Group 4 Evaluation: 4
Group Members: Tracy Botts, Renee Marshall

Group 4 provided a strong argument for online learning. They very effectively tied information together and gave a good overview of what online learning is and the tools used to create and utilize online learning. The information about the obstacles adult learners need to overcome to be successful online learners was informative and pertinent. The inclusions of the history of distance learning beginning with correspondence courses helps the reader to envision the evolution of distance learning to what it is today. I would suggest that perhaps bringing in other resources bedside the Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland book would have strengthened their case.

Group 3 Evaluation: 5
Group Members: Melissa Carroll, Marta Herrera, Nasreen Wahid

Group 3 provided us with a very engaging introduction that set the tone for the paper. There is al a very strong definition of online learning, identifying both the positive and negative aspects. They presented us with a wide variety of stakeholders in online learning and the specific characteristics each much possess. A thorough explanation of the differing authoring tools that can be used in online learning was presented along with the elements of a CMS, which is currently the most used authoring tools. This group also presented a well thought out discussion of Web 2.0 tools that can be used effectively in online distributed learning to help provide a "student centered approach." They focused on the constructivist model of learning in online instruction and presented instructional strategies for exploratory, dialogic, and supportive environments. This groups conclusion tied back to their introduction and summed up all they had discussed within the paper.

Group 2 Evaluation: 4
Group Members: MJ Hall, Jeanette Layton, Beth Summerhill

Group 2 tied together the three sections of the paper together in a seamless manner. They thoroughly defined online learning, helped us to understand the pros and cons of online learning, and identified the stakeholders, including the institutions involved. This group also discussed a wide variety of delivery systems, online learning environments, and tools essential to online distributed learning. Utilizing a quote from a student in this class was also very effective and helped the reader to make connections to the paper. They also did a very effective job at defining the different knowledge acquisition models and constructivist learning models and how they can be used in different online learning environments.

Group 1 Evaluation: 4.5
Group Members: Marilyn Robinson, Scott Pfister, Suzanne Sallee

Group 1's introduction provided a basis for the entire paper and guided the reader through what they should expect. Section 1 provided an in-depth definition of online learning as it has evolved through the years. This section also tied together the various delivery models (CMS, LMS, Web based) and provided an in-depth look at the characteristics of both online learners and instructors. Section 2 took the reader into a more in-depth look at online learning tools. Many examples of these tools and their uses were presented in the paper. The paper presented us with both strengths and weaknesses of the tools and even introduced us to a new tool (Epsilen) that is currently being tested. Appendix A, Course Management System Comparison, helped readers see the similarities and differences of each tool. The The final section, Section 3, introduced the reader to various pedagogical models and instructional strategies. It showed an evolution of models and theories. It demonstrated the progression of behaviorist theories of education to the constructivist theories that are a significant part of online distributed learning. Many examples of each model and instructional strategy were included. There was a wide variety of resources used to compile the paper. Group 1 showed a through understanding of the elements of distributed learning but the paper was a bit long.