learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Karen Hughes Miller and Linda Leake
into another site that is now filling that purpose. As with all learning platforms or other interactive
software, there are some limitations, but we believe that overall the advantages make this a
worthwhile endeavor (see Table1).
Table 1: Positive and negative aspects of using the Blackboard organizations function for nontraditional
applications
Positives:
The Blackboard platform includes a rich variety of
functions bundled into one proprietary (password
protected) venue.
Most institutions’ contracts already include some form
of “organization” application.
Faculty, students, and staff are usually familiar with
using the online platform and these skills can be
applied to “organization” applications.
Training and technical support can be the same for
regular course application and organization
applications.
Success breeds success and other departments learn
from example and develop new applications.
Negatives:
Users’ browser compatibility: occasional issues with
newer browsers (Firefox 4 and Internet Explorer 9).
Needing to obtain user IDs (passwords) for non
college or university personnel.
Not being able to access “discreet” data on
participant replies when using the survey function
(this is viable only in the “quiz” function and
anonymity is sacrificed).
Although all online learning platforms have become
more user-friendly over the years, faculty and staff
time must still be dedicated to site development and
site maintenance.
The term “thinking outside the box” is certainly overused, but in this case, if we can think outside the
idea of a “course site” and imagine to what other purposes we can put all of that online functionality,
we may find we have a wonderful new set of tools already at our fingertips.
Acknowledgments
Sincere thanks to Ronald M. Welch, Kentucky Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) for review of
Case Study #1; to Cathy Liest, Executive Director of REACH, for review of Case Study #2; to Gwen
Holland, Senior Compliance Analyst, U of L Privacy Office, for review of case #3; to Dr. Virginia
Weber Denny, Assistant Director for Professional Development, and John Spence, Program Manager
for Professional Development, Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning, for review of Case #4; and to
Angela Napier, MSSW, ABD, Coordinator of Academic Affairs Graduate Programs, and Dr. Pamela
Yankeelov, Associate Dean, Student Services, Raymond A. Kent School of Social Work, for review of
case #5.
References
Bonder, B., Martin, L. and Miracle, A. (2001) “Achieving Cultural Competence: the Challenge for Clients and
Healthcare Workers in a Multicultural Society. Generations, Vol 25, No. 1, pp 35-42.
Chao, Y-C. and Miller, G. (2002) “Effective Math Online Learning (EMOL), Master Project Proposal.” Learning
Design & Technology Program. Stanford University, 18 January, 2002. Advisor: Professor Jim Greeno.
[online] http://ldt.stanford.edu/~chaoyc/project/emolproposal.pdf
Gautreau, C. and Ahmed, S. (2008). “Blackboard Management and Professional Development Strategies to
Augment Teaching and Learning”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Vol 4, No. 3. [online]
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no3/gautreau_0908.pdf
Mott, W.J. (2003) “Developing a Culturally Competent Workforce: A Diversity Program in progress.” Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol 48, No. 5 (Sep/Oct) pp 337-342.
Roscoe, R.D. and Chi, M.T.H. (2007) “Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling
in Peer Tutor’s Explanations and Questions”, Review of Educational Research, Vol 77, No. 4, pp 543-574.
Roscoe, R.D. and Chi, M.T.H. (2008) “Tutor learning: the Role of Explaining and Responding to Questions”,
Instructional Science, Vol 36, pp 321-350.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2003). Health Information Privacy: Research. [online]
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/research/index.html
491