institution “try the link prior to the call to ensure that the link works well. I would be accessible 20 minutes prior to the call.” Such preparation would allow the instructors to ensure that links are working, assist students with connectivity issues, and inspire confidence in students.

Impacts of Expectations

Students entering an online graduate orientation program have varied expectations, and not all expectations can be met realistically within the constraints of an online orientation. The goal of the team, regardless of students’ expectations and prior knowledge, was to familiarize students with online learning within the context of a graduate program. We hoped that students would develop a deeper appreciation of what is expected of online learners.

We observed some variance in students’ expectations of time commitment for participating in and completing the course. Some survey participants indicated that the team’s recommendation of 15–20 minutes per day to complete learning tasks and readings was not realistic. Other respondents, however, indicated that these daily time commitments were appropriate. This variance can be attributed to students’ skills with technology, personal commitments outside online studies, and limited experiences with online learning. Some students expressed frustration about perceived time commitments for online learning. As noted by a student in Cohort Four, “Not knowing how long I needed to spend on the work was a bit frustrating for me.” This challenge cannot be completely resolved because of varying skills among students. For example, one student might complete a daily task in 10 to 15 minutes, whereas another might require double the amount of time. Expectations of time commitments in online studies might be tempered by helping students to understand that the amount of time spent on a task is in their control, and they can learn to develop a sense of how much time is required as they progress through their studies.

The asynchronous environment provides natural flexibility to students. They can determine when and where they are online and working through the activities. Students can therefore develop an appreciation of the flexibility but also might have to modify their expectations of the timing of responses from peers and instructors. As one student remarked, “there might be times where you can’t respond to all your discussion posts in this time frame that is there, and . . . there’s some flexibility available that you can maybe post later.” Our team, for these reasons, introduced concepts of self-regulation and the need for scheduling in online learning. Students should experiment and develop their own schedules for such learning. For example, some might find that online learning works best in the morning or evening depending on their daily routines. Students also discovered that another advantage to asynchronous learning is the opportunity to read the postings, ponder what has been stated, and take time to compose responses. Students came to appreciate the opportunity to think, research, and reflect before responding online, an opportunity not always available in traditional classroom learning.

The design of the orientation program required students to interact with the content, the instructor, and their peers. It was not a matter of reading the content and completing a few tasks. Rather, working with peers in the synchronous and asynchronous environments was an expectation. One student reported that she collaborated and interacted the most in the discussion area in D2L. However, the partner activity “did not work well for collaboration as there weren’t clear enough guidelines for communication expectations.” It is a fine line between articulating expectations and overwhelming students with details. Students also need to be self-directed in meeting the expectations. They need to understand the impact if they opt not to participate and how it affects others in the class. Developing a greater understanding of learning within a C0I framework can be a new approach to learning for some students.

Another expectation in the online environment is timely instructor feedback. The instructor needs to have an online presence and establish a system for responding to students. It is somewhat challenging in that the instructor does not want to dominate the conversations or be online constantly providing feedback. Yet not having a presence or responding affects a student’s online learning experience. A student in Cohort Four attributed her success in the orientation program to the instructor: “Her calm e-vibe was clear from the beginning and she listened well to our feedback. She created and held a functional learning space for the rest of us and I thank her for that.” Providing timely feedback and being appropriately responsive to students help them to learn and move forward in their orientation.

Development of Confidence

Students indicated that they had become more aware of and developed understandings and skills that would help them to be more successful in their online orientation programs. They identified such skills and strategies as managing time and creating schedules, learning how to use new technologies, improving their computer skills, learning to navigate D2L and Adobe Connect, and collaborating online. As noted by one student six months after the orientation program, time management and self-regulation were two key skills for her. In terms of time management, “It just made me aware of what was to come. It prepared me in knowing what was going to be happening in the upcoming courses.” In terms of self-regulation,

It made me realize I needed to prioritize and understand that certain sacrifices were going to have to be made, and certain things that I used to do had to be put aside until the coursework was done. I just prepared myself for knowing that there would be four or five hours in one day to write a paper and to focus on a paper and reading.

This student from Cohort One had also completed the six-month interview. She commented on her confidence about learning in an online environment:

I wouldn’t say [that I am] 100% comfortable. I still am learning how to manage my time. Some weeks it’s good, where I just know that on Monday I need to login and look at everything and make sure I’m up to it. But, if you don’t have the drive and the momentum and you get tired, it will fall by the wayside. It’s just constantly reminding myself to keep checking. I’d say I’m more comfortable since doing the orientation and doing some of the courses.

Students gained confidence both in using technology and in learning online through the activities required in the orientation program. For example, they spoke about gaining confidence in learning to use or enhancing their use of the technology within a safe environment. For some students, this environment allowed them to learn how to use different technologies (e.g., the checklist feature in D2L) without the fear of seeming to be inadequate to their peers and the instructor. The safe and judgment-free environment was well received by students. One remarked that the course “calm[ed] my nerves” and “built up my confidence.” Another commented that “it was completely well worth the 10 days of commitment to get to a level of comfort with the tools.”

In the follow-up interview six months after the orientation program, one student described how much more prepared she was for her graduate courses: “I think I was more prepared because the tips and tricks and the best practices that were provided in the orientation really helped me in getting myself organized for the courses.” One strategy that she learned was to review the course outline before the start of the course. She noted all of the deadlines in her calendar and put reminders there one week before the due dates in order to promote self-regulation and organization. Another best practice that this student used “was to really reach out to speak to my prof or instructor if there was [sic] any kind of conflicts or I needed any more time in advance to do that. . . . I was prepared after taking the orientation.” Overall, then, we found that the orientation program provided students new to online learning with opportunities to develop an awareness of what would be expected with online study and to develop confidence using the various features and strategies to support their learning.

Implications for Practice

In a review of and reflection on the findings, three implications for practice emerged. Each implication is reflective of one of the following three levels of inquiry: micro (teaching and learning), meso (institutional and collegial), and macro (global and theoretical).

Microlevel

At the microlevel, given the variance in graduate student skills with technology and prior experience with online learning, it is difficult to create an orientation program that meets the expectations of all students in terms of pacing and strategies. For example, some students advanced through the orientation program quickly, whereas others needed more time and sought more strategies to support their learning. “The delivery of an online course may be very foreign and difficult for a student who does not have a technical background” (Mensch, 2017, p. 2), so it is imperative that students with predominantly novice skills be oriented to both academic and technical expectations of online learning to ensure retention and success. Students who advance more quickly through the orientation might have more experience with the online learning environment. Mensch reported “that higher level students have probably had more experience in online classes” (p. 5). Alternatively, at an institution of higher education where there is no orientation program for online students, “many students’ early experiences in an online classroom are done through trial and error” (p. 5). Mensch stated that, “If the university was to mandate that all online learners first pass a training course of what is expected from an online student, it is suffice to expect that the retention rates would improve” (p. 5).

What became evident in our study was that students might not have reached the highest skill levels. This reinforced the importance of integrating differentiated instructional strategies to accommodate better the array of adult learning needs:

Differentiated instruction is responsive instruction. It occurs as teachers become increasingly proficient in understanding their students as individuals, increasingly comfortable with the meaning and structure of the disciplines they teach, and increasingly expert at teaching flexibly in order to match instruction to student needs with the goal of maximizing the potential of each learner in a given area. (Tomlinson, 2003, pp. 2–3)

From what we have learned, we need to be more intentional in how we provide additional support for students who require a greater degree of help. It would also be beneficial to allow more flexibility in pacing for those more advanced with the technology in future iterations of the program.

The work of an instructor in an orientation program is magnified in the sense that she or he not only needs to facilitate learning but also must be quick to problem-solve (e.g., troubleshooting issues with technology). Students look to the instructor as the one who demonstrates confidence and effective practice. The instructor is a role model during the orientation program. Yet it can be a stressful situation in which the instructor is vulnerable to criticism given that things might not function as well technically as one would like. The opportunity for co-teaching thus provides a forum in which “two or more individuals . . . [can] come together in a collaborative relationship for the purpose of shared work . . . [and] achieving what none could have done alone” (Wenzlaff et al., 2002, p. 14). We would strive to have both instructors actively involved in planning and facilitating the synchronous and asynchronous learning environments of the orientation program. Our goal would be a seamless approach. “From the students’ perspective, there is no clearly defined leader—both share the instruction, are free to interject information, and [are] available to assist students and answer questions” (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2008, p. 11).

Meso-level

At the meso-level, students entering the orientation program expect realistic practice that models what they will be doing in their online courses. Tensions exist in orientation programs since some students expect more than an initial focus on online learning—that is, they expect to be oriented to graduate studies (e.g., tasks reflective of coursework). Although the research literature identifies the positive outcomes for orientation programs (Cho, 2012; Koehnke, 2013), it focuses on addressing the orientation of students to a new program as opposed to a singular focus on learning in an online environment. The instructor of the orientation should ideally have experience with graduate online teaching and be able to orient students in terms of the online learning environment and how and why the technology is used for various aspects of the course and in the program. At the same time, the instructor must be able to speak to and create experiences that reflect the nature of graduate learning. In an online orientation program, one learning outcome should be that “students learn how to write and read in an academic, online environment” (Fotia et al., 2010). In the orientation program, students learn what is expected, for example, of their discussion posts and responses, which they will utilize in their academic online courses.

The selection of an instructor or a team of instructors who can create and support both experiences will enhance the orientation for all students. In his study, Hew (2016) reported that the “accessibility and passion” of instructors comprise the second most important factor that students consider “in terms of their perceived ability to promote a satisfying or engaging online learning experience” (p. 321). The institution or faculty therefore needs to ensure philosophical alignment between program and orientation.

Macro-level

At the macro-level, careful consideration needs to be given to online student orientation programs as more and more institutions of higher education offer online programs. Online orientation programs will help adult students to become familiar with the culture of online learning. A lack of orientation programs for online learning can put students at a disadvantage. Derby and Smith’s (2004) research suggested that students are more successful when they are offered orientation sessions for their online courses. With such sessions, Cho (2012) identified two issues. First, “the process of developing an OSO [online student orientation] is rarely shared among institutions” (p. 1052). Learning from and sharing with others help all institutions to support student learning better. Engaging in knowledge mobilization to share such practices helps other institutions to design and facilitate their online orientation programs for students. Second, it is commonly thought that such programs “focus more on administrative and technological issues than on students’ learning in online environments perhaps because online orientation programs are not systematically designed from the perspective of student learning” (pp. 1052–1053). Institutions that design such programs need to examine the designs from students’ perspectives to determine the necessary supports for students to develop their capacities to be successful in the online learning environment.

Limitations of the Study

Although there have been positive student findings from the four iterations of the study, limitations remain. First, there was a low rate of participation in the study. The low rate might indicate that students had a high level of satisfaction with the orientation program and opted not to provide formal feedback through the various data collection sources for the study. Information gleaned from the data cannot be generalized. We are using the information to inform the design. However, we are cautious not to create generalizations. Second, we are reporting on the first year of the implementation and the redesign that has occurred. As we move into the second year of the study, it will be important to continue the investigation of each iteration and to affirm what is working well and what needs enhancement. Third, there is an emerging tension in the interpretation of the purpose of the Designing for Success program. It has been created to familiarize students with online learning within one faculty’s approach to graduate programs. We have tried to articulate clearly that low-stakes tasks are implemented to develop confidence and competence in online graduate learners. However, some of the participants expected that they would receive a more professional orientation to learning at the graduate level. Greater attention needs to be paid to the articulation of the purpose of the Designing for Success program both in advertising it for students and in the D2L and Adobe Connect learning environments.

Directions for Future Research

With the implementation of the second year of the two-year study, continued refinement through iterations of the study using DBR will occur. In terms of diversifying the study, it would be helpful to implement the orientation program in other graduate-level discipline areas. With an expanded offering of undergraduate online programs, this orientation program could be modified and implemented to support them. Studying the program to see if there are differences between graduate and undergraduate students in terms of orientation is important.

Given the focus on design using the UDL principles, it is important to investigate further the role and impact of multimedia in student learning. Beyond informational videos, the use of multimedia in both online discussions and assessments would help a shift away from the traditional text-based approach. A question to explore regards the nature of the learning that occurs when video is purposefully integrated into the learning in ways that foster greater interaction among students, peers, and the instructor. The potential and impact of intentional integration of multimedia in online environments for multiple means of engagement and representation need to be studied further.

Conclusion

The Designing for Success orientation program aims to orient graduate students to online learning. Through the iterative design process using DBR, we have implemented an evidence-informed and responsive practice to prepare students to be confident in working online while developing a deeper understanding of learning within technology-enabled online environments. The data inform not only the design of the online orientation but also the facilitation of online teaching and learning. Through this research-informed program, students are given the opportunity to develop and implement practical skills and knowledge needed for learning online. Interacting in a low-risk environment also helps them to develop expectations of what it means to be an online graduate learner in today’s technology-enabled context of higher education.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a University of Calgary Teaching and Learning Grant.

References

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.unmc.edu/elearning/_documents/NMC_HorizonReport_2017.pdf

Allen I. E., & Seaman J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf

Allen I. E., & Seaman J., with Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572777.pdf

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Anderson_Rourke_Garrison_Archer_Teaching_Presence.pdf

Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(3), 9–16.

Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature review. SAGE Open, 1(11). doi:10.1177/2158244015621777

Cambridge-Williams, T., Winsler, A., Kitsantas, A., & Bernard, E. (2013). University 100 orientation courses and living-learning communities boost academic retention and graduation via enhanced self-efficacy and self-regulated learning. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 15(2), 243–268.

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Cho, M. H. (2012). Online student orientation in higher education: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1051–1069. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9271-4

Chu, R. J-C., & Tsai, C-C. (2009). Self-directed learning readiness, Internet self-efficacy and preferences towards constructivist Internet-based learning environments among higher-aged adults. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 489–501. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00324.x

Curran, S. (2014). Traditional and non-traditional learners in online education. The EvoLLLution: A Destiny Solutions Illumination, February 26, 2014. Retrieved from https://evolllution.com/revenue-streams/distance_online_learning/traditional-non-traditional-learners-online-education/

Derby, D. C., & Smith, T. (2004). An orientation course and community college retention. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(9), 763–773. doi:10.1080/10668920390254771

Donovan, T., Bates, T., Seaman J., Mayer D., Martel, E., Paul, R., . . . Poulin, R. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian Universities and Colleges: 2018. Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/publications-2018/

Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 1–14. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30.

Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 320–341.

Johnson, C., & Lock, J. (2018). Making multimedia meaningful: Outcomes of student assessment in online learning. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1484–1491). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Jones, K. (2013). Developing and implementing a mandatory online student orientation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 43–45.

Koehnke, P. J. (2013). The impact of an online orientation to improve community college student retention in online courses: An action research study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Database. (Accession No. 20133568654)

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mensch, S. (2017). Improving distance education through student online orientation classes. Global Education Journal, 2017 (1), 1–6.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014). About UDL. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

Wenzlaff, T., Berak, L., Wieseman, K., Monroe-Baillargeon, A., Bacharach, N., & Bradfield-Kreider, P. (2002). Walking our talk as educators: Teaming as a best practice. In E. Guyton & J. Rainer (Eds.), Research on meeting and using standards in the preparation of teachers (pp. 11–24). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishing.