Interaction in Learner-Paced Learning - CIDER - 0 views
-
63.6% for the 2002-2003 period. Completion rates for the same courses offered in seminar format (either through synchronous technologies or face-to-face) averaged 86.9% over the same period (Athabasca University, 2003, p.12).
-
Nor do we know how to create and structure collaborative activities within independent study courses so that desirable characteristics of both collaboration and learner pacing can be retained. Further, we know little about demographics, learning styles, attitudes, or lifestyles of students who are more likely to appreciate and participate in collaborative activities at a distance.
-
Face-to-face interviews
- ...29 more annotations...
-
We also posted invitations on 17 applicable listservs for non-AU faculty to participate in telephone interviews about the topic.
-
Twenty-nine respondents were interviewed by telephone, two sent their replies via email, and one participated through an online audio conference with the help of a translator.
-
students who are most motivated are also more likely to participate in collaborative activities and finish the course in quicker times.
-
-
effective, collaborative and interactive activities must be designed and integrated
-
-
efforts must be expended by institutional staff to promote, monitor, coordinate, and assess these activities
-
-
Requiring participation only makes sense if the learning outcomes that result are sufficient to justify the reduction in learner control and flexibility that accompanies such prescribed activities
-
-
cooperative learning, which is somewhere in between, in the spectrum of learning, individual and collaborative learning. Cooperative learning, in my opinion, is to work with others, but you are not really dependent upon their input to complete your assignment or to progress in your studies. You cooperate with other students when they are there, and they can have some input into what you are learning, but you are not really dependent upon them.
-
cooperative learning, not dependent upon other students in order to complete the assignment
-
-
I could do that in three ways: as individual, cooperative or collaborative learning
-
-
I would write the task in slightly different ways. In individual learning, I would say, ‘Write down your thoughts on this and submit it to your teacher as an email.’ If I wrote it as a cooperative assignment, I would say something like this, ‘Discuss this with a colleague or a peer student. Using this discussion as a background, you should submit your assignment as an email to your teacher.’ If I should write it as the third alternative, collaborative learning, I would say something like this, ‘Contact a peer student and write the assignment together, and submit it as something you have written together to your teacher in an email.’
-
-
The respondent suggested that interaction need not be student-to-student within a particular course to be beneficial, but could consist of employee-employee or employee-employer interaction. Another respondent noted that a community necessary for lifelong learning has to exist outside of a single structure, stating: “Why should people want to be part of a community? I am not sure that course-based learning, unpaced or paced, is compelling enough to engage the learner in that context because the course is not the thing they are there for - the community is bigger than that. It is something that has drawn them into this
-
-
noting that is unlikely that sufficient numbers of students will be registered in low-enrollment courses and be at approximately the same place to make collaborative activities possible. One respondent argued that this activity therefore should be used only in large-enrolment courses, commenting: “A learning community is feasible with undergrad
-
-
Students may choose to participate in online group activities instead of completing individual, written assignments. If they choose online activity, their participation is marked. Besides engaging in asynchronous discussions, these students are required to evaluate and critique a submission from one peer. Students can self-register in the discussions.
-
-
About 40% of students choose the online discussion option in the current version of the course, compared to about 5% in the prior version, when facilitators were not used.
-
-
The respondents in general were experienced online and distance learners. The average number of online courses completed by each student was 2.1 with a range from 0 to 19. The number of courses that were based on self-study (that included older print-based correspondence model courses) was only slightly lower (m=1.9 range from 0-29).
-
variable how seasoned as online distance learners , or online courses in general
-
-
24% reported working with friends, family, or co-workers. The majority of student respondents (71%) chose not to participate in the interactive components of their courses, which consisted mostly of online discussion groups. Of the respondents who did participate in asynchronous conferences, 24% read or posted responses daily, 53% participated once or twice per week; and the rest only a few times during the course. Most respondents (79%) contributed 4-5 postings in each course.
-
-
Eighteen percent felt that participation would take too much time. A further 17% were not aware that discussion forums were available, 14% thought that participation would not significantly increase their learning, and 10% indicated that they felt they had nothing to contribute. About 10% of respondents cited a lack of recent posti
-
78% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that they would interact with other students as long as they were able to proceed through the course at their own pace. When queried how they would like to interact, 70% preferred asynchronous media like email and computer conferencing, 27% preferred a combination of synchronous and asynchronous technologies, and only 3% preferred synchronous interaction alone (for example, audio conferences or face-to-face interaction).
-
95% of student respondents reported a desire to access the work of students either currently or previously enrolled in the courses. About 77% of respondents indicated an interest in accessing animated student-content interaction devices such as a “ChatBot.” Only 25% of students felt that participation should be graded.
-
49% indicated they would not; 29% indicated they would; and 22% were unsure. When queried for the reasons that they did not wish to engage in collaborative activities, 58% said they preferred to learn on their own. About 25% indicated that they have a strong support group at work or at home, and 17% provided a variety of other reasons.
-
student survey results indicate that peer collaboration in general, at least in the form of asynchronous discussion groups, is not perceived as an important part of the learning experience within Athabasca University undergraduate individualized study courses
-
significantly increase faculty and administrative costs to the institution
-
The ability of students in each course to “see” when other students are online, and engage each other in online chats
-
student assessment incentives
-
communicate with other students in their courses at learner-determined times, and with a degree of social presence that meets their individual needs
-
designed to allow students to work with other students enrolled in the course as well as other non-registered members within and outside of the learning community. Where required, systems should be designed to permit spontaneous formation of groups of 4-5 students at a particular point in a course to perform a specified group task, after which the group would dissolve.
-
Students can locate learning partners and participate in a variety of informal discussion groups. Some of these may be directly related to course content, others to more general socializing, informal learning, employment and family concerns
-
“Study Buddy”
-
Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning 4 (2). Retrieved September 2004 from: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/anderson.html
-
Hislop, G. (2000.) Working professionals as part-time online learners. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 4 (2). Retrieved April 2003 from: http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/pdf/v4n2_hislop.pdf
