connecting aboriginal learners in remote communities: an online social work course

This article was downloaded by: [University of Houston]On: 17 October 2014, At: 11:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Technology in Human ServicesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20

Connecting Aboriginal Learners in RemoteCommunities: An Online Social Work CourseSteven Hick PhD aa School of Social Work, Carleton University , http://ia1.carleton.ca/52100/home.htmlPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Steven Hick PhD (2002) Connecting Aboriginal Learners in Remote Communities: An Online Social WorkCourse, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20:3-4, 267-281, DOI: 10.1300/J017v20n03_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J017v20n03_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J017v20n03_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J017v20n03_04

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DISTANCE LEARNING

Connecting Aboriginal Learnersin Remote Communities:

An Online Social Work Course

Steven Hick

SUMMARY. This article describes an Internet mediated first year socialwork course for First Nation participants. It was developed to meet theneeds of several remote communities in Canada for distance education insocial work. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 byThe Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Rural social work, First Nation social work students,Web-based education, distance education, focus groups, Aboriginalculture

Steven Hick, PhD, is with the School of Social Work, Carleton University (courseWeb address: http://ia1.carleton.ca/52100/home.html).

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Connecting Aboriginal Learners in Remote Communities: An OnlineSocial Work Course.” Hick, Steven. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Technology in Human Ser-vices (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 20, No. 3/4, 2002, pp. 267-281; and: Human Services Technology:Innovations in Practice and Education (ed: Hy Resnick, and Phoebe Sade Anderson) The Haworth Press,Inc., 2002, pp. 267-281. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address:[email protected]].

2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

INTRODUCTION

This article provides a description of an Internet-mediated first yearintroductory social work course, and the results of an evaluation studywith First Nation course participants. The course description discussesthe course structure and instructional design, and presents how the au-thor came to the decision to develop such a course. An evaluation com-prised of a focus group with 20 First Nation course participants fromremote communities in Canada is also presented. The online course waspart of a larger study to develop an innovative learning model for re-mote Aboriginal communities in Canada. This arose due to an ex-pressed need by several communities for distance education to educatesocial workers from their culture and community. This, they believe,will enable them to obtain a higher degree while staying connected totheir local community. A major concern in remote Native communitiesis that social workers in the community are unfamiliar with Aboriginalculture and local conditions.

The full-year introductory course was delivered with 20 Anishinaabegor Ojibway First Nation students in Northern Ontario (Canada) in 1999.Completion of the course was followed by a focus group. The focusgroup intended to identify aspects of the online course which they“liked” and “disliked,” as well as any barriers which may impede theirsuccess in an online course.

WHY AN ONLINE SOCIAL WORK COURSE?

The decision to develop an online course for social work arose fromthe experiences of faculty at Carleton University (School of SocialWork, Ottawa, Canada) teaching an introductory social work courseover five years, and a widespread need displayed by leaders in a varietyof communities for social work educational opportunities using ad-vanced information and communication technology (ICT) to locallytrain social workers who are from their community and culture.

The School of Social Work at Carleton University has offered an out-reach program providing the courses necessary for a Bachelor of SocialWork degree in remote communities, with a special emphasis on Ab-original communities. Demand for the program has exceeded expecta-tions. Part of the degree program is an introductory course entitled“Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare.” This course, usuallyoffered over two terms, builds the foundation for future studies. His-

268 HUMAN SERVICES TECHNOLOGY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

torically, delivery of the course off-campus entailed an instructor trav-eling to a town near the students’ location for three or four separate4-day sessions. Given that the students are living in remote communi-ties, the travel time and cost for both the students and the instructor ishigh, frequently more than that for a trip to Europe. As well, this modelattempted to deliver too much material in a short time span.

After experiencing the limitations of off-campus course delivery, asdescribed above, it was concluded that analysis was required to deter-mine how computer-based learning using the Internet could improvethe course. Also, such analysis was seen as important due to the wide-spread need expressed by adult learners in remote communities for in-novative learning models that utilize the high levels of technologyavailable in their communities. I proceeded to develop the course intoan online course and ultimately, a request from an Aboriginal educa-tional institute to take the online course was received.

BACKGROUND OF COURSE DEVELOPER

The author (Steven Hick) has been a professor at Carleton Universityfor 10 years. The opportunity to explore online learning combined myinterests in innovative and effective teaching, teaching and learningwith Aboriginal communities, and information and communicationtechnology. While teaching the first year introductory social workcourse to 550 students, 400 of which watched the course on television, Iconcluded that the course would be improved (at least over the televi-sion model) by delivering it over the Internet. As I investigated the pos-sibilities, I quickly realized that it would not be the technology thatimproved the course, but rather the instructional design. I, therefore,stepped back and began investigating how the course should be framedand organized for effectual online delivery.

My interests, both in technology and Aboriginal peoples, arose frommy experience as a human rights worker in the Philippines for 2 years(1985-87). I worked closely with several Native communities collectingdata on human rights abuses suffered under the Marcos regime. Chal-lenged with smuggling the information out of the Philippines to variousinternational human rights organizations, we resorted to Internet com-munications. It was in this work of compiling a computerized database ofhuman rights abuses, encrypting the information and sending it through a300 baud coupler modem, that my familiarity with technology began.

Distance Learning 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

DESCRIPTION OF THE ONLINE COURSE

The development of the course began with interviews with the targetlearners. From this a learning model was designed that combined elementsfrom several teaching strategies including: didactic learning, reflectivelearning and experiential learning. The First Nation students believed thatelements from all three models were required for a first year online socialwork course being delivered in remote native communities. Instructionalor learning models prescribe how combinations of instructional strategycomponents should be integrated to produce a course of instruction.

The eventual model combined elements of three teaching strategiesin the context of developing an online course:

1. didactic learning2. experiential learning3. reflective learning

With the didactic learning mode facts are presented in a manner thatis similar to what is used in a well-illustrated text (even though in thecase of the multimedia tutorial, the text is electronic). The tutorial incor-porates additional detail which might be similar to footnotes or appen-dices. It also includes visuals such as graphics, still and/or full motionvideo and may include sound.

The experiential learning mode is characterised by presenting thecontent in such a manner as to foster decision-making. The learner isexpected to be able to apply the knowledge gained to scenarios or casestudies and make appropriate decisions.

The reflective learning mode takes the student to a higher level of ap-plication of knowledge than does experiential learning. In this modethe learner is presented with extended cases to help gain knowledgethrough insights and actively applying concepts and information to thesituation under consideration. The navigation patterns must support theteaching strategy being used.

The course also included elements of various collaborative learningmodels whereby learners and the instructor work together to under-stand, make decisions and apply the knowledge from the course.

The operational components of the learning model include:

• use of practice;• methods for communication between learners and between in-

structor and learners;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

• methods to collaborate on assignments and learning in general;• use of multiple examples;• variations in feedback;• sequencing strategies, and;• use of advanced organizers.

Models for instructional design provide procedural frameworks for thesystematic production of instruction. The models incorporate fundamen-tal elements of the instructional design process including analysis of theintended audience or determining goals and objectives. Models may beused in different contexts. One model can be used for an entire course ofinstruction or elements from multiple models can be combined.

In the model developed for this course each piece of learning musthave its own learning goals or purposes, and the education strategy ofthe learning will differ depending on the goal or desired skill level.

The course was developed using dynamic HTML, JavaScript and Ac-tive Server Pages, and more recently XML. No template based develop-ment tool was used due to the imposed instructional design dictated bysuch software. Our survey of the “easy-to-use” development tools such asToolbook, ICON Author and Authorware found that each containsan underlying instructional model or models which must be followed in or-der to use the templates. None of these tools would allow us to develop thecourse using the model developed in consultation with the target users.

Our initial review (in 1997) of general web development tools such asFrontpage and PageMill found that while they are flexible concerninginstructional design, they limit the navigational and display options avail-able. It is important to note that since this project began, these developmenttools have advanced and probably do provide a viable option. For example,Frontpage now allows fairly advanced options such a XML, which en-ables the advanced features required by the learning model. The main dis-advantage of our initial option was that it required extensive programmingexpertise and development time, and therefore may be too expensive formany academic applications. The flexibility to design the course to bestmeet learning needs was the primary advantage of our approach.

The course encompassed the features and elements identified in themodel development consultations. The elements include:

• easy to navigate;• self-test of key concepts;• use of different media (video, audio, text, images);


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

• different levels (depth) of material coverage;• a glossary of key terms;• an advanced search capability;• advanced communication and collaboration tools, and;• simulations and interactive exercises.

The course contained the elements identified above integrated withthe combined learning model. It took a team of three people approxi-mately 2000 hours to develop. It contains 300 images, 38 video and au-dio clips, and 72,000 words of text.

One of the key elements in the design of the online course was theability to examine course material at different levels or depth of cover-age. For example, when a learner enters a new topic, basic informationis displayed (didactic learning) along with options to explore the topicfurther. Each additional selection provides the learner an opportunity togo deeper into the topic (experiential and reflective learning). A “MoreNotes” button provides deeper information where the concept is appliedto a particular context. As well, audio, video and illustrated audio op-tions are sometimes presented to show how the concept applies. For ex-ample, a role-play of a social work counselling session is used toillustrate how structural social work differs from generalist social work.Finally, the topic page may also present the learner with an exercise thatallows them to try out what they have just learned in a case or scenario.

Another key design element is the ability to communicate with otherstudents and the instructor. A conferencing system (newsgroup) con-nects the instructor and all students asynchronously, and a “chat sys-tem” connects everyone synchronously at scheduled times. Allarieforums was used for conferencing and ICQ for real-time chat. The dis-cussion groups asynchronously enable learners to go online wheneverthey chose and read messages posted by other members of the class.Learners can post their own messages or reply to the messages of oth-ers. Allarie Forums has several advanced features that enable learners toattach files, HTML content and to be notified by e-mail whenever an-other person replies to a particular posting.

The conferencing system had several threads or discussion areas:“Chit-chat Café” for general conversation, “Administrative Questions”for administrative questions for the instructor, and “Topic Discussion”to discuss specific topics. The “Topic Discussion” discussion groupwas a key aspect of the online course. Every Friday morning I left a dis-cussion question specific to a topic for that week. Students are requiredto leave at least two replies to each weekly question. Twenty percent oftheir grade is based on the number and quality of the replies.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

EVALUATION RESULTS

Analysis of the experience of delivering the course with 20 learnersfrom remote communities in Canada was completed using a focusgroup. Learners were asked three questions to elicit discussion: Whatdid you like most about the online course? What did you like least aboutthe online course? and, What were the major barriers inhibiting yoursuccess in the course? These three questions elicited discussion about avariety of topics with emphasis on what aspects of the online course as-sisted them in their learning, and what aspects hindered their learning.The three-hour focus group included all students who were registered inthe course and was completed at the end of the course.

The learners consisted of 17 Aboriginal students and three non-Ab-original students who work in remote communities with Aboriginalpeople. All but three of the learners were employed full-time as socialworkers. Most were mature students with anywhere from 5-20 years ofdirect practice experience. Several of the learners were managers anddirectors of agencies in their communities. All the students were fromremote communities: 500 km from the closest university or college.

The “Summary of Findings” chart (see Table 1) captures the mainideas discussed in the focus group. Overall, the learners were very posi-tive about the experience, but did have concrete recommendations andcritiques. Perhaps the most significant conclusion was that the grouppositively received the suggestion that another future course in theBSW program be taught as an online course.

“WHAT ASPECTS OF THE COURSEDID YOU LIKE THE MOST?”

The group voiced numerous aspects of the course which they liked orthat they believed helped them in their learning. Two items stood out asfactors that all students appreciated. First, they liked that they learnedabout the computer and the Internet. For example, one learner stated, “Ilike the idea that I am learning the operation of the computer–how to usee-mail, send an attachment, send files from home to work–this is stuffthat I wouldn’t have learned otherwise.” Learners also appreciated theconvenience and flexibility of the online course. The course enabledthem to learn anytime and anywhere. Since they had full-time employ-ment and families, they found convenience to be very important. Theability to learn at a distance from both other students and the instructor


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

was appreciated. Foregoing the need to travel from their remote communi-ties to a central location was seen as a major benefit. Learners also foundthat the online nature of the course enabled them to learn at their own pace.“The online course gave me the time I need to understand something–peo-ple didn’t have to wait for me, and I could learn anytime I wanted.”

The convenience and flexibility aspects of the course also hadspin-off benefits that were identified by learners. Several studentsfound that because they could learn at their own pace and anytime, thatit took commitment and dedication to motivate them to learn. One stu-


TABLE 1. Summary of Findings

Aspects of Course Liked Aspects of CourseDisliked

Barriers to Success

Online test helped see if Iretained material

Too much reading on screen Scary

Online discussion helpedconfirm that you understand

Too many readings I really got discouraged

Online discussion helps toconnect with other students

No idea how long it wouldtake me to get through thematerial

I did not think that I waslearning anything

I enjoyed the onlinediscussion

I learn better by having youin a class

Not everyone has acomputer out here

I liked that I learnt theoperation of the computer &Internet

More examples to explainconcepts would have helpedme understand better

It is hard to get to the centreto access a computer

I liked that you hadobjectives and summariesfor each module

You left too much timebetween questions on thediscussion group

Not enough time with otherstudents to learn from oneanother

The glossary really helpedme understand all thoseUniversity-type words

No one told me before thecourse that it was online

Face-to-face time isimportant in a 1st yearcourse

I like the layout and look ofthe online course

I lost interest in thediscussion group whenpeople didn't respond to myquestion

I didn't have any computerskills when I started

Others didn't have to wait forme to understand something

Smaller online study groupswould have helped

Did not know aboutbrowsers or e-mail

I could log on and learnanytime I wanted

You really had to motivateand discipline yourself

I liked that we did not haveto meet as often since weare busy and it is hard totravel to classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

dent summarized this view: “I was able to see where my dedication andcommitment to the course was at. If I wasn’t that committed it may havebeen different. You really had to motivate yourself and discipline your-self–I thought that was good.” A few students believed at the beginning ofthe course that they would not make it–that they would not have the disci-pline to do the course on their own. They were pleasantly surprised and thishelped increase their confidence in their own ability to learn on their ownand continue with the BSW program. The majority of learners also statedthat they learned more than they thought they would at the outset.

Beyond the general favourable aspects of the course, learners dis-cussed specific components or features of the course that they thoughthelped them learn better. Specific features that learners found particularlybeneficial include: online self-tests after each module; weekly discussiongroups; the online glossary of terms; the modular layout of the course,and the organization of the modules with objective and summaries.

Learners found they gained significant benefits from the online tests.The tests were simple multiple choice and true/false questions whichcorresponded to the material and concepts for each module. Studentswent as far as saying that the simplicity of the tests was one of its majorbenefits. They found it useful to have a simple test of their comprehen-sion of the module. As one student summarized the discussion: “I likedthe online test to see where I was and if I was retaining the material. Ittells you if you are on the right track. Things fall into place.” Studentsfelt that a more complicated testing function would have been less ef-fective. “If you made it more complicated it would have just been scary.I liked that I could take a quick quiz and see where I needed to review orgo back.” The feedback from learners on this aspect of the course wascontrary to my expectations. I expected criticism of the online test asbeing simplistic and lacking detail. In fact, the tests existed as simplemultiple-choice quizzes mostly because of development time and costsconstraints. It was surprising, therefore, to find that the simplicity of thequizzes was what students liked the most.

The weekly online discussion groups were also appreciated as a ma-jor beneficial element of the course. This was supplemented with syn-chronous (at the same time) CHAT capabilities that was used by only afew students. The asynchronous (at any time) discussion groups wereorganized such that each student was required to leave at least two mes-sages per week for a grade allotment of 10%. Students believed that thegrade allotment motivated them to get going with the group, but in theend they did it because they enjoyed it and found it useful. In particular,students said they used the online discussion to “talk” with other stu-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

dents about the course content and “just to get to know them.” As well,they found it useful to confirm their understanding of the course mate-rial. Several learners stated that with the online course they were fre-quently concerned that they did not comprehend the material andconcepts, and the discussion group was a way for them to test their un-derstanding and confirm comprehension.

Three distinct discussion groups were established: an administrativequestions area, a chit-chat area for casual discussion between students,and a content discussion area where I was vigilant about stoppingnon-content related discussion. The students especially enjoyed thechit-chat area. Although this feature was a last-minute addition, thelearners found it to be an essential component of the course. They be-lieved that it facilitated a connection with others and the development ofa sense of community or group cohesion.

The course participants were employed in various social serviceagencies, but were isolated from other social work colleagues. Thecourse provided their first exposure to online discussion groups orconferencing. The realization that they could connect and discuss issueswith similar people in other communities had an extremely positive im-pact, beyond their experience in the course.

The quality of the writing in the online discussion was excellent.Learners, generally, expressed concerns that their writing skills werelacking, because they had been out of school so long and writing skillswere not emphasized in their Aboriginal communities. The online con-ference gave the learners an opportunity to practice writing, and obtainfeedback from other students and the instructor. Perhaps because of theoral tradition of Aboriginal people the students had excellent oral pre-sentation skills, but were less confident about their writing skills. Thenecessity of having to write their conversations in the online conferencegroup enhanced their writing skills. Many students also appreciated theway in which online discussion groups created a learning environmentin which students learned from each other.

The synchronous chat facility was not widely used. Only a few learn-ers have used it, and mostly to get in contact with the instructor. Workschedules and family commitments meant that many learners went on-line at odd hours of the night or early morning. This made it difficult toschedule any time that everyone could have an online chat at the sametime.

One feature that was overwhelmingly appreciated by learners wasthe glossary of terms. Students found that if they did not understandsomething the first step would be to go to the glossary and see if defini-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

tions of the key concepts in the material would help. The focus group re-search found that of all the features in the course the online glossary ismost essential for a first year level course.

Learners also believed that the modular structure of the course wasnecessary to facilitate their learning. This was accomplished in twoways. First, the concepts and material for each week was presented in asequential manner which ensured that all the necessary ideas werelearned before a new concept was presented. As well, the material fol-lowed a week-by-week progression. This, the learners believed, en-sured that they stayed on track. Stepping them through the materialweek by week was seen as a key structural element for a beginning levelcourse. Several learners stated that they are more non-linear in their ap-proach to learning and at first they thought the course structure wouldimpede their learning. Eventually, they found that the course allowedthem to follow the course ideas in an organized way, and also enabledthem to explore and discover the material in a non-linear way, if theydesired. This was facilitated by a detailed “site map” or table of con-tents. With the site map students could pick an idea or concept and eas-ily explore it further. This study indicates that having a sequentialstructure in conjunction with a detailed course map may empower stu-dents with different learning styles to learn effectively. We also foundthat learners may use different learning styles for different material sono one approach is always better. The key for this course appears to beits flexibility.

Finally, learners appreciated the presentation of module objectives atthe beginning of each module and module summaries at the end. Theysaid that they wished all courses used this approach, including class-room-based courses. One student summarized the discussion by stating:“The summaries and objectives helped me know what I was getting intoand let me know if I learned what I was supposed to learn.” Again, thenotion that learners need features to confirm that they were learningwhat was intended was emphasized.

One course element that was not mentioned as being “liked” was theadvanced search capability. This was a facility which enabled the learn-ers to search the course using Boolean search parameters or simple keywords either by module or for the entire course. The facility used theMicrosoft Index server and was one of the most time consuming andcostly functions to develop. Given that few students neither used thesearch nor understood its capability, I would consider foregoing the ex-pense–as least for this particular course. It is possible that the learningmodel and course layout did not necessitate such a function. For exam-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

ple, the layout made it easy to find materials and the model broughtlearners through the material step-by-step. For other types of coursesthe search function may be a necessary and useful function.

“WHAT ASPECTS OF THE COURSEDID YOU DISLIKE THE MOST?”

Learners were immediately vocal on their belief that the course hadtoo much text. They stated that there were too many online readings,and that it was difficult to read text on the computer screen. One studentfound that she “learned better when you sent printed material. It is betterto have it in my hands. You can see ahead, you know where you are andhow far you have to go.” These comments raise several important de-sign considerations for online courses. First, I assumed that studentswould print many of the readings and read them from paper copies. Thisassumption was incorrect, as at least one-half of the students did nothave access to a printer. This is an important consideration for educa-tion with learners in social work and for learners in remote communitieswho may not have access to, or the income for, a printer. Secondly, theabundance and ease of access to online readings encouraged me to se-lect too many readings per week. This was anticipated to an extent and Ilabelled the readings as either “required readings” or “additional sug-gested readings.” This did not elevate the problem as many learners feltthat they still need to read everything.

This finding raises important design and structural questions thatneed to be seriously addressed in online courses. First, for onlinecourses that have an abundance of readings it may be preferable to mailprint copies. Students were not adverse to the notion of purchasing aprinted course reader, much like they would purchase a textbook. Fur-ther, with online readings it may be relatively straightforward to addresscopyright issues. Finally, an extremely clear method should be used toinform students that they do not have to read everything referred to inthe Web site. My future online courses will have separate sections forrequired and supplemental readings, with clearer instructions.

Several criticisms of the course centered on the facilitation of the on-line discussion groups. This is a key aspect of the course, as indicated bythe focus group discussion. While this is an easy feature to add to an on-line course, it is clearly a difficult feature to facilitate and administerproperly. Learners had two primary criticisms, and a suggestion for anew type of online discussion group. The learners felt that too much


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

time elapsed before the instructor posted new discussion questions.This meant that the students would logon looking for new items uponwhich to comment and nothing new would be there. Learners also be-lieved that all the questions should be answered whether posted by theinstructor or another student. As one learner stated, “I lost interest in thediscussion group at times and I hoped that people would participate . . . Iwondered if my responses were relevant, but no one said anything . . .anyway my kids really motivated me to keep going back.”

Two considerations emerged from these findings. First Nation learnersplace a high importance on the online discussion group in a social workcourse, and it is difficult to meet the expectations. Commenting on studentresponses and facilitating the discussion is a large task for an instructor thatconsumes considerable amounts of time. One of two approaches could ad-dress the learner concerns. Either more instructor time would be requiredor the learner expectations for instructor facilitation and comments wouldneed to be lowered and specified. In the case of a first year course com-prised of First Nation learners from remote communities, it would seemthat an increased amount of facilitation and instructor time is required. Inother situations a different approach may suffice. At any rate, the impor-tance of the online discussion groups should not be under-estimated, northe time and skill required by the instructor to adequately facilitate.

The students had a clear desire to connect with other students. Per-haps this was more accentuated, as this was their first of many coursestogether. Several learners suggested that smaller online study groupswould have helped lessen the expectations of the discussion groups, andwould have helped in further exploring interesting ideas, as well as helpconfirm that they were understanding the course. This is an item thatshould be considered for online courses.

BARRIERS TO SUCCESS

The barriers to success of the course were envisioned as: lack of ac-cess to computer equipment and Internet connections in remote com-munities; lack of knowledge of learners on how to use e-mail,conferencing and Internet browsers; and motivating learners to consis-tently go to the course on their own time and on a consistent basis. As itturned out the students did have access to the required equipment. Themore important barrier was the lack of knowledge and skills in using thecomputer and web software. A significant amount of time was spentwith several students teaching them how to use the necessary software.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

The course began with a 3-day meeting of the class in a face-to-faceformat. I believed that an initial meeting was required for several rea-sons. First, this online course was to be the first course taken by this par-ticular cohort of students. Although the group will spend the next 5years together in the BSW program, most had never met each other. Ithought that it was important for the students to meet, establish personalcontact, and to discuss the BSW program overall. At the initial meetingfrustration was expressed by several students concerning the difficultiesthey envisioned in getting their computer to work properly. Other ex-pressed concerns about not having more face-to-face meetings, giventhat it was a new program for them. In the end, I assured the group that ifthey had technical difficulties, I would print and mail them the pagesfrom the web site.1

The second reason for an initial face-to-face meeting was that 4-5 stu-dents lacked the necessary computer skills to take the online course. Themeeting was also used, therefore, to discuss the feasibility and percep-tions around taking a social work course online. The meeting was a suc-cess in that all participants voiced a desire to “give it a whirl” and see howthe online course would work. The learners displayed incredible enthusi-asm in learning how to use the Internet software. At the end of the secondday, which was largely used to go through the online course, the studentsdid not want to leave at the end of the scheduled time. They were not onlyexploring the course, but were also discovering the vast resources whichwere available on the Internet that could help them in their social workpractice. For example, one learner described a research assignment thathe was given at work in the area of child welfare. When he discovered thevast resources on the Internet, he was surprised and startled. Given thelack of material and library resources in remote communities, the Internetprovided access to materials never envisioned. With this experience Iconcluded that providing an online course to these students not only pro-vided a course of accessible learning, but also opened the doors to learnabout the Internet and computer skills in general.

A few students were quite adamant that face-to-face time is criticalfor a social work course. They found that they got discouraged andbored “just sitting at the computer.” They would prefer a course that hasa combination of both online learning and classroom learning. Whenother students asked them about travel time, the desire for classroomtime quickly fell. In the end, two meetings were seen as adequate. Over-all, the barriers to success of the course hinged on the lack of computerskills and the desire for increased amounts of face-to-face discussion,particularly because it was their first course as a group.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

CONCLUSION

The design, development, delivery and evaluation of the onlinesocial work course has raised numerous questions and issues. Somefaculty were concerned that online learning takes away from theface-to-face interaction that is necessary for a proper social work educa-tion. As well, some were concerned that online courses would be usedto replace faculty in higher education. Students, on the other hand, weremore concerned with how to make online learning better. They enjoyedthe experience and found both the method of learning and the computerskills gained to be useful.

The geographic size of Canada and the numerous remote communi-ties of Aboriginal peoples who desire distance social work educationnecessitate further exploration of the potential of online learning. Theexperience and evaluation detailed in this chapter illustrates the need tofurther explore how the Internet can be used to make quality educationavailable to remote Aboriginal learners in their communities. Socialservice agencies, community organizations and the learners themselvesare requesting online educational opportunities, so it is incumbent uponthose of us attempting to meet their educational needs to explore the po-tential of new technologies. Online social work education is not the pan-acea to address the needs of remote Aboriginal learners, and it couldpose significant dangers and limitations. It does, however, provide an-other method with potential positive impacts and effects.

NOTE

1. This is not an ideal solution as the web site has numerous exercises, audio andvideo that cannot be printed.

REFERENCE

Hick, S. (1999). Learning to Care on the Internet: Evaluating an online introductory so-cial work course. New Technology in the Human Services, 11(4) CHST.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

oust

on]

at 1

1:32

17

Oct

ober

201

4

connecting aboriginal learners in remote communities: an online social work course

Documents