Here is the storyboard for my video. I couldn’t figure out how to do the storyboard without knowing my articles so I spent some time doing my annotated bibliography which I am including here as well.
| Introduce Topic – Collaborative Online Learning for High School | Shot video of myself introducing the topic |
| Introduce Dr. Pratt | Show pictures of his books while reading credentials
Still picture of Dr. Pratt Key Points of his background on bulleted list with pictures |
| Pedagogy supporting collaboration | Picture of Piaget – video of me talking
Definition of constructivism Quote from Pratt on link between collaboration and constructivism – Ken Burns’ effect on book quote comes from |
| Secondary Online Education | Description of increase in secondary online
Video of my classroom (empty) panning to computers in back education and lack of research specifically studying secondary students -video of journal |
| Best Collaborative Practices | Bulleted list from Pratt’s books |
| Current Literature Discussion | See Lit Review below
Male v female groups (Video of a boy and a girl) New software aids – Shared Space (SS) (Study from Netherlands – map showing location) Impact of familiarity on online collaboration (Video of two people shaking hands to show familiarity) Off task behavior and solutions (Video of someone on Facebook or playing video game) Self regulated strategies (study from Malaysia – map showing where it is) |
| Problems and solutions | Lack of instant feedback (video of someone looking at time on the phone impatiently) |
| Future of online collaboration | List from Dr. Pratt’s PowerPoint
Video of iPad in use Screen Capture of Second Life Video of Skype in use
|
Annotated Bibliography
Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving, Computers & Education 52(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009
Ding(2009) conducted a case study using six tenth grade students, three male and three female, in a five day online Dutch physics lesson (p. 513). The participants were assigned to three pairs; a mixed gender pair, a female only pair, and a male only pair. The participant pairs completed physics problems online collaboratively in 90 minutes (p. 513). Interactions between the participants were divided into three categories; productive, on task but not productive, and off task (p. 511). This categorization allowed the collaboration to be graphed for evaluation. Student pairs utilized a software platform called “Physhint (p. 511)” that was designed by the researchers. The purpose of the study was investigating how the partnerships’ collaborative online work differed by sex make up. The study found that the mixed sex group completed the greatest number of problems correctly, but the female participant’s participation was overshadowed by the males (p. 517). Another finding was that the female only partnership communicated by text as opposed to visual communication method of the male partnership (p. 518).
Ding (2009) did not disclose why the study was limited to six participants. As a case study, it is very hard to generalize findings to a larger population. Further research on this study’s findings of the differences in online collaboration between the sexes needs to be conducted before any generalizations can be used. Although diagrams and explanations describing the Physhint training software were included (pp. 511-513), information about how the software was tested to eliminate any gender bias to the study caused by Physhint should have been included. Further research building on Ding’s work will help Instructional Designers build collaborative online environments that are equable to both sexes.
Jahnke, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the impact of online discussion forum participation on learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 27-34. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
Jahnke (2010) conducted a grounded theory study on thirty-three twelfth grade students involved in an online asynchronous class that lasted for two weeks (pp. 27-28). The online class assisted students in completing a required independent writing assignment of 4000 words included in the International Baccalaureate program at a school that provides a laptop for every student (p. 27). Jahnke identified four themes that emerged; “interactivity”, “group construction of knowledge”, “ability to `revisit recorded thinking”, and “awareness of online identity (p. 29).”
Jahnke (2010) reported students identified collaboration with both other students and instructors was one of the most beneficial aspects of the project (pp. 29-30). Students contributed ideas to each other and gained an understanding of what other students’ ideas and opinions were through online collaboration (p. 30). An essential part of creating the online community was the discussion forum which focused on achieving the common goal of successful completion of the essay (p. 31). Students reported that the online environment forced them to be cautious when posting comments because of the absence of informal communication cues (p. 32). Jahnke concluded that positive student experiences in the online class overshadowed the negative experiences they identified (p. 32). The researcher also revealed that students discovered relationships built online during the study transferred to stronger relationships in their face to face environment after the study concluded (p. 34).
Jahnke (2010) revealed that she was not only the researcher, but also the coordinator for the program. This may have inadvertently tainted the study to report positive results to protect the researcher’s position. The research relied solely on a single school that has both adopted the International Baccalaureate program and provides a laptop to each student making transferability for different populations difficult. Additionally, the qualitative design of the study does not lend to transferability to different populations. The researcher did not reveal information about the abilities of the subjects of the study. Revealing grade point averages and other relevant academic history of the subjects would help other researchers utilize the research. Jahnke dismissed the negative aspects associated with the study which should be explored so that they can be reduced in future online designs.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005
Janssen, Erkens, and Kanselaar (2007) conducted a quantitative study with 117 eleventh grade history students in the Netherlands (p. 1109) to test a new visual tool, Shared Space (SS), has on collaborative learning (pp. 1105). Participants were randomly assigned to groups of between two and four students in either the test group, who used chat with SS, or the control group. SS evaluates student collaboration and categorizes responses as agreement or debate (p. 1122). Results revealed SS only increased group performance in the early stage of the collaboration (p, 1122).
Janssen, Erkens, and Kanselaar (2007) relied on student groups who were familiar with each other in a face to face environment (p. 1123) and did not elaborate on the gender makeup of the groups. This study revealed that Shared Space (SS) did result in significant differences in the early stages of collaboration suggesting that further research in the proper utilization of SS is necessary.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning, 25(1), 161-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010
Janseen, Erkens, Kirschner, and Kanselaar (2009) conducted a quantitative study investigating the effect of familiarity on online collaboration with 105 eleventh grade students completing the same lesson used in Janssen, Erkens, and Kanselaar’s (2007) study (p. 163). Janseen, Erkens, Kirschner, and Kanselaar (2009) used students from the same face to face classes in their study to ensure familiarity (p. 163). The researchers discovered that familiarity did increase performance in online lessons however it also increased off task online communication as well (p. 167). Four hypothesis were tested relating to familiarity and online collaboration including; “group member familiarity will contribute to more critical
and exploratory group norms (p. 162)”, “group member familiarity will lead to positive perceptions
regarding the collaborative process (p. 162)”, “group member familiarity will influence online collaborative activities (p. 163)”, and “group member familiarity will lead to better group performance (p.163)”. Janseen, Erkens, Kirschner, and Kanselaar (2009) concluded that the first three hypothesis held but group performance in familiar groups did not improve. The researchers concluded that this was because the students engaged in social interactions online that had nothing to do with the tasks and suggested using software such as Shared Space (SS) could help keep familiar students on task.
Janseen, Erkens, Kirschner, and Kanselaar (2009) relied on data from two schools. The data did not reveal the ethnic makeup of the participants, the percentage on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), the percentage of second language students, or their social economic status. These characteristics would allow researchers to evaluate the transferability of the results to other populations. Additionally the study was funded by the Computerized Representation of Coordination in Collaborative Learning (CRoCiCL) and the Netherland government who both have interests in positive results.
Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2009). Secondary school students’ collaboration during dyadic debates face-to-face and through computer chat. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 961-969. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.005
Marttunen and Laurinen (2009) quantitatively investigated the collaborative interaction of 27 secondary students at a single school in Finland in both face to face and online discussions (p. 963). The researchers collected data for 24 debates. They tape recorded face to face debates and collected online debates on the computer (p. 964). Participant dialogue was separated into eight different categories based on the dialogue’s collaborative quality (p.964). The researchers found that the following three categories were more prevalent in the online environment; “the speech acts used to maintain collaborative discussion (p. 966)”, “the students responded to issues presented by their interlocutor (p. 966)”, and “students presented questions or provocative statements or asked for clarification (p. 967)”. The following three categories of interaction were more prevalent in the face to face debates; “short positive feedback (p. 967)”, “students extended their interlocutor’s thoughts (p. 967)”, and “students continued their own ideas (p. 967)”. Students in face to face debates were on task 96.3% of the time while the online debates were on task only 68.9% of the time (p. 966). The researchers believed the off task behavior during the online debates was caused by the lack of immediate feedback and difficulty of teacher monitoring inherent in the online environment. They recommended adding coaching to the online environment and increasing rewards for proper online behavior (p. 968). Marttunen and Laurinen (2009) concluded that both face to face and online debates are effective constructivist strategies however online debates require more time is required to keep students on task (p. 968).
Marttunen and Laurinen (2009) utilized data collected at a single school with a very small number of students. They revealed that only 24 students participated in both of the debates (p. 963). Student demographic data, besides sex, was not included in this study making generalizations to other populations difficult.
Vighnarajah, Wong, S., & Bakar, K. (2009). Qualitative findings of students’ perception on practice of self-regulated strategies in online community discussion, Computers & Education, 53(1), 94-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.021
Vighnarajah, Wong, and Bakar (2009) conducted a mixed methods study of the perception of students enrolled in self paced online classes in four schools in Malaysia (p. 98). The researchers used a premade questionnaire to collect data from students who were completing a self paced science class and compared it to data collected from students enrolled in the same class taught traditionally (p.99). Additional data was acquired through random interviews performed by the researchers (p. 100). Quantitative methods were used to indicate an increase of self regulated learning strategies was found in the online student data (p. 100). The qualitative study discovered that 33 participants rated their self regulated experience positively while 17 participants rated their experience negatively (p.100). The researchers concluded that self regulating strategies are essential to online learning success and recommended that these skills be taught to struggling students (p. 103).
Vighnarajah, Wong, and Bakar (2009) had to be approved by many departments in the Malaysian government to get approval to work with the four schools (p. 98). The government has a vested interest to make elearning look good as they are using this as a platform to bring Malaysia into the developed world (pp. 94-95). The government selection of the schools may have skewed the results and may not be representative of the rest of the country, or other areas of the world.
References
Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving, Computers & Education 52(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009
Jahnke, J. (2010). Student perceptions of the impact of online discussion forum participation on learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Design, 3(2), 27-34. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105-1125. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning, 25(1), 161-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010
Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2009). Secondary school students’ collaboration during dyadic debates face-to-face and through computer chat. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 961-969. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.005
Vighnarajah, Wong, S., & Bakar, K. (2009). Qualitative findings of students’ perception on practice of self-regulated strategies in online community discussion, Computers & Education, 53(1), 94-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.021
Dave Harms's Blog 
Dave,
This is really impressive. I really like the idea of having people attempt to act out the behavior you are discussing. In addition, I am going to borrow you literature review idea. I knew my storyboard needed a little more beef to it and I believe this will be exactly what I need. Thanks a mint for the ideas you have offered in your storyboard.
Aimee
Hi Dave! This is a comprehensive information about your video. I would like to see the out come. That is good. Good luck Dave and God bless you in Jesus name….AMEN!!
I liked everything about the storyboard. The discussion and research around it is especially interesting. It create questions on the fitness of the collaborative approaches described relative to K-8 students. Some might question how well this might work with secondary school students. This is understandable given the current academic deficiencies in K-12 school systems. The evidence is that innovation offers as much benefit as the level of academic preparedness facilitates. Of course, all of this can be ameliorated even though I have my doubts about the interest in doing so based upon the longstanding and current trends.