Traditional versus e-Learning Lesson Planning

Abstract

Improvising the components (goals, materials, objects, assessment design, and the step-by-step teaching segments) for synchronous e-learning based upon the learning objectives from Face-to-Face (f2f) instruction requires much deliberation to ensure a new quality learning experience. Logistics and collaboration with peers both from the original school, and the school where the instructional unit will be broadcast are the greatest obstacles although recommendations to overcome these issues are addressed. Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and Borokhovski (2004) claim that the "use of computer-based instruction was found to help promote better achievement and attitude outcomes in synchronous distance education" (p. 38). An electronic Whiteboard contributes to the f2f to e-learning reformatting project, and successfully achieves an impactful e-learning environment for middle school students.

Introduction to Traditional versus e-Learning Lesson Planning

This paper's focus discusses a face-to-face (f2f) lesson plan for teaching middle school students about the importance of biodiversity, which means the range of organisms present in an ecological community. Other discussion includes the goals, materials, objects, and the step-by-step parts of the f2f instructional unit, and the unit's assessment tool. Furthermore, this paper presents discussion relative to conversion of the f2f activity to an online activity, which includes detail about the reformatting process, and explanation of why certain components were changed to ensure a successful conversion.

Background of a Biodiversity Lesson Plan used for a Traditional Face-to-Face Class

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) presented the activity described below to greater than 300 seventh and eighth-grade disadvantaged students in six seventh-grade and five eighth-grade classes at a middle school in Gainesville, Florida. McCoy (et al., 2007) found that "more than 95% of students preferred all of the images that illustrated high diversity, and that they did so even before they knew the purpose of the activity" (p. 476). The students who chose the most diverse images (Exhibit 1) "could not provide a specific reason they chose them other than they liked the images better or liked the images with more color" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476). The students choosing the "less diverse images did so because of a preference for the order or structure of the images" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476). Students replying "based on preference or fear of the unknown still appreciated the significance of preserving biodiversity" (McCoy, et al., 2007, p. 476).

Furthermore, students developed a concrete concept of the meaning of biodiversity, and correctly labeled the most diverse biodiversity images in the activity's Part 3, and most students correctly identified the more and less diverse habitats when seeing images not seen before (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007) . A conclusion of this lesson's activities was (1) that despite biophilia, most people have an inherent appreciation for biodiversity; and (2) that many economic, ethical, and social reasons exist that support a need to conserve biodiversity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Outline of Traditional Class' Lesson Plan

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) used a seven-part PowerPoint presentation to: (1) illustrate to middle school students that they have an innate affinity for biodiversity, (2) introduce the concept of biodiversity, (3) discuss the
products and services received from nature, (4) discuss the causes of
biodiversity loss, and (5) explain the steps that can be taken to help
conserve biodiversity. (p. 473)

Goals

The goals as stated by McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) were:

1. that students recognize their own value of biodiversity;
2. that conserving biodiversity is an ethical as well as economic matter;
3. that students gain a conceptual understanding of biodiversity; and,
4. that students recognize the far-reaching impacts of human-mediated loss
in biodiversity. (p. 476)

Objects

Interactive PowerPoint Presentation (instructor-led), and a traditional classroom.

Materials

Computer-connected overhead projector, Summary of National Science Education Standards for this Activity (Table 1), and Class Handouts replicating PowerPoint Slides (Figures 1 and 2).

Step-by-Step Procedures: The Instructional Activity

Part 1.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 1 of the activity:
Show pairs of images (Figure 1) to the students for 10 seconds and ask
them to write down which image from each pair they prefer. If they ask
what you mean by "prefer," tell them that it's up to them to decide for
themselves; the less information you provide at this point, the better. Next
ask each student to provide one reason why he/she picked a particular
image. Beginning the activity in this way engages the students because
they are unsure what answers you are expecting and they are curious
as to why they are doing the activity. (p. 473 )

Part 2.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 2 of the activity:
Have the students put their answers from Part 1 aside for a moment.
Next, using illustrations (Figure 2) discuss the meaning of
biodiversity (multiple types of living organisms) and that it has
different components. For example, genetic diversity may be
illustrated using different breeds of dogs. All the dogs pictured
are the same species (can breed with one another) but they are
genetically distinct. Species diversity may be illustrated by showing
three distinctly unique animals (e.g., a slug, squirrel, and tree frog). Lastly, ecosystem diversity can be illustrated with images of
different types of easily recognizable ecosystems (e.g., a coastal
habitat, rainforest, beaver pond or wetland) (Figure 2). (p. 474)

Part 3.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 3 of the activity:
Show the students the same series of images as in Part 1, except
this time ask them to record which image illustrates higher
diversity (Figure 1). This exercise has a dual function. It allows
one to assess students' understanding of the concept of diversity
and it provides a springboard into discussion about the value of biodiversity. (p. 474)

Part 4.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 4 of the activity:
Have students count the number of times that the image they preferred
during Part 1 was also the image illustrating higher diversity in Part 3.
Ask how many originally preferred the images that were also the most
diverse. Most students prefer the more diverse pictures. Why? This
provides an opportunity to discuss two of the core postulates of modern conservation biology: 1) "Diversity is good," and 2) "Biotic diversity
has intrinsic value". To highlight the first postulate, "Diversity is
good,"ask the students if they would like it if everyone dressed identically
and had the same hair cut. Or, what if there was only one music group? What
if all buildings/houses looked the same? Lead a discussion about whether
the students think their answers support the idea that humans are inherently attracted to diversity. To highlight the second postulate, "Biotic
diversity has intrinsic value," extend the discussion to an evaluation of
species diversity and whether natural diversity is good for our well-being
and for the well-being of nature (i.e., other organisms and ecosystems). For
example, what if there were no insects to pollinate flowers or no plants to
provide oxygen? This discussion will highlight that conserving biodiversity
is a matter of ethics (i.e., is good for the well-being of humankind) as
well as aesthetics, and that we have an innate preference for diversity.
This can be a springboard for discussing the importance of cultural
diversity as well. (p. 474).

Part 5.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 5 of the activity:
Next lead a discussion about the practical value of biodiversity. Ask
students to think of things that they get from nature; write them on the
board. Supplement the students' list with services from nature that may
be new to students (e.g., providing clean air and water, pollination of food
crops, and medicines). Discuss whether we can get these things from
a source other than nature. An interesting extension would include an
examination of the economic costs of losing or replacing these "services."
This may allow teachers to incorporate mathematics into the lesson and
will highlight that in addition to the ethical and aesthetic value of
biodiversity, there is also economic value. (p. 475)

Part 6.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss Part 6 of the activity:
Discuss some of the causes of biodiversity loss. This discussion
may be supplemented with illustrations of slash-and-burn agriculture,
satellite photos of soil erosion, and photos of endangered and extinct
species of plants and animals. Special note should be given to those
extinct plants and animals that may have provided a service to humans.
For example, a recently extinct frog (the gastric brooding frog) brooded its
eggs in its stomach, which required that the frogs stop the secretion of
digestive acids. Many doctors and medical researchers were interested in
this ability because they believed it would provide important insights into
the medical treatment of humans who suffer from ulcers or other gastric
problems. However the species went extinct before it could be studied
(Semeyn, 2002). (p. 475)

Part 7.

McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) discuss the final Part 7 activity:
Brainstorm with the class about ways that humans can help slow
or stop biodiversity loss. For example, recycling, voting, reducing
pollution, etc. Lastly, it is always nice to end on a positive note. End
the discussion with an example of a conservation success story, such as
the American bald eagle or the recent discovery of the Ivory-billed
Woodpecker (which was presumed extinct). Make sure students understand
that they can make a difference. (p. 475)

Assessment Tool

The Process Assessment (PA) given at the end of the activity was developed by MITs Teaching and Learning Laboratory (2011). The PA design demarcates the activity's milestones to be reached, activities to be undertaken, and products to be delivered based upon the Summary of National Science Education Standards for this activity (Table 1). The results from the Process Assessment given to each student post-activity will be compared to the pre-activity assessment results. The degree of difference between the Process Assessment and the pre-activity assessment is used to evaluate success. In the future, a peer evaluation and self-assessment will be added near the conclusion of Part 7. In the meantime, "attention to quality course design (will) take precedence over attention to the characteristics of media" (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and Borokhovski, 2004, p. 38) and other supplemental but non-essential materials.

Reformatted e-Learning Lesson Plan: Biodiversity

The format of the converted class uses a blended learning structure. The blended structure is to be used until such time that the class structure can be completely based upon e-learning rather than a blended structure. There are seven parts to the instructional unit, which are scheduled to be presented over eight weeks.

Goals

The goals as stated by McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007) are to improve learning at the InnerCity School (ICS) by introducing e-learning so:

1. that students recognize their own value of biodiversity;
2. that conserving biodiversity is an ethical as well as economic matter;
3. that students gain a conceptual understanding of biodiversity; and,
4. that students recognize the far-reaching impacts of human-mediated loss
in biodiversity. (p. 476)

Objects

Electronic Whiteboard and accessories, and a traditional classroom.

Materials

Since the teaching activities occur on the Whiteboard, and each student's work will be recorded via the Whiteboard, there will be no handouts.

Step-by-Step Procedures: The Instructional Activity Reformatted

Part 1.

Teacher A and students log into the Whiteboard. Pre-training of the students and teacher included simulations of how the Biodiversity class' exercises and discussion would occur. The e-learning contents within the Whiteboard includes the same images used previously in the f2f class, which were generated by PowerPoint. Teacher A activates a pair of images (Figure 1) to the students for ten seconds, and asks them to input via their Whiteboard controls the image from each pair they prefer. The students are instructed if they have questions, to type them in so all of the students can see them on the Whiteboard's screen.

If the students type in what is meant by "prefer," Teacher A types in for display on the Whiteboard that it's up to them to decide for themselves (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Teacher A then types in for each student to provide one reason why he/she picked a particular image (McCoy, et al., 2007). Students will type in their responses, which are recorded collectively on the screen for the class' review. Beginning the activity in this way engages the students because they are unsure what answers you are expecting, and they are curious as to why they are doing the activity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 2.

Next, using illustrations (Figure 2), Teacher A types in the meaning of biodiversity (multiple types of living organisms), and that it has different components (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). For example, genetic diversity may be illustrated using different breeds of dogs (McCoy, et al., 2007). All the dogs pictured are the same species (can breed with one another) but they are genetically distinct (McCoy, et al., 2007). Species diversity is illustrated by Teacher A on the Whiteboard by showing three distinctly unique animals (e.g., a slug, squirrel, and tree frog)(McCoy, et al., 2007). Teacher A also brings up images (Figure 2) of different types of easily recognizable ecosystems (e.g., a coastal habitat, rainforest, beaver pond or wetland)(McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 3.

Teacher A shows on the Whiteboard the same series of images as in Part 1, except this time types in for the students to record the image using their Whiteboard controls that illustrates higher diversity (Figure 1). Teacher A reviews the students' answers, and assesses the students' understanding of the concept of diversity. Teacher A then asks the students to type in why they chose the image that they did. Based upon the students' answers, Teacher A proceeds to Step 4, or further reviews any missed concepts using the Whiteboard.

Part 4.

Teacher A reviews the number of times that students chose a preferred
image versus an image illustrating higher diversity using the recorded results.
Teacher A asks the students to use their Whiteboard controller to indicate how many originally preferred the images that were also the most diverse (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Most students prefer the more diverse pictures. Teacher A indicates for the students to state why they chose the diverse image, and to input their responses using their Whiteboard keyboard. Teacher A leads a verbal discussion of the responses with the students. Teacher A next types in a question on the Whiteboard asking students if they think their answers support the idea that humans are inherently attracted to diversity (McCoy, et al., 2007), which students respond to using their controllers. Teacher A then types in a question asking whether natural diversity is good for our well-being and for the well-being of nature (i.e., other organisms and ecosystems)(McCoy, et al., 2007). For example, what if there were no insects to pollinate flowers or no plants to provide oxygen (McCoy, et al., 2007)? This discussion highlights that conserving biodiversity is a matter of ethics (i.e., is good for the well-being of humankind) as well as aesthetics, and that we have an innate preference for diversity (McCoy, et al., 2007). Students are asked to perform research for 30 minutes using the links on the Whiteboard's homepage to answer the previous question. Teacher A types in that the students should upload their answers when completed, and then Teacher A (who is the only one able to read their answers) selects a half dozen responses for discussion via the Whiteboard.

Part 5.

The next activity on the Whiteboard's screen asks students to think of things that they get from nature, and choose selections from the provided exercise on the screen. Teacher A directs the students to a list of services provided by nature, which is a link on the homepage. The students then complete an exercise on the Whiteboard about the list, which includes selecting responses about whether people can get these services from a source other than nature (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey (2007).

Teacher A displays the next exercise that asks whether we can get these things from a source other than nature, and what if any economic costs of losing or replacing these "services" may be (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007), which is displayed as a written response via their keyboards. Initiating mathematically based questions provides an opportunity for the students to learn about the economic values related to Biodiversity, and exposes the students to ethical and aesthetic values of biodiversity (McCoy, et al., 2007).

Part 6.

Teacher A activates a new exercise on the Whiteboard to address Biodiversity losses. On the Whiteboard's homepage, there are ten sequential links (that have to be read by each student one at a time) that provide pages in the PowerPoint document that illustrate slash-and-burn agriculture, satellite photos of soil erosion, and photos of endangered and extinct species of plants and animals that have provided a service to humans. For example, a recently extinct frog (the gastric brooding frog) brooded its eggs in its stomach, which required that the frogs stop the secretion of digestive acids (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Many doctors and medical researchers were interested in this ability because they believed it would provide important insights into the medical treatment of humans who suffer from ulcers or other gastric problems (McCoy, et al., 2007). Before this phenomenon could be studied, however, the species went extinct.

At the end of each reading of the ten segments, students complete a series of questions using their controllers. Answers are electronically collected, and revealed to Teacher A. If there are any areas requiring further instruction, Teacher A addresses these through verbal discussion.

Part 7.

Teacher A reviews learning from Part 6, and activates an exercise for students as teams requiring research on the internet, and the teams use the meeting rooms within the Whiteboard to collaborate. The students use the Whiteboard controls to search the internet, and create an essay. The essay is submitted at the end of this part via their controller. This exercise provides students with another opportunity to learn how to do valid research, work as teams, and optimizes development of critical thinking skills.

Teacher A presents the topic of their essay, which is to research about how humans can help slow or stop biodiversity loss. Examples include recycling, voting, reducing pollution, and so forth (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). Teacher A concludes this part by activating an onscreen display for the students to read about a conservation success story such as the American bald eagle or the recent discovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker (which was presumed extinct)(McCoy, et al., 2007). Teacher A makes a significant effort at this point to help students understand that they can make a difference in conserving the world's natural resources (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007).

The final step in the class is for Teacher A and Teacher B to have the students
complete the e-learning-based Process Assessment. Answers are electronically collected, and a report is generated. The report compares the Pre-assessment Survey results to the results of the Process Assessment. The results are input as grades for the students, added to their online portfolio, and discussed at a meeting with Teacher A and B, and their administrators.

Step-by-Step Procedures

Several procedures are required to convert the f2f class format to an e-learning class. First and foremost, Teacher A (working at ICS) will discuss her initiative to convert the f2f Biodiversity class to an e-learning format with the ICSs administrator. (If the new class is a success, Teacher A and the administrator will present the project to the rest of the ICSs teachers in the anticipation that other classes at ICS can be converted.) After gaining approval, Teacher A will contact a colleague at a nearby middle school, School B, which already employs whiteboards in their f2f classes.

Since the format of the converted class uses a blended learning structure (until such time that the class structure can be completely based upon e-learning rather than a blended structure), Teacher A and colleague, Teacher B, discuss the e-learning structure at Teacher Bs school, and the learning structure at ICS. Teacher A and B and their respective administrators agree that the project can move ahead. Teacher B arranges for training of the whiteboard for Teacher A.

Consequently, after training and receiving parental approval for the targeted ACS class to be transported three days per week to School B for initial training of the students on using the Whiteboard, the schedule at School B is adjusted to initiate training, which also includes a pre-assessment. The 15 students in the Biodiversity class will also receive support from the Biodiversity class members at School B during training, and during the class. Teacher B will be initially co-teaching the class to provide Teacher A with a few weeks of development (Rosenberg, 2001). According to Willis and Cifuentes (2005), "Creating model classrooms for course delivery provides teachers with an opportunity to practice and observe technology use and transfer these methods to their own classrooms" (p. 61). Therefore, an ideal learning scenario for Teacher A will consist of practice and observation in the f2f environment using the Whiteboard technology.

The length of the class is to be two months, and provides 24 class sessions. Each of the unit's parts takes longer than one session to complete. The f2f class structure required discussion between Teacher A and the students as each of the class' parts rolled out. The e-learning format provides discussion opportunities using the Whiteboard. Each of the parts of the class will be programmed into the Whiteboard, and Teacher A will control display of each part. Each student from the ICSs class will have access to the Whiteboard at their desks, and be able to participate in the Biodiversity exercises. Teacher A will monitor the students' responses to the exercises, and assess whether there are any areas needing further review before moving to the class' next teaching part. Any areas requiring further review will be manipulated by Teacher A in the Whiteboard's software. The Pre-Assessment and Process Assessment answers input by the ICS students will be evaluated by Teacher A and B as a team, and all of the activities performed using the Whiteboard will be permanently recorded for future use. The permanent record from the Whiteboard will be later shared with the ICS administrator, and at a staff meeting with the teachers at ICS.

Assessment Tool

A Pre-Assessment (post students' Whiteboard training), and a Process Assessment are to be used to measure students' progress. Both assessments are tied into the Summary of National Science Education Standards (Table 1). Additional assessment tools will include peer and self-assessments. With the combination of these four assessments, e-students will be more aware of the "key components that will be evaluated in the assignments…(because) taking the time to adapt assessments so that appropriate and timely feedback may be provided to e-students" (Hemby, Wilkinson, and Crews, 2007, p. 17) is critical to improving learning outcomes.

Reflection and Explanation about the Conversion Process

"Impediments to online teaching and learning can be situational, epistemological, philosophical, psychological, pedagogical, technical, social, and/or cultural" (Kirtman, 2009, p. 103). Despite numerous barriers, real or imagined, teachers must put improving student learning first and foremost. "Much of the research in the area of online teaching and learning has not focused on learning outcomes or academic achievement" (Kirtman, 2009, p. 104). In fact, Kirtman's (2009) research provides "evidence (to suggest) that there are similar learning outcomes whether students are in a traditional or online class" (p. 112). Challenges mean opportunity.

Furthermore, when Mentzer, Cryan, and Teclehaimanot (2007) conducted a study comparing learning in a f2f course with its comparable e-learning course, "student achievement differed only in the area of course assignments due to unsubmitted assignments rather than quality of work…and student mastery levels were essentially the same" (p. 244). As more and more studies are conducted, which add relevance to the opinion that f2f and online learning yield similar learning outcomes, teachers will not hesitate as much when thinking about transitioning f2f teaching to online learning. The time has come.

"Online delivery requires re-examination of course delivery mechanisms, course material comprehension, course assessment selections and weights, and overall instructional communication methods and their impacts" (Rebman, Cegielski, and Kitchens, 2004). Although this paper's content only superficially addresses some of these topics, the number and degree of these re-examinations hold keys to building e-learning classes. Each of the keys represent a piece of the collective pie needed for the reformatting.

Even though biodiversity and concepts associated with this subject are commonly taught by the use of field trips, the cost of such trips is prohibitive to the under-resourced schools in the inner city districts (McCoy, McCoy, and Levey, 2007). However, there will be little or no negative impact for the transportation costs of the ICS students to School B since the expenses for the bus trips have been included in the budget at ICS. Due to a federal grant provided to under-resourced schools for support of the No Child Left Behind legislation, ICSs e-learning project is financed.

Reasons for the recommended reformatting include that there will be several value-added features derived from the f2f project's conversion to e-learning. Most importantly, learning outcomes and motivation to learn will improve because of the ICSs students' exposure to more advanced teaching tools. Also, collaboration between schools will be enhanced, and teacher development for Teacher A and other ICS teachers will occur when learning the Whiteboard. In addition, if the project is a success, it is anticipated that ICS will strive to install Whiteboards at ICS in the future.

Rebman, Cegielski, and Kitchens (2004) wrote that a f2f course may not necessarily mean successful transition to an e-learning format. "With respect to online courses, an instructor must consider the rational for developing the online offering" (p. 20). The intended benefit of reformatting must be identified, and an interrelated methodology devised to achieve the course objective (Rebman, et al., 2004). Only after these steps are completed should the instructor decide on whether the online methodology is potentially successful (Rebman, et al., 2004).

Projecting upon how the reformatting of the class will affect the future development of the e-learning experience at ICS and School B, the e-learning class, which initially changed to a blended learning structure, can convert to a wholly presented e-learning class. The Whiteboard and computer connections to and from ICS and School B can expand to many schools, and one teacher at each school can manage their own class' learning, and modify the class' exercises as desired. The e-learning class via the Whiteboard can occur synchronously or asynchronously. The class can also be utilized by any learning impaired, otherwise disabled or second-language students as the features for accommodating these students are already written into the learning unit's curriculum and the Whiteboard's program.

Conclusion

This paper's focus discussed a face-to-face (f2f) lesson plan for teaching middle school students about the importance of biodiversity. Other discussion included the goals, materials, objects, and the step-by-step parts of the f2f instructional unit, and the unit's assessment tools. Furthermore, this paper presented discussion relative to conversion of the f2f activity to an online activity, which includes detail about the reformatting process, and an explanation of why certain components were changed to ensure a successful conversion. By analyzing a f2f instructional unit, and reformatting the unit's structure to provide an e-learning opportunity, the concluding design of such a project moved from a f2f class, to blended learning, to a complete online instructional unit.

References

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004, Fall). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, (74)3, p. 379. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Hemby, K.V., Wilkinson, K., and Crews, T.B. (2006). Converting assessment of traditional classroom assignments to the e-learning environment. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development, (2)2, p. 1. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Kirtman, L. (2009, Fall). Online versus in-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, (18)2, p. 103. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

McCoy, M.W., McCoy, K.A., & Levey, D.J. (2007, October). Teaching biodiversity to students in inner city and under-resourced schools. The American Biology Teacher, (69)8, p. 473. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Mentzer, G.A., Cryan, J.R., & Teclehaimanot, B. (2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face-to-face and web-based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, (15)2, p. 233. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

MIT Teaching and Learning Laboratory. (2011). Assessment and evaluation. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/tll/assessment-evaluation/types.html

Rebman, C.M., Cegielski, C.G., & Kitchens, F.L. (2004, Summer). Web-based instructional course development: A new model and its implementation. Journal o f Informatics Education Research, (6)2, p. 9. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill.

Willis, J., & Cifuentes, L. (2005). Training teachers to integrate technology into the classroom curriculum: Online versus face-to-face course delivery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, (13)1, p. 43. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals.