Group items tagged

Although I am not completely enamored of the final proposed model, which I think oversimplifies the very issues their analysis distinguishes, I do find this article useful in giving names to a number of factors we have found ourselves discussing: e.g., learner-interface interaction, transaction v. interaction, interaction v. interactivity, provocateur v. academician. Useful for our ongoing conversation.

Curtis and Lawson (2001) looked for "evidence of good quality interactions among students who are not present in the one physical site from data obtained from students' online exchanges" (p. 21). They focused on the "depth of on-task activity" (p. 21) in an asynchronous situation, which they argue is the most common form of online courses, of a small collaborative learning group. They found that "the analysis of participants' postings reveals many of the behaviors associated with collaborative learning in face-to face situations" (p. 29). However, "the students spontaneously demonstrated a need also to use synchronous communication" (p. 24). Some did this via text or email, often when they did not agree with another student and some organized synchronous chat sessions. This shows that "there is a need to incorporate among the asynchronous interactions…opportunities for real-time interactions among students" (p. 29).

While this paper set out to discover what activities and/or interaction channels might be expected to lead to more highly engaged student s, what it found was a bit different. After first creating a scale to measure online student engagement, and then surveying 186 students from six campuses in the Midwest, the results indicate that there is no particular activity that will automatically help students to be more engaged in online classes. However, the results also suggest that multiple communication channels may be related to higher engagement and that student-student and instructor-student communication are clearly strongly correlated with higher student engagement with the course, in general. Thus, advice for online instructors is still to use active learning but to be sure to incorporate meaningful and multiple ways of interacting with students and encouraging/requiring students to interact with each other.

I liked the article in this week's reading on creating an interactive syllabus and found this article about how writing students contributed to an interactive course syllabus. This resonated with me since I teaching writing courses.

This is an unpublished research article on a model for group work in an online or blended course environment. The two salient points in this article are that the students must have unique skills for the online classroom. First they must be taught how to use the necessary technologies for collaboration and the second is that they must be taught social skills for online collaboration. The first point seems obvious, but I think the second point is often overlooked. We assume that students know how to interact with others, however interacting online is quite different than in person. Therefore these skills must be included in our curriculum.

This paper explores the relationship between student perceptions of various aspects of the course and their actual performance and participation

The author discusses the theory behind online discussions, as well as the potential value of - and problems associated with - online discussions. Some excerpts: "The argument I offer here is that saying an online discussion is a worse version of an IRL discussion is like saying an apple is a worse version of an orange. Disappointment with online discussions because they are not like IRL discussion is like being disappointed with an apple because it is a bad orange." ... "In an IRL discussion, students look, speak, and listen with multiple objects. In online discussion, like during a lecture, students sit and stare at a single object as well: but it is a computer rather than a person speaking. The lecturer is the computer. This lecturer is a screen with a keyboard and includes a complex series of frames within which the student types sentences in varying sequences. By this I am not only talking about video lectures which students watch, but rather more perceptually. In a lecture, the lecturer is the sole object of attention. There is only one object of attention: bracketing the complex material engaged with in the screen, it remains true that students exclusively engage with the screen when learning online. Students in online courses stare at a computer when learning online the same way they would stare at a lecturer speaking, focusing their attention on a single object. At a lecture, it's a person. Online, it's the computer."... "In any case, online discussions are still discussions. It would be a mistake to say all we do during online discussion is stare intensely at a computer. Most of the discussions in my online courses occur asynchronously on discussion boards. On these written discussion boards, for example, we read and write responsively. The whole situation of online discussion is therefore more akin, in this respect, to written correspondence."

From the conclusion: "Participating well in online discussions might be more like writing a good letter or having a good phone conversation, as opposed to a good spoken kind comment in an IRL discussion. We should not expect online discussions to be anything at all like IRL discussions. They are categorically different. In other words, being disappointed with online discussions because they are not like IRL discussions is like being disappointed with apples because they are not oranges." "In planning online courses, generating online assignments, and creating materials for online teaching, it is important to remember that online discussions require students to focus intense attention on a machine, and therefore compels them to cathect and introject that machine. Independently of the fluidity of your module and software, students transfer meanings onto their machines during the learning process rather than a person. While the introjection of machines is an interesting opportunity for further educational research, as an instructor, plan for student participation with this in mind: they are interacting with a machine and not people. An online discussion is more like a computer's lecture than an IRL discussion, no matter how interactive."

An excellent guide to use when developing a course and wanting to be able to effectively reach a multitude of devices (student-content interaction)

This article has a follow up major piece in the June 24 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. I cannot send that one to you because it is "locked." However, this piece describes what two very famous psychologists, Gosling and Pennebaker, are doing at UT Austin with online psychology classes. They describe here a synchronous massive online course in which (as now described in the Chronicle, they have 1500! students registered. Twenty four students are invited to attend F2F classes twice per week and the rest are online live. This SMOC, as they term it, allows faculty to interact live with an audience while teaching but affords huge enrollments. This seems to me to be a way of maintaining the "feel" of F2F while benefiting from the usefulness of technology. This is a very interesting development and, with these two psychologists being so well known, teachers of large lecture classes will take notice. I would love to explore the idea further!

This is pretty amazing! I wondered to what extent this was also a flipped class - did students do their readings and watch lectures before coming to class, and in the synchronous sessions, mostly focus on solving problems through group discussion? It seems to require a lot of technological and instructional support: TV studio, laptops, apps, and tutors serving as group advisors, but the better learning outcome may make it all worth it! Of course, at 500 students a class, it could save cost in a big way, too. So, are we all prepared to face the camera? :)

This paper describes two innovative online introductory statistics courses that utilize technology to create unique interactive learning environments. In these courses, technology is used to enable students to collaborate and learn from each other. I got some ideas about how to encourage students to engage in the course.

R.A.D.A.R. Learning Cycle = Read Apply Discuss And Reflect - this a template of a method that you can use to formulate learning assessment by using the discussion forums, blogs or written assignments. It is definitely a (Student-student and Student-content interaction)

Online classes can be mechanical in nature and feel distant for students, which typically results in low student engagement and retention in the class, or it can be an environment that stimulates an interest in learning and promotes meaningful interactions.

This study focuses on the presence of the teacher in the virtual classroom and how the instructor interacts with the students. Can an instructor's behavior encourage more student activity? Certainly, but it has to be more than the occasional "well done," the authors say. Students want more teacher presence, specifically more frequent responses, more acknowledgement of individuals' contribution, and more suggestions and guidance related to a specific response. So the bottom line is try to respond to individual students rather than a group and customize your comments as much as possible. You will have more engaged students.

In brief, the study shows that yes online teaching is time consuming but NOT because of the technology involved but because it is a great time investment to interact with all students. Again brings me back to my point that YES online teaching helps to 'individualize/personalize' the student learning process. Therefore, requires greater inputs and personalize mentoring than a traditional classroom engagement.

Introduction It is generally agreed that learning involves interaction and that it is a communal activity (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason, 1974). The traditional setting where communal learning activity occurs has been the in-person classroom; however, with the advent of technology that is no longer the case.

Tinto, V. (2003). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on student success. Higher Education monograph series, 1(8). The theme for M5 is "community, presence and interactions." This piece by Tinto is a pretty quick read and although it doesn't address online learning in particular, I thought it was appropriate as it emphasizes the idea that it takes a community of learners to make effective learning happen. He discusses 3 things all learning communities have in common: shared knowledge, shared knowing and shared responsibility (which really struck me as we start our group project).

This article compares the work patterns of a more successful and a less successful online group collaboration and draws conclusions about strategies that instructors can promote/encourage/require to help students successfully collaborate.

Playing Devils' Advocate here.... http://chronicle.com/article/Cheating-Goes-High-Tech/132093/ Would cheating in an online course be considered a "successful collaboration," or promoting positive peer-peer interactions?

If a group worked together to cheat, that certainly would be successful collaboration. I'm sure there are articles out there (that I haven't come across yet) that discuss strategies to minimize or circumvent cheating. Scaffolding assignments and requiring students to make visible all the steps in the process would help I think. Thanks!