Group items tagged

student–student (SS), student–teacher (ST), or student–content (SC) interactions

A strong association is found between strength and achievement for asynchronous DE courses compared to courses containing mediated synchronous or face-to-face interaction

Regardless of the tool or set of tools that you use, be sure your communication plan is clear to your students. Online communication does have rules, just like face-to-face communication. Set guidelines as well as expectations, and use only those tools that you’ve evaluated and which clearly enhance your teaching and student learning.

In the second phase, 13 of the 22 respondents to the first phase were sent follow-up questions to elicit their perspectives as to whether the use of VoiceThread satisfied Chickering and Gamson's (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.

Results Out of a total of 61 students in two online sections of the business policy course, 22 students – 14 females and eight males – took part in the exam review and VoiceThread survey (i.e., the first phase of the study). The participants were graduating seniors, and as part of the course, they had participated in weekly discussion board activities within the University’s LMS, Blackboard. None of them had used VoiceThread prior to their involvement in the study. The survey results are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1. Survey responses – "yes/no" items (N = 22)

Question Yes No Comments 1. Did you comment on the VoiceThread? 22 0   2. Was it difficult to comment? 1 21 "A little, text box small." 3. Would you like to use VoiceThread for future exam reviews and discussion of chapter concepts? 14 8 "Yes. [It is] More interactive, [and involves] not just reading text, but actually listening, and picking up information that way." "Yes. By then I will know how to use the microphone." "No. [It] Take[s] less time to read answers on Blackboard's discussion board as opposed to listening to people's answers on VoiceThread. It was difficult to read the small text." (This student liked participating in the exam review on VoiceThread for the extra credit, and she would do it again if extra credit were given.) "No. I won't be able to use it with my other devices such as my iPad and iPhone." "No. It's easier to read the review questions and find the answers in the book." 4. Would you like to use VoiceThread to make a presentation for a course in the future? 14 8 "Yes. Sure! That would probably work out pretty well!" "Not really! Not unless I have to." 5. Would you suggest to your peers the use of VoiceThread for making their own presentations? 16 6  

Abstract: This paper reports on a two-phase exploratory study that involved student use of the asynchronous multimedia communication tool VoiceThread within a business policy course. In the first phase, students participated in a VoiceThread exercise consisting of an exam review followed by a survey on the use of VoiceThread. Of the 22 participants (from a class of 61 graduating seniors), 64% specified they would like to use VoiceThread for future learning activities, and 73% indicated they would recommend VoiceThread to peers for the purpose of delivering presentations. In the second phase, 13 of the 22 respondents to the first phase were sent follow-up questions to elicit their perspectives as to whether the use of VoiceThread satisfied Chickering and Gamson's (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Eight of the 13 students responded, with almost all responses being positive with respect to the Seven Principles. The results lend some initial support to the idea that VoiceThread can be an effective tool for facilitating learning activities in business and other courses.

Students are empowered to learn on their own and even to teach one another.

Students served as instructors to their classmates, and together they worked toward learning goals more effectively than if they had been provided with the answer by the instructor.

classroom assessment techniques (CATs)

One online instructor (Alley 1996) has described this changing pedagogical consciousness as an �instructional epiphany�.� Alley tells of a personal transformation, stimulated by online instruction, marked by two "milestones". First, he had to totally redesign his course to fit and leverage the new learning environment. Second, he had to rethink what he calls his �basic approach�: �As long as I held on to the traditional �sage-on-stage� style of teaching, I would keep reinventing ways for students to be a passive audience� (1996:51).� Similar changes in pedagogical belief and practice have been reported by other faculty who have taught web-based courses (Brown 1998; Jaffee 1997; Cremer 1998) as well as researchers who have interviewed online instructors (Frank 2000).�� There are clearly some �structural constraints� built into the virtual classroom ecology that make it difficult to implement traditional modes of delivery and, in this sense, almost force instructors to entertain active learning strategies. As Frank (2000) discovered in her study of online instructors, "All of the participants saw online learning as empowering for students. The most valuable benefits were the facilitation of active learning, critical thinking, collaboration, confidence, and lifelong learning habits. A common theme was the way in which the teacher is forced to give up the control that one has in a face-to-face environment and re-examine the traditional role of content deliverer".� Just as the physical classroom architecture imposes constraints on, and opportunities for, particular pedagogical practices, so too does the virtual classroom. John Seely Brown (2000) has described the environment of the world-wide-web as a �learning ecology� that is a self-organized evolving collection of cross-pollinating overlapping communities of interest.� Asynchronous web-based courses that include a discussion forum possess many of the same ecological features. All members of the class can receive and broadcast information at any time. This critical communication feature distinguishes the virtual classroom from prior forms of instructional technology.�� While instructors can mediate and guide, they cannot entirely control the flow of communication. Thus, instructor and student roles and relations are less hierarchical and more overlapping and interactive. These greater opportunities for participation can contribute to a greater diversity of opinion and perspective. It is hard work to establish these social dynamics in a physical classroom constrained by a fixed space, a designated time block, and trained inhibitions. The virtual classroom, in contrast, has the potential to establish new patterns of instructor and student interaction and, accordingly, different teaching and learning roles and practices (Girod and Cavanaugh 2001; Becker and Ravitz 1999). ��������� In making comparisons between the physical and virtual classroom, it is important to emphasize a cautionary caveat. The pedagogical ecology, be it a physical classroom or a virtual interface, cannot entirely determine a particular pedagogical practice or learning outcome. The pedagogical ecology offers opportunities and constraints that will shape and influence classroom dynamics and learning outcomes, but much will also depend on the principles informing, and the actual design of, the teaching and learning process (see Chamberlin 2001). The various practices that are employed in both a physical and a virtual classroom indicate the range of possibilities. However, if we believe that, for the purpose of student learning, active student engagement and interaction is preferable to the passive reception of information, we should consider the degree to which this principle is advanced or facilitated by the expanding virtual learning ecology.�

Sociological theories and concepts have an important role to play in analyzing and interpreting these developments. A central sociological proposition is that structural environments influence the social perceptions, roles, and relations of human actors.� As increasing numbers of students and faculty find themselves operating in virtual learning environments, we might also expect to find some changing instructional dynamics. More specifically, there are a number of questions worth exploring. What are the relationships between the technical, the social, and the pedagogical infrastructures?� How has the introduction of new instructional technologies influenced established pedagogical practices? How does the shift from a physical classroom to a virtual learning environment shape and reconfigure the social roles and relations among faculty and students? What consequences will these technologies have for developing pedagogical practices?

have less to do with the proven effectiveness of the particular practice than the desire to appear legitimate or conform to normative expectations.�

A successful Internet course will reflect the communicative nature of the online environment

performance

A few students indicated it was hard to have discussions when they did not know with whom they were discussing. One student said, “It was weird because I was having this online in-depth discussion with someone I had never seen before, and it felt a little creepy.”

In general, the more contact between students and faculty both inside and outside the classroom, the greater the student development and satisfaction

Pose well-designed questions for asynchronous discussion.