Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Facilitating Collaborative and Constructive Interactions in
Online Courses
Joi L. Moore, Ph. D. [email protected]
Krista [email protected]
OverviewOnline Learning
Theoretical Framework Discussion Board Research
Tools CANS Skype Podcast Second Life
2. Student Preferences and Perceptions
Goals are to understand:student characteristics and behaviors within
Web-based courseshow students learn within Web-based
courses
MethodsSurvey Questionnaire
DemographicsWeb-based learning experience Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Soloman, 1991)Open ended questions focused on advice for
students and challenges
Conceptual Framework
Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2000)
Social PresenceThe ability of participants to project themselves socially and emotionally
Cognitive PresenceThe ability of participants to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in community
Teaching PresenceThe design and facilitation of cognitive and social processes
Interaction FindingsStudents who were more active with
students and instructor, were: more satisfied with learning,willing to recommend the course, andpreferred Web-based courses to FTF
A sense of community was important
Kim & Moore (2005)
Modes of Interaction
Online Discussions
IssuesDissatisfaction with having required discussions
every week
Regarded as busy work and time consuming to read all of the postings
Action Items based on instructional design:Determining the quantity and quality of
postingsDetermining the number of students to
participate in one discussionEntire class or groups Avoiding repetition or redundant information
Determining the number of class discussions during a semester
Online Discussion Research
Purpose: Compare evidence of knowledge
construction Two discussion forums with identical content Different participation protocols for postings
QuestionsDid social construction of knowledge occur in
both forums?Did the participation protocols affect
knowledge construction and participation? Moore & Marra (2005)
Participants37 students in graduate level course
A different instructor for each section
Section One (21 students)9 men and 14 women18 master’s students and 3 PHD students
Section Two (16 students)4 men and 12 women14 master’s students, 1 PHD student, and 1
undergraduate
Instructional ContextInstructional Design course delivered
online2 sections used the same content Different Blackboard discussion boards
Discussion Board - 5% of course grade14 weekly themesMust participate in at least 7 weekly
discussionsCase Study - 4% of course grade
Team analyzes case studyPost controversial issues to discussion boardFacilitate the discussion board for one week
Interaction Analysis Model (IAM)
(Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997)
Discussion Board Protocols
Both sections respond to an initial guiding question Postings should be concise and relate to the topic Discussions were 7 days (Monday to Sunday)
Section Two used Constructive Argumentation Thesis: A claim or a proposition which deals with
probability or facts Evidence: State a piece of evidence for or against a stated
thesis Assumption: State an underlying assumption for a thesis
or evidence statements Synthesis: Brings together prior postings
Number of PostingsSection One
With larger enrollment, requirements decreased the “saturation effect”
Reduced redundant and meaningless postings in order to receive credit
Section Two With smaller enrollment, smaller number of
postingsRequirements were met early in the semester, Little discussion toward the end of semesterStudents focused on projects
Constructive Argumentation Impact
Protocol was difficult to implementStudents concerned with the structure of their
postingConsider cultural differences
Debate FormatStudents had little experience debating in a
structured formatFocus to agree or disagree on presented issues
may have inhibited summarization or synthesis No evidence of application of new knowledge
for Section Two
ConclusionsDiscussion Board Protocols should:
be aligned with course or learning objectivesanalyzing and presenting the cases was effective for teamsweight of activity may affect participation
emphasize student responsibilities for facilitation and summariespromotes participation, meaningful discussions, and
“ownership” consider the length (i.e., number of days) for the
discussion consider the impact of the number of students on the
quantity and quality of postings. Allow flexibility for the number of postings required for a
semester
Facilitating Social Presence
Social Presence: Aware of the other person in the interaction
Acknowledge and welcome participants
Be encouraging and supportive while directing discussion
Allow students to get to know your as a person, to a certain degree
Suggest a minimum number of times to log-in
Encourage students to acknowledge peers when responding
Laud contributions when appropriate
Encourage “lurkers” to participate
Express feelings but avoid flaming
Be cautious using humor until familiarity is achieved
Encourage students to inform the teacher by email of tensions and anxiety.
Tools to Facilitate Social Presence and Awareness
Who’s Online BoxCreating a “Student
Lounge”
Awareness tools can also help the instructor manage discussions
Daily Emails of Activity
Emails every time something new is added
Social tools add another element for knowing what is going on
Social tools add another element for knowing what is going on
Communicating Your Social Presence
EffectivelyCommunicating in a way that allows others
to remember there is a real human being on the other end
Add in elements to communicate that which is lost in f2f communication: emotion, intonation, body language
It may be more informal than when talking f2f in order to convey personality
What is your impression of these three people?
What are they feeling?
How do you feel while reading it?
Their avatars are added. Now….
What is your impression of these three people?
What are they feeling?
How do you feel while reading it?
What did the avatars add?
What is your impression of these three people?
What are they feeling?
How do you feel while reading it?
Avatars AND emoticons are added…
What is your impression of these three people?
What are they feeling?
How do you feel while reading it?
What did the emoticons add?
Communicating Your Social Presence
EffectivelyPrevent embarrassment by using the
private message features (or email) in the learning environment
Allows 1:1 communication about issues you wish to discuss more privately
Communicating Your Social Presence
EffectivelyOpportunities to hear your voice (podcasts)
allows you to convey your personality through a different venue
Record your voice and upload to the course site, or use a podcast
Opportunities to interact synchronously or talk (Skype voice, skype video, skype chat)
Quicktime ProFast, easy, cheap way to record your voice
and save to a file:
Many tools to record voice files available.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net A free recorder and editor
PodcastAudio and video content delivered via subscriptions
ResourcesThe Education Podcast Network (EPN)
http://epnweb.org/index.php
As seen from here- the Ophthalmology podcast http://mtrope.libsyn.com/rss
Johns Hopkins PodMed http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mediaII/Podcasts.html
SkypeSkype video, Skype
Voice, Skype chat
Excellent tool for synchronous communication
Another venue for conveying another aspect of yourself and connecting
Second LifeVirtual environment where users create the content
and interact with avatars. People use it for classes, conferences, music concerts, demonstrations, etc.
Top Ten Sites http://scienceroll.com/2007/06/17/top-10-virtual-medical-
sites-in-second-life/
MD Kiosk Virtual Health Island on Second Life® http://youtube.com/watch?v=U3Szet7MJEM&feature=related
Second Health: Planned Care http://youtube.com/watch?v=plRfQzxNkiw&feature=related
Questions?
!
Research References Kim, K. S. & Moore, J. L. (2005). Web-Based Learning:
Factors Affecting Students' satisfaction and learning experiences. First Monday, 10(11).
Moore, J. L., Kim, K. S., & Esser, L. (2002). Aiming for effective student learning in Web-based courses: Insights from student experiences. In M. A. Fitzgerald, M. Orey, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol 27, pp. 204-208). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005) A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2).
